After stripping this down through the layers of mis-information, it is a most peculiar case, but then Mr A is a most peculiar person.
It seems a number of women, on the basis of very little personal contact, decided that they fancied a shag - it all seems in the grand tradition of groupy-ism going back to the 60s and the various pop stars of that era. Their casual approach to sex lowers the expected standards of behaviour in my book, so my initial reaction is that I don't have a lot of sympathy.
However, if it did turn out to be true that Mr A deliberately and deceptively did things like damaging a condom and initiating sex whilst asleep (though there is something rather odd in the telling which makes it sound as if she never woke up, which then brings up the question of whether there was drink or drugs involved) then it does turn the situation into something more akin to a deliberate assault. I think in the modern age, it is understood that the basic standard of casual sex, especially based on such a fleeting meeting, is that it is appropriate to have protected sex. In fact, it seems rather reckless of Mr A that he should seek to risk catching something interesting, given his predilection for casual sex - perhaps a sign of some self-destructive tendencies.
The whole casual sex arrangement of the groupies giving service to their anointed one is rather cultish, and it is that imbalance of power that makes me uneasy, though it seems to me that these were mature women taking conscious decisions.
The lack of self-control and ego does make a convincing story in the context of previously revealed splits in WikiLeaks and the determined release of diplomatic tittle-tattle that is damaging without there being a perceived benefit. Convincing story? Well, it also seems to be the case that it is not a fabrication but too well founded in actual events to be a CIA-style plot.
|