Sex by surprise Options

[anthony]

Assange denies the charges, which his lawyer, described as stemming from a "dispute over consensual but unprotected sex", which may constitute rape under the Swedish law.

So babymaking "may" be illegal in Sweden? Yeah right. Sounds like a spin job to me.

And yeah, I have no idea what forum this is supposed to go into.

EDIT: Oops, forgot the link.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

Assange denies the charges, which his lawyer,, described as stemming, from a "dispute over consensual but unprotected sex", which may constitute rape,,, ~~ ~ under the ~~* Swedish law.

I am trying very hard not to make a joke about Wiki-Leaks.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)









But I failed. My sense of humor is unprotected. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Lar]

Assange denies the charges, which his lawyer, described as stemming from a "dispute over consensual but unprotected sex", which may constitute rape under the Swedish law.

I am trying very hard not to make a joke about Wiki-Leaks.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)









But I failed. My sense of humor is unprotected. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

That initial quote is bugging me. There's an excess comma there somewhere. and you know what commas look like... fat head, little wiggly tail... say no more... Not too good to have extra ones roaming around where they might impregnate unwitting sentences.

Uncle Miltie, can you fix it? The sentence, I mean.

[Milton Roe]

Assange denies the charges, which his lawyer, described, as stemming from a "dispute over consensual but unprotected sex", which may,, ''constitute rape under...~~~* the Swedish law'*~.

I am trying very hard not to make a joke about Wiki-Leaks.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)









But I failed. My sense of humor is unprotected. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

That initial quote is bugging me. There's an excess comma there somewhere. and you know what commas look like... fat head, little wiggly tail... say no more... Not too good to have extra ones roaming around where they might impregnate unwitting sentences.

Uncle Miltie, can you fix it? The sentence, I mean.

I can only fix sentences in my own posts. So there you are. ~~~*>

[anthony]

I can only fix sentences in my own posts. So there you are. ~~~*>

Oops, I forgot the link. See, anyone can fix that sentence. Preferably by deleting it. (Or, actually, preferably by adding a reference to the actual law.)

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

I can only fix sentences in my own posts. So there you are. ~~~*>

Oops, I forgot the link. See, anyone can fix that sentence. Preferably by deleting it. (Or, actually, preferably by adding a reference to the actual law.)

Gee it was a split condom. That's what happens, girls, when you pick up the WikiLeaks man at a seminar. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) I mean, how many clues do they need?

[anthony]

Gee it was a split condom.

That's the rumor, anyway. Whether or not there's any validity to it, I have no idea.

[TungstenCarbide]

Gee it was a split condom.

That's the rumor, anyway. Whether or not there's any validity to it, I have no idea.

what about the second woman? the wikipedia has like nine paragraphs on this and they don't explain.

[Warui desu]

So babymaking "may" be illegal in Sweden? Yeah right. Sounds like a spin job to me.

The reliable source used for the claim is in English, and it quotes solely from Expressen. A Swedish tabloid marginally more reliable than, say, The S*n. And trying to use that excuse for a newspaper as a reliable source on the English-language wikipedia would get you shot down in seconds.

It seems like a case of "not using protection when you said you would" which I am not sure how it would be viewed legally here in the land of everlasting cold.

[anthony]

It seems like a case of "not using protection when you said you would"

In which case it's not "consensual". At least, if it's a case of "not using protection when you say you are" (*).

Anyway, that's the rumor. No idea if it's even true that that's what was alleged. But the way it's phrased in Wikipedia makes it sound like there's possibly some strange Swedish law equating any sex without a condom, with rape. (Which, maybe I could believe in the case of Chinese women who had already used up their one-child quota, or in Pakistan where all sex outside of marriage is illegal, but I find it hard to believe that Sweden would have such a law.)

(*) He said: "I'm going to use a condom." (later, during the act) She said: "Wow I can't even feel the condom." He said: "Umm, yeah, it's really thin." That's definitely some sort of assault. Or is it just a case of a broken promise? He said: "I promise to use a condom." (later, just before the act) She said: "I thought you were going to use a condom?" He said: "Yeah, I lied." She said: "Oh, oh well." That would be a "dispute over consensual but unprotected sex".

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

Gee it was a split condom.

That's the rumor, anyway. Whether or not there's any validity to it, I have no idea.

what about the second woman? the wikipedia has like nine paragraphs on this and they don't explain.

According to The Daily Mail (online), that Bastion of Truth in the Modem World, the second girl was escorted back to her appartment by the sex-crazed Assange, who was sort of cashless and didn't dare use his credit cards or stay in a hotel. There is a matter of a train ticket she paid for (guess he couldn't charge it to the old expense account). So he then proceded to turn her off by playing with his portable computer to look up stories on himself until she was all, like, not-so-hot-as-before. But he wanted to do it anyway, so they did the Swedish nasty. And it was like Norwegian Wood, but not as nearly as good. In fact, sort of bleh for her. Boring. Assange said, that time, that he WOULD use a condom, according to her, but, according to her also, then the next morning they did it again and he didn't even try to use a condom. She didn't know him that well, and wanted him to. But she was okay with the fact that he didn't, and they had breakfast (she was worried about leaving the appartment to shop with him still in her bed, because she didn't know him that well, but he didn't steal anything or light a fire). And then he split. After saying he would call her. But he didn't. And she was shocked, simply shocked, at finding out later that he'd had sex with ANOTHER SWEDISH WOMAN. I'm not sure what she was shocked by, and later, neither was she. Apparently. Because she called the cops and then wasn't quite sure what to charge him with, except being an inconsiderate cad of cads. AND she knows she wants him tested, tested, tested. Ewww. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) Till his eyes suck into his skull and his face is white from loss of hemoglobin. Like, tested.

Are we clear, now? It's all in the tabloids, so it's officially true. Neither woman is named, but Assange is. Which, I would say if this were a case involving some other human male, was horribly unfair and double standardish. Except that this IS Assange, Dark Lord of Leaky Stickiness. So I just can't bring myself to shed tears over his lost rep, in the he-said she-said game as it is played on teh Interwebs. Where is that smiley for the world's smallest violin?

[TungstenCarbide]

Gee it was a split condom.

That's the rumor, anyway. Whether or not there's any validity to it, I have no idea.

what about the second woman? the wikipedia has like nine paragraphs on this and they don't explain.

