Argumentationen kring samtyckesreglering i den svenska kontexten : en granskning av förarbetet till lagändringen 2013 (SOU 2010:71, Prop. 2012/13:111 och 2012/13:JuU20) utifrån olika feministiska perspektiv
(2014) MRSK30 20132Human Rights Studies
- Abstract
- The essay investigates the validity of the argumentation regarding the introduction of a rape law based on consent in Sweden, made in the preparatory work of the rape law reform from 1 July 2013 (SOU 2010:71, Prop. 2012/13:111 and 2012/13:juU20), from different feminist viewpoints. The essay does not cover sexual deeds committed against children. The validity of the argumentation is determined by answering what assumptions are made regarding sexuality, gender and consent and how these compare and contrast to feminist theories and thereafter by determining what definition of sexual integrity is constructed and how this definition compares to a feminist one. The results are that female sexuality is assumed to be passive and open.... (More)
- The essay investigates the validity of the argumentation regarding the introduction of a rape law based on consent in Sweden, made in the preparatory work of the rape law reform from 1 July 2013 (SOU 2010:71, Prop. 2012/13:111 and 2012/13:juU20), from different feminist viewpoints. The essay does not cover sexual deeds committed against children. The validity of the argumentation is determined by answering what assumptions are made regarding sexuality, gender and consent and how these compare and contrast to feminist theories and thereafter by determining what definition of sexual integrity is constructed and how this definition compares to a feminist one. The results are that female sexuality is assumed to be passive and open. Additionally, sexuality in general is assumed to be multifaceted and the assumption that consent is not “naturally” discussed before sexual intercourse is made. Consent is assumed to be something beyond the plaintiff’s violation and the defendant’s lack of action to confirm the presence of con-sent. Additionally, the existence of an “objective version” of a deed is assumed, and because of the requirement of intent this version is assumed to be the defendant’s. Sexual integrity is defined as the right to reject sexual advances/acts. The argumentation in SOU 2010:71 is found valid in relation to this definition, while the argumentation in Prop. 2012/13:111 and 2012/12:juU20 is not. In relation to the definition of sexual integrity as the right to be spared unwanted sexual advances/acts, the argumentation is found invalid for both. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4238998
- author
- Lindqvist, Emma LU
- supervisor
-
- Rouzbeh Parsi LU
- Karin Zackari LU
- organization
- course
- MRSK30 20132
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- sexuell integritet, samtycke, sexualbrott, Feminism, våldtäktslagstiftning, Sverige, Mänskliga rättigheter, Human rights
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4238998
- date added to LUP
- 2014-03-10 09:29:12
- date last changed
- 2014-09-04 08:27:40
@misc{4238998,
abstract = {{The essay investigates the validity of the argumentation regarding the introduction of a rape law based on consent in Sweden, made in the preparatory work of the rape law reform from 1 July 2013 (SOU 2010:71, Prop. 2012/13:111 and 2012/13:juU20), from different feminist viewpoints. The essay does not cover sexual deeds committed against children. The validity of the argumentation is determined by answering what assumptions are made regarding sexuality, gender and consent and how these compare and contrast to feminist theories and thereafter by determining what definition of sexual integrity is constructed and how this definition compares to a feminist one. The results are that female sexuality is assumed to be passive and open. Additionally, sexuality in general is assumed to be multifaceted and the assumption that consent is not “naturally” discussed before sexual intercourse is made. Consent is assumed to be something beyond the plaintiff’s violation and the defendant’s lack of action to confirm the presence of con-sent. Additionally, the existence of an “objective version” of a deed is assumed, and because of the requirement of intent this version is assumed to be the defendant’s. Sexual integrity is defined as the right to reject sexual advances/acts. The argumentation in SOU 2010:71 is found valid in relation to this definition, while the argumentation in Prop. 2012/13:111 and 2012/12:juU20 is not. In relation to the definition of sexual integrity as the right to be spared unwanted sexual advances/acts, the argumentation is found invalid for both.}},
author = {{Lindqvist, Emma}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Argumentationen kring samtyckesreglering i den svenska kontexten : en granskning av förarbetet till lagändringen 2013 (SOU 2010:71, Prop. 2012/13:111 och 2012/13:JuU20) utifrån olika feministiska perspektiv}},
year = {{2014}},
}