Trigger warning for discussion of rape.
The FBI’s definition of rape has remained unchanged for more than eighty years: “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” It is unknown how many millions of rapes have gone uncounted because they were Apparently Not Really Rapes.
On Tuesday, the Uniform Crime Report Committee voted unanimously to expand the definition of rape to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The report will move on to a higher advisory body and then to FBI Director Robert Mueller for approval.
This definition is, of course, still problematic: for instance, it does not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement that men can be raped at all is progress and could affect everything from funding for sexual violence prevention to basic statistics about how many rapes are committed.
Congratulations to all the activists who have campaigned to make the FBI change its definition, and congratulations to the FBI for being only about twenty years behind the times.
About ozyfrantz
Clarence:
Other than adding an “envelopment” clause, I think I will be against any farther expansion of the definition of rape by the FBI in the future. We can work to improve our sexual culture without having to create more rapists via statistical and/or legislative fiat.
A damn shame indeed. That’s not at you Clarence its at how the one expansion that would actually come close to being inclusive of any person being a rape victim seems to be the one expansion people are trying to deny.
So now we are a bit closer the point where a man having sex with a woman who had a drink is a rapist but a woman that has sex with a guy under threat of screaming rape herself if he doesn’t do what she says is not a rapist.
@Clarence: “Expanding the categories to include more things starts to quickly devalue what we mean by rape if you push it too far.”
Isnt rape non consensual sex? so that means there are other categories for now excluded that also fall into that classification. I dont think its a devaluation adding them to the “list”.
Offcourse initially there may be some confusion caused by the suddently inflation of exposed groups, but this is more a tecnical problem and with the right directives, that should be easely fixet.
“You get SOME feminists and feminist law professors who believe that any amount of intoxication invalidates consent and want the laws changed to reflect that – thus any person who has sex with another person who has even so much as one drink would be considered a “rapist”. ”
One drink may be a exageration, but I find my self in agreement with the feminist, law proffessors and the jurists who support this. A intoxicated person (drugs/alcohol/other) may have a low awareness and may be incapable to show consent…thus turning the sex into non consensual sex. That means rape.
But the best way to prevent this is with more sexual education, and propagandize sex quality rather quantity (two consensual partner will always have better sex than when one is forced or incapacitated).
“You have people who believe “enthusiastic consent” should be written into the law, thus if your partner feels they “owe” you sex or that they will “give” you sex (because they love you or whatever, not because they are in the mood) -well, you have raped your partner, even if , at no time did they say or indicate “no”. ”
Sure I see the problem, its more complicated than that.
“Where it will be dangerous is if, in the future, some of types of feminists listed above can convince the FBI to include the things I listed above or something else equally unfair. Because the FBI statistics are often (but not always) used by political groups and politicians in various states to push for changes in the rape and sexual assault laws, this might end up in a very bad place for things such as Due Process, mens rea, and the presumption of innocence.”
I also agree with the problematic. And I belive we need a large consent between the groups (feminst’s and non) and that require at permanet table with all the interested groups (yes even the so much hated MRA’s) and a non stop dialogue, to reach a wide consensus. Inclusion is the key not exclusion.
“Other than adding an “envelopment” clause, I think I will be against any farther expansion of the definition of rape by the FBI in the future. ”
And here we disagree. In my opinion the actual definition is insufficent. It does not cover all the facet of this form for sexual violence thus making the identification of the crime incomplete. I belive we shoud expand it to cover the real picture, not to force a compromice that satisfy some groups (politics, feminists, jurists ect). If the actual definition is incomplete, then it contrast with the reality, that means it is improductive to the cause (even if this one is better than the old).
@toysoldier: “It depends. If they based it on police reports, then the FBI may have based their definition around the most reported acts. If they based it on information from feminists, then the FBI would never get information about male victims because feminists have a limited (and that is being generous) knowledge of the types of rape committed against males. If they simply wanted to get people out of their hair, which is most likely the case, they probably just removed the offending parts of the definition and tried to make what remained make sense.”
so it means the way how the law enforcement handle this kind of crime is inadequate. Witch I agree…so there is a need for political intervention to adequate the procedures in thise complicated situations. How to modernice them, I cant answer…..but since the way how it is handlet to day is insufficent it is obyous that some kind of reform (also cultural) is needed.
