The charges against Assange

[3113]

But I have to wonder when "rape" now means "oops, the condom broke", isn't that a different sort of personal trespass than forcible assault with intercourse?

There is a difference between "yes, I will have sex with you if you wear a condom, no I won't if you don't have one"--and the man doing it to her without even thought she said "No glove, no love!"--and accusing a man of rape if the condom broke. Please, let's not confuse the one with the other.

Yet, women are attracted to "confidence" more than any other trait. The infamous Duke University coed's fuck report rated the men on their "aggressiveness". Women's erotica is rife with bodice-ripping cliches of upstanding men who are so consumed with passion that they become sexual animals under the spell of the heroines' beauty or something.

Um, what has this to do with whether these women consented to sex with this man or not? They could have consented to being tied up, whipped and gang fucked--and yet if they still said "no thanks" the next night when he wanted plain vanilla sex that hardly makes it right for him to have forced himself on them and had sex with them against their wishes.

So...what's your point? Should the fact that you read porn about women fucking men up the ass negate your right to ever say, "No thanks" to a woman who wants to do that to you? And does it excuse a woman who rapes you because everything you read and the sort of women you like says you want it that way?

What recourse is there for men who have impregnated women who they thought were on the pill? Is not telling your sexual partner that you forgot to take your birth-control pill last Tuesday and Wednesday also "rape"? What of women who, having been told "no" plead and tease men to bed them until the men become erect, then take that reflex as "consent"? Is that somehow less traumatic than other date-rape scenarios?

And this has....what to do with the rape charges against this guy?

Regarding the birth control scenario, for all you or I know, a man saying, "Yes, I will if you're on B.C., but no I won't if you're not--" and the woman lying might be an equal offense in Sweden to her saying, "Yes with a condom, no without" and him doing her without. Don't you think you should find out if men in Sweden can bring women to court on the same charge in that case before bitching that women have rights there that men do not?

Because if we're talking the U.S., then I don't know that women do have a case in the "condom yes, bare no" instance. So you can hardly compare the B.C. scenario that happens to Americans to this law in Sweden. Sweden might be equal opportunity in upholding this sort of scenario as a violation as the U.S. is equal opportunity in ignoring it as a violation.

 

[JackLuis]

Points to ponder.
August
Buyers remorse for bad sex.
Shared humiliation-Rationalization

Ask the police?

Realize that Swedish don't address rape charges all that much.

"A" goes to Palestine.

Wikileaks drops "Cable Gate"
December

Swedes revive a wanted for questioning warrant.

 

[Pure]

Swedish rape laws

There are three levels of offense: rape, sexual coercion, and sexual exploitation. There is apparently no special law against 'sex by surprise' as some news reports have claimed, and no law against sex without a condom, and no special provision in the law for withdrawal of consent during the act.

So the charges appear to be 2. sexual coercion of Ms. A, and 3. sexual exploitation of Ms. W. That there was consent for a first act of sex with each of the two women, is agreed. Consent was then, it's alleged, withdrawn by Ms. A because of a condom breaking, and not given by Ms. W (since she was asleep), before the second act with each of them.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/crayfish_parties_and_broken_co.html


Chapter 6, Part II. Rape
http://www.interpol.int/public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaSweden.asp

________________________________________
Section 1 of the Swedish Penal Code

'A person who, by violence or threat involving or appearing to the threatened person as imminent danger, forces the latter to have sexual intercourse or to engage in a comparable sexual act, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years. Rendering the person unconscious or otherwise placing the person in a similarly helpless state shall be regarded as equivalent to violence.

If in view of the nature of the violence or the threat and the circumstances in other respects the offence is considered less serious, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed.

If the offence is grave, a sentence to imprisonment for at least four and at most ten years shall be imposed for aggravated rape. In judging whether the offence is grave, special consideration shall be given to whether the violence involved a danger to life or whether the person who had committed the act had inflicted serious injury or serious illness or, having regard to the method used or the victim’s youth or otherwise, exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality.'

Section 2 of the Swedish Penal Code

'A person who, under circumstances other than those mentioned in Section 1, by unlawful coercion makes someone engage in a sexual act shall be sentenced for sexual coercion to imprisonment for at most two years.

