Iceland's new landmark law on consent

Outlaw Pete

The topic of just what it is should constitute sexual consent having been given (or not given) has come up on a quite few threads of late and so thought it might be interesting if it had a thread of it's own as it appears there is quite some disagreement on the issue, to say the least.

Seems many think that Iceland's new sexual consent laws would be the way to go, do you agree?

Iceland Unanimously Passes Landmark Law On Sexual Consent

Today, Iceland’s Parliament passed a law putting the onus of consent on being told “yes”; rather than not being told “no”.

It’s very seldom that Parliament passes a law with unanimous approval, but that rare event came up today, when Iceland’s legislature unanimously passed a new law (with one abstention) changing the legal framework for sexual consent.

In basic language, Icelandic law has shifted from asking a rape survivor “did you say no?” to asking an accused perpetrator “did they say yes?”

While it's obvious that consent is something someone should be able to withdraw at any stage and that just because they have given it at one point in time, doesn't mean they have at another (or vice versa) I do however think it's madness that it's been put into law that someone must have received a 'Yes' as that just ignores the reality of how sexual encounters generally play out between two (or more) people.

My view would be that assuming the person is not mentally impaired in some way, intoxicated to a degree which would make them legally incapable of giving consent, asleep or where violence (or threats of it) are a factor..... someone is conveying consent when they don't say 'No' (either verbally or through their body language). People can't be expected to be psychic.

What says you?

facehugger99

Yes means Yes.

somefeen

It gives more clarity.

Plenty of rape victims would probably say they were to afraid, unsure or whatever to actually say no.

Yeah its a bit weird to be asking "can I touch your arse?" but if you've any bit of tact you'd manage without killing the mood.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

AudreyHepburn

It’s sounds very restrictive and open to abuse to me.

Men aren’t mind readers and it’s certainly not true that a woman doesn’t say the word yes then she’s not consenting.

You can give consent without speaking ie by a smile or a nod or a touch or simply by actively participating in whatever is going on between the two of you.

jam_mac_jam

Seems quite sensible to me. so yes I would agree with it.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s sounds very restrictive and open to abuse to me.

Men aren’t mind readers and it’s certainly not true that a woman doesn’t say the word yes then she’s not consenting.

You can give consent without speaking ie by a smile or a nod or a touch or simply by actively participating in whatever is going on between the two of you.

I would have thought that precisely because men (and women!) are not mind readers, this law makes an awful lot of sense.
Too many people out there thinking a smile means consent.

Stonedpilot

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s sounds very restrictive and open to abuse to me.

Men aren’t mind readers and it’s certainly not true that a woman doesn’t say the word yes then she’s not consenting.

You can give consent without speaking ie by a smile or a nod or a touch or simply by actively participating in whatever is going on between the two of you.

True.Consent is expressed physically.

If two people are all over each undressing each other and the guy stops to look for a pen to fill in his state sanctioned consent form and ask for her signature


buzz kill.

hynesie08

somefeen wrote: »

It gives more clarity.

Plenty of rape victims would probably say they were to afraid, unsure or whatever to actually say no.

Yeah its a bit weird to be asking "can I touch your arse?" but if you've any bit of tact you'd manage without killing the mood.

But is it not gonna just change from "I didn't say no because" to "I only said yes because"

So nothing actually changes in the "victims" mind, except the chance of getting a conviction is even lower cause they said yes.

ebbsy

It's a 2 way street, men need to turn on their brains and women need to use their judgement on certain situations.

super_furry

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Men aren’t mind readers and it’s certainly not true that a woman doesn’t say the word yes then she’s not consenting.

You can give consent without speaking ie by a smile or a nod or a touch or simply by actively participating in whatever is going on between the two of you.

You can, but if you make it clear that it's now legally required to ask the question "do you want to have sex?" or some varient thereof, then it removes the uncertainty and protects you legally.

Might take some of the 'in the moment' passion out of things, but it could be worth it in the long run if everyone is certain where they stand.

It could also give both parties a chance to think is this definitely what they want right now?

If nothing else it’s a definite moment of crossing the thresehold and there’s no ambiguity there any longer after the question is asked and answered.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

I would have thought that precisely because men (and women!) are not mind readers, this law makes an awful lot of sense.
Too many people out there thinking a smile means consent.

