¹ See Fünfzigstes Gesetz zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuches—Verbesserung des Schutzes der sexuellen Selbstbestimmung, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I [BGBl I] [Federal Law Gazette], Nov. 4, 2016, at 2460.Google Scholar

² For a much more comprehensive example of reform, see the English Sexual Offences Act 2003, c. 42 (Eng.).Google Scholar

³ Offense descriptions in the Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] either prescribe lower and upper limits for sentencing ranges or set a lower limit. In the latter case, the upper limit is always the general maximum of fifteen years imprisonment. See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 38 (2). Life sentences are rare in the StGB—they are only applicable if the victim is killed. For sexual offenses, see Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] §§ 176b, 178 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁴ See Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (1532), in Isabel Kratzer-Ceylan, Finalität, Widerstand, “Bescholtenheit”: Zur Revision Der Schlüsselbegriffe Des § 177 StGB 81–84 (2015); for a similar definition in William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England see Keith Burgess-Jackson, A History of Rape Law, in A Most Detestable Crime: New Philosophical Essays on Rape 15, 17 (Burgess-Jackson ed., 1999).Google Scholar

⁵ Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz, July 1, 1997, BGBl. I at 1607.Google Scholar

⁶ See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Jan. 25, 2006, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1146 [hereinafter Judgment of Jan. 25, 2006].Google Scholar

⁷ See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Aug. 26, 2005, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 2006, 165 [hereinafter Judgment of Aug. 26, 2005].Google Scholar

⁸ See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Feb. 14, 2005, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 2006, 380 [hereinafter Judgment of Feb. 14, 2005].Google Scholar

⁹ See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Apr. 4, 2007, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2341, 2343 [hereinafter Judgment of Apr. 4, 2007].Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] June 2, 1982, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW], 1982, 2264 [hereinafter Judgment of June 2, 1982]; Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Nov. 8, 2011, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 2012, 268 [hereinafter Judgment of Nov. 8, 2011].Google Scholar

¹¹ Judgment of Apr. 4, 2007. Google Scholar

¹² See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Jan. 29, 2015, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 337 [hereinafter Judgment of Jan. 29, 2015].Google Scholar

¹³ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 183 (Austria).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See id. §§ 174, 176–76b, 180, 182.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See id. §§ 174a–74c.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See infra Part C.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See infra Part C.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Grieger, Katja, Christina Clemm, Anita Eckhardt & Anna Hartmann, Was Ihnen Widerfahren Ist, Ist In Deutschland Nicht Strafbar: Fallanalyse Zu Bestehenden Schutzlücken In Der Anwendung Des Deutschen Sexualstrafrechts (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Freudenberg, Dagmar & Pisal, Ramona, Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuches—Umsetzung europäischer Vorgaben zum Sexualstrafrecht des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (BMJV) (Deutscher Juristinnenbund eds., July 25, 2014), https://www.djb.de/Kom-u-AS/K3/14–14/; Heike Rabe & Julia Normann, Schutzlücken Bei Der Strafverfolgung Von Vergewaltigungen: Menschenrechtlicher Änderungsbedarf Im Sexualstrafrecht (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte eds., 2014), http://www.institut-fuermenschenrechte.de/fileadmin/_migrated/tx_commerce/Policy_Paper_24_Schutzluecken_bei_der_Strafverfolgung_von_Vergewaltigungen.pdf; Tatjana Hörnle, Menschenrechtliche Verpflichtungen Aus Der Istanbul-Konvention. Ein Gutachten Zur Reform Des § 177 StGB (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, eds. 2015), http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/_migrated/tx_commerce/Menschenrechtliche_Verpflichtungen_aus_der_Istanbul_Konvention_Ein_Gutachten_zur_Reform_des_Paragraf_177_StGB.pdf.Google Scholar

²⁰ Tatjana Hörnle, Warum § 177 Abs. 1 StGB durch einen neuen Tatbestand ergänzt werden sollte, 7 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik [Zis] 206 (2015), http://zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2015_4_913.pdf; Tatjana Hörnle, Wie § 177 StGB ergänzt werden sollte, 162 Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht [Ga] 313 (2015); Osman Isfen, Zur gesetzlichen Normierung des entgegenstehenden Willens bei Sexualdelikten: Ein Beitrag zu aktuellen Reformüberlegungen, 7 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik [Zis] 217 (2015); Lara Herning & Johanna Illgner, “Ja heißt Ja”—Konsensorientierter Ansatz im deutschen Sexualstrafrecht, 17 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik [ZRP] 77 (2016).Google Scholar

