When Cakester quits there is a war in Korea

[Retlaw83]

you're going to have sex with someone, she impliedly consents. The issue of wearing a condom doesn't come up. The two of you go on and do it.

I'm not saying not wearing a condom period is sleazy or illegal - I'm saying claiming you are and then not is.

The thing is, from what I understand, the issue of wearing a condom did come up and he lied about doing so - the woman did not consent to having unprotected sex, rather consenting to protected sex. While not rape, it's probably covered on the wording of some kind of sexual abuse laws.

In a legal environment where someone can be imprisoned for tricking someone into unprotected sex (as has been the case with a few people trying to willfully spread HIV), that holds weight.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Right, I didn't see what you were trying to say initially. Nevertheless, what I said still applies.
The fundamental principle is that you consent to sexual intercourse, with or without the condom. Likewise, if she consents to vaginal sex and he then sticks it in her ass, if you don't then withdraw your consent on the spot it is not illegal (except for odd pieces of legislation, which have now of course been annulled, i.e. Buggery Act 1533, which applied to anal sex and sex with animals, punishable by death).

Claiming that you are wearing a condom while you are not and she still lets you penetrate her is not illegal, unless there is a very specific statutory provision that criminalises that. That is highly unlikely.

Wilfully infecting someone with HIV is covered under the OAPA 1861 (Offences Against the Person Act) but the legal position on it is somewhat unclear and needs to be revised. It is covered by Section 20 of the Act. In my view, this is wrong and it ought to be covered by Section 18 (the key difference is length of the sentence, up to 5 years for the former and up to life imprisonment for the latter, however the issue arises with how previous precedents have defined grievous bodily harm).

What I've described here is English law. Sweden, being a civil law country, probably has some vague provision relating to consent. It is highly unlikely that they have a specific provision that criminalises having unprotected sex with a consenting person while claiming that you are protected. It is nonsensical. Assange's English & Swedish lawyer both assert that no law has been broken, I will go with them on this one.

There is absolutely no doubt that the charges in this case are 100% politically motivated.

[Retlaw83]

I agree they're most likely trying to get him on a technicality. You'd think running an organization dedicated to revealing top-secret information of world governments would be against several laws.

Julian Asange annoys the piss out of me; you can tell his attitude is putting on airs and he has that scornful look plastered on his face that he's obviously being very conscious of putting there.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Except that there is no technicality.

Regardless of your views on him as a person, the world needs more people like him. Increased transparency and checks & balances on governments can only be a good thing.

[hoochimama]

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.c ... ainst.html

Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise"

I guess they're just butthurt.

[Yonmanc]

So apparantly according to this report, wikileaks server has gone down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8wzYa9ZAs&feature=sub

http://213.251.145.96/ << Can still be accessed at this address for anyone interested.

[Retlaw83]

It's not rape, it's surprise sex!

[Blargh]

<strike>MAYBE HE SHOULD MOVE TO JAPAN EH ? EH ?</strike>

unaware

. . .

history?

Hilarious citation, old bean.

Is it that you cannot see the cavalcade of failure, that you refute it, or that you can only see triumph, Mirror ?

Which is the greater disappointment ? It becomes academic.

new

Yes, we were overdue for another tedious iteration of the 'lol thesaurus' jibe. :golfclap:

aware

This is the crux. Refutation is confirmation.

50,000

Ahahaha.

uncommented

Too late.

unscientific

Ahahaha.

Well done.

[Alister McFap II Esq.]

You're tedious. Is that what you're trying to be? Tedious? On an internet forum?
I might read your ramblings some other time when I'm more patient.
Till then, I assume you feel ashamed for being so blatantly superflous.

[Blargh]

O, an accusation of Tediousness and Superfluity ! Here ?!

Ahahaha, Gods . . .

Tragic that your pusillanimity cannot outweigh your almost winsome exhibition of deficiency. Had I a hat . . .

[Stalagmite]

And you've been proven to be retarded when it comes to knowledge of anywhere outside of your immediate area, despite your claims to have traveled.

Dude, you do realize how big America reflects upon the world right? I'm not even going by biased news or even my trips to Maine, New Hampshire, and Boston. It just seems to me, from what I can safely gather, that Americans seem quite awkward when it comes to sex whilst other countries are more comfortable with it that's all. Retarded, in my humble opinion.

[Retlaw83]

I and the majority of people I know are extremely comfortable with sex. If you want to pull that card, it seems to me that most Europeans and Australians are terrified of guns and violence, even in fictitious forms. It's retarded.

[Stalagmite]

Well the thought of someone shooting at me isn't what I would call comforting.

[shdowhunt60]

*COUGHCOUGH*EuropeanFO2*COUGHCOUGH**

[Alister McFap II Esq.]

uninteresting compulsive self-aggrandisement

You're boring.

[Blargh]

boring

Do you mean to establish a distinction between our personas, you specimen ?

Ahahaha. That's absolutely precious.

self-aggrandisement

Is that what you took it as ? Really ?

I do hope that was a willful misinterpretation. Even then, it fall flat. The alternative, however, is on a fence between hilarious and depressing.

AND THOSE WINDS, SAMMY, THOSE WINDS !

Ahahaha.

[Alister McFap II Esq.]

Prosper 2 doesn't know when to stfu. Sad.

[Blargh]

You poor, benighted cretin. How wondrously terrifying your world must be.

[Alister McFap II Esq.]

I should probably be offended by what you said, but then again I'm amused by the fact that you resort to blatant name-calling.

[Retlaw83]

That's not a very good cover for not having a comeback.