Sunday rape linkspam
This is a pretty lengthy linkspost. For those who haven't heard, a huge sexual assault case just exploded recently involving Julian Assange, the man who heads Wikileaks. Given his high-profile political position, this has pretty much resulted in mass chaos and confusion in the political blogosphere. Most of the links today are in relation to this case, though there are some other, unrelated, topics included, as well.
Disclaimers!
1. Trigger warning! Links deal with rape; click with care.
2. I don't always agree 100% with everything contained in the links.
3. Sometimes there will be comments on the linked articles. Give them a read-through if you have the chance.
Wikileaks/Julian Assange: Relevant Source 1, Relevant Source 2 (Lots of misinformation and shoddy reporting going around, so I wanna link you guys to something that's at least credible right off the bat)
Almost Diamonds' How Must She Behave to Have Been Raped? - 12/2010
"What did I do when I was sexually assaulted? I went on with my plans for the evening, which were to lose my virginity. Yep, that's right. Within hours of being sexually assaulted, I had consensual sex.
Why? Hell if I know that either. I do know it doesn't make any sense, but that's because I wasn't rational. I'll remind you that I'd just been assaulted (and suffered another type of betrayal right alongside it). I had no idea what to do. I did the easiest thing, which was to go along as though it hadn't happened. Pretending didn't make it go away, but it was so much simpler than figuring out how to behave in a changed world.
If Assange did rape the alleged victim, why did she behave as she did? Maybe she was in denial. Maybe she wanted to show herself she could be that strong. Maybe she was reasserting her claim to the world they both shared. Maybe she was even pissed that Assange took control from her but not particularly traumatized. I don't know and neither do you."
Vancouver Media Co-op's Leaked Cable #r?a?p?e?: An Open Rant Against the Perpetuation of Rape Myths - 12/2010
"People say "but these charges are trumped up! the charges are bogus!" and that may be true and it may not. But why is the starting point for discussion the dismissal of the allegations? You know, it IS POSSIBLE that Julian Assange DID sexually assault a woman in Sweden AND that the charges are trumped up in a way and dealt with in a certain way because of his work with WikiLeaks.
So let's get this straight. You can wrap your head around the fact that there is cross-border collusion and manipulation by police, judicial, and other governmental authorities from various countries... and I agree that there is... but you cannot understand that there may *also* have actually been a sexual assault? Just because someone is being persecuted for their work means that they cannot be guilty of something like sexual harassment?"
Man Boobz' When you assume about Assange, you make an ass of you and me - 12/2010
"So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let's suspend our judgment about Assange's guilt or innocence. Liberals want to support Assange because, you know, he's fighting the power and shit. (Even Naomi Wolf has joined the pro-Assange chorus.) But the fact is, sometimes politically admirable people do bad shit to women. Men's Rightsers want to vilify the accusers because the primary accuser is a feminist. But the fact that someone is a feminist doesn't mean that she can't get raped. "
Composite's Feminism, Assange rape charges, free speech, and Wikileaks - 12/2010
"We need to call bullshit very strongly for what has already happened in the media to his accusers, who have had their identities outed and who are being attacked by shamers and rape apologists.
But as feminists we also need to defend, not rapists or men’s right to rape with impunity, but free speech and the laws and political climate that help it flourish. That is also an important part of feminism. It’s crucial. It’s THE MOST IMPORTANT part of feminism. We need free speech, the laws that protect it, and the tools that make public free speech possible, as women who have fought hard to have a public voice."
hypatia dot ca's On Consent - 12/2010
" 1. If you don’t do your damnedest to stop having sex with someone who has initially consented to sex with you but then withdraws consent, you have committed rape. Depending on the jurisdiction, it may be sexual assault rather than rape; I don’t really care about the semantics of it. It’s wrong and not OK in any way and you’re a douchebag if you think otherwise. Consent is an active, continuous process. If you don’t want active, enthusiastic consent from your sexual partners, please go fuck an inanimate object instead of wasting the time of a human being who has feelings, agency, and the right to have their boundaries respected.
2. If someone consents to having sex with you on the premise that you are wearing a condom, and you don’t put on a condom (or you notice it’s broken and don’t stop), you may not be guilty of a specific crime (depending on the jurisdiction), but you’re a fucking asshole and you’re probably a sexual predator. Testing and violating boundaries is how sexual predators operate; this is a known thing. Also, see previous comments about inanimate objects.
