Last week, a Swedish judge ruled that a man who proceeded to have sexual intercourse with a woman who was screaming "NO" so loudly that she went hoarse was not guilty of rape. People were understandably upset. And so, today, the judge wrote an op-ed clarifying that what he MEANT was that rape really depends on whether or not the rapist feels like they're raping someone. Much better!


The case that's causing forehead slaps across Sweden involves a 27-year-old woman who met a man at a restaurant and invited him back to her home accompanied him back to his home. After some consensual kissing, the man attempted to push for other sex acts, which the woman declined. The man proceeded to have sex with her, anyway, as she screamed "NO" loudly enough for the neighbors to hear. Which, you know, is rape. Pretty obviously rape.

Not in the opinion of Lund district court judge Ralf G. Larsson, who listened sympathetically to the rapist's claim that he didn't think the woman actually meant that "NO" (which she was yelling); rather, she meant YES, which is a common synonym for NO. The woman countered that she most certainly did not mean YES, as she was screaming NO, but the judge ruled that because the rapist doesn't know what NO means and thought that his victim was kind of into it, that thing he was doing to her as she was yelling NO, no rape was committed.


Today, he explained his big strong man judge logic with an op ed column that was both condescending and idiotic. Larsson wrote,

If the thought had not occurred to him, that she did not want to have sex with him, then he didn't have any intention to do what he did. He should have been acquitted. That's how the rule of law works and that's how the rule of law should work if I'm going to be a part of the justice system. [...] The woman had made very clear to the man at least six times that she did not want to do what he wanted to do. For example, oral and anal sex came up, and at each such incident the man did not proceed with what he wanted to do.

In other words, because he didn't every kind of rape, he therefore could not have committed one form of rape. Rock solid logic.

Larsson went on to smarm the fuck out, finger wagging judges who might be swayed by social media outrage over moronic rulings that set a public safety-endangering precedent.

If what is happening right now in mass and social media has the potential to scare less experienced judges, we're on a dangerous path.


Raise your hand if you think Rolf Larsson has NO business being a judge. And by NO, I mean NO.