General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have a question for DU ladies.
Let's say that you were having a casual affair with someone. You told this person that you insisted on him wearing a condom. He tells you that he hates condoms, but you hold firm. So, you have protected sex and fall asleep. At some point during the night, you wake up with him inside you totally unprotected.
How would you feel? Would you consider it rape?
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)hlthe2b
(102,236 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)I'd be pissed and hurt that he thought so little of me that he wouldn't honor my request. I'm sorry if this happened to you.
Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)Freddie
(9,265 posts)redwitch
(14,944 posts)Get tested for STDs and then I don't know what to tell you to do. So sorry this happened. So much for casual affairs right?
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)I'm a man. Yet, there are some who are supporting a man who did do this according to his victim's report.
redwitch
(14,944 posts)Unbelievable that anyone could be ok with that behavior. It is clearly rape.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)she had just returned from getting breakfast and was "half asleep" in bed. In other words, by her own admission, she was awake.
She then asked him if he was wearing a condom. When he said no, she "jokingly" (her description) replied 'You better not have AIDS' and did not request that he put on a condom, but continued to have sex with him and never asked him to stop.
A little bit different from the trumped up hypothetical you're pushing in the OP.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)BTW, I find Bonobo's fascinating. Just saying!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Bonobos are fascinating. I think they point the way to aspects of humanity that should be better explored and there differences from common chimps are illuminating.
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)after we've already had sex..I think it's kind of going "into the weeds" to get a "he said/she said" going here that a court is going to take seriously if she's half awake and asks him if he's wearing a condom and then goes ahead and has sex.
That's a really weird and I think "over the bounds" thing to accuse a person of when two people are supposedly half asleep after already enjoying sex consensually.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No condom, no permission to have sex.
So we should let Sandusky out of jail then? Most of his victims did not run away or resist. In fact, they continued to be violated multiple times while not reporting the incident to authorities. And really, he did so much for all the kids he didn't rape.
Oh wait...that would be insane.
Just because you like what the guy's done in one area doesn't mean you forgive all sins in other areas.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)a condom, the penetration -- i.e., the rape -- had already occurred.
She only consented to have sex with him earlier after he agreed to use a condom. She specifically told him she would not have sex unless he used one. Just because a woman agrees to have sex with a man one night, after he agrees to use a condom, doesn't give him the right to penetrate her the next morning in her sleep, without a condom.
asleep. Hence, no consent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
SNIP
Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)And Ms. W.'s account, as reported in The Guardian, says she woke up to find him inside her -- hence, the rape charge.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
SNIP
Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her.
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)statement to the police. She went to get breakfast after she woke up with him inside her. He "commanded" her to get water and juice, and later to get breakfast. Why she complied we do not know, although she stated she did not want to.
Still, she woke up with him inside her without a condom and without her consent.
reorg
(3,317 posts)The Assault
They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, Are you wearing anything?, to which he replied, You. She said to him: You better dont have HIV, and he replied, Of course not. She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
What is conveniently left out in the "hypothecial" excerpt in the OP: nowhere is it mentioned that she was "asleep", much less in deep sleep such as during the night, which is pretty much impossible in the scenario described. She mentions to have noticed that the condom was not appropriately affixed, "only over the head of the penis" which almost ensures that it slips off, and she "let it be". When she "awoke", "she let him continue" without putting a condom on again.
It is very obvious that she couldn't get enough of it, so to question her willingness to have sex with Assange at that moment is outright laughable. I would even question the seriousness of what some posters here call the "condition" to wear a condom, the health concern. Didn't seem to matter all that much if she "let him continue" and "let it go" when it already seemed to slip off.
A misunderstanding or a inconsiderate move by her partner? Who knows, and nobody really cares. Those posters here who claim to "fight for justice" for these women had better start in their own neighborhood. Because no such "rape" case has ever taken place anywhere, apparently. I was hoping somebody could cite an example and have asked many, many times in many places, but such examples don't seem to exist ...
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)frogmarch
(12,153 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)That's how it's done, it's nothing new.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)might be telling the truth and which one is lying. Or, what if both were too sleepy but aroused to think much? WHO IS STANDING OVER YOU TO COUNT?
And in this case who was there to impartially to say who is telling the truth about anything?
Makes it sound like sex should be some kind of "written agreement" with videotape before each and every encounter when one is have consensual relations.
It's quite strange reading these replies. And, I'm a healthy female whose lived a few years and seen many circumstances and friends who have had some strange and in some cases real "forced" date rape encounters.. The Assange thing just doesn't add up rationally since the two women were friends and both were enjoying him ....until they weren't.
