If you’re even a casual consumer of the news, you’re no doubt aware of the plight of men in Sweden. If you’re a man in Sweden, your rights are not your own. You must have a female guardian — no matter how old you are. You can’t leave your neighborhood — indeed, your own house — without your guardian’s permission. She has the right to veto your marriage; indeed, you’ve probably heard of the 42-year-old Swedish doctor who’s suing his mother to allow him to marry. You are not to have contact with women you are not related to without family supervision. Indeed, you’re not even allowed to drive.
Do you like sports? You can’t play ’em. Interested in politics? You can’t participate in ’em. Want education? You can get it — but it’s heavy on your responsibility as a man to serve women. And if you’re assaulted by a woman, you’d best not report it — a man who was kidnapped and assaulted by seven Swedish women was famously sentenced to six months in prison and a whipping for being in the presence of women he was unrelated to — and when Men’s Rights Activists complained, the sentence was doubled.
Yes, being a man in Sweden is horrible; it’s pretty much being consigned to subhuman status, mere property of your female relatives. It’s a horrible country for men’s rights, and nobody would think of drawing a comparison between that nation’s laws and more egalitarian laws elsewhere.
Of course, by “Sweden” I mean “Saudi Arabia.” By “men” I mean “women.” By “women” I mean “men.” And by “nobody” I mean “Julian Assange.”
Yes, Julian Assange, International Man of Mystery and accused rapist, went there:
Mr Assange is now wanted on suspicion of rape, sexual coercion and sexual assault. It is important to him that it is known he has not yet been charged with any crime anywhere else.
Mr Assange regards himself as a victim of radicalism. “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism,” he said. “I fell into a hornets’ nest of revolutionary feminism.”
Because the Swedish insistence that consent is necessary for sex not to be rape is exactly like the Saudi Arabian practice of allowing men to marry off their nine-year-old daughters. Obviously.
I have been deliberately neutral on the allegations against Assange thus far. Having been guilty of rushing to judgment before, I have tried not to repeat the same mistakes. I believe strongly and completely that the rape allegations against Assange are serious and should be treated seriously; I believe firmly that Assange is owed due process and a right to defend himself in a court of law. And I believe that those of us in the public have a responsibility to deal with the facts of the case — that we should not minimize the allegations because it’s convenient to do so, and that we should admit that Assange’s notoriety is clearly part of the reason this case is being pursued.
But when I read Assange’s own words on the matter, I find it hard to maintain neutrality. Because, quite frankly, Assange’s own words are not that of a man accused cavalierly by two women out to deliver him to the CIA. Rather, they’re the words of an unrepentant rapist who sees nothing wrong with his actions:
Mr Assange has also been accused of sexual assault by another young woman he slept with during his trip to Sweden.
According to him, the woman, named only as Miss W, arrived at a lunch in a revealing pink cashmere sweater, flirted with him, and took him home.
She says they had consensual sex but she woke up the next morning to find him having intercourse with her to which she had not consented.
When she asked him if he was wearing anything, he had allegedly said: “I am wearing you.”
Shorter Julian Assange: She was dressed all slutty! She took me home! And obviously, you can’t rape a slut!
Do I know that Assange raped anyone? No. But the fact that the man uses the way one of his accusers dressed as a defense — the fact that he tacitly goes back to she was asking for it — tells me that at best, the man is deeply misogynistic, and filled to the brim with unexamined privilege. Exactly the sort of man who’d see nothing wrong with not using a condom when his partner asked him to — and not stopping when she said, “stop.”
None of this means Assange should be assassinated. None of this means he should be drug to America to stand trial for the non-existent laws that Wikileaks didn’t break. None of this means he should even be convicted.
But is it enough for me to conclude that Julian Assange is a massive douchebag, no friend to women, and someone undeserving of our time and energy? Yes, yes it is.
Well said!
Julian Assange is king of the douchebags.
Well said! I couldn’t add a thing–I just read the post nodding all along.
Just so we are on the same page, is Assange an unrepentant rapist douchebag just because of his over the top(and clearly nonsensical) reference to Saudi Arabia, or do you have a link to some other misogynistic comments he has made?
@Vivek: He is a misogynistic douchebag. If “Taking rape accusations seriously is radical feminism!!!!!111” comments don’t make you one, what the hell does?
I don’t know, it is one thing for us to debate his case in a calm and rational manner, but the stakes are much higher for him. It’s not inconceivable he honestly believes that the case is ludicrous and is being unfairly persecuted by a legal system that’s weighted against him. If any of us were falsely accused of a serious crime and headed toward a trial, we’d be terrified and wonder why the preliminary police investigation wasn’t good enough to clear us.
Personally I think he is likely guilty of trying to force unprotected sex with at least one unwilling partner, and should face punishment for his crime once established. But to milk his paranoid statement tends to fall into the equivalent ‘how should the victim behave’ trap. That’s why I wanted to know if there was something else that supported the general conclusion of this thread.
“But the fact that the man uses the way one of his accusers dressed as a defense — the fact that he tacitly goes back to she was asking for it”
Wait, when did he say that?
@Plasma: It’s quoted in the post: According to him, the woman, named only as Miss W, arrived at a lunch in a revealing pink cashmere sweater
‘Mr Assange is now wanted on suspicion of rape, sexual coercion and sexual assault. It is important to him that it is known he has not yet been charged with any crime anywhere else.
Mr Assange regards himself as a victim of radicalism. “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism,” he said. “I fell into a hornets’ nest of revolutionary feminism.”’
“Because the Swedish insistence that consent is necessary for sex not to be rape is exactly like the Saudi Arabian practice of allowing men to marry off their nine-year-old daughters. Obviously.”
I think the things that reminded him of Saudi Arabia are more likely to have been the prosecutors attempting to have him jailed for 36 days without charge (and being successful for 10 days), and trying to compel him to give evidence against himself.
