I heard it reported (radio) today - An emminent (overseas) Defence Counsel, who had carriage of providing a defence, for three of six men charged with a horrific rape and murder trial, claim that women must bear some responsibiity for the crime of rape ?

Apparently, he maintained there are several examples where women can exercise some control of these events, by observing the following measures and contingencies.

(a) 'He claimed women should avoid wearing attire, that's suggestive, confronting or in anyway, capable of tempting or teasing men;'

(b) 'Being in places alone, and late at night, and in locations that possess a bad reputation;'

(c) 'All women should therefore be circumspect and cautious in their behaviour, including but not limited too, being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. And ensure their behaviour is neither intentionally provocative, nor seductive'.

The radio presenter went on to drew several notable comparisons of crimes, involving the vicious rape and murder (in this country) of two decent young women, recently.

Personally, I believe the above contingencies, might best be considered from purely a judicious or prudent position, rather than a set of rules.

I'd not ever seek to dictate a person's (male or female) behaviour, or mode of attire ? I would and have, suggested that men, women and girls, refrain from either loitering or walking ALONE through certain precincts, even confines, whether it's day or night. Most certainly, as a general rule, a female person alone, can attract trouble in any area, far more so than the average male. Of course police, whether a person's male or female, can only 'suggest something' to them, unless it pursuant to a specific offence. This is still a free country ?

My own personal belief even philosophy for everything:- use your commonsense, and avoid any risk !

Dear o sung wu,

The fear of rape touches virtually all women,
instilling in them a wariness of male strangers,
and an apprehension about walking alone at night
or being in deserted places. Yet, contrary to
popular belief, most rapes are actually committed
by an acquaintance of the victim, a family friend,
a neighbour, a teacher, an employer, an ex-lover,
a new dating partner. Victims of "date rape,"
are particularly reluctant to report the crime,
for they are afraid that other people - including
family, friends and jurors will suspect they did
something to "ask for it."

Many people still regard rape as an expression of
unrestrained, impulsive sexual desire. Sociological and
psychological research of recent years has proven this
view to be a myth.

Rape is a crime of violence, not of passion. It is a
ritual of power and humiliation. All the evidence indicates
that the sexual aspect of rape is of secondary importance.
The primary object is to humiliate and subjugate the woman,
and bolster the aggressor's feelings of power, superiority,
and masculinity.

The effects of rape can be devastating for the victim,
involving physical and emotional damage and the disruption
of personal, social, familial, and sexual life.

If the vitim reports the attack to the police, the emotional
trauma may be re-experienced months or years later in a
courtroom, where the intimate details of the rape are
dissected before an audience of strangers.

Typically, defense lawyers try to shift the burden of guilt
from the accused to the victim. That is a typical defense ploy.

"She was loose," or "She encouraged the rape," or "she was
willing," or "she was provocatively dressed,"
and was therefore at fault.

All examples of the way in which responsibility for the control
of male advances is shifted to the female.

Such a line fo defence in unique to the crime of rape.

A well-dressed man stepping from an expensive limousine
would nev er be accused of thereby tempting someone to
mug him.

Hello there LEXI...

I'm so pleased to see you're back from yesterdays unsettling tribulations. And back you are with a vengence by the look of it, and I couldn't be happier LEXI !

You appear so very well aqauainted with the 'power & control' element of this dreadful crime, it would've been better for you to have run the topic then I. Another thing how much better for someone to fully understand the psychology of this crime than a women ?

Moreover, I don't believe I've ever heard such a difficult subject put more laconically in my entire life, than the way you've dealt with it here ! You've obviously formerly studied it, or alternatively, had significent academic exposure of this confronting subject, as evidenced by the depth of your understanding and appreciation.

It's little wonder we men have so many misguided notions, or mistaken beliefs when we're asked to provide some information about the crime, to either friends or the public, we tend to be left floundering like fools.

There was this chap (reaching way back into my memory banks now ?) who was a Captain later Major in the (again, I think ?) El Paso County Sheriff's Dept. named, James (Jim) Smith (dec). He authored probably the most definitive guide on the offence, titled; 'Rapist Beware' - 'Special Edition'. I was fortunate to attend a seminar, over a weekend, where he provided us all some extraordinary information, together with other data, specifically on the offence. Wherever he received his training, who knows ? Suffice to say LEXI, he knew it all ! I still have his book somewhere here at home ?

Anyway, well see if any of the good people herein, will see fit to contribute, and pass along their respective thoughts ?

Thank you once again LEXI, for your brilliant summation and appreciation of this awful crime against women, in fact any humen being.

"A well-dressed man stepping from an expensive limousine would never be accused of thereby tempting someone to mug him."

Actually I suspect that a lot of us would not have a great deal of sympathy for him if he insists on parking that limo in known dodgy area's. If he is in the habit of waving a thick wad of notes around amongst strangers. If he hangs around with a rough crowd because it's more exciting than spending time with a suburban crowd with straighter tastes.

The mugger is always responsible for their choices but those who choose to live on the wild side might do well to accept that danger carries with it risk.

We all should be safe to go where we want dressed as we like but unfortunately that's not the reality of most of our lives. There are choices each of us can make which increase our risk and choices which lessen our risk, few guarantees though.

I think the political correctness spin around this issue blinds some to the reality that they choose to increase their own risk by their choices.

R0bert

O Sung,
The cases of the two "decent" young women raped and murdered in Melbourne recently don't really relate to the high profile cases in India. In the Brunswick incident it seems every effort was made to see that the victim got home safely,she just made a bad decision in not accepting a lift then had a chance run in with a bad man who saw an opportunity.
In the other case the young woman met her end at the hands of someone who it seems was a close friend,it's known that she and her friends regularly visited his house and socialised with the accused and his mates.
The "reclaim the night" message is stupid, it's not even safe for groups of men to walk around certain areas at night, heck about 18 months ago I was in an ugly, unprovoked confrontation in Sydney road Brunswick at about eleven in the morning, it's not a safe suburb at any time of day.
When Luke Mitchell was murdered after going to the aid of a bashing victim in Brunswick a few years ago people questioned and even criticised his decision to try and break up the fight, being overly sensitive about women's poor choices helps nobody. Saying that women have the "right" to be anywhere they want at any time of day, dressed however they want in any state of inebriation is nonsense, nobody can expect to be protected from the consequences of their own poor judgement and we shouldn't give girls the impression that they can behave however they see fit and expect everyone to come running when they get in over their head.

The outrage and remorse shown by men, particularly in the Brunswick incident is all well and good but supporting women's "rights" is again, nonsensical, the only person capable of protecting a woman from male aggression is another man. If a woman victim walked home with another woman and run into an armed offender we might just easily have had two rapes or fatalities, very few women are capable of fighting off a man who is serious about harming them.
It's all about being able to back up the things we say, we as men can't protect women if they're not willing to accept protection and what can we really do anyway? We can only provide acceptable levels security in selected areas, such as the CBD or shopping centres and suggest that women use those safe zones. We can't cover every solo adventure or spontaneous decision made by women so the idea that women have the "right" to be anywhere they want at any time in any condition is a fantasy, the reality is that they are rolling the dice when they walk around alone at night or in unsafe parts of town.

Rape, what dreadful memory's it brings to me.
A 13 year old girl raped by her step dad.
One a littl3e older and again it was dad.
We must not however forget Rape is not always one on one or some one known.
O sung wo you may be aware of the gang rapes, by WASP in the 1960,s.
And the Rape and murders, some still not solved such as Wanda Beach, a whole sea side list of Rapes.
Then the recent ones with extremely long sentences.
Can we justifie the part played by the way a woman presents her self cloths make up and such?
Even the company she is in .
IF we do we are selective, and hypocritical.
No Rape is ever justified.
Ever.
But being self aware and careful is far better than being sorry

Belly that last line said it really well.

