Sweden to tighten rape legislation, outlawing non-consensual sex

[Player Twelve]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...Name=worldNews

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - The Swedish government on Tuesday sent a bill that would outlaw sex not based on mutual consent to parliament for approval, widening the circumstances that could constitute rape or other sex crimes.

With the new law, Sweden will join a small number of countries, including Britain and Canada, where the lack of consent, even without violence, is enough to constitute a crime.

Sweden has had a relatively wide definition of rape in an international context and its laws on sex crimes came into the spotlight when the country put out an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over rape allegations.

Sweden has since dropped that investigation but Assange is remains holed up in Ecuador’s London embassy where he took refuge since 2012 for allegedly jumping bail in Britain.

To obtain a rape conviction, the draft Swedish law would no longer require violence or the threat of violence or that the perpetrator had exploited a victim’s vulnerable situation.

“Sex should be voluntary. Everything else is abuse,” tweeted Morgan Johansson, Minister for Justice and Home Affairs.

The government stopped short of making expressed consent a condition for consensual sex. But the bill states that “in the judgment of whether participation is voluntary, it should be taken into special consideration whether consent has been expressed in words or action”.

“If a person wants to engage in sexual activities with someone who remains inactive or gives ambiguous signals, he or she will therefore have to find out if the other person is willing,” the bill reads.

The proposal is likely to pass parliament and come into force on July 1 this year.

Assange took refuge in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden after two women made rape and sexual molestation allegations against him, which he denied.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really understand the bolded part since you've had to use violence, threat of violence or abuse that someone was considered to be in a helpless position for it to be considered rape, non-consent has not been enough, as it even says in the second bolded part.

[Deleted]

I don't really understand why people have issues understanding sexual consent

[Grimbold21]

Oh this is gonna be good. It's been a while since we've had a circle jerk of what constitutes "Consent"

[Theodarzna]

I don't really understand why people have issues understanding sexual consent

I think it is because under most of these definitions nobody could prove they are not a rapist. Basically there is this slow march towards all sex being broadly considered probably rape.

[Deleted]

I think it is because under most of these definitions nobody could prove they are not a rapist. Basically there is this slow march towards all sex being broadly considered probably rape.

[Stormspark]

Um...isn't non-consensual sex being a crime a captain obvious thing? Isn't it already rape?

[Player Twelve]

Um...isn't non-consensual sex being a crime a captain obvious thing? Isn't it already rape?

No, it isn't. Violence, threat of violence or abusing that someone is in a vulnerable position are the prerequisites for it to be considered rape today.

[Swalload]

Here we go again. The creepy nightclub crawlers will come out from under their rocks to explain how complicated it is to understand a slurring potentially underaged girl who can't keep her eyes opened or walk in a straight line and has no idea where her other shoe is.

But maybe she wants to fuck right now, who knows, right?

[Theodarzna]

[snip]

Expanding even further its a definition you can drive a Mack truck through and it raises serious concerns about bias and prejudice seeping in about how these laws are enforced. Everything and anything is no theoretically a serious criminal offence, thus whoever is out there deciding what is and isn't a criminal offence has considerable leeway to decide who to just destroy and who to let go.

Think of it like a web forum that has rules so broad and vague that really its just "Whatever the arbitrators of the rules decide is the rules, as there really isn't a rule".

Nobody is going to walk around with a sex contract all Dave Chappell style. Even if they did there is no way such a thing would be allowed or would hold up under such laws.

[Lazuli]

I think it is because under most of these definitions nobody could prove they are not a rapist. Basically there is this slow march towards all sex being broadly considered probably rape.

^^ for real I'd kinda be scurred to bang a chick in sweden for fear of her going psycho and claim rape

Consent is obvious... fuckers act like you need it in written form with voice recordings, if you are both in the moment it just happens there is automatic consent at some point unless she's like passed out or blatant rape as she tries to flee lol.