There's more here than what it appears, imho...from lots of reading of the back and forth.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Which brings up a whole bundle of other considerations.
In the case of two people having a casual affair, I don't think it's acceptable to penetrate a woman without her awareness and sober cooperation.
I'd call it a form of rape.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)is the way I took it considering that it's been the big topic today.... sorry that I misread you...
but from what I've read both women enjoyed a relationship with him. The one who complained about the condom not being fully on said she was drowsy and asked him.
Now, if she was drowsy enough to ask...she should have waked up pretty fast and said NO! I'm outta here.
It's not like he dragged her into the bedroom and said "Let's get it on, babe" and then she was held down yelling as he penetrated her. I've seen nothing in any reports that it went that way.
But, to send someone to trial because two people are sleepy and you've already had relationship with the guy and relations that night and he get's a hard on and then they both are into it....well that seems like something that has happened to all of us at one time or the other.
This does seem about Assange and that's why it was posted.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I just haven't read up on it, but I would have to agree with you in that she could have said no, and that there's a huge chance that this is a set up.
Also, generally, if a couple are really sexually active and already had sex on a given evening, I can imagine a man penetrating.
I can see this being perfectly acceptable for some couples in a casual sexual relationship.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)sorry for misreading you were stating "hypthetical." I got what you were saying after I thought about it. Sorry about that.
Response to KoKo (Reply #97)
Robyn66 This message was self-deleted by its author.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)and very creepy...
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I know I would be really shocked if a country was ready to violate another country's sovereignty to question him about it.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)and then I'd go to an all night drug store for Plan B.
I'd probably make an appointment with the OB-Gyn to make sure he didn't give me an ugly surprise.
I wouldn't create an international incident. I'd just kick him out and take care of it. Sex had been consensual. Sex without a condom had not.
theinquisitivechad
(322 posts)I'm not sure what the law states, but my understanding is that if you are asleep you cannot consent.
What a creep.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)My body, my rules. If I can send a guy go jail for this, good.
calimary
(81,235 posts)And it's an absolute. For me, this is non-negotiable.
MY body, MY rules.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Wonder why it seems okay to some people on DU for Assange to do to a woman, what they scream about the republicans doing to women. Don't care who it is.. stay out of our bodies.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)doesn't give him the kind of support he gets here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."
Swagman
(1,934 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)do you seriously think he hasn't done the same kind of things in the past? Word gets around.
His "close colleague" is likely in a better position than we are to have an understanding of his character.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)or is just an allegation enough these days?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)with someone who hates condoms because it would make me leery of any STDs he might have. Even with a condom, it would be a turn off for me knowing he probably had unprotected sex many times before me.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Wow. If you have sex with someone and you didn't have permission, it's rape. It isn't even about the condom. It would have been rape if he HAD used a condom.
EDITED because after reading the thread it seems you DO consider it to be rape. THANK YOU
spooky3
(34,444 posts)If you are asleep, by definition, you can't consent.
Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and has all the supporters cause he does not think he ought to face the repercussions. another high profile male wanting to get away with, yes.... rape. she didnt consent. she didnt EVER consent to sex without condom.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)He only wants the assurance that the Swedes won't extradite him to the USA. The Swedes won't give him that assurance so this is what it's all about. He has said he would be on the plane to Sweden the next day to face his accusers, but don't give him to the Americans.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Unfortunately for him, the US can't extradite him - he hasn't broken any US laws. Publishing classified that was leaked to you is legal. The leaking is illegal.
And if you're gonna argue something like rendition, why wait for Sweden? The UK would gift-wrap him for us before putting him on a plane.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)The minute he steps out of the embassy arrest him and..........???
Inquiring minds want to know!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There isn't a legal mechanism to send him to the US - Assange hasn't committed a crime. Even if you tried to charge him under the Espionage Act, which the SCOTUS says you can't, it would be trying to apply the Espionage Act to a foreigner while they are on foreign soil. Which would get laughed out of court really fast for not having jurisdiction.
Which means the only way he could be sent to the US would be something extra-judicial. Which would be much easier directly from the UK. But Assange isn't claiming the UK will "misdirect" his London->Sweden flight to the US. He's claiming he'll be sent to the US from Sweden.
It's all about not getting to Sweden. I wonder if there's any other reason the guy doesn't want to go to Sweden.....hrm.....
Swagman
(1,934 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm holding Assange to the same scrutiny I hold other public figures and governments. His story stinks more than "Iraq has WMDs".
