It might be an idea if we oldies started to get a sense of perspective about all this sex stuff, and simply "get over it".

>>the girls responsible for taking the photos were charged with manufacturing, disseminating and possessing child pornography and the boys were also charged with possession of child pornography<<

While I'm sure this gave the arresting officer a buzz, and will brighten up the magistrate's day when it gets to court, it hardly makes sense to the man on the Clapham omnibus. "Child pornography" is something transacted by dirty old men in raincoats, when they're not lurking outside schools.

I agree with the author that:

>>We might also ask whether it is appropriate for us to group healthy, sexually curious teenagers with mentally unwell criminal pedophiles<<

Equally, we might ask whether it is appropriate for us to group healthy, cartoon-loving ordinary folk with mentally unwell criminal paedophiles.

"McEwan was convicted of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography in February after his computer was found to contain pictures of Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex with one another."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24771973-16947,00.html

Sadly, this fixation with what is sexually "healthy" and "unhealthy" has always been with us.

In Victorian times:

"A medical and moral campaign was waged around the sexuality of children. Parents, educators, doctors were all alerted to hunt out any traces of child sexuality through a myriad of surveillance techniques and upon discovery subject to a seemingly inexhaustible array of corrective measures."

http://www.isis.aust.com/stephan/writings/sexuality/vict.htm

There is no cure, unfortunately.

Not for healthy/unhealth sex, of course. That will be with us forever.

But there's clearly no cure for those who wish to impose their own prurience and frustrations on others.

Regardless of the shock and horror it seems to provoke in my generation, sexting is a fairly harmless activity. Somewhat less harmless is the behaviour it generates in American adults. They are throwing the kids who do it in jail:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/sexting-pennsylvania-teens-land-in-jail_100143241.html

In my eyes at least, this cure is far worse than the disease. Still, I took some enjoyment in watching where the Americans puritanical instincts took them. Obviously, we would not do anything quite so silly. On Monday, my smug balloon was punctured when took the first steps along the same path.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25291147-5014239,00.html

A 13 year old Sydney schoolgirl sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend, leading the police to investigate the possibility of charging her with child pornography related offences. This incident ended well: in a fit of common sense the kids involved deleted the pictures, and the investigation can not proceed without them. But obviously it is only a matter of time before we drag some kid through the judicial process for taking pictures of themselves and giving them to friends.

Good article.
We definitely need to stop empowering the authoritarian factions of society. The ignorant, the scared, the prudish, even the loony religious Right have a right to their opinions, but the rest of us have a right not to be abused and degraded by their limited world view.
Ignorance and god given arrogance are a *bad* combination.
The US jails more kids than any other country due to their stupid "zero tolerance" approach to social and health issues.
Jailing kids for experimenting with sex in one of the safest ways possible? Criminal Idiocy of the highest order.
We need to start jailing the perpetually outraged authoritarians, especially the ones that use imaginary friends to justify extremist views and ignorance.

I agree with the previous posters.

The current hysteria around anything to do with sex is doing enormous damage to our children.

What sort of message are we sending our kids when anything to do with sex is immediately legalised, moralised and classified.

It's disgusting really. Children are getting the idea that sex is a horrendous thing which must be treated with the utmost care lest you end up on some register which will ruin your life.

Just when we seemed to be getting over the enormous damage done by the churches we now have a new set of secular extremists damaging our youth. Growing up in the current climate would give children enough sexual hang-up to make the Catholic church proud.

Single issue lobbists like Hetty Johnson have much to be proud of.

While these sorts of behaviours might not be advisable for young people even in the pursuit of healthy sexual experimentation or curiosity, an over-reaction merely diminishes the true child pornographer or paedophile.

We have to be careful in our attempts to reduce the dangers for our children that we don't minimise the act of child pornography as 'normal' sexual curiosity.

I cannot see how a 13 year old could be charged with distributing child pornography if she perpetrated the 'crime' apon herself and then chose to send the pics off into cyber space. It would be a different matter if she sent naked pics of someonelse, though I am not sure what the legal charge would be but I doubt it would be child pornography.

Two entirely different problems which require entirely different solutions or approaches.

At the end of the day our society has brought this all upon ourselves. Sex is everywhere and seems to be encroaching more and more areas of everyday life.

I am far from prudish and yet I feel there is time and place for sexual reference and/or exposure - and for very good reason. That gap is becoming thinner and thinner as the days go by. Young people are exposed to more than they should via Magazines, TV, Music etc and even though we remark about the unfortunate result of it - what is happening to limit it.

For example: In all the service stations in my town (a capital city) the porn mag's are a thigh height EASILY viewed by all with an array of marginally blocked covers, leaving just enough to let the imagination figure the rest out.

Crappy role models, bad parenting, low self esteem, whatever/where ever it stems from .... it all goes into the pot and ends up with the younger population getting bad press over it. Sex sells and money rules the world - it's an obvious truth.

We are products partly moulded by our environments, and if there is nothing but tacky crud plastered in every direction - what do we expect

I agree with you completely Josgar but the thing that is never discussed is the role that feminism has played in all this.

The sexualising of society has been done under the auspices of 'a women's right to express her sexuality', yet when these young girls see sex all around them and decide to 'express' themselves, they get charged with disseminating child pornography.

Feminists have long camaigned for the 'right' of women to do what they want, whenever they want, however they want. This has resulted in a culture where women are not expected to take responsibility for their actions.

Take the case a few years ago where a women took Bulldog's players to court for what appeared to be a horrendous case of pack rape. The media were all over it accusing the players of being nothing more than beasts who took advantage of a helpless woman. Yet later the facts came out that she willingly accompanied them to their hotel room and had a history of participating in group sex. In the past, people would have expected her to take responsibiliuty for her actions. They would have simply said, the actions of the players may have been bad, but any heartache you caused yourself is your own fault. Afterall, when you are alone and accompany a group of men back to their hotel room at 3am and they know you have a history of group sex, what do you expect? What did you accompany them there for: a bible session?

It seems women can never be help responsible for their own actions. I'm sure in the case of these teenage girls, the blame will be layed squarely at the feet of the boys. The girls were pressured, blah, blah, bla. The boys will probably receive a hasher punishment than the girls.

dane
The sexualisation of children is different to the sexual nature of a grown adult women and has nothing to do with feminism.

I would look more to the media, corporate irresponsibility in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and easy access to information through advancements in technology first before pointing the finger at feminism.

If feminism made women less ashamed and fearful of sex isn't that a good thing. That is not the same thing as turning all women into nymphomaniacs otherwise all men would be, given they have always had more sexual freedoms. People's sexuality is their own business.

As far as the pack rape scenario goes, even if the women had consented to participate in group sex in the past, this does not mean that she wanted to participate with a group of drunken unethical football thugs or wanted to be raped.

Do women go around raping men just because they have slept with more than one person at a time?

Going back to their room might be considered silly given the repuation of some football clubs, but rape is a strong punishment for the folly of foolishness.

Go Pelican. I think it is deeply problematic to assert that women need to take responsibility for the actions of their rapists.

To claim that a woman is 'asking for trouble' based on what she was (or wasn't) wearing, or based on her previous sexual history, is to deflect attention and responsibility away from perpetrators. Consent is always negotiated on an individual basis and just because consent with one person (or multiple people) has been given, it does not mean that a woman becomes 'fair game' for others. Nor for that matter is a drunken woman 'fair game'. Nor a woman wearing a short skirt. Yet, Dane's comments seem to suggest that rape is the fault of women, and even more laughable, the gains of feminism.

Most problematic of all is that this line of thinking seems to be born out of the same sort of logic found in extremist, fundamentalist sects who demand that women cover up and censor their sexuality to avoid being raped.

Moreover, its worth noting that rape does not occur due to uncontrollable sexual lust. Numerous studies with convicted rapists have shown that perps select their victims on three criteria;
1)access to the victim
2) perceptions of the victims vulnerability
3) the belief that a rape can be carried out without being interrupted by a witness and that it is unlikely that a victim will report.

Note that there is nothing in there about how about how attractive a victim is or what she was wearing. IN fact if rape was about sexual desire and lust, we would have to ban all men from Bondi Beach. In fact we'd just have to ban men from summer full stop. But most men chose not to rape- and of those who do, it is a calculated decision that they alone need to take responsibility for.

The victim-blaming that is still so endemic in these arguments is proof that feminism still has a long way to go- what is needed is not more feminist bashing but more feminist based education. Dane in particular might benefit from this.

Is ‘sexting’ really about sex? More than any other area of human behaviour sex is the place where people act out unfulfilled emotional needs. There is nothing sexually satisfying about sending a picture of your naked body to someone else – it may well give you some other kind of thrill though. You may feel powerful because you have done something ‘naughty’ and gone against the mores of society or your parents. The real question for someone who does that is “why don’t you feel powerful?” or “in what areas do you feel powerless?”

It may make you feel popular amongst your ‘friends’ to join in that kind of behaviour. The real issue is why do you need to feel popular? What is lacking in your ego and sense of self that makes you do things that are irrational or just plain stupid in order to be liked by your peers.

It is not enough to say that because young people do these things as experimentation it is therefore in their best interests. Young people are no different to older people – we all have the same emotional needs. Indulging in irrational or even harmful behaviour is never the answer to those needs. Binge drinking, dangerous driving and irresponsible sexual behaviour are not just ‘phases’ that they are going through but are very often a cry for help in dealing with emotional dysfunction. If the underlying causes for such behaviour are not addressed then they will more than likely be carried over into adulthood and that can lead to much more damaging consequences.

People who rape, indulge in pedophilia, bully and injure others are doing so because of unmet needs. It may begin in subtle and seemingly harmless ways but it can end up in tragedy. The challenge is to help young people discover how to identify and meet their real needs. Drawing attention to their ‘acting out’ is hardly the way to win their confidence and to get them to open up about what really troubles them.

As per Dane post: ~ Feminists have long campaigned for the 'right' of women to do what they want, whenever they want, however they want. This has resulted in a culture where women are not expected to take responsibility for their actions. ~

Personally, as a female myself, I think this is a very valid statement. However, not so much in the 'not taking responsibility' part, more so in a blurring of the Roles of male & female.
What I have noticed (in a general overall context) is that women are becoming less 'Womanly' and men are becoming more 'Feminine'. Which will present it's on problems in time to come.

As per Pelican post: ~As far as the pack rape scenario goes, even if the women had consented to participate in group sex in the past, this does not mean that she wanted to participate with a group of drunken unethical football thugs or wanted to be raped.~

No, it doesn't. BUT, if you are foolish enough to put yourself in that position - for whatever reason - there is a good chance that bad things could happen. And by CHOOSING to participate in these activities you open yourself up to array of possible outcomes. And that is where taking responsibility DOES come into it.

Josgar

"And that is where taking responsibility DOES come into it."

Are you saying that women are responsible for their behaviour? Then I agree.

But doesn't the same rule apply to men? Should not men ask themselves if it is responsible behaviour to indulge themselves in sex with a drunken female? Particularly group sex. Couldn't they just put her in a taxi to take her home?

I get the feeling that there is an acceptance that if a women is silly enough to get drunk with a group of men, somehow she deserves what she gets. Isn't this treating all men as thugs instead of adults who also have responsibilities and can think about the consequences of their actions?

JosGar: "And that is where taking responsibility DOES come into it."

Come into what? Surely not into how we judge the man's behaviour. If a scantily drunk woman clearly refuses sex, and yet a man forces himself onto her how is that different from him forcing himself on a nun down walking down the street?

It might well influence how much sympathy we have for the woman. Yes, she put herself in risky, avoidable position. Well, that's her choice I guess. But it in no way excuses than man's behaviour. Arguing that is like arguing a person should receive a lessor sentence for killing a homeless drunk as opposed to a judge of the high court.

pelican

"The sexualisation of children is different to the sexual nature of a grown adult women and has nothing to do with feminism"

I can't believe you wrote that! Children see sex all around them: on TV, videoclips, movies, billboards. It's everywhere. Can we then be surprised when children start experimenting with sex at a younger and younger age?

This has EVERYTHING to do with feminism. Feminism campaigned long and hard for the 'right' of women to 'express' their sexuality. Well, girls know from a very young age what beauty means. It means: money, prestige, fame, and most of all, POWER. Power to have all the things you want; and importantly something for which feminists have long strived for, and succeeded with spectacualar success: power over men.

Women now call the shots no matter how outrageous their actions.

You and later posters have confirmed this. You suggest that a woman need never take responsibility for her own actions. I never suggested that the men were right or that they shouldn't be punished, I only suggested that if a drunken woman with a history of group sex accompanies a group of men to their hotel at 3am in the morning then she should be held accountable for her actions. The fact that people now defend her shows how successful feminism has been. If you looked back 50 or so years thru the newspapers, you would find a markedly different attitude back then. People would simply say, what do you expect? They expected women to take responsibility for their actions.

fractelle,

Men are always expected to take responsibility for their actions. If you went through court records you would find that when men and women commit comparable crimes, men get significantly tougher sentences than women. I'll bet the boys in this case get just as much punishment as the girls, even though they did nothing wrong.

Your language also betrays a bias. I never made a value judgement about the women whose actions were in pretty poor taste. Yet you called the men thugs.

In the real world, people have sex. Even group sex. People go home with one another for group sex too. If the men had met the women in church and gone home with her then it would be understandable, but that isn't what happened.

The footballers did what adults do. Adults meet one another in clubs and pubs and alcohol is involved. It is not uncommon for people to then go home and have sex. In fact, it's pretty much implied that if you meet someone and go home with them at 3am that is what would happen. What else were they going home for?

Your 'put her in a taxi' statement is a bit much. Why didn't she just get in a taxi and go home in the first place?

rstuart,

You agrument is another example of women not taking responsibility for their actions. You say that all rape is rape. That part is true. But the damage that all rape does is not the same. your nun example is pertinent. How could raping a nun possibly inflict the same emotional damage as raping a prostitute? the nun would be a virgin and never have had sex before, while the prostitute has sex for a living. How are these two things equal? It's really shows the depravity our society has come too when the life of prayer, service, and obedience is seen as equalivant to walking the streets.

Dane

Exactly what are you suggesting here? If a man goes out and gets absolutely wasted is he asking to get raped up the ass by a group of men? And (presuming you're a male and that you drink on occasion) if next time you were to go out drinking some guys approached you and gang raped you and then you went to report is and the police said "well, you were drinking and we know you weren't a virgin and what were you doing hanging out in a pub- everyone knows that pubs are full of groups of men"- I wonder how you'd feel then.

You obviously have some massive issues with women and your comments about feminism show what a limited understanding you have of the movement. It is not, nor has ever been about securing power over men. It's actually about eroding gender inequality

Dane your comments about the rape of a nun vs a prostitute are disgusting. As someone who works with sexual assault victims, let me just say that the trauma cased by a rape has nothing to do with the extent of the victims sexual history and in fact it has little to do with sex. It's about someone treating you as though you ahve no human value, exerting power over you just becasue they can. This traumatic regardless of whether the person is a virgin.

In fact it is often even worse for sex workers than it is for virgins as sex workers are offered less support by the community, they are not believed by police and they have people tell them that the assault "was not really rape, it wsa just a welched business deal". We know that one of the greatest factors to effect recovery after a rape is the types of attitudes victims encounter after disclosure. For sex workers they often hear the most appauling attitudes and this makes recovery harder. So I agree with you. Raping a virgin nun and raping are sex worker are not the same.

Ninaf

Thank you for your excellent posts to Dane.

Dane I am not going to be dragged into a gender war with you. I have been around OLO far too long to be sucked into that.

Men and women are equally responsible for their behaviour. That some men would go ahead and have sex with a woman who is clearly inebriated beyond any ability to make cognitive consent is abhorrent. It indicates that there is still a power imbalance between men and women and why all who believe in equal rights for people irrespective of race or gender still have to be vigilant.

Fortunately the majority of men are on board with equal rights for all human beings. I can only hope that rape becomes unusual rather than as commonplace as it is now.

Yes well said Ninaf and Fractelle.

dane you said:

"I can't believe you wrote that! Children see sex all around them: on TV, videoclips, movies, billboards. It's everywhere. Can we then be surprised when children start experimenting with sex at a younger and younger age? "

You have either misunderstood my statement or are purposely misinterpreting it. What I said was the sexuality of a grown adult woman and the sexualisation of children (via media etal) are two completely separate issues.

Do you blame the sexuality of men on the sexualisation of our children?

A woman or a man may be foolish in making a decision that may expose them to danger but it is the person committing the crime that is criminally culpable. Rape is a crime regardless of the state of the victim.

If we condone sexting by pre-pubescent girls should we not equally accept the conduct of similarly aged boys sharing those images? Surely if the production and publication of such images is deemed legal, their consumption cannot be any less so.

Conversely, do we want our young boys legally sharing such images before they turn into big brawny footballers and emotionally ready for such groupies? Is it because we ignore their sub-teen world of educational deprivation, playground bullies and predatory sexting females, that lead inevitably to low self-esteem as illustrated by frequent displays of roid-enraged psychopathic behaviour that seem to require such controversial treatments as group sex bonding sessions?

Similarly, we don’t exactly wish to encourage our young girls to publish porn as a healthy means of increasing popularity. Even tastefully arty, dimly-lit pre-pubescent-vulnerability-erotica of the likes of Bill Hansen, does not quite convince parents of its harmlessness.

What post-feminist parents don’t recognise of course, is that it doesn’t matter what they think. They are the ones with the unequal power in these relationships - hence the source of the problem. They forget the revolution.

Bartender, gimme another one of those double standards with a twist. Long live the revolution!

ninaf:"You obviously have some massive issues with women"

LOL, the standard response to critique. why could he not simply have "massive issues" with the sense of perpetual victimisation that some women seem to cling to? You obvously have some massive issues with men...

ninaf:"your comments about feminism show what a limited understanding you have of the movement. It is not, nor has ever been about securing power over men. It's actually about eroding gender inequality"

So why, then, is so much of the rhetoric devoted to vilifying men? Why is there so much made of the responsibility of men and so little about the responsibility of women?

Why, for example, do you seem to think that a drunk man who wants sex is more responsible than the drunk woman who thinks she wants him to have it with her? Why, when she wakes up and regrets what she has done, is she absolved and he is not? Fractelle, you can have a go at that as well, if you don't feel "threatened" of course.

Why does it make any difference what sex organ the participants possess?

ninsf:"As someone who works with sexual assault victims"

At the NSW Rape Crisis Centre? I quote the Centre:"Only experienced trained professionals can respond to calls at NSW Rape Crisis Centre."

What is your qualification, Nina, other than a suspect claim of attempted rape, with no corroborating evidence?

Of course, you'd never make a false allegation, would you? Not like this "lady" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166466/Man-cleared-rape-court-shown-phone-footage-woman-actively-taking-sex.html, or this one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-528476/Woman-cried-rape-times-spared-jail-perverting-course-justice.html.

What is the policy of the NSWRCC regarding false allegations?

Of course, Antiseptic doesn't have massive issues with women either.

Particularly those who are raped by men.

More gallantry, I suppose.

CJMorgan:"Of course, Antiseptic doesn't have massive issues with women either"

Quite right, little fella. And to think that Pomeranians are considered too stupid to train...

Ah Anti- how I've missed these little quarrels of ours.

To begin with, you are quite right I am not a qualified counsellor and as such i have no contact with clients or client records at the NSW RCC.

I was referring to the volunteer work I do as a public speaker at high schools all over Australia where I donate my time to speak to literally thousands of students about violence against women, sexual assault, and the issues around reporting and prosecution.

http://www.steptothefuture.com/forum.php?j=f&fid=124&y=2009&pid=1464&tid=12&sid=147

Although I do not actively counsel or seek to counsel victims, I inevitably end up being approached by victims who wish to disclose their experiences. This has put me in a 'first point of contact' position and I see it to be my responsibility to assist them in finding more appropriately trained people to speak to, as I believe that anyone who has been the victim of a sexual assault or domestic violence is entitled to the best help out there to deal with PTSD and other related outcomes of trauma.

As for you claim about the veracity of my own case, I cannot tell you how deeply insulting it is to hear you asset that I am a liar. However, I would suggest that you do your research before you go defamining me in public. I have no idea why you think there was no evidence as there is huge amount of physical evidence including blood and male DNA that was found both on me and at the crime site. There was also evidence of a struggle, brusing, swelling, bleeding and a stangulation mark around my neck. No doubt you will assert that I may have fabricated this evidence as you seem to belive that rape never occurs. But it's not possible to fabricate male DNA and blood. I suggest in future you do your research before making such hurtful claims.

dane: "You agrument is another example of women not taking responsibility for their actions."

Actually, it was more about the man taking responsibility for his actions. Regardless of what the woman does - flaunts or teases, if he rapes her then he must be held fully accountable for his actions. I know it is tempting to at assign some blame to her. In the man's eyes she did in some sense "ask for it", as she presumably flagrantly advertised her sexuality. However we have already seen one society go down the road of blaming women for the consequences of doing that - the Muslims. They took it to its logical conclusion. Burqa's are definitely not to my taste.

dane: "How could raping a nun possibly inflict the same emotional damage as raping a prostitute?"

You got this wrong on so many levels. Firstly I wasn't talking about a prostitute. There I agree taking another one for free blurs the boundaries. I was taking about a normal woman dressing seductively and attractively, and then perhaps drinking too much and behaving outrageously. Yes, if a man behaves like this he is doing it to get laid, but don't make the mistake of thinking women have the same motives. The woman's primary motivation in doing this is to attract you so she can talk to you, learn more about you - to put it bluntly evaluate you like a forequarter in the butcher shop. If that works out then maybe, just maybe, she might think about progressing further. But she can't do that without getting you to invest time with her in the first place. And she has to do that in competition with her girl friends - who also look pretty good.

To suggest as you do that because a woman dresses provocatively she wants to be raped any more than a nun wants to be raped is absurd. You simply don't understand the game. Take some time out to learn it before you hurt someone.

Nina,

(G'day:))

I really liked your article and I am glad to see someone
addressing an issue which I hadn't taken any time to
ponder, though I'd felt uneasy at news reports about teens being charged with pornography offences. Sheesh even I know people who have sent and received saucy images. I suppose it's against the law but I haven't heard of any adults being charged with anything.

I don't think the teens should be charged with those offences and I'm dimayed that they might be branded sex offenders. If any charge must be laid, perhaps something more appropriate might concern using public utilities to transmit restricted material, or something.

As for public morality decaying; I really don't think texting represents a worse stage than any other time since we all gained internet access; and perhaps even before that. Whether or not youth have sex or not; or share images, or not - will always depend, I think, on the values with which they are raised.

One aspect of any sort of promiscuity that concerns me is that highly sexualized behaviour is often an outcome of sexual abuse; usually in the home. There is plenty of research on that but none that I'm aware of re: sexting.

Anyway, before the internet, people of all ages used to write some pretty hot letters, and exchange polaroids too. The whole process just took longer.

I think compared to the material that people like Larry Flynt bandy about, that sexting, and what it represents culturally, is pretty mild.

Antiseptic,

Dear me. If the alleged problem of allegedly false allegations is of such dimensions that men like yourself are fearful, perhaps you all need to take steps to protect yourselves.

I suggest being much more discerning about choosing sexual liaisons and being very clear about consent.

Btw: The woman concerned in the mobile phone recording denies the interpretation taken by the court. It strikes me as just a little odd that the fellow didn't produce that evidence to the police when he was aware of the accusation.

ninaf:"volunteer work I do as a public speaker"

So you don't "work with sexual assault victims", as you claimed. Padding the resume is such an embarrassing thing when it's discovered, isn't it?

ninaf:"I cannot tell you how deeply insulting it is to hear you asset that I am a liar"

I simply pointed out that the two women I mentioned had had their own claims falsified comprehensively. Still, I think I understand how you feel. It must be a bit like the way I felt when I was falsely accused of being "violent", by a woman who understood the sytem.

Just to clarify for us all, what is the policy of the NSWRCC in regard to verifying allegations? Does it have one, or is it assumed that any woman who rings up is a genuine victim of assault? What about men who ring up?

If it becomes obvious that the claim is bogus, what does the NSWRCC do? What if the claim proceeds and is disproved in Court? Is that caller still recorded as a "Victim" in the stats kept by the Centre?

rstuart:"if he rapes her then he must be held fully accountable for his actions"

What if he is in a similarly impaired condition? Why is she absolved of responsibility in this circumstance while he is not?

pynchme:"The woman concerned in the mobile phone recording denies the interpretation taken by the court"

There was no "interpretation", it was a movie that showed she was "enthusiastically participating". If that's not good enough to disprove her claim, what do you suggest a man might have to do to prove consent? Should I have a consent form ready in my wallet for any prospective sexual partners to sign? How about wiring the house with cameras and sound recording devices so not a second of the transaction is missed and administering a breath test to ensure she's not had anything to drink?

