world

Spain to outlaw sex without explicit consent after outcry

70 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters Foundation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

70 Comments
Login to comment

To make it lawful -ensure that the consent is in writing,signed by both (?) parties and witnessed and signed by at least two people-one male and one female.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

OOoookaaaay: Well, Glad I ended up NOT going to Barcelona.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The headline just sounds odd. What they’ll get us sexual outlaws.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Make that “What they’ll get ARE sexual outlaws.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Does the man also have to give explicit consent, or just the women?

Of course.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Pretty soon just a bunch of brain dead humans walking around the planet too confused to be human and think for themselves.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It's weird that so many people have such an objection to confirming that the other person actually wants to have sex. What exactly is the problem?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

8T Pretty soon just a bunch of brain dead humans

The latest version of 'we're living in end times'. Imaginary demons like 'the deep state', 'globalists' replacing Satan. Something about the more things change...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I've no problem with the new law per se, but I think it'll lead to some misunderstandings.

What it will lead to is the trivialization and weaponization of sex against men. I sympathize with any one who is raped and the ruling in the gang-rape case in 2016 seems like a miscarriage of justice (although those in the court saw it differently). Barring the existence of eye witnesses and/or other compelling evidence it can be extremely difficult to tell if a sexual encounter was consensual or an assault, rape, of false accusation from an aggrieved lover. Sometimes the only way to prove anything one way or another is with video evidence. Like the police, maybe body cams are in order.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I am happy not to have lived in a country where asking consent is a love killer.

It is obvious to anyone watching videos of the sex offenders from Spain, confirmed by social network comments between them that something deeply wrong happened. No need to change law for rare and specific cases which are just against the spirit of law. The top court ruling in a country has its use and should apply to correct any such specific situation.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I am happy not to have lived in a country where asking consent is a love killer.

I thought this was about sex, not love.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's weird that so many people have such an objection to confirming that the other person actually wants to have sex. What exactly is the problem?

The problem is, that the only way to really prove Yes or No is a signed legally valid document before the act. Then you got the issue of dimished responsibility if, as often is, alcohol is involved. "I didn't know what I signed because I was drunk". What if somebody is coerced to sign a contract? How would you prove that? No is no, for sure, and coercion of any kind is wrong and should be a punishable offence. Most normal and consensual sexual encounters in the real world follow non verbal cues. To put complex emotions and human interaction into a rigid legal framework will just opens a can of (legal) worms. In the Spanish case it is clear cut. It is by any common sense definition gang rape. There is no grey zone there, if the women remained silent or not. The law is not the problem, the decision of the court is ludicrous. That is the core problem here, and that problem will still exist with written consent.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The problem is, that the only way to really prove Yes or No is a signed legally valid document before the act.

Whereas the good point is it will eliminate misunderstandings between parties who differed in whether they thought there was consent. By making it explicit, anyone who is not a rapist will stop if there is no consent, instead of potentially proceeding through a mistaken belief that there was consent.

This seems to be like a good step. Sure there will come times where consent existed, and one party claims there was not after the fact. But that is already the case anyways, this change in law will not affect that.

So what exactly is the problem with creating a situation that will remove the grey area, preventing "accidental" non-consensual sex, since it will not introduce a new problem that doesn't exist with the current framework?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I understand your argument. But I do not believe that a law will prevent "accidental" non-consensual sex. To prevent that, banning alcohol would be more effective. And it will certainly not prevent ludicrous decisions by judges or courts.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

seadog538Today 07:44 am JST

To make it lawful -ensure that the consent is in writing,signed by both (?) parties and witnessed and signed by at least two people-one male and one female.

And a government official.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when you can no longer have sex without having to ask for 'explicit consent' but i guess we men have only ourselves to blame.

Too many dogs, inconsiderate pigs etc out there have a strong sense of impunity. We all know/knew blokes who give zero F about anyone/anything and brag about it i.e "mate, she told me she didnt want to have sex but u know me never take no for an answer haha, I said ok last drink at mine then i'll drive you home. next thing you know... told her no sex no ride home haha, mate am tellin ya ..."

Tricking women into having sex, 'duping' them or whatever you want to call it ('rape by deception') can no longer be ignored and victims/potential victims (am thinking weaker, less assertive perhaps more naive, gullible etc women) should feel protected.

Still think that 'normal', reasonably sensitive blokes wont have to 'ask' for permission but it's about time pigs/predators are held accountable for their actions.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Still think that 'normal', reasonably sensitive blokes wont have to 'ask' for permission but it's about time pigs/predators are held accountable for their actions.

