I agree with the author that early sex education is the go. Respect can be taught.
I disagree about pornography. What people watch in their own homes is their own business. While I agree that there probably is a link between sexual violence and porn, driving porn underground ain't the way to go.

I hesistate to call the women at the centre of the rugby scandal a victim. She engaged in group sex and then regretted it. The time to change your mind is before the act.

The writer is right that's it's a moral decision but she has compounded one mistake with another - and that is expecting 'closure' by going public.

Thank you Barbara for an honest account of what took place in your life. I am sure your story thanks to the porn industry and those who fail to teach morals around sex education is all to common.

You write
'To prevent a future generation of muddied souls, we must teach school children before pornography gets to them first. A good place to start is to teach them how to respect themselves and each other.'

Unfortunately I think it is to late. The deviants and champions of secular humanism has won out in our society. Just switch to the perverted SBS most nights and you will see the case in point.

Barbara: "Those rugby players learnt somewhere to fantasise about degrading group sex."

Most young males don't think of group sex as degrading, and there are some women who don't think of it as degrading it either. You do apparently. Pity you had to learn your preference the hard way.

Barbara: "We need to ban pornography which portrays anyone in degrading roles."

You believe that males learn their social graces from porn? I have some news - porn or no porn, males of most species will seek out women for sex, casual, group or whatever they can get. You seem to want to educate them into not doing that. You may as well try to persuade fish not to piss in the sea.

Barbara: "Tribunals, where the proof is less rigid, could order treatment, or re-education of offenders."

You wanted to prevent the degrading cross examination of the victim. But in doing so you remove the accused's ability to question his accuser. It is a pretty fundamental right you are sacrificing.

You know that just as there are men who are willing to take advantage of women, there are women who willing to use to courts and law to take advantage of men? In lowering the standards of truth and honesty in our courts you will get more men prosecuted, but a greater proportion will be victims of female charlatans.

Barbara: "We should take Finland’s lead and teach sex relationship education in the last years of primary school."

Agreed. You seem to lay some of the blame on males for your experiences. But they were just taking advantage of the chance you offered them. No amount education, no restriction on porn will stop men from doing that. You are the one who naively gave them the opportunity. I can't imagine what social environment lead you to think that was a reasonable think do to. But yes, we get lots information at school on the mechanics of sex, but very little on sexual and relationship expectations of males and females. With a better balance you may have taken a different path.

runner: I really must point out that secular humanists should not be victimised by zealots such as yourself. Particularly when yet another priest child abuse case comes to light. If anything it is organised religion that should be under the microscope.
Time and time again religious power is associated with child abuse, lying and general corruption. Probably best to say that social power given to priests, or footballers is too much when they think they can get away it. At least the footballers dealt with an adult, and it was consensual so far as it goes (drunk people are not known for good decision making.) Why the uproar on footy thugs when priests seem to make a habit of it and no one seems to care? Why the attack on secularism when religion seems to be a paedophiles haven?
Women have a choice who they go home with. Kids are poweless, yet we grieve for the poor stupid drunk women and say "oh well" to the corrupt paedophile organisation known as the Catholic Church!
What you see on SBS is not usually porn to the normal balanced mind. Those of us who were brought up seeing sex and nakedness as normal and quite distinct from porn or love have no fear of corruption from liberal media. The "dirtiness" is in *your* mind, not ours!
I agree that early and frank sex education is what is right for kids. The evolutionary explanations may not be complete (yet), but they are a darn sight better than nothing when it comes to understanding human behaviour. Best to get kids thinking like an adult ASAP because the simple lies are getting them into too much trouble.
Try telling that to the churchy types though...

I really do get sick of these B grade book promotions, masquerading as considered articles.

Ozandy you ask

'Why the attack on secularism when religion seems to be a paedophiles haven?'

Then again artists, teachers, sports coaches, environmentalist. police, judges and politicians have their fair share of paedophiles. I seem to recall a few ex national broadcasters being charged for child sex offences. Considering the secularist have no moral base to call anything wrong it is no wonder they can photograph 12 year old girls nude in sexual poses and call it art. Yes the Catholic church has had many homosexual priests behaving like animals in contradiction to Christ's teachings however I doubt the percentage is any higher than in other areas of the community.

