"Oh ok, so we're taking consensual sex as non-consensual now. Well I guess if we change around the facts of the case and claim that two women who has consensual sex (agreeing to still have sex despite previously demanding he wear a condom still means it's consensual. Agreeing to keep having sex after being ""woken up"" having sex means it's consensual) are non-consensual because they, after throwing parties for him and even bragging about the consensual sex they had with Mr. Assange online, decide to WEEKS LATER (whoops, they never claimed rape, only that he be forced to take a HIV test, a denial of his rights) change their mind...then I guess that makes it non-consensual, right? 

 Oh dear, it doesn't. The crime he's wanted for questioning over is by NO definition rape in the English language or English law. The women, even if we were to believe their contradictory claims, repeated recanting, previous admissions to enjoying it, the throwing of the parties and the kissing and telling their friends how great he is, CONSENTED to sex by the definition of consent. By their own admission he didn't force one to have sex without a condom (she demanded a condom and then agreed to sex without a condom, that by itself is consent to have sex without a condom. She could have chose to NOT have sex still, per her demand) and, despite changing her story repeatedly from claims that didn't even mention having sex with her while she was asleep, the other agreed to keep having sex after she was ""woken up with him inside her"" (which is again NOT rape, even if her claim were believable given her statement changing, she chose to consent to KEEP having sex with him after she was woken up. Sorry, it's NOT rape if you wake up to someone trying to or fucking you and go ""oooh, this is fun, let's keep going""). 

 Sorry to have to point this out but, just like that idiotic Swedish politician who claims Assange was CHARGED with RAPE (factually refutable statement, he hasn't even been charged), simply claiming it was non-consensual given the evidence presented doesn't magically mean it was rape and that these women didn't have consensual sex.    Sutter Cane 

 And I suggest the user who deleted my comment read the rules. You may not delete users comments just because you do not like them. And next time, before you go spouting off about my ""changes to the biographical article of a living person"" you should perhaps come up with a better, less far flung, excuse since I DIDN'T EDIT THE ARTICLE. This is a talk page. 

 My comments were regarding the information that has been given in the article and it's sources and clarifying them since the article is pushing POV regarding a very clear cut legal case. They are on topic and have detailed and addressed other users comments (which by your logic would be off topic as well). If the information in the article is incorrect, it is to be discussed and corrected. NOT swept under the carpet because of inconvenience to your POV pushing. It is not rape by any legal definition in the Western world. The sources these users claim reference simply stating ""it's rape"". As I pointed out, those claims are no different than the Swedish politicians claim of Assange being charged with rape. The factual, legal and evidence based aspects trump the opinion that consensual sex (as occurred with these two women) equates to rape because they decide later they didn't want it. 

 This is relevant to the article and sorry to have to point out but if the facts contradict the claims of ""rape"" in the article, as per this on topic discussion, they need to be changed. Perhaps you should understand that people discuss the edits before they remove or change things, such as deleting a comment against the rules because you don't like facts being presented. Don't do it again or you will be reported.    Sutter Cane 

 "