Condom Sabotage Isn’t A Joke


Without commenting either way on the validity of the accusations against Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who was recently arrested under politically suspicious circumstances for rape charges in Sweden international officials would usually ignore, I want to say that the charges themselves are very serious.  I realize it’s hopeless to suggest that pointing out the charges are serious isn’t the same as stating he’s guilty.  And that it’s probably hopeless to beg people not to rehash the same tired accusations that are always whipped out against women who file criminal complaints about rape.  When someone who has ever done anything that someone else liked is accused of rape, Rape Apology Day is declared, and all common sense is usually thrown out the window.  But I beg of you, this article has nothing to do with the validity of the charges or rendering judgment on Wikileaks itself.

This is about the seriousness of the charges and of birth control sabotage. Both of which are being downplayed by interested parties who struggle to grasp both that a man could do something they admire and do something that is immoral and illegal. Not that he did do it (please, people, calm down!).  But surely grown-ups can realize that people are complicated, and many can have both good and evil inside them.

The charges in this case, from what has been accurately reported, are rape, sexual molestation, and coercion—including accusations of holding a woman down and having sex with a sleeping woman.  But, as Jessica Valenti reports, there has been some information to suggest that one of the women is charging that Assange assaulted her by having sex with her after she withdrew her consent because he reneged on a promise to use a condom.  Unsurprisingly, the usual rape apologists stood by their usual claim that if a woman consents to [fill in the blank], then a man has a free pass to force whatever sexual acts he wishes on her.  But more surprisingly, some people came up the novel idea that birth control sabotage is not, in and of itself, a good enough reason for a woman to withdraw consent.

Most upsettingly, Naomi Wolf bypassed the actual accusations that Assange forcibly raped women, and latched on to the condom aspects of the case to accuse the women of being oversensitive babies.  Her facts were all wrong, of course—the lack of condom use was mostly noted in the charges as an aggravating factor, because the alleged victim had insisted on condoms. But I want to look carefully at the notion that a man sabotaging a woman’s birth control shouldn’t be considered a form of assault.  I’m not talking about honest mistakes (such as a condom breaking while you’re unaware), but the problem of men slipping off the condom during intercourse to get one over on the woman they’re sleeping with, claiming they’re wearing one in a dark room when they’re not, or otherwise doing things to a woman’s preferred form of contraception that makes it less effective.  Is this behavior just being “caddish,” or should it be considered a form of abuse?

I’m in the latter camp, and think that if you had a few high profile cases where men were convicted of sexual assault for performing what I call the “condom slip,” then the incidence of this dangerous, abusive behavior would go down dramatically.  I think that penetrating a woman who asked for a condom without a condom, either through force or trickery, is sexual assault and should be treated as such.  I think men who do this and other kinds of birth control sabotage, through force or trickery (which is a kind of force), do so in order to abuse and dominate women. And I’m not alone in this thought.  There’s a small but growing body of research to back me up.

As researchers Elizabeth Miller and Jay Silverman discovered, birth control sabotage is one of the many ways that domestic abusers demonstrate their dominance and control over their victims.  They do the condom slip, flush pills down the toilet, or otherwise use coercion to get unwilling women to submit to unprotected sex.  Often, they desire the pregnancy in order to make it harder for a woman to leave the relationship, but at the root of this is a desire to use a woman’s ability to get pregnant as a way to hurt her. 

Indeed, it’s not uncommon for men who force pregnancy on unwilling women to then demand an abortion.  It’s not about having babies, but about controlling women’s bodies.

It seems to me that tools in the abuser’s toolbox are often employed by men who sexually assault women they aren’t in relationships with. Just like batterers, rapists do what they do because they want to dominate and control their victims.  For a predatory man, it might be a particular thrill feeling like you’ve gotten one over on your victim by threatening her not with up front violence, but forcing STD and pregnancy risks on her.  This has the added bonus, to an assailant, of being hard to prove and therefore unlikely to get him in trouble.

As Miller and Silverman noted, the problem of birth control sabotage isn’t just about women’s rights and emotional well-being—though in a perfect world, that would be reason enough to care.  It’s also a public health menace.  Birth control sabotage increases the rate of unintended child-bearing and all its heightened risks, STD transmission, and abortion. If we can’t care about women for themselves, we should care about how men employing clever, quasi-legal forms of assault are hurting the public health.  Instead of laughing off the condom slip as some kind of caddish behavior, we should see it for what it is: abuse.   And it should be taken seriously as a legal matter.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • arekushieru

    AbsoLUTEly, 100% agree, Amanda.  In fact, I think I once stated on this website that I can applaud Julian Assange for his organization’s release of the diplomatic cables and information on the war in Afghanistan, but I can also hold him completely responsible for criminal acts if these accusations are proven true in a court of law.  But criminal rape, at least, is up for each nation’s courts to decide.  Although, if he actually committed these acts I do believe it is still  rape.     

  • saltyc

    There are even characters in novels who sabotage birth control as a way of exacting revenge on an ex-girlfriend. Been Down So Long it Looks Like Up to Me, “climaxes” in a scene where the protagonist gets his revenge by sticking a pin through the condom before having sex with her. She thought it was consensual; he knew it was rape.

    It’s rape because it’s her body, and she will pay the physical and psycho-social consequences. Certain men like to put women down for their ability to become pregnant. It’s a stigma, and they don’t want women to be able to say when or if it happens to them, and it should be taken quite seriously.

    The other issue, is the vile slander that is being leveled against the two women. And people are falling over themselves, because they are contradicting each other: some Assange loyalists say the  two women intentionally trapped him, others say they were duped by the police and did not know they were victims of a crime until they talked with authorities. It’s the classic drama of a public figure accused of rape, complete with broadcasts of his mother coming out and defending him, as though that makes a difference.

    Hey, what he did is great, I’m glad the information is out, I believe transparent government is the best government. Although you might say Assange also exploited people like Bradly Manning, who actually leaked the info and is being persecuted severely, and I don’t see the same amount of air being used to defend him.

  • pasternak64

    Let’s keep this equitable then. If we propose penalties for men who commit the acts you so decry, let’s have the same penalties for women who claim to be on the pill or some other form of birth control and then end up pregnant.

     

    If one form of deception is ‘rape’, then so is the other.

     

    Further, those female rapists should have no claim to child support, since the child was conceived under false pretenses.

     

    How far are you willing to extend your outrage, and your alleged desire for equity?

  • gordon

    For two other outstanding novels (both in my all-time top 5) in which condom/diaphragm sabotage plays a significant role, see Braided Lives by Marge Piercy and The Cider-House Rules by John Irving.  I have not read Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me, but it sounds like Richard Fariña was on to the misogynist mindset way back in the day.