> Because the Swedish insistence that consent is necessary for sex not to be rape is exactly like the Saudi Arabian practice of allowing men to marry off their nine-year-old daughters. Obviously
Are you saying that the sex was non-consensual in the Assange case? Because that is what you are saying here, but is it what you are saying?
I don’t think that anybody has challenged this point of view. If that’s what he honestly believes it still doesn’t invalidate his many misogynistic & rape apologist statements related to his current situation. In short, the above quoted statement can be true at the same time that Assange is a misogynistic, creepy asshole. Hell, Assange could be innocent of all charges and his public statements would still make him a misogynistic, creepy asshole.
If he had said, “She wore X, and she obviously wanted it”, then sure he would be all the things you say. All he states is that she wore X, they flirted, had consensual sex at her home, and she did not express any displeasure during his stay. Other than a poor swipe at the Swedish system, I don’t see any misogynistic or rape apologist statement credited to him in the opening post.
Maybe I need to hang around these stories more to see a pattern emerge, but for now we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Vivek: what possible reason could he have to for pointing out that she was wearing a revealing sweater if not to imply that she was welcoming whatever sexual advances he he made, and what possible reason would he have for doing that if not to imply that if a woman welcomes one sexual advance she surely must be consenting to ALL OF THEM? You just don’t bring up what the person alleging sexual assault was wearing unless you honestly think that has something to do with the veracity of their claims. Which it doesn’t. Ever. And to imply that it does *is* rape apologism.
Vivek, I might be misunderstanding you; but you seem to be confusing “Assange is saying mysoginistic things” and “Assange is a rapist because he says mysoginistic things.”
The former is what Jeff Fecke and the other posters are actually saying. That latter bit is something they are specifically not saying.
And I don’t want to assume that you are unfamiliar with the topic being discussed (which is the misogyny inherent in discussing what the alleged victim was wearing at the time), but you do seem to be arguing that saying: “she was wearing clothes that imply she was looking for sex” is neither sexist nor “rape-enabling”.
And, if you are arguing that, then it is both an untrue and immensely male-privileged argument to be making.
i have a thing i’d like to point out here…
first – the CIA is many, many things. completely inept is NOT one of them.
if the CIA were really, truly interested in faking up some sort of charge against him, the one thing they would NOT attempt to fake are rape charges.
specifically, rape charges that even many feminists wouldn’t call “real rape” [please note: i would call it rape. if i told a person “sure, sex is great, but only with a condom” and they later had sex with me, while i was asleep, without a condom, i’d say it was rape. i’d say it was rape no matter WHO it was. i’m just saying that many other people would say it was NOT rape]
rape, as a crime, is only taken seriously in extreme cases – i.e. when the victim is an innocent virgin who’s never so much as batted her eyelashes at a man, who was wearing extremely modest clothing at the time, and was abducted by a stranger and half-killed by the rape [in fact, there’s a US senator who says that that is the ONLY “real” definition of rape – that women in short skirts, or who smile, or who drink, etc etc etc are not CAPABLE of being raped, because they aren’t “pure” and shit].
because if this, A) i’m pretty damned positive that this is NOT some sort of conspiracy by the CIA. or anyone, really – both the women were supporters of Wikileaks – and ONLY went the police when Assange *refused* to get tested for STIs. B) i’m willing to believe that he did, in fact, under Swedish law, rape those women. in the specific sense of “he was told sex was ok ONLY with a condom and then he went ahead without a condom, and wouldn’t stop and put on a condom when asked”.
“willing to believe” is not, i point out, the same thing as “i am convinced”. just that, at this point, to me the evidence points in that direction, and it seems much more likely to me than any other explanation. if new evidence is found, i won’t run around insisting it’s fake and/or fabricated, but in the absence of any such evidence…
also, C) is IS a mysoginistic ass. stating that she wore X so it was ok… that’s creepy. and what the fuck kind of guy wakes a woman up in that way? at least, a woman you don’t know wants it? [because, had it been discussed in advance… but i, and several other women that i know, would have reacted VIOLENTLY to that.] and THEN refuses to put on a condom?
what kind of idiot sleeps with someone they don’t know without a condom?
and THEN refuses to get tested? for all he knows, he now has herpes!
to clarify what i mean, when i say it’s not a “Grand CIA conspiracy”
yes, in any other situation, it’s doubtful that the charges would have been pushed as hard as they are being pushed. it’s probable that there’s US pressure in that specific arena – of the “yay! we found someplace where he’s ACTUALLY broken the law; lets make sure they prosecute. too damned bad it’s rape, and not something better” variety.
because, sadly, rape just isn’t taken seriously own it’s own. almost makes me wish every rapist was a highly visable political activist.
“What possible reason could he have to for pointing out that she was wearing a revealing sweater if not to imply that she was welcoming whatever sexual advances he he made, and what possible reason would he have for doing that if not to imply that if a woman welcomes one sexual advance she surely must be consenting to ALL OF THEM?”
Holy crap remind me never to ask you to slap me in the face, for fear you’d shoot me with a gun! Saying “she was dressed provocatively” was to show that the woman wasn’t pressured into having sex in the first place. It’s hardly unreasonable to expect him to argue against it even if nobody said it, especially for someone paranoid about people coming up with any reason to hate him.
Y’know, like you’d doing. Right now.
Seriously, look at what you’re saying! You’re saying that, because he described how the person was dressed and nothing more, he is definitely a rapist with a “she was asking for it” defence.
Yes, that’s right, you’re accusing him of being a rapist for it. If someone uses that as a defence, then it means the person did actually commit the act. So if you say Assange implied that the way she was dressed was what made it okay, then you’re also saying he did actually have non-consentual sex. You can’t have it both ways.
The worst part is that you’re only assuming this all… because you don’t know WHAT his defence is in the first place! That you think you can speak for this case without even knowing the very basics of it is ridiculous!
What? Tell me you didn’t mean what you wrote. You’ve just endorsed the creepy rape apologist position of “she was asking for it by the way she was dressed.” How is “she was dressed provocatively so she wasn’t pressured into having sex” different than “she was dressed provocatively so she was asking for it”?
