Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Sweden drops Assange rape charge

76 replies

whoputthecatout · 19/05/2017 10:29

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864

Quelle surprise!

No details yet......

OP posts:
M0stlyBowlingHedgehog · 22/05/2017 19:32

It's not an either/or thing, Cote, it could well be both. I remember way back when this first broke, a poster on here commenting that it's more than likely that he did commit rape (there wasn't any "half asleep" on the charge sheet - she claimed to have woken up to find him penetrating her), AND that given the way rape is routinely ignored, no-crimed and generally not pursued with any enthusiasm by some in the police, the fact that this case it was pursued was driven by political motives.

CoteDAzur · 22/05/2017 19:58

"there wasn't any "half asleep" on the charge sheet - she claimed to have woken up to find him penetrating her)"

Actually in the beginning the girls were saying that the sex was consensual. They only went to police to force STD tests on him.

DJBaggySmalls · 22/05/2017 20:09

Stealthing is rape in Sweden. Its a non consensual act. Lets not claim its only rape when she is physically overpowered.

SomeDyke · 22/05/2017 20:14

"Actually in the beginning the girls were saying that the sex was consensual. They only went to police to force STD tests on him."
WHY do you think they wanted him to take an HIV test? According to this report of what his own lawyer said in 2011:

"He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual."

So, she wanted safer sex WITH a condom, he chose to ignore that AND penetrate her whilst asleep. Then some sort of retrospective consent nonsense argument.............

Similarly in the other report it seems.

Consent isn't a time machine, and an HIV test is a tad more serious than an STD. But hey, it's not like you're trying to minimize the issues AT ALL, or present what could be rape and fear of a possible life-threatening (or at least life-changing) sexually transmitted disease as just some slight misunderstanding and/or a politically motivated stitch-up.............

P.S and bonus points for referring to the women as girls...........

CoteDAzur · 22/05/2017 21:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MrsDustyBusty · 22/05/2017 21:33

then initiated sex again when she was sleeping

Ya wha'?

Everybody does it.

My arse.

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog · 22/05/2017 21:36

Cote has someone hacked your user account? Or have you been smoking some really strong shit? Because normally you're a poster I really respect.

But no - no-one, but no-one can consent to sex while they are asleep. I concede that in a long-term relationship, it is possible for a couple to have had a prior conversation where one party says "you know I'd find it really hot if you woke me up with a bit of groping - but please stop immediately if on any given occasion I say 'no, not in the mood this morning'." But in the absence of such a conversation, it is rape. No question, no grey areas no nothing. Rape. RAPE, RAPE RAPE.

MrsDustyBusty · 22/05/2017 21:41

"Yeah, I did you up the arse while you were asleep. You consented"
"You wore a condom at least?
"Ah no, you said it was fine"
"Oh well in that case..."

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog · 22/05/2017 22:12

Apart from anything else, anyone who's ever had a one-night stand knows the likeliest outcome the morning after the night before is "shit, I must have really had my beer goggles on last night". The default assumption has got to be that your partner doesn't want more sex.

SomeDyke · 22/05/2017 22:45

"He is an asshole to have ignored her demand to use a condom, but the sex was consensual."

No. Anyone who does anything WITHOUT consent is a rapist. In this scenario, she only consented to sex WITH a condom. Ignoring that is rape as far as I'm concerned. And I'm stunned how anyone with half a brain could seriously argue otherwise. Consent isn't a time machine, isn't retroactive, and is specific.

I agree with Hedgehog that Cote seems to have had a brain transplant.............

"No question, no grey areas no nothing. Rape. RAPE, RAPE RAPE."
Yes, it's really not that complicated, and who exactly is profiting from these repeated myths that it is oh so complicated to work out exactly who has consented to what and when? If someone DEMANDS you use a condom and you ignore that and carry on anyway, then how could it be clearer? You explicitly don't have consent in that case, you know you don't have consent, hence RAPE. No grey areas, no ifs no buts no fucking lame-brain excuses that laydees are so complicated and how were you supposed to know, or hoping that if you continue she'll change her mind and start to like it and give you consent via time machine......................

If when you did the act you knew you didn't have consent, then you are a rapist, you decided to perform that act without consent at the time you decided to perform it. Getting 'permission' afterwards doesn't change the ethical situation when you decided to do what you did. Hoping you will get consent when they wake up doesn't remove the moral transgression. I'm stunned that anyone could seriously claim otherwise................

CoteDAzur · 23/05/2017 10:19

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CoteDAzur · 23/05/2017 10:19

If she swats young hand away...

CoteDAzur · 23/05/2017 10:19

Your hand! Ffs I give up.

Fliptophead · 23/05/2017 10:27

Actually the "equipment" does matter. It's why women who pretend to be men and penetrate a woman with something other than a penis she thought she consented to have been in trouble in the past.

