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

"not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion"

Well done George, you *ing genius. What a *!!!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19319240 ]left or right some politicians have real problems with this[/url]

"It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?'

.....he's american. What exactly did you expect?
George is just a reptile. Hardly news.

It's a [i]really[/i] tricky and incredibly sensitive topic [i]<tinfoil>which'll be why the CIA chose it</tinfoil>[/i] but I do think there is a little truth to this point:

"It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

Right now rape is rightly considered an abominable crime, but I do worry that if (as I have heard discussed in this case) consensual sex with someone that you say you love but don't, or consensual sex where the condom splits, gets labelled as "rape" then that sort of dilutes the impact a bit.

However... having sex with someone while they are asleep, as mentioned in the article, [i]does[/i] warrant the term "rape" IMO.

So you can have a one night stand with someone, fall asleep, wake up the next morning and attempt to slip it in again before they wake up???!

Sorry but that's a big rapey Fail in my book. When would the cut off point arise - "Well officer she agreed to sex on Friday so I thought it was fine to just stuff it in when she bent down to pick up the mail on Tuesday morning!"

Sorry but that's a big rapey Fail in my book.

[i]Sorry but that's a big rapey Fail in my book. When would the cut off point arise -[/i]

from the article...

[i]In the UK, a rape has been committed if there is intentional penetration without consent and if the accused "does not reasonably believe" that consent has been given.[/i]

"does not reasonably believe".....

"For the offence of rape to have been committed the defendant must have penetrated you without your consent, or continued to penetrate you after you withdrew your consent, and the defendant must not have reasonably believed that you were consenting." Definition of rape from Sexual Offences Act.

See - if Assange reasonably believed that they had given their consent, which it MAY have been reasonable to assume, then it wasn't rape from a legal perspective in the UK. Swedish laws may differ.

It's an interesting one right enough.

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.

What this story boils down to is 'Man with an Ego the Size of a Solar System Defends the Same'

So you can have a one night stand with someone, fall asleep, wake up the next morning and attempt to slip it in again before they wake up???!

What about if the person was your long-term partner? Never been woken up by your partner *ahem* doing something sexual, or vice versa? If My girlfriend of 17 years woke up to find me touching her breasts or elsewhere, technically that's sexual assault, right, as she hadn't given consent?

I'm also genuinely not sure of how anyone could 'penetrate' someone without them waking up?

I just think when you start talking in black and white absolutes and too easily throwing words like rape around it starts to potentially demean the perceived seriousness of genuinely horrific crimes. I don't know what Assange did, but plenty of people seem to have already decided he's a rapist.

I know someone who was falsely accused of rape and it was absolutely horrific for them. This is not in any way meant to demean or diminish the experience of rape victims.

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.

This is fairly close to how I see it too TBH.

What a charming chap George is.

Can I just check if I'm missing the point here - is Assange accused of slipping one in whilst the woman was asleep, or is that just a stupid point Georgey boy came out with?

Wot grum said (otherwise I am technically a rapist)

aracer - yes.

How about this one then? Rape?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186

As an aside - The penalty for falsely accusing someone of rape should be the same as that for rape.

So what happens if she falls asleep half way through sex? (not that this has ever happened on my watch :oops:)

[i]What about if the person was your long-term partner? Never been woken up by your partner *ahem* doing something sexual, or vice versa? If My girlfriend of 17 years woke up to find me touching her breasts or elsewhere, technically that's sexual assault, right, as she hadn't given consent?[/i]

not under the wording of the law, it is reasonable to assume consent, but if she was to say "No" when realizing whats happening (edit: and you continued) that could constitute a sexual assault.

If My girlfriend of 17 years woke up to find me touching her

After 17 years with, hopefully, an impeccable track record in your relationship of respect, non-violence, non-agression, love and intimacy I reckon you could probably play the "does not reasonably believe that consent has been given" card there.

EDIT: Klunk beat me.

[quote=glupton1976 ]As an aside - The penalty for falsely accusing someone of rape should be the same as that for rape.

Pretty sure they are sent to jail when/if it's uncovered. Doesn't help recover someone's life but at least it means there is punishment to deter others

I don't agree with this, but just for balance I was thinking of a reverse scenario - You have a one night stand with woman and wake up the next day to find she's giving you head, I think a lot of men would enjoy this. Perhaps in a VERY misguided way he thought the woman might enjoy being woken in such a way. Still crosses the line for me though.

