Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 29^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:


It's not that simple. These women wanted Assange to wear a condom. In fact, they both wanted it. He refused and perhaps out of fear of rejection, the women obliged and had sex with him anyway. However, they felt uncomfortable doing it. Firstly, this is a case of failing to negotiate. You could argue that the women should have been stronger and resisted, but you could also argue that the women felt vulnerable and didn't know how to stand up to him. They may also have felt that because he was the head of WikiLeaks (a man they admired back then), that he was a good guy and could trust him.

The thought that would have been in their minds would have been, "maybe he's an ars*hole or maybe we just had a misunderstanding." At this stage, each of the two women choose not to dwell on the issue further. Assange isn't an ars*hole, he might just have a different sexual etiquette.

Now just imagine what happens when the two women meet. Prior to meeting, they believe that he hasn't been sleeping with other women and therefore isn't likely to catch STDs. This is the main concern they have: getting STDs. That's why they wanted him to be wearing the condoms. Previously they had no idea of how sexually active he was, but now that they have met and discussed their sexual encounters with him, they come across a disturbing revelation, that he had sex with both of them within a few days. Now tell me, does Assange look like such a good guy now?

This would really change their perception of Assange. If he's had sex with another woman within days of being with you, how many other women could he possibly have slept with? The potential of getting STDs increases. They then ask him to go and get tested for STDs. He refuses. What does that tell them? What we have here is a man that is sexually irresponsible. He has sex with lots of women (like Casanova) and doesn't get tested for STDs. How dangerous is that? He refuses to be tested. That is just disrespectful. It is no wonder the women felt violated.

Their thinking goes from "maybe he's an ars*hole, maybe it was a misunderstanding" to "he definitely is an ars*hole!!!!"

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 29^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:


Assange wasn't even in a committed or exclusive relationship. It was casual sex. Of course you are less likely to have to ask your partner/girlfriend/wife, but a casual sex provider? Yes, if you're sleeping with more than one woman in two weeks. A good man would at least realise how important the condom is and offer to use it anyway rather than being so obsessed about the erection.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 29^th, 2012 at 7:20pm:


Use your imagination. How do men muck up their sexual encounters with women? Something goes wrong in the negotiation process.

Emma wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 1:26am:


This happened in Sweden, not Australia. They probably regard contraceptives as more important than people do in this country. If Swedish feminists identify contraceptives as important for women's sexual rights and these feminists have a big influence on the Swedish legal system, then you can understand why it's a big issue for them.

Emma wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 1:26am:


People who say there's a conspiracy to kidnap Assange to the U.S. are also using their imagination. I am just putting forth an alternative theory. Let's look at the two theories.

Point of View #1: There's a Conspiracy to Kidnap Assange to the U.S.

1. Assange is a political activist
2. Political activists have enemies
3. The U.S. is Assange's enemy
4. The U.S. wants to kidnap Assange and interrogate him
5. There must be a way to bring him to the U.S.
6. Assange is wanted for sex crimes in Sweden
7. He is currently in Britain and must be extradited to Sweden
8. It is easier to have Assange extradited from Sweden to the U.S.
9. The U.S. wants to use the sex crime charges in Sweden to bring him to Sweden and then the U.S.
10. The Swedish judiciary is working for the U.S. and conspiring to help them

Point of View #2: No Conspiracy, Swedish Judiciary is not Working for the U.S.

1. Assange did not use condoms when asked by two women
2. The two women initially did not complain and obliged to sex without a condom
3. They trusted him and believed he was a good guy because he was the head of WikiLeaks. They admired him.
4. The two women meet and exchange stories
5. They discover they had sex with the same man within days
6. A man who has sex with two women within days could easily be sleeping with even more women.
7. He might have STDs, they want him tested.
8. He is no longer the good guy they thought he was and they no longer trust him
9. It is no coincidence that he had sex with them without a condom, he does it to every woman. Their experiences are not isolated cases. There is a pattern
10. The women file a complaint, and the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to pursue the matter.
11. The Swedish judiciary has a good enough reason to take this seriously
12. There is no conspiracy (Occam's Razor)

Emma wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 1:26am:


I Google-searched some 20-50 articles on Assange (I didn't count) and read them. Some rehashed the same thing over and over again, so there might be some 5-10 different perspectives. I read details on the women's accounts of their sexual encounters with Assange. I think I posted links to these articles a few pages back or in some other thread.

Emma wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 1:26am:


Yes, this is the court of public opinion. Assange is sitting in the embassy and not allowing the process to go forward. Meanwhile we're making our theories and the U.S., Assange and the Swedish judiciary are all under scrutiny. The main problem is, Assange is preventing things from playing out and running their natural course. None of these theories can be proven until Assange steps out of the embassy.

Releasing confidential documents when you have not even read them is very poor behavior.

Who is this guy to release confidential information?

When you sign up to places - there are reasons why you dont give away information!!

I have signed a document myself when conscripted into the army that you do not give away any information on military capability, what you may/may not see etc.

Why? Because it can be bad for people and can even cost lives.

Assange knows this and he had no right to release these things.
Let him rot in some little country embassy or go to jail.

Good he is no longer a free man.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:17am:


Good question. Bet he doesnt answer. . . .

SOB

seems even Channel 10  are getting in to the act.

Wait for .....the blurb.....

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 2:44am:


I think that could the case, but who knows? It's mixed up with a bit of the fact that the UK would rather have the controversy over and done with and they are probably embarrassed that the whole affair has gone so public. They want him out of there and would be only too happy to hand him over to Sweden. 

There is a perceived risk by Assange that he will be extradited to the US. At the same time, he's probably playing on that to get publicity. He's more of a delinquent than an innocent.

I don't think it's cut and dried. Like most diplomatic issues, it's all about losing face. 

As far as the book is concerned, there is very little difference with the official version apart from a few embellishments. OBL was peeking through the door, somebody else though he headed back into the room to get a weapon. If you have several people running up the stairs, you could easily have differences in the story. Big Deal.  Then there was somebody sitting on the body in the helicopter. You can't expect military personnel to operate with complete decorum after a successful mission. There must have been a bit of elation.

If the author signed a non disclosure agreement, then he deserves to be prosecuted, but I don't think anybody should be taken to task for the way in which OBL was terminated.

No surprise there . . .

SOB