Wake up sex is great. I would be happy with anyone who I slept with to initiate wake up sex with me and I would hope they would expect the same. If I wake up however and say stop then I would expect them to stop. So in that respect (no pun intended) I agree with Galloway.
Except that the allegation is that
1) the agreement was the use of condoms.
2) Assange chose not to use a condom.
3) Assange did not stop when asked.
Even then there's a remote possibility that the woman did not realise he wasn't wearing a condom and assumed he was or asked him and he lied in which case she did not have to ask him to stop for it to be a sexual misdemeanor and as such one of the lower categories of rape according to Swedish law.
Put it this way if Assange knew he had an STD, and the bogey man is AIDS, then in some countries he would be guilty of a form of reckless endangerment. Also if the women concerned were not on the pill then the use of condoms and/or withdrawal might be their chosen form of contraception.
Simply put, Assange was acting like a cult figure or celebrity and put his own pleasure above "safe sex" and as such he could be sued in a civil court for damages due to the alarm he has caused.
Someone just tweeted "Ex-UK ambassador to Uzbekistan @CraigMurrayOrg just named one of Assange's accusers on the BBC, said it's OK: he's married to a rape victim".
A complete over reaction from Joan Smith, who made a proper arse of herself, and is still at it today judging by her Twitter feed.
Supposedly if you take moral issue with abortion you're a ******. A far more outrageous and offensive statement than Murrays, seeing as he did nothing more this misspeak.
A complete over reaction from Joan Smith, who made a proper arse of herself, and is still at it today judging by her Twitter feed.
Supposedly if you take moral issue with abortion you're a ******. A far more outrageous and offensive statement than Murrays, seeing as he did nothing more this misspeak.
Interesting peice on Craig Murrays blog which discusses this. The accuser outed herself as the alleged victim in 2010. Surely once the alleged victim has put her name forward then anyone should be able to name her. The faux outrage by Smith and Esler seems to be way over the top.
George Galloway is entitled to his opinion, isn`t he? Personally I think he has the utmost respect for women and he stands up for the oppressed. You never hear him putting the boot into the poor or the unemployed. He defends immigrants and has a good social conscience. Long may he continue.
Interesting peice on Craig Murrays blog which discusses this. The accuser outed herself as the alleged victim in 2010. Surely once the alleged victim has put her name forward then anyone should be able to name her. The faux outrage by Smith and Esler seems to be way over the top.
It reminds me of this similar moral outrage on Sky Sports many years ago.
And you are, of course, precisely right. Why should Murray be ashamed, and why should we be outraged at him for naming her, when she happily "outed" herself. She's not asking for anonymity, and I don't care too much therefore about Swedish law - it's obsolete in this case.
It is preposterous. But people can't think for themselves. They'll have seen the outrage yesterday and think Murray crossed the line. I'd go close to saying Murray was actually a victim of bullying yesterday, and to have the character attacks put to him that he did, it was downright shameful behaviour on the part of Joan and the other eejit.
The attack was disgusting. Which is why it doesn't really surprise me to look at Joans twitter feed and find her trying to make feel guilty people for holding other opinions she doesn't. Such as the insinuation that viewing abortion as a bad thing makes you some sort of sexist lunatic
I trust that the many constituents of Bradford West who voted for Mr Galloway are now extremely proud of their MP.
An odious man.
I doubt that he will retain this seat at the next election.
Maybe its the view shared by Muslims - his prefered audience - after all, he is one except by name (although its more profitable to be seen as a "friend of Islam"). I think in Sharia law, this is 100% halal. Can someone confirm?
GG's comments although blunt and insensitive do raise a point about consent. Is implied consent acceptable?
From what I can gather the scenario he was talking about was a couple who had gone to bed, had sex, gone to sleep and the male awoke and wanted to go again.
OK so the woman was still sleepy/sleeping but is this a case of rape or the presumed continuation of the same sexual encounter?
GG's comments aside it makes for an interesting legal argument.
From what I can gather the scenario he was talking about was a couple who had gone to bed, had sex, gone to sleep and the male awoke and wanted to go again.
OK so the woman was still sleepy/sleeping but is this a case of rape or the presumed continuation of the same sexual encounter?
His implication is that the events under question are along those lines. My counter is that in the actual case the information he omits is the agreement to sex as long as condoms are used. An analogy would be a BDSM scenario where a safe word is agreed which the dominant chooses to ignore and as such what was up to that point a consensual act turns into an assault. A more apt analogy would be a couple in a long term relationship where they have agreed to use condoms in order that the woman not fall pregnant or to prevent the passing of a disease from one to the other. IF some of the reports are correct then it seems that the initial complaints against Assange was his refusal to have tests to confirm he did not have an STD, perhaps due to it being easier to test him, and not to charge him with rape.
