Swedish law would require explicit consent before sexual contact

[TSwizzle]

Oh yes, this is going to be interesting;

Sweden is moving to change its rape law to shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the alleged attacker, in a proposal that would require people to obtain explicit consent before sexual contact. Isabella Lovin, the deputy prime minister, said the recent #metoo anti-harassment campaign had shown the need for the new legislation, which is expected to be approved by parliament on Thursday. Under current Swedish law, someone can be prosecuted for rape only if it is proven that they used threats or violence. Under the proposal, rape could be proven if the claimant did not give his or her explicit verbal agreement or clearly demonstrate a desire to engage in sexual activity.

Teh Gruaniad

I am probably missing something but I don't really understand how on earth either person could actually prove one way or the other unless there is a recording, a witness or a document signed with a notary or something.

 

[LordKiran]

Consent forms?

 

[dismal]

There will be a phone app, I'd guess.

But if neither party has written consent did they both rape each other?

Or is there some sort of race to the police to get your "I was raped" claim in first. Or maybe there's an app for that too.

 

[rousseau]

And this thread is guaranteed to be a good time.

 

[whollygoats]

I smell a professional witness program coming down the pike.

Get ready for 'fine print' and 'free trial offers'.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I believe that any kind of penetration would be inappropriate without the presence of a notary in the room monitoring the situation.

 

[dismal]

I believe that any kind of penetration would be inappropriate without the presence of a notary in the room monitoring the situation.

Well, I guess the sort of person who would force another person to have sex wouldn't think twice about also forcing them to push a button on an app or sign a paper, so you're going to need some sort of 3rd party observer.

 

[whollygoats]

I believe that any kind of penetration would be inappropriate without the presence of a notary in the room monitoring the situation.

Well, I guess the sort of person who would force another person to have sex wouldn't think twice about also forcing them to push a button on an app or sign a paper, so you're going to need some sort of 3rd party observer.

Preferably a professional, of course.

 

[dismal]

I believe that any kind of penetration would be inappropriate without the presence of a notary in the room monitoring the situation.

Well, I guess the sort of person who would force another person to have sex wouldn't think twice about also forcing them to push a button on an app or sign a paper, so you're going to need some sort of 3rd party observer.

Preferably a professional, of course.

Sure, but not someone motivated by profit. We need the government in our bedrooms.

 

[whollygoats]

Preferably a professional, of course.

Sure, but not someone motivated by profit. We need the government in our bedrooms.

"An Officer of the Court" don't you know?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Guilty until proven innocent. However good the motivations, this is a horrible idea.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There will be a phone app, I'd guess.

But if neither party has written consent did they both rape each other?

Or is there some sort of race to the police to get your "I was raped" claim in first. Or maybe there's an app for that too.

Cute how you write this as if it will be applied equally between genders.

 

[Underseer]

Oh yes, this is going to be interesting;

Sweden is moving to change its rape law to shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the alleged attacker, in a proposal that would require people to obtain explicit consent before sexual contact. Isabella Lovin, the deputy prime minister, said the recent #metoo anti-harassment campaign had shown the need for the new legislation, which is expected to be approved by parliament on Thursday. Under current Swedish law, someone can be prosecuted for rape only if it is proven that they used threats or violence. Under the proposal, rape could be proven if the claimant did not give his or her explicit verbal agreement or clearly demonstrate a desire to engage in sexual activity.

Teh Gruaniad

I am probably missing something but I don't really understand how on earth either person could actually prove one way or the other unless there is a recording, a witness or a document signed with a notary or something.

Oh no!

People could actually be prosecuted for grabbing pussy without consent? Why, a law like this might apply to a great man like Trump, and therefore this is completely unfair!

I'm going to get my panties in a wad and there tantrums untill the world is once again safe for pussy grabbers! This metoo stuff has gone too far! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Arctish]

Oh yes, this is going to be interesting;

Sweden is moving to change its rape law to shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the alleged attacker, in a proposal that would require people to obtain explicit consent before sexual contact. Isabella Lovin, the deputy prime minister, said the recent #metoo anti-harassment campaign had shown the need for the new legislation, which is expected to be approved by parliament on Thursday. Under current Swedish law, someone can be prosecuted for rape only if it is proven that they used threats or violence. Under the proposal, rape could be proven if the claimant did not give his or her explicit verbal agreement or clearly demonstrate a desire to engage in sexual activity.

Teh Gruaniad

I am probably missing something but I don't really understand how on earth either person could actually prove one way or the other unless there is a recording, a witness or a document signed with a notary or something.

It's a moron trap.

It's designed to catch morons who bang passed out drunks and then claim "s/he didn't say no, so that means s/he wanted it".

 

[Arctish]

There will be a phone app, I'd guess.

But if neither party has written consent did they both rape each other?

Or is there some sort of race to the police to get your "I was raped" claim in first. Or maybe there's an app for that too.

Cute how you write this as if it will be applied equally between genders.

Cute how you slipped in that little tidbit of misogyny there (not really).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oh yes, this is going to be interesting;

Sweden is moving to change its rape law to shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the alleged attacker, in a proposal that would require people to obtain explicit consent before sexual contact. Isabella Lovin, the deputy prime minister, said the recent #metoo anti-harassment campaign had shown the need for the new legislation, which is expected to be approved by parliament on Thursday. Under current Swedish law, someone can be prosecuted for rape only if it is proven that they used threats or violence. Under the proposal, rape could be proven if the claimant did not give his or her explicit verbal agreement or clearly demonstrate a desire to engage in sexual activity.

Teh Gruaniad

I am probably missing something but I don't really understand how on earth either person could actually prove one way or the other unless there is a recording, a witness or a document signed with a notary or something.

It's a moron trap.

It's designed to catch morons who bang passed out drunks and then claim "s/he didn't say no, so that means s/he wanted it".

I think you're right and the wording in the article is not great. It is really only a crime if the defendant says he or she did not get explicit consent.

 

[Bronzeage]

In my 47 years of sexual activity, I can't think of a single instance when there was not explicit verbal agreement and a clear demonstration of desire to engage in sexual activity. It's just not that difficult.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In my 47 years of sexual activity, I can't think of a single instance when there was not explicit verbal agreement and a clear demonstration of desire to engage in sexual activity. It's just not that difficult.

But can you prove that verbal agreement took place? Your mere assertion won't mean much. Would you now recommend recording all intimate conversations that may lead to sex?

 

[Bomb#20]

Preferably a professional, of course.

Sure, but not someone motivated by profit. We need the government in our bedrooms.

So from now on it's Fornication Under Consent of Parliament? That's going to be harder to pronounce...

 

[Bronzeage]

In my 47 years of sexual activity, I can't think of a single instance when there was not explicit verbal agreement and a clear demonstration of desire to engage in sexual activity. It's just not that difficult.

But can you prove that verbal agreement took place? Your mere assertion won't mean much. Would you now recommend recording all intimate conversations that may lead to sex?

The real question is, why would I need to, if the need has never arose in 47 years? If any recommendation is due, it would be to know the person with whom you are about to have sex, well enough to know if this kind of thing is likely to be an issue. A secondary recommendation would be to not have sex with impaired people. As I said above, it's not that difficult to avoid putting oneself in jeopardy.