In a groundbreaking move, France is inching closer to integrating the concept of consent into its rape laws, a reform that aligns it with many countries worldwide that already require consent as a crucial component in legal definitions of sexual assault.

On Tuesday, the lower house of the French Parliament passed an important bill aimed at redefining rape to include nonconsensual penetration, marking a significant shift in the fight against sexual violence. This legislative change has gained momentum in the wake of a harrowing trial involving Gisèle Pelicot, who was brutally raped by multiple men while incapacitated by drugs last fall.

Marie-Charlotte Garin, one of the lawmakers spearheading the initiative, passionately expressed her commitment to transforming societal attitudes towards sexual consent, stating, “This is a starting point, not a final one. We are moving from a culture of rape to a culture of consent, and this is the first stone we are throwing against the wall of impunity.” Her comments highlight the urgency for reform and a collective shift in how sexual crimes are approached in France.

Research underscores the dire need for this legal amendment, with experts indicating that up to 70% of rape victims often freeze or dissociate during the assault, affecting their ability to fight back. Unfortunately, this lack of physical resistance is often misinterpreted in court as tacit permission. Legal scholar Catherine Le Magueresse pointed out that current court rulings sometimes conclude that a lack of resistance from the victim implies the accused could not have known they were committing a crime.

Critics of the current legal framework argue that this change could create a safer space for victims. “We would be adding a safety step for women, and then he couldn’t even say, ‘I thought she agreed,’” said Le Magueresse, who has authored works emphasizing the importance of consent in sexual assault cases.

Proponents of the bill believe this clarification will not only broaden investigations to actively search for evidence of consent but also institute a more victim-centered approach in handling such cases, ultimately reducing impunity for perpetrators.

In comparison, several other countries have long recognized the importance of consent in their rape laws. Canada has included affirmative consent in its definitions since 1983, while in the United States, the application of consent varies greatly by state—with a handful enshrining it in law.

However, this proposed change is not without its detractors. Some feminist activists and legal advocates caution that emphasizing consent may inadvertently shift focus onto a victim’s actions rather than holding the perpetrators accountable. Lorraine Questiaux, a lawyer dedicated to defending victims of violence, warned, “It’s a total trap. Rape has nothing to do with consent. It is about domination.”

Moreover, French philosopher Manon Garcia, who is vocal about the legal shift, argued that merely adjusting the definition of rape will not solve the deep-seated societal issues at play. She advocates for more significant investments in police resources, education, and cultural changes to foster a better understanding of respect and empathy among future generations.

The Pelicot trial profoundly impacted the national conversation around sexual violence, with the shocking circumstances revealing a deeply ingrained issue in French society. The trial concluded in the conviction of Ms. Pelicot’s ex-husband and more than 50 accomplices, some for rape, spotlighting the urgent need for legal reforms that prioritize victim consent.

As France stands on the precipice of significant legal change, many will be watching to see if this movement can not only reshape laws but also catalyze a cultural transformation in how sexual violence is understood and addressed in society. Will this be the turning point in the fight for justice and equality, or merely a symbolic gesture? The outcome could forever change the landscape of consent and sexual rights in France.