Would you call the allegations against Assange 'rape'?

thebigbiffo

I don't think there's been an AH thread on this element of the Assange case specifically, and I think it's hugely interesting, and yes, controversial.

Lets forget about everything except the charges - conspiracy forum's thataway

---

>>>

Today, George Galloway's in hot water for saying he doesn't believe the charges amount to rape. Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gorgeous-george-joins-the-assange-backers-who-dont-think-rape-is-rape-8063513.html

A bit of info on the charges from Wikipedia:

The EAW contained four complaints from two different women: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held plaintiff 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" plaintiff 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with plaintiff 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" plaintiff 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.

An extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court[237][238]. At the hearing, Assange's defence raised a variety of objections, including mismatches between the EAW and the original accuser statements to the Swedish police[239][240] that exaggerated the nature of the complaints[241][242]. In particular they argued the original police reports showed - contrary to the EAW - absence of alleged rape; absence of alleged force or injury; admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations; and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one.
The defence also highlighted evidence that: plaintiff 2 had later admitted to being "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep"; that the plaintiffs had originally been seeking to compel Assange to take an STD test rather than prosecution[243]; and that plaintiff 1 had thrown a Crayfish party party for Assange at her home the evening after the alleged incidents, from which she tweeted: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" and invited Assange to stay in her room afterwards.[244]

I'm with Galloway here, based on what we know. It's undisputed that both of the women in question had consensual sex with Assange. One even sent the tweet quoted above the following night ffs!!

So it's quite obvious the charges are trumped up, but the Swedish legal system allows for these...incidents...to be termed rape or sexual assault. In my view, they are most certainly not. What do the good citizens of AH think? Is this rape, sexual assault, bad sexual etiquette (as Galloway put it) or nothing at all?

eth0

Salt of the earth lad and the Yanks are after him for making a fool out of them

The King of Moo

Sex without a condom when the woman insists on using one, and rubbing your erect penis against a women sound like sexual assault to me.

Having sex with a sleeping or half-asleep woman is rape, I'd say.

Biggins

IF the woman asks for a condom to be put on - and the male don't - then continues to have sex WITH her consent - honestly, I don't know.
Rape?
Assault - maybe!

IF the woman asks for a condom to be put on - and the male don't - then continues to have sex WITHOUT her consent in any way - rape, no question.

Ficheall

The King of Moo wrote: »

Having sex with a [...] half-asleep woman is rape, I'd say.

Really? I dunno...

Should caveat here: assuming it's not drink or drugs induced "sleep", and that the sex just isn't doing much for her..

Also - how does one define "half-asleep"? :-/

Skylinehead

I don't understand the allegations that if he goes to Sweden he'll face extradition charges to the US for espionage. He's much more likely to be extradited from the UK than from Sweden. See Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer.

The King of Moo

The King of Moo wrote: »

Sex without a condom when the woman insists on using one, and rubbing your erect penis against a women sound like sexual assault to me.

Having sex with a sleeping or half-asleep woman is rape, I'd say.

You dont take your rapist out to brunch after her rapes you.

Lets not forget what this is really about, the 100 thousand+ people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, Innocent children raped and murdered by US forces.

thebigbiffo

The King of Moo wrote: »

Sex without a condom when the woman insists on using one, and rubbing your erect penis against a women sound like sexual assault to me.

Having sex with a sleeping woman is rape.

A: She just had consensual sex with him minutes before, and admits that. I'm just wondering, in the heat of the moment, with booze involved, is it possible that your sexual partner could fall partially asleep without you knowing and what6her this should be termed 'rape'?
B: Her original statement said 'half asleep' and was changed to 'asleep' in a later interview.
C: Both of these women were his sexual partners, or just about to be. Even if they were just flirting before the full deal and he got an erection which he rubbed against her how could it be an assault - I committed many a 'sexual assault' down the local teenage disco back in the day if this is the case.

Ha ha: Showed up your Ninja edit there! :-)

drunkmonkey

Absolute Bollix case, if men could pull off crap like that i'd have half of coppers arrested after Saturday night for brushing their boobies off me.

The King of Moo

Ficheall wrote: »

Really? I dunno...

