Sweden to tighten rape legislation, outlawing non-consensual sex

[Blamblam41]

^^ 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.

Assuming automatic consent, especially 'in the moment', is about the most privileged white male thing said on these forums short of someone bitching about not being able to SLI a Titan.

Why is the burden of proof on the women when it comes to proving the sex was unconsensual? The male should have to equally prove the sex was consensual.

And fucking honestly, stopping you right there, if you're so insecure and paranoid around the people you meet and the lovers you keep because you are afraid they 'might go psycho' and 'rat you out as a rapist', bitch you are spending time around and making the wrong goddamn friends. You need to make like Keegan-Michael Key and Get Out.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't monica lewinsky recently say she has now decided that Bill Clinton raped her with his privilege when previously she was proud of offering sex to him?

It couldn't have been rape if Hilary allowed it.

Even Monica knows who has all the privilege in that relationship.

[Theodarzna]

I can't believe I agree with you on something, but yeah.

This definition of rape is so incredibly broad and vague that I don't even know what it would take to prove that the sex was consensual as long as the accuser maintains it wasn't.

There is a first time for everything.

And yeah, ultimately the problem is just that. You cannot really ever prove your innocence. Even if you do something like film the encounter, that cannot save you, once more the girl has to be fine with it and can still claim it felt like rape later and she was just scared. Even if you go through the deranged ritual of asking for an affirmative yes before you flick, fondle, lick or thrust of your cock, there is zero guarantee you won't be accused later and there are zero means of defence.

Endus' mentality would essentially have every man under constant threat for even being alone with a woman in a room. In a he-said-she-said battle could you or Endus prove your innocence against any random girl you've even been alone with for any more than a split second?

[Freighter]

Why is the burden of proof on the women when it comes to proving the sex was unconsensual? The male should have to equally prove the sex was consensual.

That is guilty until proven innocent, which is kind of a shit system.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a first time for everything.

And yeah, ultimately the problem is just that. You cannot really ever prove your innocence. Even if you do something like film the encounter, that cannot save you, once more the girl has to be fine with it and can still claim it felt like rape later and she was just scared. Even if you go through the deranged ritual of asking for an affirmative yes before you flick, fondle, lick or thrust of your cock, there is zero guarantee you won't be accused later and there are zero means of defence.

Endus' mentality would essentially have every man under constant threat for even being alone with a woman in a room. In a he-said-she-said battle could you or Endus prove your innocence against any random girl you've even been alone with for any more than a split second?

If a woman would want to falsely accuse a man of rape she doesn't even need to have had sex with him. She can just claim he raped her without him ever touching her, without even being close to her. This paranoia of false accusations after having sex is simply that, paranoia.

[Theodarzna]

If a woman would want to falsely accuse a man of rape she doesn't even need to have had sex with him. She can just claim he raped her without him ever touching her, without even being close to her. This paranoia of false accusations after having sex is simply that, paranoia.

It's justified because in both the current climate and under the ideal legal climate that some want to create any false accusation would be impossible to disprove. Even now an accusation requires considerable money to escape and even if one escapes criminal prosecution for a false accusation, society will always suspect them.

But it is true, sex isn't even required.

[Toogoodman]

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.

How is someone able to know what another human is thinking in their head, if their actions speak differently? I'm not saying its okay, but that's a slippery slope, ANYONE can say "oh I might have looked and acted like I wanted it, but it my head I said no, so you're a rapist".

[Deleted]

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.

Depending on the definition of "consent", if that's too blurry there will be grey areas.

You have your own culture and upbringing leading your thoughts, and I understand you have your own opinion on "what is consent", and I respect that, but this is not an universal fact or this kind of frequent debates wouldn't happen with such frequency.

[Deleted]

Didn't monica lewinsky recently say she has now decided that Bill Clinton raped her with his privilege when previously she was proud of offering sex to him?

This is why todays world is absolutely bonkers.

[Deleted]

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

Obligatory Futurama...

