[thesteve]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Twenty-something Sweedish girls? And with him near 50? How ugly could they have been?

Who knows, it was a tech conference.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Twenty-something Sweedish girls? And with him near 50? How ugly could they have been?

I think he's not even 40 yet... though be it a rather tangential topic.

[adamwagg]

Yeah the 'sex' crime seems really odd. Though I'm not sure I agree about the claims that its really the US behind it to shut him up.

[Dwight Schrute]

not sure if someone already mentioned this, but he was arrested today in London. I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent, but the timing of this is suspect. of course, his actions give me cause for concern too - if anyone does anything to me, I'm releasing some really heavy duty crap. blackmail and / or extortion hardly give one a warm fuzzy feeling here.

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Did anyone look up the "sex crime".

Short version. He had consensual sex with a 20-something woman at a conference, then a few days later with another who had volunteered for the conference and dressed to attract his attention because of a desire to date / sleep with him (she called the sex boring). Later they both found out that each other had slept with him and have charged him with (and this is apparently a real charge in Sweeden) "Sex by surprise".

I read an article (I don't remember where) that described events like this:

1. He had sex with the first woman, at whose flat he was staying, and the condom broke.
2. He traveled on the second woman's dime to have a liaison with her. He wore a condom the first time; the second time, though she claims she told him to, he would not do so.
3. Second girl phones first, they begin to suspect the first condom breaking was intentional and the condom-less sex was an act of violence.
4. They get a lawyer to prosecute him for a sexual crime, namely, that he used sex as a power trip to abuse the women by inseminating them against their wishes.

Of note is the fact that, according to the article I was reading, both women are associated with feminist causes, and to construe such an act as "violence" or "abuse" against them is easy to understand. In fact, I would argue that if their account of events is accurate, what he did was abusive - if he sabotaged the condom (difficult to imagine on its own), then his actions in the consensual sex were abusive. If he insisted on having sex without protection in the second case, against the protestations of the woman, AND if the woman's autonomy was sufficiently clouded by Assange's celebrity, then it also would be an abusive act. And if the second claim is true, it would lend some credibility to the claim that the first condom was sabotaged.

Of course, it all seems rather difficult to prove, even if true, and it wouldn't be the first time someone decided to capitalize on their trysts with a famous person.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

He had sex with the first woman, at whose flat he was staying, and the condom broke.

Talk about your wikileaks...

[BillSPrestonEsq]

It strikes me as if those "crimes" would be impossible to prove. Seriously. It strikes me that one would have to presume guilt to prove it.

It seems to me to be a bit strange that a condom breaking could be a crime...

If the second girl truly was not consensual in the sex, that would be simple rape, no? If she was complicit in the acts... it seems rather strange to call it a crime if it was consensual. Just seems really strange to me.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by MisterDominator

blackmail and / or extortion hardly give one a warm fuzzy feeling here.

See my thread on the lame-duck session of congress.. or anything related to "intellectual properly"

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

It strikes me as if those "crimes" would be impossible to prove. Seriously. It strikes me that one would have to presume guilt to prove it.

It seems to me to be a bit strange that a condom breaking could be a crime...

If the second girl truly was not consensual in the sex, that would be simple rape, no? If she was complicit in the acts... it seems rather strange to call it a crime if it was consensual. Just seems really strange to me.

Part of it lies in the definition of "consent." If there's a high power distance between the two people involved, and one uses his or her power to persuade the other to do something that they normally would not agree to, then the argument goes that they didn't actually consent, even if they said they did at the time. So, by saying that she insisted he wear the condom, but he didn't, and the fact that he's a highly visible celebrity, they are probably arguing that his refusal to wear the condom over her objections negated the fact that with the condom, it would have been consensual. Legally, consent is more than just saying "Okay." You can't consent to something, for example, without knowing what you're consenting to. You also can't consent to something if you're being coerced in any way (even psychological). I expect they'll claim that his proceeding with the act despite her protestations indicates that she was coerced into continuing when it became clear that her standard would not be met.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

Part of it lies in the definition of "consent." If there's a high power distance between the two people involved, and one uses his or her power to persuade the other to do something that they normally would not agree to, then the argument goes that they didn't actually consent, even if they said they did at the time. So, by saying that she insisted he wear the condom, but he didn't, and the fact that he's a highly visible celebrity, they are probably arguing that his refusal to wear the condom over her objections negated the fact that with the condom, it would have been consensual. Legally, consent is more than just saying "Okay." You can't consent to something, for example, without knowing what you're consenting to. You also can't consent to something if you're being coerced in any way (even psychological). I expect they'll claim that his proceeding with the act despite her protestations indicates that she was coerced into continuing when it became clear that her standard would not be met.

So essentially a high powered individual is open to rape charges no matter what consent they receive in their experience? How does one prove any of this? That is my question. It seems like a slippery slope to me. My point is, after the fact this is at best a he said, she said. He can deny she requested a condom, etcetera. It looks rather dicey to me to prove, without the law patently choosing one side to believe.

What if equipment actually does malfunction? Condoms are known to fail. I don't know. I am just saying from a perspective of innocent until proven guilty, this does not make much sense. (I am by no means certain Sweden has that presumption either,) But it seems to me that the law has to be slanted to a dangerous degree for such a crime to be prosecuted.

This just seems strange. It seems more like buyers remorse to me in that it is only after the women meet that they decide to prosecute.

I in no way shape or form support sex outside of marriage, but stuff like this scares me.

[Ted Logan]

I totally agree that it seems like it would be a very difficult case to prosecute, and the big reason is exactly what you're saying - the "facts" of the case seem equally open to the interpretation of an abusive misogynist or a couple of opportunistic or misanthropic women. But I do think that, prosecutable or not, it is abusive to use one's power or fame to put someone else into a position where they will acquiesce to one's refusal to stop when the non-negotiable prerequisites are thrown out. If, and it's a HUGE "if," she required him to use a condom and he refused or removed it (one story says he first agreed, then stopped using it), and if she said to stop, and if he continued anyway, and if she did not physically attempt to remove herself from the situation, then I think you've got a vulnerable woman preyed upon by an abusive man.

I'm not sure how you could prove any of that, of course.

[slap_j]

Have you guys seen this yet?

[Demon_Hunter]

Ladies and Gentlemen. The representative from the Great state of Texas.