15 ms·

Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with h

• saagarjha 7y ago
  > unprotected sex should be agreed by both This is what forms the definition of “rape”. People might have a different idea when they hear this word, but this is the correct term from a technical standpoint.
  • unwind 7y ago
    Uh, without the "unprotected" part, surely?
  • 5040 7y ago
    That some use the word in its technical sense knowing full well that it will be interpreted to mean something entirely different is troublesome.
• colordrops 7y ago
  And while it doesn't change the ethical and moral landscape around his alleged actions, people should be aware that what he is accused of is not illegal in the US.
  • rayiner 7y ago
    Penetration of a sleeping person without consent is definitely illegal in the US, even if you had consensual sex the night before.
    • donarb 7y ago
      Not in Ohio. There is a marital exception for certain acts that would constitute rape anywhere else, like drugging your spouse and then raping them. https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/editorials/2019/04/21/strike-spouse-exception-ohio-rape-law/stories/20190415149 https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/editorials/2019/04/21/st...
      • icebraining 7y ago
        While that's appalling, I'm pretty sure he wasn't married to any of the two women.
  • saagarjha 7y ago
    I don’t believe there is a distinction between reproductive coercion and sexual assault in the United States. IANAL, though.
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    The law in each state of the US is different, but I'm fairly certain in every one sex with someone incapable of consent due to unconsciousness is rape. Rape-by-deception laws are more variable between US states, and the US generally and they are generally new (the last few decades) and still fairly weak, often being driven in each state by desire to address the circumstances of a particular single case where efforts to prosecute rape-by-deception as general lack of consent without a specific law addressing deception failed. Not sure why the legality in the US is material since the act didn't occur in the US, doesn't involve US persons, and the extradition being conducted isn't from or to the US.
    • colordrops 7y ago
• JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
  Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. Even if they had consensual sex previously. Am I misunderstanding your comment?
  • mieseratte 7y ago
    > Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. I mean, that's a very grey and complicated area. I had an ex who would do that type of thing, and it was never discussed but was absolutely welcome. I suppose after the first time you could argue some type of implicit consent. Or maybe I'm just a Stockholm Syndrome candidate. I have no idea the dynamics of the Assange case, but the hyper-contractual notion of consent that has come into popularity in the last few years just seems to ignore the humanity of human relations.
    • gsnedders 7y ago
      At least in England and Sweden, it is definitely the case that one cannot consent if one is not conscious, and therefore consent has not been given, therefore an offence has been committed. I believe this is true in the US as well. Consent has to be given prior to each occurrence, and therefore prior consent means nothing about future consent. See, for example, the High Court judgment (linked elsewhere in this thread) on the EAW served for Assange's extradition to Sweden in 2011, where the High Court concludes that the offence would be rape under English law.
      • thecatspaw 7y ago
        > one cannot consent if one is not conscious would that negate previously established consent? As in "hey if you wanna wake me up tomorrow with sex that would be nice"
        • gsnedders 7y ago
          At least under English law, you cannot provide consent in advance; you must have the ability to provide and withdraw consent at the time of the act.
• magpi3 7y ago
  I know some couples might have an understanding about such things, but I consider penetrating someone who is sleeping rape.
  • galangalalgol 7y ago
    Why limit it to penetration? Sexual contact without consent to that specific form of contact immediately preceding the contact. That is the law apparently. But as a poster above said, laws need to bend to humanity, not the other way around. If I ask my wife to ride my morning wood, then charge her with rape when she tries to divorce me for being lazy, we can all agree I think that the law is no serving justice. Also whatever Assange did or didn't do, the handling of the case seems highly suspicious and Swedish resident have standing to request an investigation.