[Deleted]

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

Well, to understand the new law you have to know the swedish language. I've read the new law in swedish as I'm a Swede. What it does is to make you a rapist unless she directly says yes to every single change in the act. I've had talks with people of all ages about this law and all but one claim that with this law they're rapists. Goes for both sexes. The one that didn't is a virgin.

To not be guilty of rape with the new law I have to make eye contact with her and ask her if she's okay with what ever i'm doing. She has to verbally consent to every single minute change of the act otherwise it can be used against you.

[Player Twelve]

Well, to understand the new law you have to know the swedish language. I've read the new law in swedish as I'm a Swede. What it does is to make you a rapist unless she directly says yes to every single change in the act. I've had talks with people of all ages about this law and all but one claim that with this law they're rapists. Goes for both sexes. The one that didn't is a virgin.

To not be guilty of rape with the new law I have to make eye contact with her and ask her if she's okay with what ever i'm doing. She has to verbally consent to every single minute change of the act otherwise it can be used against you.

I'm Swedish, you're full of shit. You can consent either by saying yes or by actively showing you want to.

[Endus]

I'm less concerned about what is or isn't rape debate, but more about burden of proof. This really seems to shift the burden of proof onto the accused, as there's is almost next to no way to prove it wasn't rape if the accuser "feels" it was.

I have no idea where you stood on the Aziz Ansari issue for example, but under this definition of rape he is a rapist and should be in jail.

The case is largely going to revolve around their separate accounts, since we can assume there's no physical evidence of violence (otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about this particular point) or an argument being made that they did NOT have sex (ditto). So it isn't really about burden of proof at all; it has to do with how their accounts line up. If he says she was the aggressor and totally into it, and she claims she was passive and didn't want to be there, you'd need some other source of evidence to confirm or refute either story, or you'd fail to meet the standards of evidence for a conviction. "Burden of proof" is a convenience for debates, but doesn't really apply to court cases. Especially when the over facts of the case (that sex occurred) aren't being contested.

How is someone able to know what another human is thinking in their head, if their actions speak differently? I'm not saying its okay, but that's a slippery slope, ANYONE can say "oh I might have looked and acted like I wanted it, but it my head I said no, so you're a rapist".

There's no slippery slope. Affirmative consent standards include actions that show consent. In your example, there was consent. Where it draws a distinction is in cases of passivity, where they just let it happen.

And if you want to know what someone else is thinking, because you're unsure if they're consenting or not, ask them. If you're not sure, why are you trying to have sex with them.

[zenkai]

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.

Yeah, true, we have had people locked up for rape and accusers coming out admitting it wasn't true later. This really spits on people who really are raped.

[Deleted]

you'd need some other source of evidence to confirm or refute either story, or you'd fail to meet the standards of evidence for a conviction. "Burden of proof" is a convenience for debates, but doesn't really apply to court cases. Especially when the over facts of the case (that sex occurred) aren't being contested.

The burden of proof is the cornerstone of knowledge. And very much applies to every court. A place where they try to know what went on in some event to determine how to distribute justice.
When you seek "other sources" you're shifting the burden. For instance, in inquisitorial systems, the burden lies with the court.
Regardless, the only requirement for this to make sense, is to burden the one making positive statements. To avoid the epistemic pitfall of trying to prove the non-existence of Russell's teapot.

[Endus]

The burden of proof is the cornerstone of knowledge. And very much applies to every court. A place where they try to know what went on in some event to determine how to distribute justice.
When you seek "other sources" you're shifting the burden. For instance, in inquisitorial systems, the burden lies with the court.
Regardless, the only requirement for this to make sense, is to burden the one making positive statements. To avoid the epistemic pitfall of trying to prove the non-existence of Russell's teapot.

Fair enough, I didn't speak clearly enough. It doesn't apply when describing things like states of mind, since no evidence can be presented other than testimony. So someone testifying that they did not consent in their own minds, that testimony has already met the "burden of proof" by existing. To contradict that testimony, you would need more convincing evidence.

