Julian Assange Case

[Ally]

I also want to emphasize that everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it differs from mine.

As to why not kick the guy out of bed and out of their life, all I can say again is that in my experience life doesn't happen like that, for many kinds of abuse not just sexual.

Yes it may not happen like that. But that doesn't make the woman any less responsible for her actions. If you choose to stay, you are giving consent. That's just the way it is.

I want you to think about this scenario:

A man comes home tired and says no to his amorous partner. The next morning he awakes to find that she has begun to give him a very enthusiastic good morning wake up kiss (ahem). By your definition, of "clearly rape", she has now committed rape.

By your definition, every man and and woman I know is a rapist.

[TomTomKent]

I also want to emphasize that everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it differs from mine.



Yes it may not happen like that. But that doesn't make the woman any less responsible for her actions. If you choose to stay, you are giving consent. That's just the way it is.

I want you to think about this scenario:

A man comes home tired and says no to his amorous partner. The next morning he awakes to find that she has begun to give him a very enthusiastic good morning wake up kiss (ahem). By your definition, of "clearly rape", she has now committed rape.

By your definition, every man and and woman I know is a rapist.

The difference being the man in that example didn't go to sleep having had an argument along the lines of "I don't want this, to happen like that. Oh just go to sleep I'm not talking about it now."

[Ally]

You don't know that's what happened in this case either.

So either both cases are rape, or both cases are not rape. Period. If the last thing said was no, then by your claim, it's a rape.

From what I read, the woman who awoke from sleep had consensual sex with him the night before. The rape charge stems purely from the fact that he didn't use a condom during the sex that occurred the next morning during which she was "half-asleep".

[TomTomKent]

From what I read, the woman who awoke from sleep had consensual sex with him the night before. The rape charge stems purely from the fact that he didn't use a condom during the sex that occurred the next morning during which she was "half-asleep".

And being half asleep was unable to consent. If the use of condoms was a condition of her consent and he went ahead anyway... As for if either or both cases are rape? No, I think there is a definate if subtle difference in expectations of consent.

[Ally]

And what if he was half asleep when he started having sex with her? And it should be noted that when she became aware of what was happening she didn't scream no get the hell off and push him away. She allowed him to continue. At which point...she consented.

[Errata]

I think there is a reason this is a sexual assault case and NOT a rape case. What has been described is illegal in Sweden, and is illegal here. There is such a thing as conditional consent.

I believe the original conditional consent case was in the US, with a woman who was infected with HIV by her partner. She questioned him about his sexual and medical history, and he lied about ever having been tested for STDs. And despite his lie, she still insisted he wear a condom. She watched him put it on, she did not see him take it off immediately prior to penetration. All of which he admitted to. Because a recent STD test and wearing a condom were conditions of her consent, and he violated those conditions he was convicted of sexual assault. He was also later charged with attempted murder i believe.

My best friend had a boyfriend in college who kept at her to try anal sex and she refused. After about a month of being together they went to a party where she got drunk and passed out. She woke up to him anally raping her. And she remained quiet, just crying. She was furious with him, but she didn't think it could be criminal or even a reason to break up with him. She thought if you consented to one sex act then you consent to them all. when it happened again a few weeks later, she went to an on campus counselor, who convinced her to report it, and in the end he was also convicted of sexual assault.

It's complicated. And it should be. Anytime someone assumes consent they are taking a risk, man or woman. if it isnt unwelcome it isnt rape. If it is, it is. These charges were not manufactured after he left Sweden. He left Sweden because of the charges.

This guy isnt some folk hero, or rebel, or some vigilante dispenser of truth. He's a self important douche who publishes petty embarrassing documents disguised as revelation. And thats fine. more power to him and whatnot. But while i am fairly sure the US would like him to stop, i cannot imagine that the US doesn't have better things to do than engage in conspiracies to bring in a guy who publishes classified documents, 80% of which the contents already appeared on the evening news at some point.

[TomTomKent]

That is a somewhat less rubbish explanation of what I was getting at. I would not consider your friend consenting,but in the terms Ally set it couldbe more of a grey area. Not suggesting any post Ally wrote would condone that, just from her description of the boundaries there may be more room to doubt the charge. Sorry if I got the wrong end of your statements there Ally,please correct me if I did.

[caz]

There is no victim in a domestic abuse situation. The first time a spouse (male or female) hits you or abuses you, it's one hundred percent their fault. The second time it's fifty-fifty fault and the third time it's the abused's fault because their dumb ass was still there to get hit. No one abuses you repeatedly without your consent.

Well that tells me more about you than I really wanted to know, Ally.

