The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Consent, condoms, conspiracy.

Consent, condoms, conspiracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
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we hope the courts can do that but I am keen to explore the notion that the nonuse of a condom can mean consent is withdrawn.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.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 4:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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Other than that I think consent is withdrawn when one of the adults says "consent is withdrawn" - or words (sign language) to that affect.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.
Posted by Jewely, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:16:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by nairbe, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 7:08:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 12:53:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 8:36:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having sex without a condom is consensual if both parties are aware and consent. It might be stupid, but is not illegal without the consent or knowledge of both parties consent is clearly lacking. The issue about the charges brought on Julian Assange revolve about the sheer lack of evidence to bring a conviction.

As with any criminal case, the defendant is assumed innocent and has to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In both cases the women only came forward several days later, and the evidence in each case is one woman's word against Julian's. Unless corroborating evidence is produced there is no hope of a successful prosecution.

As with the 17 year old who published the photos, the court has to consider that these allegations could be as a result of spite. Both women were annoyed that they were used.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 9:09:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know enough about the Swedish laws but on the face of it, if during a sexual act one party said stop due to the condom breaking or their partner took the condom off without their knowledge, I would imagine that the right to stop in this case should be protected.

As suzeonline said, with all the education about AIDS, STDs and Hepatitis, we have come to expect some personal responsibility. This is surely an important human right one of which could lead to long term consequences even death.

This right protects all the sexual participants whether male or female including if the male says stop should the women insist on no condoms or if the woman tears the condom to get pregnant without the man's consent, thus risking his life and hers (and possibly an unborn child).

The safest sexual relationship is with a long term and faithful partner, but if you don't want or have that, surely the right to be protected during sex should be held in the highest regard.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 9:12:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS: How you would prove any of that would be difficult as I imagine in the 'heat' of the moment one or both parties may not be aware of the mishap until too late.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 9:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hang on, we did in fact have our "30 second rapist", so our laws
are clearly quite tough.

No wonder so many men find it easier to pay for services rendered.
They won't land up in the klink if a woman changes her mind
midstream and they manage to keep the house,
the car and the bank account and not lose it all in the courts.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 10:44:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele, "That women still require protection under the law is undeniable."

Nonsense, all that is 'undeniable' is that raunch behaviour is risky for both sexes and so often the participants don't want to take responsibility for any undesirable outcomes.

There are already laws concerning rape, which is the word you should be using instead of referring coyly to lack of consent.

It is hard to imagine a guy stealthily whipping off the condom without being noticed. Where does he hide it anyhow?

Condoms with little holes? That is an urban myth, why would any man do that? While on that subject, if Mr Assange is the habit of having unprotected sex and he obviously gets a lot of offers from groupies (who were not nuns until he chanced along), how come he tests clear for STIs? It doesn't figure, does it?

Also, notwithstanding the world-wide publicity surrounding this case, no other woman has come forward to complain of rape, refusal to wear a condom, bad attitude to women or whatever. Odd given that Mr Assange probably bonks a gaggle of groupies in just one month alone. Then there are those who crave publicity. If there was even a whisper of a complaint the media hacks would be in full cry. The absence of other complainants is very odd. Yet in just one little spot two women found each other to then find (delayed) cause for complaint.

If one party is to be responsible to the extent of two years gaol and a trashed reputation for the condom that could come adrift without either knowing, shouldn't the woman become accountable for theft of DNA if her contraceptive pill ever 'fails' and a pregnancy results? It is all getting a bit silly, isn't it?

The world is struggling to understand Sweden's odd rape laws where women do not know if they have been raped or not without a gender lawyer to help and even gender-sensitive prosecutors in a gender-sensitive country differ on whether a charge should be laid or not.

Bad law just multiples the number of victims.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 12:56:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I understand the issue, the woman involved consented to have sex, conditional upon a condom being used. This sounds quite reasonable and easily understood. As it is alleged that Mr Assange didn't use a condom, it is quite reasonable for Swedish courts to investigate.

No-one is suggesting that Mr Assange is another Bilal Skaf, but then, the charges in question only carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. If the charges can be proved, I would be happy to see him do some jail time (say anything up to six months).

