Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Wow, this post is just fill of ignorance. No it's not an open invite for you to have sex just because she's in bed with you, and No means No, so when she says No Condom, No Sex, it means No. With attitudes like yours it's not surprising the number of women that think all men are arrogant jerks.

So any significant other that said aloud "Not tonight, I'm tired" and then proceeded to have sex anyway has been raped?

I disagree. Communication is complicated and it most definitely is not all verbal. Consent is complicated too.

[babycondor]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

So any significant other that said aloud "Not tonight, I'm tired" and then proceeded to have sex anyway has been raped?

I disagree. Communication is complicated and it most definitely is not all verbal. Consent is complicated too.

Seconded. With someone I'm voluntarily in bed with, no means no, unless I change my mind. There is a fine line between coercion and friendly persuasion. Therein lie the difficulties and dangers with which human sexual relations are fraught.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Wow, this post is just fill of ignorance. No it's not an open invite for you to have sex just because she's in bed with you, and No means No, so when she says No Condom, No Sex, it means No. With attitudes like yours it's not surprising the number of women that think all men are arrogant jerks.

If only it were that simple. As evidence suggests, "no" doesn't always mean no. If it did, why would some women continue to communicate with abusive men who they have told they don't want to talk to anymore? Why would they have sex with a man whom they have stated they would "never" have sex with?

(This goes the same for men as well. "No" doesn't always mean no although, it is more likely to.)

As an example: My wife and I didn't have condoms and she said, "I don't want to get pregnant again so no sex without a condom."

Well, we did have sex, she did get pregnant and we had our third child.

After our youngest daughter was born she said, "I'm glad we didn't have condoms that night."

Several questions arise out of your post and this incident:

1) Did I rape her?
2) Does the fact that she was very verbal and encouraged me to have sex with her in the middle of the event, outweigh the fact that she said "No condom, no sex" at the beginning of the event.
3) Can her words "I'm glad we had sex that night" be translated to mean "I'm glad you raped me that night?"

The trouble is, you are trying to make black and white decisions with nothing but grey on your pallette of evidence.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

2) Did he start having sex with her while she was asleep?

Is kissing someone in their sleep assault? What if you wake someone up by kissing them and then have sex without a condom (without objection), is that rape?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

There's no "surprise" part as far as I can see, I don't know where that comes from, or if it's just a rumor that being repeated.

Via twitter @davidallengreen I reached this Jessica Valenti blog post:

Originally Posted by Jessica Valenti

The truth? There’s nothing in Swedish law about “sex by surprise” or broken condoms. (Here’s the penal code, see for yourself.) And despite reports to the contrary, Assange’s accusers have always said that this was not consensual sex.

So what are actually very serious charges are being diminished by shoddy reporting and victim-blaming – and it all starts with AOL News. All of the news sources and blogs reporting that the Assange charges are simply “sex by surprise” cite this piece from Dana Kennedy at AOL News

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

So any significant other that ...

Originally Posted by qayak

...As an example: My wife and I didn't...

I hope that you can see the difference between two persons in a relationship that know each other well and that have learned to understand their partners verbal and non-verbal communications, and the situation around a 'one-night-stand' or at least a very young relationship.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

I hope that you can see the difference between two persons in a relationship that know each other well and that have learned to understand their partners verbal and non-verbal communications, and the situation around a 'one-night-stand' or at least a very young relationship.

I can, but I was using the context of a relationship for the sake of clarity to address PhantomWolf's contention that a verbal "no" is definitive for anything that may happen afterwards.

Even during a one night stand consent and communication are still far more nuanced than that.

At the risk of getting too personal,

when I was on my first date with a former girlfriend, we had been fooling around. I got up to leave, and she convinced me to stay the night. I said, basically "Okay, but I don't want to have sex tonight, I've rushed into sex in my last few relationships and I think it's better to wait a little bit."

We did end up having sex that night, without me verbally explicitly rescinding my "no". I assure you I made my consent clear in other ways

The takeaway is that individuals change, clarify or modify consent over the course of an encounter very regularly, and we can communicate those changes very clearly without words. A verbal limitation of consent does not mark the final word for anything that happens in an evening, between a married couple, or a hook-up or anything inbetween.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

The takeaway is that individuals change, clarify or modify consent over the course of an encounter very regularly, and we can communicate those changes very clearly without words. A verbal limitation of consent does not mark the final word for anything that happens in an evening, between a married couple, or a hook-up or anything inbetween.

Agreed, as long as this goes both ways. A verbal "no" might later be changed by non-verbal communication, but the reverse holds also; a verbal "yes" might later be changed by for example resisting.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Agreed, as long as this goes both ways. A verbal "no" might later be changed by non-verbal communication, but the reverse holds also; a verbal "yes" might later be changed by for example resisting.

