I found out out yesterday that the women aren't even pressing charges.
Sweden are.
Galloway's a bellend of the highest order but to be honest I agree with most of what he's saying. It stinks of a set-up, and this ISN'T rape as most people understand it. He bust a condom and in the heat of the moment, didn't tell her. Is that rape as most people understand it? A girl who fancied him took him to bed and shagged him, and then she awoke having sex with him later. Is that rape as most people understand it? Well technically in Sweden, yes, but over there they have some mental rape laws. You can be convicted of rape for "talking someone into" sex over there, as in putting emotional pressure on someone. In which case about 99% of men have been guilty of rape at one point.
Making the missus / girlfriend feel guilty because you've not had a shag for a couple of weeks? If she gives in and lets you jump on, you could be a rapist and face 4 years in Sweden.
So yeah, I think Assange should go and defend himself, but if Sweden want him so badly, let them promise they won't give him to the yanks. But that won't happen because Assange knows that the instant he sets foot on Swedish soil the Americans will put pressure on Sweden, the 'rape' case will be given a perfunctory hearing before being thrown out, and Assange will be whisked away to the Land Of The Free to answer to terrorism charges and a possible death sentence.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:12, Reply)
I'll agree with Leemondus on this one.
Assange has every right to be scared. America's not happy that their (really) dirty secrets have been aired. Just look at Bradley Manning. Over 800 days imprisoned without trial in solitary confinement. The legal maximum is a fraction of that.
The press is definitely not to be trusted on this one as they are on a frightening smear campaign. Assange does come across as an asshole but his intentions are good.
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-assange-the-rolling-stone-interview-20120118
This is a fairly good interview.
(
dazbrilliantwhites has been meaning to change this..., Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:24,
Reply)
I kind of agreed with him too...
...not entirely though.
If we take the attitude that all sexual endeavours MUST be preceded by the verbal or written consent of both parties then pretty much everyone on the face of the planet and throughout history who's had sex is a rapist.
Waking up to a bloke shagging you who you were a willing participant in sexual contact with a few hours earlier? Grey area. Extremely grey.
If she protested and he continued, then it's rape. If she went along with it or just resigned herself to it, then it's not.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:32, Reply)
Grey area?
GREY AREA? Are you a fucking psychopath?
Suppose someone invites you to their house for a meal, and then a few hours later you're hungry again. Would it be acceptable to let yourself in and raid the pantry? Would it even be a grey area?
If you're in bed next to a sleeping person, in what world would it be even vaguely morally or legally permissible to start having sex with him or her, on the grounds that he or she was willing in the past?
Honestly, now: do you really think that it's a grey area?
And if she resigned herself to it - do you really think that that makes it OK? Suppose someone threatens you with a broken bottle unless you hand over your wallet. You resign yourself to the loss of the wallet, and go along with the demand in order to avoid getting injured. Have you been less robbed? I doubt it. Now suppose that someone confronts a woman with a broken bottle and demands sex. Again, she might decide to let him have sex with her because, all things considered, that'd be better than being glassed. Now, if the robbery was still robbery (and I'd contend that it was), doesn't this imply that this would still be rape? (Again, I'd contend that it would.) And if it's still rape, then it must be so in spite of the woman having resigned herself to it. Your claim amounts to the idea that it's impossible to be raped if resistance would be futile or counterproductive.
And that's idiotic.
I mean: I don't want to come across all righteous anger... but you really are a complete and utter moral failure if you honestly adhere to the claims you've just made.
EDIT: I'm clearly concentrating on the moral aspect of the claim. Legally, you're just flat out wrong.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:42,
Reply)
Shit, I've done it loads of times
never been accused of rape, never had a problem at all.
am I actually some sort of mass rapist?
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:51, Reply)
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/13/the-bogus-julian-assange-rape-case-hurts-women.html
(
dazbrilliantwhites has been meaning to change this..., Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:52,
Reply)
...
...a partner has every right to disengage at any time and have their decision respected. That I think is the most important thing.
If she didn't want the act to continue but lay there and didn't do or say anything to imply that she wanted him to stop, how was he meant to know?
Can you honestly say you've gotten explicit verbal or written consent from a partner every time you've had sex or engaged in a sexual act?
Those things considered, grey area. If she wasn't willing and made it apparent through either action or verbalisation, then he's a rapist. No question.
Otherwise, grey area.
As for the food analogy, If i'd invited someone to my house and made them dinner and told them to make themselves at home, I'd have no problem with them getting a drink or getting something else to eat. As long as they didn't take the piss.
I'm off to pick up my fiance, who I'm pretty sure i've never raped. I'll ask her...
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:56, Reply)
The explicit consent thing is a complete red herring.
