Re: Oh for fecks sake
Whilst I have very little time for that (IMHO) idiot Galloway, what he said about previous consent was not completely without some merit. What I say below is deliberately intended to provoke some thought.
I listened on Radio 4 to a representative from an organization campaigning for women's rights. It's gone from iPlayer now, so I can't get her name or who she represented, but the main idea of her point was that every insertion needs explicit consent (this was her language, and she used the words penis, willy and vagina before 18:00 on national radio, which simultaneously got her some respect from me, and also made me wonder what sort of adult uses 'willy' nowadays.)
Anyway. I know that I am nothing like the worlds best lover, but during a sexual act, I often completely withdraw, change position, and re-engage. If you take what this interviewee said as a definition of rape, then each time we change position, I would have to ask whether I still had permission to continue. And if I were to slip out or engage in some deep-thrusting that involves out-and-in-again, as seems enjoyable to my partner, I would need consent each time. So this is how it could go
...repeat for a while...
Partner :Yes YES oh YES! (she IS quicker than me - really)
Me: OK? ... OK? ...
Partner: You rapist! You didn't wait for me to say yes!
OK, this is taking what was said literally, but lawyers are paid to take arguments to the extreme, and if her definition of rape and not-rape is correct, this is what could be argued.
Now Assange thinks that waking up in the same bed as a partner who was willing the previous night gives him automatic consent. It's a difficult question, and could be taken both ways. I certainly would not want to have to wake my wife up to ask, when she has enjoyed this different sort of wake up call in the past, but from what I remember hearing, Assange, fool that he is, used a condom or two the previous night, but did not in the morning. That's stupid, and shows no respect for the other person. In these days of incurable STIs, then rape may not be an unreasonable charge, although if there was an STI involved, assault, possibly with actual bodily harm (in English law, I don't know about Sweden) may be more appropriate (I sit back and wait to be flamed from both sides.)
The other thing that looks strange to me is that both women concerned appear not to have gone to the police immediately. I know that they may have needed some time to pluck up the courage and consider the implications of raising a rape accusation, but if you are trying to get something against a promiscuous person to get them into custody, how long would it take to find a participant in a one-night stand and offer them enough money so that they would lie about whether there was morning-after sex at all or whether it was by consent. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but you could manipulate a system like this to get someone into custody whether they were guilty or not. And once in custody..........