Six years on from the leak of accounts by two women of allegations of sexual assault and rape, Julian Assange has released his own interview with Swedish prosecutors, offering an alternative narrative to that offered by one of the women.

Somehow he has managed to persuade himself that his testimony satisfies the questions, but all it really does is advertise that he is a man who appears to have little respect for boundaries and who, far from even beginning to recognise this in himself, casts himself wholly as a victim of the sexual machinations of others.

Rather in the manner of Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, Assange portrays himself as someone who always relies on the comfort of strangers. His argument is that during his time in Sweden he was a marked man. He had to be careful where he stayed, in case his cohort of known supporters was being monitored, in order that they would lead the spies to Assange. I don’t dispute that this worry might have been real and important for Assange. Nevertheless, quite why the perfect answer was to stay at the homes of women who wanted to have sex with him is completely glossed over.

In fact, he said one of the women was so “very clear” that she wanted to have intercourse that he “felt concerned about the intensity of her interest”. Now, plenty of people ignore “red flags” in the undertaking of sexual dalliances, as Assange apparently did. An emotionally healthy person would understand that this concern was something to be heeded, and that it was a situation to be avoided. Assange did not choose to take that course. This in itself suggests a man who does not shrink from entering into situations that some may view as exploitative.

Julian Assange defies Swedish prosecutors by releasing rape statement Read more

Assange’s position is that the charges have been trumped up, because he is viewed by the US establishment as a dangerous and powerful insurgent. Yet even his own supposedly vindicatory evidence reflects wider sexually exploitative attitudes. It’s not a crime to be sexually exploitative, to have little regard for the emotions or the boundaries of others, or to decide to have sex with someone because you need a place to spend the night. Indeed, this sort of behaviour seems pretty widespread, and hardly particular to Assange. And that is the really depressing thing.

People in the public eye are far more likely to be exposed for indulging in this sort of behaviour. Of course they defend themselves – and when they do so, they tend to feel they are being held to a different standard to others, and an unfair one. Often, a high-profile individual who has been implicated in a sexual scandal will attract many sympathisers, who understand that the behaviour of their hero is not so very unusual, and therefore believe there is nothing wrong with it. That’s depressing too – there is something wrong with it.

Interpersonal exploitation – emotional, sexual or physically violent – is a blight on human relations and on human psychological health, for perpetrators as well as victims. It corrupts the social bonds that are so important to a decent society or culture.

Assange’s testimony merely advertises that he is a man who appears to have little respect for boundaries

Any person who gives himself (or herself) leave to behave in such a way is unlikely to understand quite where other lines should be drawn. And in those circumstances, it might be possible for such a person to fail to comprehend his behaviour as sexual assault or rape. His insight into and ability to understand his behaviour, its impact on others, and the ways in which others might experience or interpret it, is severely impaired.

Assange’s leaked document illustrates a lack of empathy for the women he slept with. It’s understandable if not admirable that he shouldn’t be spending much time considering the feelings of two women who have brought him so much trouble. But his testimony shows that he most certainly wasn’t spending much time considering their feelings long before events took the course they did.

This may not be a crime. The courts or prosecuting authorities will pronounce on that. But it is an attitude of mind that is pretty abject, very destructive and horribly widespread.