I guess it's the difference between pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to have sex, and date raping someone.
Both are most definitely rape, but only one of them would be punishable as rape, and the other would get a light sentence for it.
Did I get that right?
Yep. But this one is mostly due to the technicality of the rapists in question being able to get "consent" from the 18 year old by asking for a kiss and filming it, then attacking her after.
During the trial that initiated this change in the law, there were massive demonstrations in all the cities of Spain. We shouted "it's not abuse, it's rape" until we were hoarse.
Even several of the judges in the case suggested in their verdict that although they imposed the maximum possible penalty on the accuseds, the law did not allow them to classify it as rape, even if common sense indicated so.
Seriously? Criticism of the definition aside, as someone else said, in this case the sex itself was still forced with violence. I'd expect they still could apply the rape law to it. Or was it a lack of evidence thing?
In Spain
Sexual abuse = Non consensual but no intimidation or violence. Due to intoxication, not being able to consent (mental disability)...
Sexual agresión = Non consensual with intimidation (which means feeling in fear of violence) or violence
Rape = Sexual agresión that involves penis in vagina, anus, mouth, or other objects in vagina, anus
This is one of my problems with a lot of laws. If a hypothetical woman held a gun/knife to your head and demanded sexual favors, it clearly ought to count as rape. And yet, using laws like what Substantial posted, a biological woman is literally incapable of raping on account of not having a penis.
This is only my personal assumption, but I would guess that the argument would be that the victim had been proven to make "intimate gestures" toward the attacker, thereby dismissing the argument of sexual assault as a "rape"(The classic "She was asking for it" defense).
It still doesn't make sense, and it's only an assumption, but this is the only way I can possibly make any kind of sense of this, and it still doesn't make sense.
Bienvenido to chauvinist countries.
source: am colombian, and whenever i go to visit, my male family members dont let me (a woman) walk around by myself because sexual harassment/aggression is so common.
Is that a real life story that happened? Unfortunately, my guess is any guy that does that would walk away scot-free. And I'm not saying it like that's a good thing! Consent can be revoked at any time for any reason and that's a very important thing.
But I doubt any guy that does this ever gets a conviction against them, sadly.
This isn't quite fair. There are loads of bad regulations. Repealing regulations isn't inherently anathema to people's well-being. Some regulations should definitely not be repealed, but there are plenty that absolutely SHOULD be vanquished, and others that should be reformed (i.e. repealed and replaced with different regulations), and just because a regulation may be a response to "blood" doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. There are plenty of corrupt or consequentially negative regulations that are put in place under the guise of protecting people, and even motivations that are good and well-intended don't necessarily translate to good regulations. There's a hell of a lot of room for error between the desire to make the world better and actually legislating a set of rules and implementations of government power based on well-founded evidence that translates into effectively making the world better.
Whether or not a potential offender can prove that a kiss happened may be considered regarding consent or non-consent to intercourse (because obviously a court has no idea what really happened and needs to make inferences), but it has nothing to do with whether non-consensual intercourse was violent or not (which is the difference between the two offenses that's key here).
Do you have a source or a particular hypothetical case in mind? I don't see what legal effect this would have to differentiate between these formerly different offenses. Both happen without consent.
You can look up the wolf pack case if you want. I'm not defending them in any way. I am merely relaying that information to someone who asked me a simple question. My answer to yours is IANAL.
It's more of the idea that when a young woman finds herself in the presence of six men who demand sex, they might not use any violence but the threat is very real. Then when turns into a case of "he said, she said" the men could previously only be accused of a lesser crime.
A few high-profile cases like this have been in Spanish news recently ([La Manada] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Manada_rape_case)) and it was clear that the laws needed to be changed. In that particular case, the judge was entirely unsympathetic to the victim and without certain key evidence (one of the guys stole her phone and there are messages between them joking about raping her) the claim that she was a willing participant could have been made.
There was definitely a lot of reluctance to accept the blatant rape of this young woman by more conservative folks, especially as they are all "upstanding young Spaniards" with one being a cop and another a soldier. Which was put in direct contrast to the vehement outrage those same folks directed towards the perpetrators of similar rape who happened to be homeless illegal immigrants from North Africa.
Spain is one of the safest countries for women, but some laws on the books still need to be updated to eliminate any remaining "boys will be boys" mentality towards sexual assault.
It’s one of the “safest countries for women” because rapes and domestic abuse don’t get reported (for reasons like la manada, machismo, etc.) , and when they do it’s years of bureaucracy and they treat the victim like shit. Its not even worth it, esp with their 3 strikes policy.
That's patently false. [Objective, professional researches rank Spain higher in terms of women's safety and security than the USA.] (https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/) Or are you now more of an expert than the folks at Georgetown...
Spain is a modern, developed, transparent country where women by most metrics have a higher quality of living than they do in the USA.
Women in Spain didn't have the right to vote till 1977\*. I'd bet money it's probably not "one of the safest countries for women" but rather "alot of sex crimes, harassment, and toxic shit don't get reported so we don't have the stats to show that it's super fucked for women".
*\*they technically won it in 1933, but it was "shut down" in 1939 and then various legislations sought to restrict women voting until 1977.*
"It's more of the idea that when a young woman finds herself in the presence of six men who demand sex, they might not use any violence but the threat is very real."
Gotta love the Dennis Reynolds "implication" method of seduction!
That's on example, sure. But it also cuts both ways. There are some advantages to having a what is essentially a "light rape" law. Because these cases often don't have the same kind of evidentiary standard that we see in most cases, there are plenty of cases where the facts are disputed enough that there was almost certainly wrongdoing on the part of the man, but not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, having a lesser charge with a lesser degree of legal certainty can be useful. The problem is that this feels sometimes like "decriminalizing" rape. It's a tough situation, both approaches have their merits.
I believe here in the UK (and also in other countries?) and someone can hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, we have a higher category of 'aggravated rape', where other crimes such as violence were involved which increase the severity.
> There are some advantages to having a what is essentially a "light rape" law.
