7 ms·

there are no rape charges. rape != sexual assault. and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is

there are no rape charges. rape != sexual assault. and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly. also there are no charges. merely an accusation. and they merely want to "question" him, which of course they could do easily without forcing him to go to Sweden. The whole thing is a pretty blatant sham, a masquerade for some other goal of theirs.

philwelch 14y ago
> and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  if one were a rude asshole, one would make the comment you just made
  - philwelch 14y ago
    The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent is pure misogyny. It outright justifies rape. I'm not going to give you a pass on making comments like that out of politeness. Ideas like that need to be called out for what they are.
    - mkramlich 14y ago
      > The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't. > It outright justifies rape. I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't. I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake. Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        > I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't. I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally. That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.
        Steko 14y ago
        "But you introduced the notion as something" You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
        philwelch 14y ago
        In context, the notion put forward is this: it's arguably not rape to have unprotected sex with someone who refuses consent to have unprotected sex with you, as long as you've already got them naked and in bed with you. I'm not sure you can classify that notion as a harmless technicality. And if you leave out the part about the woman refusing consent, then it's a non-sequitur anyway.
        mkramlich 14y ago
        > You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says. BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.
- shrughes 14y ago
  You can make statements about non-explicitly authorized "wake-up sex" in either gender direction. The fact that we're talking about one particular direction does not make one a misogynist. You seem quite eager to call people misogynists. It sounds to me like you enjoy it.
vidarh 14y ago
Note that the arrest warrant does explicitly claim rape, though it does so in a very vague manner. Someone pointed out at the Guardian's site last night that the warrant presented to the UK courts actually is worded in a very contorted way to claim an allegation on rape on the basis that one of the women was in a "state of sleep" without actually stating whether she was asleep or half asleep and whether or not there's a claim that she was not consenting or unable to consent. If she was claiming to be "half asleep", which is what has been stated previously in the Swedish press, and aware of what was going on, she might very well have been in position to legally consent, and there's to my knowledge not been a claim in Sweden that this in itself is what gave rise to rape claims, but that the rape claim was predicated on him not using a condom in that instance, despite her previous insistence that he had to. It could be just an innocent bad wording, but given the rest of this case, and how this curiously misrepresents the claims presented in Sweden, this does seem rather odd. It would have been trivial to precisely express the claims presented in Sweden in unambiguous terms in far fewer words than they used.
MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
From an article about the charges [1] "...one of the women alleges that Assange behaved threateningly with her and held her down to prevent her from reaching for a condom. He did end up wearing one, but she thinks he ripped it and deliberately ejaculated inside her. He also later rubbed up against her with his pants off, she says, against her will. The other alleged victim claims that she struggled with Assange over the condom all night, had consensual sex with him when he finally put it on, and then woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom. In my personal and professional experience with rape, these kinds of allegations are both credible and common." These are definitely allegations of sexual assault, and the described behavior treads perilously close to what everyone would agree is rape. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_perils_of_charging_rape.html http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...
- vidarh 14y ago
  You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges. One of the women are now refusing to sign any past statements regarding the case. The other appears to have left Sweden. At tehe time prosecutor reviewed the statements and made it clear the full statements did not imply a crime had taken place. Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women. There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    thank you for being another voice of reason in this discussion
    - vidarh 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago

> and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.

mkramlich 14y ago
if one were a rude asshole, one would make the comment you just made
- philwelch 14y ago
  The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent is pure misogyny. It outright justifies rape. I'm not going to give you a pass on making comments like that out of politeness. Ideas like that need to be called out for what they are.
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    > The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't. > It outright justifies rape. I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't. I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake. Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      > I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't. I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally. That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.
      - Steko 14y ago
        "But you introduced the notion as something" You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
        philwelch 14y ago
        In context, the notion put forward is this: it's arguably not rape to have unprotected sex with someone who refuses consent to have unprotected sex with you, as long as you've already got them naked and in bed with you. I'm not sure you can classify that notion as a harmless technicality. And if you leave out the part about the woman refusing consent, then it's a non-sequitur anyway.
        mkramlich 14y ago
        > You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says. BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.
shrughes 14y ago
You can make statements about non-explicitly authorized "wake-up sex" in either gender direction. The fact that we're talking about one particular direction does not make one a misogynist. You seem quite eager to call people misogynists. It sounds to me like you enjoy it.

vidarh 14y ago

Note that the arrest warrant does explicitly claim rape, though it does so in a very vague manner. Someone pointed out at the Guardian's site last night that the warrant presented to the UK courts actually is worded in a very contorted way to claim an allegation on rape on the basis that one of the women was in a "state of sleep" without actually stating whether she was asleep or half asleep and whether or not there's a claim that she was not consenting or unable to consent. If she was claiming to be "half asleep", which is what has been stated previously in the Swedish press, and aware of what was going on, she might very well have been in position to legally consent, and there's to my knowledge not been a claim in Sweden that this in itself is what gave rise to rape claims, but that the rape claim was predicated on him not using a condom in that instance, despite her previous insistence that he had to. It could be just an innocent bad wording, but given the rest of this case, and how this curiously misrepresents the claims presented in Sweden, this does seem rather odd. It would have been trivial to precisely express the claims presented in Sweden in unambiguous terms in far fewer words than they used.

MiguelHudnandez 14y ago

From an article about the charges [1] "...one of the women alleges that Assange behaved threateningly with her and held her down to prevent her from reaching for a condom. He did end up wearing one, but she thinks he ripped it and deliberately ejaculated inside her. He also later rubbed up against her with his pants off, she says, against her will. The other alleged victim claims that she struggled with Assange over the condom all night, had consensual sex with him when he finally put it on, and then woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom. In my personal and professional experience with rape, these kinds of allegations are both credible and common." These are definitely allegations of sexual assault, and the described behavior treads perilously close to what everyone would agree is rape. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_perils_of_charging_rape.html http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...

vidarh 14y ago
You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges. One of the women are now refusing to sign any past statements regarding the case. The other appears to have left Sweden. At tehe time prosecutor reviewed the statements and made it clear the full statements did not imply a crime had taken place. Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women. There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  thank you for being another voice of reason in this discussion
  - vidarh 14y ago