I completely agree. And if the Spanish court would have done its job, jailed those guys and thrown away the key, we wouldn't have this discussion. I resent the reaction/conclusion, that all men (or women) require legal proof, that they are not the same as those animals.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I am glad to see Spain wanting to do something about a problem, although I'm not certain about this implementation. There's room for abusing the law, and if rape and sexual assault is a big problem, it really is a cultural thing, and that's where you have to look. It will be interesting to see how this law will affect relations in the future.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Somethings are common sense, but need to be placed into Law, though how do you confirm that She / He said "Yes" ? You could end up with a spate in court of he said, she said (they said)... and it's left up to the Court to decide who's right and wrong, then upon what basis ?

Soon, I really would not be surprised to see a Government publish a proforma sex agreement form which needs to be signed by both parties and witness. countersigned by someone else...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Somethings are common sense, but need to be placed into Law, though how do you confirm that She / He said "Yes" ? You could end up with a spate in court of he said, she said (they said)... and it's left up to the Court to decide who's right and wrong, then upon what basis ?

We already have that. How will this law change that?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I guess part of the confusion for me is that I've always gotten explicit consent. That can range from 'is this ok?' with a shy girl, to some things that are a little too raunchy to put on a JT thread, with a girl who is a little more 'adventurous'. Never once has it broken the mood for me, nor has it been a problem.

The only objection I seem to be seeing so far is that it could result in a problem - one we already have. If people follow the rules of this law, it will reduce the incidents of he-said she-said, not increase them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Tricking women into having sex, 'duping' them or whatever you want to call it ('rape by deception') can no longer be ignored

Sometimes it's just a case of misunderstanding. He thinks she's into it, she's not but says nothing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Strangerland

The problem is, that “is this ok” or anything verbal or “adventurous” does not fly in a court of law. If you can’t prove, that it was explicitly and legally verfiiable consensual, you may be accused of rape.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Five men were cleared of gang-raping the 18-year-old woman during the 2016 festival and convicted of the lesser crime of sexual abuse, in part because the victim reportedly remained silent during the attack.

Maybe she was too terrified to cry out. It's horrific. What message does this send to victims of rape and sexual assault?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Somethings are common sense, but need to be placed into Law, though how do you confirm that She / He said "Yes" ? You could end up with a spate in court of he said, she said (they said)... and it's left up to the Court to decide who's right and wrong, then upon what basis ?

.

We already have that. How will this law change that?

Yeah, but how does this law add anything?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The problem is, that “is this ok” or anything verbal or “adventurous” does not fly in a court of law.

Um, when was that decided. How is 'yes' not explicit consent to 'is this ok', or [fill in dirty comment and response].

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Couples that are truly intimate and have mutual trust and understanding don't need to ask for legal consent every time they make love.

This law will make both of them criminals.

No it won't. It's only criminal if there was no consent. And if that happens, then yeah, the person who had sex with the other without their consent is guilty. Couples in a relationship are going to be pretty clear on where the consent lies, and if you aren't clear, then confirm it.

Once consent is granted, how long does it last?

5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours... the whole night?

It lasts until the point where there is no consent. If you are unclear on whether that point has been reached, then ask again.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yeah, but how does this law add anything?

In those situations where one partner thinks there is consent, and the other doesn't, this law adds confirmation to prevent misunderstandings. This clears it up for both parties as it makes it explicit instead of a guessing game. Currently, that point doesn't exist, and it ends up that sometimes people have sex with others, thinking it was ok, when it actually wasn't.

Imagine finding out that you had sex with someone that wasn't into it, and was just too scared/nervous/whatever to tell you. Wouldn't you feel really, really bad about that after the fact, even if you had no intention to cause harm? Or for that matter, particularly if you had no intent to cause harm. I feel bad after I've said something particularly nasty to people at times. I'd hate to find out that I DID something nasty to someone, simply because I misread their actions.

This is why I've always erred on the side of caution and confirmed that what I'm doing is ok. Because I'd rather deal with the slight discomfort of that (which, after doing it a few times I realized could made made downright fun, having her beg for it with some girls), than accidentally 'rape' a girl.

I still don't see why people think it's a big deal to confirm that it's ok. It's a couple of words that can clear up potential misunderstandings. I don't understand why some would prefer not to know.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

and if she does not say yes, it also means no

No, it doesn’t.

We’ve all slept with someone who didn’t utter some specific, “Yes, I agree to have sex with you” phrase, meaning we are all rapists who simply weren’t charged with rape by the victim. We need to have a better system than declaring all sex a crime and only going after the ones who are brought before the police.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Five men were cleared of gang-raping the 18-year-old woman during the 2016 festival and convicted of the lesser crime of sexual abuse, in part because the victim reportedly remained silent during the attack."

