Assange: 'I Am Not Promiscuous ... Just Really Like Women'

[kpete]

Assange: 'I Am Not Promiscuous ... Just Really Like Women'
Dec 21, 2010 – 10:14 AM

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said today that two Swedish women accusing him of sexual assault overreacted to fears that they might have contracted a sexually transmitted disease from him.

"They found they were mutual lovers of mine," Assange said in a BBC interview when asked to explain what he thinks happened. "They got into a bit of a tizzy about whether there was the possibility of STD, and they went to the police. It was a ridiculous thing to go to the police about."

He also defended his past love life.

"I've never had a problem before with women," he said. "Women have been extremely helpful and generous with me and put up with me, assisting me in my work, caring for me, loving me and so on. That's what I'm used to."

more:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/21/julian-assange-i-am-not-promiscuous-just-really-like-women/

[PBS Poll-435]

1. These stories just write themselves...

Would somebody get this idiot some penicillin and a dunce cone?

[TheWraith]

6. Or perhaps just some duct tape over his mouth.

Every time it opens, he hurts his own credibility, sounding either more whiny or more paranoid.

[stevenleser]

11. Yes, worst kinds of things he could have said in this situation

Full disclosure, I am still pissed at him for disclosure #2, but that has no bearing on this.

This latest press conference was a catastrophe for him. If he set out to give more credence to his critics, he could not have done a better job than he did. He sounds creepy and paranoid.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

24. Same goes for every unmarried male who has sex, or simply Assange?

Same goes for every unmarried male who has sex, or simply Assange? :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

44. I guess you are not familiar with what 'this idiot' has

spoken about over the past several years??? Falling for the 'tabloid schmucks' take on a man who has won awards for his humanitarian efforts on behalf of the tortured and oppressed people of the world.

He speaks the truth. I have yet to see him lie over the past four years.

It's sad to see the knee-jerk reaction to a man who has been criminally smeared, who has for years spoken eloquently on behalf of the oppressed and against tyranny everywhere, endangered his own life, long before the U.S. went after him, in doing so, decide to speak up for himself for a change.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with this man's work on behalf of others. I will be happy to defend him against the lying smears of two women who have contradicted themselves so often, it is THEY who maybe need some 'penicillin and a dunce cone'.

And why have there been no charges against him? I think we know why, well, those of us who pay attention anyhow.

[rfranklin]

2. I wonder if he has ever had sex with Paris Hilton?

Or maybe Kim Kardashian? Inquiring minds want to know!

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. If you asked Julian, Julian's answer would probably sound something like this...

"Julian has never had a problem before with women, be they rich and famous, or poor and anonymous. Julian loves them all and Julian is more than happy to share Julian's essence with all of them. Women have been extremely helpful and generous with Julian and put up with Julian, assisting Julian in Julian's work, caring for Julian, loving Julian and so on. That's what Julian's used to. Now, if you'll excuse Julian, Julian has two wars to end."

[sabrina 1]

47. And of course, if you were not just a tabloid journalist, you

be asking about him about his work to save the tortured and oppressed from bruatl dictatorships, and what doing so has done to his own life.

You would ask him about the death treats he has received since he began to expose corrupt leaders who torture and disappear their citizens in countries like Kenya eg.

You would ask him what threats he received after his News Organization revealed for the citizens of Iceland, information about their corrupt banks, making it possible for them to begin to prosecute the perpetrators, and to understand how their economy collapsed.

You would also ask him if he ever regrets fighting for the world's tortured, oppressed and murdered at the hands of brutal and corrupt governments, not being able to live a normal life. Or if he feels it was worth it, especially considering that while his own life has been in danger for so long, he has the satisfaction of knowing that many, many other lives have been saved because of his own personal sacrifices.

That is if you were a real journalist.


But then again, if you were just a 'tabloid schmuck' (thanks Julian) which just about describes most of the MSM 'reporters' as Jim Sciutto so clearly demonstrated this weekend, you would ask him about the usual U.S, media idea of 'news'. Never mind his brilliant and brave history of fighting for the oppressed, we in the U.S. would like to know if he slept with Paris Hilton.

Thanks for demonstrating why Wikileaks was needed in the first place, and why it must be protected from oppressive governments' censorship.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Is this a change in the story then? I thought the two accusers were part of a CIA plot

to discredit his incredibleness? I'm confused.

