Julian Assange, in the legal fight of his life after having been accused of rape by two Swedish women who discovered he was sleeping with both of them concurrently, has called Sweden “the Saudi Arabia of feminism.”
Although mere weeks ago Mr. Assange might not have publicly denounced feminism, the overwhelming support feminists have given to accusers Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen has likely served to convince him that at least that faction of the left is not going to be of any assistance in his fight against sex crime charges.
Recent reports in newspapers have painted a picture of Assange as an unabashed womanizer with no compunctions about sleeping with other men’s girlfriends and in the habit of taking a different woman to bed every night. If true, these reports may not speak well to Mr. Assange’s morals, but such behavior is far from criminal. Furthermore, the fact that all these women were complicit in his sexual exploits appears to have escaped notice. It is this absolute disregard for female accountability that has allowed Mr. Assange to be charged with rape in the first place.
Back in the bad old days before the triumph of feminism, rape was understood as a sexual act in which the woman was not in any way complicit, i.e. she resisted throughout the process. Although it is not often brought to attention these days, it is nearly impossible to have sex with someone who physically resists the act, which is why real rapists use weapons, credible threats of grievous harm or overwhelming brutality to procure submission. Prior to feminism, women were actually held accountable for their behavior, so a woman who invited a man into her bed had no leg to stand on in a court of law if she cried rape. One might think that the endless talk of how empowered women are would lead to some recognition that women are, in fact, responsible for the choices they make. However, feminism has “empowered” women not by giving them more responsibility over their behavior, but rather by stripping all accountability for any actions they may take in the sexual realm.
The strange logic of contemporary sex law has it that a man only is responsible for every step of the process. If the woman opens her door to let a man inside her home, it is the man’s fault for stepping inside. If she takes off her clothes, the man is the responsible party — he is looking at her, after all. If she then invites him into her bed, it is only the man who is accountable when he goes along with the plan. Finally, when she is lying down next to him in the nude and embraces him, if the man dares to have sex with her, he can only be blamed. It goes ever farther into minutiae, including such things as use of contraceptive devices, sexual position (e.g. “he was lying on top of me during sex”), and whether or not the man had used deodorant. This is the well-known but rarely spoken feminist legal concept of “mentula rea,” or the “guilty penis doctrine,” which holds that the possessor of the penis is the sole actor in any sexual encounter, and therefore solely subject to punishment.
Under mentula rea, any sexual act a man undertakes is a crime that can be prosecuted on one simple condition: any other party to the act or witness brings it to the attention of authorities. It even extends to autoerotic acts; if a man is seen masturbating – even alone in his own home through a window – he may be arrested for a sex crime. In fact, it goes even farther than Orwell’s nightmare scenario of the elimination of the orgasm — a mere erection is against the law. As for “consensual” sex, there can be no such thing under mentula rea, because the party without the penis is not responsible in any way for the sex act. A man can argue consent all he wants, but there are infinite possibilities for a microsecond of non-consent, and also retroactive non-consent. Even ordinary sex implies non-consent, as one of the accusers in the Assange case said that he “used his body weight to hold [her] down,” i.e. the sex was in the standard missionary position. A man who enters a woman before she was sufficiently lubricated, who ejaculates in the normal manner inside the vagina, or perhaps even one who farts during intercourse against her express wishes can be held to have violated consent. Not long ago in Israel a man was held to have violated consent by using a fake name before sex with a woman — she retroactively withdrew consent after the deception was uncovered and he is now in prison.
Of course, to get to the real catch, because the party without the penis cannot be held responsible for the sex act at any one step of the way, consent is moot. How can one obtain consent from a non-actor? It is a logical impossibility under feminist sex law. If a woman who took off her clothes and invited a man into her bed did not consent to sex, the entire concept of consent is meaningless. Therefore, the only possible defense a man can have when accused of rape under a feminist legal regime is that he did not in fact have sex with the woman. The sex itself is considered a criminal act by virtue of infinite non-consent, and the fact that an accusation was made is an indication that sex (a crime) may have occurred. If, upon questioning, the man admits that sex took place, he is assumed to have confessed, and he is already a criminal.
This is what Assange faces in Sweden.
Now, I’m not a big fan of Assange, and I think there is probably some merit to criticism of the man. At almost 40 he is acting like a 19-year-old boy turned loose in a whorehouse, which is not only unseemly, but monumentally stupid for a man in his position — the word “hubris” does come to mind. As a fellow publisher, however, I do not want to see him prosecuted for releasing information that someone sent his way — that would undermine the concept of free speech. As a fellow man, I think the prosecution for sex with women who enthusiastically consented under the sane, non-feminist definition of the word is an outrage.
But if there is anything this great leaker of documents has exposed to the world, it is the insanity of feminist law. Today, more people know the facts of the rape case against Assange than the contents of the diplomatic cables he leaked. Ironically, it seems Assange himself had no idea this could happen to him. Perhaps, if he had taken the time to peruse The Spearhead, it wouldn’t have, but his current public struggle has at least opened the eyes of millions to just how far feminism has gone, and in that Assange has done us a big favor.
