131–140 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I see what you did there) There's a little difference, you wouldn't be the one getting pregnant. It's more like she lied about being HIV positive. That is, in fact, a crime.
She can get pregnant and use the courts to force you to pay child support for the next 18 years. I'd say it's no less serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. Even if they had consensual sex previously. Am I misunderstanding your comment?
> Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. I mean, that's a very grey and complicated area. I had an ex who would do that type of thing, and it was never discussed but was absolutely welcome. I suppose after the first time you could argue some type of implicit consent. Or maybe I'm just a Stockholm Syndrome candidate. I have no idea the dyn…
Consent has to be given prior to each occurrence, and therefore prior consent means nothing about future consent.
See, for example, the High Court judgment (linked elsewhere in this thread) on the EAW served for Assange's extradition to Sweden in 2011, where the High Court concludes that the offence would be rape under English law.
Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condo…
> unprotected sex should be agreed by both This is what forms the definition of “rape”. People might have a different idea when they hear this word, but this is the correct term from a technical standpoint.
I'm not sure why the charges keep being reported as "rape", when there's no suggestion he did any such thing. The charges relate to a Swedish law about not using a condom. The woman alleges that Assange removed the condom at some point during sex, without her consent to do so, and that she noticed afterwards. Is it wrong? Yes, of course it is. Is it "rape"? No, but the media has repeated it often enough that now the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. I mean, that's a very grey and complicated area. I had an ex who would do that type of thing, and it was never discussed but was absolutely welcome. I suppose after the first time you could argue some type of implicit consent. Or maybe I'm just a Stockholm Syndrome candidate. I have no idea the dyn…
At least in England and Sweden, it is definitely the case that one cannot consent if one is not conscious, and therefore consent has not been given, therefore an offence has been committed. I believe this is true in the US as well. Consent has to be given prior to each occurrence, and therefore prior consent means nothing about future consent. See, for example, the High Court judgment (linked elsewhere in this thread…
would that negate previously established consent? As in "hey if you wanna wake me up tomorrow with sex that would be nice"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The election outcome is obviously much more multifactor than that, but that doesn't change the fact that Assange was coordinating with Gucifer 2.0 against Clinton. Wikileaks wasn't neutral in that election.
This is just a spurious argument - and setting aside the Guccifer 2.0 sub-plot to the whole scam - Wikileaks has absolutely no requirement to be neutral. Their job is to publish things powerful people don't want published. That's it. Why should WL be on your side? Why shouldn't WL release info damaging to Clinton? It's hardly Assange's fault the US keeps committing war crimes and engaging in blatant corruption, is it…
(Also I'm euro and don't have a dog in this fight, I just lost all respect for Assange and Wikileaks).
I'm not sure why the charges keep being reported as "rape", when there's no suggestion he did any such thing. The charges relate to a Swedish law about not using a condom. The woman alleges that Assange removed the condom at some point during sex, without her consent to do so, and that she noticed afterwards. Is it wrong? Yes, of course it is. Is it "rape"? No, but the media has repeated it often enough that now the…
As has been mentioned multiple times, it was rape. The European Arrest Warrant says: ( https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html ) > 4. Rape > On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. This was ruled by the [High Court] to be rape under [Eng…
Technically untrue. That ruling is from the High Court of Justice, making a judgment under English law (they made no declaration as to its criminality under Scots or Irish law, nor are they competent to do so).
The later Supreme Court appeal didn't consider the question of dual criminality at all (it almost solely rested on the "judicial authority" of the issuer of the EAW).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in England and Sweden, it is definitely the case that one cannot consent if one is not conscious, and therefore consent has not been given, therefore an offence has been committed. I believe this is true in the US as well. Consent has to be given prior to each occurrence, and therefore prior consent means nothing about future consent. See, for example, the High Court judgment (linked elsewhere in this thread…
> one cannot consent if one is not conscious would that negate previously established consent? As in "hey if you wanna wake me up tomorrow with sex that would be nice"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone consents to have sex only on the condition of protection from disease and pregnancy, and you trick them into sex without a condom that is rape. There may be differences of degrees to the stereotypical violent behind-the-bushes rape. Those should and would be considered for purposes of sentencing. But it's still rape.
Does the law actually say so? To what extent does "rape by lying" exist? I imagine "I'm actually not a doctor" or "let me just remove my makeup" don't count... How about not paying a prostitute after sex (assuming prostitution is legal), does it count as rape (she consented to sex on the condition of paying) or just theft ? Are women that say they're on the pill but aren't, or that use the man's sperm to impregnate t…
This is a very interesting scenario you bring up.
Anna and Bob agree to have sex. Anna would prefer without a condom, Bob insists they must have a condom. Anna sabotages the condom by poking a pin through the package. They have consensual sex with the condom, which unbeknownst to Bob has a hole placed there by Anna. Anna becomes pregnant. Is it an absolute unquestionable legal fact that Anna raped Bob? Should Anna be arrested? If Anna leaves the country, should she be extradited to face justice?
And does this only matter for a particular kind of birth control? Anna tells Bob she is on the pill but she is not. Bob consents only on the condition that Anna is on the pill. They have sex. Is it an absolute unquestionable legal fact that Anna raped Bob? Should Anna be arrested?
What about sex conditions not related to birth control? Bob agrees to sex with Anna only on the condition he be allowed to wear his warm wool socks to bed. During sex, Anna finds the socks to be scratchy and pulls them off. Is it an absolute unquestionable legal fact that Anna raped Bob? Should Anna be arrested?