[MilesColtrane]

67. +1

You're not confused. You're just in a tizzy.

Did someone force unprotected sex on you? Because that's apparently what puts a person into that state.

[bluestate10]

69. Hero worship can be blinding.

It is possible to put up one defense for a hero one day, have it get shot full of holes, yet turn around the next day and throw up another smokescreen. Throw a Michael Vick wants a dog story into DU, Assange fans are badly in need of skill sharpening and tuning of fangs.

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. You drop a dime on a powerful government, you have to expect to defend the 'tang you get

Sorry, dude. Comes with the territory.

[fascisthunter]

8. tabloid garbage

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. Tell me something

why does every hero have to be a knight in shining armor? What if it's true that Assange really is a complete scumbag when it comes to women? What importance would that have?

[kpete]

10. good point

considering where alot of our info comes from...
kp

[PBS Poll-435]

12. Character and Credibility nt

[girl gone mad]

14. And I bet you'll the same thing about President Clinton..

right?

I mean, he must not have any character or credibility since he's kind of sleazy and was accused of sexual assault..

[PBS Poll-435]

15. Governor and then President Clinton

Went through the legal process. He was humiliated by an overzealous special prosecutor (now President of Baylor University) and probably deserved some of what he got.

We all found out about his flaws, he apologized, and now runs one of the largest charity organizations in the world.

[girl gone mad]

39. So you admit to holding a double standard.

The character flaws you find detestable in those you despise are forgivable in those you admire.

[PBS Poll-435]

64. I don't really think it is a double standard

I admire President Clinton because he admitted it his mistake and apologized.

[Gravel Democrat]

52. sometimes the male is slimed and other times it's the female

"Paula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin; September 17, 1966) is a former Arkansas state employee who sued U.S. President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. The lawsuit was dismissed before trial on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was being appealed, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000...

...Clinton and his defense team challenged Jones's right to bring a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for an incident that occurred prior to the defendant's becoming president. The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president was no longer in office, because the job of the president is unique and does not allow him to take time away from it to deal with a private civil lawsuit.

Before the case reached trial, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages. Jones appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where, at oral argument, two of the three judges on the panel appeared sympathetic to her arguments.<9>

On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. Robert Bennett, Clinton's attorney, still maintained that Jones' claim was baseless and that Clinton only settled so he could end the lawsuit and move on with his life.<9> In March 1999, Judge Wright ruled that Jones would only get $200,000 from the settlement and that the rest of the money would pay for her legal expenses.<10> Before the end of the entire litigation, her marriage broke apart and she appeared in the news media to show the results of a nose job paid for by a donor.<11>

In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones' lawyers for expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers about his alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky.<12><13><14> This amount, however, was far less than the $496,000 that the lawyers originally requested from Clinton after he was found in contempt of court.<14>

Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left office, he entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law for a period of five years.<15> His fine was paid from a fund raised for his legal expenses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

35. He did not write them - he selects which ones we are allowed to see

...and which ones we are not allowed to see.

[mudplanet]

40. I think he'd like to release the entire thing but is trying to be responsible

while serving the cause of truth.

[jberryhill]

42. The "entire thing" still consists of selected documents

[mudplanet]

62. I'm unsure what your point is

[girl gone mad]

41. How is that different from any other news organization?

No newspaper immediately publishes all of the information they receive every single day. They release it in a controlled fashion.

[jberryhill]

43. It is not different from any other news organization - that is indeed the point

FOX is a news organization, and so is Mother Jones.

The point was about integrity.

The question was raised as to why integrity matters since he did not write the documents.

The response is that one exercises one's guided discretion in deciding what was initially obtained, and what is released.

Follow the thread.

[smiley]

54. fox?

You actually think Fox is an news organization? Now that's funny:)

[jberryhill]

58. It was meant by way of contrast

[sabrina 1]

48. No actually he doesn't. He works with major news organizations

and gives them access to scoops such as the video which Reuters had been trying to get for years, to find out how their two reporters actually died in Iraq.

In fact, he has been criticized for doing the exact opposite of what you just stated.

[Autumn]

16. No importance, I don't give a shit about his bedroom exploits.

He's doing a good thing by exposing the REAL scumbag "knights in shining armor" who just overflow with credibility.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. Then ignore what might actually be true. nt

[Autumn]

18. What do you believe "might actually be true" that I might

be ignoring? I don't care if he is promiscuous. I happen to respect what he is doing. As for the charges against him that remains to be seen.

