Expanding on the UVa Incident

Introduction

I have many choices when it comes to false rape allegations. There's Lena Dunham and her crap book and claims, which as a side note, Game Informer recommends in its gifts section of issue 260. The urge to burn that magazine aside, there's also the UVa case that I mentioned previously and here in the title. Whichever I choose, I have come to realize that there are no penalties for false claims. Worse, the new definition of rape excludes some cases of men being raped. Due to the nature of this subject, I urge sensitive readers to turn away now. I use explicit language where necessary.
Penalties

It's pretty clear that the grand majority of the human race thinks rape is wrong. Still, here is the obligatory line saying that my intention is not to take away from rape victims, but to increase awareness and expose faults in the system.

As far as I can find, the only penalty for false accusations is for the falsely accused to sue the accuser. This is to say nothing of the stigma that will be attached to the falsely accused, at least until (if) he succeeds in suing the accuser.
Definition


The newest definition of rape is:

“The 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 justice.gov.

So what's the problem? Well, there's the ambiguous area about consent. If one or two people get drunk and have sex, can the penetrator be accused of rape? Per the definition, yes. The abuse this allows is appalling.

That aside, what about rape that isn't penetrative? For this example, I will be using Francis Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula. Technically the scene is alluded to in the novel, but it demonstrates my point less.

After being warned not to wander around the castle, Jonathan Harker does so anyways. He finds a room with a chest full of vials. While investigating, he hears the voice of a woman. Beckoned, he ends up surrounded by Dracula's three brides.

Once seduced there is obvious allusion to Harker getting an erection and subsequently having his blood drained in a sort of oral sex/vampirism combination. This does not fit the new rape definition, though I'm sure few would argue that it is, aside from assault, fiction as it is. In other words, a guy under the new definition receives oral sex against his will is not raped, even if it is against his consent. This is the same for a man who does not or cannot consent to conventional sex.

My Point

What I think is being overlooked in these situations is that sexual violation, being of sexual origin, is universal and thus requires universal definition. Man or woman, no one should have the law excluding them in these cases. While the cases I've made are few, that does not mean they should not be taken seriously. False allegations should carry a harsh penalty. As I see it, rape claims made on regret/revenge/lack of original self-control are too powerful, no matter their number. By accommodating those mentioned, real victims will not be disenfranchised.