Reportedly remained silent. Or she could have been screaming for them to stop.

"and if she does not say yes, it also means no

"No, it doesn’t."

Um, maybe she was scared to death and was unable to make a sound. Ever think of that, Super?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sex Crime - 1984

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The law states that sex without an "explicit yes" is defined as rape.

No, that's not what it states.

I can assure you that when I have sex with my wife, and she doesn't explicitly consent, she is not going to go and have me arrested for rape, because she and I both know there is consent, even with it not being explicit. Calling that rape is not just ridiculous, it's incorrect, as there would be no rape. It never even gets to the point where it becomes a legal issue, because we both know there is consent between us.

The only time it becomes an issue is when one person wrongly assumes consent, when it doesn't actually exist. Which is why if you need to take the responsibility that if you sleep with someone and don't get their explicit consent, and they then say you didn't have it, it's your own fault for not confirming in the first place. With this attitude, a little whisper of 'is this ok?' in their ear is simply protecting yourself from future issues. And yes, I understand that sometimes people will lie after the fact, but that's the outlying exception, and a little confirmed consent will solve a lot of problems in a lot of situations.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The solution to whatever let these guy walk away isn't to make all sex illegal, which is the net effect of laws like this. By definition we are all rapists at some point, and that's not accurate.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The solution to whatever let these guy walk away isn't to make all sex illegal,

I agree

which is the net effect of laws like this. By definition we are all rapists at some point, and that's not accurate.

I'm just not seeing the negative in this specific law. I agree, there is a point where it goes far, but I don't think this law is that point. Assumption of non-consent seems to be a safer stance to prevent accidental rape, than assumed consent.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Predictably the lefties are all in favour of this absurd, unworkable, monstosity of a law. Anything that pushes the envelope under the guise of enlightened 'progressiveness' theyre simply incapable of saying no too.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I'm just not seeing the negative in this specific law.

It's characterizing a vast majority of conventual sex as technically rape, which isn't a workable solution.

I can assure you that when I have sex with my wife, and she doesn't explicitly consent, she is not going to go and have me arrested for rape, because she and I both know there is consent, even with it not being explicit. 

Right, but in court you are both guilty of rape, you're just not pressing charges against each other. In a weird way, that's how the law is designed to work. We're all techically rapists but the cops are only investigating if someone calls them.

I understand the desire to catch more true rapists, but in an effort to make that more likely were just calling everyone a criminal so once the act of sex is proven it becomes easier to convict.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Porn sets will soon have to employ a Sexual Compliance office to ensure that the porn actors ask for permission from the porn actresses before conducting any business.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How do you prove that consent was given by both parties? Without a written and signed contract with a witness it still comes down to he said- she said. And to think that this new law would have any impact on situations like the gang rape at the festival is wishful thinking.

The dangerous part about the whole idea of giving consent before hand is the signal given that once consent is obtained then sex is expected. It can be difficult enough for women who change their mind well into an intimate situation to de-escalate things. That gets a lot more problematic once the guy is given the explicit promise of sex. If things are kept up in the air until the very last moment both sides have a way out of the situation that saves face. It’s a bad idea to anger a 20 year old male who has been promised sex and at the very last moment denied it because the woman changed her mind. We are human but also animals with a lower level brain that is run by instincts developed over thousands of years of evolution.

At best having to give explicit consent can lead to relationship problems and distrust. At worst it could actually cause violence, assault, or even rape. The government is attempting to involve itself with peoples private emotions. That is a bad idea.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

in court you are both guilty of rape,

Why would we ever be in court when we both consent?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

in an effort to make that more likely were just calling everyone a criminal so once the act of sex is proven it becomes easier to convict.

There is a really easy way to make sure this doesn't happen - make sure there is consent.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Predictably the lefties are all in favour of this absurd, unworkable, monstosity of a law.

Um Superlib and I are both 'lefties', and we are not untied on this team. Are you not reading his posts? Or is it not clear whether or not the poster named Superlib is a leftie?

Porn sets will soon have to employ a Sexual Compliance office to ensure that the porn actors ask for permission from the porn actresses before conducting any business.

Porn already requires all sorts of forms declaring consent for each of the acts they do.

How do you prove that consent was given by both parties?

Why would you ever need to? If both parties consent, there would never be any reason for that consent to be questioned.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

But you still have broken the law, because you engaged in sex without explicitly receiving consent from your partner.

Um no. Please point out the specific part of the law we would be 'breaking'. It seems you are just making up things you are worried may happen, without understanding it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Burning Bush, exactly.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why would we ever be in court when we both consent?