His implication is that the events under question are along those lines. My counter is that in the actual case the information he omits is the agreement to sex as long as condoms are used. An analogy would be a BDSM scenario where a safe word is agreed which the dominant chooses to ignore and as such what was up to that point a consensual act turns into an assault. A more apt analogy would be a couple in a long term relationship where they have agreed to use condoms in order that the woman not fall pregnant or to prevent the passing of a disease from one to the other. IF some of the reports are correct then it seems that the initial complaints against Assange was his refusal to have tests to confirm he did not have an STD, perhaps due to it being easier to test him, and not to charge him with rape.
The worm can widens IMO. A complaint about whether or not one party would undertake a test for a STD or not strikes me as more to do with responsibility and mutual respect than consent. Millions of people have 'winged it' once or twice when it comes to taking precautions at some time in their lives. Quite a few have probably regretted it the morning after.
Difficult one to call - even harder to prove legally particularly if you work under the assumption of innocent untill PROVEN guilty if you ask me.
The ones who look bad in this, in my opinion, are those throwing insults at Galloway for merely having an opinion. From what I can gather, Galloway was talking about sleepy sex (for what of a better term). I find all this 'outrage' whenever someone has an opinion to be tiresome.
Anyways, I find it futile going into too much info, after all, Assange hasn't even faced questioning yet.
It's interesting everyone here is criticising Galloway and not Craig Murray. Galloway's pomposity makes him an easy target, but Craig Murray uses his previous position as an ambassador to give his opinions credibility.
What is sad is when rape becomes just another "tool" to use to further ones political message, especially in the case of Mr Akin more than Mr Galloway.
I can't believe that some people actually think that simply because a woman has given consent previously at an earlier encounter the night before that gives a man carte blanche to proceed again whilst she is sleeping. What utter crap.
Where the hell would that leave us married/in a relationship women? Am I just expected to put up with random assaults whilst asleep just because I may have been up for it last night.?
Much the same as the moronic American vice-presidential candidate.
Two male experts on rape.:rolleyes:
Mr Akin, 65, who represents the state of Missouri, said over the weekend that according to what he had heard "from doctors," pregnancy resulting from cases of rape was "really rare."
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he told a local television station. He added that abortion was still not justified even if conception did occur.
The title of the thread might have something to do with that..;)
Yes, Galloway "stepping in it" again, but surely what he stepped in is of more interest? Galloway's reputation for attaching himself to causes when it suits him is well know so why re-hash the same tired old criticisms, including cat references when there are more interesting aspects to discuss?
strikes me as more to do with responsibility and mutual respect than consent.
And returns us to the fact that the alleged victim gave her consent to sex using a condom. If Assange then chose to ignore that condition of her consent then he did not respect her wishes or act in a responsible manner.
Much the same as the moronic American vice-presidential candidate.
Two male experts on rape.:rolleyes:
Mr Akin, 65, who represents the state of Missouri, said over the weekend that according to what he had heard "from doctors," pregnancy resulting from cases of rape was "really rare."
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he told a local television station. He added that abortion was still not justified even if conception did occur.
I think his implications are two fold.
1) his theory is based on the stress of being physically assaulted leading to spontaneous abortion. Hence implying that the only real rape is one where force is used.
2) his term "legitimate rape" implies that the 5% of rape victims who do fall pregnant are in fact lying in order to obtain an abortion.
I'd estimate the chance as between about 3.8% to 4.5%.
The percentage of reported rapes resulting in conception is higher than that. Now there is the chance that that figure is inflated by misreporting but equally there is the chance that it's balanced by some rape victims not reporting.
If that figure is a true reflection of the actual probability then it follows that for it to be higher than simple chance would allow means that there is some factor in victim selection that favours women closer to ovulation than at other times. One possibility might be that as women approach that stage in their cycle they may subconsciously dress in a more sexual manner or appear more attractive to men. This would then imply that the "she was asking for it" excuse has a physiological basis. A simpler reason might simply be availability if menstruating women go out less. Regardless of why it follows that rape might give be an advantageous reproductive strategy and if there is a "rape" gene then elimination of it would require that it not be spread. So the "fundamental christian" take would be that the OT requirement that a rape victim be killed was based on exactly that kind of reasoning and, perhaps, the lack of readily available abortifacients.
I think his implications are two fold.
1) his theory is based on the stress of being physically assaulted leading to spontaneous abortion. Hence implying that the only real rape is one where force is used.
