The bill on sexual violence has been modified in recent days, through an amendment that introduces the dissent model, opposite to the one previously foreseen. The topic, as well as being deeply technical, is also delicate, especially now, because the topic of violence against women (although, strictly speaking, sexual violence can occur against anyone) heats up souls and easily enrages, leaving very little room for clear reflection. For this reason, discussing it is almost impossible, especially if you try to use your reason instead of your gut.

We have no serious points of reference to inform us

Faced with topics of this type, citizens would expect to be able to count on experts to have access to clear explanations that help them get an idea: on their own they lack the necessary means, and are therefore vulnerable and exposed to exploitation and sensationalist catastrophism. However, it is very difficult to find calm and reliable readings in the chaos of words that has been created, which perhaps, after all, not too many people desire. The theme has in fact been widely exploited for years now by both political parties, and has therefore become more of a symbol of belonging to a team than anything else.

The citizen who has not studied law therefore does not know who to believe when he reads the interpretations and comments, and one reading could be as valid as the other: it could be a very serious scandal or a viable and motivated option. However, our usual disease of opinion leads us to start endless, fierce discussions to defend our position, based either on our basic general thought, or on the words of someone we consider authoritative (and we consider him so because he basically thinks like us).

A law for women or a law for men

In this state of affairs it is clear that the usual two factions can only arise. Not alarming, in itself: there will be those who are in favor of this amendment and those who are against it. The problem, however, is that when we take sides on this amendment we are actually taking a position on something much broader and decidedly worrying. The previous proposal, the one based on consensus, was considered a battle of civilization as it guaranteed support for the victims (who, as mentioned, are automatically considered all female): a law ‘for women’, it was defined. The assumption is that women are penalized by the law currently in force, which does not take into account a series of cases and possibilities, therefore often leading to acquittals where there should be convictions.

On the contrary, therefore, the current amendment is considered a law ‘for men’, always taking it for granted that the attacker is necessarily a man; in this case the law would help men to get away easily, or – depending on how one reads it – it would guarantee the freedom to have normal sexual encounters without the constant terror of false reporting, which is also greatly exaggerated due to the now inevitable polarization. In short: the women were happy with the first proposal, which made them feel finally listened to and protected, while the men were worried about not being able to live freely and not be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Create an unmotivated social fracture

One would immediately understand that it is absurd to reason in these terms, presupposing to correctly interpret the thoughts and desires of one gender and the other, as if they were two perfectly distinct and internally homogeneous groups; as if we were only male and female, instead of people. But we have been accustomed to this totally senseless war for a long time: females see males as enemies, always ready to use violence against them in every way, males see females as treacherous witches eager to ruin their lives. It is not a scenario born by chance, or by mistake.

In this specific case, a situation of dangerous bellicosity is created even more than in other cases: we, the males, are fighting against you, the females – and vice versa. It is not a discussion between different ways of interpreting an issue, but a real struggle for survival; which does not arise spontaneously, in fact, but is constructed and fomented. When an influencer, a well-known journalist, an esteemed writer incites their audience by painting catastrophic scenarios, using alarmist language and dramatic tones, they are doing precisely this. No one should dream of saying that here either women are saved or men are saved, that the State wants to destroy women or men, that a theoretically democratic discussion should transform into an angry clash of botched and incomplete ideologies. Undermining harmony and democracy in this way should be considered serious behavior, punishable with a serious social sanction; why is it the only existing way of addressing a topic today?