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. Hey, he could be a serial rapist for all I know

Would that make Wikileaks irrelevant? No.

[Autumn]

32. Then we are on the same

page.

[LanternWaste]

26. While still others latch onto what might actually be false.

While still others latch onto what might actually be false. Six of one and half a dozen of the other, you see...

:eyes:

[sabrina 1]

51. What 'might actually be true'?

Do you have any proof that this man ever lied? Having followed his excellent work for several years, I have never once seen anyone succeed in proving him a liar, although corrupt governments he has exposed have tried. He has instead, received several awards for his truthful reporting of facts.

If he says he gets along with women, I am sure he is telling the truth. As for the two 'victims', they are pretty well known for THEIR work, and NOT so highly respected, completely apart from their false allegations. Yes, false. Which their own texts and phone-calls etc. prove. And which is why, while the smearing continues, no serious prosecutor has dared to actually charge him, knowing there is no basis, as the original prosecutor stated, for any charges.

He has made powerful enemies. He has done much good in the world. He, in fact, has done the job the media has refused to do. So, he shows them up, and they go along with the tabloid smears. Typical and expected considering the state of journalism in the world today, especially here in the U.S.

[TorchTheWitch]

63. yep, he lied in an interview

Can't recall who it was with, but it was the interview where his cellphone went off in the middle of the interview. The interviewer asks him if he received the huge trove of embassy cables and Assange denies it and even embelishes the denial when at the time of the interview he already had all those documents and was in the process of dealing with them... the interview took place a couple of months after Manning was already in jail. He didn't need to lie to that question nor embelish the lie, and he did it all with a straight face.

[sabrina 1]

65. Link please.

[TorchTheWitch]

81. here

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html

The question about the cables comes up about 6:30 into the video.

[sabrina 1]

89. Thank you.

I do not believe he was lying when he responded, although he was clearly uncomfortable. As he said, if Wikileaks received material like that, they would release it. Obviously that was true, they got it and they released it.

What has been said is that Wikileaks did not receive all the material at the same time.

Here is one explanation for why he appeared to be lying or at least prevaricating. My own opinion is that they expected to receive them, but had not received all of them at that point.

Was Julian Assange lying when he denied receiving 280,000 classified US embassy cables in July 2010?

No. In fact Mr. Bradley Manning is supposedly the primary source of the Cablegate document leak however the timeline of cables being submitted to the Wikileaks human rights volunteers indicate that more than one person had access to the documents and was providing them albeit at a slower rate than allegedly Mr. Manning did.

Also the Cablegate documents are only a small percentage of the evidence documentation that Wikileaks has in its possession. Prior to, during, and after the Cablegate documents being submitted, many hundreds of thousands of documents covering war crimes, drug drimes, racketeering, corporate terrorism et al. managed to find its way to Wikileaks, all of which has caused Wikileaks to buckle under an impossible work load.

The question at the time it was asked, probably could not have been answered any other way. The documents do not go to Assange's personal computer. Teams of people all over the world would have been sorting through them
for months, they probably still are.

So, while he knew, as he actually said within his answer, that there WERE Embassy Cables, because THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHARGES against Manning, he may not have yet known for sure that Wikileaks actually had them.

Iow, the charges against Manning at that time, in July, may have been the only reason Wikileaks had to believe they had them, but he could could not say 'yes' until they verified exactly what they had. I'm sure after the charges, they focused on finding them, and as he said, if they had them, they WOULD pubish them.

I see no lie in what he said. Just caution because he knew it was possible but he was not certain. That is why he did not say 'no', he said 'we have denied it' ~

Anyhow, thank you for providing the link I requested.

[TorchTheWitch]

102. he didn't have reason to lie and that's the point

Instead of lying in response to the question he could have just not answered it, side-stepped around it (both of which he's shown to be very willing and accomplished at doing) or more politely said something like "it's our policy not to reveal whether or not we have or don't have certain information until that information is released so as not to inadvertently compromise the information or more importantly the individual from whom it came, so I'm sorry but I can't answer this question".

