You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make. The burden of proof is always on the accuser/state. That is what makes sex crimes so hard to prosecute. I never made any statement regarding that or suggested anything should change with sex crimes compared to other crimes.

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.

> You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make.

> 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)

>Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards... Given the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before during the same night I don't the claim would stick.

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 definitely see your point about the wording, and I'm also not in love with it.

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.

Right on the mark. Those 'scare quotes' do not indicate misogyny but lack of substance to the accusations. Would a true misogynist care about the discrepancy between Swedish justice against Assange and that against the 33yo woman on Gotland who got gang-raped?

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.