There’s also too many people out there who think that there’s only consent given if the word yes is explicitly used. And the problem with this law is it plays into their hands and puts men in serious danger of being accused either falsely or mistakenly.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There’s also too many people out there who think that there’s only consent given if the word yes is explicitly used. And the problem with this law is it plays into their hands and puts men in serious danger of being accused either falsely or mistakenly.

How so? This law makes it quite clear that consent is in fact only given if both parties do say yes.
If one party proceeds without the "yes" from the other party, how would that be a false or mistaken accusation, should they be taken to court about it?

AudreyHepburn

super_furry wrote: »

You can, but if you make it clear that it's now legally required to ask the question "do you want to have sex?" or some varient thereof, then it removes the uncertainty and protects you legally.

Might take some of the 'in the moment' passion out of things, but it could be worth it in the long run if everyone is certain where they stand.

It could also give both parties a chance to think is this definitely what they want right now?

Ah come on now, a man shouldn’t have to stop and ask for permission like that for every step he takes with a woman. That’s just unfair and demeaning toward men.

Do we really believe men are so dangerous to women that they to be restricted in this way?

Anyone else think these these conversations make it sound like once the woman is ok with it, she turns into a sex doll for the man to use, but if he starts using her like a sex doll before she has given her consent to be one, it's rape?


Anyways, these laws can never capture what sexual participation is, which is a form of consent even more powerful than "yes", so they sound weird. A woman can say "yes" out of fear of something like the other person not liking them, but if she's actively undressing and getting heavy, it's obvious consent to the situation.

super_furry

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ah come on now, a man shouldn’t have to stop and ask for permission like that for every step he takes with a woman. That’s just unfair and demeaning toward men.

Do we really believe men are so dangerous to women that they to be restricted in this way?

It's not every step, it's one very significant step.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

How so? This law makes it quite clear that consent is in fact only given if both parties do say yes.
If one party proceeds without the "yes" from the other party, how would that be a false or mistaken accusation, should they be taken to court about it?

Because the consent could have been given another way, non verbally and if it did end up in a court case the woman would only need to say that it was a verbal yes for the man’s life to be ruined.

I just think this law is too open to abuse and mistakes.

somefeen

hynesie08 wrote: »

But is it not gonna just change from "I didn't say no because" to "I only said yes because"

So nothing actually changes in the "victims" mind, except the chance of getting a conviction is even lower cause they said yes.

Well no would surely still mean no, and its not consent if your giving it under duress.
I think I see what you mean though, it is almost the same thing but it still just puts the onus on both partners to receive a yes before doing anything rather than proceed until someone says no.

Maybe I'm a bit odd but I've always waited to hear a yes before doing anything sexual unless its someone I know well. It doesn't need to be mood killing.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s sounds very restrictive and open to abuse to me.

Men aren’t mind readers and it’s certainly not true that a woman doesn’t say the word yes then she’s not consenting.

You can give consent without speaking ie by a smile or a nod or a touch or simply by actively participating in whatever is going on between the two of you.

Sounds common sense but if the libtards have their way it will end up with having to get your solicitors to post a permission contract to the object of your desire.

Sleeper12

Don't. Stop. Can easily be heard as don't stop in the heat of moment

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because the consent could have been given another way, non verbally and if it did end up in a court case the woman would only need to say that it was a verbal yes for the man’s life to be ruined.

I just think this law is too open to abuse and mistakes.

As opposed to the law we currently have, where a jury needs to determine if the woman agreed or disagreed based on reported circumstances alone?
Really?

Stonedpilot

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sounds common sense but if the libtards have their way it will end up with having to get your solicitors to post a permission contract to the object of your desire.

Young lads going to consent classes signed contracts etc.

Seen Ritchie Sadlier gives "consent classes" to schoolboys, what did South Dublin schoolboys do to deserve such torture?!?.

Feminazi driven misandry thats whats up.

Cultural marxism at its best/worst.

super_furry

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Feminazi driven misandry thats whats up.

Cultural marxism at its best/worst.

Say SJW's and Libtard and you'll complete the alt-right walking cliche bingo award.

Edit - Oh hang on, you have a 'libtard' already in quotes, so it's just SJW's for the win.

somefeen

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Young lads going to consent classes signed contracts etc.

Seen Ritchie Sadlier gives "consent classes" to schoolboys, what did South Dublin schoolboys do to deserve such torture?!?.

Feminazi driven misandry thats whats up.

Cultural marxism at its best/worst.

