Men will have to be even more careful in their interactions with women. As of July 1, the Sexual Offenses Act has come into effect, officially intended to provide more protection to victims and make it easier to convict perpetrators. According to Renzo Verwer, author of books like The Love Market (2011), the law will lead to even greater government interference in our personal lives. The natural relationships between men and women are severely disrupted by this law.
The new Sexual Offenses Act, proposed by Minister of Justice and Security Dilan Yeşilgöz (VVD) and passed by both chambers of parliament, is officially intended to give victims more rights and possibilities, and to make the prosecution of sexual offenses, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment easier. However, the law has far-reaching consequences for how men and women are allowed to interact in our ‘free’ country. It enables the government to dictate what is and isn’t acceptable sexual behavior. Especially men may fall victim to this law, which gives women many ways to accuse men of crossing boundaries.
This is evident, for example, from the statements of criminal and sexual offenses lawyer Ivonne Leenhouwers in the newspaper Trouw: “Sometimes people don’t realize that they are crossing a line. That’s why I tell all the boys I know that they should always ask for consent. Before you know it, you could be facing a charge. Especially with this new law.” Leenhouwers acknowledges that a complaint can be filed ‘just like that.’ Should ‘boys’ now ask for ‘consent’ per action, per second, per minute? What does such ‘consent’ look like? What if that consent is later denied?
A key principle of the law is: “The person who initiates sexual contact must be alert to whether the other person wants the same,” as stated on the website metelkaartrekkenwedegrens.nl. “If this is unclear, you must check with the other person how they feel about it.”
How do you know what someone wants? The law states: “Clear signals of a lack of will are, for example, explicitly verbal or physical reluctance, but can also consist of non-verbal signals or a passive attitude.” If a ‘passive attitude’ or undefined ‘non-verbal signals’ are enough to demonstrate a ‘lack of will,’ men are almost forced to explicitly ask whether a woman really ‘wants’ it. But many women prefer to play a passive role—to be ‘wooed.’ That’s how nature works. This could now become illegal.
Women often expect men to ‘woo’ them. The man tried something if he dared. The woman accepted, rejected, or played along. With the new law, she can legalize and try to get a man punished for a flirt, a clumsy attempt, or awkward language. All of this could end up on the Justice Department’s desk.
The law also makes it easier to secure a conviction. Hard evidence is no longer required. Victims can “file charges of assault and rape in more cases,” according to an explanation of the law. “To prove rape or assault, the new law no longer requires evidence that someone was forced. It is punishable if it was clear that the other person didn’t want sex, but someone persisted anyway. If there is evidence of coercion, the perpetrator can receive a harsher sentence.”
For people who think, “I’m in a relationship or I behave normally, so I’m safe”—well, no. The law also applies to relationships.
Yeşilgöz (VVD) stated at the introduction of the law that sex must always be ‘voluntary and equal.’ The first is logical, the second is interference in the sexual morality of others. Much sex is not ‘equal,’ no matter how much some people would like it to be. Moreover, Yeşilgöz is not consistent. It is stated that the person “who initiates sexual contact must be alert to whether the other person wants the same.” So there is an active initiator and a consenter. The initiator must sense whether their initiative is allowed or not.
The question also arises: who is the initiator at what moment? If a woman seduces through clothing or behavior, is she then the initiator? Or is the one who starts touching the initiator? According to the law, undoubtedly the latter. Women who display provocative behavior and thus initiate sex in their own way will never be convicted.
Men already account for 90 percent of sexual offense perpetrators. Logically: they have, on average, a higher sexual drive than women, take the initiative more often. For men, the saying goes: ‘Nothing ventured, nothing gained.’ And persistence pays off, as the very emancipated writer Heleen van Royen acknowledged. This puts men at greater risk of crossing boundaries. The law wants to make it easier to convict perpetrators and is therefore practically aimed at men who already have to endure 90 percent of rejections (research by sociologist Warren Farrell).
The law was passed by the Senate on March 24 of this year. There was some grumbling, but 74 of the 75 senators voted in favor. I asked the ministry, various spokespersons, and parties for clarification on their position and voting behavior. Only Johan Dessing of FVD, the only dissenting voter, responded. Dessing states that by “contracting” sex, “sex is, as it were, atomized and becomes something clinical. The government is going to interfere directly in sexual relationships between people. Our faction finds this unacceptable. After all, sex is something private and should remain private.”
What will be the consequences of the new law for workplace relationships? What if the law indeed leads to many complaints?
Will male employers or entrepreneurs prefer not to hire women? Will coaches and therapists only take clients of the same gender? Will we only see female guests in talk shows hosted by women? Will men avoid women, leading to segregated cafes? Will we create a sort of Islamic society by arranging things so strictly?
Society may further segregate. Many single women have already been complaining for the past decades that ‘men no longer flirt.’ This will get worse. The birth rate will logically decline further, which may then be ‘solved’ with immigration.
The relationships between men and women could become severely strained. Sex and initiating a relationship will mean a great risk for a man. Even within relationships. If he has sex with a woman, he must be sure that she won’t regret it later.
