Have a read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-a...

That is one piece that speaks strongly to me, mostly because of the position the women that wrote it take.

Just the picture byline I find interesting: "Julian Assange has made it clear that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype."

Since when do those under suspicion get to dictate to the authorities how they conduct their investigation?

They don't, but Assange being somewhat paranoid is something the Swedes should be able to accommodate, especially if they want to resolve the case. Their strategy makes more sense if they don't actually want to resolve that case.

I think the content of what Assange and Wikileaks has delivered since Assange's rise to fame/infamy is far more worthy than this conversation. How about you all get back to the point.

The people he "raped" were singing his praises on Twitter after the supposed incident took place. The woman only went to the police to see if she could compel him to take an STD test.

"definitely rape" is so far off base, it's ridiculous. You're either gravely misinformed, or shilling.

That's quite irrelevant. Rape is prosecuted by the state, not by the victim. If an action fits the definition of rape (e.g. having sex with a person who is unconscious and thus unable to consent), it's rape, no matter what the "victim" feels about it. The purpose of the courts is not only to seek retribution, but also to discourage similar behavior in the future.

I agree that Swedish definition of rape is a bit bonkers (e.g. I don't think that "sex without a condom" is rape, at most it's "fraud" or "lying"), but I think that sex with a sleeping person is always rape (unless you've been explicitly given consent that it's OK beforehand).