According to The Daily Mail (online), that Bastion of Truth in the Modem World, the second girl was escorted back to her appartment by the sex-crazed Assange, who was sort of cashless and didn't dare use his credit cards or stay in a hotel. There is a matter of a train ticket she paid for (guess he couldn't charge it to the old expense account). So he then proceded to turn her off by playing with his portable computer to look up stories on himself until she was all, like, not-so-hot-as-before. But he wanted to do it anyway, so they did the Swedish nasty. And it was like Norwegian Wood, but not as nearly as good. In fact, sort of bleh for her. Boring. Assange said, that time, that he WOULD use a condom, according to her, but, according to her also, then the next morning they did it again and he didn't even try to use a condom. She didn't know him that well, and wanted him to. But she was okay with the fact that he didn't, and they had breakfast (she was worried about leaving the appartment to shop with him still in her bed, because she didn't know him that well, but he didn't steal anything or light a fire). And then he split. After saying he would call her. But he didn't. And she was shocked, simply shocked, at finding out later that he'd had sex with ANOTHER SWEDISH WOMAN. I'm not sure what she was shocked by, and later, neither was she. Apparently. Because she called the cops and then wasn't quite sure what to charge him with, except being an inconsiderate cad of cads. AND she knows she wants him tested, tested, tested. Ewww. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) Till his eyes suck into his skull and his face is white from loss of hemoglobin. Like, tested.

Are we clear, now? It's all in the tabloids, so it's officially true. Neither woman is named, but Assange is. Which, I would say if this were a case involving some other human male, was horribly unfair and double standardish. Except that this IS Assange, Dark Lord of Leaky Stickiness. So I just can't bring myself to shed tears over his lost rep, in the he-said she-said game as it is played on teh Interwebs. Where is that smiley for the world's smallest violin?

ya just can't make this shit up.

The rape charge translates into women scorned, Assange is a mutt in heat (no surprise there) and the international arrest warrant is a crock.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[A Horse With No Name]

How old are these Swedish broads, anyway? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Gee it was a split condom.

That's the rumor, anyway. Whether or not there's any validity to it, I have no idea.

what about the second woman? the wikipedia has like nine paragraphs on this and they don't explain.

According to The Daily Mail (online), that Bastion of Truth in the Modem World, the second girl was escorted back to her appartment by the sex-crazed Assange, who was sort of cashless and didn't dare use his credit cards or stay in a hotel. There is a matter of a train ticket she paid for (guess he couldn't charge it to the old expense account). So he then proceded to turn her off by playing with his portable computer to look up stories on himself until she was all, like, not-so-hot-as-before. But he wanted to do it anyway, so they did the Swedish nasty. And it was like Norwegian Wood, but not as nearly as good. In fact, sort of bleh for her. Boring. Assange said, that time, that he WOULD use a condom, according to her, but, according to her also, then the next morning they did it again and he didn't even try to use a condom. She didn't know him that well, and wanted him to. But she was okay with the fact that he didn't, and they had breakfast (she was worried about leaving the appartment to shop with him still in her bed, because she didn't know him that well, but he didn't steal anything or light a fire). And then he split. After saying he would call her. But he didn't. And she was shocked, simply shocked, at finding out later that he'd had sex with ANOTHER SWEDISH WOMAN. I'm not sure what she was shocked by, and later, neither was she. Apparently. Because she called the cops and then wasn't quite sure what to charge him with, except being an inconsiderate cad of cads. AND she knows she wants him tested, tested, tested. Ewww. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) Till his eyes suck into his skull and his face is white from loss of hemoglobin. Like, tested.

Are we clear, now? It's all in the tabloids, so it's officially true. Neither woman is named, but Assange is. Which, I would say if this were a case involving some other human male, was horribly unfair and double standardish. Except that this IS Assange, Dark Lord of Leaky Stickiness. So I just can't bring myself to shed tears over his lost rep, in the he-said she-said game as it is played on teh Interwebs. Where is that smiley for the world's smallest violin?

ya just can make this shit up.

The rape charge translates into women scorned, Assange is a mutt in heat (no surprise there) and the international arrest warrant is a crock.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697/ns/us...rity/?GT1=43001

Incredibly, he's been arrested in the UK for this and denied bail. They are going to Extradite him to Sweden for a busted condom, followed by failure to use a next-morning condom with somebody else.

See, this is what happens when you get on the U.S. government's shit list. Your condom malfunctions and your failure to put one on in some fuzzy morning, follows you around the world and results in your imprisonment. Rough justice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) Since there's no way to prove whether or not the man used a condom that morning when he and she were half asleep, presumably he'll be kept eventually at Gitmo, where all those other bad people are kept that nobody has any good evidence against. Stay tuned to WikiLeaks to find out.

The news stories are already precious:

Denial: Mr Assange admitted having sex with two women within four days of each other

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Milton Roe]

How old are these Swedish broads, anyway? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck. Sucks to be them.

[TungstenCarbide]

How old are these Swedish broads, anyway? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck. Sucks to be them.

"Assange's lawyers [...] say the women only made the claims after finding out about each other's relationships with Assange."

hell hath no fury ... Go get em, ladies.

[GlassBeadGame]

A second woman accused Assange of having sex with her without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

NBC, msnbc.com and news services

Having sex with an unconscious person amounts to rape. The no condom thing might be a aggravating factor. It also might be used as evidence that she would not have consented if awake although an unconscious victim should not have to prove any such thing. Of course those are only reported accusations. There are a couple of levels of possible misinformation there and we don't know the proof. If Sweden is a draconian police state that frames defendants without evidence they have done a good job of keeping that a secret up to this point. In the US system there would be a speedy preliminary hearing required to show that substantial evidence does in fact exist or the defendant is released. I would assume Sweden has something similar. But the charges do not seem trivial on their face.

[TungstenCarbide]

How old are these Swedish broads, anyway? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck. Sucks to be them.

"An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes.

While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte."

... Assange attended his seminar at the Swedish trade union HQ. In the front row of the audience, dressed in an eye-catching pink jumper — you can see her on a YouTube ­internet clip recorded at the time — was a pretty twentysomething whom we shall call Jessica."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz17Sabswn8

This just keeps getting getting better and better. Assange fucks over groupies, only to have the favor returned, in spades.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[thekohser]

One thing is for sure, Jimmy Wales would never have sex with two different women in the same week!




...right?...



(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)




Meanwhile, a Free Culture advocate describes to British authorities how big was Assange's member...
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/GLAM_WIKI_UK_2010_-_Sue_Gardner_-_3.jpg/512px-GLAM_WIKI_UK_2010_-_Sue_Gardner_-_3.jpg)

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[SB_Johnny]

How old are these Swedish broads, anyway? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck. Sucks to be them.

