The Swedish Rape Law

An analysis of the Swedish rape law.

Penal Code, Chapter 6, Section 1

“A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.

This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.

If, in view of the circumstances associated with the crime, a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed for rape.

If a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered gross, a sentence to imprisonment for at least four and at most ten years shall be imposed for gross rape. In assessing whether the crime is gross, special consideration shall be given to whether the violence or threat was of a particularly serious nature or whether more than one person assaulted the victim or in any other way took part in the assault or whether the perpetrator having regard to the method used or otherwise exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality.” (Chapter 6 of the Swedish Penal Code 1962:700)


I will simplify the analysis by only considering a few cases, the cases where there is some kind of violence or a helpless state of sleep, and some kind of sexual act. This gives a matrix of four cases.

The violence necessary is stated like this “ett betvingande av den andres kroppsliga rörelsefrihet” (Prop 2004/05:45), which means you hold someone so that her possibilities to move freely is limited or move some part of her by force. It could be illegal even if she doesn’t resist.

The sexual act could be penetration of the womans vagina by the mans sex, which would give a normally aggravated crime, or that the mans genitals only touches the womans genitals, which would give a less aggravated crime (RH 2010:6).

The less aggravated crime would give a sentence of up to four years of prison. The normally aggravated crime would give a sentence of two to six years in prison.

In many cases word stands against word. In case the court has no reason not to believe the woman, it will (Newsmill:Pelle Billing). The more serious the abuse, the higher the compensation.


An example of a less aggravated crime is that the mans genitals touches the womans when she is asleep.

An example of a normally aggravated crime is that the mans sex penetrates a womans vagina when she is asleep.

An example of a less aggravated crime is that the mans genitals touches the womans when he is holding her in some way. She doesn’t have to resist.

An example of a normally aggravated crime is that the mans sex penetrates a womans vagina when he is holding her in some way. She doesn’t have to resist.


Touching the genitals of a woman that you are holding steady or who is asleep with your genitals can give up to four years in prison.

Having sex with a woman that you are holding steady or who is asleep when you start can give two to six years in prison.


As we can see the line between normal sex and rape is subtle or non-existent, the sentences are long, the compensations high and there doesn’t have to be any crime, it’s enough that the court believes the woman when she says there was one.

51 thoughts on “The Swedish Rape Law”

  1. Please replace every instance of “sex” where you mean “genitals” with the correct word for a less confusing read. Thank you in advance.

  2. Well, essentially, a rape crime is a crime against women’s (or men’s) reproductive rights, belonging to one of the human rights. Since human rights are supposed to be undeniable and universal, denying someone her, or his, human rights is a severe crime.
    Laws like these are in place to protect women, who already hold a lower position in society. There are even debates of whether women are seriously considered to be human or not as a consequence of women constantly being denied their human rights.
    Rape is also, in my opinion, one of the most severe violations to a person’s body, apart from the obvious taking someone’s life. That a woman (or man) should have to go through this traumatic violation and then have to sit through interrogations with police and judicial representants that doubt her (his) word is another violation. The amount of rape cases that never make it to the police every year is huge. Part of this has to do with the fact that most women are raped by someone they know: an uncle, a parent, a friend, a partner, a husband. (Rape of a wife by her husband is still legal in several countries and wasn’t made illegal in the UK until the late 90s.) Imagine sitting before a court testifying against someone you trusted and loved who violated you. I suspect filing the charges is hard enough, and if the court then is unlikely to believe you, what is the point? It’s violation upon violation.

    Also, what do you mean by “and there doesn’t have to be any crime” ? Touching someone with your genitals without penetrating is a violation of someone else’s body. It’s a serious offense.

    I also disagree with you that the line between “normal” sex and rape is subtle or non-existent. If a woman (or man) hasn’t given you her (his) consent, then it’s a no-go. If a person gives any sign of not wanting to have intercourse, it is rape if you follow through, even if this is not a stated no. If a person falls asleep in the middle of foreplay, it is rape. A person has to be conscious and have made an active decision to partake in any sexual activities. This is an inalienable human right, the right to reproductive rights, first established in 1968 and evolved since.