Cleita
(75,480 posts)and much richer than when they violated the civil rights of two countries? It seems like Assange is getting way more, over the top, draconian scrutiny than those two criminals and their enablers Rumney and Condi ever did.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But the failure of our justice system to act in their case doesn't mean no justice system should ever act in any case.
Not really. Up until he ran to the embassy, this was handled like a routine extradition.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Swagman
(1,934 posts)despite it being the norm for investigators to travel the world in their work?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)for countries to extradite suspects to each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_assange
In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in response to a Swedish police request for questioning in relation to a sexual assault investigation. Assange voluntarily attended a police station in England on 7 December 2010, and was arrested and taken into custody. After ten days in Wandsworth prison, Assange was freed on bail with a residence requirement at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, England, fitted with an electronic tag and ordered to report to police daily. Assange appealed a February 2011 decision by English courts to extradite him to Sweden, saying the allegations were "without basis".[229][230] On 2 November 2011 the High Court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds of appeal presented by Assange's legal representatives. Costs of £19000 were also awarded against Assange.
On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour in separate sexual encounters involving two different women.[231][232] Assange has described all the sexual encounters as consensual.[233][234] The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne, as the investigation was downgraded to only cover lesser charges, and re-issued by Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape.[235] In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning.
According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.[236][237]
An extradition hearing took place on 78 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court[238][239] when the extradition warrant was upheld.[240][241][242][243]
On 2 March 2011, his lawyers lodged papers at the High Court challenging the ruling to extradite Assange to Sweden.[244] After a hearing on 12 and 13 July 2011, the High Court reserved its judgment, and on 2 November 2011, dismissed his appeal.[245] On 5 December 2011 Assange's lawyers were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, after the High Court certified that a point of law of general public importance, that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court, was involved in its decision.[246] The certified question was whether a prosecutor can be a judicial authority.[247][248] The Supreme Court heard argument in the appeal on 1 and 2 February 2012.[249] and reserved its judgment,[250] while Assange remained on conditional bail.[244][251] On 30 May 2012 the court dismissed the appeal by a majority of 52.[252] The court granted Assange two weeks to make an application to reopen the appeal after his counsel argued the judgments of the majority relied on an interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which was not argued during the hearing.[253]
Barring any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, extradition had been expected to take place over a ten day period commencing on 28 June 2012.[254]
Cleita
(75,480 posts)to answer questions and face charges with one caveat, that he not be given to the Americans when in custody. I don't see why this is so hard for Sweden. Unless..... Sweden doesn't really want to press charges on him but is under pressure to turn him over to us.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)although the agreements do make an exception for death penalty cases.
But I think there's only a tiny chance that he really fears extradition by the US; I don't know what law he could have broken as a non-US citizen with no special obligation to protect the information (unlike Manning, who was given special access to the files because of his job in the service). I think this is all a lot of grandstanding on Assange's part to avoid prosecution for sex crimes. Or maybe just narcissistic paranoia.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)our government's ass, seems to have gone rogue these days, I don't put anything past them especially since documents have been made public that we Americans were planning to go after Assange.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)This is why they have Miranda rights.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nolabear
(41,960 posts)Katie
(674 posts)I hope this didn't happen to you, if it did you have my sympathy. What an awful betrayal of trust. Downright creepy too. I'd report it and get myself tested.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."
reorg
(3,317 posts)You have cited this mysterious "close colleague" now several times, but it remains unclear why you seem to believe that it is relevant with respect to the rape charge.
He dismisses the suspicion that the events leading to the police investigation were a honey trap, deliberately set in motion by a conspiracy from the start, but immediately adds that, naturally, "the enemies of Wikileaks may try to use" the incident for purposes of their own.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)There's no other investigation in Sweden.
reorg
(3,317 posts)You misconstrue his statement as a comment on the nature of the charges when in fact he is only cited with a comment on whether there had been a conspiracy.
He leaves open the question as to whether the investigation, after the Chief Prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finné, shut it down, was reopened due to political intrigue. Which seems pretty obvious to me.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)to get lots of support in his fight against these women. And he's succeeding.
I haven't seen any laws in the US that would support a prosecution against a non-US citizen in another country for publishing anything. He's in an entirely different position than Manning, who by his own admission leaked information that he had special access to in his job in the service. Manning can be prosecuted in the US, but I don't see how Assange could, despite his paranoid protestations.