This is disgusting. You don't get to potentially kill someone who has told you "do not put your penis in me without a condom" by putting your penis in to them. And you can't consent to anything if you are asleep.

If I wiped blood on you or spat on you it would be considered assault. Because those things cause a bodily risk. But if a man uses a penis to apply the bodily fluids that suddenly makes the whole think OK?? Is there ever a situation when a man must keep it in his trousers?

She risked AIDS and pregnancy and was raped. How can anyone defend this?

SomeDyke · 23/05/2017 12:41

"I don't think we will agree on this but..."
Why do you have such a problem with giving people control over what they do and don't consent to when it comes to sex? Why are you so against consent being specific and not retroactive?

Lets leave aside the legal issues and the practical issues in terms of what might be prosecutable or not. Let's look at it from a moral point of view. You seem to think it is okay to start to have sex with someone whilst fully or partially asleep because you've been shagging all night previously, and you seem to think it is okay to do stuff other than what they actually consented to, without further asking........

Both of which make you a fairly despicable person in my view. Why do you think you have such rights over the body of your partner? (applies whether you are male or female, and whatever the sex of your partner is BTW). You think you have the right to take that control away from your partner, or that their wishes don't matter. That your wish to take or give pleasure matters more than their bodily autonomy. That your wishes are more important than theirs. That once they've said 'yes', that gives you the green card for the next 24 hours and for whatever happens to pop into your head that you think they might like ................

Is this what you really believe?

Fliptophead · 23/05/2017 12:51
Sweden drops Assange rape charge
MNHQ
KatherineMumsnet · 23/05/2017 15:49

Hi all,

We just wanted to clarify here that 'stealthing' is actually against the law and is considered rape.

Please do have a look at our We believe you campaign

We're going to remove posts which assert that stealthing isn't rape, as we think it's victim-blaming and not really in the spirit.

CoteDAzur · 23/05/2017 16:14

Dyke - The stuff you have inferred from what I have said is quite strange and since you have already started calling me names ("despicable"? really? Hmm) I don't see the point of talking with you.

CoteDAzur · 23/05/2017 16:21

Thanks Katherine, I didn't realize that it is legally considered rape in the UK. It isn't in the jurisdictions I am more familiar with.

SomeDyke · 23/05/2017 19:08

"I didn't realize that it is legally considered rape in the UK"
Morally it's rape wherever or whoever you are, because it is pure and simple performing a sexual act on someone without their specific consent. If I give consent to X, doesn't mean you can do Y, and if you do so regardless, you have just proceeded without consent, and hence rape.

If you really can't get that Cote, then your attitudes are morally reprehensible, and even worse since you don't seem to want to engage with anyone who points that out.............

Fliptophead · 23/05/2017 20:52

The problem with rape apology in MN is that a lot of women look for support here and I can think of several threads on "Relationships" where women have said they were penetrated in their sleep and were very upset by it. And where they are asking if this is ok or normal. It's not legal and it's not moral. Is it so hard to wait for someone to wake up to see if they want your penis in them? Your comment vote about waking someone up first like that would be insanity but it's totes ok to just stick your dick in, because god forbid a man wait

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog · 23/05/2017 21:26

Yes I was thinking of those threads too, Flip. So many women traumatised by having this done to them repeatedly by partners who are normalising the behaviour. As you say, how hard is it to gently wake someone, snuggle up to them and see if they're interested? Especially in a one-night stand where the default assumption is that they're going to want to get the hell out of there ASAP, and it would be a nice, but unexpected, bonus if they were up for it again the next morning.

SomeDyke · 23/05/2017 22:26

Thanks Fliptop for the tea link.

I think that sometimes the conversation tends into what is legal or not, and what is prosecutable or not (given the ludicrous conviction rates and all that). Rather than a simpler case of what is morally wrong. Because people who do something they know is wrong, just think that they'll get away with it so do it anyway are in some senses 'simpler' criminals, who you can try and deter by better prosecutions, harsher sentences etc. But what really perturbs me are those people who just can't see why what they/others have done is wrong. Like, George Galloway and his infamous quote:

"Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,"

Because I don't know quite how he maintains that position, is it just that he doesn't really consider women to be full human beings with a right to bodily autonomy........................Are we really still stuck trying to explain that after all these years of activism?

HelenaDove · 24/05/2017 00:52

Years ago when i mentioned to a potential sexual partner that i would prefer he use a condom he asked "Is it essential" I said yes but i couldnt get past his attitude and was really worried he would pull something like this so i didnt sleep with him.

Datun · 24/05/2017 07:15

SomeDyke

Did George Galloway really say that?

So you don't always need to know if someone wants your penis in them before you put it in them?