If the person who committed the act exhibited particular ruthlessness or if the offence is otherwise considered grave, a sentence of at least six months and at most four years shall be imposed for grave sexual coercion.'

Section 3 of the Swedish Penal Code

'A person who induces another to engage in a sexual act by gross abuse of his or her dependency shall be sentenced for sexual exploitation to imprisonment for at most two years. This also applies to a person who engages in a sexual act with another by improperly taking advantage of the fact that the latter is unconscious or in another helpless state or is suffering from a mental disturbance.
If the person who has committed the act has exhibited particular ruthlessness or if the offence is otherwise considered to be grave, a sentence to imprisonment for at least six months and at most six years shall be imposed for grave sexual exploitation.'

 

[Huckleman2000]

There is a difference between "yes, I will have sex with you if you wear a condom, no I won't if you don't have one"--and the man doing it to her without even thought she said "No glove, no love!"--and accusing a man of rape if the condom broke. Please, let's not confuse the one with the other.

I'm not confusing one with the other, although I can imagine condoms breaking in the throes of orgasm, or condoms breaking due to lubricants, condoms breaking because one or the other is clumsy when they're drunk, condoms slipping off if the man starts to get whiskey dick... My point is that the sex itself has been agreed to, under certain conditions that both partners have agreed to. This doesn't seem to me to be the same sort of crime as an assault - i.e., threats of forcible injury if sexual acts are not performed.

Um, what has this to do with whether these women consented to sex with this man or not? They could have consented to being tied up, whipped and gang fucked--and yet if they still said "no thanks" the next night when he wanted plain vanilla sex that hardly makes it right for him to have forced himself on them and had sex with them against their wishes.

I'm trying to explore issues raised by the case, not litigate it. Because sometimes women seem to like their sex a bit rough, and a good fuck is preferable to slow, sensual lovemaking. One woman's release of aggression is another's fearful trigger, and while I don't excuse the behavior of not stopping, it's not difficult to imagine a situation where there is grey area and miscommunication. Again, is this the same crime as forcible intercourse?

So...what's your point? Should the fact that you read porn about women fucking men up the ass negate your right to ever say, "No thanks" to a woman who wants to do that to you? And does it excuse a woman who rapes you because everything you read and the sort of women you like says you want it that way?

Of course not. I'm talking about mixed messages, and how that affects sexual attitudes in different parts of the world.

Regarding the birth control scenario, for all you or I know, a man saying, "Yes, I will if you're on B.C., but no I won't if you're not--" and the woman lying might be an equal offense in Sweden to her saying, "Yes with a condom, no without" and him doing her without. Don't you think you should find out if men in Sweden can bring women to court on the same charge in that case before bitching that women have rights there that men do not?

Because if we're talking the U.S., then I don't know that women do have a case in the "condom yes, bare no" instance. So you can hardly compare the B.C. scenario that happens to Americans to this law in Sweden. Sweden might be equal opportunity in upholding this sort of scenario as a violation as the U.S. is equal opportunity in ignoring it as a violation.

The law Pure quoted above did not differentiate by gender, so I suppose a man could file based on that. How would you feel if you had to prove that you took your birth control pills as prescribed in order to secure child support for a surprise pregnancy? I'm not trying to be flip, I'm just trying to find what the gender-reversed analog might be in this case.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Fyi: google results for "condoms lost inside": About 269,000 results (0.12 seconds)
From the top result, Cosmopolitan Sex-Advice:

Understanding why this mishap occurs in the first place can help you avoid a repeat performance. Some of the possible causes: If the rubber is too loose or too tight on your man's member, it can slip off midthrust or burst. It can also happen if he doesn't hold on to the base of the condom as he pulls out, or it can even be the result of ultra-vigorous thrusting during intercourse.

 

[ishtat]

Have the Charges referred to in the title actually been served yet? Or has the Swedish authority only sought extradition so that they may be served?

All we know is that thus far the Swedish authorities have not submitted sufficient information to get an order or to start an extradition hearing, or even prevent bail.

Sweden is a category one nation under UK extradition rules and as such the burden on the Swedish authorities is very modest... and yet they have still not met it. Discussion of the outcome of the case seems premature given that the chances of it happening at all are by no means certain.

Introduction to UK extradition rules here.http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/extradition-intro1/extrad-part-1/

PS Has Bradley Manning been charged with anything yet?

