The new 'legitimate' rape controversy

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He was talking about fake rapes, where the woman just wanted to get the Morning After pill. Typically slanderous of him.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As for the idea, it's been knocking around anti-abortion people for over a decade.

[Robert_S]

I thought he meant that Jesus smites the little bastard baby inside womans tummy if it was legitimate rape?

[Coito ergo sum]

A bible-bashing Republican with odious views on rape? Who'd have thought it......

In the interests of political fairness, I must point out George Galloway's recent comments on the Assange case... "It wasn't rape - just bad sexual etiquette!"

Rape apologetics is a cross-platform sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783

I'm no fan of Julian Assange, but the rape allegations against him seem to me to be highly dubious.

No formal charges have been filed against him in Sweden. Both women reportedly said that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual. One of the women told police that she was fooling around with Assange but she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her. She realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing. The other woman went to the movies with him, they fooled around in the theater, after that she took him home, and they had consensual sex.

After this incident, she allowed him to continue staying at her apartment for a week. He denies tearing the condom and says she never mentioned it to him.

An arrest warrant was issued, but later withdrawn. A female prosecutor in Sweden found, "I don't think there is any reason to think Julian Assange committed rape."

Later a higher level prosecutor overturned the original prosecutor's decision, and said that the investigation would be reopened. And, the rest has been legal wrangling to find him and bring him back to Sweden.

From what I gather from what has been published about the "incidents," the women weren't raped at all. The first woman said it was the "worst sex she'd ever had," and both of them were pissed off that he didn't want to wear condoms. Neither one claims they didn't consent to the sex, at least as far as I can tell. The stories are so vague and ambiguous, it's hard to tell.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The only conclusion you can possibly draw, is that a majority of the voters in his constituency are even more moronic than he is.

True, that's the only conclusion one could possibly draw if one is that stupid. If one were think about it a for a bit other conclusions would present themselves. Unless one is too stupid to think about them. That does happen here.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... ll-43.html I'll let the numbers regarding opinion on his statement speak for themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

One more thing I would point out is that people like Coito get all offended when someone has a go at US stereotypes, but how fucking backwards can an electorate be, to elect people like Todd Akin?

I would think that the British electorate is no smarter, and has elected their share of asshats. But, maybe you're right. Biden was elected to the Senate every 6 years since 1972. He's a fucking idiot. Good thing we have enough smart people in our country to offset the idiots, which is obviously something your country doesn't have. A wide swath of mediocrity is nothing to brag about.

[Ian]

A bible-bashing Republican with odious views on rape? Who'd have thought it......

In the interests of political fairness, I must point out George Galloway's recent comments on the Assange case... "It wasn't rape - just bad sexual etiquette!"

Rape apologetics is a cross-platform sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783

I'm no fan of Julian Assange, but the rape allegations against him seem to me to be highly dubious.

No formal charges have been filed against him in Sweden. Both women reportedly said that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual. One of the women told police that she was fooling around with Assange but she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her. She realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing. The other woman went to the movies with him, they fooled around in the theater, after that she took him home, and they had consensual sex.

After this incident, she allowed him to continue staying at her apartment for a week. He denies tearing the condom and says she never mentioned it to him.

An arrest warrant was issued, but later withdrawn. A female prosecutor in Sweden found, "I don't think there is any reason to think Julian Assange committed rape."

Later a higher level prosecutor overturned the original prosecutor's decision, and said that the investigation would be reopened. And, the rest has been legal wrangling to find him and bring him back to Sweden.

From what I gather from what has been published about the "incidents," the women weren't raped at all. The first woman said it was the "worst sex she'd ever had," and both of them were pissed off that he didn't want to wear condoms. Neither one claims they didn't consent to the sex, at least as far as I can tell. The stories are so vague and ambiguous, it's hard to tell.

And yet they agreed to press charges knowing that they could result in him going to prison for years? I don't suppose they'll be testifying on his behalf?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't get it, really, but I'm going by what I've learned about the allegations. There are some pretty mushy laws in Sweden, and so it may well be that if the allegation were true that he tore the condom that it would be considered a sex offense, or something. Until they specify what offense he is supposedly charged with, we can't really evaluate whether he's guilty.

Based on the summaries of the women's statements, I mean, it sounds dubious. The first woman who says he did not wear a condom seems to describe consensual sex in her statement, but she seems pissed off that the sex was the worst she ever had. Then that same woman let him stay in her apartment for another week and associated with him on a daily basis. Does that sound like a woman who had just been raped?

I mean - I'm not saying she wasn't raped - I'm saying that based on her own story as reported in the news (so I'm assuming a lot there, relative to accuracy), it doesn't sound very much like rape.

[MrJonno]

Doesn't matter if he did anything or not, with a crime like rape an accusation is normally enough for the people to take you into questioning/arrest you

Fair probably not but what else can you do when there are typically no witnesses and in a case like this no forensics. The Swedish/British jurisdiction is confusing under EU law its meant to be a formality the equivalent of taking a suspect from one US state to another

[Coito ergo sum]

Doesn't matter if he did anything or not, with a crime like rape an accusation is normally enough for the people to take you into questioning/arrest you

It depends. If the report of rape includes an admission that the sex was consensual, then there normally isn't a reason to arrest someone.

Fair probably not but what else can you do when there are typically no witnesses and in a case like this no forensics. The Swedish/British jurisdiction is confusing under EU law its meant to be a formality the equivalent of taking a suspect from one US state to another

When the report from the complainant is so vague and ambiguous that taking everything they say is true doesn't clearly establish nonconsensual sex, then the report seems pretty slim. The prosecutor looked into it and dropped it, and they did have him in custody in Sweden, questioned him, and let him go.