It appears that the women involved only pursued these charges for vindictive reasons. Most people also think that Swedish police ae only pursuing Mr Assange because of his role in Wikileaks. None of that disproves that his behaviour wasn't way out of line.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 2:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele:

This sounds like a bit of a fairy-tale or at best it has more twists and turns and conspiracy theories than any of the Swedish novelist
Stieg Larsson's novels. I feel that it's something that will simply fade away eventually. Neither of the women seemed to have had any difficulty in having sex with Assange (condom or no condom), and complaining later that a condom had split - is not something that even in Sweden is a chargeable offence. It's bizarre that the prosecutors don't want to meet Assange or question him. Storm in a teacup.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 4:31:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk:“None of that disproves that his behaviour wasn't way out of line.”

I read the complaints as put out there by The Guardian (I think), those women are way out of line and do a real disservice to a law probably meant to protect people. People who day say “no” clearly and get ignored.

We’ll have Sex contracts soon before entering into... umm... yeah intercourse.

Yabby it will be a disaster if the prostitutes become mandatory reporters of sex crimes wont it - if we have stupid laws about someone being liable for not taking responsibility for the condom remaining intact?

Who bought it and should it really be a consumer complaint about product failure?
Posted by Jewely, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 4:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The jury is still out on the Assange case so the legal system will no doubt do its job.

Yabby, surely a prostitute or even a client has the same right to cease the 'business transaction' should health be put at risk through a faulty condom or a mishap during intercourse. I would be surprised if either client or prostitute would agree to take that risk. In other industries many workers down tools (so to speak) when OH&S is breached - it is not only to protect the individual but all who come after.

Any other business that puts at risk a life during the course of their business is covered by insurance but not sure about the sex industry in relation to exposure to potentially life threatening diseases.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 5:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele,
What seems harsh is that this yet untested and unless the woman did a rape kit at the hospital after the act unprovable allegation is worthy of an extradition involving large legal bills. His name is now tainted no matter the outcome of the case which will surely be "he said she said" evidence. Why could they have not simply awaited his return to the country and questioned him then. I do not wish to excuse rape or inappropriate sexual acts but do feel the case is a bit political.
Having read through the posts i still ask, Why is no such a hard thing to understand?
Posted by nairbe, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 7:02:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*but then, the charges in question only carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment*

Only two years Benk? Frankly I think being locked up in a klink
for two years, is a frigging long time!

The thing is, these women only complained, once they realised that
he had knocked them both off, within a short time.

One would think that if a woman has been raped, she would know
about it there and then. Sending somebody to jail for two whole
years, because somebody is flipflopping her opinion, much later
after the event, after finding out that he's moved on and she admits
to being vindictive, is hardly fair and is just the Swedish
feminists running riot with their laws.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 7:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lemmings should note that the progressive position on wilful HIV infection has progressed:

"UN and Planned Parenthood seek to decriminalize willful HIV infection"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un-and-planned-parenthood-sponsor-campaign-to-decriminalize-willful-hiv-inf

Don't you know that revealing one's HIV status might stigmatise the carrier?

"Sharing your HIV status is called
disclosure. Your decision about whether to
disclose may change with different people
and situations. You have the right to
decide if, when, and how to disclose your
HIV status."
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf

I mean, how can you stay "happy, healthy and hot" if you have to disclose your HIV status to anyone you sleep with?
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 8:26:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a mate that can put one on his head and blow it up......and guess what he turned into...........but back to the topic.....:) Poor Julian Assange......Who sold him those condoms..........yeah! Thats the real conspiracy.

Another great Australian hero.

Any more knifes out there?

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 9:29:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My understanding is that men are often prepared to pay prostitutes considerably more to have unprotected sex with them.

From what I can gather the first woman with whom Assange is said to have intercourse when the condom broke had a suspicion that the condom was tampered with in some way by Assange.

I find it perfectly conceivable that after learning about the alleged "surprise" sex that the second woman experienced that the two of them have considered that Assange may well be a serial offender in attempting unprotected sex.

As is often the case women who may have been reluctant to report their own experience are more prepared to do so if they learn others have been affected. Two reasons could be assumed, one they feel they are more likely to be believed and secondly they think they may be able to stop others experiencing the attentions of the offender.

Hopefully the courts can decide if this is the case here. It may well instead be a case of vindictiveness but to judge it as such now would be a little unfair. Even if it were found to be so I don't think that should disqualify us from considering those laws for our own country.
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 23 December 2010 12:03:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look.........! The reasons why we are all here in the first place.......is because some forked female said the snake was cool............and now its still our fault:)

Funny how religious people fall over their own ass-p:)

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Thursday, 23 December 2010 1:03:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele:”I find it perfectly conceivable that after learning about the alleged "surprise" sex that the second woman experienced that the two of them have considered that Assange may well be a serial offender in attempting unprotected sex.”

