Swedish law would require explicit consent before sexual contact

[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?

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.

This law does not seem to be specific to impaired people. Unless I missed something? And just because you haven't had a problem doesn't mean you never will or nobody ever does.

 

[ruby sparks]

"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."

Puzzling. In British Law (and in Swedish Law, as far as I know) there already doesn't have to be threat or violence, just a lack of consent.

Either the article is awry (unlikely, it's in other broadsheets such as The Independent) or the Swedish proposal is really just a slight change of emphasis. It appears to allow for verbal consent so long as it is 'clearly demonstrated'. This is not really new. However, I suspect that there will be a slight shift in terms of the courts deeming what 'clearly demonstrated verbally' amounts to in 'he said she said' cases, because I don't see this extending to having records.

"If a person has not agreed in words or by their clear actions that they are willing to engage in sexual activity, then forcing or coercing them into a sexual act will be illegal."

Isn't already?

In practice, 'clearly acquiescing' at all times (by actions) before and during will surely be taken as consent, provided the person is deemed capable (not drunk or in any other way impaired).

I see a government keen to be seen to be doing something.

 

[Arctish]

"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."

Puzzling. In British Law (and in Swedish Law, as far as I know) there already doesn't have to be threat or violence, just a lack of consent.

Either the article is awry (unlikely, it's in other broadsheets such as The Independent) or the Swedish proposal is really just a slight change of emphasis. It appears to allow for verbal consent so long as it is 'clearly demonstrated'. This is not really new. However, I suspect that there will be a slight shift in terms of the courts deeming what 'clearly demonstrated verbally' amounts to in 'he said she said' cases, because I don't see this extending to having records.

"If a person has not agreed in words or by their clear actions that they are willing to engage in sexual activity, then forcing or coercing them into a sexual act will be illegal."

Isn't already?

Apparently it wasn't, hence the new law.

If the article is accurate then Swedish law did not recognize rape by deception as rape. Same for having sexual contact with a person in a coma, a passed out drunk, someone who was slipped a roofie in a can of soda, or a guy lying unconscious on a roadside after crashing his bike. It wasn't considered rape because the sex acts didn't involve threats or use of force. The new law fixes that glaringly obvious flaw.

In practice, 'clearly acquiescing' at all times (by actions) before and during will surely be taken as consent, provided the person is deemed capable (not drunk or in any other way impaired).

I see a government keen to be seen to be doing something.

I see a problem that should have been addressed long ago.

 

[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.

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

To be fair, I did drag "race" into it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

t already?

In practice, 'clearly acquiescing' at all times (by actions) before and during will surely be taken as consent, provided the person is deemed capable (not drunk or in any other way impaired).

I see a government keen to be seen to be doing something.

I thought this was about reversing the onus of proof. Is it already reversed? I see nothing wrong with verbal consent being required but people should not be deemed guilty until proved innocent, no matter how much any #metoo campaign pulls on heart strings.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Back in 1991, the Womyn of Antioch (a feminist group at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio) came up with the much-mocked Antioch Rules, which set a regulated approach to all sexual encounters. There had to be 'continuous and active' verbal consent to each step in an encounter -- 'May I now touch your left breast?'...'May I graze the nipple of your left breast?'...etc., etc. I'm not sure if this inspired more consent codes or what the current thinking is, on campuses. This is a strange, cantankerous species we're part of.

 

[ruby sparks]

t already?

In practice, 'clearly acquiescing' at all times (by actions) before and during will surely be taken as consent, provided the person is deemed capable (not drunk or in any other way impaired).

I see a government keen to be seen to be doing something.

I thought this was about reversing the onus of proof. Is it already reversed? I see nothing wrong with verbal consent being required but people should not be deemed guilty until proved innocent, no matter how much any #metoo campaign pulls on heart strings.

I'm not sure what exactly the changes are because I'm not sure what the state of play is/was already. As Arctish said, they obviously feel the need to make some changes.

I'm actually just surprised, because I would normally regard Sweden as ahead of the pack in terms of this sort of thing and gender issues generally. But a bit of googling throws up some criticism of the existing situation in Sweden, so maybe I was awarding it points it didn't deserve.

I know Trump made comments about how high the number of rape cases in Sweden is, but this seems to be at least due to people (usually women) feeling more able to report it.

- - - Updated - - -

Back in 1991, the Womyn of Antioch (a feminist group at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio) came up with the much-mocked Antioch Rules, which set a regulated approach to all sexual encounters. There had to be 'continuous and active' verbal consent to each step in an encounter -- 'May I now touch your left breast?'...'May I graze the nipple of your left breast?'...etc., etc. I'm not sure if this inspired more consent codes or what the current thinking is, on campuses. This is a strange, cantankerous species we're part of.

Hey that sounds like my approach to sex with my wife.

One of these days I'll get a yes to at least one of the questions. One of these days. Surely.

 

[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.

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".

You think ? I would be surprised if that was ever accepted as a defense currently in Sweden.