How are you not getting this?
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Where did I ever presume his guilt of the actual act? I AM presuming that he is a rape apologist. That he DOES believe that what a woman is wearing is indicative of her consent, because why else would he bring it up? Can you think of another reason to bring it up?
“Holy crap remind me never to ask you to slap me in the face, for fear you’d shoot me with a gun!”
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I’m commenting on how I think someone presuming that someone wants sex by what they are wearing is a false conclusion, so how would that lend credence to my taking things a step further than what’s really being asked for. I’m advocating for NOT doing that.
“Saying “she was dressed provocatively” was to show that the woman wasn’t pressured into having sex in the first place.”
Which is just plain, straight out, clearly freaking WRONG. What someone is wearing has ZERO to do with whether or not they want to have sex at all – much less specific sex acts with a specific person at a specific time. She could be standing in front of someone totally naked and that still doesn’t give the other person a right to do something to her that she hasn’t explicitly consented to. Period. End of story. Full stop.
“So if you say Assange implied that the way she was dressed was what made it okay, then you’re also saying he did actually have non-consentual sex.”
I am absolutely not saying that. I have no idea what happened between Assange and these two women in Sweden, not having been there to witness it myself and not being provided with video of what happened, etc.
What I *am* saying is that Assange is a rape apologist because the only reason to bring up what a woman is wearing when she has accused him of rape is to imply that she “wanted it” – whatever “it” happens to be in that situation. So perhaps this woman was dressed proactively and perhaps she consented to everything that transpired between them. You know what? What she was WEARING still has nothing to do with ANY of it. To bring that up is to assume that it DOES matter, and to assume that it matters what the accuser is wearing is to assume that a woman can ask for and consent to sex simply by the way she dresses. Which is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
“The worst part is that you’re only assuming this all… because you don’t know WHAT his defence is in the first place!”
Well, I know that he has publicly stated that what she was wearing was provocative as *part* of his defense. That is the part that I am specifically taking issue with here and nothing else. Please don’t put words into my mouth. I have not ever actually called Assange a rapist anywhere. I have said that the alleged victims need to be taken seriously and if what’s contained in their reports is what happened then it was rape. And I am now saying Assange is using rape apologist language in his own defense. But I have not accused him of rape, because I simply do not know if it is true or not. I am ONLY accusing him of rape apologism.
“What? Tell me you didn’t mean what you wrote. You’ve just endorsed the creepy rape apologist position of “she was asking for it by the way she was dressed.” How is “she was dressed provocatively so she wasn’t pressured into having sex” different than “she was dressed provocatively so she was asking for it”?”
Blarg, I worded that badly. I meant that it would be used as an indication that she wanted sex, if the issue of “did she want ordinary sex in the first place or was there some sort of… ‘bribery’ involved, or somesuch”. Y’know, cases where saying “yes” isn’t enough to say it wasn’t rape. It’s not a direct proof, but it is part of a devil’s proof, so it still works.
“Where did I ever presume his guilt of the actual act? I AM presuming that he is a rape apologist. That he DOES believe that what a woman is wearing is indicative of her consent, because why else would he bring it up?”
So, let me get this straight: you say that he thinks the woman involved in this case, SPECIFICALLY that woman, was “asking for it” so anything that happened wouldn’t be rape, and that he said it as part of his defence… but you think it’s not related to this case? That he’s just “saying” that? Yeah… no, I’m not accepting that. At all.
Also, I need a source that this is actually part of hi
If by “devil’s proof” you mean “rape apologists’ defense” – okay.
I don’t see the difference. You’re saying that the way she was dressed indicates that she wants “ordinary” sex (as opposed to being raped, I’m guessing – not that I’ve ever met anybody who claimed to want to be raped). I’m saying – and Rosemary put it much better – that this is a typical rape apologist statement.
Rosemary wrote:
And Rosemary is correct.
You, Plasma, are declaring yourself to be a rape apologist in just the same way that Assange has declared himself to be a rape apologist.
Right. So, because I said “Assange said X but that doesn’t mean he meant Y”, I am therefore… a rape apologist.
As for Rosemary’s quote, it doesn’t apply here. Like I said, it’s for cases where there would be explicit consent. In cases where you have to prove that when she said “yes”, she WAS actually ‘asking for it’ and not doing it under pressure.
Like I said, this is the sorta thing that “nobody argued”, but that can still come up. At least, as a person paranoid that people are out to get him would think.
Oh, also? That original police report? ALSO said how she was dressed provocatively! Guess the police must be rape apologists too!
This really isn’t a complex concept, but I’ll try one last time.
Using the alleged victim’s manner of dress to imply consent is rape apologism. This is what Assange did and this is what you are doing.
To sum up… saying, “Assange said X but that doesn’t mean he meant Y, ” does not make you a rape apologist. Saying, “Saying ‘she was dressed provocatively’ was to show that the woman wasn’t pressured into having sex in the first place, ” does make you a rape apologist.
Neither of us said it was to imply consent! That is what YOU are presuming describing someone dressed provocatively means here, under the argument that he wouldn’t say it otherwise. And I am giving a reason why he would say it otherwise!
IF you can show that he did mean it to imply consent, then yes, it’s completely rape apologism and totally wrong, yes. But you still have to do that.
Plasma: You’ve gone from wrong to incoherent. I’d warn you, but at this point, I can’t even tell what you think you’re arguing. (At one point, you definitely did argue for clothing-as-asking-for-it, but you seem to have maybe changed your mind, or maybe not; it’s not abundantly clear from your prose.) Back off of this one.
Plasma:
“So, let me get this straight: you say that he thinks the woman involved in this case, SPECIFICALLY that woman, was “asking for it” so anything that happened wouldn’t be rape, and that he said it as part of his defence… but you think it’s not related to this case? That he’s just “saying” that? Yeah… no, I’m not accepting that. At all.
