Swedens new law on sex

[MAPearce]

removed.

[MAPearce]

Bsuds likes this post.

It was a good one , huh ???

[Ka-El]

Fact - Some women commit violence against men.

True. Not nearly as frequently as incidents of violence against women by men, and not due to the same dynamics - but it is true, it does happen, and even offenders in domestic violence groups use it as a red herring to deflect from their own thinking and behavior and/or absolve themselves of responsibility.

Fact - that won't change until those women change.

Yes, another obvious truism that provides nothing in understanding intervention than is already known.

The sooner we can focus on the fact that lumping all types of violence in the discussion is nothing more than a deflection strategy, possibly by men who are afraid to look at their own thinking and behavior as it relates to this issue, the sooner we can employ resources and efforts in more targeted attempts that have a better chance. Thus, all the current initiatives to end violence against women, I suppose. It is a recognition by those involved in the field that the problem is not only real, but also pervasive, and from the knowledge that the dynamics of domestic/relationship violence is something completely different and apart from many other forms of violence and needs to be treated as a distinct issue. There is plenty of research available on this subject for people who want to look.

Hate to tell you guys: "If men’s violence against women is to cease, it’s the men who have to change,”

[Dizzy1]

Talking about one aspect of a problem i.e. men's violence against women, does not in any way preclude some other aspect of a problem i.e. all violence in it's many many different forms. Yes, we know there is violence of women against women, women against men, men against men (or boys),white on white, black on black, parent against child, child against parent. So why does that preclude someone making a comment about men's violence against women,( in this case a law specifically about sexual intercourse or assault).
Sure it does, because

If we stop talking about men's violence against women, who are we helping except the perpetrators?

How exactly are you helping the perpetrators? And your not stopping to talk about anything, your just including all aspects of the issue instead of singling out one specific group and ignoring the rest of the issue.

Men have very little support when it comes towards violence/abuse/rape against them - largely because we don't talk about it - the spotlight is always on the women. Most men don't come forward and those who do, receive very little support compared to their female counterparts

The law previously allowed sexual intercourse as long as no one was threatened or beaten, now it has been clarified to require consent. Laws have to be specific, to a behavior, and in this case certainly do not specify that it only refers to men's violence against women, and is inclusive of both sexes and all orientations.Both parties have to have consent.

Glad I don't live in Sweden. Call me old fashioned, but I'm the romantic type. Candles, wine, rose petals, etc. - signing a consent form amongst two grown adults is a step backwards.

So Dizzy, are you in favor of the new law in Sweden that requires consent for sexual relations, or not?

I'm all in favour for a more specific law that protects everyone against violence against them. If that requires a consent contract amongst two adults - I don't necessarily feel that thats the correct course of action nor is it in the best interest of dealing with the problem without having negative effects of a progressive society. Will this new law really protect everyone from violence against them or are they going to target men with this. The Left Party in Sweden isn't exactly male friendly with a lot of social issues and it does leave room for concern.

So what happens if a male and female sign this form, do the nasty and 10 years later the female decides to call "rape" and go after the guy. What are the courts going to say? Who will they side with? How specific are these forms? Only time will tell.

[Silverstarqueen]

Unless the judges are biased (it's not random "left wingers" who are deciding evidence and guilt or innocence in court cases), the law as it is written is not biased against either sex. It is going to hamper perpetrators of sexual abuse, and that's what it is intended to do, so if there are more male perpetrators (not saying there are or are not), then it would nail more males than females.

So if the accused has some form of evidence of consent, such as written form, video that can be considered. I should think that would go a long way toward clearing them, and probably would head off many unnecessary court cases. It also clarifies for potential accusers that they better have their ducks in a row if they want to bring a case to court. without this clear consent system in place, virtually any perpetrator could claim they had consent (except with underage victims), and this is what has frustrated the courts in so many cases. I don't see why that evidence wouldn't hold up just as well many years after the alleged offence.

[Ka-El]

So what happens if a male and female sign this form, do the nasty and 10 years later the female decides to call "rape" and go after the guy. What are the courts going to say? Who will they side with? How specific are these forms? Only time will tell.