"An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes.

While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte."

... Assange attended his seminar at the Swedish trade union HQ. In the front row of the audience, dressed in an eye-catching pink jumper — you can see her on a YouTube ­internet clip recorded at the time — was a pretty twentysomething whom we shall call Jessica."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz17Sabswn8

This just keeps getting getting better and better. Assange fucks over groupies, only to have the favor returned, in spades.

If this really is a CIA conspiracy, we need better CIA operatives. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If the leaks were Russian or Israeli documents, he'd probably be quite dead by now. Not that that would be a good thing, but just sayin. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Ottava]

I guess he is happy he didn't either pregnant, or that surely would be the death penalty.

[Milton Roe]

Having sex with an unconscious person amounts to rape.

So I take it you don't agree with Linda Ellerbee's solution on how to handle a marriage where both partners are employed in wage-earning jobs?

"Sex: the rule is that both of us don't necessarily need to be conscious at the same time."

With my unconscious body, I thee worship....

Hmmm. I can only conclude that this second babe must be a VERY heavy sleeper, since it was morning and no allegations of drugs or alcohol are involved. Or else she is not a very anxious type. Or maybe she has narcolepsy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Good God, I've slept with women who normally woke up enough to comment, when *I* woke up quietly to do something as unbothersome as reach for a empty bottle of wine "Mmmm, sorry I drank the last of it..." Then go right back to snoring. So where the hell do they get these zombified Swedish babes? Not that any of this interests me very much, but it sure is not anywhere near any of my own experience with women. Men, by contrast, do sleep like the dead. Not that I've ever tried to violate one to put this to the ultimate test.

See, this is why we need human juries, and computers will never work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[anthony]

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck.

I read they were wearing sexy clothing too.

[Milton Roe]

Both "in their 20's" says The Daily Mail. Presumably, in Sweden, old enough to know better. The sweet victimized ladies threw themselves at Assange when was making a speaking tour, and both of them, erm, stuck.

I read they were wearing sexy clothing too.

Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

You know, in my day we walked ten miles through the snow to school, and the TV was black and white. And when we met somebody new, we sometimes had to wait for days and days for the antibody enzyme immunoassay blood test to come back, before we could give our passion full reign. That took iron determination, I tell you, as there was no rapid SUDS HIV Test. But it was Victorian Times, and we did as expected.

This young generation, these days, with their dang antiretrovirals, are all going straight to the devil, I tell you. I wouldn't give a dental dam for most of 'em. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/oldtimer.gif)

[anthony]

Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Maybe I'm just dense, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I thought the details of what happened were disputed.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Maybe I'm just dense, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

Link is given in the posts above. And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.

[TungstenCarbide]

Woman #2 took the guy home on the train to her appartment to have sex with him. Then complained that the second time they did it, he didn't use a condom. She was so upset that she cooked him breakfast. And made him promise to call her. Then when he didn't, she called the police and had him arrested in another country. All this made possible courtesy of the US government, behind the scenes pulling strings. Don't imagine not.

Now, do I need to explain the Facts of Life, here? This sex was at the end of a long trainride back home, not a long passionate kiss. It was, as they say, premeditated. If you are relying on a condom to protect you from HIV because you're having carefully planned and paid-for sex with people you just met a few hours before, then you are being stupid. The government cannot protect you from stupidity that gross, and I'm not even sure the government should try to. It sounds like more of a tort or civil damages sort of thing, at worst, in the absense of some kind of enforceable agreement. We really don't know what kind of agreements or promises were made in this case, but some things speak for themselves. In absense of reliable agreements, the general common law is that you get what you ask for, as is, and there is not necessarily a guarantee on all items, just because you think there should be. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

You know, in my day we walked ten miles through the snow to school, and the TV was black and white. And when we met somebody new, we sometimes had to wait for days and days for the antibody enzyme immunoassay blood test to come back, before we could give our passion full reign. That took iron determination, I tell you, as there was no rapid SUDS HIV Test. But it was Victorian Times, and we did as expected.

This young generation, these days, with their dang antiretrovirals, are all going straight to the devil, I tell you. I wouldn't give a dental dam for most of 'em. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/oldtimer.gif)

Assange barged into the world of espionage, war and global politics, and started throwing rotten eggs. I wonder if he's stupid enough to expect fair treatment ?

[anthony]

Link is given in the posts above.

None of which are very reliable. A lot of parties are obviously going to great lengths to try to spin this case one way or the other. It is, after all, quite literally a battle of information warfare. As such I'm quite hesitant to give any credence to third and fourth-hand accounts, and even first and second-hand accounts have to be taken with a large dose of skepticism.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[anthony]

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.

Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.

[GlassBeadGame]

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.

Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.

Somebody is just getting nervous about those young girls at Burning Man.

[anthony]

On a completely unrelated note (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?

[Lar]

On a completely unrelated note (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?

I thought Ladbrokes would take a punt on anything?

Why, yes, you can.

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/awards/t...year-e214560865

[anthony]

On a completely unrelated note (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?

I thought Ladbrokes would take a punt on anything?

Why, yes, you can.

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/awards/t...year-e214560865

Unless you want to wager on Assange. Odds: Susp.

[Lar]

On a completely unrelated note (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) , anyone know where I can go to place a wager on Time's 2010 Person of the Year? When is that person chosen, anyway?

I thought Ladbrokes would take a punt on anything?

Why, yes, you can.

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/awards/t...year-e214560865

Unless you want to wager on Assange. Odds: Susp.

Which seemed terribly unfair to me but I was so excited at finding the answer and posting first (bad habit, I know, but with Miltie around, can you blame me?) I didn't comment. Maybe they're going to want to resolve the 'will he be convicted' question first?

[Milton Roe]

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.

Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.

I'm curious as to when you assume that consent is "automatically" withdrawn when a man and woman climb into bed to have consensual sex. Presuming nobody ever says "no" or "stop."

In any case, this is not a rape case, as rape has not been alleged by anybody. That is a fact.

And if that doesn't help, then don't know what YOU'RE talking about. I thought you were satirizing rape defenses that suggest a woman was "asking for it." Well, sometimes people ask for it.

Sometimes people ask for what, exactly?

What I'm talking about is that a woman "throwing herself" at a man doesn't justify the man raping her.

Somebody is just getting nervous about those young girls at Burning Man.

Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.

[GlassBeadGame]

Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.