Agree with those of you that think he might have been stitched up because of who he is.

Ok thanks for the clarification, but at what point during those 17 years did it become reasonable to assume consent? Was there a particular day, before which if I did it I was a sickening sex criminal, but after which it was absolutely fine?

"reasonably" is not a black and white thing. It's contextual. It provides a route for common sense in a lot of UK law.

Spotted on Twitter earlier today

Using Galloway's logic if Assange were to be taken to America while he was sleeping it wouldn't be extradition, just bad manners.

I think this guy's got a good point 😆

Using Galloway's logic if Assange were to be taken to America while he was sleeping it wouldn't be extradition, just bad manners.

except Assange has never given any consent to be taken to the US from which an expectation of consent could have been drawn later.

So not even close. But pithy nonetheless 😉

I'm surprised that even Galloway has pitched in on this - any MP likely to get a pasting expressing anything other than the "standarised" approved view.

Whatever the truth of the rape allegations, Assange must be seriously freaked out to have bolted to the Ecuadorian embassy to seek assylum. Given the gradations of seriousness of rape offences that the Beeb refer to under Swedish law, you'd think he'd just go back and try and clear his name. The worst outcome (of the rape case) would be a few years in jail and lost reputation.

Strange choice, Ecuador... Has he looked at an atlas. Given what he has published on wikileaks, you'd think he'd choose somewhere a long way from the reach of the US...

"reasonably" is not a black and white thing. It's contextual. It provides a route for common sense in a lot of UK law.

That's kind of my point Stoner, in the law it seems there are grey areas, whereas many people seem to want to talk in absolutes. I can understand the reasoning of not wanting to tolerate or legitimise any form of abuse, but I'm not sure it's actually that helpful.

I feel pretty uncomfortable talking about these matters for fear of being branded a 'rape-excuser' or something - I don't think that's conducive to a grown up rational debate.

is it that grey in UK law ? the consent once given can be assumed until withdrawn.

[quote=Klunk ]is it that grey in UK law ? the consent once given can be assumed until withdrawn.
* s****s *

Ken Clarke to the STW forum!

Just in case I now have a signed piece of paper from Mrs Cat giving me ongoing and unequivocal consent until officially withdrawn, in writing, with a month's notice. 🙂

The local vicar was a bit shocked when we asked him to witness the statement! 😯

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 ]An odd state of affairs...[/url]

Was looking for some of the reporting from the time - some of what (I think) I remember seems to be no longer on-line.

The most generous assesment would be that the Swedes had made a bit of a hash of this case...

Mr Assange is questioned by police for about an hour in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him, according to his lawyer at the time, Leif Silbersky. The activist denies the charges.

So, they had him "down the station"...

[quote=grum ]
How about this one then? Rape?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10717186
br />
Rape by deception. Isn't that actually at the root of the Assange case anyway? He sleeps with two women and neither accuse him of rape until they find out he's been with the other one.

Surely that fulfils the requirement for an initial questioning, on Swedish soil, before officially charging him or did he skip the country too quickly. Whichever, the Swedes are saying that they need to go through the process again.

There was an accusation on a blog (will see if I can dig it out) of all manner of tampering with the accusers twitter accounts and blogs from around the time.

...you'd think he'd just go back and try and clear his name. The worst outcome (of the rape case) would be a few years in jail and lost reputation.

Perhaps if the US and Sweden promised extra extra hard (no crossed fingers) that he wouldn't be immediately extradited to face the death penalty in a US court then he might?

Strange choice, Ecuador... Has he looked at an atlas. Given what he has published on wikileaks, you'd think he'd choose somewhere a long way from the reach of the US...

Some of what he published was a leaked memo from the US slagging off Ecuador, much to the public annoyance of the Ecuadorians. Hence why Ecuador approached him, wanting to give the US a bloody nose.

Perhaps if the US and Sweden promised extra extra hard (no crossed fingers) that he wouldn't be immediately extradited to face the death penalty in a US court then he might?

Which is wht I included "(of the rape case)".

re Ecuador - Not sure I'd sleep too easy in my bed. Haven't US special forces regarded Central America and northern S America as their own little playground for decades?

