http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

> Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs.

> Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept"

And anyway, that is not the incident for which he may be charged with rape.

You really like ranting, don't you.

You think everyone in this discussion is american. What an americocentric idiot you are.
I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you mistake me for a native speaker.

You think it's reason to regard all arguments against Assange only in isolation, so nothing amounts to much, but you weave everything against the accusers into a big conspiracy theory.

So you don't see any difference between having bad sex and being held down and having bad sex forced on you. Or being asleep while bad sex is forced on you.

Revealing.

PS: To the best of my knowledge, both women didn't have sex with him again after those incidents.

Technically true, but I prefer to have a more nuanced stance on this.
Imagine your significant other (imagine having one, if necessary) waking you up in the morning by going down on you. Assume that you like it, and that maybe you talked with her/him about how you might like it. Should she/he go to jail for that?

On the other hand, shoving something into a woman's vagina without even trying to make her wet first is going to be unpleasant for her. Add the condom-thing. What Assange did is unacceptable even in the most sex-positive light.

As far as not knowing whom to believe, a lot of people see red flags in the feminazi woman with CIA connections and stuff like that. For me, the biggest red flag is the man who needs to be repeatedly told to please finally put on a condom.

It's very sad that bullshit like this gets voted up on slashdot. I suppose in this boys club wimmin are not someone you bother to empathize with.

This story is not about women who willingly sleep with a man, and afterwards claim he made them. It's a about a man who gets women into his bed, willingly, and then does things to them they don't consent to.

In one case, a condom broke, she tried to grab a new condom but couldn't because he held her down. For this, he may be charged with some sort of sexual assault.
In the other case, he put his penis into her while she was asleep, without bothering to put on a condom first. He really should have known better, because the day before, she had to repeatedly tell him to put one on, because he wasn't eager to do so. And after waking her up by getting to be the first man to enter her without a condom, he badgered her into letting him continue. He wanted to have some fun, after all. Who cares if she enjoys it. For this, he may be charged with a minor case of rape.

He enjoys it, she endures it. By itself, one instance of this sort may not mean much. In the heat of the moment, stuff can happen.
But if it happens to two women in a row, one might get the idea that he likes sex this way, taking what he wants while she endures it, whether she wants to or not.
And when two women talk to each other and find out that there is a pattern behind what they had previously discounted as bad sex, the decision to throw the book at him may well be justified.

PS: The legal terms don't translate well, different legal system and all.
PPS: There are men who think that once you have a woman in your bed, you can do with her as you please. If the Swedes have laws against that, good for them.

The best option I see is to work out efficiently. Most of the popular stuff wastes your time.

For strength-training, avoid isolation-exercises. They are designed to train as few muscles as possible. Unfortunately the design is successful, they train as little as possible. Prefer compound-exercises that train many muscles in one go.

For fat-loss, long cardio-workouts are overrated. Short, intense workouts save lots of time and even work better. The Tabata-protocol works pretty well with workouts of just 4 minutes (8 intervals of 20 seconds of intense exercise followed by 10 seconds of rest) and has a scientific study to back up that claim.

One possible workout would be a regimen of push-ups and pull-ups for strength and warm-up followed by five minutes of kettlebell-swings (possibly in Tabata-style intervals) plus a gentle cool-down. The whole thing is over in 10 or 12 minutes and will do wonders if done about three or four times a week.

> No, their idea that "people are teh st00p3d" is what's out.

That's pretty much it.
A big problem of our "modern" societies is that people's attention spans get shorter and shorter. From this side of the Atlantic Ocean I would guess that this is worse in the US than in Europe, but we're on the same track as you are, you just have a head-start.
This means that any message you want a significant number of people to actually notice has to
- be very short
- use very very big letters

Style is always easier to advertise than substance.

Sadly, even critics often don't rate good movies appropriately, maybe the movies was too complicated for them to get, or they just know their audience and adjust their own taste appropriatly.

While many blockbusters are now increasingly devoid of substance, good movie-makers still exist and do their job, but you have to dig deeper to find them than a couple of years ago.
Watch Butterfly Effect. Watch Stay. Watch Garden State. You may like them, or not. Interesting Movies don't aim for the smallest common denominator.
Some of these are big movies with big stars and all, yet you might never have heard of them. Or you didn't care.

Boycott spineless crap. Look out for substance.
Demand, and there will be supply, but don't expect the world to tell you where to find it in big letters. That's how Joe Sixpack gets told what to watch.