And I'm not the only one who thinks this. John Conyers also sees no clear path to prosecuting Assange.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1217/Julian-Assange-in-the-crosshairs-Is-he-being-unfairly-vilified
Conyers, a liberal Democrat who will lose his chairmanship when Republicans assume control of the House in January, said it remains unclear exactly what laws Assange and WikiLeaks may have violated, for one thing.
All the discussions over whether the 1917 Espionage Act applies to this case, or whether Assange can be charged with conspiracy for helping alleged leaker Pfc. Bradley Manning, shows that the legal context here is in fact very confusing, said the Judiciary panel chairman.
For another thing, its unclear what the distinction is between WikiLeaks and traditional media, said Conyers. And Assanges actions take place in the context of a system of US government secrecy thats out of control.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)But no, I would not consider waking up to being penetrated by someone I had had sex with earlier "rape". With sex, there are all sorts of yes or no negotiations going on. The key is, for either partner, is the saying of "no". The scenario that you are alluding to in regards to Assange... the woman admits she consented, they joked about the unprotected sex afterward, she refused to sign the complaint alleging rape written by the interrogator, and has since refused to cooperate with the prosecution.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This essay by a Kos person is elucidative, with some good sourcing, too:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101833/-On-Standing-With-The-Victims-Unless-The-Alleged-Perpetrator-Is-Julian-Assange
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Rather, it offers some facts that I knew but didn't mention...
1) It was not the middle of the night but in the morning after she had been wide awake and came back from the apartment with breakfast and laid back down in bed with him, and
2) She texted a friend and said that she was half asleep. NOT asleep.
3) She admits to continuing having sex with him without protest.
She did not sign the complaint. And she has not cooperated with the prosecution.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The women who were involved were OUTED. In Sweden, I understand, it is characteristic to not reveal the names of rape victims, but these women had their names released and may have feared for their safety.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)well before she was outed.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And as for signing anything, who would want to be the "asshole" that complained about the Great Hero of the WikiLeak?
It didn't help her or her co-victim at the end of the day; their names were flung across the land.
There's a lot going on there; I wouldn't assume that any reluctance to sign had anything to do with the supposed innocence of Mister Assange--the comments they made about the guy in their official statements were creepy in the extreme, frankly and were declarations of assault, plain and simple. Even in USA, if a wife doesn't want to file a complaint against an abusive husband, the police step in now and do it with or without their "OK." Even the American police understand that these crimes have an element of shame and guilt associated with them, because the victim often excoriates themself for not preventing the crime.
Assange did misbehave -- that much is clear. The only question is, is it a minor misdemeanor, or something that would put him in Swedish prison for four years? No one will know unless and until he faces the music.
I don't think he's a very nice person, to be blunt about it.
As the sub-conversations pointed out in that link I provided to you, even Sandusky's victims continued to associate with their abuser. Not all victims can process what has happened to them in an instant. Or a month, or a year...or ten years. Look how long it took the little kids who got raped by priests to come forward and demand justice.
It's a complex issue, to be sure. I am not going to second-guess the behavior of rape victims or victims of any sexual transgressions and make assumptions that they thought everything was hunky-dory solely because they didn't do X or Y. I don't really think anyone can.
The bottom line, though, is this--even with asylum, he's in prison. In Knightsbridge, central London, with a lovely view of Harrod's right across the street--but he can't go shopping there, damn the bad luck. Perhaps he can send someone over there with a cellphone to send him streaming pics, and he can "distance shop" for the things he needs...
Swagman
(1,934 posts)how thoroughly dare you insult others who disagree who may have concern about the la and how it's administered as cheap 'Assange hero worshipers'.
where do you lot get off with your continued insults that other s may believe there is some larger going on here than meets the eye that they are engaged in some sort of hero worship.
I;m sick to death of these claims.
MADem
(135,425 posts)No, not really.
But you're not making a lick of sense.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)The charges seem politically motivated to me. I think the women were pressured in to making the claims.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Perhaps it's not too far-fetched to assume Wilén wanted to get back at Assange for letting her drop so qickly, but it doesn't appear she was aware that the condom issue would lead to a rape allegation.
After all, who has ever heard of such a thing? I ask and ask and ask for it, but nobody can cite me a case where someone under similar circumstances was ever accused let alone convicted for rape.
I believe those who claim it is have spent too much time in debating groups and forgotten about real life.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)That is non-consensual penetration. Defined as rape.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The lad is dancing tonight, though, no doubt...I suspect he doesn't have much need of condoms in his present circumstances.
Raven
(13,890 posts)an obvious answer. I'm wondering about this poster.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The circumstances described in the OP are what Julian Assange is accused of doing.