It'd be easier and cheaper and no doubt just as emotionally satisfying to simply hire a hooker

Anti

As said before I do not speak for the NSW RCC. But to answer your question men who contact the centre are treated like all other clients; with dignity and respect. The centre receives plenty of calls from males who have been subject to sexual assault (it is estimated that by the time a boy turns 18, one in seven will have expereinced some form of inapropriate sexual contact). But it's also important to note that many of the calls made to the centre are made by people who are supporting victims who do not know what to do/ say. Many of these calls are made by men such as distressed fathers/ boyrfriends/ husbands/ sons/ brothers etc/.

Like all the clients at the RCC they are given counselling assistance by highly trained professionals.

Also your comments about the legal system and the RCC are confused at best. The aim of the centre is provide counselling support to traumatised individuals. We know that less than 1 per cent of rape cases are successfully prosecuted anyway so with hold a counselling service on the basis that a conviction has not been achieved is ludicrous. We know that only about 15 per cent of cases even get reported to the police and then beyond that very few make it to court as it is very difficult to prove when its one persons word against another. On top of that there is still a lot of prejudice against victims (even if she was raped she must have been asking for it- type logic) so it was of, if not the lowest prosecuted crime in Australia.

Antiwomen: << I think I understand how you feel. It must be a bit like the way I felt when I was falsely accused of being "violent", by a woman who understood the sytem.
>>

Nina Funnell published an article at OLO [ http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8258 ] in which she detailed a sexual assault against her, including the police station where she reported the assault and some of the personal effects of the attack on her.

On the other hand, the clearly misogynist Antiseptic claims to have been falsely accused of violence by a woman, without providing any details of the alleged assault. Indeed, he's informed us previously that he's a solidly-built bloke of gruff demeanour, so much so that he thinks none of those he abuses here would stand up to him IRL.

Given that Ms Funnell has gone on record here and officially reported the assault against her, I'm inclined to believe her. On the other hand, Antiseptic is on record here (ad nauseam) as a misogynist bully, so I'm disinclined to believe his claim of innocence.

Just as he claims that his offensive bullying behaviour at OLO is humorous, I suspect that the behaviour that prompted accusations of violence was interpreted somewhat differently by its object than by its perpetrator.

Antiseptic doth protest too much, methinks.

ninaf:"by the time a boy turns 18, one in seven will have expereinced some form of inapropriate sexual contact)"

What do you mean by "inappropriate"? Some examples would be helpful.

ninaf:"We know that less than 1 per cent of rape cases are successfully prosecuted anyway"

Not according to the courts. it is this constant attempt to inflate figures that worries me with that organisation. Even in the annual reports there are serious discrepancies between data in the body and data in the tabulated section.

ninaf:"We know that less than 1 per cent of rape cases are successfully prosecuted anyway"

How do you "know"? Don't cite the NSWRCC, their claims are already suspect.

ninaf:"there is still a lot of prejudice against victims (even if she was raped she must have been asking for it- type logic)"

That's not prejudice, it's sketicism and it is a healthy thing for anybody to possess. I take your point about the organisation not having a role in determining the truth of a claim, but surely it must do so internally if only so that it doesn't misallocate resources.

Let me ask you what would happen if I was to ring up and claim that I'd been raped six months ago? What would be the process?

CJMorgan: "Antiseptic claims to have been falsely accused of violence by a woman, without providing any details of the alleged assault."

I've not gone into details of my encounter with the flying spaghetti monster, or my time as leader of the world or all sorts of other things that didn't happen. I have gone into details of what my ex claimed.

Now, little fella, leave my leg alone - sniffing my crotch won't bring you any pleasure at all.

Anti

The concern you raise is valid. Just as gambling hotlines, quit smoking hotlines or childrens help hotlines can be hijacked by people who may not have a gambling addiction, smoking addiction or childhood trauma, there is always a chance that a rape crisis hotline can be hijacked by people who are unaffected by sexual assault. The question though is do we therefore suspend the hotline on the assumption that random individuals may abuse it? Personally I believe that to deny the thousands of individuals who use the line for legitimate purposes on the basis that one off twisted individuals may be abusing it is ludicrous. I would also suggest that such individuals would tire of the prank quickly and if they didn't well then maybe speaking to a counsellor is not a bad idea for them anyway...

and pynchme..I agree with your comments especially about not descemding into a moral panic about youth and sexuality. Young people have always been sexually active and I dont read the sexting trend as any more disturbing than any other historical expression of teenage hormone based behaviour... I didnt mean for my article to imply otherwise

"We know that less than 1 per cent of rape cases are successfully prosecuted anyway so with hold a counselling service on the basis that a conviction has not been achieved is ludicrous. We know that only about 15 per cent of cases even get reported to the police"
Nina

I am puzzled as, too why 1 per cent of rape cases are successfully prosecuted.

Perhaps Nina, meant only 1 per cent of ALLEGED rape cases are successfully prosecuted and that only 15 per cent of ALLEGED cases are reported to police.

That is unless the law has been changed and all those who are accused of rape are guilty the moment an allegation is made.

I thought the basis of our laws was innocent until proven guilty. But by Nina's definition once men are accused they are guilty. No court of law needed, so why bother with trials.

Using Nina's figures roughly 7% of cases reported to police, lead to a prosecution.

James H

This seems to be a fairly moot point. If you came home tonight and your place had been ransacked and all your valuable goods stolen you would say that you had been robbed. You wouldn't say that you had been "allegedly" robbed simply because the person who robbed you had not been caught, stood trial, and been found guilty.

As it is with rape cases. If a person forces another to have sex against their will they have been raped regardless of whether the matter is legally agreed upon.

There is a distinction between actual innocence and legal innocence just as there is a distinction between reality and legal fact

ninaf:"The question though is do we therefore suspend the hotline on the assumption that random individuals may abuse it?"

No it's not, it's whether you operate any safeguards to prevent waste and stop those who might be acting maliciously from usurping the resources that should be reserved for victims. No one suggested closing the organisation down. Nor did anyone suggest "prank" calls are the issue.

As James points out, one of the problems with organisations such as the NSWRCC is that they may pander to those who are simply interested in "getting back" at someone. If the organisation is really first point of contact for those claiming to have been raped, it should be offering counselling about the seriousness of making unsubstantiated claims, as well as the rest. Uncritical acceptance simply gives a malicious claimant validation. I have referenced 2 easily-found news stories about women who have done just as I described, so this is not a "one-off".

What is the process if I ring up and make a claim of having been assaulted? Is there any kind of effort to determine the veracity of claims?

Nina: "If you came home tonight and ... all your valuable goods stolen you would say that you had been robbed"

You miss the point Nina. Everyone has the same definition of robbed, but there are two definitions of rapped. To women, it means they feel they have been violated against their wishes. To men, it means sex was forced on a person when they made it explicit they didn't want it. Thus in the eyes of we males, for the man to be guilty of rape he has to know it was against the women's wishes. For women it is sufficient that it was - the man doesn't have to know.

On one level the woman's definition seems entirely reasonable. The trauma a rape causes isn't related to what man knew or what he thought he was doing. Thus if we base the law on harm caused, and we usually do, then it should be on the woman's definition.

But to repeat the point made here ad-nauseam, the law will be abused if it isn't based on what can be observed by others, and the only person who can be really sure of what a woman feels is the woman herself. Thus the law has to take the man's view on this. I am guessing you don't disagree with this. You nonetheless use the woman's definition of rape when you say a large percentage of rapes aren't prosecuted. On that basis the statement is miss-leading at best.

Antiseptic: "Why is she absolved of responsibility in this circumstance while he is not?"

Generally being drunk or high or stupid isn't an excuse for committing a crime. We prosecute drunk drivers with the full force of the law. We don't prosecute people for doing stupid things and harming themselves, but to say they are absolved of responsibility is taking it too far. Most will look at them and say, "well you put youself at risk and got hurt, *shrug*". In the case of rape that seems unfair, as most women who were rapped don't knowing put themselves at risk.

Nina,

as you may be aware, there are some women who believe any form of penetrative sex is rape, there is another group who believe that any sex not initiated by a women is rape.

An australian judge got into trouble for saying the obvious, that almost all forms of heterosexual sexual behaviour can now be seen as rape/sexual assault.

It would appear that you beleive that any man who is accused of rape should be punished, and a trial is a mere formality.

In WA there was a man convicted of rape because he didn't withdraw soon enough, after his partner withdrew consent. It was a few years later found out that he had been set up by his wife and her friend.

rstuart:"We don't prosecute people for doing stupid things and harming themselves, but to say they are absolved of responsibility is taking it too far."

All well and good, but if the decision to participate in sex was not coerced and both participants were equally impaired, why is the woman deemed insufficiently capable as to be irresponsible and the man is not?

If she gets the dry heaves when he's at the vinegar stroke, why is he deemed responsible for overcoming an autonomic response, while she is not?

Given that no coercion has occurred, and that there is no unwanted pregnancy, why is the shape of the sex organs relevant?

rstuart: <"Thus in the eyes of we males, for the man to be guilty of rape he has to know it was against the women's wishes.">

The clue is that silence is not consent. The assumption must always be NO sex; no hands on anyone else's body until there is clear and expressed consent.

James: There are a number of ways that crime data are collected. The word "alleged" isn't even relevant when population surveys of victimization are done. (I think there are two main ones as well as various individual research projects). These surveys aren't just done about sexual assault but about all sorts of crimes. So what motive is there for someone to anonymously tell a researcher that they were raped - bearing in mind that the results include responses from males as well as females.

The other way that crime data is collected is by what's called "recorded crime" - meaning, where there is an official record, such as a hospital emergency file or a police report.

Conviction rates for all crimes are one area of recording how well services - police, courts, community corrections and so on, are being accessed and how they are handling the flow of cases. The rate of conviction is compared to survey data as well as to figures for recorded crimes.

There are large disparities between findings and one of the reasons for that is that different surveys obtain answers from respondents in different age groups - for example, some question people over 16 and some only question people over 18.

You can look these things up yourself to obtain details at the Aus Institute of Criminology; Bureau of Crime Stats; Lawlink and other places that carry peer reviewed papers.

Antiseptic:

You seem to think that contact with a crisis centre is necessarily a charge against someone. Sexual assault services are not investigative bodies. Very, very few such contacts involve a police response.

The reason for this is that rape takes away someone's control over their most personal sense of physical and emotional self; therefore the ethos of SA services is to give the victim complete authority over how to proceed - whether to have a rape kit done at a local hospital; whether the matter is reported to police; whether anyone else is told. Only in the case of children is SA a matter of mandatory reporting by service providers.

MOST BY FAR don't report to police.

With rape supportive attitudes such as those expressed in these forums, it's no wonder so few report. It takes a lot of courage to make contact and risk condemnation (such as that which is expressed on these pages). That is why it's vital that at least one source of dependable, empathic support be available

James and Antiseptic:

About 4 dozen senior citizens a year are raped; 6 or 8 of which are male. Towards the other end of the spectrum - male and female victims aged 10 to 15. Casting the same blanket of doubt over all cases that you apply to females; what possible motive can there be for a boy aged 11 or a man aged 66 to say they were sexually assaulted ? All the evidence is pretty much the same. Would you believe them more than you would a female ? If so, you need to reflect on why.

James the cases to which you refer make the news because they're atypical. How atypical do you think these cases are:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0129092mccarl1.html

This doesn't seem just or right to me:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2009/03/02/1235842361318.html

This woman was asleep in her bedroom; locked door. The fellow scaled a high fence; climbed over the balcony and removed a fly screen to gain entry. A jury took 10 minutes to acquit him.

He also has a history of other ordinry assault.
http://www.finda.com.au/story/2008/10/09/soldier-faces-trial-rape-charge/

Anti

as Pynchme has already correctly outlined SA services are not investigatory bodies (unlike police) and have no punitive powers (unlike courts). A person who contacted a SA service in order to try and 'get back' at someone would get no where. The services are there to assist people who are traumatised get through the daily struggle. Most people who call have symptoms like sleeplessness, inability to eat, concentrate, panic attacks, afraid to be alone, afraid to be in crowds, depression, self harming, hypervigilance, suicidality, flashbacks and nightmares, unresolved anger, lack of self worth, etc. etc. These are all symptoms of PTSD as outlined in the DSM-IV. The RCC does not encourage telling victims to go to the police and instead the aim is to tell the victim their options and allow them the space to make their own decisions. When a person is raped they have all control over their lives stripped from them; the last thing they need is someone insisting that they do this or that (such as report or confront the offender) so best practice counsellors never try and push a client in any direction.

JamesH
"It would appear that you beleive that any man who is accused of rape should be punished, and a trial is a mere formality."
This is ludicrous. Let me clarrify my position;
1)I have never ever suggested that people who are innocent of rape should be punished or that all accusations are true
2) Some people do falsify charges though under reporting not falsified reporting is the biggest problem
3)People who do falsify reports are the worst of the worst as they ruin the accused lives but they also cast doubt on the veracity of legitimate victims
4)people who have been raped deserve counselling and support
There. That's it. That's my crazy crazy feminist manifesto. Stop misrepresenting me

So Pynchme, how does your oppressor know when it is safe to approach you?

Unfortunately the situation has occurred where a few elite academics/activists dictate what is or is not acceptable behaviour.

I have a few gay female friends and they regale me with stories that make me blush, and if, they were male they would definitely have been charged with a criminal offense.

Personally I think it would be much better to prevent rape from occuring rather than waiting until after the fact and then punishing the perpetrator.

Pynchme: "The clue is that silence is not consent."

There is an adult female out there who would allow herself to be raped without saying a word? Are you sure we talking about the same species here?

rstuart
"
There is an adult female out there who would allow herself to be raped without saying a word? Are you sure we talking about the same species here?"

For starters women dont 'allow' themselves to be raped. Secondly, most victims do not fight back at all. It's called fear and shock. Its actually a normal biological response to fear. Animals in the wild, when they sense danger often freeze and go silent- dear in the headlights style- this is a pre programed protection mechanism- the expectation being that if one freezes, the danger will not notice them and will pass by. Most women (and men for that matter) who are raped, go into a similar, dear in the headlights, fozen, speechless, shock. I know of one case where a woman had two black belts in different martial arts sports, but when she attacked for real by two men, she froze completely and was raped by both of them. This is why, contrary to the inaccurate rape stereotype, most rapes involve no actual physical violence and no weapons. The constraints used are psychological (fear and shock) not physical.

Pynchme, I don't know what your background is, but you are routinely right on the money in all your posts :-) nice to see someone informed comment in these debates.

also, the problem with 'no mean no' education is that many people (male anf female) have walked away with the message 'no means no... and anything else means yes'. So silence means consent. Not biting or screaming or kicking means consent. Not resisting means consent. The problem is, in most rape cases, silence and being frozen is the number one response. 'No means no' also works off the basis that a woman is ALWAYS in a state of consent unless she specifies otherwise. In reality a woman is NEVER is a state of consent unless she specifically states that she is.

Ninaf

I am very concerned that a man has to ask how he can tell if a woman is consensual or not?

As a sexually active person, I am that - an active participant. The time I was raped I just went along hoping it would all be over soon and that I wouldn't get beaten up as well. Also I never reported it because it would've been a case of "he said she said", as I wasn't physically hurt. Mentally, well I don't really want to open that can of worms. Besides I suspect there are those who enjoy reading about how fearful a rape victim can be; those types who like to intimidate people. Which is why I don't like to discuss rape much.

I just don't understand how it can be so confusing for some men on OLO that they can't tell if a woman is enjoying having sex with them and is not cooperating out of fear. Major difference.

Pynchme: "The assumption must always be NO sex; no hands on anyone else's body until there is clear and expressed consent."

While I appreciate where you are comming from, advice like that is so divorced from reality most will just ignore it. Consent for sex is rarely just a yes/no event. Even a yes can be withdrawn later. Instead it is a path the couple walk down. Most steps on the path aren't verbal. They are a look, a gesture, a touch or even a discussion about an unrelated subject, and the yes/no responses are given in the same subtle ways. You say consent must be explicit, but the reality is it can be given in so many ways it is impossible to define what explicit consent is.

It is, however, relatively easy to make a "no" explicit. It is not final, as the initiator is often expected to try a different branch on the path that might lead to a yes. But there is no argument that if every path lead to a "no", sex is rape. Thus it is not the clear and expressed consent that is important, it is whether in the end the answer was "no". It can't be any other way.

ninaf: "Secondly, most victims do not fight back at all."

I have difficulty with that, Nina. The idea that someone being raped would not express displeasure at what is happening, even if it is just passively, is very hard to accept. Proving they did is a different issue of couse, but that wasn't my point.

To put in terms of the walk above, either it didn't happen - which is clearly rape, or they were threatened into silence - which is also rape, or at some point someone didn't say "no" yet didn't want sex - which isn't rape, but rather a confused mess.

"someone didn't say "no" yet didn't want sex - which isn't rape,"

maybe not in your mind rstuart but you might want to check the case law... this is without question rape. You cant just go round rooting anyone you feel like who doesn't want it, but doesnt know how to say no. Read fractelles post. You still dont seem to get it. Women are never ever ever in a state of consent unless they specifically state that they are and men can NEVER assume that they are- for your own legal protection you have to ASK first- not just assume. This is not a difficult task. its not about getting a woman to sign a document beofer you get down to business. Its as simple as saying to a gal "are you all cool with this?" and then throughout the sexual act, negotiating new things such as "would you be comfortable with doing such and such?" rather than just going ahead and doing it. It's not fricken rocket science, boys. Also if a woman goes stiff, silent or is not moving its generally because she is not enjoying it at all and is afraid of what will happen if she makes you stop (being verbally or physically abused). Just bc a woman does not stop a sexual act it does not mean she is consenting to it. READ FRACTELLES POST!.

nina, why must a man who may be uncomfortable talking about what is going on learn a behaviour that is foreign to him, simply so that the woman doesn't have to learn a behaviour that is foreign to her and is self-protective? If the issue is of consent, why must the onus fall always on the man and not on the woman, given no coercion?

The constant conflating of rape with all sorts of other things simply dilutes the seriousness of a genuine rape. A woman who changes her mind half way through or simply accepts when she doesn't want to and says nothing in a normal relationship has not been raped: at worst she has put up with it for the sake of an easy life, at best she has selflessly considered her partner's needs. He is not a rapist if he thought she was willing. Women fake enjoyment all the time, I'm told, so how does a man tell if she's acting?

In all of this, it's always the man who is responsible, while poor helpless women are tossed by the winds and whims of chance and men.
That must be the "feminist" part of the approach, I assume...

A-septic

So... you can't tell if a woman is enjoying sex with you right?

Since when is asking "how does this feel" become "foreign behaviour"? Why should loving a person be so "uncomfortable" for you? And why would you not be concerned about the woman's pleasure if she was willing and had consented?

ninaf,

You may be right about the letter of the law Nina. Fortunately it isn't enforced that way - if it were rape prosecutions would be much easier to get. The woman would say she didn't want sex. All over, jail the man.

There seems to be no argument that if the man knows the woman doesn't want sex, and proceeds anyway its rape. You seem to be saying if the woman doesn't want it but the man doesn't know, then it is always the man's fault. This is so regardless if they women made reasonable attempts to let the man know, or not. I can see how women might want it to be that way, but equally I hope you can understand we men think you are being unreasonable.

When there is a failure to communicate, automatically blaming one party on the basis of gender is just plain unfair. And as I said, regardless of the letter of the law, society as represented by 12 of our peers, agrees it is unfair and generally refuses to prosecute on that basis. I presume those peers consist of 50/50 gender mix.

In other words, when Fractelle's says: "I just don't understand how it can be so confusing for some men on OLO that they can't tell if a woman is enjoying having sex with them and is not cooperating out of fear", she is being obtuse. Teenage girls often laugh at their male peers ability to read and interpret another's emotions. That compared to you women we men are emotional cretins is a fact of life. I can't believe Fractelle isn't aware of it - or you for that matter. Yet despite that when communications break down because of it, you women want to assign all the blame to us.

Fractelle

I just wanted to say I think you r really brave to have disclosed that and I also think you add something really valuable to the discussion here as you have offered a real insight into what rape really looks like. Hopefully your story will help people understand the dynamics of rape a bit more. the most common form of rape involved no violence, no weapon.

However in general, I am getting a bit sick of arguing back and forth about what my idea of consent and rape is so I'm gonna just lay this out there and hopefully anti will find it not too sexist;

whenever two (or more) people engage in any sort of sexual activity all individuals should take full responsibility to ensure that they negotiate the sexual activity with the other person and that they regularly 'check in' with the other person (through questions and statements like "does that feel OK?" "are you OK with this?" "I would like to try this, but only if and when you want to" "what would you like me to do?")to make sure that all activity is consenual and pleasurable. This is not about signing contracts, its abotu resepecting self and others. Men and women BOTH need to take responsibility for this and ALL people need to understand that their idea of pleasure may not be the same as another persons and also that expectations vary and so these need to be negotiated.

There is that a fair enough view of things Anti? I honestly appreciate you being willing to debate these things as I think they are important issues and my aim is not to 'hate on' anyone for disagreeing with me. Im trying to work out a definition that works for all here.

Ninaf

Thanks for your clear post. If the act of sexual enjoyment is one thing it has to be about communication.

I too tire of trying to explain what rape is, however I will try with the following guide:

It takes two to have sex and only one for rape as the victim is not a participant.

JamesH: <"So Pynchme, how does your oppressor know when it is safe to approach you?

Unfortunately the situation has occurred where a few elite academics/activists dictate what is or is not acceptable behaviour">

Haw! My "oppressor" and I have been together for many years. He doesn't seem to find me too scary:)

As to what is acceptable behaviour; just assuming that anyone is entitled to stick their bits into another person's body without that person's agreement, is not it.

I fail to see what's so complicated about that and what's more, I wouldn't have thought that decent thinking people would need a few elite academics/activists to point it out.

rstuart: <"It is, however, relatively easy to make a "no" explicit. It is not final, as the initiator is often expected to try a different branch on the path that might lead to a yes...">

This part of your remarks just dazzles as well - in a not good way. Not only is the females' default position to be always at "yes" - so that it doesn't need (in your opinion) to be expressed, but even if she says an explicit, "No" <- that is still not accepted as her position on the matter. In other words you just keep nagging until she gives in just to get a bit of peace. Grrrr

Have you ever been annoyed by someone trying to persuade you to accept something despite you having said, "No thanks". Can you think about how the more they insisted the more repelled you were by the idea of the - extra cake, last drink, religious magazine, whatever.

Now imagine that what they're trying to insist you have is something that's invasive of your body - say, a prostate exam. How accepting are you of the notion that the option is THEIRS and not yours; that your opinion on whether it's needed or not, is irrelevant - even by law.

Well the basic human right to say yes or no to what is done to one's body and by whom; is all that sex without rape or coercion is.

rstuart: I'll never accept the lame idea that men are inherently "emotional cretins " - who thereby gain special dispensation to grab what they want without regard to anyone else's well-being.

These are the reasons that excuse won't wash:

1. There are too many men like my "oppressor" (as JamesH says - gave us a laugh anyway), who don't seem to have a problem with the idea of "Yes" as the basis of a sexual encounter, to accept a convenient stereotype that all men are "emotional cretins".

2. There are many things men need or want in life - like food, music and song. Can you give an example of any other area of life where society approves of men just taking what they want off somebody else? Like - you're hungry - do you just routinely walk into a shop and stuff your mouth with food? Isn't it so that men are qute capable of negotiating with a shopkeeper or whomever to obtain what they need/want in an acceptable and respectful manner.

3. The agreement of 12 peers is hardly a useful litmus test of what is humane and good. The 12 peers only reflect the social mores of their local social context. If the law didn't change over time and from place to place then our 12 peers would still be executing or gaoling people for homosexuality and putting children in the clink for stealing lumps of coal, or something.

One of my pet annoyances is the habit of many men; which is duplicated in major social systems, of making out that there is something unstable or lacking in a woman who doesn't comply with patriarchal demands and expectations. Medicine (psychiatry in particular) bursts with examples. In that vein, I see Nina and Fractelle referred to as "unaware" and "obtuse". If communication breaks down (ie: rape occurs) because of men who claim it's beyond their biological capability to comprehend YES or NO, then a case could be made for literacy classes as a rape prevention measure. In any case, they do deserve full blame for the "communication breakdown".

In an ideal world both men and women would get there needs met, and nobody would get hurt.

