“But now to have a fuck you will need self-certification?”. It’s a message I received two weeks ago, on Instagram, after sharing the news of the new bipartisan law against sexual violence, which rewrites article 609-bis of the penal code on the crime of rape, introducing the concept of “consent”. A word, apparently, indigestible to many. And this alone should say a lot about the need for a change of pace.

No, self-certification will not be needed to respond to the sadly ironic follower, but also to the many who believed the fake news – circulated a couple of months ago – according to which a written declaration from the woman would be necessary before any sexual intercourse. A bit like a joke about the police, in short, the theme makes many laugh. Unfortunately, however, there is little to be light-hearted about, and the unanimous yes in the Chamber proves it.

Yes, a law was needed

According to the new law, without “free and present consent” it is rape. This means that sexual violence will not be considered as such only if it is linked to physical restraint, an assault, or if the victim is drunk or drugged. Consent becomes fundamental, in fact, which must be free – therefore not the result of blackmail or abuse of power, much less psychological – and current. Here is a key passage. The “yes” must be there in the precise moment of the relationship and must be clear, not implied or taken for granted by virtue of a will linked to the past, or to a stable relationship. Translated, consensus is not retroactive and you can want to stop at any time, without having to justify dissent.

Translated even better, the woman should not feel obligated to have sexual intercourse. This is a fundamental point, which men – not all, but most – evidently struggle to understand, mainly because it is unlikely that they have ever found themselves in an intimate situation that is in any way coercive. Trivializing and dismantling all this, stating that “it is obvious that consent is needed, there was no need to modify an already existing law”, means not knowing and not considering all those nuances that women experience in intimacy, made up of gray areas and other people’s interpretations. The limit can be really fleeting and it is right that we talk about it.

Not just bruises

We have all been abused. It is a strong statement, but never having had bruises and wounds on the body does not mean not having suffered sexual abuse, or experienced situations of strong psychological pressure in which saying no was not an option, or in any case was ‘strongly discouraged’ by the context. With an influential man, an employer, an occasional partner, but also with your partner.

An encounter ended in bed after exhausting insistence, a sexual act done reluctantly to avoid an unwanted full intercourse, a violent attitude during intimacy without asking if it also meets our taste. These are much more common situations than we believe (and report), but undoubtedly – considering the level of discussion – even more underestimated, often by women themselves.

A law that educates

A law of this kind, therefore, in addition to protecting the victim, also does something more. Educate. Finally. Putting such an important concept in black and white opens up debate, as is in fact happening. And talking about consent is essential to ensure that the new generations are formed with a different awareness of the self and the other, that they have an approach to sex – and to affectivity in general – based on dialogue and listening, something that up to now has often been missing and still missing.

We are not faced with a feminist drift, or an excess of jurisdiction which risks increasing complaints and difficulties in proving oneself innocent, or worse – as many have come to say – to inhibit men even more in their approach. We are instead faced with a necessary change that should be welcomed with satisfaction. The rest, in the face of a serious emergency such as gender violence, is simple ideology.