    That said, I think Pasternak64 has a good point here.  Do women ever sabotage their birth control in order to get pregnant by someone in the hope of trapping him, or extracting payment?  I would like to think this doesn’t happen, but it’s a big world, so it probably does.  I wonder how such a thing would ever be proven, though, unless the woman just voluntarily admitted it.  Thoughts, anyone?

  • beenthere72

    You all probably know by now that I’m a sucker for reality TV.   Well, I was watching one of the many bridal reality shows recently (Bridezillas, maybe) and at the end of a couple’s wedding when they’re interviewed about how it all went, what’s next, etc, the bride mentions she doesn’t want to have babies yet but she knows the husband does.   He jokes that there are ways to make that happen – and I think he even says something about holes in the condom!  It made my skin crawl.   What a way to start your life together.

  • saltyc

    A woman getting pregnant does not in any way endanger the physical body or physical life of the man. The woman who is lying about fertility or contraception for whatever reason is not taking the man’s life in her hands, the way a man who purposefully impregnantes a woman against her will is taking her life in his hands.

    Paternal financial obligation, which is easily and often ignored or denied, can’t be compared with the physical impact of pregnancy.

    But that’s besides the point because the charges we’re talking about in this case are of having sex outside consent, that’s the rape part. A correlation would be of a woman having sex while the man is unconscious for the purpose of impregnanting herself against his will, or forcing him to knowingly have sex with her w/o contraception, which would indeed be rape.

     

  • crowepps

    I want to look carefully at the notion that a man sabotaging a woman’s birth control shouldn’t be considered a form of assault. 

    100% agree that it is, and would also add that any man who pretends to use a condom but does not has agreed in advance to something that lowers his partners risk of getting HIV/AIDS and then failed to use it, putting her life at risk.  I don’t think his belief that he doesn’t have STD’s is an adequate excuse, since unless he’s been celibate since the last series of clean tests, he hasn’t got a clue what diseases he’s harboring.

  • kjoh65

    If we define sexual violence as an abuse of consent, then it doesn’t matter if the abusive party is male, female, intersex etc. Sexual violence shouldn’t have to pass a test regarding how much physical danger the target is exposed to. I would say that anyone who deceives another about contraception or disease prevention in order to have sex is guilty of coercion. That use of power to deceive in order to control the other person falls well within the definition of sexual violence.

  • cc

    At the end of last week, Jill Stanek’s cesspool had a thread which discussed a YouTube video from a young woman who reflected on her abortion. Naturally, the discussion was the usual drek about how this woman is damaged for life and should come to Jesus. One commenter actually said that this woman was exposing too much cleavage in the video! (which speaks to how the anti-choice movement really thinks that women, who have abortions, are sluts). The woman talked about how her boyfriend got a little physically rough with her when she told him she had decided to abort. There were a bunch of comments – are you ready for it – which were full of praise and empathy for this “real man” who was fighting to save the life of his “baby.”

    Once again, this underscores the medieval misogyny of the anti-choice patriarchy which seems to have no problem justifying domestic violence in order to intimidate women into giving birth. Wow, just wow. But then they think that murdering abortion doctors is “justifiable homicide” done in the service of “saving babies.” To say that these folks are sick is understating it. They’re no better than the Taliban.

     

    Once again, Amanda, great article. Those who support a woman’s right to choose are in for a rough 212th Congress. Voices like yours are so important. As the old Joni Mitchell song says, “you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone.”

  • ack

    Reproductive coercion is absolutely an abusive behavior. Whether it’s active birth control sabatoge or pregnancy coercion (using threats or acts of violence to influence the outcome of a pregancy), it’s abuse. Women and girls in verbally and/or physically abusive relationships experience a heightened fear of negotiating condom use. They often aren’t able to use their preferred method of birth control. They sometimes have little control over when or how they have sex.

     

    I think, however, that it would be very difficult to enshrine these behaviors in law. While we can sometimes get abusers under intimidation statutes (like if they threaten their partner in order to force them to continue or terminate a pregnancy), it’s difficult to prosecute and the sentences are relatively light. Prosecuting sexual coercion as assault, as we all know, is rare, even where consent is defined as “freely and knowingly” and the statute eliminates force as a requirement for sexual assault charges. The victim-blaming attitudes in most of this country would make a law like this almost impossible, unfortunately.

     

    An unintended consequence would definitely be men and boys having standing to get out of child support by saying that they were told she was on the pill. To be clear, I think that lying about contraception is abusive no matter who does it. I also think it has different consequences for people who can get pregnant than people who can’t. How is the Swedish law applied in practice? Do men charge women and abdicate parental rights/responsibilities under the law? Is it common for people to be convicted?

     

    The policy change that we should be pushing for NOW isn’t necessarily legislative; it’s in health care. We should be screening for abuse in clinics and hospitals, and referring to domestic and sexual violence resources. While it’s become more common to ask questions, we need to be asking about reproductive coercion as a part of that screen.

  • ellavemia

    While I fully agree with everything said here, I wonder what it would be called and if it would  hold up in a court of law should a woman decide to do the same thing. Countless women have sabotaged the condom supply or lied that they were on birth control in some form throughout history. These are common tricks in the needy woman’s arsenal. People write it off as a woman simply “catching” her man. It’s repugnant in either case, but I don’t know why it would be fair to call it sexual assault in one form but not the other.

  • kevinschmidt

    Please stop blaming men for all of your own irresponsible sexual encounters!

    Is it our fault that you don’t want to use your own method of birth control? No.

    Is it our fault you don’t keep your own emergency supply of condoms in your purse or under your mattress? No.

    Is it our fault that, before we have sex, you don’t want to wait until we both go to the doctor to see if one of us has an STD? No.

    Julian Assange is not guilty of rape! The first partner had a party in his honor two days after her alledged rape. I never heard of a rapist doing that!

    His second partner made him breakfast the next morning and joked about possibly being pregnant. I never heard of a rapist doing that either!

    Neither woman made the charge that he forced them to have sex with him, either with or without a condom. One of them has since dropped the charges and has left Sweden.

    And of course, neither woman had their own supply of condoms that could have avoided this situation in the first place.

    Explain to me again how these two irresponsible women were the victims?

    Of course, none of this has anything to do with the validity of WikiLeaks.

     

  • squirrely-girl

    No form of birth control is 100% effective. So if a woman says she’s “on the pill” but she’s part of that group for whom it fails, what then? Men who complain about birth control failing but who weren’t invested enough to also wear a condom weren’t doing “everything” they could to reduce that risk.

     

    Not wearing/refusing to wear a condom is fairly straightforward – you can basically look and see. Hormonal birth control on the other hand… 

     

    I think in order for a man to truly say he was attempting to avoid pregnancy he’d have to be wearing the condom as that is a behavior/bodily function HE has control over. 

