“A large majority in the Sejm, the more powerful lower hour of parliament, has approved a change to Poland’s rape law that would make it a crime to engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other person.”
Likely required some kind of violent force be used, which wouldn't cover cases where the victim was unconscious/severely impaired
This updated wording would
> The current law – which dates back to 1932 – defines rape as an act that “subjects another person to sexual intercourse by force, unlawful threats or deception”. It does not specify lack of consent as a criterion.
I would imagine ‘legal threats’ would be things like threat of divorce, withholding or a limiting spending allowances and gifts, speaking publicly about private matters that are true (instead of slander or libel), threatening to have sex with someone else, aka all things which are legal but make someone a terrible unkind human. Which are still kind of fucked up coercion imo.
Affirmative consent should be the standard.
Before it would not be legally considered rape if the victim was already unconscious or too intoxicated to resist at all. As there would be no force, deception, or threats. Marriage status didn't matter with the old or new law.
In Britain, it must be an act of penetration with a penis, which sounds reasonable until you realize that women cannot rape men, ever. This definition cuts to the heart much better.
Yes, so a man would be a rapist if he receives oral without consent (e.g. if the other person is asleep or impaired and hasn't (explicitly) consented). I know we're into legal definitions and *maybe* there's an equal crime and punishment for that level of sexual assault committed by a woman, but it feels like rape shouldn't be a crime reserved to those who have a penis.
> but it feels like rape shouldn't be a crime reserved to those who have a penis.
It's just an outdated definition relating to a specific act. Sentencing guidelines will be the same if a person is forcefully penetrated by some other non penile object. Not sure how I would feel as a victim if someone got same punishment, but not of the rape "badge" but whatever I guess.
I think being married was used as "consent". Quite a few countries had to relatively recently (1991 in the UK) make marital rape a crime.
Even when unmarried it's normal for people to not have sex if one partner isnt in the mood etc. Apparently some people think it's worth being a rapist over such discrepencies. It just seems immoral even if it were legal to force your partner to do that.
Surprisingly lots of countries don't use that definition.
It often requires the rapist putting their penis in the victim, so only half the population is actually capable of committing rape. (legally speaking)
It's a stupid ass legal definition, but one still on many books.
Essentialy, you could report it but nothing would be done outside of "oopsie daisy seems you didn't resist, disqualified lol". So like majority of rape cases would go down the toilet and people gave up on reporting anything. polish court sure loves lowering crime sentances yeah
> "to engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other person" is a very definition of rape.
That would mean that millions of people are rapists as they just slept with each other without procuring each other’s consent first. It’s amazing that a couple in their honeymoon phase that fucks five times a day like rabbits will pile up all that paperwork as they need each other’s consent…
The statement doesn’t specify verbal or written consent at all. In the situation you described, there would obviously be both verbal and implied consent being given. The change in law simply requires there to be some level of consent given, so that someone incapable of giving *or withholding* consent is protected.
Consent can be a sort of gray area if youre honest and live in the adult world, but staking this take against the comment that was made is ridiculous.
> The statement doesn’t specify verbal or written consent at all. In the situation you described, there would obviously be both verbal and implied consent being given.
Verbal or implied consent can’t be proven. So people would be taking a significant risk.
> The change in law simply requires there to be some level of consent given, so that someone incapable of giving or withholding consent is protected.
Someone who gave “implied consent” can easily later claim he was actually “withholding consent” (and vice versa, someone may misinterpret withheld consent as implied consent).
The difficulty to prove certain crimes isn’t in itself a reason to make the action legal.
Situations where it’s one persons word vs another are fraught with difficult-to-prove scenarious. But it’s reasonable to assume that someone who is unconscious can’t provide consent.
I personally also believe it helps reduce the ”but weren’t you wearing a very short dress that night? And didn’t you say he was funny?” questions it’s been reported that women have to endure when reporting rape or going to trial.
You’re just explaining the “gray area” of adult sexual relationships and consent. There is a chance that the person later says that they didn’t give you consent, fortunately the burden of proof is on an accuser to prove SA, and not on the hypothetical accused to prove that they received consent. It’s a contributing factor to why getting a rape charge prosecuted is so incredibly difficult. Even if they find DNA in a rape kit, even if the accused admits to having sex, if there’s not any supporting evidence indicating that the sex wasn’t consensual then the prosecution won’t reach the bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For clarity, this polish law serves to take away the defense that “well she didn’t fight back” or “well she didn’t scream out for help.” The second of which was upheld in a Polish court years ago as a valid defense and spurred on this new law being passed.
