Julian Assange: Condoms, Rape, and “Sex By Surprise”

One of the two women posted on her own blog january 19th, 2010, the following copy of a text called “How to Get Legal Revenge”:

http://www.ehow.com/how_2296915_get-legal-revenge.html

The women are two young social democrats, one very active in the Christian association within the party. Both are feminists. The idea that they’re somehow CIA plants is pretty hilarious, a particularly ridiculous spin on the consipracist nonsense that implies that (a) all feminists are part of a big conspiracy against men, and that (b) the CIA is completely controlling the Swedish legal system. Grand meta-conspiracy of everything right-wing nuts consider wrong, anyone?

Again, I don’t know what happened, and I don’t know how to explain it. But I do know the sound of axes being ground when I hear it.

And yet, you don’t hear the CIA doing it in Sweden.

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/

Both Sweden and the US governments are demeaned by their (apparent) actions. Almost like some of the bogus, cliche’ed Soviet era tourist traps of old.

The author says he’s unbiased yet keeps repeating that Assange has charges against him.

There are no charges, which is why there is speculation about the allegations.

How about the Swedes actually charge him with something before pursuing a warrant for his arrest? How about some rule of law rather than guilt by propaganda.

I’ve read that the fine for the allegations against Assange range from $75 to $700. A search for facts regarding this rumor is what led me to this site. No help here.

The information about the possible punishment being in the $700 range is only referring to the lesser harassment charge. The rape charge was dismissed August 21. This decision was appealed and the rape charges were reinstated September 1.

So any quotes about this being a minor crime may have been true if they were from this period.

I like how your update fails to mention that Assange TURNED HIMSELF IN. Your story also fails to mention that he cooperated with authorities while he was in Sweden, left Sweden after the prosecutor told him it was ok to go, and volunteered to talk to the prosecutor from London after charges were re-raised against him after he had already left Sweden. It also fails to mention that after the “rapes,” both women still had a friendly relationship with Assange until after they found out that he’d nailed them both. It also fails to mention that one of the accusers had written a piece about “7 steps to get revenge.”

Your article has just as much spin and poor reporting as anything you complained about coming from the lawyers. This whole thing is a character assassination with the intent to discredit Wikileaks, and you’re playing right along with it. Some “activist” you are.

@Angus I don’t think we can be sure even about what allegations are being made. The wording is just to vague. When was this “express wish” voiced? At the time of intercourse or several hours before? The other woman was sleeping and did not wake up? Was she drugged?
I’m not in any way saying he is innocent. But the information of exactly what he is being accused of just isn’t there. Coupled with the previous dismissal of the exact same charges and the denial to accept Assange’s cooperation while he is outside Sweden makes me believe that the due process of law is not being respected here.
Also, in no way shape or form am I suggesting that sex without consent is not a crime. I’m just not exactly sure that the even accusation is that he had sex without consent. There seem to be situations that would not constitute as rape which could be described in this manner.

Dear Angus Johnston,

You claim objectivity by repeatedly stating your posts aren’t “intended to establish his guilt or innocence” but only to “establish the facts of the allegations against him”. Still, you only quote the prosecution’s side, not the defending side. How is that “establish[ing] the facts”? That’s definitely how a judge or jury “establish[ing] the facts” would (/should) work.

Since there are many reasons to doubt the “rape” allegations are in fact highly doubtful (noticeably the tweets by at least one accuser), it’s not surprising (nor incorrect) for some of the media to report this in the matter they have. People who try to prosecute others for rape when it’s not the case are despicable and one of the big reasons some people don’t report rape when it actually *has* happened.

Of course no-one here or anyone else knows whether he is guilty of actual rape or not, except Julian Assange and the alleged victims. But the same goes for everyone who ever lived. Being critical on these allegations, especially with regards to the timing of the arrest warrant, is not only logical, it’s mandatory.

You discredit statements on the basis that they are from Assange’s lawyers, and hence are Assange’s version of events.
Yet the charges are purely the women’s version of events, so they should not carry additional weight at all.

This is still a case of “he said” “she said” – one person’s opinion against another’s.

Note too that the women have not charged Assange with unconsensual sex – just unconsensual body weight pinning, then said they wanted a condomn used – somewhere along the way they agreed to sex, albeit conditional.

Both Assange and the women’s version of events, show agreement to sex. One version of events attaches conditions.

I too won’t comment on whether he is guilty or not. I too think if you want sex but only with a condom, and are forced without, then it’s a form of assault.

However, it is absolutely not rape – completely unconsensual sex – and I find it extremely offensive and underrmining of actual rape victims that it is being equated to rape.

Angus,

The reason very few trust you is as simple as this…

Your update says: “They claim that he used his body weight to hold one woman down during a non-consensual sexual act”

The link from which you fashioned your update says:

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

Why did you suspiciously change from “sexual manner” as that is very different from “non-consensual sex act”????

