Charmyne Palavi is the 36(?) year old mother of three children who appeared on 4 Corners last night and who I referred to in my last post. Charmyne is a big-time sexting recipient and an archetypal rape victim and drink spiking victim to boot. She is a role model for all young girls in Australia. In footy circles, NRL is lucky to have role models from both genders.

Those of you who watched 4 Corners last night might remember she gave a reason for not reporting the rape that had been perpetrated on herself. The reason was she was worried about what her partner (of 10 years) might say and that she might lose him.

I include a few links to photos of Charmyne in action.

photo 1. Charmyne at birthday celebration drinks. This is the woman who doesn’t drink very much (so she says on national TV). Charmyne uses cold tinnies to keep her hands cool.

Photo 2. Charmyne acquiring some male DNA. Notice she has a glass of soft drink in her right hand. She probably enjoys the same type of soft drink as Nina Funnell. It looks like Coke but no doubt one of the many naughty NRL boys has spiked it with a bit of rum.

Photo 3. Charmyne putting on her “NO” pose outside her hotel room. Remember boys…before you come in …“NO” means “NO”.

Photo 4. Charmyne in the hotel room she booked for herself and her girlfriendssssss, just before getting into her PJ’s and her girlfriendssss get “busy”.

Photo 5. Charmyne at the bar frolicking with those girlfriendssss who like to be kept “busy”

Photo 6. The photo which stuck-up Professor Catherine Lumby uses in her Powerpoint presentations when lecturing footy players on respecting women.

Photo 1 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6389020,00.jpg

Photo 2 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6388658,00.jpg

Photo 3 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6389021,00.jpg

Photo 4 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6388687,00.jpg

Photo 5 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6426222,00.jpg

Photo 6 link: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6388683,00.jpg

For those who are interested to learn more about Charmyne and sexting, some additional reading:

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/facebook-and-sexting-now-part-of-the-problem/2009/05/11/1241893923077.html

http://the-riotact.com/?p=12030

Roscop

I seriously don't know what your issue is. Anti often disagrees with me on things but the reason why I engage with Anti, is that Anti has genuine intentions of using arguments as opposed to baseless insults.

Also say what you want about me. But I will not stand by and let you call people like Catharine Lumby (and at least spell her name correctly you tool... it's Catharine with an 'A', not an 'E') horrible things. Catharine Lumby is anything but stuck up. Nor does she lecture footy players. She works along side them and often gives them and the process a lot more time and effort than I think they deserve.

I should disclose that I have a working relationship with Professor Lumby (hence part of my reason to defend her). But she is a much better human being than you (or me for that matter) and I think that you are a weak, insipid, sad, pathetic human being to make the sort of baseless claims that you make. Seriously, look at yourself in the mirror.

I haven't wanted to provide oxygen for the trolling here, but sometimes a troll manages to go above and beyond. I'd just make the point that we're giving him the attention that evidently, he craves.

I imagine making such a kerfuffle pleases you somewhat, roscop.

But, at the end of the day, you've only got your own bitter experiences to contemplate. That's your business and how you choose to live your life. I don't envy you.

I imagine you view this as enlightening the masses about a supposed feminist conspiracy.
It must be rather sad living in a world crowded with such suspicion and hatred.

Somehow, other people manage to get by without developing such a hatred for feminists. Some men actually get along quite well with them and no, it's not because they're any kind of lapdog as I suspect you imagine.

Perhaps you can learn something from them.

Then again, perhaps you can't.

TRTL, doubleaa and others:

<"My suspicion is that you, and others like you, have some sort of deep-seated psychological investment in disbelieving Ms Funnell's story and what it says about world. Perhaps this is something about which you should speak with a therapist.">

I agree most strongly with this suggestion. Roscop demonstrates a bizarre obsession with Nina's case in particular and with woman-hating in general. I strongly suspect that the demand for pics of injuries is for the purpose of personal titillation. I am very concerned that, to even type the things out that we're reading, this person harbours some real pathology.

Antiseptic: "I suspect the questions won't go away." Questions from the likes of Roscop and you, perhaps. However, I suspect that normal people would accept that the police have determined that a crime was committed.

Calls for visual confirmation, which I suspect neither you nor Roscop would accept anyway, are absurd. To compare: I see in the news today that a footballer was assaulted in some place in Queensland. I wonder if one should expect to see you and Roscop calling for visual confirmation before believing that he was assaulted.

Anti,

I am told that you are a good person to engage with in debate. I’d go along with that proposition. It would be good to engage with someone who is rational rather than engage with a woman who alleges a “very solid” person “pummeled” her in the face and strangled her and when you challenge her to produce forensic photos it gets to a point where she starts taking about the reasonableness of a request to produce a “pap-smear”. What would be the caliber of a person, as an academic, who engages in debates like that?

BTW. here is a link to a photo of a POLITICIAN who has been assaulted: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/11/25/eighties260.jpg. There can be little about the attack on that politician in terms of whether an attack actually took place. He suffered a compressed fracture of the cheekbone, a broken nose, a broken upper jaw and had a number of teeth knocked out.

Turning to something else, I’d like to get you views on this passage:

“You might expect Nina’s first advice to be not to walk home alone, but she says according to the statistics she should be advising you not to go home at all (because that’s where the more common, familiar sexual assault takes place).”

Since we have gotten around to talking about insults, what do you think of that quoted in terms of it being an insult to all the men in Australia who are good to their partners and love them. Do you think that there is a deliberate implied stereotyping of all men, irrespective of their character?

On a scale of insults where would you put what is quoted, which I view as grossly insulting to a good many millions of good decent men both living and dead (many making the ultimate sacrifice for the country), in relation to someone describing another person as “stuck-up”.

Roscop: "The photo which stuck-up Professor Catherine Lumby"

I got to see the good professor on tele this morning. The adjectives I would use to describe her after seeing that 20 second interview would be "down to earth", "constructive", and "practical". I can see why the NFL is using her as an advisor.

That aside, you are venting at the wrong people. Your target should be the media. Most of these cases would amount to nothing - indeed did amount to nothing in the eyes of the law, but regardless they made a great news story. And there are some girls out there who like the publicity. Really. "Girl gets drunk and naked with football team, then has sex with consensual sex with 2 and non-consensual sex with 3" should be right up there with "man hits thumb with hammer after driving home 100 nails". If it didn't involve scantily clad women and sex, it would not be on the news.

The sad aspect of this is media works themselves into a frenzy over this minor incident, then when footballer glasses girlfriend in the eye and isn't charged what can they do? Certainly not work themselves into a bigger frenzy as that ain't possible. The concentration on the frivolous cheapens their outrage at the serious incidents.