In a so-called newsgathering environment where the sexual shenanigans of Tiger Woods dominated several info-tainment cycles for several weeks, it's no surprise this story is emerging as the latest frisson du jour.
Many progressives are obsessed with this event, some even declaring that the fingerprints of the Pentagon, the CIA and perhaps M16 are all over this foiled attempt to smear Julian Assange and thus discredit Wikileaks.
Others are dissecting the institutionalized environment of sexual politics and gender-stalinism that apparently monitors all carnal interactions in Sweden.
Far from seeing in this imbroglio Andrea Dworkin's posthumous reach, I suspect that sexuality, like pretty much everything else in Sweden, has been codified in the most minute detail by the hygienic IKEA mindset.
The (possibly) bare facts of the event:
There's a tumescent cyber-mob of Assange groupies who use any and every web-based instrument to follow him and drool over his every move.
Assange stopped in Stockholm pour y mouiller l'ancre and in time-honoured tradition availed himself of the bounty of female pulchritude flinging itself at his feet, his head or some anatomical target in between.
There were sexual interludes in multitudes. Assange left town, still very much The Lone Ranger.
There was disappointment, and perhaps even a desire for revenge. Given that one of the complainants once blogged a manifesto for scorned lovers - her blueprint on how to wreak revenge - the result was predictable.
The method of inquiring about a possible sexual assault, the timing and the unofficial release of information regarding charges of Assange's alleged criminal behaviour are malodorous.
The contention at the crux of the alleged "sexual molestation" would be Assange eschewed the use of a condom.
Two things: If the conspiracy theorists are correct, and "They" are out to neutralize Assange, it would seem that his Achilles' ... ah, ... heel is now common knowledge.
And notwithstanding the immeasurable and heroic contributions Assange has made by developing Wikileaks and facilitating the dissemination of critical documents, he appears to be a common garden variety cad - et profiteur - when it comes to the nature of his interactions with women.
This contemporary Peter Pan fits the profile of a risk-chasing adrenaline junkie. With regard to his sexual practices, he would not be a role model to emulate. Sexually communicated diseases are on the rise and some variants on the original diseases have become resistant to antibiotic therapy.
For many die-hard admirers of Assange, his (rumoured*) cavalier attitude towards responsible, safe-sex choices only serves to heighten his allure and his charm.
This reasoned observation by arborman posted at Bread'n'Roses says it best:
Update: Assange and his supporters respond to the media event, as does the media."Whatever the truth of the case, none of it takes away from the importance of Wikileaks and what it is doing. And sadly, every single time anyone ever mentions anything that has been released by Wikileaks, the crazies will immediately mention the rape in Sweden that didn't happen. And the first sentence of my post will be endlessly repeated, to no avail.
Of course I hope he didn't do anything untoward. I find it unlikely that he would make such a colossal mistake, now of all times, without having done so in the past. But I also find it worrisome how quickly people are eviscerating the accusers."
* This is still speculative.
9 comments:
I'm trying to figure out your post. Are you hypothesizing that Assange went bare back? Is there a substantive background to warrant this observation, "For many die-hard admirers of Assange, his cavalier attitude towards responsible, safe-sex choices only serves to heighten his allure and his charm". Sorry for my dimness but I don't see what the sexual innuendo has to do with the substance of WikiLeaks. Perhaps you could link to the 'common knowledge' that you bring into your post. It's the first reporting I've read of Assange's sexuality so I would like to put into context what it has to do with his work.
That's the conjecture, not my hypothesing.
Read the links.
The source of the sexual innuendo is :
“Sources close to the woman said that issues arose during the relationships about Assange’s willingness to use condoms.”
DBO, it does not seem reasonable to me to say "he appears to be a common garden variety cad" and a "Peter Pan risk-taking adrenaline junkie" based on anonymous "sources close to the woman" leaked in the very papers who are now having to walk back from the Assange Rape! headlines they ran with on Friday night.
The alleged 'refusal to use condom' link is here. When I searched The Guardian - purportedly the original source for this information - it could not be found. Pulled or non-existent? More grist for the rumour mill.
This story reflects badly on all involved. It's not a stretch to imagine that those young women who bed Assange see him as a trophy and, possibly hope that one of them will be chosen as princess consort by the brave knight.
Wikileaks is a formidable organization. Assange deserves all due respect and credit for his role in shaping and maintaining it.
Nonetheless he is a human being, vulnerable and arrogant as we can all be.
This event is a cautionary tale on many levels. It certainly exposes the liabilities of using the 'cult of personality' phenomena as a strategy.
Wikileaks is a business; Assange is the brand. Had he not been so very visibly the spokesy in thousands of interviews, no one would know or care what happened to Wikileaks in the event of a strike on it. But that the soap opera is now obscuring the substance I can agree with you on.
BTW, for what it's worth, the Guardian was the source of the condoms comment :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/22/wikileaks-julian-assange-sweden
Perhaps my irritation with all the silly gushing about Assange that predates this smear attempt has affected my take on the event.
Nonetheless, there are various downsides to Assange's fame/notoriety.
As this brouhaha illustrates.
Assange is carrying a heavy burden of responsibility, being as he is, the public face of Wikileaks. If - if - he is engaging in high-risk activities, let this be a wake-up call.
Here's the clickable link to the source of the condom information in The Guardian.
LMAO! To obey. Wikileaks deprives them (the MIC) of that opportunity, WL's just says NO, something we need to learn more about. Wikileaks may help many people to see finally the enormous power they have, if only they will use it, just say No. It's time to separate WL's with Assange, he only stepped up to speak. Here, have a Toblerone.
Here is a succinct item that lays out the facts so far, regarding the charges against Assange. It also provides background and context, with regard to the Swedish judicial system and those who would benefit from a smear job on Assange and by association, Wikileaks.
Another good backgrounder link, from Toe at B'n'R.
Post a Comment