Wikileaks & Sexual Assault

A hot topic on the international media these days is Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been publishing a large number of confidential cables that provide more insight into the way the U.S. engages in foreign affairs and internal thoughts about other governments and policies. There has been a large backlash to this publications by many in mainstream media and by the U.S.
At basically the same time as all this is going on, Assange has been arrested for sexual crimes. This is pretty much all the news says about it, I suspect because this is true, at least in the U.S. because few people in the U.S. would think Assange's behavior is criminal - from the little snippets I have been able to gather through articles, the main issue seems to be refusing to wear a condom. There are two women involved and they both apparently had a bit of a crush on Assange, were possibly groupies. It sounds like Assange may have gotten forceful with one woman and she acquiesced and tried to insist on his wearing a condom, which he apparently did, but then refused to pull out and reapply when it somehow broke. The other woman woke up to Assange having sex with her without a condom.
In Sweden, their criminal code is far more progressive than anywhere in the U.S. (at least that I'm aware of) and has a category of "less severe" rape, which, according to the New York Times is commonly invoked when men in relationships use threats or mild degrees of force to have sex with partners against their will. Maximum penalty - 4 years.
In the U.S. (in a vast majority of states), the marital exemption, means that being in a marital relationship prohibits the ability to be charged with anything other than a violent rape (i.e., use of deadly force).
Right now so many of the conservative pundits are anti-Assange to such a degree that they seem to be not even care why he is in jail. These same pundits would likely argue that the state is interfering to much with people's private lives. And it does bring up some interesting questions about autonomy and respect. So often in the U.S. we equate rape with having to be a completely violent act. There is even a judge who through out a violent stranger rape case because the victim asked the perpetrator to wear a condom (he didn't) but the judge concluded that asking to wear a condom was equivalent to consent. Given our reluctance in the U.S. to acknowledge, prosecute and convict rapist when no means no for any reason, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around what would happen if we prosecuted people for a "no, but not because I don't want to sleep with, just that I don't want to sleep with you without a condom." In our society, where women aren't allowed to say because they don't want to have sex with a date, a popular guy, a football player - would we ever be willing to accept it as a violation of human integrity worthy of criminal sanctions to violate a request to wear a condom? And how forceful of a request does it have to be? Is a simple, "do you have a condom?" enough? What if she says "it's okay if you don't."? Do you have to try to fight him off after he refuses to wear a condom?
And it's interesting when considered in conjunction with the U.S. laws that do allow for criminal charges against someone who willfully engages in sexual activity that s/he knows could infect his/her sexual partners with HIV/AIDS (I'm not sure if this applies to any other STDs). This is regardless of whether the sexual partner asked the person to use a condom.

On a complete side-note, Assange and some supporters say that the sexual assault charges are bogus and merely backlash against the latest wikileaks. While I recognize this is possible, there does seem to be a similar pattern of doing what you want regardless of the impact on others. He also would be far from the last person who has used his fame as an excuse for behavior, believing that his fame allows him to do whatever he wants to women who are interested (regardless of the level of interest).