     

    However, I do get what you’re saying and I think there should be discussion on this concept because I don’t see an easy answer.

  • squirrely-girl

    He wouldn’t really have any idea of whether or not he’s spreading the cancer causing strains of HPV as there isn’t a test for men. This is a HUGE deal!  

  • kevinschmidt

    HPV does not cause cancer. This is a myth spread by the pharmaceutical industry to scare up business for their ineffective but dangerous vaccines.

    Here is the report from Natural News:

    …the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

    NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory “vaccinate everyone” policies.

    Furthermore, this story reveals evidence that the vaccine currently being administered for HPV — Gardasil — may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by an alarming 44.6 percent in some women. The vaccine, it turns out, may be far more dangerous to the health of women than doing nothing at all.

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html#ixzz18Dm817gr

  • ookamiamaterasu

    Two methods of contraception are better than one, and one is better than none. Since when is contraception the sole responsibility of the woman?

    How do you know that the women didn’t have condoms? Have you talked with them and asked them? And even if they did have condoms, if Assange refused to use them after insisting he would, they were well within their rights to revoke their consent.

    It’s both partners responsibility to get screened for stds/stis. Not just one or the other. Both. Women aren’t the only ones who have to be responsible when it comes to safe
    e sex.

    Also, can you give us any links to reputable sources that could corroborate your claims about the two women’s actions after their encounters with Assange?

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • ookamiamaterasu

    I got the gardasil vaccine about a year after it came out and have suffered no ill effects to date. Neither have any of my friends who got it and neither have hundreds of the other girls and/or women who have gotten the vaccince. With any vaccine, you will have a group who will react negatively to it because everyone’s immune system is unique. But, for the majority of people out there, the benfits more often than not outweigh the potential risk.
    You’re also going to need to cite some studies that back up your article if you want to convince me or anyone else here.

  • ookamiamaterasu

    The reason people don’t like you is because you are claiming all women to be irresponsible with their sex lives and putting the burden of safe sex soley on their shoulders.
    When a man says he will use a condom, then reverse his position, a woman is well within her right to revoke her consent and not have sex with the man. The moment he tries to have sex with her without her consent, unprotected or not, it’s sexual assault. Plain and simple.
    Your clothing argument is not relevant to topic but a woman should be respected regardless of what she wears.

  • freetobe

     Kevin its 50/50 period! No excuses. You men learn some self respect as well by protecting yourself from std’s  and unwanted pregnancy and we women will do the same. No more “its just on the women” we do enough of the unpaid work and have paid dearly for it over the millenium.

  • crowepps

    You know, there is a possibility that these women were irresponsible.  Even if that is true, however, there is absolutely NO reason why the man in question couldn’t have made the sensible decision that, oops, we’ve run out of condoms, now we STOP.  Your insistence that women have to take ALL the responsibility because they’re the ones who get pregnant skims lightly over the fact that men also are responsible for stopping the spread of STDs and therefore, no matter WHAT birth control method the woman is using, would always use a condom for every encounter.

     

    Just out of curiosity, if this article is referring to you, how can I get a job like that?

    http://www.alternet.org/…/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_ to_dumb_down_online_conversations/

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Great post SaltyC!

    Hey, what he did is great, I’m glad the information is out, I believe transparent government is the best government. Although you might say Assange also exploited people like Bradly Manning, who actually leaked the info and is being persecuted severely, and I don’t see the same amount of air being used to defend him.

    Bradly Manning is imprisoned in solitary confinement.

    “Paterson said that despite WikiLeaks’ promise to help fund Manning’s legal defense, the organization has not forwarded any funds. CBS News reported last week that WikiLeaks had promised $20,000.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/bradley-manning-wikileaks-charges-_n_797276.html

  • rebellious-grrl

    I really need to get cable. 

    “He jokes that there are ways to make that happen – and I think he even says something about holes in the condom!  It made my skin crawl.   What a way to start your life together.”

    That guy sounds disgusting. It doesn’t sound like a healthy relationship.

  • crowepps

    Well, there’s two possibilities — one is that “the truth hurts” and the other is that you are unpopular because you come across as a sexist rape apologist insisting that men just can’t help themselves.

    Funny, I have never seen a man in a bar dressed in revealling tight shorts, and an armless muscle shirt, with over 50% of his body’s skin showing, especially in the winter time.

    Haven’t ever been in a gay bar, have you?  I suppose women could wear Brooks Brothers shirts and loose slacks like the men, or perhaps everybody should be required to wear unisex Mao suits.  Or men AND women could all throw burkas over themselves so nobody could even tell what gender they were.

     

    The easier solution, of course, is for men to GET OVER the idea that anyone who’s identifiable as female is available for sex with any man present.  Your inability to control yourself when you see SKIN seems to pretty clearly be your personal problem, perhaps linked to an overdose of porn imagery –

  • colleen

    Just out of curiosity, if this article is referring to you, how can I get a job like that?

    I must say I can’t imagine any single semi-literate group more qualified.

  • ldan

    Off topic but…

    The vaccine has never been touted as being able to clear virus from women already infected with HPV. That isn’t how vaccines work. This is why it’s been promoted as a vaccine primarily for girls and women who are not yet sexually active…you need to be vaccinated before exposure to the virus for it to work well. You don’t go to the doctor and ask for a flu shot *after* you’ve already come down with the flu–same principle.

     

    It also does nothing about other strains of HPV. It was designed to target some of the most dangerous strains, not *all* HPV. Again, this is how vaccines work.

     

    The HiFiDNA case that they base everything on is ridiculous. The FDA admits that HPV is not a diagnosis of cervical cancer…because it’s not. It never was. Only certain strains are associated with cancer, and even those aren’t a guarantee that cancer will develop. For some reason they’re basing their argument about downgrading equipment to class II due to it diagnosing an STI rather than diagnosing cancer. Frankly, neither of those are equipment that the public would usually have access to, for a variety of reasons.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Great article Amanda! I’ve been avoiding thinking about this because of the respect I have for the work WikiLeaks has done. But WikiLeaks is more than Julian Assange.

    WikiLeaks, for that matter, is not just Julian Assange, but a geographically distributed network of people and servers, and it has promised that the work of facilitating the release of documents from governments and corporations will continue. ‘Assangination’: From Character Assassination to the Real Thing – by Amy Goodman – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/15

    Laura Flanders at Grit Radio did great job of explaining how Interpol’s priority of going after Assange could be politically motivated.

