serious question time: would this mean that if two married individuals in Sweden feverishly engaged in sexual intercourse without verbally saying a word, they've then legally raped one another according to this law? i understand the point of this law is to remove violence as a legal requisite factor from a sexual assault charge, but i'm curious about the legal issues this could invoke down the line
other than that, bravo sweden
Judge Anna Hannell, who helped create the law, said there was "absolutely no requirement to formally say 'yes', to hit a button in an app or anything else of the same type".
"Simply participating physically is a sign of consent," she told Swedish news agency TT.
That's some pretty vague wording coming from a judge...
What exactly does "participating physically" mean? Does lubricating count? Does an erection?
I imagine it's "participating" vs "being subjected to".
I'm fucking sick of this pedantic shit. It means actively engaging in the act. Getting an erection or becoming wet involuntarily is not participation. Use some common sense.
yeah this doesnt seem like a bad law since it realizes not all conset is just going “Yes you can do that”, but rather that there are non verbal cues.
But it's "this pedantic shit" that lawyers will use to get their clients off their charges.
If it's not exactly clear what "actively engaging in the act" means.
Vague wordings like this could be used by both a lawyer to get a rapist out of prison.
Or a prosecutor to get someone innocent sent to prison.
The law says "when judging if the participation is consensual or not, look for if the willingness comes from words, actions, other ways."
Yes. The law specifically says "other ways".
Thus this law has been heavily criticized in Sweden because of how vague it is. The agency which reads through all new laws before they're voted on to give a recommendation discouraged this law.
There's no predictability for how the law would work, and many legal experts fears it will shift the "innocent until proven guilty" around so you instead have to prove there was consent.
On top of this, they fear there will also be a much larger focus on the victim and it would require lots of intimate questions such as what the person was wearing.
That's my fucking point, I have no clue how you interpreted my statement as "if you're hard, you want it".
Common sense is not a thing within the realm of the law. Otherwise we wouldn't have absurd results like we often see. A law needs to be clear and precise, and considering the amount of people who actually believe that it's not rape if you get an erection, "physically participating" doesn't cut it. What's common sense to you or I isn't to a lot of people.
Swedes, time to get a dash(head)cam and record every encounter to protect yourself.
welcome to the future!!
So in theory this also makes a man who is raped legally considered a rape victim and not just people who get's penetrated, right?
i'm sorry about your sex life
I don't really understand, am I missing something here? This is equivalent of a law that says they recognize water as wet.
It's in the article, the law previously defined rape as involving violence or threats. Now it also includes situations like having sex with an unconscious person or someone so drunk they can't resist.
Instead of the alleged victim having to prove sufficient actions, signals and language were used to express "no", the opposite might occur. The accused may have to prove that the signals he/she received could without a doubt be interpreted as "yes".
No, that was in the previous law as well that a person under "special circumstances", such as being drugged or drunk, cannot give consent.
Was also already rape according to previous law.
Never assume the world is as ideal as you'd imagine it to be.
Usually these laws stipulate “overt sex acts or sexual actions” so for example, if a woman pulls your pants down and begins blowing you, that would imply consent (as long as no coercion or threats existed before hand)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
