A 44-year-old man from southern Stockholm has been sentenced to three years in prison for rape after having intercourse without a condom, despite the woman, according to the district court, repeatedly making it clear that condom use was an absolute condition for her consent. The verdict from Södertörn District Court raises an important principled question about how far conditional consent extends under Swedish law.

The man, who has a Swedish name, and the woman communicated in English. They met during a dance course in spring 2024 and later started a sexual relationship. Throughout autumn, they met several times and had intercourse on each occasion.

The woman stated that from the very beginning she had been clear that she would only accept vaginal intercourse if the man used a condom. This was the central issue when Södertörn District Court examined the rape charges.

Met After Some Time in a Relationship

On the evening in question in December 2024, the woman came to the man’s home in southern Stockholm after they arranged to meet via WhatsApp. The man paid for her taxi, and the couple began the evening with mutual sexual activity. Both agree that they willingly participated in the initial sexual acts.

According to the woman, she reiterated several times before intercourse that he had to use a condom. She also said that she had recently had sex with another man, which she claimed further reinforced the requirement for condom use.

READ ALSO: 3 Years in Prison and a Quarter Million in Damages – For a Missed Condom

The man, according to her account, questioned why a condom was necessary but was told it was a prerequisite for intercourse at all. These statements appear both in police interviews and in the forensic medical records from Södersjukhuset hospital.

The Parties Agree on Much – But Not the Significance of the Condom Requirement

The case differs from many other sexual crime cases because the parties agree on much of the course of events. They agree that they initially had consensual sexual contact before intercourse, that vaginal penetration occurred without a condom, and that the man ejaculated inside the woman.

The dispute instead centered on how the condom requirement should be understood. The woman described the requirement as absolute. She said she expressly stated she would not accept intercourse without a condom, and that this was repeated several times before penetration.

The man, for his part, denied the crime and explained that he perceived the requirement differently. According to his statements, he thought the woman mainly wanted to protect him since she had recently had sex with someone else.

He therefore claimed he did not perceive condom use as an absolute condition for her consent to sex, even if he admitted that she mentioned condom use once or twice. The couple had also reportedly had unprotected sex on several previous occasions, which, according to the man, reinforced his impression that she wanted to protect him, not the other way around.

Strong Reaction Immediately After the Intercourse

When the woman realized that the man had not used a condom, the situation changed immediately, according to both her own account and documentation presented later in the investigation.

In the medical record, she recounts that she shouted at the man in English: “What the fuck did you just do? I have told you a thousand times that I want to use a condom” and then ran to the bathroom where she tried to remove the semen from her vagina before showering. She then left the man’s residence by taxi and had a restless night’s sleep. The next morning, on a friend’s advice, she bought a morning-after pill and then reported the incident to the police.

READ ALSO: 4 Years in Prison After Tinder Date – Mother: “It Was Her Word Against His”

The medical report also shows she expressed concern about both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections during the examination. She was tested for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and standard blood tests were taken.

The WhatsApp Conversation Became Key Evidence

One of the most important pieces of evidence in the case was the messages exchanged between the parties just minutes after the woman left the apartment.

In the conversation, the man apologizes repeatedly and writes, among other things, that he thought he could control his ejaculation better but that he should have stopped when he realized how aroused he was.

The woman immediately responds by asking how many times she told him to use a condom, stating she is very upset and does not want to speak to him.

The next day, she sends him proof of the purchase of the morning-after pill, which the man then reimburses her for via Swish (mobile payment). Later, when the man expresses a desire to see her again, the woman replies that she no longer wants any contact as he did not respect her boundaries and she can therefore no longer trust him.

The Forensic Medical Examination

Two days after the incident, a forensic medical examination was performed at Södersjukhuset. The examination found no bruises, abrasions, or other external injuries on the head, torso, or limbs.

READ ALSO: INTERVIEW: Tinder Date Ended in 54 Months in Prison and Nearly a Million in Damages – Despite Lack of Evidence

The gynecological examination noted mild redness at the rear vaginal opening but no wounds or other traumatic injuries. Otherwise, the examination was described as normal. A forensic evidence kit was taken and tests conducted for sexually transmitted infections.

The report thus does not support the occurrence of physical violence or coercion, but documents the woman’s psychological reaction and her immediate concern regarding pregnancy and infection.

District Court: The Consent Was Conditional

For the court, the key issue was not whether the intercourse had initially been voluntary but what the woman’s consent meant.

The court found that both parties gave consistent accounts of the circumstances crucial for the legal assessment. According to the district court, it was clear that the man understood the woman did not accept vaginal intercourse without a condom. Therefore, he was considered to have acted with intent by proceeding without protection.

READ ALSO: The Court Believes – and Your Future Is Lost

This reasoning means that the court regarded the woman’s consent as expressly conditional. Consent to sex with a condom was therefore not considered to also constitute consent to sex without a condom.

The Defense Was Not Accepted

The man opposed the charges and claimed the woman voluntarily participated in intercourse. He said he misunderstood the meaning of her statements about condoms and did not perceive them as an absolute requirement.

The district court did not accept this explanation. The court emphasized the woman’s consistent statements, her immediate reaction after the incident, the messages exchanged, and the man’s own admission that he knew she had talked about condoms before intercourse. Taken together, the court found it proven that he understood her consent was limited to sex with a condom.

Minimum Penalty for Rape

The sentence was set at three years in prison, which is the minimum penalty for rape according to the Penal Code. The man had no prior convictions, but the court concluded that the law does not allow for a lighter custodial sentence when the crime is classified as rape.

He was also ordered to pay a total of SEK 220,000 in damages to the woman, of which SEK 200,000 for violation of integrity and SEK 20,000 for pain and suffering.

A Verdict of Principal Significance

The verdict is unusual in that it is not about allegations of violence, threats, or that the intercourse itself was unwanted from the outset. Instead, the whole case centers around the meaning of conditional consent.

READ ALSO: Ekeroth: “When the Rule of Law Sacrifices Young Men”

Södertörn District Court’s conclusion is that an explicit requirement for condom use can constitute such a restriction of consent that sex without a condom lacks voluntariness under the consent law, if the other party understood the condition to be crucial.

The legal assessment does not mean that every act of intercourse without a condom automatically constitutes rape. The crucial issue in this case, according to the district court, was that the man was aware of the woman’s explicit and repeated requirement and still chose to proceed without the protection she made a condition for her consent.

SD, S and V on the Bench

The verdict from Södertörn District Court was unanimous. The judges were Chief District Judge Maria Hallqvist and lay judges Åke Hellberg (V), Birgitta Kylin-Majby (S), and Jackie Svensen (SD).