    “When Interpol Cares about Sexual Assault”
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/15

    Julian Assange turned himself in Tuesday — he’s been arrested and is being held without bail in London ahead of a hearing on extradition to Sweden. The head of the “stateless” news-leak organization WikiLeaks is accused of sexual assault –and let’s be clear, he should face the charges. But since when is Interpol [the investigative arm of the International Criminal Court at The Hague] so vigilant about violence against women? If women’s security is suddenly Interpol’s priority — that’s big news!…………………So yes, if Assange is accused of assault, he should face charges. So should football players (professional and college), politicians, film directors, and everyday Joes…But until some of those others start getting scooped up by Interpol and extradited, let’s not pretend that this is the dawning of a brave new era in sexual assault prosecution, shall we?

    There is sexism in progressive movements and anarchist movements. Although not nearly as much as in the Christian right or the conservative movement. But, hey we live in in a patriarchal culture where sexism still exists.  So it doesn’t surprise me that some on the left are blowing off the accusations of sexual assault. There is a short video made about sexism in the anarchist movement, We Make No Pretence – An Anarcha-Feminist Critique. It’s an interesting analysis of the anarchist movement from the eyes of a feminist.

  • beenthere72

    Just a bit of googling of this Mike Adams character and easily find out he’s just that:  a character.     

     

    It is documented that the vaccine cannot clear HPV virus from someone that is already exposed to it (even Wiki will tell you that).      

    There is no ‘vaccinate everyone’ policy – this vaccine is meant to be administered before one has been sexually active, or knows for sure they have not yet been exposed to HPV (ie. girls under the age of 14).   I’m not eligible for the vaccine, neither are most of the women I know.   How is that a big score for business if it’s such a hoax? 

     

    I personally know some women that have had VERY serious outbreaks of HPV.   Whether they will get cancer from it, we have yet to see, but PLEASE wear a condom at all times because while HPV may be no big deal to you, cancer or not, it IS a big deal to women. 

     

     

     

  • emirjame

    What is so appalling about his case is that there may be victims but that it is also very clear to me that the people representing them are clearly not acting in their interests!! Which victim of a rape wants to have her name all over the papers (and her address all over twitter)?? Who wants to have complete strangers discuss the sordid details of what has or hasn’t happened??

    I feel that if their interests were genuinely represented – the people doing so would have opted for a place out of the spotlight. Mark Stephens says this has been offered to them several times. Why put out an Interpol arrest in such a way?? Normally they are for people who can not be located and the fact that they are put out is not communicated openly. Why does Julian Assange have to be present in court as he has a lawyer to represent him?? His lawyer says he has offered to be questioned on whatever they want to know by Scotland Yard or the Swedish Prosecution. Why all the vagueness and all the wool??

    That is what angers me so much about the whole story – these women may have been used by Mr. Assange. They are now definitely being used by a lot of other parties. And because they are out of sight we event don’t know if they are ok. Or if these parties keep them under some sort of pressure to comply with them!!

  • kevinschmidt

    Please don’t put words into my mouth or presume I know less than you on the proper conduct of BOTH sex partners.

    I never said contraception is the sole responsibility of the woman.

    I never said the two women didn’t have condoms.

    I never said Women aren’t the only ones who have to be responsible when it comes to safe sex.

    Those are your delusions and illiteracy.

    Blaming men for all your problems just makes you sound silly.

     

    You don’t know how to google? Pity. Here, let me assist you:

     

    Here’s a picture of the CIA Honeytrap:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/cia-%E2%80%9Choneytrap%E2%80%9D-ardin-deleted-twitter-posts-praising-assange.html

     

     

    If you know that the ‘reported molestation’ takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can’t divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a ‘warped view of womanhood and can’t take no for an answer’. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don’t match Anna’s story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them.

    Anna Ardin is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of ‘molestation’ that he’s been accused of. It looks like Anna Ardin is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she’s perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation.

    http://www.countercurrents.org/rudling081210.htm

     

     

    ‘Why did the prosecutor corroborate all that confidential information to the media?’

    The question is considered obvious because such behaviour is neither normal, acceptable, nor prudent…

    http://www.daddys-sverige.com/3/post/2010/12/assange-the-inside-story-about-the-rape-charges.html

     

    Where is the evidence of a sabotaged condom? How was it sabotaged? If a woman was raped, wouldn’t she save the evidence?

    Did any of the women submit for a medical examination to prove signs of abuse or sex assault or rape? Did anyone else, say independent witnesses, see signs of physical injury, psychological trauma or symptoms of sex abuse in the days immediately after the claimed attacks?

    Ardin even hosted a crayfish party for Assange on Aug 14, 2010. She could have told her friends if such an incident had happened. Did any of those present at the party see anything at odds between Assange and Ardin?

     

    OK, here’s the real story. Two of Assange’s groupies got pissed at Assange when they found out about each other’s sluttieness. They befriended one another, then concocted a lame story in an obvious attempt to punish Assange, and/or to capitalize off of their sexual escapades with an international celebrity. These two women could possibly find themselves behind bars for lying to the police and creating an international incident.

    On the otherhand, Assange is a confirmed international hero and runner up for Time’s Person of the Year.

  • phrage

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • kevinschmidt

    Please stop lying.

    I never said, “women have to take ALL the responsibility because they’re the ones who get pregnant”. That is your delusion and illiteracy.

    It is also ridiculous for you to claim, “men also are responsible for stopping the spread of STDs and therefore, no matter WHAT birth control method the woman is using, would always use a condom for every encounter”.

     

    Wearing a condom is no guarantee an STD will not spread or will protect a woman 100% from getting pregnant. Are you really that ignorant? What’s wrong with them waiting a few days for the results of a blood test? Why are you claiming unprotected sex is rape, while at the same time condoning casual sex?

    That’s a bit hypocrtitical of you, don’t you think?

  • plume-assassine

    Aaand… reported. You just revealed yourself as a potential rapist and rape apologist.

     

    “If you dress provocatively, don’t be surprised if you are not treated respectfully” basically translates to, “Showing skin means you should expect to be verbally abused or raped.” Basically, the ol’ misogynist “she was askin’ for it” excuse. Nobody asks to be raped.

     

    In your world, when women don’t dress “conservatively” it suddenly means they are no longer people and have become (sex) objects to be used by men.

     

    I guess you also believe that all men are uncontrollable animals constantly overflowing with lust and “just can’t help it” if they up and rape someone after seeing a woman’s bare legs. Bullshit. Go back to your neanderthal cave please. And maybe you ought to try to taper off your absurd amount of rape fantasy porn consumption while you’re at it.

  • kevinschmidt

    Since you choose to attack me personally instead of addressing the subject at hand, then I would have to say that article refers to you.

  • kevinschmidt

    Your first two paragraphs are great. But that third one was over the top!

    Where is the proof of your hilarious accusation that Assange “used” these two women? Exactly, how did he “use” them?

    The women are out of sight? They may not be OK? Where is your proof of that?

