1)

Ninaf, your experience and coping with it are admirable. Your responses here, given the nature of some comments and accusations have been nothing short of miraculous!!

To my certain knowledge, the police never at any time suggested that your allegation was spurious or false. Yet you are called on to 'prove it'.

I have little interest in the copiously stated views of the 'gentlemen' on this thread in their response to your experience, rather than the general subject of sexting, other than to say it was contemptible.

I am ....less than impressed..!! with the fact that you were placed in the position of having to prove that you were ever attacked at all!
But certainly in one particular case that was as predictable as tomorrow!

Interestingly when one maggot went a bridge too far these nice gentlemen developed some moral standards and distanced themselves from 'it', with of course the usual exception..

I can't imagine why? It appears there are DEGREES of disparaging and diminishing the trauma that another has experienced...How sweet to have some standards...

Still:-I have to say I am perhaps using the same methodology, because I'm interesting in chatting with only one poster on this thread. Just one.

You (of course!), needed to provide evidence for the judge and jury here. Something as elementary as being retraumatised by viewing yourself again as a damaged human-being, completely escaped them! Astonishing!!

Your 'failure' to do that meant that you had something to hide. Yea God's!

It was so damn good to see that the lynch mob mentality was not universal.

There is indeed another similar thread. If that thread had been put up before this one, you might have thought twice about relating your experience. It is the finest example of cutting the suit to fit the cloth!

Cont'd..

Ginx:"the police never at any time suggested that your allegation was spurious or false."

The point is that the police NEVER say a claim is spurious or false. If they had a policy of doing so there'd be fewer false claims. It's a cornerstone of the policing model they use that any woman alleging sexual or violence crimes is treated as though she is telling the truth. I'm not suggesting they do otherwise, just that the police response is of no use in evaluating the claim.

Now ANTI

lets be a bit clear on the police reporting issue. The police DO have a responsibility to take all claims seriously (including, for that matter, your own claim that a woman has falsified evidence against you).

However, this does not mean that the police actually act on all reports. They have what is known as a NOD or a 'No offence detected'.

I do understand that on occasion people may falsify claims against a person for revenge reasons. Given that in my own case I was not alleging that anyone in particular had assaulted me, it seems curious to accuse me on these grounds. More to the point, my case was not labeled a NOD as there was clear evidence of an offence (again, blood, male DNA, signs of a struggle, personal injury).

I also think its worth pointing out (again) that the overwhelming majority of rapes go unreported (under reporting, not falsified reporting is the biggest issue). Also that most rapes have no evidence to speak of.

But this does beg a bigger question. Perhaps it is the police reporting system which is at fault if illegitimate victims are able to make false reports, while the majority of real victims feel completely unable to report due to police culture (in part). Maybe it is the reporting system that needs a review.

My own experience was very unpleasant. I had to speak to a number of untrained 'front liners' who made commetns like "the problem with young women these days is they don';t understand the trouble they get themselves into". These sort of comments would not upset illegitimate victims as they are not already traumatised. Legit victims though find these sort of comments very hurtful as they shift the onus of responsibility off perps and onto vics, and they tie into a victims pre-existing sense of shame.

Just a thought

Anti:
Of course in many social circumstances any person will "collect" other's DNA on their person. It's the sentences which follows this one in Roscop's comment which seems to me to imply that he thinks women collect DNA to use in court.

We have yet to see Roscop's response to my last comment, but in the meanwhile have a question for you: In a recent post you wrote to Ms. Funnel, "My only advice is that if you wish to be a public person... 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."

Now I agree with the second sentence entirely. However, I fail to see any inconsistencies in Ms. Funnell's story at all. In my opinion, she has fully faced up to the issue and she's done so quite comprehensively. She has acknowledged the existence of the evidence and has explained why she doesn't wish to share it. She has also mentioned that fact checking and investigative work has been done - both by police and by the SMH. Given the ease with which someone can doctor photos and even inflict injury upon themselves for the sake of taking picture, it seems to me that anyone who requests she share these photos is doing so for entirely different, and frightening reasons.

Now I do not know if Ms. Funnel has mentioned this already, but I imagine this would be going through her mind as well. Why does anyone care so much about seeing graphic pictures which would prove nothing on their own when police and reporters already agree? Personally, if I had gone through the ordeal, I know that I would be more than wary of such requests. (And this would be even truer when the person making the request is someone who has expressed the opinions of Roscop.)

Roscop: If you haven't yet, read my last post - my invitation stands

James: That was a really interesting link. The writer raises some great issues, but unfortunately targets Ms. Lumby and in that diversion discredits the piece.

There are two main concepts here that struggle to coincide: one is the freedom of individuals within a society to choose their own moral path. The other is a community need to identify some shared values and morals. As the writer more or less points out, the community is trying to reconcile a desire for individual choice (what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own room nobody ele's biz) with a set of agreed values and morals and the more formal version of that - the law.

Now Ms. Lumby seems to me to wisely refrain from tryng to dictate private morals; but she encourages mutual respect in all encounters. It isn't within her province or that of the NRL to mke law, or even to make people behave any other way than as thy choose. All that she can do is provide information and insights.

Matthew Johns might not have had access to those courses; I don't know. However, he isn't in strife with the law for rape; the community is expressing disgust for his callous indifference and also the apparent lack of family values. I suppose the reaction is magnified by the flow of reports over the past few years years about football players doing all sorts of anti-comunity things and getting away with it.

The game has an image problem and the people who make money off the players; including Channel 9; are tossing him aside not because of any law, or because of Ms. Lumby, but because they are worried about their appeal to families; the community and their sponsors

*Apologies to all about errors - my keyboard isn't registering every key press.

Roscop: Jeans seem to worry you; hope you don't frequent Bondi. The search terms that you recommend indicate that you're watching too much porn. Goodness me what a dilemma for you - desiring so much that which you despise. Your inner turmoil must be overwhelming.

So, what about males who are raped by other males? What should they do to avoid being too attractive to rapists?

Do you think both females and males should be wearing Burkhas?

Ginx: We haven't met but thank goodness for your levity)

Fractelle: Thanks for the ^5 - you keep up the good fight too.

mcd: Your posts are very thought provoking. Agree.

Houellebecq: I'm convinced that neither you nor James nor Antiseptic have the least knowledge of sexual assault or what the aftermath entails. That's why I bother to be here; but I often wonder what it would take for you 3 and assorted others to allow knowledge to sink in. As long as you refuse to even accept figures provided by police and by surveys as noted by the Australian Institute of Criminology and other reputable sources, you will continue to demonstrate a pro-rape mentality by automatically discounting victims' experiences.