I suppose we are getting lost in translation somewhere here. You get right to the point asking:
“What is it about the word consent that raises such ire in Germany?”
Now, I can only speak for myself, not for some “Germany”. There is no “ire”. The problem is, that sex without consent is either something extremely weird I cannot define or rape (sometimes defined as “sexual assault”). So from what I understand, the change in the law must be some kind of ‘official’ consent. Maybe this is a missunderstanding, but how can there be any difference between the “use of violence” and a missing consent? Does a sexual act just so happen without anyone acting? On the other hand there is the question wether a missing however official consent leads to an increase of false accusations.
Concerning the case: If the court has found no signs of violence or force, it seems to me “they all rehearsed a perfectly coherent story“.
Furthermore, which is the reason for the whole debate, there are lots of other [stupid] attempts to rule social relationships by law, especially those among different ‘genders’. In that context, the story is a kind of stimulus.

But as I have mentioned, this is not a question of “single cases”, this is the way the law works. I provided examples to improve your understanding of the symptom.

As you clearly note, you, just as well as most other people don’t understand why this behaviour is not being judged as violence or force, but the judicial expertice of our country has analyzed these rulings,again and again, and decided that the law has been correctly interpreted. That is the reason the law will now be clarified so that the court will be allowed to judge coercive acts such as these as being force or violence. Here I get a bit confused, you yourself note that the current swedish law makes no sense, yet you are vehemetely opposed to changing it so that thesee indirect acts of coercion will be included? What is it about the word consent that raises such ire in Germany? Does the german word have some sinister subtext that it lacks in other languages?

“I cannot see a solution by any kind of consent but only by the definition of force or violence. As we discussed, what if the guys had claimed “She said ‘yes’”?”

Here I would like you to read the clarification from the embassy that I posted. I don’t quite understand your distinction here, the entire point here is to clarify what constitutes lack of consent, and thus constitutes coercion. Saying that threats void consent gives the same result as saying threats constitutes force.

As for the question “what if the guys claim she simply said yes?” well, that’s exactly what the law is for, that in a threatening situation as the one described, badgering someone into give their “consent” will not be considered consent under the new law, that is exactly the point of the law. There are of course, even under the new law cases where this wouldn’t help, but it’s a bit weird to let perfect be the enemy of better. If ten people assault one guy they can still get off the hook if they all rehearse a perfectly coherent story where they were attacked by this lone madman. This is not a problem unique to sexual assault, but the new law will make that kind of crap harder to pull off. The problem with “she said yes” will still remain a thing regardless of the solution. It is a problem that is only tangentially affected by the proposal you prefer, that is clarification of what constitutes force rather than consent.

(update) From your description I can see no greater difference between swedish and german law system. In Germany, the government is an executive force, law can only be changed by parliament (mostly orchestrated or initialized by a government). So if a court judges even in the strangest way, neither government nor parliament have any influence in that. Consequently, strange judging cannot be corrected by law but only by further (higher) court judgement.

I am strictly opposing attempts to ‘correct’ single cases (often extreme ones) by changing general rules. The described case seems extremely odd to me and leads to the question why the acting of the rapists is not being interpreted as violence or force. I cannot see a solution by any kind of consent but only by the definition of force or violence. As we discussed, what if the guys had claimed “She said ‘yes’”?

I don’t want to repeat the discussion, but as far as I understand, there is still a gap in the appraisal of possibly working solutions.

Von einer Freiwilligkeit einer Person sollte nie ausgegangen werden, wenn

1. die Teilnahme an einer sexuellen Handlung das Ergebnis von Misshandlung, anderer Gewalt oder Bedrohung ist,

2. die Täterin/der Täter in ungebührender Weise den Umstand ausnutzt, dass sich eine Person aufgrund von bspw. großer Angst oder Trunkenheit in einer besonders schwachen Position befindet oder

3. die Täterin/der Täter in schwerwiegender Weise den Umstand ausnutzt, dass sich die Person der Täterin/dem Täter gegenüber in einem Abhängigkeitsverhältnis befindet.

