The Forum > Article Comments > Angry, frustrated and powerless > Comments
Angry, frustrated and powerless : Comments
By Nina Funnell, published 9/12/2008Vicarious trauma: the trauma incited by an assault is rarely confined to the victim alone.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Page 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- ...
- 17
- 18
- 19
- ›
- All
Reading the last few comments, the article title "Angry, frustrated and powerless" takes on a whole new meaning. Do any of you losers have a sex life - other than with yourselves, I mean?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 10:09:13 PM
| |
Seeker: It was word length. That's why I placed a link (twice of that one) so that people could read the whole article. The point of that sentence was in response to one of Antiseptic's usual lies where he portrays her as not telling about having consensual sex.
Roscop says, "Would it be better to go overseas to where the girls have a better appreciation of spontaneity if a bloke is thinking of getting it on?" I am surprised to see such a suggestion put so boldly, even by you - urging more Aussie men to participate in sex tourism to Asia so that they can contribute to another country's problem in the abuse of women, young men and children. - but hey, let's not hold them to the standards of decent men. Do you think that they can't cut it? They can't get a bonk unless it's in the context of exploitation of others with less power in the situation ? James: It's a pity that when people like Houellebecq demean women and belittle what was a sincere sentiment from me; that you gladly fall into line. What happened in the case of your niece's rape? Were the perpetrators (female and male) ever convicted ? You said you knew what injustice felt like first hand and that someone close to you had also experienced a traumatic betrayal of trust, and I've believed you. If you have experienced those things, how can you be "smiling" when Houellebecq and Co. make these horrid assertions about women ? Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 12:34:16 AM
| |
Antiseptic: If you're genuinely interested in answers to your questions why not email the centre and ask them. A lot of organizations and public bodies have policies that prevent employees and volunteers from discussing organizational matters in public.
I agree that some women do bad things and some footballers don't do the things of which they are accused. However, it seems that the football culture protects the bad eggs. "TICKY FULLERTON: .... Yet the fact remains that in the past 20 years not one of the cases of alleged rape in AFL and rugby league has led to successful prosecution." (2004) http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/abc/s1100551.asp and again FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rugby_league_incidents One then has to ask whether the football culture reflects community values; or whether it's an abberation to the norm. What do you think? Usual Suspect - YES! I wanted to discuss the "double standard" and was sure that one of you would raise it. (Btw James I did assume that you'd both been drinking). Anyway - the point is that rape victims are rarely believed. Consent is assumed as the default position. The onus has always been on the victim to prove a negative - that consent was not given. Proposals that have been pending but not yet realized include that defendants will need to prove that they obtained consent. I am interested in understanding how people think that negotiating consent for sex will change their dating behaviour and situation. What steps will they take to show that sex was consensual ? http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/submissions/2007/20070720_sexual_assault.html http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22603668-5006009,00.html Now, one could argue that, if sex has always been consensual, that nothing need change. On the other hand, if men really believe that most rape victims put themselves through the onerous process of rape kits and police interviewing, just out of spite, then maybe they need to think about how they will account for any sexual activity in which they engage - just in case. Btw: The idea of using alcohol as a "social lubricant" has always been alarming to me. If someone won't come at sex with the other person when they are sober... ?? Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 2:10:40 AM
| |
pynchme,
That's a good idea putting the accused up as guilty and then have them prove their innocence. We should have that for all crimes. It'd be great! If someone wrongs me, I'll just turn up to the police and claim they raped me. They'll have to prove I didn't consent. With regards to alcohol, it's the only tool some women can use to allow themselves to be 'naughty'. As good girls don't enjoy sex or seek sex out in their twisted mindspace. Then they can console themselves for all that naughty debauchery that they enjoyed so much the night before with the fact they were drunk so they aren't like all those other girls who are just sluts. Now with your new laws coming in about guilty until proven innocent, women with these problems will have the added tool of accusing the guy of rape if her friends catch her out being a 'slapper' or if her (now future husband in her eyes) kicked her out in the morning before cuddles or didn't make her breakfast. And before you twist all this around and decide for me that I am one of the people (as I'm one of the all 'men' you generalised about) that believe 'that MOST rape victims put themselves through the onerous process of rape kits and police interviewing, just out of spite' just know that I'm on to your tricks. I like your technique. 'Houellebecq demean women'. Where has he demeaned women. He's had a joke about reading between the lines as far as I can see. Something you're very apt at I see... 'go overseas to where the girls have a better appreciation of spontaneity if a bloke is thinking of getting it on?' somehow equals... 'urging more Aussie men to participate in sex tourism to Asia ' I was thinking of those naughty French myself. You know, people free of the English culture who are left with getting pissed to allow themselves to be 'naughty'. Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 8:56:07 AM
| |
In fact I read a lot of the Footballers problems as a lot to do with alcohol really. That's the common denominator. Anyone see that SBS documentary on the Groupies? Disgusting! Women treating those players as a conquest to brag about to their friends! Oh, sorry I forgot, it's only when men behave like that it's offensive to women.
Anyway, the Group Sex football cases I see as an extension of my post above. Girl is so, so naughty (and drunk) she decides it's a good idea for group sex. That's even more 'bad' or 'slutty' than shagging in general. She's the more adventurous cousin of the 'good girls don't'. She's the 'good girls one at a time'. In the act of sex with 2 or three guys, an extra guy is stupid enough to think he is welcome. She doesn't fancy him or his attitude (fair enough) and the next morning, dealing with the shame of being used (used when sober, when she was drunk last night she was sexually liberated), the rape accusation comes out. May be true, may not be, maybe she said no explicitly, maybe she was too drunk to bother, maybe he just watched, maybe he forced her. Everyone's a bit fuzzy on it all. So to protect her reputation, and to justify the nagging feeling she has been abused, or just disgraced herself, down to the station she goes. Now I'm not callous enough to think the 4th footballer, if explicitly told 'no', and proceeds, is not guilty. But cant you see how messy this all is. Even the first 3 guys who were having consensual sex, now they're all rapists, and so is the rest of the team. In fact all footballers have terrible attitudes towards women, but the women who also likes group sex is just a confused young girl in need of attention. She was drunk, no excuse for those 4 guys though. Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 9:33:19 AM
| |
Why exactly do we have a Rape Crisis Centre? Why is rape more worthy of a taxpayer funded support service than any other type of crime or attack which can cause equal or even worse trauma? If someone burns down my house I would be severely traumatized. If someone bashes me in a dark alleyway I would be traumatized for sure. If someone embezzles my life savings and I was put out on the street because I had to sell my home to meet my debts I would be shattered. There are many victims of crime who do not have access to support services. It would seem to me to be beyond the resources of government to provide support for all victims of crime in this way. So why exactly is the crime of rape given this special treatment?
Why a ‘crisis’ centre? All assault victims are in a state of crisis. Anyone who is traumatized has a crisis to deal with. Why does the word crisis need to be used when it is obvious to most people that rape equals crisis anyway? Is it an attempt to ‘dramatise’ something that is already very serious in order to manipulate public thinking? Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 9:53:52 AM
|