I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that in some (many) cases, it come down to one person's word against another. That is not condoning rape. It is admitting that sometimes there is insufficient evidence for a third party to come to a valid conclusion about what actually happened.
I'm saying that if it is only the victim's word then we are in very dangerous territory indeed, because it leaves the door wide open for malicious, fallacious rape allegations. It is an open invitation for women to use accusations of rape in order to pursue a personal vendetta against someone. It does not follow that every time it comes down to one person's word against another, that it wasn't rape. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. All I'm saying is that you can't convict somebody for a serious offence like this when all you've got is the word of a victim who may actually be making malicious, false allegations.
Oh yes it does. If somebody has just had sex with somebody, and did not believe it was rape, then they cannot change their mind and decide it was rape several days later.
If you are being raped, then you know you are being raped. If somebody wakes you up by having sex with you then you must decide at the point you wake up whether or not this action is acceptable. You can't decide it was rape several days later.
...and Julian Assange is a rapist.
Your propaganda does not fool me. You can try as hard as you like to present me as a conspiracy-theorist nutjob. The truth is that this is a real conspiracy to get Assange into US custody.
Some conspiracy theories turn out to be real. This is one of them. Another one is the fact that the US government is rigging the precious metals markets, just as it condoned the rigging of LIBOR.
