Netherlands: 'Historic victory' as law amended to recognize that sex without consent is rape
Netherlands: 'Historic victory' as law amended to recognize that sex without consent is rape
Responding to the news that the Netherlands’ House of Representatives has voted to amend the Sexual Offences Act by introducing a consent-based definition of rape, Dagmar Oudshoorn, Director of Amnesty International Netherlands, said: “By amending our outdated law and recognizing that sex without co...
Great, as long as it’s written (and applied) in a gender neutral fashion.
It is, and that's not even hard to look up ...
What exactly is the goal of your comment?
I think we all know...
Edit:
I agree that my tone was off, and for that I apologise. I assumed a bad faith argument based on what feels like an endless string of self-proclaimed men's rights warriors, brought up with a warped sense of equality, people who can't seem to wrap their heads around the collosal gap in the size of the problem that women face and try to equivocate to distract from that, so they can "have their say". Your initial comment still reeks of that type of mentality however I look at it. The problem the article points to is overwhelmingly more important for women's health, according to rainn.org 90% of reported rape cases are against women. Saying "what about men!" every time rape is mentioned without acknowledging this gap feels disingenuous. I will also add this edit to my initial comment. I hope this logic may help you understand why what you said was perceived as problematic.
He wants rights for him/her/they/€§üê and his sheep/lamb
Unfortunately this wont change much. Rapes usually happen without any witnesses, so the rapist will just say that the victim consented. Thats generally the reason why rapes are hard to prove in court.
Laws typically fail to deal with any kind if grey area. Otherwise, it would be just as easy for someone to falsely claim rape and force punishment on someone who is innocent.
Granted, it is more likely that a claim is legitimate than not, but laws deal in absolute fairness, and absolutes fail when it boils down to two opposing arguments with no other evidence to back things up either way.