2) his term "legitimate rape" implies that the 5% of rape victims who do fall pregnant are in fact lying in order to obtain an abortion.
I'd estimate the chance as between about 3.8% to 4.5%.
The percentage of reported rapes resulting in conception is higher than that. Now there is the chance that that figure is inflated by misreporting but equally there is the chance that it's balanced by some rape victims not reporting.
If that figure is a true reflection of the actual probability then it follows that for it to be higher than simple chance would allow means that there is some factor in victim selection that favours women closer to ovulation than at other times. One possibility might be that as women approach that stage in their cycle they may subconsciously dress in a more sexual manner or appear more attractive to men. This would then imply that the "she was asking for it" excuse has a physiological basis. A simpler reason might simply be availability if menstruating women go out less. Regardless of why it follows that rape might give be an advantageous reproductive strategy and if there is a "rape" gene then elimination of it would require that it not be spread. So the "fundamental christian" take would be that the OT requirement that a rape victim be killed was based on exactly that kind of reasoning and, perhaps, the lack of readily available abortifacients.
All of that would be of no comfort to a woman who has been raped.
The good news is that he has got the Republicans some bad publicity.
Just imagine, you are in bed with a lady with whom you have had sex earlier that night. You have the urge for more sex so rather than giving her perhaps a kiss and a cuddle and then proceeding with the act, assuming she doesn't object, you make sure she is fully awake and you ask "Do you agree to full consensual sexual intercourse under the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ?" to make doubly sure that you are not in danger of facing legal charges you get her to sign a piece of paper expressing her consent in writing.
And don't forget to have a witness to hand to countersign the consent form.
But in seriousness, I fear the consequences where any regret after consent (to withdraw consent after the act) or likewise could result in someone being accused and prosecuted for a very serious and life changing crime. If we start seeing 'no win no fee' rape claim companies springing up to capitalise, this country is stuffed.
Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman. Rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex. George Galloway’s comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong.
And don't forget to have a witness to hand to countersign the consent form.
But in seriousness, I fear the consequences where any regret after consent (to withdraw consent after the act) or likewise could result in someone being accused and prosecuted for a very serious and life changing crime. If we start seeing 'no win no fee' rape claim companies springing up to capitalise, this country is stuffed.
Does anyone remember a high profile case in the UK a few years back where the circumstances were, as far as I remember somewhat similar to those being discussed here? I think the complainant had changed her mind part way through the act.
The judge dismissed the complaint saying that it was not the business of the court to interfere in the "mores" of sexual etiquette.
I can't for the life of me remember much more about the case and I couldn't find it on Google. It caused me to look up the word "mores" though.
Comments
Except that the allegation is that
1) the agreement was the use of condoms.
2) Assange chose not to use a condom.
3) Assange did not stop when asked.
Even then there's a remote possibility that the woman did not realise he wasn't wearing a condom and assumed he was or asked him and he lied in which case she did not have to ask him to stop for it to be a sexual misdemeanor and as such one of the lower categories of rape according to Swedish law.
Put it this way if Assange knew he had an STD, and the bogey man is AIDS, then in some countries he would be guilty of a form of reckless endangerment. Also if the women concerned were not on the pill then the use of condoms and/or withdrawal might be their chosen form of contraception.
Simply put, Assange was acting like a cult figure or celebrity and put his own pleasure above "safe sex" and as such he could be sued in a civil court for damages due to the alarm he has caused.
A complete over reaction from Joan Smith, who made a proper arse of herself, and is still at it today judging by her Twitter feed.
Supposedly if you take moral issue with abortion you're a ******. A far more outrageous and offensive statement than Murrays, seeing as he did nothing more this misspeak.
Interesting peice on Craig Murrays blog which discusses this. The accuser outed herself as the alleged victim in 2010. Surely once the alleged victim has put her name forward then anyone should be able to name her. The faux outrage by Smith and Esler seems to be way over the top.
It reminds me of this similar moral outrage on Sky Sports many years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQScHXh_ZI
And you are, of course, precisely right. Why should Murray be ashamed, and why should we be outraged at him for naming her, when she happily "outed" herself. She's not asking for anonymity, and I don't care too much therefore about Swedish law - it's obsolete in this case.
It is preposterous. But people can't think for themselves. They'll have seen the outrage yesterday and think Murray crossed the line. I'd go close to saying Murray was actually a victim of bullying yesterday, and to have the character attacks put to him that he did, it was downright shameful behaviour on the part of Joan and the other eejit.
