A spin-free version of the events would be:
"She consented to intercourse with a condom, which Assange initially used -- but then he took it off without telling her."
Meaning Assange subject her to unprotected sex, without her consent.
All of these legalities are irrelevant. Assange committed rape, and would have committed rape in any country. Nation-states do not define rape; moral people recognize it.
The question was "what is rape in the Swedish sense, and how is it different from rape anywhere else". The answer is, this type of sexual misconduct is considered rape in Sweden and not in many other places. Nation-states define laws, which is what the legal system is based off, so it doesn't matter what moral people recognize. It wouldn't have been legally rape in some other countries, and that's the answer to the question.
This is literally never true.
>The question was "what is rape in the Swedish sense, and how is it different from rape anywhere else".
The question I responded to was "did everyone consent to sex." That is not true regardless of what legalese you wrap it in.
The amount of money they spend guarding the embassy is ridicules. A similar spending would have been accepted if it was just some random guy. The British public should furious about wasting £12.6 million trying to catch a guy that many not be guilty, or may only be guilty of something that's only rape in the Swedish sense.
Don't get me wrong, if guilty then I don't care who he is. In that case he should be punished. It's just that I don't think Sweden should be allowed to hand him over to the US afterwards.
Still the amount of money wasted trying to catch him should say something about why the UK police wants him. You simply don't spend that kind of money trying to catch a person, just so you can question him.