21
votes
Denmark's left-leaning parties have agreed to change the country's sexual violence laws to allow sex without explicit consent to be prosecuted as rape
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Danes to change law saying non-consensual sex is rape
- Published
- Sep 3 2020
- Word count
- 162 words
I kind of wish this had been the case for my entire life. A world where it's normal and expected for you to verbally confirm that you both want to have sex seems much better than my current American standard of using telepathy. It'll probably be weird for a while but it seems like it's for the best.
We in Sweden have had that law for a while and so far its working pretty good.
Curious how can you prove in court you both confirmed to have sex?.
You don't have to is the idea. I mean technically you can go "She said yes" anyway. The concept is that you can't go "well she wasn't saying no because she was so sleepy! And she has had sex with me before"
Notice that the proposal considers consent through action, which I believe is reasonable. Most of the time, there’s not a verbal consent such as expressly saying “I want to have sex with you”. Things just happen, people go with the flow and usually send numerous signs of consent through their body language and non-verbal vocalization.
The problem is that body language is even harder to analyze outside of context than language, and equally unavailable after the fact unless you film all your sex activity.
That’s a hard problem.
Well the idea is (and Im basing this off of the Swedish law so might be different in Denmark) that you can't say "she wasn't giving me a no" as a counterargument for rape when the victim is unconscious or incapable of replying.
No... there isn't any problem here.
I am guessing that neither of us are kids - we're both adults and we've both have had sex with or without dominance aspects.
If you have a hard time discerning the difference between something that goes on in dominance play, or a cry for you to stop - you need to; and I am not saying this as a shaming thing or anything, total respect between two adults with no accusations of any wrong doings; set up rules before hand no matter HOW boner killing they are. Safe words, play-for-play preplanning. At least until you know each other enough to discern a "please more no" from a "please help no".
If its new enough and sensitive enough to not be possible - no dom/sub stuff.
A lost boner will return to zero, raping someone through incompetence, does not.
EDIT: again I am not trying to say you're a moron, a latent rapist or anything like that - simply that you and me are adults and (I am guessing) dudes. We grew up in this shit, with all the horrid nonsense that the world tell us we have to be, what we have to expect, what we are allowed to say, do or want. We are taught this nonsense about sex and our role in it, but we are better than that. Our boners shouldn't have a right to exist above our assurance that the sex we have is obviously done with people who want to have it. There is tons of sex, and sex partners in this world, and boners come and go. If one partner feels you're not the lover for her because you want to make certain you're not potentially raping her - she is such an idiot that she doesn't deserve your boner. And if she tags that on to unmasculine behavior she is a sexist shit that really really really shouldn't have your boner, also tell your friends not to sleep with her.
While I understand sex can be tricky, I would never proceed if a new partner gave me any signs that I should stop, even if it was unclear what they really meant. If they were super into that (rape play, or whatever) and could not get aroused without it, I’d probably run. That’s a dangerous game to play, both for me and for them.
I’d gladly comply with their kinks if we where in a relationship, and talked at length about rules, boundaries, etc.
I see. I’m familiar with that. The argument most likely remains. I would not engage in any kind of “dominance play” unless I knew my partner very well, and we talked in full about our mutual expectations for the scene. I think that level of intimacy is more common in a relationship.
I've had sex without asking and sex with asking, and it always confuses me when people say asking ruins the mood. It isn't that hard to make it sound hot, at least in my experience. "I really want to X you." Or "Can I suck your Y?" Or phrased kinkier, if that's your thing. It's not necessary for every little thing, usually, but It's super helpful when you're in the thick of things and changing gears.
Because you know what really ruins the mood? Suddenly having a dick where you didn't want one. (For example.)
Sure there's some tension and fun when you let yourself go, but there are ways to safely set that up beforehand - choosing a set of actions that are on the table, deciding that asking isn't necessary, and being clear about what the safe words are, even if it's just "no." I get the impression that a lot of vanilla folks (or people who participate in kink but don't label it as such) don't talk about sex this way, but I highly recommended it. And if one person involved says "no" when they mean "yes," I'd say it's not just recommended, but required.
CW: rape
Maybe I'm confused, but how else would one define rape? This just doesn't seem like a nuanced issue: if you have sex with someone who isn't concenting, when is that not rape? What has changed here?
It’s sometimes helpful to change the law just make it more explicit.
For example, you could phrase it as "Whoever commits [act] against the will of the victim shall be sentenced to [duration]." It seems like an entirely reasonable definition. But the prosecutor then has to demonstrate that the victim dissented.
