Rape: Brief Histories on the Power of Language within the U.S.

Abstract

Rape: Brief Histories on the Power of Language within the U.S. Leydy Ruiz I n 2013 the state of New York introduced an “act to amend the penal law, in relation to the definition of the term sexual intercourse as such term applies to sex offenses; and to amend the penal law… establishing the crimes of anal rape and oral rape to replace crimes involving criminal sexual acts.” 1 The penal law constructs differences in the definition of rape and criminal sexual acts, where S130.40, 45, and 50 classify anal and oral acts under criminal sexual acts and not under rape. 2 Both men and women can testify that they have been raped; however, the manner in which they could have been violated is put to question because of this exclusion to include oral and anal acts within the definition of rape. When rape is designed by the law with preconceived notions of marriage, gender, and (hetero) sexuality the discourse that is distributed amongst society is that there are only certain people who can rape or be raped. The discourse produced then comes to exclude crimes between same-sex individuals and rape through anal or oral penetration by suppressing the victims by not defining the crime as rape. By going through a series of court cases this essay demonstrates how legal language and implementation matter. There must be a broader more inclusive definition of rape and sexual offenses for loopholes to be addressed accordingly. While there are numerous topics in how rape cases were handled and who battled against them. I will focus how particular cases debate controversial topics that ultimately lead to redefining and constructing new laws to help advocate for victims that experience rape or injustices. Misconception of Marital Rape The recognition of marital rape, or spousal rape, as a crime was finally established across the United States by 1993; however, the heteropatriarchal beliefs that were established within marital rape continued to dominate personal beliefs within marriages. Historically, marital rape was exempted from ordinary rape laws creating a leeway for the husbands to rape their wives with impunity. Jill Elane Hasday, explains how the discourse on nineteenth century feminists believed that marital rape was a private concern that stayed within the domestic sphere. Hasday explains that this thought was untrue and many advocates, publicly demanded for the right for sexual self-expression in marriage, they pressed the [of marital rape] constantly, at length and in plain language. 3 By understanding that marital rape has not been a recent predicament but instead a legal problem that has long been debated, we can see the urgency if pushing the state to abolish differentiation between marital rape and rape. The exemptions come from a heteropatriarchal belief within masculine spouses that believe marriages allow for the head of the family to dominate the partner in the relationship. Before under the New York penal Law, with accordance to the Blackstone Commentaries from 1966, a married man could not be convicted for raping or sodomizing their wife. 4 However, NY Legis. Assemb. S3710C. Reg. Sess. 2013-2014 February 12, 2013. NY Penal Law S 130.40,45,50. http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm?zoom_highlight=rape#p130.25 Jill Elaine, Hasday, Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape. California Law Review 88, no. 5 (2000), pg. 1379. Watchler, PEOPLE v. LIBERTA 64 N.Y.2d 152, 474 N.E.2d 567, 485 N.Y.S.2d 207(1984), pg. 2.