In recent weeks, the justice committee of the Italian Parliament overwhelmingly approved an amendment broadening the legal definition of rape: any sexual activity without “free, active, and explicit consent” would now be classified as rape. Supporters describe this move as a major step forward for victims’ rights. Yet the reform also highlights the deeper complexities of human relationships — and the risk of assuming that consent alone can guarantee safety, dignity, or emotional well-being.
✍|by Ms. Fatemeh Ghasemi
The Legal Shift in Italy: What Just Happened
The lower house of the Italian Parliament recently passed a bill — backed by a rare cross-party agreement between the ruling Brothers of Italy (FdI) and the opposition Democratic Party (PD) — that redefines sexual violence. Under the proposed law, any sexual act without explicit consent becomes a felony, even in absence of physical force or threats. The measure now heads to the Senate. Advocates describe the change as a “small but significant cultural revolution,” arguing it affirms that silence or lack of resistance does not imply consent.
This legal reform brings Italy closer to so-called “yes means yes” — consent-based — standards already adopted by some other European states.
Why Consent Is Not Enough: The Limits of a Legal Definition
Nevertheless, treating mere consent as sufficient for legitimizing sexual relations — whether legally or socially — overlooks deep emotional, psychological, and social dynamics. Even when a woman gives apparent, voluntary consent, the relationship may still be harmful.
Consider the following scenarios:
- A young woman enters into a “casual” relationship, feeling pressured by emotional dependency, fear of rejection, or social expectations — and consents to sex out of those pressures rather than genuine desire.
- A woman consents to prostitution or transactional sex. Though consenting, the context reduces her body or identity to a commodity.
- In a culture that emphasizes individualism and consumer-style relationships, a woman might accept one-night sexual encounters, consenting in the moment, yet experience long-term emotional harm — instability, loss of self-esteem, unplanned pregnancy, or feeling objectified.
In all these cases, consent was given — but consent alone does not equate to safety, dignity, emotional well-being, or long-term security. The law may recognize the act as lawful (or even legitimate) because consent was present, while in reality the relationship leaves deep scars.
When “Yes” Might Hide Coercion — Beyond Physical Force
The assumption that “explicit yes” automatically means “healthy or consensual” misses more subtle forms of coercion. Psychological pressure, fear of abandonment, economic need, social stigma — any of these can influence a woman’s “choice,” rendering consent more a survival tactic than a free decision.
Even in what is socially defined as a “free” relationship, many women may feel compelled to comply due to emotional vulnerability or societal pressures. Accepting consent as the only yardstick reduces complex human experiences into a simplistic legal checkbox.
Marriage, “Consent,” and the Value of Commitment
This issue becomes even more fraught when we compare casual relations with committed partnerships such as marriage. In a marital context, there may be times when a woman consents to sex not out of desire, but out of love, commitment, duty, or to preserve family harmony.
If a momentary “yes” is treated as the only standard, then such a situation could easily be labeled as sexual abuse. But in a healthy family, consent takes shape within a broader context of trust, emotional closeness, commitment, and shared responsibility. Instead of reducing a person to an object, it helps sustain the family and deepen the emotional connection between partners. This is where the contrast between unstable casual relationships and committed family life becomes clear.
Broader Social Implications: Is the “Consent Model” Enough?
Moreover, the family as an institution is built on moral commitments, clearly defined gender roles, and long-standing cultural traditions. When the law begins to intervene in the intimate details of private relationships based solely on the idea of “active consent,” it puts this fundamental institution — the backbone of a stable and healthy society — under pressure, ultimately contributing to cultural and social instability.
In conclusion, relying on “active consent” as the main standard for defining sexual violence and assault may seem legally sound, logical, or progressive, but from an ethical, educational, and social perspective, it is incomplete and even potentially harmful. Consent alone is not a sufficient measure of a healthy relationship; in many cases, it serves as a mask that hides deep psychological and sexual harm, the covert objectification of women, and sexual violence. Many women, due to a lack of awareness or the cognitive and structural deceptions embedded in domestic and international laws, may not even recognize these harms — leaving them virtually powerless to respond or change their circumstances.
