By Charles Wilson
September 3rd, 2010
This is a continuation from Wikileaks rape conspiracy Assange’s Love Triangle.
The “other woman” in this saga, Ms W, tried to contact the founder and spokesperson of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, Julian Assange, after their Saturday date, but was unable to on the Sunday as Assange had switched off his mobile phone.
Ms W gets contact with Assange during the Monday and they agree to meet in central Stockholm later that evening.
They met in central Stockholm, strolled down to the Old Town and chatted. They decided to go to Enköping, a town about 50 miles West of Stockholm, where she lives. Ms W bought the train tickets for both of them.
Apparently Assange once again showed his geeky side as they travelled by train to Enköping. He was having a more intense relationship with his computer than with Ms W. As she explained it, “He paid more attention to the computer than to me.”
At her apartment they had consensual sex using a condom, something they had previously agreed upon. There was nothing spectacular about their evening. Two adults having a simple intimate night.
On waking up on Tuesday morning, they had sex again, but this time Assange did not have a condom on.
Spoiler Alert: Here follows an explanation of what Assange unwittingly opened up.
According to Swedish laws regarding rape, it is not sufficient that a woman says “no” she has to say “yes please” as well. As Ms W was sleeping when Assange started caressing her, this put him in a grey area. She can later say, or be pressured by a lawyer or prosecutor, to say that she was not awake enough to agree to the morning intimacy, for this to be considered a rape.
The drawn out saga about Julian Assange’s guilt or innocence, lies in this retroactive grey zone. This is why so many international reporters are confused. The Director of Prosecutions, Marianne Ny, has seen an opportunity for a career move. She does not interview Assange, but keeps interviewing the women to try and pin the man down in this grey area. As she has said herself, "We will not leave a stone unturned." This is well and good if it is an investigation into an organized crime ring, but in this case it is a travesty of justice.
By keeping Assange as a rape suspect without interviewing him, and not jailing him, the Swedish authorities have a legal right to bug him, his phone, and trace his contacts. By allowing him to be free they can legally spy on Assange, Wikileaks and the Swedish Pirate Party. Under normal circumstances they could not spy on a political party.
Ms W is not some inexperienced post pubescent teenager, she is a mature woman, who made a choice to sleep with a strange man she had read about in the newspapers. Instead of taking responsibility for her decision, dealing with her disappointment in an adult manner, she is playing the radical feminist “poor little victim” card. Yet she is now a victim. Not Assange’s victim though. The director of prosecutions, Marianne Ny, the lawyer Claes Borgström and her fellow accuser, Ms A, are using Ms W, each for their own personal agendas.
End of Spoiler Alert.
Ms W woke up with Assange caressing her and not wearing a condom. Exactly how awake she was before Assange penetrated her is still unclear. She did not seem to treat this as a rape at the time as she went to buy food and prepared their breakfast. Then while they were having a breakfast of oatmeal porridge and drinking juice, the atmosphere became a little unpleasant as she joked somewhat sarcastically about the possibility that she might be pregnant.
They parted on friendly terms however, as Ms W walked with Assange to the train station, and she bought his train ticket back to Stockholm
Assange promised to call her as they parted. She asked if he would call, and he said, “Yes, I will.” But he did not that Tuesday nor on Wednesday, and worse, he did not answer her calls.
Silence. Ms W tries to contact Assange, but his mobile phone is switched off. Ms W thinks.
Since Ms W had not yet (less than 48 hours had elapsed by now) heard from or could contact Julian, Ms W phoned Ms A, who was Julian Assange's contact person and press secretary for his Sweden stay. Ms W then in all innocence, tells a stranger, a woman she does not know personally, Ms A, about her one night stand with Julian. Ms W tells this stranger that she had sex without a condom with Julian. She said she was worried that she might be pregnant or that he had an STD (sexually transmitted disease).
It is obvious, Julian Assange does not understand women. How could he allow himself to get involved with a woman who behaves in such a "groupie" way? This is a woman who has no discression. From this point on the saga spirals down, as a number of individuals try to capitalise on the situation for personal revenge, political and personal career Brownie points.
When Ms A heard Ms W had slept with Julian, her feminine mode was switched off and her feminist mode was switched on. At this point Ms A apparently could keep her emotions under control. Ms A then confided in Ms w that she too has had unprotected sex without a condom with dear Julian. Now they were victims of a male using sex to dominate and intimidate the poor defenceless female. They had to do something about it, and Ms A took control of the situation.
When will feminists grow up, accept responsibility and stop playing the victim card? One reason stereotypes linger is that the feminists have a schizophrenic behaviour pattern, switching from macho to “little me the feminine victim.” Men who do not understand the subtle non-verbal signals are confused. Men and women communicate out of different paradigms. The struggle for equality between the sexes suffers by women who send these mixed messages.
These were two supposedly mature, independent, career women who both were well aware of what they were doing.
After that phone call Ms W had a talk with Julian Assange. After that discussion he left her apartment and found some other lodgings with friends in central Stockholm.
This is where the plot thickens. Up until now there appears to have been no manipulation or conspiracy involved in the Wikileaks founder’s visit to Sweden. He had:
Julian did not know whom he was messing with. Yet another lesson not to have sex before you really know someone. Sex is safe as an intimate act between two people as in souls, the actual person inhabiting the body. When two strangers meet, who do not know each other intimately, and have sex, they are having a relationship with the other body, not the other person. Having sex with strangers can have unexpected consequences, as Julian was about to discover.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... Ms A was in revenge mode. She met a Swedish journalist that evening and has a long meeting with him that Thursday night.
With Julian Assange's promiscuous behaviour who needs conspiracy theories? Now the plot thickens. Ms A sets Ms W up and arranges for the Expressen tabloid to identify Assange as a rapist, probably not aware of the consequences to her personally as the other actors enter the stage. This is covered in Wikileaks Conspiracy Theory: The False Accusation.