If a woman says not without a condom, and it puts one on, and it breaks — if she doesn’t then tell him to stop, it’s not rape. For one thing he might not know it’s broken until after the fact. It would obviously be totally unfair to call that non consent. Even if they both knew it had broken, she might well have gotten so into him that she want sex to continue anyway. If she doesn’t say no, because it broke, stop — then it’s not rape either. She’s likely changed her mind. Happens all the time in sex. Part of why she might have is because the damage, if any, is done. His semen is already inside her. Why is it all up to him, because of some statement she made some white ago, that didn’t even consider what the “if the condom breaks” scenario. That would be an absurd transfer of 100% of responsibility onto him. She must say no after the breakage or it’s not rape.

Similarly if a girl says “not without a condom” as they’re undressing, and they fondle and kiss and finger and get hot, and after a while she lets spreads her legs and lets him put it in without a condom on, then he can reasonably believe she’s changed her mind as he has in the heat of the moment. It feels so much better without a condom. If she’s on other birth control, this happens all the time in the real world.

If her mind changes from yes to no at the last second, or even during intercourse, all feminists will tell us that that he must stop. It’s the last state of her will before having sex that matters, not what she said or indicated some while before. All of us with much experience with different women in casual sex know that many, many times, actually most of the time, a woman’s mind changes from no or probably not yet to yes at or near the last minute. It’s the same thing in the case of “not unless condom” some while before the heat builds up, to “oh ok, do it anyway, it’s hotter without”, at the last moment.

He’s not her patriarch. He doesn’t have fiduciary duties to look out for her best interests in all things regardless of his own, and reduce all risk to her. He has a duty to not have sex with her against her expressed will. Minds can and do change — all the time where having first sex is concerned. It’s up to her to say no as he’s about to begin without a condom. Spreading her legs wide to him then doesn’t communicate no. That’s what Assange’s side said was the case with the woman that didn’t involve a breaking condom.

These are two different issues. They may or may not be connected, other than because Assange has become very high profile. He’s high profile for feminists too and their extreme Swedish laws — which make lower level rape, still punishable by 4 years in jail, any consensual sexual intercourse where consent was arguably obtained when she was in emotional distress. So says the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Doug1: if a woman says “no” at any point, STOP.

Relying on her changing her mind as long as you plough ahead and ignore her means you’re either already a rapist, or you’re soon going to find yourself accused. That is the “real world”.

Though it’s nice that you want the actual charges listed and are advocated fairness, your posts miss the point. If it’s true that assange raped these women, he deserves punisment. However, if he didn’t rape anyone and this is a ploy to attack wikileaks, it will work since the questioning on rape charges alone allows for arrest and grounds to get a warrant for all his online activity and a freeze on all of it even though there is probably no standing for the courts to otherwise interfere with wikileaks. Thus, for supporters of the principal of wikileaks, there is no winning situation. Either assange is a deviant and his site gets shut down, or he’s innocent and his site gets shut down during the investigation with no guarantee that it can be restarted after.

Princess Pow–

Doug, your reading skills are as suspect as your social skills.

One woman DID say no after the condom broke. He didn’t stop.

Not buying certain aspects of radical feminism (such as men should in effect be considered when accused of any sex related offense until proven guilty) is /= lack of social skills. And well, I seem to generally have done rather well with smart hotties of the female persuasion. Not so much with rad feminists though, alas.

Moving past your ad hominims (have done more than fine with smart hotties and am living with a lovely girl now), as to you second sentence – that’s what she says. She says it after talking to her friend who she knew might know how to get in contract with Assante since she’d helped organize his talks in Sweden, having only talked to him on the net. Then the both learned he’d slept with the other with a couple of days with each other. Both were worried after the fact at least about the condom issue ( though more the second woman).

It’s not what he says. he says he and woman #2 went out to breakfast together afterwords — and that since he was having trouble accessing his credit cards for some Wikileaks related reason (his visit to Sweden was a number of months ago in the summer i think), she bought him a return train ticket back to Stockholm, just as she’d bought him one to visit her in a town someways outside it.

Doesn’t exactly sound like a rape victim racked by a sense of violation, who hasn’t yet made up her mind whether to press charges, does it?

Note that Assange spent over a month in Sweden last summer after he was due to leave at the request of Swedish authorities while the two women’s stories and that of Assange were investigated and all were interviewed several times. A senior prosecutor decided there was no case here, and told Assange he was free to leave the country, which he finally did.

Then after the women lawyered up and probably got feminist pressure groups involved, they appealed within the prosecutors office and an new prosecutor issued not charges or an arrest warrant but a demand that Assange return to Sweden for more questioning.

In the US no prosecutor can demand a potential defendant come for questioning unless he’s been charged with a crime.

The Feminist misandrist truth exposed. For intelligent adults only. Not for children. See all the videos on youttube

http://www.manwomanmyth.com/file-sharing-links/

Typical feminist shaming and illogical response to a very cogent, and real world accurate, argument.