That would be perfectly understandable as to why they wouldn't want to either confirm or deny whether or not they had certain information and who it came from. But instead, Assange chose to lie, lie elaborately and he didn't look any more uncomfortable doing it then he did in any other part of the interview. If you can't see that his answer was CLEARLY a lie than you must be kidding yourself. He LIED. It doesn't matter why he lied, he didn't need to lie, but he did. He DID have those documents and knew who they came from at the time of the interview since Manning was already in jail for a couple of months by then.

Saying IF they had them is a furtherance of his lie that they didn't have them when they most certainly DID have them and long since knew they had them and who they came from. Saying IF they had them they would publish them doesn't make the lie any less.

I GET IT why he lied - he didn't want anyone to know he had the documents and knew who they came from until they were released, which frankly makes perfect sense. But it doesn't make the lie any less. He still fucking lied when he didn't have to.

He's hardly the first person in an investigation or investigative journalism that has been asked a question that is too delicate to answer truthfully, but they don't LIE in giving an answer. They either say they can't answer the question or say they can't answer it giving an explanations as to why they can't or side-step the question entirely and hope no one notices they didn't give any kind of an answer - they don't give an answer that is a LIE.

As soon as Manning was arrested in May/June Wikileaks was already trying to gather resources, financial and otherwise, to try to help him, so of course they knew they had the docs and knew they came from Manning - WHY ELSE WOULD THEY BE TRYING TO HELP HIM??? Wikileaks was publicly soliciting donations to help Manning on their website starting in June... so it's obvious that by JUNE at the latest they knew Manning gave them the docs, and the interview I gave you the link to occurred in July - hence, at the time of that interview Assange knew he had the docs, that the docs came from Manning, and Wikileaks was already trying to help Manning even publicly soliciting and accepting donations for him. It wasn't until Assange started having his own personal problems later in the summer that he stopped Wikileaks from continuing to try to help Manning and dropped him like a hot rock, and to date has never given the money Wikileaks collected specifically to help Manning over. This is all part of why Jeff Paterson of the Manning support network are pissed at Wikileaks and particularly at Assange and probably why a support network for Manning had to be established in the first place.

For someone who complains of others not paying attention, just how is it that you don't seem to know all this and what was going on at the time?

[LanternWaste]

25. Having sex with more than one person is the moral equivalent of being a "complete scumbag"?

Having unmarried sex with more than one person is the moral equivalent of being a "complete scumbag"? Or does that appellation merely apply to Assange?

Or are we simply prognosticating even more scenarios as to what he "may" have done...?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chorophyll]

34. Exactly! He can be both at once. I don't see why it's so hard for people

to get their heads around that.

It is important, however, because many people on the left -- including influential people like K.O. and Michael Moore -- are minimizing the allegations made against Assange and smearing the two women who made them. This attitude makes things HORRIBLE for women who have been raped. Rape is a complex crime: difficult to report, difficult to "prove," and difficult to convict. Certainly not an efficient way to "entrap" Assange.

[jtown1123]

46. It would have no effect on the impact of Wikileaks. But, I feel like a lot of people

see Assange as this great hero and completely dismiss the fact that it's pretty damn possible he raped those 2 women and is a total skeeze. Does being the Wikileaks mastermind excuse rape? Hell no.

[Kayla2010]

13. You got it!

I think it's the same crap they pulled on Clinton or right up that alley. And at least one of these women, didn't want to press charges. It's so obvious what the press is doing. These charges are ridiculous!

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Something about this dude just creeps me out.

However, I do like what he does in exposing the government bullshit.

[uppityperson]

23. That is about right. If he truly "liked women" he would be nice to them rather than use them.

He should just shut his mouth because his personality gives away credit where credit is due about his exposees.

[mkultra]

27. yeah, he means he "Likes to have sex with women"

Seemed pretty clear.

[Kalyke]

37. But that's not what he said. eom

[mkultra]

55. its pretty clearly what he meant.

[Kalyke]

28. Bingo.

And, obviously, I like what he and his website and employees are doing (see my avatar), but your point is dead-on accurate.

If he liked women, he wouldn't treat them so impersonally.

[EFerrari]

38. It's interesting if you go back and look at his earliest interviews

about this situation. The first one I can find was in Sweden and in English. He absolutely refuses to say anything at all about these two women. He said, gentlemen don't do that. So, it took some months for him to get to here.

[PBS Poll-435]

90. Keep peeling those grapes...

:wtf:

[treestar]

60. But what government BS has he exposed?

Why do people around her have no concept or respect for classified documents? They aren't hiding from you, they are hiding things from other countries on our behalf.

