So the trojan corporation need to be charged with rape not the poor guy.
Seriously enough with spending resources/attention on ***** crying rape.
Seriously!!!!
Excuse me moderators, a ban is in order here, or allow people call rape victims whores.
did she struggle? did she do anything at the time to prevent him. if she tried to stop him at the time and he forced himself upon her then its rape. I just googled it and on some site its reported that one of the women went early next morning to get something to eat for the guy. clearly she wasn't very peeved off about him 'raping' her.
This case is full of irregularities. Just read up on it on the web.
Another case where I just shake my head. I wish people would keep their mouths shut concerning issues they have no formal knowledge of. A woman does not have to resist for it to be rape, and a substantial amount do not. Death before dishonor is only imposed by those who insist a woman must resist, regardless of consequences.
It's very probable that she went to breakfast with him afterward. She could have been in a state of shock, for one, which most victims are. I should continue, and try to enlighten a few people, but I loathe to waste my time on misogynistic cretins who only seek to ridicule the victimized so they feel safer in their own little worlds.
There is no "point of no return." When someone says "no," or "stop," or "I changed my mind," you stop. Once the act becomes unpleasant or forced it is no longer sex, it is rape.
Looking at the alleged facts in the Assange situation:
Miss A (1st woman):
Aug. 14: The woman, identified by Swedish officials only as Miss A, returns to Stockholm, 24 hours earlier than planned. The two go out for dinner, return to the apartment and have sex during which a condom breaks. She would later tell police that Assange used his body weight to hold her down during sex and that she was a victim of "unlawful coercion."
If she no longer wants to, and has expressed that, and he continues to force her to have sex, it is rape.
[quote]
Miss W (2nd woman):
Aug. 16: The second woman, identified only as Miss W by Swedish officials, calls Assange and they meet in Stockholm. They go by train to her hometown and to her apartment, where they have sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. Aug. 17: Miss W later tells police that Assange that morning had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep.
Both woman consented to having sex. I know I said I wouldn't go all legal - but was the revocation of consent a reasonable basis for saying that the act was no longer consensual but was forced?
[/QUOTE]
The night before, it was consensual; while she was asleep, it was not consensual. Tho I don't understand how she could sleep through it.
Neither person has "revoked consent." Consent is given at each individual instance. Saying yes once doesn't mean you're saying yes always.
Another case where I just shake my head. I wish people would keep their mouths shut concerning issues they have no formal knowledge of. A woman does not have to resist for it to be rape, and a substantial amount do not. Death before dishonor is only imposed by those who insist a woman must resist, regardless of consequences.
It's very probable that she went to breakfast with him afterward. She could have been in a state of shock, for one, which most victims are. I should continue, and try to enlighten a few people, but I loathe to waste my time on misogynistic cretins who only seek to ridicule the victimized so they feel safer in their own little worlds.
It's just disgusting.
damn! and then ppl wonder why men don't post around this place.
so i'm a misogynistic cretin (lol wotever that means... don't have a dictionary handy) merely for pointing out that in order for someone to know you have withdrawn your consent, you need to tell them or indicate it in some other way. Death before dishonor? Now where did that come from? Ghalib's shaer comes to mind:
wo baat saaray fasany main jis ka zikr na tha
wo baat unn ko bohat nagawar guzri hai!
I never implied that she should've resisted even if she felt threatened. You, on the other hand, are clearly implying she was in some kind of danger which is neither supported by allegations nor her own statements. Many people are implying that she was raped even though the autharities themselves aren't alleging that. He isn't even charged. They want him for questioning. The first allegation was of rape which was dropped by the swedes and the case closed. Some swedish politician intervened and the case was reopened and the allegation this time was something absurd which slips my mind. All of this is enough to at least open the possibility of the whole case being a reaction to him releasing the secret documents.
Next time you go on your feminist crusade just hold your anger in a bit. It is very easy for others to insult you in return from behind a keyboard.
Its a rape when man/woman takes some action next minute or next day. Its a plot when they take action after 4 months.
