Jessica was worried, however. Because Assange refused to wear a condom, she was concerned she might be pregnant or have contracted a disease. Seeking an ear to bend, she placed a phone call to Sarah, who, as luck (or bad luck, from Assange’s perspective) would have it, she happened to have met during the Brotherhood Movement meeting. The women ended up comparing notes and realized they had been two-timed. That’s when the trouble began.
Now we come to the basis for the “rape” claims. The Mail reports that — while in the process of reigniting the case after the charges had initially been dropped — Sarah stated to a newspaper, ‘”In both cases [hers and Jessica’s], the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse.” And what was that abuse?
Condom misuse — and lack of use.
Along with Jessica’s aforementioned complaint, Sarah claims that Assange “sabotaged” the condom used during their one-night stand. The Mail reports on how this influenced the Swedish police: “The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the second, concluded that both women were victims: that Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.”
Wow, Assange is fortunate that, after his sordid encounters, he didn’t insist on having a cigarette against the women’s will. The nanny-staters would now be charging him with attempted murder.
Understand that both women had fawned over the notorious celebrity Assange and had boasted of their association with him. They also remained close to him after their sexual flings, with Sarah throwing a party for him and Jessica dining with the man.
If you’re wondering why I’m devoting ink to what seems like tabloid topicality, read on, as there’s an interesting back story here.
These charges are so ridiculous that some have speculated that they’re the handiwork of a U.S. “honeytrap plot,” a dirty-tricks effort to bring down Assange. But while this is the politically correct view (always blame America first … and last), correct it is not. Oh, don’t get me wrong; I’m sure that many in the U.S. government want Assange’s head on a platter any way they can get it. But the main impetus here isn’t an anti-Assange witch hunt. It is an anti-male one.
It’s no exaggeration to say that Sweden is home to perhaps the most hen-pecked men in the world and has the closest thing to a feminocracy you’ll find this side of Hades. It’s the nation that proposed a “Man Tax,” which targeted men specifically, based on the notion that their “violent behavior” was a financial drain on society; and it’s a land where feminists succeeded in getting the urinals removed from an elementary school using the argument that the typical way boys tend to a nature call symbolizes male dominance and is “a nasty macho gesture.” No, you’re not reading The Onion right now — these people really are insane.
So dark, shadowy, black-bag-job American plots aren’t necessary to explain these one-flew-over-the-cuckoo’s-nest charges. The Mail puts it this way: “One thing is clear … Sweden’s complex rape laws are central to the story.” Well, “complex” is one way of saying it. Another is that if a man in Sweden so much as looks at a woman cross-eyed, he could end up having a posse of cannibal women from the Avocado Jungle of Death hunting him down so they can turn him into a Bill Maher.
And it appears that Sarah is one of these man-eaters. Far from being a starry-eyed groupie, she not only is an official in the leftist Brotherhood Movement, she’s also is a mover in The Sisterhood. Writes the Mail:
Sarah was already a well-known "radical feminist." In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes.
While a research assistant at a local university, she had not only been the protégée of a militant feminist academic, but held the post of "campus sexual equity officer." Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.
“Campus sexual equity officer”? Translation: professional anti-male agitator.
Despite this, the Mail asks the following questions (I hope rhetorically): "How must Sarah have felt to discover that the man she’d taken to her bed three days before had already taken up with another woman? Furious? Jealous? Out for revenge? Perhaps she merely felt aggrieved for a fellow woman in distress."
Yes, and perhaps it’s all just a Yankee plot.
Speaking of plots, something Sarah posted at her website earlier this year answers the above queries very nicely. The Mail reports on the content:
Entitled "7 Steps to Legal Revenge," it explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers.
Step 7 says: "Go to it and keep your goal in sight. Make sure your victim suffers just as you did."
Interestingly, after leveling the charges against Assange, Sarah scrubbed this posting from her site. A copy was retrieved, however, and disseminated through the Internet.
So let’s be clear on what’s happening here. In a touch of irony, these feminists enjoy the same status as Islamists. All sane observers know that they’re gaming the system, but the authorities nevertheless allow it to happen. Just as they pander to those who would put women in burkas, they also pander to women who would be more appealing in them.
As I write this, Assange sits in an English prison — and he certainly deserves to be there. But it shouldn’t be as the latest victim of feminist harridans who trivialize rape charges as they make courts of law agents of their vindictiveness. However much harm WikiLeaks has caused by revealing truths that shouldn’t have been heard, it can’t compare to that caused by feminist lies that shouldn’t have been told. I simply cannot cheer the destruction of a bad man when it represents a victory for an even worse movement.