This is a discussion about how people feel about allegations of rape when it's a whistleblower who is accused of the conduct.
BeHereNow
(17,162 posts)I mean WHAT IS THE MOTIVE here?
BHN
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)The situation in the OP is what at least one of Assange's accusers say he did to her. But many DUers have been dismissing her claims as not constituting rape -- including in this thread.
BlueNinja
(25 posts)for Julian Assange and those who support his work. I've found the whole situation to be a quandary, at least on the surface. I read the Daily Kos piece and the sequence of events outlined there strikes me as a set-up. Some things don't ring true for me. That said, sexual assault is a very serious crime and I would never want a case decided by some stranger on the internet. The fact that Assange has managed to piss off nearly every powerful government on the planet complicates matters worse.
In a perfect world Assange wouldn't have to worry about going to prison for blowing the whistle about how the world really works and would just answer the allegations that have been brought against him in Sweden. As it stands there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence that these allegations are real, and there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence that these allegations could be part of a political witch-hunt.
Either way, to the OP's question, of course those actions are rape...if that's what happened, and that's the question that I think everyone, regardless of their support for WikiLeaks, would love to get answered. But of course, it's complicated.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)BlueNinja
(25 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,955 posts)There are no ands, ifs, or buts, that is straight up rape. If this has happened to you or someone you know, please contact Rape Crisis for help and counseling.
I really hope this is a hypothetical situation.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)then brag about my relationship with him to the whole world online, then days later conspire with another of his sexual escapades to get revenge through the media for his two-timing, then try to erase evidence of my bragging, then change my mind about what happened and change my story several times, then flee the country.
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)occurred.
They declined to press charges, have said to the investigators and the press that no rape occurred.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Man wakes up and woman on top of him unprotected.
Response to ErikJ (Reply #41)
U4ikLefty This message was self-deleted by its author.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)That's rape.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)it highlights some things I thought was strange, especially the part about asking him to take a STD test. As the article points out, you don't need to test the alleged attacker to find out if you have a STD.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you have sex with someone who has an STD, and you get infected, you will not test positive for a while.
It takes a while for the immune response to move along enough for us to detect it. And with most STDs, we're testing for the immune response, not the pathogen that causes the disease.
So if you have unprotected sex with someone, you can wait a few months and then get tested. And by then if you got infected you're definitely infected.
Alternatively if your partner is infected, they are further along in the course of the disease and are likely to test positive right now. Compared to your guaranteed negative result right now, that's helpful.
By testing your partner, you can either 1) be relieved that they aren't infected and go on with your life, or 2) find out what they are infected with and start treatment early, greatly reducing the effects of the disease on you. For example, there's some studies showing that a drug cocktail may prevent HIV from getting a foothold if it is taken soon enough after exposure.
In this particular case Assange has delayed enough that this is no longer possible. So at a minimum, the guy's an asshole for not getting tested, regardless of what one thinks about the rape charges.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)in this case. Asking the police to compel someone to give an STD test, I never heard of this before. Especially since he hasn't been convicted of anything. I don't think he's an asshole, I wouldn't have taken the test either.
Don't blame science education. I know quite a bit of science but I don't know every single thing that is scientific. I also notice once in awhile I know something another DUer may not know but I'm not an ass about it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's rather odd to claim a right to privacy from someone after inserting part of your body into them and ejaculating.
And I'm having a hard time coming up with a definition of "asshole" that doesn't including avoiding a blood test that might prevent someone else from dying due to the asshole's behavior.
As for the rant about science education, that's really basic stuff everyone who is sexually active should be taught. Which means everyone should be taught it. It is one of those things where if you don't know it, it can kill you.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)of symptoms of AIDs and that they can take awhile to kick in, I have no idea how soon they come up on a test. I'm pretty sure I was taught everything at once but slowly forgot bits and pieces, it isn't something I really worry about since I don't put myself at risk.
When I say I wouldn't either, I'm referring to the police asking me too before I'm convicted, especially before I'm charged. If they have no legal authority to compel me I'm not going to submit. I would accept one if asked directly from the person but based on prior experience, if I have a STD it would be from the person asking me to take a test.
I seriously doubt it happens all the time. I never heard of it despite some high profile cases. I'm referring to before charged or convicted w/ the police asking/ordering to take one. I've known of several examples of cops tricking the suspect into giving them his DNA from a soda during an interrogation but never what you say. Not at similar stages during the process.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Rape...and I hope he didn't do that. He's always looked creepy to me. I'm surprised he doesn't have to pay for...companionship.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Since "no" was said to unprotected sex, then this person would have had sex with me against my will.
