Thank you Nina for such a concise summary of the challenges those of us engaged in relationships, sexual health, and anti-violence education are grappling with. Supportive school environments to provide effective, consistent and comprehensive interventions would be one avenue for expanding beyond the 'plumbing' to the real concerns and needs of men and women in negotiating happy, safe, ethical sex in our relationships. I applaud women like yourself and Moira Carmody, and all the less prominent women and men who actively engage in their communities to raise the issue of ethical sexual conduct. I also look forward to similar law reform on the burden of consent in all Australian jurisdictions.

A breath of fresh air.

Coming from overseas, I was staggered to find out how prudish Australia was.

My children were given age appropriate sex education from kindie (recognition of privates, what is appropriate adult behaviour, and who to talk to etc) and not only in high school as done here.

The next step would be access to reproductive controls and in extreme cases abortions without parental consent.

The trouble with the Australian education system in this area is no curriculum or lack of resources for age- and developmentally-appropriate relationships and sexual health education for early childhood, primary and secondary schools, but the lack of leadership to ensure it is delivered consistently and comprehensively for all young people. My colleagues around the country all identify the 'hit and miss' nature of this as a key problem. Schools often suggest that parent communities are opposed to it, so they don't make it happen. But Family Planning Queensland found that parents are both overwhelmingly in support, and surprised to hear that schools are teaching it. There's a big gap between community expectations of what young people learn 'these days', and what is actually happening in the classroom. Not that schools can be the only effective forum for building a positive, ethical sexual culture - that's a responsibility we all share.

The WA Dept of Health produced a great little website to assist in
educating 14-17 year olds about matters to do with sex etc.

http://www.getthefacts.health.wa.gov.au/

The director of Catholic Eduaction in WA seemingly said that his
schools would not even mention it to students, for fear of encouraging
its use.

Seemingly this website might "create curiosity". Sheesh, arn't
they aware yet,down at the Catholic Church, that teenagers are
naturally curious about sex?

With that kind of lack of sex education in some schools, no wonder
we have a problem!

'Ethics-based education is one part of the solution.' 1000 cheers. I just hope Nina does not mean the immoral secular values or lack their of.

Every act of sex should require a signed consent form witnessed by a government-accredited sex educator with compulsory training and professional indemnity insurance; stamp duty on the instrument should vary according to the social engineering goals that policy is trying to acheive by the particular act of sexual intercourse.

By the way Nina, it's not grammatical to say "I remember ... I". You have to say "I remember ... myself".

I thought this article strode a wise middle course between "just say no" prudery and the slightly alarming suggestion by a British advocate recently that children should be taught their right orgasm.

Also, while I had a good chuckle at Wing Ah Ling's comment, when I think back to a recent radio segment following the tawdry Matthew Johns affair, in which a women's advocate argued that consent could be retroactively withdrawn, it may not be so far off the mark.

The idea of discussing the ethics of sex is excellent....as long as Nina doesn't get to decide what is ethical. It wasn't obvious from this article, but other writing from this particular author has been quite disturbing.

What runner means by "ethical sex eductation" is a church sanitized version that contains neither sex nor education.

Abstinence based sex education is a joke and produces regular crops of teenage mothers.

Note the results of the ultra conservative education given to Sarah Palin's daughter.

This is yet another example of where the church is less than ethical.

Well said, Shadow Minister.

Human beings have sex and like it. It's no less immoral than eating, drinking or breathing.

The research has been done and clearly demonstrates that keeping adolescents ignorant through abstinence sex ed only results in increased unprotected sex and the consequent disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Why do we tolerate this Taliban mentality in a supposedly civilised nation?

The presumption here is that sex is something that needs to be negotiated. For most people this is not the case. Either you want sex or you do not. There is nothing to negotiate there. If you say no and are forced against your will then it is assault and should be treated as such. Assault is assault and no amount of education will make it anything else. This is true of any crime. If I am mugged in a lane way it is absurd to think that education would make for better negotiation between me and my attackers.
If someone assaults another person it is not because they lack sex education but because they lack a basic respect for the rights of other human beings. They are just as likely to assault people who get in their way of a robbery or who cut them off in traffic. Sex is not an isolated case – it is just another place where some people act out their need for power or control

Having suffered through 12 years of Catholic girls only school education, I can tell you that not having any sex education in school certainly did not hold me back!
However, now that my daughter has just completed her 12 years in a coed Catholic school education, I can tell you she is far better behaved than I ever was! She has had some sex education from her school, as well as quite a bit from me.
The Catholic church had it all wrong. The more they restricted information about boys and sex, the more we wanted to find out about it.

<But teenagers receive very limited information on sexual ethics, including matters such as how to negotiate consent, how to be aware and considerate of other people's needs in sexual exchanges, and how intimacy functions in relation to sex.

Similarly, while teenagers receive some information on how to negotiate the sex that they do not want to have (the old ''Just say no'' line), they receive virtually no guidance on how to communicate about and negotiate the sex that they do want to have.>

I think this is perhaps a clue to decreasing the incidence of sexual assault, however who gets to decide what the sexual ethics are?

Once a upon a time it was the church and as a previous poster wrote, this not particularly useful.

Theories are interesting, however the human condition is extremely resistant to being pushed in directions that it does not want to go.

'I can tell you that not having any sex education in school certainly did not hold me back! Congratulations Susie, I am sure your current boyfriend/husband would be proud of your boasts.

The "conservative" approach to child sex education has just had a pretty good test run in the US due to the Bush policies: what runner would approve of basically.
The results are very clear cut: More teenage pregnancies, many more STDs, much more ignorance and stress. This is hard data and illustrates why the ignorant extremist/religious approach does not work. We in Australia have at leat 2 cultures: the traditional pragmatic one that has dominated our recent history and the more recent radical "conservatives" that the Howard era brought on.
Like all anti-truth education the church and the radical "conservatives" are forcing upon us, it is detrimental to all and *demonstrably* false.
Shadow Minister has it right: however "Less than ethical" is an understatement! How many childern's lives need to be destroyed by the church before their apologists ask for real ethical behaviour from their religious leaders?
BTW. I recieved an early secular sex education, as did my peers. *None* of my school classmates were pregnant before 18, and it was all pretty low stress. The evidence is clear, the radical "conservatives" are the problem, not teenagers and sex.

runner as long as suzeonline's current partner is not a vile self righteous twat it's unlikely to be an issue. If choices made as a teenager by her are a problem to him then there are much bigger problems around.

Your posting history is far more shameful than any consentual sexual activities someone might have engaged in as a teenager and that does not seem to stop you.

R0bert

Robert

'Your posting history is far more shameful than any consentual sexual activities someone might have engaged in as a teenager '

Well at least its good to see Rob that you do believe in absolutes. They might be your own version but its funny how moral relativism disappears when someone gets on their high horse.

RObert,you are a true Gentleman!

Runner, I never said I had any sexual experiences as a teenager at all! I said the Catholic schools did not teach me a thing about sex education, but luckily, unlike many other seriously damaged Catholic educated individuals, I managed to get on fine with my life.

The nuns taught us that we must never look at ourselves naked in the mirror, never wash our private parts without a flannel, only need to have sex in marriage if we want children, and that most men are sexual devients unless they are Priests or married. Gems of wisdom indeed!

By the way, my Husband loves me for who I am, not for any past experiences I may or may not have had.

Actually runner, his comment was relativist rather than absolute. He said that your posting history is more shameful than those who have disclosed a healthier sexual outlook than yours. I agree with him, as it happens.

Nobody's talking about absolutes of shamefulness - but relative to open attitudes to sexuality yours is far more likely to evoke shame than others that have been expressed.

On topic, I think that Nina Funnell raises a very important issue when she talks not only about young people negotiating having sex, but also negotiating what kind of sex they have. There's a big difference between what used to be called 'heavy petting' and full-blown penetrative sexual intercourse. If some people confuse consent to a lift home with consent to sex, then I imagine they're even less sensitive to distinctions between the kinds of sexual activity that are OK under particular circumstances.

I agree that teenagers need to learn that there's much more to sex than the mechanics, and that such information should be available to them beyond that which they currently receive via family, school and elsewhere.

From the article:"they receive virtually no guidance on how to communicate about and negotiate the sex that they do want to have."