3. (added as news has come out of the bail hearing) Yeah, sex with someone who is passed out or asleep: also rape. (With obvious exception where it’s been specifically negotiated while conscious.)"
The River Fed's Julian Assange, the arrest and why we should not protest. Yet. - 12/2010
"But the events today do not constitute a violation of either international, or Swedish national, law as far as I am able to ascertain. Is there cause for concern that this legal action has not been undertaken by the prosecution in good faith? Yes. But can we state categorically that Julian Assange is innocent of the sex crimes he stands accused of? No. Should we vilify two unknown women and deny them due process?
Emphatically… NO.
I live in a society - purportedly - of innocence until proven guilty and I do my best to abide, in my own thinking, by that principle. The social reality of this, however, is much murkier than that principle allows. Some will assume guilt at the very accusation and some will proclaim innocence regardless of what facts or evidence emerge. This is the reality of sex crime. This is also the reality of the law surrounding sex crime. It will always be inadequate. It will always be incapable of distinguishing, comparatively, between consent and assault."
The Conscience Vote's The arrest of Julian Assange - a reality check - 12/2010
"But let’s not get carried away with conspiracy theories. Let’s not conflate international condemnation from governments directed at Wikileaks with real, specific charges against an individual that have nothing to do with that organisation. Let’s not assume that this is some kind of James Bond or Bourne Identity plot being played out in real life.
In other words, let’s take a breath for a minute. Examine the whole story, separate the man from the message, evaluate what Wikileaks does on its own terms and let Swedish justice take its course.
Above all, let’s not participate in demonising two women who are just as entitled to the presumption of innocence as Assange. "
Jessica Valenti's Naomi Wolf really needs to read the internet - Relevant Source - 12/2010
"I’m fairly certain that Wolf would agree that “having sex” with someone while they’re asleep isn’t sex at all, but rape. And even if you’re iffy on the consent/condom question, Jill at Feministe breaks it down for you. Basically, if someone agrees to have sex with you with the condition that you use a condom, and then you remove said condom and continue the sex or if you continue the sex despite your partner’s protestations - that is straight up assault. And I’m betting Wolf would agree with that as well."
Feminism and Tea's Feminist Conspiracies and Julian Assange - 12/2010
"This whole business seems to me have turned into an affair of Wikileaks vs. the women. And I do not mean Wikileaks as in the organisation itself has turned against the women; I mean Wikileaks in the sense that people seem to have made Julian Assange synonymous with Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an organisation, not a person, and people would do very well to keep this in mind. There is no doubt that Wikileaks have done people good through releasing information; people have the right to know. However, just because Wikileaks, the organisation has done something good, does not mean Julian Assange the person cannot do something bad. This argument is applicable in the reverse as well for those who see this information leak as something negative. Just because Wikileaks the organisation did something you consider horrible, does not mean that Julian Assange the person will inevitably rape women.
Lastly, I want to point out that just because Sweden has a legal system that is equal, that takes into consideration women's needs in such cases as rape, where the conviction rates are appallingly low, does not mean it hates men or that it inevitably discriminates men. The statistics speak to the reverse, it is very hard to be sentenced for a rape crime. Besides, Sweden is not exactly known for its fierce punishments and long prison sentences. I would believe many people regard the Swedish legal system as 'soft' because of its focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment."
Anglofille's Wikileaks and Rape - 12/2010
"If someone had made charges like this against Glen Beck, let’s say, many on the left would be calling for him to be castrated and sentenced to life in prison. But since Assange is the one being charged, many are singing a different tune. This is how you can tell what a person’s true values are. Your core values do not shift in this way. With an issue as serious as rape, your analysis and response should not be dependent upon the alleged rapists’ politics. We don’t know if the charges against Assange are true - he might be completely innocent. However, automatically assuming they aren’t true or are no big deal because the alleged rapist is someone you admire, and then trashing the alleged victims, is disgusting behavior and shows a lack of real commitment to feminism and social justice."
Alas' Rape Myths and Julian Assange - 12/2010
"Added to this we get a re-run of the Polanski trial and an argument that what happened to these women isn’t ‘rape-rape’. People were running these lines, before they even knew what the charges are. The charges are actually really clear cut: he had sex with one woman while she was asleep, and he didn’t stop when another woman said stop. It doesn’t require a very in depth and complex understanding of consent to understand that that is rape. But there is a constant narrative that anything other than stranger rape where force is used is somehow a lesser form of rape. That narrative is really damaging to rape survivors.