Perhaps if the US and Sweden promised extra extra hard (no crossed fingers) that he wouldn't be immediately extradited to face the death penalty in a US court then he might?

Extradition is a judicial decision. One that cannot be made in advance and cant be prevented by a government promise.

rogerthecat - Member
Surely that fulfils the requirement for an initial questioning, on Swedish soil, before officially charging him or did he skip the country too quickly. Whichever, the Swedes are saying that they need to go through the process again.

First interview on 30th August, found no case to answer (lesser charges).
Second prosecutor takes over case on 1st September and decides that there is further investigation needed but doesn't call Assange in for questioning.
Alleged victims called in for interview 2nd September.
Assange leaves Sweden on 27th September.

aracer - yes.

Oh - I'd missed that one (have to admit I've not been avidly following the case). In which case, despite what many seem to have commented, what he did would be regarded as rape under UK law, and I have rather less sympathy with him.

what he did would be regarded as rape under UK law, and I have rather less sympathy with him

I'm not sure it is that clear cut.

As someone said earlier, UK law hangs on [i]"defendant must not have reasonably believed that you were consenting"[/i] - so a suitable defence would be that they had perfectly consensual sex earlier and he was simply looking to continue that.

To be honest I doubt it would be prosecuted in the UK.

As someone said earlier, UK law hangs on "defendant must not have reasonably believed that you were consenting" - so a suitable defence would be that they had perfectly consensual sex earlier and he was simply looking to continue that.

I don't think it's the sort of defence which would stand up on a one-night-stand

Somebody also said earlier

However... having sex with someone while they are asleep, as mentioned in the article, does warrant the term "rape" IMO.

I've seen a mumsnet thread on this subject before giving a woman's perspective (don't ask how I found that or why I read it 😳 ) Couldn't find it again with a quick search, but to summarise, most of them seemed to consider slipping one in whilst they were asleep wasn't acceptable behaviour even with a long term partner unless they'd fairly explicitly given their permission, or at least a strong hint that it was OK.

most of them seemed to consider slipping one in whilst they were asleep wasn't acceptable behaviour

I still don't understand how this is possible.

I don't think it's the sort of defence which would stand up on a one-night-stand

You have more faith in the UK legal system than I do then. 😕

Rape in particular seems to be very under-prosecuted, even in cases considerably more clear cut than that.

most of them seemed to consider slipping one in whilst they were asleep wasn't acceptable behaviour even with a long term partner

Agree. And I doubt many would say it was.

grum - Member

most of them seemed to consider slipping one in whilst they were asleep wasn't acceptable behaviour

I still don't understand how this is possible.

They are free thinking individuals who can make decisions for themselves and clearly they have thought about it and decided it's not acceptable - simple really!

Or did you mean the physical act? Relative size, depth of sleep, partner is the special forces - they slip in and out un-noticed? 🙂

Is there not also some consideration of the use of a condom? i.e. the woman agrees to sex the first time knowing that the guy is wearing one but, in that sleepy state which sometimes happens (ahem) doesn't realise, complies and then subsequently realises there was no condom the second time? In that case, she might well have refused consent - and, depending upon earlier conversations, the guy might have expected no consent.

You have more faith in the UK legal system than I do then.

Well I was probably discussing the theory of UK law rather than the practicalities - after all the particular issue here (or at least the one I raised) is whether it would be a crime under UK law, not whether you'd actually be prosecuted for it.

Rape in particular seems to be very under-prosecuted, even in cases considerably more clear cut than that.

My understanding is that an awful lot of rape cases hinge on his word against her word, hence the rather low prosecution rate (IIRC the rate of successful prosecution is low even considering the already low rate of cases being taken to court).

Mrs s sleeps so lightly that she will wake if i just have a naughty thought, let alone if I try and line up Mr Happy for the hole shot.

Not sure if this is the one I remember - warning, it doesn't contain pictures, but otherwise is probably NSFW (well it is mumsnet!)

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/relationships/1428091-Sensitive-question-about-H

Stoner - I appreciate you're not really adding anything much new to this thread, but given unlike most on here who are just anonymous beings in the ether, I've actually met you and mrs stoner, that really is too much information!