  3. I’m primarily interested in if my description of the Swedish rape law is correct. This post about this law is made for international media.

    With “there doesn’t have to be any crime” I mean that the woman could be lying. The man might not even have touched her with his sex. He might not even have moved any part of her body.

    As I see it at least some of the examples could be taken from normal sexual relations where neither party thinks any crime is committed, still, as I see it, these are examples of crimes according to Swedish rape law.

    There is a consent discussion, but consent considerations is not part of the recent law, as far as I understand. There is supposed not to be consent to everything the man does, but it’s not clear how he could know, and how he could read her thoughts to know in advance.

    1. if one girl sex with boy by her will and next morning he go to police and ask that this boy rape with me…. then how boy prove, that is not a rape case , this is a just sex

  4. I know that internationally (from personal conversations) a lot of people have a problem with the burden of proof falling on the accused rather than the accuser. This is not usually so abroad, or in Sweden, as I understand it and people thinks it’s completely opposed to “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Yes, the consent issue is debated, there is a lot of problem with it and the clearest way would be if the law just simply stated that consent must be given, and if so, what form of consent – verbally, written, implicit, explicit. I, however, think that in this piece of legislation it’s implied that consent must be given, implicitly or explicitly. That is the issue with penetrating someone who is asleep, isn’t it? Because that person isn’t conscious at the moment, they could have at any time leading up to penetration (or lightly touching with the genitals) changed his/her mind and said no.

    Yes, the woman might be lying, because of the “guilty until you’re proven innocent” twist of this law, she may be lying. However, what one could ask someone with Swedish legal knowledge is if a woman’s testimony is somehow strengthened say by physical evidence, or if someone without any kind of physical evidence has just as strong a case. I doubt it.

    I assume this has to do with the Assange case. Because the investigation was initially dropped and then resumed, I assume that the women’s testimony lack strong proof. This means that the accused is not automatically sentenced, or even prosecuted, in all cases. That might also be worth mentioning. Obviously the prosecutor does her/his job and goes through the evidence thoroughly.

    I think that your analysis is good, but it seems like it’s been fitted for someone who wants to prove the Swedish rape law to be a piece of hollow legislation to strengthen a case for an accused person. Surely there are more safety mechanisms than that? Investigations, testimonies etc.

    1. do u ask ur girl friend hey! i am going to penetrate u now. do u agree or disagree, sex just happens sometimes, it cannot be planned, wor should we make an appointment like every saturday night 11pm?? written consent..this is crazy

  5. I’m not sure if the sleep case could be considered as normal. It seems if you know each other well, and sleep in the same bed, maybe it’s not always that clear if you are awake or asleep when you have sex? Maybe some years later you are divorced and fight in court for the kids, and the former spouse gets the idea it was rape and that a rape sentence on her husband should help her get care of the kids?

    Yes, I think there might be an international media interest because of the Assange case.

    There might be technical evidence, of course, testimonies and judgements of specialist psychologists. In one of the cases where word stood against word the court did not take notice of the expert psychologist stating that the victim could not be trusted.

  6. Det räcker ju med att någon berör en annan persons könsdelar med ex hand för att det kan räknas som våldtäkt. Tycker inte riktigt det framgår av din text. Eller naturligtvis oralt samlag eller annan gärning jämförbar med samlag.

    Dessutom sägs inget om uppsåtskravet. Från texten kan man tro att att våldtäkt är ett oaktsamhetsbrott, vilket det inte är i Sverige.

    Dessutom borde man gå in på hur höga beviskraven är. Exempelvis den senaste praxisen angående krav på stödbevisning.

    Ett tips är att gå till biblioteket och läsa Holmqvist; Brottsbalken – en kommentar, om du inte redan gjort det.

    “As we can see the line between normal sex and rape is subtle or non-existent,
    the sentences are long, the compensations high and there doesn’t have to be any crime, it’s enough that the court believes the woman when she says there was one.”

    Är det långa straff internationellt sett? Nej.
    Är det höga skadestånd internationellt sett? Nej.
    Är målsägandens (kvinna eller mans) ord tillräckligt för en fällande dom? Nej.
    Du blandar ihop rättsfrågor och bevisfrågor. Vad lagen säger är en sak – rättsfrågor. Vad som går att bevisa en annan – bevisfrågor. Hur mycket bevis som behövs för att fälla någon framgår av praxis.

