To Hamlet,

You speak in a refrained and well reasoned manner and present a good case, but, "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still", and I'm afraid I still have my concerns about this matter.

Particularly, as mentioned in Michael's article, with regard to sexual assault or rape or whatever it's called these days. The amount of false, vexatious or frivolous accusations made by women must be huge given the statistics of cases that actually go on to prosecution. And then it would seem that even some of those are extremely shaky and fall over.

In Britain, I don't know the Australian stats, only about 2 to 3 percent of accusations result in conviction. That's 97 percent that fail! That's an enormous number. Something very peculiar is going on here.

Some say that things are stacked against the alleged "victim" and they are calling for more simple ways to get a conviction. But I wonder, maybe we're just making it too easy to make the allegations.

To accuse a person of a crime is a very serious matter. A criminal record is devastating to an individual. Not to mention the loss of reputation, being dragged through courts and often the gutter press, for all to see, while the accuser remains anonymous, veiled and protected. Where the accused is innocent, they in reality are the victim and in reality, the victim is the perpetrator.

In my opinion both parties should face the same trial. Let the jury decide who is the real perpetrator and who is the victim. As it stands now, sometimes guilty "victims" are walking away free. That's not right.

Presently, it's far too easy to make bald-faced allegations about people.

I understand "Damien's" situation, but I can see some difficulties with attempts to redress the situation.

It is often said that a very small percentage of sexual assault cases proceed to conviction. There are some reasons for this. One, of course, is that an attack may have taken place, but insufficient evidence is available to go to trial.

Another is that any trial is extremely hard on the complainant. This is made worse in cases where there is more than one accused, because counsel for each accused has the opportunity to ask the same questions, over and over again. Many people could not face this.

Perhaps there is a good argument for the name of the accused in sexual assault cases being not published until after they have been found guilty. A counter argument is where someone may be a serial offender, and other victims may be too afraid to come forward until they hear that their attacker is facing court.

Some countries have legal aid systems where the state pays the legal cost of the accused. If they are not found guilty then they doesn’t pay anything back. If they are found guilty they have to repay the money.

Lastly, men should be educated that there is no such thing as safe sex, in a legal sense. Many men have found themselves paying child support for years when they had been falsely told that their partner was using contraception. Men should be aware that if a woman has been drinking then she is unable to provide informed consent, so that any sexual activity can be considered to be an assault. Even a man who rolls over in the middle of the night and touches a sleeping woman that he is living with in a sexual way, broadly defined, has committed an offence by not asking first. Any sexual activity carries the risk of an accusation, even within marriage where the woman is considering separation and divorce. Perhaps Damien should have considered the possible cost of a few minutes of pleasure before entering the stairwell?

Hamlet, now you're starting to get to the main points of this matter. As you have expressed in detail, heterosexuality has basically been declared illegal by feminist/Marxist Labor governments. So-called rape laws are now ridiculous. On the basis of people having had a drink, I'd guess that 95% of the adult Australian population is guilty of rape. And that's the main reason there's so many spurious allegations.

As so far as warning men about the legal dangers of sex, I think most of them already know. I think it's time we started warning women about them. The law isn't written in a sex specific way you know. What counts one way, also goes the other way. In fact it won't take long before men start to get the idea to get in first with frivolous and vexatious allegations of sexual assault at the police station.

But this of course is the entire intent of those who drafted the laws in the first place. They simply want to drive a wedge between the sexes and create mistrust - destroy traditional marriage, which is a major plank of the Marxist manifesto/policy.

Anyway, frankly I don't think it's going to work. Men and women simply like each other too much and even traditional marriage is making a big comeback right now.

But the anti-sex laws are quite ridiculous, and the statistics are very hard to believe.

Aren't those Marxist Feminists terrible people? First they stop men from beating their wives with a stick, then they actually give women the vote. Then they want to get the police involved just because a man wants to force his wife to have sex with him: Isn't he entitled to use the person who he owns, after all, she was given away to him by her father wasn't he, and she adopted his name to further demonstrate ownership?

And as for those prudes stopping a guy from getting a woman drunk and having sex with them when they didn't know what was going on?

So I take it, Maximus, you would not mind your sister, or your mother, or daughter, being got blotto in a bar and then waking up next to someone that they cannot remember meeting before?

Or better still, imagine yourself, at a party, having a few too many, passing out, then waking up next to a guy that you have never seen before, and then you realise there is a condom hanging out of your colon?

That is what you are suggesting to be acceptable behaviour.

What I am saying is that sex should be free of coercion, freely offered and accepted, by people who know what is going on around them, and who are in a state to make judgements about what they want to do. The law is there to protect people from being used. I take it you don't agree with that, Maximus? By the way, is your first name Gluteus?

Hamlet, I think your slip is showing.

maximus: I hope that you get this message: I could not post it in the hijab thread, at least not for 19 hours...

yes I have been imbibing, you should not have been named in my post, and I will correct that when I can, please accept my apologies:

the site that I was talking about can be found at:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?act=idx

You may find it interesting.

And to all the forum members who read this and don't understand what is going on - well, sorry!