Ten years of no means no: no is no longer enough

“What an incredible fight that was,” says Katja Grieger when she thinks back a decade. It's the year 2016: Since the beginning of the year, Germany has been discussing sexual assaults on New Year's Eve in Cologne, and at the same time the court trial surrounding the alleged rape of model Gina-Lisa Lohfink is taking place. There is political momentum for the cause that Grieger, as head of the Federal Association of Women's Advice Centers and Women's Emergency Hotlines (bff), has been fighting for for years: a tightening of sexual criminal law and the introduction of “no means no”.

Since the beginning of the 2010s, Grieger had organized congresses, documented rape cases and written open letters to Angela Merkel. In July 2016, after increasing public pressure, the Bundestag finally reformed sexual criminal law. From then on, what is new is the so-called contradiction rule, the “no means no” principle. The law came into force on November 10, 2016, exactly ten years ago. For many in the women's rights movement, it was a paradigm shift.

Previously, sexualized violence was only punishable if the person affected physically defended themselves, if violence and threats were involved, or if a defenseless situation was taken advantage of, from now on the person's recognizable unwillingness should be sufficient. The women's rights movement hoped that this would finally implement the Istanbul Convention signed by Germany in 2011.

Section 177 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code states: “Anyone who performs sexual acts on that person or has them performed by them against the apparent will of another person, or who orders that person to perform or tolerate sexual acts on or by a third party, is punished with a prison sentence of six months to five years.” If the opposing will can be recognized by an “objective third party” - for example by saying no or by turning the head away, crying or pushing away - sexual activity is punishable.

Since then, the no-means-no principle has had a lot of impact on a social level, says Grieger. “The matter-of-factness with which young people today say ‘no means no’ is also a result of the change in the law,” she is certain. The topic of sexual violence is now less taboo and those affected are more present in the media, also thanks to social media. In fact, ten years later, sexual violence is receiving more attention. It's the world after #outcry, after #metoo, after Gisele Pelicot and Collien Fernandes.

But despite the increased visibility, the number of cases of sexual violence has not decreased. The police registered 131,335 sexual offenses in 2025, an increase of 2.8 percent. At the same time, this probably only accounts for a fraction of the actual attacks. According to a dark field study by the BKA, only six percent of sexual abuse and rape were reported in 2023. Of the small proportion of crimes reported, only about one in ten cases ends in a conviction. Many cases are being discontinued. On a legal level, former supporters of “No means no” also doubt that the contradiction model is still sufficient.

Over the years, the regulation revealed significant gaps in protection. In a new analysis, the German Institute for Human Rights criticizes the fact that the focus on the no makes those affected the center of the judicial assessment - not the perpetrators. “As a result, those affected often experience pressure to justify themselves and blame instead of getting the help they need,” says Müşerref Tanrıverdi, head of the DIM’s Gender-Specific Violence Reporting Center.

This is particularly serious in the case of tonic immobility, also known as shock paralysis. According to studies, between 37 and 70 percent of all those affected experience this psychosomatic reaction to sexual violence. It is a condition in which they cannot speak or move despite being fully conscious. However, criminal law has not yet had an adequate answer to the contradiction rule à la “recognizable reluctance”.

Initiatives like “Only Yes means Yes!” and human rights and women's rights organizations such as the Institute for Human Rights, the German Women's Council or the German Association of Women Lawyers are therefore calling for a further development from “No means no” to “Only yes means yes”. After all, “consent” is also the basis on which the Istanbul Convention, ratified by Germany, is built.

Instead of a lack of contradiction, consent should be the basis of sex. The demand is not new. As early as 2023, the EU Commission made its first efforts to adopt a uniform definition of rape as an EU directive, and the consensus principle should also be anchored in this. But the initiative failed, among other things because of the traffic light government and the then German Ministry of Justice under Marco Buschmann (FDP).

Ten years after “No means no”, the time now seems ripe for further changes: When Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) introduced a bill last week to tighten the penalties for rape, she immediately announced that it would not stop there. Hubig also wants to bring “Only Yes means Yes” into the cabinet this year. “Sexual acts must be consensual,” she told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. This is a matter of course and must also be reflected in the law. Silence, Hubig continued, does not mean consent.

The Minister of Justice now finds support for this position across all levels and almost all factions. In April 2026, the EU Parliament called for a uniform definition of rape based on the “Only yes means yes” principle, and in May the Green parliamentary group submitted a corresponding proposal to the Bundestag. “If someone steals a bicycle, they are not committing a criminal offense until the owner says “No!” calls," said the Green Party's legal policy spokeswoman, Lena Gumnior, in the plenary debate at the time. Things are different with sex, she said, "the victim is expected to explain herself. We have to end this reversal of blame." In July, the Federal Council finally called for the introduction of “Only Yes means Yes”.

And with the other governing party, the Union? There is sometimes still skepticism about tightening criminal law - especially in view of the difficulties in providing evidence in court, where testimony is often pitted against testimony. “Only yes means yes” could lead to a reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of the defendant, say the critics. The German Association of Women Lawyers counters: The difficulties of proof “are not eliminated by a requirement for consent, but they are not made worse either.” However, it would be easier to understand whether a person has consented to an action than it is to understand whether they have made a conflicting intention apparent.

And some high-ranking CDU politicians have now spoken out in favor of the consensus principle. The current legal situation means that many perpetrators cannot be convicted, Hesse's Justice Minister Christian Heinz told the Welt newspaper in June. “We must finally address this structural problem at the expense of women and improve the legislation,” said Heinz.

But couldn't this have been done in 2016? Shouldn’t “Only Yes means Yes” have been introduced back then instead of “No means No”? “Only yes means yes” was occasionally discussed in expert circles, and the consensus principle already existed in some other EU countries, Grieger remembers. “But for Germany it was absolutely clear to us that this would never go through,” she says. “That would have been utopian.” In addition, the assessment was circulating at the time that legally it might not make much of a difference. “That turned out to be a mistake,” Grieger says today.

The bff presents the latest evidence of this in an analysis of 81 rape cases from 2016 to 2026. The association evaluated the anonymized judgments and employment notices and also spoke to advisors and those affected. The evaluation is to be presented on Tuesday as part of a specialist conference on ten years of “No means no”. The results are sobering, says Grieger. And the question of whether “no means no” has to become “only yes means yes” is far from over.

“The big problems lie in the process,” says the bff managing director. As long as nothing changes in the minds of those who make the decisions there, nothing would change. She describes a case: a victim makes a report two days after experiencing rape; she first speaks to her gynecologist. The police officers in charge see the two days' delay as a reason to doubt the woman's statement. Don't you believe the woman? Do you think a “real victim” would behave differently?

“Rape myths and stereotypical ideas about how real victims behave mean that interpretation often fails,” says Grieger. In addition, there is a lack of capacity for investigations and securing evidence.

Grieger believes that “only yes means yes” is simply the most concrete thing that could be demanded at the moment. But the much thicker boards are different. Social change requires prevention work, training, questioning patriarchal thought patterns and more capacity in law enforcement authorities, she says. And that is much more difficult than changing the law.