    Naturligtvis kan det vara besvärligt att bevisa vad som har skett, och då framförallt att bevisa ett uppsåt hos gärningsmannen. Denne måste förstå att den andre ej samtycker, det räcker inte med att målsäganden säger att hon/han inte ville, gärningsmannnen måste ha insett (eller haft misstanke om) att hon/han ej samtyckte vid tidpunkten för gärningen, men ändå genomfört handlingen, trots denna vetskap.
    Alla förstår ju att detta är oerhört svårt att bevisa i en domstol, och detta är även en anledning till att så få fälls för våldtäkt (i jämförelse med antalet anmälningar).

  7. Karin reminds us about other cases mentioned in the law but not included in the rest of the text. The touch of the genitals with a hand could be enough.

    She also reminds us that the law requires that the accused intended to do what he did. If he touched the womans sex by mistake he couldn’t be sentenced.

    She says I should include descriptions about requirements of evidence. I hope someone want to help with a suitable text.

    She says the sentences in Sweden are not long, the compensations not high, compared to international standards, and thats probably correct, if you consider the cases that are considered rape under other jurisdictions.

    Karin says it is not correct that the victims word is enough for a sentence. This is about requirements for evidence I asked for above.

    She says I am mixing questions about the meaning of the law and of evidence in the text. The amount of evidence needed is decided by higher courts.

    My comment: Yes, you have to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that for example the accused touched the victims sex, and that the victim was asleep.

    She says you have to prove that the accused must at least had reason to doubt that there was consent.

    She says these things are difficult to prove and that this is the reason so few are convicted in relation to the cases that are reported.

    To be able to change the text I need references to the information given.

  8. I think Karin put it down well, and as for the other comment – if you are sleeping in the same bed as someone else, habitually or not, you had better damn well make sure that person is not sleeping before initiating a sexual act! How is a person who is sleeping supposed to let the other person know if they are sleeping!? Ignorance is NOT an excuse.

    Also, if a woman brought up a rape case in a custody battle, I am pretty certain that, if there had been no charges or evidence before, the court would be well aware that it could be a tactic to win the case. Lawyers and prosecutors and judges are not idiots, they go through years of hard study, and then hard work, to get to where they are.

    1. Linnea

      I’m sorry but I had to scoff at this comment!
      You sound like a quite normal lady to me and not your rabid feminist.

      So I cannot believe that on a weekend when you wake up with your (other) that you have not touched or kissed them to initiate intimacy.

      How many people have you raped?

  9. I hope I have not insinuated that anyone is an idiot.

    About the custody battle I leave the questions to the readers own judgment.

  10. Okej, den översättnigen hade några brister…

    Jag sa inget om “misstag”. Jag sa att våldtäkt är ett uppsåtsbrott i Sverige och inte ett oaktsamhetsbrott.

    Actually, Linnea, ignorence is an excuse…

    Exempelvis i Norge finns “oaktsam våldtäkt”, dvs en person kan dömas om denne borde ha insett att ett samlag inte sker frivilligt.

    I Sverige finns dock endast uppsåtlig våldtäkt, gärningsmannen måste ha insett att han har samlag med någon mot dennes vilja.

    Exempelvis med sömnfallet så måste gärningsmannen förstå att personen sover, om gärningsmannen inte förstår det utan tror att personen är vaken så kan han inte dömas. Han har inte uppsåt i så fall till att det han gör är ofrivilligt. Han tror ju att hon är vaken och med på det.
    Däremot i Norge skulle han kunna dömas om man anser att han borde ha förstått att hon sover, exempelvis eftersom hon inte rör sej.

  11. This was a mistranslation: “touched the womans sex by mistake”

    Basically what Karin states here is that in Sweden intention(dolus in latin) must be proven. It means the accused must know that he is performing the sexual act against the victims will or for the sleep case that he must understand that she is sleeping.