 

[Pure]

from the link, above

hi ishtat

it's reasonably clear what the charges are [below] and how these are based in the Swedish Criminal Code. And the basic accounts of events from police records are public record, now [see, e.g. ny times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html?_r=1]
======

New York Mag, Dec 7,


During the hearing today, Swedish representative Gemma Lindfield laid out the complaints against Assange:

The first complainant, a Miss A, said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange was alleged to have "forcefully" held her arms and used his bodyweight to hold her down. The second charge alleged he "sexually molested" her by having sex without using a condom, when it was her "express wish" that one should be used.

A third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August.

A fourth charge, relating to a Miss W, alleged that on 17 August, he "improperly exploited" the fact she was asleep to have sex with her without a condom.


Prior to the complaint, rumors were swirling that Assange was being charged not with rape but an obscure Swedish law against "sex by surprise," which is likewise nowhere to be found in Sweden's criminal code.

 

[Pure]

charges

the charges of sexual coercion and sexual exploitation have been explained above.

the remaining charge, apparently is 'molestation', which has a general meaning of inappropriate physical contact, and covers non sexual matters as well. there is no special sex crime, in that section of the criminal code, of molestation of an adult.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ed_by_swedish_police_in_molestation_case.html

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not confusing one with the other, although I can imagine condoms breaking in the throes of orgasm, or condoms breaking due to lubricants, condoms breaking because one or the other is clumsy when they're drunk, condoms slipping off if the man starts to get whiskey dick... My point is that the sex itself has been agreed to, under certain conditions that both partners have agreed to. This doesn't seem to me to be the same sort of crime as an assault - i.e., threats of forcible injury if sexual acts are not performed.

yes, we in the UK and the US have a very limited view of what rape might be. We have very slooooowwwwllllyyy come to consider rape as a crime agint the women herself-- at all. We come from a background where rape was a property crime against chattel. It destroyed a woman's value.

As you might imagine, this has created a mindset that makes it very difficult for men and women to talk about sexual misconduct. Our society has a tendency to classify things by the worst-case and belittle every thing that doesn;t result in death-- take a look at the comments in the DADT threads, for instance, where people question whether or not insults and threats can really be called "gay bashing" if they dont include actual battery.

I'm trying to explore issues raised by the case, not litigate it. Because sometimes women seem to like their sex a bit rough, and a good fuck is preferable to slow, sensual lovemaking. One woman's release of aggression is another's fearful trigger, and while I don't excuse the behavior of not stopping, it's not difficult to imagine a situation where there is grey area and miscommunication. Again, is this the same crime as forcible intercourse?

Well it would depend on whether or not the woman felt it was actionable or not. And then it would depend on whether or not the court agreed with her. AND it would depend on whether the man decided to fuck her, in her sleep, without a condom.

Of course not. I'm talking about mixed messages, and how that affects sexual attitudes in different parts of the world.

The law Pure quoted above did not differentiate by gender, so I suppose a man could file based on that. How would you feel if you had to prove that you took your birth control pills as prescribed in order to secure child support for a surprise pregnancy? I'm not trying to be flip, I'm just trying to find what the gender-reversed analog might be in this case.

I would be horrified, furious, indignant and all full of self-righteousness, of course-- independent of the truth of the charges.

Who wouldn't?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I find it extremely amusing that Assange has objected to details of the charges being leaked to the newspapers.

I also find it amusing that certain liberal persons, such as Michael Moore, are claiming the women are liars, although they can't possibly know that. I suspect it most men had been accused, those Liberals would have believed the women without hesitation.

After reading more, I believe the complaints made by the women are justified, although I would want to know more before I could be certain. They were admirers of him before the alleged events occurred, and would not have made the complaints without justification.

 

[ishtat]

I note what you say Pure and the NY Times report, but expect that the extradition judge will require more precise legally admissable material to be the basis of his/her decision.

Much of what has been reported is speculation and whilst interesting may not necessarily be put before the judge.

An interesting development is that the Swedish authorities have become directly involved in the case in UK. Normally the English prosecutorial authorities would handle an extradition matter on Swedens behalf (they did initially). I am interested as to whether the decision to do that came from Sweden, the judge or the English prosecutors.

