1y ago

Netherlands: 'Historic victory' as law amended to recognize that sex without consent is rape

www.amnesty.org 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definition of rape, Dagmar Oudshoorn, Director of Amnesty International Netherlands, said: “By amending our outdated law and recognizing that sex without co...

You're viewing a single thread.

22 comments

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.
  
  Oh don’t hold back. Let’s hear your valuable insights!
  
  False equivalence of men's and women's rights, plus a bunch of male incels screaming for equality. That comment screams All Lives Matter logic to me.
  
  I think this is a myopic view. The law in Netherlands used to require penetration to be considered rape, a definition that excludes the majority of male rape victims. It's a genuine concern that laws be gender neutral.
  
  My view was with regards to the intent behind the initial comment. As the person I replied to asked.
  
  Right, you assumed bad faith intentions based on zero context and made some pretty specific accusations. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about gender neutral rape laws, especially in Europe.
  
  But .. isn't that what the original poster did? They could have simply looked up whether it was gender neutral or write about why they think it is great that it is gender neutral. Instead they already doubted that it was, assuming bad faith from the start.
  Also, why is that a special problem in Europe? Or to what are you referring? In some countries, like UK, while it is not called rape sexual assault has the same maximum penalty (which is life in prison).
  
  Nobody says there aren't.
  
  No that’s pretty much exactly what you’re saying.
  
  You're saying that the other poster was not invoking any of those legitimate reasons. And you base that on... what exactly? His five other comments on Lemmy?
  Jumping straight to the most uncharitable interpretation of someone's intent is a bad habit.
  
  A guess based on experience with similar toned poster's across social media. Don't pretend a majority of dudes talking like that aren't just out for some sort of women-hating catharsis. Weeding them out isn't my job, it's the poster's to be aware of the reality of online human rights discussion before all-lives'ing their point of view. However annoyed my tone was their initial post was also in bad faith.

22 comments