But I think that defenders of Julian Assanger do the most damage when they construct a way that rape victims behave and imply that the woman involved isn’t acting like a rape victim: she tweeted about him, or she seemed happy, or she saw him again.
I lose it at this point. There is no way that rape victims act - there is no way that rape victims don’t act. Seriously. If you don’t know this then you have no right to say a word about rape. "
Big Think's A Feminist Lawyer on the Case Against Wikileaks' Julian Assange - 12/2010
"If consent is predicated on condom use and one partner surreptitiously avoids using a condom, morally, that's a form of sexual assault. Jill notes in her piece that it would be difficult to make that legal case in many U.S. states because the relevant laws require force or threat or force in addition to non-consent. However, the second allegation, if proven, would easily constitute rape in many U.S. states. If one person withdraws consent during sex by telling their partner to stop, and their partner doesn't stop, that's rape (non-consent + force).
Assange has been accused of rape in the English-language media, but it sounds like he's actually been charged with some considerably lesser offenses under Swedish law."
Salon's The rush to smear Assange's rape accuser - 12/2010
"The fact is, we just don't know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.
Public evidence, as the Times noted, is scarce. So, it's heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women."
Feministe's Some thoughts on "sex by surprise" - 12/2010
"Whether withdrawal of consent is what actually happened here is impossible to tell, so I’m not suggesting that Assange is a rapist or that these charges are 100% definitely on-point; I have no idea. But neither do the commentators who are saying that Assange did nothing more than have sex without a condom. And it’s important to counter the “haha sex by surprise those crazy Swedes” media narrative with the fact that actually, non-consensual sex is assault and should be recognized as such by law. Consenting to one kind of sexual act doesn’t mean that you consent to anything else your partner wants to do; if it’s agreed that the only kind of sex we’re having is with a condom, then it does remove an element of consent to have sex without a condom with only one partner’s knowledge. To use another example, if you and your partner agree that you can penetrate her, it doesn’t necessarily follow that she has the green light to penetrate you whenever and however. "
Pandagon's C'mon, we can do this acting like grown-up thing - 12/2010
"Interpol is using a rape accusation that resembles this one to put Julian Assange on their most-wanted list. As Lindsay points out, this is just silly. Sex crimes are never actually taken this seriously---we feminists wish!---and I’m annoyed to see rape used in this way, considering that rape apologists are already eager to suggest that rape accusations are about some evil bitch with ulterior motives. Indeed, as Lindsay notes, the usual rape apologist tropes are being employed, this time by people who should know better. Jill has more on why forcibly fucking a woman who has withdrawn her consent because the condom conditions weren’t met is in fact rape, and it should always be legally treated as such. The key here is “consent”, which was withdrawn. That means that the woman was non-consenting. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape. This shouldn’t be so complicated. "
Salon's U.S. rape laws, explained - 12/2010
"The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on rape charges has inspired a great deal of misinformation about sexual assault laws in the scary feminist utopia of Sweden. As Kate Harding wrote yesterday in Salon, "the notion that consensual, unprotected sex equals rape in Sweden (despite millions of Swedish fathers walking around free today) continues zipping around the Internet." Thankfully, the New York Times followed up today with a fact-based report on the matter, and the results are shocking: The Swedes take rape very seriously.
The country has the highest reporting rate in the European Union. (Perhaps because "Swedish women, backed by a strong consciousness of women's rights and a history of a very public discussion of the scourge of sexual violence, may be more willing than most to look to the law for help," writes the Times' Katrin Bennhold.) Swedish law also recognizes "withdrawal of consent" as rape, which is what is alleged in the Assange case, and details three types of rape: "severe," "regular" and "less severe.""
Feminism and Tea's "Sex by Surprise" - 12/2010
"Take a close look at the section I put in italics there. Assange did not comply with the woman's appeals to stop. It does not matter when these appeals were voiced, it matters that they were. By continuing having sex with the woman when she had voiced her wishes not to have sex with him, he had sex with her without her consent: rape by definition.