R0bert

As in oils ain't oils, rape isn't rape.

There are more than a few types of rape. The dreadful cases in India, & Melbourne are one form, the one that Lexi mentions. [Hi kid, glad you're OK]. Similar is rape of a stranger/pick up, using drugs or alcohol by the rapist. For these the penalties are not high enough.

Date rape among friends or lovers, may be a different thing. When a lady happily accompanies a man, or men to a motel or a home, things can become messy.

She must have known what was planned. When did she say no? Before, during or after the event, or perhaps the next day, after sobering up. Here it can be asked, was it rape?

Then we have the woman scorned, shouting rape & after vengeance.

I can have no idea if women ever ask for "it", but some with dress & action do set themselves up for an unpleasant outcome.

I have no first hand, or even second hand knowledge of the subject, but must admit to wondering when I read of a lady spending the night with a number of footballers screaming rape the next morning.

There are many somewhat different events which are all labeled rape, so it is a bit hard to know what each person is actually talking about.

Isn’t it one of those things where the onus should not be on the victim to prove they were innocent but on the one charged with the crime?

Belly,
In a situation where a person is raped by an associate or intimate "provocation" probably isn't going to be as big an issue if the matter comes before a court, it never is unless there's a suggestion that the woman is not being honest.
However look what happened when it became apparent that Jill Meagher had met with foul play, all of a sudden hundreds of women were taking to facebook giving details of unreported assaults and near misses which had allegedly occurred in the Brunswick area in the last few years.
Clearly street assaults are a bigger issue than most people think, maybe as big a problem as intimate or domestic sexual assaults.
Scanning some of the posted stories one of the reasons given for not reporting the crime was that the victim felt stupid for being caught out or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It doesn't matter what women think about standards of dress or following safety advice, it matters more what dangerous men think and it's clear that there are men out and about who are provoked by the way women look and behave. There's not a lot that can be done about it except for both men and women to be sensible about the issue, if a woman you know won't accept a lift home or at least an escort to the Taxi rank then insist or follow her anyway, if she's too intoxicated to make proper decisions don't let her out of your sight.
The reality is that there are bad parts of town, that men of certain ethnic groups do have a far more predatory and chauvinistic attitude toward women than others and that in a lot of cases even if there are people around they're not going to help a woman in distress.

Gentlemen,

If you can't keep it zipped up -
for whatever reason - it is YOUR
fault! No matter what your defence lawyer says!

If a murderer commits murder is it the dead person's
fault - because they "invited it?"

Or

If a thief steals - is it the owner's fault?

Come on - get real.

If a Nation invades another Nation - is it the
fault of the invaded Nation?

Lexi I'm quite capable of keeping it zipped and do so unless there is clear mutual consent as is the case with most men. Thats not the issue, the issue is that there are a small proportion of people who won't do so.

Those with a gender point to score may want to focus on what should be, those who would actually like to see women safer are a lot more interested in what is and how to avoid the worst of it.

Maybe you mean well, but that last post looked like spin with no real interest in how to make it better.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

We all fully realise that not all males rape.
What we are talking about are the males that do.
And their defense lawyers who typically try to shift the
burden of guilt from the accused to the victim.
A change in this way of thinking would "make things
better."

Utilizing the myth that women somehow enjoy being
raped and that they consciously or subconsciously
encouraged the assault is the problem.

What needs to be addressed here is the way in which
women are still perceived by many men as "sex objects."
And it is this aspect of the act and its aftermath
that needs to be fully understood in terms of overall
patterns of sexual interaction in the society.

Rape is an extreme outcome of culturally approved
activities in which one segment of society dominates
another, socially and sexually. It is usually not an
act of sudden impulse, for the majority of these
crimes are planned in advance, with the rapist -
whether a stranger or an acquaintance carefully
selecting a time, place, and victim for the attack.

Nor is rape the result of any lack of alternative
sexual outlets. Many rapists are married, many have
sexual partners, and most could easily afford a
prostitute. In fact as stated earlier - lust seems
to have remarkably little to do with rape. A high
proportion of rapists are completely impotent, and
many more only become sexually aroused only when they
have sufficiently terrified and debased their victim
through verbal and physical abuse.

Rape, like any demonstration of violence, is a brutish, uncivilised and unsocialised action.

It's a will to power without restraint.

Whether or not a woman is "unwise' in her choices, it will always be the rapist who "chooses" to rape.

Lexi my sweet, I'm afraid that post is in out of date language.

The morals you & I & many here were raised with, in very many instances, just do not apply with todays youngsters.

You only have to watch a bit of TV to realise that many ladies these days, go out on Friday & Saturday nights to get laid.

They dress for it, go to the right venues to find it, & indulge in conduct designed to bring young blokes running, with their tongue hanging out.

I agree this doesn't mean they deserve to be raped. However when they have a young bloke on what he believes is a promise, & then go home with him, she is building an expectation.

I'm inclined to believe many date rapes occur only after she sobers up a bit, & actually realises she would never go home with this bloke if sober.

Life is so different today. I mentioned to my son, a favoured little spot, near where he's living, where some of us used to go for a romantic moonlight swim.

When he looked like he didn't understand why we would want to do that, I realised that his girlfriend moved in with him with in a month of their meeting. Where we courted for months or years, things are a bit more direct today.

I know I can not understand the attraction of todays attitudes, or behaviours. However I can see that it leads to problems of this nature between acquaintances.

Just wondering if there would be more men raped in gaols than women raped in civvie street. Or for that matter if there are more women raped and sexually abused in women's prisons than civvy street.

What does say about the comments here that seem to be informed by feminism? Maybe there is a hint of researcher's error, where evidence is found to support the researchers' own bias.

Returning to the OP, very few might subscribe to the view that any victim has contributory fault. However there is a lot we can all do withing reason to reduce the likelihood that we might become the victim of crime.

Even so, some laws do blame the victim for crimes committed against them. The Howard inspired gun laws for example make the hapless licensed owner responsible for burglary committed against him/her.

That is only an example, but it should do to question here whether respondents are really concerned about ethics and the legal principle.

onthebeach, at risk of nameing, for my views, your post is repelling to me.
To use feminism as a bat to flog the thread, by a male ex police officer?
OUTSTANDING, NOT!
Put all the different class of rape, a hundred at least, in separate bins.
But each and every one is wrong.
I will not except that lies or poor behavior should lessen the crime.
As I said before some attract the wrong blokes, but we are not going to be men until we know rape is rape.
Sex is available without using such acts.

Hasbeen: “You only have to watch a bit of TV to realise that many ladies these days, go out on Friday & Saturday nights to get laid.

These days? THESE DAYS!? Far as I can tell from my family history my nana was a right ho bag while my daughter is rather prudish in comparison. These days my left foot.

But anyhoo, Wiki says;

“Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.”

Circumstances are what different sentences are for that take into account the amount of harm inflicted?

"Whether or not a woman is "unwise' in her choices, it will always be the rapist who "chooses" to rape.

Poirot, I've not seen anyone suggesting otherwise. I hope that's a given for most of us.

The bit that's the struggle is where it trying to talk about reducing the incidence of rape by encouraging some women to make wiser choices given the increased risks in some situations. I suspect that most of those making that point would not be adverse to far more serious consequences for rapists when the rape aspect is clear cut.