Not only that, but also possibly endangered my health, even my life, caused enormous stress, and (for a younger woman), risked an unwanted pregnancy.
That's called rape, in my world.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)JI7
(89,248 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)RagAss
(13,832 posts)Catherine Vincent
(34,489 posts)Dump his arse to the curb.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Having sex with someone who is sleeping or unconscious or otherwise UNABLE to consent to sex is rape. Why in the world would any guy want to have sex with someone that is asleep or unconscious anyway? That behavior is grossly devaluing the woman to nothing more than a life support system for a vagina.
As far as consent being only given with condom use, of COURSE if a condom is not used without the knowledge or revised consent of the woman it is a sexual assault. Whether or not it is rape may depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction... there are still some places in the US where only vaginal sexual assault is considered rape (despicable as that is).
Giving consent to sex does not mean sex can be had whenever the guy wants it and whatever sex acts he wants to do with or without protection from STD's (as in condom usage) or protection from pregnancy (condom, diaphragm, spermicide, etc.). WHY in the WORLD should it be otherwise???
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)As a guy, I can say that the person doesn't give a shit about you - you probably wouldn't ask if you didn't know already, but unless its so casual that that doesn't even matter to you, ditch the loser.
pansypoo53219
(20,974 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)blueamy66
(6,795 posts)NT
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)but if I told him to put a condom on and later on he didn't, while I was asleep.....yes, RAPE!
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Worthy of storming an embassy?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)had to do. Maybe all alleged rapists should be hunted down and brought to trial with as much effort as possible.
GObamaGO
(665 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)It would be rape even with a condom. A sleeping person can't consent.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)people who purposely misrepresent events. You've been corrected several times so, buh bye.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)by some - would that make it a "illegitimate" rape?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)had some other ulterior motive for alleging rape, and no rape actually occurred, would it still be rape?
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,088 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)They discussed STD's and unprotected sex and continued until he ejaculated.
spooky3
(34,444 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)No sleep disorder, no coma, no pharmaceutical sleep aids no, drinking or no death. What would cause one not to wake up upon penetration? Small tool?
spooky3
(34,444 posts)let's say that you DID awaken--it's already rape before you've woken up.
You didn't give your consent when you were asleep. And the person penetrating you knows it.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)much covered everything. But I decided to list everything "in a coma" should have covered one by one, just for you.
clydefrand
(4,325 posts)is definitely a rape if she had insisted that he had to have a condom for the first time.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)he exposed me to a possible unwanted STD.
Bottom line: I insist on a condom. If he violates that by forcing sex without a condom, then that's RAPE. Plain and simple.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)For obvious reasons.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)At least in CA. Probably not in the Bible Belt.
Skittles
(153,157 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Absofuckinglutely...it is rape.
Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)
Robyn66 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Roselma
(540 posts)nobody would have the right to take advantage of that situation.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Has the U.S. government ever used sex as a weapon against a person it saw as a threat? Even going so far as to send a warrantless wiretap tape of overheard infidelity to the target suggesting he commit suicide to avoid public humiliation?
So did Assange rape someone? It's possible. Should he face a trial? Sounds like it! Are all these governments so interested in getting him to Sweden solely because of the charge? Don't kid yourself.
I've been told many times by "security uber alles" fetishists that if I have nothing to hide then I should have no complaints about massive invasions of my privacy in this new era of big data. Given that statement I guess I should be unsurprised that they have strong reasons to want to protect their privacy...
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)as a normal police matter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Eventually, we'll all see what it's about.
So, are you going to answer my question?
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)Whether you think his actions with WikiLeaks make him a hero or a villain, this matter should be viewed separately. I understand the possibility of extradition to the US makes the line blurry, but you cannot let your preconceptions cloud your judgement in this matter.
If the allegations of these 2 women prove to be true, then he is an asshole and a rapist regardless of what he has done before.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)It isn't even like your big old quote is any different from what I was saying.
1) Needs to be investigated.
2) Will be used by those with a political agenda.
But I guess I got the cut-n-paste because I gave a nuanced, rather than a knee jerk answer.
By the way, the answer to my question was yes and the target was MLK. Just a bit of context.
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)she is a long-time DUer and hardly a "drive-by"
And your example of MLK has nothing to do with the Assange case or my hypothetical.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)But 1) I got a cut-n-paste which was completely duplicated in her previous post, not a real response.