Sadly something like 80% of human communication is non verbal, and there can be conflict between the verbal and non-verbal. ie "I'm telling the truth!" as the person who is saying that, plays with their chin whilst looking the floor.

Nina, people have used phrases like "how about we go to my room" as an indirect way of suggesting that they have sex, or "how about a coffee" after a night out (I know the gays use this one).

Nina as you correctly point out someone who is stiff, silent and not moving is using body language to indicate that they are not participating.

Even asking first is NO legal protection, because when it comes down to, it is she said, he said.

Think about this...

If I get invited to a banquet and yummy food is laid out on beautifully adorned tables for the taking, then I assume - note that word, 'assume' - that I may freely gorge myself on any and all of the delights on offer. Naturally, it is likewise assumed by the host/hostess that I shall act in a civilised fashion, display good manners and treat others with cordiality and respect.

Such things are a matter of good manners and upbringing. So too are normal human sexual relations. They are a matter of familiarity. Getting to know people over time and knowing beforehand what to expect of others and what they expect of you. It's all a matter of human decency.

One thing is for sure, I certainly don't expect, at this banquet, to be required to ask the hostess for permission to taste or sample each and every morsel on offer. To do so would be tiresome and destroy the flow and spirit of the occasion. And so too it would with sex.

If I have the good fortune to be invited to a woman's pleasure, I certainly don't want to become engaged in a debate with her about permissions. It would destroy the flow and spirit of the occasion. Frankly it would put me right off.

And now to the topic. These girls who sent nude pictures to young boys, what was their intent?

Were the boys asked if they wanted them? Was decency displayed here? Or was it 'assumed' by the girls that the boys would not say 'no'.

Did the girls seek the boys' permission before sending them?

Perhaps we need to educate girls more fully on being responsible about their sexuality. These young girls were certainly sending out strong messages about theirs.

It is proper and just that the girls were charged. But it is unjust to charge the boys, who were simply gullible victims. Just because they didn't say 'no', is not a reason to assume they meant 'yes'. Is it?

Pynchme: persuade you to accept something despite you having said, "No thanks"

Yes, another way it can all go wrong - persistence transitions from a compliment to annoying to aggravating to stalking. Somewhere along that continuum it becomes illegal. I don't see anybody here arguing it should be otherwise. Why did you bring it up?

Pynchme: There are too many men like my "oppressor" .. who don't have a problem with the idea of "Yes" as the basis of a sexual encounter

Quantify "too many" and quantify at what point their numbers become small enough to ignore when making laws, so if when they are wrongly jailed we can write off the collateral damage as "for the better good".

Pynchme: "lacking in a woman who doesn't comply with patriarchal demands and expectations"

Or we could be getting pissed of at the instance of self appointed matriarchs like yourself at having the final say in how we all should behave. In any case laying down laws on how people should or should not behave isn't wasn't what I trying to do.

Pynchme: "The agreement of 12 peers is hardly a useful litmus test of what is humane and good."

I try to deal with the world at it is, rather than insisting everyone behave according to my precepts as to how it should be. Getting consistent outcomes from 12 peers is a good way of gauging what reality is. You obviously have a vision of how the world should work and a partner that concurs - good for you. But as far as I can tell, your vision of how the would should be doesn't match how the majority of our society behaves, or indeed how any society does. Your crime is insisting we all change our ways to match your vision, and we should be happy to jail those that get into trouble because they couldn't.

ninaf: "all individuals should take full responsibility"

Sounds like our positions are not that far apart.

I don't know to what extent "rapes" are due to miss-communications. Before reading Fractelle's comments I thought it likely it was a small proportion, but Fractelle experiance gave me pause. To the extent miss-communication is the problem, you can attack it by instructing both genders to correct the miss-understandings and behaviours that caused it. Tell the girls to not assume the boy can read their mood or feelings. If they don't make it obvious via a "no" or a shove, a disaster can result. Equally tell the boys not to assume the girls will be explicit about what they want. If they are unsure ask, or again disaster may result. In other words move both parties towards the middle, and hopefully they will meet.

The reason I am posting here isn't because I want my definition of rape to prevail. It is because I think in try force our imperfect justice system to bring about a better result, you re-define the how path to sex works in order to make prosecution easier. Its perfectly understandable give what happened to you. Obviously it doesn't work - society at large doesn't accept your version, but to the extent you manage to get anyone to believe it, you are doing harm.

You are trying to fix a miss-communication that originates in how men and women think the other behaves. You don't fix the problem by teaching another model of behaviour that is just plain wrong. That just introduces yet more confusion. So saying the expected behaviour is the boy always asks and won't proceed unless the girl says yes isn't helping things. Boys will simply ignore it - because most males don't work like that, and probably never will do so no matter how much Pynchme rails or lobbies to get laws passed to say we must. If the girls assume we will behave like that, you are creating an environment where more there will be more miss-understandings, not less.

oh dear, rstuart, you're going to have to be chastised for disagreeing with the grrrls. Fancy thinking that women are actually capable of making their own wishes known instead of relying on a man to ask first! Fancy thinking that a woman might be capable of saying yes and then changing her mind, but may still choose to go through with the act! Fancy thinking that women are equally as capable and responsible as men! You, you dirty rotten Patriarch...

The would-be matriarchs are nothing if not cynical. While knowing full well that most women and most men manage entirely satisfactory negotiations, they are quick to use the tiny number who don't as leverage to claim authority just as they try to do with children, all the while claiming to be mere helpless victims, blown by the winds of chance and the will of those horrible men.

It's really quite pathetic and entirely transparent, yet it's worked for them to the point that they have enjoyed power without responsibility for quite some time now. Just look at any Court: a woman can instigate a crime, can contrive a plan to have others help her carry it out and will walk away with half the sentence of any men involved. Even if she and he were equally involve, she'll say "I was scared of him" and get a slap on the wrist.

In Family Court the game is changing a little to give fathers some hope of fairness and haven't the grrrls fought hard against it? No one wants to lose their meal-ticket.

In the meantime there are literally thousands of women employed in the women's victim industry. If someone is making a good professional wage that they'd be unlikely to get elsewhere from a job whose sole justification is the victimhood of others, they would have to be an extraordinary person not to seek to increase the class of "victims" they can claim as a constituency. Only Erin Pizzey has come forward to date and that was after she was forced out of her job by other womyn.

It's really pretty simple guys...

pynchme; 'something that's invasive of your body - say, a prostate exam' and 'to what is *done to* one's body'

See guys, it's all about penetration. As soon as women start to think of themselves as engulfing men rather than being penetrated, then there will be a lot less people feeling they were raped.

BTW: I would love to read all the romance novels when in the peak of passion a man keeps asking, 'ok now, I'm going to touch your left breast. Now are you ok with that? How does that feel? too rough? too soft? ok, now I'm going to move my right hand...' I'm sure they would sell like hot cakes!

To the Men;

If a woman doesn't say no, and you have sex, you can still be charged with rape. Get over it. It's not fair, and the rape might be purely a self-justification on her part because she's decided you're coyote ugly the morning after, but that's the price you pay for protecting lots of other women who ARE legitimately raped.

I mean really, what sane woman really goes very far with a rubbish accusation. I know it happens, and I know how it feels to read about how I'm the 'bad' gender all the time, how it's always my fault, but just don't read all that shite, let it all go, and live a happy life.

I'd much rather increase the chances of the women in my life getting justice if they're raped than worry about the slimmer chance I get falsly accused.

Houellebecq:"I'd much rather increase the chances of the women in my life getting justice if they're raped than worry about the slimmer chance I get falsly accused."

All well and good, but condoning false accusations does nothing to improve the lot of those who are genuine victims. If anything, it dilutes the resources available to those genuine victims. I have experienced a false accusation (of violence, not rape) and the consequences first-hand. The person who made the accusation suffered no penalty at all and was funded by Women's Legal Aid Qld to do so. Given that I was punished by being stopped from having anything to do with my children and by having to self-fund an expensive defence, as well as the loss of income I suffered during the Court process and the pain and suffering I endured over 7 months, while her side called for adjournment after adjournment, knowing full-well there was no case to answer, why was she not help culpable? Why was the lehal system prepared to punish me by not examining the prima facie evidence at the earliest opportunity? Why was she not punished as a matter of course?

We all want "justice", which means we should all be appalled when someone knowingly makes a false accusation against someone else. I'm amazed at the number of people who are prepared to condone such a misuse of the legal system.

I'm sure you are not so naive as to be unaware of the answer to your own question, Antiseptic.

>>..knowing full-well there was no case to answer, why was she not help culpable? Why was the lehal system prepared to punish me by not examining the prima facie evidence at the earliest opportunity? Why was she not punished as a matter of course?<<

This describes the fate of everyone who is put in the position of defending in court a baseless allegation. Having myself experienced precisely the same frustrations in a business capacity, I know that there is no practical recourse against a well-heeled litigant.

Take your emotional lumps, keep costs to a minimum while sticking to your guns, and sometimes, occasionally a form of random justice might prevail. The rest must be left to karma.

Just be assured that it has nothing to do with women per se.

Houellebecq: "I'd much rather increase the chances of the women in my life getting justice if they're raped than worry about the slimmer chance I get falsly accused."

Struth Houellebecq, what does a victim get out of justice? On a purely selfish level I can see only one thing - vengeance. On an altruistic level you might do it to make society a safer place. But I doubt I would ask my women to put themselves through a rape trail just to make the world a safer place - it seems like one hell of an ask. If they did it would be their decision only. Then again, maybe you do put a high price on getting vengeance, but are you sure your women feel the same way? Have you asked them?

The other point you seem to have missed entirely is when it comes to a jury trial how you define consent is irrelevant if either party is a convincing liar. It happens in private, so it's one persons word against another. Anything short of demanding the man obtain written consent or taping the entire performance of every sexual encounter is just a waste of time. So what on earth is the point of dreaming up some fictitious model of human behaviour, and then getting it written into the law? It won't succeed in getting more prosecutions, but if any girl is silly enough to believe males really behave like that it will make sexual encounters more dangerous than they were before.

Pericles, there is another dimension to Antiseptic's problem which is outside of the law. The girls, create little pots of money for other girls in need - as girls are wont to do. Some less principled girls fraudulently put that money to use for their own nefarious purposes - not an uncommon fate for pots of money. Antiseptic says he was the unfortunate victim one of those uses. Unfortunately, he then seems to lay the blame for his fate at the feet of those girls whose noble intentions made the money available.

rstuart, and others, how is convicting a person of a crime making the world a safer place?

Sure it might just remove one person from society for a while, one only needs to look at repeat offenders, and the world is only safe whilst they are in prison.

Would it not be better to minimize the occurence of crime? Rather than increasing the levels of punishment.

Even for some the threat of corporal punishment is no deterrent. Just look at the US, even the threat of the death penalty is no deterrent.

Drugs and alcohol use, plays an enormous role in a fair amount of crime.

Houellebecq, I'd rather prefer to decrease the risk that the women and men in my life never become a victim of a crime, no matter what that crime maybe.

Sure - there has to be consent.
Yes - both/all parties must be comfortable with the way things progress. But sorry ninaf - your 'question time' version of foreplay is too over done in my opinion.

I think your opinion is far too narrow in regard to this discussion as your comments portray females as being these delicate little flowers in the ruthless grip of a male hand.

.... WHAT ??

If you are going to have sex with someone whom you WANT to have sex with, in my experience there is both: body language coupled WITH verbal communication, displaying the mental attitude and physical desires of each person.

Maybe I'm odd, but I've never started having sex with someone I didn't want to have sex with. And the thought that someone (male or female) embarks on such an endeavor WITHOUT getting that straight with themselves 1st, is very troubling to me.

If someone (again male OR female) gets into it and finds that things are not panning out as they would have liked, then bloody well get a grip of yourself, take control of the situation and remove yourself.

If you are not NOT being prevented from leaving - you have to ask yourself HOW and WHY you allowed yourself to be caught in such a predicament where you did not have somewhere to go and some way to get there. ?

If sex is then forced onto you - then yes, this is my definition of a form of rape.

If someone is going to have a one night stand and they do not know the person with whom they have decided to become 'friendly' with - then there is a obviously a chance that things could get out of control. Having said that, whether you're a bloke or a girl, if you put yourself in that position you must be prepared to take responsibility for yourself. By that I mean, taking responsibility for creating the situation, participating in the situation and, if it comes to it, ending the situation.

Pericles:"Just be assured that it has nothing to do with women per se."

What it has to do with women is that there is a massive industry that has evolved to service the interests of women and that industry is not much concerned with whether those interests are worth servicing. ISTM that if Legal aid is going to fund a civil matter, it must examine the prima facie evidence before making the decision. That they funded my ex-wife's matter suggests that no such examination took place and why would it? They have pots of money to hand out. Criminal defence is an altogether different kettle of fish and should be automatically funded if requested, at least up to the committal date.

rstuart:"Unfortunately, he then seems to lay the blame for his fate at the feet of those girls whose noble intentions made the money available."

Yes, I do, because if those people make no effort to validate claims made then they risk funding fraud at the expense of those people who genuinely need help.

ATSIC was abolished on those very grounds. Why is it any different if the perpetrators are white women instead of black men

rstuart; <" blah blah blah and ...But as far as I can tell, your vision of how the would should be doesn't match how the majority of our society behaves...">

Well you're the one saying that rape is excusable because men are social morons who can't navigate the complexities of YES or NO. By what you're saying, all men are rapists. I am saying that there are too many men who manage relationships quite successfully (like my "oppressor") to excuse the remainder who rape.

Therefore, the notion that people obtain a clear YES rather than assume that they are entitled to touch someone else's body, is, apparently, how the majority of our society behaves.

As to your ideas about obtaining justice in court being some sort of revenge so that the victim is *still* blamewothy for being nasty enough to hurt back: the logic of your argument then would extend to all crime wouldn't it. Burgled; mugged; shot; diddled out of one's life savings - the victims are all just nasty revenge seeking... As a society should we just forget about crime and so on altogether?
What repercussions do you see?

Houellebecq: <"See guys, it's all about penetration. As soon as women start to think of themselves as engulfing men rather than being penetrated, then there will be a lot less people feeling they were raped.">

You're right of course; I was just trying to get you to relate to what it's like for someone whose bodily integrity has been invaded regardless of their wishes. As you say, it's not all about penetration - it's also about having unwelcome others masturbate; defaecate or urinate on you; put you into humiliating positions... and endless other variations of making a male or female, child or adult, feel that they are a despicable something other than human.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25246326-5018069,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25374298-2702,00.html

However, the next time you're "engulfing" your proctologist, I do hope you'll give a little thought to our discussions here ... do reflect on which of you feels vulnerable and which one is likely to feel most in contol during the process.

pynchme:"Well you're the one saying that rape is excusable because men are social morons who can't navigate the complexities of YES or NO."

You really must try to understand what you read before running off at the mouth. There was a simple comparison made between the way in which women's emotional responses are taken to be vitally important to the point that a man must subsume his own responses (which are therefore presumably less important) in order to satisfy hers and achieve some mutuality of outcome (albeit an emotionally impoverished one for him and an emotionally enriched one for her).

Tell me, why are your female emotions less able to be subsumed in the interest of getting along than my male ones are? Are you simply less capable of taking control of yourself?

Please do answer those questions Pynchme, because they go to the heart of this topic, I think.

On the matter of proctology versus sex - last I looked, the vagina was perfectly wll-adapted to the insertion of a penis and has quite a lot of specialised plumbing to do useful things with the result. I've not checked my anal sphincter recently, but past experience tells me it does rather well at getting things OUT of the body and that the plumbing goes nowhere that sperm might find welcoming.

Perhaps a better analogy might be proctology and gynaecology. Personally, I've never used a speculum during sex (or oterwise, it should be said), but your experience may differ, of course.

"the notion that people obtain a clear YES"

conversely people could also be held responsible for not giving a CLEAR NO!

Antiseptic

‘Please do answer those questions Pynchme, because they go to the heart of this topic, I think.’

What they go to the heart of, Antiseptic, is your bombastic need to control others and to be at the centre of attention by demanding answers to a lot of useless questions. I’m sure Pynch is happy to do so, or she wouldn’t still be here, but it gets up my nose that you won’t rest until you have totally quibbled her either into a submission or an exit.

The ‘heart of this topic’ – as you put it – is that men (and women) like you cannot accept any kind of cultural practice that actually puts a woman’s integrity at centre stage, instead of men’s. Until the early 1980s, the rape laws of the Western world put men’s integrity before women’s in every rape trial. The rape law reforms reversed that practice (or at least equalised it) and people like you will never rest until it goes back the other way again.

JamesH: "how is convicting a person of a crime making the world a safer place? ... Just look at the US, even the threat of the death penalty is no deterrent."

In the obvious way - it is a deterrent. Most people will avoid doing things that might put them in jail, or indeed just have a criminal conviction recorded against them.

I think you are confusing the effect of any deterrent with the effect of imposing greater deterrents. Just the threat of conviction will stop most of us, but increasing the deterrent with longer jail sentences does have a rapidly diminish effect. As you say capital punishment have no measurable effect over life sentences.

Also, criminalising things is how our society draws lines in the sand. It is the way we say "rape is not acceptable". Compare it to personal copyright offences. They are not a criminal offence, and we can't bring ourselves to make it one. This reflects the fact that most people do consider copying where no monetary gain is involved to be acceptable behaviour.

SJF:"demanding answers"

Me:"Please do answer those questions "

You have a funny idea of what constitutes a "demand". No wonder you think that a chat-up line is an attempt to rape.

SJF:"your bombastic need to control others and to be at the centre of attention by demanding answers to a lot of useless questions. "

erm, I was having a discussion about what constitutes the nature of rape. Are you still struggling to get over your obsession with me? Goodness gracious, girl, get a life!!

SJF:"you cannot accept any kind of cultural practice that actually puts a woman’s integrity at centre stage, instead of men’s"

My whole point is that women (and men) have the capacity and responsibility to exercise their integrity, while ninaf and Pynchme (and presumably, you, when you get over me) are arguing that it is only men who have the responsibility to exercise their integrity. They've not yet provided a single reason why, of course

SJF - absolutely agreed. I am starting to think that these fellows here are incapable of empathy - they will never get it at least until they are on the receiving end of some of the behaviours they seem to think are so essential to maleness.

JamesH and Antiseptic: You are both arguing that men have the right to touch anyone else's body, or the man is somehow emotionally impoverished. (pfft BFD).

I don't know if either of you practice male-male sex, and I apologize if you do, but for the moment I'm assuming that you're both strictly heterosexual. So let's imagine that another male sees you as sexually desirable. It's quite ok with you is it if he touches you? Maybe approaches you intimately while you're sleeping? Ok with you if he bonks you while you're inebriated or drugged ?

You can't complain can you; because you didn't say, "No." Once he's touched you - and it might be quite invasively - the hurt is already done to some extent. But that wouldn't be his fault hey; he isn't expected to assume a NO is he. Your argument is that he may assume a yes, because yes is the prey's default position. Even if you say no; according to rstuart, it isn't necessary for him to take that at face value - he just has to keep trying until he finds the path to your compliance - right?

Antiseptic - exactly what emotions are impoverished by ensuring that your partner wants you or is enjoying whatever you're doing?

Pynchme:"You are both arguing that men have the right to touch anyone else's body,"

Not at all. We're saying that there is a massive difference between a rape and normal sex and that for people in normal relationships there is no trouble identifying which is which. You're saying that the man has all the responsibility, assuming that a man is always an aggressor sexually and that a woman is always the "pursued". In my experience this is not the case. I lost my virginity at 17 to a 19 year-old woman who was quite clear about what she wanted. I'd say that about 30% of all "casual" sex I've ever had has been initiated by the woman and when I've been in relationships my partners have had no trouble making it clear when they felt horny. Sometimes I've not felt like it, even made my position clear, but eventually "gone along for the ride". Hardly rape, is it, yet that is what you are claiming. By doing so you cheapen the experience of genuine rape victims.

As for your homosexual analogy, as I pointed out, I don't regard the anus as a vagina-analogue. I've never had anal sex with a woman or a man and I would never suggest it to a partner, but if she asked me, I might participate.

No one is suggesting that sex obtained by violence, or in your example, from an unknown person whilst one is unconscious or in an orifice one is not happy to have used is not rape.

[cont]

Now, dear, I keep answering your rather silly questions, but you still haven't had a go at my rather pertinent ones: why are you, as a woman, not responsible for making your wishes known, while I, as a man, am entirely responsible for working out what your wishes are? I you don't want sex, say no clearly and frequently, if need be. Some women say "no", meaning "not till you've taken the time to allow me to convince myself I'm not a slut". Some women say "no, but their actions say "yes". I've encountered several of each. Some say "no", which means "not if anyone is going to find out". I've known a couple like that, too. If I'd listened to the first no in all those cases, neither of us would have been happy.

The normal courtship dance has been ever thus. What you're trying to do is have two bob each way.

Pynchme:"exactly what emotions are impoverished by ensuring that your partner wants you or is enjoying whatever you're doing?"

It's simple - under your preferred regime the man is not permitted to concentrate on the activity, but must instead concentrate on whether he's going to wake up the next day with the woman who's now moaning under his touch claiming that he raped her. that may make your own ovaries ache with power-control joy, but it rather ruins the ambience for me.

The fact that you even had to ask that question speaks volumes about you, I'm afraid. You're really quite emotionally stunted, aren't you?

Pynchme, Australian's when compared to some European and Mediteranean countries are very inhibited when it comes to touching.

The French and Italians are extremely touchy.

I work with some people from other countries and some of them are very touchy, it was a bit of a culture shock for me.

There is one particulae young aussie woman who gives me unexpected cuddles.

"why are you, as a woman, not responsible for making your wishes known, while I, as a man, am entirely responsible for working out what your wishes are?"

I, second that Anti.

I saw it written somewhere that men are the supplicants, when it comes to sex.

SJF - absolutely agreed. I am starting to think that these fellows here are incapable of empathy.

Perhaps, but then again, it might be because you are not getting your own way!

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/12/15/what-does-it-mean-to-men-that-they-make-the-first-move/

"We customarily refer to the person who does the asking in romantic and/or sexual relationships as the “aggressor.� This term obscures the vulnerability of the role. The term “supplicant� seems better suited to capturing that vulnerability.

It seems likely to me that the majority of men feel like supplicants in intimate relationships of all sorts. Men who are frequently refused may, with good reason, feel like beggars"

Now how is your empathy level?

JamesH, anyone would appreciate that rejection, when ASKING for attention (a date or a dance or whatever), is humiliating. If rejection must be given, it should always be done kindly and respectfully.

However, this discussion hasn't been about ASKING for dates and things; it's been about people taking what they want to gratify themselves regardless of the wishes of the other. Why don't you and Antiseptic do yourselves a favour and stop (conveniently, for yourselves) confusing the two.

Antiseptic; you have passed the point of ridiculous.

"Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior." Wiki

My post was in response to your empathy claims.

<it's been about people taking what they want to gratify themselves regardless of the wishes of the other>

Mummh, that sounds more like a psychopath. Even worked with a few who wear Prada.

pynchme:"this discussion hasn't been about ASKING for dates and things; it's been about people taking what they want to gratify themselves regardless of the wishes of the other."

And you constantly conflate the two.

Let me ask you again: why is always my responsibility, as a man, to ensure that you, as a woman with a presumably functional voice, arms and legs, are in agreement with our carrying out our mutual activity?

Why is the man always held responsible? Why does the woman bear no such responsibility?

As James said, it's all about maintaining woman in the position of "bestowing her gifts" and man in the position of begging for them. You see men as innately and predominantly sexual and you don't much like sex, do you? It's so...icky and someone has to sleep in the wetspot, don't they and men are so quick to fall asleep after, they never want to lie awake discussing how everyone feels about what they just did...

Here's a piece of news, dear - normal women enjoy sex. They participate in it willingly and joyously using parts of the body that are specific to the purpose. Normal women don't equate sex with anal rape. That you do is far more revealing of you than you'd care to admit, I suspect.

Given your deviant view of the subject, there's probably not much point in continuing it.

"Therefore, the notion that people obtain a clear YES rather than assume that they are entitled to touch someone else's body, is, apparently, how the majority of our society behaves."

Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 23 April 2009 9:34:49 PM

"However, this discussion hasn't been about ASKING for dates and things; it's been about people taking what they want to gratify themselves regardless of the wishes of the other."

Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 7:36:59 PM

Please make up your mind Pynchme.

So you have escalated from asking permission or at least trying to obtain a YES, to taking what one wants without regard to the wishes of the other.

A point of order. Is that the recent changes in the laws about consent, has nothing to do with reducing the level of sexual assault, but is more about increasing the numbers of successful prosecutions.