It doesn't warrant a response.
As for not giving an explicit indication that she wanted him to stop: well, explicit indications can't be the whole story (otherwise we're back to saying that women who keep quiet for the sake of avoiding something worse haven't actually been raped).
Look: I'm not completely familiar with Swedish rape law. But it doesn't seem to have stopped Swedish people having sex.
And the food analogy isn't as easily overturned as you suggest. At the outside, all your response shows is that it might be possible for a person to be OK with the idea of another having sex with her in her sleep. I'll concede that (though your claim here undermines your previous notion that consent has to be explicit). But the fact that it's possible doesn't mean that it's even vaguely legitimate to assume that there's this kind of ongoing consent; and there're big questions that remain. I mean: isn't it more reasonable to assume that, in situations of nothing explicit being said, a sleeping person is not a suitable sexual partner?
The opposite seems to amount to the idea that a man is entitled to sex with someone just on the grounds that he's had sex with her in the recent past. And that, just in case I've not been clear, is nuts.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:06,
Reply)
I mostly agree...
...If she'd woken up and decided she liked it and carried on, it's not rape anymore. Merely someone being kinky. It's that I struggle with and, perhaps unwisely, labelled a 'grey area'.
And to be clear, I am not suggesting sexually assaulting passed out/unconcious/automatically assuming sleeping women are up for it is acceptable. It's clearly not.
Anyways, really have to go now...
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:13, Reply)
...
... it's not rape anymore. Yes it is. Legally it is, and morally it is, precisely because one person started having sex with another without that other's even knowing about it, let alone going along with it.
How dumb do you have to be, or with what sense of entitlement, not to see that?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:23,
Reply)
Then we are all rapists it would appear.
Let's all hand ourselves in.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:33, Reply)
Good grief, you're pathetic.
Just for reference: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1
And as for the non-legal aspect of your claim: you seem to be sugggesting that it might be permissible to start having sex with someone in her sleep on the off-chance that she thinks that that's a good idea if and when she wakes up. If you genuinely do think that, you're utterly beneath contempt.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:18,
Reply)
That's not what i'm saying at all...
...maybe i'm not explaining myself correctly, maybe you're just seeking out things to critisize. You've certainly ignored things i've said and jumped to your own conclusions about others.
Your link is interesting. Especially 1 (2).
Since you're incapable of debating without resorting to personal insults and debasements, goodnight.
And in case you're not sure, i'm not in favour of or support any kind of rape.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:52, Reply)
If someone starts having sex with someone
who is asleep, surely they have no idea whether that person will be willing or not until it is too late?
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:09,
Reply)
i think human sexual behaviour is a lot more complicated than you make out
the one form of behaviour that very seldom occurs in your scenario is someone turning the lights on, waking the partner up, somehow assessing if their partner is able to give informed consent, then asking for and receiving informed verbal consent (or written consent to have sex just to make sure there are no misunderstandings).
The english law has a sensible test of "reasonable expectation" which the jury can basically apply community norms about what is acceptable behaviour based on the circumstances, while the Swedish law doesn't and is in my opinion flawed in favour of the accuser.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:21,
Reply)
I'm about to reveal my ignorance about women...
Just how could you "wake up to" a man boning you (for want of a better word)?
Wouldn't you wake up while the man was still trying to... er... find his way in?
(
jonbob loves you, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:11,
Reply)
"Waking up to a bloke shagging you who you were a willing participant in sexual contact with a few hours earlier? Grey area. Extremely grey.""
Oh god, no no no no. That's just wrong.
And legally, you can't consent to rape. So shagging the missus before she wakes up, getting a girl so drunk she passes out before you do her, or Bready chloroforming that 14 yr old boy in the Arndale centre----it's all rape.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:13,
Reply)
You absolute monster.
(
Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:16,
Reply)
Says you.
He's not going to forget your cold, dead eyes staring down over your wobbling, greasy mantits as you pummel him with the whole two inches of your angry love truncheon.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:45,
Reply)
I'm putting you on ignore now.
(
Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:47,
Reply)
You've said it yourself.
She apparently woke up to find him having sex with her. That's not consensual. Therefore, on the face of it, it's rape. Quite how people might fail to understand that is a mystery.
As for the not informing about the burst: well, the law is the law. Whether or not that's rape "as most people understand it" is neither here nor there.
And your point about Sweden, rather than the women in question, pressing the charges also misses the target. It's a criminal case. It's not up to individuals to press charges: that's the role of the state. (Otherwise, there could be no charges for murder...) I realise that Sweden and the UK are different legal systems, but the analogy would be with criminal cases here, which are R v Bloggs, or in the US, which are The People v Bloggs.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:33,
Reply)
Oh I agree...