    • klibertp 7y ago
      > If I ask my wife [...] Wow, that's a pretty good analogy to this case, provided that you'd ask her that the day before and didn't wake up until late into the act (or at all, which I shouldn't be possible without assistance of drugs? but, I've seen some people "sleep like a log" through all kinds of commotion, so maybe it is). Anyway, if what I read in this thread is all true, that would be a marital rape 100% and she'd get (or she should, according to the law) charged with rape if any of you ever mentioned the situation to the authorities. Well, we're a bit too old already, but it looks like my wife and I were raping each other fairly regularly some years back. We even had fun doing this, which would possibly make it even more serious crime. This is, honestly, quite scary. EDIT: What the heck? Have my downvoters never woke up next to their loved person and initiated an act as a "good morning" equivalent? Am I just so perverted that I should stay in the closet, or should I give myself over to the police this instant? What I'm asking is: would the law actually go after both my wife and me (we weren't even married back then, BTW)? Wouldn't that be too much? Yeah, in the case of a one night stand it's probably the correct thing to do (maybe?), but the parent comment alluded to a long-term relationship, which I happen to enjoy (a lot :P). Again, I'm no lawyer, I've no idea what the law says in this case, I'm but a hopeless pervert who both fucked and was fucked in a variety of circumstances and ways, including while being stoned, drunk and half-asleep (always with the same person, always safe, sane and consensual... oh wait, it couldn't have been consensual! yet it was. that's what I'm asking!) If I was to be persecuted for these acts, it's actually a serious matter for me - it means I can't write about our experiences on a blog under my name, for example. I can't mention it to people carelessly. I could endanger both myself and my wife. I'd need to hide it, I'd need to be ashamed, I'd need to try forgetting about it as if it was a sort of trauma. We've been through a lot of that already, yet there's still more coming my way? This time from people in blue instead of black uniforms? If so, then there's something wrong with the law or public morals, or both. I don't live - and don't want to, either - in Saudi Arabia, but in an ostensibly tolerant society which accepts all kinds of fetishes without problems. At least I believe in that, but reading the comments and getting downvoted for expressing my confusion - made me start to doubt it.
• IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  If someone consents to have sex only on the condition of protection from disease and pregnancy, and you trick them into sex without a condom that is rape. There may be differences of degrees to the stereotypical violent behind-the-bushes rape. Those should and would be considered for purposes of sentencing. But it's still rape.
  • olalonde 7y ago
    > If someone consents to have sex only on the condition of protection from disease and pregnancy I had sex with a girl who lied about being on birth control. Was I raped?
    • saagarjha 7y ago
      I would say so: you only provided consent under certain conditions, but these ended up being violated.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    • lostjohnny 7y ago
      (I see what you did there) There's a little difference, you wouldn't be the one getting pregnant. It's more like she lied about being HIV positive. That is, in fact, a crime.
      • eloff 7y ago
        She can get pregnant and use the courts to force you to pay child support for the next 18 years. I'd say it's no less serious.
        • squarefoot 7y ago
          That is a well known "business" in some places.
• rayiner 7y ago
  The second example is definitely the sort of thing that comes to mind when someone says prosecution for “rape” so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. In the US, the second act would be prosecuted as rape, not a lesser charge.
• mikeash 7y ago
  If you think people would misunderstand “rape” in this way, I’d suggest you spend your effort educating people who don’t understand the word, rather than trying to “correct” people using the word to mean what it means.
  • HunOL 7y ago
    Well, solution would be introducing two new terms to solve this problem.
    • mikeash 7y ago
      We already have different terms for different kinds of rape. For example, statutory rape, aggravated rape, forcible rape. You can shout at clouds and try to change the language if you want, but that’s an extremely unproductive and entirely pointless path to take.
• te_chris 7y ago
  "(The main problem seems to be the "without a condom" part)" Uh, what? You then go on: "This is obviously serious. He could have transmitted STDs to the complainants. Unprotected sex should be agreed by both." You think the serious part is the lack of protection, rather than that she was asleep? I'd advise you read up some more on what constitutes rape and what constitues consent.
• thatoneuser 7y ago
  Why isn't it rape/sexual batter for a woman to have sex without bc then? Or at least to have sex without bc if she made the guy think she had it? How did men's reproductive rights get passed over while women's are comprehensive?
  • Tomte 7y ago
    Because birth control is not the issue. At all. Sterile men are not allowed to initiate unconsented sex, just because there can be no pregnancy.
    • thatoneuser 7y ago
      "Not an issue" - Unwanted pregnancies adversely affect men for their entire lives. Stds for the most part can be treated. As I said, men don't have reproductive rights. It's because of mentalities like yours. Not saying it's justified to commit rape but waking up the next morning and having sex again seems relatively routine. If not then I as a man have several women who belong in jail for morning after sex. But I bet you wouldn't see it that way huh?
