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.

I am trying very hard not to make a joke about Wiki-Leaks....









But I failed. My sense of humor is unprotected.

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. ~~~*>

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. I mean, how many clues do they need?

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.

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.

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".

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. 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.

How old are these Swedish broads, anyway?

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. 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:

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.

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.

"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.

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




...right?...








Meanwhile, a Free Culture advocate describes to British authorities how big was Assange's member...

If this really is a CIA conspiracy, we need better CIA operatives.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

On a completely unrelated note , 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?

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.


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

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

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.

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

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.



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

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

"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"

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!

Having said that: the Assange case stinks. Big time. A "bad sex night" (or two ) 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.

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".



A reckless individual who thinks he is above the law?

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

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

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

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

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



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.

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.



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?



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



Assault and battery.



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?



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.