Attempting unprotected sex is a crime somewhere? Is marriage some kind of amnesty? It is crazy.

In the gay threads the problem with anal health stuff is mentioned a lot so given it seems to be a health hazard is anal sex outlawed in Sweden for their own good?

Neither woman said no, one kept him around for a week. According to my source (google) they only went to the police originally to see if they could make him go take an STD test – super stupid given if they were worried THEY need testing not him. So the govt decided there had been a crime later on… personally I don’t want govt telling me I am a victim of anything while taking charge and seeking some kind of sneaky revenge against some bloke.

And Deep Blue? You’re a shocka mate. : )
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 23 December 2010 7:07:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele, "I find it perfectly conceivable that after learning about the alleged "surprise" sex that the second woman experienced that the two of them have considered that Assange may well be a serial offender in attempting unprotected sex.

As is often the case women who may have been reluctant to report their own experience are more prepared to do so if they learn others have been affected."

That is just speculative gossip and stereotyping - repeat it enough and to the easily persuaded it becomes 'fact'. You would have to be partisan to bend over so far backwards to find excuses for one side while denying the accused similar leeway.

Besides, it is hardly empowering for women to be regarded as such silly, timid, ineffectual, simpering little 'girls' that they need to go to the powder room together to lend one other support. The right word is collusion and it is nasty.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 23 December 2010 11:36:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted. Trying to argue a moderation decision.]
Posted by nairbe, Thursday, 23 December 2010 8:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear cornflower,

I had written my post in response to Yabby's 'flip-flopping of opinion" and "being vindictive" and quite rightly pointing out that there was other obviously feasible scenarios that fit the facts as we know them. I note you did not accuse Yabby of stereotyping or was it you didn't notice as the sentiment express followed your own take closely?

I do think extradition to the US is too high a price to pay for Assange for the deeds he is alleged to have done but I support him facing a day in court because of the nature of the complaints made.

Would I be happy to see Australian men facing similar sanctions in this country? I think yes I would.
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 23 December 2010 8:12:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*In January this year, well before WikiLeaks began dumping US diplomatic cables on the web and long before she had ever met Assange, she published a manual on how to ''systematically take revenge'' on ''someone who cheated or who dumped you''.*

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/victims-jilted-lovers-or-undercover-agents-20101218-191ae.html

There you go Csteele. Does that make her sounds like a poor little
girl who has been victimised?

If you want to start locking blokes up in the klink for a couple
of years, I think there would have to be some pretty strong
reasons. Like an actual rape. Nobody was raped here.

There is no wishy washy. Either somebody is raped or not. They
would know right away.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 23 December 2010 8:50:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate is irrelevant, in this country at least.

Most condoms on the market are made in China, snapping and breaking.
A couple of girlfriends do not depend soley upon them.

The variety many people purchase are not manufactured from strong latex as they once were.

When I purchase rubber gloves [top quality brands ranging to Home Brands], most have a hole in them after using a couple of times.

Therefore, until the manufacturing of condoms has improved, I would not be concerning yourselves over this topic.
Posted by we are unique, Thursday, 23 December 2010 11:57:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And Deep Blue? You’re a shocka mate. : ) Oh trust me.......It comes with a lot of practice:)

When it comes to condom's, I haven't had much need for them since when I tried one in my teens by myself.....and how I found them completely over-rate they where I thought:) However For me, I found love very early on in life and after 20 years.....still no need for them. (condoms) Its unfortunate that some don't find that one true person that stays in love with you for life....I guess I got lucky.( or Iam just one hell of a stud:) But for those who like to jump anything that moves.....condoms! never leave home with out one:) I find they make great water bombs and party tricks as told before......but back to the topic......when someone cries rape........I always want to see and hear the evidence, because one thing Ive found in this world........humans are the worst of all creatures and all will do what ever is necessary to make it look like their side is right.

You have a great and care-free xmas jewel.

Have a great one.....BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Friday, 24 December 2010 8:47:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The secret to condoms is to use heaps of lubricant, not only on the outside, but inside as well.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 26 December 2010 7:42:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Deep Blue – I did have a great Xmas thank you, hope yours was all good too.

“The Swedish laws define rape broadly, so that pressing an erect penis against a woman's back the morning after consensual sex and not wearing a condom can count as sexual offences.”

I always considered that a pleasant surprise but now I discover I have been the victim of multiple counts of a Swedish sex offence… I am going to need a lot of therapy.

Csteele:“Would I be happy to see Australian men facing similar sanctions in this country? I think yes I would.”