²¹ See infra Part C.Google Scholar

²² See Eur. Consult. Ass., Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, No. 210 (May 11, 2011) https://rm.coe.int/168008482e.Google Scholar

²³ See Parlamentsarchiv [Parliamentary Documents], Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen [BT] 18/8210 (Ger.).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Recht und Verbraucherschutz [Recommendations and Report by the Committee on Legal Matters and Consumer Protection], Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen [BT] 18/9097 (Ger.).Google Scholar

²⁵ See Plenarprotokoll [Parliament, Protocols of Plenary Sessions], Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen [BT] 18/183, 18015 (Ger.).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Maas, Heiko, Reformkommission Sexualstrafrecht übergibt Abschlussbericht, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (July 19, 2017), https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Artikel/DE/2017/071917_Bericht_Reformkommission_Sexualstrafrecht.html (suggesting new implementations to protect the individual's sexual self-determination right). The author was a member of this commission, but presents her own views in this Article.Google Scholar

²⁷ See generally Die Zeit 39 (June 30, 2016), http://www.zeit.de/2016/39/index.Google Scholar

²⁸ For a defense of the former legal status quo, see Frommel, Monika, Muss Der Tatbestand Der Sexuellen Nötigung/Vergewaltigung—§ 177 StGB—Reformiert Werden? in Festschrift für Heribert Ostendorf zum 70. Geburtstag, 321–338 (J. Brüning, T. Rotsch & J. Schady eds., 2015); Thomas Fischer, Noch einmal: § 177 und die Istanbul-Konvention, 7 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik [ZIS] 312 (2015); Markus Löffelmann, Erziehung durch Strafe, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [FAZ] 6 (July 21, 2016); Elisa Hoven/Thomas Weigend, „Nein heißt Nein“ – und viele Fragen offen. Zur Neugestaltung der Strafbarkeit sexueller Übergriffe, 72 Juristenzeitung 182 (2015).Google Scholar

²⁹ The Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the UK shows that consent-based laws are not pipe dreams of crazy feminists.Google Scholar

³⁰ Tatjana Hörnle, Penal Law and Sexuality: Recent Reforms in German Criminal Law, 3 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. 639–40 (1999–2000).Google Scholar

³¹ For a version of this narrative, see Herzog, Felix, Sex wider Willen—Anmerkungen zu dem Grund und den Grenzen der Strafbarkeit von nicht konsensual verlaufendem Geschlechtsverkehr, 98 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung Und Rechtswissenschaft [Kritv] 18 (2015); Johannes Brüggemann, Entwicklung und Wandel des Sexualstrafrechts In der Geschichte Unseres StGB: Die Reform der Sexualdelikte Einst und Jetzt 490–516 (2013).Google Scholar

³² See supra note 29 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

³³ His ex-girlfriend accused him of rape, but the suspicion arose that she had inflicted the bruises on herself. Kachelmann was acquitted. He is now busy waging a war of revenge—by means of civil suits—against the media and his ex-girlfriend. See Jörg Kachelmann, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Kachelmann (last visited Oct. 10, 2017).Google Scholar

³⁴ In this case, the prosecutor dropped the case against two men who participated in the video, arguing that Lohfink's saying stop it referred to the men filming her with their mobile phones—not the sex—and that other circumstances were not compatible with her version of the events. Lohfink was sentenced to a fine for making a false accusation.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 177 (2), No. 1, 3 (Austria).Google Scholar

³⁶ See id. at No. 2, 4–5.Google Scholar

³⁷ See case cited supra note 24, at 22–23.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Tuerkheimer, Deborah, Rape On and Off Campus, 65 Emory L.J. 1 (2015) (discussing how sexual agency can close the gap between how the criminal justice system treats non-stranger rape and modern conceptions of sex); Anderson, Michelle J., Campus Sexual Assault Adjudication and Resistance to Reform, 125 YALE L.J. 1940 (2016) (discussing that campus adjudication of sexual assault under the affirmative consent standard should be supported, while unique procedural protections for those accused and mandatory punishments for those found guilty should be opposed). For my criticism of affirmative consent as the standard in criminal law, see Hörnle, supra note 20, Goltdammer's Archiv [GA], at 319–22.Google Scholar

