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

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 think most (if not all) of us here agree with that - as does the law. I wouldn't worry too much about what some Scottish self-publicity machine thinks or says.

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?

The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.

In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-renditions

The US still has considerable economic and diplomatic clout. It's not that absurd that they might be bringing some of it to bear on this situation. Again, people sold really look at some of the stuff the US has done in the past to people who've pissed them off, before dismissing 'wild conspiracy theories'.

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

Though if the unreasonable behaviour is regarding seeking consent before penetration, then that is grounds for a rape accusation.

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 think most (if not all) of us here agree with that

Of course.

I'm in a long-term relationship now, and the only assumption I can reliably make is that my partner might be amenable to being intimate with me at some point in the (hopefully near!) future.

I don't believe I have a 'right' to anything, and TBH I wouldn't want to sleep with anyone whose heart wasn't in it anyway. It's something to share, not for one to put up with for the benefit of the other.

Putting it another way: I suppose in a serious relationship "consent" is automatically assumed as a baseline; you don't treat every kiss and caress as if it's your first time, obviously. However, consent *right this very second* might not be; it's negotiated though talking, kissing, touching, and in my relationship's case seemingly the purchase of handbags. "No" still means no, ultimately.

I think having sex with someone who is completely out of it is very clearly wrong by most people's standards

Good. We agree. In which case why do you think:

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

?

I presume given the previous sentence was "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." that you were referring to the mumsnet thread. In which case how was what the OPs partner doing not "having sex", or how was the OP not "completely out of it"?

grum - there's a totally different thread for assange and whether the Swedes, British and Americans are looking to garotte him in his sleep using a wire made from the tears of babies (or something). This is about Galloway's comments

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

I don't think anyone's actually said that, just that it isn't as black and white as some people like to make out.

BTW - something I read suggested that Assange had actually pinned one of the women down and forcibly attempted to have sex with them despite them resisting - cant find the link now. That would make all the arguments about grey areas etc somewhat irrelevant if true.

In which case how was what the OPs partner doing not "having sex", or how was the OP not "completely out of it"?

I dunno, I guess I'm still struggling with the idea that you can have sex with someone who is completely asleep without waking them up. At what point have they definitely woken up and are definitely able to give consent? I guess I was more meaning someone who is completely unresponsive/comatose, through drink/drugs possibly. I can't imagine why you'd want to have sex with someone in that scenario.

Cougar +1

The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.

Thanks for that Grum. Interesting. Looks like they're back in Sweden now.
[url] http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egyptian-deported-cia-gets-residency-sweden [/url]

It still doesn't seem to address this basic issue though -

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?

It just seems like a basic question that needs answering for the conspiracy to hold water. Not that I'm saying that there isn't a conspiracy, but I'd like one that made more sense.

grum - there's a totally different thread for assange and whether the Swedes, British and Americans are looking to garotte him in his sleep using a wire made from the tears of babies (or something). This is about Galloway's comments

Sorry for the hijack, that's probably more my fault than Grums.

Phew. I just asked MrsZ and she won't be pressing charges for the other day's wake-up call.

Glad that's cleared up then 🙄

The US still has considerable economic and diplomatic clout. It's not that absurd that they might be bringing some of it to bear on this situation. Again, people sold really look at some of the stuff the US has done in the past to people who've pissed them off, before dismissing 'wild conspiracy theories'.

Still find it hard to imagine they'd do much more than bring him to trial and lock him up, though. However mad you may think the US is, the reality is that the death penalty wouldn't be applied, and the massive publicity surrounding the case means they'd tread very carefully and make sure everything was above board and legal.

I doubt they would apply the death penalty too, but locking him up in Guantanamo as a terrorist without trial/due process? Seems reasonably plausible given that the vice president has described him as such.

Anyway, apparently we are only allowed to take about GG in this thread. 🙂

At what point have they definitely woken up and are definitely able to give consent?

According to the OP of that MN thread, not until after the act she was supposed to be consenting to had occurred - hence why I have such a problem with you describing the first time as a "grey area". If you really believe that, then you're disbelieving at least part of her account.

I guess I'm still struggling with the idea that you can have sex with someone who is completely asleep without waking them up.

Your lack of experience of such a thing doesn't provide much in the way of evidence - not given all the experiences being related by others. In any case, as explained the act did wake the woman in question up - but by the time she had woken up sufficiently for conscious thought the act was already in progress.

apparently we are only allowed to take about GG in this thread.

Why, what's ernie done now?

Still find it hard to imagine they'd do much more than bring him to trial and lock him up, though

Like they do with everyone they render / extradite 🙄

grum - was just pointing out there's a whole separate thread for people who think other people are wearing foil hats and for those who think foil hats are just the ticket in this case.

I guess I'm still struggling with the idea that you can have sex with someone who is completely asleep without waking them up.

I think it;s not about having a 2 hour marathon session without her noticing, it's more than if he started when she was asleep, it's non-consensual even if it was just a few seconds.

According to the OP of that MN thread, not until after the act she was supposed to be consenting to had occurred - hence why I have such a problem with you describing the first time as a "grey area". If you really believe that, then you're disbelieving at least part of her account.

