Quick thought on sex and parachuting

[catsittingstill]

I came across this article on Pandagon about the charges against Julian Assange.  Apparently the contention is that he had sex with a woman who consented on condition that he wore a condom, then skipped the condom.  For reasons that are unclear to me at this distance, this is being referred to as "Sex By Surprise" and certain (conservative, natch) commentators are sniggering about how can that be wrong?

It's wrong because the difference between sex and rape is consent.  When it happens with consent, it's sex.  When it happens without consent, for example when consent is contingent on a condom that is not actually worn, or when consent is withdrawn and your partner begs you to stop, and you don't, it's rape.  Clear?

What kind of jerk would even want to persist with someone who was begging him to stop?  I mean, when your partner is not having fun anymore isn't that freaking obviously doing it wrong?

Look at it this way.  "Sex by surprise" is like "Parachuting by surprise."  Suppose I took my... companion up to the top of the Grand Canyon, and when we got there grabbed her, shouted "Surprise!  You're parachuting!" and flung her over the edge.

Then as I watch her plummet I say "you forgot your parachute.  Oh!  You didn't bring it because you didn't know you'd be parachuting because it was... a surprise..." (smack forehead).  "Oops!  My bad!"  (Shouting down into the void now) "Sorry!"

Sex by surprise is, I guess, some kind of mistranslation.  Consent is required, and to give consent, both parties have to know what's intended.  Just like parachuting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Note that this is completely separate from the issue that women's consent is not usually taken this seriously, although it certainly ought to be, and that it annoys me and makes me feel used that there is a real chance it's only being taken seriously this time because this is a chance to nail the founder of WikiLeaks.
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually, down at Pandagon they have an even better example.  Sex is like being a houseguest.  (Giving credit where credit is due, Mighty Ponygirl came up with it and catgirl expanded it.)

If you have permission to be there, you're a guest.  That permission may be contingent on your behavior, like you don't steal stuff or wipe your dirty boots on the couch, and if it is, you abide by those rules or leave.  That permission may be withdrawn at any time, for any reason or none, and if it is, you leave immediately or you're a trespasser.

Having had permission to come over one weekend, or several weekends in a row, doesn't mean you can waltz in anytime you like.  If someone else, or a thousand someone elses have permission to come over, that doesn't mean you do.  If the door is open and you can smell bacon cooking and see the comfy couch, that doesn't mean you can come in because you were tempted, nor is the person whose house you are not invited into an evil bitch who ought to keep her bacon under wraps.

And you can't be invited "by surprise."

Comments

[occams_pyramid]

There are very variant stories floating around. One said that at least one of the women was bragging about having sex with him after the fact.

There's a *lot* of disinformation floating around, quite obviously deliberately. While I can't be sure the claims portraying him as totally innocent are valid, I for obvious reasons do not assume at face value the ones saying he isn't.

And then there's this: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/12/ludicrous_attac.html

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

There is quite a bit of disinformation floating around, including about the accusers, yes. That is to be expected, I guess.

My point is not whether J.A. is guilty or not; that is for the courts. My point is that persisting after consent has been withdrawn--whether or not J.A. did it--is rape and should be taken seriously.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well. If it gets taken seriously in one case where it is loudly blown around in the press, even if for a bad reason, it will be more likely to be taken seriously later in other cases.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe. I hope it is setting a precedent.

But I'm kind of worried it's setting the precedent that men accused of rape are being punished for stuff that has nothing to do with consent.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

At work, some of the women were upset because they claimed that the two victims had, in fact, tried to file earlier and weren't taken seriously until after the leaks, when it then suited the government to go after him.

"Sex by surprise." The phrase itself minimizes the damage it does. Make the crime cute with a catchphrase, and it won't be a crime. Argh.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Argh.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't care that it's only used to nail the founder of Wikileaks. In general, one of the rules of persuasion is that if you want to stake out a position as the good guy in one area, you don't go committing felonies in completely unrelated areas. You may be able to get away with felonies in your own field, if you can convince people that they're for a good cause, but making yourself a public figure who's trying to get an image as the good guy and then raping somebody is so unbelievably dumb that I get lost in the dumbness before I even get to how wrong it is. I want to see this rape case prosecuted, partly because I don't like seeing rape get treated lightly, but also because I have issues with gross stupidity and don't mind seeing the Darwin Awards helped along a little. This isn't quite a Darwin because it won't get him killed, but it's certainly a close cousin.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

As one person I saw put it "he didn't get where he is by respecting boundaries."

I don't have any problem with people transgressing against boundaries of secrecy set by countries; I think a little fresh air through the secrets now and then may be just what is needed. No disinfectant like sunshine and all that. I do have a problem with people transgressing against boundaries set by other people.

I want to see the case prosecuted because I want to see justice done--the man set free if he hasn't done anything, or punished if he has.

But I want to see justice done *universally,* not just in this case. And I kind of resent women being used as a stalking horse for other interests. Maybe one case will be the springboard for all of them, and if that's the case, my resentment will be reduced. But I think that's... um.... kind of unlikely.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

CENT ONE: The guy has so many enemies in high places that I have a reasonable doubt as of now. That could change, but I also won't be surprised if they "find" a whole lot of cocaine in his home suddenly, or if it's alleged he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, or whatever else it takes to discredit him.

CENT TWO: What you said about consent--spot on. Kinda embarrassing that such things have to be explained, but thank you for doing it.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I agree with the observation about enemies in high places. I guess sorting that out is going to be up to the courts and I wish them honesty, patience, cleverness and knowledge.

And thank you for your support on the other.

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

That is the best analogy I've ever seen.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I assume you mean the houseguest one? :-) I was very impressed with it also, which is why the late edit.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the Swedish statutes say, or, in light of the civil law tradition, how they would be interpreted.

In most states, the sex crime statutes distinguish force and lack of consent.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the Swedish ones do too, which is why the penalty for the crime Assange is accused of is fairly minor.

[durconnell.livejournal.com]

H'm, I'm not sure what you are referring to as minor. I saw a news report that suggested it might just be a fine, but this site suggests it could be up to 2 years in jail.

http://www.interpol.int/public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaSweden.asp

(note, the site mainly deals with sex crimes against children, but some elements are common)

Section 3 of the Swedish Penal Code

'A person who induces another to engage in a sexual act by gross abuse of his or her dependency shall be sentenced for sexual exploitation to imprisonment for at most two years. This also applies to a person who engages in a sexual act with another by improperly taking advantage of the fact that the latter is unconscious or in another helpless state or is suffering from a mental disturbance.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

By "fairly minor" I meant the 700$ fine. I hadn't heard anything about possible jail time.

Though I will say two years strikes me as pretty minor for raping someone while she's unconscious.