Sweden to tighten rape legislation, outlawing non-consensual sex

[Toogoodman]

You know what never fails to amaze me? When what should be a common sense law comes along, or someone says "I don't want to be forced/coerced/be taken advantage of to have sex", and all the people come out of the woodworks all "BUT THIS OPPRESSES MEN!" What are you suggesting? That guys are too dumb to understand no, that you don't like the idea of girls being able to say no, or that you legitimately think women sleep with men thinking "I can't wait to risk pregnancy and disease so I can get this guy in trouble for a crime he didn't commit?"

All this is is taking the idea of "Violence and force isn't needed to prove it was rape." Thats all. It's not even a man or woman thing, anyone can be raped, anyone can rape.

People aren't saying that the law specifically is "oppressing men", more so that modern feminism is trying to widen the definition of rape to the point where essentially all sex is rape. Some of these laws are trying to get to the point of a girl saying "no" in her head being rape, or women being able to revoke consent after the fact.

[Endus]

People aren't saying that the law specifically is "oppressing men", more so that modern feminism is trying to widen the definition of rape to the point where essentially all sex is rape. Some of these laws are trying to get to the point of a girl saying "no" in her head being rape, or women being able to revoke consent after the fact.

And this argument is abject nonsense.

They "widened" the definition of rape, in this case, to "non-consensual sex". Which is pretty basic.

If a girl is saying "no" in her head but can't/won't say it because of the circumstances, she is being raped. The guy who doesn't care about whether she wants to have sex? That guy is a rapist. You might be able to make a point that he can avoid conviction because the evidence isn't sufficiently clear, because we still can't introduce states of mind directly into evidence, but if that hypothetical is what happened, then it was rape.

Trying to establish certain types of non-consensual sex as "totes okay" is heinously wrongheaded.

[Endus]

Except socially at least we already have situations where men are ostracized because a woman consented to something and then later said, "Well, ok, but I didn't really want to but I said yes because he was so rich or something."

Seriously can't think of any examples of such.

The stuff like Weinstein? He was abusing his position to coerce women.
Stuff like Trump's affairs? Nobody's calling that "rape", it's just seedy and he's lying about it, badly.

[Drusin]

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

What if, I'm the college football star quarterback and I take the ugliest wilderbeast in the world up to a room with me at a party and begin the sexual process. I'm kissing her, tickling her second and third rib, rubbing her mammary glands, and she never shows any signs of resisting. In her mind however she is in the middle of a UN debate on if she does or doesn't want what is coming next. She finds me attractive but doesn't know if she wants to have sex with me, she doesn't know how I'll take it, she doesn't want me to dislike her and react in an irrational way and destroy her college experience. Still not showing any sign of resisting I proceed to have sex with her, she never tells me to stop, push me away, or resist against the myriad of positions I would have put her in. Now I've finished and her UN debate comes to a close, she didn't want to have sex with me, did I rape her?

[Mistame]

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

*mumbles something about biometric data on the face*.

Rape is rape...

Non-consensual sex is rape, literally. This change in law simply reflects that.

If a girl is saying "no" in her head but can't/won't say it because of the circumstances, she is being raped. The guy who doesn't care about whether she wants to have sex? That guy is a rapist. You might be able to make a point that he can avoid conviction because the evidence isn't sufficiently clear, because we still can't introduce states of mind directly into evidence, but if that hypothetical is what happened, then it was rape.

If there's coercion or lack of ability to consent, absolutely. But someone "feeling" or "thinking" they've no choice doesn't mean that they have no choice. If they go along with it, without any indication to the other person that they don't want to, they are responsible.

[Poppincaps]

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

That's definitely the justice system failing in that case. Although I do have concerns for this having the side effect of allowing women to abuse it, which I have personally witnessed such behavior.

Both cases are pretty rare though.

[Deleted]

What if, I'm the college football star quarterback and I take the ugliest wilderbeast in the world up to a room with me at a party and begin the sexual process. I'm kissing her, tickling her second and third rib, rubbing her mammary glands, and she never shows any signs of resisting. In her mind however she is in the middle of a UN debate on if she does or doesn't want what is coming next. She finds me attractive but doesn't know if she wants to have sex with me, she doesn't know how I'll take it, she doesn't want me to dislike her and react in an irrational way and destroy her college experience. Still not showing any sign of resisting I proceed to have sex with her, she never tells me to stop, push me away, or resist against the myriad of positions I would have put her in. Now I've finished and her UN debate comes to a close, she didn't want to have sex with me, did I rape her?

Yes. Making the girl ugly and bigging yourself up in your fantasy doesn't make "I take a girl up to my room and she feels pressured into having sex" doesn't make that not a rape fantasy.

[Kraenen]

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

Sometimes it's just who they are. It's like people who think they can just take objects that belong to you. It just doesn't occur to them that you have rights. They do what they want, and that's the extent of it.

[Deleted]

What if, I'm the college football star quarterback and I take the ugliest wilderbeast in the world up to a room with me at a party and begin the sexual process. I'm kissing her, tickling her second and third rib, rubbing her mammary glands, and she never shows any signs of resisting. In her mind however she is in the middle of a UN debate on if she does or doesn't want what is coming next. She finds me attractive but doesn't know if she wants to have sex with me, she doesn't know how I'll take it, she doesn't want me to dislike her and react in an irrational way and destroy her college experience. Still not showing any sign of resisting I proceed to have sex with her, she never tells me to stop, push me away, or resist against the myriad of positions I would have put her in. Now I've finished and her UN debate comes to a close, she didn't want to have sex with me, did I rape her?

