BF2S Forums Going to Sweden? Don't forget the condom.

Well, considering the recent news not forgetting your condom is twice as important. In Sweden we currently have a law that requires people with HIV to inform partners that they have HIV before sex. The left party and other elements are now pushing to remove this "duty", as they see it as discriminating against HIV infected, on the grounds that there are effective treatments available. From what I've heard there's no actual cure, but inhibitor drugs. Inhibitors might do the trick to make you have almost as long to live as a non-infected, but that requires you to know if you have HIV before it's not too late etc.

Also there's been the odd few over the years that have infected others with HIV as revenge (quite sad that often the ones on the recieving end of the payback aren't the ones who caused the situation in the first place) or for other reasons.

RFSU (national organistation for sexual education or something like that in english) have been lobbying for HIV people to be allowed to donate blood to the blood banks for a while too. Though this isn't the worst they've been up to, during the 80s and 90s some of the people there lobbied for legalisation of pedophilia.

Last edited by Frotz (2010-12-06 08:53:36)

hmmm, not sure I am on board with this type of allegation.  It was consensual.  If she was really against the non-use of a condom she should have refused outright...

"We know that ... the offence is one of 'sex by surprise', which is not an offence known in England. He has not been given the evidence against him."

wtf?

Morpheus wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

hmmm, not sure I am on board with this type of allegation.  It was consensual.  If she was really against the non-use of a condom she should have refused outright...

"We know that ... the offence is one of 'sex by surprise', which is not an offence known in England. He has not been given the evidence against him."

wtf?

It's not rape if you yell "SURPRISE!" ?

I have a feeling that they just phrased that wrong.  If it's consensual, there is no surprise.

ghettoperson wrote:

Can we PLEASE have a rule that you can't use some fucking bullshit blog as a source?

The NYT reported that the condom broke/or was removed, can't remember which, and the woman asked him to stop, and he continued. Removal of consent is still rape.

Oh...that changes things completely.  If that's how it happened then shame on him.  Can you find the source for that?

the first question before posting " " is: is this is a fact?

tuckergustav wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Can we PLEASE have a rule that you can't use some fucking bullshit blog as a source?

The NYT reported that the condom broke/or was removed, can't remember which, and the woman asked him to stop, and he continued. Removal of consent is still rape.

Oh...that changes things completely.  If that's how it happened then shame on him.  Can you find the source for that?

That took a surprising amount of effort, but here we go:

According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world … sange.html

Obviously it's impossible to tell whether or not the women are telling the truth or not, but to claim that he's wanted for not using a condom is utterly ludicrous and completely untrue. He is wanted for having continuing to have sex with a woman who removed her consent. ie raping her.

jsnipy wrote:

the first question before posting " " is: is this is a fact?

I'll look up the Swedish law when I have more time.

If it was only one blog I would find it fishy too but there are tons out there saying the same
WikiLeaks Sex Scandal: CASE OF THE BROKEN CONDOM

Turquoise wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world … sange.html

Obviously it's impossible to tell whether or not the women are telling the truth or not, but to claim that he's wanted for not using a condom is utterly ludicrous and completely untrue. He is wanted for having continuing to have sex with a woman who removed her consent. ie raping her.

This opens a whole other can of worms, but it's worth debating.  It seems like it would be very difficult to prove that they continued without her consent in a situation like this.

In a way, this comes down to her word against his.  When we normally think of rape, it's the more violent kind with a clear absence of consent.  However, in a situation like this one, it's difficult to determine consent.

This is similar to how some rape cases involve 2 really drunk people where there is a perceived consent.

"Date rape"...very difficult to prove/prosecute which may be why they are using this weird condom law?

Turquoise wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

This opens a whole other can of worms, but it's worth debating.  It seems like it would be very difficult to prove that they continued without her consent in a situation like this.

In a way, this comes down to her word against his.  When we normally think of rape, it's the more violent kind with a clear absence of consent.  However, in a situation like this one, it's difficult to determine consent.

This is similar to how some rape cases involve 2 really drunk people where there is a perceived consent.

"Date rape"...very difficult to prove/prosecute which may be why they are using this weird condom law?

I suppose.  I just wonder if maybe this is opening a Pandora's box of false accusations.

It reminds me a little bit of rape shield laws.  Sure, the intent is a noble one, but it also shifts a lot of the presumption of innocence toward the presumption of guilt.

removing consent half way through sex? seems very risky business

Well, its a really weak case no matter how you look at it. The west should just go Russian on him, with a little polonium-210.

ghettoperson wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

removing consent half way through sex? seems very risky business

One thing is for sure.  If indeed Assange forced his way with this woman after the condom broke, that should be considered a lesser form of rape than a case where consent is never given in the first place.  It seems a bit ridiculous to assume that someone in the heat of passion is able to just stop everything on a dime.

The problem is that this law seems to assume this is a reasonable expectation.

I agree it is a lesser evil, but you've gotta be a pretty fucked up person to keep going once the other person starts struggling and telling you to stop.

That depends on a number of things -- how intoxicated you are is one factor, since your judgment is likely to be impaired.

Another factor is a more lurid one.  Think about the ambiguity of consent during rough sex or things like S&M.  Usually, there are certain boundaries that are established for that sort of thing, but understandably, consent can be hard to determine sometimes.

tuckergustav wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

I agree it is a lesser evil, but you've gotta be a pretty fucked up person to keep going once the other person starts struggling and telling you to stop.

That depends on a number of things -- how intoxicated you are is one factor, since your judgment is likely to be impaired.

Another factor is a more lurid one.  Think about the ambiguity of consent during rough sex or things like S&M.  Usually, there are certain boundaries that are established for that sort of thing, but understandably, consent can be hard to determine sometimes.

Do you get away with running someone over with your car because your judgment was impaired by alcohol?  Then it should not be a reasonable defense for rape.  Consent is near impossible to prove one way or another.  Better to protect yourself(as a man) and stay on the safe side.  All worked up? Rub one out...

I think that's a rather hyperbolic comparison, but I'm also not saying that I think forcing yourself on someone even in the middle of the moment should be without legal consequences.

I just think people don't realize how complicated these situations can be.

Personally, I'm a little paranoid of the whole thing myself.  I've never been in a situation where consent was an issue, but the simple fact that the law seems to automatically assume a woman's word is better than a man's is rather disturbing.

What it basically says to a guy is...  "Don't piss off your girlfriend (or even a one night stand), or she might accuse you of rape."

We've already seen what happened to the Duke Lacrosse players that were falsely accused of rape by a stripper.