• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The TL;DR is that the jurisdiction in which the case happened has a very narrow definition of what constitutes rape; It requires penis-in-vagina insertion. Anything else is “only” sexual abuse.

    Trump grabbed her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. All of it non-consensually. But where it happened, that isn’t enough to qualify as rape, because it didn’t involve PiV sex. The judge was clarifying that no, the case didn’t say he raped her, but that is only because of the incredibly narrow definition of the word “rape”. The judge was basically saying that in common parlance, (not the jurisdiction’s narrow legal definitions), most people would agree that what Trump did was in fact rape.

    The judge’s statement was in response to Trump’s lawyers going “LoL wEll AkShuAllY hE nEveR RapED HeR”, like some sort of “it’s not actually pedophilia it’s ephebophilia, and that’s not as bad” argument. The judge’s statement is also in line with what psychiatric fields and the justice department define as rape, which includes penetration with any appendages or objects. But again, the local laws had a narrower definition.

    Also worth noting that New York quickly changed their legal definitions following the lawsuit. Because the lawsuit was a giant beacon to the fact that they were one of the last places in the country to still strictly define rape as PiV penetration. So if it were to happen again today, the verdict would have said Trump raped her.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You might be intending to reply to someone else, I actually explained these exact points in a couple other comments.

      Oh, are you just adding a general tldr for everyone who isn’t aware? Got it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The point of a TL;DR is to explain the link to third parties, and maybe add some context. I’m assuming you’ve already read the article, and it wasn’t directed at you.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I think you might be intending to reply to somebody else, I just wrote that to you in the previous comment.