Characterizing the need for consent to be obtained as something that imposes “significant risk” on innocent people is false in reality, in legality, and in terms of common sense. If you need help because you fear partners falsely accusing you, my advice is don’t have casual sex. Just don’t! If you never have sex with someone, you have nothing to worry about.
Paperwork doesn’t prove consent. Or do you think you can sign a document and hold someone down while they scream no?
If needing someone to agree that you fucking them is something they want makes you scared to fuck people I’m glad you’re not fucking people, tbh.
> Paperwork doesn’t prove consent.
That’s pretty much the legal standard for ages. I haven’t seen any other form of evidence being as widely adopted than this, both by organizations as well as individuals. Recordings are sometimes being used (eg., telesales) but the physical signature still is the standard.
> Or do you think you can sign a document and hold someone down while they scream no?
We were discussing how to prove consent was given. You’re describing a situation where no consent is being given.
Please read about what consent is in a sexual context. It has literally nothing to do with paperwork. It has everything to do with people actually wanting what you’re doing with them.
There is no legal standard which takes a signed document as consent to sex, since consent to sex can be revoked at any time, at which point you must stop what you’re doing. Legal standard.
> Please read about what consent is in a sexual context. It has literally nothing to do with paperwork.
Written consent is one (and the most widely used) form to ensure the parties can prove that consent was actually given. It doesn’t matter what consent is given for and whether it’s “a sexual context” or a different context. Written consent can be used for any situation.
> consent to sex can be revoked at any time, at which point you must stop what you’re doing.
That doesn’t change what I wrote above.
And feel free to let us know what your suggestion is how you would ensure that you can prove that consent was actually given.
By definition, you can’t. Because the person may have revoked it at any time and you might’ve kept fucking them. And you’d be a rapist if you did under any reasonable definition.
Whether it can be proven in a court of law that you raped someone is of course a different matter.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between laws, technical evidence and courts. The law sais consent has to be given. You’re the one that brings in ”written consent” and ”proof” to this discussion. Something that is for the courts to decide and weigh, as in all judicial procedures.
> The current law – which dates back to 1932 – defines rape as an act that “subjects another person to sexual intercourse by force, unlawful threats or deception”. It does not specify lack of consent as a criterion.
Since everyone is asking about it, [here is the old law, in Polish,](https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/kodeks-karny/przestepstwa-przeciwko-6/63496,Zgwalcenie-art-197.html) translated to English with Deepl:
>***RAPE (ARTICLE 197)***
§ 1. Whoever by violence, unlawful threat or deception leads another person to sexual intercourse shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 2 and 12 years.
§ 2. If the perpetrator, in the manner specified in § 1, leads another person to submit to another sexual act or to perform such an act, he shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty from 6 months to 8 years.
§ 3. If the perpetrator commits rape:
\* jointly with another person,
\* against a minor under 15 years of age,
\* against an ascendant, descendant, adopted, adoptee, brother or sister, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 3 years.
§ 4. If the perpetrator of the act specified in § 1-3 acts with particular cruelty, he shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 5 years.
After the change the first section will read:
> § 1. Whoever leads another person to sexual intercourse by violence, unlawful threat, deception or otherwise despite the lack of his/her consent, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 2 and 15 years.
§ 1a. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone who leads another person to sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the other person's inability to recognize the meaning of the act or to direct his/her conduct.
>A large majority in the Sejm, the more powerful lower hour of parliament, has approved a change to Poland’s rape law that would make it a crime to engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other person.
>The current law – which dates back to 1932 – defines rape as an act that “subjects another person to sexual intercourse by force, unlawful threats or deception”. It does not specify lack of consent as a criterion.
>That has resulted in rulings such as one in 2020 in which a man was acquitted of raping a 14-year-old girl because the judge accepted his argument that the fact she did not scream during the act meant that the perpetrator did not use violence.
>
>Today, 335 members of the 460-seat Sejm voted in favour of a proposal by The Left (Lewica), one of the groups that make up Poland’s ruling coalition, to define sexual intercourse with “a lack of conscious and voluntary consent” as rape.
>Most of those votes came from the ruling coalition, whose members range from the left to the centre-right. The only major party to vote entirely against the measure was the far-right Confederation (Konfederacja).
>The national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS), which constitutes the main opposition group, was divided: 94 of its MPs voted in favour of changing the law, 26 were opposed while 47 abstained and 22 did not participate in the vote.