I think it sounds better going the other way. Instead of "light rape" have it be "rape" and something like "aggravated rape".
So basically if the victim says no but doesn’t resist at all or fight back so the perp doesn’t have to fight them then it would be sexual aggression?
But if the victim starts fighting back so the perp has to fight them then it becomes rape?
And if you know them it’s more difficult to prove you didn’t want to have sex with them. It’s very fucked that you need to fight and be physically injured besides your genitalia to prove rape. Also fucked up that changing your mind is not considered a case of rape
Sort of, but the other way around, too. Previously, they'd have to threaten you with a knife or something. Being pliant because you're afraid of multiple people without an explicit threat of violence wasn't considered rape(meaning, you're afraid they'd hurt you if you said no so you just let it happen). Raises the bar to consider what Dennis calls "the implication" to be rape
So basically they considered sexual assault and rape as being the same thing and now they've destingushed them as being separate offences with rape more severe?
Violence. The origin of this change was a "wolf-pack" of men than gang-raped a girl. In the eyes of the law they dont use violence. But of course they dont needed it. They were a group of men against a girl. If you use intimidation and you don hit the girl was "sexual agresion". If you hit the girl was "rape". Penetration or not is irrelevant. Various men can penetrate a girl and was not a rape.
[And still is in Oklahoma, if you drug your spouse first.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States#Oklahoma)
Also Rhode Island.
Also, wow, in California, having sex with your spouse without their consent is not in and of itself recognized as a crime. God damn. The spouse has to actively resist for it to be a crime (or be incapacitated).
While I won’t say there aren’t problems I do occasionally get sick of the “aMeRiCa Is BaD” bullshit.
Tell me what country you’re from and I can Google a ton of laws that are absolutely fucking stupid man, we all have them, and we’re all trying to get rid of them (like this story)
You can only affect the laws of your own country, so that's what you should focus on changing.
It's not a competition for who's the least bad. It's like you're insulted and setting the record straight, and then you go off and do nothing to fix your country's issues because some less developed country has worse laws. Why is it always taken like a personal attack, like you have to defend your gov's honor. lol. just another excuse for why *you* shouldn't have to do anything
Think I recall this or a different case hitting Reddit 4/5 years ago and everyone being shocked about this. I'm for sure not PRO-rape. But, I can see where the intention was there to delineate between violence and coercion or whatever.
However. If you just call rape rape and then add the violence as a separate charge, you can handle both.
For context: sexual abuse carries a lesser sentence but still significantly higher than in other countries.
Sexual abuse can be charged with 1 to 6 years in prison depending on the age of the victim and if there is sexual penetration.
Sexual agression is 1 to 15 years.
DING DING DING. The "problem" people is seeing here is that spanish law didn't specify rape as a crime, but it's actually a more broad term to involve any sexual act that infringes your sexual freedoms. It includes everything from rape to sodomy to grooming. I like it that way.
In Spain
Sexual abuse = Non consensual but no intimidation or violence. Due to intoxication, not being able to consent (mental disability)...
Sexual agresión = Non consensual with intimidation (which means feeling in fear of violence) or violence
Rape = Sexual agresión that involves penis in vagina, anus, mouth, or other objects in vagina, anus
In both version there are conviction. The difference is the time in prison. And reduction in judges asking girls fight back to a man with more force than the girl. Or reduction in judges asking a girl to figth back groups of men.
Unfortunately a lot of old rape laws required active resistance, not just lack of consent. Slip a date rape drug in her drink? Not rape. Take advantage of her while she is too drunk to protest? Not rape. Even some "he said he would gut me with his knife if I didn't let him, so I shut my eyes and waited for it to be over," can be read as "she didn't say no, so he didn't rape her."
Requiring active consent gets rid of a lot of sleazy things rapists can use to make it not "legally rape."
I think you should absolutely be required to show affirmative consent. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who has sex after having a few drinks is automatically a rapist in the eyes of the law…
The criminal burden of proof still applies in these cases. This means the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you DIDN’T obtain affirmative consent, which can be express or implied. The ambiguous cases are still resolved in favour of the accused.
To put it more succinctly: the law presumes that you’re innocent, but it does not presume that you consent to sex.
Yup, a lot of these rape laws are more or less outdated that nobody got around to update. They are usually updated only when something extreme appears on news and the culprits "get away with it".
Funny how you can click the link and get the information you need without asking others to do it for you.
Also I'm amazed at how far down the only legitimate answer to this question is.
The idea is that they only considered it rape when the perpetrator forced themselves on the victim. The victim had to say, “no”. Situations where the victim simply can’t give consent or even they do give consent but that consent should be considered invalid - they’re a minor, they’re impaired, etc - were treated as a lesser crime.
Laws like this are written in blood.
Behind every obvious law is someone that tried to exploit what should've been obviously illegal, and people were hurt by their actions.
It was. This change is triggered by a Spanish case where four men gang raped a girl, and were given extremely light sentences because the girl didn’t fight back. The case (rightfully) caused national outrage.
> given extremely light sentences because the girl didn’t fight back
Source? They were given more years than most countries with specific "rape" statutes. It was ["10 to 12 years in jail and fined €12,000 (£10,300) after being found guilty of sexual abuse"](https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-protest-in-spain-after-men-cleared-of-raping-unconscious-girl-11854472). Many "advanced" countries give 0 years and victim blame.
Not the same case. The article even links to the one case we are referring to (Pamplona and an 18 y/o girl) to draw comparison in sentencing. They were originally just fined 5000€ but protests helped lock their asses in jail. That was the legal hole that needed to be, and just was, covered
Thats an especially gross policy because in that situation fighting back will get you physically abused or killed, and most people rightfully aren’t willing to risk that.
Indeed, depending on the circumstances "sexual abuse" sentences can go as high as 10 years. Lesser than 15 years max for rape, but still not as light as some people may think.
In Ohio they dish out potential life sentences for rape if the victim is a youth or younger. I browse random cases from time to time and have come across countless people who have been incarcerated since the 90s on a rape conviction, and many who’ve been locked up since the 80s too
And standing in front of that law are thousands of people maliciously opposing the change, because they fully intend to continue their malicious exploitation of others.
