Houellebecq, I nolonger feel lonely, but I do wish the others would just bugger off, so I keep my own journal going. (just kidding)

"All this has a poisonous effect on personal relations. British sex life has a pretty dowdy reputation as it is, without a ban on sex while drunk. The distinction between bad sex and rape is being blurred - with sex that was reluctant or just regretted being increasingly defined as rape. This confuses the situation, and does nothing to help the plight of real rape victims."

There is an aspect of female bullying that involves telling bad or false stories, now this could involve adding exaggerations or embelishments.

In the book Lipstick Feminism there is line that I think is really worthwhile.

It is about a woman introducing her man to her friends (they know more about our sex life than you do.)

a short postscript; it occurred to me today that there is a certain irony in this thread. While my article was not actually about my experience of assault, it was about the distribution of sensitive photos.

It interests me that an article which discusses the disastrous and unintended consequences of disseminating photos of oneself could ignite a demand for me to release personal photos which could indeed prove emotionally and psychologically disastrous for me.

It also interests me that those who think that rape counsellors are over funded could also push for a release of photos, which could very well (depending on how those photos are discussed) re-traumatise me causing me to require further couselling.

Anti asked me (a fair enough question) of how can I discuss the matter with ease (and without being traumatised by the process) and not be comfortable releasing photos.

The only truthful answer I can give is this;
I have discussed 'the assault' adnauseum to the media, my family, my boyfriend and those around me. This has led to a desensitising and when I speak about it I am emotionally detached. Similarly the park where it happened (up the road from my house) is a place I have to go past every day and while this upset me and 're-triggered' me at first, revisiting it has also led to a desensitising effect. As has been mentioned before, I was listening to my Mp3 player at the time. I have heard the song that was playing many times since. Initially this really upset me (as did the smell of cut grass due to its association with the assault) though with enough exposure these things no longer trouble me to the same extent.

The photos, however, I have only viewed once. Perhaps in time i will desensitise my self to them by sitting with them long enough that they no longer have any hold on me or my emotions. But that day has not yet come. Perhaps in time it will, and maybe then, when I feel less emotionally invested in them, I will release them.

Hello again,

Anti:

I think the word "conspiracy" has been taken out of context and/or used in the liberal "conspiracy by one" sense. I also think I speak for all whom you have listed alongside me when I say that we are referring to Roscop's notion that women may be walking around with "biological material" to use in fictional crime reporting. I also refer you to my original post, in which I question my understanding of Roscop's paragraph.

Perhaps my words were too aggressive to appear true, but I honestly did not follow Roscop's argument: First he seemed to claim that the presence of a person's DNA is not enough to implement him or her in a crime. He then seemed to say that it is, and that women use this to press unfounded rape charges. Finally he brought up the case of Ms. Lewinsky, who (1) never openly wished to implement President Clinton and (2) actually did engage in sexual relations with him, so did not plant evidence falsely.

Perhaps this would be a good time for us all to take a step back from the argument and allow Roscop to clearly and succinctly phrase his stance.

Roscop: We know that you think at least some women lie about their role in some of these situations. Do you, in fact, believe that people (men and women alike) go and seek "victims" for these allegations? Do you think they actually carry "biological material" for this purpose? Do you think that women "ask for it"? (A term I hate, but for lack of a better one...) Do you think that there is actually no rape at all? Finally, why is it that you question Nina's story, given that she is a somewhat public figure and has probably been under more scrutiny than most victims of such crimes?

-mcd

ello, ello, ello.....now what have we here..emmm?

It will take just a tad longer to read every post, but I look forward to some vigorous discussion. It seems to me that Ms Funnell as the article writer has done her best to respond to you nice gentlemen.

Someone of you haven't been very kind...have you? That's not nice.

I tell you what robcrap;-it would be really nice if you could answer mcd's queries, then I will have a better idea of the situation when we have a little chat.

Looking forward to your responses rob,....or can I just call you crap?

AND,...and:- given the considerable leeway you you have been allowed crap;-I know that I can be as frank as you have been, and get away with it!

Isn't that great? What fun!

Yes! Does it mean Yes?

I think it was Pychme who said something like without a Yes it is rape. However as Andrew Bolt points out, a Yes is no protection.

"Hear it from Lumby herself, in an interview she gave in 2004, when the NRL first took her on as its gender adviser.

ABC reporter: There have been stories of a culture of group sex in rugby league. What do you think of group sex? Do you think it's OK if it's consensual?

Lumby: Speaking as an academic, I think that there's no problem with any behaviour which is consensual in sexual terms.

That was Lumby's doctrine - what adults did to each other even in the most crowded of beds was fine as long as all agreed to it."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25483701-5000117,00.html

Hoellebecq:"it really is a tad insensitive and distasteful."

Nina is a journalist by profession and I think her responses indicate that she feels my line of enquiry is reasonable, if confronting.

Nina, I've said all I intend to on the subject of the photos. You are the only one who can take the decision to release them. My only advice is that if you wish to be a public person (and all the indications are that you do), then you are going to have to face up to the issue at some stage, I suspect. As a journalist you know that any unexplained inconsistencies are going to be jumped on sooner or later.

What I find more interesting is that despite there having been a police report made, people remain skeptical. My suspicion is that is because the "Duluth model", which informs police policy, mandates uncritical acceptance of those claiming to be victims of DV and sexual assault and in the case of DV specifically, automatic assumption of "male as assailant". It does not change the burden of proof for prosecution, however.

Perhaps you might raise this at the next meeting of the NSWRCC Management Committee?

mcd:"Roscop's notion that women may be walking around with "biological material" to use in fictional crime reporting"

I didn't take that away at all. I thought his point was that male DNA is freely given away in the form of saliva, hair, skin flakes, sweat and so on if people are mixing in a group, such as a party, which is where Nina had been. At the current state of the art, DNA evidence is nearly always exonerative: it is not useful for proving a crime occurred (although semen or blood where it doesn't belong may well be), but once a possible perpetrator has been found, it may be useful in exonerating them if their DNA does not match that found at the scene. Have a look at this for a very good overview:

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_dna.htm

James, there is a thread specifically addressing the Matthew Johns incident.