Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

While she had consented to have sex with him, she laid out specific circumstances under which that consent was valid (that he be wearing a condom). While I can see some argument for spontaneously trying to have sex as a romantic gesture, the fact that she explicitly told him to wear a condom means he didn't have consent for what he did.

Furthermore, the second girl said "No" while he was doing it, which is a pretty explicit revocation of any consent that might have existed. Again, you can argue that false resistance improves the experience for some people, and that's fine. But in this context, he can't have known her so well as to be certain that she wasn't serious. In fact, I'd say that anything short of being told beforehand specifically to ignore a protest would be unacceptable justification.

[Nadaka]

It's irrelevant what the constitution thinks about the murder of foreign nationals, since there are other legal frameworks in place that do acknowledge their rights as people.  Frameworks that noone gave the CIA permission to trample over.

This is ALSO true.

You know what really fucking bugs me Ninja's.  Especially chain ninja's where everytime you press post there's another one.

Basically this is a post to follow.

EDIT TWO FUCKING NINJAS!!!

I know what you mean, this thread just exploded.

[Vector]

Exactly.

Because even when a woman says no and struggles, and then brings up allegations for rape, she meant yes.

Of course.

[G-Flex]

Hu? No? Seriously there is context. They had sex a few hour ago. A tentative to have sex again cannot be considered rape. Beside he did not "have sex with her unconscious body" he woke her up by having sex.

What the hell? If you wake someone up by having sex with them, then you begin having sex with them while they're still unconscious.

"I didn't hit him over the head when he was asleep! I woke him up by hitting him over the head! There's a difference!!"

[Bauglir]

Because even when a woman says no and struggles, and then brings up allegations for rape, she meant yes.

Y'know, of all the possible ethical principles to be figured out on opposite day, I think this had to be like the worst choice.

[Phmcw]

What the hell? If you wake someone up by having sex with them, then you begin having sex with them while they're still unconscious.

"I didn't hit him over the head when he was asleep! I woke him up by hitting him over the head! There's a difference!!"

Yeah but it's not the same than raping a girl passed out. Especially since they had sex just before. And she was naked in the same bed than her. Until mention of the contrary, he could reasonably assume that he had consent.

Exactly.

Because even when a woman says no and struggles, and then brings up allegations for rape, she meant yes.

Of course.

I've read the article three time and found no mention of her saying "no". Or anything else.


And now to clarify : I'm in every way possible for the woman's right to do what she want of her body, and to give or refuse consent at will. But a rape accusation is a pretty damning one who carry heavy sentences, and intercourse can be complicated and confuse.
If you're going to court for rape, you'd better be sure that your refusal of sex was clear, ESPECIALLY if you changed your mind DURING intercourse. The reason for refusing was simple and excellent , and Assange was an idiot to want sex without condom. However, without a true rebuttal (such as telling no, and struggling, true, but I didn't see any mention of her actually voicing her protest), that is not rape.

[SalmonGod]

Seriously, not really. She didn't voice any objection. He could have thought it was ok.

I'm withholding judgement, since there isn't a lot of information on that one right now.  I'm really sick of people treating it as black & white either way.  Human relationships are complex and broad-spectrumed and cannot be fairly judged by an outsider.  Lots of people clearly don't understand or can't cope with that.

Whether or not he should be charged... it's a really tough issue... I understand both sides of the argument... I'm not going to argue whether or not he did something wrong.  The question is the extent to which he knew he was doing something wrong, how wrong it was, and how fairly this can be judged by people who have no information other than the testimony of the two people involved.

It seems to me like there's only one way the law can go to make cases like this fair for both genders.

Sex has to be a strictly regulated thing.  With contracts.  Consent, duration of consent, and boundaries need to be clearly defined beforehand.  In writing.  This is not realistic.  Nobody would like this.  Human relationships should not be treated like business relationships.

If we wanted to be technical and absolutist about it, I could say that I have been raped.  But I don't.  There's just been lots of misunderstanding and unusual circumstances in my relationship due to us having extremely different ways of thinking, varying levels and types of social experience, and drastic emotional backgrounds.  But if I wanted to simplify things, I could point out that she was 20 and I was 17, or there were times that I would have preferred to use protection but we didn't, or where consent was actually a really fuzzy matter, and that I have suffered some emotional turmoil over these things in the past.  That's life.  Not rape.  I know actual rape victims.  It's not the same.

I think that what we know about Assange's personal life tells us he's far from a gentleman, and pushes the boundaries of being something worse that could possibly deserve punishment.

[Vector]

There's this thing called "enthusiastic consent" that people are encouraging.

Rape unless both parties indicate yes, not rape in the case that some party indicates no.