Real world rape, as opposed to the rad feminist campus codes type in America and most of the rest of the Western world more so (notwithstanding hugely over the top Sweden in these areas) requires that the woman clearly communicate non consent, provided she was sober enough to do so. Being tipsy doesn’t make her incapable of saying no just because it loosens her inhibitions — that’s why most people including most women drink,whether they think of it in those terms or not.

Nor does her feeling “emotional coercion” if by that is meant things like social pressure from his friends, etc., make it rape anywhere but Sweden. If by “emotional coersion” it’s meant that he threatened to scar the face of her daughter (it’s not her that’s being directly threatened, so the harm to her would be under some understands “only” emotional), then sure, that’s rape.

Let’s be at least a little reasonable here feminists. It’s not only what’s ideal for women, but also what’s fair for men. Most first time sex that was preceded by months of courtship doesn’t begin with the girl articulating “please fuck me”. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t really like it if he’s good. On the other hand if she’s saying don’t, or please don’t, and doesn’t go all quite on that after they start kissing and she gets enthusiastic, well, that’s far from rape. That she might have reasons to change her mind a day or three later, when e.g. she discovers that he had another one night stand with her girlfriend only two days before — that doesn’t make it rape either.

Just because a woman gets pissed AFTER THE FACT and calls it rape under super feminists definitions of same (anything whatsoever not pleasing for her, in retrospect) doesn’t mean it was rape or anything close when it occurred.

False rape claims occur all the time these days. It’s and exercise of female feminist revenge power, not for rape but for the guy not acting in every way she wanted afterwards. Or to cover things up with boyfriends, friends and so on. There are countless cases.

This smells like another one.

In this day and age men are often far more hurt socially and emotionally even if they eventually are found not guilty or the case is finally dropped, than many women in borderline date rape cases are — despite feminist myth spinning lies to the contrary.

Guys feel emotional pressure from girls to have sex too of course. We never hear about that being rape, now do we?

*doesn’t go all quiet …

Michael–

If it’s true that assange raped these women, he deserves punisment.

Being just a tad simplistic aren’t you?

Oh sure, if he really clearly raped these women, he does deserve punishment. But that’s the whole point I’m making, it’s not in the least clear that he did. In fact after investing what the two women had to say and what Assange had to say about it over the course of more than a month when he interrupted his schedule and remained in Sweden at the prosecutor’s request, the senior Swedish prosecutor investigating the case determined there was nothing there and told him he was free to go.

But Sweden apparently leans WAY WAY over in the radical feminist definition of what date rape is.

I’m not at all sure that he’s balled back to Sweden because the US government got to the Swedish one. I don’t think the Swedes are that easily swayed by the US in this sort of area. Wouldn'[t help a Swedish government to be seen to be, that’s for sure. Much more likely to be swayed by feminist pressures.

Rather I think the connection with Assange’s coming under attack by the US and other governments, and some parts of the media at least in part, and his being called back to Sweden on this case, is that the two women and their lawyer and feminists groups backing them saw Assange as sufficiently weakened that they had more of a chance of getting cooperation form other Euro states on this out there arrest warrant on the evidence and given that the first prosecutor had dismissed the case.

What seems pretty clear from both sides telling the story is that 1) both women expressed the view that they wanted him to wear a condom before sexual activity began and 2) in both cases he began with one, but then in one way or another continued without one.

It also seems clear that both women offered and Assange accepted friendly and even romantic time together after the completion of sex without an intact rubber — in the first case because it broke and he continued, and in the second, because he had sex the next morning with girl #2 without a rubber. Woman #1 invited to a party with her the next evening and he went; girl #2 invited him out to breakfast with her, paid for it, and paid for his train ticket back to Stockholm from a town a ways outside it. Neither girl has denied this that we know of and it would be easy for the Swedish police to check before they told him he was free to leave the country. Presumably they did. If that’s true it’s inconsistent with any normal understanding of what rape is.

Further neither girl has that we know of that she told him no,not without an intact condom at a time near to where condomless sex occurred.

In other words the case of both women seems to be that if they every told him “not without a condom” that it’s rape if she stops saying that at a time close to when the morning condomless sex act occurs (woman #2) or after the condom broke (woman #1).

If either woman said or repeated very near the time of penetration, rather than way in advance as a sort of general and ideal policy statement, that it’s NO without a condom, then sure that’s a variety of rape. On the less severe side (no violence or even so far as we’ve heard any coercion at all, and she was eager to do it with him under most conditions), but it’s still criminal. If he infects her, especially if he knows he’s infected, that makes it way worse. It’s also way worse if he knows she’s not on other birth control. If she’d strongly resisted, emotionally underscoring her verbalized “no” so that it was much easier for him to emotionally understand, it would be a lot more serious, but still a no right at the time of sex clearly should be headed by men. No argument there.

But that doesn’t sound like what went down. Doesn’t sound like it at all.

In fact neither woman showed any indication of being pissed after the fact until they talked with each other and found out he’d done both of them within a couple of days of each other.

Seems mighty suspicious to me. But just the sort of thing the media tends not to talk about.

i like it but how do you get to see ausuel sex