    This seems to contradict what I translated as “had reason to doubt consent” and I’m trying to clear that out:

    Karin: Senare i texten skriver Du ju att gärningsmannen bara måste haft misstanke om att det är ofrivilligt. Det ser ut som en motsägelse. Om han inte vet att det är ofrivilligt finns ju heller inget uppsåt att göra det mot någons vilja?

  12. Here is a general classification of the Swedish legal system. (Civil law (legal system))

    Basically the text of the law together with the intentions described by the legislators make up the law. The court system does a lot of interpretation.

  13. Uppsåtets nedre gräns är det sk likgiltighetsuppsåtet (HD i NJA 2004 s 176). Kortfattat krävs en viss grad av misstanke, insikt i risken, plus en ändå genomförd handling.
    “För att en gärningsman skall kunna anses ha varit likgiltig på ett sådant sätt att det föreligger förutsättningar för att döma för uppsåtligt brott är det inte tillräckligt att gärningsmannen allmänt sett kan betecknas som likgiltig, i den meningen att han handlat utan att beakta att gärningen inneburit en kränkning av straffrättsligt skyddade intressen. Redan den omständigheten att gärningsmannen insett att det förelåg en risk för att gärningen skulle medföra en viss effekt eller att en viss omständighet förelåg innefattar ett mått av likgiltighet. För att uppsåt till effekten eller omständigheten skall anses föreligga krävs dock likgiltighet inte endast till risken utan också till förverkligandet av effekten eller förekomsten av omständigheten. Detta förutsätter inte att gärningsmannen värderat förverkligandet av effekten eller förekomsten av omständigheten på visst sätt. Även om han skulle beklaga att effekten inträdde eller att omständigheten förelåg kan han ha varit likgiltig i den meningen att han varit beredd att uppoffra det av rättsordningen skyddade intresse som uppsåtsprövningen avser. Det avgörande är således att förverkligandet av effekten eller förekomsten av omständigheten, vid gärningstillfället inte utgjorde ett för gärningsmannen relevant skäl för att avstå från gärningen. Har gärningsmannen handlat i förlitan på att effekten inte skulle förverkligas eller gärningsomständigheten föreligga har han inte varit likgiltig i denna mening även om hans inställning kan framstå som lättsinnig. I sak motsvarar ett på detta sätt uppfattat likgiltighetsuppsåt vad som ovan sagts angående direkt och indirekt uppsåt i de fall som gärningsmannen inte insett att effekten skulle inträda utan endast att det förelåg en risk för detta.

    Sammanfattningsvis talar övervägande skäl för att uppsåtets nedre gräns bör förstås på det sätt som nu sagts. Vad som förutom insikt i risken är avgörande är således gärningsmannens inställning eller attityd vid gärningstillfället. Endast om det står klart att han haft en positiv eller i vart fall likgiltig inställning till effektens förverkligande eller förekomsten av gärningsomständigheten skall gärningen bedömas som uppsåtlig.”

  14. As I understand this complicated description of the intention(culpa) needed for a conviction, it has to be proven that the accused was aware of a risk that he does not have the victims consent. If he is aware of a risk and in negligence of it starts or continues the sexual act which contains some holding or moving of body parts, he can be convicted.

  15. I have to add that the law is not intended to prevent violent and sexual acts without the victims consent as such, it’s intended to prevent the “kränkning” (lack of respect for the personal and sexual integrity of the victim, and of her right to sexual self-control) this could mean.

    This seems to be a legal theoretical construction no one understands. It is perfectly possible to “kränka” children in general by looking at a drawing of a cartoon that seems to be under 18 in a sexual position.

    Another thing to add is that in the violence case, however small the violence used, it is supposed to be the means by which the victim is forced to take part in the sexual act.

    About the sexual act, even if it is only the touch of a hand, it is still supposed to be part of a sexual act comparable to intercourse. The act does not have to be completed.

  16. That’s the most ridiculous law I’ve ever read. The toxic comments by Linnea only serve to further enlighten the world about the crazy situation in Sweden. At this rate, the Swedish race will die out in a few generations. Not only is sex impossible, but the women defending such laws are eminently unattractive to the opposite sex. Want fun? Try Denmark. Or even better: Germany. The women and laws in those countries are not yet psychotic.

