Japan to signal illegality of nonconsensual sex in crime rename

Good move in the right direction. I'm curious to see how the police and prosecutors enforce these changes.

It will depend on the connections the rapist has.

One other thing that must be included and made law here is giving the police the authority to investigate, arrest, and prosecute without the consent of any victim. There have been many cases where parents have refused to press charges, for underage victims, for a huge variety of reasons, and things brushed under the table after money changed hands.

Police, if I recall correctly, can investigate, but they take the will of the victim into account when doing so.

Police need to be trained as well on how to properly handle sexual assault victims, and hospitals must have trained professionals available to process any potential evidence, through rape kits and any other potential evidence.

All of these need to be implemented for any law to have any meaning.

Rodney, are you thinking of the Shiori Ito case?

So they only want to criminalize sex with children under 16? How about criminalizing sex with children in general?

Japan to signal illegality of nonconsensual sex in crime rename

Just read the title. It's classic japanese gobbledygook doublespeak.

It's neither this nor that, but this and that.

It boils down to japanese tribal affiliations.

True, that.

So they only want to criminalize sex with children under 16? How about criminalizing sex with children in general?

16 is a pretty common age of consent around the world. I presume you mean 18, but that's rare outside of Africa and islamic countries

Well, from now on, one hase to record the consent on video as audio recording might not be enough before having sex.

All over the world, any form of sexual activity by a person of any age with a person of any age is called rape. Why?

Why is Japan having a problem with the above statement ?

PS: With or without concent...!

PPS: I mean WITHOUT concent....!

PPS : Consent

PaulFeb. 25 09:37 pm JST

Well, from now on, one hase to record the consent on video as audio recording might not be enough before having sex.

I suggest that if you are unsure whether your partner wants to have sex, then you refrain from having sex. Pretty simple.

BroncoToday 08:20 am JST

Even if her yes changes to an "I wasn't 100% into it" the next morning or a few months later, that will be classified as rape.

As it should be.

I would ask you, if she isn't 100% into it, why would you want to continue?

And if you aren't sure whether she is 100% into it, why would you continue without trying to find out?

I'm sure no one wants to unknowingly make sex a horrible experience for their partner. The best way to avoid that is to have good communication between you. So if someone is unsure of how to communicate with a partner to make sure they are 100% into it, or does not feel comfortable with that kind of intimate discussion, then it is best to not have sex until you have gained that skill and know them well enough to feel comfortable talking about it.

This makes the dating ritual very awkward, legalistic and anything but romantic.

Sex is almost always awkward the first time, so I'd suggest you just lean into that. Have a sense of humor about it, admit the awkwardness exists, and embrace it. The awkwardness will soon disappear, and both of you will have warm memories that you can later joke about. You can form a greater sense of intimacy by a shared awkward experience. There is nothing more romantic than a deeply shared sense of intimacy.

And which is better: a little awkwardness, or finding out later that she experienced the sex as rape?

BroncoToday  08:20 am JST

Even if her yes changes to an "I wasn't 100% into it" the next morning or a few months later, that will be classified as rape.

This makes the dating ritual very awkward, legalistic and anything but romantic.

Yes, because your perceived sense of romance is far more important than having a clear understanding as to whether or not the other person truly wants to have sex with you.

All those people in support of this law , if you or the government can not provide a clear criteria or a clear description of “100% into it” then this law is unrealistic and impractical.

First, research has shown that peoples recollection of details and facts can change over time. Research also shows that the human brain can also create false memories. Third, people can also be influenced to make false statements due to pressure (false confessions).

Finally, people engage in activities that they are not “100% into” all the time like participating in events for their family or for work. People in committed relationships have sex where one person may not really be in the mood, but they participate because it results in maintaining the stability of the relationship. One may be tired from work or preoccupied with something else on their minds. Why is that not rape?

I am not always “100% into it” at work, but I go anyway.

Can I sue my company for abuse or slavery?

Rape is a crime and should be treated as such! However, it must identified properly not just based on how someone feels.

Well, from now on, one hase to record the consent on video as audio recording might not be enough before having sex.

It seems the young people may have a point in recording all of their sexual activities on their smart devices. If everybody wants fair and practical laws regarding sex then video recording all sexual activity between people would solve the problem. If a dispute or accusation comes up then the courts can refer to the tapes just like professional sports.

BroncoToday 12:43 pm JST

So if I have sex with my girlfriend and then the next day I go to the police and say...

"Actually, I never enthusiastically said yes and now I'm not feeling that I was 100% into it"

She should and would get arrested for rape?

If my girlfriend can't prove that I enthusiastically said yes, she is guilty.

That depends. Do you have a long-established relationship where there is a past history of mutual consent? Do you honestly feel your gf pushed past any previously-stated boundaries? Did your gf push past your no and have sex with you regardless of that clearly stated no? Do you honestly feeling she ignored your feelings? Do you feel violated? Did you truly experience that sex as rape? Then yes, she is guilty. What that might mean to the law depends a lot on the circumstances, but if you experienced it as rape, then it was rape no matter what the law may say.

However, I tend to think this little "thought experiment" is just you trying to pretend that you don't understand what consent means because you hate the idea that a woman might say no to you, and you pushing past her no so you can "get some" would get you in trouble. That makes me truly afraid for any women you have sex with, frankly.

Open-mindedToday 01:34 pm JST

All those people in support of this law , if you or the government can not provide a clear criteria or a clear description of “100% into it” then this law is unrealistic and impractical.