Also, I need a source that this is actually part of hi”
You seem to be lacking some important reading comprehension here. I’ve also never said that his statements about her dress are not related to this case. Obviously they are.
What I AM saying is that I do not and cannot know if he actually did rape these women. So I am not and will not claim that he did until/unless I actually have that knowledge, which I doubt I ever will. HOWEVER, he is using rape apologist language in publicly stated defenses of himself. He is bringing up the state of the accuser’s clothing as a way of implying that she wanted sex. That implication means that he believes that if a woman is provocatively dressed then she wants sex and that it is then therefore okay to have sex with her by that reasoning alone ( i.e. regardless of consent). That is the ONLY reason I can think of that a person would bring up what the person alleging rape is wearing and describing it as provocative. Can you give me any other reasons that don’t lead to the line of “because she was dressed sexy, it means she wants sex”? If so, let me know and I’ll think about amending my argument.
And, BTW, “Like I said, it’s for cases where there would be explicit consent. In cases where you have to prove that when she said “yes”, she WAS actually ‘asking for it’ and not doing it under pressure.” DOES NOT COUNT. It STILL Does Not Matter what the woman was wearing. EVER.
As for sources, there is a link right there in the original posting of what we are commenting to, but here it is again: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims/story-fn775xjq-1225976459286
The specific quote being cited is:
“Mr Assange has also been accused of sexual assault by another young woman he slept with during his trip to Sweden.
According to him, the woman, named only as Miss W, arrived at a lunch in a revealing pink cashmere sweater, flirted with him, and took him home.
She says they had consensual sex but she woke up the next morning to find him having intercourse with her to which she had not consented.”
One last thing. You said “Oh, also? That original police report? ALSO said how she was dressed provocatively! Guess the police must be rape apologists too!”
1. There would be nothing inherently odd about police officers being rape apologists as that happens all the time.
2. I’m unfamiliar with this part of the original report (I’ve read it, but just don’t remember this part), so if you can link me a source I’d appreciate it. Do they come out and say “provocatively” or something like that, or are they just describing in neutral terms the clothing that the women were wearing? Because that actually does make sense to include in a police report as it’s part of the factual reporting of the situation. If, however, there is emphasis on how the clothing was “provocative” or “revealing” or “sexy” or anything along those lines, then yes, I would absolutely argue that the police are also engaging in rape apologism.
We know what Assange should do if he is guilty: admit it; avoid doing further harm.
What would you all have Assange do if he is innocent?
What I’m trying to wrap my head around is the unspoken gestalt I’m picking up that Assange should, even if he were innocent, take care to avoid using defenses or statements which would unduly prejudice the anti-rape or feminist causes. In other words, that he should consider the social consequences of his actions above the potential immediate consequences to his person.
Can this be right?
Because it doesn’t seem that you can separate “accuse Assange of rape apologism” from “insist that Assange is wrong.” Rape apologists and innocent accused sound pretty much the same. (I expect that the “not guilty” accused also sound pretty much the same.) I understand that some of you are trying to peel off the social layer, but I don’t think it works.
“She wanted to have sex with me” is probably the most commonly used defense in rape. It implies both (a) that the allegedly non-consensual sex was actually consensual; and (b) that even if it wasn’t consensual in reality, it “appeared” to be consensual to a degree that the perpetrator didn’t have the mental intent to be a rapist.
All of those defenses are frequently used by lying defendants who rape people, because they tend to be very difficult to rebut. “She wanted to have sex with me” is a nasty and effective defense. I don’t know the statistics, but my guess is that this is by far the most common use of the defense.
Unfortunately, “she wanted to have sex with me” is ALSO an appropriate and relevant defense in rape during the very rare situation of a maliciously false rape charge*, used by every actually-innocent defendant as well.
And even more unfortunately, “she wanted to have sex with me” can sometimes be an appropriate and relevant defense in many of the much-more-common issue of “conduct not legally sufficient to constitute rape.*” So unsurprisingly, all of those defenses are ALSO used by many/most/all of those defendants.
So in the end, the use of those defenses don’t really tell us much. I’d say that they don’t really tell us anything. It just comes back to the age old question of figuring out who is telling what, and what the truth is.
* Maliciously false rape means “accusing someone of rape when the accuser knows full well that there was no rape;” i.e., perjury by the accuser. It’s believed to be extremely rare. However, there are a much larger set of conflicts in which the victim believes they were raped, but for some reason (or legal technicality) the actions do not meet the legal definition of rape. The most common example might be when a victim gets drunk, “consents” to sex (in most states sex after drunken consent isn’t rape;) cannot then remember having consented, and assumes in good faith that s/he was raped.
Plasma, at comment #16:
Plasma, at comment # 19:
Plasma, at comment # 24:
Are you sure that you want to stick with your claim from comment # 24? It appears to contradict the actual words that you wrote, twice, in this thread.
You make a good point. “She wanted to have sex with me,” is, indeed, a common defense. It’s also a valid defense and is in no way rape apologism.
Where your point falls short, however, is in not distinguishing a difference between, “She wanted to have sex with me, ” and, “The way she was dressed implied consent to have sex with me.” One is rape apologism, the other is not.
Did she say, “I want to have sex with you?” If so, using that as a defense is not rape apologism. Did she not say, “I want to have sex with you, ” but you claim that her sexy outfit was consent to have sex with you? That’s rape apologism.
This really isn’t a complex concept. Claiming implied consent from form of dress is rape apologism. Actual consent is not rape apologism.
“What would you all have Assange do if he is innocent?”
I would personally have him go to Sweden, as he already earlier agreed to do, and face the charges as anyone accused of a serious crime must do.
“Rape apologists and innocent accused sound pretty much the same.”
I absolutely 100% disagree. If I were falsely accused of sexual assault, I would not, for example, talk about what the person was wearing. Because it literally has nothing at all whatsoever to do with whether or not I had done what they had accused me of doing. You only do that if you believe that what the person was wearing makes a difference in consent, and that specifically IS rape apologism.