Oh yeah man, it was like... spiritual.

[taiwopanfob]

Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.

He's probably looking at the current state of the Burning man article and getting excited.

It is interesting, but of course completely Wiki-SOP, that the picture of the naked women is not properly copyright tagged at all. Maybe someone can create a small quantum of drama and nominate it for deletion-by-copyright-violation, as it most certainly is.

The other images there are "allowed" under Wiki-law's version of "fair use". However, there is this discussion from five years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_...pump_discussion

Are the Burning Man people monitoring Wikipedia's use of their imagery?

Of course, the situation on Commons is the normal clusterfuck of complete stupidity. Example:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...953%29_crop.jpg

With few exceptions, they are all a bunch of fucking idiots.

[GlassBeadGame]

Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.

He's probably looking at the current state of the Burning man article and getting excited.

It is interesting, but of course completely Wiki-SOP, that the picture of the naked women is not properly copyright tagged at all. Maybe someone can create a small quantum of drama and nominate it for deletion-by-copyright-violation, as it most certainly is.

The other images there are "allowed" under Wiki-law's version of "fair use". However, there is this discussion from five years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_...pump_discussion

Are the Burning Man people monitoring Wikipedia's use of their imagery?

Of course, the situation on Commons is the normal clusterfuck of complete stupidity. Example:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...953%29_crop.jpg

With few exceptions, they are all a bunch of fucking idiots.

My ignorance on the matter is completely independent of Wikipedia.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Shows how little you know about Burning Man. But enjoy your ignorance.

Oh yeah man, it was like... spiritual.

I find myself gripped by an uncontrollable impulse to reprise this video:

[anthony]

I'm curious as to when you assume that consent is "automatically" withdrawn when a man and woman climb into bed to have consensual sex. Presuming nobody ever says "no" or "stop."

Why should I presume nobody ever said "no" or "stop"? I'm not on a jury. In at least some accounts of the story I've read, someone did say "no" or "stop". Yes, there is another story that this is merely a case of a broken condom, and nothing more. But that's only one version of the story, which seems to have been put out there by the lawyer of Assange, and is highly unlikely to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Consent to what? What manner of consent? Even if I do make presumptions, your question is far too open-ended.

I presented a scenario above which I would consider assault. Tricking a woman into believing that you are wearing a condom, when you actually are not. I'd say it's akin to slipping roofies in someone's drink, or giving someone pot brownies and not mentioning the "pot" part. Fine if there was consent. Assault if there was not.

Whether such assault amounts to "rape", I don't know. I guess it depends a lot on the specific statutory definition of "rape". But it's assault. A criminal manner, and not merely a breach of contract.

In any case, this is not a rape case, as rape has not been alleged by anybody.

Do you have (a) link(s) where I can confirm this?

I thought rape had been alleged by at least one prosecutor.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[LessHorrid vanU]

Having sex with an unconscious person amounts to rape.

So I take it you don't agree with Linda Ellerbee's solution on how to handle a marriage where both partners are employed in wage-earning jobs?

"Sex: the rule is that both of us don't necessarily need to be conscious at the same time."

With my unconscious body, I thee worship....

Hmmm. I can only conclude that this second babe must be a VERY heavy sleeper, since it was morning and no allegations of drugs or alcohol are involved. Or else she is not a very anxious type. Or maybe she has narcolepsy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Good God, I've slept with women who normally woke up enough to comment, when *I* woke up quietly to do something as unbothersome as reach for a empty bottle of wine "Mmmm, sorry I drank the last of it..." Then go right back to snoring. So where the hell do they get these zombified Swedish babes? Not that any of this interests me very much, but it sure is not anywhere near any of my own experience with women. Men, by contrast, do sleep like the dead. Not that I've ever tried to violate one to put this to the ultimate test.

See, this is why we need human juries, and computers will never work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

"Let. Me. Tell. You about Sweden.
Only. Place. Where the clouds are interesting' "

The Stranglers - Black and White album "All Quiet on the Western Front"

[The Adversary]

Well...laws on sex are a bit different in Scandinavia, than in most other places. Say, if a guy comes to Scandinavia and buys sex from any of the zillion Nigerian prostitutes who walks the streets, and she then, afterwards demand more money...he better pay that extra money. Because otherwise the prostitute can go to the police and tell them that he bought sex ...and that is a serious crime. The guy will get arrested. But: selling sex is not a crime! So the prostitute walks free......

Just one little part of living in what one despairing male once called "The First Vaginal State" of the world! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Having said that: the Assange case stinks. Big time. A "bad sex night" (or two (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) ) is still not a crime. And when the females in question didn´t "figure out" that Assange had committed anything wrong before several days later: it stinks.

I seriously dislike this case/females: it/they trivialize sexual offenses. And if would never have happened if Assange wasn´t who he is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[anthony]

And when the females in question didn´t "figure out" that Assange had committed anything wrong before several days later: it stinks.

There's a difference between "anything wrong" and a crime worthy of reporting to the police. From what little information has been released it sounds like the police were the first to use the term "rape".

And if would never have happened if Assange wasn´t who he is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

A reckless individual who thinks he is above the law?

[KD Tries Again]

Is there anything here so far which shouldn't be in the off topic forum?

[GlassBeadGame]

Just one little part of living in what one despairing male once called "The First Vaginal State" of the world! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Up to now most nation states have acted like real dicks.

[Mr. Mystery]

Seems he is inclined towards unprotected sex: http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison

This post has been edited by Mr. Mystery:

[EricBarbour]

Is there anything here so far which shouldn't be in the off topic forum?

Not a damn thing. Perhaps the mods are overwhelmed with deleting Christmas spam?
You know, selling stuff like this?

[Milton Roe]

Seems he is inclined towards unprotected sex: http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison

This just in from today. Such sweetly crafted justice for a Wikileaker:

LONDON — Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy organization who was released from a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a 68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Mr. Assange’s legal troubles.

Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Assange's personal habits and court cases are going to be all over the web, what do we think about this?

Suppose a man and woman agree to have sex, and the woman's demand is that the man wear a condom. And let us suppose he agrees, then later in the night tricks the woman into sex in which he isn't using one.

Now-- what should be the penalty. Stipulate no harm but psychological done-- the woman does not get pregnant nor catch a disease. Is this, or should this be, a felony?

Turn it around. A man and woman agree to have sex, and the man's demand is that the woman should be taking birth control pills. She promises that she is, but and lies. She does get pregnant. She also says she's never been treated for an STD, but has, and in this case gives the man a rather nasty one, albeit not a fatal or incurable one.