  • icebraining 7y ago
    > Or at least to have sex without bc if she made the guy think she had it? Isn't it?
    • thatoneuser 7y ago
      I've never seen a law in the US that would make it so, but I'd be happy to see one.
  • whateveracct 7y ago
    This is the most "what about men" comment I've read in a while. Every man should be prepared for every one of their sexual partners to become pregnant, even if BC or condoms or other contraception are involved. It comes with the territory, and you can be sure that women are aware of the risk (since pregnancy is a first-person risk for them).
• duchenne 7y ago
  I feel sad, because this is not the right debate to have, and I initiated it. First, I repeat: What he allegedly did is a serious and horrible crime. Also, people need to see the elephant in the room. These two victims' case is weaponized by some governments to scare whistle-blowers. Assange directly or indirectly exposed many horrible crimes, including war rapes, group rapes, mass murders. People need to remember this video of soldiers in Irak shooting at human beings from far away while laughing and listening to rock music, and shooting again at wounded survivors crawling on the floor. People need also to remember the images of war prisoners tortured, humiliated, forced to be naked and raped with sticks. But, more importantly, people need to make sure that future whistle-blowers fell safe to expose this kind of hideous crimes. Prisoners' case [nsfw]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
  • mikeash 7y ago
    I see no indication that this was “weaponized.” Assange was wanted for questioning in Sweden. He was in the UK and would have been arrested and extradited. This is all completely normal. It went off the rails when he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, which was his own choice. Supposedly he did this because he was afraid that he’d be hauled off to Guantanamo Bay or whatever, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. At any rate, we should separate these things. The whistleblowing done by Assange and the rape (allegedly) done by Assange are unrelated. Talking about the whistleblowing should not involve minimizing the rape.
    • repolfx 7y ago
      He had already been questioned by police in Sweden prior to that. He even stuck around for a month and then asked the Swedish police if he was free to leave, he was told he was. The prosecutor dropped the charges because the alleged victims were quite obviously lying about having been raped using any conventional definition of the term, there was also no way to resolve any dispute about whether someone was asleep when sex happened, and they would never reach the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" by any jury as a consequence. The charges were later mysteriously resurrected by a different prosecutor so he could be questioned again. Or maybe it's not such a mystery after all. Either Sweden is doing as the USA asked for some convoluted reasons, or the Swedish justice system is a complete joke when the R word gets involved.
• btilly 7y ago
  Please be clear on your definitions. Rape is sex with a person who does not consent. Period. What Assange is accused of is rape. Anyone who thinks otherwise should get a reality check and realize that there is no shade of grey here. Her body, her rules. Have sex without her consent, and that is rape. Having sex without birth control with someone who didn't consent to that specific activity is legally rape in both the UK and Sweden. This is based on conditional consent, do something outside of the conditions under which consent existed, and you no longer have consent. More and more jurisdictions are recognizing this. Furthermore sex with someone who cannot consent due to being unconscious or sleeping is rape in a broader set of jurisdictions. (I do think that California goes too far by saying that you cannot consent in advance to being woken that way, but that is a different story. In this case there was no indication of consent given in advance for what he is accused of.) So Assange is not being charged with some minor crime. He is being charged with rape. Whether the charges would be pursued if he were someone else, well, that gets into selective enforcement. But this is at worst selective enforcement of a very reasonable law.
  • cc81 7y ago
    >Having sex without birth control with someone who didn't consent to that specific activity is legally rape in both the UK and Sweden. I don't think it is that clear in Sweden at least. Especially not if you just say birth control, i.e. what if I woman says she is on the pill and we have sex and it turns out she lied? I don't think she would get a rape charge. I think it is also likely that someone in Sweden would get charged with a lesser crime than rape if it turns out they just removed the condom during sex. Having sex with someone that is sleeping and has not consented would be rape though. EDIT: After having verified some more it he was not accused of rape for the condom thing. The rape charge is having sex with a sleeping person without a condom as it can be reasonably argued that she would not have consented to sex.
    • btilly 7y ago
      I have no evidence that you're wrong. I know that the UK court which agreed to extradite him concluded that, under UK law, removing the condom was rape. But I'm not as familiar with the actual Swedish charges.