If what Assange was asserting was that the woman actually did consent to everything he did that would be one thing. But I haven’t heard him do that (correct me if I’ve missed it somewhere). I’ve heard him say things like “well, she was dressed in a sexy manner” and “she threw me a party afterward” and “she consented once before” and other things that are simply rape apologia. And the fact is that the things these women are alleging ARE considered legal rape in the countries in which they are alleging it happened. This is not one of those murky cases as far as if what’s being reported is really legally rape or not. What’s murky is only whether or not he did the things being reported.
Wow. I have never been more certain that someone can both do important, even heroic work, and also be a complete and total dickbag. That’s disgusting and it does more to convince me of his probable guilt than any mysterious CIA conspiracy could.
I hope Wikileaks finds a new, less misogynistic head soon.
Hmmm. I’m trying to discuss a very specific point without sup[porting the “dress in any way other than a straitjacket = wants sex = can’t be raped” meme. Let’s see if this works….
If you’re the prosecutor in a rape case, you don’t just look at what happened once someone got into bed. If you’re trying to prove that Bob raped Jill after bringing her home from a bar, you might also try to bring in evidence that
-before he went out, Bob told his friends he wanted to “get some,”
-Bob walked around the bar trying to brazenly look down women’s shirts
-Bob propositioned two women to come home with him before Jill
and yelled at the bar “I’m going to get LAID tonight !!” an hour before he left
-Bob tried to dance with two women, and kept following them even when they told him to go away.
-Bob watches a lot of porn films.
You’d do that because you’re in an adversarial proceeding and are trying to “win.” That evidence will tend to convince a jury of the “rightness” of your story. They’re more likely to believe Jill (and convict Bob) if Bob comes across as a drunken, uncontrolled, sexually focused person who doesn’t respect boundaries.
Even though telling friends you want to “get some” or watching a lot of porn is not something which necessarily means Bob’s a rapist, or even especially uncommon, it’s still valuable. Because of course, the jury may THINK that it’s a horrible unusual thing to say that, or to watch porn. This is all about Bob against Jill, so it’s about building up Jill’s story at the expense of Bob.
Bob’s lawyer will do the exact same thing, in reverse.
If it’s not a governmental lynching when the prosecutor does it–it’s her job, after all–then it’s hard to characterize it as rape apology when Bob’s lawyer does it. It’s his job, too.
There’s no good solution.
“Did she say, “I want to have sex with you?” If so, using that as a defense is not rape apologism. Did she not say, “I want to have sex with you, ” but you claim that her sexy outfit was consent to have sex with you? That’s rape apologism.”
Is claiming she said “I want to have sex with you”, and then using her sexy outfit as circumstantial evidence to support that claim rape apologism? Because I think that’s closer to the Assange’s position than the two options above.
Perhaps a better way to say it:
Many things which might be rape apology if said in ordinary conversation, may not be rape apology if said in the context of a rape defense. Assange is a rape defendant. So he has a lot more leeway in what he says about his specific accusers, than a random person would have if they were saying the same things about a random victim.
g&w, rape apology is not in the legal code. We’re not talking about legal/illegal. We’re talking about rape apology or not rape apology. Rape apologism may be a good tactic for a rape defendant’s lawyer to use but that doesn’t make it not rape apologism.
Yes it is. Unless she also said, “I wore this sexy outfit to turn you on so I could have sex with you,” what she was wearing isn’t relevant to consent.
The way I tend to think of it:
Let’s say Julian Assange was accused of assault. He’s accused of assaulting a black dude.
Is saying, “I didn’t hit that guy,” racist? NO!
Is saying, “That guy hit me first,” racist? NO!
Is proclaiming your innocence to the high heavens racist? NO!
Is saying, “I didn’t hit that guy,” and using as your supporting evidence “black people are all liars” racist? YES!
Is saying, “That guy hit me first,” and using as your supporting evidence “black people are all violent” racist? YES!
There’s a difference between what you say and how you support it, and though there have been plenty of times in our history that, “black people are all liars,” and, “black people are all violent,” was more effective as a defense than not, that didn’t make them not racist things to say.
“Look at how she was dressed” may be more effective as a defense than not, but that doesn’t make it not misogynist rape apology.
—Myca
Was it a very brief interview, a teaser, or was Assange too tight lipped for his own good? It has left so many gaps you can read pretty much whatever you want into it but I should have been more clear with my line of reasoning.
Says the article:
I can see:
Others may see:
One has a markedly different tone, but the article doesn’t quote him in a manner that conveys the flow of conversation. The first establishes how they ended up together, a sequence of events that has been verified by both sides; the reference to her attire was completely superfluous, not helpful to his cause, but not deeply misogynistic or rape enabling.
No one in their right mind would attempt the implied by dress consent weasel around what he’s alleged to have done the next morning because she absolutely could not agreed while asleep. Therefore to not come across as a scumbag he must argue that it never happened. Sadly the article is missing a clear unambiguous denial of the alleged activity, or at least his version of events that morning. Reading the article one can get the feeling he suggests whatever happened is not a big deal. But is that because he did not deny what happened, or did the reporter not feel it worthy of inclusion in the piece? Accompanied with a denial it adds credibility his claim, otherwise he is making a very troubling argument that pretty much corroborates W’s story, and pooh-poohs the violation of the victims. That’s where his potential sense of entitlement lies. His admitted refusal to get tested just piles it on.
Just like we should rationalize the actions of his victims (not tossing him out, positive notes about her subsequent time with him, and foolishly trying to delete those notes) in a manner that paints them in the best possible light , those claiming neutrality should at least try to do the same for him. Instead the post had already decided how it needed to end and proceeded to mine a superficial disjointed article for phrases from the rape apologist handbook.
To clarify, the ‘it’ that adds to his credibility is his argument that A and W continued to associate with him even after.