I dunno, I guess it just seems like its possible her interpretation of what happened is different from his (in fact further on she mentions he said he thought she was awake and into it) and him doing it once doesn't necessarily make him an evil rapist. Doing it again repeatedly after being told not to however....

in fact further on she mentions he said he thought she was awake and into it

He said. I see no reason to disbelieve the OP, or even her interpretation (bearing in mind there was no need for her to even report his comments on that thread). I find it hard to understand how you could mistake somebody asleep as being awake and into it. The question then is whether you believe him...

[quote=aracer ]I find it hard to understand how you could mistake somebody asleep as being awake and into it. Really? As has already been pointed out, there is a whole range of conciousness between fully asleep and full awake.

He said. I see no reason to disbelieve the OP, or even her interpretation (bearing in mind there was no need for her to even report his comments on that thread). I find it hard to understand how you could mistake somebody asleep as being awake and into it. The question then is whether you believe him...

But this is why it's so hard to prosecute rape cases. You're saying you believe her interpretation of events is completely accurate, I'm saying I'm not sure - neither of us has any idea.

I would have thought that it's not impossible that someone could react in such a way as to make you think they were at least partly awake, but have no recollection of it afterwards, for example. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but can you really not see how that is possible?

The conspiracy theories that are being put out there are just rubbish. They only want him in the USA for questioning about who shot Kennedy.

Well if it's really that hard to tell whether the other party is participating or unconscious, then I expect to see a lot of us up in court soon.

Look.... I think what we absolutely need to clarify here is.... is the fun-sized-mars-bar-in-the-back routine, in the morning, a criminal offence or not?

Not if they sleep all the way through it.

Look.... I think what we absolutely need to clarify here is.... is the fun-sized-mars-bar-in-the-back routine, in the morning, a criminal offence or not?

don't know. does it usually bother you ? 😉

I note with interest Binners that your mirthful post adds about as much as mine. Can we not have a funny/humourous thread by the end of the week? All this politics is getting really boring, got any ideas?

The conspiracy theories that are being put out there are just rubbish. They only want him in the USA for questioning about who shot Kennedy.

My standpoint is that Assange is being stitched up AND that he's a creepy assed mofo who needs a slap for what he may have done to those women - rape or no rape.

I think you're right mt. Lets have a think....

trailmonkey - I don't mind it at all. What does concern me is when we get up to....

[img] [/img]

😯

You're saying you believe her interpretation of events is completely accurate, I'm saying I'm not sure - neither of us has any idea.

Well it could be a completely made up story for all we know. Fairly pointless discussing it in that case. Though it's worth pointing out that what we're actually discussing is whether or not it's rape in the circumstances described (after all this is an internet forum, not a court of law and you lot could all be Turing machines for all I know). In which case calling the first time a "grey area" is dodgy - the only grounds for saying that is that her story is incorrect, but as we're discussing the legalities of her story that's a bit of a pointless argument. Unless of course you're suggesting that him being unaware that she was asleep is a valid defence...

I've tried to explain my nuanced view quite a few times now but clearly only black and white will do. CBA any more.

Define 'asleep'.

Binners, are you ok if I wake you up by shouting 'surprise!' as I start?

Like they do with everyone they render / extradite

One thing's Johnny Darkie they pick up out of site of the cameras, another altogether a blond Aussie/Swede/? they pick up from a major European city.

Sorry, wrong thread.

It depends entirely on what size confectionery is involved

"a·sleep (-slp)
adj.
1. In a state of sleep; sleeping.
2.
a. Inactive; dormant.
b. Indifferent: politicians who are asleep to the needs of their constituents.
3. Numb, especially from reduced circulation of blood to a limb: My leg is asleep.
4. Dead.
adv.
1. In or into a state of sleep.
2. In or into a state of apathy or indifference.
3. Into a state of numbness.
4. Into the sleep of the dead."

there's a good wee definition of "asleep".

[url= http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 ]A moot point[/url]

A moot point

Yep. Warrant cancelled with no explanation:

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape but did not give any further explanation.
..
The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.

In a brief statement Eva Finne said: [b]"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."[/b]

Confused as the link does not work and the quotes from Graham S relate to a august 2010 article and the first one being cancelled not the current one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316

A moot point

Erm, not wishing to pop anyones balloons, but that article is from 2010.

It is appearing in the beeb's most read list though. Maybe some people spoofed a load of clicks to an old article For Some Reason.

Yep that's what fooled me. Apologies. 😳

Must have shown up on Reddit or some such source.
Still interesting to read in the context of this debate. The prosecutor was quite clear he had no case to answer.

Is Assange still hiding out in the Ecuadorean embassy?

Ooooh bizarre! Sorry folks. I thought it was odd that it seemed a bit quiet....

Kenneth Clarke to the forum please:
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8520940/Kenneth-Clarke-questions-whether-date-rape-is-really-rape.html ]Is that date rape or proper rape?[/url]

Silly old Kenneth. Fancy suggesting that taking some bloke home you fancied the pants off and being unable to consent because you were legless is in any way shape or form any different to a woman being viscously attacked by a complete stranger and not knowing whether she (or her children) will end up dead or not. 🙄