If you feel guilty about having engaged in group sex then there are two possible responses:

1) Regret the decision.

2) Deal with the guilt.

Isn't it at least possible that being brought up in an atmosphere of sexual repression and secrecy caused your guilt, and that in a society that was free and open about its sexuality, the guilt would never have occurred? Clearly there are plenty of women (and men) who have engaged in unorthodox sexual practices when young and gone on to be happy, healthy and well-adjusted. The first question to address is why you are not one of them.

Instead of blaming the act for giving you a burden of guilt, perhaps you should be blaming your upbringing and -- I would guess -- the awful psychological distortions caused by a restrictive religion. In fact, since your biography was launched by a (discredited ex-) Archbishop, it's not hard to see where the guilt is coming from.

"Yes the Catholic church has had many homosexual priests behaving like animals in contradiction to Christ's teachings however I doubt the percentage is any higher than in other areas of the community."

So, runner, you don't think that it might have anything to do with the official policy of celibacy, which forces priests to seek their sexual release among those who are powerless and unlikely to tell on their persecutors? Nah, of course not! What institution could possibly be so stupid and barbaric as to try and impose something so totally alien to human nature?

Oh, THAT institution...!

runner
You rants against secularism are verging on the hysterical.

Secularism does offer a very strong moral code - the right for religious freedom (including yours) and freedom of expression. Secular societies have laws against paedophilia, theft, rape, assualt and so on. This implies that these acts are seen as Wrong.

It seems that religion in itself does not stop bad behaviour. Sex offenders are also found within the Church. It will alwasy come down to the individual's own moral compass whether derived from religion or not.

Rules are one thing obeying them is another.

There certainly is a good case to be made for better sex education
classes in Australia, when it comes to schoolkids. That could well
include information about relationships and similar topics.

We know from Holland, the dramatic drop in teen pregnancies, when
good sex education is combined with modern family planning methods.

So what is holding it back? Basically the religious lobby. Many
religious parents think that only abstinence should be taught and
as we know from America, it has been a dismal failure.

What is degrading or not degrading, is purely in the eyes of
the beholder. Sex in fact is perfectly natural. We evolved to
enjoy it.

Yabby

After reading your last post I wonder if we are simply just arguing for the same thing from different angles.

I agree with everything you wrote in your last post. I was also impressed that you did not use any personal insults. Amazing.

Both men and women need to be responsible for their actions. Such as women accepting when they have made a mistake, but also for men to have the moral fibre not to take advantage of drunk or drugged women.

At the moment neither sex is doing themselves any good while it is considered acceptable for men to use women as if sex were a competitive sport and for women to take the stars from their eyes and not kid themselves that these sporting "heroes" are anything special.

I have to ask why women have such fragile self esteem that they pursue these knob-ends? And why there are so few men (in the sporting culture) who are willing to behave respectfully?

I made dumb mistakes when I was very young, but I would have to say in 99% of cases I was protected by the males around me. Admittedly I will never forget that 1%.

We do have a sexually repressive culture in Australia compared to countries like the Netherlands and we are seeing the result.

Now can we stop the blame game and start discussing ways to stop the gender divide?

Err hang on Fractelle. I post many posts which nobody finds
insulting. Some however dish it out, then are amazed when they get
it back. Others are just very sensitive to what they call an "insult"
I tell it like I see it, I refuse to join the PC crowd.

In fact on the recent "languages in schools" thread, I tried to
get people discussing the virtues of teaching emotional literacy in
schools, as the benefits have seemingly been outstanding, in terms
of their effect on violence in schools, violence in homes, self
esteem, depression etc. All I got were some smartarse comments from
CJ, not a single positive contribution from anyone.

I will always support better education that actually is effective
and gets results.

Where we differ is in our understanding of how much one can teach
people. I believe that genes will always have a huge effect on human
behaviour, you seemingly believe that we can teach people anything.
As my point about educating Catholic priests shows, even 2000 years
of trying has not stopped priests from being sexual beings.

Fact is that when you try and go against human nature, you will start
to hit brick walls. People will act in their own self interest or
in their communal self interest.