Shame and regret after 'consenting' under the influence.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why would you ever need to? If both parties consent, there would never be any reason for that consent to be questioned.

Unless afterwards one side is regretful or ashamed of what they previously consented to and decide to press charges. Then it comes down to, did you verbally ascent to having sex? If the offender in this hypothetical court case says, “ Well no, we just did it”, that would not be considered explicit consent.

I am not suggesting that there would be an avalanche of such cases but it isn’t unheard of. In such a case someone could end up in jail and their life ruined. The standard of proof for establishing that a crime took place could end up being pretty low. We are seeing this already on college campuses. There have been several well publicized incidents in which the accused had a kangaroo court throw them out of school and put on public sex offender lists. Look up the Mattress Girl case as an example.

This is a really tough issue because there are not usually witnesses to what goes on in people’s bedrooms. Unless there is evidence of coercion, a crime cannot be definitively proven. Then it comes down to who is more believable. That in my mind doesn’t meet the standards of an unbiased criminal justice system.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Unless afterwards one side is regretful or ashamed of what they previously consented to and decide to press charges.

That can happen right now. One party just has to say 'I said no', and press charges. This law won't stop people from lying, but neither does the current law. So I'm not seeing how your example above has any relevance to whether or not this law is any good, as the situation is the same whether or not this law is in place.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Currently adults are not required to explicitly obtain a yes from the other party before making love.

The law essentially makes sex without two "yes' " being stated a criminal offence.

No it doesn't. It makes non-consensual sex an offense, with the onus being on both parties to confirm consent. If both parties consent, nothing illegal has happened.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The law essentially makes sex without two "yes' " being stated a criminal offence.

No. See above.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Just like if an adult were to have sex with a 10 year old and the 10 year old didn't press any charges. The state would press it's own charges.

It's not like that at all. The state can press charges of statutory rape because 10 year olds are unable to give consent. Adults can. It would go like this:

Police: Did (s)he rape you?

Questionee: No. I wanted it. Bad.

No case.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Once consent is granted, how long does it last?

5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours... the whole night?

Indeed. The duration will have to be stated clearly when requesting consent for each action that takes place.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yup, as Strangerland correctly pointed out, consent can be revoked any time with silence.

Not only did I not say that, it's patently incorrect.

Therefore, in the moment of silence following the "yes" you could be committing rape, because the other person may have mentally decided to revoke consent and you failed to ask to make sure.

Nope.

It's interesting to see so many guys who obviously are not good with people, much less women, freaking out about this law. Not all - some people have brought up some concerns about the idea of bringing in such a law at all due to the implications of it on a societal level, and this is something valid to be discussed. But I can see that the majority are freaking out that they may lose that defense of 'well she didn't say no'. I'd guess that at least some of them are worried they may never be able to have sex again where they can plausibly deny it was non-consensual.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Both parties just have to keep saying, "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes..." during sex in spain.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

problem solved!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland, nobodys freaking out - and your implication that those of us who see this law as patently absurd are "not good with women" is equally ridiculous.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Strangerland, nobodys freaking out - and your implication that those of us who see this law as patently absurd are "not good with women" is equally ridiculous.

Of course not everyone who is seeing the law that way is bad with women. That is what I was referring to when I said some people have brought up some concerns about the idea of bringing in such a law at all due to the implications of it on a societal level. But I'm very confident that some guys who are commenting on it are worried that they may have to re-think their approach in order to make sure the girl is actually into it. And I think there is a definite possibility that most guys commenting are freaking out. That's why they are just making things up about what this law will do, without actually knowing what they are talking about.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That can happen right now. One party just has to say 'I said no', and press charges. This law won't stop people from lying, but neither does the current law.

So by this logic, would not the explicit consent law be pointless? If it makes no difference because someone could lie anyway then it seems to me that the law is only meant to provide a new mechanism through which men can be convicted in the case of a he said she said criminal case.

Rape is by definition a crime of coercion. Making a new law like this just criminalizes sex. Even if you consent you can be technically in violation of the law. It’s ridiculous to think that even with this law in place that people will go through the motions of obtaining explicit consent. Also, law enforcement and prosecutors use any violation of law to get someone for a crime if they are intent on getting them. So in the course of investigating an unrelated matter they find out a suspect had sex with someone without obtaining explicit consent- boom - they make the arrest while they continue investigation a unrelated crime.

This kind of thought crime law is becoming prevalent on the Left and is a corruption of the justice system.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

CochiseJuly 21  09:51 am JST

Both parties just have to keep saying, "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes..." during sex in spain.

It’s that what often happens ... ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Phew. Just imagine if this was a bunch of men mansplaining what rape is.

Luckily, that doesn't happen here.

Phew.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites