This is an issue especially for some married couples. Unfortunately some think because they’re married there is no need for consent now, that’s not the case. More people need to realize this.
Unfortunately, it even used to be law and not just culture, that consent was not required within marriages.
It's been a long and uphill struggle but this seems like an important step.
I do find it frustrating that in these discussions, the assumption is often implicit that women are raped, and men are perpetrators. Which is extremely false and carries harms to men and boys who are victimized, or anyone including girls and women who are victimized by women. The MEP's could stand to use more broad wording here I think.
My question is why is this only being spelled out now? Hell, where and why did the contrary idea come from in the first place??? ~Strawberry
I don't think I understand what you mean. Are you asking about the origin of patriarchy and rape culture?
I guess so. But mainly why that's only being spelled out in law now rather than earlier. ~Strawberry
A mix between people actually wanting spousal rape to remain legal, people not giving a fuck about feeemale issues, people getting scared that "they can't even talk to women soon without getting arrested" and probably a few other reasons that range from dumb to malicious.
I agree that the wording isn't the best, as it does perpetuate the stereotypes you outlined, but at the same time the fact that it's so heavily reliant on consent will give male victims a better shot at actually being treated fairly as now they won't necessarily have to prove unwanted penetration happened.
For sure, improvements to law are likely to also benefit male-assigned victims. It's mostly the wording I have a problem with- Believing that they can do better.
This is an issue especially for some married couples. Unfortunately some think because they’re married there is no need for consent now, that’s not the case. More people need to realize this.
Unfortunately, it even used to be law and not just culture, that consent was not required within marriages.
It's been a long and uphill struggle but this seems like an important step.
I do find it frustrating that in these discussions, the assumption is often implicit that women are raped, and men are perpetrators. Which is extremely false and carries harms to men and boys who are victimized, or anyone including girls and women who are victimized by women. The MEP's could stand to use more broad wording here I think.
My question is why is this only being spelled out now? Hell, where and why did the contrary idea come from in the first place??? ~Strawberry
I don't think I understand what you mean. Are you asking about the origin of patriarchy and rape culture?
I guess so. But mainly why that's only being spelled out in law now rather than earlier. ~Strawberry
A mix between people actually wanting spousal rape to remain legal, people not giving a fuck about feeemale issues, people getting scared that "they can't even talk to women soon without getting arrested" and probably a few other reasons that range from dumb to malicious.
I agree that the wording isn't the best, as it does perpetuate the stereotypes you outlined, but at the same time the fact that it's so heavily reliant on consent will give male victims a better shot at actually being treated fairly as now they won't necessarily have to prove unwanted penetration happened.
For sure, improvements to law are likely to also benefit male-assigned victims. It's mostly the wording I have a problem with- Believing that they can do better.