OSLO, June 6 (Reuters) - Norway strengthened its rape laws on Friday by criminalising sex without explicit consent, joining a growing list of countries to widen the definition of sexual attacks. Up to now, prosecutors have had to show that an attacker used violence or threatening behaviour, or had sexual intercourse with someone who was unable to resist, to secure a conviction for rape.
Under the new law passed by parliament, anyone who has sex with someone who has not consented to it by word or deed could be convicted of rape, even without violence. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland have all introduced consent-based rape laws in recent years. Sweden changed the legal definition of rape in 2018 to sex without consent - a change that officials said resulted in a 75% rise in rape convictions. Denmark followed in 2020 by passing a law that widened the circumstances that could constitute rape.
Common sense. Don’t know why that’s not the law already everywhere but better late than never.
Because enough ruling dudes literally, publicly said it was going too far because now a drunk girl could claim she didn’t remember most of the previous night and was raped.
And a bunch of other dudes said they had sex with a drunk girl who later said she never wanted it. All these dudes knew they wouldn’t be having sex if the girls had to be conscious and aware.
And so now a bunch of dudes were afraid their continued sex with a drunk girl was going to get them arrested. So they stopped the harder rape laws.
True story.
I’m just going off (English language) reporting, not the text itself. But I don’t see anything about the new law invalidating drunken consent.
Hmm. Consent during an altered mind state can definitely be a form of coercion. It is very tricky.
Seriously, I adore Nordic countries for just grinding details in such important aspects of life. Almost, it seems, without prejudice.
There’s that bitch eurocommissioner from Sweden, though, who doesn’t want the same approach to E2EE and censorship, for which she presses.
Consenting by deed should be kinda more specific, though. Or a girl making a “provocative move with her hip” or whatever will become consent.
At the same time consenting only by word would be problematic, some people are non-verbal generally, some in specific situations, and, eh, those involving sexual consent are often among such. Yep, selective mutism is a symptom of a disability. We are all nice and inclusive, right?
Wait, what happened before when you had sex with someone without their consent?
Was there an intermediate thing, or… how did that work?
Also a very serious offence with a prison sentence, but with a different legal definition than “rape”. Something like sexual assault / coercion.
Right. Seems like… you know, less of a big deal than both supporters and detractors further down this thread are making it out to be, then.
This is going to be tricky to implement.
It’s easy to prove rape, or any other sexual violence, as there would be wounds associated with it.
But what about coercion? Clearly if one can coerce a person to have sex, that person could also be made to lie or at least stay quiet.
Rape is generally hard to prove as there are generally two witnesses and one is lieing. we have sometimes discoverd evidente that the ‘victum’ did give concent and later regrets it but most of the time there is only evidence of sex and the two parties have a different story about what happened.
i have no answer to the problem. Rape is far too common but punishing an innocent isn’t the answer.
generally two witnesses and one is lieing.
The defendant’s word has not the same “quality” as the witnesses word.
I am unpleasantly surprised to find no sexual consent apps. They exist for photography and video, but not for sexual intimacy. It seems like a useful app and something relatively easy to create by modifying existing “modeling” consent apps.
EDIT: A neat example could be an app with a simple screen that says “I consent to have sexual relations with Jomiran” and when you press the icon it takes a selfie of the person and watermarks the consent on it. Probably a good idea to add automatic face detect so it can blur the rest, just in case they are already naked.
The issue with this is that consent can be withdrawn at any point. You don’t just agree to have sex and you’re good for the night. Consent is a constant thing.
Yeah what if the person starts some freakiness you didn’t consent to?
Of course, you are 100% correct, but there isn’t even a way to prove initial consent. There is also no way to prove that you have shared what you are and are not OK with. There’s nothing of any sort that I can see.
I can totally see the value in that, but I also worry it might result in a “blank cheque” situation where rape allegations are dismissed because one party consented on an app and the other took that as free rein to do whatever.
But you’re right. The other side is potentially protecting people from false allegations.
I doubt that’s worth anything – how do you prove the consenting via app was not coerced?
Wait, it was LEGAL before?
No, just defined differently de jure. Before, you had to explicitly disagree for it to be nonconsensual, now you have to explicitly agree for it to be consensual. It went from opt-out to opt-in practice, if you will. Consent was regarded to be implicit, if you did not make it clear you didn’t consent.
So, terrible law got corrected.
A legal definition has changed (improved and corrected, you could say).
Couldn’t even get through the summary, eh?
Consented by word or deed? I’ve always assumed that was the standard, period.
Again I say, IT WAS LEGAL BEFORE TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO HASN’T CONSENTED?
No it was not legal, it was a very serious offence carrying a prison sentence. The law just didn’t call that situation “rape” before.
Thank you for answering my question.
What was it called, if you don’t mind me asking?
Translating legal terms is hard, but it is something like “grave sexual coercion/assault”
No. Don’t try to twist this into something that it’s not.
“Up to now, prosecutors have had to show that an attacker used violence or threatening behaviour, or had sexual intercourse with someone who was unable to resist, to secure a conviction for rape.”
“Under the new law passed by parliament, anyone who has sex with someone who has not consented to it by word or deed could be convicted of rape, even without violence.”
Why am I the only one who’s shocked that this wasn’t already the law?
Why am I the only one who’s shocked
Because of https://feddit.uk/comment/17905892
That’s how the state of Texas in the US ended all rape. The governor declared rape was illegal, even though it already was, and suddenly there is no more rape.
And that’s why Texas abortion prohibition doesn’t need an exclusion for rape, because the governor declared rape was illegal and now there is no more rape.
Texas Republicans are pretty magical like that.