  • kevinschmidt

    If you read all the information available, it appears neither of the two women have a credible story. Plus after their alledged rapes, their actions both individually and collectively suggests their insincerity.

  • prochoiceferret

    The easiest solution of course is for women to not parade around half naked in public and not demand respect for looking like tramps.

     

    No, actually, the easiest solution is for men to stop sexually assaulting women, regardless of how they are dressed. If you’re not capable of controlling yourself when a woman exposes some of her skin, however, then might I suggest donating your eyes to someone who won’t use them to excuse their own criminal behavior?

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • ack

    The differentiating factor is consent. If someone consent to PVI on the condition that a condom is used, and then he removes the condom or refuses to put it on and has sex with her anyway, that’s assault. Consenting to sex does NOT mean consenting to all sex, in all ways. Casual, consensual sex, whether protected or unprotected, is not assault. Casual sex that violates the terms of consent is assault. As is sex that violates the terms of consent in a longterm, committed relationship.

     

    And you really need to reflect on your committment to blaming rape on women not behaving the way you think they should.

    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/feed-the-faq-rape-apologist-definitions-clarifications-and-links/

     

  • freetobe

    I did not say you did . Whats your problem? Who is hysterical here? You do not tell me where to go or what to do no one does! I take care of myself and very proudly have never depended on a man to do it. 

    I also did not say that men have never been victims. Who’s illiterate here?

  • rebellious-grrl

    HPV causes cervical cancer!

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
    Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are a group of more than 100 related viruses. They are called papillomaviruses because certain types may cause warts, or papillomas, which are benign (noncancerous) tumors.


    http://www.emedicinehealth.com/genital_warts/article_em.htm
    The warts are caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). Infection with genital warts may not be obvious.

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • prochoiceferret

    The clothing argument is indeed relevant. Would you respect a man wearing only an unbuttoned rain coat?

     

    I wouldn’t sexually assault him, if that’s what you mean by “respect.” You would do differently, I take it?

  • ack

    Interestingly, if a male uses a vinegar wash on his genitals, the warts become visible. It’s harder for women to use this method, both due to risk of vaginal infection and difficulty seeing the affected area. (Disclaimer: NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR GETTING SCREENED!)

  • kevinschmidt

    That’s your delusion and illiteracy if you choose to translate “If you dress provocatively, don’t be surprised if you are not treated respectfully”, into, “Showing skin means you should expect to be verbally abused or raped.”

    Provocative – Serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate; exciting.

    By dressing provocatively, is a woman expecting to sexually attract and seduce a man?

    If you choose to dress like an exhibitionist so it is easy for anyone to look down your blouse or up your skirt, don’t act surprised when everyone does it!

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kevin you’re an idiot troll!

  • rebellious-grrl

    It’s the same old crap from these MRA misogynist a–holes.

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m not gay, so I wouldn’t sexually assult him either. But neither would I give him any respect.

     

    So you agree, then, that one’s state of dress is not a valid excuse for sexually assaulting them?

     

    (It’s a good thing you’re not gay—apparently, that’s the only thing that’s stopping you from sexually assaulting men in rain coats everywhere. Though I think it might not be so bad for you, since most gay men don’t seem to have any trouble resisting the urge.)

     

    Flaunt a lot of money around in a bar and then go walk down some dark alley and see what happens. You can’t expect to flaunt a half naked body either without repercussions.

     

    Sure, anyone can be the victim of a crime. But you’re not saying that the person responsible for mugging someone in a dark alley, or sexually assaulting a woman because she is wearing revealing clothing, is the person on whom those crimes are committed, right? Because that would be deluded, and kind of illiterate.

     

    Please stop with the double standard as if you don’t know what I’m talking about.

     

    What double standard? I never said it was okay to mug or sexually assault anyone, regardless of what they flaunt. Did you?

  • arekushieru

    In the case of cissexual, transsexual (whom I think can only be pre-op or non-op, not post-op – sorry if those terms are offensive, though.  Please do let me know, if they are, so I can edit, which means via some way other than replying to me.  ><; -) or intersexual females (referring to sex, not gender, here), though, initial lack of sexual consent can lead to TWICE the lack of consent (of course, two different humans perpetrated these two different acts on her).  Meaning, vaginal AND uterine use, here.

  • squirrely-girl

    Is English your second language or do you simply speak and type like this usually?

     

    You do realize your posts sums as: the chicks are only mad cause he’s so awesome, teh womenz trap teh menz, and a random snarky reference to women’s appearance. 

     

    That sure was special. :/

  • squirrely-girl

    It allows me to amuse myself with the direct evidence of devolving discourse.

     

    P.S. I do just LOVE when the ad hominem guys with poor grammar and debate skills show up to defend teh menz. :)

  • squirrely-girl

    … about how to be a “proper” victim are ignorant and offensive on so many levels.

     

  • arekushieru

    Uh, the one who makes the initial claim is the one who’s supposed to provide the evidence.  PLEASE don’t tell me you came onto a debate group without having taken Debate 101?  Because that would just make you plain ridiculous.

    I see how it is, the two women are ‘slutty’, yet the man that engaged in sex with them is an ‘international hero’ and ‘runner up for Time’s Person of the Year’.  Yeah, I can see just how ‘unbiased’ you and that website you provided a link to, REALly are. 

    It’s anyone’s prerogative to change their mind.  Man OR woman.  EsPECially after being presented with all the necessary information.  A person doesn’t always know they’ve been raped, beCAUSE of attitudes such as yours. 

    Besides, I don’t think you can read very well, because, if you could, you would have read the article in its entirety.  Which I KNOW you didn’t do, because, otherwise, you would have come across Amanda saying something  about how these charges should be taken SERiously, whether or NOT  Assange actually committed these crimes.  And you would have realized, beFORE sticking your foot in your mouth, that the ACTual question you should be considering, is whether you believe these charges, AS THEY STAND, constitute sexual assault or rape.

    So, you’re holding evidence of rape to a higher standard than evidence of any other crime?  What happened to simply ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, hmmm…?  And, no, a woman isn’t likely to ‘save the evidence’.  WHY would she keep a reminder of such a traumatic event?  OR why would she keep a reminder of rape when she wasn’t even AWARE, in the first place, that she was raped.

    And, if she DID keep the evidence, you’d probably still hold that against her and try to demonstrate how THAT was proof that she is just falsely accusing Mr. Assange.