Its simple as that specially in western world where every single person has a privileged to walk to police station and get the action taken immediately without any fear and if the complainant is a female, police expedite the request anyway.
So the trojan corporation need to be charged with rape not the poor guy.
Seriously enough with spending resources/attention on ***** crying rape.
Seriously!!!!
Another case where I just shake my head. I wish people would keep their mouths shut concerning issues they have no formal knowledge of. A woman does not have to resist for it to be rape, and a substantial amount do not. Death before dishonor is only imposed by those who insist a woman must resist, regardless of consequences.
It's very probable that she went to breakfast with him afterward. She could have been in a state of shock, for one, which most victims are. I should continue, and try to enlighten a few people, but I loathe to waste my time on misogynistic cretins who only seek to ridicule the victimized so they feel safer in their own little worlds.
It's just disgusting.
so a woman can totally enjoy it and call it rape after??
Again, at this point everything said is an allegation, unproven in a court of law, but here’s a more recent excerpt about the circumstances of the case. “…one Assange’s lawyers ha[s] claimed the accusations stem from a “dispute over consensual but unprotected sex” and say the women only made the claims after finding out about each other’s relationships with Assange.”
So assuming that the sexual encounter was consensual, does the fact that it was “unprotected” (in Miss A’s case because the condom broke and in Miss W’s case because she was asleep) violate a woman’s sexual integrity? If the women are concerned about contracting an STD, would a blood test by Assange resolve their concerns?
so a woman can totally enjoy it and call it rape after??
Totally off-base Monk. Not resisting does not mean that she enjoyed it. And even if a woman did derive pleasure, if it was forced upon her, the act was done against her will.
Totally off-base Monk. Not resisting does not mean that she enjoyed it. And even if a woman did derive pleasure, if it was forced upon her, the act was done against her will.
I sehrysh its sad to see how impractical you media fed chicks could be.
I know you darlings are very pretty and precious, but no man with half a brain is going to risk his rep/career to "get with you" sweeties.
The ones who can have their pictures up on the internet already.
Having said that, police and justice system is not their to make F-in smoother for lose women.
They should be left alone to do real work.
Totally off-base Monk. Not resisting does not mean that she enjoyed it. And even if a woman did derive pleasure, if it was forced upon her, the act was done against her will.
These microlevel details are for lawyers to ponder. To me if a girl is coming out when guy is THE most talked about guy in the world and that too after 3 months of alleged "rape" that actually started consensually, there is something that is not right. I can understand such delay in remote locations of Pakistan but in a European country, she could have got guy arrested next morning
BTW, even in sexual act there almost is a point of no-return just like V1 speed of airplane take off. Once at that speed, Airplane HAS to take off no matter what even if cabin is on fire. Might be a bad analogy but just trying to keep it clean :)
Totally off-base Monk. Not resisting does not mean that she enjoyed it. And even if a woman did derive pleasure, if it was forced upon her, the act was done against her will.
Monk, your problem is you make sweeping statements that fail to consider the context and specific circumstances. You're painting every woman with the brush of in-your-eyes, a promiscuous Western woman of loose morals (who you make seem as if has no right to claim rape because of her past actions/character) and saying that all such woman cry rape after the fact and that none have that right.
Let's use two examples that respond to your comment:
Pious Muslim woman who is grabbed off the street during daylight hours. She is sexually assualted and fearing for her life, she does not resist or defend herself against the attacker. She may also have experienced an orgasm during the assualt. Was she raped? By your definition, since she experienced pleasure and did not fight, no she wasn't.
Liberal woman who has had multiple sexual partners. Her ex-boyfriend is staying at her place. He comes into her room uninvited and initiates a sexual encounter with her while she was sleeping, without asking her or being invited to share her bed. Is this rape - again, by your definition, no she wasn't because she invited the circumstances.
did you ever see little child playing with plastic toys/trucks ?
Did you notice how he/she is given some thing fake and he/she build a whole world of imagination around it.
Problem with you(certain chicks in life1) and some ppl(dudes in PA/WA) is they are given terms from some one smarter then them, now they HAVE to build some thing around it.
They cant just say "what the F... you think we are stupid"