Julian is nothing but an attention seeker. has no Pentagon papers.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. The Obama admin spied on UN officials according to the documents

That's a violation of international law.

[treestar]

101. Is that a conclusion drawn by Julian groupies?

It's hard to believe the conclusion by itself.

Why aren't the Republicans all over it?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kayla2010]

21. Then don't have sex with him if you don't like sluts.

[krabigirl]

49. Who cares? So he likes sex, big deal?

[TheWraith]

75. What the fuck was that?

Personally, I think he's an egotist and a self-centered idiot, but your comment is over the top. It's fair to go after him for the way he treats women, but just because someone enjoys sex is a bullshit thing to attack them for.

[Scout]

92. there is a difference between "enjoying sex" and being a slut

one can enjoy sex and not be a slut

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Oh, dearie me! He had sex with women and liked it! Tsk. Tsk.

It's just ever so dreadful!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Its not like that has never occured in our national leadership

[krabigirl]

50. Seriously..so many prudes in this society cannot handle it when someone admits to liking sex.

Male or female.

[Ganja Ninja]

36. They got into a tizzy about a possible STD and went to the cops?

And why would the cops care unless he was actually infecting women with an STD. Are these women infected or not? If not then why are the cops involved at all? Jilted lovers can call the cops on their 2 timing boyfriends in Sweden?

[JoePhilly]

53. My understanding (limited I admit) ... is that Swedish law has ...

some interesting or unusual provisions in it.

And one of those may be something like, if a woman consents to sex thinking that you are using a condom, and you aren't actually using one, that can be considered a form of sexual assault. So whether you have an SDT or not is irrelevant, you MIGHT have one. And you put the woman at risk "against her will" because she consented to have "protected sex" and it turned out to be "unprotected sex".

[MilesColtrane]

70. Remember kids, after having unwanted unprotected sex with someone you've only just met...

don't get in a tizzy about possibly contracting an STD.

Just wait to see if any symptoms show up.

[PBS Poll-435]

71. When you are driving a "friend" to dinner, and the car doors fall off

Keep Driving!


:woohoo:

[Ganja Ninja]

91. Just a few points.

1. From what I've read the sex was consensual in both cases.
2. He was wearing a condom in both cases and the condoms failed.
3. Before going to the police (weeks later) about a "possible" STD you might want to go to a doctor.

[smiley]

98. Doesn't it seem that the story is now changing?

From what I've read all along - your points are correct. But now all of a sudden people (many in this thread) are saying he forcibly made them women have sex with him and even while they were asleep.

Is it me or is the disinfo parade coming out in full force to discredit Assange? (especially in this thread)

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. They went to the cops weeks after the events in question.

After meeting one another and comparing notes.

I suspect that, in addition to their statements being tainted because of their pre-police collaboration, their statements were both coached and embellished based on their mutual indignation about his boorish behavior, and that the weakness of the case is implicit in the prosecutor's initial decision to drop it.

But none of us were there, and justice should take its course. If he had sex with either of them without their consent* then he should go to jail. I find that a little implausible given what they said and did afterwards.

(*I don't think you can retroactively withdraw consent because the condom failed)

[jtown1123]

45. I'm not a rapist...I just really like to force sex on unwilling women.

[smiley]

57. I haven't seen any evidence

that says they were unwilling. Have you?

[PBS Poll-435]

66. This is pretty basic

Why would he be investigated if someone had not made a complaint?

[smiley]

84. what is basic?

where is the evidence. Have you seen the evidence that says they were unwilling sexual partners. From what I've read this is about a broken condom.

Besides. Until there was international pressure to arrest Assange, the Swedish authorities had dismissed the charges.

So what "basic" evidence have you seen or heard about?

[PBS Poll-435]

85. Did the hotel surveillance tape run to the police to make these claims about him?

Did the sheets or the hotel ice bucket call the cops?


:rofl:

[smiley]

95. probably not

if they did - then we truly do live in an alternate universe.

But please tell me what was basic when the Swedish authorities first decided there was no basis behind these charges

[TorchTheWitch]

87. you obviously haven't read enough

This is about a whole lot more than a broken condom.

[jtown1123]

94. THank you. One woman was held down and forced to have sex after she said no.

The other woke up (she was asleep) and Assange was having sex with her w/o a condom. Where's the consent there? Look, I am sick of rape apologists. What is sad is the fact that women are raped by husbands, boyrfriends, friends and acquiantances all the time and they never get the recognition that this case is.