  17. This law seems written by a hybrid human-machine.

    I am from Catalonia 46, Male, Gay, artist etc…
    I used to love Scandinavia when a I was a teen.
    I believed the spread Fairy Tale about they being the”most evolved humans in the Planet”.

    Whit the internet I have found the opposite about
    Norway, Denmark, Sweden, an yes, Finland.
    A massive document could be written in a book, exposing the skeletons in the closet, that the governments and corporations of the above has.

    The famous Nordic discretion and Transparency?
    Please!.I call it Psycho-Technocracy and secrecy
    with the ongoing robotization of the population.
    Kind of Huxley’s Brave New World.
    But, like Switzerland ( the parasite nation)
    you still have “Reputation”… for now.

    Reputation = Past , Ego and Pride = Sh*it

    1. Strictly speaking the rapist is innocent until proven guilty, but given the small or nonexisting differences between rape and ordinary sex, it certainly seems close to the opposite.

  18. Erling –

    Thank you for this analysis. I understand that what Sweden calls “rape” is only the beginning of it. They also have lower level offenses of “sexual molestation” and “unlawful coercion”. It is now being reported, in the case of Assange, that consensual sex without a condom constitutes one of these latter. I found your (this) page after reading an article which quotes a Swedish lawyer: “`Sweden uses the designation rape in a way no other country uses it,’ said lawyer Per E. Samuelsson, a fierce critic of the sex crime law. `Lawmakers have gone one step too far in their eagerness to achieve something with the sex offense law.'”

    Linnea seems to have a very strange faith, almost religious, in the ability to legislate even the most complicated of human interactions. (And an even stranger faith in the uncorruptability and fair mindedness of people who have gone “through years of hard study, and then hard work, to get to where they are.”) I found some of this former issue mentioned here:

    “Discussions of rape nowadays use examples of women who are asleep, or have taken drugs or drunk too much alcohol, in order to argue that they cannot properly consent to sex. If they feel taken advantage of the next day, they may call what happened rape. The Daphne project’s Sweden researchers propose that those accused of rape ought to have to ‘prove consent’, but attempts to legislate and document seduction and desire are unlikely to succeed.

    “What isn’t questioned, in most public discussions, is the idea that the problem must be addressed by more laws, ever more explicit and strict. Contemporary society insists that punishment is the way to stop sexual violence, despite evidence suggesting that criminal law has little impact on sexual behaviour.

    “We want to think that if laws were perfectly written and police, prosecutors and judges were perfectly fair, then rapes would decrease because a) all rapists would go to jail and b) all potential rapists would be deterred from committing crime. Unfortunately, little evidence corroborates this idea. Debates crystallise in black-and-white simplifications that supposedly pit politically correct arguments against the common sense of regular folk. Subtleties and complications are buried under masses of rhetoric, and commentaries turn cynical: ‘Nothing will change’, ‘the police are pigs’, immigrants are terrorists, girls are liars.”

  19. I am from the UK. In the news here they were saying how crazy your laws have become in Sweden, so I decided to do some research. I have to say that some of the ‘rape’ laws you have in Sweden are not even a crime in the UK! I think many women will end up regretting supporting some of the more extreme laws as men start to become much more defensive in order to protect themselves. We have a saying here in England, “be careful what you wish for”!

  20. In Sweden it appears that the legal system deciding on behalf of women. That twist is about Sweden’s distinctly odd rape laws and the generally uncritiqued but dangerous corollary of the infantilisation of women by that kind of legislation.

    Assange’s lawyers stated the following to the press “How the Swedish authorities propose to prosecute for victims who neither saw themselves as such nor acted as such is easily answered: You’re not a Swedish lawyer so you wouldn’t understand anyway.” How can swedish prosecutors assume that an alleged rape victim cannot decide whether she has been raped or not? Isn’t this precisely the sort of infantilisation of women that feminism fought against?

    In Canada where I live we have inherited the British law, The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding consent to sexual contact and the case law were intended to protect women against abuse by others. They aim to safeguard and enhance the sexual autonomy of women, and not to make choices for them like it seems to be the case in Sweden.

