Tell me about it. It's--in Swedish law, rape is defined as someone either by force or by threat penetrating someone against their will or making them do another sexual act that is comparable with penetrative sex. (I actually think, to my non-legal trained mind, that this case fits, because she did tell him to stop repeatedly and he kept going and that counts, based on precedent, as force.) Alternatively, it's defined as someone taking advantage of a victim's defenseless state (like being asleep or very very drunk) to do the same thing. This is why Amnesty issues complaints about our rape laws. This is also actually an improvement (ARGH), because it used to state that the victim had to be put in a defenseless state, which led to some enormously upsetting acquittals.
So, no, not consent-based. Which, argh. It makes me so mad. And yes, the act itself is of course an act of force--I feel like that kind of definition is part of what makes us think of real rapes as the really violent stranger-in-the-woods ones--and people say legal definitions don't impact our perceptions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-01-27 07:13 am (UTC)So, no, not consent-based. Which, argh. It makes me so mad. And yes, the act itself is of course an act of force--I feel like that kind of definition is part of what makes us think of real rapes as the really violent stranger-in-the-woods ones--and people say legal definitions don't impact our perceptions.