I’m not sure that the fact that both continued to associate with him can be taken as “evidence” that the lack of consent wasn’t “really” lack of consent.
two reasons: first, they had a job to do. and, like many professionals, do their job despite other issues [it happens waaaaaay more than you’d think]. second, in at least ONE of the cases, the only reason said woman went to police was because he then refused the STI test – she wasn’t so much going to report rape, as she was going to find out if she had any legal recourse to have him tested. the POLICE then decided it was rape.
which is a bit different from the way you’re attempting to frame it – she didn’t wait for a while then report rape; she spent time trying to get him to get tested, then went to ask advice.
There is no question of consent when attempting to have sex with someone who is asleep. He has to make the case that there either was no sex the morning after, or that W was awake and aware at the time. It is reasonable for Assange to claim their continued association with him supports those two scenarios, but so far I have not heard him do so.
You can’t ignore the context; how would that make sense? If I call you a liar for no reason, I’m acting like an asshole. If I call you a liar because you’ve falsely-in-my-view accused me of eating your pet goldfish, then I’m not.
I think you missed my point. RA is–in my view at least–more of a general opposition to anti-rape issues (“people named Squid are liars!”), not a specific limited-scope opposition raised in the context of a defense (“Jake Squid is lying about the goldfish, therefore he’s a liar!”) Otherwise, what you are saying functionally equates to “if you’re accused of rape, you better not use certain defenses, even if they are accurate or good for your cause, or you’ll be socially chastised as a rape apologist.” And that’s getting pretty close to the straw-feminist position that accused rapists are always guilty.
So the legal code is extremely relevant as context. Because if it weren’t for the legal code–and that charge of rape–then this would probably be rape apology.
In an attempt to understand your position better:
Did you read the parts of my post where I talked about the type of circumstantial evidence which might be used against the accused? If you’re arguing that clothing is irrelevant, do you believe that similar evidence against the accused is also irrelevant? If not, how do you distinguish between them?
I can understand a consistent position either way, but I have trouble with a one sided conclusion. It makes no sense to judge (or not) the behavior of the victim, while taking a different approach to the behavior of the accused.
Yes, that’s what I believe. The clothing the victim was wearing is not relevant to consent or guilt or innocence. The clothing the perpetrator was wearing is not relevant to consent or to guilt or innocence). Clothing is not relevant to whether or not a rape occurred.
Bad analogy. If I tell you you’re asking to have sex with me for no reason, I have no legitimate basis to do so. If I tell you you’re asking to have sex with me because your outfit is sexy, I have no legitimate basis to do so.
Rape apology is both general and specific. To assert otherwise seems ridiculous. There are many forms of rape apology and they excuse rapists. There are specific forms of rape apology that excuse rapists – she wasn’t wearing underwear, for example. What I am saying certainly does not equate to what you claim. It’s more of, you better not make certain claims or you’re being a rape apologist. Which, by the who, has nothing to do with whether a rapist is guilty or not.
Rape apology does not determine actual guilt or innocence. Rape apology is not a legitimate defense for rape. Rape apology may be an effective defense for rape at a legal trial, but that does not make it a legitimate moral defense. Rape apology may incline me to put more weight on the victim’s account. Rape apology will not lead me to determine guilt or innocence. The specific rape apology of which we are speaking – she was dressed in a way that implies consent – is not a legitimate moral defense (nor should it be an effective legal defense, but it will be until people understand the fallacy of the assertion) for rape because state of dress is not consent.
State of dress is not consent. State of dress is not consent. State of dress is not consent. To claim that state of dress implies consent is rape apology whether or not it is an effective defense in a criminal trial.
Meant to add:
The classic rape apologist / MRA stance is “women lie about rape.” that’s a bad position, generally speaking.
Yet I can’t imagine we would think it inappropriate for someone to say “my accuser is lying about this rape,” even though that’s an example of the RA/MRA position. I’m hoping that we also wouldn’t call the accused a RA/MRA simply for making that statement, since it’s basically required as part of raising a defense. (of course, if they’re actually guilty, call them whatever you want.)
What I’m personally unsure about is how to characterize a defendant who says “my accuser is lying about rape, and we know that even more because women lie about rape.” I can certainly see the problem with that statement. But I’m hesitant to go after a defendant who says that to the same degree as I would go after a normal person, because it’s an adversary proceeding and because the other side is also doing the same thing. Generally, I think that defendants should have–and be encouraged to have–wide latitude in rising a defense.
Sure. I take your meaning here, and I, too, agree that we ought to allow defendants wide latitude in defending themselves.
Like I said earlier, I think of ‘rape apologist’ the same way I think of ‘racist’.
Maybe a defendant who uses a racist defense (“Black people are all liars,” for example) is otherwise a completely non-racist person, and is just using that defense because they’re panicked and desperately trying to avoid conviction. Maybe it makes sense to judge them less harshly for their racist statements than we’d judge someone making the same statements who’s not under legal pressure. Sure, I’m on board with that. People do all kinds of shit when confronted with jail time.
But it’s still a racist thing to say.
And, yeah, it does make me think a little less of the person saying it, and make me think it’s a little more likely that they’re guilty.
That’s the problem with using rape-apologist or racist defenses. They’re kind of a crap shoot. If I buy the premise, I may be more likely to acquit, but if I don’t, I’ll be more likely to convict.
That is, when someone says, “He’s lying about me assaulting him, and you know he’s a liar because that’s how black people are,” the way I hear it is, “I am currently exhibiting the kind of contempt for black people that would totally make it more likely I’d assault them.”
When someone says, “She’s lying about me raping her, and you know she’s lying because look how she was dressed,” the way I hear it is, “I am currently exhibiting the kind of confusion/willful ignorance about consent that would totally make it more likely I’d commit rape.”
That’s now how he wanted me to hear it, but, then that’s the tricky thing about relying on invalid arguments. Don’t like it? Don’t do it.