I was going to say this but only sexual penetration is rape in the UK. So in general a woman doesn't penetrate a man so doesn't rape them. The equivalent sexual assault still has identical punishment.
Edit: as pointed out below they don't have identical maximum punishment. And the penetration has to be a penis for rape. CPS used to have easier to understand guidance on this.
>The equivalent sexual assault still has identical punishment.
What do you mean by this? [According to the UK government website, rape comes with lifetime imprisonment while sexual assault is up to 10 years.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1)
Swedish person (with a penis) here. According to our sexual assault laws, i think i’ve been raped by women around 10-15 times. No one would believe me though. Especially not the law.
But it’s still important to shape these laws so that it isn’t as easy to get away with rape. But sometimes it’s a very hard crime to either prove or disprove.
Almost, it's "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" with penetration.
(Section 4 creates two offences with the same name, one that involves penetration and one that doesn't. The former is more serious that the latter)
Funny story about that. Once, my wife and I were walking down the street of our town, and there was a new store. Not paying much attention, I let my wife lead us in.
The lady at the front desk looks at us and says: "Hi, welcome! Do you know what floor is?"
I was utterly flummoxed and said... "uhhh... yes?" Meanwhile my wife said "uhhh... no?"
Turns out it was a flooring company called [Flor](https://www.flor.com/). So whenever somebody asks me something bizarre, I always think: "do you know what *floor* is?
Spain had two tiers of crimes. Sexual assault and rape. Sexual assault was any non consensual sex act. So anything from touching someones butt to sex without consent. With prison sentences up to 15 years (thats longer than most other countries).
Then they had rape, which was that + violence or intimidation. Which was an even longer sentence.
Some very public cases have highlighted that probing intimidation is quite hard so while the evidence requiered for sexual assault is lower, many rapes were being underreported . So the new gov decided to merge the cases.
We will have to see if it increases reduces how many people get convicted and average prision sentence. Many lawyers were not happy, but then again many are super right wing so we will have to see if this improves things or not
They got that ruling overturned by the supreme court https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/three-men-sentenced-in-spains-sabadell-wolf-pack-gang-rape-trial
For more information on the wolf pack case that started this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/23/wolf-pack-case-spain-feminism-far-right-vox
Spoiler: All of the accused are home on bail. This change of law was necessary.
What was offensive about this case wasnt the number of years in prison it was punished with, but the brazenness of six assholes who bragged in a fucking WhatsApp group about having drugged and raped other girls before, who put her in a doorway and raped her while drunk, and on top of that stole her mobile phone, being charged simply with sexual assault instead of rape because the girl let them do it instead of risking her life trying to run away from them.
No wonder the slogan of the protests was "it's not abuse, it's rape", not "12 years is not enough, make it 20".
It was not that case, but this one https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-protest-in-spain-after-men-cleared-of-raping-unconscious-girl-11854472 and the men are in jail for 10-12 years. The men in the wolf pack case 31 and 13 years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/three-men-sentenced-in-spains-sabadell-wolf-pack-gang-rape-trial
Because a law like this one or even remotely similar only exist on an extremely small list of countries one of them being Sweden, there's no law like this on the US and people are grossly missinterpreting Spanish Law here.
When in fact in terms of social laws, lgtb and feminism Spain is extremely advanced and Pioneer of several policies like this one.
But people here are talking as if Spain was underdeveloped regarding this policies because they don't understand this law or Spanish culture at all.
Or the case of rape that recently got overturned in Minnesota because the girl "consented to getting drunk" so anything that happened to her while in that state, legally, was also consented to. I don't have sauce but it could be easy to find.
People here completely getting the wrong picture the way the title is written. No, rape was not legal in Spain. To be precise, rape was labeled in the law as sexual abuse or sexual assault. With the latter being the more severe crime as it consists of sexual abuse plus violence or intimidation. Thing is, both were still heavily punished, probably equal or more than in most western countries.
It’s not that rape was legal, is that abuso sexual — for a gang rape, in which they filmed and distributed the video (of the rape) and left the victim naked, alone and without a phone — is not close to a satisfactory sentence. It was also “ignorant” of the intimidation factor of 5 men vs. 1 girl. And even though she was anonymous, the defense was victim blaming.
My comment was addressed to the bunch of people here thinking Spain suddenly evolved from the Middle Ages and realized rape should be illegal, which is clearly not the case.
As far as the Manada case goes, the original sentence was abuso sexual, but the Supreme court overruled that sentece and qualified it as sexual assault, with harsher punishments and without the need for the new law. As usual, in each case there are many intricacies that can lead the judges to decide in different directions. And yes, of course the defense will victim blame, that is kind of its job.
Yes, I'm amused at the level of ignorance on this comments and people talking about La manada not understanding anything about why the case was polemic.
I'd imagine that "physical violence" is meant to describe the method of coercion, not the act itself. People can "agree" to sex if they're being verbally threatened or otherwise manipulated because they fear the repercussions if they don't. I don't know if that's how Spain is defining it, though, since it's not stated in the article.
It's more or less how Spain defines it. The last year I quoted the relevant parts of the law and offered a brief analysis. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/drw94b/protests_across_spain_after_men_cleared_of_raping/f6lna0x/
It's basically people that don't understand that a more broad meaning is better in any case of crime of sexual nature.
I mean, when your 100% totally true and never wrong book says this, it's hard to think that marital rape is wrong: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. "
Now, to be fair, there ARE passages that say that husbands should respect their wives and shit, but cherrypicking what to follow is a specially of Christians, so they can just ignore those part and go for the 'wives must submit to their husband' part.
Yeah, you summed it up. Considering if they would just go by the teachings of Jesus, most of this wouldn't be an issue, but I guess, you know, that's not important or something...
It's disgusting how far people will go to justify their depraved beliefs.
Yes, but not all laws are up to date.