[Endus]

Expanding even further its a definition you can drive a Mack truck through and it raises serious concerns about bias and prejudice seeping in about how these laws are enforced. Everything and anything is no theoretically a serious criminal offence, thus whoever is out there deciding what is and isn't a criminal offence has considerable leeway to decide who to just destroy and who to let go.

Think of it like a web forum that has rules so broad and vague that really its just "Whatever the arbitrators of the rules decide is the rules, as there really isn't a rule".

Nobody is going to walk around with a sex contract all Dave Chappell style. Even if they did there is no way such a thing would be allowed or would hold up under such laws.

Consent isn't the magically ungraspable concept you're falsely pretending it to be, here. All they did here was shift it from "lack of consent demonstrated by these three specific things" to "any lack of consent". Which isn't a huge shift; if anything, it's just closing an existing loophole.

[Uncle]

That's modern feminazism for ya.

[Elegiac]

Consent isn't the magically ungraspable concept you're falsely pretending it to be, here.

The way people on MMO-C complain you'd think most people go around getting accused of rape constantly.

[Jofe]

Um...isn't non-consensual sex being a crime a captain obvious thing? Isn't it already rape?

From what I understand is about widening the legal definition. Before (probably amongst other things) violence, threats or some some sort of manipulation were needed to be counted as rape. After the new legislation simply failing to see signs of someone not wanting sex and not asking about it would be considered rape, despite not using any kind of force and the person not resisting in any way*. Which IMO seems likely to be abused.


*(though depending on circumstances a victim might not want/be able to resist due to fear)

[The Stormbringer]

Nobody is going to walk around with a sex contract all Dave Chappell style. Even if they did there is no way such a thing would be allowed or would hold up under such laws.

Why wouldn't it hold up?

[Aggrophobic]

That's modern feminazism for ya.

Oh, do explain.

[Endus]

From what I understand is about widening the legal definition. Before (probably amongst other things) violence, threats or some some sort of manipulation were needed to be counted as rape. After the new legislation simply failing to see signs of someone not wanting sex and not asking about it would be considered rape, despite not using any kind of force and the person not resisting in any way*. Which IMO seems likely to be abused.

*(though depending on circumstances a victim might not want/be able to resist due to fear)

There still has to be a lack of consent. Not consent that's regretted the day after. Not consent because you were a little bit tipsy. A lack of actually consenting to the act. It means that rather than having to prove the violence, threat of violence, or firmly establish that there was some exploitable vulnerability, the courts can focus just on the lack of consent.

The alternative is that there could be circumstances where there's a clear lack of consent, but because it didn't meet one of those three things, it wasn't classed as "rape", which seems atrocious.

Consent isn't that fucking complicated, folks.

[ranzino]

Why wouldn't it hold up?

because you are also entitled to change your mood next second. so unless the content last until everybody is clothed again, it isnt waterproof.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, generally speaking everyone understands what consent is other than sociopaths or whatever.

It's all the "retroactive consent" and "one-sided consent" and "unable to consent" that people don't understand. I mean, we've already seen people thrown under the bus - socially at least, if not yet criminally - because they had consensual sex with someone but later that someone claimed that because the "perpetrator" was just so rich that the consent didn't really count.

It's fuckin wacky-world out there with some people.

People have intuitively known what consent is since forever, but there is an actively dedicated group that wishes to expand it in all directions. But the overall purpose is to create a legal and social culture whereby which any man who forever reason is accused by a woman, he can be disposed of quickly.

- - - Updated - - -

You could create a contract which you would need to put at least two forms of ID on, and some biometric data...

Dave Chappell would ba prophet.

[Endus]

People have intuitively known what consent is since forever, but there is an actively dedicated group that wishes to expand it in all directions. But the overall purpose is to create a legal and social culture whereby which any man who forever reason is accused by a woman, he can be disposed of quickly.

Literally not what this story is about, in any respect whatsoever. There's no adjustment to what constitutes consent, here.