If I ever have a daughter I hope she thinks that getting filmed whilst having sex at a party in front of on-lookers is a regrettable act.

Is it a double standard to not feel a similar level of concern for the male participating in such an act? Yes it is, it's one of many, and they don't all go the males way. Apparently it's worse for males to hit females than vice versa, or males hitting males, I can't see the logic in that. And don't tell me about self-defence, people shouldn't have to defend themselves from illegal assaults. Crimes shouldn't be judged by the victims ability to 'self police', it's the violation of rights that matters.

The double standards are everywhere, males and females are yet to be considered equals in our society. Some only take issue with them though when their own agendas are served.

It sounds to me that those who are the champions of a promiscuous society seem to be crying the loudest. They want their sex at any cost and no consequences with it. They seem to deny the reality. Some girls would not want to admit that the boy she had sex with is likely to be boasting to his mates the next day about another scalp. I do however suspect these ads will have no effect as the behaviour of kids who have been brainwashed from a young age that anything goes (as long as you shove a condom on). The amount of std'd going around confirm that the champions of promiscuity have brought more degradation and harm to the young than freedom. No wonder few can hold a relationship together. Congratulations all you 'sex educators' of the last 40 years!

Runner:
Not sure who you assume to be the 'champions of a promiscuous society' for a start. The sexual health educators?
Just a few things I'd like to respond to:
-Condoms = safe sex = one element of positive sex education.
-Not all people who have an STD are promiscuous.
-STD's are resultant of unsafe sex. Not promiscuity per se.
-Perhaps it is the champions of ignorance that brings more 'degradation and harm'

A few legal problems with Ms. Funnell's article.

About mobile phone filming of sex: can you expect privacy at a house-party. Like real estate, location, location location . . . have sex in a place where there is no expectation of privacy and you can be filmed and photographed as much as someone else likes.

Also problematic is saying it's rape because she’s drunk. Ms. Funnell leaps over something important in this. Proving a lack of voluntariness in making a physical movement means showing an action of your body that - like, pulling triggers in reflex or being pushed –though activated by muscles, is not directed by the mind.

Beyond clear situations of someone who can't stand up, and who therefore can't will much, how can an acceptable state of mind of another person be converted into a legally binding independent assessment of their otherwise apparently willed physical and verbal actions?

The law is NOT that a girl can get very drunk then do a whole range of decisions and actions that suggest willed and voluntary movements and then say 'rape'. When the law speaks about incapacity to say yes or no what IS meant is a level of drunkenness (we’ve all seen it at some point) that takes away the very ability to consent. So, someone who can barely operate a key in a door, let alone a . . . well, you get the image.

If the law meant anything else it would be absurdly passing a self-induced standard of lower capacity but still willed and voluntary behaviour onto someone else. Surely that’s not what Ms. Funnell advocates?

If she is then this is just another dose of moral intimidation by feminist legal hyperbole. What would make this the more objectionable is that these messages are unhinged from a position reflecting broader community sentiment or the right to deliver censure at all. Is Ms. Funnell a judge? Is she a bishop? Is she an elected official?

If we’re talking about having no legs to stand on then it’s not just the kids in the ad who are legless.

As usual, Nina and her fellow bandwagon-riders simply cannot accept the possibility that women may have to take responsibility for their own actions. All of the complaints are about the fact that young women are shown as risking becoming more vulnerable to sexual predation and other outcomes they may regret if they consume mind-altering substances in the company of young men.

Does anyone really disagree with that message

hmm, somehow lost the remainder of that post.

What the ads try to do, ISTM, is to show that the potential for problems starts when the decision is made to take the substance. That is clearly a decision only the girl can make unless it is forcibly or surreptitiosly administered and I suspect that is at the root of the objections from the usual would-be victims here.

It is about time that these types of campaigns started to address some of the aspects of female personal responsibility that used to be taken for granted.