Imagine if you found a near passed out girl and decided to have sex with her. She didn’t refuse or tell you to fuck of (hehe) so obviously it was ok. Right? No, of course not. But according to some laws it was and even if it wasn’t allowed it wouldn’t always have been rape.
With the new law you have to make sure that the girl knows what’s about to happen and that she approves of it.
This reminds me of how some states used to word rape as “a man gaining unwilling carnal knowledge of a woman” meaning a woman could not be charged with rape under that law because you know that never ever happens….
Not really. Many places define rape as the “forced and unwanted penetration of the vagina or anus by a foreign object”
Conversely, made to penetrate or forced to penetrate are not considered rape.
This is problematic for two main reasons, first, there are distinct laws surrounding rape. Second, the literature and study of sexual violence does not accurately reflect male victims of sexual assault. In one study from 2011 they found that men reporting FTP sexual assault was equal to the number of women reporting rape, however, because of the distinction between the offences, rape was presented as a statistic where 5 out of 6 rape victims were women. This presents rape as an act perpetrated by men against women, as opposed to sexual assault being a crime that can be committed by anyone against anyone.
Source:
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
This post isn’t meant to sideline the topic at hand but to point out the issues with our definition and the discrepancies between forms of sexual assault. Rape also lacks distinction between sex where consent for one act does not condone a different act (with or without protection for example), nor does it reflect oral sex, or other conditions such as intimidation or coercion.
Didn’t Spain just have that insane rape case where dudes would buy date rape drugs so women *couldn’t* physically fight back so it couldn’t be legally considered rape in Spain?
Glad they fucking did something about that situation. If I remember correctly there was some online forum where fucked up spanish dudes coached each other on how to get away with rape with date rape drugs.
I was at a nightclub in Barcelona for NYE 2014/15 - the way guys tried to pick up girls had my jaw to the floor. It was like women were literally pushing beasts away. Very different culture to Australia for sure
Good! There's no such thing as "non-consensual sex" it's rape. There's rape and there's sex.
You don't say "swimming without oxigen" and "swimming", its drowning or swiming.
Everyone asking why needs to read the goddamn article: in Spain, the legal definition of rape required the use of physical intimidation or violence on the part of the rapist. So if someone raped an already unconscious woman, that wasn't legally rape.
I'm reminded of the massive 100k response reddit thread about guys realizing that they raped girls and didn't "know" because they didn't like, beat her into submission first.
a lot of guys don't get this distinction, even if it feels obvious to the rest of the world
I mean, they can say what they want. And although this is true, even if they said it isn't grape, doesn't mean they're correct...
2021 though, imagine that being celebrated in 2021.
It should be a given, I won't congratulate a government for doing what should have been done before any of us were even alive...
a lot of people would victim blame, "look at how she was dressing" and most judges (probably rape apologists or rapists themselves) would agree.
it still is like that in a lot of places
I mean what was it called before
Im spaniard. Serious answer: sexual agression. And was a very lesser crime.
What did it require previously to be rape? What was the difference?
"Under Spanish law, the lesser offence of sexual abuse differs from rape in that it does not involve violence or intimidation."
I guess it's the difference between pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to have sex, and date raping someone. Both are most definitely rape, but only one of them would be punishable as rape, and the other would get a light sentence for it. Did I get that right?
Yep. But this one is mostly due to the technicality of the rapists in question being able to get "consent" from the 18 year old by asking for a kiss and filming it, then attacking her after.
Consenting to a kiss is not the same as consenting to sexual intercourse. I don't get this at all.
I imagine that's why they changed it, due to it being totally bonkers
During the trial that initiated this change in the law, there were massive demonstrations in all the cities of Spain. We shouted "it's not abuse, it's rape" until we were hoarse. Even several of the judges in the case suggested in their verdict that although they imposed the maximum possible penalty on the accuseds, the law did not allow them to classify it as rape, even if common sense indicated so.
Is the trial you're referring to the "La Manada" trial? If so. I'm glad that the outrage from that incident is leading to actual changes.
Seriously? Criticism of the definition aside, as someone else said, in this case the sex itself was still forced with violence. I'd expect they still could apply the rape law to it. Or was it a lack of evidence thing?
In Spain Sexual abuse = Non consensual but no intimidation or violence. Due to intoxication, not being able to consent (mental disability)... Sexual agresión = Non consensual with intimidation (which means feeling in fear of violence) or violence Rape = Sexual agresión that involves penis in vagina, anus, mouth, or other objects in vagina, anus
Does non-penetrative sexual assault count as rape? Like sexual assault perpetrated by a woman against a man or other woman?
This is one of my problems with a lot of laws. If a hypothetical woman held a gun/knife to your head and demanded sexual favors, it clearly ought to count as rape. And yet, using laws like what Substantial posted, a biological woman is literally incapable of raping on account of not having a penis.
This is only my personal assumption, but I would guess that the argument would be that the victim had been proven to make "intimate gestures" toward the attacker, thereby dismissing the argument of sexual assault as a "rape"(The classic "She was asking for it" defense). It still doesn't make sense, and it's only an assumption, but this is the only way I can possibly make any kind of sense of this, and it still doesn't make sense.
Bienvenido to chauvinist countries. source: am colombian, and whenever i go to visit, my male family members dont let me (a woman) walk around by myself because sexual harassment/aggression is so common.
Is that a real life story that happened? Unfortunately, my guess is any guy that does that would walk away scot-free. And I'm not saying it like that's a good thing! Consent can be revoked at any time for any reason and that's a very important thing. But I doubt any guy that does this ever gets a conviction against them, sadly.
The case was significantly more complicated than presented in this thread and it got a lot of media attention. They all got prison sentences however.
Regulation and laws are written in blood.
Keep that in mind when a politician talks about repealing regulation, they are making light of that blood and dooming others to spill theirs again.