Note, that it isn't, as is also said in the news article, "Sweden's unusual rape laws, which are considered pro-feminist because of the consideration given issues of consent when it comes to sexual activity -- including even the issue of whether a condom was used." - it has to do with consent, and in this case, it was allegedly lacking, which is what the charges are based on. And no, it does not matter that they were having sex while she changed her mind, a person is allowed to stop a sexual act at any point (have a look at the rape myths below - "Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop - Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused").
What really worries me with this whole circus is that it is panning out to be a popularity contest, as with so many other rape cases. There is the much-loved, at least by people not involved in the state, liberator of information against the allegedly rabid Swedish feminist."
Anti-rape activism and men:
XY Online's Sexual harassment will be eliminated only when men take part in ending it - 11/2010
"Men’s sexual harassment of women often reflects sexist social norms and gender inequalities in power. It is part of a continuum of abusive and coercive behaviours, including sexual violence.
Ending sexual harassment will mean shifting entrenched cultures of sexism and chauvinistic bonding in which women endure a daily ‘dripping tap’ of unwelcome sexual behaviour. It will mean tackling the homophobic abuse, bullying, and violent initiations involved in men’s harassment of other men."
GLBT:
TBD's Daily Caller: Draft lesbians, then turn them straight - Relevant Source - 11/2010
"AND THEN FINALLY: Once all the lesbians are easily accessible in one place, an army of straight dudes will turn them all straight, presumably through that time-tested tactic of subduing and impregnating women against their will: "my solution would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective 'Broke Back,'" Rehyansky concludes, "thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream."
How has no one thought of this before, and then proceeded to published it on the Internet next to a photograph of themselves?"
The Raw Story's Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight - 11/2010
"The conservative news site The Daily Caller has removed part of an article that suggested lesbians be allowed into the US military so that their male colleagues can "convert" them.
Critics say the article went as far as to suggest corrective rape for lesbians.
"Lesbians should be allowed to serve, gay men should not," declared Joe Rehyansky in an article published Monday. Rehyansky, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, is a part-time magistrate in Hamilton County, Tennessee, and a former assistant district attorney."
Rape culture:
Yes Means Yes' Rape Culture: Aiding And Abetting - Relevant Source - 4/2010
"But the rapist’s friends are not the only ones who helped him. Howard University Hospital’s openly hostile personnel and the since-changed rule that rape kits could only be done with police approval helped him. Other hospitals’ reluctance to do a rape kit so that she couldn’t immediately have it done somewhere else helped him. But most of all the DC police helped him. (I’ve spent some time in DC. It would be hard to find a sorrier excuse for a police department.) Whether because they are under pressure to keep the crime statistics down, or because they just prefer to disbelieve and discourage survivors from reporting, the DC police engaged in conduct clearly designed to silence this woman"
The legal system:
A stormy blog's I smell a rat - Relevant Source - 11/2006
"So, in this judge’s mind, a woman is only ‘entitled’ to make one claim of rape. Did it ever cross his mind that both these guys could have been rapists? Why on earth would she bother to make more ‘false allegations’ when the ‘attempt’ five years earlier had no desired result? This judge also likely thinks that rape cannot happen within marriage - as the marriage contract ensures the husband has full sexual access to his property wife."
The Problem:
"The two women went to the police because they discovered they had both been bedded by him and they got pissed off about it. End of story.
The Interpol red alert has NOTHING to do with this. The intention is to get him to Sweden then to the USA for lifetime imprisonment or even the death sentence - just to be sure people know the price for telling the truth - unlike these women who are lying after the fact just because they feel cheated on." - (link)
"Common sense tells me that if I go alone, dressed in a miniskirt, to a bar full of drunken jerks, my risk of being sexually assaulted is greatly heightened.
Excuse me, but I'll forego my philosophical feel-good ideas of "equality" for my common sense belief that I shouldn't do certain things that would likely turn out bad for me. Nevermind the reasons about WHY things would turn out bad... The fact remains, my risks would be exponentially raised. I like my hide too much to sacrifice it on the altar of my female pride. " - (link)
"You made the assumption that there is an epidemic of unpunished rapes because feminists have done surveys in which the survey respondents claim to have been raped but never reported it, or did report it but the suspect was never convicted. These surveys do not prove guilt, nor do they prove that a rape even occurred in the first place." - (link)
"Polanski’s artistic achievements have immeasurably enhanced the sensitivity of millions of people to human suffering and vulnerability, which Polanski himself has experienced repeatedly in his life, on an almost Job-like scale. Are these factors to be ignored because a crime is a crime is a crime and the guilty must be remorselessly punished without regard to the context of their deeds and the content of their characters?" - (link)
Disclaimers!
