[Closed] Gorgeous George's comments about Assange and rape.

Is there not also some consideration of the use of a condom? i.e. the woman agrees to sex the first time knowing that the guy is wearing one but, in that sleepy state which sometimes happens (ahem) doesn't realise, complies and then subsequently realises there was no condom the second time? In that case, she might well have refused consent - and, depending upon earlier conversations, the guy might have expected no consent.

You have more faith in the UK legal system than I do then.

Well I was probably discussing the theory of UK law rather than the practicalities - after all the particular issue here (or at least the one I raised) is whether it would be a crime under UK law, not whether you'd actually be prosecuted for it.

Rape in particular seems to be very under-prosecuted, even in cases considerably more clear cut than that.

My understanding is that an awful lot of rape cases hinge on his word against her word, hence the rather low prosecution rate (IIRC the rate of successful prosecution is low even considering the already low rate of cases being taken to court).

Mrs s sleeps so lightly that she will wake if i just have a naughty thought, let alone if I try and line up Mr Happy for the hole shot.

Not sure if this is the one I remember - warning, it doesn't contain pictures, but otherwise is probably NSFW (well it is mumsnet!)

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/relationships/1428091-Sensitive-question-about-H

Stoner - I appreciate you're not really adding anything much new to this thread, but given unlike most on here who are just anonymous beings in the ether, I've actually met you and mrs stoner, that really is too much information!

I don't think it's the sort of defence which would stand up on a one-night-stand

I think it depends entirely on the one night stand. (I also think a lot of people have very unimaginative sex lives.)

If you'd spent the night shagging someone six ways from Sunday, swinging from the light fittings and building up a mutual collection of friction burns and fingernail gouges, I think perhaps finding your partner naked next to you in a pool of warm Nutella the following morning could perhaps be a vague suggestion that maybe you could infer consent.

If you're genuinely expected to go "excuse me, I'm sorry if this seems a little forward, but would you mind awfully if I put my penis in your vagina please?" every time you have sex otherwise it's "rape", well, apart from anything else that's just downright offensive to anyone who's actually been raped.

I do hope that that's Nutella.

Well according to the consensus view in that thread I've been seriously sexually assaulted on numerous occasions. I'd best call the cops I suppose.

If you're genuinely expected to go "excuse me, I'm sorry if this seems a little forward, but would you mind awfully if I put my penis in your vagina please?" every time you have sex otherwise it's "rape",

well, apart from anything else that's just downright offensive to anyone who's actually been raped.

If you'd spent the night shagging someone six ways from Sunday, swinging from the light fittings and building up a mutual collection of friction burns and fingernail gouges, I think perhaps finding your partner naked next to you in a pool of warm Nutella the following morning could perhaps be a vague suggestion that maybe you could infer consent.

I still think that waking your partner up before going for it full bore might be deemed reasonable behaviour - no matter how much Nutella you've been using. Big difference between giving your partner no chance to actively consent and your verbal communication strawman.

[quote=Cougar ](I also think a lot of people have very unimaginative sex lives.)That - apparently.

@Aracer - you can almost hear the castration tongues being taken down from the shelf, pitchforks being handed out and torches lit.

But, it's still wrong, wronger than a wrong thing that's very, very wrong. Also, where's the fun if the other person is not fully involved. Really do not understand what this does for him.

I do hope that that's Nutella.

Nutella butties in bin, off to the chippie - thanks for that! 😯

I think that the issue of consent depends entirely on the people involved and needs to be taken on a person by person basis. But, I will say that I've never came across anyone who withdrew consent at any point.

[quote=glupton1976 ]I think that the issue of consent depends entirely on the people involved and needs to be taken on a person by person basis. But, I will say that I've never came across anyone who withdrew consent at any point.
If you're coming across them, it's usually a bit late.

Well according to the consensus view in that thread I've been seriously sexually assaulted on numerous occasions. I'd best call the cops I suppose.

Either there's something you're not telling us about your sexual preferences, or you're missing some important distinctions (and haven't actually read the thread properly at all).

So what happens if she falls asleep half way through sex? (not that this has ever happened on my watch :oops:)

You STOP having sex with them. Hard to believe but once someone loses consciousness they are no longer in a position to consent.

Even if you are in a loving relationship I think most women would find it odd that their partner wanted to have sex with them while they were fast asleep, personally I wouldn't be impressed. There's also a difference between waking someone up with gentle touching which leads to sex and ramming your cock in and getting going. The latter is bang out of order, the other quite pleasant and leaves plenty of room for. 'not now, I'm not in the mood' type responses.

If you're coming across them, it's usually a bit late.