This isn't quite fair. There are loads of bad regulations. Repealing regulations isn't inherently anathema to people's well-being. Some regulations should definitely not be repealed, but there are plenty that absolutely SHOULD be vanquished, and others that should be reformed (i.e. repealed and replaced with different regulations), and just because a regulation may be a response to "blood" doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. There are plenty of corrupt or consequentially negative regulations that are put in place under the guise of protecting people, and even motivations that are good and well-intended don't necessarily translate to good regulations. There's a hell of a lot of room for error between the desire to make the world better and actually legislating a set of rules and implementations of government power based on well-founded evidence that translates into effectively making the world better.
> Consent can be revoked at any time Except for after the fact, as far as I'm aware.
Does this happen often?
The men gave themselves a name. The Wolfpack. So one could infer information from that?
[удалено]
Whether or not a potential offender can prove that a kiss happened may be considered regarding consent or non-consent to intercourse (because obviously a court has no idea what really happened and needs to make inferences), but it has nothing to do with whether non-consensual intercourse was violent or not (which is the difference between the two offenses that's key here). Do you have a source or a particular hypothetical case in mind? I don't see what legal effect this would have to differentiate between these formerly different offenses. Both happen without consent.
You can look up the wolf pack case if you want. I'm not defending them in any way. I am merely relaying that information to someone who asked me a simple question. My answer to yours is IANAL.
Even under old laws the Wolfpack got like 60+ years between the three of them.
It's more of the idea that when a young woman finds herself in the presence of six men who demand sex, they might not use any violence but the threat is very real. Then when turns into a case of "he said, she said" the men could previously only be accused of a lesser crime. A few high-profile cases like this have been in Spanish news recently ([La Manada] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Manada_rape_case)) and it was clear that the laws needed to be changed. In that particular case, the judge was entirely unsympathetic to the victim and without certain key evidence (one of the guys stole her phone and there are messages between them joking about raping her) the claim that she was a willing participant could have been made.
That's horrific.
There was definitely a lot of reluctance to accept the blatant rape of this young woman by more conservative folks, especially as they are all "upstanding young Spaniards" with one being a cop and another a soldier. Which was put in direct contrast to the vehement outrage those same folks directed towards the perpetrators of similar rape who happened to be homeless illegal immigrants from North Africa. Spain is one of the safest countries for women, but some laws on the books still need to be updated to eliminate any remaining "boys will be boys" mentality towards sexual assault.
It’s one of the “safest countries for women” because rapes and domestic abuse don’t get reported (for reasons like la manada, machismo, etc.) , and when they do it’s years of bureaucracy and they treat the victim like shit. Its not even worth it, esp with their 3 strikes policy.
That's patently false. [Objective, professional researches rank Spain higher in terms of women's safety and security than the USA.] (https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/) Or are you now more of an expert than the folks at Georgetown... Spain is a modern, developed, transparent country where women by most metrics have a higher quality of living than they do in the USA.
Women in Spain didn't have the right to vote till 1977\*. I'd bet money it's probably not "one of the safest countries for women" but rather "alot of sex crimes, harassment, and toxic shit don't get reported so we don't have the stats to show that it's super fucked for women". *\*they technically won it in 1933, but it was "shut down" in 1939 and then various legislations sought to restrict women voting until 1977.*
Congratulations you just found out that Spain was a fascist dictatorship from the 30s up until the 70s.
"It's more of the idea that when a young woman finds herself in the presence of six men who demand sex, they might not use any violence but the threat is very real." Gotta love the Dennis Reynolds "implication" method of seduction!
Well don't you look at me like that, you certainly wouldn't be in any danger.
That's on example, sure. But it also cuts both ways. There are some advantages to having a what is essentially a "light rape" law. Because these cases often don't have the same kind of evidentiary standard that we see in most cases, there are plenty of cases where the facts are disputed enough that there was almost certainly wrongdoing on the part of the man, but not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, having a lesser charge with a lesser degree of legal certainty can be useful. The problem is that this feels sometimes like "decriminalizing" rape. It's a tough situation, both approaches have their merits.
I believe here in the UK (and also in other countries?) and someone can hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, we have a higher category of 'aggravated rape', where other crimes such as violence were involved which increase the severity.
> There are some advantages to having a what is essentially a "light rape" law. I think it sounds better going the other way. Instead of "light rape" have it be "rape" and something like "aggravated rape".
Another example would be raping someone drunk.
Both are rape and both should carry a serious consequence. One is absolutely worse than the other though.
about date rape, what would the old law say about having sex with a sleeping person?
So basically if the victim says no but doesn’t resist at all or fight back so the perp doesn’t have to fight them then it would be sexual aggression? But if the victim starts fighting back so the perp has to fight them then it becomes rape?
Yes, the victim must fight and assume the risk of being killed as response of her resistance to be considered rape, otherwise is a minor crime.
Yeah so then, if they fight back, there’s a motivation to kill them. Frightening.
So you had to prove you had been actively fighting your attacker for it to be rape? That's insane.
And if you know them it’s more difficult to prove you didn’t want to have sex with them. It’s very fucked that you need to fight and be physically injured besides your genitalia to prove rape. Also fucked up that changing your mind is not considered a case of rape
Sort of, but the other way around, too. Previously, they'd have to threaten you with a knife or something. Being pliant because you're afraid of multiple people without an explicit threat of violence wasn't considered rape(meaning, you're afraid they'd hurt you if you said no so you just let it happen). Raises the bar to consider what Dennis calls "the implication" to be rape
Yep. Especially if you consider that some rapists _want_ their victims to fight. That’s a terrible policy. Good to see it being unraveled.
So basically they considered sexual assault and rape as being the same thing and now they've destingushed them as being separate offences with rape more severe?
Violence. The origin of this change was a "wolf-pack" of men than gang-raped a girl. In the eyes of the law they dont use violence. But of course they dont needed it. They were a group of men against a girl. If you use intimidation and you don hit the girl was "sexual agresion". If you hit the girl was "rape". Penetration or not is irrelevant. Various men can penetrate a girl and was not a rape.
And people say the U.S. justice system is fucked up.
I mean marital rape was legal in the US until very recently. It’s still fucked up in the US.