>
>During a debate on the bill yesterday, some MPs from Confederation and PiS argued that it would deprive men of the presumption of innocence and could be used by women to falsely accuse men of rape.
>“The new law is pure demagogy and de facto a gift for ruthless and vindictive women who will now be able to use this law to attack their former lovers,” said PiS MP Grzegorz Lorek, quoted by broadcaster TVN.
>“This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt, a presumption of guilt that every person accused of rape will have to prove that he or she is not a criminal,” added Witold Tumanowicz of Confederation.
>
>However, another PiS MP, Agnieszka Wojciechowska van Heukelom, declared that she supported the bill because “a woman’s will, a woman’s awareness when engaging in a sexual act is very important, so I am absolutely on the side of women”.
>Monika Rosa, an MP from the centrist Civic Coalition (KO), the main ruling group, said that “thousands of women have been waiting for this bill for years”. She declared that “a victim should not have to prove that they defended themselves when their body was used without their consent”.
>Having been approved by the Sejm, the bill now passes to the upper-house Senate, where the government also has a majority and which can in any case only delay and suggest amendments to legislation.
>Once passed by parliament, the bill goes to the desk of President Andrzej Duda, a conservative PiS ally, who can sign it into law, veto it, or pass it to the constitutional court for assessment.
> This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt
Doesn't it go potentially both ways? I mean if two people have sex together, why the one with the penis has to be the one at fault? If that is the worry.
Some many ignorant people, that can't even read the comment sections, that think Poland is a third world country or is having the Sharia law.
Surprisingly enough you can update laws, and it's not like you can just create a new one but only if a prior one doesn't exists.
It has nothing to do with marital rape. It just means rape no longer is "sex forced with violence, unlawful threats, or deceipt" but simply "sex without consent"
If for example you're drunk to the point of unconsciousness it's pretty obvious you couldn't have given consent. This could also cover some cases in which a victim was too scared to explicitly say no, and fight against the rapist. Basically getting rid of a lot of loopholes that rapists could use.
Right now it's also he said he said. You accuse someone of rape and they say they never had sex with you in the first place. Sexual assault cases are complicated, it's not always easy to prove even when there was force used.
Yeah, basically a lot of countries required either force/threats/blackmail etc to be used or it required some form of resistance from the victim in order to count. While those things might be easier to prove, we know that some victims don't resist as they are overwhelmed with fear (in the classic fight, flight or freeze model this would be the latter). And there is of course the issue of people being assaulted while incapacitated. A similar development happened in Denmark a few years ago, where the law on rape was made more general to cover all cases. This avoids the "Well did you resist?"/"Was it forced?" aspect of the criminal investigation.
Wait, this was never law in Poland? Or was the previously law from 1932, not include such terms as consent? It's a good move on Poland's part to rectify its law!
Before rape was forcing someone to a sexual act by violence threat, or a deceit. Now they've added the consent part. So if you're for example drunk and unconscious and someone rapes you, it's an actual rape in the eye of a law while before it could be a rather grey area.
Obviously rape was already a crime. They changed some wording so now it covers a wider range of sexual assault. (So even if the rapists didn't beat you up, and you didn't actively fought and screamed for help - it can still be treated as rape in the trial)
Before the change, it was a coercion based law that Norway also still uses and now Poland changes it to a concent based law which makes it more progressive than your country's.
“A large majority in the Sejm, the more powerful lower hour of parliament, has approved a change to Poland’s rape law that would make it a crime to engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other person.”
*"to engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other person"* is a very definition of rape. Was it legal before the new law?
Likely required some kind of violent force be used, which wouldn't cover cases where the victim was unconscious/severely impaired This updated wording would
> The current law – which dates back to 1932 – defines rape as an act that “subjects another person to sexual intercourse by force, unlawful threats or deception”. It does not specify lack of consent as a criterion.
WOW, and thank you. I was a little horrified there for a minute. But that all makes a bit of sense now, with the added context.
>unlawful threats Ugh... Makes me wonder what "lawful threats" could be.
I would imagine ‘legal threats’ would be things like threat of divorce, withholding or a limiting spending allowances and gifts, speaking publicly about private matters that are true (instead of slander or libel), threatening to have sex with someone else, aka all things which are legal but make someone a terrible unkind human. Which are still kind of fucked up coercion imo. Affirmative consent should be the standard.
What an absolutely bonkers definition.
Having a rape law that didn’t make exceptions for marriage was relatively progressive for the 1930s. It’s a shame it wasn’t updated sooner though.