I was brought up with the notion that it is a woman's right to say "no" and a man's right to keep trying...

I was als brought up with the notions that "ladies don't swear", "decent men don't swear in front of ladies", "women and children first", "it is a woman's right to change her mind", "a man provides for his family" and lots of others, all to do with the cultural mores of the time (the 60s and 70s).

It is intersting to note that, largely thanks to feminism, most of those things no longer hold true in our culture today, yet there are two that persist and are pushed ever-more strongly by modern feminists, with laws being founded on the principles:
"women and children first" and "it is a woman's right to change her mind".

Now, I don't have a problem with either of those tenets, as long as there are corollaries that imply obligations for the beneficiary.

"A womans' right to change her mind" grew out of the fact that sex for a man is over in minutes, while the consequences for a woman can last decades. IOW, the responsibility implies the "right".

Today, the risk of pregnancy is almost entirely within the gift of the woman. Contraception and abortifacients have taken away the imbalance in post-coital responsibility, which has lead to the feministcreation of "woman as goddess" who has some ineluctable right to be undefiled which yet carries no responsibility to balance it.

What I'd like Nina's ethics training to include in the notion of responsibility for both genders. A girl who "prick-teases" is committing an assault just as much as a guy who "won't take no for an answer" and the one can lead easily to the other. Placing all the reponsibility on the male is not merely ethically bereft, it is not ever going to work, yet I suspect that is exactly what Nina has in mind.

Antiseptic I don't quite know where to begin with your comments. I was bought up in the same era as you with similar socialisation.

A young girl learning and discovering her own sexuality may be considered by some to be a "*rick tease" but rape or assault is a strong and unjustifiable punishment for immaturity or open sexuality. In my experience (for some men) you don't have to do much to be a *rick tease - sometimes just being pretty is enough for a small minority of men particularly under the influence of alcohol.

What a sad view you hold for your own gender. Most men I know have self control and the level of maturity to know the difference between right and wrong. For goodness sake it's not difficult to work out - rape is a criminal offence and ethically wrong. A gentleman knows the difference.

You ask Nina who sets these ethical standards for sex education yet you are quite happy to set the standard for where the line is drawn for what can only be defined as an 'incitement' of rape. Your line might be different to others - who decides in your world where rape is sometimes justifiable.

Nina
Great article. Sex education is not just about the mechanics but ideally should include discussions about ethical obligations, consent, respect and an understanding of expectations. It comes down to communication between two consenting parties.

Pelican:"you are quite happy to set the standard for where the line is drawn for what can only be defined as an 'incitement' of rape"

Huh? All i said is that the historical bases for the social mores no longer apply and that it places responsibility on both parties.

My daughter is 13 and quite attractive (even if I do say so muself). I watch her manipulating the boys with what seems a consummate skill and complete awareness of the power of her attractiveness. I can only point out to her that such power carries responsibility and hope that she doesn't end up in a situation she finds hard to extract herself from. It is only too clear that within the next couple of years her "right to say no" is going to be tested, probably to destruction. If it turns out that her decision is forced, I'll be very sad for her, but it wouldn't be a surprise.

You seem to be saying that she bears no responsibility for inciting the boys. I disagree, but that doesn't mean the boys bear no responsibility for exercising their own self-control. In the law there is the concept of "contributory negligence" and I believe it is entirely appropriate that it should be available as a mitigating defence in a rape case, since to do otherwise puts all the responsibility on the man and absolves the woman of all responsibility for her behaviour whether hormonally influenced or merely wilful

Bettina Arndt's recent research, though maybe not completely scientifically and statistically based, seems to indicate that women in long term relationship tend to not want to have sex as much as their male partners. Many husbands would agree with the findings.

Dworkin asserted that all heterosexual sex is rape, and I haven't heard too many feminists shouting her down. They may disagree with her detail, but agree with her thrust, so to speak.

The article that started this thread is about young people negotiating sex, but is there any reason to believe that sex and young people is any different to what Arndt and Dworkin have wrote about?

It seems to me that the solution is blindingly obvious. Make it a criminal offence for a male, any male, to initiate or attempt to sexual activity with a female, any female, including their wives etc.

Men should have all sexual power removed from them by law.

Make it known to men and boys that all power in heterosexual sex should be in the hands of women. Forget concepts of 'consent', and make the level of proof higher. Add to this the responsibility, on the male, to make sure that the female was not drunk or otherwise adversely affected.

Men should welcome the certainty that when sex is offered it is really what the woman wants.

Suzionline

,Runner, I never said I had any sexual experiences as a teenager '

If you read through the posts I never suggested you did. In fact it was the one you called a Gentleman who did.

I am sorry the nuns taught you a perverted view of your body. I too got brainwashed by Catholicism. They have a lot to answer for. The only thing worse is the brainwashing by secularism that having sex with multiple partners is not harmful spiritually and physically. The fruit of the secular teaching is obvious. More porn, more teenage rape, more stds more divorce just for a start. One would have to bury your head in the sand not to observe the outcome of our permissive educators. Many times people who have totally failed in their own relationships want to push their garbage on to our kids. No wonder people are leaving the secular schools in droves.

CJ

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Anticeptic >"If it turns out that her decision is forced, I'll be very sad for her, but it wouldn't be a surprise."

Let me get this clear here---are you saying that if a woman or girl is 'forced'(ie raped) then it will be her fault because she was flirting?
What a terribly old-fashioned and sad way of thinking about women and men's behaviour towards each other.

You need to do a bit of reading up on rapes and sexual assaults.
These crimes are mostly about control, anger and revenge on the part of the criminals that commit them.Sex is secondary in these situations.
For most men I have no doubt that no amount of flirting or prick-teasing will result in them violently forcing the woman to have sex with them.
All women and all men have been known to flirt with others at some times in their lives, but this has not resulted in mass rapes and sexual assaults has it?

Great article Nina.

Shadow Minister, it's amazing isn't it, how it's possible that a people with such wonderful beaches can be so uptight and prudish!

I was educated in the 60's and 70's. Fortunately not with any Antiseptics.

Sexual 'ethics' and what 'having sex' could mean was the most interesting part. We even had pictures of 'different' postions. Did that open up debate, after some intial uncomfortable sniggering! The bit about STD's etc we already knew. Where I grew up single sex schools was a rarity, so sessions were in mixed classes. It was very illuminating hearing from others, your own gender and the other (we're only speaking of heterosexual sex here in those days).

An important message that we got was that sex was not about your getting your own rocks off, but that it is a shared experience. Focussing on your own needs only is served with masturbation. A perfectly legitimate option.

Antiseptic, a sexual encounter is not limited to a penis penetrating a vagina. Unfortunately there are both boys/men and girl/women who think that is the sum total of sex. Flirting, petting and all the rest of it is the really interesting part

suzeonline:"Let me get this clear here---are you saying that if a woman or girl is 'forced'(ie raped) then it will be her fault because she was flirting?"

Are you really incapable of reading, dear? How sad for you.

As I said, it's "contributory negligence" in my view if a girl leads a boy on and then tries to back out when it's too late.

Is it your view that a woman or girl has no influence on the outcome of such encounters?

suzeonline:"For most men I have no doubt that no amount of flirting or prick-teasing will result in them violently forcing the woman to have sex with them."

We're not talking about men in the context, we're talking about teenaged boys. If she leads one on and then tries to back out, there's a fair chance she'll be able to claim rape, but it won't be really a rape, it'll be prick-teasing gone wrong and they'll both bear some blame for that.

Why do you expect a teenaged boy to be more in control of himself than my teenaged daughter is? On what grounds do you think she is not as responsible for her behaviour as he is for his? Perhaps you were just one of the girls the boys weren't interested in, regardless of availability...

Suzeonline:"These crimes are mostly about control, anger and revenge on the part of the criminals that commit them"

Undoubtedly some are, but not all. The word "rape" is attached to all sorts of relatively benign encounters as well as the violent assaults. I share the disgust at such violence, but I do not condone the broadening of definitions, which is largely about giving a few victim-riders a larger pool of "victims" to make a living out of. Good business sense to expand the market, perhaps, but hardly conducive to informing good social policy..