2) You miss the point entirely. But that's okay, cause allegations about sex are involved.
Whatever...
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)woman making allegations had any ties to the US government.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)But when you're trying to win in a no-holds-barred contest, you use whatever you can. Shame on the idiot who picks a fight with the powers that be and still somehow thinks they will not have everything shady in their life immediately and forcefully tossed back at them.
I remember Scott Ritter almost arguing Cheney/Rumsfeld to a stop over WMD's but then his perv sex life became the issue and we got to topple Saddam's statue. That was sooooo worth it, wasn't it.
So pardon me for being a bit circumspect and trying to separate a person's sex life (no matter how horrible) from their other contributions.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I'm guessing it has.
Now, for a comparable question:
Has a man ever forced himself on a woman? Even going so far as to force himself on an unconscious woman?
Of course.
Neither of these questions matters to the case at hand. I agree that he should cooperate in the rape investigation and if there is probable cause, he should be charged.
If there is probable cause to charge him with violations of US laws, then he should be charged here, too. I doubt that will happen because I haven't heard of a law under which he could be charged. He's not a US citizen, unlike Manning, and he didn't commit any crime on US. soil. I actually think he's doing a lot of grandstanding to avoid the rape charges.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)And of course, we'll know when it plays out. And we will see it, unless you think of course that Assange will somehow manage to mail himself to Ecuador. I think it is safe to say he will be going to Sweden at some point.
Now we can talk about how horrible the allegations are for hours and hours but until he's finally and formally charged we are merely speculating. As a result, threads like the OP are specious at best as they try to play on emotion rather than the actual evidence which would be released during a real trial.
Assange was an idiot who may or may not have committed a rape but certainly damaged his cause. It remains to be seen if the current situation lands him in the U.S. based on espionage or conspiracy charges -- those are being considered by a VA grand jury (according to the Christian Science Monitor at least).
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0819/Assange-US-may-be-holding-one-of-world-s-foremost-political-prisoners
But as far as the appropriateness of charging him -- see, I've been told repeatedly that if I've done nothing wrong then I should have nothing to hide when it comes to invasions of my privacy. It seems the watchers may have some issues about being watched that stem from the corollary.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)When Wikileaks "accidentally" published the unredacted names of allies who had been helping the US in other countries, he invaded their privacy, and may have even led to some deaths. The US can't prove that without exposing even more people. I doubt Assange will be prosecuted, but we shall see.
I agree that all of this is just speculation. Unless and until Assange is actually tried for something, we won't know.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)or we might have had to deal with the substance, rather than the trivia, of some fairly sobering thoughts. Then again, I think Wikileaks proved that sunlight isn't enough anymore -- things that challenge our self-image now happen with such frequency that the natural reaction cannot be anything but apathy. Score one for the indoctrination of reality TV culture!
But I digress. To bring it back on topic, this thread was an emotional appeal to consider how horrible the allegations were in the absence of an actual trial. We both agree that it is speculation and should be tabled until the inevitable trial actually occurs.
Carry on!
Swagman
(1,934 posts)do woman always tell the truth ?
do men always lie?
raccoon
(31,110 posts)catbyte
(34,376 posts)Imagine you were having a casual affair with someone and they shoved a broomstick up your butt after you dozed off--would you feel violated?
Unfuckingbelievable.
Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and baby brother Sammy, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Arent Luggage--HISS!
Lebam in LA
(1,345 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)It's nonconsensual sex.
WHY is this concept so hard to understand????
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I can't imagine initiating penetrative sex with someone who is asleep, even if we had sex before. Everyone has the right to refuse sexual intercourse any time it occurs. Every time requires consent. A sleeping person cannot consent. Only a real asshole would do that to someone else. Not wearing a condom when that had been demanded earlier compounds the offense, in my opinion, and speaks of a selfishness and egotistical nature on the part of a man who would do that.
renie408
(9,854 posts)and second, yes, it's rape.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)How often do allegations of rape result in the Swedish, British, American, Ecuadorian, and Russian governments getting involved?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The Swedish, British and Ecuadorian governments are involved for obvious reasons.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Rep. King, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence wrote to the Attorney General Holder, asking that Assange be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, and that he should be declared a terrorist.
Senator Feinstein and Senator Kit Bond, respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a joint-letter to Attorney General Holder, asking him to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.
