10
votes
Danish government will consider tabling a bill which would define sex without explicit consent as rape
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Danish sexual consent law likely as politicians signal support
- Published
- Jul 11 2019
- Word count
- 261 words
I'm almost of the mindset "Does this even need to be said", but then realize,"Yeah, it does".
Many modern countries don't recognize "sex without consent" to be rape. That's partly not because of the definition of "rape" but the definition of "consent".
I personally like the definition from Planned Parenthood: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sex-and-relationships/sexual-consent -- but using such a definition also means that, if you treat every single case of non-consensual sex as rape, you'll be categorizing "My SO of 5 years and I had sex drunk then regretted it" the same way as "I was threatened with a knife in a back-alley".
Now that doesn't mean they'll be treated the same (violence being the main factor), but laws being too broad, especially around sex, is a common problem. The US' national sexual offender registry famously treats "I had a 3am drunk wee in an alley close to a school" the same as much worse things.
Point is, your "yeah it does" is correct but not because we're in a society filled with people that desperately need things spelled out for them. Rather, because that's how the law works.
But this will just allow more attention-deprived women to file false accusations for money! /s
Ya, it does need to be said.
Also, I always thought colloquialism "to table" something meant to set something aside for later?
According to Wikipedia:
So if you say someone's shelved the proposal everyone's on the same page.
Similarly, there's quite often trouble with communication when people across the Atlantic refer to something or someone being liberal. They don't mean exactly the opposite like with tabling motions, but there are large differences.
Note that the term "tabling" has different meanings in different parts of the world. In the US, it more often means removing an issue from the discussion.
Wait, how's it defined right now?
It's not clear from the article, but I guess the key part is explicit consent. Both consent and dissent can be expressed explicitly (yes/no) or implicitly, e.g. through body language. I suppose the current law sanctions explicit opposition (no means no), without requiring explicit consent.
We'll have to wait for an article on the actual wording of the law to be able to discuss it.