—Myca
If you wish to condemn Assange as “the sort of man who’d see nothing wrong with not using a condom when his partner asked him to — and not stopping when she said, ‘stop’ ” based on his statement that “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism” or some other direct quote, please feel free to do so. I’m just surprised and disturbed because it seems that that judgment is based less on Assange’s Saudi quote and more on the “words of an unrepentant rapist who sees nothing wrong with his actions:”, which are… what, exactly? Where is the quote from Assange in the segment taken from the Australian article?
I see the following words from the reporter: “According to him, the woman, named only as Miss W, arrived at a lunch in a revealing pink cashmere sweater, flirted with him, and took him home.” I honestly don’t see how folks can make the leap from this one-sentence summary (of what, exactly? Is it a summary of statements in a media interview? Police report? Press release? Legal documents? The article doesn’t say, so I can’t trace back.) to the conclusion that Assange claims that state of dress is consent or implied consent.
Here’s the thing: there’s a difference between what you tell a jury and what you tell a reporter.
I can conceive of a person, falsely accused, having their lawyer tell the jury whatever truthful thing they think is going to get them off. Rape apology, racism, appeal to the invisible underpants gnomes – absolutely. If you didn’t do it, and your accuser is that semi (but alas not entirely) mythical crazed liar-woman, fine, tell the jury all about how she was begging for it the night before.
But you don’t have to tell a reporter anything. That’s where the douchebaggery comes in. “I didn’t do it, and will be cleared at trial” is the only message you need to put into the media, if you’re unfortunate enough to be falsely accused in the public eye.
Robert; The unfortunate truth is that nowadays the media is the greater and perhaps most important jury – and it’s generally not only the defense who is utilizing the media as a weapon in an ongoing case. Public opinion matters greatly regardless of your innocence or guilt. And saying that an innocent man shouldn’t comment to the press is most certainly going to disadvantage him further.
Secondly I would say that there is plenty of evidence that being so sure about being cleared at trial when one is innocent can be very naive. It’s the prosecutions job to make sure they nail you and it would be foolish to assume that they care whether you’re innocent or not.
Tamen,
As a reporter, I absolutely agree with Robert. More than once, I have wanted to stop somebody and say, “Just stop digging.” Of course, I don’t, because it’s not my job to make somebody stop digging and more digging usually means a better story.
“I am innocent and look forward to proving it in court” is far and away a better thing to say in the court of public opinion than “You should have seen what she was wearing!” Cause the more you look like a misogynist asshole, the more you look like a rapist. Not all rectangles are squares, but …
There is very little an innocent man can say to the press that will increase his chances of acquittal at trial. In fact, in this cynical (read: informed) age, the more a person is talking to the press, the greater the perception that the person is a guilty, guilty liar.
Talking to the press is like talking to the cops: it’s what the guilty and the foolish do. If you’re innocent, shut the hell up.
Chingona; Not all accused are simpletons who digs their own hole deeper. And as a reporter don’t you go to the prosecution, police etc. and get their side – even more so if the accused says no comment. I wonder why there is so much (strategic) leaking from police and prosecution to the press/public if there is nothing to gain from it.
Ideally I would like for both the accused and the prosecution side to not say anything to the press before the trial, even though that would mean less work for you. But arguing for a one-sidedness by applying a “the lady doth protest too much” standard to an accused’s public statements to the press without in any way curbing the other parts efforts of swaying the public opinion does not sit well with me.
As far as I understand Assange hasn’t been quoted as saying “You should have seen what she was wearing!”, but an article had this sentence:
“According to him, the woman, named only as Miss W, arrived at a lunch in a revealing pink cashmere sweater, flirted with him, and took him home.”
which to me reads as a summary. It’s quite likely that Assange unprompted brought up the sweater as a way of emphasizing her consent. That is an unfortunate belief men and women have and can be rape apologist in nature. On the other hand the mention of the sweater might very well be as a result of prompting and questioning from the reporter who might also subscribe to the belief that attire has anything to do with consent.
What I find more insulting that a mention of a sexy sweater is all the idiots all over the net who refers to having sex with someone who’s sleeping (without obtaining an explicit consent in advance) as surprise sex. That’s rape and if that happened mr. Assange is undoubtedly a rapist, condom or no condom is just a sidetrack on this issue.
It’s not a “lady doth protest too much” standard. It’s a “don’t say things that make you sound like more of an asshole” standard.
What I’m about to say next comes in an American context. I have no idea how these things work in Sweden. However, in the U.S., in the vast majority of cases, lawyers – prosecutors or defense attorneys – aren’t blabbing in the press about the case. Most of what we print comes from documents that are public record but that are, yes, from the police and prosecutors point of view – police reports, arrest warrant affidavits, indictments. Once a case is in court, various motions made by both parties are public, and you start to get more of the defense point of view. And courtrooms are open to the public and we report what gets said in them. (This would sort of blur the distinction that Robert is making because if someone goes into court and makes an argument based on how the victim was dressed, it still will end up in the paper if the case is one that gets coverage.)
I am very aware of the problem that once something is out there in the public sphere, it never completely goes away, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. But the alternative is a system where we don’t know who has been arrested or why. If indictments remain sealed even after someone is in custody, if no one can see an arrest affidavit, you have a system where people can be disappeared with no trace, with no idea of the evidence against them. Without hand-waving away the impact of a false accusation (of any sort – not just rape), I think a system with a lot of secrecy is worse for people accused of crimes.
And you know, with regard to Assange, someone – think it was Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon – pointed out that having all the police reports (which is where I think the bit about the revealing sweater comes from) out in public and letting the chips fall where they may is the same as what Wikileaks is doing. It is, frankly, a bit rich for him to argue that all this should stay under wraps.
I can see that. I don’t really agree with you, but that’s because I have a different perspective, not because I think you are wrong. It’s not a simple or obvious balance.
Same as above. I differentiate more strongly between defendants and non-defendants. I think you’re being overly harsh here–or maybe I simply have a different view of the criminal justice system–but I don’t think your view is outside sense or rationality.
This one I really don’t agree with, though. I mean, it’s 100% true insofar as you’re reporting on your own thoughts, but I don’t think it’s an accurate conclusion at all. But do you want to get into it on this thread?
