| |||||||||||||
please stop.please stop.Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:30 UTC (Tue) by vaurora (guest, #38407)In reply to: please stop. by paulj Parent article: The dark side of open source conferences
Oh, my mistake - they had sex with a condom, then they want to sleep, then he had sex without a condom against his partner's wishes. In the other incident they had sex with a condom, the condom broke, and he went on to have sex without a condom against his partner's wishes.
I'm afraid this doesn't change my disagreement with the original poster at all. No consent was withdrawn retroactively, it was not given at the time of the act.
(Log in to post comments)
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:40 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Do you always automatically take accusations against people as true? The precise nature of consent is at best unclear, and there are no allegations of force or duress of any kind (least none public at least).
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:47 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Ah, and just after I wrote that, details of charges come out in the court hearing and they include use of force. Still, needs to be tried before judgment...
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 17:07 UTC (Tue) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link]
A actual rape victim does not go out the next morning, buy food, cook breakfast for her attacker, eat it with him and only later deciding to file charges.
It's a sham that only makes sense under the twisted ideology of "all men are automatically rapists".
Of course it's all geopoliticaly motivated but the incident does serve to illuminate just how outrageous those laws have become.
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 17:33 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
We seem to have gotten pretty far afield from the topic of the article. I imagine there are plenty of places to discuss Wikileaks/Assange and the charges against him. Howzabout we stop discussing it here?
thanks,
jake
|
|||||||||||||