If she's asleep, she can't give consent, so I'd call that rape.

As for being half-asleep, it's a grey area. Obviously a woman can't really give full consent in such a situation, but she might groggily give a nod.
The thing is, for the more awake person, it's very hard to know how aware a partially-awake person is of what's going on. You can be technically awake but still just out of a dreamstate and spout gibberish and not really be very aware of what's going on, but still be able to respond to questions, but with nonsense.
I've been in that state many an early morning.
I don't think a half-asleep person could give fully-informed consent.
Why would someone want to have sex with someone who's half asleep anyway?

ejmaztec

There will be no closure without a court case, and he's going to carry on dodging one. They might be trumped up charges, but we're not going to know one way or the other.

Just because he's the Wikileaks man doesn't mean to say that he's flawless.

drunkmonkey

The King of Moo wrote: »

If she's asleep, she can't give consent, so I'd call that rape.

If she was that drunk she's hasn't a clue what happened.

Colmustard

Yes
No means no
Beside WTF does he think he is that he doesn't have to answer a charge.

This is Sweden a democracy with a just legal system, its not China or North Korea.

thebigbiffo

The King of Moo wrote: »

If she's asleep, she can't give consent, so I'd call that rape.

This is what Galloway's getting at - that she had ALREADY given her consent to have sex with him, and they did. If he rolls off, dozes for 5 minutes then goes for intercourse again without knowing she's asleep it can't possibly be rape...in my world anyway!

Biggins

Skylinehead wrote: »

I don't understand the allegations that if he goes to Sweden he'll face extradition charges to the US for espionage. He's much more likely to be extradited from the UK than from Sweden. See Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer.

Don't wish to side-track thread but just for clarity - the difference with Gary McKinnon and possibly Richard O'Dwyer is that they did what they did for possible malicious, non-direct benefit reasons.
For the hell if it and perhaps nothing more.

What Assange is wanted for by the states, could be argued that he did what he did in releasing stuff, was part of a freedom of expression and right of the people to know, etc...
(Leaving aside if he was right or wrong on the above for a another thread)

USA doesn't wish to leave its 'cousin' with a nightmare tainting that if Assange was extradited from English soil, then they (England) might be further accused of being anti-freedom of expression or anti-right to know, the world over.
English politicians would not be happy to be left in that political mess alone by the USA - and the USA knows it.
...So they are playing it very carefully how they get their target.

...Normal thread topic shall now resume!

The King of Moo

thebigbiffo wrote: »

A: She just had consensual sex with him minutes before, and admits that. I'm just wondering, in the heat of the moment, with booze involved, is it possible that your sexual partner could fall partially asleep without you knowing and what6her this should be termed 'rape'?
B: Her original statement said 'half asleep' and was changed to 'asleep' in a later interview.
C: Both of these women were his sexual partners, or just about to be. Even if they were just flirting before the full deal and he got an erection which he rubbed against her how could it be an assault - I committed many a 'sexual assault' down the local teenage disco back in the day if this is the case.

Ha ha: Showed up your Ninja edit there! :-)

Yes, ha ha.

You've really highlighted the main issue here which is that we don't have access to all the facts about what exactly happened, so we can only go on what he's charged with, which is sexual assault and rape, and not what might have happened which might have been different from what he's been charged with, maybe.

I don't really see much point in speculating on that, so why not just let the judicial system decide?

Also, if you deliberately rubbed your erect penis against someone, that's sexual harassment.

thebigbiffo

Colmustard wrote: »

Yes
No means no
Beside WTF does he think he is that he doesn't have to answer a charge.

This is Sweden a democracy with a just legal system, its not China or North Korea.

This is what I'm getting at - how could the legal system be 'just' if you can be charged with some of this s'hite and term it 'rape' and 'sexual assault'!?

The King of Moo

thebigbiffo wrote: »

This is what Galloway's getting at - that she had ALREADY given her consent to have sex with him, and they did. If he rolls off, dozes for 5 minutes then goes for intercourse again without knowing she's asleep it can't possibly be rape...in my world anyway!