Just like changes to the way rape is defined, it has nothing to do with reducing the incidences, but was more of an attempt at increasing the levels of prosecution.

So what was once was possibly seen as bad behaviour, then becomes criminal behaviour.

'Just like changes to the way rape is defined, it has nothing to do with reducing the incidences, but was more of an attempt at increasing the levels of prosecution.'

I'd say it really has more to do with boosting rape figures by including every women who is pinched on the bum. It makes the stats look more 'impressive', so it looks like a bigger problem, so you can get more funding. Every organisation that wants government money for their cause does it.

Truth is always the first casualty in raising awareness.

JamesH,

Excellent summary of why the changes were made. It would be interesting to see if they had that effect.

Houellebecq: "I'd say it really has more to do with boosting rape figures by including every women who is pinched on the bum."

I do hope that was an intended pun. It made me laugh anyway.

Katie Roiphe p52 (1993), "73 percent of women categorized as rape victim did not define their experience as "rape"' It was Dr Mary Koss, the psychologist conducting the study, WHO DID!"

"these are not self proclaimed victims, then - these are victms according to someone else. From Koss's point of view, these women suffered a false consciousness."

"It is more about a change in sexual politics than a change in sexual behaviour."

Given the number women who jumped on this band wagon, it clearly demonstrates a hostility, if not outright antagonism towards men. Similar types of behaviour are demonstrated by the KKK, the white supremenists etc.

Researching the "Rape Culture" of Australia(America)
Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

Lets look at a time line of events.

1985, About the same time that Koss published her study, MacKinnon and others were stating things like "heterosexual women were unable to give valid consent, because of socialization."

"any time sex is not initiated by a woman, it is rape." etc etc.

Late 1980's, the legal definition of rape is changed. To such an extent that an attempt at seduction, could also be seen as an attempt of rape.

2000, men must now have a clear YES, from a sober woman who is unaffected by drugs.

More and more laws are being changed to reflect the ideas of MacKinnon, Dowkin and co.

James some things you say are quite interesting, but when you bring in the KKK like you did I see you as a male version of SJF.

James some things you say are quite interesting, but when you bring in the KKK like you did I see you as a male version of SJF.Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 4 May 2009

On further reflection, it is more about a mob mentality, of which the KKK is an extreme example.

Basically what happens is a certain group, in this case feminists seek to demonise another group, heterosexual men. Thus questionable research tactics are used in order to justify certain bahaviour on the part of feminists.

A more recent example is the global warming debate, and a tactic being used against those who are sceptical about it, is to accuse the sceptics of having a mental illness.

Women have the right to experience sexual pleasure,

Women have the right to say NO. No problem.

what is wrong with this picture?

Human behaviour is very rarely black and white.

Getting lonely James;-)

Hi James.

Koss study: Questions were based on Ohio law, including the question about whether or not respondents considered that they had been definitely raped (as State law defined it).

Can you state (without looking it up) what the legal definition in your state is of rape or sexual assault ? If someone penetrated your anus with a finger even though you didn't want them to, would that be rape or sexual assault, another or a non-chargeable offence ? If that had happened 30 and 40 years ago in, say, Queensland - would that have been considered rape or sexual assault ? If they used an object instead - would that be or have been considered rape or sexual assault?

Of those respondents who were unsure of whether what happened to them by legal definition - (sorry you'll have to check the figures) but something like 70 % of them struggled against the offender; something like a third suffered adverse emotional effects long after the event and some considered or attempted suicide. Also, the study was done in the 80s and many more people believed rape myths (eg: the woman just wants rough sex; so "No" isn't to be taken seriously) than do today.

Btw: Christina Hoff Summers obtains her income from working for very conservative, mostly private organizations, including some sort of conservative think tank. Her highest qualification is in philosophy (and maybe ethics); not sociology, psychology or social research. Koss is well respected in her field by people who are qualified to assess and critique the quality of her research. If you get a chance, look up her personal definition of rape of sexual assault (not based on any law) because that's the definition by which she judged Koss' study. Similarly Katie Roiphe is a thinking sort of person; but is a journalist by 'trade' - her major study is in literature. Both write for popularity and some pieces, kind of like pop psychology, appeal to some sectors of the non-academic public. They are opinion pieces only; unsupported by any sort of evidence.

James: <"Women have the right to say NO. No problem.">

How very generous of you.

How about, "Women have the right to say YES, just as any man does, and until someone hears "Yes", the answer is NO."

James: <"Mummh, that sounds more like a psychopath. Even worked with a few who wear Prada.">

That's right; not all women are nice people. That still doesn't give other people automatic access to their bodies.

Houellebecq: <"I'd say it really has more to do with boosting rape figures by including every women who is pinched on the bum.">

Oh? - and why should people put up with being groped ? Why do you attribute more 'rights' to the groper than the gropee ?

Why am I supposed to have less authority over my own body than someone who wants to cop a feel, or than you do over yours ?

Btw: Can you show any cases of prosecution for rape where the offence was "a pinch on the bum.

Hey pynchme, do you even listen to yourself...

'Oh? - and why should people put up with being groped ?'
They shouldn't. I never said that. Why did you assume that's what I think?

'Why do you attribute more 'rights' to the groper than the gropee ?'
See above

'Why am I supposed to have less authority over my own body than someone who wants to cop a feel, or than you do over yours ?'

Again. See above.

You've got the most massive chip on your shoulder dear. I've been pinched on the bum by strangers quite a few times. What I know is that it would pale into insignificance in comparrison with rape. But if you want more impressive 'rape' figures, just include pinching on the bum, redefine to 'sexual assault', use the two terms interchangabely, and whalla, it looks like every women has been raped at some stage in their lives.

'Can you show any cases of prosecution'
That's irrelevant to my point. I'm talking about the widespread use of sensationalist sound bites to 'raise awareness'. Most don't use prosecution statistics.

Pynchme, in regards to research, are you suggesting that the only people qualified to critic research are people of similar qualifications?

So a critic of sociological research, has to be another sociologist.

The much respected journal the Lancet, published a study of its published research articles in the journal. Mind you these articles are suppose to be rigourously peer reviewed.

The Lancet found that (if I recall correctly) up to 40% of published research papers contained errors, there was a smaller percentage where the errors were significant errors. (you will have to do your own search on this). It was about 1998 that it was published.

See Manufacturing Research and Perceptions are not facts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222440/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

There is a very significant piece of research that demonstrates that the respondents answers are not a reliable indication of the truth.

Researchers were stumped for a very long time as to why men claimed that they had a higher number of sex partners than what women claimed. Many hypothesises were made to explain the difference, how the truth was unmasked when the respondents were linked to what they were led to beleive was a lie detector.

http://www.angryharry.com/reWomenFakeSexNumbers.htm

Funnell feigning indignation, says to Antiseptic: “...I cannot tell you how deeply insulting it is to hear you asset that I am a liar. However, I would suggest that you do your research ...”

I’ve done a little research. Excerpted from Honi Soit:
“... Nina was dragged from a main road into a park, a blade held to her throat. She was pummelled, strangled and told point blank that she would be raped and murdered. “Not if I f#cking kill you first” she said, and fought back with the rage of a woman who knew what cowardice motivates rape. He fled. She survived. He hid.” http://www.src.usyd.edu.au/honisoit/pdfs/820.pdf

Funnell’s assailant had the strength to drag her from the road into a park, get her onto the ground and get on top of her. I have an image of her attacker sitting astride her, retracting the blade of his “box cutter” and putting it in the back pocket of his tracky dackies and proceeding to strangle her with one hand and pummelling her in the face with the other. Yet Funnell rises like a phoenix or like something far more ugly (http://www.alvarezwax.com/Latex%20Gallery/linda%20blair%20mask.htm ), spraying “Not if I f # c k i n g kill you first”. He fled like a villan in the keystone cops. She survived not having lost any teeth, no broken bones or nose, no need for stitches. He hid (but didn’t he flee?). But where are the forensic photos of her injuries? Must of healed before she reported the matter to the police.

Funnell defends her story by saying “But it is not possible to fabricate male DNA and blood.” No men at the “birthday celebrations” Funnell had left, pukeing “male DNA” or being just a little bit familiar? Just use one of those diabetes test kits on one of your male friends.

Roscop

I reported IMMEDIATELY to police. There are a stack of photos of the injuries in the police report. I have no iontention of these ever been made public; I should not have to make myself into a spectacle to convince people like you who I care nothing for, especially when there was other evidence such as the blood swabs and male DNA. Plus evidence at the scene.

PLus if you knew anything about the mentality of rapists you would know most are afraid of two things; confrontation and getting caught.

Most rapists work to a rape script or fantasy of how the event will play out. Overpowering a rapist is not about being phsyically stronger, its about acting outside of the rape script so they no longer feel in control of the situation.

In most cases, if you have been selected as a victim, it is precisely becasue the offender thinks that you are not the 'type' who will fight back.

And let me just say, that most victims dont have anywhere near the amount of evidence that I had (there is usually no physical violence) and no signs of struggle- no blood, no strangulation marks etc.

If you continue to doubt what happened to me when there is a bank of evidence, imagine what it is like for victims who want to come forward when there is no evidence.

Ms Funnell you say:

“There are stacks of photos of the injuries…I have no intention of these ever been made public; I should not have to make myself into a spectacle…”. Ha Ha Ha you’ve already succeeded in doing that by giving a story that is not cogent.

Your statement is consistent with the degree of believability I attribute to your alleged assault story – zilch. You obviously see little meaning in the saying: “A picture is worth a thousand words”. Like most fruitcake feminists, you want your audience to take you on your word. To me your story is indistinguishable from the myriad of anonymous anecdotes that saturate the propaganda literature that is churned out by rape and domestic violence industries. All of these anecdotes, if they were seeded from any truth, smack of being greatly embellished. They are all infused with the core beliefs of feminist dogma in which the message is far more important than the facts.

Roscop

Your posts amount to nothing more than deliberate harassment of a woman who has already been abused. I have recommended that you be suspended.

Houellebecq: Predictably, and despite attempts to divert attention, you and James are unable to describe the legal definition of rape or even of sexual assault. Your limited reading and knowledge of the topics under discussion is noted.

"Pinching on the bottom" is most often categorized in law (and if it is included at all in surveys) as indecent assault or as sexual harrassment. Including it makes the figures of occurance in the 80% and upwards range. However, if you have any doubts - always read the studies concerned to assess the deinitions used by the researchers.

Tell me though why it shouldn't be classified as sexual assault ?

- and please stop feigning concern for rape victims. The disparity beween empty utterances about concern for rape victims and your desperate pro-rape mentality makes me want to chunder. If you were concerned about rape, you'd be as concerned for the number of male victims, as follows (note how the findings are differentiated):

83.8% of females and 47.4% of males reported at least one unwanted sexual harassment style experience;
59.3% of females and 25% of males reported at least one unwanted sexual assault style experience;
35.5% of females and 15.4% of males reported at least one unwanted penetrative sex experience;
between 12.6% and 35.5% of women; and between 5.3% and 15.4% of men reported experiences when aged 16 or older which meet the legal definition of rape;

On reporting or seeking help:

40.2% of respondents who had had an unwanted experience told someone about the incident. Of those, 92.3% told a friend and only 6.4% told anyone else.

http://www.yarrowplace.sa.gov.au/booklet_statistics.html#1

James: No, not only researchers should have be entitled to express opinions on research. Various writers in the public domain and Journalists in particular might even have a duty to raise such discussions and questions. However, I believe they also have an ethical responsibility to present the results of the research in a complete or at least balanced and somewhat impartial fashion, or to make their biases clear.

When a writer's biases are obvious, a reader is alerted to the need to conduct an investigation of the research. It's naive to cling to an opinion piece as absolute truth without checking and considering the reseach or additional information. Such writers aim to appeal to fear of change and ignorance of the topic; to eploit people by telling them what they want to believe instead of what they need to, and are entitled to, know.

As to your research about women telling lies about their sexual experiences; (I don't have time just now to check it; but might later) if it's true then I think it's sad that women feel they need to. Why do you think women might feel that they can't speak truthfully about their sexual experiences ? Did the research ask about that ?

*Fractelle I am shocked too and support your action. Nina - I hope these cruel and stupid antics aren't having the intended effect. I wish I could say something to help; I just don't know what to say.

Fractelle,

Young Ms Funnell presents herself as a brave woman by coming out and talking about her alleged ordeal. Should we talk about Ms Funnell being brave we should think of her as not holding a candle to the woman who had her face blown off with a shotgun and received a face transplant and is undergoing many operations. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/810280/first-us-face-transplant-recipient-revealed ). This woman I refer to had the courage to show her hideously disfigured face to the whole world. Ms Funnell won’t even come at showing to participants in an online forum, a photo or two (out of the many she tells us exist), to give an indication of the severity of her facial injuries.

Pynchme, you assume a lot.

The legal definition of rape (without research) use to be anytime that a women was forced to have sex against her consent. Being unconscious was also included, because she/he was unable to give consent.

Now the legal definition is that it is rape, if the woman does not give a clear YES.

But still it comes down to he said, she said, unless somehow there are witnesses to her giving consent.

Like seven high court judges and the pope.

ninaf : "I should not have to make myself into a spectacle to convince people like you who I care nothing for"

So why mention the assault at all? Aren't you "making yourself into a spectacle" by doing so? You've made that experience a central part of your public persona, ISTM; does that make your credibility on the matter a valid subject of questioning?

This situation seems to me a perfect example of all that's wrong with the current efforts to conflate all sorts of other things with rape and attempted rape. I actually agree with your position largely, but the credibility of those claiming to be rape victime is terribly low, largely because there are seen to be so many people making so much money out of State-funded "victim support", while so few cases can be proven to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard applicable to the criminal law. The outrageous claims made by some such groups as to prevalence is another factor, I suspect.

The upshot of it all is that there is a certain cynicism engendered, which may well hinder those making genuine claims. While the reasons may be entirely valid, reluctance to support a claim is only going to bolster that cynicism.

BTW, why should anyone believe the account of someone who they "care nothing for"

Roscop, JamesH, Antiseptic.

Nina has already been through the court system having to repeat her ordeal over and over again. You doing nothing more than subjecting her to a retrial.

You are beyond contempt.

Nina was brutally raped, she has the right to present what she deems relevant and not put herself on display for your spurious entertainment.

There is nothing constructive being created here. Just another abused woman being abused on the web.

This is precisely why I didn't report my rape because I was not seriously injured, and I knew I would be subjected to the kind of harassment you are conducting here.

The majority of rape claims are genuine. Very few women put themselves through a false claim - because of all of the above.

Fractelle, do try to keep up. I'm actually supporting Nina's position and trying to explain why others may feel differently. Do you have the slightest bit of control over that jerking knee?

Fractelle:"Nina was brutally raped"

Even she doesn't claim that, dear. See, this is a perfect example of what I said above. The attempt is bad enough, but Nina's is a "good news" story, because she fought off her attacker. It's that damn twitching knee again, isn't it?

Fractelle:"The majority of rape claims are genuine."

Prove it.

Fractelle: "Your posts amount to nothing more than deliberate harassment of a woman who has already been abused. I have recommended that you be suspended."

Let Roscop's comments stand on their merits. I was personally horrified and repulsed by them, as I am sure others were as well. Getting them deleted won't stop Roscop stouting this crap, will probably just re-enforce whatever conspiracy delusion Roscop suffers from, and won't prevent him from posting them under a different nick at a latter time. But leaving them for all to see means we know what sort of person we are dealing with next time Roscop posts.

There are worse. Imagine you were in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, then have to deal with a Holocaust denier. But the solution is not try and shut these people up. Just as for Roscop, it doesn't work - they always find some other podium to thrown their vitriol from, and it just encourages them to do so. The best solution is to give them the spotlight they crave. That way everybody can see them for what they are.

Fractelle: "Roscop, JamesH, Antiseptic."

You include JamesH in that list? You are letting your emotions get the better of you, Fractelle. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he is a ogre, and JamesH has been an exemplar of reasoned and polite disagreement. As for Anti, Nina seems to treat his as a kindred spirit, a fellow soul injured in the war between the sexes perhaps? I think she will allow him a fair bit of rope without ever taking it personally.

ninaf, your courage amazes me.

This man attacked me but I am not afraid, SMH 2 July 2007
Eyes, Nose, Throat, Groin, Feminism, Honi Soit, Edition 19, 10/09/08

“…what possesses a man to grab a girl from behind, holding a box-cutter blade to her throat.”?

Well I would have thought if it was the attacker’s intention to rape his victim it would be for the purpose of threatening her life if she did not do exactly what he wanted her to do. I would imagine he would say something like:” Don’t scream! If you don’t do exactly as I say I will cut your f#!8ing head off with this.” Once in the park and whilst both still standing he would tell her to undress and continue to commit the offence with her life still under threat. The way I read things, from written and oral accounts, something rather different happened to Funnell.

We are told that the assailant knocked Funnell to the ground, straddled her and proceeded to pummel her in the face with one hand and strangle her with the other, in order to “subdue” her. He told her he was going to “rape and kill” her. We are not told exactly what the attacker’s first words were from the point when she was jumped from behind; when they were spoken; or when he abandoned the use of the “box-cutter”; and what as done with it once it was removed from her throat.

“I fought the man off by screaming and scratching. I can say without a doubt that the self-defence seminar I took in high school eight years ago helped me to escape without being raped.”

Here’s a version of the event in which Funnell says “I had been at Uni that day”. No mention of friend’s birthday celebration “drinks” she was coming home from”. Obviously she is wanting to avoid the TV presenters raising a question pertaining to alcohol consumption : http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-au&brand=optus&search=Nina%20Funnel

Sorry for not glossing over the details. Funnel no doubt expects her audience to do that and just pick up on the feminist messages embedded in her yarn.

Antiseptic: If that's your idea of defending someone best you stay away from a career as a defence lawyer or advocate. The story was told quite a while ago now and it seems reasonable that Fractelle wouldn't dwell on it. That's only incidental to the main issue here anyway - that is, that someone sees fit - even feels entitled - to harrass and continue abuse of someone who has experienced a crime.

James spoke once about a relative who was raped; Antiseptic has said he was falsely accused of DV for just raising his voice; Roscop himself said he was sexually assaulted by a female on an aeroplane. None of you quizzed each other about the veracity of the claims yu laid out in public and all you were given, by all posters, a respectful benefit of doubt.

One of the things that strikes me as very odd is the way that Roscop has been picking over the details of this story at again and again, since at least the Angry, frustrated and powerless thread back in January or so.

The logic: That a woman would put stranguation marks and whatever other injuries on herself then trot off to the police station to spend hours making statements and filing a report in order to charge ummmm - oh nobody specifically, with a crime. What's the motive ? The police verify the evidence - but that isn't enough to satisfy Roscop either.

Roscop - in all seriousness you sick fk I urge you to see someone professional about what is going on in your head before you harm someone.

Rstuart, I see your point and am thinking on it.

I would say the consumption of alcohol is that one of the main factors that make many women vulnerable to getting into bad situations eg rape situations and is also the primary cause of them making errors of judgement, like sending naked pictures of themselves or pictures of themselves engaging in pornographic acts, to others (referred to by Ms Funnell as "sexting"). We all know that most young women are two-pot-screamers…oh better make that one pot…though they do there best to make out they can hold their grog as well as the boys.

Where it suits her it seems Funnell likes to avoid talking about the consumption of alcohol eg when talking about her own alleged assault experience. The only reference to drinks of any sort, was where she said she had been at birthday celebration drinks and where she mentioned that in the time leading up to the assault on herself, she was drinking from a soft drink container. My guess is she added that bit so as to eliminate thinking that she might have been suffering from the effects of drinking when she was assaulted. In her “Don't patronise ladies who raunch” article she said “…many of my friends enjoy big nights out on the booze”, yet I have not come across anything in her yarns, which indicates what her own drinking habits are. On the Channel 9 Today program (link given in posting above) she merely said she had been to Uni that day. I have little doubt the police would have asked her about her consumption of alcohol on the day of the assault. On the Today program she indicates that she took umbrage at some of the questions the police asked her. She said some people asked what she was wearing and whether her attacker was middle eastern. You can see, from the very measured way in which she speaks that she likes to tell people only what she wants them to know and not give them the detail (eg time references etc) that will give them a fuller picture of the event/s.

Rstuart

I really appreciate your comments - and you are right - let Roscop be revealed for the creature he is.

I apologise for my inclusion of JamesH - yes he does maintain a degree of courtesy that others could emulate.

My reaction was that of many women who have been abused and unable to prove any of it. It feels like judgement is never-ending. We are blamed for how we look, behave, even for the location where we were assaulted. No other crime puts the victim through such a degree of evaluation.

What do you suggest I do? Remain silent? Or by commenting, encourage Roscop to further vile commentary by presenting the female point of view?

Pynchme, keep up the good fight. I tried and that is all we can do.

To those who have supported me here, I really appreciate it.

To those of you who do not agree with me, but who come here eager to play the ball, not the person, I respect and enjoy the engagement.

To those who simply want to demean and belittle others using insults but not arguments, well your words say more about you than they do about me.

Roscop- I have been asked by the moderators whether I want your offensive comments removed and I think it is important not to censor debate. I also think that if nothing else your comments are evidence that there is a need for more education in this area and that there is still work for feminists to do.

But let me say this. You have every right to question and challenge people's accounts of things. But you are coming dangerously close to saying that I made the whole thing up... and if you do ever allege this you are not simply calling me a liar. You are also claiming that I have falsified a police report which constitutes criminal fraud. Let me be very clear on this point and say that if you make this claim and you publish it in a public domain (like an OLO forum) then you are also committing the crime of defamation.

Let me also say the following. I'm 25 years old. At 23 I faught off one man who attempted to rape and strangle me. If that proves nothing else it shows the I do not tolerate pathetic cowards who attempt to intimidate and abuse others. So step the fk off.

ninaf:"the crime of defamation."

And for there to be defamation there would have to be a proven cost to you. For that cost to be proven, you would need to demonstrate firstly what its nature was and secondly that it had occurred. I don't think there's much chance of that, do you?

In all seriousness and I promise I'll respect your answer, I don't see your reasoning in drawing the line at producing some evidence of your claim, when you've been more than willing to discuss the subject publicly. What is to be gained by not shutting down the sceptics and cynics?

The fact that you have threatened legal action over defamation means that you must be prepared to prove that his claims are false in Court, so why not do so before-hand and prevent the need?

Anti

Since you asked nicely (and I sense genuinely) I'll answer your question. Firstly, when I first broke the story in the SMH, they had to do fact checking to verify that I wasn't simply making the story up. This involved speaking to the detective who interviewed me (detecitve Brianna Lee, Gladesville police). That really should have been the end of it. The reason I do not want to provide the photos is that, quite frankly, they really upset me.

The only way I can explain the emotions of it is like this. Imagine having a big night, falling asleep in your makeup, waking up the next morning, hair ruffled etc, and someone shoving a camera in your face, taking lots of photos and then publishing them online. Now take that scenario multiply it by the power of 1000, and you are getting close to how I feel about the photos of me on the night. They capture me in my most exposed, vulnerable, defenceless moment and that is not something I want anyone to see. You have to understand, that to other people, they may simply be evidence but to me, they are images which document me in the height of trauma and vulnerability. Obviously I am a fairly outspoken young woman, but in those moments when those photos were being taken, I was an absolutely shattered human being.

The other thing is that even if I did provide them, Roscop would probably just say they were photoshopped. I have never asked him to prove he was assaulted on the plane. I have never asked anyone for any evidence of their assaults. The fact that there is a police report with evidence and that reputable sources like the SMH do their homework before allowing anyone to publish those sort of claims should be enough. I shouldn't have to go through the trauma of releasing very personal, painful images to skeptics like Roscop who seems determined to abuse me no matter what.

Dear Roscop,

There are people out there who do not believe that the world is round.
There are also people who do not believe that the Holocaust occurred or that there has ever been a lunar landing.

The truth is, there will always be people who, despite a rather bewildering array of evidence to the contrary, choose to deny that something has occurred, weather or not they have any logical basis for that belief.

It is simply not up to Ms Funnell to add to an already horrifying experience by posting confronting images of her bruises, or other reminders of her experience, onto the internet, simply so that she can "prove" her story to an anonymous web poster who trawls on-line opinion so he can pick on those who actually have something constructive to say. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't matter to you and the other denialists even if she did - after all, there's always Photoshop, right? Perhaps even the government is assisting her in this "conspiracy" against you.

The usual practice is to accept the truth of what someone says about themselves unless there is some good reason to suspect otherwise. There is a good reason why we tend to presume innocence until there is evidence to support a finding of guilt.