Ich werstehe nicht warum das hier so umstritten ist. Ich glaube das ist sehr gut dass man das gesetzt das sagt.

http://www.swedenabroad.com/de-DE/Embassies/Berlin/Aktuelles–Veranstaltungen/Aktuelles/Regierung-prasentiert-Reform-des-Sexualstrafrechts–sys/

Noch ein mal, entschuldigen für meine schlechte deutsch.

Mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, so Ich will hier im english schreiben. Untschuldigung.

As a Swede I feel that I must make some corrections here. I’m not even going to address the most obvious things, like the idea that the law would require written consent(!), but rather have a broad discussion of the roots of these misconceptions. There are a number of reasons why what in reality is a quite minor, and quite tame, change in a swedish law gets so misunderstood abroad. There are in my opinion two primary reasons for this.
1) The swedish legal system as some idiosynchrasies that most foreign readers are unaware of. For example, the subjective reality is very important in the legal system. In one case where a 15-year old girl was raped by six men in a locked room, the men were freed, since, even though the girl had said no, she had not try to physically free herself, so the court decided that it could not be proved that the boys had really understood that she didn’t wan’t to have sex with them. (LINK REMOVED ) It was enough that she had said no, it was necessary to prove that the boys had understood that she didn’t want to. This is exactly the kind of case where the slight changing in the wording of the law would have made a difference. Another thing is that it is in Sweden not really possible to change how courts are to interpret the law without actually changing the law. In the Swedish system the government is infact prohibited from affecting, or attempting to affect how a law is interpreted. They are only allowed to change the law as such. In the swedish context saying that one can change the “Rechtspraxis” without changing the actual law has about the same meaning as saying “why don’t the judges just disregard the law and do what they like”?
When we look at laws in other countries we have a tendency to assume that everyting appart from the detail that we are now discussing is exactly the same, but that is rarely the case. This is of course exploited by those who want to engage in pseudo-gramscian rightwing kulturkampf.

2) The second reason for the many misconceptions of the law is the continous campaign of disinformation about everything related to Sweden by the modern far right. The far right, both in Sweden and abroad, are engaged in a campaign where they wish to paint Sweden as being both “The rape capital fo the world” and at the same time “The Saudi Arabia of Feminism”. While this is obviously not the case their campaign has given a lot of people the feeling that “where there is smoke there is fire”, which is why sources such as RP and WELT publish stories that a few years ago had been written off as obvious crypto-nazi propaganda. The problem that most people have to rely on secondary sources which are free to exploit the ignorance about important details when reading about foreign countries make this problem a lot worse.
A rule of thumb when reading news about other countries is, if your first reaction is “this sounds crazy”, then there is a high risk that there are crucial parts of the narrative missing. Crazy things are happening in a lot of countries, but if you read that a country that is not too unlike your own is criminalizing sex without written consent, there is a high probability that you are being misled by soemone who is omitting crucial facts.

Well, I obviously have a lot more to say on this subject, but to give a TL;DR:
Beware of sources that exploint your ignorance, even if you think you are a critical reader it is impossible to defend yourself against them using things you do not know that you do not know to fool you.

Du wirst feststellen, wie unsinnig dieses Gesetz ist und eben in der Praxis keinen Unterschied macht. In den meisten Fällen gibt es nunmal keine weiteren Zeugen/Beteiligten als die unmittelbar am sexuellen Akt beteiligten. Daher macht in der Rechtspraxis ein “nicht explizit Nein gesagt/abgelehnt” oder “Muss explizit Ja sagen/zustimmen” keinen wirklichen Unterschied. Am Ende ist es Wort gegen Wort, ausser der Fall ist z.B. anhand physischer Blessuren/medizinischem Gutachten klar eine Vergewaltigung. Leider gibt es aber oft keine eindeutigen Beweise/Spuren. Schon alleine deshalb weil Vergewaltigung nicht gleich Vergewaltigung (und was die Schweden alles darunter definieren geht mir wie ich finde auch eine Spur zu weit. Damit fördern sie eher das bagatellisieren/ins Lächerliche ziehen) und eben oft auch erst lange nach der Tat gemeldet wird.