There must be more to this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You think ? I would be surprised if that was ever accepted as a defense currently in Sweden.

I would too. The first line of the article claims the burden of proof is being reversed. I am guessing that is the big change (if the article can be trusted).

That would be a very big over reach for "social justice" and Sweden is known to be on the forefront of this issue so it wouldn't surprise me if they were the country to take it too far.

And for those who constantly ask here where are the liberal governments and policies taking away our freedoms (of non-bigots), this seems to be a good example. Compassion without sense can cause harm. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Jokodo]

You think ? I would be surprised if that was ever accepted as a defense currently in Sweden.

I would too. The first line of the article claims the burden of proof is being reversed. I am guessing that is the big change (if the article can be trusted). <snip>

The version of the article you read was factually incorrect, as explained in a footnote under the current version:

This article was amended on 21 December 2017. The Associated Press issued the following statement: “The Associated Press reported erroneously, based on comments from deputy prime minister Isabella Lövin, what the law would do. The law would require people to get explicit consent before sexual contact, but it would not shift the burden of proof from the victim to the alleged attacker.”

The first line of the updated article reads: "Sweden is moving closer to making changes to its rape laws that would require people to get explicit consent before sexual contact." -- no mention of how it's going to be determined.

A few paragraphs down, it reads "Following the changes to the law, the prosecution will have to present evidence demonstrating that the sexual act was not consensual."

 

[Elixir]

"Following the changes to the law, the prosecution will have to present evidence demonstrating that the sexual act was not consensual."

Yipes. Does the absence of any signed consent form constitute proof of the non-consensual nature of the act?
Might be a great time to be a notary in Sweden!

 

[Rhea]

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?

You know, funny thing. People who have clear and explicit consent tend to not be accused of rape and so it is moot.

 

[Jokodo]

"Following the changes to the law, the prosecution will have to present evidence demonstrating that the sexual act was not consensual."

Yipes. Does the absence of any signed consent form constitute proof of the non-consensual nature of the act?
Might be a great time to be a notary in Sweden!

Which part of "the prosecution will have to present evidence" do you not understand?

 

[TSwizzle]

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?

You know, funny thing. People who have clear and explicit consent tend to not be accused of rape and so it is moot.

LOL, yeah right. Just this week, three prosecution cases in the UK collapse due to shenanigans. Unfortunately, although not common, these situations do come up.

 

[Rhea]

The first line of the updated article reads: "Sweden is moving closer to making changes to its rape laws that would require people to get explicit consent before sexual contact." -- no mention of how it's going to be determined.

Looks a lot like they are trying to write something that codifies: “Lack of ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes.’ Only ‘yes’ means yes,”

Which, for those who have been grabbed without consent and then heard, “but I didn’t think you’d mind!” Seems like an excellent direction.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, yeah right. Just this week, three prosecution cases in the UK collapse due to shenanigans. Unfortunately, although not common, these situations do come up.

You seem to be claiming they are three cases where confirmed and explicit consent was given, never revoked, and then later lied about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The version of the article you read was factually incorrect, as explained in a footnote under the current version

In that case I don't oppose the new law. Good catch.

A few paragraphs down, it reads "Following the changes to the law, the prosecution will have to present evidence demonstrating that the sexual act was not consensual."

Good. In that case, yes, verbal consent should be obtained. Unless of course she is a mute. What do you do then? Gestures should probably count too.

 

[laughing dog]

You think ? I would be surprised if that was ever accepted as a defense currently in Sweden.

I would too. The first line of the article claims the burden of proof is being reversed. I am guessing that is the big change (if the article can be trusted).

That would be a very big over reach for "social justice" and Sweden is known to be on the forefront of this issue so it wouldn't surprise me if they were the country to take it too far.

And for those who constantly ask here where are the liberal governments and policies taking away our freedoms (of non-bigots), this seems to be a good example. Compassion without sense can cause harm. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What freedom(s) in this law are being taken away? I mean, outside of the freedom to say that use "no" means "yes, I want to have sex with you" as a defense?

 

[Elixir]

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?

You know, funny thing. People who have clear and explicit consent tend to not be accused of rape and so it is moot.

I have always had clear and explicit (to me and my partner) consent. But who in the world has documentation of such consent???

 

[ruby sparks]

The version of the article you read was factually incorrect, as explained in a footnote under the current version

In that case I don't oppose the new law. Good catch.

A few paragraphs down, it reads "Following the changes to the law, the prosecution will have to present evidence demonstrating that the sexual act was not consensual."

Good. In that case, yes, verbal consent should be obtained. Unless of course she is a mute. What do you do then? Gestures should probably count too.

From another article on the same topic:

"If a person has not agreed in words or by their clear actions that they are willing to engage in sexual activity, then forcing or coercing them into a sexual act will be illegal."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You know, funny thing. People who have clear and explicit consent tend to not be accused of rape and so it is moot.

Wrongful conviction is moot because it is rare? People who are innocent tend not to be accused of crimes of any sort.