How do you not realise the person you're having sleep with is asleep? Also, if there's a five-minute gap between acts of intercourse, why assume the consent covers both acts, especially when the second time, your partner is neither moving nor speaking?

drunkmonkey

The King of Moo wrote: »

Also, if you deliberately rubbed your erect penis against someone, that's sexual harassment.

Not if you've just banged them. If you have there's nothing wrong with it.

thebigbiffo

The King of Moo wrote: »

Also, if you deliberately rubbed your erect penis against someone, that's sexual harassment.

the woman was going on to be (very soon after) his sexual partner. I don't see how this can be possible WITHOUT him rubbing his erect penis off her!

Biggins

The King of Moo wrote: »

...if you deliberately rubbed your erect penis against someone, that's sexual harassment.

Sexual assault I believe more so (open to be wrong).
Sexual harassment I think is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

Colmustard

thebigbiffo wrote: »

This is what I'm getting at - how could the legal system be 'just' if you can be charged with some of this s'hite and term it 'rape' and 'sexual assault'!?

I think it was rape there was an element of the girls not consenting, No means NO.

Besides let the court decide that, would you rather women being afraid to forward a charge on fear of being thought ridicules, all allegations of rape has to be investigated.

The King of Moo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not if you've just banged them. If you have there's nothing wrong with it.

Even if she doesn't want you to do it and clearly states so?

Not that we know that that happened, but neither do we know that it didn't either, as with so much of this case.

So much of the speculation on this case, in various public fora, seems to be partisan, designed to cast aspersions on the moral character of the two women, rather than genuinely seeking the truth.

It reminds me of this woeful article by Naomi Wolf in The Guardian before they turned against him, where she concocted a dreadful argument for publicly naming sex-crime accusers, all to basically attack the two women.

Whether there was a real crime or not, the level of debate this issue has provoked from people who should know better is shocking.

The King of Moo

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the woman was going on to be (very soon after) his sexual partner. I don't see how this can be possible WITHOUT him rubbing his erect penis off her!

If for example, she didn't want him to rub his penis against her at the time.

You see the problem here? It's all just speculation, and I don't really see the point of it.

Biggins wrote: »

Sexual assault I believe more so (open to be wrong).
Sexual harassment I think is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

I wasn't sure which it would be classed as, so I chose sexual harassment. I thought it was probably sexual assault, but something told me that might sound a bit strong.

Mr. CooL ICE

If it was rape, was it legitimate rape?

golden lane

according to swedish law....it is..rape

according to the president of ecuador.....it's victimisation...

Wacker The Attacker

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Absolute Bollix case, if men could pull off crap like that i'd have half of coppers arrested after Saturday night for brushing their boobies off me.

I wouldnt

Wasnt there something about this woman in question who had a website about getting back at men and this was a tactic that she used ? ? Or something to that effect ?

hooradiation

thebigbiffo wrote: »

This is what Galloway's getting at - that she had ALREADY given her consent to have sex with him, and they did. If he rolls off, dozes for 5 minutes then goes for intercourse again without knowing she's asleep it can't possibly be rape...in my world anyway!

You may be interested to learn that the "invite them over the threshold once, they can come in again any time" thing? That's how vampires work. Not sexual consent.

GalwayGuy2

@Biggins

Sweden can't legally extradite someone if there's a chance they'll be executed or tortured, and since, I don't think, america can say there won't be a death penalty until an actual court case is finished, then they cannot legally extradite him.

In my personal opinion, what he did was rape. If she was asleep, then she couldn't legally say yes or no. And if she did give consent, then the court case will prove him not-guilty.

I did find it slightly disturbing that almost overnight Sweden became America's supposed lapdog...

Wasnt there something about this woman in question who had a website about getting back at men and this was a tactic that she used ? ? Or something to that effect ?

I've heard that alot, but I've never actually seen the website. And I don't think I'd trust one if I did see it, since I have no idea how to check when a website is created.

ManMade

From reading this tread it seems people take Assanges word or they make the serious allegation that the Swedish Police and Justice system is corrupt. If he is innocent he will be found innocent. There clearly is a reason why the Swedes want him and the UK courts agreed that there is enough evidence to extradite him. Unless... God help us.. all of Europe is corrupt.

af_thefragile

The US just want to get him for Wikileaks and to make an example out of him so that no one in the future tries to expose the US corruption again!!!!!

