A compromise is in sight

class=”sc-97fd9fa8-0 jNFKxv”>

Saying no is not enough. Today, rape occurs when a woman is forced to have sex with physical or psychological violence. Male rape victims? Can’t even legally exist these days.

There is no doubt that the offense should be reformulated in a gender-neutral way. Likewise, physical or psychological violence should no longer be a precondition for the existence of a rape.

“Yes means yes” or “No means no”?

However, the National Council and the Council of States do not agree on whether the objection or consent solution should apply in the future. The consent solution – known as “yes means yes” – defines a sexual assault as a sexual act without a person’s consent. The contradiction solution, on the other hand, as a sexual act that someone does not say no to.

Surprisingly, in December, the National Council came out in favor of the more far-reaching “Yes is yes” rule – it was a lobbying success for organizations like Amnesty International, which have been fighting for the consent solution for years. For the Council of States, on the other hand, this regulation goes too far.

Councils of States reach a compromise

The small chamber’s legal committee is now proposing a compromise. They want to stick to the “No is no” rule, but with an addition: the so-called freezing, which is often observed in victims, should be explicitly stated in the law. This means: It is also punishable if a victim does not explicitly say no because he is in a state of shock.

The Council of States will probably agree to this proposal today – and then the National Council will probably agree to the compromise. For the supporters of the “yes is yes” solution, it would be a great success after years of struggle. However, it’s not exactly what they asked for. But much more than seemed realistic a few years ago.

Source:Blick