Antiseptic, if you have sons, I hope you make them aware of the fact that it is actually not necessary to use a vagina in order to ejaculate...if...and this is a big IF...you are a male who gets so unbearably aroused by a girl you MUST ejaculate. They won't go blind, grow hair on their palms or have to confess to any sins. They won't even have to wait to 'accidentally do it' by having a wet dream. Can you tell I have boys? ;)

There is absolutely never ever, ever an excuse to physically invade somebody else space if it is not wanted. Regardless of the amount of 'prick-teasing'-a disgusting term, whatever that means.

Flirting between people, an art pretty well non-existent in this country, is one of the fun parts of male-female interactions. It is truly sad that there are so many Antiseptics who merely see this as prick teasing and an automatic invitation, nay RIGHT, to ejaculate into somebody's vagina, only prefentable by some superhuman, unfair effort on the part of a male.

As Nina pointed out, sexual ethics is necessary. Many adults could benefit as well.

Many people have written posts in defence of those who flirt. Flirting can be seen as suggesting that you are offering more than you really are. Heavy flirting is a type of dishonesty and as such, is unethical. Nina won’t accept this, but more is communicated by flirting than by actual talk. Surely women don’t want men asking “do you want to have sex? Are you sure?” like we cannot take a hint.

I would also add that it is not just enough to condemn dishonesty, if we are serious about dishonesty, we will be careful never to reward it. Therefore, men need to be careful about doing favours for women who flirt. Women need to be more than suspicious of men who claim to love them (has any lie been told more often?). Both genders need to respect others who tell the truth.

I notice this quote in the article:

"Even more concerning, the study also reported that one in three year 10 girls had been pressured, forced or coerced into unwanted sex. Legally, this meets the definition of sexual assault."

I have a problem with this statement. Firstly I agree that no-one should be forced (which implies physical violence) or coercion, which implies blackmail or threat, the idea of pressure being part of sexual assault puzzles me.

There are many pressures in our lives, pressures to work, to do things that we don't want to do - I know that there are certain household duties that I need to carry out for my wife to be happy: that is I am pressured into doing them. When my wife wants me to go shopping with her if I want to have a reasonable day or two afterwards I go with her: that is, I submit to her pressure: but it is a choice.

A young woman who is 'pressured' (not forced or coerced) into sexual activity is exercising a choice: that is if she doesn't 'give in' then there will be a consequence that she may consider negative: but she has a choice. She has to make a judgement. Perhaps girls should be taught to value their sexuality and bodies more highly, so that they can exercise better judgement.

And maybe young men should be chemically castrated until they turn 21 or so, just to keep feminists happy.

Anticeptic, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Anansi is right, there is NEVER any excuse to force anyone to have sex if they don't want to
.
I wonder would you feel the same if you were flirting with a few women and they tied you up and forced you to engage in sex?
It is very rare indeed for this type of rape because of the usually physically stronger males.

There are some womaen who do falsely cry rape for whatever reason, however the numbers of these women would be few in comparison to the vast numbers who never officially report the rapes.

Thank God not all men feel like you, and thank God we have laws in this country outlawing rape of any sort.

Antiseptic,
I am also raising two teenage daughters and am aware of the difficulties in the gender/sex divide and the pressures of modern society.

Flirting is a natural part of the learning process for young people and both boys and girls partake.

I cannot see a victim ever being responsible for a criminal act whether is rape or theft. A rape victim no more contributes to the offence through flirting than a person who leaves their wallet temporarily on a table, when it is stolen.

The person who commits the offence is 100% to blame for their actions - it is a criminal act. The only way we can reduce the incidence of rape is to adopt a position of no-tolerance.

What you call contributory behaviour is a cop out for the criminal. One should be able to leave their wallet on a table for a few minutes without it being stolen, but the victim is no more at 'fault' than the rape victim for flirting unawares in the vicinity of a criminal. Can you see a Judge declaring to set a thief free because he was tempted by an unattended wallet?

While some behaviour might be considered risky or foolish - such as getting drunk at a party with a group of drunken footballers, and as a mother I would deter my own children from these behaviours for their own safety is not the same as blame.

Pelican,

re: "The person who commits the offence is 100% to blame for their actions - it is a criminal act. The only way we can reduce the incidence of rape is to adopt a position of no-tolerance."

Whilst I agree with you maybe you should have told the jury who acquitted the stripper of the anal rape of the best man at the bucks night.

Re theft: in NSW it is illegal to leave your car locked and unattended: So that if a car that is left unlocked and unattended is stolen both the thief and the driver can be charged.

Whilst a victim of sexual assault is still a victim, my thoughts go back to the reasons for judgment in a major rape case in NSW.

Quoting the press who quoted the Judge:

He said the emergency call showed "what it really means to be a rape victim" and suggested that it be used in schools as part of a campaign to provide clear messages about sexual assault.

For boys, these would be that "forced sex of any kind . . . is not a game, or a prank, or a practical joke, or part of becoming or being a man".

"The high odds are that you will be found out, tracked down and sent to jail . . . then you will be as much at risk from others as your victim was at risk from you."

For girls, one message was to never get into a vehicle with any man they do not know or barely know.

"Do not let anyone tell you that there is anything glamorous, or exciting, or 'cool' in any other sense about risking sexual assault of any kind. Any kind of forced sex is dirty and degrading," he said.

Condemning rapists might make you look rightous, but it won't work as a complete solution to the rape problem. Many rape victims do-not say 'stop' or something equally unambiguous. Several do say stop, but it is amongst alot of other things that seem to indicate yes. Nina's solution is for boys to be taught to get an explicit 'yes'.

I believe that it says something troubling about the way we raise girls that many won't tell a male to stop raping them. If I was getting raped, I feel certain that I would have quite a bit to say.

In addition, far too often, males are rewarded for persisting after she says 'no'. Many females will eventually say yes after saying no a few times. This happens because she is indecisive or on a power trip. People are reluctant to critisise this behaviour, because they will get accused of suggesting that she deserved to get raped. Any discussion of the ethics of sex should include discussing this behaviour. Just don't trust Nina Furnell to include it.

Its amazing how murky human relationships can be, but considering the fact that something like 75% of human communication is non-verbal, it is surprising that human relationships are not more murky than they already are.

There are some interesting research into this subect, such as an investigation into female flirting (New Scientist) and "Getting that Female Glance"
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513804000601

Discussions with female friends indicated that they did not like the above research.

Given that the vagaries of individual personal tastes, what is one women's sleazebag, is anothers knight in shining armour and behaviour that may have been once acceptable, can then become totally unacceptable.

I have seen where female bloggers have written that when their partner stops hitting on them, that they feel that their partner nolonger finds them attractive or is attracted to them.

Another problem occurs where some women see themselves as the source/cause of male desire.

I do support dougthebear about getting into vechiles or even going to someone's room. There is nothing wrong with educating people on how to stay out of situations, that they do not want to be involved in.

Conversely people should also be educated into how they can get what they want, but usually human behaviour hides the motive/desire.

Pelican:"One should be able to leave their wallet on a table for a few minutes without it being stolen, but the victim is no more at 'fault' than the rape victim for flirting unawares in the vicinity of a criminal. Can you see a Judge declaring to set a thief free because he was tempted by an unattended wallet?"

Well, he may take into account all of the circumstances, including the carelessness of thr wallet's owner in creating the circumstances for the crime to occur. As has been pointed out, failing to take proper steps to secure one's possessions is punishable in some jurisdictions and can lead to insurers declining claims, even declining to insure.

Besides, whether the thief is punished or not, the wallet is still gone.

Relying on the goodwill of others to safeguard our own possessions (including our sexual organs) is never going to work. While the number of potential offenders is small, it only takes one for the offence to occur, while for it not to, you require 100% goodwill from all those strangers.

All I am suggesting is that women similarly bear some responsibility for taking steps to ensure their own safety from the few men who might take advantage of them.

You say :"The only way we can reduce the incidence of rape is to adopt a position of no-tolerance."

We've had that position as Government policy for some decades now. Has the incidence of rape declined?

I do agree with some of your comments that we do need to include some safety information or risky behaviours in those lessons that Nina proposes. But that is not the same as allotting blame to the victim.

Anti
Why would a Judge take into account the unattended wallet as an excuse for the theft? It is not against the law to leave your wallet and one should be able to, just as it is not against the law to flirt.