My suspicion is that you, and others like you, have some sort of deep-seated psychological investment in disbelieving Ms Funnell's story and what it says about world. Perhaps this is something about which you should speak with a therapist.

Fractelle: "What do you suggest I do? Remain silent? Or by commenting,"

Either approach works.

Our Mufti was a great example of how a group of people saying "we disagree with what you are saying so badly we aren't going to listen to you any more" fixes things. I was disappointed to see this critisied as censorship, but clearly "I am not going to listen to you" is very different from "you are not allowed to say this in a public place". The Mufti is still free to say whatever he wants. It is just that no one cares what he says.

Equally, it is best if it is made plain the majority of people, regardless of gender, wildly disagree with Roscop's point of view.

The two approaches are very similar in some ways - they allow the community to arrive at a accepted viewpoint. My personal modus operandi when I see something absurd is to just ignore it, assuming everybody else will see it the same way. But is everyone did that no-one would express outrage at outrageous comments.

When is all a long way of saying I would not presume to tell you what to do, Fractelle. Whatever you do is probably good. It takes all types.

Did anyone watch the 20 years of Media watch?

I found it interesting, although I do not always agree with media watch, it does however expose how we are manipulated by the media. Popular stories relie heavily on sensationalism.

Does anyone remember the vision on the news of a little palestine boy hiding behind his father whilst bullets were fired allegedly from jewish rifles, vision was cut to black and the voice over said that the little boy had be shot by Israelie soldiers.

Highly emotive stuff, I felt enormous anger towards Israel.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that it was all staged, and the child had not be shot at all. I had developed a prejudice towards Israel as the aggressor, when in actual fact it is Palestine who are the aggressors (most of the time). The Palistine wins the PR war.

It was a war that was conducted by the media selectively broadcasting information and vision, so the media had biased my perception of Israel.

The media often plays us for fools. Playing with our biases and prejudices.

Some individuals can also do this very well.

Until the internet there was no way a person could check out the reliability of what the media choose to publish or broadcast.

Scepticism is healthy, it may not always be welcome.

The media can attempt to convince us that something is true, when it is not, and visa versa that something is false when it is true.

Doubleaa,

Comparing people who do not believe the world is round, the holocaust blah blah blah…with people who do not buy Ms Funnell’s story, is pathetic.

“The truth is, there will always be people who, despite a rather bewildering array of evidence to the contrary, choose to deny that something has occurred, weather or not they have any logical basis for that belief.” Sorry doubleaa but Ms Funnell has not presented people with a bewildering array of evidence. She has been very selective in what she says about the evidence, like doesn’t tell us anything about her alcoholic blood reading or how much alcohol had she had to drink that day?

The evidence that Ms Funnell says exists ie blood and male DNA, in isolation, does nothing to prove a crime was committed. There would be many women walking around in the community that carry an abundance of male sourced biological material. I remember a US gal. with the first name Monica, who was very proud of the fact her dress was stained with male DNA and therefore did not bother to get it dry cleaned.

Ninaf

I refer to what you say to Anti. You say a female policewoman was spoken to and that should have been the end of the matter in terms of convincing people what you were saying was the truth. Hasn’t feminist propaganda taken affect in the police force yet? Are not the police told by the feminist brigade that they should not use their own judgement with respect to such matters, instead they “should believe the victim”? The rest of the world is told that. You should know what’s in the feminist handbook, you’ve made enough comments taken straight out of it eg during your discussion with Karl Stefanovic and co… “this idea of blaming the victim”.

The SMH may have spoken to the police about their investigations but I don’t believe the police would disclose the strength of the evidence to the press especially when the case is still open.

JamesH: "Scepticism is healthy, it may not always be welcome."

Scepticism about the sentiments expressed in the article? Certainly. Absolutely even. The only issue we aren't discussing the article are we. Nina didn't mention the rape in the article, and so did not rely on it to make any points, nor did she bring it up in her posts until Antiseptic commented on it.

So what place does it have in a health discussion of the points made in the article? None that I can see. Instead, it seems to be a clear cut case of character assassination.

Roscop,

If you had understood my post, you would be clear on my argument that MsFunnell doesn't need to produce evidence to satisfy you. There was evidence in spades to satisfy those whose job it is to test the veracity of her claims.

I'll say this once more, in a short sentence with small words so that you understand: MsFunnell does not need to prove anything to you.

Also, I just want to make clear the fact that I was pointing out the ludicrous nature of your wild conspiracy theories. Were you not embarrassed to respond with yet more claims of women "walking around in the community that carry an abundance of male sourced biological material" just waiting to make a false claim of rape against....an unidentified suspect? Don't you think that your position is undermined when you make claims that this sort of thing is the norm?

You appear to like the numbers game, so I'll just ask you - are you really so unaware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of women who report rape are telling the truth, and that the overwhelming majority of rapes are not reported at all? The fact that you hinge your argument on what can only be called a statistical anomaly weakens your argument immensely.

Also, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what MsFunnell's BAC was. If you think that a person's BAC can somehow substitute for, or manufacture, consent, then you are a frightening individual who should be in jail. If, as a man, I had been out drinking (heavily) one night and was then, while I was staggering home, forced to the ground at knifepoint by a man who wanted to rape me up the ass and kill me, I would hope that issues of consent would not conflate with with my own sobriety, or lack thereof.

Finally, I find it sad that you can vilify Monica Lewinsky for not "destroying evidence" when a lack of "evidence" is precisely what you are now vilifying MsFunnell for.

Roscop:

I would like to enquire about certain points in your "argument". Some of my major concerns have already been addressed by doubleaa and so I will not repeat them here. You can be assured I wholeheartedly agree with his words.

I do, however, wish to ask for an elaboration about the third paragraph of your last post. As I read your comment, you claim that Ms. Lewinsky falsely accused President Clinton of sexual contact. Now I will fully admit that I might be misunderstanding your words, mainly due to their lacking a coherent thought. Assuming, though, that I understand you, I would love to hear an explanation of how your propose Ms. Lewinsky was able to gain physical access to one of the most protected people in the world, sexually arouse him, and bring him to ejaculation against his will, so she might later claim they engaged in sexual conduct... Perhaps the white house chief of staff, the first lady, the secret service and the senate were all involved in a massive impeachment conspiracy plan that was aborted at the last minute. Yes, that makes much more sense. It's all clear to me now... I bet Ms. Funnell was involved as well.

Although your input is lacklustre at it's best, thank you for it, Roscop. It reminds me that we should always consider every side to every argument, but not every person who opens his/her mouth.

Take care, and be sure to lock your doors so no one can break in and steal your semen while you sleep.

-mcd

Charmayne has indeed been around: “…who’s educating these young boys…there are girls who like this type of thing…if they are going to sleep with a couple of their mates...they are delusional…The girls are um…like…into alcohol a lot earlier…they are naïve…I probably didn’t drink a lot at all...it hit me quite badly…I couldn’t stand up properly..”

On the ABC TV 4 Corner’s program put to air last night there was an interview with Charmayne, who discusses, inter alia, “sexting”. I would say for the most part this woman really speaks the truth. Interesting though is what these women get up to when they are away from their partners and children. It was a pity 4 Corner’s was not able to show CCTV footage of the party of four leaving the Sapphire nightclub in Sydney or of them arriving at the hotel where they were staying.

Looking closely at Charmayne’s demeanour it would seem she doesn’t realise that she was raped...probably had her drinks spiked too. Maybe a vicarious trauma sufferer at the NSW Rape Crisis Centre should ring Charmayne and induce some trauma into her and explain the financial benefits that can result from being a traumatised rape victim. They could point out what the NZ lass is now receiving. A single mum can always do with a bit of extra cash.

It is good to see the lads are wising up to the possibility of the girls crying “rape” and videos are being used. “…they are getting savvy...they are getting smart”.

Interview with Charmayne : http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/20090511_footy/090511_palavi_hi.asx

Nina, thank you for your honest and forthright explanation in response to my question. If there was a bit more such willingness to engage honestly on OLO and elsewhere, rather than the usual suspects' refusal to even contemplate questions asked of them, there'd be much less conflict, I suspect.

While I understand your position, I think, I don't completely accept it, for a couple of reasons.

The first is that you have made your assault a specific and central part of your public "image" for want of a better word. You've discussed it widely, here and elsewhere, and I suspect you've gained some prestige in some circles because of that outspokenness. By doing so, you've made your personal experience into a public matter and public matters are legitimate subjects for questioning and skepticism.

The second is that you want the message to be spread that if attacked, women should fight back, as you did. Your authority is based on your experience, which means that, if the experience didn't exist or was not as claimed, you have less claim to that authority. OTOH, if you can say to people "look, this is what happened to me, but I still came out on top", surely your authority on the subject can only be enhanced?

Just some food for thought.

ninaf:"The other thing is that even if I did provide them, Roscop would probably just say they were photoshopped."

I don't agree with this justification at all. We live in a world in which images are manipulated routinely and most such manipulations are easily uncovered. If he was to make such a claim it would be easily debunked.

More importantly, you're a journalist. Would you accept a politician or public servant or a corporation or an individual in the news refusing to release images of a significant event that they claim backs their position simply because the Opposition would be likely to say they were dodgy? I'd be very surprised if you would.

Nonetheless, it's your decision to make. I suspect that the questions won't go away.

Roscop raises some excellent well thought out issues.
Now I’m sure he won’t mind providing your birth certificate, will you Roscop? You know, to prove you didn’t crawl out from under a rock.

Spiked Online has a rather interesting article on Rape Surveys,

"This story has an Alice-in-Wonderland feel: it gets everything upside down. Far from rape being hushed up, there is actually far too much awareness-raising about the subject - of which this survey is a prime example. Rape is a very serious crime, but today it is also becoming a moral crusade"
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/520/

it goes onto say-

" Ruth Hall, from Women Against Rape, was quoted as saying that the court system ‘[blames] the woman for what happened to her and [holds] her accountable’ (3). In fact, if anything the opposite is true."

Anti

I accept your criticisms though we may have to agree to disagree on this point. If a politian was raped or sexually assaulted I don't think anyone would expect him or her to provide photos taken on the night or pap smear results etc. It is a highly personal and traumatising experience and there has to be a level of respect for the victims already violated sense of privacy. I also think that blood and male DNA is the most compelling evidence that I can offer.

You are right that my position would be strengthened if I made all the evidence publically availiable, but I have to consider the cost to myself. I find the photos extraordinarily upsetting and do not feel comfortable even thinking about them, let alone sharing them with others.

As I said we may have to agree to disagree... though as always, I appreciate debate.

Charmyne Palavi is the 36(?) year old mother of three children who appeared on 4 Corners last night and who I referred to in my last post. Charmyne is a big-time sexting recipient and an archetypal rape victim and drink spiking victim to boot. She is a role model for all young girls in Australia. In footy circles, NRL is lucky to have role models from both genders.

Those of you who watched 4 Corners last night might remember she gave a reason for not reporting the rape that had been perpetrated on herself. The reason was she was worried about what her partner (of 10 years) might say and that she might lose him.

I include a few links to photos of Charmyne in action.

photo 1. Charmyne at birthday celebration drinks. This is the woman who doesn’t drink very much (so she says on national TV). Charmyne uses cold tinnies to keep her hands cool.

Photo 2. Charmyne acquiring some male DNA. Notice she has a glass of soft drink in her right hand. She probably enjoys the same type of soft drink as Nina Funnell. It looks like Coke but no doubt one of the many naughty NRL boys has spiked it with a bit of rum.

Photo 3. Charmyne putting on her “NO” pose outside her hotel room. Remember boys…before you come in …“NO” means “NO”.

Photo 4. Charmyne in the hotel room she booked for herself and her girlfriendssssss, just before getting into her PJ’s and her girlfriendssss get “busy”.

Photo 5. Charmyne at the bar frolicking with those girlfriendssss who like to be kept “busy”

Photo 6. The photo which stuck-up Professor Catherine Lumby uses in her Powerpoint presentations when lecturing footy players on respecting women.

Photo 1 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6389020,00.jpg

Photo 2 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6388658,00.jpg

Photo 3 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6389021,00.jpg

Photo 4 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6388687,00.jpg

Photo 5 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6426222,00.jpg

Photo 6 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6388683,00.jpg

For those who are interested to learn more about Charmyne and sexting, some additional reading:

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/facebook-and-sexting-now-part-of-the-problem/2009/05/11/1241893923077.html

http://the-riotact.com/?p=12030

Roscop

I seriously don't know what your issue is. Anti often disagrees with me on things but the reason why I engage with Anti, is that Anti has genuine intentions of using arguments as opposed to baseless insults.

Also say what you want about me. But I will not stand by and let you call people like Catharine Lumby (and at least spell her name correctly you tool... it's Catharine with an 'A', not an 'E') horrible things. Catharine Lumby is anything but stuck up. Nor does she lecture footy players. She works along side them and often gives them and the process a lot more time and effort than I think they deserve.

I should disclose that I have a working relationship with Professor Lumby (hence part of my reason to defend her). But she is a much better human being than you (or me for that matter) and I think that you are a weak, insipid, sad, pathetic human being to make the sort of baseless claims that you make. Seriously, look at yourself in the mirror.

I haven't wanted to provide oxygen for the trolling here, but sometimes a troll manages to go above and beyond. I'd just make the point that we're giving him the attention that evidently, he craves.

I imagine making such a kerfuffle pleases you somewhat, roscop.

But, at the end of the day, you've only got your own bitter experiences to contemplate. That's your business and how you choose to live your life. I don't envy you.

I imagine you view this as enlightening the masses about a supposed feminist conspiracy.
It must be rather sad living in a world crowded with such suspicion and hatred.

Somehow, other people manage to get by without developing such a hatred for feminists. Some men actually get along quite well with them and no, it's not because they're any kind of lapdog as I suspect you imagine.

Perhaps you can learn something from them.

Then again, perhaps you can't.

TRTL, doubleaa and others:

<"My suspicion is that you, and others like you, have some sort of deep-seated psychological investment in disbelieving Ms Funnell's story and what it says about world. Perhaps this is something about which you should speak with a therapist.">

I agree most strongly with this suggestion. Roscop demonstrates a bizarre obsession with Nina's case in particular and with woman-hating in general. I strongly suspect that the demand for pics of injuries is for the purpose of personal titillation. I am very concerned that, to even type the things out that we're reading, this person harbours some real pathology.

Antiseptic: "I suspect the questions won't go away." Questions from the likes of Roscop and you, perhaps. However, I suspect that normal people would accept that the police have determined that a crime was committed.

Calls for visual confirmation, which I suspect neither you nor Roscop would accept anyway, are absurd. To compare: I see in the news today that a footballer was assaulted in some place in Queensland. I wonder if one should expect to see you and Roscop calling for visual confirmation before believing that he was assaulted.

Anti,

I am told that you are a good person to engage with in debate. I’d go along with that proposition. It would be good to engage with someone who is rational rather than engage with a woman who alleges a “very solid” person “pummeled” her in the face and strangled her and when you challenge her to produce forensic photos it gets to a point where she starts taking about the reasonableness of a request to produce a “pap-smear”. What would be the caliber of a person, as an academic, who engages in debates like that?

BTW. here is a link to a photo of a POLITICIAN who has been assaulted: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/11/25/eighties260.jpg. There can be little about the attack on that politician in terms of whether an attack actually took place. He suffered a compressed fracture of the cheekbone, a broken nose, a broken upper jaw and had a number of teeth knocked out.

Turning to something else, I’d like to get you views on this passage:

“You might expect Nina’s first advice to be not to walk home alone, but she says according to the statistics she should be advising you not to go home at all (because that’s where the more common, familiar sexual assault takes place).”

Since we have gotten around to talking about insults, what do you think of that quoted in terms of it being an insult to all the men in Australia who are good to their partners and love them. Do you think that there is a deliberate implied stereotyping of all men, irrespective of their character?

On a scale of insults where would you put what is quoted, which I view as grossly insulting to a good many millions of good decent men both living and dead (many making the ultimate sacrifice for the country), in relation to someone describing another person as “stuck-up”.

Roscop: "The photo which stuck-up Professor Catherine Lumby"

I got to see the good professor on tele this morning. The adjectives I would use to describe her after seeing that 20 second interview would be "down to earth", "constructive", and "practical". I can see why the NFL is using her as an advisor.

That aside, you are venting at the wrong people. Your target should be the media. Most of these cases would amount to nothing - indeed did amount to nothing in the eyes of the law, but regardless they made a great news story. And there are some girls out there who like the publicity. Really. "Girl gets drunk and naked with football team, then has sex with consensual sex with 2 and non-consensual sex with 3" should be right up there with "man hits thumb with hammer after driving home 100 nails". If it didn't involve scantily clad women and sex, it would not be on the news.

The sad aspect of this is media works themselves into a frenzy over this minor incident, then when footballer glasses girlfriend in the eye and isn't charged what can they do? Certainly not work themselves into a bigger frenzy as that ain't possible. The concentration on the frivolous cheapens their outrage at the serious incidents.

ninaf: "It is a highly personal and traumatising experience and there has to be a level of respect for the victims already violated sense of privacy"

Oh, certainly. I do think, however, that going public with the matter in the way you did tends to undermine this argument in your specific situation.

ninaf: "I find the photos extraordinarily upsetting and do not feel comfortable even thinking about them, let alone sharing them with others."

I do grasp this point, but what I'm interested in why the photos are so upsetting when the recollection of the event itself is obviously something you have dealt with quite successfully? It does seem that you find the images more of a personal concern than the actual events behind them, which I find interesting and from my own personal viewpoint quite strange.

rstuart:"what place does it have in a health discussion of the points made in the article"

The relevance is that Nina has made sexual behaviour a central part of her interests and she has said that her own experience of assault has had a profound influemce on that. She uses that interest and the connections she has made to reinforce her authority ("As someone who works with sexual assault victims"), so her credibility is an issue. The volume of discussion seems to indicate some people find it a worthwhile digression, don't you think?

TRTL: "I imagine you view this as enlightening the masses about a supposed feminist conspiracy."

What "conspiracy"? He alleged that Nina gilded the lily, but I can't recall any allegation of collusion in doing so. The whole conspiracy business was an invention of Nina's 3 new friends, "doubleaa", "mcd" and "jl". You never used to get so easily side-tracked.

ninaf: "the reason why I engage with Anti, is that Anti has genuine intentions of using arguments"

Thanks, Nina. I do try and I'm glad you're able to do the same. I sometimes play rough, but I do try to play fair.

SJF and Pynchme have implied that I lack empathy.

I watched the 4 corners program, I couldn't help but feel sorry for some of the women who had the misfortune to cross paths with these football players and I felt angry that the players responsible escaped penalty.

Whilst 4 corners is usually of a higher standard than other commercial programs, the ABC and 4 corners are not above playing with a little bit of sophistry and 4 corners did have its knuckles rapped over another program for misrepresentation.

Something is severely wrong if these boof heads who were more than likely raised by feminist mothers, are behaving in such a manner

Antiseptic: "The relevance is that Nina has made sexual behaviour a central part of her interests and she has said that her own experience of assault has had a profound influemce on that."

What motivates her is beside the point. You are playing the person, not the issues she raises.

Its odd actually. Her story is black and white. As she tells it, there is no doubt she clearly said no, and there no doubt that her assailant would have known that. It can not be used to support her argument that the male must repeatedly and explicitly ask for permission at every step, and at every step receive a clear yes. Such rules would do nothing to prevent what happened to her. Perhaps that is what she doesn't use it. But nonetheless, several here feel the need accuse her of lying. Yet even if she is lying there is no victim, as no one was prosecuted(?) So why does it matter if she is? I honestly don't get it. To me the attempt to manipulate the statistics to make out Australian is a land stocked with rapists is a far worse crime.

rstuart: "You are playing the person, not the issues she raises."

No, I was challenging the source of her self-proclaimed authority, when she said "As someone who works with sexual assault victims", which, as we found out later wasn't strictly an accurate description. That lead on to the discussion of her association with the NSWRCC and so on. It has finally come to here: that's how discussions work.

rstuart: "So why does it matter if she is?"

Because she has made it a public part of her life and she is trying to become a public figure, if she is not already. If a public figure tells a self-aggrandising lie it doesn't matter a great deal in and of itself; lots of people do that sort of thing. However, if proven untrue, it would raise integrity issues. I'm sure Nina is well aware of all that and she's had her say on the matter, which is fair enough.

I do agree with your point in respect of the inflated rape statistics. It comes down to vested interests wanting money. The money seems to be running out a bit, though...

Why do I say Prof(sic) Catharine Lumby is “stuck-up”? Just heard the woman on radio saying there are Not two classes of women in society. This has to be the classes of women…just google “Trinity” and “Bukake”. Wow what a class of women us men are blessed with. Ms Lumby says men should show a “basic” level of respect to all women. Well…I guess the upper threshold for that has to be extremely low.

Ms Lumby says on radio that the Matthew Johns matter should be a wake-up call to men men men men…. Catharine Lumby talks through her pompous feminist hat.

We all know that western societies (with the US at the epicentre) have been in a state of moral decay since the 70’s. Catharine Lumby’s understudy, Nina Funnell, alludes to this moral decay in her article “Don't patronise ladies who raunch” I observe young female students (ladettes) nearly every day in the community wearing provocative clothing in the presence of male students. The tightness of their “body revealing jeans” would present a nightmare for any lone rapist operating in the Weil Park, Hunters Hill area…he would be completely freaked out…the “stock standard” fantasy all rapists harbour (it is all about power) would be shot completely. I understand police took from Nina Funnell, besides other items of clothing, a pair of jeans and a belt, as evidence of the sexual attack on her.

Just really came back to reject pynchme's assertion of my 'desperate pro-rape mentality', even though it will go in one ear and out the other.

I note that this kind of 'abuse' passes muster with your general feminist OLO poster. It's only those nasty men silencing women on OLO isn't it ginxy. Roscop is way over the line IMHO (in fact if I was nina I'd be looking into restraining orders, that research was creepy man!) but I had to laugh when a certain poster who calls men a 'sensitive little bunch of flowers' is p'd off because someone called her 'difficult' when she decided her only child 'play by my rules' should always prevail.

James,

Liked your link.

'They are being treated like feeble creatures, who have to be chaperoned and asked for their consent. What happened to the idea that women know their own minds, and can say ‘no’ if they don’t want it?'

Antiseptic,

I understand your line about nina, but it really is a tad insensitive and distasteful. I do remember a girl at uni who claimed she was raped, but thought it gave her some kind of gender studies street cred. She seemed almost excited about it. Really weird.

'I do agree with your point in respect of the inflated rape statistics. It comes down to vested interests wanting money. '

Watch out, I think we have another pro-rape mentality here pynchme.

Houellebecq, I nolonger feel lonely, but I do wish the others would just bugger off, so I keep my own journal going. (just kidding)

"All this has a poisonous effect on personal relations. British sex life has a pretty dowdy reputation as it is, without a ban on sex while drunk. The distinction between bad sex and rape is being blurred - with sex that was reluctant or just regretted being increasingly defined as rape. This confuses the situation, and does nothing to help the plight of real rape victims."

There is an aspect of female bullying that involves telling bad or false stories, now this could involve adding exaggerations or embelishments.

In the book Lipstick Feminism there is line that I think is really worthwhile.

It is about a woman introducing her man to her friends (they know more about our sex life than you do.)

a short postscript; it occurred to me today that there is a certain irony in this thread. While my article was not actually about my experience of assault, it was about the distribution of sensitive photos.

It interests me that an article which discusses the disastrous and unintended consequences of disseminating photos of oneself could ignite a demand for me to release personal photos which could indeed prove emotionally and psychologically disastrous for me.

It also interests me that those who think that rape counsellors are over funded could also push for a release of photos, which could very well (depending on how those photos are discussed) re-traumatise me causing me to require further couselling.

Anti asked me (a fair enough question) of how can I discuss the matter with ease (and without being traumatised by the process) and not be comfortable releasing photos.

The only truthful answer I can give is this;
I have discussed 'the assault' adnauseum to the media, my family, my boyfriend and those around me. This has led to a desensitising and when I speak about it I am emotionally detached. Similarly the park where it happened (up the road from my house) is a place I have to go past every day and while this upset me and 're-triggered' me at first, revisiting it has also led to a desensitising effect. As has been mentioned before, I was listening to my Mp3 player at the time. I have heard the song that was playing many times since. Initially this really upset me (as did the smell of cut grass due to its association with the assault) though with enough exposure these things no longer trouble me to the same extent.