This has happened a number of times, and courts have decided that the man in such situations is basically out of luck. He has to pay child support if the mother decides to have the child. His STD is his own problem, unless possibly it's Hep C, herpes II, or HIV, in which last case he can sue for willful endangerment (in some places).

Now, isn't all this rather a double standard? How much should people who make passionate promises be held to keeping them? Always? As a civil matter? As a criminal matter? Only if physical harm is done? Only if the "victim" is female?

[GlassBeadGame]

Seems he is inclined towards unprotected sex: http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison

This just in from today. Such sweetly crafted justice for a Wikileaker:

LONDON — Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy organization who was released from a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a 68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Mr. Assange’s legal troubles.

Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Assange's personal habits and court cases are going to be all over the web, what do we think about this?

Suppose a man and woman agree to have sex, and the woman's demand is that the man wear a condom. And let us suppose he agrees, then later in the night tricks the woman into sex in which he isn't using one.

Now-- what should be the penalty. Stipulate no harm but psychological done-- the woman does not get pregnant nor catch a disease. Is this, or should this be, a felony?

Turn it around. A man and woman agree to have sex, and the man's demand is that the woman should be taking birth control pills. She promises that she is, but and lies. She does get pregnant. She also says she's never been treated for an STD, but has, and in this case gives the man a rather nasty one, albeit not a fatal or incurable one.

This has happened a number of times, and courts have decided that the man in such situations is basically out of luck. He has to pay child support if the mother decides to have the child. His STD is his own problem, unless possibly it's Hep C, herpes II, or HIV, in which last case he can sue for willful endangerment (in some places).

Now, isn't all this rather a double standard? How much should people who make passionate promises be held to keeping them? Always? As a civil matter? As a criminal matter? Only if physical harm is done? Only if the "victim" is female?

If the full extent of Assange's misconduct is that he renegaded on the terms of fluid exchange it should be no more than a misdemeanor or low grade felony. No more than a couple years of prison and eligible for probation-only sentence but no problem with criminalizing the conduct. Nothing about the charge, even as a serious felony, is so unfair that he should not be extradited.

Once again you are the "bad winner" who wants to bitch about unfair treatment and "inequality" while maintaining privileged. The reality is different. Women bare the brunt of the consequences for pregnancy and children. Woman get STD from men (I can already anticipate your response here... but go ahead.) But why should you be any better on matters of gender than race or social class?

The most troglodyte of your suggestions is that a man should skate on child support if he was "had." That is nothing short of monstrous. But as usual when you project your own concerns into a thread it will probably be heading south quickly enough. Maybe some other mod might want to remove this and what follows to an OT thread sooner rather than latter.

[anthony]

Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Assange's personal habits and court cases are going to be all over the web, what do we think about this?

We're certainly leaving aside the Assange case, since there is no mention of how the man "stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs". And that's the woman he's *not* accused of raping. To cover the rape allegation we'd have to talk about a woman "waking up to find him having sex with her again".

I'm going to point out that these are all just allegations, and that Assange has not yet had a proper chance to respond to these allegations. I'm not saying they're true, just that they're worthy of investigation.

Suppose a man and woman agree to have sex, and the woman's demand is that the man wear a condom. And let us suppose he agrees, then later in the night tricks the woman into sex in which he isn't using one.

Now-- what should be the penalty. Stipulate no harm but psychological done-- the woman does not get pregnant nor catch a disease. Is this, or should this be, a felony?

Probably not a felony, but it's clearly assault, no? It's a misdemeanor at the least. Do you have any evidence that it *is* a felony?

Say a pizza delivery man does nasty things to someone's pizza. Stipulate no harm but psychological done--the pizza eaters don't get pregnant nor catch a disease. Is this, or should this be, a felony?

Turn it around. A man and woman agree to have sex, and the man's demand is that the woman should be taking birth control pills. She promises that she is, but and lies. She does get pregnant.

Not assault. I don't see any crime at all, in fact.

She also says she's never been treated for an STD, but has, and in this case gives the man a rather nasty one, albeit not a fatal or incurable one.

Assault and battery.

This has happened a number of times, and courts have decided that the man in such situations is basically out of luck. He has to pay child support if the mother decides to have the child. His STD is his own problem, unless possibly it's Hep C, herpes II, or HIV, in which last case he can sue for willful endangerment (in some places).

Show me a court case where a woman has stipulated, or have been found by a jury to have said that "she's never been treated for an STD, but has, and in this case gives the man a rather nasty one, albeit not a fatal or incurable one", and the court has held that no crime was committed.

As for the child support, that's an interesting question all to itself, which I'd love to discuss in another thread. If the mother can't support the child on her own, and don't think the father should be forced to, then who do you think should? The taxpayer? Or should children be taken away from parent(s) who can't support them? Interesting questions, but for another thread, no?

What if the woman dies, and the woman's parents are awarded custody of the child. Then should the father owe child support?

Now, isn't all this rather a double standard? How much should people who make passionate promises be held to keeping them? Always? As a civil matter? As a criminal matter? Only if physical harm is done? Only if the "victim" is female?

A broken promise is a civil matter (EDIT: correction, it's a breach of contract matter, which is generally different from a civil tort). Fraud is a criminal matter. The difference between a broken promise and fraud is whether the lie is about the future or the present.

Granted, in the case of the woman not taking the pill there is fraud, but there is no direct harm, except upon the woman herself. Maybe you could come up with a crime which has been committed, but I can't think of one. It's not assault or battery.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[TungstenCarbide]

He preaches openness but demands privacy. He reveals 'secrets' but 99% are prurient gossip. He's accused of rape but won't face his accusers. Why do the Left worship the WikiLeaks 'God'?

Julian Assange is an all around piece of shit.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

He preaches openness but demands privacy. He reveals 'secrets' but 99% are prurient gossip. He's accused of rape but won't face his accusers. Why do the Left worship the WikiLeaks 'God'?

Julian Assange is an all around piece of shit.

I can't comment on whether Mr. Assange is a piece of shit, but in reading the linked Daily Mail article, I thought to myself, "this is just the sort of tabloid journalism which should never, ever be used as a source in Wikipedia BLPs." Then, out of curiosity, I went to Julian Assange (T-H-L-K-D), and sure enough, there it was (although not that particular article. Not yet, anyway.)

[RMHED]

He preaches openness but demands privacy. He reveals 'secrets' but 99% are prurient gossip. He's accused of rape but won't face his accusers. Why do the Left worship the WikiLeaks 'God'?

