There are things which everyone agrees is rape.
But the Assange case brought up a couple of scenarios which the Swedes have apparently decided is rape and which (I think) US law does not.
The first of these is the case where a man and a woman agree to sex with a condom and the man then removes the condom unbeknownst to the woman.
Beyond the current legal definition, should one think of this as a sort of rape?
I am not sure. I had never thought about it before this case. This is certainly a breach of trust. I'm leaning towards thinking it probably should be considered rape of a sort. It's unpermissioned impregnation, or at least the increased risk thereof. On the other hand, it might also be considered a question of personal responsibility. Assange might say it is not his job to ensure his sex partner is protected, which is certainly nasty but is it something the law should be involved in?
Second case - Assange had sex for a second time with a woman with whom he had already had sex. The second time she was asleep. I have mixed feelings about this one. It isn't as if the woman's chastity is involved or that she has refused Assange. Does the permission from the wakeful act continue into the night? Does one want the law to intrude into the bedroom in cases like this? Not sure.
Interesting questions. I don't think either case is on the same level as the kind of forcible rape one usually thinks of and that hopefully results in incarceration. But all the same, these cases are something. I'm thinking maybe there's a need for a second category of offence, which gives protection to women but for which the legal treatment is a little different.
Anyone else have an opinion? Trying to wrap my head around this one.
| 