Absolutely.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Wow, this post is just fill of ignorance. No it's not an open invite for you to have sex just because she's in bed with you, and No means No, so when she says No Condom, No Sex, it means No. With attitudes like yours it's not surprising the number of women that think all men are arrogant jerks.

And if the woman says 'Stop!' while the man is already inside her, he should stop and get out.

But what if the woman says 'Stop!' while she simultaneously thrusts her hips hard against the man's?

That's a verbal 'no', but a non-verbal 'yes'.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

I hope that you can see the difference between two persons in a relationship that know each other well and that have learned to understand their partners verbal and non-verbal communications, and the situation around a 'one-night-stand' or at least a very young relationship.

No, I don't see the difference. You will have to explain it because no matter how much I think about it, there isn't any.

I spend my life figuring out the intricacies of interpersonal communications and for pretty much everything in life it works great except when I have sex with a woman and then it means nothing, some arbitrary time limit now exists that she and I have to somehow know and the rest of society has to agree with or else having sex is very likely rape.

Where does a woman who likes to role play fit into this?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Travis

We don't know the details here but a guy repeatedly raping a woman has happened.

This might all be complete BS but I think we need to keep in mind that we are largely ignorant of everything that is happening.

I am not trying to say women are never victims. But I am calling BS on these supposed victims and on the attitude women are so incompetent they need protection from the man beasts.

Was he much older? Did he have a position of power over the women? Did they have a long term abusive relationship the woman was stuck in? Did they claim it was date rape?

No. Show me the evidence this guy had some advantage over these women that made them his victims as opposed to just as responsible?

[Matthew Best]

If a man and woman both agree beforehand that they will only have sex with a condom, and the condom then breaks, how can you tell which of them raped the other? Isn't it just as possible that the woman raped the man, as the man raped the woman, in those circumstances?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Wow, you just did the whole, "all women react to being raped in exactly the same manner" fallacy.

I resent the implication women are incapable of participating in casual sex. This idea all women are manipulated vulnerable incompetent children when it comes to having sex is ludicrous.

I'm certainly not saying that is never the case. Of course date rape occurs and is a serious problem. NO CLAIM of date rape was made until the prosecutor started putting words in the women's mouths. There was even a protestation cited in one of the articles where one of the women involved said all they wanted was for Assange to get an STD test and no force was involved.

I'm beginning to suspect those of you convinced this was some kind of date rape or coerced sex haven't read all the available information. It sounds like you read the account of the charges read in the arraignment and nothing else.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

If a man and woman both agree beforehand that they will only have sex with a condom, and the condom then breaks, how can you tell which of them raped the other? Isn't it just as possible that the woman raped the man, as the man raped the woman, in those circumstances?

Exactly. Why under any circumstances is a broken condom evidence of coercion or date rape?

Hint: the use of a condom that broke is evidence of consensual sex, not coerced sex. The broken condom is not consistent with the charges as written up by the prosecutor.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by qayak

No, I don't see the difference. You will have to explain it because no matter how much I think about it, there isn't any.

The point with my comment that I didn't really expand on was - with a person that you've known for a long time your learn to understand not only the verbal but most specifically the non-verbal communications. You may then be in a position to know when a "no" means "preferably not", or even "I'm just playing with you" as apposed to a "real" no. This is not a simple judgement, it takes a lot of experience with each other to build trust and understanding to be able to handle a situation like this. With a person you don't know well, the safe thing is to play it safe - try to communicate as clearly as possible.

Originally Posted by qayak

Where does a woman who likes to role play fit into this?

Now that is a tough situation. There was a court case about this kind of situation here in Sweden a couple of months ago. I won't try to describe all the details, especially since I don't know all of them, but as I understand it the two persons had agreed on BDSM-type sex that would include pain for the woman. The problem was that that woman was described as having had problems with hurting her self - that she wasn't psychologically stable and because of that it was tried in courts if the man was in the wrong.

At least the first level courts did not agree, and the man was set free.

They had set up "safe words" that could be used to stop the role play.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Exactly. Why under any circumstances is a broken condom evidence of coercion or date rape?

Hint: the use of a condom that broke is evidence of consensual sex, not coerced sex. The broken condom is not consistent with the charges as written up by the prosecutor.

But is the "broken condom" in the charges at all?

The case is only about what is in the prosecutions case. If the prosecutors case does not say "broken condom - therefore a crime", your argument as I understand it is irrelevant.

Could you please show me where the prosecutors case involves a broken condom.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I resent the implication women are incapable of participating in casual sex. This idea all women are manipulated vulnerable incompetent children when it comes to having sex is ludicrous.

Wow, talk about going off on totally absurd tangent. On what planet does "Women react in a different manner to being raped" equal "Women are incapable of participating in casual sex" or "women are manipulated vulnerable incompetent children when it comes to having sex." Try and learn to read what is written and not what you wish was written.