R0bert

Good afternoon all...

There's been some interesting views expressed here. And because the topic is relatively sensitive and one that can often precipitate both emotional as well as gender issues, I should therefore confine my own views purely from the empirical evidence that's been attained from my working days.

I generally steer clear of issues that generate heated accusations or indictments emanating from alternative (gender) groups. But the offence of Rape, knows no gender bounds.

Someone mentioned rape in gaol ? Does it occur ? Sexual assault in gaol, is alive and well. For two reasons. The first (obviously) is for a sexual release. The other reason(s) intimidation, retribution, menacing the victim, reprisals, to purposely infect a victim with a STD etc etc !

Another correspondent mentioned certain ethnic categories hold women in very low esteem, almost a chattel. This is correct. Specifically instances of rape within the marriage. Do police, receive complaints from victims within these groups ? Rarely. This particular grouping is considered, over represented in terms of being charged with this offence. Though from my knowledge, the conviction rate is no higher or lower than the mainstream of offenders, from my time at least ?

Another, feature that's quite notable within this abhorrent crime. Many victims, though initially reporting the crime, decide not to follow through, because of the trauma and shame of going to Court, and fear of reprisal, and embarrassment, even guilt ? Who on earth could EVER blame the poor woman needing to confront her assailant across a crowded Courtroom ?

I've been associated with several women who's lives and marriages have deteriorated to a point beyond redemption ! Apparently, not all spouses appreciate nor understand the horror, humiliation, and the violence that occurs in the crime of rape ?

Finally, as most of you already know, there are many instances of rape occurring, some violent - but are never reported, for a variety of reasons. Rape in marriage is a notable example of this anomaly.

In what I assume to be the subject case, the defence counsel blamed the woman and her male partner for the attack.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/11/16452936-defense-attorney-blames-victim-in-india-gang-rape-murder-case?lite

The case is irrelevant to Australia. It is just another of the concerning aspects of many foreign cultures that we would hope are never imported to this country but could be. No Australian defence counsel would be so foolish as to blame a sexual assault victim.

Robert's point if I am reading him right is another: that idealism aside, what thinking, responsible person doesn't take risk into account to advise her/his actions?

o sung wu, "Apparently, not all spouses appreciate nor understand the horror, humiliation, and the violence that occurs in the crime of rape"

Where do you find this sort of person? Because I submit that such a person is likely to be defective in many ways. His 'insensitivity' to the rape of his wife is the tip of a large iceberg of personality problems below and probable offending in other areas (ie anti-social), which could include disregard of road laws, unethical business behaviour and so on.

It is catastrophising to speculate that such behaviour is at all common.

I think rape is more heinous than murder yet our courts seem to get some perverse sense of satisfaction when they hand out very lenient sentences. On the other hand it does also seem very easy for a woman to scream rape, especially in the morning if she feels he doesn't respect her anymore.
It's a dreadful thing & a just as deadfall dilemma to prove or disprove.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

As I said in my last thread; By data adduced from 'empirical' evidence. When I've spoken with victims, witnesses, and later family friends of the victim. Functions of the 'Case Officer'.

Your second point; You claim, Counsel for the Defence in this country; would never assert the victim was (in anyway) responsible for her attack ?

I would suggest you spend a bit of time in the Central Criminal Court my friend. Where the usual ploy of Defence Counsel will be to attempt to (firstly) discredit the evidence of the victim. Then attempt to assign significant blame; by dint of her behaviour, or her prior reputation, even her flirtatious nature or actions, prior to the alleged crime being commited.

That's why so many women victims find the entire Criminal Court process so traumatic, distressing and emotionally damaging.

Further, Indian Common law, is very similar to our own hitherto Common law. Today as here, to my knowledge, India has now, Codified most of their (indictable) criminal legislation.

Poirot>> It's a will to power without restraint.<<

This characteristic is shared in the makeup of a pedophile as well, and it is particularly applicable to these two crimes.

A will to power without restraint in other crimes is a precarious vocation. The restraint is the possibility that you may be physically stopped or terminally stopped. The rape and pedophilia victims are soft targets, and that is what draws a particular disgust for me, the power aspect.

If women had the muscular mass of men, but better arranged, would as many rejections turn into consummations?

What of the psychological aspect to a rapist’s makeup, as said here it is about power first and physical satisfaction almost as an after dinner mint.

Has anyone seen Ferrets mating.....now that’s rape, the female would fight to the death except she is overwhelmed.

Serial rapists I imagine carry the same psychosis that the male Ferret carries because the Ferret Fems are not compliant, and that is to overwhelm.

It is about power, but it is an outcome without risk. There is little kudos for rapist in max security from the anti social criminal warriors because of that fact I would assume. Funny, someone told me once that you get kudos if you are a bank robber and rapist, but the "just" a rapist is bottom of the sociopath brotherhood along with child molesters.

OSW, you are in the business, is that the way the crims see it?

o sung wu

This Indian lawyer's defence is newsworthy around the world precisely because it is seen as outrageous. Indian culture and traditions, and its development, are vastly different to Australia's. For example, in 2011, 300,000 of the world's 990,000 TB deaths were in India. Another example, caste-based discrimination is now unlawful in India but remains prevalent and can occur in front of police.

No-one has questioned the Indian lawyer's assertion that the woman victim's male partner is also responsible for the rape because he didn't act to prevent the offenders. The lawyer argues that his clients are blameless because he did not prevent them from committing a crime.

We in Australia are suffering culture shock on this one. We are struggling to understand the influence of the complicated mish-mash of traditions and cultures behind it.

What is not so easy to understand is why in a developed country like Australia there are always apologists who defend, excuse and diminish the sometimes vicious crimes of offenders whose lawyers trot out the multiculturalism defence - successfully too! You might Google contentious Court decisions on rapes by indigenous offenders in Australia. Here is a start, from Qld,

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rape-case-attacks-blasted/2007/12/12/1197135547552.html

I am not commenting either way on the sentences. But if there is an area of law enforcement where the is diminished responsibility for rape and other serious crime it has to do with multicultural policy.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

Your interesting comparison to murder, provokes memories. Whereas, a victim of a violent Rape lives constantly with those awful events for the rest of her life.

Years ago when I was quite junior in the job I was directed to provide some minor assistance for senior investigators of one of the most heinous murder/rapes in Australian Criminal History. The rape and murder of Mrs. Virginia Morse, near the small town of Moree, NSW.

Specifics are not necessary, suffice to say her two killers are still guests of the NSW Prison system. My point being, without knowing the precise state of mind if Mrs Morse had survived, in my opinion, and in the opinion of all the senior detectives there, her being deceased, apparently, was considered a real blessing ? So depraved, and brutal was the violence occasioned upon this unfortunate woman, I do wonder if her ultimate death was more benevolent perhaps, than had she actually survived ?

Please don't for a moment perceive me as the ultimate arbiter of life or death ? Far from it. It's just, some crimes 'MUST' leave the unfortunate victim so emotionally damaged, death would've been a more preferable and much kinder outcome, than a life of constant terror (real or imaginary), fear and self-recrimination.

An absorbing thread, thanks INDIVIDUAL.

'evening to you SONOFGLOIN...

Yeah, like you the crime does push ALL my angry buttons, and your word 'disgust' seems adequate to me.

And you're absolutely spot on with this 'power' thing. It takes a real hero to outrage a helpless women, usually because most offenders feel substantially inadequate whenever they have a need to interact with women in the normal course of daily activity.

