Turnrightthenleft,
I haven't even written “men's rights” in any post, and I don't like being called an “ilk”, so maybe an apology should be forthcoming. I'm sure you will give an apology.

Zahira
“selfish, selfcentred Neanderthals “. Of course this is not abuse, because everyone knows that females are not abusive, and everyone knows that only males are abusive.

You seem a fine and progressive person, so I nominate you to go into schools, and tell all the boys that they are “selfish, selfcentered, Neanderthals”, and also tell them that they are abusive.

Boaz-David
They went through all this in the US, starting about 15 yrs ago. Girls were becoming sexually active at a young age, well below the age of consent.

Of course the knee jerk reaction was to blame boys. But then they found that the peer group pressure on the girl was actually coming from other girls, and from women's media.

If a girl was not having sex with someone, then she could be rejected by the other girls in her group for not being "grown up" enough.

It became the rage that a girl would wear a special colored bangle for each time she had oral sex, and girls would compare the number of bangles they had.

And also girl's and women's media was actively encouraging girls to have sex at a younger and younger age, and they didn't care if that age was below the age of consent. Girl's magazines were even selling the bangles.

The same trend is occurring in Australia, and of course the knee jerk reaction is to blame the boys. But I have never known feminists to ever get one thing right.

Hi HRS, I won't say that all females are not abusive, but what I will say that any male that treats a female as a sex object, an object for his own pleasure without consideration for her, or her rights to say NO, any male that enforces his will upon a young lady or a woman is exactly that - a self centered Neanderthal.

I would love to go into schools and teach the young men and women about treating each other with respect, dignity and honour. That lust is not love and that a relationship built on respect, dignity, honour and treating the partner the same as you would like to be treated yourself will be a long lasting relationship; not a relationship doomed to failure. Regrettably, many relationships are built on the dust of lust and soon collapse under the weight of the pressures of normal everyday life. Ideally, of course I would love to see young people enter into relationships the way God intended, but I understand that not all people share these same values, so the values of respect, dignity and honour are a start.

The figures on sexual assault are terrible and something definitely needs to be done.

However, reading the links would indicate that nearly all sexual assaults occur within the family group or by family friends. This statistic has not changed significantly in the last 30 years and should not be treated as a new phenomenon.

Likewise the objectifying of women has existed even in ancient times. Sex is a very powerful tool that is used by both men and women to achieve their ends.

Further more the author seems surprised by the difference in attitude between young men and women. That men are interested in the act and women in the relationship and that pain and angst is often the result should be no great revelation.

As there is no human culture that meets the author's ideal, I would suggest that a culture change though desirable is probably not possible. An improvement in the sexual education program of the children to beyond the purely biological, and more to what to expect in the "dating" environment would do more to enable the young girls to know what to expect and be able to make informed choices, and to have the confidence to report any cases of abuse.

Likewise the young men should be educated in the consequences of abuse both for the girls and their future. Trying to educate them to have similar emotional response as women is doomed to failure.

HRS.... the point well made...

>>And also girl's and women's media was actively encouraging girls to have sex at a younger and younger age, and they didn't care if that age was below the age of consent. Girl's magazines were even selling the bangles.<<

BINGGGGGO!

Exactly.

'The commodification of sex and youth'.....

How many times have you heard 'progressives' rant, rave, woffle, spew forth, dribble, drool..... blubber.. blabber...that:

"How dare anyone speak about CENSorship.. people should be freeeeee to look at what they like" etc etc.....

BOTTOM LINE.. "show me the money" and I'll show you what lies behind the 'progressive struggle for liberty'.....

Ask BOB BROWN to vote for the stopping of XXX rated PORN from ACT to the rest of Australia... will he ? notttt a chance.
Is their any simple coincidence between the reported support for the GREENS from the EROS foundation.. the representative group of all the 'adult' porn in Canberra ?

Is EROS donating to the GREENS ? I'll guarantee one thing..the EBs won't be.

HOW TO BECOME RICH.... my new book.

"In my book, I explore the simple process of identifying a 'traditional taboo' about sex.. then I show how this can be capitalized on, by making some outragious claims that are sure to generate controversy and LOTS of free publicity in the talkback and talking head circuit"

CONCLUSION.

-The book is a best seller.
-I'm now rich, driving my new Ferarri.
-The community is degraded, more degenerate, less confident, confused, and ashamed.... but do I care ? not a chance.. its all about the existential 'experience' of 'ME'.

POSTSCRIPT. My trohy wife bore me a daughter, she became a teen, and left home to work elsewhere. I decided one day on a business trip to hire a hooker. She arrived, knocked, I opened..and there she was.. my daughter.

One thing you rarely see in these type of discussions is the call for women to take responsibility for every and any relationship in which they enter.

There are enormous pressures on women to be swept off their feet in a romantic whirlwind, to proceed to their wedding day as the 'greatest day of their lives', to have children and to go on to live happily ever after. These pressures certainly do not come from men but from women. Everything from Jane Austen to Mills and Boon is promoting this as the goal of women's existence.

Because these pressures are so hard to resist women will often enter relationships where they are mistreated and abused. Sometimes they will allow themselves to be treated in a less than dignified way in order to achieve their ultimate fairytale. They often selectively ignore the signs in their partner that abuse is a possibility and when it happens they claim that they did not think it would turn out that way. Violence and abuse does not just happen overnight there are patterns to it.

If women want better relationships with men then they first of all have to take responsibility for entering the ones they have. No woman can be forced into a relationship in this day and age but they can be subjected to huge amounts of emotional blackmail from other women who often just need to co-opt more recruits in the campaign to cover up their own emotional dependence.

Men also often enter relationships for the wrong reason because there are many false pressures put on them by men. If you enter relationships for the wrong reason then you will probably end up in the wrong relationship. It does not help either young men or young women to blame anyone but themselves for the relationships they enter be it marriage, friendship or a one night stand.

The first step to solving the problem is to take responsibility for your part in the problem.

HRS, if your post isn't aimed at men's rights then it doesn't actually have any constructive goal at all, nor does any of the facetious criticism appear to be relevant.

So no, I've nothing to apologise for, if anything by rejecting men's rights as reason for your posts, I then fail to see any merit in them at all.

Whether you intend to or not, your defence of males and your criticism of simply blaming boys is indeed arguing for men's rights. I don't see why you're rejecting this, but if you are, then for crying out loud say what you do want instead of making snide comments about feminists.
Again, my point was that instead of hostile attacks, you should consider what it is you're in favour of.

'Ilk' is a term for people of a kind. Of someone's 'ilk' means people like you. There's no such thing as a singular 'ilk' so I couldn't have referred to you as one. Look it up.

Boaz. We agree that there's a degrading sexual attitude toward women, but I suspect there our similarity ends, except perhaps for a shared acknowledgment that respect for your fellow man and women lies at the core of the issue.

runner made a point about the exclusive brethren being investigated but not the porn industry. To that I'd say, it really depends if the porn industry took out advertisements flaunting Australian law by providing an inaccurate contact detail for who was placing the advertisement. That's illegal.
This alleged conduct by the EB was largely because the EB wanted to hide their role, since they've always said they don't believe in interfering in politics (which is why they don't vote). At least the porn industry aren't as hypocritical and they're not breaking the law.

boaz, I come back to your point about choice, and I reject it utterly. Choice is choice. Neither the Greens nor the Democrats have come out promoting pornography, but they have come out with choice, which isn't political mileage at all. They're allowing people to 'choose' for themselves. That is indeed, choice.