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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.