wooooohooo!!!!

It's not that he's paranoid that they can't extradite him.  It's that he's paranoid that he thinks it'd do any good.

If you have sex with somebody when they're asleep and then they wake up and say its ok. I'm pretty sure that consent is retroactive.

In reality what he is accused of doing (the condom thing) could at best be a lesser sexual crime than rape, molestation or some such. To label these alleged actions 'rape' is to take weight from a word that labels one of the worst crimes a person can commit.

It isn't.

Also, the condom thing wasn't labeled rape.  It was something else of which we are unsure of likely that consent isn't retroactive as consent isn't retroactive regarding any other crime.  The BBC reported it as the having sex with someone while asleep thing.  

It wasn't the condom thing though Rape laws in Sweden are identical to pretty much everywhere else in the western world.

The difference between something being a crime or not can't be the reaction of the person you are commiting the crime on.

Otherwise you are simply suggesting that people should test the odds.

Furthermore you are putting a lot of people in a situation where they think they know something about the person they are with... and then they could be TOTALLY wrong, and you've just traumitized someone for life... and probably yourself as well. (Unless you are a douche)

Also, before people decide what the charges are and aren't you should read what the charges say.

Including

"The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner."

I... don't see how anyone could make light of that.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLBCkkC5l0NVV0gEYkAA04x83Wrg?docId=B32488671291733403A00

Consent is retroactive in other crimes. If your mate took your PSP, rang you up and said "I took your PSP" and you said "Thats all good mate", that's not theft.

It's due to the fact that she gave consent during sex, not after (which I agree wouldn't count), that I find it hard to be classified as rape.

Actually it is.  Rulings general show that retroactive approval does not clear someone of a crime.  If for example your friend took your PSP, you called the police, and then your friend called you and said "I took your PSP".  He isn't actually cleared of any charges... the police can still charge him and find him guilty of stealing your PSP.  They just probably won't unless they feel PSP theft is particularly rampant.  This is why sometimes the state can still prosecute people successfully for spousal abuse for example, even when the abused spouse doesn't want to cooperate. (Though it's obviously hard since the person usually doesn't want the other person to go to jail.)  Note how such people lie and say "It didn't happen" instead of  "He did it, but I now give him consnet for having done it, therefore... no crime."

There is no actual proof of this being the case, and in fact the rape charge specifically talks about using his body to hold someone down against their will during sex.  Which would seem to apply a lack of consent.

Though hypothetically speaking say your main objection to not using a condom is STDs.  You've woken up with someone having sex with you with no protection.  No matter what you do at this point it's not going to change the fact that you've been possible exposed to STDs.  As an self described hedonist (if i remember right) I think you could agree with the thought of "I may as well get something out of this." 

Kasz, just stop. Your stupid logic isn't goint to protect anyone. Then again, considering how sue happy you Americans are taight to be, I shouldn't be surprised.

And you still haven't answered my question: If you were in bed with your girlfriend sleeping, and it was morning, and your girlfirend woke you up with a sexual act, would you call that rape, and do you think she should go to jail?

Whoa, this thread is one hell of a fundamentalism like thinking