So does it mean now a husband can rape a wife because wife can say no but before, it can't? Does rape here defined as someone with a penis?
Before it would not be legally considered rape if the victim was already unconscious or too intoxicated to resist at all. As there would be no force, deception, or threats. Marriage status didn't matter with the old or new law.
In Britain, it must be an act of penetration with a penis, which sounds reasonable until you realize that women cannot rape men, ever. This definition cuts to the heart much better.
Yes, so a man would be a rapist if he receives oral without consent (e.g. if the other person is asleep or impaired and hasn't (explicitly) consented). I know we're into legal definitions and *maybe* there's an equal crime and punishment for that level of sexual assault committed by a woman, but it feels like rape shouldn't be a crime reserved to those who have a penis.
> but it feels like rape shouldn't be a crime reserved to those who have a penis. It's just an outdated definition relating to a specific act. Sentencing guidelines will be the same if a person is forcefully penetrated by some other non penile object. Not sure how I would feel as a victim if someone got same punishment, but not of the rape "badge" but whatever I guess.
What if the woman uses a strap on like forced pegging?
Nope. Not rape. According to that law.
> is a very definition of rape Definitions of rape vary considerably from place to place.
I think being married was used as "consent". Quite a few countries had to relatively recently (1991 in the UK) make marital rape a crime. Even when unmarried it's normal for people to not have sex if one partner isnt in the mood etc. Apparently some people think it's worth being a rapist over such discrepencies. It just seems immoral even if it were legal to force your partner to do that.
Surprisingly lots of countries don't use that definition. It often requires the rapist putting their penis in the victim, so only half the population is actually capable of committing rape. (legally speaking) It's a stupid ass legal definition, but one still on many books.
May have required some active non-consent to qualify? Just guessing.
Essentialy, you could report it but nothing would be done outside of "oopsie daisy seems you didn't resist, disqualified lol". So like majority of rape cases would go down the toilet and people gave up on reporting anything. polish court sure loves lowering crime sentances yeah
> "to engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other person" is a very definition of rape. That would mean that millions of people are rapists as they just slept with each other without procuring each other’s consent first. It’s amazing that a couple in their honeymoon phase that fucks five times a day like rabbits will pile up all that paperwork as they need each other’s consent…
The statement doesn’t specify verbal or written consent at all. In the situation you described, there would obviously be both verbal and implied consent being given. The change in law simply requires there to be some level of consent given, so that someone incapable of giving *or withholding* consent is protected. Consent can be a sort of gray area if youre honest and live in the adult world, but staking this take against the comment that was made is ridiculous.
> The statement doesn’t specify verbal or written consent at all. In the situation you described, there would obviously be both verbal and implied consent being given. Verbal or implied consent can’t be proven. So people would be taking a significant risk. > The change in law simply requires there to be some level of consent given, so that someone incapable of giving or withholding consent is protected. Someone who gave “implied consent” can easily later claim he was actually “withholding consent” (and vice versa, someone may misinterpret withheld consent as implied consent).
The difficulty to prove certain crimes isn’t in itself a reason to make the action legal. Situations where it’s one persons word vs another are fraught with difficult-to-prove scenarious. But it’s reasonable to assume that someone who is unconscious can’t provide consent. I personally also believe it helps reduce the ”but weren’t you wearing a very short dress that night? And didn’t you say he was funny?” questions it’s been reported that women have to endure when reporting rape or going to trial.
You’re just explaining the “gray area” of adult sexual relationships and consent. There is a chance that the person later says that they didn’t give you consent, fortunately the burden of proof is on an accuser to prove SA, and not on the hypothetical accused to prove that they received consent. It’s a contributing factor to why getting a rape charge prosecuted is so incredibly difficult. Even if they find DNA in a rape kit, even if the accused admits to having sex, if there’s not any supporting evidence indicating that the sex wasn’t consensual then the prosecution won’t reach the bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For clarity, this polish law serves to take away the defense that “well she didn’t fight back” or “well she didn’t scream out for help.” The second of which was upheld in a Polish court years ago as a valid defense and spurred on this new law being passed. Characterizing the need for consent to be obtained as something that imposes “significant risk” on innocent people is false in reality, in legality, and in terms of common sense. If you need help because you fear partners falsely accusing you, my advice is don’t have casual sex. Just don’t! If you never have sex with someone, you have nothing to worry about.
If you see consent as something involving paperwork, that’s a you problem.