Biggins

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

@Biggins

Sweden can't legally extradite someone if there's a chance they'll be executed or tortured, and since, I don't think, america can say there won't be a death penalty until an actual court case is finished, then they cannot legally extradite him.

In my personal opinion, what he did was rape. If she was asleep, then she couldn't legally say yes or no. And if she did give consent, then the court case will prove him not-guilty.

I did find it slightly disturbing that almost overnight Sweden became America's supposed lapdog...



I've heard that alot, but I've never actually seen the website. And I don't think I'd trust one if I did see it, since I have no idea how to check when a website is created.

I have to disagree with a lot above however I'm not going to sidetrack this thread further.
There are enough threads about this matter where its been discussed already.

dirtyden

No-one posting on this thread is in anyway clear on what happened no more than I am.

The only fact is that the Swedish justice system believes that there may be a case to answer to. With that information I think he should be extradited to sweden where he can defend his position.

I would take any of the media reports with a large pinch of salt as someone like Assange will be divisive and the media has become depressingly agenda driven. A court of law would be the best place for justice to be done and not trial by media for these 2 ladies or Assange.

latenia

If I was him I'd head to Sweden and just deal with it. The conditions he's living in now are worse than a Swedish prison and IMO he's a lot safer in Europe than in South America where the CIA could pick him up at will and say "fúck the cosequences."

Grayson

ManMade wrote: »

From reading this tread it seems people take Assanges word or they make the serious allegation that the Swedish Police and Justice system is corrupt. If he is innocent he will be found innocent. There clearly is a reason why the Swedes want him and the UK courts agreed that there is enough evidence to extradite him. Unless... God help us.. all of Europe is corrupt.

He said he's go to Sweden if they assured him that there was no possibility he could be extradited to the US.

As for the allegations of assault....
Firstly, I'm not a woman but I'd imagine that for a man to have sex with a woman whilst she was only half asleep one of two things must occur. He'd either have to be very small and very fast or she would have to be so intoxicated that she couldn't say no.
Or he started and she continued. Because I don't see any mention of her saying no. Or am I missing that bit.

Secondly, if a woman allows a man to have sex with her without a condom, that's not rape or assault. Unless she says no and he forces himself, it's not rape. I do think that it's possible for her to kinda say no. Not too forcefully and then just give up saying it and still have sex. It's kinda like saying no and then saying "ahh **** it". Even though she wants a condom, she's still having consensual sex.

Thirdly, does rubbing his penis up against her refer to spooning? I'm not sure of the context of the event so I'm just thinking that if it was the second woman and it was when he stayed in her room, the night after they had sex, that's not that unusual.

Grayson

One more thing. Am I right in thinking that he hasn't been charged in the way our justice system would charge people. It's more like a special status that they give suspects?

Editing to add.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_The_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

On 18 November 2010, prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor.[22] As he was now living in England, the court ordered him detained (häktad) in absentia.[23][24] On appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant on suspicion of våldtäkt (rape), olaga tvång (duress/unlawful coercion), and two cases of sexuellt ofredande,[25][26][27][28] which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[29] "sexual assault",[30] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[31][32][19][26][27] The Supreme Court of Sweden decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.[citation needed][33] On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.[34]
Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence. [35] The prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations[36], including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions[37] .

I know it's a serious charge. But still a translation of sexual annoyance just makes it seem funny

B0jangles

Grayson wrote: »

Secondly, if a woman allows a man to have sex with her without a condom, that's not rape or assault. Unless she says no and he forces himself, it's not rape. I do think that it's possible for her to kinda say no. Not too forcefully and then just give up saying it and still have sex. It's kinda like saying no and then saying "ahh **** it". Even though she wants a condom, she's still having consensual sex.

Wow, you are so very ****ing wrong and disgusting!

(P.S, if you have done this yourself you are a rapist HTH)

The King of Moo

Grayson wrote: »

He said he's go to Sweden if they assured him that there was no possibility he could be extradited to the US.