Phrase it as "Whoever commits [act] without the consent of the victim shall be sentenced to [duration]." and you make the prosecutor's job a little bit easier in a few edge cases. Sure, it's not a huge difference in terms of convictions; it'll only help in a few cases. We're still dealing with "in dubio pro reo" here, so you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the consent did not happen; rather than showing BaRD that the dissent happened. That's not often critical. The prime example where it does matter is when you have a passed out victim. No way there's consent there.
But the much more likely effect is a shift in culture: You're telling people "Guessing isn't good enough, get a Yes, or something equivalent." - you're telling people in no uncertain terms that if they don't have a yes, they are a rapist. In many cases, the perpetrators aren't even aware that they are violating the victim; they think that the victim wants this. With this law, even if they delude themselves this way, they are by law a rapist. Clearly so. If that doesn't make them think, nothing will.
u/mrbig , u/vektor , I think my original comment wasn't articulated well. I definitely support being more explicit in the language of the law, however what I don't understand is the controversy surrounding this bill. Since there is controversy, it would lead me to believing that there is some aspect of the language of the bill that shouldn't be considered "rape." I certainly cannot think of such a reason.
Common reasons run the range from the absurd (difficulty adjudicating) to the abhorrent (psuedo-science regarding conception, denial of spousal rape, requiring the victim to fight, etc) which is where I wanted to push the discussion into these territories to interrogate the ideas as to why such a law would be controversial.
The controversy (if you can call it that) surrounding this law is the same that surrounds every law that codifies crimes that can rarely be materially proven. These laws can certainly be useful in the rare occasions where there is concrete evidence, but probably aim at an effect that is more cultural and political than judicial.
Which is not necessarily bad, people can respond to something like that and refrain from committing sexual assault.
All sex crimes are quite difficult to adjudicate, child molestation cases being especially difficult, considering that unless someone is caught in the act, there is almost no "material" evidence that proves the case. Of course, almost no one finds that a compelling reason to legalize or weaken laws against child molestation, or sex crime in general. This is because laws aren't enforced strictly on physical evidence.
The controversy regarding anti-rape legislation or rules is a bit peculiar. Whether we are talking about college campuses, laws, or even social conventions, requiring consent is always strangely controversial. Of course, defining rape as the lack of consent has been controversial for years: it has often been argued that one cannot rape a spouse or a partner, that it wasn't rape if the victim didn't fight back or shout, or that it wasn't rape if it lead to conception. All of these arguments have fallen out of fashion (to put it mildly), but that doesn't mean that they don't still hold persuasive power.
Considering that there is significant inconsistency in the controversy that is generated by "consent affirming" rape laws and any other law against sex crimes, it might be reasonable to conclude that the true controversy may not actually be hinged on the difficulty of "materially proving consent."
Well, in the case of children, consent is considered impossible, so any indication of sexual activity with an adult (material or not) is necessarily an indication of sexual assault.
That is not the case when we’re referring exclusively to adults.
So I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to treat these cases differently in that regard.
Also, how're you supposed to prove a verbal agreement?
I don't believe the bill requires consent to be verbal, only that it be explicit. Having sex with someone without explicit consent would rightly be considered the legal definition of rape. I'm really not sure how else one could properly define the term otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree, but rather one would one prove that it was explicit? That's what I'm confused about.
In general, you don't. The law shouldn't concern itself primarily with how the facts it is conditioned on can be proven. You leave that to the prosecutors. You can of course refine your definitions if that makes provability easier while keeping justice intact.
But primarily, this definition is just "this is rape". This doesn't intend to say "you have to prove these factors for it to be rape". It doesn't care if you can prove it. You define it to have a clear definition for the sake of the public. If prosecutors have a problem proving the crime happened, you're gonna have to let the "bad guy" go. Rule of law sucks like that. The law doesn't make this an awful lot simpler.
This law isn't aimed at the court room. It's aimed at the bedroom. It does not aim to make rape easier to convict. It aims to make rape easier to spot - both as the aggressor and as the victim. As a victim, you can more easily identify that you were raped, simply by asking: Did I express consent? Similarly, as a aggressor with a difficult relation with boundaries, you could likewise identify your behavior as bad if you ask yourself "did I receive consent?" - I have no stats, but would not be surprised if most (unconvicted) rapists have an ambiguous relationship with their crime, in the sense that they don't see it as rape. They tell themselves whatever lie they need to, in order to feel justified in pushing boundaries a little further and a little further and a little further, and oh fuck, you just raped someone.
Hence the quotes. I was mentally picturing a case that was crystal clear, but just not provable. Maybe because there's publicly known inadmissable evidence, or whatever else you can come up with. A situation where everyone knows it, but there's just enough formal doubt that you can't convict.
If we were talking about an actual case I'd be more careful here, but I have no qualms judging a fictional person without a conviction.