Julian Assange is an all around piece of shit.

If The Daily Mail doesn't like him, he can't be all bad.

[EricBarbour]

No, just bad enough to be an embarrassment to freedom of speech.

[RMHED]

...to freedom of speech.

There's no such thing, it's never free there's always a price to pay.

[GlassBeadGame]

No, just bad enough to be an embarrassment to freedom of speech.

Well if freedom of speech can survive the Hollywood ACLU honoring Courtney Love despite giving journalists and reviewers death threats I guess it will survive this too. Mind you I love the ACLU and figure that those folks in Hollywood and The Free Kulture Reich are just some kind of aberrations.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

Assange is a vile animal, plain and simple. He's benefited greatly by the laws of society and a standard of living built for him in the western world, while tearing down the institutions that brought him that life and hiding behind its civilized laws. Reading this story in particular, he sounds like he has no conscience. The article dings at least 10 of 15 traits of a psychopath;

*Glibness and Superficial Charm
*Manipulative and Conning
*Grandiose Sense of Self, Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
*Pathological Lying
*Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
*Shallow Emotions
*Incapacity for Love
*Need for Stimulation
*Callousness/Lack of Empathy
*Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
*Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
*Irresponsibility/Unreliability
*Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
*Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
*Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[dogbiscuit]

Assange is a vile animal, plain and simple. He's benefited greatly by the laws of society and a standard of living built for him in the western world, while tearing down the institutions that brought him that life and hiding behind its civilized laws. Reading this story in particular, he sounds like he has no conscience. The article dings at least 10 of 15 traits of a psychopath;

*Glibness and Superficial Charm
*Manipulative and Conning
*Grandiose Sense of Self, Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
*Pathological Lying
*Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
*Shallow Emotions
*Incapacity for Love
*Need for Stimulation
*Callousness/Lack of Empathy
*Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
*Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
*Irresponsibility/Unreliability
*Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
*Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
*Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

It is that the story is in the Daily Mail which unfortunately means that I have to dismiss it - the Mail is a very right wing, uncritical paper which is a propaganda sheet for the Conservatives. Its speciality is apparently plausible stories that allow the unthinking nation to nod in agreement and fume at the injustice of the world.

Before this story broke, it was clear that there was something not quite right in the world of WikiLeaks. That being said, when your fact gathering is through the media, you have to be entirely suspicious of why you are being told what you are being told. I have a rule that you should treat a subject you know nothing about with the same scepticism as those you know about: simple example, when have the press ever managed an accurate story about Wikipedia that shows that they know what they are talking about, so why should we think that the press is helpful in understanding Assange?

I'd like to know on what basis Assange thinks he will not get a fair trial. His team have been running a fairly strong propaganda war yet they have not been denying the underlying basis of the story. I wonder if Assange knows he did what he did and simply doesn't see why it should be considered a crime.

[Kelly Martin]

The article dings at least 10 of 15 traits of a psychopath;

*Glibness and Superficial Charm
*Manipulative and Conning
*Grandiose Sense of Self, Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
*Pathological Lying
*Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
*Shallow Emotions
*Incapacity for Love
*Need for Stimulation
*Callousness/Lack of Empathy
*Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
*Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
*Irresponsibility/Unreliability
*Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
*Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
*Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

Wait, I thought we were talking about Assange; why are you listing Jimmy Wales' traits?

[TungstenCarbide]

Before this story broke, it was clear that there was something not quite right in the world of WikiLeaks. That being said, when your fact gathering is through the media, you have to be entirely suspicious of why you are being told what you are being told. I have a rule that you should treat a subject you know nothing about with the same scepticism as those you know about: simple example, when have the press ever managed an accurate story about Wikipedia that shows that they know what they are talking about, so why should we think that the press is helpful in understanding Assange?

Assange has been celebrated in the press for a long time. My take on him never matched the dozens of articles painting him as an honorable and fearless whistleblower. You can see that in my earlier posts before these negative articles started coming out. So you don't need to tell me to be skeptical of the press.

Contrast Assange with Michale Moore. Moore's been married to the same woman for twenty years. He's willing to face the people he criticizes, eye to eye. By all accounts, he's no bigot. He's a real stand-up man you can respect, even if you don't agree with him. Assange is a philandering anti-American bigot, who hides like a coward while sniping. He'll never be a stand-up man like Michael Moore.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Contrast Assange with Michale Moore. Moore's been married to the same woman for twenty years. He's willing to face the people he criticizes, eye to eye. By all accounts, he's no bigot. He's a real stand-up man you can respect, even if you don't agree with him. Assange is a philandering anti-American bigot, who hides like a coward while sniping. He'll never be a stand-up man like Michael Moore.

Michael Moore is not free from sin, either. After making a decent film, "Sicko," which exposed the criminality of the HMOs, Moore then followed Obama like an eager puppy, even as Obama transformed the US health system into one giant HMO.

[TungstenCarbide]

Contrast Assange with Michale Moore. Moore's been married to the same woman for twenty years. He's willing to face the people he criticizes, eye to eye. By all accounts, he's no bigot. He's a real stand-up man you can respect, even if you don't agree with him. Assange is a philandering anti-American bigot, who hides like a coward while sniping. He'll never be a stand-up man like Michael Moore.

Michael Moore is not free from sin, either. After making a decent film, "Sicko," which exposed the criminality of the HMOs, Moore then followed Obama like an eager puppy, even as Obama transformed the US health system into one giant HMO.

So they failed to slay Goliath. At least they tried.

Assange, on the other hand, paints himself as some honorable truth and justice crusader, but all he does is sling prurient gossip while hiding like a coward, and screwing everyone he can before discarding them.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[dogbiscuit]

Assange has been celebrated in the press for a long time. My take on him never matched the dozens of articles painting him as an honorable and fearless whistleblower. You can see that in my earlier posts before these negative articles started coming out. So you don't need to tell me to be skeptical of the press.

Contrast Assange with Michale Moore. Moore's been married to the same woman for twenty years. He's willing to face the people he criticizes, eye to eye. By all accounts, he's no bigot. He's a real stand-up man you can respect, even if you don't agree with him. Assange is a philandering anti-American bigot, who hides like a coward while sniping. He'll never be a stand-up man like Michael Moore.

Agree - in fact there are a long line of honourable journalists who are thorns in the sides of the powers that be. The likes of Assange have the potential to do a lot of damage to quality investigative journalism.

