I don't think you or anyone else gets to tell women who experience rape at the hands of a known assailant who pushed for reluctant consent or took a lack of no for consent that their rape was not a rape. It was not the same as a gang rape, but it's still rape.
If that's how you construe 'rape' the concept ceases to have meaning. Nearly everyone would be 'rapists'.
"Known assailant"? Yeah, Assange definitely fits that description.
"Lack of consent"? According to the police reports he got consent. You may disagree with the veracity of that consent, but neither woman accused him of unconsensual sex. They said they didn't consent to sex without a condom, but their actions said something entirely different. That makes the argument for 'rape' completely and irreducibly political.
I'm unwilling to discuss the specifics of this case. However, I stand by my definition: it's rape if the woman has not given consent paired with enthusiastic participation. If that makes practically every man a rapist (and it doesn't make the men I've known rapists, or any of the men with whom I've discussed such details for that matter) then we really need to rethink what we're teaching young people about sex.
Consent is not unilateral or unambiguous, so - like any other subjective state - it makes an exceptionally poor criterion. Further, it localizes 'rape' within a very constrained axis of violence (see, e.g., Zizek's Violence). At the level of ideology in actuality 'rape' occurs far more often than you seem to realize. Moreover, saying asymmetries of power are endemic to sex is like saying birds like to fly.
But I totally agree with your conclusion: We really need to rethink what we're teaching young people about sex. To that end, I would point out that sexuality is discursive and articulated via culture. Thus, if we are to 'rethink what we're teaching young people about sex' we'd need to re-articulate social formations from the ground-up.
It denigrates the experiences of many, many people to insist that they have no right to be hurt by sex that they did not consent to by calling it "not really rape". Rape exists in varying levels of severity, but we have to use words like "rape" and "assault" to encompass the experiences that traumatize people so that those people's experiences are ALL taken seriously, not just the physically forceful stranger rapes/gang rapes.
This isn't an issue of 'lives being taken seriously'. *NEITHER* of the women have accused Assange of rape. They could have. They were encouraged to. They did not.
The women did not consent to the act that took place, which was sex without a condom. They only consented to sex with a condom. Ergo, Assange entering them without a condom was rape.
Now *there's* a line of argumentation I can agree with. According to the reports I've read the use of a condom was a contested issue with both women. These reports describe Assange as repeatedly pushing for sex without a condom. However, given that both women remained in the company of Assange and made no effort to distance themselves from him, it seems likely that this negotiation wasn't seen as 'rape' by either of them at the time. In retrospect they might have liked to have chosen differently, but neither of the women behaved like someone defending themselves from sexual predation. Many have pointed to the 'powerlessness' of the women or some such nonsense, but that projects a cowardly incompetence onto two women who seem quite capable to me. Apparently one of them enjoys climbing mountains for a hobby, for instance. A woman of that presence seems an unlikely candidate for the role of 'passive victim'.
But one thing that's being glossed over here is the gravitas of the accusation: with claims like this a person is tainted. Given Mr. Assange's politics and relationship with empire, *extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*. The FBI and CIA tried character assassination on MLK, too. Indeed, there's a long and sordid history of people getting taken down by *exactly* these sorts of means. Take, for example, the reaction by Signa and other health conglomerates to Michael Moore's 'Sicko' (as discussed on Democracy Now!). They conspired to "take him out" by any means possible and internally claimed to know more about him than he knew about himself. But drawing these parallels is improper when the accusation is 'rape'. In our liberal age to question the veracity of the claims insinuates chauvinism or misogyny. Likewise, focusing on context and specifics isn't conducive to this witch hunt, and that's why most of the feminists' vitriol is generalized rants about the subjugation of women, the prevalence of sexual predation, and the psychology of victimhood - it obfuscates the politics. From the vantage of the power elite that's a very effective use of power.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 10:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 10:43 pm (UTC)"Known assailant"? Yeah, Assange definitely fits that description.
"Lack of consent"? According to the police reports he got consent. You may disagree with the veracity of that consent, but neither woman accused him of unconsensual sex. They said they didn't consent to sex without a condom, but their actions said something entirely different. That makes the argument for 'rape' completely and irreducibly political.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 10:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:00 pm (UTC)But I totally agree with your conclusion: We really need to rethink what we're teaching young people about sex. To that end, I would point out that sexuality is discursive and articulated via culture. Thus, if we are to 'rethink what we're teaching young people about sex' we'd need to re-articulate social formations from the ground-up.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:46 pm (UTC)It denigrates the experiences of many, many people to insist that they have no right to be hurt by sex that they did not consent to by calling it "not really rape". Rape exists in varying levels of severity, but we have to use words like "rape" and "assault" to encompass the experiences that traumatize people so that those people's experiences are ALL taken seriously, not just the physically forceful stranger rapes/gang rapes.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-23 12:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-22 11:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-23 12:16 am (UTC)But one thing that's being glossed over here is the gravitas of the accusation: with claims like this a person is tainted. Given Mr. Assange's politics and relationship with empire, *extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*. The FBI and CIA tried character assassination on MLK, too. Indeed, there's a long and sordid history of people getting taken down by *exactly* these sorts of means. Take, for example, the reaction by Signa and other health conglomerates to Michael Moore's 'Sicko' (as discussed on Democracy Now!). They conspired to "take him out" by any means possible and internally claimed to know more about him than he knew about himself. But drawing these parallels is improper when the accusation is 'rape'. In our liberal age to question the veracity of the claims insinuates chauvinism or misogyny. Likewise, focusing on context and specifics isn't conducive to this witch hunt, and that's why most of the feminists' vitriol is generalized rants about the subjugation of women, the prevalence of sexual predation, and the psychology of victimhood - it obfuscates the politics. From the vantage of the power elite that's a very effective use of power.