Suze,

I don't believe a word you say. There are extensive protections in place for rape victims in court, a woman's word is always taken at face value and men must prove themselves innocent. There is no stigma involved for women, there may well be financial rewards and there are no sanctions against proven malicious claims.

So if your 'friends' were really raped why would they have any compunction about going a through a trial?

You feminists are so obsessed with rape and sex. It would be nice if you could get your minds above your thighs every now and again.

'Can you prove we are all lying Dane?'
I see you have taken the new legal paradigm to heart. You make an outrageous claim and expect other people to disprove it. A bit like your friends who claim they were raped. Apparently it's my job to disprove they were raped even though they never reported it. How about, if a woman is raped she report it to the proper authorities, or otherwise just sit down quietly and drink a nice cup of shut the fcuk up?

I also personally know women, who were definitely raped but did not report it.

Years ago the main reason was undeserved shame and fear that friends and family would find out.

Even today there persists a continuing fear among victims of going to Court and enduring a cross-examination, as well as an impression that charges would not stick in many cases through lack of witnesses.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that rape is actually very poorly defined. Successful victim-centric advocacy has seen the definitions broadened almost to the point of meaninglessness, so that anything a victim might choose to define as rape post-facto is ipso facto rape!

As the father of a young woman, I am acutely aware of the perils that she may face, including the possibility that someone might not take "no" for an answer, regardless of how emphatically she tries to express herself. However, as the father of a young man, I'm also acutely aware of the perils that he may face if a young woman spitefully or perhaps even worse, sincerely accuses him of improper sexual conduct when he was sincerely of the view that it was consensual.

Miscommunications are so common they should be taken as the norm. Even in formal negotiations misunderstandings occur, let alone in the emotionally charged situation of a sexual encounter.

Pretending otherwise is simply stupid.

Dane, Craig; everything you've added seems to miss the critical point!

All we need is to expose the truth!

And it's not just female victims that were routinely ignored but young boys, harmed by pedophiles!

And if you did report it, what's the odds you would be punished for saying such terrible things about an above reproach priest or a brother!

Even if everything you say about scheming evil females are true, and there are some, just being able to expose the truth and the liars whoever they be, is all we need; and we can do that in spades.

What's your real problem with that? Some nasty skeletons in the closet perhaps?

One can expect a certain amount of resistance from the political class/legal fraternity, given, if the idea caught on and reporters armed with thermal cameras started interviewing pollies, and exposed them routinely for being both extremely disingenuous and routinely mendacious; they'd surely lose their jobs to those who didn't fail the "accuracy" test.

I mean, I was gobbed smacked when the responsible minister decided to exclude thermal imaging from our airports! Too many airport interviews perhaps?

And for the legal fraternity, the idea seems to be just winning or losing, and let justice go take a running jump; money is all that seems to matter for some!?

Albeit, I've known some who's integrity, would not allow them to defend the guilty, just help them plead for the mercy of the court!

To reiterate, why are you guys so hostile at the idea of exposing the horrible truth and then just letting the chips fall where they may!?
Rhrosty.

Dane I am telling the truth, but you aren't.
When was the last rape trial you were at? I was at one just 6 months ago, and it was truly awful for the woman involved....a 76 year old lady.

One doesn't need to be a feminist to agree with anything the rest of us are saying.
You can't lump all women in the one basket, just as you can't with men.

Rhosty, it is very difficult to get to the 'truth' in these sorts of trials when there is only the two witnesses.
The prosecution has to prove it was rape, and the defense uses 'she obviously asked for it' or 'she really enjoyed it' .
I would suggest the defense wins most of the time in these trials...

Ah but you are wrong Suse!

When any witness is interviewed with the assistance of a covertly positioned thermal imaging camera and C.A.F.R. It's impossible for the disingenuous/compulsive liars (however clever) to hide the truth!

And if it can be done in relative privacy, and not in the presence of the badgering barrister and the perp. The victim need not be traumatized more than necessary, just to expose the irrefutable truth!

After all, justice is supposed to be blind and just interested in the critical facts.

What really amazes me, is that we remain stuck somewhere in the fourteenth century and adversarial questioning/hostile inquisition, as being able to actually decide actual true justice; as opposed to badgering/embarrassing it out of existence!

And if exposing the actual truth also prevents false accusations from prevailing, then we are finally able to get the balance right, and just by relying exclusively on the mighty irrefutable truth; rather than "suppositories" of all wisdom.

Yes there are some accomplished liars out there and getting away with their incorrigible recidivist mischief; and harm for decades!

Time for all that evil to end, and indeed, "justice" reserved just for the privileged few that can afford a good $600.00 a day/an hour silk!

We have extremely reliable means in our hands to fully verify the facts; time to use it, and just so justice can finally prevail/genuine victims can have their accusations incontrovertibly validated!

And if that then poses a problem for forked tongue pollies in the public spotlight, so be it!

I mean, it can only be a question of time, before media outlets equip their reporters with said thermal imaging cameras and C.A F.R. And the pollies none the wiser, until the evening news!

And after that?

Placing them in parliament to ensure parliament cannot be successfully misled, but particularly when questions can be taken on notice?

And then we wonder why some eternally obfuscating obdurate pollies seem to resist the implementation of this particular technology?
Rhrosty.