As for the allegations of assault....
Firstly, I'm not a woman but I'd imagine that for a man to have sex with a woman whilst she was only half asleep one of two things must occur. He'd either have to be very small and very fast or she would have to be so intoxicated that she couldn't say no.
Or he started and she continued. Because I don't see any mention of her saying no. Or am I missing that bit.

Secondly, if a woman allows a man to have sex with her without a condom, that's not rape or assault. Unless she says no and he forces himself, it's not rape. I do think that it's possible for her to kinda say no. Not too forcefully and then just give up saying it and still have sex. It's kinda like saying no and then saying "ahh **** it". Even though she wants a condom, she's still having consensual sex.

Thirdly, does rubbing his penis up against her refer to spooning? I'm not sure of the context of the event so I'm just thinking that if it was the second woman and it was when he stayed in her room, the night after they had sex, that's not that unusual.

That's still rape, as in none of these cases is consent given. Even if she woke up and had no problem with him continuing, do you not see anything wrong with someone having sex with someone who's asleep, regardless of whether they wake up? Even if they were only half asleep to begin with?

And "kinda" saying no: how does that work? Just saying "n?" If a person says "no," even once, their partner should accept that.
"No" means "no." You'd think you wouldn't need to keep saying that in the 21st century.

Grayson wrote: »

One more thing. Am I right in thinking that he hasn't been charged in the way our justice system would charge people. It's more like a special status that they give suspects?

Editing to add.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_The_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority



I know it's a serious charge. But still a translation of sexual annoyance just makes it seem funny

Not to most people.

Grayson

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's still rape, as in none of these cases is consent given. Even if she woke up and had no problem with him continuing, do you not see anything wrong with someone having sex with someone who's asleep, regardless of whether they wake up? Even if they were only half asleep to begin with?

Remind me to tell your missus not to ever wake you up with a blow job or she'll end up in jail.

My point was that unless he was really fast and really small, she'd have woken up when it started (that was sarcasm. I'll make sure to stick in a sarcasm smiley next time just for you) . I don't believe it's possible for a woman to sleep during sex unless she's drugged. the OP said she was half asleep. And the Wiki page I linked to said it happened in the morning. So maybe groggy and hungover. But not unconscious and unable to say no.

As for kinda saying no. I was woken up by I girl I'd slept with. It was later in the night and she was all over me. I remember half heartedly saying we needed a condom and reaching for one. But it never happened. We ended up having sex. That's what I mean by kinda. My first thought was stick a jonny on. But in the end I got caught up in what was happening and I just had sex. Tell me, was I sexually assaulted? Am I a rape victim? Cos I don't feel like one and I think if I called myself that I'd be mocking people who were actually raped. But by your definition I was sexually assaulted.

The King of Moo wrote: »

Not to most people.

Thanks. I always have trouble figuring out what most people are thinking. I'm glad that you know.

ManMade

Anyhow by the looks of it he is going to Sweden unless he is willing to live in that small embassy forever. His whole speech was trying to put a brave face on it. I donno I don't know enough of hard facts to say anymore really. Let's put it this way I am all for free speech but rape destroys peoples lives and anyone found guilty of it should be put away for a long long time. But if it the allegations are found to be a farce it would be a whole different ball game for Western Civilisation.

K-9

From looking at the charges I'd say having sex without a condom despite their wishes is rape, there's a reason people use them!

If what his defence say is true well, I don't think it is.

ManMade

Grayson wrote: »

Tell me, was I sexually assaulted?

Not if you did any thrusting

Millicent

Grayson wrote: »

As for kinda saying no. I was woken up by I girl I'd slept with. It was later in the night and she was all over me. I remember half heartedly saying we needed a condom and reaching for one. But it never happened. We ended up having sex. That's what I mean by kinda. My first thought was stick a jonny on. But in the end I got caught up in what was happening and I just had sex. Tell me, was I sexually assaulted? Am I a rape victim? Cos I don't feel like one and I think if I called myself that I'd be mocking people who were actually raped. But by your definition I was sexually assaulted.

But you knew you weren't wearing a condom, right? If the girl in the Assange case thought he had one on and agreed to have sex with him under that condition, that could be seen as assault.

Did the girl in your history have sex with you after you had requested a condom? Because that could be seen as an assault.