I believe you're correct INDIVIDUAL, many of these 'violent' rapist though exuding an awful POWER over a petrified women, often need 'protection' themselves, once they've been committed to the 'go slow' for a few years !

In my lifetime, the offence of Rape, was once determined to be a 'capital' Crime. Thus some years ago, an offender may well be hanged for a particularly brutal offence.

"some crimes 'MUST' leave the unfortunate victim so emotionally damaged, death would've been a more preferable and much kinder outcome"

So it would have been kinder to kill the survivors of Changi POW camp?

The euphemism that rape (or death of one's child or loss of sight or whatever) is a fate worse than death rarely means what it says. It helps sufferers express their deep emotional feelings. That is all.

Of course it is far better to handle the victims of terrible events to survive to be handled sensitively and professionally. The aim should be to provide every assistance for them to get on with their lives.

I would question whether rape victims always get such consideration. Well-meaning supporters who continually remind of the enormity of the crime as in repeating the horror of rape and the 'impossibility' of recovery, the lasting memory, are most likely doing more harm than good.

As well, in multicultural Australia it is not prudent to re-awaken any imported tradition or cultural belief that women are blemished forever by rape (and should take the obvious way out).

and the affect of porn that portrays woman as always wanting it? Its like giving a 13 year old a v8 and expecting him not to speed. All, of society is to blame for allowing such pervesion to be common.

Just a thought.
I as have most men known loose women.
And many who want sex all the time, no surprise we men are the same.
Not trying to be controversial.
But some, views expressed here a reminding me of the recent Rapes in India.
No true, they do.
Next I , and others, some contributing here,
Have expressed views, in Muslim and related threads, about the way we perceive women are treated in those country,s/religions?
Are we any better?
Are we in any way, any better than the Gentleman we men despise who spoke of raw meat in talking of our women?
Is the problem world wide men?
Well no, some of us forget the intention of both sexes is to be admired by the other, even if we do not know it.
Sex drives human actions,it need not be rape opportunity exist without that.
A reality just out of our reach may exist, there can be no Absolutes.
But I think,Absolutely, Rape, by Catholics Priests on boys , by any one is wrong any sex.

On The Beach,
In the U.S.A the number of men reporting rape does exceed the number of women when prison statistics are added to the general tally, the way statistics usually work is to take each report as an individual crime but in prison the victim may be victimsed daily or weekly over months or years. I've read studies on the phenomenon of prison rape in Australia and it's extremely rare, even consensual homosexual activity is uncommon in our prisons, a relative of mine was in corrections for 16 years mostly at men's prisons and she has told me she never had to deal with a rape and never saw any homosexual activity.
There's an unhelpful tendency to correlate what happens overseas, particularly in the U.S.A with what happens here when in reality we're dealing with two very different societies with different racial dynamics, race is an important factor especially when discussing crime, especially male rape. If we're not willing to separate out Aboriginal or Lebanese crime statistics to make assessments about our society as a whole even though their inclusion drastically skews the overall picture to the negative side so we shouldn't take any notice of African and Mexican crime stats from the U.S.A. As Ann Coulter said the other night, if you want to compare American gun crime to European gun crime you have to take out the Black and Mexican statistics, then you have a picture of a European population whose crime rates are no different to those living in Europe.
So it is with rape.

Individual,
Rape is considered on a par with murder because in days past it was often a death sentence for the victim, they could die in labour from an unwanted pregnancy, die of infection from their wounds or internal injuries or from venereal disease. We men are hard wired to retaliate in a vicious manner against rapists because they endanger our chances of successfully passing on our genes, this is why rape carries about the same penalty as attempted murder and it explains why rapists are loathed and are at risk from even normally peaceful family men.
Andrea Dworkin's "All men rape" statement is the product of a diseased mind, in our society men have always been the primary protectors of women and children and the ones who have dealt with transgressors.
Men don't condone rape, they don't joke about it and when confronted by such crimes they immediately begin to manifest an instinctive desire to torture and kill the perpetrators.

Belly,
Sheikh Hillaly was talking about preventing rape and infidelity by imposing Islamic standards on all women, his comments weren't "sexist", they were dogmatic and unpalatable to the liberal mind but he wasn't saying anything out of line from an Islamic perspective, which is after all the context of his remarks. That speech is available online if you'd care to read it in full.
You're making the same mistake over again, don't compare White populations to non White, there's nothing that can be revealed about our habits and attitudes by studying Indians or Blacks, worry only about your own kind because you'll never understand what motivates outsiders. If your Cocker Spaniel is misbehaving you don't go and ring the German Shepherd Breeders association for advice on correcting the behaviour, right?

True, it is easier to take US numbers and make assumptions about Australia.

I read that Chicago doesn't have a gun problem it has a father problem. Some deaths are State approved homicide by police in law enforcement, others suicides, but the overwhelming majority of gun crime is young black on young black. Drug and gang related.

Male rape in US gaols,

13% involved white inmates raping white inmates
29% involved black inmates raping black inmates
56% involved black inmates raping white inmates

Those who commit rape are serious offenders (eg assault, armed robbery) and members of gangs. There would be a lot of under-reporting.

The problem with rape 'statistics' being quoted in Australia is that the definition used can vary enormously according to the purpose of the writer.

With the growing trend in Australia for ethnic gangs to dominate prison populations -much in the same way as non bike riding ethnic criminal gangs have taken over the outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs)and doubtless many of the same serious offenders- it will be interesting to see if the incidence of prison rapes rises accordingly.

There is a fine line between a woman flirting and then calling rape.

The Mike Tyson case is a prime example, whereby a woman went to his apartment, quite possibly lead him on, then decided it was not for her.

Now while I do not condone rape in any shape or form, some victims must share some of the blame for allowing themselves to be in that predicament in the first place.

You then have the 14 year olds, posing as 18, who all of a sudden cry rape if daddy finds out.

So it can be a shared crime at times with the vicim often contributing to the crime in the first place.

JAY of MELBOURNE...

Did I understand you correctly, where you claim the incidence of rape in prison is rare ? And consensual homosexual activity is uncommon ?

I don't know to what particular State and facility you're referring too, but at the old State Penitentiary Long Bay, they had an entire wing (No 7) dedicated to what's used to be referred to as 'non associates'.

During the days of the AIDS crisis, homosexual activity in 'boob' was both rampant and difficult to control. Further, so bad was the transmission of STD's, the administration wanted condoms issued to every crim, but it's my understanding the Warder's Union wouldn't countenance their members issuing condoms to inmates !

O sung,
Yeah that was back then I'm talking about present day, I know what the old gaols and boys homes were like, I had an uncle in and out of the system. Pentridge had a separate wing for behaviour management too but these days in Victoria the prisoners are nearly all in individual rooms, be that in high security units or in the medium and low security housing. One study I read, which I can probably find again documented, I think 60 allegations of sexual misconduct nation wide, again as far as I can recall it was recent information, maybe from 2006.
There are ample documentaries available online detailing the conditions in American prisons, one notable and recent one was Louis Theroux's look at Miami city jail, from what I understand their system is vastly different to ours and in a word, judging from the documentary their prisons really are hell holes.

A very longtime ago, on a forum now gone,the subject of Pedophilia came up.
It was a long thread.
One contributor constantly spoke in favor of such acts.
Young uni students made up half the numbers.
After a time, the pro poster was unmasked, as a member of a group holding views and practices we find abhorrent.
Think it is worth repeating .
O SUNG WO, would know of cases that saw the victim, or non victim, charge based on events that never happened, lie.
Such cases are not rape.
We should not say they are, and most of us are not.
But in saying acts of rape happened because the victim did some thing silly or wrong?
We could, those old enough, and in passing, brutal enough, make a case that the Wanda Beach rape and murders,was bought about by the victims, we as that dirt bag, sorry truth, did in blaming Australian girls, for the mass rapes.
Debate all you wish.
But what side would you take if your sister or daughter was the victim?