Or you are very early

[quote=emma82 ]There's also a difference between waking someone up with gentle touching which leads to sex and ramming your cock in and getting going. The latter is bang out of order, the other quite pleasant and leaves plenty of room for. 'not now, I'm not in the mood' type responses.
Which is where there is a bit of a grey area - but not according to that mumsnet thread.

The fact is that Assange is a wimp and he should be extradited to Sweden to face the music he chose to play. If he's then extradited to the US THEN and only then can he turn around and say 'told you so'. But, like I said, he's a wimp and won't do that.

Either there's something you're not telling us about your sexual preferences, or you're missing some important distinctions (and haven't actually read the thread properly at all).

Or I'm disagreeing with their opinions. From that thread, I would say once the OP had told her partner that she didn't want him to do it again, and he did it again - yeah I guess that is rape. The first time is a bit of a grey area IMO.

I suppose we must just be light sleepers but I still struggle with the idea that it's possible to have penetrative sex with someone without waking them up first.

There's also a difference between waking someone up with gentle touching which leads to sex and ramming your cock in and getting going. The latter is bang out of order, the other quite pleasant and leaves plenty of room for. 'not now, I'm not in the mood' type responses.

It seems according to most on mumsnet one is sexual assault and the other is rape, with no room for any grey area.

Does all this debate about what is and what is not rape miss the point. The Sweeds want to extradite him for Trial so they can have this debate conducted by experts in the sweedish legal system actually hearing the real evidence and seeing the real witnesses give their accounts and then decide wether or not it is rape according to sweedish law . That does seem to be the best way of resolving the issue. Assange seems to want to avoid that due process and hopes the matter can be cleared up by the collective wisdom of the internet.

If the whole thing is an American conspiracy to get him why did the americans not ask us to extradite him to the USA and why did he flee Sweeden to come here?

Which is where there is a bit of a grey area - but not according to that mumsnet thread.

Well either you've not read the thread properly, or you have a strange interpretation of "gentle touching" (and almost certainly a different one to emma).

The first time is a bit of a grey area IMO.

Not in the eyes of the law it isn't - they got rid of "conjugal rights" some time ago.

[quote=GrahamS ]
To be honest I doubt it would be prosecuted in the UK.

Well the judges said it would have been a criminal offense in the UK too so the question is whether the CPS would push the issue and whether he'd be convicted not whether he'd be charged.

This is not about what George Galloway thinks or Assange thinks, this is about what the Swedish woman thinks and what the Swedish prosecutor believe. That is the basis by which Assange should be extradited and face the Swedish courts. Everything else is bullshiot.

crankboy - no you're missing the point. This discussion is about George Galloway making a comment on what Assange is accused of being classified as rape or not.

what Assange is accused of being classified as rape or not.

If the whole thing is an American conspiracy to get him why did the americans not ask us to extradite him to the USA and why did he flee Sweeden to come here?

because that request would have been refused if it meant he would face potential death penalty.

I can't believe how effective the propaganda is! These are obviously trumped-up charges and the Swedes obviously have no intention of actually taking things to trial (he isn't even charged with these "crimes", only wanted for questioning). Blatantly the US wants to extradite or otherwise snatch him away to try and prosecute him for the heinous crime of irritating them.

I don't care how "creepy" any of you think he is (by the way, that ain't a crime either), he isn't the criminal here. The real crimes were revealed in the leaks, and they were murderous and shameful.

Plus, all Wikileaks do is pass on the leaks - they aren't the original leakers. Should our newspapers all be extradited and tried in the US for repeating the leaks?

Not in the eyes of the law it isn't - they got rid of "conjugal rights" some time ago.

It's not about conjugal rights, it's about whether you could reasonably believe consent had been given. I've never had a conversation with my GF about whether in future it was ok to wake each other up with 'sexual touching' or whatever - therefore if it happens it is sexual assault/rape? Or can I decide afterwards?

I also think there are grey areas in terms of defining whether someone is asleep or not - surely there is a whole spectrum between deep, almost comatose sleep and 'a bit dozy'. I think having sex with someone who is completely out of it is very clearly wrong by most people's standards, but where is the line? What if you are half asleep too?

because that request would have been refused if it meant he would face potential death penalty.

I'd have thought potential life in a max security prison would be pretty dissuasive, too. Does anyone here think the US would really execute him for leaking the diplomatic cables??? The only civilian spies that the US have ever executed were the Rosenburgs, back in the 50s at the height of the Cold War, and they'd been sending atom bomb secrets to the Soviets... Hardly comparable.

I personally think he's in London to avoid the Swedish courts, not the US, and his plan has backfired.

