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.