Not only Thorpe, but an ex-Liberal Senator and an anonymous squealer.

And, don't forget Dutton, who jumped in, a la Morrison, to trash the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Nobody knows how Thorpe remains in Parliament, but the same question applies to 80% of the no-hopers there, who have said nothing about Dutton’s obvious disregard for the rule-of-law. Three leaders in a short space of time have displayed appalling misjudgement: Morrison, Albanese, and now Dutton.

Keep up the good work; males these days are too pussy-whipped to stand up for themselves.

The problem is hardly hidden under a big rock.

Without a compliant Public Prosecutor, none of this nonsense would be in its unfolding stage.

One would wonder what the end stage will look like.

Maybe it’s not too difficult to imagine that a future for men and boys will include snipping the nuts of boys along with circumcision early on. I guess that in effect means turning the male species into Eunuchs.

Great idea. That one falls into line with rainbow ideology.

There is a song, Silver Dollar by Petula Clark that sates that "a man with out a woman is like a ship without a rudder," but then states "there is only one thing worse in the universe, & that's a woman without a man".

If the feminists keep up their ratbagery there are likely to be a lot of such women & it will be no one elses fault but theirs.

More utter drivel from Arndt.

Claire Lehmann’s estimate that 639,000 women have experienced sexual assault by men is not “absurd”. The ABS data do indeed refer to all women who experienced an assault in the past 10 years. Taking lifetime experience into account, the number is much larger – 2.2 million women have experienced sexual assault since the age of 15. Taking a single year, it is smaller.

https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/sexual-violence-victimisation

The ABS number is much larger than the number of police reports because:
a) Most victims of sexual assault do not report it to the police (about 13%, according to the same ABS report)
b) The police report records assault in a single year, not a 10-year period.

The ABS also provides a 10-year estimate of assaults reported to police - 221,751.

The ABS estimate was not “concocted by extrapolating” from a survey. Sample surveys are the bread and butter of statistical agencies and are used in the estimates of everything from unemployment rates to inflation.

Arndt’s attempts to diminish the seriousness of sexual assault short of rape are particularly vile. Yes, there are forms of sexual assault that are less serious than rape. But they are still assaults. The ABS defines sexual assault as “rape, attempted rape, aggravated sexual assault (assault with a weapon), indecent assault, penetration by objects, forced sexual activity that did not end in penetration and attempts to force a person into sexual activity”. All of these are criminal offences. Less serious acts are considered sexual harassment.

diminish the seriousness of sexual assault
Rhian,
You're either supporting this industry or you're not really in tune with what's going on !

What Rhain says.
Alan B.

We have unbeatable space age lie detection, which could be used to decide just who is telling the pork pies and who is guilty of the crime or prudery.

And could be used in front of a camera and not in a courtroom setting, so a just and fair outcome is accorded all and sundry! With as little trauma as possible!

Not for nothing is it writ large, know the truth and the truth will set you free! But no, it's not the truth the author or the lawyers want, just winning and or, legalising rape!
Alan B.

Autocorrect turned purgery into prudery.
Alan.

Alan

If you had written perjury as it spelt, you would not have had the problem.

Rhian,

I'm wondering if you are genuine in your beliefs, or just being bitchy to Bettina: something women tend to do to other women.

As a psychologist, Bettina would be smiling and nodding, if she reads your posts

Ttbn

Yes, I’m sincere in my beliefs. I have a particular dislike for Arndt because I think she is not. Since her early days as a sex therapist and editor of Forum magazine she has spent much of her working life exploiting sexual insecurities, inadequacies and prejudices. In her early career she mainly exploited women. Nowadays, it’s mainly men.

I base this conclusion on her wilful and repeated breaches of accepted ways of constructing and supporting positions on public issues.

She selectively quotes or deliberately misrepresents sources. As someone with a background in statistical analysis, I am particularly irritated by the way she abuses statistics and data. The ABS report on sexual assault numbers is not “absurd”, and the use of sampling does not produce “concocted” estimates but is a widely accepted statistical method. The much smaller number of sexual assaults recorded by police than reported by the ABS is mainly because most sexual assaults are not reported to police – a fact Arndt surely knows.

She repeatedly uses logical fallacies to construct her arguments. For example, she implies that because the definition of sexual assault includes “attempts to force someone into sexual activity”, it is not a serious matter. This is the hasty generalisation fallacy, that would be easy to spot if it dealt with other issues. For example, would you consider physical assault a minor issue because its definition includes mere slapping? Furthermore, the ABS (rightly) bases its definition of sexual assault on criminal law.