There are few others I have time for along with Moore (who had an excellent series TV Nation that worked very well in the UK before he went big screen): one is Robert Fisk, who refuses to tow any party line in his despair over the Israeli-Palestine conflict: the Israelis hate him because he points out the inequities of the situation there, but he has little time for the corrupt government of the Palestinians either.

I think I detect a change in the press, from uncritical adulation of lazy journalists, to a position of setting a healthy distance in case it all goes tits up. It doesn't mean that Sweden is acting appropriately, and it is unfortunate that they have let the legal process get unnecessarily politicised.

[SB_Johnny]

Wait, I thought we were talking about Assange; why are you listing Jimmy Wales' traits?

Assange did an interview on the BBC this morning, FYI. Jimmy could have stood in for him perfectly, assuming he could pull off the accent.

[RMHED]

Wait, I thought we were talking about Assange; why are you listing Jimmy Wales' traits?

Assange did an interview on the BBC this morning, FYI. Jimmy could have stood in for him perfectly, assuming he could pull off the accent.

He's Jimmy's Mini-Me.

Let's hope Jules he doesn't leak when he has his 'accident'.

[EricBarbour]

Yes, please gents, can you take the healthcare bit to the lounge area?
Thank you? Haveaniceday?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Yes, please gents, can you take the healthcare bit to the lounge area?

Done. Actually, it's in Politics, Religion and Such. In the future, don't wait for us to get around to reading your request -- use the Batsignal.

[TungstenCarbide]

Thank you? Haveaniceday?

Kiss my hairy ass?

[dogbiscuit]

Assange's glow with the press is fading: The Independent disapproves.

Christina Patterson: How a prophet of protest lost the moral plot:
Julian Assange has just revealed more of himself than was wise

[TungstenCarbide]

Assange's glow with the press is fading: The Independent disapproves.

Christina Patterson: How a prophet of protest lost the moral plot:Julian Assange has just revealed more of himself than was wise

Assange: 'I am not going to be exposing other people's private lives or my own more than is absolutely necessary. That is not what a gentleman does'

Interesting, this animal considers himself a 'gentleman'.

[wikieyeay]

Wait, I thought we were talking about Assange; why are you listing Jimmy Wales' traits?

Assange did an interview on the BBC this morning, FYI. Jimmy could have stood in for him perfectly, assuming he could pull off the accent.

Jimbo must be kicking himself over the fact that he's not the world's most famous Wiki* website leader. Taken out by a white-haired Australian.

What a humiliation.

[Milton Roe]

Wait, I thought we were talking about Assange; why are you listing Jimmy Wales' traits?

Assange did an interview on the BBC this morning, FYI. Jimmy could have stood in for him perfectly, assuming he could pull off the accent.

Jimbo must be kicking himself over the fact that he's not the world's most famous Wiki* website leader. Taken out by a white-haired Australian.

What a humiliation.

In revenge, the peregrinations of Assange's bodily fluids and his predilection for assignations with admirers are being given far more extensive and detailed analysis on WP, than they were when Jimbo Wales was the target, back in the day.

What the media is doing to Assange is almost Clinton-esque. No, I take it back-- it is Clinton-esque. (I would say Arbuckle-esque but nobody would know what the hell I meant by THAT.) Only political revenge can generate this much interest in a sexual episode in which nobody was injured, and the delicate and tangled matter of what things were and weren't given permission for (as we go down our checklist of the many pages of possible sexual acts), are a matter of he-said/she-said.

In my world, if a woman is psychologically devastated by something physical that a man did to her, she usually doesn't go out to buy food with which to make him breakfast, then drive him to the train station. Then find out he had sex with another woman four days before, THEN go screaming to the cops about having been abused. Abused she might have been, but the time to decide THAT had long since gone, methinks. There has to be a statute of limitations for that sort of thing, even if both sides admit to exactly what happened. Be reasonable here.

[TungstenCarbide]

Wait, I thought we were talking about Assange; why are you listing Jimmy Wales' traits?

Assange did an interview on the BBC this morning, FYI. Jimmy could have stood in for him perfectly, assuming he could pull off the accent.

Jimbo must be kicking himself over the fact that he's not the world's most famous Wiki* website leader. Taken out by a white-haired Australian.

What a humiliation.

In revenge, the peregrinations of Assange's bodily fluids and his predilection for assignations with admirers are being given far more extensive and detailed analysis on WP, than they were when Jimbo Wales was the target, back in the day.

What the media is doing to Assange is almost Clinton-esque. No, I take it back-- it is Clinton-esque. (I would say Arbuckle-esque but nobody would know what the hell I meant by THAT.) Only political revenge can generate this much interest in a sexual episode in which nobody was injured, and the delicate and tangled matter of what things were and weren't given permission for (as we go down our checklist of the many pages of possible sexual acts), are a matter of he-said/she-said.

In my world, if a woman is psychologically devastated by something physical that a man did to her, she usually doesn't go out to buy food with which to make him breakfast, then drive him to the train station. Then find out he had sex with another woman four days before, THEN go screaming to the cops about having been abused. Abused she might have been, but the time to decide THAT had long since gone, methinks. There has to be a statute of limitations for that sort of thing, even if both sides admit to exactly what happened. Be reasonable here.

"Only political revenge can generate this much interest in a sexual episode"

No, the sexual activities of any famous person are of keen interest to the public. Assange is a predatory pig which makes it even more interesting. Political revenge just added some oomph to the press reports, and I'm sure the US was thrilled to 'encourage' Sweden to issue a warrant.

As to why she went to the police after making him breakfast, it's simple ... the women found out about each other and realized they were used by a philandering pig. Had he been a decent human being and returned their calls, this probably wouldn't have amounted to anything.

Go get em Ladies!

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[wikieyeay]

In my world, if a woman is psychologically devastated by something physical that a man did to her, she usually doesn't go out to buy food with which to make him breakfast, then drive him to the train station.

I call BS on that, women get abused by men all the time, and still carry on cooking, cleaning, and serving them.

[anthony]

In my world, if a woman is psychologically devastated by something physical that a man did to her, she usually doesn't go out to buy food with which to make him breakfast, then drive him to the train station.

I call BS on that, women get abused by men all the time, and still carry on cooking, cleaning, and serving them.

I call BS on his whole post, including but not limited to that.

The unredacted police report obtained by the Guardian says that the two had sex, with a condom. In the report she described waking up to find him having sex with her again, without a condom. Later that morning, Ms. W. told police, Mr. Assange "ordered her to get some water and orange juice for him". She said "she didn't like being ordered around in her own home but got it anyway." That account led to the prosecutors listing rape among the allegations they wanted to question Mr. Assange about lawyers for the Swedish prosecutors said.