1. Trigger warning! Links deal with rape; click with care.
2. I don't always agree 100% with everything contained in the links.
3. Sometimes there will be comments on the linked articles. Give them a read-through if you have the chance.
Wikileaks/Julian Assange: Relevant Source 1, Relevant Source 2 (Lots of misinformation and shoddy reporting going around, so I wanna link you guys to something that's at least credible right off the bat)
Almost Diamonds' How Must She Behave to Have Been Raped? - 12/2010
"What did I do when I was sexually assaulted? I went on with my plans for the evening, which were to lose my virginity. Yep, that's right. Within hours of being sexually assaulted, I had consensual sex.
Why? Hell if I know that either. I do know it doesn't make any sense, but that's because I wasn't rational. I'll remind you that I'd just been assaulted (and suffered another type of betrayal right alongside it). I had no idea what to do. I did the easiest thing, which was to go along as though it hadn't happened. Pretending didn't make it go away, but it was so much simpler than figuring out how to behave in a changed world.
If Assange did rape the alleged victim, why did she behave as she did? Maybe she was in denial. Maybe she wanted to show herself she could be that strong. Maybe she was reasserting her claim to the world they both shared. Maybe she was even pissed that Assange took control from her but not particularly traumatized. I don't know and neither do you."
Vancouver Media Co-op's Leaked Cable #r?a?p?e?: An Open Rant Against the Perpetuation of Rape Myths - 12/2010
"People say "but these charges are trumped up! the charges are bogus!" and that may be true and it may not. But why is the starting point for discussion the dismissal of the allegations? You know, it IS POSSIBLE that Julian Assange DID sexually assault a woman in Sweden AND that the charges are trumped up in a way and dealt with in a certain way because of his work with WikiLeaks.
So let's get this straight. You can wrap your head around the fact that there is cross-border collusion and manipulation by police, judicial, and other governmental authorities from various countries... and I agree that there is... but you cannot understand that there may *also* have actually been a sexual assault? Just because someone is being persecuted for their work means that they cannot be guilty of something like sexual harassment?"
Man Boobz' When you assume about Assange, you make an ass of you and me - 12/2010
"So let me make a radical proposal: Until we actually know shit about what really happened, let's suspend our judgment about Assange's guilt or innocence. Liberals want to support Assange because, you know, he's fighting the power and shit. (Even Naomi Wolf has joined the pro-Assange chorus.) But the fact is, sometimes politically admirable people do bad shit to women. Men's Rightsers want to vilify the accusers because the primary accuser is a feminist. But the fact that someone is a feminist doesn't mean that she can't get raped. "
Composite's Feminism, Assange rape charges, free speech, and Wikileaks - 12/2010
"We need to call bullshit very strongly for what has already happened in the media to his accusers, who have had their identities outed and who are being attacked by shamers and rape apologists.
But as feminists we also need to defend, not rapists or men’s right to rape with impunity, but free speech and the laws and political climate that help it flourish. That is also an important part of feminism. It’s crucial. It’s THE MOST IMPORTANT part of feminism. We need free speech, the laws that protect it, and the tools that make public free speech possible, as women who have fought hard to have a public voice."
hypatia dot ca's On Consent - 12/2010
" 1. If you don’t do your damnedest to stop having sex with someone who has initially consented to sex with you but then withdraws consent, you have committed rape. Depending on the jurisdiction, it may be sexual assault rather than rape; I don’t really care about the semantics of it. It’s wrong and not OK in any way and you’re a douchebag if you think otherwise. Consent is an active, continuous process. If you don’t want active, enthusiastic consent from your sexual partners, please go fuck an inanimate object instead of wasting the time of a human being who has feelings, agency, and the right to have their boundaries respected.
2. If someone consents to having sex with you on the premise that you are wearing a condom, and you don’t put on a condom (or you notice it’s broken and don’t stop), you may not be guilty of a specific crime (depending on the jurisdiction), but you’re a fucking asshole and you’re probably a sexual predator. Testing and violating boundaries is how sexual predators operate; this is a known thing. Also, see previous comments about inanimate objects.
3. (added as news has come out of the bail hearing) Yeah, sex with someone who is passed out or asleep: also rape. (With obvious exception where it’s been specifically negotiated while conscious.)"