Me too, awesome to have something like that handy if you ever want them out of the house for awhile.

Cheers for the advice James. :)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/no-cia-conspiracy-he-raped-us-say-assange-women/story-e6frewt0-1225976167122
"No CIA conspiracy he raped us, say Assange women"

Great headline but I can't find those particular words in the article.
Posted by Jewely, Sunday, 26 December 2010 11:06:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd really hate to be living in Sweden if what Jewely posted is true.

To think that Australia may be going fills me with dread.

Might as well start constructing suicide booths.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 26 December 2010 5:33:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hehe, Assange is calling Sweden the "Saudi Arabia of feminism".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims/story-fn775xjq-1225976459286

What a great description!

Sounds like those ladies are complaining about their "sexual
integrity", now that they know that he slept with both of them
within a week.

Perhaps they should have just done it the old fashioned way and
kept their legs together, if that was really their concern.

Clearly Sweden is becoming a utopia for vindictive women.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 27 December 2010 10:43:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly Sweden is becoming a utopia for vindictive women."

It might be Yabby, but none of us other than those in the room know what really happened.

Having sex without a condom when there was an understanding (or an unwritten contract if you like) to wear one, might be conisdered a most dangerous act in light of modern diseases.

There is always a chance the law can go too far but if the law is protective of the sexual rights of men and women I cannot see a problem. There is nothing vindictive about 'safe sex' and an expectation of honesty in that regard in the sexual act.

None of us know the validity of the Assange case. Interesting how some have appointed themselves judge and jury without knowing all the facts.

It may well be that Assange's high profile makes him a target for less than honest claims or highly exagerrated ones. But equally, a high profile should not mean an instant free pass. One judge lying about his own traffic fine for example.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 27 December 2010 9:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*It might be Yabby, but none of us other than those in the room know what really happened.*

Oh I find this case highly amusing, Pelican. I also think that enough
has been published, to give us some kind of an idea.

The fact that their lawyer claimed that they were not lawyers, so
would not know if they had been raped or not.

The fact that Miss no 1 published a thinggy on the net, months before
this happened, about how to get even with a lover who strayed or
left.

The fact that she was fine the following evening, enjoying her
crayfish party with him and boasting to her friends on twitter.

The fact that both women only became pissed off, when they realised
that he had knocked them both off within a week.

That hardly sounds like "rape" material to me.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 27 December 2010 10:20:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder what ever happened to all that Nordic free love I heard about when I was a boy.

I'd really be in trouble in today's Sweden. I've not even seen a condom up close, since I found a couple of "balloons" under a mattress in a holiday cottage on Magnetic Island, when I was about 8 or so.

I thought it was a bit unfair that my mother took them off me, & wouldn't let me play with them. After all, it was so soon after WW11, that I had never seen a real balloon either.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 27 December 2010 10:52:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is generally characterized by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have less significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct most if not all aspects of public and private life).>
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 6:35:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby I believe the charge is not 'rape' but something to do with unprotected sex.

I would not take the various and different media accounts of the situation as gospel like you appear to, let the Courts decide based on the law.

I am a fan of Assange (or at least his work - I don't know him personally) so I hope he is not guilty but I also hope the women involved are also given a fair trial. The truth will eventually out.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 7:38:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewely

Just because people accuse others of crimes out of malice doesn't necessarily mean that they are lying. Prisons are full of blokes who told their girlfriends about crimes that they had committed, only to have a messy break-up, where she uses the police to get back at him. Detectives must love ex-girlfriends.

Yabby

The point that I made is that he isn't the worst rapist in history, but his behaviour is still way out of line. If the charges can be proven, jail time isn't out of order.
Posted by benk, Sunday, 2 January 2011 4:36:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From my understanding it takes over three months before one can be over 95% sure of not having been infected with AIDS. If a person is unfortunate enough to have acquired the disease then they can infect others during this period.

If I was a woman who had, through misfortune or intent by a sexual partner, unprotected sex I would of course be concerned. If upon learning that the partner had been more promiscuous that I had first thought and had unprotected sex days before me my concern would obviously deepen and I would understandably be upset.

If that partner then refused to take an STD test I would be very pissed off and if I had a remedy under the laws of my country I would give it serious consideration.

Who but the most belligerent would condemn me?
Posted by csteele, Monday, 3 January 2011 9:08:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*If that partner then refused to take an STD test I would be very pissed off and if I had a remedy under the laws of my country I would give it serious consideration.*

I certainly would condem you, Csteele. For you would be trying to
use the law, to make yourself feel better, about your own foolish
behaviour. If the law allows you to do that, then the law is an ass.