...waking up to a surprise sexing without consent is rape.
However, lots of people engage in sex acts without explicit consent every day. Be it with a stranger or long term partner, yet it's not rape in the vast majority of cases.
Assumed consent is a dangerous thing, so I'm not willing to accept that.
If I woke up with a woman riding me, having had my drink spiked with Viagra, it's rape. However if I decide I like it and carry on, it's not. I think that's the concept that I consider 'grey'.
Galloway suggesting 'bad etiquette' was atrocious though.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:07, Reply)
It's mistaken to think that explicit consent is always required
BUT consent can be tacit, or implicit; and it's still consent. And when it's absent, it's absent.
You're fighting a straw man.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:27,
Reply)
But if the definition of rape...
..is sex without consent, then all non explicitly consented sex is rape. Because proving tacitness in court tends to be hard.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:56, Reply)
Not in the slightest bit.
I mean: you're right that it's sometimes hard to prove rape precisely when it comes down to questions about what counts as consent - but the idea of implicit or tacit consent isn't hard to grasp, and the law has no problem with it. And the fact that it might be hard to prove a rape doesn't mean that one hasn't taken place.
Note that any alleged perpetrator has a massive built-in advantage here, because he doesn't have to prove anything. It's the alleged victim who has to prove that she didn't consent. That works well for people who think it's OK to instigate sex with sleeping people, of course... but it does mean that the deck is stacked against the alleged victim from the start.
Try this from a different context: if the doctor tells me I need an injection, and my response is to roll up my sleeve and offer my arm, then it would be perfectly reasonable, ceteris paribus, to interpret that as consent. If your partner is awake, in control of her body, and wraps her legs around you while naked and in bed, then that might very well be the sort of thing that'd count as consent. It's not explicit, but it's a reasonable supposition in most cases.
Its not difficult.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:24,
Reply)
Exactly...
...If she carried on with the act then, presumably, it means tacit consent.
If she told him to fuck off and he continued, then it's rape. As it was, in the eyes of the law, up until that point.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:56, Reply)
"waking up to a surprise sexing without consent is rape"
Only if someone makes an allegation of rape, presumably? Then the courts should get involved.
(
JamTallons, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:33,
Reply)
No.
It'd still be rape, even without the allegation. It'd just be an unreported one.
I'm slightly concerned by the syntax of Megamoss' post: he makes it sound as though it's the waking up that constitutes rape. Mind you, given the bone-headedness of some of the things he's said in this thread, that wouldn't wholly surprise me if he does think that.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:39,
Reply)
Not at all...
...that's your perception of what i've written, not my opinion or point.
As I said in another post, taking advantage of passed out/drugged girl is rape.
And none of it has been bone headed, just a different opinion to yours. If we go by what you've been saying, then anything other than explicit consent is rape, though you conveniently label it as a 'red herring' to avoid the lunancy of such a standard.
There are no strawmen here.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:41, Reply)
All I truly know is that I myself have done both the things Assange is accused of.
I've carried on having sex after the condom broke (admittedly when I was a daft teenager), and I've woke the missus up a few times with a bit of jiggery pokery. On one occasions she mumbled something like "Get off I'm knackered", and so I did. On the other occasions she was fine and we carried on.
Also a few months ago she came in pissed after a hen night and I awoke to find her straddling me, stinking of booze and fiddling with me bits. Fucking rapist that she is.
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:32, Reply)
Read this:
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:46, Reply)
^^ should be posted by default whenever this topic arises.
(
JamTallons, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:46,
Reply)
I'm with you on this one
Seems to me that we have almost the opposite of the old cliché "just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
In this case it is "just because they may be out to get you, it doesn't mean you aren't guilty"
(
MyFrontFellOff ; his mouth full of teddies, urinating defiantly, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:02,
Reply)
That's rather good that
I knew a few of those but not had the ability to back it up
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:17,
Reply)
Not hysterical enough
no one will believe its reasoned and referenced tone....
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:10, Reply)
ABC Documentary just released
If you haven't the patience to watch the 45mins (and judging by the most ill-informed comments here and elsewhere most people haven't the patience to even read the basics) skip to around the 25minute mark.
Totally exposes the thing as a fit-up, old style, it could be an episode of the Sweeney except the women didn't even make a charge, one of them refused to sign a statement, the cops released it to the press and never even looked for Assange, the woman they say had sex without a condom had him stay a further 4 nights with her etc etc.
the whole thing is farcical, if it weren't for the fact that Sweden has previously handed over its citizens for rendition and torture to the US and there is a secret Grand Jury sitting in Atlanta since 2010 waiting for Assange to try and execute him. www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs
(, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:45, Reply)