While I am an avowed fan of Julian Assange I found the howls of a conspiracy when it was decided he had a case to answer under Swedish sex laws a little hard to participate in.

I don't want to pass judgement on Mr Assange in this matter since we hope the courts can do that but I am keen to explore the notion that the nonuse of a condom can mean consent is withdrawn.

While they have been mocked in many quarters I would not feel uncomfortable with a version of the Swedish laws in Australia. That women still require protection under the law is undeniable. Quite possibly the Swedish system is inevitable for us if we see our future as a progressive nation.

csteele:"That women still require protection under the law is undeniable."

So do men. Just wanted to get that in before a bloke did.

Other than that I think consent is withdrawn when one of the adults says "consent is withdrawn" - or words (sign language) to that affect. I wouldn't go assuming it is only men who don't like using condoms all the time/some of the time/ever.

Not sure if the Swedish sex laws are progressive or law gone mad.

Dear Jewely,

I am just old enough to remember when the police didn't intervene when domestic violence was reported. As long as it occurred in the family home a blind eye was turned.

Where we are at now is most certainly a progression from those days but there is nothing saying we are even close to being where we could be if we put our minds to it.

There were certainly those who would have seen police involvement as one step too far back then.

Perhaps it comes from having daughters but the protections offered under Swedish law do not sound too unreasonable to me.

Well i am of the generation that was at our sexual (for want of a better term) peak during the whole AIDS awareness time during the Hawke years. To me the thought of having unprotected sex with anyone except a trusted partner is just plain stupid and irresponsible.
The Swedish law does seem a bit harsh but none the less if she said no, then no matter the reason it is NO! Why is this such a debated definition?

I agree Nairbe. I thought that having unprotected sex with someone you just met, or are having sex with for the first time, is tantamount to suicide!

Unless you are absolutely committed to your partner, to the exclusion of all other sexual partners, and you have both had blood tests to prove you have no STD's, then a condom is mandatory in today's world.

HIV Aids and hepatitis B or C, are life-threatening, so everyone having sex with new partners should practice the policy:
"if it isn't on, it isn't on!"

If a woman agrees to have sex with a man on the understanding that he will wear a condom to protect them both from possible STD's and an unwanted pregnancy, then he must comply or not have sex.

If he removes it during sex without her knowledge, then I believe he should be charged with assault. If she consequently contracts an STD such as HIV, then he should also be charged with attempted murder if he already knew he had the virus.

Thanks for the responses guys.

I get the sense that suzionline would support their introduction but Naibe you felt they would be too harsh. In what way may I ask? After giving it some thought I have decided they were quite reasonable.

If anyone else thinks they might need modifying what form would that take?