Sorry - that doesn't cut it I'm afraid. When someone is accusing someone else of something as serious as "rape" - and it is simply "word against word" (no physical evidence, no witnesses, no violence, etc), one ONLY has the actions and credibility of the parties involved both before and after the events in question. In this case, it appears plain that the sex was consensual, in both cases. The behaviour afterwards (Willen refusing to sign a rail-roaded statement and Ardin continuing to cuddle up and have more sex) would seem to indicate all was well. In cases such as this, the CONTEXT of the behaviours before, during and after the events are ALL-IMPORTANT. And in THIS case, when you factor in the political gain to be had from smearing and legally debilitating Assange, combined with the absolutely clusterfucked process via which they (eventually) launched arrest warrants and red notices, combined with their leaks to the press and unwillingness to question Assange by phone, videolink or in person in the UK ... really leads one to believe there is more going on behind the scenes than can be seen. At the end of the day, a simple question suffices. Would any of this be happening if the guy involved was JOE BLOGGS, rather than Julian Assange? The simple answer to that is "of course not." So ... what are we talking about again?

Sorry, your rationalization doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

When someone has BEEN raped, and I know you don't want to hear this, there is very often a reluctance to admit that's what happened. And of course, a HUGE reluctance to be treated like a filthy liar by people who really want their hero to not have raped someone.

It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone to fuck up and create a situation that will be a huge political debility. It's perfectly possible that your idol- and mine-- isn't so great when his 'nads get involved.