| Wikileaks sadly lost a lot of respect from me and many people I know when some of their comments and many of their followers weren't about Assange's innocence, but instead in defense of rape, both directly and through criticism of conditional consent. Even if only some zealous defenders had done so rather than wikileaks (most likely) accidentally doing so, it would still taste quite bitter. While I wholeheartedly agree it's not been handled well at all by the Swedish prosecutors and government, and that there are irregularities and that Wikileaks and Assange should* criticize and question this, seeing people defend rape to defend them is bizarre. Although I am well aware this happens whenever rape is discussed. Conditional consent IS a legal concept in Sweden, and one I personally agree with. This saddens me, as I'm a rather big fan of Wikileaks and since I am also a fan of Assange I hope he's innocent. *Conditional Consent: While you might argue that there may be a need for different words for varying degrees and types of sexual crimes.
Rape, at least for now, is defined solely by the presence of consent, as far as I understand. If my consent hinges on a condition, and this was explained, my consent is nullified if the person willfully lies about this condition to be able to have sexual contact with me. Ex: A woman lies about being on birth-control or a man lies about condom or being sterile. |