Now, I think Assange is a douche. But, I can't see what the grounds is for extradition on "rape" charges. Something doesn't smell right. If this was just some regular Joe, nobody would be spending any time on extradition for this nonsense.

Two women say they willing had sex with the guy and are pissed off that he didn't want to have a condom. The first woman who complained says she invited the guy to stay at her apartment. In the first or second night, they fucked, and he stayed there, hanging out with her, for another week.

Somebody is pulling some strings to keep this nonsense going. I bet US officials are throwing weight around or paying the right people to get him extradited, because they'll probably have an easier time getting custody of him if that occurs. The US wants to arrest Assange, big time.

[Rum]

Assange is losing it in my book and what is more he is simply manipulating all the resources he can because he says he is afraid of what they will do in America if he is extradited from Sweden. Sweden has rules which mean that if there is any risk of the death sentence (which there was some talk of a while back) they would not allow extradition. As I read it even if they thought he would be treated over harshly (a long prison sentence perhaps) they would not agree.

He may not be guilty of rape but even if he is of sexual assault, that often results in imprisonment in both the UK and Sweden. So they aren't paltry charges.

Personally I would entrust my fate to a Scandinavian country rather more readily than most South American ones..

[Ian]

Assange is losing it in my book and what is more he is simply manipulating all the resources he can because he says he is afraid of what they will do in America if he is extradited from Sweden. Sweden has rules which mean that if there is any risk of the death sentence (which there was some talk of a while back) they would not allow extradition. As I read it even if they thought he would be treated over harshly (a long prison sentence perhaps) they would not agree.

He may not be guilty of rape but even if he is of sexual assault, that often results in imprisonment in both the UK and Sweden. So they aren't paltry charges.

Personally I would entrust my fate to a Scandinavian country rather more readily than most South American ones..

There's no risk of a death sentence for him! There was some talk of it for Bradley Manning, the kid who sent off all that classified information to him, because he had actually taken oaths not to do such things. But even if he's convicted of treason, I really doubt the death penalty will happen in his case.

Assange did not violate any laws which would earn him a death sentence. In fact, since he's not a US citizen, I'm not even sure he did anything that would violate US or any international law. He had no obligations not to print anything he could get his hands on. What's he's most guilty of is being a hyperbolic, egomaniacal, biased son of a bitch.

[Thinking Aloud]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Missouri Republican official: ‘God chose to bless’ women with pregnancies from rape

An official from Missouri’s Republican Party on Monday defended Senate candidate Todd Akin after he suggested abortions should not be allowed in any case because victims of “legitimate” rape victims could not get pregnant.

GOP 4th Senate District Committeewoman Sharon Barnes told The New York Times “that abortion is never an option.”

In an interview with KTVI-TV over the weekend, Akin had said that “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” referring to pregnancy after so-called “legitimate rape.”

Barnes “echoed Mr. Akin’s statement that very few rapes resulted in pregnancy,” according to the Times, and she added that “at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.”

“That’s more what I believe he was trying to state,” she insisted. “He just phrased it badly.”

During an interview with Akin on Monday, Fox News host Mike Huckabee noted that “forcible rapes” had created some “extraordinary people.”

“Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,” Huckabee pointed out. “I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape.”

“And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things.”

[Coito ergo sum]

Assange is losing it in my book and what is more he is simply manipulating all the resources he can because he says he is afraid of what they will do in America if he is extradited from Sweden. Sweden has rules which mean that if there is any risk of the death sentence (which there was some talk of a while back) they would not allow extradition. As I read it even if they thought he would be treated over harshly (a long prison sentence perhaps) they would not agree.

He may not be guilty of rape but even if he is of sexual assault, that often results in imprisonment in both the UK and Sweden. So they aren't paltry charges.

Personally I would entrust my fate to a Scandinavian country rather more readily than most South American ones..

There's no risk of a death sentence for him! There was some talk of it for Bradley Manning, the kid who sent off all that classified information to him, because he had actually taken oaths not to do such things. But even if he's convicted of treason, I really doubt the death penalty will happen in his case.

Assange did not violate any laws which would earn him a death sentence. In fact, since he's not a US citizen, I'm not even sure he did anything that would violate US or any international law. He had no obligations not to print anything he could get his hands on. What's he's most guilty of is being a hyperbolic, egomaniacal, biased son of a bitch.

All this, I agree with.

I don't like Assange, but I have not been persuaded that he did anything that would violated US law. There definitely is no "international law" that he's violated, because there really isn't any international law that governs the conduct of individuals, except in the very rare case of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

In the US, if Bradley Manning dropped secret documents at the offices of the New York Times, the New York Times would not be in violation of the law for publishing them. See for example, the Pentagon Papers incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

What's most disturbing is how quickly the mainstream media in this day and age moved to shore up their own privileged position as "the press" and throw Wikileaks under the bus, as if Wikileaks doesn't have the same rights as the New Joke Times or PMSNBC or FoxSnooze.

Bradley Manning will go to jail, and he deserves it. Poor guy got duped, I'm sure, into thinking that he'd be able to avoid prison somehow because the leaks would bring down a bad administration. Ellsberg, in the Pentagon Papers case, was tried under the Espionage Act, and he lucked out because the government at that time engaged in all sorts of illegal activities which caused the judge to declare a mistrial and dismiss the charges against him. Manning will not have that luxury. The case against him is open and shut, and he will likely be in jail for 20 or so years, or more.