This may not be the sunniest way to send you off on your weekend, but there is some important and uplifting news out of the Justice Department today -- they've announced that the 85-year-old definition of rape has finally been updated. Dating as far back as 1927, the law stated, up until today, that rape was "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." Obviously, there are some pretty major details that were left out of this so-called clarification of the term. But today, a wrong has been righted.
The new definition is much more involved, as it should be. Rape isn't just vaginal and rape victims aren't just women. The revised edict is broader and encompasses many more scenarios of the horrific act.
Just think, under the unrevised definition, Jerry Sandusky's alleged actions couldn't have been considered rape. That makes me cringe. Clearly, the change in the definition is welcome for so many reasons. Here's the new and improved version:
Rape is 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.
it feels odd to go around cheering for these words -- words that represent and describe something so horrifying and painful -- but this modern update to the outdated definition is indeed something to cheer for.
Think about how many rapes went unreported because the victims were told that what they suffered wasn't that terrible crime. It will be interesting to see if the number or rapes goes up dramatically due to the new, wider definition. And it's not like 2012 is so different from 2005 or whenever, it's just that this year victims, officials, and courtrooms will have the power to declare the heinous sexual act that innocent men, women, and children have endured was, in fact, rape. Hopefully, that will help victims heal and feel accounted for.
What do you think of the revised definition?
Photo via Dan4th/Flickr
Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis

Comments (11)
That is definitely a far better definition for sure. I don't know if it will increase the amount of people that come forward, but at least they have a little better ground to stand on.
This needed to be cleared up for victems everywhere.
Sexual assault statutes in every state have used this definition for years. It's not a change to the legal definition,
@"lawbot" no, the without consent is broader, sorry. No force or threat of force is needed if the person is in a position of authority...if you really are a "lawbot" you should know that.
Still, isn't it interesting that the new legislation picks up steam with precise, indicting language when the spotlight's on little boys that get raped — when female rape was swept under the rug with euphies like "carnal knowledge."
Notice, too you lawheads out there: the first def uses "and" restricting the law's application; but the new one uses "or" making it easier to prosecute.
So...let's say that a woman forces herself on a man and either forces oral, anal, or vaginal sex on him. This definition does not cover that act as rape, because the man was not penetrated.
Personally, I don't think we've come far enough with the definition yet. It's still ambiguous, and something like this should leave nothing open to discussion.