I don't think it's the sort of defence which would stand up on a one-night-stand

I think it depends entirely on the one night stand. (I also think a lot of people have very unimaginative sex lives.)

If you'd spent the night shagging someone six ways from Sunday, swinging from the light fittings and building up a mutual collection of friction burns and fingernail gouges, I think perhaps finding your partner naked next to you in a pool of warm Nutella the following morning could perhaps be a vague suggestion that maybe you could infer consent.

If you're genuinely expected to go "excuse me, I'm sorry if this seems a little forward, but would you mind awfully if I put my penis in your vagina please?" every time you have sex otherwise it's "rape", well, apart from anything else that's just downright offensive to anyone who's actually been raped.

I do hope that that's Nutella.

Well according to the consensus view in that thread I've been seriously sexually assaulted on numerous occasions. I'd best call the cops I suppose.

If you're genuinely expected to go "excuse me, I'm sorry if this seems a little forward, but would you mind awfully if I put my penis in your vagina please?" every time you have sex otherwise it's "rape",

well, apart from anything else that's just downright offensive to anyone who's actually been raped.

If you'd spent the night shagging someone six ways from Sunday, swinging from the light fittings and building up a mutual collection of friction burns and fingernail gouges, I think perhaps finding your partner naked next to you in a pool of warm Nutella the following morning could perhaps be a vague suggestion that maybe you could infer consent.

I still think that waking your partner up before going for it full bore might be deemed reasonable behaviour - no matter how much Nutella you've been using. Big difference between giving your partner no chance to actively consent and your verbal communication strawman.

[quote=Cougar ](I also think a lot of people have very unimaginative sex lives.)That - apparently.

@Aracer - you can almost hear the castration tongues being taken down from the shelf, pitchforks being handed out and torches lit.

But, it's still wrong, wronger than a wrong thing that's very, very wrong. Also, where's the fun if the other person is not fully involved. Really do not understand what this does for him.

I do hope that that's Nutella.

Nutella butties in bin, off to the chippie - thanks for that! 😯

I think that the issue of consent depends entirely on the people involved and needs to be taken on a person by person basis. But, I will say that I've never came across anyone who withdrew consent at any point.

[quote=glupton1976 ]I think that the issue of consent depends entirely on the people involved and needs to be taken on a person by person basis. But, I will say that I've never came across anyone who withdrew consent at any point.
If you're coming across them, it's usually a bit late.

Well according to the consensus view in that thread I've been seriously sexually assaulted on numerous occasions. I'd best call the cops I suppose.

Either there's something you're not telling us about your sexual preferences, or you're missing some important distinctions (and haven't actually read the thread properly at all).

So what happens if she falls asleep half way through sex? (not that this has ever happened on my watch :oops:)

You STOP having sex with them. Hard to believe but once someone loses consciousness they are no longer in a position to consent.

Even if you are in a loving relationship I think most women would find it odd that their partner wanted to have sex with them while they were fast asleep, personally I wouldn't be impressed. There's also a difference between waking someone up with gentle touching which leads to sex and ramming your cock in and getting going. The latter is bang out of order, the other quite pleasant and leaves plenty of room for. 'not now, I'm not in the mood' type responses.

If you're coming across them, it's usually a bit late.

Or you are very early

[quote=emma82 ]There's also a difference between waking someone up with gentle touching which leads to sex and ramming your cock in and getting going. The latter is bang out of order, the other quite pleasant and leaves plenty of room for. 'not now, I'm not in the mood' type responses.
Which is where there is a bit of a grey area - but not according to that mumsnet thread.

The fact is that Assange is a wimp and he should be extradited to Sweden to face the music he chose to play. If he's then extradited to the US THEN and only then can he turn around and say 'told you so'. But, like I said, he's a wimp and won't do that.

Either there's something you're not telling us about your sexual preferences, or you're missing some important distinctions (and haven't actually read the thread properly at all).

Or I'm disagreeing with their opinions. 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. The first time is a bit of a grey area IMO.

I suppose we must just be light sleepers but I still struggle with the idea that it's possible to have penetrative sex with someone without waking them up first.

There's also a difference between waking someone up with gentle touching which leads to sex and ramming your cock in and getting going. The latter is bang out of order, the other quite pleasant and leaves plenty of room for. 'not now, I'm not in the mood' type responses.