[anthony]

As to why she went to the police after making him breakfast, it's simple ... the women found out about each other and realized they were used by a philandering pig. Had he been a decent human being and returned their calls, this probably wouldn't have amounted to anything.

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

WikiLeaks’s Swedish co-ordinator, who worked closely with Mr Assange for months, said in an exclusive interview that he repeatedly begged his boss to have the test, both to head off the possible police investigation and for Mr Assange’s own peace of mind, given his promiscuous sex life.

‘The two women told me, that if he goes to the clinic for an HIV test, then we won’t go to the police,’ said Mr Assange’s colleague, who wishes to remain anonymous because he is a witness in the case brought by Swedish prosecutors, which led to Mr Assange spending nine days in Wandsworth Prison pending extradition.

The WikiLeaks co-ordinator said he felt certain that the two women – who both allege that Mr Assange forced them to have intercourse during the same week in August without using a condom, against their express wishes – had nothing to do with any supposed American intelligence plot to discredit him, as he has frequently claimed.

‘The CIA is not behind this at all,’ he said. ‘Of course it is a golden opportunity for them. But from the beginning, it was personal.’

He said Mr Assange refused to take the test until it was too late, when all the Swedish clinics had closed for the weekend: ‘Julian said, “I don’t like it when people are blackmailing me, and they are blackmailing me by threatening to go to the police”.’

Mr Assange also told him that he had spoken to one of the alleged victims, known as ‘Ms W’, assuring him that ‘she is fine, she won’t go to the police’. The WikiLeaks co-ordinator knew from his own conversations with Ms W that she was not fine at all, but terrified she had been infected.

Mr Assange’s British lawyer, Mark Stephens, said his client had taken a test for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases at a later date, which showed he was not infected.
‘If it is true that all the women really wanted was for him to be tested, and that this would have stopped the case, then it is very disappointing that it has got so far,’ he said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz18zXdtaQl

Again, none of this has been proven. But it paints a picture that makes sense.

[Milton Roe]

As to why she went to the police after making him breakfast, it's simple ... the women found out about each other and realized they were used by a philandering pig. Had he been a decent human being and returned their calls, this probably wouldn't have amounted to anything.

The two women who say they were sexually assaulted by the WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange would never have complained to police if he had agreed to take an HIV test, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

WikiLeaks’s Swedish co-ordinator, who worked closely with Mr Assange for months, said in an exclusive interview that he repeatedly begged his boss to have the test, both to head off the possible police investigation and for Mr Assange’s own peace of mind, given his promiscuous sex life.

‘The two women told me, that if he goes to the clinic for an HIV test, then we won’t go to the police,’ said Mr Assange’s colleague, who wishes to remain anonymous because he is a witness in the case brought by Swedish prosecutors, which led to Mr Assange spending nine days in Wandsworth Prison pending extradition.

The WikiLeaks co-ordinator said he felt certain that the two women – who both allege that Mr Assange forced them to have intercourse during the same week in August without using a condom, against their express wishes – had nothing to do with any supposed American intelligence plot to discredit him, as he has frequently claimed.

‘The CIA is not behind this at all,’ he said. ‘Of course it is a golden opportunity for them. But from the beginning, it was personal.’

He said Mr Assange refused to take the test until it was too late, when all the Swedish clinics had closed for the weekend: ‘Julian said, “I don’t like it when people are blackmailing me, and they are blackmailing me by threatening to go to the police”.’

Mr Assange also told him that he had spoken to one of the alleged victims, known as ‘Ms W’, assuring him that ‘she is fine, she won’t go to the police’. The WikiLeaks co-ordinator knew from his own conversations with Ms W that she was not fine at all, but terrified she had been infected.

Mr Assange’s British lawyer, Mark Stephens, said his client had taken a test for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases at a later date, which showed he was not infected.
‘If it is true that all the women really wanted was for him to be tested, and that this would have stopped the case, then it is very disappointing that it has got so far,’ he said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz18zXdtaQl

Again, none of this has been proven. But it paints a picture that makes sense.

Any "sense" it makes, should make you ashamed to call "B.S." on anything I've said. Since I've been saying basically this story all along, and getting mostly cat-called for it.

Nobody comes out of this looking good, but any woman who screams "rape!" when what she really means is "Gee, I hope I don't have HIV!!" should be charged with perjury and some kind of criminal false accusation. For she has used the law to commit a battery against a man, and she has slandered the man, lied to her society, and (not least) betrayed her fellow women, who'd like to be taken a little more seriously than this kind of story encourages them to be in the future. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Cry wolf. Cry BS. But not to me.

If you choose to lie down with dogs, I don't want you to think you should use the "remedy" of government police power when you get up with what you're afraid might be fleas. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[anthony]

Any "sense" it makes, should make you ashamed to call "B.S." on anything I've said. Since I've been saying basically this story all along, and getting mostly cat-called for it.

The story you've been saying all along may have included some elements of this, but certainly wasn't this.

It is, of course, quite possible that the woman was raped and she initially just wanted him to be tested for HIV.

Nobody comes out of this looking good, but any woman who screams "rape!" when what she really means is "Gee, I hope I don't have HIV!!" should be charged with perjury and some kind of criminal false accusation.

From what I've read, it seems to be the prosecutor who first screamed rape, and the woman merely screamed I woke up to him having sex with me without a condom, which, had Assange not been involved with Wikileaks, would have probably been swept under the rug, but is, nevertheless, rape, if it is proven.

If Assange didn't in fact wake Ms. W up to sex without a condom, and she did in fact claim that he did, she should, of course, be "charged with perjury and some kind of criminal false accusation".

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

In my world, if a woman is psychologically devastated by something physical that a man did to her, she usually doesn't go out to buy food with which to make him breakfast, then drive him to the train station.

I call BS on that, women get abused by men all the time, and still carry on cooking, cleaning, and serving them.

After knowing them for 12 hours?? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Look: if a normally intelligent adult self-supporting independent Swedish woman can be transformed into a complete Stepford Wife Zombie after one boring fuck, I'd say we have a new psychological syndrome to describe in that country. Roll over, Stockholm Syndrome; this is way, way, WAY better. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Of course, the other possiblity we haven't considered is that Assange is actually Dracula. Or perhaps one of the lesser-known Malfoys.