Securing views Berg

One of my fundamental beliefs is that Darwin was right, "Survival of the fittest." There is a theory that formed the basis for a number of philosophical drift, but what we define as human is to have enough power to not accept the exclusion of those not proven to be the "fittest". My belief is based on a "humanistic Darwinism '.

However, I would like to make some adjustments to morality, tradition and religion.

How does morality and how morality can be different between different parts of the world? To begin directly with the heart of the matter; in Inuit communities, it was customary for a male guest was invited to share the night with the hostess. When Amundsen during his "discovery" of the Northwest Passage was invited to spend the night with a inuitfru he turned it down. In Islam it is allowed four wives. Both customs unthinkable in Scandinavia.

One can philosophize long on this but my conclusion is Darwin. In the contexts in which the custom arose, it was rational and contributed to the long term survival.

In an area where it waged war, men are the fighters and are not killing so much of the civilian population, you get a surplus of women. Then it is rational that the men who remain secure population by having children with several women.

In an area where contact with the outside world is limited, inbreeding a real threat. DNA from a highly rational approach to eliminate the risk of consanguinity, so a inuitstam with the custom of inviting the sperm from one guest to his own gene pool has better chances of survival.

In an area with less risk of inbreeding is sexually transmitted diseases a much greater risk. Here are strictly twosomes solution. Marriage and sin declaration of extramarital affairs is a rational överlednadsstrategi.

In hot countries the pork and milk bad long before the beef. Thus it is rational to avoid the foods that could trigger the disease.

The small Jewish canopy is also rational. All the way a grown man and how the hair is thinning on the scalp and who have had sunshine in the Mediterranean region, understand that it is not bad with a protection of the bald area.

But what has happened since? Well it was rationally have been absorbed by ethics and religion. There are no objective reasons for twosomes as remedy for venereal diseases, when to use contraception. There is no rational reason to avoid certain types of meat or milk when you have a refrigerator, there is no objective soul for polygamy if you have a population that is balanced.

One might think, and like a lot of things but you should definitely move away from coercion based on rationality, which has become one of the religion in which the rational reason expired!

Left Stone Lena Olsson want to criminalize buying sex abroad because women of all countries are equally worthy of protection, to coincide her posts. Her solution is uninitialized generating placards policy.

First

Legislation must be gender neutral. Men in the Gambia and women in Thailand are equally worthy of protection. We agree that the overwhelming majority of sexköpen done by men, but if you have a political ambition, it must be accessible sex - not the male sex.

Since

Legislation is connected to a jurisdiction, that the scope of a particular legislator. Swedish jurisdiction includes State Sweden and everyone here. In the courts, we discuss actions contrary to Swedish law. Note that it differs from Lena Olsson's view that it applies to Swedish citizens.

Let's take some examples:

• Drinking alcohol is part of Swedish culture. Anyone in Sweden drink a considerable amount of alcohol is not being judged for it whether you are Swedish or from Iran, although alcohol is reprehensible in Muslim countries.
• Living in a same-sex marriage is saknktionerat in Swedish law. We are gender-neutral in our view of the parties who may be part of a marriage. We provide gay Muslims residence because they risk persecution and punishment in their home countries.
• We judge people for child abuse in Sweden, regardless of their ethnic background, even though corporal punishment is allowed in many countries.

If Lena Olsson can fold down his populist banners and look at how the world works, she would hopefully come to the conclusion that it is reasonable to Swedish laws apply in Sweden and foreign laws apply abroad. One takes then there you go. Then we have to act internationally to countries with a reasonable legislative and law enforcement agencies that maintain it. Swedish laws apply in Sweden to everyone here. Swedish law does not apply to Swedish citizens wherever they are!

An explosion in discussions about sexual exploits have flourished on twitter. It is of course a bit dry to then discuss it from a legal perspective, but I'm getting there.

Sex is an act between two parties who both consented. One can only do that consent from the man is 15 years. In this way one can say that there should be an agreement on consent, which is why one can also look at contract law.

Contracts may be made in various ways;

Written - The clearest, but hardly relevant to most people. Who would sign an agreement that you agree to sex? If someone came up with such an agreement, I would advise against writing, for the simple reason that I would be concerned that the person submitting the agreement was intended to justify sex as most of us had thought was severely distorted. However, I have heard of a partner finding cop who always used this to have "backs" against anyone who wanted to file a claim.

Oral - A direct question with a direct answer. The problem is that there is no probative value in this. It will not help when Lotta Insulander-Lindh Billy Butt lawsuit refers to "a woman's 'no' does not always mean no," that is, where some initial reluctance played can be part of a prelude.

Implicit - Probably the most common. Through action, it seems clear that given his acceptance.

Accept the fact - If either party was in no position to give an acceptance (eg, because you were sleeping), it is legally difficult and the one without accepting completed intercourse chooses afterwards to see it as something that is OK, or is actually a sexual exploitation.

One could joke about "standing proxy" (eg, discussion of Billy Butt could actually raping lying on his back where the women had every opportunity to be different), but a bit more serious may be referred to that in several jurisdictions have some form of entitlement to six in the context of a marriage. It can be compared to a position proxy, but no such "right" does not exist in Sweden.

As far as I can judge, you are entitled to withdraw such acceptance at any time. That said, YES does not mean that an unconditional right to implement the Act, but you can always say no and back out. There is no "point of no return" during the act itself. If the condom breaks or it just does not feel right, so, both parties have an unconditional right to cancel.

BUT, at the end of sexual intercourse can not withdraw. It's not rape if you implicitly accepted and afterwards repented. You have probably also in some way also indicate that one is not willing - in the case of a pure ambivalence that is not in any way communicate while acting as willing could not reasonably normally considered as rape.

Are there cases that can be rape even though both parties appeared "with it"? Difficult cases are where there is a dependence between the two parties. Head / subject well that case.

It is an area that is subtle, agreement on the haphazard manner, between two parties without proof of intent in the moment. I # prataomdet it appears that many, after all, refer to "sex although they did not really want", and for those who "acted" without express their doubts, must probably my implicit acceptance.