But there are also elements where a theory can be presented, in court, to introduce reasonable doubt or, in civil cases, to argue that the preponderance of the evidence suggests it is likely true, and there's no obligation that these be supported by specific evidence. If a guy has a twin brother and claims HE didn't kill his wife, his brother did, and his brother insists it was her husband, and you've got eyewitness and DNA evidence to confirm it was ONE of them, unless you can concretely determine one of them did it beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict. You don't need to meet any burden of proof to prove it was either, in the defense; the introduction of doubt does not require proof.

So when I said it "doesn't really apply to court cases", I didn't mean no evidence has to be provided to prove positive claims, I meant there's a lot that goes on in courts that don't require direct proof, or where testimony itself is "proof" of said testimony.

If a girl claims she didn't consent, and was raped, but was too scared to resist, then we're not talking about a "Russell's teapot" scenario. The teapot's right there, in the courtroom, actively participating.

[Mihalik]

So when I said it "doesn't really apply to court cases", I didn't mean no evidence has to be provided to prove positive claims, I meant there's a lot that goes on in courts that don't require direct proof, or where testimony itself is "proof" of said testimony.

If a girl claims she didn't consent, and was raped, but was too scared to resist, then we're not talking about a "Russell's teapot" scenario. The teapot's right there, in the courtroom, actively participating.

It's the same thing I was saying. It shifts the "burden" (however you wanna define it) from the accuser to the accused, where he now has to prove (somehow, via circumstantial evidence, -keep in mind that in such cases we justly don't allow attacks on the accuser's character or sexual and personal history, nor mental state) that he in fact did not rape his/her accuser.

That is literally turning the foundations of the justice system on its head. In penal cases this pits the full might of the state (The People) against a single individual. That's why we always considered it reasonable to place the burden of evidence on the accuser.

[lummiuster]

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.

Sweden did not rape anyone. These women are puppets who have been asked to invent this story to have a reason to have an arrest warrant against him. As soon as he gets out of the embassy he is hiding in UK, he will get arrested. The main reason is that USA will ask the authority to extradite him to USA and then bring him to court for having left the NSA and tell the truth to the world about their malicious programs.
These women are abusing their power of being able to accuse anyone without facing repercussion in the case of voluntary false allegations.

[Deleted]

I'm Swedish, you're full of shit. You can consent either by saying yes or by actively showing you want to.

No, you're full of shit. Verbal consent is the only way you can be 100% sure that any change in the act is not rape under this new draconian law. The eye contact thing is to 100% make sure she is verbally consenting to the thing you're doing. to be 100% ssafe from being accused of being a rapist you'd be best sure to record the entire thing and have her verbally consent to each change of the act towards the camera.

[Player Twelve]

No, you're full of shit. Verbal consent is the only way you can be 100% sure that any change in the act is not rape under this new draconian law. The eye contact thing is to 100% make sure she is verbally consenting to the thing you're doing. to be 100% ssafe from being accused of being a rapist you'd be best sure to record the entire thing and have her verbally consent to each change of the act towards the camera.

The law doesn't state that only verbal consent is valid.


Den som, med en person som inte deltar frivilligt, genomför ett samlag eller en annan sexuell handling som med hänsyn till kränkningens allvar är jämförlig med samlag, döms för våldtäkt till fängelse i lägst två år och högst sex år. En person kan aldrig anses delta frivilligt om
1. deltagandet är en följd av misshandel, annat våld eller hot om brottslig gärning, hot om att åtala eller ange någon annan för brott eller hot om att lämna ett menligt meddelande om någon annan,
2. gärningsmannen otillbörligtutnyttjar att personen på grund av medvetslöshet, sömn, allvarlig rädsla, berusning eller annan drogpåverkan, sjukdom, kroppsskada, psykisk störning eller annars med hänsyn till omständigheterna befinner sig i en särskilt utsatt situation, eller
3. gärningsmannen förmårpersonen att delta genom att allvarligt missbruka att personen står i beroendeställning till
gärningsmannen