    There was a court case last year, in the Canadian Supreme Court to determine whether a person can perform sexual acts on an unconscious person (by a sex game called erotic axphytitiation) The woman consented to those acts in advance of being rendered unconscious.

    Canadian law defines consent in a way that requires the complainant to be conscious throughout the sexual activity in question. In Canada, the definition of consent does not extend to advance consent to sexual acts committed while the complainant is unconscious. The legislation requires ongoing, conscious consent to ensure that women and men are not the victims of sexual exploitation. A person cannot, while unconscious, consent or revoke consent.

    It is a fundamental principle of the law governing sexual assault in Canada that no means “no” and only yes means “yes”. In this case, the woman said yes, not no. The woman engaged with the man in sexual activity to which she had freely consented in advance, while conscious. However she could not practice her right to give or revoke consent.

    The Law

    A conviction for sexual assault under the Canadian Criminal Code requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence. A person commits the actus reus if he touches another person in a sexual way without her consent. Consent for this purpose is actual subjective consent in the mind of the complainant at the time of the sexual activity in question.

    A person has the required mental state, or mens rea of the offence, when he or she knew that the complainant was not consenting to the sexual act in question, or was reckless or wilfully blind to the absence of consent. The accused may raise the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent if he believed that the complainant communicated consent to engage in the sexual activity.

    In Canada no consent is obtained where:

    (a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;

    (b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

    (c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority

    (d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

    (e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

  21. Pingback: Anonymous
  22. The accused has not been shown to, at the time of the crime, be aware of the fact that the victim is physically a man. The court draws the conclusion that his attempt to rape could not have succeeded. The applicable law term in Swedish is “otjänligt”. The crime is “otjänligt”. It was not possible to do what he indended to do. This is why the accused is acquitted on the charge of attempted rape, as I understand it. Instead, he is sentenced for assault.
    You can find parts of the judgement here:
    The lower courts in Sweden(“tingsrätter”) are not allowed to influence the interpretation of the law, set precedence. There might well be an appeal to a higher court(“hovrätt”) which does set precedence.

  23. Thanks for your explanation. However, I’m still confused. It appears from the language of rape law that you provided above, that it is a crime for any person to sexually assault another person, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex. If that’s true, is the problem simply that the indictment specifically charged the defendant with attempting to rape a “woman,” which wasn’t possible because Swedish law doesn’t recognize the victim as a woman at this stage in her transition? In other words, if the indictment had charged the defendant with attempting to rape a man, would he have been convicted of attempted rape? Or is the problem, instead, the one I tried to articulate in the update to my blog, i.e., that, because the defendant intended to rape a woman, he did not have the specific intent required to commit the crime of attempted rape on this victim, who the law only recognizes as a man?

    By the way, here in Arizona, I believe the defendant would still have been guilty of attempted rape under subsection of ARS 13-1001 ( Under that statute, because of the phrase “under the circumstances as such person believes them to be,” the defendant would not be protected by his mistake as to the anatomy of the victim.

  24. I think this is close – “that, because the defendant intended to rape a woman, he did not have the specific intent required to commit the crime of attempted rape on this victim, who the law only recognizes as a man?”
    However, I don’t think it’s about what the law recognizes the victim as, but that the court thinks the lack of a vagina would have made it impossible for the accused to do as he intended.
    This is a low court(“tingsrätt”) with one judge and layman jurors, the case is appealed, and the high court(“hovrätt”), with at least three experienced judges, might well have another opinion.

  25. That seems like a strange result, given that it *is* possible to rape a person with male genitals under Swedish law. As you say, however, apparently, it all comes down to the difference between the defendant’s specific intent (i.e., to rape a person with a vagina) and the reality he encountered (i.e., a victim without a vagina). Would the result have been the same if the victim had been biologically female but was born without a vagina, which sometimes happens?

  26. When I think back to the first years of my marriage, I distinctly recall many an occassion where my partner and I awoke in bed to find ourselves engaged in intercourse. The same occured prior to my marriage with other partners whilst in the first blush of a relationship.

    No doubt the touching which induced the congress was on occassion initiated by me and on other occassions my partner but there were also occassions after a little alcohol where I could not honestly tell you how it started.