JAY of MELBOURNE...

I'm not aware of what happens in Melbourne. Though, I would suspect, if it looks like a gaol, sounds like a gaol and stinks like a gaol, it IS a gaol, a gaol in any part of the world !

I was a detective sergeant in NSW. I'd have little truck with anything that Mr Louis Theroux would say on any topic ! Personally, I find the man an intrusive, offensive and derisive, sensationalist styled, tabloid journalist. And if he were to stick his irritating, bespectacled head into my door, I would perhaps think I'd be more than a little cross with the gentleman !

Further, it would appear prima facie, that I'm unable to pursuade you with anything further, that I might offer, therefore it would be incumbant upon me to respectfully excuse myself. And in so doing, quietly withdraw from any further discussion with you. Thus, defer to your superior level of knowledge on this subject.

Accordingly, thank your for your contributions.

Good afternoon to you BELLY...

As ever you're on the money ol' friend. The Wanda murders ? I was fortunate enough to speak with a bloke who worked on that matter. He reckoned they were running around chasing their tails with conflicting evidence even though they had a bloke in their sights, it's just they could't tie him in with what (admissable evidence) they had ?

AS you say, would anyone of us like such an abomination or obscenity to occur to our sister or any other female member of our families ? Decidedly not !

You and I are of similar age BELLY ? Do you believe violence towards women is worsening, more so than back in the late fifties to the early seventies ?

It's just I was thinking of the Beaumont Children (in south Aussie), Virginia Morse in Moree, Anita Cobby, Liverpool and others ? I suppose violence is violence ! Whatever decade it was perpetuated in ? In my memory, the Virginia Morse murder certainly eclipsed anything I'd ever had to confront. I was fortunate, I was only at the edge of things, a lot of blokes at the coal face found it very very hard. When Crump and Baker were ultimately arrested, it was a case of who's going to protect them from the police themselves ? Such was the disgust and loathing everybody had for the two.

Gee, they've done some boob now. Crump, the weak link of the two actually sought a parole hearing I believe. Naturally, it was not anywhere on the radar. Neither it should be either.

Even the male population of Moree, were out to get them, yet these dedicated 'jacks' had to swallow their own over-stretched emotions and protect those vile creatures, from others ! A funny world, ah Belly !

Cheers...Sung wu.

Yes o sung wo 67 this way.
We must understand some are too young to share our memory's, of some horrible acts.
Mrs Morse,how that hurt.
I am a ham radio and electronics fan.
Many years ago, a small town Copper, one of 5 in that station stopped and asked me to take a ride, in his high way patrol car!
We became mates.
His radio needed fixing, just tuning really.
He was involved in that case.
He, like me, was an out sider in that xenophobic small town.
He went on to far bigger things,bet his ex workmates want his friendship now.
I am unsure, women are in more or less danger now, but see, here, and in real life,a willingness to forget the humanity of the victim.
And strange but informative,a firing up, if it is thought a foreigner is involved.

o sung wu,
In answer to your question,my opinion is Yes, in some circumstances.

Females generally dress to attract males by enhancing their sexuallity. One cannot say their clothing and footwear is practical. Not that I advocate change as, like most males, I admire the female form. But sometimes the clothing and flirtacous conduct can give inviting signals to males. For example, a woman who willingly goes with a number of males to their hotel room for drinks and laughs can hardly cry genuine rape next morning. She has placed herself in a situation of very high probability of sexual encounter.

However I want to test your memory. You recall the gang rapes in the Bankstown area about 2000? I understand the police received about 60 complaints of gang rape and put out madia releases warning public about these attacks. However apparently the media decided not to publish the warnings because it may have adverse publicity on the upcoming Sydney Olympics. Can you confirm if this is correct? If correct, I wonder how many girls would have been saved from rape if the press had acted on police warnings. Surely it would have been a talking point among coppers of the day

Well I think the feminists got it all wrong.

Now we have the "Slut Walk", and so many admirers of the TV program - Sex in the City. I think all this promiscuity screws up the female's brain. I think Germaine Greer's sole intention was mainly to do what you want with your life, ie. wear red tights with a yellow dress, if you like. I don't think she was espousing for girls/women to dress like sluts - Germaine never did. When I see some the way some young women dress these days, I grimace. Now there are fashion companies that sell clothes to 10yr olds to make then look like they're 20/30 yr olds. I see the same females walking up escalators at railway stations in micro mini outfits etc. - with not a care in the world of anyone looking up their backsides. I think they're incredibly stupid. I think Jay has a point on his comment re Hilali. So then, what do we have? A conflict of cultures for sure. When Muslim men see the way some of these Western women dress compared to their own what do you think this causes? I remember once hearing that one Muslim man’s legal defence was that raping his victim was his cultural thing. So now we have ethnic cultural time bombs.

Look at the old movie stars such as Bette Davis, Ingrid Bergman etc. They had so much more style than the actresses we see today who seem to like revealing as much of their own bodies as possible when they're on parade. I think the the old Hollywood actresses and women back in the 40's/50's were so much more stronger and psychologically together. Ie. they were better role models for females than what we have today. Women and men are both confused these days, particularly men with the messages they receive in all this.

India - I travelled there in the late 80's and was there for six months. It was a very male dominated society and probably still is. I dressed more or less like a local as I'm a believer of when in Rome - do what the Roman's do. I went to a film festival and I was the only woman in the whole theatre. During a film, I got my toes tickled. I also had my boobs pinched (in Italy, it's bums)once. There were at least six men that had approached me. My response was I shook one of the men and beat his chest. All the men just then ran away. I also had a stone thrown at me when I was in a rik-shaw passing through a Muslim village. In one town, there was a Canadian girl who walked around in shorts. My English male friend who had lived in India for generations warned her that she was dressing inappropriately. This woman was daft. Was she just trying to attract attention?

When I was in Berlin, I remember being approached by Indian males just in the street – wanting to party with me. German males would never do this they were much too coy.
I have a friend who once went out with a Muslim male and he ended up wanting to change her whole look - like go blonde and even change her eyes to blue. She is a brown eyed brunette. She eventually realised this relationship was a mistake.

o sung wu – My father was once a policeman and I remember him saying that all the women who reported domestic violence would always take their man back and never complain again.

Back to the feminist cause. It’s created monster women. I see them in the workplace. Their precious career, career! in their powerful managerial positions and always going at lengths to go up the ladder while treading over people. They are the worst managers, not all - but most. Apart from the careerists, the rest just hate their jobs and would rather be home instead of having their child in childcare. Hence they’ve become slaves to work, which I don’t think is much different to when women were working in communist factories. Yep, it’s a rat race.

Sydney gang rapes,

http://www.news.com.au/national-old/we-cant-forget-and-well-never-forgive-skaf-rape-victims-ten-years-on/story-e6frfkvr-1225887337321

Ashfield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashfield_gang_rapes

O sung, I couldn't find the Victorian study, I had it saved on my old computer which is gone now and chances are it wasn't titled in the way I remember it, but read this article from 2011:
newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sex-australian-prisons-facts

"Contrary to portrayals of jails as sexually rampant places, a survey by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) found only 7% of male prisoners had had sex with another prisoner, while for female prisoners the number was higher at around one-third. And when sex did happen it was overwhelmingly consensual".

