>the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before

I don't care what you think about this specific case, but statements like these show a great deal of ignorance about how most sex crimes happen and the relationship between the abuser and the victim.

If there is not consent (or capacity for consent) at the time of the act, it's rape. In any reasonable justice system, the proof problems that come up, in certain situations, with that clear definition weigh in favor of the accused, since they make it difficult to prove that sex occurred without consent.

"Rape can happen under complex emotional mechanics, therefore the word of the victim is sufficient to prosecute and jail the accused, as this overrides any other objective evidence" isn't a position likely to be enshrined into law any time soon.

I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately end contact with their rapist are ignorant ideas.

> I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately end contact with their rapist are ignorant ideas.

Agreed. Luckily the commenter you were calling "ignorant" never claimed anything of the sort, so I'm afraid you're the one that started this particular straw man (perhaps unknowingly)

I mean OP put both crime and rape victim in scare quotes and their first argument as to why is she "still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards." They then say that they don't think the claims would stick because "they'd had intercourse several times before during the same night". I'm not sure how to take those statements any other way. Am I missing something here?

I guess I was approaching the situation from the known information of the case, which is fairly clearly a very crude attempt at finding a crime of rape where one doesn't exist (even the supposed "victims" deny there was rape).

I could see how the parent's wording is off putting, but notice how I've also put "victims" in between quotes. None of the evidence of the case points at them being victims. Therefore, there is no evidence (not just strong evidence, but any evidence) that a crime was committed. I think that's a fair use for quotes, and no more or less dishonest than calling them "scare quotes". If an accusation of a crime stands on a very flimsy foundation of made up evidence, I think it is fair to call it a "crime".

Maybe if you read the comment as coming from someone who has ill feelings against the government of Sweden for doing this (rather than any ill will against the alleged victims) you will see that it's not so cut and clear that the parent is a misogynist or ignorant with regards to rape or whatever other first impression you may have received from the comment.

Don't be too quick in assuming misogyny when confronted with a differing opinion in a discussion related to a rape accusation. The same goes for any of the other 'touchy' subjects like racism, (gender) discrimination and whatever-phobia. The world is not black and white so it is not sensible to claim than anyone who does not support your version of 'the truth' (between quotes because 'truth' is sometimes hard to define, what is 'true' for the one can be 'false' for the other on equally valid grounds) is wholly opposed to whatever position you hold related to that subject - gender, religion, race, etc.

So basically Assange is prosecuted for rape against two women that claim they weren't actually raped, while doesn't prosecute rape of someone that DID complained of being raped.

This cross outright into the non-sensical law land.

While this Assange case for sure is controversial, Sweden has done more for the rights of women than most other countries. And that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Whether Assange is guilty of anything or not, I have no idea. But you don't have that, either.

Something Assange has attempted to thwart at every step, blaming everybody but himself for his predicament.