The photos, however, I have only viewed once. Perhaps in time i will desensitise my self to them by sitting with them long enough that they no longer have any hold on me or my emotions. But that day has not yet come. Perhaps in time it will, and maybe then, when I feel less emotionally invested in them, I will release them.

Hello again,

Anti:

I think the word "conspiracy" has been taken out of context and/or used in the liberal "conspiracy by one" sense. I also think I speak for all whom you have listed alongside me when I say that we are referring to Roscop's notion that women may be walking around with "biological material" to use in fictional crime reporting. I also refer you to my original post, in which I question my understanding of Roscop's paragraph.

Perhaps my words were too aggressive to appear true, but I honestly did not follow Roscop's argument: First he seemed to claim that the presence of a person's DNA is not enough to implement him or her in a crime. He then seemed to say that it is, and that women use this to press unfounded rape charges. Finally he brought up the case of Ms. Lewinsky, who (1) never openly wished to implement President Clinton and (2) actually did engage in sexual relations with him, so did not plant evidence falsely.

Perhaps this would be a good time for us all to take a step back from the argument and allow Roscop to clearly and succinctly phrase his stance.

Roscop: We know that you think at least some women lie about their role in some of these situations. Do you, in fact, believe that people (men and women alike) go and seek "victims" for these allegations? Do you think they actually carry "biological material" for this purpose? Do you think that women "ask for it"? (A term I hate, but for lack of a better one...) Do you think that there is actually no rape at all? Finally, why is it that you question Nina's story, given that she is a somewhat public figure and has probably been under more scrutiny than most victims of such crimes?

-mcd

ello, ello, ello.....now what have we here..emmm?

It will take just a tad longer to read every post, but I look forward to some vigorous discussion. It seems to me that Ms Funnell as the article writer has done her best to respond to you nice gentlemen.

Someone of you haven't been very kind...have you? That's not nice.

I tell you what robcrap;-it would be really nice if you could answer mcd's queries, then I will have a better idea of the situation when we have a little chat.

Looking forward to your responses rob,....or can I just call you crap?

AND,...and:- given the considerable leeway you you have been allowed crap;-I know that I can be as frank as you have been, and get away with it!

Isn't that great? What fun!

Yes! Does it mean Yes?

I think it was Pychme who said something like without a Yes it is rape. However as Andrew Bolt points out, a Yes is no protection.

"Hear it from Lumby herself, in an interview she gave in 2004, when the NRL first took her on as its gender adviser.

ABC reporter: There have been stories of a culture of group sex in rugby league. What do you think of group sex? Do you think it's OK if it's consensual?

Lumby: Speaking as an academic, I think that there's no problem with any behaviour which is consensual in sexual terms.

That was Lumby's doctrine - what adults did to each other even in the most crowded of beds was fine as long as all agreed to it."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25483701-5000117,00.html

Hoellebecq:"it really is a tad insensitive and distasteful."

Nina is a journalist by profession and I think her responses indicate that she feels my line of enquiry is reasonable, if confronting.

Nina, I've said all I intend to on the subject of the photos. You are the only one who can take the decision to release them. My only advice is that if you wish to be a public person (and all the indications are that you do), then you are going to have to face up to the issue at some stage, I suspect. As a journalist you know that any unexplained inconsistencies are going to be jumped on sooner or later.

What I find more interesting is that despite there having been a police report made, people remain skeptical. My suspicion is that is because the "Duluth model", which informs police policy, mandates uncritical acceptance of those claiming to be victims of DV and sexual assault and in the case of DV specifically, automatic assumption of "male as assailant". It does not change the burden of proof for prosecution, however.

Perhaps you might raise this at the next meeting of the NSWRCC Management Committee?

mcd:"Roscop's notion that women may be walking around with "biological material" to use in fictional crime reporting"

I didn't take that away at all. I thought his point was that male DNA is freely given away in the form of saliva, hair, skin flakes, sweat and so on if people are mixing in a group, such as a party, which is where Nina had been. At the current state of the art, DNA evidence is nearly always exonerative: it is not useful for proving a crime occurred (although semen or blood where it doesn't belong may well be), but once a possible perpetrator has been found, it may be useful in exonerating them if their DNA does not match that found at the scene. Have a look at this for a very good overview:

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_dna.htm

James, there is a thread specifically addressing the Matthew Johns incident.

1)

Ninaf, your experience and coping with it are admirable. Your responses here, given the nature of some comments and accusations have been nothing short of miraculous!!

To my certain knowledge, the police never at any time suggested that your allegation was spurious or false. Yet you are called on to 'prove it'.

I have little interest in the copiously stated views of the 'gentlemen' on this thread in their response to your experience, rather than the general subject of sexting, other than to say it was contemptible.

I am ....less than impressed..!! with the fact that you were placed in the position of having to prove that you were ever attacked at all!
But certainly in one particular case that was as predictable as tomorrow!

Interestingly when one maggot went a bridge too far these nice gentlemen developed some moral standards and distanced themselves from 'it', with of course the usual exception..

I can't imagine why? It appears there are DEGREES of disparaging and diminishing the trauma that another has experienced...How sweet to have some standards...

Still:-I have to say I am perhaps using the same methodology, because I'm interesting in chatting with only one poster on this thread. Just one.

You (of course!), needed to provide evidence for the judge and jury here. Something as elementary as being retraumatised by viewing yourself again as a damaged human-being, completely escaped them! Astonishing!!

Your 'failure' to do that meant that you had something to hide. Yea God's!

It was so damn good to see that the lynch mob mentality was not universal.

There is indeed another similar thread. If that thread had been put up before this one, you might have thought twice about relating your experience. It is the finest example of cutting the suit to fit the cloth!

Cont'd..

Ginx:"the police never at any time suggested that your allegation was spurious or false."

The point is that the police NEVER say a claim is spurious or false. If they had a policy of doing so there'd be fewer false claims. It's a cornerstone of the policing model they use that any woman alleging sexual or violence crimes is treated as though she is telling the truth. I'm not suggesting they do otherwise, just that the police response is of no use in evaluating the claim.

Now ANTI

lets be a bit clear on the police reporting issue. The police DO have a responsibility to take all claims seriously (including, for that matter, your own claim that a woman has falsified evidence against you).

However, this does not mean that the police actually act on all reports. They have what is known as a NOD or a 'No offence detected'.

I do understand that on occasion people may falsify claims against a person for revenge reasons. Given that in my own case I was not alleging that anyone in particular had assaulted me, it seems curious to accuse me on these grounds. More to the point, my case was not labeled a NOD as there was clear evidence of an offence (again, blood, male DNA, signs of a struggle, personal injury).

I also think its worth pointing out (again) that the overwhelming majority of rapes go unreported (under reporting, not falsified reporting is the biggest issue). Also that most rapes have no evidence to speak of.

But this does beg a bigger question. Perhaps it is the police reporting system which is at fault if illegitimate victims are able to make false reports, while the majority of real victims feel completely unable to report due to police culture (in part). Maybe it is the reporting system that needs a review.

My own experience was very unpleasant. I had to speak to a number of untrained 'front liners' who made commetns like "the problem with young women these days is they don';t understand the trouble they get themselves into". These sort of comments would not upset illegitimate victims as they are not already traumatised. Legit victims though find these sort of comments very hurtful as they shift the onus of responsibility off perps and onto vics, and they tie into a victims pre-existing sense of shame.

Just a thought

Anti:
Of course in many social circumstances any person will "collect" other's DNA on their person. It's the sentences which follows this one in Roscop's comment which seems to me to imply that he thinks women collect DNA to use in court.

We have yet to see Roscop's response to my last comment, but in the meanwhile have a question for you: In a recent post you wrote to Ms. Funnel, "My only advice is that if you wish to be a public person... then you are going to have to face up to the issue at some stage, I suspect. As a journalist you know that any unexplained inconsistencies are going to be jumped on sooner or later."

Now I agree with the second sentence entirely. However, I fail to see any inconsistencies in Ms. Funnell's story at all. In my opinion, she has fully faced up to the issue and she's done so quite comprehensively. She has acknowledged the existence of the evidence and has explained why she doesn't wish to share it. She has also mentioned that fact checking and investigative work has been done - both by police and by the SMH. Given the ease with which someone can doctor photos and even inflict injury upon themselves for the sake of taking picture, it seems to me that anyone who requests she share these photos is doing so for entirely different, and frightening reasons.

Now I do not know if Ms. Funnel has mentioned this already, but I imagine this would be going through her mind as well. Why does anyone care so much about seeing graphic pictures which would prove nothing on their own when police and reporters already agree? Personally, if I had gone through the ordeal, I know that I would be more than wary of such requests. (And this would be even truer when the person making the request is someone who has expressed the opinions of Roscop.)

Roscop: If you haven't yet, read my last post - my invitation stands

James: That was a really interesting link. The writer raises some great issues, but unfortunately targets Ms. Lumby and in that diversion discredits the piece.

There are two main concepts here that struggle to coincide: one is the freedom of individuals within a society to choose their own moral path. The other is a community need to identify some shared values and morals. As the writer more or less points out, the community is trying to reconcile a desire for individual choice (what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own room nobody ele's biz) with a set of agreed values and morals and the more formal version of that - the law.

Now Ms. Lumby seems to me to wisely refrain from tryng to dictate private morals; but she encourages mutual respect in all encounters. It isn't within her province or that of the NRL to mke law, or even to make people behave any other way than as thy choose. All that she can do is provide information and insights.

Matthew Johns might not have had access to those courses; I don't know. However, he isn't in strife with the law for rape; the community is expressing disgust for his callous indifference and also the apparent lack of family values. I suppose the reaction is magnified by the flow of reports over the past few years years about football players doing all sorts of anti-comunity things and getting away with it.

The game has an image problem and the people who make money off the players; including Channel 9; are tossing him aside not because of any law, or because of Ms. Lumby, but because they are worried about their appeal to families; the community and their sponsors

*Apologies to all about errors - my keyboard isn't registering every key press.

Roscop: Jeans seem to worry you; hope you don't frequent Bondi. The search terms that you recommend indicate that you're watching too much porn. Goodness me what a dilemma for you - desiring so much that which you despise. Your inner turmoil must be overwhelming.

So, what about males who are raped by other males? What should they do to avoid being too attractive to rapists?

Do you think both females and males should be wearing Burkhas?

Ginx: We haven't met but thank goodness for your levity)

Fractelle: Thanks for the ^5 - you keep up the good fight too.

mcd: Your posts are very thought provoking. Agree.

Houellebecq: I'm convinced that neither you nor James nor Antiseptic have the least knowledge of sexual assault or what the aftermath entails. That's why I bother to be here; but I often wonder what it would take for you 3 and assorted others to allow knowledge to sink in. As long as you refuse to even accept figures provided by police and by surveys as noted by the Australian Institute of Criminology and other reputable sources, you will continue to demonstrate a pro-rape mentality by automatically discounting victims' experiences.

Pynchme: “As long as you refuse to even accept figures provided by police and by surveys as noted by the Australian Institute of Criminology and other reputable sources,…”

By referring Houellebecq to reputable sources are you telling him that those sources provide comprehensive data in respect to sexual assault and rape crimes? If so, do those sources include meaningful data on the crime of “bearing false witness”? A crime which I had hitherto understood was neither tracked nor punished.

ninaf:"my case was not labeled a NOD as there was clear evidence of an offence "

Fair enough.

ninaf:"under reporting, not falsified reporting is the biggest issue"

Now this is where we diverge, because there may be many reasons for not reporting an incident that could be classed an "assault" under the very broad set of definitions that are used today. In addition, a false report has a victim; the person falsely accused. It may be done to obtain an advantage. An unreported incident may not even have someone who perceives him/herself as a victim, especially if it's something like unwanted sex in the context of a relationship, for example. I doubt that many experiences such as your own go unreported.

ninaf:"your own claim that a woman has falsified evidence against you"

I've never claimed that. My complaint is that she made no allegation whatever about my behaviour that was more "violent" than a mutual loud argument. I acknowledge my voice is loud - 25 years working in noisy environments either kills a voice or makes it strong... The police acknowledged that there was no violence or threat of violence made, yet proceeded to issue an interim DVO, then sought for it to be made official in Court, all in the middle of her seeking to get full custody of our children. Of course, all the police personnel were women, except the couple of burly men standing in the corridor to keep all the "violent" men in line as they sat waiting their turn at the rack. I'm very skeptical indeed of any claim that relies on Police integrity for verification.

mcd:"I fail to see any inconsistencies in Ms. Funnell's story at all"

I don't doubt she was attacked, but there are indeed inconsistencies in the story. They may never be resolved, which is not unusual.

Pynchme:"that diversion discredits the piece."

LOL That "diversion" WAS the piece, you twit.

Pynchme:"what about males who are raped by other males"

Do you routinely enjoy anal sex? Have you ever once actually enjoyed sex at all?

2)

(Boy!! That post count thing!)

15/5:
It is perhaps opportune that the maggot had not been allowed to return to spew his vitriol. Something Nina that you should have agreed to. The endeavour to 'be fair' cut straight across the request of another poster. She was left out on a limb by your allowing this creature to continue. She has currently withdrawn.

What price feminism and the 'sisterhood' there?
He stayed. She went. A decent human being v a an odious slime ball.

16/5:
septic: I'm not interested in monkeys, I'm after the organ grinder.

(You were given some small compliment by NF, you used it to further condescend and disparage her. As I said,-the usual. I've nothing further to say to you).

crap: "....If so, do those sources include meaningful data on the crime of “bearing false witness”? A crime which I had hitherto understood was neither tracked nor punished."

God's strewth!!

1) You are suggesting NF lied? Try,TRY- to develop a brain cell;-just one will do.
2) 'bearing false witness'?? Too much telly son. And Biblical telly at that.
3) Perjury. It's called perjury. One Einfeld fell foul of it.
______________________

I am not a feminist. I believe that a principle of blind loyalty is just that. Blind.

The maggot put up some pictures (such enthusiasm;-sweet. But, again: wrong thread).

However; my view of the woman in those pictures,-and crucially her own statements, prompt me to say that her type are the kind of slags that legitimise some of the comments that have occurred here.

Women like that should NOT be protected by feminism, because they have done bugger all to promote respect and equally for women. They have done the opposite.

Must fly my dears, look forward to a natter later.

GINX

I had not thought about the Fractelle issue from that perspective and I apologise to both Fractelle and yourself if I have caused offence.

I maintain though that it is important for Roscops comments to be left up as they demonstrate just how much ignorance there is in this society and it his words which validate the need for the type of research I do.

You refer top photos which were put up...(presumably by Roscop?) I've scrolled back a few posts and can't seem to find the ones you mean. R they photos of me or someone else? If they are photos of me that is very concerning and I will consider contacting the moderators.

Also- Roscop- ^You r starting to creep everyone out. You mention weil park (a park in Hunters Hill directly opposite a girls school). I have never once (in the press) stated the name of the park where I was assaulted though I did give a general description of the suburb. This leads me to believe that you are doing your own research into the local geography of the suburb, which to be quite honest, is down right peverse. I suggest you take some time to reflect on why you are so obsessed with this issue. You also have stated information which has never been released to the press regarding some specifics of the case (perp wearing trackies). Perhaps this was just a lucky guess. Still. You're a creep

Nina,

I should clarify this straight away.

Crap put up some links to pictures of a nonentity (we differ I suspect, in our opinions of some women), called 'Charmyne' or some such. She was the attractive long haired blonde woman who gave an interview to 4C on the 'sportsmen' (as opposed to real men), SEXUAL ABUSE story.

She admits to the enjoyment of the groupie lifestyle and group sex, then took the moral high ground over 'the girl in the room'!

Is it any damn wonder that many men (on OLO at least) see that poor sad creature Johns; as a victim! After all;-'women like it, don't they, then cry foul afterwards'.

It surprises me that men cannot make the distinction that not ALL women think like that. Not ALL women are 'fair game'. AND;...and it's damn well got to be said:-not ALL women are stupid enough to willingly go to a room with a couple of men.

Nah! It doesn't surprise me at all. Particularly the 'thugby' players (nice tag, CJ!), who are not in the game for their intellect.

The fact that these men were supposed adults, and 11 of then ended up in the room, seems to escape many 'gentlemen' on OLO.

But I can chat about that elsewhere.

On Thursday, I was in a discussion, where I defended some of the problems that arise for men. On Friday I got a call from a friend who asked me if I still felt the same in light of some of the male attitudes here and elsewhere. I did not feel any differently about what I said.

I wasn't talking about the type of XY that behaves in this manner and then justifies it, nor those who have sprang to their defence.

I was talking about men.

It is so nice to know that many many, blokes are appalled by the behaviour of those morons. The OLO Boy's Club, doth not the male race make. Thank Glod!

As to the Fractelle situation, we must agree to differ.

1 server error.

Ginx I'm surprised to hear that Fractelle might have withdrawn because of that. I made a complaint too. We both saw sense I think in some of rstuart's comments about it and fair enough; at least the final decision was offered to Nina. In the upshot I think she made the right one; but at least we obtained that opportunity and Roscop's posts have been taken to the attention of the moderator.

In any case I don't see it as a "sisterhood" issue. I'm a feminist and in my experience feminist opinion is wide and varied on many issues; many disagree on certin points - and that's ok; it's good.

Nina: I took the reference to photos to mean the link Roscop posted that was about the woman whose face had been terribly damaged when her partner shot her or perhaps the pics to which Ginx referred.

Btw I have been extremely concerned at Roscop's obsession with your case.

Antiseptic: I don't think my personal life is any of your biz and nor is it relevant when we are discussing issues. You seem to often evade any questions about male rape. How about we defer talking about female victims for a while and focus on males.

So, the question was (addessed to roscop and only partially quoted by you):

<"So, what about males who are raped by other males? What should they do to avoid being too attractive to rapists?

Do you think both females and males should be wearing Burkhas?">

So let's test all your (myths) beliefs about rape when applying them to a different demographic.

Pynchme, normal people don't equate normal sex, even if unsatisfactory, with anal rape. You seem unable to tell the difference, so I can only assume you haven't enjoyed your own sexual experiences, if there have been any.

If anyone was anally raped, regardless of gender, I suspect the experience would be terrible. The anus is not actually a sex organ, while the vagina most assuredly is. There is a quantum difference between anal rape and vaginal intercourse. There is also a quantum difference between Nina's experience (which wasn't a rape, but an assault, whatever the assailant's intent) and some snogging that goes too far, or a drunken shag that one regrets in the morning, yet as the definitions stand, they may both be classed as rapes if the woman complains to police and assuredly will be if she contacts one of the "victim-milking" organisations.

You see, pynchme, no one here has ever said that a violent rape is anything other than a terrible thing, yet you keep coming back to this risible extreme case. In all seriousness, it's a non-question.

Ginx: "look at moi, look at moi"

No, nothing to see here.

I heard Prof Lumpy (lubmy) on the radio where she said;

"The onus is totally on the male!" Nothing about equal rights, or equal privileges, Just the implication that when things go wrong, it it totally the males responsibility.

Charles Waterstreet wrote an interesting article.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/a-broader-malady-20090516-b6vz.html?page=-1

"It's not only the players but also the young female fans who need Lumby and Albury's assistance and advice.

Standards across the entire board need to be lifted. Responsibility for our own actions start with ourselves.

We need a complete and continuing audit of the relationships between men and women and each other."

We need more feminists like Charles Waterstreet.

Pynchme: Nah, jeans don’t worry me…exception being those that help to form muffin tops ;-). Thinking me a prude …big big mistake.

Ginx: “One Einfeld fell foul of it” Was it only Einfeld in that case, who told porkpies? Wasn’t there someone of other gender? Me thinks so. Me remembers so. Einfeld’s case was about trying to dodge a speeding ticket fine, not a sex crime for which 20years or more is the go. Great though to read one positive contribution coming from you.

Ninaf: ”my case was not labelled a NOD”. I think LD (liar detected) would be appropriate in respect to many cases…just ask Hamilton police, Waikato, NZ, about the research they did back in circa 1998…why any different on this side of the ditch?

“You also have stated information which has never been released to the press regarding some specifics of the case (perp wearing trackies).”

Oh you wish to clarify the “trackies” bit with us… nothing much else.

With technology being what it is these days there is nothing difficult about doing a bit of your own research with respect to a story with many blanks in it and doesn’t seem to hang together too well.

Now in wikimapia zooming in on Hunters Hill…mmm…remember fishing with my dad in my nipper days on Longueville wharf…little more than a stones throw away…mmmm….bus from Sydney would come from west along Woolwich Rd…mmmm…now in Google Earth ground level 360* street view.. amazing... so that is the park …getting the feeling I am actually there…street lighting doesn’t look too good…mmm…can see bus sign post outside park…but must have got off bus other side of road as traffic into peninsular suburb comes from the west…unless p*ssed missing stop then on bus’s return…now there’s a chance since coming from birthday celebration drinks …wonder what went on there…mmm…

http://www.131500.com.au/pdf/western_region_guide_map.pdf

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=-33.840392&lon=151.1667788&z=19&l=0&m=h&v=2

Antiseptic – “no one here has ever said that a violent rape is anything other than a terrible thing, yet you keep coming back to this risible extreme case. In all seriousness, it's a non-question”.

I don’t consider it a non-question at all : especially in a thread where “Have you ever enjoyed sex?” is considered a pertinent question.

Nope: no-one has said violent rape isn’t terrible – they are just trying to deny its prevalence.

Pynchme at no stage tried to equate “normal sex” with anal rape. She was equating male rape with female rape. The fact that you, personally, don’t consider anal sex “normal” is irrelevant. Millions do.

You “suspect” anal rape would be terrible. Speaking from experience: it is.

There is a “quantum difference between anal rape and vaginal intercourse”. Certainly.

There is also a “quantum difference” between consensual anal intercourse and anal rape.

The same difference exists between consensual vaginal intercourse and vaginal rape. Once again I speak from experience.

Your argument that anal rape is worse because the anus is not considered a sexual organ is again subjective.

However, if you mean that shock, horror, disgust, pain, powerlessness and fear engendered by having a large object shoved up any orifice in the human body depends upon which orifice is used you are entirely incorrect.

I use the word “object” here not because I shrink from the word penis, but because a penis is not particularly necessary for this process. Bottles, sticks, broom handles…just about any object can be substituted.

These are not usually considered sexual organs either but this too, it seems, is subjective.

Now, because the media has resurrected some ancient titillation concerning a particular a-typical sector of the wider community, this provides weight to support a belief that most cases of reported rape are beat-ups (pardon the pun) and, rather curiously, that unreported rapes are not common? The link to the latter is somewhat unclear.

Apart from extrapolation from sensationalist or partisan sources – what experiences support your thesis? Ever worked in a Crisis Centre, Psychiatric facility, Emergency Room, Homeless Shelter, for example?

Romany, to repeat myself yet again, no on here has suggested that violent rape is anything other than violent rape. Pynchme seems hung-up on trying to equate sex with anal rape, but that's her own concern.

The issue of reporting frequency is vexed. It has gone through the roof as the New Wowsers take a tighter hold on the media and feed us "mother knows best" polemics. There is a nasty sense of triumphalism about the whole Johns issue, for example.

romany:"a belief that most cases of reported rape are beat-ups"

I have never claimed that and it is unworthy of you to ty to use such a stupid statement to discredit me. As you are well aware, my opinion is that many types of activity are now claimed to be rape, when they are not, leading to inflation of the apparent numbers of cases.

Not a single woman here has expressed any concern about the possible damage to the victims of those false claims, nor about the misdirection of resources that these false claims entail.

Anti that's not exactly true the no woman has expressed concern for the victims of falsified reports. I have, on a number of occassions, stated very clearly that I have nothing but contempt for people who falsify reports as not only do those reports ruin the lives of the innocent people they accuse, but they also make it harder for legitimate victims to speak out, as there is less liklihood that they will be believed.

If a man or woman is ever so stupid to falsify a charge there is very little liklihood of it getting any where. Already we know that many legit cases go uncharged due to lack of evidence.

But still, I suppose a mans reputation would still be left in tatters even if there was no court conviction

Pynchme: my reference to the sisterhood was a generic phrase written to cover the general principle of what I was saying. I don't resile from it. ANY of us who follow set principles/philosophies/rules-tend to look at only one side. Fractelle (sorry kiddo, got to do this)-Fractelle's complaint was received somewhat differently to yours;-she was referred to as 'difficult'. I suspect I know why. I do not know for sure and thus will not elaborate.
Difficult!!?....have you seen some of the behaviours and comments on OLO??
...boys will be boys....
______________________________

Crap: YOU know why I put up Einfeld as an example, I know why I put up etc., Simple. To cut through a small part of the NF obsession that you so clearly have...;so cut the ----!! (Btw: I suspect that we've seen your picture too;-or a facsimile of it!). Concentrate on developing that brain cell..(Nice to see you being a little subdued though. Received some encouragement to do that eh?).
_______________________

Septic: who?
_______________________

Nina it occurs to me that if you thought that the photos, crap put up were of you, then it follows that I was referring to YOU as a slag!!

