Galloway's ignorance

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

uk.news.yahoo.com/galloway-assanges-behaviour-not-rape-195513539.html

"(She) claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know."
..............
"I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion."

I'd say they need to be concious Galloway! URGH what a moron!!!!!

He's saying he doesn't believe these women. Well I do. I believe them and I want Assange punished.

(Sorry if this has already been posted, I did check but might have missed it)

He's a tool. There seem to be lots of politicians fighting it out it out for top prize as ignorant, misogynist tool this week. If it's not Galloway, it's Todd Akin (candidate for the US Senate,) who seems to confuse the reproductive tracts of human women with those of ducks.

Ah, and now some dude called Craig Murray vying for the title - disclosed the name of one of the women who brought a complaint of sexual assault against Assange - live on Newsnight. Also had the temerity to say that because his wife was a rape victim, that he knows what he's talking about. How much more ghastly can it get, eh?

Galloway is a moron for those comments

I believe the women.

Sam Leith in the Evening Standard yesterday on Assange

A female doctor on the wright stuff just now saying that galloway has a point and that if you've consented before then what's the problem basically.

Other woman was quite good pointing out that what he had done sounded awful and host said "well if you're unconscious you can't consent". But still she said that the definition of rape was unclear. This is a female doctor FFS.

independent

the definition of rape is not unclear. a friend of mine was going out with a v dodgy bloke and secured his conviction for raping a load of other (young 13/14) girls when she came forward and told the court that she had woken up in this exact scenario (sorry can't write it it upsets me too much).

the bloke had done it to the other girls to. this is what violent people do.

'If a woman groped the penis of a sleeping man it would be sexual assault. If a woman is asleep and she is penetrated by a penis, she is not in a position to consent, and therefore, under English law, it is rape'

It's from the Julie Bindel article.

Do people agree with this statement?

Yes, I agree with it lifeofprism.

yep

This is where people try to talk about "grey areas" in an attempt to confuzzle.

In the context of a long term relationship, many different sorts of sexual behaviours are engaged in.

In the context of a casual encounter one cannot make assumptions.

The fact that a complaint was made indicates that the woman was not happy to be penetrated while she slept. In the same situation with a woman behaving that way to a man, the crime would be sexual assault.

The law is very clear.

Yes, I agree with it lifeofprism.

Galloway seems to have missed his own point really. "Not everyone has to be asked prior to each insertion" (and bleurgh at "insertion" btw). Well, perhaps not, but the only person who can decide that is the woman being penetrated. And given that she was asleep, she couldn't fucking decide could she? So unless Assange has documented proof that she gave him her advance consent to have sex with her while she was asleep, Galloway's "point" is utterly meaningless.

I wonder if people would be so accepting of this were the sexes to be reversed? Say, for example, that it was the woman who the champion of free speech or whatever, and after consensual intercourse she stuck a dildo up his arse while he was sleeping? After all, he was in "the sex game"...

I agree, OptPess. Also, someone on twitter has suggested if GG lent her £10 then fell asleep, she could take another £10 from his wallet as he was in the 'lending game'.

OptPess - Yes, and a dildo that could infect him with diseases and make him pregnant, too. He would be cool with that right?

JuliaScurr posted this elsewhere wrt the Assange case and I think it is very clear.

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

Sardine, you make an important point here about the distinction between an established sexual relationship with good communication where both partners have agreed "rules of engagement." This is unlikely to be the case in a casual relationship where these "rules" haven't been established (as was the case with both complainants in the cases against Julian Assange.)

Even where there is a long term relationship and where one person genuinely believes the other consented to a form of sexual contact, if the other person says "no" or "stop" and they continue, it is definitely an assault.

Basic rule in any sexual contact with another person has to be if you are not 100% sure the other person wants to do something at any given time, DO NOT proceed.

I genuinely don't get it when folks say there is a "grey area" or that it's so easy to "misunderstand," let alone all the clap trap about men not being able to stop themselves.

I think so much of this is bound up in this fluffy idea of romantic love and sex where it's more important not to "spoil the moment" or "spoil the romance," than to ensure that the people involved feel genuinely happy and safe with what's going on.

Well, that and the fact that ensuring that consent is clearly and freely given might mean that those men (for it is usually men) who believe they are entitled to sex any time, any where, any way with whomever they choose will no longer be able to enjoy that privilege.

Re the guy on Newsnight on Monday, I was appalled by him, and mentioning his wife didn't make it better, I totally wonder if she really consented to him divulging that information on national TV.

To the OP, I don't think Galloway is saying he doesn't believe the women bringing the allegations, he is saying that penetrating a woman when she is asleep is not rape if she has consented to a previous sexual encounter. So even if he believes the allegations, he doesn't think they constitute rape.

I disagree. I'm glad, although I wish for the women involved it hadn't happened, that this is a story though, and that people, including the courts, are refuting what Galloway is saying. When it happened to me 12 years ago, I didn't have the vocabulary to articulate why it was wrong. I do now.

And finally, to Kritiq's point about men not being able to assume they are entitled to sex 'any time, any where, any way with whomever they choose - off at a tangent here, but I was in town on Saturday and noticed that the front of Ann Summers' window said in massive big letters 'Any way you want me'. I mean, really? What kind of message does that send?

Craig Murray mentioning his wife really just came across as "some of my best friends are black..." It was a really shitty thing to say to try and defect from what he was saying.

And then we have the chap in America saying that if a woman is raped, apparently her body shuts down in someway to prevent her getting pregnant.

Which century are we living in?

I can't bring myself to watch the Newsnight segment because it sounds really upsetting, but could someone tell me what was the reaction (by presenter/other guests) when this fuckhead named the victim?

ExitPursued, I was just thinking the same. I thought I was living in the 21st century but I must have gotten that wrong

HoldMe - the presenter laid into him and repeatedly said that it didn't matter what was on Google, do not name a rape victim on TV. And also said "it's one thing to talk about you wfie - presumably with her consent" which I thought made that double edged point nicely.

It was good watching actually, he came across as a prat. But be aware, if you google his name and Newsnight on of the first links is his blog and the woman's name is in the URL so I'd avoid said search and stick with going straight to youtube of iPlayer if you do want to see it.

Thanks Leggy.