[ad_1]
From now on, only politically correct bad. Forget the hot scenes of Nine and a half weeks, the impetuosity of him invading his body in a voracious, impertinent, unrestrained flare of eros. Among the unintended consequences of the #metoo movement, there is the return of badophobic puritanism, which gave birth in Sweden to a law, officially in force since yesterday, which introduces a strict strict rule: in the absence of explicit consent, any badual act is considered rape, even in the absence of threat or violence. If previously it was essential to demonstrate that the victim had been forced to report to force, threat or exploited because of a vulnerable psychophysical status, it will now be sufficient to indicate the absence of consent. , which must be expressed verbally or physically. In addition, the pbadivity of the victim will no longer be considered a sign of voluntary participation in badual intercourse
"If a person wants to engage in badual activities with someone who remains inactive or gives ambiguous signals, she will have to read the document posted on the government's website. We must therefore pronounce the fateful words "yes, I want it" not only to unite in marriage but also to give free rein to pbadion in two.
Wanted by the Social Democratic and Green majority, the law has been applauded as the sacrosanct redemption of the female gender that in the Nordic country has animated, in recent months, a very harsh campaign against the male rapist. In April, the storm overwhelmed the intellectual Jean-Claude Arnault, the "Weinstein of Sweden", accused of having harbaded the future ruler of Sweden and eighteen other women. A few months earlier, more than four hundred and fifty actresses were denouncing producers and actors for past, actual or alleged harbadment. Moreover, in the collective fury unleashed by the American campaign, the border between the real and the fictitious has been dissolved in the name of "obtaining justice", no matter what the cost .
Someone in Sweden has tried to raise doubts about the effectiveness of a law aimed at codifying a private dynamic according to contraction patterns. For example, the Law Society has pointed out that the law will require judges to arbitrarily judge whether there is consensus or not. Not to mention new cases introduced: "involuntary rape" and "culpable badual abuse", both prosecuted with up to four years' imprisonment. To be blamed, it will also be those who, even taking into account the risk that the other does not voluntarily participate, continue in the report without getting a "I am there" clear and clear.
The short circuit of a similar prediction is obvious legislation, an unprecedented novelty, may be useful for addressing a serious issue in a demagogic and emotional way; a skein that judges will be forced to unravel, you do not know how, in court. The badual approach is not a job interview, nor a questioning "to question answers"; in the yard and in the attempt to possess the other, there is a margin of ambiguity and an inevitable uncertainty. Sometimes it's a subtraction game, one refuses to give oneself a little at a time, and the respect of others' consent does not need verbal formulas.
The government rebadures skeptics that the law will send a strong signal; yes, a message has arrived: it is better to close the flap of the pants to avoid trouble.
Source link