About feminists, yes i do see the problem, lot of Feminist researcher are incompetent in dealing also with men. Thus even with good intention they often cause more harm than good. BUT this is not universal, and there are plenty of good feminists out there.
If I missed a comment covering this, I’m sorry but I have to say something.
I see a lot of talk about the definition of rape according to the FBI, but is that really what the article is talking about? When I read the linked article, it is once again about the definition in the Uniform Crime Report. In other words how the FBI reports crime, not necessarily how it investigates crimes.
This is not an insignificant difference. As far as I can tell, the legal Federal definition of rape falls under “Aggravated Sexual Abuse,” which has a definition that I think everyone here would agree qualifies as rape (a pdf can be found at http://students.haverford.edu/masar/documents/USRapeLaws.pdf). In short, rape is defined as forcing someone else to have sex with you or putting them in a situation that impairs their ability to say no. The FBI would investigate rape cases based on this definition, rather than the UCR’s definition.
This isn’t to say that this change is irrelevant. It is certainly important for anyone who thinks about rape statistics. I also think that the change in definition doesn’t go far enough. However, I think too many people, perhaps including ozy, many be misinterpreting the significance of this change. I’ve followed the “FBI’s definition of rape” controversy for a while know, and I still think it is being blown out of proportion.
I hope everyone is worried about the “reporting” definition rather than the “investigating” definition and that this post is entirely pointless. Nevertheless, I think this point should be clarified.
Russell:
I will mention that of the 3 subsections of the Aggravated Sexual Abuse statute it’s section C that I don’t feel is either fair, constitutional, or good policy. Nor do I feel that some prosecutions under that section are prosecuting rape, because that subsection specifically excludes the requisite intent to commit a crime. Otherwise, yes, if we stick to sections A and B I can’t help but think that everyone here feels that describes rape full stop,no exceptions.
Besides the fact that the FBI does NOT investigate the vast majority of rape cases because of lack of jurisdiction (local police do that, and as far as I am aware rape cases make up a very small subset of what the FBI prosecutes so the agency itself hardly focuses on rapes) there are a few things you seem to have overlooked:
A. The way “open meetings” clauses were shot to hell so that only certain people and groups were given input into this
B. The fact that there are pushes for expanding the definition even farther in ways that many people would totally not agree with. Since local policies and laws are often suggested by or given respectability by following what the FBI does, if one could get the FBI to include “slightly intoxicated” in its definition of rape one could expect that at least a few jurisdictions would shortly have laws saying just that.
C. Most people here are in favor of the statistical change , including myself. Indeed, we’d wish they had went a small amount farther and added an “envelopment” clause.
As a heterosexual man gang-raped and tortured at gunpoint I only see the FBI statement as a superficial victory with the Federal governmental justice system (not) recognizing the same, which will likely take another 80 years. I find it an insult that the Neanderthal courts of the land (do not recognize that men can be raped through penetration, because of course an erection means consent). This is a bias Myth which even psychiatrist, psychologist, and most notably medical experts can prove due to the physiological auto-nervous response that the human body has to any stimulus. Given the male G-spot being the prostate and being directly stimulated and can produce an erection by means of a medical rectal exam or an act of sodomy. Idiots in the Justice system know this. Blame it on damned blood-sucking lawyers who’s only interest is to make money at anybodies expense. A woman who is sadly raped can by know fault of her own have an erection of her clitoris during rape. Does that mean she enjoyed it? Of course not.
The FBI’s redefinition of rape in light of male rape victims may be a step in the right direction for statistical data, but it means very little when push comes to shove when victims are confronted in the justice courts against their assailants. The majority of rape victims both female and male won’t go to the courts against their assailants because the mockery of the justice system only further adds to the unspeakable stigma of rape. Sure their are “some” convictions.