  • arekushieru

    While I’m not sure I agree that such deception is rape (which I want to make clear is NOT the case, here, between Assange and the two women.  This case, to me, is CLEARly a question of whether he comMITted these acts of rape or not), even if we follow Salty’s logic, you are still giving two comPLETEly different examples, which, in this case, are being used to describe evidence.  A man consents to only one action, just as the woman does, that being sexual intercourse.  If the woman becomes pregnant that should NOT be used as evidence for criminal rape.  After all, the way a woman’s body functions should not be used against her in order to discover whether or not she should be tried for a crime (much like is being done in countries where abortion is illegal and they use a woman’s uterus to determine if she had commissioned a crime). The only evidence that should be permissible is the same kind of evidence that would be used to determine whether or not the man had committed a similar kind of act. 

    Also, no one is saying that these women should be off the hook for child support if they get pregnant.  These are another completely apropos situation to the subject heading, OBviously. 

  • arekushieru

    I LOVEd that video by Laura Flanders.  I especially loved how she separated the media attention from the actual charges just like I loved how Amanda separated the criminal process from the criminal accusations. 

  • arekushieru

    Live in denial all you want, but you can’t get around the fact that you and not the man is responsible for your own sex life.

    So, either the women were having sex with themselves orrrr… you really are  the rape apologist, idiot, misogynist, troll (I could go on), that everyone thinks you are!  Really need some critical, lateral thinking skills, don’t you?

  • sundog

    I would agree – as soon as men get pregnant.

  • aligatorhardt

    This discussion reveals a hole in the law between what is rape and what is fraud or coersion and the ambiguities of consent under changing circumstances. It seems that rape is not an approriate charge for concentual sex, but there is a real problem when consent is dependent upon complience with established perameters.

    It is not comparable to attacking someone and raping them, but if consent is dependent on the use of a condom, and that is not followed, it would seem as a breach of contract, and there fore the man was not acting in good faith to demonstrate complience with the contract, which would render the women released from her responsiblities of the contract, in other words, no longer consentual on the sex.

     The problem I have with this case is that Assange is being punished and denied basic rights of council, held incomunicado from his lawyers, before evidence has been collected, before a hearing, before a conviction. The actual charges, whetherr it be rape or assault, or failure to abide by the terms of agreement or whatever, the due process is not being followed. Now with so much speculative publicity, there is little hope of finding an unbiased jury. This is a trend that has been going on for many years, where public opinion, without careful consideration of the facts, is used to convict anyone that has become unpopular with those that control the media.

    If it is found that Assange is guilty of a crime then by all means he should be punished according to the law. If the laws are shown to be insufficient to cover the special circumstances of sexual crimes other than forced rape, then the legislature should deal with those questions.

    The complaints against Wikileaks are seperate from this case and it is inappropriate to make Assange’s case prejudiced by any concerns over the actions of the Wkileaks group.

  • ack

    By dressing provocatively, is a woman expecting to sexually attract and seduce a man?

     

    Sometimes. But…

     

    First of all, not all women are attracted to men. Second, “provocative” dress is absolutely subjective. Third, I don’t think you get to decide who deserves respect. Period.

     

    I think Eve Ensler said it best:

    My short skirt is not an invitation
    a provocation

    an indication
    that I want it
    or give it
    or that I hook.
     
    My short skirt
    is not begging for it
    it does not want you
    to rip it off me
    or pull it down.
     
    My short skirt
    is not a legal reason
    for raping me
    although it has been before
    it will not hold up
    in the new court.
     
    My short skirt, believe it or not
    has nothing to do with you.
     
    My short skirt
    is about discovering
    the power of my lower calves
    about cool autumn air traveling
    up my inner thighs
    about allowing everything I see
    or pass or feel to live inside.
     
    My short skirt is not proof
    that I am stupid
    or undecided
    or a malleable little girl.
     
    My short skirt is my defiance
    I will not let you make me afraid
    My short skirt is not showing off
    this is who I am
    before you made me cover it
    or tone it down.
    Get used to it.
     
    My short skirt is happiness
    I can feel myself on the ground.
    I am here. I am hot.
     
    My short skirt is a liberation
    flag in the women’s army
    I declare these streets, any streets
    my vagina’s country.
     
    My short skirt
    is turquoise water
    with swimming colored fish
    a summer festival
    in the starry dark
    a bird calling
    a train arriving in a foreign town
    my short skirt is a wild spin
    a full breath
    a tango dip
    my short skirt is
    initiation
    appreciation
    excitation.
     
    But mainly my short skirt
    and everything under it
    is Mine.
    Mine.
    Mine.
  • prochoicekatie

    “I’m not gay, so I wouldn’t sexually assult him either. But neither would I give him any respect.”

     

    I think your second analysis was correct, PCF. It does appear, by this comment, that Kevin’s sexuality is the sole barrier for FORCED sex between him and the raincoat-ed gentleman.

    Respect – meaning what? You wouldn’t trust his opinion on politics? You wouldn’t shake his hand? You wouldn’t offer him a job? Invite him to you holiday party? Or, as you have IMPLIED (don’t want you to call me hysterical or illiterate, of which you have accused everyone else who responded to your comments), a lack of respect means that you would RAPE or STEAL from someone?

    Respect should not be the cornerstone by which one decides whether or not to COMMIT crimes against others. You don’t have to offer a woman in a short skirt a job, a handshake, or a holiday invitation, but you do NOT have permission to hit, rape, steal from, or kill someone because you “don’t respect them.”

    If you don’t respect your coworkers, do you assault them? Do you steal from them? Do you just refuse to work with them or respond to their requests? NO, because you can be fired for those things. There is an expected level of civility in society, and it is asked of all whether or not they respect everyone.

    No one should condone rape. EVER. EVER. EVER. You can not respect someone, you can call someone a slut, you can refuse to shake their hand or offer them a job, or even, rudely, ask them to wear more clothing. BUT you can’t rape them. And no one should condone rape by themselves or others.  

  • crowepps

    I’m a court reporter.  I’ve spent 30 YEARS listening to sociopaths excuse their degenerate behavior by blaming it on their victims — ‘if he didn’t want to be robbed he shouldn’t have had such a fancy house’ — ‘if he didn’t want his ass kicked why was he in the bar’ — ‘if she didn’t want to be slapped around she should have had my dinner hot even if I was late’ — ‘if she didn’t want to be raped why did she say hello to me’.

     

    I really, truly do understand you.  You don’t feel that anything you do is ever, EVER your responsibility because the other people around you break the rigid rules of  your peculiar behavioral expectations and their failure to perform to your expectations ‘makes you’ act like a criminal.  Pathetic.  Therapy would help!

  • crazyjane13

    I’d never heard that term before reading it here, but it’s horribly appropriate for what’s going on right now surrounding the allegations against Julian Assange. The women are being demonised in media, whether mainstream, new or social. Sometimes they’re belittled as ‘ex-girlfriends with a grudge’ who are overreacting and should basically just get over it – and incidentally, isn’t JA a (somehow admirable) scoundrel for having two girls on the go at once? Otherwise, they’re assumed to be part of some convoluted ‘honey-trap’ set up by the CIA with, apparently, the full co-operation of the Swedish government.