"Sexual coercion seems to be a disappearing phenomenon in prisons," said co-author of the study, Professor Basil Donovan, who is head of the Sexual Health Program at UNSW's Kirby Institute*.

"Only 2.5% of male prisoners and 3.9% of female prisoners reported that they had been forced or frightened into unwanted sexual activity. For almost half of those who reported coercion, this had only occurred once and for some the event dated back decades.

On the beach,
The Sydney gang rapes are a good case in point, they should be taught in schools everywhere. I know not all the girls raped in those cases were White but it's a good cautionary tale for young White girls who willingly associate with non White Males.
Again, however I'm at pains to point out the glaring discrepancies in offending and victimisation between racial and ethnic groups in other majority European countries but alas (and we know why) such statistics are not made available by the Australian authorities.
Oslo and London have had horrifying gang rape problems but their governments are open enough to admit that the perpetrators are overwhelmingly non White males.
What would Australia's crime rates look like when broken down by race and ethnic background?
Before any of the "Anti Racists" start wobbling their jowls I need to put my remarks in context. Immigration is about MONEY, the reason we don't have an accurate yearly breakdown of crimes by ethnic background is because it would call into question the immigration program and threaten the multi billions of dollars in profits earned from the annual influx of migrants. Anti Racists don't control the flow of information even though they are responsible for most of the disinformation surrounding race and ethnicity, corporate and state interests are the ones trying to shape our perception of society in order to protect their own economic/political interests.

Good afternoon to you BANJO...

I know Bankstown and environs very well indeed - Punchbowl, Wiley Park, Lakemba, Campsie, and Belmore, the list goes on ! My old stamping grounds in uniform back in those halcyon days where there was a certain degree of peace and tolerance, which was exercised by all those who lived in the area.

And to be truthful with you BANJO, it's only the existance of the enormously powerful 'Politically Correct ('secret') Police' that prevents me from describing that area to you ACCURATELY, as it is today !

And contemporaneously with my typing of this piece, I hear on 2GB Radio of another shooting dead of a man, in a South West Sydney suburb (Claymore?), about 1605hrs, this day ? The city seems to be plunging into a veritable middle eastern war zone ? It's little wonder then, why so many women no longer feel safe in this, Australia's largest City ? It's a real indictment on, both government and police !

But to return to your question, I don't recall that specific instance with the media. But I can assure you, often police will seek the media's help in all manner of communication issues. Though it's always (the media's) their call as to what they print or broadcast. Though media and police don't always enjoy a happy union either. I recall one matter some time ago now, where police sought co-oporation from media, NOT to broadcast some facts, and they did ? Thus compromising a fairly sensitive enquiry.

Thanks for your contribution BANJO.

o sung wu,
I may go back a bit further than you. when i was a teen and visiting Sydney, Col Joye used to play regularly at Bankstown on Saturday nights and the area was a normal working class suburb and we enjoyed good clean fun at the dances. Meet girls and walk them home after.

But on to year 2000
I was upset when I heard about the media not acting on the police advice to the public because it seems to me they were putting the Olympics ahead of the safety of girls in the area. I think if they were aware, the girls would have taken more precautions. It is not as though there was only one attack, as there were many. No doubt there were attacks not reported and it would be naive to think the police got all the attackers. I do not hold the media in very high regard.

Hi there CONSTANCE, welcome to the Topic...

You're so right about all those beautiful Hollywood Actresses, who regularly featured on our silver screens almost weekly. Always looked so elegant, beautifully dressed, hair nicely coiffured, walked and talked like a real Star. Another word I'd like to add to your summation of these beautiful ladies, is 'class' ? They dressed, behaved and spoke with such class. There was never the need to resort to intemperate language, not when they possessed so much talent and bona fide class.

Your remarks apropos 'feminism' too, bears some comment. I realise they have a certain position on many things that impact upon women per se. Further, I understand they're quite vocal even forthright on issues of sexuality, eroticism and lust etc. And they can be particularly critical of the entire male gender, also.

However, I totally agree with them on the crime of RAPE. No human being should ever suffer the human indignity of a sexual assault however slight, or for whatever reason, or perpetrated by ANYONE !

CONSTANCE, your recounting of your time in India was interesting. I've been there severally times myself, but I must say I've not suffered the same level of attention as you ? Is it a cultural thing ? Or simply a case of sheer ignorance ? I've not been there since the early 1980's so I can't recall if there's been any significant shift in their behaviour towards western women ?

Your Dad was in the job too ? His remarks about domestic violence, and the victims thereof, often taking the offenders back into the matrmonial home, is interesting and often quite true. Though,in my experience there was an awful amount of recidivism going on behind closed doors, regrettably ?

Amazingly, we'd often have to attend the same complainant's address, the very next night, because the husband/boy friend had resumend his drinking, thus he started to bash the poor women once more. The awful circle of domestic violence.

G'day again BANJO...

You're so right my friend. Bankstown was a teriffic suburb with terrific people, and fantastic shopping. How in hells name it become a 'middle eastern' enclave, nobody knows ? But hey, I reckon we all know ?

BANJO, the question is; what do we do about it ? Is it possible to reclaim the suburb ? With the selection of politicians we have sitting in both federal and state parliaments today, prpbably not ?

BANJO, I'm 70 years of age, so it'll probably not affect me. I realise it's a cowards approach to a community problem. Other than those living there, does society even care ?

Or is it a case of using that good ol' Aussie problem solving technique of, '...she'll be right mate, so don't worry about it OK ! After all, it doesn't really concern us...' ?

o sung wu,

Recidivism - actually I think my father did say he'd be revisiting the same domestic violence cases also, but the wife/partner would never leave their spouse/perpetrator. These woman probably had no way out.

Yes, the "She'll be right mate" attitude is endemic I'm afraid. They'll say it's not my problem or don't get involved. I'm astonished at the indifference in people these days.

Hi o sung, my stamping grounds too., through the 60s.

My first house was in Fairfield Heights, with the bush just 100 yards past us. My business was in Belmore, so I bought a house in Riverwood.

The area was not that highly thought of, but it was fine, with little crime, & was close to the motor racing circuits at Warwick Farm, Oran Park & Catalina.

Those were the days, when you could take your girl to the city on Friday night, park in Pitt street, & take in a movie.

The kids today may have mobile internet, & electronics coming out of their ears, but I reckon we had the best of Sydney, & Oz.

At the same time quite a few people I knew, including young girls were going to Ultimo Tech for evening courses. They would walk from Ultimo to Central, catch the train to Bankstown, Fairfield area, & walk home at 10.30PM or there about, with absolutely no worries. You know, I'm sure we had the best of Sydney.

o sung wu,
We are the same vintage. I will question other former coppers I know about the media not publishing info that is in the public interest.

SW Sydney is a problem, mainly of our own doing. All we can do now is stop further immigration of those groups that hold our society in contempt, and that will only contain the problem at the present level. Frankly i do not hold much hope of our politicians agreeing to selective immigration either, so the problem grows.

I might add that the vast majority of migrants integrate into our society but a few groups do not and their cultural attitudes are passed down from generation to generation. The Leb gang rapists attitude to 'skippys' is an example. They viewed the girls as sluts, to be used and degraded.

We were told that sex education in schools was a huge breakthrough as girls were naive. But there are still many young single mothers around so I wonder what the schools teach. As far as date rape is concerned, it may help if girls were informed that male sexual arousal is not a light switch that can be easily turned off. So care should be taken when leading a male on. Of course a lot has to do with children of both sexs being taught to respect themselves and others.