Would you feel better if the classes were called "protecting yourself from false rape accusations" because you can see it that way to.

Skylinehead

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The topic of just what it is should constitute sexual consent having been given (or not given) has come up on a quite few threads of late

So lets have yet another! Yaaaay :rolleyes:

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

As opposed to the law we currently have, where a jury needs to determine if the woman agreed or disagreed based on reported circumstances alone?
Really?

A "yes" is a reported circumstance, is it not?

The point being made was that a woman could have perfectly consensual sex with a man, and retroactively decide that since she didn't say "yes", it was rape. With a "no" approach, the man can't be falsely accused based on a lack of a consent word.


I'm having trouble seeing how much this change in law would help in real rape cases. When a woman is unable to say "no", isn't she then protecting by other aspects of the law? Like being too drunk etc.

wexie

For a somewhat more mature response :

I think we need to stop legislating to the lowest common denominator and maybe put some effort into raising the lowest common denominator.

Teach people how to behave like responsible adults who don't act like dickheads.

The narrative that consent can only be given verbally and only by actually saying the word yes is complete nonsense.

But....fair play to the Icelandics for actually trying to make a change.

(What is the proper term? Icelanders? Icelandics? )

jam_mac_jam

To some degree I think it also protects men, if she says yes then you are clear on what is going on. I don't think that you have to stop and sign something but I really don't think its the end of the world if you have to ask explicitly instead of assuming.

Men who are in the situation of not being sure would then be sure. I think it would be harder to cry rape if it wasn't . I don't see the problem. But that probably makes me a Nazi or something.

hynesie08

somefeen wrote: »

Would you feel better if the classes were called "protecting yourself from false rape accusations" because you can see it that way to.

I have no problem with the idea of "consent classes" but I definitely think they should be part of a larger lifestyle module. Teach kids about rape, sex, drink, drugs, abortion, depression, mental health etc, have them open to everyone (parents included) and try to create an open dialogue.

dr.fuzzenstein

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s sounds very restrictive and open to abuse to me.

Men aren’t mind readers and it’s certainly not true that a woman doesn’t say the word yes then she’s not consenting.

You can give consent without speaking ie by a smile or a nod or a touch or simply by actively participating in whatever is going on between the two of you.

Well, one would have to assume that the other party will be common sense about it.
I don't think that they will keep a checklist of every single action and if the X beside "touch bum" is missing, that they will drag the other party to court to have them incarcerated for the rest of their life.

super_furry

wexie wrote: »

For a somewhat more mature response :

I think we need to stop legislating to the lowest common denominator and maybe put some effort into raising the lowest common denominator.

Teach people how to behave like responsible adults who don't act like dickheads.

Which would be the ideal but you see the reaction to even talking about ”teaching people how to behave like responsible adults” and you shake your head.

Even the concept that teenagers should be educated on what is consent is met with scorn and claims that they’re being tortured, along with the usual cries of "SJWs, Femazis, Cultural marxism".

Shenshen

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

To some degree I think it also protects men, if she says yes then you are clear on what is going on. I don't think that you have to stop and sign something but I really don't think its the end of the world if you have to ask explicitly instead of assuming.

Men who are in the situation of not being sure would then be sure. I don't see the problem. But that probably makes me a Nazi or something.

Of course it protects men, surely that's the point of it?
Or did I misunderstand something?

At the moment, from what I can tell, a woman simply not saying "no" can and does still lead to a full court case if she decided to accuse the man of rape afterwards.
Asking her to say "yes" is a good step towards ensuring that you WON'T get accused, surely?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

As opposed to the law we currently have, where a jury needs to determine if the woman agreed or disagreed based on reported circumstances alone?
Really?

Putting all the onus on men in these situations isn’t going to help resolve the issue.

There needs to an acknowledgment that all parties involved have responsibilities and things they can do to ensure the situation doesn’t go bad.

dotsman

Says "yes" to what? And how long does the "yes" apply for? Does the man also have to confirm his "yes" to the woman (or are we still pretending that, even with the recent and continuing changes to the definition of rape, that it is still only something men do to women)?

This is just the typical ridiculous feminist drivel. It lacks any logic and refuses to acknowledge basic human/natural instincts/behaviour.

super_furry

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Putting all the onus on men in these situations isn’t going to help resolve the issue.

There needs to an acknowledgment that all parties involved have responsibilities and things they can do to ensure the situation doesn’t go bad.