The last time that I had a serious fling, we both saw the writing
on the wall, at my suggestion and given her occupation, we both
had a blood test. After that, all was cool.

If you are not sure, there is always the option of saying no. Throwing
people into jail, because you screwed up, is hardly ethical.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 January 2011 9:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele,
Don't take much notice of Yabby, you would certainly be not only within your rights, but your course of action would be the most sensible.

If in spite of your precautions, you MAY have been infected with an STD, then you would have every right to demand termination of intercourse, and to demand proper testing and, if your partner refused either way, then you could bring charges against him/her, for assault.

He would have carried out an action upon your person against your will, plain and simple. Ergo, assault. That's what assault means, Yabby, regardless of who Assange might be or what he might represent, as a revolutionary force against US imperialism or capitalism in general, or just another sleaze-bag.

Actually, regardless of whether or not someone was infected with an STD, if a guy continued with intercourse when a woman asked him to stop, then he is guilty of assault, perhaps of rape. If no expressed termination of consent, then no rape, or assault. If objections, then withdrawal of consent, then rape, incredibly difficult as it may be for a guy.
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 3 January 2011 9:42:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby,

What?? You are probably just stirring the possums but I will have a nibble regardless.

How on earth was my behaviour foolish? I had negotiated in good faith a protected sex with a man I found to be exciting, intriguing and attractive.

If I had been armed with the information now in the possession of those who may now come after me I may well have said no to the encounter. I was not fortunate enough to make a fully informed decision but through my actions others may now do so.

Stepping out of character I should say I still believe the courts should be left to decide this matter so my response above is just to make a point rather than anything more definitive.

What is not ethical is apportioning blame to the victim as you have just done.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 3 January 2011 9:47:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*If I had been armed with the information now in the possession of those who may now come after me I may well have said no to the encounter.*

Well there you go Csteele. Perhaps its not a bad idea to keep your
legs together, until you at least know somebody a little bit and
discuss these things, so that there are no misunderstandings in
the middle of the night.

IMHO these women let their sexual urges get ahead of the thinking
parts of their brains. When they discovered the truth, they were
upset. Now they want to use the law to get even.

Given the fact that men are held accountable for their foolishness,
I see no reason why women should deserve some special dispensation
by the law of the land.

If you screw up in your judgement, don't blame anyone but yourself
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 January 2011 10:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby,

That made me laugh.

Excuse me could you please tell me if you are a serial unprotected sex freak before I decide if I want to sleep with you?

Or please tell me now if you would not take an STD test if I later request one from you.

Here is a question for you Yabby, did the two of you engage in unprotected sex after you had the blood tests done?

Dear Loudmouth,

Full agree.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 3 January 2011 10:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Excuse me could you please tell me if you are a serial unprotected sex freak before I decide if I want to sleep with you?*

Given your attitude of wanting to lock blokes in jail Csteele,
I would certainly not sleep with you, beg as you may :)

*Here is a question for you Yabby, did the two of you engage in unprotected sex after you had the blood tests done?*

We certainly did. After everything had been well clarified beforehand
and I knew whom I was dealing with, unlike the starstruck groupies
who slept with Assange.

Note that they only became pissed off, once they realised that he
had bedded both of them, not before
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 January 2011 10:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby,

I am going to hit a post limit soon but here goes.

How would you feel if the lady in question just couldn't be bothered seeing a doctor, took a blood test result done five years earlier, falsified the date, told you about it after the deed was done, subsequently refuses to take an up to date one, then you find out from her ex she had done exactly the same thing to him.

I suppose you would just chalk it up to experience and walk away with a grin?

(Psst Yabby, just a quiet word if I may. Where I come from blokes don't make unsolicited jokes about sleeping or not sleeping with one another unless at least one of them is gay, then it is okay. I'm not gay. Lets put it down to a misunderstanding and move on shall we?)
Posted by csteele, Monday, 3 January 2011 11:00:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Csteele,

I too am at my post limits, but here goes anyway.

I have in my life, actually been a very good judge of character.
If I were to be as bad a judge as you propose, I would seriously
question my judgement skills and go about improving them
immediately.

If I had any doubts that I had made a mistake, the first thing
I would do, would be to go and have a blood test.