     

    The allegations themselves are trivialised. I’ve read spirited defences that boil down to, ‘she said she was up for it, she can’t change her mind’.

     

    Virtually no one suggests that these women deserve to have their allegations heard in court <i>for what they are</i>. And if you do – as I did in an article published on our national broadcaster’s website – you get subjected to an incredible amount of abuse. Some of that abuse goes so far as to say that – if you’re a woman – you’re ‘just being an oversensitive feminist’ about it.

     

    The situation is appalling. Thank you for writing such a sensible, considered article on the implications of condom sabotage. I just hope people will read it without assuming you’re working for the CIA. :(

     

     

  • kevinschmidt

    “Uh, the one who makes the initial claim is the one who’s supposed to provide the evidence. “

    The two women made the initial claims. Where is their evidence?

    I presented credible evidence in favor of Assange. All I got in return on this hysterical website is off topic, illogical ad hominem stupidity?

    Why do you continue to discredit yourselves?

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • kevinschmidt

    Your poem is irrelevant. We are not talking about YOUR opinion of your dress, we are talking about the opinions of those who see you dressed provocatively and don’t care about what you claim is, “Mine. Mine Mine.” We are talking about your safety, or at least I am.

    “I don’t think you get to decide who deserves respect. Period.”

    When it comes to my own opinion and actions, then yes, I do indeed get to decide who deserves my respect. But it’s not my behavior you have to worry about. It’s the behavior of some guy with evil intentions who stalks you without your knowledge. So get real. Exclamation point!

  • kevinschmidt

    Or are you being intellectually dishonest by posting a straw man argument and a baseless ad hominem accusation?

    Better watch the movie, ‘Looking for Mr. Goodbar,’ with Diane Keaton.

    If you behave irresponsibly with your own sex live, then your are playing Russian Roulette. No one pulls the trigger but you.

     

  • kevinschmidt

    I never blamed rape only on women not behaving the way I think they should. That is your delusion and/or illiteracy.

    Ever talk to two drivers involved in a car accident? Neither one of them will admit it was their fault. Yet the accident happened just the same.

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • arekushieru

    Uh, please do show where I attacked you, or, iow, where I said Kevin Schmidt is a fill_in_the_blank?

    Do you SERiously not know the difference between a deBATE and a trial?

  • kevinschmidt

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • arekushieru

    So, either you just admitted you’re a troll orrr… you just admitted you’re a clueless troll?  I seriously cannot understand why you are unable to figure this out.  But, here, let me explain, so that, maybe, this time, you WILL understand.  If you AREn’t blaming the rape on the women, then why are you even ON here defending Assange’s actions?  The only reason you CAN be defending Assange is because you ARE blaming the rape on the woman.  Y’know, maybe it isn’t US who is misunderstanding the whole idea around sending a message…?

  • kevinschmidt

    “I did not say you did .”

    Actually, you did:

    “Kevin its 50/50 period! No excuses. You men[Blah! Blah! Blah!]

    By including me in “You men”, you are including me personally.

    ‘No more “its just on the women”‘

    Who said that? Citations?

  • kevinschmidt

    At this point, Julian Assange appears to be the real victim. To give the benefit of the doubt to two accusers with all current evidence and credibility pointing to Assange’s innocence is what truely is, “ignorant and offensive on so many levels.”

  • arekushieru

    She isn’t making any accusations, which is WHY she wrote the word implied in… capital… letters….  And the reason it is implied, as one would know if they weren’t exhibiting the same behaviour that they FALSEly accuse everyone else of being (literally for LESS reason than we accuse ‘THEM’ of it), is for the reasons I stated above, in my most recent comment to you.

  • arekushieru

    They aren’t ‘playing’ the victim, they ARE the victim.  I think someone needs to go find a dictionary and look up words before comPLETEly contradicting the definition for them and making himself look like an ass.  Which is WHY it imPLIES that you ARE blaming the victim when you say they aren’t really victims and that they need to take responsibility for their actions.  Anyone but the most ignorant person would realize this.  So, please prove to me that you aren’t by not accusing me of calling you anything (because I didn’t since ‘if’ ALso has a totally different meaning than you, *apparently*, think it does and, if you can’t figure it out, use. The. DICtionary.) and, FINally, recognizing the implications of your words….

    Otherwise, you are on ignore.

  • squirrely-girl

    … with all of this “current” and credible “evidence” you have access to that apparently the rest of the main stream media is wholly unaware.

     

    By the way, I actually made no mention of these two particular women or Mr. Assange. I snarked at your archaic stereotype of victims in general. You obviously have a schema as to what a victim “acts like” and you’ve applied this schema/stereotype to the (perceived) behaviors of these two women and hence concluded they aren’t “real victims” because they didn’t act like your stereotype. 

     

    Reading… its fundamental :)

  • arekushieru

    Which is NOT what this article is about.  You didn’t even acknowledge it my first post to you, though, so I’m not surprised at your continuing ignorance (and, yes, I did accuse you of something this time, but you have proven this to be the case SO many more times than we have exhibited any similar behaviour in order for YOU to accuse US, that I just, finally, had to call a spade a spade).  This article is about treating allegations such as this SERiously, AS THEY DESERVE.  Amanda, herSELF, said she is not saying he did OR DIDn’t do it.  Innocence or guilt is proven IN COURT.  As anyone with a modicum of knowledge on court proceedings knows.  If someone perpetrated a crime or is accused of a crime, they are NOT a victim unLESS they didn’t do it.  And that can only be proven, to ANY reasonable degree, in a court of law.

  • arekushieru

    She DIDn’t accuse you of rape.  Really, your reading comprehension is lacking.  She said if you find you can’t control yourself.  IF.  And can’t control yourself. Which is NOT talking about the act of rape, but your OWN thougts and feelings, OBviously.

  • squirrely-girl

    … as it reinforces his “just world view.”  Kevin apparently thinks it’s somehow acceptable for criminals to commit crimes in general so long as the victim was somehow “to blame” first (e.g., showing skin, flaunting money). He makes exception and removes full blame from the aggressor and criminal and puts it on the victim because it makes him feel better about the world and “safe” since he’s so “careful.” That or he excuses the individuals because he himself would like to engage in these behaviors but doesn’t because of fear of reprisal (e.g., legal, social). 

     

    Just so we’re all clear, this is a lower level of moral reasoning. Attempting to “reason” with such an individual will likely lead to frustration and lesser discourse as bringing a person “up” is much more difficult than allowing yourself to be brought “down.”

     

    Save yourself the time and energy. 