Quote:

I'm certainly not saying that is never the case. Of course date rape occurs and is a serious problem. NO CLAIM of date rape was made until the prosecutor started putting words in the women's mouths. There was even a protestation cited in one of the articles where one of the women involved said all they wanted was for Assange to get an STD test and no force was involved.

You don't know what was said and by whom, none of us do, we weren't there, and all we have is 2nd, 3rd, or more versions that might or might not have anything to do with what really happened.

Quote:

I'm beginning to suspect those of you convinced this was some kind of date rape or coerced sex haven't read all the available information. It sounds like you read the account of the charges read in the arraignment and nothing else.

And I suspect that you are taking the newspaper reports as the pure gospel when none of them were there and they are all guessing too. Most of them are just reprinting gossip and what Assange's Lawyers have been saying.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

If a man and woman both agree beforehand that they will only have sex with a condom, and the condom then breaks, how can you tell which of them raped the other? Isn't it just as possible that the woman raped the man, as the man raped the woman, in those circumstances?

This isn't about a condom breaking. The only issue that there might be is that it was reported by the Daily Fail that Woman A suspected that he broke it on purpose, but there is nothing obvious about that in the charges.

The Charges are based on two things.

1) He held Woman A down with his body and sexually assaulted her
2) He had sex with Woman B while she was asleep.

Let's stick to what has actually been charged rather than inventing stuff shall we?

Here's the law:

Quote:

A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.

This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.

Shall we just stick to that?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by egslim

And if the woman says 'Stop!' while the man is already inside her, he should stop and get out.

But what if the woman says 'Stop!' while she simultaneously thrusts her hips hard against the man's?

That's a verbal 'no', but a non-verbal 'yes'.

I'd say go with the verbal, if she didn't mean it, you'll find out pretty fast.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Show me the evidence this guy had some advantage over these women that made them his victims as opposed to just as responsible?

You mean like that he was awake and she was asleep?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by qayak

No, I don't see the difference. You will have to explain it because no matter how much I think about it, there isn't any.

I spend my life figuring out the intricacies of interpersonal communications and for pretty much everything in life it works great except when I have sex with a woman and then it means nothing, some arbitrary time limit now exists that she and I have to somehow know and the rest of society has to agree with or else having sex is very likely rape.

Where does a woman who likes to role play fit into this?

Whether it is confusing or not, today the onus is on the man to make sure that he has a clear, indisputable, and unimpared consent (verbal or non-verbal) to go ahead. If you don't gain that then you are seriously opening youself up to criminal charges, even if the person you are engaging in is your spouse or partner. If you follow the basis that no means no, unless countered, then you'll be safe, and if you get it wrong and no meant yes, she'll let you know verbally or otherwise. You can't just assume that no means yes, or no means that you just have to keep at it till she finally gives in. Both of those situations are you forcing your intentions on her, and guess what that is called in most countries?

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Whether it is confusing or not, today the onus is on the man to make sure that he has a clear, indisputable, and unimpared consent (verbal or non-verbal) to go ahead. If you don't gain that then you are seriously opening youself up to criminal charges, even if the person you are engaging in is your spouse or partner. If you follow the basis that no means no, unless countered, then you'll be safe, and if you get it wrong and no meant yes, she'll let you know verbally or otherwise. You can't just assume that no means yes, or no means that you just have to keep at it till she finally gives in. Both of those situations are you forcing your intentions on her, and guess what that is called in most countries?

Of course you are also seriously opening yourself up to criminal charges if you have consensual sex with two swedish sluts who then lie about what happened.

Call me old-fashioned, but where I come from nice girls don't give oral sex in a cinema before at least having been bought one dinner.

By all accounts both these women thrust their attentions on Mr Assange and then cried rape. Join the dots.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You mean like that he was awake and she was asleep?

If you could provide evidence of that it would be great, but it seems like it's just going to be one person's word against another.

[Cavemonster]

Phantomwolf,
This whole line of discussion is in response to this post of yours.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

In the end it comes down to two things:

1) Did she tell him no sex without a condom?
2) Did he start having sex with her while she was asleep?

If either answer is yes, then case closed, he's guilty. Nothing else matters...

We are arguing that she may have said no sex without a condom, but that doesn't close the case or assure his guilt because she could have retracted that denial of consent later in a million verbal or non verbal ways.

So contrary to your statement there, other things do matter, and given your last post:

Quote:

and if you get it wrong and no meant yes, she'll let you know verbally or otherwise.

I think you agree.

[little grey rabbit]

In reality these women ought to be pilloried by all victims of true sexual assault for opening up the possibility in people's mind that sexual assault claims can sometimes be made as payback.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Of course you are also seriously opening yourself up to criminal charges if you have consensual sex with two swedish sluts who then lie about what happened.