She relies heavily on prejudicial language, in particular spiteful and personal attacks on women who claim to have been assaulted. She reached a low point in her implication that the murder of Hannah Clarke and her 3 children by Hannah’s husband was partly Hannah’s fault because she drove him “too far”.

She is nasty, but not stupid. These are not the genuine mistakes of someone who knows no better, nor the one-eyed selectivity of the ideological zealot. They are the cynical and calculated acts of a deliberate spinner of fake news.

Notice that some of society's supposed ills follow a fashion. An example is the dysphoria of transgender persons, a concept rarely spoken of in the 20th century. So it is with almost trivial words or touching between men and vengeful women. Back in 1990 or so it would barely rate a mention.

If this is a malaise I blame the victims-as-heroes ethos being pushed by prominent media. It used to be that heroes were people who triumphed over adversity; now it's people who simply have their feathers ruffled. When hard economic times hit I hope the latter are put in their place. Having your bottom touched at a social event is not as bad as being unable to afford groceries. Maybe it's a smokescreen to avoid the real issues for which the professional victims have no response.

Tasmanian

Excellent comments.

Have a look at those claiming to have been touched.

At least half of them it must be wishful thinking.

Ask yourselves if we could know as an absolute certainty who is telling the truth and who is perjuring themselves? Why don't we?

Answer, because the truth is not wanted! Just punishing the victim for telling the truth! As many here have done in spades.

Many believe that they have a right to sex on demand from wife or lover. That she is mere bagatelle, goods and Chatell. Or has less rights than livestock?

At the end of the day, you will have face the man in the mirror and answer for all you've done and helped do.

And poor Dan who is so obsessed with rainbow flags and what other folks do in the privacy of their bedrooms. It has become a psychosis.

Don't worry Dan, they're not hurting you or lessoning any of your inherent fun rights. Just removed the sport of gay bashing from your fun stuff.

Rhian

Thanks. Not much evidence there. It seems to be all an opinion, which you are entitled to hold of course.

One thing that needs attention is time?
But that I mean the time taken to report a perceived sexual indiscretion.
Would no more than six months be reasonable?
For children, more leeway of course.
Perhaps six months after they reach a responsible age?
So six months after they reach sixteen years?
In all cases, maximum six months unless there is a solid reason for not reporting it.
(The victim could be locked in a cabin in the woods for six months?)
But hopping on the band wagon thirty years later is absurd.
Were it so important, it would have been actioned nearly thirty years before.
If it can wait thirty years, it has long passed its use by date.

Men chase women to procreate.
If they didn't, we wouldn't be here.
And women expect them to?
But it is not a free for all.
In modern times we value individual freedom of choice.
So we lay down sensible guidelines for such approaches.
Sex itself is not the culprit here.
It is the approach used by the male, and also sometimes the female?
So lets not get hung up on the sexual aspect.
Concentrate on the approach.
Strengthen protection of personal freedoms instead?
Encourage people not to put themselves in unstable situations.
Teach them to exercise greater caution?
A stitch in time...etc.

Ttbn

I gave several examples of her flawed reasoning and misleading arguments mostly from the current article. Misrepresenting statistics is not a difference of opinion.

Perhaps her clearest misrepresentation on OLO is here:

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=22320&page=0

For some background:

On 4 July 1776 the US Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson. Most Australians have probably heard of this but, unlike most Americans, they may not be familiar with the content and style of the document.

In 1846 a conference of early US feminists adopted the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments compiled mostly by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Stanton deliberately patterned her Declaration very closely on Jefferson’s – most of the words are direct quotations. This was for several reasons. Though the language is fierce, it is a foundational document of the US, so people could hardly object to the tone. By including women where Jefferson spoke only of men, it asserted that women have the same rights as men, and for the same reasons – “all men and women are created equal” not just “all men are created equal.” And by using the same language of grievances that Jefferson used to object to the abuse of power by the British monarchy, Stanton drew an analogy between British oppression of Americans, and men’s oppression of women.

Compare:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. “

“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.”

Yet Arndt’s article makes absolutely no mention of the relationship between Stanton’s Declaration and Jefferson’s. It accuses Stanton of “fire-breathing allegations about the brutality and injustice of male treatment of women” without acknowledging that the fire-breathing language is a direct quotation from the USA’s founding documents.

No-one who treats their readers this way deserves to be taken seriously.