    In canvassing my male and female friends they were able to confirm my experience was quite normal.

    I now discover that under Swedish law it is very likely my partners and I are serial rapists and that there are probably hundreds rapist around my immediate neighborhood and circle of friends. It is little wonder that lately, I have found it difficult to sleep.

    1. I am 100% with David above. More than once in the past 3 or 4 decades while I was sleeping my partner would initiate sex. This was fine with me. This was my partner and therefore the one who should be doing such. Likewise more than once I initiated it. So far as I know it was always just fine with them too. I don’t even guess how Swedish law would handle a case where both were conscious when the sex act began, but because of alcohol or other factors we both fell asleep in the middle of it with me still inside (and more than once still in there a few hours later when one or the other awakened). Would we therefore both instantly be guilty because both of us had our genitalia touching while the other one was asleep? Should the last one still awake be the guilty one? How would we tell? Regarding the Canadian case cited, yes not that long ago with a new partner I specifically said to her after we had finished a couple of romps and started to doze off, ‘I want to do it again, but I am too tired right now, if you are still asleep and I wake up horny, do you mind if I have a go?’ Her reply (with a smile) was, ‘that’d be just fine with me.’ Later I did. No objections at all when she woke up somewhere after I begun. I guess if I was in Canada (or Sweden) in the morning I should have gone over to the police station to turn myself in. Or maybe she should have the next night when I woke up to her riding me. What a stupid set of laws that is to leave out prior consents.

  27. please dont forget something very important …some Swedish women fake rape to claim payouts- I was Victim of flase rape accusation in Sweden , the father of my ex girlfriend accused me for rape… i have heard inside the prison that swedish girls fake rape to claim payouts …i didnt believe that till i checked google..i was lucky i was having many things to defend myself and i forced the prosecutor to take it back . i was convicted 5 months prison “i was never having criminal record in my life” assault “2 slaps” and threating because i didnt accept a crime i didnt commit … i sent many sms to the girl and her family i said i f i go to jail for something i didnt do i will live just for one thing. rape accusation scared me so much and that maked me lose my head . the big shock my ex girlfriend sent someone before to jail for rape he is from peru “i hope he was not innocent”—the swedish jails are full of people convicted for rape . i still remember this egyptian man 25 years was convicted for raping his wife aged 45 years …they believed the Swedish old lady just few words from her was enough to put an immigrant in the jail – I dont want go to Sweden again ,—it was injustice someone was having no criminal be conviced 5 months priosn for 2 slaps and because he didnt accpet to be accused for shameful crime he didnt commit…all what i say from my bad experience in Sweden …be ready to be accued for rape anytime in Sweden . the rape in Sweden is not based on true rape . and the justice is set up for women. i pray for every innocent was sentenced for rape in Sweden…im lucky i go out safe from nightmare and im happy because i was not sentenced for rape..the swedish justice is a joke and openly racist …

  28. Link from racist Swedish media

    Swedish woman was raped by her Egyptian husband
    Sundsvall A Swedish woman met a much younger Egyptian man, married him and moved with him to Sweden. It ended with the woman treated deteriorating and raped.

    A now 44-year-old Swedish woman met a few years ago, an Egyptian man, 25-year-old Amir Farag Saad Mohamed Ali. The woman took a fancy to Amir Ali and they married.

    Amir Ali moved to Sweden, but was granted only temporary residence. Luckily it was, the relationship did not hold for long. The woman was treated badly and when she wanted them to go their separate ways ran the mind of the Egyptian.

    On 18 February, the Amir Ali on the woman in their home in Sundsvall. He pulled her into the bedroom, tore off her clothes and pushed her down on the bed. Then he lay down on top of her, hit her in the face and said “this is the last thing we will do together. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. “Then he raped the woman.

    Today was sentenced Amir Ali to prison for two years and three months. After serving his sentence he will be deported to Egypt and forbidden to return before May 2017. He must also pay 85,000 kronor in damages to the woman.
    Flattr this!

  29. Surely together with your thoughts here and that i adore your blog! Ive bookmarked it making sure that I can come back &amp read more inside the foreseeable future. bccbcecddaee

Leave a Reply to Abby Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s