Hi there HASBEEN...

We were so lucky in those days. Fairfield, I used to take out a lovely young girl, who actually lived in Polding Street, and she worked at Borg Warner's, the giant US Auto Transmission Company, also located in Fairfield. I wasn't far away, I was stationed at Parramatta, virtually straight up the Woodville Road, and I was there.

We spent many an enjoyable summer's evening at the Chullora Twin Drive-In. As you say, they were great days, despite a significant lack of money. But Sydney had a soul, even a Heart Beat. A lady, providing she exercised due care, could often walk around alone, and at night with reasonably safety. Heavens above, they'd want to carry a sub-machine gun or something with 'em now !

HASBEEN, what are you doing to me ol' man ? Your delightful trip down 'Memory Lane' is making me feel somwhat 'melancholic' ?

Nevertheless, many thanks for your thread.

Hi (again) CONSTANCE...

Yes, you do wonder really, where everythings going to end up. If only someone in government would wake up and take some notice, and try to introduce much stearner measures to make our Cities safer, not only for our women, everyone !

Beleive me CONSTANCE, as your Dad would be aware, the coppers know what needs to be done, and how it should be done. OK, that being the case, allow them to get on and do it !

Next, ensure every strata of the Judiciary, impose appropriate and realistic penalties. Penaties of a kind that reflect both the seriousness, and Societies abhorrence of that crime. And finally, turn gaol back into gaol, where gaol warders run the place. Certainly not, the 'in favour' politically accepted groups, neither the 'cliques', or the 'heavies' from amongst the crooks.

Perhaps then, and only then, we may be able to once more reclaim our beloved City in which we live. And enjoy all that it has to offer !

Hi there BELLY...Great to see your input once more ol' mate. Please, don't be a stranger.

A lot of common ground here.
Parents sent me to villawood, to work at just before 16.
Know all those suburbs was while too young drinking in most of them within months, three swallows was best for entertainment.
Ran in to a bouncer from those days, his dad was a Bankstown cop, ten years ago, we are mates still.
Bankstown, not the place it was is it?
A word exists for a woman putting her self on show, with no intention of doing anything.
The question asked by the thread is easy to answer blaming some women.
But try as hard as you like, the bloke involved is not innocent.

Belly, not sure if you intended it that way but I've not seen anyone on this thread suggesting a rapist is innocent because of how a woman is dressed or where she is. Perhaps a little over sensitive on that but I'm thoroughly sick of those that try and spin any suggestion that people should take some responsibility for the choice they make as suggesting an implication of innocence on the criminals part.

Far to much spin around the topic.

The reality is there are people around who are either unable or unwilling to respect others rights and boundaries. They come in both genders and the way they do harm can be different according to what motivates them and where opportunity lies. We need to try to find a balance between a range of sometimes competing priorities, protecting ourselves from them, not allowing our lives to be dominated by them, ensuring that government never endorses their actions.

The genuine rapist is never innocent, at the same time the woman who chooses to hang out with 'bad boys' because she likes the buzz is choosing to put herself at risk. We all need to make grown up choices about the risks we choose to take.

R0bert

Hi there BELLY & ROBERT...

Belly, I remember the old 'Three Swallows' pub on the corner at Liverpool Road. A pub with a long and colourful history, going back to the early sixties. Interestingly, Both my girlfriend and I, have been there (when much much younger). And many years later, I've had to attend there, on several serious occasion in uniform, on jobs !

I've seen 'bouncers' as big as houses, working the door's there. All without an apparent neck, on which to support their heads, always with a perpetual scowl on their faces !

I reckon the old '3 birds' will be there long after I'm gone, and perhaps, even after many of those good people who write-in to our beloved Forum ? Good on you BELLY, thanks for the memory ol' mate.

Hi there ROBERT...

I do agree with you absolutely, when you describe 'a Rapist' as ALWAYS, an offender. Whether or not they've been 'led on', 'teased', whatever the situation is or was.

I look at some women as potential victims, if certain conditions are met ? Without going too deeply into specifics, I would suggest a women should not engage in 'conduct' of a kind, that may even obscurely suggest, that she may be a willing participant in any sexual proceeding ! I'm in no way, suggesting a woman is at fault. I'm speaking STRICTLY as a 'risk management measure' ONLY.

When I speak off the word 'conduct', that includes; apparel, speech, behaviour, sobriety, location, and time of day !

Finally, should a lady need to socialise or work late. And return home alone, or use public transport, even walk, she should first seek a TRUSTED male companion. If unavailable, use a Taxi. She should never take the risk and travel alone at night.

An impossible ask, I hear you say ? Maybe so. If it's work, then arrangements must then be made, by her boss/supervisor to ensure she gets home safely, and at the Company's expense. After all, it's an 'Occupational Health & Safety', matter in all States of Australia !

RObert you found some thing in my words I had no intention of saying, and believe I did not.
My purpose however in including my view, rape is rape, is that some made efforts to blame the victim, in my view.
Re read Hasbeens posts, and others but maybe I over dressed what I sill see as unattractive in relation to rape note I separate faulse claims and more without changing my stance.
O SUNG WO, YES True story, at my last job I worked with one of a two man bouncers team from that time.
And became lifelong mates with the other.
We swapped many story,s and laughs, but it is likely this country bloke was thrown out by them both.
One now dead, my ex workmate, was a bit of a bluffer, but the Bankstown coppers son, is and was not.
Good memory,s but we both know it is the past never to be seen again.
Maybe before your time but a gang rape near Liverpool WASP involved helped fix my lifetime view no rape is other than criminal.

Sometime ago a serial rapist was interviewed in goal.

He stated that he always looked for girls with long hair which that could be grabbed and held; also clothing providing easy access to the body.

He never mentioned attractiveness or such.

He did act alone and undoubtedly pack rapists are a whole new ball-game.

It would be very rare to find a rapist who has not first fed on porn.

Danielle pack rape has been around for at least a century.
And ignore if you wish runner, not every rapist is a porn freak.
Many in fact, as is the case in every thing humans do, think it is their right, truly.
Look out side Australia,at the 23 year old with aspirations killed after being raped in India.
We would be horrified if we saw such in this country.
But in fact have.
Some pick on weaker women, some by the looks or just the passing opportunity.
We tend to get upperty on such issues,the damning of a TV host, for Saying, consider the words before jumping on him.
Women should breast feed in a more classy/caring way, is that not just good advice?
I could without difficulty be Devils advocate, tell of women bring rape on themselves.
But can never abandon my minds memory's of some dreadful acts as lesser men tried to assert power over women.
Read and be revolted about Turo rape murders,so very many nightmares for victims and those who loved them.

Silly me. I was intending to have a break from this forum, but decided to have a peek with my cuppa.

Now, Belly, you feel free to continue to ignore me, but I'm going to comment on your breastfeeding comment.

"Women should feed in a more classy/caring way, is that not just good advice?"

Here's some good advice.

Is anyone suggesting that the act of breastfeeding is not a caring act. How does one breastfeed in an "uncaring" way?

Why do women have breasts?

Oh yes, it's to nurture their infants.

I believe Kochie's original comment was advice for women to be "classy" and "discreet"....as if they need self-agrandised TV hosts to advise them how they should nurture their babies.

Have you ever seen a woman not be discreet when she feed her baby in public? I mean how many women shake their boobs around in public before allowing the baby to latch on. No, mums feed their bubs in the most discreet manner. And how does a woman feed her child in an "unclassy" way in public. I suppose if she was to sprawl out on the pavement on her back with the infant suckling, that might be seen as unclassy....however, it's unlikely that you'd see that more than five times a week : )

What a bent little society it is that tuts tuts about that most fundamental act, and acts if nursing mothers are somehow "indiscreet", "unclassy" or "uncaring".