Holy mackerel!

Antiseptic – First off, let me sort this: “it is unworthy of you to ty to use such a stupid statement to discredit me.”

It is not my purpose to discredit you.

To try to do so if I felt you had a point worth considering is a tactic employed by politicians, not debaters. I am not a politician.

To do so if I felt your point not worth consideration would be redundant: I would merely continue the silence on this matter I have reserved until now.

In respect of my self-worth I am unsure if such a tactic would be “unworthy” of me. But in respect of the rules of engagement it would most certainly be unworthy – hence I had no intention of so doing.

Having, I hope, clarified that, I am extremely frustrated with your post which seems not to have responded in any way to mine. In fact it seems tangentially opposed to it.

There is certainly no need whatsoever to “repeat [myself] again”. Your misapprehension regarding Pynchme “trying to equate sex with anal rape” is precisely what I was addressing and what prompted me to respond – I spent fully two-thirds of my 350 words pointing this out. You neither responded, commented on, nor acknowledged I had addressed this, but reiterated the same misapprehension as if I had not spoken.

Of course there’s no correlation between sex and anal rape. If we can all start off from that page, we can maybe move on to the fact that there’s no correlation either between “snogging that’s goes too far” and rape. Or ” a drunken shag that one regrets in the morning” and rape.

Before we all go charging off in yet another direction, accusing and/or defending attitudes towards the victims of false claims, lets make sure we are all on the same page to start off with. An answer to Pynchme’s question (and mine) would have been a good place to start

Ginx

Yep. sorry. I realised after I posted what you were talking about (and that it wasn't about me!) and I felt a little ashamed to have been so self-centered (though there has been so much discussion on this thread about photos of me... my mind just jumped to that conclusion... particularly bc it was in reference to roscop.)

I have to say that we will need to agree to disagree in regards to the comments about that 'slag' though. In some cultures showing your hair or your naked ankles makes you a skank. In England during the Victorian era, table legs had to be covered so as not to excite the passions of men. Who knew that tables could be 'slutty'?

The point is that 'Skankyness' is a culturally contrived, arbitrary construct that differs from one place to the next, and from one era to the next. What is for certain is that terms like skank and slut are used to control and demean women and to alienate them from their own sexual power.

Also being a feminist is not about following something blindly. As Pynchme has outlined, there is no feminist 'manifesto'. There is a great deal of debate and argument within the ranks of feminism and so being a feminist is not about signing up to some base line of thinking. It's more about being willing to participate in a particular set of debates and being willing to acknowledge that while all feminists seek gender equality and the elimination of gender discrimination, we have different views of how to arrive at this goal.

Well that's my definition at least. No doubt other feminists would contest it. And that's the beauty of feminism; we accept diversity of views.

Ginx: I am mortified and really quite angry to know of that injustice. It does sound very "boys' club" to me. I hope Fractelle posts again; I enjoy her posts so much.

Romany: Thanks for seeing through Antiseptic's usual red herrings, lies and misconstruances. He knows full well that I'm asking specifically about male rape and the main reason initially was to try and elicit a modicum of empathy with victims of rape - a dismal failure it seems.

However, I really would like to see if many of the announcements these men here make to discount the experiences of female victims apply where male victims are concerned.

The first set out, as you saw, (inspired by Roscop's carry on about women in jeans) was how male victims of rape should dress to avoid issuing an invitation to rape.

The next one will be stats. :)

Have to dash to work: bb later.

ninaf, I take your point about your comments and you're absolutely right about the consequences to the falsely-accused.

Romany:"it seems tangentially opposed to it."

As I understand the post of yours you refer to, it was all about "rape is bad, I've been raped and I should know". Well, I haven't been raped, but nor have I been violent and I have seen first-hand what happens when non-violent behaviours are characterised as violent and then used to justify incredibly painful, costly and embarrassing actions against the one accused.

I have the greatest of sympathy for those of either gender who have been genuinely raped, as anyone who has read my posts here will know, but I have nothing but contempt for the constant efforts of some people to make things what they are not.

ninaf:"sexual power"

That's what it's all about, isn't it? Women have always had the sexual power and mating games have evolved around their use of it. Could it be that rape, inasmuch as it's about power, may be as much about the subversion of the female's power as about the assertion of the male's? In that context, the broadening of definitions of rape are all about increasing women's sexual power, by making men more and more into supplicants for sexual "favours".

pynchme,

What is it you actually want?

As Antiseptic said...

'Not a single woman here has expressed any concern about the possible damage to the victims of those false claims, nor about the misdirection of resources that these false claims entail.'

So does that reveal a pro false accusation mentality of the female posters?

It's a pretty quick way of silencing any discussion to say that anyone who disagrees with you is pro-rape.

I have never 'automatically discounted' any victims' experiences. Please provide a quote.

Regardless, your 'experience' is actually the problem in these debates. Someone who works with rape victims is too close to the problem and sees a rapist around every corner. It would be impossible to have an open mind when you deal with rape victims every day.

Look at how quickly you are ready to shout rapist. Your perspective is skewed. How about standing back and realising others aren't surrounded by an environment of rape victims, and realise to help your cause, it may be useful to accept that all NGOs, regardless of their good cause, will inflate figures for effect, rather than say anyone who doesn't believe your figures is pro-rape. The figures are unnecessary, as 1 woman raped is bad enough

' He knows full well that I'm asking specifically about male rape and the main reason initially was to try and elicit a modicum of empathy with victims of rape - a dismal failure it seems.'

So instead of having a debate and talk about topic in a rational way, you'd rather we discuss our feelings about rape. It may be impossible for you to put your feelings aside when talking about such a topic, which is fair enough. But as I said before, just because people in a debate put the emotive to the side for rational conversation about dry statistics and definitions and such, it doesn't mena they are a cold heartless bastard who doesn't care.

'However, I really would like to see if many of the announcements these men here make to discount the experiences of female victims apply where male victims are concerned.'

I'm sure they would, probably to the same unacceptable (to you) way. See, the mistake you make is that you're the one genderising it. You're looking for a double standard to explain something that has nothing to do with such. One could ask why do YOU assume that because you think the male posters aren't showing enough empathy to women victims, that it's because they're WOMEN, and somehow if we talked about male victims there would be more empathy. The reality is that you're talking to men, who are more likely to stay on the rational and not the emotive when debating a topic. Added to that they're not counselling rape victims every day.

Just like Ginx and yourself thinking Graham dismissed Fractelle because she's a WOMAN.

You guys remind me of a friend of mine who jokes 'It's because I'm black' every time he doesn't get his own way.

Nina: I'm aware of some of the quite ludicrous nonsense that women went through in past? history.
I remain frustrated that little or nothing has been said about the the behaviour of SOME women in recent history. Perhaps we have learned to 'circle the wagons'?, with good reason!
Pynchme: my response to Nina is how I feel.

I guess it has never occurred to the OLO Boys Club that they might be creating some feminists on this site? Glod knows, one really needs to put up a strong defence against Neanderthal thinking!
____________________________

NOW:.....you've just raised the bar a notch Houlles.

"Just like Ginx and yourself thinking Graham >>>>>dismissed<<<<< Fractelle because she's a WOMAN."
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 18 May 2009 11:14:46 AM
______

Really? How do you KNOW that?

Because if you DO know it, I would like to know HOW you know it.
And if you don't know it to be a fact. Why state it as a fact?

See;-that's the problem with you blokes. You consistently come up with beliefs, and state them as facts! That is why I don't read any of your- (Neanderthal opinion),-posts in full; I just skim them.

However Mr becq, you could very easily prove me wrong...just let us know: how did you know that?

Ginx

How can Houllie say that I was dismissed? Because that is what he wants to believe. And he is wrong.

I had to make a second request for Roscop to be suspended, because on my first request, Graham claimed that he did not understand what my complaint was about. His manner towards my request was terse and impatient, when I pointed out that I did not appreciate his lack of courtesy , Graham described me as 'difficult'.

I have, of course, retained the emails sent to me from Graham, which confirm all the above.

Now I have a question for Houllie.

Do you think it appropriate for Roscop to demand as evidence that Nina supply photos of herself after her assault?

And if so, why?

>>More on the Sexthing. Very nasty stuff indeed:

“The SAFE Act starts off with this chestnut: “Violence against women has been reported to be the leading cause of injury to women.” That’s a prime example of crackpot science. Because according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the leading causes of injury to women are unintentional falls, automobile accidents, and over-exertion.

The SAFE Act goes on to assert, “According to recent Government estimates, approximately 987,400 rapes occur annually in the United States.” Want to know the real number? Only 90,427, according to the FBI.

The SAFE Act wants us to believe that “each year there are 5,300,000 non-fatal violent victimizations committed by intimate partners against women.” That claim reminds us of the old Yiddish proverb about a half-truth being a whole lie. Because the same survey that reached the 5.3 million number reported a similar number of male victims of physical abuse.

For several of its claims, the SAFE Act cites research by Joan Zorza. Problem is, Zorza is not a researcher. She’s a lawyer and well-known advocate for an assortment of radical feminist causes.”

Yes…the abuse industry is full of their old horny chestnuts.

>>Now to a particular NZ case…put these snippets together:

“He branded their accuser, then a 19-year-old university student who worked at the hotel part time, a liar.”

“… said the woman had crowed to staff about a sexual liaison with two footballers in the men's toilets at the Holy Grail sports bar in the city centre on the Thursday night, the night before the group sex incident.”

“… whose son Nigel built the motel-style unit, said that was not possible. "There's no way you can get through the window," he said.”

“Christchurch police said … there had never been a question of them charging the young woman involved with making a false complaint.”

And therein lies the problem….women accusers can lie with impunity and don’t they know it.
_______

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25498448-5001021,00.htm

Attagirl Fractelle!
I suspected that was the case, but I did not know it as a fact.

Hollowbeak of course knew all the FACTS! We've been seeing them in abundance. Such credibility!
________________________________

OK. crap: (it's a slow process, but maybe;-just maybe, the echo of an empty cavity will die down enough to process reality).

You have cherry-picked YOUR facts; and placed them here...; what's up son? You don't want to post in the relevant thread. Want to stay close to your hunting ground?.

As I said on the relevant thread: the motel in question does some pretty hefty business with the NRL.

Doesn't-that-suggest-anything-to-you?? No??

Try a little harder to work it out.

Ginx, believe me when I say, that I really do wish I was a neanderthal. To be content with booze, babes and football. How simple life would be, not to think too much.

Come up with beliefs and state them as facts, Mmmmh. Nice try.

When it comes to getting hooked by emotive appeals, I become sceptical, very sceptical, Mainly because it bypasses critical analysis and past experience has shown me that making decision based on emotion, is often wrong in the cool light of day.

Various individuals uses this technique like a lynch mob mentaliy. It can turn normally cool headed individuals into angry raging mob.

Examples in the US show that all it took was for a white woman to accuse a black man of rape, and he would be lynched. In Australia a woman in Melb accused a man who happened to be gay of rape, however it was enough of a provocation for two men to bash this man to death.

The guys are in gaol and the woman, scot free.

Fractelle:"I had to make a second request for Roscop to be suspended"

Which, on the evidence, would seem to have been "dismissed"...

Fractelle:"Do you think it appropriate for Roscop to demand as evidence that Nina supply photos of herself after her assault? "

Do go back and read through the thread. This was well thrashed out earlier. Graham has thoughtfully retained all the posts sent to the site to confirm all that is said...

A-septic

Far from being "dismissed" my persistence meant that Graham actually shifted himself to contact Nina for her opinions on Roscop. I am sure you have read Nina's subsequent comments.

Therefore, I can only conclude that you (and apparently Graham) find nothing offensive about Roscop's responses to Nina. Not adding to your credibility.

Very telling about you and how little you care about women who really have been assaulted (not false claims). Who have really been through it and are too afraid to speak out, unlike Nina who has displayed a level of courage beyond many.

BTW: Everyone; Belly has the discussion thread about the Rugby 'gang-bang' which has nothing to do with the topic here.

Fractelle:"how little you care about women who really have been assaulted "

Me (on 18/5):"I have the greatest of sympathy for those of either gender who have been genuinely raped, "

As I said dear, you really must read back over the thread if you wish to avoid looking fooli..oh, hold on, this is Fractelle, isn't it? As you were...

Fractelle:"my persistence meant that Graham actually shifted himself"

It's that ol' squeaky wheel again... You're a feminist hero, you are. Make sure you keep all those emails, won't you, dear? Wouldn't want anyone to doubt your commitment to whinging, would we?

Ginx, Fractelle,

Ginx> "Fractelle's complaint was received somewhat differently to yours;-she was referred to as 'difficult'. I suspect I know why. "

Ginx> "Really? How do you KNOW that?"
Bizarrely, because you just pointed it out above, and Fractelle on some other post said the same thing.

So I presumed Fractelle complains to Graham, there is an argument about it, and Fractelle's dismissed by being called difficult. Not much of a stretch.

And low and behold we have from Fractelle...
'His manner towards my request was terse and impatient, when I pointed out that I did not appreciate his lack of courtesy , Graham described me as 'difficult'.'

Pretty much exactly as I had presumed.

You sound like a couple of school girls proud of themselves as they know the gossip. Get a life man.

It might shock you to know, that Graham probably has very little time for such goings on. In my dealings with him I noted he really doesn't have much of a 'customer service' philosiphy either. But ever since Graham dared to dismiss the requests of a WOMAN (heaven forbid!) Ginxy runs around yelling boys club at every opportunity. It's just sad man.

Ginx 'That is why I don't read any of your- (Neanderthal opinion),-posts in full; I just skim them.'
Seems like you have a lot in common with Fractelle, given what she said in the Susan Giblin thread. So you don't really read people's points, then just group them all into the 'boys club' so that anything you cant answer can be dismissed.

Antiseptic,

'Do go back and read through the thread. This was well thrashed out earlier.'

Of course it was, but Fraccy only skims the 'abusive' posters as you know. Pity they 'cleverly include a valid point within their abuse' isn't it. Actually, since one male poster seems like a stalker, and other male posters don't agree with her, whalla, all those 'boys club' posters must agree with everything the stalker says and does.

Antiseptic -
"As I understand the post of yours you refer to, it was all about "rape is bad, I've been raped and I should know". "

If you genuinely read my post that way then I can only assume that
a)your self-professed eagerness for a bit of argy-bargy has started to cloud your perceptions
b) you have the attention skills of a butterfly,
c) you actually have no interest in discussion; and in fact use these threads in a very selective manner or
d) you are so used to being deliberately provocative it has now become a habit.

You had made the statment that you "suspect" anal rape is painful but seemed in some doubt. I merely confirmed your suspicions and cited my source. I similarly cited my source for knowledge of vaginal rape.

If niether a,b,c or d above applies then you obviously read no further and completely forgot what had come before.

James H: If you could drop the male bonding thing for a moment you would see that beliefs have indeed been stated as facts. As to the rest of your post. Whatever. There are now three threads running on this general topic. I have no intention of going into every nuance.

One thread; fine, but we all have a life to lead. I have no plans to bring a camp bed into my office.
____________________________

"Fractelle:"I had to make a second request for Roscop to be suspended"

Which, on the evidence, would seem to have been "dismissed"..." (septic)

?!?!? ..er,..( You DO know the difference between "being dismissed"..and.."having a request for suspension dismissed"?? You don't do you?)

THATS why I don't bother with this bloke Fractelle.
____________________________

"It might shock you to know, that Graham probably has very little time for such goings on. In my dealings with him I noted he really doesn't have much of a 'customer service' philosiphy either. But ever since Graham dared to dismiss the requests of a WOMAN (heaven forbid!) Ginxy runs around yelling boys club at every opportunity. It's just sad man."

How very sweet....;man! Do you think that that will get you some Brownie points? (Bit like septics 'Graham has thoughtfully retained..', ((another one with inside knowledge!)

As to the rest: a garbled mishmash. But vintage Hollowbeak.

Curiously, it is only those who have an axe to grind with women who have the temerity to speak out, who apparently aren't offended by Roscop's unwarranted interrogation of Nina.

Other posters (male and female) had no problem recognising the harassment being perpetuated by Roscop. Just the same very few.

Yes, no doubt Graham does think I was difficult for being persistent, (which says more about Graham than me) - this is why people cannot remain silent when someone is clearly being persecuted and why victims of abuse still have to fight to be heard.

A-septic

Your claim "Me (on 18/5):"I have the greatest of sympathy for those of either gender who have been genuinely raped," holds zero credibility, as you do not appear to understand how Nina was upset by the photographs of her nor by the demands she display them - she tried to explain her feelings in several posts to you. And you still don't get it.

If you can't understand how someone can feel after being assaulted, how can you understand how someone feels if raped? You have yet to display any empathy for victims at all. Your quote above has nothing to support it - empty words, mere platitudes.

'Curiously, it is only those who have an axe to grind with women who have the temerity to speak out, who apparently aren't offended by Roscop's unwarranted interrogation of Nina.'

Fractelle, does ths mean I haven't been lumped into your generic 'axe to grind with women who have the temerity to speak out' group on this occasion:-( Or have you still not read any of my posts, so I get to keep my woman hating status. Or... have you not read back because you cant bear to exclude me from the boys club? I mean, you're the judge on these things. I even argued with antispetic y'know! Must be because he was nice to a woman once...

Houellebecq: Oh puhleeze forget the old 'women are emotional and therefore their reasoning is illogical; while we big manly men are so logical - see how objective we can be about others' suffering.' ploy. It's old.

What's more, the completely unfounded nonsense that most of the men here post (unchallenged by any of the other supposedly logical males) makes the claim to superior logic an embarrassment to your sex.

Compassion is not the antithesis of logic.

Speaking of illogical - Roscop - what does the SAFE Act and U.S. figurs have to do with anything that's been posted? Anyway, looking at those figures it's clear that you either missed the posts explaining recorded rapes and how population stats are derived from anonymous surveys. The figures you show actually confirm the case that's being made. That you don't know or can't see that is why I recommend that you read more widely than your woman hate sites.

Speaking of which - James - wouldn't it be nice if you really were a critical thinker. I think you try to be; but your biases are such that you can't tear yourself away from Angry Harry and the like. You eagerly swallow evey crumb of anti-female sentiment they serve up as if it's fact. It's a shame because you could find a feminist position so refreshing and comforting (if only you understood it; which you so far don't.)

As to your women get men hanged info: Here is another way of looking at the issue - please note that female slaves and children were lynched as well.

http://amath.colorado.edu/carnegie/lit/lynch/women.htm

(See how that article has references that we can check.)

Antiseptic: "I have the greatest of sympathy for those of either gender who have been genuinely raped..."

- your qualifier "genuinely" makes your claim a sad joke.

Ginx and Houellebecq: Look I apologize Houellebecq but I laughed to tears this morning when I read "Hollowbeak"; then had a few giggles during the day recalling it. Ginx you're a scream. Thanks for that:)

pynch

James:

Lynching was an ugly practice. So many stories of men and women who were lynched are horrific, but that of Mary Turner, her spouse and unborn child, killed for no reason in 1918, is especially so. She was hung upside down; doused and set alight and her womb slashed so that the baby fell out live. The baby was crushed under a fellow's boot. Mr. Turner was hung after a false accusation; Mary was killed later because she voiced her objections.

If the book link doesn't post properly: the book is Women and the Death Penalty in the United States, 1900-1998 by Kathleen A. O'Shea

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=YvdKyEJo0osC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=amy+spain+lynched&source=bl&ots=X1Y60zRhbx&sig=U5Be4GHuQJMxa97E2ehio3cfx_o&hl=en&ei=IsUSSpG2GqjmtgPshKH0DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA8,M1

Fractelle:"If you can't understand how someone can feel after being assaulted"

Part of a conversation I had with Ninaf on 13/6):

"ninaf: "It is a highly personal and traumatising experience and there has to be a level of respect for the victims already violated sense of privacy"

[me:] Oh, certainly."

I'd advise you to go back and read the thread lest you make a fool of yourself, but alas, I fear 'tis too late. At least no one's expectations have had to be revised.

pynchme:"your qualifier "genuinely" makes your claim a sad joke."

Oh, of course, I have to feel sympathy for the ones who aren't genuine as well. Got to keep that perpetual-emotion machine cranking, there are victims to be made!

pynchme:"I laughed to tears this morning when I read "Hollowbeak""

Seriously? They let you out on your own, do they?

A-septic

Your posts never quite indicate the empathy you claim to have for female victims, of assault or rape. You even tried to argue that male rape victims have a more difficult time of rape than females. Deliberately ignoring the fact that rape often results in vaginal tearing and that females can and are raped in every available orifice just as males victims may be. It is this manner of trivialising the female experience that puts the lie into your claims of sympathy.

I am also waiting for a response from you, Hoolie, JamesH regarding the sickening posts from Roscop asking for more and more detail about Nina's assault.

None of you appear to see anything offensive with his demands and judgements of Nina, which are both very personal and beyond a reasoned discussion about assault. If you did find his posts extreme I have yet to see anything from any of you.

Other posters, male and female, have been very clear about what they think of Roscop, but not you.

As this thread has gone on for over 30 pages now with plenty of opportunity to state otherwise, I am left with no other conclusion that you approve of Roscop and therefore share his warped view of women.

Pynchme, you make a lot of assumptions. When I first discovered Angry Harry I did not particularly like his site. Both Angry Harry and Glenn Sacks are sometimes interesting because they provide a different perspective.

Like Ginx I can be bothered with every nuance.

I agree with you that lynching is a barbaric practise, and the American culture can be barbaric.

I am fully ware of women being lynched, burned at the stake, I was surprised to find out that it was not women who were burned, but men as well.

Fract, I did wonder where Roscop was going with his posts and I did find them a little over the top, but in the end he did managed to explain himself a little bit I think.

Fract like Pynchme, you assume too much. There is limited space and at present limited time. Plus I have other things on my mind at present.

Reading the work of Pscyhologist Toby Green, I had an Ah-ha moment when she wrote about how some people hold onto their opinions so tightly, that they feel that if someone does not agree with their opinion, that that person does not like them or dissaproves of them.

Its a bit like, one person liking rugby and the other aussie rules, it is still possible for them to like each other as people, but not their preference in football.

It would appear that you are trying to apply a bit of female manipulation and guilt tripping.

Apart from what Roscop writes here, I do not know what he really beleives or disbeleives as we have not had good chin wag over a beer.

“Nina sustained severe injuries and psychological trauma as a result of the assault though she has since made a full recovery. She now uses her experience as a platform to speak out publicly against all forms of violence against women.”

http://www.steptothefuture.com/forum.php?j=f&fid=124&y=2009&pid=1464&tid=6&sid=147

Ms Funnell spoke of the few people who knew about the attack on her. The people who she mentioned did not included professions who treat physical injuries.

Nina Funnell says women who fight back when being assaulted in 70% of cases will get away relatively unharmed. Ms Funnell tells the public she hardly has the strength to open a vegemite jar yet she fought off a “very solid” attacker after she had spooked him by telling him to f*#!*off.

Not only does Ms Funnell not want anyone in this forum knowing anything about the extent of her severe injuries, she would want the defence knowing anything about those severe injuries also, should her case get to trial:

“RICHARD LINDELL: Nina Funnell was sexually assaulted on her way home from university two years ago. The perpetrator has never been caught.

Like many victims, she turned to counselling to help her recover, in sessions she thought were private.

NINA FUNNELL: When somebody sexually assaults you, it is a complete violation of your body, and your person, and your psyche; and to think now that my privacy on top of that could also be violated now and that the confidentiality pact that I had with my counsellor could be violated... You know, it makes me sick. It makes me just distraught to think about it.

RICHARD LINDELL: So distraught, in fact, she says it might make her withdraw from any future legal process.

NINA FUNNELL: The fact that my private records, that were given during counselling, could also be used against me, it makes me think more than twice about whether or not I would actually want to go through that process.

RICHARD LINDELL: Defence lawyers can subpoena records from doctors, counsellors, schools and hospitals - often without the victims' knowledge.”

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2545497.htm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/steptothefuture/tags/ninafunnell/show

“Nina sustained severe injuries and psychological trauma as a result of the assault though she has since made a full recovery. She now uses her experience as a platform to speak out publicly against all forms of violence against women.”

http://www.steptothefuture.com/forum.php?j=f&fid=124&y=2009&pid=1464&tid=6&sid=147

Ms Funnell has spoken of the few people who knew about the attack on her. The people who she mentioned did not included professions who treat physical injuries.