It appears on the basis of evidence presented so far that the case wouldn't have a prayer of being prosecuted in an English court and prior to the 2003 Extradition Act the Swedes probably wouldn't have bothered to apply.

I don't know which way the Extradition case will go but whatever the result it will add to controversy in the UK where lawyers are already very concerned about inequities affecting potential defendants resident in England.

Maybe the Swedes should follow the example of George Bush senior and do a Noriega!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I find it extremely amusing that Assange has objected to details of the charges being leaked to the newspapers.

ROFLMAO! Box, just every once in a while you surprise the fuck out of me.

I also find it amusing that certain liberal persons, such as Michael Moore, are claiming the women are liars, although they can't possibly know that. I suspect it most men had been accused, those Liberals would have believed the women without hesitation.

Also Keith Olbermann who then got himself embroiled in a twiiterwar http://twitter.com/search?q=#MooreandMe and couldn't figure out how to extricate himself. You will see people misunderstand the charges, the legalities, and most importantly-- the difference between the women's right to file charges and the lousy things international politics are doing with the charges after they were filed.

After reading more, I believe the complaints made by the women are justified, although I would want to know more before I could be certain. They were admirers of him before the alleged events occurred, and would not have made the complaints without justification.

Unless of course they really are CIA operatives. Because some tin hats really do have a silver lining.... maybe this one?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Pure, please read;
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/12/22/mooreandme-and-then-he-came-down/

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Greetings of the Season!

Merry Fucking Christmas, and Goodwill To All!

http://www.lilithgallery.com/gallery/vandyke/VictoriaVanDyke-MerryFuckingChristmas-2007.jpg​

Wow. I would think a thread discussing the forensic, ethical, social, psychological, and political aspects of rape would be of some interest to authors of erotic fiction. I guess not though. Underwear color is apparently a much more fascinating and germane topic.

As for Pure himself, I have no idea how many stories, novels, novellas, poems, plays, and/or videos of dance interpretations he has on Lit, but I understand that more than a few authors here protect their anonymity by using noms de plume (or guerre, depending) when they publish, and if the right to post here were somehow validated by literary output, then we'd all be kowtowing to Boston Fiction Writer and letting him set the agenda.

Pure has been on the site for at least as long as I have, and if longevity and dedication count for anything, than he's paid his dues. In that time he's been responsible for more stimulating, penetrating, and challenging threads concerning all facets of sex and society than anyone I can think of, and he's consistently civil, intelligent, and informed. But if you just want to come over and piss in the corner, it's your right, so feel free. But don't try and delude yourself into thinking you're serving wine.

Now... Metatalk out of the way, it's hard to know what to say about this. Really, it's very difficult to think of circumstances in which a sexual encounter can't be interpreted as some form of rape, depending on the putative victim's internal, psychological interpretation and, worse, their recollection. It's the nature of M/F sex to be penetrative, violational, highly emotional, and as psychological as it is physical, and even getting a person's written and witnessed consent is no guarantee that they won't reconsider during the act or even after it.

Personally, I've lost condoms inside women several times, and I've heard of other guys losing them too, and even having to go fishing for them with a finger afterward. I've had them break too, and when they break, they usually break spectacularly (or maybe it's that, once they rupture, the sex feels so good you go at it even more enthusiastically and shred the whole thing). I've pulled out of a woman with the burst condom rolled up like a little collar around the base of my dick. I didn't even know it had happened (--Mr. Sensitivity.)

Losing a condom usually happens (or happened to me) when you linger in the old afterglow too long and you experience the inevitable shrinkage and retreat. When you finally pull out, the condom's vacuum-stuck in her with just the end hanging out, rather plaintively. But it can happen if you're drunk or high too, maybe, or anytime you lose your erection during sex. Having her mother call during sex and having her just have to answer it will do it too (yes. true story. "This will just take a sec, baby..." Hard to maintain an erection while she's talking to her mom, believe me.)

I imagine in Assange's case it was a rupture, and that he noticed it and pulled out, took the useless thing off, and re-entered her. I imagine she told him no, she wanted protection, but given the state of excitement they were in, I suppose he didn't pay much attention and that she wasn't very vehement. I doubt she pushed him away and closed her legs. And so they finished, it was done, and no one said anything much about it.

