Sweden to tighten rape legislation, outlawing non-consensual sex

[Deleted]

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

I don't know if it's genuine extreme paranoia or people just deliberately being disingenuous

[Uncle]

Oh, do explain.

Do i REALLY need to explain?

[Player Twelve]

Do i REALLY need to explain?

Yes, considering we're just introducing consent as the prerequisite for rape instead of it being about violence, threat of violence or abusing someone being in a vulnerable situation. There's a lot of countries which base it on consent already.

[Endus]

Do i REALLY need to explain?

Well, you apparently think that criminalizing having nonconsensual sex is something only a "feminazi" would support. And since that's pretty clearly a sensible thing, yeah. You'll have to explain.

[Aggrophobic]

Do i REALLY need to explain?

Why needing to have consent is something only followers of "feminazism" (whatever that is) would think of? Yeah, please do.
Do you suggest that you forcing yourself on another person should be acceptable?

[Goldielocks]

Under what context was non-consensual sex legal?

[Deleted]

Well, you apparently think that criminalizing having nonconsensual sex is something only a "feminazi" would support. And since that's pretty clearly a sensible thing, yeah. You'll have to explain.

That's a false dichotomy, those aren't the only two scenario.

I challenge the assumption that the only answer opposite to a very broad definition of consent is "non consent".

[ranzino]

Under what context was non-consensual sex legal?

the non consenting part has to state its "non consent" somehow.
in the case of BDSM it is easy: they use safewords and everything is consent until the word is uttered.

[Endus]

Under what context was non-consensual sex legal?

Imagine a girl is drunk, but not so drunk she's passing out. A guy gets her alone, and then tries to take her clothes off. She tries to stop him, he pushes her hands away and continues. Too afraid to fight back, she lets it happen.

She's clearly not consenting. There was no violence, no threat of violence, and a court may not see that as exploiting a vulnerability, and thus not consider that rape, going by the old law. So a lot of date rape type situations, basically. That's what this change corrects for.

That's a false dichotomy, those aren't the only two scenario.

I challenge the assumption that the only answer opposite to a very broad definition of consent is "non consent".

Consent is absolutely a binary concept. Either there is consent, or there is not. That's not a "false dichotomy", at all. There is no such thing as "half-consent". It's either consent, or not, and there is no in between.

[Theodarzna]

If both people say "yes" to sex, that is "consent" to me. Anything else is over philosophizing.

Over philosophising is exactly what is being done. But I think more to the point, many Feminist activists merely want to have all sex be in theory rape. The point being that any woman can dispose of any man the minute she feels the need to and will have the legal and social tools to accomplish this.

[Goldielocks]

Imagine a girl is drunk, but not so drunk she's passing out. A guy gets her alone, and then tries to take her clothes off. She tries to stop him, he pushes her hands away and continues. Too afraid to fight back, she lets it happen.

She's clearly not consenting. There was no violence, no threat of violence, and a court may not see that as exploiting a vulnerability, and thus not consider that rape, going by the old law. So a lot of date rape type situations, basically. That's what this change corrects for.

Ah it's a loophole thing. Non-consent was never legal but in certain situations it's not outlined as punishable so therefore the perp can't be charged.

[Elegiac]

But I think more to the point, many Feminist activists merely want to have all sex be in theory rape. The point being that any woman can dispose of any man the minute she feels the need to and will have the legal and social tools to accomplish this.

The internalised misogyny is real.

[Endus]

Over philosophising is exactly what is being done. But I think more to the point, many Feminist activists merely want to have all sex be in theory rape. The point being that any woman can dispose of any man the minute she feels the need to and will have the legal and social tools to accomplish this.

Seriously, where do you get this absolute nonsense? It has nothing to do with Sweden's laws.

[Player Twelve]

Under what context was non-consensual sex legal?

One case that comes to mind is a gang rape where everyone was acquitted and the judge said she might have very well said no but that doesn't make it rape. They locked the door to the room and took her clothes as well and she didn't dare fighting back because they were 8 and she was alone. Didn't meet the prerequisites for violence(Because she didn't fight back and thus necessitating the use of violence on their part to do it.), threat of violence or abusing a vulnerable situation, so no possibility to convict them.

[Poppincaps]

I'm kinda confused. So rape implies that there was violence, threat of violence, or the victim was in a vulnerable state right? How else would you have non-consensual sex without at least one of those 3 things?

Like if a guy is trying to have sex with you and you say no, then wouldn't the only way he could then proceed would be to get violent or threaten it (with the threat being physical or verbal)?

[Elegiac]

I think a lot of this is actually an attempt to infantilize women.

No, it really isn't.

[Aggrophobic]

Over philosophising is exactly what is being done. But I think more to the point, many Feminist activists merely want to have all sex be in theory rape. The point being that any woman can dispose of any man the minute she feels the need to and will have the legal and social tools to accomplish this.

No, thats only in your head.

[Poppincaps]

One case that comes to mind is a gang rape where everyone was acquitted and the judge said she might have very well said no but that doesn't make it rape. They locked the door to the room and took her clothes as well and she didn't dare fighting back because they were 8 and she was alone. Didn't meet the prerequisites for violence, threat of violence or abusing a vulnerable situation, so no possibility to convict them.

I feel like the threat of violence was implied. I mean they basically kidnapped her against her will.

[Player Twelve]

I feel like the threat of violence was implied. I mean they basically kidnapped her against her will.

Not enough to convict in court on those grounds. A law like this would fix that.

[Elegiac]

If both parties say "yes"... and then it is still "rape" or sexual abuse, etc... and the man gets most, if not all the heat, yes, that is exactly what it is... it took all the responsibility away from the woman.

What incel nonsense is this.

Conveniently ignoring the circumstances surrounding the cases where there was apparent consent in order to demonise people critical of a culture wherein coercion for sexual favors is permissible is really smart.