Nina Funnell says women who fight back when being assaulted in 70% of cases will get away relatively unharmed. Ms Funnell tells the public she hardly has the strength to open a vegemite jar yet she fought off a “very solid” attacker after she had spooked him by telling him to f*#@off.

Not only does Ms Funnell not want anyone in this forum knowing anything about the extent of her severe injuries, she would want the defence knowing anything about those severe injuries also, should her case get to trial:

“RICHARD LINDELL: Nina Funnell was sexually assaulted on her way home from university two years ago. The perpetrator has never been caught.

Like many victims, she turned to counselling to help her recover, in sessions she thought were private.

NINA FUNNELL: When somebody sexually assaults you, it is a complete violation of your body, and your person, and your psyche; and to think now that my privacy on top of that could also be violated now and that the confidentiality pact that I had with my counsellor could be violated... You know, it makes me sick. It makes me just distraught to think about it.

RICHARD LINDELL: So distraught, in fact, she says it might make her withdraw from any future legal process.

NINA FUNNELL: The fact that my private records, that were given during counselling, could also be used against me, it makes me think more than twice about whether or not I would actually want to go through that process.

RICHARD LINDELL: Defence lawyers can subpoena records from doctors, counsellors, schools and hospitals - often without the victims' knowledge.”

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2545497.htm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/steptothefuture/tags/ninafunnell/show

fractelle:"You even tried to argue that male rape victims have a more difficult time of rape than females."

Oh, this should be good - do provide a quote, won't you dear, because, you see I'm calling you a liar. Not only have I never done so, I've never addressed the issue of male vs female rape victims at all, other than to say "I have the greatest of sympathy for those of either gender who have been genuinely raped" in response to Romany on 18/5.

You'd really do better to read the thread, dear. Correcting the products of your febrile imagination really isn't my job, you know.

Fractelle:"I am also waiting for a response from you,"

LOL.

1)

There seems to be a general point of view from the worm factory that NF's view on her attack should be viewed from a different perspective.etc.,

It is only crap who is calling her a liar.....And perhaps his attendant blow-fly.

But crap IS obsessive about his view that she is lying, and he has gone to extraordinary lengths to 'prove' it.

For the most part the basis of a discussion forum is to agree or disagree-in varying degrees. Writers are subjected to this;-posters too.

I am not surprised that this creature;-crap, was recommended for suspension-unsuccessfully..and predictably. However, It shows a new low on OLO.

Contributing writers has been taken to task strongly on many occasions. One wrote about it. But none have sustained a full on SECOND assault in this case,- in being called a liar.

crap is of course a spineless coward, so he avoids using the word, but spells it out graphically.

It does not bode well, and has not for a writer that I am familiar with. No further articles from that source.

You crap have required evidence of bruises/scratches etc., you don't even have the brain to know of the adrenalin during assault, and the emotional collapse afterward when the danger has past.

You've taken such circumstance and twisted it into suspect behaviour.
You have persistently asked this young woman to lay all the facts bare at your altar of judgment.

Cont'd-hopefully today.
______________________________

2)

So;-I'm asking-who's asking?

Tell us who you are?
Tell us why you feel this way?
Tell us what motivates you to attack NF in this manner?
Tell us why you joined this thread after 16 pages?
Tell us why you put up links to pictures totally unrelated to this thread on page 22?
Tell us why,-with such strong feelings on such issues,-you chose not to put your picture links on the thread directly related to them?

Before you go any further in discussing the experience of NF, and what she has allegedly done wrong:-

Tell us WHY?

You have continually pressed for NF to 'come clean'.

Prove to us that you are NOT a bullying coward, and put up a thread answering some queries about you!

(And DON'T cop out with the limp-wristed excuse that YOU did not 'profess' to being attacked.....; just have the spine to put up a thread about where you are coming from-and nothing else).

I look forward to it. I really do.

Because if you DON'T answer questions put to YOU, and come up with a waffling weak excuse for not answering them,.......YOU know what you are, as we do

A-Septic:

“The anus is not actually a sex organ, while the vagina most assuredly is. There is a quantum difference between anal rape and vaginal intercourse.”

Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 17 May 2009 5:58:48 AM

Apart from the fact that A-septic doesn't understand the meaning of the word quantum: rape is rape. A vagina can be torn just as much as an anus.

But apparently it has to be violent before a shred of sympathy is offered by A-septic:

“You see, pynchme, no one here has ever said that a violent rape is anything other than a terrible thing,”

Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 17 May 2009 5:58:48 AM

I guess we need a return to the old days where, if obvious violence isn't involved, then it can't really be rape.

A-septic, you have not answered my question regarding Roscop, obviously you approve of his treatment of Nina.

Now JamesH

“Fract, I did wonder where Roscop was going with his posts and I did find them a little over the top, but in the end he did managed to explain himself a little bit I think.”

Demanding detailed explanation and photographs, a little over the top? By attempting to discredit Nina?

Well I and many others see him as harassing Nina, over an incident that has already been processed by police. If you can't see an obsessive interest as indicated by his last two posts, then I have to lump you in with A-septic as being utterly clueless about the impact of assault and rape on a victim. I am 167 cms, 60 Kg – very average size for a woman , yet even a man my own size is stronger than I am, let alone the average sized male. Sometimes we are too frightened to do anything other than comply and hope like mad we aren't hurt too badly.

Both A-septic and Roscop take too much interest in the gory details to be genuinely concerned about the welfare of a victim – there is some very sick titillation going on here. Are you that myopic you can't see it?

Fractelle, a quantum difference means that the two things are completely separate. No, don't mention it, I'm getting used to correcting your torrid imaginings.

You could answer a little question for me though: why are you girls so fixated on anal sex?

Fractelle:"A-septic, you have not answered my question"

LOL

Fractelle:"there is some very sick titillation going on here"

LOL you grrls have all been off to the cosmetic surgeon for lip-pursing surgery, haven't you? To save on all that muscular effort.

Hey Fractelle and Ginx - excellent posts again. Great work and yes, I have read Septic's posts and attitude just the same way. I think his cherished notion is that since a vagina and penis are designed to fit together, that anyone with a willy should be able to put it anywhere they like and walking vaginas have no cause for complaint because, gee, isn't a walking vagina designed for it?

Btw could anyone from the Roscop fan club explain how they view Roscop posting maps and pics of the park where the assault took place.
In his illuminating explanation (wtf?) did he shed any light on that?
If so I must have missed it.

Antiseptic's determinedly limited knowledge of rape and seemingly of sex, for that matter, can't allow him to accept that rape includes p-v penetration but also encompasses a wide range of humiliating practices. Many rapsists can't even get an erection.

I still want an answer from him and the other like minded men here about male rape. The question was - how should a young male dress to avoid attracting a rapist - or, if we broaden the question - what should a young man (or an ederly man for that matter, since several of them are raped each year)- do to avoid being raped ?

(I wonder if they will keep wimping out on discussing male on male rape).

Pynchme

The level of obfuscation from the pro-Roscop crowd is astounding. A-septic introduced the topic of anal rape and now he is trying to distance himself from his ignorant comments. A-septic - you only managed a quantum side-step - Physics 101 is recommended.

I too would like to know how men can prevent themselves from being raped, should they avoid drinking at clubs? Walking alone to their car at night? Perhaps they should walk in groups - safety in numbers. Of course any male who has the temerity to dress well and wear aftershave is clearly asking for trouble.

But my final question is this, how many false claims of assault or rape are made by men?

Any male claiming to be raped must be questioned over and over again, made to repeat the experience until they have no hope of forgetting what has happened to them. Even if a rape is proved, they then will have to prove the circumstances again and again, if they brought up the subject to illuminate the issue of male violence. That's only fair isn't it?

Roscop, boy did you managed to push one of GINX's buttons, by the looks of it, it was a rather big button.

Now the others smell blood and have joined in.

If I was you Roscop, I'd apply for the CIA witness protection program, it just might keep you safe from this mafia for a while.

I think Nana did very well in dealing with you.

I have seen this played out a number of times before, where a girl or one of her freinds takes offense at what a guy said or did, they then try and get other guys involved to teach this guy a lesson, which usually means he gets the living daylights bashed out of him.

The girls using their combined mite have managed to change the direction of this blog.

Throwing a few smelly red herrings.

Pynchme:"I wonder if they will keep wimping out on discussing male on male rape"

Male-male rape is bad. There, done and dusted. Off you go now and ask someone what you should think about that response.

Fractelle:"A-septic introduced the topic of anal rape"

Erm, not in the real world, dear, although you'd not know that, having failed to read the thread. It was your little friend pynchme who seems determined that anal rape is equivalent to vaginal intercourse. She's got "issues", the poor thing.

Fractelle:"you only managed a quantum side-step"

Actually, dear, it was a quantum leap that went way over your head.

Fractelle:"how many false claims of assault or rape are made by men?"

No idea, how many do you reckon?

Perhaps Nina could assist here with some information from the NSW RCC, which she tells us services both a male and female clientele?

On the whole, according to the ABS, the sexual assault of males is about half as common as that of women, at approximately 0.6% of the male population experiencing some form of sexual assault under the broad definitions used by the ABS.

It is the broadening of definitions that the New Wowsers such as yourself promote that is the bigger problem. As it stands, under the definitions used, if my wife/girlfriend wants sex and I don't feel like it and she then decides to take matters "in hand" as it were, I have just been assaulted. If she says anything to imply that my lack of cooperation might lead to a similar withholding on her part at some future point, that's coercion. If she gets cranky and turns her back, coercion.

Yes, these are all trivial, but their occurrence is lumped in with the genuine rapes, which simply causes rational people to distrust the figures.

An analogy is the traffic laws: we treat someone who is careless in the carpark much less seriously than someone who goes out hooning or drunk-driving and kills someone. We devote lots of resources to the one and almost none to the other. It would be ludicrous to do otherwise.

Antiwomen: << As it stands, under the definitions used, if my wife/girlfriend wants sex and I don't feel like it and she then decides to take matters "in hand" as it were, I have just been assaulted. >>

But you have neither a wife nor girlfriend, do you? For reasons that are quite obvious to those of us who don't share your huge antipathy to women, but which condemn you to a life that is impoverished of love, companionship and happiness - not to mention a satisfying and mutually respectful sexual relationship.

I will now await the usual puerile tirade about "lapdogs", "leg-humping" etc. Some of you guys are very sad individuals.

"Roscop, boy did you managed to push one of GINX's buttons, by the looks of it, it was a rather big button.....

Now the others smell blood and have joined in.........

........The girls using their combined mite have managed to change the direction of this blog."

Posted by JamesH, Friday, 22 May 2009 9:59:05 PM
_____________________________

1) It's not a blog.
2) I don't have mites.
3) Confirmed! The covert and now overt encouragement of an obvious troll.
4) Who REALLY has had 'buttons pressed' Jimmy? because:

5) I'm very surprised that YOU put up such a post. You are clearly oblivious to the trend of these 30 odd pages,- to refer to FEMALE 'combined...er, mite'.
I don't agree with your views, but I thought you were smart. I mean that.
______________________________

crap. Still waiting.

Oh look, the little chap's trying to growl. How cute, he thinks he's just like a human.

As I said earlier, in another thread, CJ, I respond in the way in which I'm addressed. Fractelle came in boots and all, trying to do her usual thought-police routine and she got caught out, which is why she got so cranky. Instead of jumping in now, trying to defend her very tarnished and somewhat bent honour, you'd do better to go back and read the thread.

You'll also note that I haven't mentioned you in any way before you came in with your mindless, repetitive yapping.

Just like Ginx, all you're good for is extracting the urine from, because you never add anything of substance to a conversation or post anything worth reading. You're the intellectual embodiment of a null set, with the ethical values of a neutered Pomeranian and the character to match.

Happy now that I paid attention to you, little fella?

Never miond, I'm sure the girls will come in and you'll have lots of legs to hump.

ROFL

"mites" haarr, haarr, haarr!

I do believe there is an effective spray for mites. But not, apparently, a deterrent for troll fanciers.

Roscop - congratulations, while it is of no surprise that you are championed by the likes of A-septic, that you should receive endorsement from JamesH is sad. But better to know the true agenda of those who claim to be fair and rational.

James perhaps you should reread the comments on Roscop, your memory as well as your spelling appears to be deteriorating.

Far from a concerted effort by "the girls" your prejudiced view of women is not shared by the majority of people - male and female.

Good old Antiwomen, who can always be relied upon to provide a pathetically childish diversion away from his own inadequacy as a man. So predictable.

I think that you, Roscop and JamesH could probably do a passable impression of Moe, Larry and Curly.

How's your love life, big fella? Spent much time with your unfortunate kids lately?

For Gods Sake septic!! , put up a REASONABLY intelligent post! All you incessantly do is to prove your struggle with grown-up discussion.

I mean-LOOK AT IT? It is the writings of a person with a junior school grasp of terminology. The resorting to a nah, nah, na, nah, nah! type of reaction.

It's so damned infantile.

You're fond of toy dog snipes..., you are like a poor old rancid little Chihuahua with no teeth, try to gum those you dislike into submission.

Give it up. I would have thought it so obvious that you make little impact.

Quick note to A-septic

I understand that you are worried by being subjected to sexual harassment by women. In order to clarify matters and provide you with some comfort:

1. Sexual harassment of men by women is extremely rare.

2. Given your disposition: you have nothing to fear but your imagination.

PS

A quantum is the smallest possible unit that energy can be divided into. The term was invented by the physicist Max Planck as part of his theory of quantum physics.

While the term is often used to describe the complete opposite as in 'huge' this is a common misconception.

Fractelle:"I understand that you are worried by being subjected to sexual harassment by women."

As usual, your "understanding" is both factually incorrect and limited in its scope. From the ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005 :

"In the 12 months prior to the survey, 12% (864,300) of men experienced some form of harassment compared to 19% (1,459,500) of women"

The survey defines harassment as: "Harassment includes incidents such as obscene phone calls, indecent exposure,inappropriate comments about body or sex life and unwanted sexual touching."

However, it is revealing that you dismiss the fact that 2/3 as many men as women experienced harassment as "extremely rare".

Given that the number of men who experience violence is about double the number of women, do you consider women's experience of violence as almost vanishingly small and hence negligible? Thought not...

Fractelle:"A quantum is the smallest possible unit that energy can be divided into"

Perhaps a course in High School Science might be in order, dear. A quantum is one of the discrete energy values that an electron may assume. An electron with energy x is not the same as an electron with energy y and cannot be without being changed by having y-x energy added, but it is very like all the other electrons with energy x. In other words, a quantum difference describes a difference in state, just as theres is a state difference between anal rape and vaginal intercourse.

I understand TAFE offers courses in adult education. Perhaps you might investigate?

CJMorgan:"yipyipyip"

Poor little fella, did someone stand on your paw? never mind, Aunty Gunk will kiss it all better for you

gunk:"you are like a poor old rancid little Chihuahua"

Not only unoriginal, but not even evocative. Gunk indeed. You and the Pomeranian are a beautiful couple.

Gunk:"look at me, look at me"

No, nothing worth seeing here.

Absent of NO does not mean consent.

As such, if the same principle is applied across the board, then inspite of what you girls wish to assume, because I have not raised any objections to Roscop, does not mean that I am in agreement or support of him.

It's always obvious when Antiwomen 'gets' a point I've made - he invariably starts babbling about dogs, leg-humping and other of his familiars.

So no love or kids this weekend, you poor chap? At least you have your dogs.

CJMorgan:"It's always obvious when Antiwomen 'gets' a point I've made"

LOL You've never actually made any kind of a point, little fella, you're too busy trying to sniff up the skirts of the less-discerning female posters here. Some of them even seem to like the attention. I guess that when you've got nothing to offer and no one to offer it to, even someone like you looks better than the alternative.

It's good that you keep posting though, since it provides the proof that OLO doesn't discriminate against anyone on the basis of intelligence or lack of content in their posts. If only you could avoid piddling on the carpet when you get excited...

Now off you go and have a whine, there's a good little fella.

Another rambling unintelligent and petty little dirge from septic-the blowfly.

So mired in crap ( the poster, and the ....), that it's so smothered,-there is no intelligent output.

It writes icky, picky, snipey, sexually orientated digs.

A pathetic creature. Just needs a fly swat.
____________________

JamesH;-read your own previous post. 'Does not mean that I....'??

Come now?

(Again. I don't agree with you, but you at least, do write lucid posts).
_________________

1 server error.

Ginx to be honest with you, I started skimming over Roscops posts when he started challangeing Nina, because it was not where I want to go, I also started skimming Nina's posts as well.

So I did not read either of their posts very well at all.

So I repeat my self, because I did not object to Roscops posts, does not mean that I necessarily agree with his posts.

This also applies equally to other posters, as well, I make choices and I am selective about what I object too, challange or support in this forum.

If two people want to have an arguement, then I'll let them without sticking my nose in.

Antiseptic: Well it's nice to see that you're finally taking the trouble to look sme sources up yourself before mouthing off. Pity that you choose to misread or misuse what you see.

That fact is that you have little to fear from women; you are probably too old to be at great risk from men either, but if you are sexually assaulted, the perpetrator is overwhelmingly likely to be male.

Btw - young men under age 17 are at greater risk. Still, even a few dozen elderly men get raped each year.

So,

<" The National Crime and Safety Survey of 2002 (ABS, 2004)
indicated that, over a 12 month period, the rate for sexual
assault for persons aged 18 and over was 0.2 per cent
(33,000 victims) overall; 0.4 per cent (28,300) of females
and 0.1 per cent (4,800) of males. Recorded Crime Statistics
2003 (ABS, 2004) indicated police records of sexual assault
victimisation involved a total of 18,237 victims: 14,892 for
females (149.8 per 100,000) and 3,255 for males (33 per
100,000)."> and

<"New South Wales
The NSW Recorded Crime Statistics (2005) recorded a total
of 3,503 sexual assaults for females and 644 for males.
Indecent assault, acts of indecency and other sexual
offences indicated 4,226 for females and 971 for males.
Males represented 15-18 per cent for recorded incidents.
Data from NSW and Victoria show a consistent pattern.
Although most victims are female, males represent a
substantial minority of overall figures.">

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/wrap/acssa_wrap2.pdf

Additional survey information:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

So bringing all your wisdom to bear; what do men, especially young males, need to do to avoid tempting those poor alleged perpetrators, and why would the alleged victims be reporting alleged incidents? Regrets the morning after?
After all; it just comes down to he said/ he said doesn't it.

James: Back peddling is a very unattractive posture. You not only commiserated with Roscop over being hounded by a pack of women but talked about having a beer with him. Few people respect a sycophantic marshmallow.

Pynchme, now you are twisting what I wrote.

Adding meaning that was not there.

Mind you, that is a typical female tactic and highly manipulative.

"that is a typical female tactic and highly manipulative"

JamesH finally completes outing himself.

About time. At least with Roscop, you know where you stand.

To quote James:

<"Roscop, boy did you managed to push one of GINX's buttons, by the looks of it, it was a rather big button.

Now the others smell blood and have joined in.

If I was you Roscop, I'd apply for the CIA witness protection program, it just might keep you safe from this mafia for a while.

I think Nana did very well in dealing with you.

I have seen this played out a number of times before, where a girl or one of her freinds takes offense at what a guy said or did, they then try and get other guys involved to teach this guy a lesson, which usually means he gets the living daylights bashed out of him.">

and

<"Apart from what Roscop writes here, I do not know what he really beleives or disbeleives as we have not had good chin wag over a beer.">

No need for me to write any more; your own comments are self-explanatory; including the last one.

Mercy, mercy I beg for mercy.

Nah just kidding.

Obviously Pynchme you have never had the wonderful experience of hearing two very drunks blokes solving the world problems, telling their life story to anyone stupid enough to think that you can get a rational conversation out of two drunks.

Anyway again I reiterate, that you add meaning that is not there. Just because two people have a drink together does not mean that they agree with each other.

If I take the meaning that you are so keen on implying, then if a woman agrees to have a drink with a bloke, she is signalling that she agrees to have sex with him. Any bloke makes this assumption is plain stupid.

Every which way you look there are women liars. Because women liars are so numerous, surely when a woman tells you she has been sexually assaulted the default position has to be you disbelieve her….particularly when it comes to stories that aren’t even half-baked, like Funnell’s anecdote. The Hamilton police in NZ said when talking about an analysis of sexual assault allegations, it could take up to 15 hours of interrogation to determine a woman’s story is a pack of lies.

And here’s another story about a woman liar:

“BBC News
4 June 2009

'Gang rape' woman admits she lied

A woman has admitted falsely accusing three men of raping her after video footage on a mobile phone disproved her claims.
…
‘Innocent men were arrested as a result of her allegations’”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/8082765.stm

Roscop,

Gee a false allegation in England or somewhere. How thrilled you must be.

The fact is that nobody approves of false allegations (as Nina
pointed out earlier on this or another thread); for exactly the
reason that you present here. False allegations, on the rare occasions that they occur, are despicable.

Having said that; two points:

1. Are you as equally condemning of men who make false denials. Do you think that men who rape don't lie about it?

2. If this happens more frequently than I believe; and closer to as frequently as you obsessively think - then maybe it's time for men to have a good hard think about having random sex with strange women.

If the risk of ending up on false charges is such a worry to men maybe they'd better start taking some responsibility for the choices they make about who to bed.

Afterall, to draw a parallel: If someone picks up a hitchhiker and takes them home and the transient then robs them, wouldn't people say, "Well you took a stranger into your car and your home - what do you expect? What the hell were you thinking?" If they share your delusion that all women are liars, then they'd be silly to have sex with one they didn't know wouldn't they.

Pynchme

It is way past time that the majority of men outed their control hungry brothers.

Not all men rape, but most certainly those who do lie about it - time for those liars to be held accountable. We, women cannot do this alone we need our menfolk who do love and respect us to condemn their violent brothers. Where are they when the 'Roscops' are busy denigrating women? If one man tells a lie I do not automatically think "all men are liars" so why is it, when a woman lies, we are all condemned?

Meanwhile how do reasonable women deal with the minority of women who see their interests either in contributing to the oppression of women, or see men as nothing more than 'meal tickets' manipulable via their sexuality? A superficial sexuality at that. A sexuality that reduces us all. Compare the Pamela Andersons to the Kate Blanchettes; one type is all fake while the other is inspiring - both may be 'sexy', but I know which I'd rather our daughters use for role models.

There is problemic behaviour from both females and males - bad behaviour in males results in violence, bad behaviour in women fosters it.

So the mantra rant starts again......OK.

I've been waiting for you.

Answer my questions. You are coming up with the same stuff, crap.

Qualify it.

Answer the questions I put. YOU question NF's statements. So?;-I question yours.

You are a gutless little coward who waited a few days;-sidestepped what you do to others;-and then came back and did the same again.

You're not a coward?? Then answer my questions WITHOUT EXCUSES (cowards do that....), and we can proceed to the second half of this thread.

I am REALLY looking forward to our chats, once I know where you're coming from.

You ARE a strong guy aren't you, crap? You can do it.

Over to you.

Just watched an interesting doco on SBS titled “Footy Chicks”. For those who didn’t see it, it was about the shanky hoes that try and latch onto the top footy players and they seemed pretty keen to spread their legs in order to achieve their goals. They know a lot about sexting with one of them showing a photo on her mobile of a guy in the buff with his long willie on display. However these shanks don’t know as much about sexting as some professional female entertainers. A mob of footballers got a stripper in and she rammed a mobile up her fanny and asked those in the audience to call her number...I guess she had set it to vibration mode. Well, in my lifetime of world travel, I’ve seen women perform a variety of tricks, with cigarettes, ping pong balls, Coke bottles etc, but that was a new one for me. We are blessed with so many talented women in our community but they aren’t all Sunday school teachers.

The hag that runs the NSWRCC appeared in the doco and was trying to laugh off the behaviour of the footy chicks. She was bemoaning that these footy chicks who engage in a few “Ronnies” get called “sluts”…she saw it as a double standard. It may be double standards but you can’t get away from the fact that it is true. Willis says in the doco, the number of calls that the NSWRCC receives skyrockets around days like Superbowl Sunday (one of the many big lies peddled long and hard by feminists in the US)

http://www.sbs.com.au/blogarticle/110116/Footy-Chicks/blog/Documentaries-SBS/#comments
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shanky%20Hoe

Good on you Roscop

"Harder to kill than a vampire." That is what the sociologist Joel Best calls a bad statistic. But, as I have discovered over the years, among false statistics the hardest of all to slay are those promoted by feminist professors."

Christine Hoff Sommers