Grayson

Millicent wrote: »

But you knew you weren't wearing a condom, right? If the girl in the Assange case thought he had one on and agreed to have sex with him under that condition, that could be seen as assault.

Did the girl in your history have sex with you after you had requested a condom? Because that could be seen as an assault.

You're a girl. I'd imagine you can tell whether they're wearing one? Plus they are messy to put on. It's the worst thing about them. You have to pause, get the packet out, open the packet, Figure out which way it goes on before finally putting it on (and then mentally say "ohhh... that's cold". The guys know what I'm talking about). You kinda notice someone putting them on. That's why I asked about if it was possible for a guy to have sex with a girl when she was half asleep and she could stay half asleep. I'm a hetro guy so obviously I've never had someone place something in me whilst I was sleeping, but I'd imagine it's something you'd notice the second it starts?

And then when the sex starts, it's always a little bit easier with a condom since the lubrication makes initial penetration easier. So you could tell, right?

In my case, what happened was that my first thought was a condom. I probably spent about 30 seconds to a minute murmuring about one, saying no and wildly flailing with my left hand so I could grab one whilst still kissing the girl. In the end I gave up and had sex. The next morning I went through the whole "jesus that was stupid" but at the point where it happened I just gave up and went with the flow.
So I wanted to have sex with a condom, but I was still a willing participant in what came next.

It was my understanding from reading the OP and that wiki page (because let's face it, there's not a load of facts) that the one of the girls (if not both) had consensual sex without a condom when they wanted one. They initially went to the police it was to ask if they could force him to have a HIV test. Then the prosecutor decided there was no evidence any rape had occurred. At that point it sounded like the girl had done something silly and wanted a test as reassurance.

The King of Moo

Grayson wrote: »

Remind me to tell your missus not to ever wake you up with a blow job or she'll end up in jail.

My point was that unless he was really fast and really small, she'd have woken up when it started (that was sarcasm. I'll make sure to stick in a sarcasm smiley next time just for you) . I don't believe it's possible for a woman to sleep during sex unless she's drugged. the OP said she was half asleep. And the Wiki page I linked to said it happened in the morning. So maybe groggy and hungover. But not unconscious and unable to say no.

As for kinda saying no. I was woken up by I girl I'd slept with. It was later in the night and she was all over me. I remember half heartedly saying we needed a condom and reaching for one. But it never happened. We ended up having sex. That's what I mean by kinda. My first thought was stick a jonny on. But in the end I got caught up in what was happening and I just had sex. Tell me, was I sexually assaulted? Am I a rape victim? Cos I don't feel like one and I think if I called myself that I'd be mocking people who were actually raped. But by your definition I was sexually assaulted.




Thanks. I always have trouble figuring out what most people are thinking. I'm glad that you know.

First of all, I'd be very disturbed if my hypothetical girlfriend woke me up by giving me a blowjob. I'm not comfortable with anyone performing any kind of sexual act on me while I'm asleep, and I would not be comfortable being in a sexual relationship with someone who enjoyed either having sex with sleeping (or even half-asleep) people, or wanted other people to have sex with them while they slept.

As for your case, you say yourself you half-heartedly mentioned a condom, but if the girl had sex with you after you insisted or requested you use a condom, then that was assault.
So if Assange had sex with her after she insisted on using a condom, that's assault. Why not add more speculation to that which the thread is filled with and suggest, perhaps, that after insisting on using a condom, she only agreed to have sex with him due to being intimated? Would that be ok?

Millicent

Grayson wrote: »

You're a girl. I'd imagine you can tell whether they're wearing one? Plus they are messy to put on. It's the worst thing about them. You have to pause, get the packet out, open the packet, Figure out which way it goes on before finally putting it on (and then mentally say "ohhh... that's cold". The guys know what I'm talking about). You kinda notice someone putting them on. That's why I asked about if it was possible for a guy to have sex with a girl when she was half asleep and she could stay half asleep. I'm a hetro guy so obviously I've never had someone place something in me whilst I was sleeping, but I'd imagine it's something you'd notice the second it starts?

