Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
History of Feminism
In reply to the discussion: Victim Shaming on behalf of Julian Assange [View all]Rockyj
(538 posts)53. That story has changed many times...
One of the young woman bragging about nailing him and they shared stories.
Originally, after the police interviewed him and the charges were dropped. One of the women has ties to the CIA, and the other may have been working undercover for the Swedish Security Service.
The real crime is that these women are hurting REAL rape survivors by demeaning the seriousness of rape, which makes it even harder for REAL rape victims to come forward!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
egomaniac and weasel are the two descriptive i put on the guy also. wowser, lol. nt
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#19
this is why using "women against rape" with this article is garbage. everyone knows the sweden
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#65
ah. so when a woman says no (because no condom) and a man holds her down, that is acceptable
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#52
Supposed Rajputs = good. Supposed victim = bad. No day in court cause the net says so.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#54
you seem to throw up the no one knows when convenient, yet deny the women the right to take to court
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#66
Wow. You have a lot of nerve to come into this space and diss one of our most
Sheldon Cooper
Dec 2013
#55
Maybe you should read up on some things before you come in here running your mouth.
Sheldon Cooper
Dec 2013
#62
"I question your sudden concern for the so called victims". that would be a personal attack. and
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#67
he is pure egomaniac. i did nto think much of him and manning prior to rape charges. but, since...
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#3
both, what? i believe it is a big old scam. he isnt wanted. he is not gonna be got by u.s.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#6
i knew most of that shit before wiki came out. and if i knew most of the stuff, bet it pretty much
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#25
and that should be easy. it doesnt conflict. that would be the difference of judging and not.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#11
and also some insist if you want to see Assange answer for the sexual assault
BainsBane
Dec 2013
#16
For certain people, Assange is the star quarterback of their favorite football team nt
geek tragedy
Dec 2013
#10
perfectly said. i posted elsewhere. it reminds me of the 67k people that cheered a possible rapist
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#13
i re read that post. du has pretty much set itself up with jury so women canNOT even argue sexism,
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#36
and look how close. one more. i am shut up. how many posts do i get alerted on a day....
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#48
i have 6 hides. because someone presents the offensive. i challenge the offensive. how does one
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#42
And, not to put too fine a point on it, I present substantively the same arguments
Recursion
Dec 2013
#43
women are dropping like flies. this has become an hostile environment for the women that speak out.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#45
Right, it must've been sexism for a jury to hide "fuck you, darlin' nt" and "fuck you. and i will
Electric Monk
Dec 2013
#61
i was pointing out the poster said screw off. screw off = fuck you. so no, that was not
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#68
the lie is saying. screw off = fuck you, is saying fuck you, to you. as the alerter did.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#73
who reads what you write. look at this post. it is so full of trash talk why would i bother.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#75