You know what one thing they can do to ensure the situation doesn't go bad? Ask the question 'do you want to have sex?' to ensure that there's consent.

wexie

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Putting all the onus on men in these situations isn’t going to help resolve the issue.

There needs to an acknowledgment that all parties involved have responsibilities and things they can do to ensure the situation doesn’t go bad.

That's all good and well for you to say Audrey....

If I said the same thing you know what the reaction would be

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Putting all the onus on men in these situations isn’t going to help resolve the issue.

There needs to an acknowledgment that all parties involved have responsibilities and things they can do to ensure the situation doesn’t go bad.

I didn't read where it said only the female partner needs to explicitly say yes, so I assumed it applies to both sides?

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

You know what one thing they can do to ensure the situation doesn't go bad? Ask the question 'do you want to have sex?' to ensure that there's consent.

After how many sexual encounters would this stop being a requirement with a person?

s7ryf3925pivug

At root this just seems to be forcing good manners on people, and some people seem upset by that.

Outlaw Pete

Stonedpilot wrote: »

If two people are all over each undressing each other and the guy stops to look for a pen to fill in his state sanctioned consent form and ask for her signature
buzz kill.

Absolutely and I remember in my late teens, early 20s being so cautious with girls, asking was this okay, and that okay, and they would invariably just either roll their eyes or say 'You've ruined it now' or something similar. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think someone should always assume that someone they're with would be up for anything sexual that they want to do to/with them (particularly if it would be the first time doing it) but straight forward sex often happens without any words being exchanged at all. It's called passion but some would have such sex labelled as rape and indeed now we have laws which support them.

AudreyHepburn

super_furry wrote: »

You know what one thing they can do to ensure the situation doesn't go bad? Ask the question 'do you want to have sex?' to ensure that there's consent.

That’s all well and good in theory but in practice intimacy doesn’t work like that. A lot of the time it’s spur of the moment and this law means that men are left very open to be wrongly or mistakenly accused of wrong doing because of that.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

I didn't read where it said only the female partner needs to explicitly say yes, so I assumed it applies to both sides?

I would like to think so but we all know that’s unlikely to be the case.

Sam Quentin

Even women must surely agree that lots of the 'small' print is sooooo stupid and awkward.
#PASSION KILLERS.

the_pen_turner

surely this only works if both parties are honest and trust each other.
it still boils down to his word against hers. if hse says yes and then later says she said no then what comeback is there.

its the same principle as a lock only keeps an honest person out.

Bryan Savory Blank

Bryan Savory Blank wrote: »

At root this just seems to be forcing good manners on people, and some people seem upset by that.

It's good manners to say no to a man rather than be raped by him without him knowing.

AudreyHepburn

wexie wrote: »

That's all good and well for you to say Audrey....

If I said the same thing you know what the reaction would be

I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not ....

super_furry

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That’s all well and good in theory but in practice intimacy doesn’t work like that. A lot of the time it’s spur of the moment and this law means that men are left very open to be wrongly or mistakenly accused of wrong doing because of that.

No more than they are now. The law puts the onus of consent on being told 'yes'; rather than not being told 'no' and if you're doing it right, 'yes' is a word that comes naturally during sex. At least good sex.

iguana

Will this reduce a degree of passion in some circumstances? Absolutely. But you know what, so do condoms. Stopping to get a condom and put it on is a bit less exciting than not bothering. But at some point in the 90s most people just got over that and condoms are pretty much the norm in casual encounters and at the beginning of most relationships. The protection gained by a condom far outweighs the brief loss in momentum that they cause. And the same will be true of this type of law.

dr.fuzzenstein

Shenshen wrote: »

Of course it protects men, surely that's the point of it?
Or did I misunderstand something?

At the moment, from what I can tell, a woman simply not saying "no" can and does still lead to a full court case if she decided to accuse the man of rape afterwards.
Asking her to say "yes" is a good step towards ensuring that you WON'T get accused, surely?

Ok, that would worry me a bit.
I ask "is it OK?"
She says "yes"
I'm still guilty?
I am onboard with the Icelandic model, but one would have to be an extremist feminist to say this somehow protects men.
This puts the onus in the man to prove she said yes, which is his word against hers anyway, but to somehow suggest that this is some sort of anti women, patriarchy protecting law is quite a far stretch.
You're suggesting that if a woman says yes, the man should know she meant no.
That is one step too far.