And then when the sex starts, it's always a little bit easier with a condom since the lubrication makes initial penetration easier. So you could tell, right?

In my case, what happened was that my first thought was a condom. I probably spent about 30 seconds to a minute murmuring about one, saying no and wildly flailing with my left hand so I could grab one whilst still kissing the girl. In the end I gave up and had sex. The next morning I went through the whole "jesus that was stupid" but at the point where it happened I just gave up and went with the flow.
So I wanted to have sex with a condom, but I was still a willing participant in what came next.

It was my understanding from reading the OP and that wiki page (because let's face it, there's not a load of facts) that the one of the girls (if not both) had consensual sex without a condom when they wanted one. They initially went to the police it was to ask if they could force him to have a HIV test. Then the prosecutor decided there was no evidence any rape had occurred. At that point it sounded like the girl had done something silly and wanted a test as reassurance.

To be honest, I wouldn't have any basis for comparison -- I've never not used one so I don't know how much of a difference there is. With a bit of drink on you, I'd imagine the basis for comparison gets lessened further.

For the sleeping thing, I know girls who have woken up to someone having sex with them without knowing how long it went on. Heavy sleepers/heavy drinkers -- possible for one not to wake up right away. Half asleep -- I dunno, tbh. If there were drugs/drink involved, it might take a few moments to register.

This whole case is very confusing though. It's hard to distinguish what the accusations actually are and what Assange is accused of doing.

From the Wiki:

The EAW contained four complaints from two different women: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held plaintiff 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" plaintiff 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with plaintiff 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" plaintiff 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body

Based on that alone, I would call any of those accusations assault. Remains to be seen though -- it's too convoluted a case to have a clear idea of at this point, I think.

Biggins

There is much detail to this case of Assange - I have posted just some some details and possible question HERE that really should be asked.

Feel free to disagree on any points but certain events are as described in the timeline provided and the actions of others involved with the case, are also on record.

Grayson

The King of Moo wrote: »

As for your case, you say yourself you half-heartedly mentioned a condom, but if the girl had sex with you after you insisted or requested you use a condom, then that was assault.

But I did request a condom. I changed my mind but I did initially request one. So is that assault? No. I did something I didn't want to, but I was an entirely willing participant.

That's what I mean when i said that could have happened to the girl. Since we haven't read the full report and the Swedish police have refused to question Assange in London (which they're allowed to do. They just haven't bothered and have said that he has to go to Sweden) we really don't know what happened.

But it is possible for someone to say no sex without a condom and still go through with it.

Grayson

Biggins wrote: »

There is much detail to this case of Assange - I have posted just some some details and possible question HERE that really should be asked.

Feel free to disagree on any points but certain events are as described in the timeline provided and the actions of others involved with the case, are also on record.

Looking at one of the links you provided it appears that the condom broke during sex and she's saying he broke it deliberately. Hense the reason we're all talking about sex without a condom. (Boy do I feel silly mentioning my sex life now)

Edit to add. How the hell do you prove someone deliberately tore a condom?

Biggins

Grayson wrote: »

Looking at one of the links you provided it appears that the condom broke during sex and she's saying he broke it deliberately. Hense the reason we're all talking about sex without a condom. (Boy do I feel silly mentioning my sex life now)

In that very instance, it boils down to a he said/she said situation.
I don't know who is telling the truth.

All we can do is take other possible opinions and judge them - or question them:

In police interview says Anna that she believed that Julian had deliberately broken the condom is already associated with intercourse, "the crime". Consequently, the condom has been important to her. Anna should therefore reasonably have looked at condom closer.

Then we come to the next remarkable point. Anna has not studied the condom closer. How can she be "convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, the condom broke up at the head of the penis"? And how can she, without having studied the condom closer, be sure where it was destroyed?

It seems that Anna is psychic. Not only was she convinced that Julian ruined condom deliberately, she was convinced was the condom was destroyed.

There is far more interesting points here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsamtycke.nu%2F2012%2F03%2F05%2Ffallet-assange-kondomen-talar-ut%2F

All are free of course to disagree with the person conclusion - but they must at least look at his questions.

Grayson wrote: »

How the hell do you prove someone deliberately tore a condom?

Thats a damn good question!