The attack was disgusting. Which is why it doesn't really surprise me to look at Joans twitter feed and find her trying to make feel guilty people for holding other opinions she doesn't. Such as the insinuation that viewing abortion as a bad thing makes you some sort of sexist lunatic
Maybe its the view shared by Muslims - his prefered audience - after all, he is one except by name (although its more profitable to be seen as a "friend of Islam"). I think in Sharia law, this is 100% halal. Can someone confirm?
From what I can gather the scenario he was talking about was a couple who had gone to bed, had sex, gone to sleep and the male awoke and wanted to go again.
OK so the woman was still sleepy/sleeping but is this a case of rape or the presumed continuation of the same sexual encounter?
GG's comments aside it makes for an interesting legal argument.
His implication is that the events under question are along those lines. My counter is that in the actual case the information he omits is the agreement to sex as long as condoms are used. An analogy would be a BDSM scenario where a safe word is agreed which the dominant chooses to ignore and as such what was up to that point a consensual act turns into an assault. A more apt analogy would be a couple in a long term relationship where they have agreed to use condoms in order that the woman not fall pregnant or to prevent the passing of a disease from one to the other. IF some of the reports are correct then it seems that the initial complaints against Assange was his refusal to have tests to confirm he did not have an STD, perhaps due to it being easier to test him, and not to charge him with rape.
The worm can widens IMO. A complaint about whether or not one party would undertake a test for a STD or not strikes me as more to do with responsibility and mutual respect than consent. Millions of people have 'winged it' once or twice when it comes to taking precautions at some time in their lives. Quite a few have probably regretted it the morning after.
Difficult one to call - even harder to prove legally particularly if you work under the assumption of innocent untill PROVEN guilty if you ask me.
Anyways, I find it futile going into too much info, after all, Assange hasn't even faced questioning yet.
The title of the thread might have something to do with that..;)
Where the hell would that leave us married/in a relationship women? Am I just expected to put up with random assaults whilst asleep just because I may have been up for it last night.?
Much the same as the moronic American vice-presidential candidate.
Two male experts on rape.:rolleyes:
Mr Akin, 65, who represents the state of Missouri, said over the weekend that according to what he had heard "from doctors," pregnancy resulting from cases of rape was "really rare."
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he told a local television station. He added that abortion was still not justified even if conception did occur.
And returns us to the fact that the alleged victim gave her consent to sex using a condom. If Assange then chose to ignore that condition of her consent then he did not respect her wishes or act in a responsible manner.
I think his implications are two fold.
1) his theory is based on the stress of being physically assaulted leading to spontaneous abortion. Hence implying that the only real rape is one where force is used.
2) his term "legitimate rape" implies that the 5% of rape victims who do fall pregnant are in fact lying in order to obtain an abortion.
Now looking at simple statistics based on the chance of falling pregnant depending on where in the cycle you have sex, http://www.cks.nhs.uk/contraception_emergency/background_information/chances_of_becoming_pregnant_after_sex
I'd estimate the chance as between about 3.8% to 4.5%.
The percentage of reported rapes resulting in conception is higher than that. Now there is the chance that that figure is inflated by misreporting but equally there is the chance that it's balanced by some rape victims not reporting.
If that figure is a true reflection of the actual probability then it follows that for it to be higher than simple chance would allow means that there is some factor in victim selection that favours women closer to ovulation than at other times. One possibility might be that as women approach that stage in their cycle they may subconsciously dress in a more sexual manner or appear more attractive to men. This would then imply that the "she was asking for it" excuse has a physiological basis. A simpler reason might simply be availability if menstruating women go out less. Regardless of why it follows that rape might give be an advantageous reproductive strategy and if there is a "rape" gene then elimination of it would require that it not be spread. So the "fundamental christian" take would be that the OT requirement that a rape victim be killed was based on exactly that kind of reasoning and, perhaps, the lack of readily available abortifacients.
All of that would be of no comfort to a woman who has been raped.
The good news is that he has got the Republicans some bad publicity.
He has of course gone back on what he said.
But in seriousness, I fear the consequences where any regret after consent (to withdraw consent after the act) or likewise could result in someone being accused and prosecuted for a very serious and life changing crime. If we start seeing 'no win no fee' rape claim companies springing up to capitalise, this country is stuffed.
http://www.salmayaqoob.com/2012/08/good-news-and-bad.html
Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman. Rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex. George Galloway’s comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong.
Does anyone remember a high profile case in the UK a few years back where the circumstances were, as far as I remember somewhat similar to those being discussed here? I think the complainant had changed her mind part way through the act.
The judge dismissed the complaint saying that it was not the business of the court to interfere in the "mores" of sexual etiquette.
I can't for the life of me remember much more about the case and I couldn't find it on Google. It caused me to look up the word "mores" though.