Wir alle wollen Gerechtigkeit, aber so wie es eine sehr wahrscheinlich hohe Dunkelkennziffer von Vergewaltigungsopfern gibt, welche sie nie melden, weil sie keine Aussicht auf juristischen Erfolg sehen, Scham, Angst, etc… gibt es eben auch genug Fälle, wo das Leben von Personen durch falsche Anschuldigungen zerstört wurde. Rufmord, Willkür, Aufhebung der Unschuldsvermutung, … möchtest du lieber so ein Justizsystem? Wie gesagt, einfach mal einen Schritt nach hinten machen und nicht nur diese eine Ungerechtigkeit sehen, sondern versuchen das ganze Bild zu verstehen.

Noch zu der Presse selbst und der sog. Richtigstellung seitens Postillon. Ich habe mir die Überschriften und stichprobenartig Artikel durchgelesen, welche laut dem von dir genannten Link in #30 falsche Aussagen verbreitet haben. In allen Fällen steht da “es muss die ausdrückliche Erlaubnis eingeholt werden”. Nirgends habe ich einen gefunden wo a) explizit nach einer schriftlichen verlangt wird (Welt z.B. schreibt “gerne auch schriftlich”, was eine typische Formulierung für “optional” ist) und b) “aktiv um Erlaubnis fragen” oder “eine Erlaubnis ohne Aufforderung erhalten” ist zwar noch ein kleiner Unterschied, aber geht eher schon in Richtung Haarspalterei, denn am Ende des Tages ist das Ergebnis gleich -> alle beteiligten Sexualpartner müssen explizit zustimmen.

So, ich gehe sogar noch einen Schritt weiter als in #49. Selbst wenn das Gesetz eine schriftliche Erlaubnis zur Pflicht machen würde, dürfte nicht viel Zeit vergehen bis wir den ersten Fall vor Gericht haben, wo es schriftlich festgehalten ist, aber eine der Parteien behauptet sie/er sei zu der Unterschrift gezwungen worden. So und was nun? Es schliesst sich der Kreis der schon in #32 erstgenannten Antwort, dass dieses Gesetz in der Rechtspraxis keinen Mehrwert bringen wird, sondern im Gegenteil eher noch mehr Unsicherheit und Chaos bringt. Es fällt ziemlich eindeutig in die Kategorie “gut gemeint, aber schlecht gemacht”. Denn alle psychisch gesunden und nennen wir es “normale” Menschen, welche einfach ihren sexuellen Vorlieben und Wünschen nachgehen betrifft das nicht und die schütteln vermutlich eher mit dem Kopf und denken sich “wieso müssen wir nun unser Verhalten anpassen, weil ein paar Freaks rumlaufen, die ihre Triebe nicht im Griff haben”.

In Wirklichkeit isses doch so (von hier) also mindestens two to tango!

Kann ich jetzt wieder in’s Bett gehen…?

OT: Fehler bei IP-Adressen: Viele Briten fälschlich wegen Kinderpornos verhaftet

[..] Burnton vermerkt zwei Hauptfehlerquellen: einerseits passieren den Polizisten schlicht Tippfehler, andererseits ist die eindeutige Zuordnung von Nutzern im Fall von dynamischen IP-Adressen oft nicht möglich. [..]

Die Polizei findet die meisten Pornos voraussichtlich unter 127.0.0.1. Oder war’s 192.168.x.x?
Egal, man kann ja mal nach “fake ip address” suchen: Mach’ das!