Doughthebear
In reference to your example of the bucks night - of course the same applies for men. I am not arguing that only women be protected from rape.

I know these are difficult topics with some shades of grey in terms of consent. This is why education is so important so that it is not only important that people understand that No means No but that, for example, a group of guys in a room gang raping a girl under the influence might (hopefully) raise a few ethical alarm bells.

It was an interesting program on Insight a couple of episodes ago when a rape victim told of how she was gang raped when under the influence of alcohol. She mentioned that not only did she feel like a victim that night but one of the young men in the room clearly did not want to partake but felt group pressure to do so. She was unable to say NO or YES due to shock and alcohol. Sometimes there are no grey areas, this would seem a black and white case of someone not giving consent or being able to say one way or the other.

This is not about being righteous but being ethical and decent human beings.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/97

Antiseptic,

"As I said, it's "contributory negligence" in my view if a girl leads a boy on and then tries to back out when it's too late. "

Being led on is all part of the game, and both boys and girls do it. The argument that it's too late to back out at any point is complete rubbish.

It would be equivalent to say that a man getting shot in a road rage incident bears some responsibility.

The knowledge of right and wrong exists whether the person is "excited" or not, and if the person cannot prevent themselves committing a violent crime, they should be removed from society.

The "excitement" could be a mitigating factor in sentencing and reduce the sentence from 10yrs to 8yrs. Being led on is never an excuse, and being told that it is can only contribute to hot heads thinking they can get away with it.

Pelican:"Why would a Judge take into account the unattended wallet as an excuse for the theft?"

Not as an excuse for the theft, but perhaps in mitigation. The crime could not have occurred without the carelessness of the owner, which makes it "opportunistic" rather than a planned action and hence less culpability applies.

Shadow Minister:"The argument that it's too late to back out at any point is complete rubbish."

I've never claimed it is "too late to back out", merely that some people will act as though it is. Failing to recognise that is ostrichism of the worst sort. If a girl doesn't take into account the fact that a boy may well be unable or unwilling to control himself, she is relying entirely on the statistical likelihood that she is right. If it turns out that he is one of the minority who "can't control himself", she must bear the consequence, which is an assault. Once that consequence has occurred, he will then have to suffer the consequence of his own actions.

Shadow Minister:"It would be equivalent to say that a man getting shot in a road rage incident bears some responsibility."

He may well, if he caused the incident to escalate through his behaviour. It doesn't excuse the shooting, but if he could have stopped the escalation and didn't, he's partly responsible.

You all seem to think that telling the girl she has to be careful and control herself is the same as telling the boys it's open slather. I have not said anything of the sort.

As James pointed out, women's flirting gives them great power over men. Men have killed and been killed for the love of a woman. If that power is not used responsibly, it can backfire.

It seems to me that the whole "zero-tolerance", "don't ask questions", "it's always the man's fault" is designed to justify women exercising their sexual power without any responsibility.

Do any of the posters here think that a man should be able to exercise his sexuality without controls?

'It seems to me that the whole "zero-tolerance", "don't ask questions", "it's always the man's fault" is designed to justify women exercising their sexual power without any responsibility.

Do any of the posters here think that a man should be able to exercise his sexuality without controls?'

That's a bit of a bloody stretch. The woman's 'sexual power' doesn't work on the man if he ignores it. The opposite is kinds hard to ignore with that penis penetrating you.

pelican,

'But that is not the same as allotting blame to the victim.'

Oh yes, but there's the catch. Any slightest suggestion of this will instantly be screamed down by a certain crowd as 'Blaming the Victim!'

One cant even go within 200000000 miles of offering advise for women to keep safe without being shouted down.

With the wallet example, you don't hear people marching in the streets about reclaiming the pub, where any man should be entitled to leave his wallet anywhere without someone taking it.

In fact, stop blaming the victim. I should be able to lay 10 $100 notes down on George St with my name on them, and when I return I expect them to be there. If anyone suggests otherwise... STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM!

James,

'Given that the vagaries of individual personal tastes, what is one women's sleazebag, is anothers knight in shining armour and behaviour that may have been once acceptable, can then become totally unacceptable.'

Yep, that old doozy. The difference between flirting and sexual harassment often depends on how good looking the guy is. The difference between serenading, romantic persistence etc, and stalking, ditto.

Oh in this modern world I wonder how many old couples will relate stories about how the man never gave up trying to show his love until the woman relented (ie: stalking), eventuating in a happy 50 year marriage.

Or how a couple met at work, and the man commented on how nice she looked (ie: sexual harassment), and it all lead from there.

It's a funny world.

If young people need to be taught anything it is self-confidence. Why do people flirt? It is because they want to test how attractive they are. They also do it when they are not particularly attracted to the person they flirt with. This is more of a desire to control, play with or manipulate. If they were confident in their own attractiveness they would not need to test it out. If someone is flirting then they are using another person to get affirmation or to feel powerful. If people were confident they would not need another’s affirmation and if they were confident they would not need to control or manipulate.

Flirting is not necessary. If you find someone attractive what is wrong with saying you find them attractive. If you don’t find them attractive why not assert your position. Is it because you are afraid of being rejected and flirting is less threatening? Why not ‘negotiate’ your feelings before it gets to sex. Sometimes things get out of hand because people are not confident enough to be honest about what they want. This happens for both sexes.

There is a lot of dishonest communications in all areas of personal relationships because people do not have the confidence to express what they really want and do not want. How many marriages are full of deep bitterness and resentment but the couple continue on pretending that everything is just fine because they do not have the confidence to express their true feelings.

There is nothing ‘magic’ about sex. It is just another form of personal interaction. If you are not honest in your communications with others it can lead to all sorts of problems in many areas of life. Honesty and confidence should be built into a person from early childhood and they should permeate all their personal interactions. It is not a special skill set that belongs to sex education.

I have several questions for those who refuse to criticise women who flirt.

1) Flirting implies that you are more interested in someone than you really are. Name any other circumstance where it is socially permissible to lie.

2) People flirt to get attention. Name any other attention seeking behaviour that is-not frowned upon.

3) Some women who flirt, get into situations that they cannot manage. Can you honestly claim that every single woman who gets raped, would have been raped if they had not flirted? If you concede that her behaviour contributed to one more rape occurring, then it shouldbe alright to say so.

4) At the moment, society is happy to criticise rapists. Any discussion of any other cause of rape is labelled ‘blaming the victim’. Name any other problem that we attempt to solve by ignoring several of the contributing factors.

5) According to the 'blaming the victim' model, any rape must be either entirely his fault or entirely her fault. We are told that any criticism of her necessarily implies that his behaviour is acceptable and everything is her fault. What is so hard to understand about more complex moral reasoning?

When rape occurs it is always entirely the man's fault.

If someone is walking late at night it is tempting for a thug to mug him, and it can be argued that the man is partially responsible for putting himself in the position, but it does not reduce the responsibility of the mugger simply because he was tempted.

A decision is made to break the law, and irrespective of the actions of the woman, the man knows that rape is rape, and goes ahead anyway. It could not happen without his taking direct action.

I agree with the zero tolerance approach. If young thugs know that if they are convicted of rape, then they will always be severely punished, then at the decision point they may pull back.

The flirtatious action of the woman in this instance is completely irrelevant. Young women need to learn to judge situations, but this is easier said than done.

How extraordinary. One article and forty two comments - and not once are the most important issues identified, let alone discussed. It is clear there is a book to be written here, and I don't have time at the moment ! I'll see what I can do, in due course

Antiseptic,
It is very responsible of you to warn your daughter of the dangers of teasing and leading young men on. Flirting can be fun, but knowing when to call a halt is something to be learned with experience, best to err on the side of caution.

Not only can young males get the wrong message but girls also get strong sexual feelings and have raging hormones. Although girls generally take longer to get aroused, sometimes sexual feelings can get out of control and she may end up active in sex that she never intended in the first instance.

Girls need to be told there is some responsibility on their part. Its a bit too late to cry rape after allowing petting when both parties getting easily carried away.

Sometimes the words "Don't, stop" can change from a request to halt, to a request NOT to stop.

