• Felemuso@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The definition of rape was broadened to “non-consensual sexual intercourse” from “forcible sexual intercourse”, aligning Japanese law’s definition with other countries.

    The legal age of consent, previously at only 13, has been raised to 16 years.

    • Slythra@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Finally no more weebs with their „WeLl AcTuAlLy ThE aGe Of CoNsEnT iN jApAn…“

      • CIWS-30@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not actually 13, that was only allowable if the other party is 17 or under.

        from the article:

        Previously, Japan had one of the lowest age of consent among developed nations. However, a person who has had sex with a minor aged 13 to 15 will be punished only if the person is five or more years older than the minor.

    • buhala@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The difference functionally between those definitions is that if you didn’t fight back hard enough charging with rape wasn’t gonna happen. Plenty of rapists walked away free.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some states in the US still have marriage exceptions in the age of consent laws and some states still have laws allowing you get married at young ages with parents/judge approval iirc. Also several states that have some exceptions for some forms of marital rape. So not really surprising that other countries would also technically have laws like that. Definitely room for improvement in a lot of places…

      • Eavolution@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From what I know though (and I could be wrong), that was sort of like the country wide minimum, however each prefecture had a higher one, so it actually wasn’t 13 anywhere.

      • grus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nonsense. It is quite literally impossible for humans to live that long. 6227020800 years? Are you kidding me? The oldest of us barely even make it to 100!

        • groupofcrows@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          you say its impossible but then your last sentence claims we can barely reach 9.3326215443944E+157… so which is it? j/k