julian assange, would you slip on the condome????

[planthelper]

hi!

some of us would know, what julian is accused of, so i ask you.

if you have consentual sex, and after a while, your partner say's, "put on a condome", would you do it?

my guess, is most men would find it very difficult.

i never met julian, but from what i see on tv, i don't click with him (or heven't yet), but still, it's my confiction that he get's a very, very rough deal here.

if a person agrees to have sex without a condome, and than changes there mind, i think that, it hardly constitutes, an assault!!!!

if it goes to court, it will be very interressting.

i think, the initial agreement, ought to be valid, till ejaculation accured.

but if the courts decide, any sexuall agreements are only valid, till revoked, than oh boy, oh boy.

in the latter case, i think, the law would ask quite a lot of us men.

[CβL]

do you think, the initial consent of a person to have sex with you without a condome, should be upheld till, the sex act has finished, or do you believe a partner ought to be able to revoke this privilage at any given point in time?

That question needs revising to make sense as a 'yes' or 'no' question.

do you think, the initial consent of a person to have sex with you without a condome, should be upheld till, the sex act has finished (then vote yes), or do you believe a partner ought to be able to revoke this privilage at any given point in time? (then vote no)

Would be much clearer, if that's what you mean. Hope that helps.

Edited February 3, 2012 by βluntmuffin

[planthelper]

cheers, bluntmuffin, i tried to edit, but did not succeed.

i think, poll questions can't be changed, for obvious reasons.

......and always remeber, i'm dyslexic and english is not my first lingo..., get out of here,.... all just bloody excuses, ..... you just didn't get smacked enough, as a child, hehehe......

@ therefore, well you hardly ever agree with me, but if waht you say is true, than it's a clear cut case,

and it's assault (unless he had consent for sleep sex).

but obviously, we don't know the truth yet!!

Edited February 3, 2012 by planthelper

[planthelper]

my pc displayed technical (java script) issues.

Edited February 3, 2012 by planthelper

[CβL]

In general, I think if a woman is having second thoughts halfway through my boning of her, then:

A] She has the right to ask me to stop, and for me to comply.

B] She can expect some verbal abuse.

Also in general, I think if a woman suddenly desires me to wear a condom, halfway through sex, then:

A] I should comply

B] She can expect some verbal abuse.

Edited February 3, 2012 by βluntmuffin

[shruman]

http://www.shaman-au...hl=assange&st=0

Check out the last poll

If theres one thing this case is not it would have to be clear cut.

Edited February 3, 2012 by shruman

[C_T]

can't really understand your wording on question 2... think i voted the wrong way even...

[Belching]

If somebody does not consent to sex, then continuing is rape. It does not matter how far into it you are.

If somebody does not consent to bareback sex, then continuing is sexual assault. It does not matter how far in you are.

Consent is something that can be re-evaluated and retracted. If it begins to hurt, do you believe that you still have the right to continue until ejaculation? If you begin introducing weird elements like calling her your daughter, do you believe that you still have the right to continue until ejaculation? If you find that the curtains are open and the neighbour is staring at you through the crack, do you believe that you still have the right to continue until ejaculation?

[Arsea]

It should aways be a matter of heart and not penis.

Then you cant go wrong!

Smiley Love

Arsea

Edited February 3, 2012 by Arsea

[Evil Genius]

Having sex is not like the sale of a car so of course should everyone have the right to revoke their willingness for unprotected sex at any given time. Also, everyone has the right to stop at any given time. Happens to me all the time when the booze stops working. Just kidding. Never happened but i would surely do it. If not, you´d find yourself in front of a jury very fast.

At first i might think it to be a little bit awkward when a girl asks me to put on a rubber when im almost finished but when i think about it, i can understand it. The woman might be concerned about her infection risk and you cant argue that. Nor would i want to. I hate those kind of guys who are trying to talk a woman into something. Men are better than some cheap movies try to make em sometimes and in situations like this, they should proove it.