It seems according to most on mumsnet one is sexual assault and the other is rape, with no room for any grey area.

Does all this debate about what is and what is not rape miss the point. The Sweeds want to extradite him for Trial so they can have this debate conducted by experts in the sweedish legal system actually hearing the real evidence and seeing the real witnesses give their accounts and then decide wether or not it is rape according to sweedish law . That does seem to be the best way of resolving the issue. Assange seems to want to avoid that due process and hopes the matter can be cleared up by the collective wisdom of the internet.

If the whole thing is an American conspiracy to get him why did the americans not ask us to extradite him to the USA and why did he flee Sweeden to come here?

Which is where there is a bit of a grey area - but not according to that mumsnet thread.

Well either you've not read the thread properly, or you have a strange interpretation of "gentle touching" (and almost certainly a different one to emma).

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

Not in the eyes of the law it isn't - they got rid of "conjugal rights" some time ago.

[quote=GrahamS ]
To be honest I doubt it would be prosecuted in the UK.

Well the judges said it would have been a criminal offense in the UK too so the question is whether the CPS would push the issue and whether he'd be convicted not whether he'd be charged.

This is not about what George Galloway thinks or Assange thinks, this is about what the Swedish woman thinks and what the Swedish prosecutor believe. That is the basis by which Assange should be extradited and face the Swedish courts. Everything else is bullshiot.

crankboy - no you're missing the point. This discussion is about George Galloway making a comment on what Assange is accused of being classified as rape or not.

what Assange is accused of being classified as rape or not.

If the whole thing is an American conspiracy to get him why did the americans not ask us to extradite him to the USA and why did he flee Sweeden to come here?

because that request would have been refused if it meant he would face potential death penalty.

I can't believe how effective the propaganda is! These are obviously trumped-up charges and the Swedes obviously have no intention of actually taking things to trial (he isn't even charged with these "crimes", only wanted for questioning). Blatantly the US wants to extradite or otherwise snatch him away to try and prosecute him for the heinous crime of irritating them.

I don't care how "creepy" any of you think he is (by the way, that ain't a crime either), he isn't the criminal here. The real crimes were revealed in the leaks, and they were murderous and shameful.

Plus, all Wikileaks do is pass on the leaks - they aren't the original leakers. Should our newspapers all be extradited and tried in the US for repeating the leaks?

Not in the eyes of the law it isn't - they got rid of "conjugal rights" some time ago.

It's not about conjugal rights, it's about whether you could reasonably believe consent had been given. I've never had a conversation with my GF about whether in future it was ok to wake each other up with 'sexual touching' or whatever - therefore if it happens it is sexual assault/rape? Or can I decide afterwards?

I also think there are grey areas in terms of defining whether someone is asleep or not - surely there is a whole spectrum between deep, almost comatose sleep and 'a bit dozy'. I think having sex with someone who is completely out of it is very clearly wrong by most people's standards, but where is the line? What if you are half asleep too?

because that request would have been refused if it meant he would face potential death penalty.

I'd have thought potential life in a max security prison would be pretty dissuasive, too. Does anyone here think the US would really execute him for leaking the diplomatic cables??? The only civilian spies that the US have ever executed were the Rosenburgs, back in the 50s at the height of the Cold War, and they'd been sending atom bomb secrets to the Soviets... Hardly comparable.

I personally think he's in London to avoid the Swedish courts, not the US, and his plan has backfired.

The fact that he hung around in Sweden for so long, the fact that tweets and texts were deleted by the women, the fact that the original prosecutor wasn't interested but the new one (a politician) was, the fact that he remains un-charged, the fact that they could very easily interview him here - all these facts tell me you are wrong mogrim.

glenp:

(he isn't even charged with these "crimes", only wanted for questioning)

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

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise.

The fact that he hung around in Sweden for so long, the fact that tweets and texts were deleted by the women, the fact that the original prosecutor wasn't interested but the new one (a politician) was, the fact that he remains un-charged, the fact that they could very easily interview him here - all these facts tell me you are wrong mogrim.

Maybe, but he could be just as easily extradited from here, and it's clear the death penalty isn't a real risk, wherever he was extradited from.

So why didn't they arrest him and charge him when he was in Sweden?

the fact that he remains un-charged, the fact that they could very easily interview him here