Wait a second, did I miss this in the article? Are the Swedes suggesting people sign a form confirming consent? This is what happens with polarization, everyone too busy defending their own position to hear anything from the opposing viewpoint. I can appreciate that we are at a point where we have to go beyond implied consent to explicit consent, but whatever happened to "would you like to come home with me?", and later "would you like to come to bed with me?" It seems to me some of these issues would be easy to overcome if people would stop being so defensive when the issue gets brought up.

[Silverstarqueen]

No the law doesn't specify by what means a person should get clear consent, but there were suggestions made on this thread (some of which proposed written , or video) as ways to be able to prove in court that consent was obtained, if there should ever be an allegation in future. As with any new law, it might be a test of it to see if just claiming that clear verbal consent was obtained, would be enough to convince the courts. Each case would have to be tried on its own merits, but I really think with written or video consent, it would be a pretty good protection. Almost everyone has a cell phone that takes video, could be a clear declaration of consent made together and recorded for instance, might satisfy the courts. ANd just think of how romantic that could be.

[lesliepaul]

Ahhhhhh..........the good old days of Sport F#%&ing. Not much to look forward to in this day and age for either sex. You better be well versed in manual manipulation.

[Gixxer]

There are sexual consent apps.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... nsent-apps

[Bsuds]

Ahhhhhh..........the good old days of Sport F#%&ing. Not much to look forward to in this day and age for either sex. You better be well versed in manual manipulation.

Well if you really want to mess up your sex life you can always get Married...

[GordonH]

Imo nonconsensual sex isn't sex, its rape.

Exactly, anyone who thinks differently is complete f ing idiot.

[the truth]

Ahhhhhh..........the good old days of Sport F#%&ing. Not much to look forward to in this day and age for either sex. You better be well versed in manual manipulation.

lol sure glad i am older and no longer in the dating game, i kinda feel sorry for my kids and having to deal with this new kind of dating bs

[Silverstarqueen]

Before we start poo pooing Sweden for their sex laws, it might be a good time to review some of the laws regarding sexual relations on the books in the U.S.:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04/18 ... silly.html

[Dizzy1]

Wait a second, did I miss this in the article? Are the Swedes suggesting people sign a form confirming consent? This is what happens with polarization, everyone too busy defending their own position to hear anything from the opposing viewpoint. I can appreciate that we are at a point where we have to go beyond implied consent to explicit consent, but whatever happened to "would you like to come home with me?", and later "would you like to come to bed with me?" It seems to me some of these issues would be easy to overcome if people would stop being so defensive when the issue gets brought up.

The written consent variant has been in various news articles as a proposed law.

Regardless, I'm not sold on the law - while the intention is praise worthy, I'd rather see it in actual practice before I decide if I feel its a step in the right direction or not.

Anyway, my concern is not so much the law itself - its more the comment that went with it.

Also, I need to apologize for my one previous post - I just looked at it and its a mess. No idea how all the quotes and comments got mixed around like that LOL - sorry LOL!

[Silverstarqueen]

Ahhhhhh..........the good old days of Sport F#%&ing. Not much to look forward to in this day and age for either sex. You better be well versed in manual manipulation.

lol sure glad i am older and no longer in the dating game, i kinda feel sorry for my kids and having to deal with this new kind of dating bs

Being sure of consent before having sex is not actually such a new concept, for most people. There were quite a few misunderstandings, or miscommunications in the good ol' days, judging from the number of people who claim that they thought they had the go ahead, when apparently they didn't. One party presuming that an invitation to their mobile office/hotel room was a carte blanche for sexual activity, others believing they were discussing job prospects or business proposals. One party thinking they were having an evening of dinner dance and conversation, the other presuming anything goes. As pointed out earlier, simply asking someone if they want to go to bed, should clear things up right from the start. If a slower approach is more their style, nothing wrong with waiting for a few dates, before popping the question. Yes means yes, as long as consenting parties are not blind drunk or wayyyy to high to consent to anything (or underage, or under threat). I would actually be interested in how many were put on trial for rape after clearly discussing options and getting a clear answer to a clear question e.g. " Would you like me to randomly choke you into unconsciousness while we kiss passionately?" " Would you like me to surprise drug you before we have intercourse?"I am betting that's pretty rare. If there were prepetrators coming up with these sneaky tactics (or outright violence) to get sex, the laws wouldn't have to be so specific.