Depending on the circumstances, it might look rude but thats a personal thing and doesnt influence the right to kick someone out the bed. Maybe i wouldnt meet with her again but that depends on the general situation. I didnt really follow the circumstances of the Julian Assange Sex Case and i love wikileaks and all they stand for but thats such a basic thing, that i would have absolutely no respect for him IF he really didnt stop having sex with her at that time. That being said, i know a lot of girls who try to pin rape cases on famous men to have their minute in the spotlight. In the past ten years, we had like ten or so big rape cases. And in the end it came out that almost all of them did in fact lie. So, this type of thing is extremely difficult and i wouldnt dare to say anything about someone being guilty or not before not having seen and heard ALL the witnesses,statements, papers, etc. Hope Assange wont be given to the USA in case he´s guilty. No one deserves that. bye Eg

Edited February 3, 2012 by Evil Genius

[chilli]

I agree with Therefore, I don't think that stopping sex but abusing the woman for it is that much better really.

[Psylo]

That being said, i know a lot of girls who try to pin rape cases on famous men to have their minute in the spotlight. In the past ten years, we had like ten or so big rape cases. And in the end it came out that almost all of them did in fact lie.

 

The unusual circumstances of this matter make it a interesting case. The woman willingly engaged in intercourse him earlier in the night, and for all we know they were out earlier, and people witnessed them being amourous in public, maybe leaving a venue together. So it's hard for the woman to claim a lack of willingless. What makes this case so clever is that only two people know what hapenned. Im sure many people have been in a situation where in the heat of the moment, one person says 'stuff it, let's go for it without a condom' under the agreement that the guy withdraws before ejaculation. And this isnt even a surefire method anyway, with small traces of pre-ejaculate emission from the penis, often long before the male climax. So there may be evidence in the woman's cervix of Assange's semen, even if it was a consentual second round without protection. But does this even matter ? Was she even tested for the presence of discharge ? If you google "julian assange semen" or 'julian assange sperm', you dont get any credible news reports in the results.

The allegation of rape is easy enough to fake, and as EG says. There's obviously a very good reason that this isnt a straight rape case. We all too quickly argue for the 'was it right or wrong' based on what the media reports are telling us about the sleepy-penetration allegation, which is making the assumption that it's actually even true. We need to remember that Julian Assange is in many ways a public enemy to the world's governments. In this case, how can there be any evidence of what hapenned ? To me it sounds like a setup to drag his credibility into the sewer, so he will be known not as "that guy who leaked documents" but "that rapist who is facing extradition". The case can be thrown out of court, but the damage to his credibility has already been done.

It wouldnt be the first time the US government have been involved in dirty, underhanded business. This is actually a pretty easy thing, compared to the other manipulations we have seen in the past.

Wouldn't it be great if someone found a confidential US memo outlining the setup of JulianGate, and it was posted on Wikileaks ! For all we know, somone has 'leaked' it to the organisation, hoping it will be published, therefore putting the whole credidinility into further question.

The moral question aside, I'm calling BULLSHIT on the whole allegation.

[planthelper]

If somebody does not consent to sex, then continuing is rape. It does not matter how far into it you are.

 

i agree with what you say, but your reply is out of context, and it reads like i would have said, " would you continue sex, even if she said, at the halve mark no". but i said, slipping on the condome.

in other words, in my version, she did'nt revoke her consent for sex at all, she only revoked the privilage, to do it without a condome.

aswell, i worded my question, would you have "difficulties" applying, to the new set standard, in no ways, this wording applies, the sence that anybody, would be ok, if they don't, heed the new standard.

The unusual circumstances of this matter make it a interesting case. The woman willingly engaged in intercourse him earlier in the night, and for all we know they were out earlier, and people witnessed them being amourous in public, maybe leaving a venue together. So it's hard for the woman to claim a lack of willingless. What makes this case so clever is that only two people know what hapenned.

The moral question aside, I'm calling BULLSHIT on the whole allegation.

 

it's my believe aswell, that the whole thing was a setup, most of us would know, that one of the most common cia and other secret services trick is to, use a beautyfull woman (or two, hehehe) as a lure.

most people who work for secret services all over the world and from most countries, are laughing already, because the whole thing looks like a, "text book case" regarding a secret services manual, hahaha.

having said this, we probably will never know the truth.

i haven't read the other thread, with the word "rape", but this very thread, might already show, how efficant, secret services smear campains can work, after all, this tread, seems to have past judgement on julian already.

those secret services, don't care about the truth, they create the truth for us, which serves them the best!

