Almost one year after Congressional Republicans tried to limit the definition of rape
to only include "force" (previously
), the Department of Justice is redefining the term--but this time to to expand it dramatically
The outdated definition that has been governing national rape statistics since 1929, “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will,” has been updated to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.” According to Susan D. Carbon, director of the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, the previous definition “excluded an untold number of victims.” For the first time, men will be included in national rape statistics, as well as those raped while unable to give consent due to intoxication or other mental and physical incapacity.
posted by zombieflanders
on Jan 6, 2012 -
The Pervocracy is a kinky, feminist sexblog. Holly writes about her experiences as an active member of the BDSM community, a partner in a polyamorous relationship, and an all-around completely horny slut. She also writes editorials from a sex-positive feminist perspective, advice on sexuality and kink, and humorous critiques of sexism online and in the media. [more inside]
posted by Blasdelb
on Oct 12, 2011 -
“What About The Men” is a term of occasional derision and dismissal in feminist circles, used by those who either don’t want conversations about women’s issues constantly derailed, or perhaps sometimes don’t want to provide space for men’s issues.
They’re hijacking and reclaiming the phrase with a little tongue-in-cheek mockery at those who use it, since they think that men and men’s issues should have a bigger role in feminism, and that, additionally, men need spaces dedicated to their issues as well. So it’s not “What About The Men” to chase the guys out; it’s “No, Seriously, ‘What About Teh Menz?’” to bring them back in to the feminist fold. (FAQ)
For a 10 second minute introduction to what inspired this blog’s creation, read our seminal piece, Who Cares About Men’s Rights?. [more inside]
posted by Blasdelb
on Oct 3, 2011 -
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court held
in a 5-3 decision
(.pdf) that police may not search a home if any inhabitant of the home is present and objects to the search, even if another inhabitant consents. The Court drew what it acknowledged is a “fine line” – if a co-inhabitant is at the door and objects, the police can’t enter; but if the co-inhabitant is somewhere else – even in a nearby police car – and has no opportunity to object, then police don’t need his or her consent. Chief Justice Roberts issued his first written dissent, blasting the majority’s “random” and “arbitrary” rule and suggesting that the ability of police to respond to domestic violence threats could be compromised. The zingers in the footnotes
may reveal “strains behind the surface placidity and collegiality of the young Roberts court.”
posted by brain_drain
on Mar 23, 2006 -
In 2000, 18-year-old Matthew Limon was tried for having sex with a 14-year old. Under Kansas state law, the consensual, though illegal, act merited a maximum 15-month sentence. Except the 14-year old was also male. Last week, the Kansas appeals court ruled that because of this, Limon posed a "greater danger to the sexual mores of society," and ruled as such it was fair to sentence Limon to 17 years in prison
. State prosecutors applaud the decision as a victory against "the potential attack on Kansas' ban on gay marriage."
posted by XQUZYPHYR
on Feb 2, 2004 -
make sure she really means "yes"...
consent condoms are an interesting twist on using condoms in a causal sex environment. the man hands a package to his partner containing a condom and a card which takes her fingerprints and lets her tear off the date for which the condom is to be used. one's to wonder if all casual sex will be conducted like this in the future.
posted by boogah
on Feb 25, 2002 -