Those requests alone, in and of themselves, illustrate a U.S. government involving itself.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Gotcha. The allegations of rape didn't result in US involvement. I think I read it to literally. You didn't mean the US was involved in any way because of the rape charges, just certain US representatives have commented on his involvement with wilileaks.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)You said no to unprotected sex. That person did it anyway.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)blech
lightcameron
(224 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)yes.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)And why the fuck are you asking such a stupid question?
Mad_Dem_X
(9,555 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)Still, I'd like to relate a little story that happened to me and seems pertinent here.
I was 17 and together with friends stayed on a boat, navigating up and down the Shannon in Ireland. We all slept together in the cabin, and one night I had a fantastic dream. I literally saw angels, had colorful, seething visions of happiness and bliss. It also had increasingly distinct sexual aspects, I felt my solar plexus and something pleasant around my hips and realized that I was getting mightily aroused. The longer it went on, more and more a question was forming in my blurry mind: what is going on? You are happy, it feels great, is this real or is it a dream? Slowly my mind became less blurry and I woke up. It took a little while before I was fully aware of what was going on. One of our party, an older man, a person with whom I never had exchanged more than a few words, he was an acquaintance of my friend who had organised the boat trip, was lying behind me with his hand in my underwear and stroking my genitals, whispering "please, please".
I was totally aghast, the bliss disappeared within split seconds, the only thing now on my mind was how I could wriggle myself out of this as quickly as possible. Not only would I never have expected a sexual approach from this guy, who must have been in his mid-forties, was fat and always drunk, I also thought it was a major breach of trust to approach me while sleeping in the middle of the night. Sure, I may have been a little bit miffed upon discovering that it was NOT the hot blonde I had visited the previous evening who was touching me, and I was probably still a little uptight towards gays at that age. Now, I think I could handle the situation with cooler attitude and not be all that flustered as I was at the time.
So, I went out of the cabin and lay down on the open deck where the air was moist, breezy and cold. Unfortunately I didn't find a blanket. The next day I had fallen ill with a terrible cold. For two days I was delirious, had very high fever, like never before and never again, more than 40 centigrade Celsius. For a while my friends thought I was going to die. Naturally, they brought me to a doctor, got antibiotics, rented a room, helped me in every way. Especially this older guy, I guess he may have felt sorry and a little guilty, was most helpful and paid for everything.
When the fever came down and I had time to think about what happened I decided to leave. It never occurred to me to go to the police. Would have been easy to send him to prison for a few years at that time, I guess: in 1971 the Irish were looking askance at gays in general, particularly at those who approached minors, and it was definitely an unsolicited and unwanted "sexual assault" during sleep, although there was nothing violent in what he did. Which is the main reason I didn't want to get back at him. What I had "suffered" was a little shock and nothing more, and I can very well live with this. Although it had also some less pleasurable consequences like the night on the open deck and what followed.
Has my little story anything to do with your question? Well, yes, I feel it is my right as someone who has experienced what it actually feels like to be "sexually attacked" during sleep and wake up to the realization that a stranger is fiddling you to comment on the outrageous, despicable suggestion that what happened to Sofia Wilén as described in the summary of her police interview has even remotely anything to do with rape. Get a fucking grip!
They were sexually congregating throughout the entire night and continued after breakfast. There is no doubt whatsoever that she consented again and again and again. He could very reasonably assume that she consented, and that is all that matters, even if she had, like him, "dozed off" for a moment.
She didn't stop when she realized that he had initiated another bout of huffing and puffing, she didn't stop when she realized it was without a condom, and she had already "let it go" when she had realized before that the condom was not affixed appropriately.
What may indeed be in question is how much she actually WAS concerned about protection against STD, or whether she was just insisting on a condom as a matter of principle, or because Ms Ardin reminded her that she should have.
Karmasue
(95 posts)Absolutely.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)calimary
(81,235 posts)When I was single, that was my big test for any man who wanted to get close to me. Would he be willing to choose consideration of my feelings over his wish for his own momentary pleasure - because he simply HAD to "feel it" without a condom? That told me a TON about any possible suitors, boyfriends, and certainly marriage material. If the boy put aside his own love of feeling it, in order to make sure I felt protected and comfortable, that told me he was worth hanging around with. Maybe for the long term. Like the guy I eventually married. If, on the other hand, he put his own pleasures over my concerns, or insisted it'd be okay and nothing would happen or "oh, just this once won't risk anything," I would not, and did not, go further with him.
'Cause that told me how he'd behave later on if we were together or married or otherwise committed - how he'd take my feelings and concerns into account on a LOT of things - way beyond just sex. If it was just all about him and his pleasure, then I knew that meant there'd certainly be no room for me.