|Home » Learning Curve
Swedish Criminal Code: 'Rape Doesn't Have to be Unpleasant'
Caveats in the new law crafted by Claes Borgström and Marianne Ny.
STOCKHOLM/LONDON (Rixstep) — It's a flashback to Brad and Geena in Thelma and Louise: Brad explains that if conducted carefully, armed robbery doesn't have to be an unpleasant experience. For this is what lawmakers such as Claes Borgström and Marianne Ny have crafted into Sweden's new sex crime code, legislation that's more bizarre than ever.
But there are caveats.
As many have said over the past years, the Swedes made a mockery of the real crime of rape. Or put another way: they're equating a pat on the head with a punch in the face. Or even more correctly: they're saying that a pat on the head is a punch in the face - if jurists such as Claes Borgström and Marianne Ny are to decide.
Crazy Sweden. But perhaps even the Swedish lawmakers aren't that far gone yet? From today's Flashback:
Originally posted by Tulpanpernilla::
And here MN should close down the whole shit load because it's now widely known that one of the victims gleefully posed with her predator and in addition tweeted about having a party with him after the alleged rapes/molestation. It's a prosecutable breach of office by MN to not take the new information into account: as a start prosecutor, she's required to adhere to the Principle of Objectivity.
I've seen thoughts like this several times in this thread. People are of the opinion that a rape victim cannot beam with happiness together with the perp the immediate time after a supposed rape.
This is a misunderstanding due to the fact that the contents of the new sex crime code [where both Marianne Ny and Claes Borgström were contributors] is not yet widely known. According to the new code, a rape can be - but does not need to be - something the victim experiences as 'uncomfortable' - on the contrary: a rape can be something the victim enjoys very much!
What people normally regard as rape is something rather terrible. And the victim feels very bad afterwards.
But as Claes Borgström explained, today you have to be a jurist to know whether a rape has taken place. Both the perp and the victim can be unaware they've been involved in a rape. And the victim can beam with happiness and gleefully pose with the perp for a photo right after the rape.
This could have happened: the couple went to bed and had consensual sex and then rested, completely satisfied. The man can, after a while, have penetrated her again, she having dozed off a bit, and she would be full of joy again when she understood his desire for her was so strong, and she encouraged him to more sex until they were again satiated. And then the 'victim' lived in a rush of happiness for several days afterward until she was afflicted by jealousy when she found out that her lover had also had sex with other women he'd met.
A jealous woman wants revenge. And in these circumstances, a lawyer like Claes Borgström can be a big help. And he can tell her that inasmuch as the man penetrated her whilst she was asleep, without first obtaining her explicit consent, she had in fact been raped. The fact that she appreciated it and went on to have more consensual sex is of no consequence: Borgström can cite Swedish criminal code chapter 6, section 1, paragraph 2.
But the law also mentions specific limitations. One such limitation is that the act must be unacceptable. This can be interpreted to the man's advantage if one remembers the circumstances. Another limitation is that the law concerns the exploitation of someone who is asleep. But in the example above, the man has not exploited the fact the woman was asleep. The woman was available for sex all the time she was awake, so he cannot reasonably be regarded as having exploited the fact she was asleep. Exploitation in this context describes a man taking advantage of an opportunity to do something whilst the girl is asleep that he would have needed violence or threats to carry out if she'd been awake. A third limitation is that the law presupposes a 'violation'. And in the example above, the woman is never violated - not afterwards and certainly not when she dozes off. Violated is something she feels first when she realises, several days later, that she wasn't his only love.
All of which means that the mild-mannered Marianne Ny must be on a sex- and man-hating crusade and the devious Claes Borgström is as much an opportunist as ever.