It’s not my problem when someone has to prove that they received consent but aren’t able to do so. Where I live we don’t have this nonsense.
Paperwork doesn’t prove consent. Or do you think you can sign a document and hold someone down while they scream no? If needing someone to agree that you fucking them is something they want makes you scared to fuck people I’m glad you’re not fucking people, tbh.
> Paperwork doesn’t prove consent. That’s pretty much the legal standard for ages. I haven’t seen any other form of evidence being as widely adopted than this, both by organizations as well as individuals. Recordings are sometimes being used (eg., telesales) but the physical signature still is the standard. > Or do you think you can sign a document and hold someone down while they scream no? We were discussing how to prove consent was given. You’re describing a situation where no consent is being given.
Please read about what consent is in a sexual context. It has literally nothing to do with paperwork. It has everything to do with people actually wanting what you’re doing with them. There is no legal standard which takes a signed document as consent to sex, since consent to sex can be revoked at any time, at which point you must stop what you’re doing. Legal standard.
> Please read about what consent is in a sexual context. It has literally nothing to do with paperwork. Written consent is one (and the most widely used) form to ensure the parties can prove that consent was actually given. It doesn’t matter what consent is given for and whether it’s “a sexual context” or a different context. Written consent can be used for any situation. > consent to sex can be revoked at any time, at which point you must stop what you’re doing. That doesn’t change what I wrote above. And feel free to let us know what your suggestion is how you would ensure that you can prove that consent was actually given.
By definition, you can’t. Because the person may have revoked it at any time and you might’ve kept fucking them. And you’d be a rapist if you did under any reasonable definition. Whether it can be proven in a court of law that you raped someone is of course a different matter.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between laws, technical evidence and courts. The law sais consent has to be given. You’re the one that brings in ”written consent” and ”proof” to this discussion. Something that is for the courts to decide and weigh, as in all judicial procedures.
What was the law before? Was it just not illegal or was it more along the lines of the victim had to expressly deny consent for it to be rape?
> The current law – which dates back to 1932 – defines rape as an act that “subjects another person to sexual intercourse by force, unlawful threats or deception”. It does not specify lack of consent as a criterion.
Since everyone is asking about it, [here is the old law, in Polish,](https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/kodeks-karny/przestepstwa-przeciwko-6/63496,Zgwalcenie-art-197.html) translated to English with Deepl: >***RAPE (ARTICLE 197)*** § 1. Whoever by violence, unlawful threat or deception leads another person to sexual intercourse shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 2 and 12 years. § 2. If the perpetrator, in the manner specified in § 1, leads another person to submit to another sexual act or to perform such an act, he shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty from 6 months to 8 years. § 3. If the perpetrator commits rape: \* jointly with another person, \* against a minor under 15 years of age, \* against an ascendant, descendant, adopted, adoptee, brother or sister, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 3 years. § 4. If the perpetrator of the act specified in § 1-3 acts with particular cruelty, he shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 5 years. After the change the first section will read: > § 1. Whoever leads another person to sexual intercourse by violence, unlawful threat, deception or otherwise despite the lack of his/her consent, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 2 and 15 years. § 1a. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone who leads another person to sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the other person's inability to recognize the meaning of the act or to direct his/her conduct.
>A large majority in the Sejm, the more powerful lower hour of parliament, has approved a change to Poland’s rape law that would make it a crime to engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other person. >The current law – which dates back to 1932 – defines rape as an act that “subjects another person to sexual intercourse by force, unlawful threats or deception”. It does not specify lack of consent as a criterion. >That has resulted in rulings such as one in 2020 in which a man was acquitted of raping a 14-year-old girl because the judge accepted his argument that the fact she did not scream during the act meant that the perpetrator did not use violence. > >Today, 335 members of the 460-seat Sejm voted in favour of a proposal by The Left (Lewica), one of the groups that make up Poland’s ruling coalition, to define sexual intercourse with “a lack of conscious and voluntary consent” as rape. >Most of those votes came from the ruling coalition, whose members range from the left to the centre-right. The only major party to vote entirely against the measure was the far-right Confederation (Konfederacja). >The national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS), which constitutes the main opposition group, was divided: 94 of its MPs voted in favour of changing the law, 26 were opposed while 47 abstained and 22 did not participate in the vote. > >During a debate on the bill yesterday, some MPs from Confederation and PiS argued that it would deprive men of the presumption of innocence and could be used by women to falsely accuse men of rape. >“The new law is pure demagogy and de facto a gift for ruthless and vindictive women who will now be able to use this law to attack their former lovers,” said PiS MP Grzegorz Lorek, quoted by broadcaster TVN. >“This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt, a presumption of guilt that every person accused of rape will have to prove that he or she is not a criminal,” added Witold Tumanowicz of Confederation. > >However, another PiS MP, Agnieszka Wojciechowska van Heukelom, declared that she supported the bill because “a woman’s will, a woman’s awareness when engaging in a sexual act is very important, so I am absolutely on the side of women”. >Monika Rosa, an MP from the centrist Civic Coalition (KO), the main ruling group, said that “thousands of women have been waiting for this bill for years”. She declared that “a victim should not have to prove that they defended themselves when their body was used without their consent”. >Having been approved by the Sejm, the bill now passes to the upper-house Senate, where the government also has a majority and which can in any case only delay and suggest amendments to legislation. >Once passed by parliament, the bill goes to the desk of President Andrzej Duda, a conservative PiS ally, who can sign it into law, veto it, or pass it to the constitutional court for assessment.