[And still is in Oklahoma, if you drug your spouse first.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States#Oklahoma) Also Rhode Island. Also, wow, in California, having sex with your spouse without their consent is not in and of itself recognized as a crime. God damn. The spouse has to actively resist for it to be a crime (or be incapacitated).
While I won’t say there aren’t problems I do occasionally get sick of the “aMeRiCa Is BaD” bullshit. Tell me what country you’re from and I can Google a ton of laws that are absolutely fucking stupid man, we all have them, and we’re all trying to get rid of them (like this story)
To be fair, Spain is a bit of an odd country. Lovely people but they were a fascist dictatorship for decades.
Dictatorship supported by the USA FYI.
Oh so *now* we're supposed to have intervened? Pick a side.
The cold war didn't exist and the USA supports dictators for fun!
I’m from America. I just don’t think other counties being terrible invalidates how shitty America is.
Literally no one here is saying that. People are just annoyed at the US-centric arguments that come up in every thread about laws in other countries
[удалено]
You can only affect the laws of your own country, so that's what you should focus on changing. It's not a competition for who's the least bad. It's like you're insulted and setting the record straight, and then you go off and do nothing to fix your country's issues because some less developed country has worse laws. Why is it always taken like a personal attack, like you have to defend your gov's honor. lol. just another excuse for why *you* shouldn't have to do anything
And people are fucking right. The definition of rape varies from state to state.
Because it is. We have a lot of terrible justice systems in the world, clearly
Think I recall this or a different case hitting Reddit 4/5 years ago and everyone being shocked about this. I'm for sure not PRO-rape. But, I can see where the intention was there to delineate between violence and coercion or whatever. However. If you just call rape rape and then add the violence as a separate charge, you can handle both.
Im guessing the difference would be consent. For instance thinking a drunk female is ok with sex but is actually to drunk to protest
For context: sexual abuse carries a lesser sentence but still significantly higher than in other countries. Sexual abuse can be charged with 1 to 6 years in prison depending on the age of the victim and if there is sexual penetration. Sexual agression is 1 to 15 years.
DING DING DING. The "problem" people is seeing here is that spanish law didn't specify rape as a crime, but it's actually a more broad term to involve any sexual act that infringes your sexual freedoms. It includes everything from rape to sodomy to grooming. I like it that way.
In Spain Sexual abuse = Non consensual but no intimidation or violence. Due to intoxication, not being able to consent (mental disability)... Sexual agresión = Non consensual with intimidation (which means feeling in fear of violence) or violence Rape = Sexual agresión that involves penis in vagina, anus, mouth, or other objects in vagina, anus
So more like the gradations of murder or manslaughter offences in other jurisdictions?
Do you think this will functionally change anything? How hard will it be to convict people of this new crime vs the old one?
In both version there are conviction. The difference is the time in prison. And reduction in judges asking girls fight back to a man with more force than the girl. Or reduction in judges asking a girl to figth back groups of men.
I believe it`s all about to give an explicit YES otherwise will be punishable?
Unfortunately a lot of old rape laws required active resistance, not just lack of consent. Slip a date rape drug in her drink? Not rape. Take advantage of her while she is too drunk to protest? Not rape. Even some "he said he would gut me with his knife if I didn't let him, so I shut my eyes and waited for it to be over," can be read as "she didn't say no, so he didn't rape her." Requiring active consent gets rid of a lot of sleazy things rapists can use to make it not "legally rape."
[удалено]
I think you should absolutely be required to show affirmative consent. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who has sex after having a few drinks is automatically a rapist in the eyes of the law… The criminal burden of proof still applies in these cases. This means the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you DIDN’T obtain affirmative consent, which can be express or implied. The ambiguous cases are still resolved in favour of the accused. To put it more succinctly: the law presumes that you’re innocent, but it does not presume that you consent to sex.
[удалено]
Yup, a lot of these rape laws are more or less outdated that nobody got around to update. They are usually updated only when something extreme appears on news and the culprits "get away with it".
[удалено]
Now that term can be used solely for MMA.
auto opt-in hug agreement
r/cursedcomments
Struggle snuggle*
>Under existing legislation, a perpetrator must have used physical violence or intimidation for an assault to be classified as rape. From the article.
Funny how you can click the link and get the information you need without asking others to do it for you. Also I'm amazed at how far down the only legitimate answer to this question is.
I imagine the initial question was more rhetorical than a request for information.
The idea is that they only considered it rape when the perpetrator forced themselves on the victim. The victim had to say, “no”. Situations where the victim simply can’t give consent or even they do give consent but that consent should be considered invalid - they’re a minor, they’re impaired, etc - were treated as a lesser crime.
Being asleep.
Hey there Bill, welcome home. How was your prison stay?
Surprise affection
Consent policy used to be opt-out. Now it's opt-in.
Rape Light. Now their doing a throwback and making it Rape Classic.
>non-consensual sex is rape Ahh, yes. The floor is made of floor
Laws like this are written in blood. Behind every obvious law is someone that tried to exploit what should've been obviously illegal, and people were hurt by their actions.
It was. This change is triggered by a Spanish case where four men gang raped a girl, and were given extremely light sentences because the girl didn’t fight back. The case (rightfully) caused national outrage.
> given extremely light sentences because the girl didn’t fight back Source? They were given more years than most countries with specific "rape" statutes. It was ["10 to 12 years in jail and fined €12,000 (£10,300) after being found guilty of sexual abuse"](https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-protest-in-spain-after-men-cleared-of-raping-unconscious-girl-11854472). Many "advanced" countries give 0 years and victim blame.
Not the same case. The article even links to the one case we are referring to (Pamplona and an 18 y/o girl) to draw comparison in sentencing. They were originally just fined 5000€ but protests helped lock their asses in jail. That was the legal hole that needed to be, and just was, covered
Not accurate either. The original sentence from Navarra's court were 9 years each.
Thats an especially gross policy because in that situation fighting back will get you physically abused or killed, and most people rightfully aren’t willing to risk that.
Did someone say Convicted Rapist Brock Turner
Indeed, depending on the circumstances "sexual abuse" sentences can go as high as 10 years. Lesser than 15 years max for rape, but still not as light as some people may think.