The game of boys getting into girls pants has gone on for as long
as we know, its part of nature. Just this week the Economist showed
pictures of 35'000 year old porn statues, carved from mammoth tusks.

Alcohol has always been considered as a leg opener. Some male
relatives and friends might protect women, but far more males will
take their opportunity, if presented. Education is not going to
change that.

High testosterone young footy players would press a number of
female instinctual buttons. Even you prefer athletic types.
Women seemingly can smell high t and respond to it.

Barbara Biggs; many thanks for relating your experience and opinion.

But this is OLO.

If you have perused other threads on this subject, then you would be fully aware of the trend on OLO currently.

Most male posters on this site have gone to extraordinary lengths to justify the Christchurch incident, including rationalising the male need for group sex/the victim being to blame/the players being victims!

Any of the minority female members of OLO (yes, they are in the minority in current active m/ship of OLO), have been attacked as feminists-as if that were some kind of dirty word. It was irrelevant what approach they took.

IF they considered the women in the incident in any way, shape or form-a victim, then they too;..were fair game. Just as she was.

The few real men,- (putting in the 'real' IS deliberate and calculated),- who were not part of the condemnation of the woman,-but sought to make the point that the men should have behaved with some modicum of responsibility... were roundly condemned and ridiculed.

It has been nigh on impossible-even for the more 'reasoning' of female members, to make any kind of dent in the wall of the male mantra-line that occurred here.

Posting this is tantamount to OLO Boy's Club heresy.

I write this, which I will largely repost on the thread below this, because this is the second time I have been stunned by reaction on this site-and I don't stun easily!

OLO is not-IS NOT:- currently a forum that is female friendly. I made a comment about female members 'circling the wagons', which has already been thrown back at me,-but I meant exactly what I said.

If we defended from the female prospective we were roundly condemned!
Does that sound familiar?

1 women-11 men; that's OK? 'She asked for it'.

Sad isn't it?

I truly wonder why you felt the need to put up a thread on OLO, which all current evidence suggests that you will get more of the same.

The widely entrenched here?:-'stop whining on about what you asked for, and then blaming men for it'.

When I read some of the OLO posts I really wonder how many of the respondents actually get out on a Friday night to join the rest of the human race (whoops, not a PC word on OLO!).

If they did maybe they might finally let go of those old fashioned myths about men being always up for it while women are the demure virgins, looking for love and commitment before being ravished in the safety of partnerdom, where their precious 'eggs' can be cosseted and properly cared for.

Go out and you will see that as far as having a good time (and getting bonked) is concerned, women are just as persistent and predatory as men. It is also very noticeable that men are under-represented in the groupie stakes and there have always been groupies. Women adore 'bad' boys and that is obvious at any social venue where the 'good' boys are the wallflowers.

It is silly to require men to be responsible for the 'weaker' sex because women are not weak at all. It was always a rather quaint notion in the West. They make up their own minds, take their own risks and sure, they regret some of their stupid decisions too - few of which are down to 'men' or booze. Listen to young women planning their night out (starting with copious drinks after work) and the penny should drop that many are not setting off to be 'nice' girls, Fifties style.

They are big girls. So leave them alone, even if the occasional one might want to blame others, or get 'square' with that bad boy, embellishing her story to minimise her own role.

Maybe it is the Grrrls who are holding women back, not men. After all, winning a fight and shoring up a victim industry that puts bread on their table are far more important than the truth. What is the truth? Well for a start there are thousands of ladettes around and there probably always were, except now they are liberated to raunch in the public eye. How is that men's fault?

JonJ you ask

'So, runner, you don't think that it might have anything to do with the official policy of celibacy, which forces priests to seek their sexual release among those who are powerless and unlikely to tell on their persecutors?'

I actually think this idea of forced celibacy for priests is un scriptural and demonic. However abstaining from sex is far less likely to cause a man to rape or molest a child than feeding on porn. There are numerous men (secular and believers) who are not yet in sexual relations but never contemplate fiddling with kids. Many of these priests were likely to be attracted to the priesthood because of their homosexual tendencies. There, unfortunately they get to carry out their fantasies.

Some excellent advice from the Chaser Team:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/#/latestepisode/chaser_09_03_01_openmiccro/