What if he really did commit rape, and Sweden really does just want to arrest him for that, and has no plans to extradite him? How would this situation look different to you?
> The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others.
And here's where you reveal that you did not read the article.
There is agreement that both parties consented to having sex and that there was no violence involved. A strange kind of rape, isn't it?
The point here is, even if it turns out to be "rape", everyone has a certain picture of it in their mind. That is a picture of the random stranger preying on a woman. Or of parents/relatives abusing a girl. Or whatever.
So speaking of rape is very misleading, bordering on lying. Better call it was it was: consentual sex, supposedly started without a condom (contrary to agreement) and then continued after the women agreed.
Because an instance of rape does not follow your exact mental picture of what "rape" is, it does not follow that the allegation of rape is "bordering on lying". Very similar arguments were made during the formation of US jurisprudence on spouse rape (an unprosecutable offense in many states until the 1970s!) and "date"/acquaintance rape.
If you had read the article, you'd see it contained a prominent link to Sweden's court considering exactly the issues of whether Assange's conduct constituted rape under Sweden's statutes. Not only does it, but the same conduct alleged also constitutes rape in the UK, where "sleep rape" has been prosecuted for years.
I thought you would say this. First, I have read the article. Second, spouse rape is different: a) If reported, it will always be reported, that the victim was the spouse. Therefore people adjust their mental picture and have a correct grasp of what happened. This is very important. b) In spouse rape, again, the sex will happen against the will of the victim (usually using force and in broken relationships). This is very different from failure to use a condom.
So why is it so important for you to call it rape? Just describe what happened, and don't lead your readers astray!
Wrong. I already explained that the press always reports the context (e.g. spouse rape), but you ignored this. I have particularly observed this in a case that received a lot of publicity last year in Germany.
(I've just created this account in an incognito window, because my procrastination filter blocked me. ;-) Got to go now and won't able to answer again.)
>The crime—known in Tennessee and California as rape by fraud[1]—is only recognised in few jurisdictions; in all others the definition of rape actually involves lack of consent at the time of intercourse.
Even if they agreed to sex based on lies, they still agreed to it. It's an awful behavior but I don't think it should be given the title of 'rape'. No one is being forced upon, whether through physical or psychological means.
I wasn't speaking about the law, I was speaking about moral behavior. Consent which is anything less than enthusiastic should be frowned upon, at the very least, by all of us.
Well, morally, I feel that lying to someone to sleep with them is sleazy and wrong, but it doesn't traumatize them the way forcing the issue via threat will.
It's called rape because of the psychological effects on the (alleged, in this case) victim, not because of the psychological affects on people who read about it in the paper, and a lot of people here on HN would do very well to stop trivialising it.
Assange is wanted for 4 offences in Sweden. One of them is the "sex without condom one". Another is "sex with someone who is asleep". That is the one that is refered to as rape, and that is rape.
Stop spreading the ideal that this isn't a "real rape" or "legitimate rape" case.
> The Swedish government could guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited, but it would make them look bad in the eyes of the US and others.
And here's where you reveal that you did not read the article.