So in your view it wouldn’t be your fault if you were being a thoroughly nasty and abusive piece of work to someone, just as long as you had done it well enough the first time to intimidate the hell out of them (physically and/or mentally) and make them too terrified, or too weakened in spirit, to take their ‘dumb ass’ out of the situation before you had managed to do it thrice?

Right, because nobody is ever murdered for leaving, or trying to leave an abusive situation, unless they are too dumb to get themselves safely out of their abuser's way and stay out forever - so no victims whether they stay or go. How comforting for the army of serial domestic abusers out there, to know that the target of their abuse ceased to be a victim after just three strikes, and can now be considered fully consenting and asking for it. Baby hit me one more time.

I sometimes think I ought to envy you for your rosy black and white view of the world. But no, it sounds rather lonely in outer space.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

There is a psychological component of course to abuse. Like it or not, people aren't always in control of a situation intellectually or emotionally. Not saying Assange is a sociopath, but there are certain people with those traits who can easily manipulate others through the mental/emotional vulnerabilities that they have. Does that make those who are manipulated, victims, or just dip$shits who should be culled from the societal herd because they are too stupid, weak, or ignorant to control a situation? When is someone a victim?
It isn't simple.

Mike

[Ally]

So in your view it wouldn’t be your fault if you were being a thoroughly nasty and abusive piece of work to someone, just as long as you had done it well enough the first time to intimidate the hell out of them (physically and/or mentally) and make them too terrified, or too weakened in spirit, to take their ‘dumb ass’ out of the situation before you had managed to do it thrice?

If I were abusing you, my actions are my responsibility. Your actions are your responsibility. And if you choose to stay and be abused, you absolutely bear responsibility for what happens to you. I can't abuse you if you don't stay to be abused. So what else do you call it but consenting for it to happen again? There's a reason why I've never been in an abusive relationship and it's not because I've never met a man capable of it or who tried it.

Are people killed for leaving domestic violence situations? Sure. But a one time occurrence is not a "situation", it's an event. And very rarely does a single event lead to a death if the woman promptly calls the police, has his butt arrested and cuts off all contact with him. If a woman were beaten by a stranger on the street, people would think she'd lost her damn mind if she moved in with him and took him to the movies. But people have no problem saying, oh it was her boyfriend who did it so it's not her fault that she keeps hanging out with him.

If you claim that it's alright to abdicate responsibility for the choice to stay, or you claim that a woman can abdicate responsibility for her own well-being, that's your position and frankly telling of how you view women as well. And if you feel it's better to live on your knees than die on your feet, that's also your choice and anyone else's who chooses to make it. But that doesn't change the fact that IT IS A CHOICE. It doesn't matter what goes into making that choice, whether it be love, or fear or weak character or what, it is still a choice.

How far precisely does the "too terrified and weak in spirit" excuse go? If a woman's husband "forces" her to murder someone, does she get to use the "too weak" excuse to abdicate her responsibility? What about kill a child? Rob a bank? How far does the, "I was afraid and he made me" line hold? At what point exactly does a woman get to abdicate responsibility for her own actions? And why is it so telling that no one would ever feel sympathy for a man claiming he was so afraid of his wife that he just had to do x, y or z because of the fear. We expect men to be responsible for their actions regardless, but not for poor, pathetic women. I am waiting for the day a man puts a shotgun to the back of his sleeping wife's head, pulls the trigger and claims battered spouse syndrome as his excuse. We'll see who actually believes in equality of the sexes then.

It must be nice to live in your Victorian era world where nothing is expected of women because they are too cowardly and weak and stupid to be responsible for themselves, but I expect the same level of responsibility from women as I do from men. With equal rights, comes equal responsibility. Women are not children. They are not helpless in the face of an abusive man. They have a choice. And they are responsible for the consequences of that choice.

No one abuses you repeatedly without your consent. Period.

[caz]

Ah, I chose not to stick around to wait for your response, as I thought I could predict it.

But I see you chose to make a gender issue out of it, which I didn't. I certainly failed to see that one coming.

Abuse is abuse is abuse is abuse - unless the abuser is mentally ill or an animal.

Period.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Abuse is abuse is abuse is abuse - unless the abuser is mentally ill or an animal.

Period.

Caz, you are welcome to change every utterance of Woman to Man in my reply and the same principal applies, except of course all those instances where men kill their wives and claim battered spouse syndrome. I think that's happened once and it was recent and he was convicted of first degree murder, unlike the scores of women who have successfully used it to get away with murdering their spouses.

Yes, abuse is abuse is abuse. And choosing to stay and be abused is a choice is a choice is a choice. Period.

[Roy Corduroy]

Wimpy Leaks had it sorta right after all.

Daffy's nurse gets home safely. Bless her heart.

(Click to see her in the Telegraph)