There is clear criteria, and it's not "100% into it". If you want to know what the criteria actually are, you can look them up. I would suggest doing so before stating they are impractical. How can you know that unless you have looked at them?

First, research has shown that peoples recollection of details and facts can change over time. Research also shows that the human brain can also create false memories. Third, people can also be influenced to make false statements due to pressure (false confessions).

So we should just doubt every single person who says they were raped because they might be misremembering or have false memories?

Finally, people engage in activities that they are not “100% into” all the time like participating in events for their family or for work.

You did not just compare being forced or pressured into sex you don't want with having to attend a family dinner. What. the. everloving eff is wrong with you? I'm going out on a limb and assuming that you've never been sexually assaulted, or else you'd never make this kind of comparison. And this type of comment is exactly why I think men should refrain from talking about rape as if they understand it. Clearly, you have no clue.

People in committed relationships have sex where one person may not really be in the mood, but they participate because it results in maintaining the stability of the relationship. One may be tired from work or preoccupied with something else on their minds. Why is that not rape?

People in committed relationships also know one another well enough and have a long-established pattern where they can communicate without needing to be so explicit. And maintenance sex is where one person is less enthusiastic but willing - it's the "willing" part that makes it not rape.

However, it must identified properly not just based on how someone feels.

The law has very clear criteria for what defines rape and that is what prosecution is based on.

However, you don't get to dictate to someone who experienced sex as rape as being somehow wrong. If the person experienced it as rape, it WAS rape. Just because it may not get prosecuted as rape or defined by the law as rape doesn't make it not rape. The feeling is exactly what makes it rape.

Bronco

"Did your gf push past your no and have sex with you regardless of that clearly stated no?"

I didn't say no... but I didn't say yes either.

So how does she prove to the court that I gave "enthusiastic consent"?

If I merely state "I wasn't 100% into it and I never said yes or no, I was silent"

Then she is guilty of rape.

Then, the best course of action would be to never have sex with someone unless they clearly state their desire to do so. It ain't rocket science. (unless you were having sex in a space ship.)

@Girl in tokyo

So……you believe men should not be in this conversation?

Can men not be raped?

Only rape victims should be be apart of the conversation? Not experts?

So when you say,

all people know….

Do all people really know?

Do you expect everyone to think the same?

Does that really seem like a “practical approach” to writing and applying laws?

Have you ever heard or witnessed a lawyer when an argument court with “all people know”?

Didn’t Amber Heard attempt that same type of argument in her recent court case against Johnny Depp?

If a person accused of rape used that same “all people know” argument, would you believe them?

At this point, your lawyering skills is not much to be desired!

@Girl in Japan

You failed to refute any real logical arguments and went directly into ad hominems! A clear sign you do not really know what you are talking about. You have provided no details or any logical arguments. Your arguments seem logical to the uniformed and the bias because you have been refuting strawman arguments.

Not one person on this thread has defended rape!

The feeling is exactly what makes it rape.

Do you realize that you just said that feelings = reality?

Does feeling a certain way automatically make true or mean that it really happened?

Care to explain and back that up?

How does that work for people who have been medically diagnosised with mental illnesses?

Or are you just confused and meant to say that feelings are always valid and are worth investigating; however, valid feelings does not necessarily mean something is true?

Therefore, feeling raped does not necessarily mean rape actually happened!

girl_in_tokyoToday  07:05 am JST

I suggest that if you are unsure whether your partner wants to have sex, then you refrain from having sex. Pretty simple.

Adults can make their own decisions. If someone isn't sure if they want to have sex with their partner then they should make it clear beforehand.

Girl_in_Tokyo

There is clear criteria, and it's not "100% into it". If you want to know what the criteria actually are, you can look them up. I would suggest doing so before stating they are impractical. How can you know that unless you have looked at them?

The previous poster did not call it impractical.

Open-minded wrote

> All those people in support of this law , if you or the government can not provide a clear criteria or a clear description of “100% into it” then this law is unrealistic and impractical.

Clearly, this poster was using a conditional statement. You chose to ignore that and changed the meaning to fit your narrative.

If you cannot honestly defend your points then you should not attempt to persuade others by misrepresenting other poster's arguments.

There seems to be a stake in this conversation that the girl-in-tokyo and other do not want to address. Just like victims of rape, people falsely accused of rape also deal with the longterm consequences of such accusations.

Laws should protect the innocent. Not just females but males alike!

The latest revisions will change the requirements to "making it difficult for the victim to form, express or fulfill the intention not to consent" and lists eight examples that would fall under the umbrella, such as drinking alcohol or taking drugs as well as abusing one's position of economic or social power.

They should be more specific with this. This will potentially kill the clubbing scene. In fact most people who frequent night clubs drink a little before going to a love hotel if they hit it off really well and decide to hook up after. And before anyone disagrees, c'mon now, we know how people are and can be. Most are wishy washy so to speak.

I've actually had sex with my partner even though I wasn't 100% into it at the time but I did it to appease my partner's desire and I felt an obligation as their partner to do that.

Kinda like massaging her feet sometimes. I don't necessarily want to do it but I do it because it's my obligation as her partner.

Because being giving someone a foot massage is just the same as being sexually penetrated against your will.

You are deliberately blurring what consent means and coming up with you own definition to mean that consent had to equal overt sexual passion on all occasions as a way to presumably justify having sex with people who aren't willing partners.