  • arekushieru

    We are not talking about YOUR opinion of your dress, we are talking about the opinions of those who see you dressed provocatively and don’t care about what you claim is, “Mine. Mine Mine.”

    When it comes to my own opinion and actions, then yes, I do indeed get to decide who deserves my respect.

    Hmmm, so, I guess, it IS all about you.  Your opinions and actions are the only ones that matter, after all.  YOU get to decide but not the person, themSELVES.  Oy, obvious contradiction is STILL obvious, y’know….

  • arekushieru

    Aside: And STILL he misses the point? 

    If you behave irresponsibly with your own sex live

    Why doesn’t that apply to Mr. Assange?  Because he’s the only one who didn’t make an accusation?  Wow, you really don’t understand what the term responsibility means, either, do you…?

  • arekushieru

    However, Assange is being treated much more fairly than Mr. Bradly Manning. 

    Public opinion certainly seems to side with Mr. Assange.  However, I’m not sure that this public opinion will have even reached the ears of the Swedish courts. 

    Again, I think Assange’s case, if anything, is prejudiced in *favour* of him.

  • goatini

    to let you know that he and his mates think we’re just a lot of scrubbers.  

  • arekushieru

    Kinda like what we were discussing on the other thread about civility?  :)

  • colleen

    Why do my jets upset you so?

    In your dreams, you pathetic little troll.

    go away

  • kevinschmidt

    Where is the proof of your hilarious accusation that Assange “used” these two women? Exactly, how did he “use” them?

    The women are out of sight? They may not be OK? Where is your proof of that?

  • prochoiceferret

    Otherwise, you would not accuse me of rape without a shred of evidence. Hysterical unsubstantiated accusations seems to be a recouring theme for some of you women on this website.

     

    I didn’t accuse you of rape. But if you feel that everyone is accusing you of having raped someone, then perhaps your conscience is trying to tell you something…

     

    Pity. That’s not very discerning or smart of you to not realize you are advertising your physical sexual attributes to the detriment of your mind, your accomplishments, your heart and your soul.

     

    I’m sorry that my physical sexual attributes are detrimental to your opinion of my mind, my accomplishments, my heart and my soul. I would suggest keeping your eyes closed while I am around, so that people who can appreciate all aspects of who I am need not be encumbered by your personal hangups.

     

    Actions have consequences, whether you want to admit it or not. The cemetary is full of tomestones that read, “He/She had the right of way.”

     

    Is that what allows perpetrators of rape to go unpunished, so that they can re-traumatize rape survivors?

     

    It may not seem fair, but if you dress provocatively, don’t expect to be treated respectfully, especially in an area with little protection. You can take that last sentence more than one way.

     

    Yes, it kind of sounds like a threat.

  • brady-swenson

    User Kevin_Schmidt, and the associated IP address, has been banned from the site for violation of the commenting policy.

  • beenthere72

    Woo hoo!  

  • aligatorhardt

    The fact that a woman is visable is certainly not any justification for attacking her. She could be totally naked and you still are expected to control your inclinations. If we were discussing an object instead of a person, does the sight of jewelry in a window give you the right to steal it? A car? Why would a person have less right of self determination than an object? Only a phschopath would consider her appearence to be reason for an attack. even women in burkas get raped, there is no appearence that would be safe if that was the control mechanism.

  • beenthere72

    It’s ok, ali.  Kevin’s been banned.  

  • ack

    Rinse. Repeat.

     

    Rape isn’t an accident. Sexual assault isn’t an accident. Ignoring no isn’t an accident. Ignoring the conditions of consent isn’t an accident. Thinking I have the right to touch someone else isn’t an accident. Using drugs or alcohol to make you more malleable to the idea of sex isn’t an accident. Pushing my head down and saying, “You can’t leave me like this,” isn’t an accident. Poking a hole in a condom isn’t an accident. Throwing out birth control pills isn’t an accident.

     

    I bumped into the car in front of me because I was distracted by another car on fire by the side of the road. I backed into a column in a parking lot. I was late for an appointment and pulled out too quickly, hitting a passing car. Someone bumped into me because traffic was terrible and he was fiddling with his radio.

     

    Taking a condom off or refusing to wear one after your partner conditions sex on condom use is not an accident.

     

  • hardwroc

    Forgive me for pointing out that PATERNAL financial obligation is NOT a tiny little inconsequential thing.

    IF you haven’t noticed, the cost of raising a child is over 200,000 dollars, IF not complicated by something beyond the basic average healthy child. Add to that the FACT the courts will back the woman to the brink for FREE, while an attorney will bleed the man dry before he pays a nickel for the child.

    NO Salty, the financial impact of a child is not only VERY expensive, but, VERY controlling with the controls neatly in the hands of the owner of the womb.

    Just go watch a courtroom for a day and see HOW MANY WOMEN get screwed over in court, and how many men, get the shaft.

    USUALLY the ONE woman that does NOT get custody and funding, doesn’t want it.

    And the men, all get to stand silently while they are obligated to fund a womans life, because she had a baby.

    How often do you hear about a woman that must pay support for a lifetime because a man gave the best 30 minutes of his life to her in bed ? NOT many.

    Yet, we hear it all day over and over, day after day, how a man got lucky and now will pay for his productive life, because the story he heard was NOT the truth.

    It happened to me, and cost me 19 years of my life for getting surprised by her “having it under control” to guess what, we’re gonna have a baby.

    There’s fraud happening and there should be an honesty clause, that IF you told him you were covered, you should be covered and not surprising him with news about a baby.

    HONESTY is a must, after all you are getting intimate, you should be honest first.

  • populational

    Coercive pregnancy is a huge story that hasn’t been getting enough coverage. Googling the two words returns many, many stories about coercive abortion and coercive sterilization instead. If we consider the millions of women around the world who lack access to birth control for social or economic reasons, this is a HUGE story. Keep up the good work.

  • arekushieru

    Um, the primary caregiver/custodial parent is the woman, the secondary caregiver/non-custodial parent is the man.  WHO do you think is contributing MORE financially and percentage-wise (since women are almost always paid less than their male counterparts doing the same work, in the same position) from their income to the child’s upbringing than the other?  I can assure you it’s NOT the latter over the former.

    That women are more often granted custody of children has NOThing to do with the women, themselves.  It has everything to do with the patriarchal mindset under which we all still live, just as much as it had to do with granting Fathers custody of children more often than Mothers in recent history.  In the former case, it is believed that children are better off with Mothers because they are expected to be more caring, nurturing, etc….  In the latter case, it was believed that they were better off with Fathers because they were more often the main breadwinners and the best environment it was believed for children to be raised in, back then, incorporated many ideals of the mentality ‘children should be seen but not heard’.  So, a more authoritarian environment, in the latter case and a more caring, nurturing environment, in the former.