Yeah, I think it’s harsh, but also fair.
Follow my thinking.
Either 1) The defendant really thinks these things (Black people are untrustworthy liars/Your manner of dress indicates consent to sexual activity) or 2) they don’t actually believe them, and they’re just saying them as a way to avoid charges.
In the discussion above, I’m assuming 1 to be true, and if 1 is true, then yeah, I think that in both of the cases I cited, it goes to the character of the accused, and, shows that they’re more likely to be the sort of people who would commit these crimes.
If 2 is true, though, then I don’t think that the statements indicate anything about the character of the accused one way or the other, and it doesn’t make them any more likely to be guilty. It also doesn’t make them any more likely to be innocent, though. It’s just some stuff they’re saying, and we shouldn’t pay any attention at all.
Even in this scenario, though it may be inaccurate to assume a greater likelihood of guilt (And I want to stress, I don’t assume that, if we believe #2 to be true) it may not actually be unfair. By consciously adopting #2 as a tactic, the defendant is attempting to manipulate the prejudices of the judge and jury in his favor … when that backfires, I don’t feel all that bad about it.
It’s like a guy who’s arrested for beating up a Hasidic shopkeeper and starts ranting about “The Jews control everything!” in court. Whether he’s antisemitic really or not, and whether he actually did beat the guy up or not, if he goes down because of his antisemitic rant, he’s got only himself to blame.
I think the other point is that though a defense may be presented as a manipulation of the prejudices of the judge and jury (rather than as an actual belief) the effect on the world is the same regardless. That is, when “The Jews control everything” becomes a legitimate defense for assault, it does bad, terrifying things to the world. It helps enshrine “The Jews control everything” in the public mind as accurate.
“She was dressed like she wanted it,” has too often been a legitimate defense for rape charges, and it has helped enshrine victim-blaming in the public mind as accurate.
—Myca
Here’s the thing: there’s a difference between what you tell a jury and what you tell a reporter… But you don’t have to tell a reporter anything. That’s where the douchebaggery comes in. “I didn’t do it, and will be cleared at trial” is the only message you need to put into the media, if you’re unfortunate enough to be falsely accused in the public eye.’
Assange won’t be telling a jury anything, as they don’t have juries in Sweden. And it’s hard to say he’ll be cleared at trial, as we don’t know if there will be a trial. There’s been an arrest warrant issued for questioning, but he hasn’t been charged yet – let alone the case get anywhere near court.
What has happened is that the prosecutors have successfully had him jailed without charge, are trying to compel him to give evidence against himself, have been regularly holding press conferences and issuing press releases attacking him, and have been selectively leaking against him to the press. I can’t see why he should have enough faith in the justice system to keep quiet and hope it all works itself out.
“someone – think it was Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon – pointed out that having all the police reports (which is where I think the bit about the revealing sweater comes from) out in public and letting the chips fall where they may is the same as what Wikileaks is doing.”
It isn’t. There’s a world of difference between someone publishing an unsolicited document, and a public official leaking documents so they can be selectively quoted from in a newspaper. The first is lawful and allows people to check your claims. The second is malfeasance and doesn’t allow others to use the source to examine and rebut whatever claims have been made.
why are you assuming that these are “leaked” documents, as opposed to documents that are FILED and available for public review?
THAT was the point of saying it’s like what wikileaks does – reporters examining public documents and reporting on them. i may have missed it, but *I* haven’t seen any “leaked” documents, just documents that have been filed, that people are capable of examining because they’re filed and available. [as in, unless something has specifically been “sealed”, court documents are available for ANYONE to view, generally]
Also, just in case there was any doubt, I consider Wikileaks to be on balance a good thing, I think it’s important to hold our government accountable for the things it does, I believe that secrecy must be justified and cannot be assumed as a default, and that our government has lost the right to have us trust it when it tells us that it would never classify information needlessly. I believe these things no matter who the president is, or what party he comes from.
And I hope that Julian Assange is innocent.
—Myca
Denelian: The police report is not as I understand it filed and made public. I base that on the fact that the swedish authorities have not even yet officially charged mr. Assange with anything. Basically, Sweden want mr. Assange for further questioning and then they’ll probably charge/indict him, but whith all the flip-flopping Sweden has done in this case what’s going to happen is anyones guess. The fact that there now is a dispute between The Guardian and Bianca Jagger where’s she has demanded to know the source for the police report while The Guardian says it won’t tell – except to say that it’s not from the police or other swedish authorities also supports my belief that this police report is not a matter of public record in Sweden.
“why are you assuming that these are “leaked” documents, as opposed to documents that are FILED and available for public review?”
Assume is a very strong word. You shouldn’t imply I’m just taking something to be the case without evidence unless you’ve good reason.
I believe these are leaked documents and not those available for public review because the newpaper article which revealed them explicitly says the material was from “unredacted statements held by prosecutors” and was “police material held in Stockholm to which the Guardian received unauthorised access”. So I feel I’m not assuming anything and my claims rest on pretty solid ground.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
first – appologies. got sick. sorry!
second – i may be misunderstanding something – to my knowledge, police reports in most European countries are “public records” [as a way of ensuring democracy]
i suppose that doesn’t mean the Guardian accessed them legally – it’s also possible that the Guardian *can’t* access them directly. i don’t know enough about local laws…
but i do know that it’s supposed to be a guarantee that the system isn’t being abused; i.e. THE PEOPLE have to have access to said records, to ensure that everyone “Watches the Watchers”.
maybe Sweden doesn’t follow that? i’ve just been thinking that someone HAD accessed the police reports, because they were quoted many places [as in, at least two different places it said something about “as we read in the police report”]
is it leaked if they COULD have accessed the police report?
i have to say – i’m really unsure as to the REASON to “leak” it – all it really did was solidify Assange’s “non-guilt” in many minds – these women had consented once! if you consent, EVER, you consent FOREVER, right? not that people here think that – but the greater masses tend to. sigh