I am not sure of the statistics, but I believe a significant number of rapes occur where the perpetrator and victim are not known to each other.
Many rapists just look for any woman who is alone at home or in a park etc and rape her. Where is the flirting here?

Obviously flirting is not involved in a significant number of rapes, so where is the reasoning that it is a factor?

The act of rape is violence and aggression towards a physically weaker person, by an emotionally sick criminal. This can include men as victims as well.

Many, many women flirt with men in our society, but yet most are never raped in their lifetime. How so? Because most men are not violent and can control themselves.
Any man who believes otherwise must have some control issues themselves.

"1) Flirting implies that you are more interested in someone than you really are. Name any other circumstance where it is socially permissible to lie." benk

I can't agree with this. Many people in long term relationships who love one another flirt with each other. Many people who are genuinely interested in someone flirt with that person in order to communicate a certain level of interest. Flirting can be a very enjoyable way of interacting, to call it 'lieing' is simplistic and reductive.

It's important though that people understand that while flirting may (or may not) indicate an expression of interest, this does not equate with being an expression of sexual availability. Winking at someone does not mean you're happy for them to put their penis inside you. Nor for that matter should a man feel pressured to commit to a sexual act he does not want to partake in, simply for flirting with a woman

Flirting may not be lying but it is giving an unclear message. If it is meant to communicate a ‘certain level of interest’ then what is that level of interest? Surely it is a sexual interest. I don’t know anyone who flirts with someone they do not find sexually attractive unless it is for dishonest reasons. Flirting says I find you sexually attractive and I may like to have sex with you or I definitely will not have sex with you. A person who has no intention of having sex with someone may still flirt with them. So how can anyone know the difference unless they can read the mind of the flirter? The flirter is giving a message that can be interpreted either way until the object of their desire runs up against the barrier of the level of interest. The flirter must take responsibility for giving an unclear message that could be very reasonably be misinterpreted.

Why give an unclear message when it is just as easy to give a clear one? Is the flirter trying to meet some other need?

Giving an unclear message is no excuse for sexual assault. Ambiguous messages must remain the responsibility of those who give them. This is not ‘blaming the victim’ for sexual assault it is blaming them for playing with the ambiguity of flirting in order to meet their own egotistical needs or their need for power and control

Scary, truly scary some of the comments.

Am I the only one who is gobsmacked at the oxymoronic opinion of the 'power of women' that needs to be wielded carefully otherwise she might get raped? Women powerful-men powerless? Perhaps there is something in the wearing of a burqa after all, lest the 'power of our sexuality' makes a man loose his head and he is evilly tempted by that wicked female into committing a crime.

I'm glad I do not personally know any men who agrees with any of the comments that a woman bears any responsibility whatsoever for her rape.

Sex is a TWO WAY THING. Which means, that when ONE party is not interested in going further- a TWO WAY THING just ain't going to happen. Sex you have TOGETHER. Get it? TOGETHER. Ejaculating into a vagina is not having sex.

Flirting is not lying. It is the silliest, most inane and pathetic opinion. Flirting is done equally by both genders. Men are as good at flirting as are women. It signifies: You look appealing, I like the look of you, do you like the look of me? It is a way where you can check out the other, test the waters, so to speak. It may or may not lead to anything more. It can lead to anything from: you are so absolutely the father/mother of my babies, to: it is really fun to chat and joke with you.

It does not signify: Hey mate, you've lucked out: a free and easy sexual encounter (sorry, OLO won't allow me to use the more forthright four letter word) without any/much effort on your part-guaranteed or call me a lier.

Actually flirting as such isn't the problem: it is the message that hormone addled male brains get from flirting that is the problem.

The message taught to young women really should be:

"Do not trust males, they only want one thing, they do not respect you, they do not understand the word 'no', they do not understand the concept of consent and will take any advantage that they can over you. Men are predators, treat them as you would any predator"

The fault here is not with young women, they cannot be blamed for society telling them that males are okay, when it is clear, from the statistics quoted in the article at the head of this thread indicates that a large enough proportion of males are so bad so that they comprise a major risk to females.

The fault is not with young women: do not blame them. The fault is with men, young, middle aged and old. The only other fault can be laid at the people who have told young women that men can be trusted, when it is clear that they cannot be.

Young men in our society have been instilled with the idea that they have value, some idea of worth, when they have not. The classic example being those football players who think that just because they are paid a large amount of money for acting like animals on a football field then they can act like animals when it comes to mating.

Previous generations have seen men as what they are, expendable (how many million in WW1)and not worth as much as women (ie 'women and children first'), so perhaps men need to learn that they, and their animalistic drives, are worthless.

Forget negotiation as it is argued here, you cannot negotiate with hungry predators, instead they need to be supressed, and if they cannot be controlled, put down.

Anansi - you put that so well.

Dougthebear - Yikes. It's going to take me a while to think about what you've written. Some pretty confronting stuff.

There are men that I love more than my own life. They give me confidence that there ARE progressive men who care about others and the idea of not having those good blokes around is - oy, awful. I also know some women who, if I never saw them again, I would die a happy woman. Nevertheless, I have never met, and can't imagine meeting, any person (male or female) who deserved to be raped.

I see some wishy washy fellows here who endorse rape promoting notions; they are despicable and I think your post addresses that pretty powerfully.

Oh sorry Anansi, I meant to also say regarding:

<"Perhaps there is something in the wearing of a burqa after all...">

Except that women who wear those are not free of rape either - and yet they are still the ones who get blamed and punished when they are raped.

As dougthebear points out, taking the risk of overtly trying to initate the actual physical act of sex, is largely a male activity.

Castrating males before pubity would see the rates of sexual assault plummenting. Problem solved.

As dougthebear points out men are expendable.

There is a corollary to the simple fact that men are sexual predators:

If you choose to tease the tiger make sure that the tiger is in a very strong cage.

In human terms, if a woman wants to flirt, or tease (they are different things), without thinking that they this may have adverse consequences under some circumstances, then they are delusional.

The metaphorical cage that protects women are the laws, and morality, of a society. By staying within certain parameters of morality some (but not absolute - witness rape in marriage, or sexual abuse inside families) protection can be achieved.

No woman (or man) deserves to be raped, but there are some basic preventative actions that people can take. Such as not being alone, or in groups of two or three, with a larger number of males in the presence of alcohol or drugs.

Unfortunately both genders whilst young are attracted to what are essentially risky behaviours that in previous generations were more tightly controlled by family pressures, morality, religion and social mores. These controls have slipped away. There has always been rape, but the incidence of rape seems to be rising.

Women should, as I have said, treat men like the predators that they are. Ultimately human beings are essentially animals capable of higher thought processes than most other animals, but this doesn't stop humans from acting like animals.

By all means flirt, even tease, but don't expect males in uninhibited circumstances not to react in certain ways. Treat men as you would treat any other predator. Most rapes are committed by men who know their victims, not by strangers. So caution has to be exercised at all times.

I am surprised and saddended at some of the comments here that imply that men are so bedazzled by a woman's sexual powers that they lose all sense of right and wrong. It harks back to the old Eve = bad and evil temptress, Adam = good and led astray poor innocent male.

And then Doug's post and all I can say is - WOW!

Many years ago I debated with a male colleague at work who put to me that all men would rape if they thought they could get away with it. Ironically it was me, the woman, defending males. Your comment seems to mirror that view in some ways, unless I have misunderstood.

If I was a man I would resent being cast in that negative light just as a woman I resent being called a feminazi when I disagree with someone's point.

"If I was a man I would resent being cast in that negative light " - sure do. It's a pretty negative view of men.

I've got the impression that there are at least three different streams here but at times the arguments for the last two positions seem to get mixed up.

1/ The person doing the rape is entirely responsible and suggestions that there is a responsibility on the victim to try and alter their own behaviour to reduce risks is shifting blame to the victim
2/ The person doing the rape is entirely responsible but a smart person will take some precautions to avoid situations where the risk is elevated
3/ Some victims ask for it and the the rapist is not as guilty as they might be if the victim was not asking for it

I tend towards the second while wishing the first was practical. Regardless of how I'd like the world to be and how good most people might be there will always be some with no respect for others and we each have to make our own choices about the risks we choose and where and when we take them.

I also get frustrated that some do appear to try and use the risk management approach (version 2) to try and enforce their own sexual morality on others, the boundary between 2 and 3 starts to look rather tenuous sometimes.

R0bert

Flirting is an art - an aspect of social interaction involving wit, charm and enjoyment of another person.

Flirting may be between a male and female, two men or two women, irrespective of sexual inclination. It is a sophisticated form of communication that may not necessarily have a goal, it is the journey that counts and a successful flirting interaction leaves both people feeling flattered and happy.

It is not about trickery or lying. It is not playing games with "predatory males". I agree with Pelican, if I was a male, I would be very offended by the posts of the likes of Dougthebear, JamesH, Shadow Minister, Benk who all sound like people you'd encounter in Hickesville, 19th Century than in Australia 21st C. And to whom I feel the strong impetus to point out that if a woman smiles at you it does not mean she is hot for you - it means she is smiling and is being polite or friendly or whatever. How incredibly gauche you are.

No wonder you fail at, or are miserable in, your relationships with women. Then I have to wonder at the calibre of woman who would bother with you to begin with. The type of women you claim to socialise with - well maybe you just deserve each other.

No wonder these threads devolve into gender wars given the level of emotional maturity of some of the posters.

Fascinating. I'm an outrageous flirt and have been since my teens, and life would be very boring without it. Mind you, what most contributors to this thread don't seem to understand is that flirting is primarily a fun way of interacting with people with whom you have no intention of having sex - maybe that's what Doug is getting at when he distinguishes flirting from teasing.

As a man who was also socialised in the 1950s and 60s, I have to say that I'm pretty appalled at the attitudes expressed by some men in this thread about women and girls - and indeed other men. As a young man I had very little difficulty in negotiating consensual sex with various women, nor in discerning those who were interested and those who weren't.

I think it boils down to a latterly much-misused concept - that of respect. I wouldn't want to have sex with a woman I didn't respect, and certainly no woman has ever wanted me sexually who didn't respect me. Certainly, any man who is incapable of controlling his baser instincts and desires is unlikely to attract much in the way of respect from either women or men, and men who routinely disrespect women seem to me to be invariably quite miserable and angry.

r0bert,

'I also get frustrated that some do appear to try and use the risk management approach (version 2) to try and enforce their own sexual morality on others, the boundary between 2 and 3 starts to look rather tenuous sometimes.'

And as I said, that 'boundary' will deliberately be blurred (actually stamped on) by many with an affectation to yell 'Don't blame the victim!' . Any man who dares to express 2 is quickly labelled as expressing 3 by those with an axe to grind.

Fractelle,

'No wonder these threads devolve into gender wars given the level of emotional maturity of some of the posters.'

'No wonder you fail at, or are miserable in, your relationships with women. Then I have to wonder at the calibre of woman who would bother with you to begin with.'

I'd say the second comment is probably a good example for the first. Things were pretty even tempered before you decided you knew all about these posters private relationships with women, and labelling them a failure by your expert knowledge, and deciding about the 'calibre' of their partners.

Sorry to spoil the ending folks, but what happens next is one of the guys will return serve, but then Fractelle will play the victim and say things like 'I'm being victimised because I dare to have an opinion while being female'

pelican,

'If I was a man I would resent being cast in that negative light just as a woman I resent being called a feminazi when I disagree with someone's point.'

Ah you get used to it. Just read some of pynchme's posts. Even Fractelle's assertion that all men put women into 'f$ckable and 'non-f$ckable' categories is pretty offensive I reckon. Feminism was founded on quotes like 'all men are potential rapists' and most people don't have a problem with it.

All,

All this talk about flirting makes me think it's not only school kids that need lessons in sexual ethics.

Let me restate the points that I have been making in simple form, to make them harder to deliberately misinterpret.

Despite the protests of others, I believe that flirting with someone that you are-not actually interested in (to some extent) is ego-tripping that has a real risk of badly hurting another person.

I also believe that some of the women who get raped have ignored foreseeable risks. I cannot think of any situation where it is possible to take reckless risks without someone commenting on this. I would like to point out that her behaviour is assessed independently of his. Therefore, it is possible to make some (carefully worded) criticism of her behaviour without implying anything about any men involved.

Other people might believe that it is alright to rape a flirt, a slut or any woman who puts herself in certain situations. I agree that these attitudes are disgusting. The way to undermine them is to acknowledge any mistakes of the victim, but add that “she didn’t deserve to get raped”. Pretending that she is perfect encourages other people to point out the truth and implies that she needs to be faultless in order to be a rape victim.

BTW Fractelle, if you were a true feminist, you would respect men like myself who only pursue women they are genuinely interested in and reserve your hatred for sleazy men. You would also do everything possible to stop them

Some pathetic personal attacks happening here.

It is alarming that it is actually men who believe the myth of man the sexual predator only held in check by possible legal ramifications. Even alluding to tigers! What a joke. Next time watch a bit of Attenborough's nature shows. Don't liken yourselves to anything in the animal world. And please don't come up with some silly comment regarding chimpanzees.

The predatory instinct is used for hunting in order to eat, not find a mate. The male has to 'prove' himself to be worthy before he is allowed to mate.

Fractelle, fascinating how some posters leap as if they've been stung by a cloud of bees. How you get under their skin! Liked your further expansion on flirting.

I just caught the end of the SBS Insight on mean girls, it was rather interesting.

It made me wonder how many of the female posters here, could have been included in the program.

<If I was a man I would resent being cast in that negative light just as a woman I resent being called a feminazi when I disagree with someone's point.Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 9:08:56 AM>

Houellebecq, I suppose some guys just get use to it, me, I am resigned to the fact that this state of affairs exists, much like that of a condemmed man.

Why is it that so many men posting have such a bleak view of women? The level of martyrdom is disturbing.

You are very intent on looking through rose coloured glasses at your own gender and very scathing of the other. It comes through in so many issues particularly relating to child support - where there is a plethora of "all women are bad" posts without any thought to the many women who might be raising children without any support from their partners.

The arguments are all one-sided. Solutions will never be found with this sort of division until we stop looking at gender and seek to find a more humanistic approach.

There are mean people of either gender as raised on the SBS Program tonight. Men are equally as capable of humiliation, bullying and intimidating behaviours. There are good and bad in both camps.

Point scoring mentalities just won't cut it if we are to become a more equitable and fairer society.

Perhaps Nina, you should concentrate your efforts on your generation I think for mine it is probably too late. The good ones are already in the right place and the others...well old dogs and new tricks and all that.

Looking back to the original article, Particularly the following:

"one in seven teenage boys believed it was permissible to hold a girl down and force her to have sex if she had flirted or ''led the boy on''. Even more concerning, the study also reported that one in three year 10 girls had been pressured, forced or coerced into unwanted sex"

Even if this is exaggerated, using risk assessment principles this means that many girls are at risk from being ‘held down‘.

I do not consider that all males are potential rapists, indeed many males are respectful and considerate, depending on the circumstances, but the ones that are are physically indistinguishable from the ones that aren’t. Potential rapists do not wear a sign that advertises the fact.

I am a late baby boomer, I grew up in the sexual revolution post the pill, when sex was meant to be in marriage and marriage was meant to last till death-do-us-part. Also at a time when young men were being charged, and sent to prison or boys homes for the crime of ‘carnal knowledge’. That is, sex with a girl under 16. Under-age sex still happened, but it was less frequent.

Those laws are no longer enforced for teenagers, hence there is no arguable reason for teenagers not to have sex. Even though the laws still exist, the present lack of enforcement demonstrates very nicely that it was law that stopped much under-aged sex when the law was enforced.

At the same time there was no such ‘crime’ as rape within marriage - so a lot of rape happened in marriage. (Things have changed thank goodness)

Why do I bring these up? If we depend on the goodness of human nature to stop rape then rape won’t be stopped. It is the fear of being caught and punished that is the best way of changing behaviour.

Quoting Hobbes: .“man in the state of nature seeks nothing but his own selfish pleasure”

Pelican:"Why is it that so many men posting have such a bleak view of women?"

Years of experience... (couldn't resist, sorry)

Actually, I don't see any "bleak view of women" at all, merely a sense that we are sick of the constant demands of some women for special treatment and the ease with which our lawmakers give in to that.

In any situation in which a woman and a man are in conflict, if State authorities become involved they will assume the man is in the wrong as a first approach. that is how the laws have been framed and how the police and other agencies are training their members to behave.

Pelican:"Solutions will never be found with this sort of division until we stop looking at gender"

It's not the men "looking at gender", it's the entitlement junkies who think that their possession of a uterus somehow means they aren't required to take any responsibility for anything.

This thread has been about simply taking precautions to ensure your own safety. I do it every time I drive my car - in a perfect world, everyone would obey all the rules and never lapse in concentration and never be in a hurry or get enraged at traffic jams - the list goes on.Since this is not a perfect world I take precautions. It doesn't stop me doing anything I wish to, but it does mean I'm alert and always concerned about the intentions of that V8 hoonmobile or the B-Double truck coming up on the left.

I presume that most of the posters here would do similarly, including the women. Why, then are some of those women so determined that they should be exempt from taking simple steps to ensure their own sexual safety? This is a viewpoint I just don't understand, especially seeing as it has been made clear that they wish to reserve the right to exercise their sexuality without restraint. You can't have it both ways.

This is all pointing to the desperate need for adequate sex education.

This should be a regular part of the curriculum from Kindi (awareness) to the end of high school, and should include all aspects from anatomy, contraception, relationships and etiquette.

The alternative is the handful of ignorant inexperienced men and women can spoil the perceptions for everyone else.

pelican,

'Why is it that so many men posting have such a bleak view of women?'

I don't. But I'm happy with my partner and never been through the family court system. Seeing the state of some of these guys I'm doubly determined to make it stay that way.

Also I maintain Fraccy and pynchme have an extremely bleak view of men.

'The level of martyrdom is disturbing.'

It's not the male posters who constantly come up with 'I'm being victimised because I dare to have an opinion while being female' or that Graham Y has it in for them.

'You are very intent on looking through rose coloured glasses at your own gender and very scathing of the other.'

Hmmm. What was I just saying...

Anansi,

'Some pathetic personal attacks happening here.'
Where?

Oh, you mean

'No wonder you fail at, or are miserable in, your relationships with women. Then I have to wonder at the calibre of woman who would bother with you to begin with.'

or

'fellows here who endorse rape promoting notions; they are despicable'

They're the only personal attacks I can find.

Well this article has certainly raised some interesting points and the responses highlight how much work needs to be done about personal responsibility, ethics and legal obligations.

Houlley, I don’t think I am deluding myself, that most of the female posters do try and see things from the male viewpoint. I rarely see the same from some of the usual suspects but maybe we never will and maybe it is best to bow out earlier when these gender issues go around in the same old circles.

I will never believe that a rape victim (or any victim of crime) is any way responsible for the acts of the perpetrator. The responsibility always lies with the criminal. What does all this mean? Will we end up in a world so bland and stifled in our behaviour as to be robots not allowed to smile at a man in case he might rape me, or even look at a man as in some countries where no similar responsibility lies for the male.

I cannot fathom how human beings can still think in certain ways. It is a constant mystery but maybe I have to come to terms with ‘what is’ rather than what should be.

Doug, I understand your meaning. It is important with our own children that they understand, without instilling fear, that not all people think the same and draw attention to potentially risky or unsafe behaviours in particular environments.

Like Houlley, I have never been through the Family Court System nor would I wish given negative and bitter attitudes it rouses in some men and women.

Perhaps in these sex lessons there should be something about marriage and the importance of commitment, give and take, obligations to children that override self-interest. Not sure if you can teach those values in any meaningful way. It will always come down to individual responsibility and values

Pelican:"I will never believe that a rape victim (or any victim of crime) is any way responsible for the acts of the perpetrator. "

No one has suggested that they are, merely that they need to be careful not to put themselves into a situation in which they are reliant on someone else's self-control if they don't want to risk the consequences.

My daughter is enjoying herself getting the boys' attention at the moment, with no intent to do anything more. Many if not most girls of her age do the same, meaning teenage boys spend a large part of their time in extreme sexual tension. If some of them can't control themselves when a seeming opportunity arises, it's hardly surprising.

If Nina's sexual ethics class was to make an effort to teach girls to be less ambiguous in their sexual signalling, I suspect it would yield surprisingly large results in terms of reducing sexual assaults, especially among young people.

'Houlley, I don’t think I am deluding myself, that most of the female posters do try and see things from the male viewpoint. '

I think you are. Just look at how any guy who so much as mentions any measure a girl can take to protect herself, is pillared. The likes of pynchme hear guys say that they don't remove responsibility from the rapist, but think it's wise to advise women how they can protect themselves, and they get...

'wishy washy fellows here who endorse rape promoting notions; they are despicable'

You, on the other hand replied with this...

'I do agree with some of your comments that we do need to include some safety information or risky behaviours in those lessons that Nina proposes. But that is not the same as allotting blame to the victim.'

Which is exactly what a lot of the male posters are saying.

See, just because you aren't attempting to pursue an agenda to stop any discussion of educating girls along with boys about sexual ethics, doesn't mean the other female posters aren't. And notice that pynchme wasn't upset about that comment from you because you're a chick, but all the male posters are 'wishy washy fellows here who endorse rape promoting notions; they are despicable'

It IS possible to DARE to talk about female sexual ethics, responsibility and protection from harm WITHOUT blaming victims of rape. Pynchme's type wouldn't even accept a disclaimer of 'this doesn't lessen the responsibility of rapists, or attribute any blame to the victim when rape occurs' in every post. They're just looking to label anyone who dares speak outside feminist orthodoxy as promoting rape.

anti,

'No one has suggested that they are'
Give up mate. It doesn't matter what you say, consider yourself a rape promoter. Maybe even a rapist.

Houlley
Perhaps we all see things through rose coloured glasses at times and I probably no different at times. At times I suspect miscommuications might come down to semantics.

I got the impression some posters were arguing that the victim has to take responsibility (albeit small) for partaking in possible risky behaviours should they be attacked or raped. Whereas I perceive 'responsibility' as akin to blaming language which I just cannot agree. I suspect, but cannot speak for pynchme, it may be the same interpretation.

Something was gnawing away at me about the article, but I couldn't figure out what, then I realised. It was this paragragh:

"Similarly, while teenagers receive some information on how to negotiate the sex that they do not want to have (the old ''Just say no'' line), they receive virtually no guidance on how to communicate about and negotiate the sex that they do want to have."

Negotiate

Negotiate?

Negotiate!

There are two principle meanings to the word negotiate, without resorting to dictionaries I will briefly give basic 'definitions'.

One is the idea of bargaining: that is two people working through an issue so that each gets at least part of what they want.

The other definition can better be considered by an example: 'negotiating' a way through a set of obstacles, or a minefield.

To which does Nina refer? If it is bargaining then the concept fails entirely, because in any negotiations the result is a compromise that both parties can 'live with' or accept that they won't get all of what they want, but are willing to accept what they can get.

Is this really the way to approach sex, and preferably good sex? It reeks of prostitution: "I will give you this if you give me that", or is that what Nina really means? Compromise in sex? If I had to compromise, or ask my wife to compromise to suit me, I would prefer to go without. Better no sex than bad sex.

If it is the other definition, should anyone have to negotiate their way through a sexual minefield? Wouldn't it be better to accept Hamlet's advice to Ophelia: "Get thee to a nunnery!" (ignoring that 'nunnery' was in Elizabethan times slang for brothel) and once again forgo and forsake sex entirely.

If sex, for females interested in males - and I can understand why so many young women are interested in young women - is a minefield then perhaps they need lessons not in 'negotiating' but in avoiding the dangers.

So Nina, which sense did you use when you used the word: 'Negotiate'?

Just adding to what Dougthebear said, 'consent' and 'ethical' are emotionally loaded terms that are also not defined. Is the author suggesting that the present legal interpretation of consent in NSW or elsewhere is inadequate and if so, what is she suggesting in its place?

The author referred to a book by Professor Moira Carmody and in the next paragraph discussed 'sexual consent' and 'negotiation'. Are we to assume she is intending us to apply Carmody's definitions and if so, what are they or should we read the book before commenting ourselves? For example, Carmody talks about the necessity for the continual negotiation of sexual consent during a sexual encounter because young women are often unable to say no.