What a really bizarre scenario

If she said NO during sex and you continued then yes that's rape
If she said NO during sex and you pulled out then that isn't rape
If she said NO after sex that isn't technically rape and wouldn't hold up in court unless there was evidence she was showing signs during sex

[Grimbold21]

If a girl is saying "no" in her head but can't/won't say it because of the circumstances, she is being raped.

Which circumstances?

[Endus]

Which circumstances?

Could be plenty of reasons. The particulars really don't matter, what matters is that they led her to keep silent.

If you don't have positive consent, you don't have consent. This whole "well, she didn't SAY 'no' or fight me off, so it's okay" shit is nonsense. Date rape is still rape.

[Deleted]

Could be plenty of reasons. The particulars really don't matter, what matters is that they led her to keep silent.

If you don't have positive consent, you don't have consent. This whole "well, she didn't SAY 'no' or fight me off, so it's okay" shit is nonsense. Date rape is still rape.

I have to disagree here. If she isn't drunk and hasn't shown any signs of no consent then it isn't rape. People are not psychic

[Mafic]

This is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard haha.

By definition in the western world any non consent is rape.

[Grimbold21]

Could be plenty of reasons. The particulars really don't matter, what matters is that they led her to keep silent.

If you don't have positive consent, you don't have consent. This whole "well, she didn't SAY 'no' or fight me off, so it's okay" shit is nonsense. Date rape is still rape.

On the contrary, the core of the matter lies with the particulars. Context is fundamental to explaining your hypothetical.

She's saying No in her mind but doesn't express it verbally. Why?

If we accept your reply, a dismissal of the circumstances, then you're hit with a how was I supposed to know or I can't read minds.

[Warning]

Could be plenty of reasons. The particulars really don't matter, what matters is that they led her to keep silent.

If you don't have positive consent, you don't have consent. This whole "well, she didn't SAY 'no' or fight me off, so it's okay" shit is nonsense. Date rape is still rape.

Disagree with that, and this law doesn't seem to want to go that far either, noting that no express consent is needed. But even the slightest form of resistance, be it a slight push away, look of discomfort or otherwise small outwardly sign should mean stop, and the same counts if no such sign is given but you feel like they might not want it. If you ignore that, rape is committed.

[Endus]

I have to disagree here. If she isn't drunk and hasn't shown any signs of no consent then it isn't rape. People are not psychic

On the contrary, the core of the matter lies with the particulars. Context is fundamental to explaining your hypothetical.

She's saying No in her mind but doesn't express it verbally. Why?

If we accept your reply, a dismissal of the circumstances, then you're hit with a how was I supposed to know or I can't read minds.

We're running into the difference between "legally counts as rape" and "provably rape, in court". Kind of like how, if you murder your wife but they can't get enough evidence to convict you, you're a murderer even if the courts weren't able to prove it.

As for the "I'm not psychic" defense, that works against you. How did you know there was consent? Positive consent should be the standard under the law. "Well, she didn't fight me" and "she was totally into it and participating" are pretty divergent experiences. You shouldn't ever just assume they're consenting. If you don't have reason to think they're consenting, you shouldn't be having sex with them.

Disagree with that, and this law doesn't seem to want to go that far either, noting that no express consent is needed. But even the slightest form of resistance, be it a slight push away, look of discomfort or otherwise small outwardly sign should mean stop, and the same counts if no such sign is given but you feel like they might not want it. If you ignore that, rape is committed.

I'll take this moment to point out that "positive consent" can absolutely be nonverbal. Positive, or affirmative, consent is not that complex a concept and I'm certainly not the guy who's come up with it; http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violen...ative-consent/

It isn't about a clear verbal "yes". It isn't about "contracts" or some nonsense. Just that your partner is clearly and actively interested in sexual relations with you, and has expressed that to you in some manner, whether verbal or physical.

[Speaknoevil]

No normal guys I know that get sex regularly are freaking out about rape legislation, it is the guys who think all women are out to get them, creep around on an ex and lurk in clubs- and might actually have something to worry about that are making all the fuss. You make yourself extremely conspicuous with your huge amount of concern that rape might become punishable finally.

[Deleted]

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.

This is a valid concern.

But in general a lot of trouble can be avoided by not dipping your dick in every bar slut you come across, whether they appear willing or not.

[Warning]

I'll take this moment to point out that "positive consent" can absolutely be nonverbal. Positive, or affirmative, consent is not that complex a concept and I'm certainly not the guy who's come up with it; http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violen...ative-consent/

It isn't about a clear verbal "yes". It isn't about "contracts" or some nonsense. Just that your partner is clearly and actively interested in sexual relations with you, and has expressed that to you in some manner, whether verbal or physical.

No I didn't understand it to mean verbal or by contract either. I was talking about the situation of someone acting in good faith, believing their partner is interested and that partner goes along with it without any expression of disagreement, while actually not wanting to. Of course whether they were in a position where they might rightly hold such a belief is then the question and the circumstances from which it might be inferred is what we might argue about. Specifically where the first bulletpoint of what you linked says "not necessarily" is where I think slight disagreements might occur.

Borderline cases like that are interesting for someone interested in law and it may be a worthwhile discussion in a different setting, but I now feel like this isn't the proper place for that discussion and it might be interpreted as support for something I have no wish to support. And we may not even be in disagreement in the first place.

[Laerrus]

That's kinda sad that consent needs to be spelled out like this. If someone is krunk or passed out, that does not qualify as consent. Of course some people either don't understand this or don't care.

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.

The sex robot industry is going to fucking explode in the coming decades.