The River Fed's Julian Assange, the arrest and why we should not protest. Yet. - 12/2010
"But the events today do not constitute a violation of either international, or Swedish national, law as far as I am able to ascertain. Is there cause for concern that this legal action has not been undertaken by the prosecution in good faith? Yes. But can we state categorically that Julian Assange is innocent of the sex crimes he stands accused of? No. Should we vilify two unknown women and deny them due process?
Emphatically… NO.
I live in a society - purportedly - of innocence until proven guilty and I do my best to abide, in my own thinking, by that principle. The social reality of this, however, is much murkier than that principle allows. Some will assume guilt at the very accusation and some will proclaim innocence regardless of what facts or evidence emerge. This is the reality of sex crime. This is also the reality of the law surrounding sex crime. It will always be inadequate. It will always be incapable of distinguishing, comparatively, between consent and assault."
The Conscience Vote's The arrest of Julian Assange - a reality check - 12/2010
"But let’s not get carried away with conspiracy theories. Let’s not conflate international condemnation from governments directed at Wikileaks with real, specific charges against an individual that have nothing to do with that organisation. Let’s not assume that this is some kind of James Bond or Bourne Identity plot being played out in real life.
In other words, let’s take a breath for a minute. Examine the whole story, separate the man from the message, evaluate what Wikileaks does on its own terms and let Swedish justice take its course.
Above all, let’s not participate in demonising two women who are just as entitled to the presumption of innocence as Assange. "
Jessica Valenti's Naomi Wolf really needs to read the internet - Relevant Source - 12/2010
"I’m fairly certain that Wolf would agree that “having sex” with someone while they’re asleep isn’t sex at all, but rape. And even if you’re iffy on the consent/condom question, Jill at Feministe breaks it down for you. Basically, if someone agrees to have sex with you with the condition that you use a condom, and then you remove said condom and continue the sex or if you continue the sex despite your partner’s protestations - that is straight up assault. And I’m betting Wolf would agree with that as well."
Feminism and Tea's Feminist Conspiracies and Julian Assange - 12/2010
"This whole business seems to me have turned into an affair of Wikileaks vs. the women. And I do not mean Wikileaks as in the organisation itself has turned against the women; I mean Wikileaks in the sense that people seem to have made Julian Assange synonymous with Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an organisation, not a person, and people would do very well to keep this in mind. There is no doubt that Wikileaks have done people good through releasing information; people have the right to know. However, just because Wikileaks, the organisation has done something good, does not mean Julian Assange the person cannot do something bad. This argument is applicable in the reverse as well for those who see this information leak as something negative. Just because Wikileaks the organisation did something you consider horrible, does not mean that Julian Assange the person will inevitably rape women.
Lastly, I want to point out that just because Sweden has a legal system that is equal, that takes into consideration women's needs in such cases as rape, where the conviction rates are appallingly low, does not mean it hates men or that it inevitably discriminates men. The statistics speak to the reverse, it is very hard to be sentenced for a rape crime. Besides, Sweden is not exactly known for its fierce punishments and long prison sentences. I would believe many people regard the Swedish legal system as 'soft' because of its focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment."
Anglofille's Wikileaks and Rape - 12/2010
"If someone had made charges like this against Glen Beck, let’s say, many on the left would be calling for him to be castrated and sentenced to life in prison. But since Assange is the one being charged, many are singing a different tune. This is how you can tell what a person’s true values are. Your core values do not shift in this way. With an issue as serious as rape, your analysis and response should not be dependent upon the alleged rapists’ politics. We don’t know if the charges against Assange are true - he might be completely innocent. However, automatically assuming they aren’t true or are no big deal because the alleged rapist is someone you admire, and then trashing the alleged victims, is disgusting behavior and shows a lack of real commitment to feminism and social justice."
Alas' Rape Myths and Julian Assange - 12/2010
"Added to this we get a re-run of the Polanski trial and an argument that what happened to these women isn’t ‘rape-rape’. People were running these lines, before they even knew what the charges are. The charges are actually really clear cut: he had sex with one woman while she was asleep, and he didn’t stop when another woman said stop. It doesn’t require a very in depth and complex understanding of consent to understand that that is rape. But there is a constant narrative that anything other than stranger rape where force is used is somehow a lesser form of rape. That narrative is really damaging to rape survivors.
