The Authority Smashing! Hour


Friday December 3, 2010


3 comments on “Friday December 3, 2010

  1. Pingback: Wikileaks… | TemporaryArtist

  2. An Anarchist Woman
    December 4, 2010

    I have to take a gripe with the beginning of this episode, as an anarchist AND a feminist and as a fan of your show.

    Before I get into it I’m going to note, I am quite skeptical of the timing of the sexual assault charges and think that that should be kept in mind when assessing the truth of the charges.

    The allegation is NOT that they had sex w/o a condom so Assange should be prosecuted as you so claim and has been misrepresented.

    This is what they claim “According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use. Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts.”

    Note to all my colleagues, and just to everyone. If someone consents to sex with a condom that is NOT consent to sex w/o a condom. If you go ahead against their that you must use a condom it is sexual assault.

    If someone says they want to stop (and thereby withdraws consent) during the middle of sex, you have to stop or it is sexual assault. This applies to everyone regardless of gender.

    Now I’m suspicious of the timing of these charges and the intensity of which governments are trying to use this as an excuse to smear Assange.

    I’m a big supporter of Wikileaks but as a person, a woman, and a radical, I have to clarify what is or is not sexual violence b/c it is wrong to keep having sex with a person when they tell you to stop or if they said you only could with a condom and you don’t.

    I have no idea if Assange did continue to have sex with these women under those conditions and assaulted them, the timing is suspicious but I just wanted y’all to know what the charges are and that if a situation like that actually happened it is indeed a crime. Not commenting on the truth b/c I don’t know enough but people really need to learn more about consent!

    • invaderzeno
      December 5, 2010

      Thank you for your comment. Though I did not speak that episode and I cannot speak for those who did,I agree with those definitions as a clarification because I would have characterized the charges the same way they did given the info up to then. I know most of my confusion on this part of the story stems from how chimeric the descriptions of his charges have been from the start by the prosecutors and press. I think what you describe above I think illustrates that the very ambiguity of such a hard to prove instance of rape or any violation of consent agreements is being seized upon as a political smear tactic exploiting laws that may go too far. I think the merits of the law if we know the whole of it in the context of what you have described would be a good examination,but that is a seperate issue getting conflated(which is why it is a perfect smear) with the context of it’s application in this sense.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on December 3, 2010 by in Uncategorized.
<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: