Sex by surprise?

I'll confess I haven't been following the manhunt relating to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange very closely.  I knew that he was wanted for some kind of sex crime in Sweden. And I noticed that he had been arrested in England. But my interest wasn't really piqued until I noticed the headlines and blurbs that seemed to imply that his alleged crime is "sex by surprise."

Sex by surprise‽  Supposedly, the offense had something to do with a broken condom, which somehow constitutes a sex crime in crazy Sweden.

But apparently not.  According to an op-ed by Jessica Valenti in the Washington Post, at least, this "sex by surprise" thing was made up by Assange's lawyer in an attempt to belittle the seriousness of the charges:

Let's get this out of the way: Sweden does not have a "broken condom" law. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was not arrested because his contraception failed mid-coitus. Nor is he charged with "sex by surprise."

* * *

The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

So, thankfully, it appears that "sex by surprise" is not necessarily a crime in Sweden or anywhere else.  Merry Christmas, everyone!   

Trade Undress

One kind of trademark is "trade dress," which encompasses the design and appearance of a product and its packaging.  Think of the distinctive shape of a Coca-Cola bottle.  On Friday, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals took up of the issue of whether the "cuffs & collar" uniform of the Chippendales exotic dancers is "inherently distinctive" trade dress under federal law.  It is not.  Some highlights:

The applicant, Chippendales, is in the business of providing adult entertainment services for women. It opened its first strip club in Los Angeles in 1978. In 1979, Chippendales performers began wearing an abbreviated tuxedo—wrist cuffs and a bowtie collar without a shirt—as part of their act. This costume, referred to as the “Cuffs & Collar,” was featured prominently in Chippendales’ advertising and performances over the past several decades. It is set forth below:

I know what you're thinking:  did Chippendales steal Bart Torvik's image for that picture?  This occurred to me as well.  I have no proof and, anyhow, I'm flattered.

Back to the case.  The court found "the Cuffs & Collar mark not inherently distinctive because of the existence of the pervasive Playboy mark, which includes the cuffs and collar together with bunny ears."  Playboy first registered its version of the Cuffs & Collar look in 1964.  Here's a more recent variation:

Ladies' Night Constitutional

The Second Circuit has rejected an Equal Protection challenge to a private nightclub's policy of regularly charging men a higher cover charge.  This policy is known as "Ladies' Night."  The Court ruled that the Equal Protection clause did not apply because private nightclubs are not state actors.

Leaving aside the constitutional question, I am calling on all men to boycott institutions that employ these discriminatory practices.  But, then again, a successful boycott by men would only increase the proportion of women-to-men at such institutions, which is the goal of Ladies' Night .  So, on second thought, I demand that men boycott all Ladies' Nights, particularly in the Evanston, Illinois area.  Alas, the only way for me to enforce gender solidarity on this issue is to patrol the nightclubs myself.