Given the age of the women and their culture and political backgrounds, I'd be surprised if they weren't both on BC at the time anyhow, and so the condom was more for STD prevention than anti-pregnancy, and STD prevention is usually a bit more negotiable than anti-pregnancy measures, in my experience. If he'd already been inside her with a broken rubber, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for her to insist he wear another one to prevent disease, so I imagine the women weren't very firm about it.

I also see that he slept with one woman on August 14, and the other on the 17th. I wonder how Ms 14th might have felt when she learned about Ms 17th. Maybe she had a change of heart for how she felt about him?

This is all conjecture, of course, but it seems plausible to me. I'm not trying to necessarily exonerate him here, but I am trying to show how reasonable, well-intentioned, and honest people can find themselves in this predicament without there being a major conspiracy with Good versus Evil.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think many people are framing the basic case, with the specific charges as they have been laid out, as "good vs. evil," Doc.

There are some circumstances surrounding those charges that are problematic.

But you know what? IF we take rape seriously, we need to begin to look at the subtlties of sexual misconduct. We have been told that ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT." And the reason we've been told that is because people didn't use to care about the fact that a rape is visited upon one person's sovereign body by another person. Rape was actionable as a sort of property crime-- it depleted value from virgins and made sons and heirs suspect. nothing much to do with the woman herself.

The idea that rape is a crime against the woman herself is pretty radical. And it opens a few dozen cans of worms that will have to be addressed and will be addressed over the roars of rage of many men, because it comes with the thought that other things that are iffy might also be the prerogative of the woman to say yeah or nay, and not the men-- who might be stopped from usurping that prerogative, or blamed-- of course.

or something like that.

 

[ishtat]

As at 24th December Assange has not been charged with any crime.

The extradition procedure is entirely to enable the prosecutors office to ask questions in relation to accusations.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't think many people are framing the basic case, with the specific charges as they have been laid out, as "good vs. evil," Doc.

There are some circumstances surrounding those charges that are problematic.

But you know what? IF we take rape seriously, we need to begin to look at the subtlties of sexual misconduct. We have been told that ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT." And the reason we've been told that is because people didn't use to care about the fact that a rape is visited upon one person's sovereign body by another person. Rape was actionable as a sort of property crime-- it depleted value from virgins and made sons and heirs suspect. nothing much to do with the woman herself.

The idea that rape is a crime against the woman herself is pretty radical. And it opens a few dozen cans of worms that will have to be addressed and will be addressed over the roars of rage of many men, because it comes with the thought that other things that are iffy might also be the prerogative of the woman to say yeah or nay, and not the men-- who might be stopped from usurping that prerogative, or blamed-- of course.

or something like that.

Rape is taken very seriously. At one time it was a capital crime in at least some states, including CA. I can remember when I was a child and heard about rape and how it was a crime against women. Perhaps in the 19th century and before, it may have sometimes been a crime against property, but it was still a serious one.

Not all rape involves violence or threat of violence. There is statutory rape and there is also a man getting the woman too drunk or zonked for her to prevent it or knocking her out with drugs and fucking her. Pure described the Swedish law, and it includes sex acts when the woman was not aware, and that is what was allegedly done to Miss W. She told him "No" the previous night, but he sneaked into her bed anyhow and had his way. At least, that's what her story was. If true, that was rape, no matter how you slice it.

The rape of a man by women is very uncommon, for diverse reasons, and I expect the reporting of it is almost non-existent. I think most men would be ashamed to report it, and they wouldn't be believed if they did. I remember reading about one case, a Mormon divinity student from Utah, and the woman was Miss Utah. What he said was she and some accomplices abducted him and tied him to the bed. She got him hard orally and climbed on top.

ETA: Here are more details about that case. I had some of the details wrong, but the general idea was correct. At least, this is what I read.
http://notamormon.blogspot.com/2010/09/tabloid-documentary-of-joyce-mckinney.html

 

[ishtat]

I meant to include this with my previous post; this article today in the Sydney Morning Herald has something in it for conspiracy theorists of all stripes!

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-truth-lies-trapped-in-a-web-of-intrigue-20101223-196mv.html

 

[Pure]

note to stella

stell: IF we take rape seriously, we need to begin to look at the subtlties of sexual misconduct. We have been told that ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT." And the reason we've been told that is because people didn't use to care about the fact that a rape is visited upon one person's sovereign body by another person. Rape was actionable as a sort of property crime-- it depleted value from virgins and made sons and heirs suspect. nothing much to do with the woman herself.