The one who, with a person that is not participating willingly, performs intercourse or any other sexual act that in regards to the violations gravity is comparable to intercourse, is sentenced for rape to prison for at least two years and maximum six years. A person can never be considered to be participating willingly if
1. The participation is a consequence of assault, other violence or by threat of criminal act, threat of prosecution or to (idk how to translate the last part).
2. The perpetrator exploit that a person because of unconsciousness, sleep, serious fear, intoxication or other drug influence, disease, bodily injury, mental disorder or otherwise with regard to the circumstances is in a particularly vulnerable situation or
3. The perpetrator causes the persons to participate by abusing that the person is a dependent to the perpetrator.

Not a single mention of verbal consent, only participating willingly.

- - - Updated - - -

Sweden did not rape anyone. These women are puppets who have been asked to invent this story to have a reason to have an arrest warrant against him. As soon as he gets out of the embassy he is hiding in UK, he will get arrested. The main reason is that USA will ask the authority to extradite him to USA and then bring him to court for having left the NSA and tell the truth to the world about their malicious programs.
These women are abusing their power of being able to accuse anyone without facing repercussion in the case of voluntary false allegations.

What does this have to do with the thread topic?

[Viconia]

You'd think violence, threat of violence or exploiting a vulnerable state covered all kinds of rape. It's just this new mass awareness of powerful people like Weinberg holding careers as hostage for sex. It's a slippery slope to what defines non-consensual if this is why the new law was made. It's basically a deal you agreed to, but under extreme stress, scaling by how badly the other person can damage your career prospects. But the reverse situation is possible too, especially in current social climate; the less powerful person accusing the more powerful person of pulling a Weinberg, when they in fact didn't. How can they prove they didn't? About as likely as actual exploited can prove the reverse.

It's a whole bunch of he-said-she-said and this law feels rushed as fuck.

[Endus]

It's the same thing I was saying. It shifts the "burden" (however you wanna define it) from the accuser to the accused, where he now has to prove (somehow, via circumstantial evidence, -keep in mind that in such cases we justly don't allow attacks on the accuser's character or sexual and personal history, nor mental state) that he in fact did not rape his/her accuser.

That is literally turning the foundations of the justice system on its head. In penal cases this pits the full might of the state (The People) against a single individual. That's why we always considered it reasonable to place the burden of evidence on the accuser.

This isn't remotely true. This exact circumstance happens constantly in court cases. Evidence is presented to support one account, and the accused has to present evidence to demonstrate how that is not true or accurate. That's literally what a "defense" is. If the courts operated like you're pretending, there wouldn't be a "defense", because it would just be a question of if their accuser makes their case.

The accused always bears the burden of proof for their own legal defense. That isn't unique to rape cases, by any reasoning whatsoever. And yes; testimony is evidence, so pretending like there is no evidence to argue against is just wrong. Evidence has already been presented against the accused.

The thing is, the accused can always claim he got consent, the accuser can deny it and we are back to nothing. The accused can lie about it too. Proving otherwise is just not going to be easy. Of course this doesn't change the fact that Sweden's stance is ultimately correct; violence or threat of violence should not be required for non-consensual sex to be rape. But just because it's now officially a crime there doesn't mean courts will actually be able to get a ruling to that effect absent a recording or a third party testimony. Of course we've already have a Swedish poster confirm that there have been exactly such cases already in Sweden (were there was no consent, no violence but a recording). Essentially this law is going to prevent such a case from being thrown off again and that's probably the entire intent and not some nefarious feminazi plot.

This is literally what courts are about. Replace "rape" with "theft"; the thief can claim he was given the item, the accuser can deny it, and we're "back to nothing". This is where we dig into the evidence. I'm not even sure what your argument is, since you seem to be denying that courts exist, and that court proceedings don't occur.

It's an argument that always crops up, where it's presumed, falsely, that the accused cannot present a defense. That's obviously not the case. It's a straw man that doesn't bear exploring, because it's a straw man.