[nabraxas]

i agree w/Belching, but as PH said above, the question was would you have difficulties putting on a condom, which i sure would; but that doesn't mean i wouldn't do it.

& i think the wording must have confused some folks, because i'd be really shocked if 5 out ov 10 people here didn't agree that a partner has the right to say stop at any point in the proceedings.

[FancyPants]

As far as this case goes, I think it's possible he did what is alleged; but I think it reeeeeks to high hell of a setup. I don't know him of course, but I can easily imagine he's a slightly arrogant individual, but also charming as hell who probably wouldn't have needed to lie to these women to bed them. But really, we've got no idea wtf happened.

In general, I think if a woman is having second thoughts halfway through my boning of her, then:

A] She has the right to ask me to stop, and for me to comply.

B] She can expect some verbal abuse.

Also in general, I think if a woman suddenly desires me to wear a condom, halfway through sex, then:

A] I should comply

B] She can expect some verbal abuse.

 

I realise you say in general but just offering some perspective...

Perhaps a woman has some mental or physical issues which might cause her to become distressed or in pain midway through and doesn't feel capable of telling her partner why she doesn't want to stop?

and...

Perhaps a woman has self esteem issues whereby she doesn't want to miss the opportunity to have sex and feels that if she asks/demands for a condom used at the start, it will be denied (this is where I've personally been once upon an incredibly naive time lol). Though upon the act occurring she feels it ok to ask for a condom? Or maybe if STI's weren't an issue it's the issue of contraception at the climax which she fears more?

[planthelper]

http://www.shaman-au...hl=assange&st=0

Check out the last poll

If theres one thing this case is not it would have to be clear cut.

 

hmm, i only realise now, that, in some way's, your reply, suggests as followes:

we have already discussed this issue, you should slapped for opening another thread about it, your action makes me livid.

i believe, your post is totaly inappropiate, it makes me look bad (although, in a humorous sence) and there is zero reason for you to act this way.

shruman, you are jumping to conclusions, you treat allegations, like they are facts, and manage to make me look a lil bit bad aswell.

let me side track, for a second, most of you people would not make good judges or moderators, deere, deere, me.

[sapito]

I dont really buy the story as being true given Assanges current status but that is kinda not important for this discussion.

I am amazed that guys here think they have a right to abuse a woman if she changes her mind about something. Sure stopping and putting a condom on can change things a bit but fuck its not that bad. The sense of entitlement some of you are showing is fucking gross.

[shruman]

"hmm, i only realise now, that, in some way's, your reply, suggests as followes:

we have already discussed this issue, you should slapped for opening another thread about it, your action makes me livid.

i believe, your post is totaly inappropiate, it makes me look bad (although, in a humorous sence) and there is zero reason for you to act this way.

shruman, you are jumping to conclusions, you treat allegations, like they are facts, and manage to make me look a lil bit bad aswell.

let me side track, for a second, most of you people would not make good judges or moderators, deere, deere, me."

Who is jumping to conclusions?

I did in no way suggest what you propse.

If you needed clarification simply ask. No need to be a dick & go off half cocked

My smilies are about the fact we have now had 2 polls around essentialy the same issue (its common courtesy to do a quick search before starting a new thread) & both polls have been poorly worded & ambiguos leading to two polls that aren't fit to wipe your arse with as neither clearly show what the majority of people think.

Personaly it does'nt bother me that you made another poll but the fact it was poorly thought out does. People obviously wish to discuss it further & I think a well thought out poll could have helped this.

Care to clarify on me treating allegations as facts?, I certainly try hard not to do so & apologise if I have & would be keen to edit.

I tend to agree with your last comment, hence why I have only had a short stint as a mod or have flat out refused when asked to mod on related boards. But I would certainly include you in this group of people, I'm so glad to see someone as level headed as zac to co-mod with you.

The discrepency between votes cast & the poll tally is because some people have null voted. I was one of them because the poll did not clearly reflect my views.

Edited February 4, 2012 by shruman

[Psylo]

As far as this case goes, I think it's possible he did what is alleged; but I think it reeeeeks to high hell of a setup. I don't know him of course, but I can easily imagine he's a slightly arrogant individual, but also charming as hell who probably wouldn't have needed to lie to these women to bed them. But really, we've got no idea wtf happened.