The idea that rape is a crime against the woman herself is pretty radical. And it opens a few dozen cans of worms that will have to be addressed


==

pure: i'm not sure what century you're in, but women haven't been considered as property in the US, for 100 or more years, *if indeed they ever were, in the US*. women got the vote in 1920, after all, and property doesn't vote. the New York Married Women's Property Act is dated 1848. in Britain, the similar Acts were in 1870 and 1882. property cannot own property. Canadian women were recognized as persons, in a famous case in 1929, that went to the British Privy Council.

the concept of women as persons is thus rather well known. as to "crime against the woman herself", i have no idea what that means beyond the obvious and status quo. if i or my wife am robbed, penetrated with cocks, murdered, there is a crime against the man/woman him/herself. i see no innovation in what you are trying to propose.

rape is actually a rather simple concept: forced/imposed sexual intercourse where there is no consent: or more exactly [Calif criminal code],

Rape is an act of sexual intercourse carried out:

"against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."

where the victim is unable to resist because of an intoxicating, narcotic, or anesthetic substance that the accused has responsibility for administering. "

where the victim is incapable of giving consent, and the perpetrator reasonably should know this.
[...]
[these are the main categories]

consent:
- Consent is a defense to a charge of forcible rape. In sex crime cases, California defines consent as "positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. "

Non-consented sexual intercourse is not necessarily rape in California. Where the victim is capable of consenting, but does not consent, and the perpetrator does not use force, violence, duress, menace, or induce in the victim a fear of "immediate and unlawful bodily injury," the intercourse does not constitute rape.

NOTE: certain other acts will be considered equivalent to 'standard' m/f intercourse.

==

stellBut you know what? IF we take rape seriously, we need to begin to look at the subtlties of sexual misconduct.

No, we do not. We are talking about what is a criminal act, not simply 'misconduct'. It is either delusional or tyrranical to try to put all types of misconduct into the criminal code. Roughly speaking there must be both harm to the person and (thereby) harm/danger to the body politic (the fabric of society). For example, to promise [with ulterior motives] to marry someone and then break it off, is likely highly distressing, but has not been a crime for many decades.

Rape laws have been improved over the last 50 years, but it's NOT through attention to the 'subtleties of sexual misconduct', the improvement has been because how issues of credibility, evidence, and past history are handled, and making sure they're handled in a way not unduly partial to the accused, nor obscuring the basic issues.

regarding sexual history, for example, it's clear that the *plain meanings* of the above terms are to be applied: if she's been forced, she's been forced, and what she did an hour ago with the same man, or the day before with 20 men, is irrelevant.


We have been told that ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT." And the reason we've been told that is because people didn't use to care about the fact that a rape is visited upon one person's sovereign body by another person.

No, this is not correct in several ways, all rape--its major types, above--involves, as per the Calif. code, force or violence, or duress or menace, or threats of any of these (unless the person is unable to resist).

It is certainly appropriate, as the Swedes (and others) do, to recognize sex crimes where there is coercion or exploitation, but i see no point in calling them rape. for example, it's a crime--maybe worse than rape--to force a women to prostitute herself in order to pay for her travel fare to the host country, or in order to prevent harm to her family.

 

[Pure]

note to box

Pure described the Swedish law, and it includes sex acts when the woman was not aware, and that is what was allegedly done to Miss W. She told him "No" the previous night, but he sneaked into her bed anyhow and had his way. At least, that's what her story was. If true, that was rape, no matter how you slice it.

no, box, you have confabulated. according to *her account*, she [W] tracked him down, and insured she'd sit next to him at a banquet. she invited him to her apt.

account in the Guardian

The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

==
continuing, pure summary: next day, she called where he was staying, and ran into AA, so to say and they compared notes, and ended up going to the police station for advice, raising the issue of STDs. after conferring some more with each other and with a third party, they decided to proceed to get the police to lay charges, make an arrest, and so on, those charges including rape.

==

pure: it's rather easy to infer his side: he had already had sex once with her, they went back to sleep. he awoke saw she was sleeping but started stuff, and found she'd wakened enough to fully cooperate, and so he fucked her again, this time without a condom.