But I think that defenders of Julian Assanger do the most damage when they construct a way that rape victims behave and imply that the woman involved isn’t acting like a rape victim: she tweeted about him, or she seemed happy, or she saw him again.
I lose it at this point. There is no way that rape victims act - there is no way that rape victims don’t act. Seriously. If you don’t know this then you have no right to say a word about rape. "
Big Think's A Feminist Lawyer on the Case Against Wikileaks' Julian Assange - 12/2010
"If consent is predicated on condom use and one partner surreptitiously avoids using a condom, morally, that's a form of sexual assault. Jill notes in her piece that it would be difficult to make that legal case in many U.S. states because the relevant laws require force or threat or force in addition to non-consent. However, the second allegation, if proven, would easily constitute rape in many U.S. states. If one person withdraws consent during sex by telling their partner to stop, and their partner doesn't stop, that's rape (non-consent + force).
Assange has been accused of rape in the English-language media, but it sounds like he's actually been charged with some considerably lesser offenses under Swedish law."
Salon's The rush to smear Assange's rape accuser - 12/2010
"The fact is, we just don't know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.
Public evidence, as the Times noted, is scarce. So, it's heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women."
Feministe's Some thoughts on "sex by surprise" - 12/2010
"Whether withdrawal of consent is what actually happened here is impossible to tell, so I’m not suggesting that Assange is a rapist or that these charges are 100% definitely on-point; I have no idea. But neither do the commentators who are saying that Assange did nothing more than have sex without a condom. And it’s important to counter the “haha sex by surprise those crazy Swedes” media narrative with the fact that actually, non-consensual sex is assault and should be recognized as such by law. Consenting to one kind of sexual act doesn’t mean that you consent to anything else your partner wants to do; if it’s agreed that the only kind of sex we’re having is with a condom, then it does remove an element of consent to have sex without a condom with only one partner’s knowledge. To use another example, if you and your partner agree that you can penetrate her, it doesn’t necessarily follow that she has the green light to penetrate you whenever and however. "
Pandagon's C'mon, we can do this acting like grown-up thing - 12/2010
"Interpol is using a rape accusation that resembles this one to put Julian Assange on their most-wanted list. As Lindsay points out, this is just silly. Sex crimes are never actually taken this seriously---we feminists wish!---and I’m annoyed to see rape used in this way, considering that rape apologists are already eager to suggest that rape accusations are about some evil bitch with ulterior motives. Indeed, as Lindsay notes, the usual rape apologist tropes are being employed, this time by people who should know better. Jill has more on why forcibly fucking a woman who has withdrawn her consent because the condom conditions weren’t met is in fact rape, and it should always be legally treated as such. The key here is “consent”, which was withdrawn. That means that the woman was non-consenting. Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape. This shouldn’t be so complicated. "
Salon's U.S. rape laws, explained - 12/2010
"The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on rape charges has inspired a great deal of misinformation about sexual assault laws in the scary feminist utopia of Sweden. As Kate Harding wrote yesterday in Salon, "the notion that consensual, unprotected sex equals rape in Sweden (despite millions of Swedish fathers walking around free today) continues zipping around the Internet." Thankfully, the New York Times followed up today with a fact-based report on the matter, and the results are shocking: The Swedes take rape very seriously.
The country has the highest reporting rate in the European Union. (Perhaps because "Swedish women, backed by a strong consciousness of women's rights and a history of a very public discussion of the scourge of sexual violence, may be more willing than most to look to the law for help," writes the Times' Katrin Bennhold.) Swedish law also recognizes "withdrawal of consent" as rape, which is what is alleged in the Assange case, and details three types of rape: "severe," "regular" and "less severe.""
Feminism and Tea's "Sex by Surprise" - 12/2010
"Take a close look at the section I put in italics there. Assange did not comply with the woman's appeals to stop. It does not matter when these appeals were voiced, it matters that they were. By continuing having sex with the woman when she had voiced her wishes not to have sex with him, he had sex with her without her consent: rape by definition.
Note, that it isn't, as is also said in the news article, "Sweden's unusual rape laws, which are considered pro-feminist because of the consideration given issues of consent when it comes to sexual activity -- including even the issue of whether a condom was used." - it has to do with consent, and in this case, it was allegedly lacking, which is what the charges are based on. And no, it does not matter that they were having sex while she changed her mind, a person is allowed to stop a sexual act at any point (have a look at the rape myths below - "Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop - Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused").