The fact that he hung around in Sweden for so long, the fact that tweets and texts were deleted by the women, the fact that the original prosecutor wasn't interested but the new one (a politician) was, the fact that he remains un-charged, the fact that they could very easily interview him here - all these facts tell me you are wrong mogrim.

glenp:

(he isn't even charged with these "crimes", only wanted for questioning)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise.

The fact that he hung around in Sweden for so long, the fact that tweets and texts were deleted by the women, the fact that the original prosecutor wasn't interested but the new one (a politician) was, the fact that he remains un-charged, the fact that they could very easily interview him here - all these facts tell me you are wrong mogrim.

Maybe, but he could be just as easily extradited from here, and it's clear the death penalty isn't a real risk, wherever he was extradited from.

So why didn't they arrest him and charge him when he was in Sweden?

the fact that he remains un-charged, the fact that they could very easily interview him here

crankboy - Member
If the whole thing is an American conspiracy to get him why did the americans not ask us to extradite him to the USA and why did he flee Sweeden to come here?

He didn't flee, he was in Sweden for nearly a month after the second prosecutor took the case over but she failed to arrange an interview with him.

Why does that newstatesman blog keep being linked as if its fact?

I have to say I don’t like this idea of assuming consent if it’s been given once. As far as I’m concerned I have the right to say no to sex on any given occasion, and whoever I’m with should respect that. I might be tired (or asleep…), or have a headache, or just not fancy it. Just because I’ve had sex with him in the past, and will do again in the future, does not give him the right to disregard my wishes and force it on me. Or indeed if I change my mind as once happened during a drunken night as a student when I sobered up just in time to realise that I would regret what I was about to do in the morning. In particular, the idea that you’re fair game if you’re asleep and have previously consented worries me.

OK, in the context of a longer term relationship it’s probably more about saying no on occasion than expressly saying yes every time, and it would probably turn into a row rather than me running to the police crying rape, but that doesn’t make it “right”.

And anyway, this whole thing isn't *just* about rape anyway, but Galloway has done himself no favours wading in with that.

I have read the article now - it doesn't surprise me that the media are united against him, despite being quite happy to repeat the leaks themselves to start with. The whole thing stinks - and the biggest stink of all is that no matter how serious the claims against Assange, the real crimes revealed in the leaks are massively worse.

wrecker - Member

the fact that he remains un-charged, the fact that they could very easily interview him here

Not really true. read this;
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

But yet some bloke who practised a bit of Swedish law thinks:

16.To use the European Arrest Warrant without first having tried to arrange an interrogation in England at the earliest possible time via a request for Mutual Legal Assistance seems to me to be against the principle of proportionality.

...

Since I understand that he has been willing to be interviewed by these means since leaving Sweden, I regard the Prosecutor's refusal to at least try to interview as being unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate.

...

18. I understand that Ms Ny has said that Swedish law prevents her from taking this course. There is, however, nothing in Swedish law that I know of to prevent a prosecutor from seeking mutual legal assistance to have a suspect interviewed.

[url] http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem [/url]

I can't believe how effective the propaganda is! These are obviously trumped-up charges and the Swedes obviously have no intention of actually taking things to trial (he isn't even charged with these "crimes", only wanted for questioning). Blatantly the US wants to extradite or otherwise snatch him away to try and prosecute him for the heinous crime of irritating them.

Genuinely why do you think Sweden is in cahoots with the US. I'm not suggesting they're not, but just haven't seen any evidence that they are. Do you know of any reasons that they might be?

Also, let's imagine a world where these possibly trumped up rape allegations hadn't been made. How would this have any bearing on the legal process to extradite Assange from either England or Sweden assuming that the US makes such a request?

I still think that waking your partner up before going for it full bore might be deemed reasonable behaviour - no matter how much Nutella you've been using.

Sure. But "unreasonable behaviour" and "rape" are not synonyms.

There's also a difference between waking someone up with gentle touching which leads to sex and ramming your cock in and getting going.

Again, sure. But to conclude black and white that one is acceptable and the other isn't would be a rash generalisation. Depends on the partner. Though I grant you, it'd have to be a bold judgement call on a first date / one night stand.

I've never had a conversation with my GF about whether in future it was ok to wake each other up with 'sexual touching' or whatever

Me neither, but if I was woken up to find my morning glory was already being put to good use, I'd think it was Christmas.

Look into the background of the Swedish prosecutor. Why did the original prosecutor leave it?

Because it was decided there was no case to answer.

the idea that you’re fair game if you’re asleep and have previously consented worries me.

So we're clear; that's not what I'm saying. Just that it's not black and white. A drunken fumble that you'll probably both regret in the morning is a very different situation to the one I posited earlier.

Though arguably, if you're the sort of person who's likely to have sex you later regret after a night on the sauce, the sex probably isn't the root cause of the problem there.