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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Jim: TS, yes “The wording implies that only the penetration of the victim counts as rape.” – implies that, but since the explicit wording does not specify the gender of the victim, instances in which a female compelled a male to penetrate her would count as rape. That is actually the problem. The wording is odd that the FBI could easily continue to exclude most of the rape committed against males and a large portion of rape committed against females. If the wording is so problematic that people are not sure whether it even various types of male-on-female rape, the… Read more »
Kens: Expanding the categories to include more things starts to quickly devalue what we mean by rape if you push it too far. 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”. 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… Read more »
Im still puzzled that they didnt expand the definition of rape to include all categories. Now granted that this one is still a victory for everybody ( a victory for humanity indeed) but the category excluded are the one who are hurt by this. Now what was the reason for not including the non stereotipical victims? negligence? incompetence? ignorance? malevolence ect from both sides? one side only? FBI to backward? I really would love to know more. Because even if this is a small step in the right direction, there is still long way ahead. And that means other people… Read more »
Jim: Ozy – one of the groups? – looking back over the last 40 years I don’t think anyone else has taken much interest in the issue. That has led to an unfortunate monopoly, but the rest of us have ourselves and not them to blame for that. They have indeed been involved in getting more accurate defintions, but their record on that is so spotty that they bear a lot of watching – no, they just need some competition in an area that the rest of us have been ignoring for too long. It’s not their fault if they… Read more »
“Jim: That’s fair enough. I just wanted to point out that, given that outside groups are invited at all, feminists being invited is rather natural, since they have been one of the largest groups raising awareness of and making more accurate definitions of rape.” Ozy – one of the groups? – looking back over the last 40 years I don’t think anyone else has taken much interest in the issue. That has led to an unfortunate monopoly, but the rest of us have ourselves and not them to blame for that. They have indeed been involved in getting more accurate… Read more »
I find bizzarre, that they didnt include untraditional form for rape (like man forced to penetrate a woman), perhaps because there are not yet any consensus on a wide encompassing (tipical and atipical) definition of rape? or maybe because they fall under the definition of sexual violence? what is the difference between sexual violence and rape? big incognito. I hope somebody who is more acculturated maybe can answer my question? Anyways, I am in agreement with TS, the positive side, is that finally we can devote attention to prison rape and male/male rape and female with sex support utensil on… Read more »
Its fairly disingenuous to frame this as feminist groups being invited along to contribute and doing their best for male victims against a reluctant FBI.
They lobbied for this and they got the meeting ang legislation they were looking for.
The wording means that rape envelopment will not register with with the average person and fly under the radar in surveys. Lets not pretend that these groups are for equality, just look at their domestic violence legislation and misinformation. Feminist groups in Israel recently blocked laws to include envelopment.
I just want to say that it’s not perfect – but it’s something. And think about this – if this puts the rape of male prisoners by other men on the radar for the FBI, maybe we can address the issue of prison rape and start seeing men as vulnerable human beings instead of impenetrable biological fortresses.
Which means one day we might see women as capable of raping people too – which is sad but true.
Jim: That’s fair enough. I just wanted to point out that, given that outside groups are invited at all, feminists being invited is rather natural, since they have been one of the largest groups raising awareness of and making more accurate definitions of rape. Toysoldier: I agree the law’s wording is very problematic. (You’ll notice I said that in the OP.) Nevertheless, it is a step forward, as sad as it is, that the FBI has acknowledged that men can be raped at all. And in this case, TS, the feminists were one of the major groups working to expand… Read more »
“I’m not impressed with the new definition. It seem that it moves a whole bunch of circumstances that used to be considered sexual assault over to the rape side of the isle when a man does it or a woman is the victim, but it doesn’t do an equal amount to recognize female rapists or male victims.”
The wording on its face doesn’t provide for that, but as everyone else has pointed out, it’s ow this is applied that will really matter.
@Jim, this definition has the same issues as the statistics used by RAINN (remember Ozy’s posts on that?). I’m not impressed with the new definition. It seem that it moves a whole bunch of circumstances that used to be considered sexual assault over to the rape side of the isle when a man does it or a woman is the victim, but it doesn’t do an equal amount to recognize female rapists or male victims. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a horrible change from the standpoint of equal rights because it will bump up rape statistics while retaining a… Read more »
“However, it is a step backwards in terms of rapes outside the gendered stereotypes, as it only perpetrates the erasure of those who have suffered rape outside those stereotypes.”
Can you go into some more detail? I’m not following very well. Thanks.
While I think it’s great that they’ve finally brought the definition in line with only somewhat outdated thinking (rather than severely outdated thinking). I am glad for all the people this will help. However, it is a step backwards in terms of rapes outside the gendered stereotypes, as it only perpetrates the erasure of those who have suffered rape outside those stereotypes. It is a small step forward and a small step back, but what I find so incredibly frustrating and, frankly, sad is that it would have taken minimal effort to turn this into a victory for ~every~ victim… Read more »
“Jim, did you by any chance quote what Ozy said rather than SG’s paraphrase of wwhat Ozy said? Otherwise I can’t parse what you mean.”
Yes. Trouble with the copy button.
AB – Oh, now I see. Click. Thanks!
TS, yes “The wording implies that only the penetration of the victim counts as rape.” – implies that, but since the explicit wording does not specify the gender of the victim, instances in which a female compelled a male to penetrate her would count as rape.
This is a good first step, but the real progress will be in amending rape laws state by state to reflect this or even better wording. That’s where the real rubber meets the road.
I don’t there is any way to read that new definiton without including envelopment rape – that is what “victim” and penetration clearly state. The definition states, “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 wording implies that only the penetration of the victim counts as rape. If the victim is forced to penetrate, it does not count. That is the literal wording of the law, and there is little reason to assume it would… Read more »
And for fifty years they ignored male victims. I would not call feminists “experts”.
Given that feminists are hardly an unbiased group, they should not have been invited at all. The issue is addressing all forms of rape, not playing to the whims a political group.
Jim, that’s what I meant. Most of the definition is fine and covers both male and female perpetrators, but the part about oral penetration by a sex organ is wonky, because it doesn’t cover cunnilingus. Then again, it also wouldn’t cover forcing someone to lick a penis, as long as no penetration took place, so even in regards to male perpetrators, it needs work.
Also, what AB said. very succinct summation, in fact.
Except maybe this bit “The definition of oral sex is still wonky (I don’t believe cunnilingus would count as either penetration or envelopment),” – I kind of agree, but then cunnilingus is equivalent to fellatio and forced fellatio is definitely rape in my book, so forced cunnilingus has to be.