Call me old-fashioned, but where I come from nice girls don't give oral sex in a cinema before at least having been bought one dinner.

By all accounts both these women thrust their attentions on Mr Assange and then cried rape. Join the dots.

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

In reality these women ought to be pilloried by all victims of true sexual assault for opening up the possibility in people's mind that sexual assault claims can sometimes be made as payback.

Disgusting. Your assumptions about what happened do not constitute 'all accounts' and your assumptions about what happened also do not rule out these women being sexually assaulted.

You'd think I'd learn to just stay out of any thread involving rape.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

If you could provide evidence of that it would be great, but it seems like it's just going to be one person's word against another.

I just going by the charges. Do you know for different that it didn't happen that way? Were you there? How about we let the courts do their job and sort it out since they will have all the evidence on both sides and we don't?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

In reality these women ought to be pilloried by all victims of true sexual assault for opening up the possibility in people's mind that sexual assault claims can sometimes be made as payback.

So you were there and saw what happened?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Of course you are also seriously opening yourself up to criminal charges if you have consensual sex with two swedish sluts who then lie about what happened.

Call me old-fashioned, but where I come from nice girls don't give oral sex in a cinema before at least having been bought one dinner.

By all accounts both these women thrust their attentions on Mr Assange and then cried rape. Join the dots.

Ahhh the good ole "Bad Girls can't be raped" defence.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Disgusting. Your assumptions about what happened do not constitute 'all accounts' and your assumptions about what happened also do not rule out these women being sexually assaulted.

You'd think I'd learn to just stay out of any thread involving rape.

A case of different values. I think sleasing on to someone and then shouting rape for the benefit of a your career is disgusting. You obviously don't.

Sexual assault is a problem - it can only become more of a problem and more traumatic for genuine victims when the process is abused as a kind of payback - whether for political reasons as here or simply over a child custody battle.

For all genuine victims of rape these two women should be pilloried.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Ahhh the good ole "Bad Girls can't be raped" defence.

Oh give me a break. You think this is just a big a joke as I do.

Score another one for the Brotherhood.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

A case of different values. I think sleasing on to someone and then shouting rape for the benefit of a your career is disgusting. You obviously don't.

Sexual assault is a problem - it can only become more of a problem and more traumatic for genuine victims when the process is abused as a kind of payback - whether for political reasons as here or simply over a child custody battle.

For all genuine victims of rape these two women should be pilloried.

Again. You were there? You saw what happened? No? Then how about waiting on the facts and not what you and the media feeding frenzy have made?

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Again. You were there? You saw what happened? No? Then how about waiting on the facts and not what you and the media feeding frenzy have made?

Please don't tell me you have a straight face when you write this stuff.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Oh give me a break. You think this is just a big a joke as I do.

Score another one for the Brotherhood.

No I don't think it's a "big joke". If the charges are true, it's a very serious matter and the guy deserves the book thrown at him, and people like you do too for harasing the victims. How about you wait for the facts before making judgements.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Please don't tell me you have a straight face when you write this stuff.

So you were there? Or are you basing everything on the media reports?

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

No I don't think it's a "big joke". If the charges are true, it's a very serious matter and the guy deserves the book thrown at him, and people like you do too for harasing the victims. How about you wait for the facts before making judgements.

No its not a serious matter.

The girl threw himself at him, gave him oral sex in a cinema and then took him back to her place. Whether or not he wore or condom the next morning is not a serious matter. It is an utterly trivial matter

What is a serious matter is that there is a class of people who think it is okay to deal in this kind of particularly nasty entrapment and another class of people who loudly declare how awful it all is while privately cackling and smirking away between themselves.

Julian Assange is most likely an idiot - but the hypocrisy and abuse of process on display is no laughing matter.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I just going by the charges. Do you know for different that it didn't happen that way? Were you there?

I suspect we know roughly as much as each other about the circumstances leading to this case.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

No its not a serious matter.

The girl threw himself at him, gave him oral sex in a cinema and then took him back to her place. Whether or not he wore or condom the next morning is not a serious matter. It is an utterly trivial matter

This shows just how many incorrect assumptions you are basing your belief off of. He isn't being charged because he didn't wear a condom.

Quote:

What is a serious matter is that there is a class of people who think it is okay to deal in this kind of particularly nasty entrapment and another class of people who loudly declare how awful it all is while privately cackling and smirking away between themselves.

Julian Assange is most likely an idiot - but the hypocrisy and abuse of process on display is no laughing matter.

It's entrapment now to retract consent?

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

This shows just how many incorrect assumptions you are basing your belief off of. He isn't being charged because he didn't wear a condom.




It's entrapment now to retract consent?

No its entrapment to throw yourself at a celebrity so you can then make a complaint of rape for personal gain.