please stop.

Posted Dec 7, 2010 14:23 UTC (Tue) by vaurora (guest, #38407)
In reply to: please stop. by jackb
Parent article: The dark side of open source conferences

"Can retroactively withdraw consent" - bullshit, this is not an accurate description at all. I think this quote sums it up well:

"The New York Times reported that the two women claimed that "each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual.""

Basically, they started have sex, she said, "Okay, time for the condom!", he said, "Condom, schmondom" and proceeded against her wishes. Sorry, folks, but even after everyone has taken off all their clothes and are getting all snuggly, it's still possible to commit rape. Just imagine any number of things you would not like to have done to yourself while naked in bed. Go on, I'm sure you can think of something. Now imagine your next sex partner decided to do them to you and wouldn't take no for an answer. Also imagine that your sex partner is bigger and stronger than you and a worldwide hero and that thousands of self-righteous internet commenters will come to their defense.

If you think this is an okay way to have sex, do, please, post your name and photo so we can avoid you just as assiduously as Julian Assange. Thanks.

please stop.

Posted Dec 7, 2010 14:33 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (7 responses)

Before you make concrete in your mind that version of events, you may wish to read this alternative account of the events that lead to the accusations around Assange: http://t.co/K4SIHRP

(Warning for those who don't have an istyosty plugin installed: It's a dailymail link, but this one is at least interesting, and its author claims to be basing it on the actual police charges, combined with talking to associates of those involved. The latter of course not infrequently turns out to be highly biased / unreliable, but the author at least seems to try to differentiate what info came from what kind of source).

please stop.

Posted Dec 7, 2010 15:58 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (1 responses)

You can use actual links on lwn.net, you know. It's not Twitter -- you don't have to fit within 140 characters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks...

please stop.

Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:36 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

A better link would be via istyosty (a proxy), to minimise the clicks given to the Daily Hate: http://istyosty.com/2r1

please stop.

Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:30 UTC (Tue) by vaurora (guest, #38407) [Link] (4 responses)

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.

please stop.

Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:40 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #41909) [Link] (1 responses)

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