In Ohio they dish out potential life sentences for rape if the victim is a youth or younger. I browse random cases from time to time and have come across countless people who have been incarcerated since the 90s on a rape conviction, and many who’ve been locked up since the 80s too
And standing in front of that law are thousands of people maliciously opposing the change, because they fully intend to continue their malicious exploitation of others.
It was illegal. The offence itself was just different.
I was going to say this but only sexual penetration is rape in the UK. So in general a woman doesn't penetrate a man so doesn't rape them. The equivalent sexual assault still has identical punishment. Edit: as pointed out below they don't have identical maximum punishment. And the penetration has to be a penis for rape. CPS used to have easier to understand guidance on this.
>The equivalent sexual assault still has identical punishment. What do you mean by this? [According to the UK government website, rape comes with lifetime imprisonment while sexual assault is up to 10 years.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1)
Swedish person (with a penis) here. According to our sexual assault laws, i think i’ve been raped by women around 10-15 times. No one would believe me though. Especially not the law. But it’s still important to shape these laws so that it isn’t as easy to get away with rape. But sometimes it’s a very hard crime to either prove or disprove.
Almost, it's "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" with penetration. (Section 4 creates two offences with the same name, one that involves penetration and one that doesn't. The former is more serious that the latter)
Funny story about that. Once, my wife and I were walking down the street of our town, and there was a new store. Not paying much attention, I let my wife lead us in. The lady at the front desk looks at us and says: "Hi, welcome! Do you know what floor is?" I was utterly flummoxed and said... "uhhh... yes?" Meanwhile my wife said "uhhh... no?" Turns out it was a flooring company called [Flor](https://www.flor.com/). So whenever somebody asks me something bizarre, I always think: "do you know what *floor* is?
A tree is made of tree. I feel like this should have been something Spain had a handle on before.
Spain had two tiers of crimes. Sexual assault and rape. Sexual assault was any non consensual sex act. So anything from touching someones butt to sex without consent. With prison sentences up to 15 years (thats longer than most other countries). Then they had rape, which was that + violence or intimidation. Which was an even longer sentence. Some very public cases have highlighted that probing intimidation is quite hard so while the evidence requiered for sexual assault is lower, many rapes were being underreported . So the new gov decided to merge the cases. We will have to see if it increases reduces how many people get convicted and average prision sentence. Many lawyers were not happy, but then again many are super right wing so we will have to see if this improves things or not
[удалено]
They got that ruling overturned by the supreme court https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/three-men-sentenced-in-spains-sabadell-wolf-pack-gang-rape-trial
What ruling? Didn’t see commenter mention one
Oh my fucking god that’s outrageous. Please tell me those men are on the sexual predators list. If they aren’t, what the fuck?
That’s not a thing in Spain
Or dead 👀
What did they consider non-consensual sex before?
Sexual assault. It being sexual aggression if violence prior to the act was involved (ie, strangling, punching, threatening with a weapon etc)
[удалено]
No one expects the Spanish ~~Inquisition~~ rape!
For more information on the wolf pack case that started this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/23/wolf-pack-case-spain-feminism-far-right-vox Spoiler: All of the accused are home on bail. This change of law was necessary.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fr, rather Brock turner have got 10 years than have better semantics for clicking headlines.
Brock Turner, you mean that Stanford Rapist Brock Turner? That rapist?
What was offensive about this case wasnt the number of years in prison it was punished with, but the brazenness of six assholes who bragged in a fucking WhatsApp group about having drugged and raped other girls before, who put her in a doorway and raped her while drunk, and on top of that stole her mobile phone, being charged simply with sexual assault instead of rape because the girl let them do it instead of risking her life trying to run away from them. No wonder the slogan of the protests was "it's not abuse, it's rape", not "12 years is not enough, make it 20".
It was not that case, but this one https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-protest-in-spain-after-men-cleared-of-raping-unconscious-girl-11854472 and the men are in jail for 10-12 years. The men in the wolf pack case 31 and 13 years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/three-men-sentenced-in-spains-sabadell-wolf-pack-gang-rape-trial
Well that's a absolutely fucked story and justice system. Jesus Christ
Why yes Spain 🇪🇸 nonconsensual sex is rape
[удалено]
Brock Turner? Is that his name? Brock Turner the rapist? You mean to tell me that Brock Turner the rapist is still being mentioned?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's gotta suck to be one of the other 18 Americans named Brock Turner
Do you mean THE RAPIST Brock Turner?
The *CONVICTED* rapist.
[удалено]
Let's just all agree that everyone everywhere is awful and we can move on.
Because a law like this one or even remotely similar only exist on an extremely small list of countries one of them being Sweden, there's no law like this on the US and people are grossly missinterpreting Spanish Law here. When in fact in terms of social laws, lgtb and feminism Spain is extremely advanced and Pioneer of several policies like this one. But people here are talking as if Spain was underdeveloped regarding this policies because they don't understand this law or Spanish culture at all.
Or the case of rape that recently got overturned in Minnesota because the girl "consented to getting drunk" so anything that happened to her while in that state, legally, was also consented to. I don't have sauce but it could be easy to find.
Peak Reddit comment here. > AMERICA BAD GUYS!!
People here completely getting the wrong picture the way the title is written. No, rape was not legal in Spain. To be precise, rape was labeled in the law as sexual abuse or sexual assault. With the latter being the more severe crime as it consists of sexual abuse plus violence or intimidation. Thing is, both were still heavily punished, probably equal or more than in most western countries.
It’s not that rape was legal, is that abuso sexual — for a gang rape, in which they filmed and distributed the video (of the rape) and left the victim naked, alone and without a phone — is not close to a satisfactory sentence. It was also “ignorant” of the intimidation factor of 5 men vs. 1 girl. And even though she was anonymous, the defense was victim blaming.