What really worries me with this whole circus is that it is panning out to be a popularity contest, as with so many other rape cases. There is the much-loved, at least by people not involved in the state, liberator of information against the allegedly rabid Swedish feminist."
Anti-rape activism and men:
XY Online's Sexual harassment will be eliminated only when men take part in ending it - 11/2010
"Men’s sexual harassment of women often reflects sexist social norms and gender inequalities in power. It is part of a continuum of abusive and coercive behaviours, including sexual violence.
Ending sexual harassment will mean shifting entrenched cultures of sexism and chauvinistic bonding in which women endure a daily ‘dripping tap’ of unwelcome sexual behaviour. It will mean tackling the homophobic abuse, bullying, and violent initiations involved in men’s harassment of other men."
GLBT:
TBD's Daily Caller: Draft lesbians, then turn them straight - Relevant Source - 11/2010
"AND THEN FINALLY: Once all the lesbians are easily accessible in one place, an army of straight dudes will turn them all straight, presumably through that time-tested tactic of subduing and impregnating women against their will: "my solution would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective 'Broke Back,'" Rehyansky concludes, "thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream."
How has no one thought of this before, and then proceeded to published it on the Internet next to a photograph of themselves?"
The Raw Story's Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight - 11/2010
"The conservative news site The Daily Caller has removed part of an article that suggested lesbians be allowed into the US military so that their male colleagues can "convert" them.
Critics say the article went as far as to suggest corrective rape for lesbians.
"Lesbians should be allowed to serve, gay men should not," declared Joe Rehyansky in an article published Monday. Rehyansky, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, is a part-time magistrate in Hamilton County, Tennessee, and a former assistant district attorney."
Rape culture:
Yes Means Yes' Rape Culture: Aiding And Abetting - Relevant Source - 4/2010
"But the rapist’s friends are not the only ones who helped him. Howard University Hospital’s openly hostile personnel and the since-changed rule that rape kits could only be done with police approval helped him. Other hospitals’ reluctance to do a rape kit so that she couldn’t immediately have it done somewhere else helped him. But most of all the DC police helped him. (I’ve spent some time in DC. It would be hard to find a sorrier excuse for a police department.) Whether because they are under pressure to keep the crime statistics down, or because they just prefer to disbelieve and discourage survivors from reporting, the DC police engaged in conduct clearly designed to silence this woman"
The legal system:
A stormy blog's I smell a rat - Relevant Source - 11/2006
"So, in this judge’s mind, a woman is only ‘entitled’ to make one claim of rape. Did it ever cross his mind that both these guys could have been rapists? Why on earth would she bother to make more ‘false allegations’ when the ‘attempt’ five years earlier had no desired result? This judge also likely thinks that rape cannot happen within marriage - as the marriage contract ensures the husband has full sexual access to his property wife."
The Problem:
"The two women went to the police because they discovered they had both been bedded by him and they got pissed off about it. End of story.
The Interpol red alert has NOTHING to do with this. The intention is to get him to Sweden then to the USA for lifetime imprisonment or even the death sentence - just to be sure people know the price for telling the truth - unlike these women who are lying after the fact just because they feel cheated on." - (link)
"Common sense tells me that if I go alone, dressed in a miniskirt, to a bar full of drunken jerks, my risk of being sexually assaulted is greatly heightened.
Excuse me, but I'll forego my philosophical feel-good ideas of "equality" for my common sense belief that I shouldn't do certain things that would likely turn out bad for me. Nevermind the reasons about WHY things would turn out bad... The fact remains, my risks would be exponentially raised. I like my hide too much to sacrifice it on the altar of my female pride. " - (link)
"You made the assumption that there is an epidemic of unpunished rapes because feminists have done surveys in which the survey respondents claim to have been raped but never reported it, or did report it but the suspect was never convicted. These surveys do not prove guilt, nor do they prove that a rape even occurred in the first place." - (link)
"Polanski’s artistic achievements have immeasurably enhanced the sensitivity of millions of people to human suffering and vulnerability, which Polanski himself has experienced repeatedly in his life, on an almost Job-like scale. Are these factors to be ignored because a crime is a crime is a crime and the guilty must be remorselessly punished without regard to the context of their deeds and the content of their characters?" - (link)