IN FOCUS
Evidence, Echoes, Effects
Editor: Camilla Di Nardo
On 1 July 2024, the new Dutch Sexual Offences Act entered into force, expanding the scope of criminalized sexual conduct. The law centers on the requirement of consent, which may be expressed verbally or non-verbally. Under the new framework, criminal liability may arise not only in cases involving coercion, but also where sexual acts occur in the absence of voluntary consent (Government of the Netherlands).
Among the many things, during our encounter with Sanderijn, we discussed the law, its implementation and the hopes related to this big change. Of course, the expectations are big, but I couldn’t help but think about a reverse trend that’s happening in my home country, Italy.
In January 2026, the Italian Senate found itself discussing some unexpected changes to the bipartisan draft law on sexual offences. The “DDL Bongiorno” was aiming at broadening the definition and persecution of sexual violence, adding the requirement of a “free, aware, unequivocal and revocable consent”. The draft law was a victory of the Parliament as a whole, which approved the law in its entirety during the first round of voting at the Parliament’s Chamber (Camilli 2026).
During the second round of discussion at the Senate, however, the content was changed, as the word “consent” and the consequent explanations were eliminated. After a pause of the discussion in November 2025, at the beginning of the new year, the term was substituted by Senator Giulia Bongiorno with “contrary will”, adopting a legislative approach called “dissent model”, a decision that was strongly criticised by the opposition parties and transfeminist organisations. As explained by lawyer Carla Quinto, this ambiguous terminology could shift the perception of the responsibility (Camilli 2026). In simpler terms, the focus on “dissent” wouldn’t make the perpetrator guilty of not respecting consent, but rather the victim responsible for proving that they had refused.
The reasons for this change of direction didn’t appear clear, as the proposing party, Lega, and the other members of the parliamentary majority had agreed to the initial draft law. In November 2025, some members of the parliamentary majority started to express their doubts, like Lega’s leader Matteo Salvini, who stated that the initial definition of “mutual consent” was “too broad” and that could lead to “personal vengeances” in tribunals. Moreover, judges could be “overwhelmed” with cases of sexual violence (Sky TG24, 2025).
I found myself following this very heated debate from afar, while working in the field of consent education in the Netherlands. I managed to discuss my worries with Sanderijn van der Doef during a special lecture at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) on the sexual development of kids, teenagers and young adults. During her Q&A time, I asked her whether she also feels that the word “consent” is approached with diffidence in certain political contexts. I talked to her about what had just happened in Italy and asked if she had heard about similar critiques of the new policy in the Netherlands.
Sanderijn shared my concern. She expressed satisfaction with the policy change in the Netherlands, underlining the long work behind this victory, but also underlined the voice of its detractors. The main critique that she witnessed was very similar to what I read about Italy: from a judicial point of view, this law is unprecedented. There is still confusion on how to practically assess nonverbal consent. Sanderijn acknowledged this concern while emphasizing that the application of new legal frameworks inevitably requires a period of interpretation, study, and jurisprudential development. Nonetheless, she maintained that the policy reform was necessary.
Sadnerijn delivered a lecture at the University of Amsterdam, on March 4th, 2026
Consent is a complex concept, discussed and debated even in academia. Professor Alissa Kessel (2019) participated in the critical debate on the use of consent in the context of sexual violence, arguing that using it as a conceptual and practical tool to distinguish sex from rape could be dangerous and provoke further victimisation of victims. Describing it as a form of “cruel optimism”, she underlines that perpetrators could rely on it to blur the line on non-verbal forms of refusal and force victims to actively demonstrate their refusal.
The fact that consent provokes such complex debates isn’t really surprising, and maybe it’s even a good thing: important ideas that could actively impact people’s lives need to be discussed. However, my worries around Italy, legislation and ideas on consent go beyond that: the perception that I have is that “consent” has become one of those words that create fear. It’s not abnormal for legislators to study the application of consent, or for academics to participate in critical debates, but when such an important idea is used as a political weapon to polarize the conversation on actual victims, the danger becomes evident.
Sanderijn agreed with me: there’s a certain degree of fear behind the concept of “consent”, something that can even influence political contexts and block legislation. In her experience as a psychologist, sexologist and international expert in sexuality education, she has seen a certain diffidence around consent and talking about it.
But why are people afraid of consent? Sanderijn didn’t hesitate: talking about consent could be scary for some people. It means digging deep, exploring complicated ideas, prejudices and feelings. Still, it’s necessary, and the Netherlands are a clear example of why that is so: according to the 2023 national “Seks onder je 25e” survey, young adults want to talk about consent, but are still a bit confused about non-verbal signals. Many don’t recognise implicit refusal, freezing and other signals.
Overall, Sanderijn remained positive: there’s still a lot to do, but the Netherlands are going in a good direction. She’s satisfied with the quality of sexuality education, which is not perfect, but it’s still promising, with the new policy and the presence of data on the current situation. There’s space to do some work.
From the EPSR analysis: “Definitions of rape in the legislation of EU Member States” (2025). In 2026, France has adopted a new definition of sexual violence that includes consent
Finally, she managed to give me hope. She talked about all the legislative paths and cultural changes that have happened in other countries and hoped for a change of scenery, also in Italy. She’s a firm believer in the fact that people are becoming more aware about consent and of the necessity to talk about it, inviting me to be positive. The trend in Europe is improving, as more and more countries are discussing and implementing policies to include consent in sexual violence definitions (EPRS, 2025).
That’s the most important thing that I’ll bring to me after the meeting with Sanderijn: with the right approach and education, fears can disappear, and legislation, finally, will change.
We presented CUE ‘s work after Sanderijn’s lecture
After her lecture, Sanderijn invited us to join her on stage and introduce CUE and our work to the students at UvA.
References:
