This one, folks….this one was just too insane and terrifying to not blog about.
Last week in Sweden, a man was acquitted of rape charges after he claimed the woman’s insistent screams on “No!” didn’t actually mean she didn’t want to engage is sex with him. Let me repeat, just so the sheer, disgusting insanity can sink in for you. A man was acquitted of rape for forcing himself on a woman who he admits was screaming “No!” until she actually went hoarse from the effort. From the article:
“”I recognized the way she said no as a part of the sex; I recognized it from other girls,” the man said during questioning, the Metro newspaper reported.”
These two people had never met before the night in question. There wasn’t a pre-negotiated BDSM encounter with appropriate safe words. He simply claimed that she didn’t say “No.” in the right way, and that he knew this from “other girls”. He also admittedly “covered her nose and mouth so she couldn’t breathe and slapped her in the face”. Also from the article:
“But the man told the court that he was convinced the woman was into rough sex, saying he received “very clear signals” that she enjoyed what he was doing.”
Doesn’t that make you wonder how many other women this man might have raped under the guise of “well, I was convinced that she liked rough sex.”?
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m all in favor of whatever manner of kinky shit two (or three or four or a baker’s dozen) consenting adults decide they’d like to get up to in order to get their jollies, even if that includes pre-arranged and negotiated consensual non-consensuality. Your sexuality is your sexuality, and I’m in no place to judge what gets you off…so long as all the other parties involved are actually WILLING. But there’s zero indication that that is what’s going on here. Apparently in Sweden, you just need to “seem to like it”, even if you’re screaming “No!” loudly enough for the neighbors to hear (which is yet another disturbing fact from this case). That’s a pretty terrifyingly low standard for “consent.” The fact that the woman ran crying and barely clothed from the apartment as soon as she was able didn’t appear to mean much either.
In the end the judge in this case ruled that “it had not been proven that the 27-year-old had acted with intent to act against the woman’s wishes.” I’m really not sure how else this poor woman could have possibly expressed the notion that she did not want to engage in sex with this man. Do we need neon signs, a marching band, skywriter, and a national ad campaign to simply express our non-consent to sex? Is it really that difficult to grasp that a screamed “No!” actually means “No”, even in Swedish?