Galloway, the MP for Bradford West, had claimed that even if the complaints made against Assange by two women in Sweden were "100% true", they still could not be considered rape. "They don't constitute rape," he said in a video podcast on Monday. "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it."
He went on: "Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: 'Do you mind if I do it again?' It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
Is there any other female commentator apart from me who thinks George Galloway's comments were perfectly reasonable?
|George Galloway MP|
|Salma Yaqoob - leader of Respect, not an MP|
The very short version: Assange had consensual sex with two women, unbeknownst to one another, who were friends. They had hurt feelings afterwards and confided to a female police officer that Assange had engaged in sex with one of them without a condom, having worn a condom the night before. In the case of the second woman, Assange’s condom broke but he continued to climax, anyway.
One of the women had previously circulated on the Internet a how-to guide titled “7 Steps to Legal Revenge,” which “explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers.”
In order to do justice and to discourage sluts having power over men and politics, I think it is imperative to take into account the reputation and the number of sex partners of women claiming to be rape victims in order to assess the reliability of their evidence.
In the case of these rape allegations by these Swedish sluts, I think the argument of de minimis should be used by accused.
The law does not concern itself with trifles.
It has been said by Jeffrey Marshall that sex is a symphony with several movements and the evening and the morning after should merge into a seamless whole. It is not required for a man to ask if he may penetrate a woman again if intercourse were interrupted for some reason and subsequently resumed, surely?
Or the following will be the position most men will find themselves in.
You have sex. Something interrupts you. You resume intercourse but did not ask her permission this time. You later find yourself accused of rape by the slut you fucked if you ignore her demand that you call her to thank her for the cheap slut sex she gave you.
Of course, there are extreme cases, when the man's sexual behaviour is perfectly acceptable the night before, but the next morning, after a quarrel, intercourse without consent takes place.
If that happened to me, I suppose I would have to take it on the chin, because I would feel too stupid saying this in court, but I would have my revenge another way.