Sparkle, given your strange notions regarding consent and rape, I think that you should read these:
There are no dream lovers for ‘Sleep Rape’ Victims by @felicitygerry
Laurie Penny (Penny Red) - It's Trigger Warning Week
Rapes might not all be the same, but they are all rapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
Consider the following example:
If a woman wakes up and she is either being penetrated or touched in a sexual manner, then since she could not have consented, is automatically a sex crime and illegal - even if they are in a loving relationship.
|
And?
Does being in a "loving relationship" automatically give a man the right to penetrate his partner while she is asleep?
Perhaps you would also like us to return to the days where marital rape was legal?
Someone who is asleep cannot consent to sex, and sex without consent is rape.
It is that simple.
It is wrong, legally and morally, to penetrate someone without consent. And it is wrong, legally and morally, to penetrate someone who is sleeping or otherwise unconscious and cannot even be
asked for consent in the first place!
You cannot just assume consent just because your partner has previously consented. That goes for long term relationships and one-night stands.
If my wife and I have sex when we go to bed, that does not give me the right to have sex with her the next morning while she is still asleep.
Consider also:
Assange and the complainant were not in a "loving relationship".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
That is nonsense, whether or not its a sex crime should be up to the person at the receiving end (in this case the woman), if she's decided she's been molested then she can go to the police and claim she was molested or raped (whichever is appropriate). It is NOT for anyone else to stick their nose into their business, look a few facts and then automatically assume rape, as seems to have been the case here. If the law still says its a crime, then in the interest of preventing innocent people from becoming labelled as sex offenders, the law should be changed.
|
The complainant has specifically accused Assange of penetrating her vagina with his penis while she was asleep and unable to consent.
That is a clear allegation of rape under Swedish law, and a clear allegation of rape under English law.
You cannot penetrate someone without consent, and you certainly cannot penetrate someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious. To do so is rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
I'm sure many men here have awoken to being touched in that way by a woman, but they'd never have dreamt of running to the police, having her charged with sexual molestation, and hoping to see her on the sex offenders list. Nor would they want that to happen should an account of what had happened that morning, somehow was mentioned within earshot of the police.
|
There is a difference between a man being woken by a woman touching him, and a woman being woken to find that she has been
penetrated in her sleep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
If a person could be so easily accused of rape by a third party, even against the wishes of the person at the receiving end, then it really makes a mockery of the word "rape", and is an insult to those who've been at the receiving end of rape.
|
The complainant has specifically accused Assange of penetrating her vagina with his penis while she was asleep and unable to consent.
That is a clear allegation of rape under Swedish law, and a clear allegation of rape under English law.
You cannot penetrate someone without consent, and you certainly cannot penetrate someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious. To do so is rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
Its been mentioned that if the US wants him then they could just have him extradited from here, well yes they could. But not if they've got a water board with Assange's name on it, then that might not be so simple....If they plan on forcibly extracting information from him, then the UK is a tinder box of future legal ramifications. Best let him leave the UK and deal with him later.
|
And Sweden would also be a "tinder box of future legal ramifications", given that it is also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights like the UK is, and as such is prohibited under Article 3 from extraditing anyone if they are at risk of torture or execution.