 

Disclaimer: This not an attack on FancyPants, but a generalised usage of the term "you". Majestic Pluralism aside..........

It doesn't matter what you think, about a guy who you don't know outside of the media reports. It's not for us to judge, when there is no evidence at our disposal. As the founder of WikiLeaks, we would expect him to be courageous of spirit. If those traits are misrepresented as 'arrogant' by the casual observer, it is simply a twist in the story, perpetrated by the media, that makes you want to think of him as a cunt.

Let's go back to basics.

The guy is leaking confidential government documents.

The general public now have an ability to observe the inner workings of various corrupt superpowers.

Julian Assange is the conduit, publishing memos without embellishment

He gets accused of a very bizaare rape case

The latest media reports are speaking of him as an alleged rapist and an extradition-dodger

Joe Q. Public forgets about Julian's efforts towards WikiLeaks, and instead remember him as a rapist

The case will be thrown out of court. His credibility will be forever tarnished. The Government wins... again.

[FancyPants]

I know you weren't attacking me, but I do have to point out that I'd highlighted that a) I don't know him and what I'd said is only my personal wild-card guess; and we've got no idea wtf happened.

[planthelper]

I tend to agree with your last comment, hence why I have only had a short stint as a mod or have flat out refused when asked to mod on related boards. But I would certainly include you in this group of people, I'm so glad to see someone as level headed as zac to co-mod with you.

 

you know, i realy try never to be biased!

but i believe, without meaning you bad, that you are often very biased.

i'm not a resentfull person, but gee shruman, get real, when it comes to how you interact at times with me.

don't ask me the where and when, because i don't care about the past, but i tell you, there are only 2 members here, who seem to often, belittle my writtings, and you are one of them!!!

and i know it's your problem and not mine, because, "STATISTICS NEVER LIE".

in other words, isn't it strange than only those two people always find my, post worth criticising but never anybody else to this degree??

the other person, you know, who i mean.

i believe you two have a problem with this, and i'm sure you will never realise this shortcomming of yours, and i envy you for this.

how nice it must be.

i further believe that you two, do the same thing with other people aswell, so maybe one day, somebody say's the same thing about the two of you, as i tried to say to you, and it will suddenly click, for you and you will undersatand, but as said, just above, probably this will never happen.

.

[CβL]

By 'verbal abuse' I mean to simply call the spade a spade and tell her she acted stupidly for not telling me at the beginning. That's all.

I'm not one to save an adult the "embarassment" of being told they have acted stupidly. Some tears for some lives seems like a bargain to me.

[Psylo]

@planthelper... This is just an open discussion between people of the subculture that draws us together. Relax, man.

[chnt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOSoXI4U-5g

[shruman]

"you know, i realy try never to be biased!

but i believe, without meaning you bad, that you are often very biased.

i'm not a resentfull person, but gee shruman, get real, when it comes to how you interact at times with me.

don't ask me the where and when, because i don't care about the past, but i tell you, there are only 2 members here, who seem to often, belittle my writtings, and you are one of them!!!

and i know it's your problem and not mine, because, "STATISTICS NEVER LIE".

in other words, isn't it strange than only those two people always find my, post worth criticising but never anybody else to this degree??

the other person, you know, who i mean.

i believe you two have a problem with this, and i'm sure you will never realise this shortcomming of yours, and i envy you for this.

how nice it must be.

i further believe that you two, do the same thing with other people aswell, so maybe one day, somebody say's the same thing about the two of you, as i tried to say to you, and it will suddenly click, for you and you will undersatand, but as said, just above, probably this will never happen."

You are very biased, look at the words you tried to stick in my mouth in this thread. Obviously there is a big difference between trying & actualy being biased.

I was laughing at the situation not you PH your the one who jumped to conclusions & made it personal.

I do care about the past, those who do'nt learn from it are destined to repeat it. The only time I remember any type of confrontation with you was when you had a problem with something I said & I did'nt think it was any big deal so I find this confusing?, sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

I like the other quote better "there are lies, damn lies & statistics" I think reality & the way you percieve it are divergent.

I do'nt know who the other person is, I remember a big hissy fit from you about someone but can not remeber who, what relevance does this have aside from showing your bias to stereotype people?

I'm done feeding the troll. Sorry peeps.