SHAME on you Britain - Keep off Assange

[Deleted]

Wikileaks = excellent

Rape accusations = poor show/no big deal/set-up etc

Why sleep with someone and/or get hopelessly pissed if you don't expect an attempt to be made on your, er, virtue?

[Beachcomber]

I get hopelessly pissed quite often - but I can't remember the last time anyone made an attempt on my virtue.

(I must be using the wrong pubs)

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Jonathan King once made an attempt on my virtue.

[jaggs]

is the greek piss ed out of hossy?.........

[lala]

Aug 19, 2012 7:08:21 GMT Repat Van said:

But in this case, incredibly different to the alley case it is said she clearly consented. If you have sex with someone and then the next morning they consent to a repeat of the previous night's activities why would any sensible person think 'yes' was 'no'?

She didn't say yes until after he had initiated sex with her, in a manner that she would not have freely okayed, while she was asleep. She did not consent to the sex act until after it's commencement. Given free choice in the matter, she would not have consented to it. Hence, rape under English law and something similar in Swedish law.

For what it's worth, the 'clearly consented' part is a quote from Assange's legal representative, you realise? It isn't something you should put so much emphasis on. They've got a rather obvious interest in playing up the fact she didn't scream, "No! Stop!" at the time (It is not incumbent on rape victims to protest their rape, after all) and downplaying the fact that he knew he was about something she wouldn't want him to do.

Using their magical mind reading powers? Even the issue of the condom wouldn't change that as many people switch from condom to no condoms throughout the course of a sexual relationship /encounter.

Some people may well switch from using condoms to not using condoms during a relationship. With prior consent and discussion.

Aug 19, 2012 12:30:51 GMT Repat Van said:

A most ridiculous law, when you've just have sex. And I don't think that is accurate in and of itself (or else most people are rapists and/or have been raped.) I think it's penetrating them when they're asleep when you have no good reason the feel they would have consented when awake. And if you then go on to 'clearly consent' I genuinely don't see how it could ever be seen as rape.

Which is why I have emphasised the condom issue. He had reasonable-ish grounds for thinking she might not be averse to sex, and she does not seem to have made an issue with the actual being-humped-while-asleep aspect. But he had good reason to think she'd insist on protection, and he seems to have some weird thing about not using condoms. He would appear to have taken advantage of her drowsiness to get it into her the way he wanted, without getting her approval first.

[lala]

Aug 19, 2012 10:19:42 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

As far as I can see he's stuck in a sh*tty little embassy and can't pop out for a packet of three.

Bet he wishes he'd had a packet of three handy that morning in Sweden ...

[lala]

Aug 19, 2012 11:57:36 GMT Repat Van said:

But it's only ever men who are held to account in this manner. If a woman started blowing a guy when he was asleep you think she would ever be accused of having committed sexual assault?
Cha right.

That would depend on whether the bloke wished to pursue the matter. Rape is currently construed as something only males can do as the law stipulates you have to have a penis to commit rape. Anything else, including a woman doing a bloke with a strap on, would be a greater or lesser degree of sexual assault (there is a seperate offense, Assault by Penetration, that covers this). the relevant law exists, should a man chose to utilise it:

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person (A) intentionally to cause another person (B) to engage in sexual activity (as defined in section 78) without that person’s consent, if he does not reasonably believe that B consents. What is said in the note to section 1 about whether a belief in consent is reasonable also applies here. A may cause B to engage in sexual activity with A (for example, a woman who compels a man to penetrate her); on B himself (for example, where one person forces someone else to masturbate himself); or with another person (for example, where one person makes someone else masturbate a third person). Subsection (3) provides that sections 75 and 76 apply to this offence. Sections 75 and 76 deal with evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent.

Better than fifty Shades of Gray, eh? Bet you thought the law was boring ...

[auldhippy]

"It isn't something you should put so much emphasis on."

I see that Lala is absolutely open to knowing the truth!

[Repat Van]

If it was a woman in the circumstances described any allegation of sexual assault would be laughed. To even evoke rape in a situation where the so called victim clearly consented to continuing to have sex with the man is laughable.

[auldhippy]

I'm finding it really weird that in this thread it is "men" who are crying rape the loudest.

Perhaps the ladies would like to confirm if they think these charges should have been brought on the basis of what is known now.

[Deleted]

But what if a KO drug had been used? Something like GHB or Rohypnol? Libido highly increased artificially; no recall the following day; no chemical residue after a few hours, thus no proof. I'd call that rape.

[Repat Van]

Also I am not sure a dislike of condoms is weird. He shouldn't have tried to have sex without one mind without being sure she'd be ok with it, but it's Feminazi overkill for the law to call it 'rape' if the person then consents to sex.

[Repat Van]

Of course because you have no idea that the victim would consent. Havin sex with someone the morning after you had sex with them isn't in the same category. If it weren't for the condom issue this discussion wouldn't even be occurring.

[mids]

By the way, this idea that 'they' are desperate to get him to go to Sweden so that he can be extradited to America; why didn't 'they' just extradite him when he was, you know, in Sweden?

Also, where's vox? She must have some Swedish opinion on this.

[auldhippy]

Does this sound like a tweet from someone who has just been raped by one of the world's coolest people?

"Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing."

[mids]

very *friendly* person shaming.

[mids]

ffs. Slut shaming.

[auldhippy]

And an obscure Swedish law was invoked. It is sometimes called the "surprise sex" law. In essence, it holds that if a woman withdraws her consent at any point during intercourse, and the man continues, it becomes rape. This transition from consensual to non-consensual sex is what Assange is accused of. All this will have to be proved in the court — a Swedish one.

articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom

[Deleted]

Aug 19, 2012 19:26:31 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

Jonathan King once made an attempt on my virtue.

What, at the Walton Hop?

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Curiously I'd never heard of the walton Hop.

www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DBF6.htm


Sounds like a groovy kind of love.