The text

Rape Bill, the difference between 'contrary will' and 'free and present consent'

Lawyers appreciate, while for the oppositions it is 'dictated by patriarchy'

by Rome Editorial Staff

30 January 2026

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Key points

Out with 'consensus', in with 'dissent'
Lawyer reactions
Opposition protests

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

The opposition called it a change 'dictated by patriarchy'. They are referring to the new wording of the Leghist senator Giulia Bongiorno's bill on sexual violence, which was changed and approved in the Senate Justice Commission with 12 yes and 10 no votes. There are two main differences: the increase in penalties and, above all, the central criterion of the crime.

Out with 'consensus', in with 'dissent'

This is a major change in the way sexual violence is defined in the criminal code. In the text approved by the Chamber last November, sexual violence was linked to the absence of the 'free and present consent' of the person involved. With the rewording, however, the focus becomes the 'contrary will' of the victim: in other words, it is the fact that the person has clearly expressed that he or she does not want to have sexual intercourse that counts.

Previously, however, sexual violence was defined on the basis of an apparently simple principle: sexual violence was any act performed without the 'free and actual consent' of the person. This meant that, in the process, the central issue became whether or not there was valid consent to sexual intercourse. Consent, in fact, without pressure (free) and present at that precise moment (actual).

The reactions of the advocacy

This change was welcomed by several lawyers. According to the Italian Association of Young Lawyers (Aiga), basing the offence on the victim's dissent makes the rule more balanced, because it protects the one who suffers the violence but at the same time respects the fundamental principles of criminal law, in particular those related to the proof of the crime.

The Aiga also emphasises the need, in the future, to distinguish more clearly between sexual violence and sexual harassment, so as to ensure penalties proportionate to the seriousness of the behaviour.

The Organismo Congressuale Forense (Ocf) also assesses the amendment positively, although it reiterates that the subject of sexual offences would need a broader reform, capable of aligning Italian legislation with that of other European countries and the Istanbul Convention. According to the Ocf, the new text of Article 609 bis of the penal code is clearer and more precise than the previous version, which presented several interpretation problems.

In particular, the OECF points out that putting the victim's dissent at the centre makes it possible to protect his or her contrary will even in cases where there are no threats or explicit physical violence. Furthermore, the provision of differentiated penalties according to the seriousness of the conduct is seen as a step towards a system closer to that adopted in other European legal systems.

Opposition protests

From the oppositions, on the other hand, there is criticism of the turnaround after the 'pact' in the Chamber between Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Dem secretary Elly Schlein. From the PD, Michela Di Biase, the rapporteur of the text unanimously approved in Montecitorio, said that Bongiorno "presented and also voted for an amendment that totally compromises the proposed law on consent, already approved in the Chamber, and which, by transposing the Istanbul Convention, would have represented a leap forward for Italian legislation, bringing it into line with that of many other countries that have already done so. The text of the amendment was written by a woman but dictated by the patriarchy'.