[dependenttypes]

I will quote Stallman on that: "I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in"

What he did does not fall within the definition of rape, please do not accuse him of doing a much worse thing than he did.

[mariorossi666]

Stallman was saying the exact opposite of what you believe he said.

He was arguing that rape is rape, even if in different states they have different laws.

If you rape a girl the fact that in some country she is of legal age and in others she's not, it doesn't change the fact.

It is rape, she said no, he forced her, it is rape.

Please accept it, because it's what happened.

[dependenttypes]

> Stallman was saying the exact opposite of what you believe he said.

> He was arguing that rape is rape, even if in different states they have different laws.

It was while he was defending Minsky and he was actually arguing that sex does not magically become rape depending on the country that you do it.

> It is rape, she said no, he forced her, it is rape.

He did not force her though. He had consent to have sex with her. It's just that they agreed to have a condom on but he apparently ripped it or something and she noticed it only afterwards.

[mariorossi666]

> It was while he was defending Minsky and he was actually arguing that sex does not magically become rape depending on the country that you do it.

No, he wasn't defending Minsky, please stop saying that!

He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days old in U.S.A., you can't.

That shouldn't change the definition of rape.

> It's just that they agreed to have a condom on but he apparently ripped it or something and she noticed it only afterwards

That's not what she says.

I was not there, did you?

I tend not to believe to a man that has at least 4 children with 4 women and he "prefers them virgins so he can be the first one to impregnate them" when it's about using condoms.

https://gawker.com/5757325/julian-assange-has-at-least-four-...

BUT we're seriously OT here.

[dependenttypes]

> please stop saying that

This is the first time that I said that...

> He was arguing that the definition of rape should not change based on the country you're in, or to put it in other words: if you are 16 in Italy, you can give consent to have sex, if you are 17 years and 364 days old in U.S.A., you can't.

Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law there calls it rape it does not make it rape in reality. Same thing applies here. Just because the Swedish law calls it rape it does not mean that it really is rape.

> That's not what she says.

This is what Guardian says https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange... - can you show me your source where she says that he raped her?

[mariorossi666]

> This is the first time that I said that...

many have done before you, and still doing it.

So, please stop.

It never happened.

> Yes, just because having consensual sex with a 17 and 364 days years old is illegal in some places and the law there calls it rape it does not make it rape in reality

Stallman was arguing exactly on the opposite: just because it is of legal age in some country, it doesn't make rape any less rape.

He was talking about Minsky, who he was not defending.

> can you show me your source where she says that he raped her?

Here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklag...

[dependenttypes]

> Stallman was arguing exactly on the opposite: just because it is of legal age in some country, it doesn't make rape any less rape.

Stallman was replying to "Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Isiands." with "Does it really? I think it is moraily absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. i think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexuai assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone."

> https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklag...

They use rape as to include breaking a condom -- which is exactly why Stallman and I are against using terms like rape to describe a much less serious (or a much more serious) offence, because it confuses people.

[jonlucc]

Wait. If someone consents to sex with a condom, then the condom is tampered with, that violates the consent.

If I, a man, agree to have sex with a woman after we both agree to use a condom, but I find out that she knowingly punctured the condom, I didn't consent to that.

[dependenttypes]

Sure, and it should be illegal (especially if she knows that she has a sexually transmitted disease), but it is far from rape.

If you consent to have sex with a woman as long as she promises to not cheat on you and she breaks that promise, is that rape? I would claim that it is not.

[jonlucc]

Why not? It not being rape is based on having consent. If the consent was not there, it is rape. Also, if she was sleeping, they couldn't discuss consent vis a vis the condom.