[smiley]

97. First time I've heard anything about him forceably holding anyone down

Do you have a link to that?

[Violet_Crumble]

100. That's NOT what happened. That could be what they're claiming...

They're allegations, not facts about what happened. There's a real stink of fabrication to their stories, and questioning stories that have major holes in them like this one does is NOT being a rape apologist. In fact, that's offensive to rape victims who are disgusted at false accusations of rape for political motivation...

[smiley]

96. You're right -

about it being more than just a broken condom. But those are the allegations.

Personally I think it's a witch hunt designed to silence Wikileaks.

[jtown1123]

93. Yes, their testimony.

[smiley]

99. testimony in court?

do you have a link to that?

[bluestate10]

72. Assange sounds like a narcissist. Which this poster is convinced he is. nt

[ecstatic]

56. That doesn't pass the smell test

His excuse for why they contacted the police doesn't make sense. Something stinks. But of course, since he's the current hero, anything goes I guess.

[bluestate10]

74. Assange should.

Thread Michael Vick, Kobe Bryant and dogs into one of his sentences when talking about rape. His enraged worshipers would be picketing Eagles and Laker's games in droves, thereby diverting the press from holding Assange responsible for potential serial rape.

[treestar]

59. Didn't get enough attention today, I see

What has that got to do with anything? It doesn't allow rape.

Like the victim whose sexual history is of no relevance, neither is a rapist's.

He could defend his charges in court, but decides to do it in the media. Why is that?

[Odin2005]

68. Whoever did the title of the article is an asshole.

[WestSeattle2]

73. As if being promiscuous is a bad thing. Play safe and enjoy!

[bemildred]

76. Well, I'm not promiscuous, and I really like women too.

Although I cannot say I've never had a problem with them before.
:-)

[War Horse]

78. Assuming what's surfaced about Assange and women

is true, he has serious issues. Again, if true, he sees himself as respecting women, but it's rather about not being able to escape some sort of meta reality that he's immersed himself in and not being able to actually see the real person, as his own projections get in the way of that (cf the now defunct iq.com of his).

But it's a diversion, really. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the actual leaks? As in the contents, repercussions, legal issues and what not?

[bemildred]

79. Then again, it could all be bullshit, and he could be just the nerd he appears to be. nt

[War Horse]

82. Apologies,

My post was intended as a comment to the OP (or the general sentiment).

But yes, you may very well be right about that :)

[bemildred]

83. No problem.

I just am very tired of "if he is guilty, then" arguments, which assume their own conclusions, but I know that was not your intent. He is an obvious nerd, with nerdlike social skills, and apparently a lot of nerd groupies hanging around.

[hulka38]

77. I don't care what he does in his private life.

If you have a jones for tabloid, pick up a People.

[HEyHEY]

86. eewwww... he said "lover" brrrr

[TheKentuckian]

88. I truly don't grasp the relevance.

I don't have to like him personally to appreciate his work.

His work doesn't prevent him from possibly being a villain in some other aspect.

What's wrong with having sex and enjoying with different people if you are not committed?

The charges seem to border on the logically impossible. The sex acts are by all accounts consensual but there are questions regarding condom use.
What I don't get to this charge. I can't imagine how a tampering case would be proven beyond a rational or reasonable level of doubt and the sex without a condom case doesn't make any sense at all.

If she says no, condom or no, then it is rape. If she says yes then it isn't. If she said yes but conditioned on a condom and he forced himself then we have rape.

None of this is affection for Assange, such doesn't exist. It is his work that is close to my heart, the workings of the man are unknown to me.

I think some but not all of this tact is projection. Do you guys like actually love these folks from afar or something similar? Assange makes me think of what Bill Maher would look like if he was a zombie or a vampire or something but that is just not connected to his service.

The stuff all mixes and matches y'all. You can respect someone and fear them. You can love and not trust. You can trust without passion. There is passion without love.
All kinds of combinations.

Complication due to yes or no thinking. High levels of positive or negative quality do not guarantee carry over into other areas.
Virtually everyone is a shade of gray. Few are completely corrupted and less are purely altruistic.

[Creative]

103. I used to be promiscuous, but now I only "like" one woman.

However, I have never been accused of rape.