Pynchme, you assume a lot.

The legal definition of rape (without research) use to be anytime that a women was forced to have sex against her consent. Being unconscious was also included, because she/he was unable to give consent.

Now the legal definition is that it is rape, if the woman does not give a clear YES.

But still it comes down to he said, she said, unless somehow there are witnesses to her giving consent.

Like seven high court judges and the pope.

ninaf : "I should not have to make myself into a spectacle to convince people like you who I care nothing for"

So why mention the assault at all? Aren't you "making yourself into a spectacle" by doing so? You've made that experience a central part of your public persona, ISTM; does that make your credibility on the matter a valid subject of questioning?

This situation seems to me a perfect example of all that's wrong with the current efforts to conflate all sorts of other things with rape and attempted rape. I actually agree with your position largely, but the credibility of those claiming to be rape victime is terribly low, largely because there are seen to be so many people making so much money out of State-funded "victim support", while so few cases can be proven to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard applicable to the criminal law. The outrageous claims made by some such groups as to prevalence is another factor, I suspect.

The upshot of it all is that there is a certain cynicism engendered, which may well hinder those making genuine claims. While the reasons may be entirely valid, reluctance to support a claim is only going to bolster that cynicism.

BTW, why should anyone believe the account of someone who they "care nothing for"

Roscop, JamesH, Antiseptic.

Nina has already been through the court system having to repeat her ordeal over and over again. You doing nothing more than subjecting her to a retrial.

You are beyond contempt.

Nina was brutally raped, she has the right to present what she deems relevant and not put herself on display for your spurious entertainment.

There is nothing constructive being created here. Just another abused woman being abused on the web.

This is precisely why I didn't report my rape because I was not seriously injured, and I knew I would be subjected to the kind of harassment you are conducting here.

The majority of rape claims are genuine. Very few women put themselves through a false claim - because of all of the above.

Fractelle, do try to keep up. I'm actually supporting Nina's position and trying to explain why others may feel differently. Do you have the slightest bit of control over that jerking knee?

Fractelle:"Nina was brutally raped"

Even she doesn't claim that, dear. See, this is a perfect example of what I said above. The attempt is bad enough, but Nina's is a "good news" story, because she fought off her attacker. It's that damn twitching knee again, isn't it?

Fractelle:"The majority of rape claims are genuine."

Prove it.

Fractelle: "Your posts amount to nothing more than deliberate harassment of a woman who has already been abused. I have recommended that you be suspended."

Let Roscop's comments stand on their merits. I was personally horrified and repulsed by them, as I am sure others were as well. Getting them deleted won't stop Roscop stouting this crap, will probably just re-enforce whatever conspiracy delusion Roscop suffers from, and won't prevent him from posting them under a different nick at a latter time. But leaving them for all to see means we know what sort of person we are dealing with next time Roscop posts.

There are worse. Imagine you were in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, then have to deal with a Holocaust denier. But the solution is not try and shut these people up. Just as for Roscop, it doesn't work - they always find some other podium to thrown their vitriol from, and it just encourages them to do so. The best solution is to give them the spotlight they crave. That way everybody can see them for what they are.

Fractelle: "Roscop, JamesH, Antiseptic."

You include JamesH in that list? You are letting your emotions get the better of you, Fractelle. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he is a ogre, and JamesH has been an exemplar of reasoned and polite disagreement. As for Anti, Nina seems to treat his as a kindred spirit, a fellow soul injured in the war between the sexes perhaps? I think she will allow him a fair bit of rope without ever taking it personally.

ninaf, your courage amazes me.

This man attacked me but I am not afraid, SMH 2 July 2007
Eyes, Nose, Throat, Groin, Feminism, Honi Soit, Edition 19, 10/09/08

“…what possesses a man to grab a girl from behind, holding a box-cutter blade to her throat.”?

Well I would have thought if it was the attacker’s intention to rape his victim it would be for the purpose of threatening her life if she did not do exactly what he wanted her to do. I would imagine he would say something like:” Don’t scream! If you don’t do exactly as I say I will cut your f#!8ing head off with this.” Once in the park and whilst both still standing he would tell her to undress and continue to commit the offence with her life still under threat. The way I read things, from written and oral accounts, something rather different happened to Funnell.

We are told that the assailant knocked Funnell to the ground, straddled her and proceeded to pummel her in the face with one hand and strangle her with the other, in order to “subdue” her. He told her he was going to “rape and kill” her. We are not told exactly what the attacker’s first words were from the point when she was jumped from behind; when they were spoken; or when he abandoned the use of the “box-cutter”; and what as done with it once it was removed from her throat.

“I fought the man off by screaming and scratching. I can say without a doubt that the self-defence seminar I took in high school eight years ago helped me to escape without being raped.”

Here’s a version of the event in which Funnell says “I had been at Uni that day”. No mention of friend’s birthday celebration “drinks” she was coming home from”. Obviously she is wanting to avoid the TV presenters raising a question pertaining to alcohol consumption : http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-au&brand=optus&search=Nina%20Funnel

Sorry for not glossing over the details. Funnel no doubt expects her audience to do that and just pick up on the feminist messages embedded in her yarn.