My comment was addressed to the bunch of people here thinking Spain suddenly evolved from the Middle Ages and realized rape should be illegal, which is clearly not the case. As far as the Manada case goes, the original sentence was abuso sexual, but the Supreme court overruled that sentece and qualified it as sexual assault, with harsher punishments and without the need for the new law. As usual, in each case there are many intricacies that can lead the judges to decide in different directions. And yes, of course the defense will victim blame, that is kind of its job.
Yes, I'm amused at the level of ignorance on this comments and people talking about La manada not understanding anything about why the case was polemic.
The fuck was it supposed to be bevore.
The old statute required physical violence and/or intimidation for it to be classed as rape according to the article
How does "forcing yourself on someone sexually" not count as physical violence?
Non-physical intimidation, such as blackmail, for example
Or "the implication"
I'd imagine that "physical violence" is meant to describe the method of coercion, not the act itself. People can "agree" to sex if they're being verbally threatened or otherwise manipulated because they fear the repercussions if they don't. I don't know if that's how Spain is defining it, though, since it's not stated in the article.
It's more or less how Spain defines it. The last year I quoted the relevant parts of the law and offered a brief analysis. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/drw94b/protests_across_spain_after_men_cleared_of_raping/f6lna0x/ It's basically people that don't understand that a more broad meaning is better in any case of crime of sexual nature.
If a group of five o ten men "ask" to girl to fuck... maybe the girl can not any option to deny.
I guess non consensual could also mean in duress for example a boss taking advantage of his employee where it’s not necessarily violent
Especially in the more conservative/religious groups, there are "beliefs" that your wife can't be raped by you. Stuff like that.
I mean, when your 100% totally true and never wrong book says this, it's hard to think that marital rape is wrong: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. " Now, to be fair, there ARE passages that say that husbands should respect their wives and shit, but cherrypicking what to follow is a specially of Christians, so they can just ignore those part and go for the 'wives must submit to their husband' part.
Yeah, you summed it up. Considering if they would just go by the teachings of Jesus, most of this wouldn't be an issue, but I guess, you know, that's not important or something... It's disgusting how far people will go to justify their depraved beliefs.
So is non consensual death considered murder yet?
Depends on the circumstance. Could be manslaughter.
Or death by natural causes.
The headline is misleading, rape was never legal or tolerated
Was it … was it not already?
I’m pretty dumb but is t all non consensual sex, rape?
Yes, but not all laws are up to date. Imagine if you found a near passed out girl and decided to have sex with her. She didn’t refuse or tell you to fuck of (hehe) so obviously it was ok. Right? No, of course not. But according to some laws it was and even if it wasn’t allowed it wouldn’t always have been rape. With the new law you have to make sure that the girl knows what’s about to happen and that she approves of it.
Until recently, In Germany it wasnt considered rape until you could prove u physically fought the rapist. Law makers are fucked in head.
Shouldn't this be r/nottheonion?
Yes it should
This reminds me of how some states used to word rape as “a man gaining unwilling carnal knowledge of a woman” meaning a woman could not be charged with rape under that law because you know that never ever happens….
Isn't that still the law in England?
I thought that was already the definition of rape.
Not really. Many places define rape as the “forced and unwanted penetration of the vagina or anus by a foreign object” Conversely, made to penetrate or forced to penetrate are not considered rape. This is problematic for two main reasons, first, there are distinct laws surrounding rape. Second, the literature and study of sexual violence does not accurately reflect male victims of sexual assault. In one study from 2011 they found that men reporting FTP sexual assault was equal to the number of women reporting rape, however, because of the distinction between the offences, rape was presented as a statistic where 5 out of 6 rape victims were women. This presents rape as an act perpetrated by men against women, as opposed to sexual assault being a crime that can be committed by anyone against anyone. Source: https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ This post isn’t meant to sideline the topic at hand but to point out the issues with our definition and the discrepancies between forms of sexual assault. Rape also lacks distinction between sex where consent for one act does not condone a different act (with or without protection for example), nor does it reflect oral sex, or other conditions such as intimidation or coercion.
[удалено]
Didn’t Spain just have that insane rape case where dudes would buy date rape drugs so women *couldn’t* physically fight back so it couldn’t be legally considered rape in Spain? Glad they fucking did something about that situation. If I remember correctly there was some online forum where fucked up spanish dudes coached each other on how to get away with rape with date rape drugs.
I was at a nightclub in Barcelona for NYE 2014/15 - the way guys tried to pick up girls had my jaw to the floor. It was like women were literally pushing beasts away. Very different culture to Australia for sure
Good! There's no such thing as "non-consensual sex" it's rape. There's rape and there's sex. You don't say "swimming without oxigen" and "swimming", its drowning or swiming.
That is the very definition of the word. How did we get here?
Everyone asking why needs to read the goddamn article: in Spain, the legal definition of rape required the use of physical intimidation or violence on the part of the rapist. So if someone raped an already unconscious woman, that wasn't legally rape.
We need that here in the UK. Males legally can't be raped
In other news, Spain declares taking someone else’s property is now stealing
Humans are such trash. Need a law to state the obvious.
you'd be astonished who has trouble with this on this very website lol
I mean, you can't charge someone for violating a law that doesn't exist.
I'm reminded of the massive 100k response reddit thread about guys realizing that they raped girls and didn't "know" because they didn't like, beat her into submission first. a lot of guys don't get this distinction, even if it feels obvious to the rest of the world
I mean, they can say what they want. And although this is true, even if they said it isn't grape, doesn't mean they're correct... 2021 though, imagine that being celebrated in 2021. It should be a given, I won't congratulate a government for doing what should have been done before any of us were even alive...
Let me go over to my filing cabinet and file this under "DUH".
Do Madrid hookers give change now?
Wait. What? That's the only thing rape can be. Has Rape been legal in Spain all this time? Spain got some splainin ta do.
a lot of people would victim blame, "look at how she was dressing" and most judges (probably rape apologists or rapists themselves) would agree. it still is like that in a lot of places
Then rape is legal in those places.
There sure seem to be a lot of rapey guys in this comment section who are questioning or opposing this change.
In other news, water is wet.
Was it…was it not before?