I'm in agreement with you; I listed 4 things and medical outcomes were only a part of it. But I'm not sure that my point was clear so I'm going to restate it wh

I'm in agreement with you; I listed 4 things and medical outcomes were only a part of it. But I'm not sure that my point was clear so I'm going to restate it while choosing my words as carefully as I can: For the sake of argument I'm happy to say that this is a rape, that it is bad and that it does deserve some sort of punishment. Leaving aside any legal framework which isn't at all relevant to what I'm saying (and how many people on HN are up-to-date on Swedish law anyway). But that leaves the question of what punishment is appropriate (not necessarily mandated by law, but appropriate given a reasonable person. Opinions will differ). I think that a sincere apology and a monetary fine seem like an appropriate level of punishment. I don't think international condemnation by strangers is called for. 1) No actual harm appears to have been done done 2) As I've said in other parts of the thread: 2a) The evidence that this was intended to humiliate or remove any sense of agency is not convincing 2b) There is evidence he complied with everything the women asked him to do, except in one instance where he should have worn a condom I don't think these circumstances raise grave questions about Assange's moral character. If this is rape, which strictly speaking it may be, then I ask rhetorically why is it outrageous?