[SalmonGod]

There's this thing called "enthusiastic consent" that people are encouraging.

Rape unless both parties indicate yes, not rape in the case that some party indicates no.

I'm having trouble interpreting this.

AFK for the next hour, btw, so any responses to anything I've said will not get a reply for at least as long.

[Vector]

I'm having trouble interpreting this.

AFK for the next hour, btw, so any responses to anything I've said will not get a reply for at least as long.

A blog article on such, which I enjoyed.

If you google it, you can find plenty of other blog entries on the idea.

I'll add that folks in the kink subculture typically have these negotiations of consent, in terms of boundaries, durations, consent, safewords, and so on.  It really doesn't seem that difficult.

[KaelGotDwarves]

On the CIA tangent, you're talking about international law in terms of an universal morality, of which- there currently isn't. The CIA simply exists to enforce what the government and other powerful individuals see as the best policies for the US. To claim that they are "beholden" to anyone else ignores the reality of the situation - which isn't to say that "might makes right" but the ICJ (Internaional Court of Justice) have never persecuted anyone there that I know of.

On the rape tangent... I don't really know if I really want to delve into this topic - it makes me uncomfortable because if any of us men ever became well-known... pretty much any woman we've ever been intimate with could spring allegations of rape retroactively. Or if a woman gets raped by one man or many- then all you have is someone's word against another. It's not as though... almost to the point where you'd need everything on tape just to watch your back... but sex without consent is abhorent and if the woman was saying no then he deserves to be put away- while failures of communication and getting intimate with a sleeping partner is so normal :| 

All I'm saying is that I don't know enough to be waving pitchforks in this case.

@Vector: well, people in the kink subculture are quite familiar and comfortable than most with sex and sexual boundaries... as it's said in that subculture. Communication is #1.

[Mindmaker]

Oh boy, looks like this thing is one slippery slope for the casual-crowd.
Luckily, this will never become one of my issues.

[Truean]

Rape has always been a problem to define and here's the latest with statutory rape for children under 13. Ohio's statute is now void for vagueness when both persons involved are under 13. (Sad that we have to have this situation at all but....)

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/06/ohio_supreme_court_says_rape_l.html

Here, both parties were boys under the age of 13 so there really was no way to determine who was the "victim" and who was the "offender." The law just wasn't well written, so the court struck it down.

This case illustrates a few problems:
1.) We have no idea how to deal with GLBT kids. The thought that kids could be gay blows our minds. They exist, I was one.... Never did anything like this but in today's culture, it's foreseeable. No sex education for them at all = this kind of crap is more likely to happen.
2.) We don't really know how to define consent very well. Even another child witness said the acts were "consensual" and that nobody forced anything on anybody. Granted, anyone who has sex with a child 13 or under is guilty of statutory rape, but what if, as in this case, they are both under 13?
3.) We can't seem to wrap our minds around the idea that rather than or in addition to punishing, we should educate or reform.
4.) Gender bias.... This case screams it. We have no idea what to do when there is no female in the situation, in addition to other things.

The Ohio Supreme Court agrees that this law is crazy, because under the law as written, both boys are guilty of raping each other, which... makes no sense.

The whole point of teaching our kids sex ed is to avoid this kind of senario....

As for the law in question, it needs to be rewritten.

As for consent with adults, you can usually consent by conduct, but then you have to ask if the conduct was "coerced" and then you get into all kinds of gray area. I dunno. It really is a mess and there is no simple way to sort it out. Ideally, you'd have two adults who knew each other well and even expressly agreed to make love. That doesn't seem to happen in the real world though. Flirting simply doesn't include a contract you sign in most cases. I don't know what the answer is. I just know it's a problem.

[SalmonGod]

@Vector: well, people in the kink subculture are quite familiar and comfortable than most with sex and sexual boundaries... as it's said in that subculture. Communication is #1.

This is important.  I've done some reading on this, and I think it's underestimated just how much people vary in how comfortable they are with talking about and otherwise expressing their sexuality and how this translates into issues of consent.  I read one case of a couple who were both so crippled in this fashion that they had to develop an abstract system, where they had a male and female statuette above their fireplace.  If one of them placed one figure on top of the other it meant "meet me in the bedroom."  They never actually discussed creating this system of communication.  It's something that just evolved in their relationship.  People develop understandings in very abstract and subtle fashions very often.  Everybody does, and we're often unaware of just how unusual our methods of communicating are unique and strange from one person to the next.  It's inevitable that things get messed up.  Often.

And yes... better education is desperately needed.  That is the answer to the majority of our problems.

[scriver]

A blog article on such, which I enjoyed.

This article linked in your linked blog was interesting.