³⁹ As a rule, see infra Sections II—IV (showing exemptions to the rule).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Hörnle, supra note 19, at 17; Hörnle, supra note 20, Goltdammer's Archiv [GA] 326.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Bundesrat Drucksachen [BR] 162/16, 2 (Ger.).Google Scholar

⁴² See case cited supra note 24, at 22–23.Google Scholar

⁴³ See case cited supra note 23, at 5, 16.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Judgment of June 2, 1982 at 2264; Judgment of Nov. 8, 2011 at 268.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See case cited supra note 24, at 26.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 177 (5), No. 1 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See case cited supra note 24, at 25.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ But see also infra Section II (discussing StGB, § 177 (2), No. 2).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For the upper limit, see Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 38 (2) (Austria).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See case cited supra note 23, at 15.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See case cited supra note 24, at 25.Google Scholar

⁵² See id. Google Scholar

⁵³ See id. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ § 240 (IV) old law.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See case cited supra note 23, at 16–17.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 177 (2), No. 4 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See case cited supra note 24, at 26; case cited supra note 23, at 17.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See case cited supra note 23, at 17.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Oct. 16, 2012, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 2013, 279 [hereinafter Judgment of Oct. 16, 2012].Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See case cited supra note 24, at 27.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Under circumstances exactly like the Judgment of June 2, 1982, the use of the pistol would considerably raise the punishment for the sexual assault. See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 177 (8), No. 4 (Austria). In this provision, the law does not demand that the weapon is used against the victim. If, however, the offender beats a person close to the victim with his fists, such an outburst of violence could only be considered as an implicit threat to injure the victim. See id. at No. 2. But this will not always be the case; in Judgment of June 2, 1982, the offender began talking about his continuing love to the victim.Google Scholar

⁶² See case cited supra note 24, at 28.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 177 (8), No. 2 (Austria). (addressing infliction of severe pain and danger of death).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 177 (7), No. 2 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 184h, No. 1 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Mar. 20, 2012, BeckRS 2012, 11487 para. 25 [hereinafter Judgment of Mar. 20, 2012]; Jan. 22, 2013 [hereinafter Judgment of Jan. 22, 2013]; BeckRS 2013, 02643.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Dec. 1, 2011, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 2012, 269, 270 [hereinafter Judgment of Dec. 1, 2011].Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Sick, Brigitte, Die Rechtsprechung zur Sexualbeleidigung, 46 Juristenzeitung [JZ] 330 (1991); Ulrike Lembke, Sexuelle Übergriffe im öffentlichen Raum, 49 Kritische Justiz [KJ] 3 (2016); Tatjana Hörnle, Besserer Schutz vor sexuellen Übergriffen, 32 Streit 3 (2016).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] §§ 183, 185 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Plenarprotokoll [Parliament, Protocols of Plenary Sessions], Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen [BT], 18/183, 18018 (Ger.).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See case cited supra note 24, at 30.Google Scholar

⁷² See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] §§ 183, 185 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁷³ See case cited supra note 24, at 31.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Plenarprotokoll [Parliament, Protocols of Plenary Sessions], Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen [BT], 18/183, 18024. Another point of controversy were additions in the laws on asylum and residence which, following the extension of Sect. 177 StGB, make extradition possible if offenders have been convicted of sexual assault. This is mainly a symbolic change as the vast majority of extradition orders are not enforced in real life. But because symbolic gestures are becoming increasingly important in the contemporary German political climate, this point was strongly contested by the Opposition.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Bohlander, Michael, Principles of German Criminal Law 173 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See case cited supra note 24, at 31Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See generally comments from the Opposition (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen; Die Linke), Plenarprotokoll [Parliament, Protocols of Plenary Sessions], Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen [BT] 18/183, 18003, 18005.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ The sentence range in Section 231 varies from a fine to imprisonment up to three years.Google Scholar