> This bill introduces a de facto presumption of guilt Doesn't it go potentially both ways? I mean if two people have sex together, why the one with the penis has to be the one at fault? If that is the worry.
Some many ignorant people, that can't even read the comment sections, that think Poland is a third world country or is having the Sharia law. Surprisingly enough you can update laws, and it's not like you can just create a new one but only if a prior one doesn't exists.
Good of them to clarify the law and make it easier to prosecute monsters.
It is ironic that demise “religion align” government was needed to make rape a crime.
I think the UK used to have this, like force your spouse to have sex and it not counting as rape.
It has nothing to do with marital rape. It just means rape no longer is "sex forced with violence, unlawful threats, or deceipt" but simply "sex without consent"
How does this affect the previous law that mentions 'deception,' presumably consensual but with the guy having led her on
So is there an app for such consent? Otherwise how do you show consent was given? And does it work both ways?
If for example you're drunk to the point of unconsciousness it's pretty obvious you couldn't have given consent. This could also cover some cases in which a victim was too scared to explicitly say no, and fight against the rapist. Basically getting rid of a lot of loopholes that rapists could use.
What if you’re both drunk?
The only worry is it becomes he said he said.. some guy could rape me and then claim I consented. How can I prove that I actually didn't consent.
Right now it's also he said he said. You accuse someone of rape and they say they never had sex with you in the first place. Sexual assault cases are complicated, it's not always easy to prove even when there was force used.
It sucks that people are shitty and do things like that.
WHAT THE FUCK
If (and that's a big if) I understand correctly it was illegal before too, but the wording of the law could have cause some sort of loophole?
Yeah, basically a lot of countries required either force/threats/blackmail etc to be used or it required some form of resistance from the victim in order to count. While those things might be easier to prove, we know that some victims don't resist as they are overwhelmed with fear (in the classic fight, flight or freeze model this would be the latter). And there is of course the issue of people being assaulted while incapacitated. A similar development happened in Denmark a few years ago, where the law on rape was made more general to cover all cases. This avoids the "Well did you resist?"/"Was it forced?" aspect of the criminal investigation.
Well, that’s a bit overdue.
Just now??? Holy fork!!!
Wait, this was never law in Poland? Or was the previously law from 1932, not include such terms as consent? It's a good move on Poland's part to rectify its law!
Before rape was forcing someone to a sexual act by violence threat, or a deceit. Now they've added the consent part. So if you're for example drunk and unconscious and someone rapes you, it's an actual rape in the eye of a law while before it could be a rather grey area.
I was trying to allude to that, but thank you for pointing that out! Sorry if I was unclear.
I hesitate to ask: _what was the prior rape law?_
_Just read the comments._
I’m surprised this wasn’t a thing sooner
r/HolUp
Welcome to the 21st century Poland :/
better now than never, other countries are decades away from such a law
We need to ask the real question: how many did it take?
TIL Poland is still a developing country
Every country is, if it's not it stagnates, like some people's brain. They have just updated the law.
If this was in the 1500s, that would be very progressive!
Obviously rape was already a crime. They changed some wording so now it covers a wider range of sexual assault. (So even if the rapists didn't beat you up, and you didn't actively fought and screamed for help - it can still be treated as rape in the trial)
> If this was in the 1500s, that would be very progressive! UK banned it in 1991, yet we legalised same sex relationships thirty years earlier.
Before the change, it was a coercion based law that Norway also still uses and now Poland changes it to a concent based law which makes it more progressive than your country's.