Trigger warning: Rape is BAD
Thanks to people like Roman Polanski and now Julian Assange, we're getting a really fascinating glimpse of how many people are unable to wrap their heads multifaceted identity and behavior. Or that's my fancy way of saying, "Some people don't get that you can make really good movies AND be a rapist at the SAME TIME."
It's convenient to be able to put quick little labels on people, especially celebrities and well-known politicians, etc. For example, many people, especially in the acting community, insisted that we shouldn't ruin Roman Polanski's life. What makes him different from some other rapist who was ridiculously and obviously guilty of drugging and brutally raping a child who vehemently denied him consent? He survived the Holocaust AND he makes movies we like!
And that's where the disconnect comes in for so many people. They do not understand that a person can survive the Holocaust AND make good movies AND rape someone.
Now we're dealing with Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks dude, shedding light on government secrets for the sake of transparency. I do not have much of an opinion on WikiLeaks, mostly because it's really hard to gauge the effect of it on diplomacy and government. And by that, I mean can you tell that I'm really not all that interested? But I guess it's nice to be able to not really see Assange as a bad guy (destroying American diplomacy! Compromising national security or something!) or as a good guy (We deserve to know everything! Information is power! You wouldn't be upset about it if you weren't doing anything illegal!).
And that's where the rape accusations come in.
As far as I can tell, two women have come forward. One woman has accused Assange of engaging in non-consensual sex with her while she slept, and the other has accused him of agreeing to use a condom while having sex, and then not doing so.
If you don't believe either thing is rape, this isn't an agree/disagree situation. A sleeping person cannot give consent (because being asleep removes their ability to say yes or no). And when a person says, "Yes, but we have to use a condom," that means, "Yes, ONLY if you use a condom, and NO if you do not." Rapity rape rape RAPE.
Rape doesn't have to be brutally violent. A victim/survivor might not realize what happened right away, and it doesn't magically make things consensual. As someone who's HAD regretted sex, I can assure you, rape isn't regretted sex.
And then liberal people, who love WikiLeaks, are having a Polanski moment. They cannot label him a rapist WITHOUT removing the "SAVIOR!!" label. You can have both. People are more than one thing. You can be charming AND valedictorian AND married AND a rapist.
I do not know whether or not these women are telling the truth, but I see no reason to ASSUME, like so many people are, that they are lying. I engage in the radical activity of BELIEVING rape victims first. I'm an assault survivor; I know how it feels to not be believed.
Assange was arrested quite quickly for these rapes, and that's where shit gets even more interesting. So many liberal people are crying foul, insisting that Assange wouldn't have been arrested for rape had he NOT been the WikiLeaks founder.
I agree. I do not think he would have been arrested had he not being stirring shit politically.
So many conservative people think he SHOULD have been arrested, that political shit stirrer.
I half-agree. I believe he should have been arrested, but just for the rape parts, not the shit stirring.
If Assange weren't famous, he probably wouldn't even have been arrested. It's true. But that's another problem. People are not complaining by saying, "He was only arrested because of his fame. It's pathetic that more possible rapists are never even charged with anything." They are saying, "Plenty of other dudes don't get arrested because of allegations, SO Assange shouldn't have been either."