Its quite simple really.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 January 2011 11:25:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You people are just sick:) So the upper level female would not condone that type of behavior, but those with not that bargaining chip, how can one blame the simple things in life.......so you have a vagina:0 the weapon of 21:) So there are dumb, non-intelligent, gold-digging, looser females out there:0 and whats new:)

There are just a many male sluts out there too you know)

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 1:25:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon Yabby. She asked him to wear a condom and it was reasonable of her to assume that he would. Therefore, she took reasonable precautions. I pay that we never reach the day where people generally have blood tests before having sex.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 7:44:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two things, first, there is no evidence whatsoever that either of the complainants - they are not 'victims' until the case is proved - withdrew consent and even the prosecutor has confirmed that to be the case.

Secondly, who would advise anyone, male or female, to return to a country for trial where he/she could be convicted on a complainant's say-so alone without corroborating evidence and particularly where forensic evidence is not required for a conviction?

What if collusion between the complainants had also been accepted by the prosecutor?

What if the prosecutor's office had also leaked evidence that put the accused in a very poor light?

What if a previous prosecutor had dismissed a previous charge?

As far as anyone knows, it is simply one person's word against another's. That wouldn't in itself be enough to bring a conviction in any other area of law in Sweden, nor anywhere else in the world. Added to that, higher courts in Sweden have recently overturned other cases determined on the complainant's word alone. See here,
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/08/02/sweden-changes-its-tune-towards-rape-victims/
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 11:54:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower

1) I see the allegation more as a case of her giving consent, conditional upon him wearing a condom. Therefore, she didn't need to withdraw consent.

2) It is possible in Australia to be charged on one person's evidence
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 4:02:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk,

While legally you are correct on the definition of consent, and it is possible to charge someone based on a single person's word, it is extremely unusual to be able to convict on a single person's word.

On this basis prosecutors seldom lay charges where there is little chance of a successful prosecution.

In this case it is even the word of the women concerned in each case that the incidents even occurred.

The chance of a successful prosecution is zero.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 6:04:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*C'mon Yabby. She asked him to wear a condom and it was reasonable of her to assume that he would.*

Benk, you are spending your time, jumping to all your own little
conclusions here. Because she asked him, does not mean that he
agreed. How plain did she make it that without a condom, she was
not interested in having sex with him? Sounds more like both
groupies were shagging him and not the other way around.

One of these two has publicly documented that she is vindictive
and she was clearly not upset after the sex, for she was bragging
on Twitter. It was only after she discovered that he'd knocked off
the second one and they exchanged notes, that the two became concerned and seemingly upset.

If a woman insists on a condom at all times, perhaps she should
make it clear, before they climb into bed.

The fact that its not acknowledged that these sorts of laws create
an open door for some women who happen to be vindictive, is hardly
mentioned. Its always about the poor female and the evil male. Ha!
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 6:09:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yabby,

"Its always about the poor female and the evil male. Ha!"

Well yes, it's apples and oranges: one party has a few minutes of ecstasy and slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am, the other has a taste of ecstasy plus the possibility of nine months' carrying the consequences, and twenty-plus years of raising the outcome.

In the modern world, surely gender-aware men have to be sensitive or empathetic to how women are feeling and what the differential consequences may be, and wear condoms if she asks for them: the consequences are, after all, far greater for her than for him. No ifs or buts.

Intercourse requires consent on both sides, no ifs or buts, no matter how significant the guy may be for the entire future of humankind. Yes, Assange may be God-like, with superior Holy-Ghost-type sperm, but he is still a guy in the eyes of the law, and if he forces intercourse, then he is guilty of at least assault, and maybe rape. How on earth can this principle be questioned ? If the women are lying, or fabricating, then he goes free.

Wait for the court's verdict. Don't infer motives on either side.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 9:30:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No woman no cry

But if desire must prevail

No condom no sex
Posted by Shintaro, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 10:19:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Well yes, it's apples and oranges*

Nope Loudmouth, its not apples and oranges. The law should not
be such, that it can be misused by one side, who happens to be
vindictive, or the law is an ass.

I've been on the pointy end of a woman scorned and I can assure
you, they don't play fair or nice, sweet revenge is what its about.

One of these two in fact published an online article about how
to do exactly that.

Nobody sees a problem, if a woman wants to insists on a condom,
but I assure you that in Europe a great deal of sexually active
women are in fact on the pill or have a Norplant, pregnancy is
not their concern. However if a woman wants to insist on a condom,
perhaps she should mention it before she's in his bed with his
penis in her hand. With rights come responsibilities.

My point remains that throwing men in jail at the whim of a woman's
say so, is simply not good enough. You'd need more evidence then
that, or any women scorned could have a field day.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 11:49:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy