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.