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.