re: #494 Obdicut

If the woman clearly stated that she didn’t want to have sex without a condom, then it really is a violation to have sex with her without a condom.

It’s best to be very, very careful with terms such as “buyer’s remorse”. That line of logic has dismissed many, many cases of coerced sex because the woman didn’t immediately go to the police, or stayed in a relationship with the man, etc.

The story seems rather confused at the moment, certainly. But I don’t think we know nearly enough to start accusing the women of making false charges.

re: #496 Obdicut

Using the phrase ‘attention-whore’ in this case is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Why are you so certain you know the facts of the case enough to dismiss her as such?

I agree with both of your comments.

But we also don’t know, yet, enough of the story to say Assange raped the woman, given my understanding of rape.

But the “sex by surprise” phrase is a strange phrase to use, IMO:

Assange’s current lawyer then revealed Swedish prosectors had told him they were not seeking Assange for “rape” at all, instead the alleged crime is “sex by surprise,” which carries a penalty of a fine, although the details of the allegations haven’t been revealed yet.

How does that differ from rape?