Not arguing with the concepts, just looking for precise definitions and examples. We have only been shown the tip of the iceberg and as yet too much of it is below water, defying measurement and description.

Isn't 'consent' something that you give that you don't really want to have happen? Like a medical procedure? Or in the alternative giving consent to someone under your care to do something?

Getting formal from the free on-line dictionary:

con·sent (kn-snt)
intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents
1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
n.
1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.

Is consent in this situation acquiescence? What a horrible way to think about sex - acquiescing to what someone else is doing to and with you body: sure, it conforms with liberal thinking, but doesn't sound very pleasant.

Agreement about a course of action? Well that sounds a little better, agreeing to have sex at least indicates that both parties seem happy about it, and of course agreement may be withdrawn at any time: but being blunt, during the act there is a time when a male may not be able to hear the withdrawal of consent, or agreement. Which only goes to show that males cannot be trusted.

So which 'consent' is it, and which 'negotiate'?

Another point just as a person who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol cannot provide consent, neither can a person under 16.

Last matter, a couple of years ago two policeofficers were busted for telling a guy that his girlfriend used to be a bloke. The 'guy' did not know this before, so was he able to provide informed consent to sex with someone who had, in effect, tricked him into thinking that she had always been a she? Shouldn't informed consent include informing a potential partner of something that they may want to know? She the 'woman' have been charged with sexual assault?

Nina, will you please reply?

Edit:

"She the 'woman' have been charged with sexual assault?"

Should have read

"Should she, the 'woman', have been charged with sexual assault?"

"For example, Carmody talks about the necessity for the continual negotiation of sexual consent during a sexual encounter because young women are often unable to say no."

Cornflower, perhaps this is part of Nina's strategy - to understand why some young women are often unable to say no and to give them the tools to be able to do so.

Interesting case study Doug. Perhaps the woman (who was once male) does not identify as a male anymore and is, for all intents and purposes, a woman. I would imagine in this case a transgender person has in effect (and by law) become a woman.

But it is an interesting ethical dilemma.

Some definitional debates here:

1) I do not use the term 'negotiate' in the Camp David sense of the word. I more use it to refer to navigating the sexual waters- which is sometimes easy and pleasurable but can be difficult if two people's expectations/ pleasures do not allign.

2) Consent is not, as has been suggested, an 'emotional' word. It has a legal grounding. In NSW consent has to be given freely without force or coercion and the person giving it has to have the capcity to give it (children or passed out/ asleep people do not have the capacity to give consent).

Moira Carmody talks abotu this stuff in her book. Also consent can be communicated verbally or non verbally, but it can never be assumed. My suggestion is, if you're unsure- take five seconds to say something like "does feel good?" or "what would you enjoy me doing?" It's not rocket science and I'm not, contrary to what ppl think, trying to 'ruin' the flow of sex. Incorporating these sentences can actually improve the sex being had as ppl have a better idea of what the other person wants/ enjoys.

Unfortunatly I speak with hundreds of young women who have had unwanted sex. Some would classify it as a sexual assault many wouldn't. But the point is an act does not have to be illegal for it to be a sh**ty experience. Presumably anyone who has any ethics would prefer that their sexual partners did not walk away feeling terrible about what happened and about themselves. This is what the sexual ethics education program is trying to reduce-unethical, negative expere4inces (irrespective of whether they are technically illegal or not is not the point exactly)

Negotiations during sex ...lol

Sure to cool fires of passion at any age. Perhaps Nina is on track to curb excessive teenage bonking ....

I think some commentators are missing common sense.

"Force" as in physical domination or threat of is a BIG NONO.
"Coercion" as in pressure - if a blanket ban were applied, virtually all sales reps, teachers, public servants and politicians would be unemployed. Use your head, exercise your choices!

Seriously folks. We are talking teenagers?
Immature 'adults' full of hormones, curiousity and in these 'enlightened' times commonly a) exposed to adult images and concepts from early ages b)self absorbed c) aware of their 'rights' and that unacceptable, even criminal behaviour is likely to have few repercussions due to being 'underage' d) lacking self control and life experience e)lacking insight into likely consequences of some behaviours f)at risk of undue influence by peers and g) suspicious of most advice meted out by people over 25.

If kids are raised in a stable moral environment where values are taught and reinforced through parental example and discipline, there's a good chance of getting them through adolesence without too many tragedies. Pity the ones who haven't.

Teenagers must be taught about personal relationships. They need their sense of 'selfworthiness' cultivated to help cope with peer pressure. Both sexes need instruction about love and sex, the joys and sorrows, reponsibilities and possible repercussions. This firstly from home then reinforced in life education classes.

I don't buy into the 'girl is always 100% innocent' thing. It is her responsibility to set limits on sexual activity, to remain sober enough to resist breaches and to not give strong verbal or non-verbal messages indicating a willingness she doesn't have. His responsibility is to accept her limits. If she says 'No', doesn't mean he can't try to 'renegotiate' but he must know when to stop. It might also mean being true to what he considers his own limits.

I've reared sons and a daughter thus and none have disappointed me yet. Luck has also been on my side :-)

Nina I don't know if you follow other OLO threads or not but a discussion elsewhere has highlighted different perceptions about discussion of sexual wants.

I recall a few disussions I had with women while I was using RSVP some time back about their experiences with dating and one ongoing theme was men who chose to introduce heavy sexual content into early communications. Something which generally seemed to really creep the women out but anecdotally common enough that it's probably not just a few odd men doing so. On the other hand people looking for a relationship have some legitimate reasons for finding out early if there are shared sexual interests with a prospective partner.

Any thoughts on the ethics around those discussions?

R0bert

'introduce heavy sexual content into early communications. Something which generally seemed to really creep the women out '

So that's rape now too? What about when men get 'creeped out' by women talking about marriage on the first date. Is that rape?:-)

Yeah I know that's just silly, but every discussion like this is 100% committed to pandering to every ideal a woman may have of a romantic encounter, and 0% committed to a man's possible ideal.

I think the only way some people like nina would be happy would be if every woman was 100% happy with every aspect of every sexual encounter, without having any responsibility to express her needs without prompting questions from the male at every step of the way. Anything less is sexual assault.

'Unfortunatly I speak with hundreds of young women who have had unwanted sex. '

Nina,

Do you ever speak to men who have unwanted sex, or is every sexual encounter wanted by men? If it isn't wanted, what responsibility do women have to ask if their partner really wants to have sex when he has given no verbal objection? How often do you think a woman ask? Yeah, exactly.

"What about when men get 'creeped out' by women talking about marriage on the first date" - come on Houellebecq you've been informed elsewhere that marriage is about men owning and controlling women (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3005#70080). Do you get bothered by women desperate to be owned by you? ;)

I do get your point though but I'd still like to get some other perspectives around some of that stuff. What you have said is relevant to that discussion.

R0bert

I agree completely that both participants, or whatever number that are involved in the activity at the time, must provide consent as a bare minimum, but I also think that consent falls fall short of the ideal.

Consent has little to do with ethics. Consent is, as Nina points out, a legal concept, which is in many ways fluid. Not too many years ago it was impossible for males to legally consent to homosexual activity.

The Spanner case in England (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner ) also demonstrates the fluidity of consent.

Ethics is something else again. There are few laws against acting unethically. There is no law against a guy having sex with his girlfriend's mother, so long as they are unrelated and are both able to give informed consent to the act, but the ethics involved may be quite questionable. A married member of parliament may not be breaking the law if he (or she) has sex with someone considerably younger who is not their spouse, but who is also able to give informed consent, but once again the action really can be questioned from the point of view of ethics.

I would contend that consent be taught in schools, but it is up to the wider society to instill ethics: whether this is by the example of adults, the media, faith groups and the like.

I remember 20 years ago talking with a fellow member of a football team in a change room before a game. I was 32, he was 20, and was describing the 'fuss' that a girl had made at a party the night before when she woke from a drunken stupor to find a guy having sex with her. When I told this guy that his mate had raped the girl, and I showed condenmation towards him and his mate, he refused to accept this, and this was a fellow from a good home, attending university and otherwise intelligent.

I hope that things have changed, but I fear that they haven't. It is up to all of us to try to instill ethics.