(not to mention it ending up on a thread inquiring if women share responsibility for being raped)

I think our society needs to grow up a bit.

Poirot,
Here, here. We do not often agree but yes on the subject of public breast feeding we do. I see nothing wrong with breasts being used for their natural purpose and when feeding, the babies head covers more breast than most bikinis anyway. I have never seen a woman breast feeding and showing the non suckled breast either. Women wear clothig of convienience when they are breast feeding, so there is easy access to the breasts.

I do not see how anyone could be offended in seeing a breast. they are attractive body parts, far nicer to look at that mens legs for example. If a woman exposed her breasts , or part thereof, I certainly look and enjoy it. Can not think of a more peacefull scene than a baby asleep with its head on mums breast, covered or not.

I also love to see lambs suckling with tails wiggling and calves sucking with milk foam dripping on the ground, life seems good then. I feel for women who are unable to breast feed their babies.

The shows rating must be in need of a boost and those objecting are simply prudes. Breasts have many attractive qualities, the more we see the better.

Thanks Banjo,

Yes, I do fume when the Puritan influence raises its pontificating head where breastfeeding is concerned.

I remember when my daughter was nine weeks old and we were at the supermarket - and she needed a feed. I was only 22 and a new mum and it was the first time I'd had to feed her when we were out. I was a bit self-conscious and there was no specific "mother's room" at the shopping centre....so I found myself standing up in the cramped confines of a small toilet block feeding my baby.

I don't know about you, but that seems immoral to me. I remember thinking what sort of society would rather see a woman feeding her baby in a toilet block than tacitly celebrating her humanity in the nurturing of her infant.

My son was born 19 years later, and obviously I was a bit more worldly wise at that stage. I fed him in public...and often used mother's rooms as well simply because they were a comfortable place to relax and it was easy to change him as well.

When a tiny baby is hungry they let you know in know uncertain terms. Sometimes it's merely the comfort they derive from sucking that settles them when they are feeling fractious.

Not once was I ever "indiscreet"....(it actually takes some doing to make breastfeeding an indiscreet act).

My point is that it is about feeding a bub - not about flashing a boob or anything remotely sexually tanatalising. It's between me and my baby and it's nothing to do with any prudish member of the public.

yep well in our feminist driven society only women are allowed comments on certain topics. What could be more commonsense to say a woman should be discreet when breastfeeding in public. Going to the toilet is a natural act but most are discreet about it. Just shut up men !

Poirot and Banjo very much in agreement with you. Not sure what we do about the terminally sick types who have a problem with it though.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone failing to be discrete about the process either.

I suspect overall we would have a lot less problems of a sexual nature in society with less body taboos, they seem to mostly fed hang ups rather than contribute to healthy attitudes to the human body.

A look at US stats on teen pregnancy and STDs compared to other industrialised nations might be a good starting place for some reflection for anyone who actually cares rather than a focus on waving religious prejudices around.

R0bert

Howdy, runner.

You appear to be equating the action of relieving yourself of waste products in the toilet with the act of feeding an infant....as in "they are both natural acts".

The day people turn up for the odd banquet in the salubrious confines of the local pissoir, I'll understand how "going to the toilet" and "breastfeeding an infant" can somehow be lumped in together as similar - and something to be hidden.

Women don't need to be told to be "discreet" about it. In the normal course of events, they are...it's the prudes who are sensationalising a perfectly "normal" act of nourishment.

'it's the prudes who are sensationalising a perfectly "normal" act of nourishment. '
actually Poirot its the feminist who think they are the only ones with a right to an opinion that have made a mountain out of a mouldhill. No one ever questioned whether breastfeeding was normal. ' Woman don't need to be told '. No feminist want to be the ones telling everyone especially men what they can say and can't say. Get over it because it will never happen. Just for you Poirot it is good for woman to be discreet when breastfeeding. Again femininist are silent to allow Muslim men in this country to totally oppress their woman and then make a big issue about this. Go figure.

Dear runner,

Define feminism.

"Women don't need to be told to be 'discreet' about it"

Which is precisely why on a slow news day Koch, the media's stereotypical flawed male, is scripted to comment on women's business. Quelle horreur, a man has commented on women. Out comes the mob of womyn to defend secret womyns business.

It is all about stereotypes isn't it? Koch, as the media's stereotypical male says stupid and outrageous things and the evolved human, Mel, a woman, or one of the other women on set can look aghast, snigger and set him straight.

Koch does not represent men. Especially the cringing Koch who is constantly seeking affirmation of his dumb-ass opinions from Mel and acting the fool or bigot to win her attention. Begging for strokes, the theme of so many TV shows!

The representation of men in the media truly sucks big time. Honestly, do mothers want their precious little boys to be conditioned to beg and depend on women for approval? Surely we should be aiming to raise boys who are confident in themselves, know what they want and insist on interacting with the women in their lives in an adult fashion. In fact, the very opposite of the very defective men presented in the media.

As for breastfeeding in public, it isn't men who complain and few men would ever look. It is other women who project their own values onto women. There is a never ending supply of censorious women to bother young (or 'old') mothers, people on the street, neighbours, you name it. Breastfeeding is not a 'gender' issue, although some would love to have it that way.

Lexi

'Dear runner,

Define feminism.

Which brand? It usually changes to suite the cause. Greer can tell Julia she has a big a but imagine Abbott said the same! The kind we are speaking about here is the feminism that does not allow a male an opinion. There are many strands.

You can keep your wig on, runner.

Where are the breastfeeding women who aren't discreet?

Where are these women who have a penchant to wave their breasts around with gay-abandon while breastfeeding?

They don't exist...and breastfeeding mothers don't need a white male TV personality to whip them into line (with a bit of friendly advice) regarding the "proper" way to go about feeding their babies. Kochie is entitled to his "opinion", yet he knows his views are not strictly for the tea table, he broadcasts them.

You can guarantee, runner, that if men were charged with feeding their bubs in the same way, we wouldn't see them feeling that they have to scuttle off and isolate themselves - find a cozy toilet to nurture their bubs - No, it would be out in the open and accepted as the natural and reasonable action it is.

Your rants about feminism are of no interest to me.

Breast milk is better than any udder milk!

It is the mob.

The producer would be smiling, thinking how the same old, same old, gets them going every time.

Sure beats news. That necessitates paying a half decent journalist.

Anybody offended by breastfeeding
is staring too hard.
(David Allen).

TV makes the news.

People are damned fools to get sucked in. It is so easy to foment the slavering mob. That is a worry.

Who exactly is this KOCH gentleman ? And what qualifies him specifically to render a determinion as to the precise location(s) a lady may give succour to her little infant ?

Unless of course he's received a 'sub rosa' appraisement of where the best and most practical localities and sites are positioned, where a woman might feel more at ease to quietly attend to, and nourish her tiny little child.

Perhaps Mr KOCH will soon release a small (pocket size) handbook, on preferred nourishment sites for nursing mothers !

Perhaps something along the lines of thus...?

'A 101 Sites Around the City of Sydney'

A book:-

'For the Nursing Mother to Discreetly
Feed a Small Infant'

By, Mr ? KOCH.

And people actually ask, why I worry so much for the future of our once great country ? All we concern ourselves about here, are issues that don't advance our country in any way for anybody. Sure the natural need of a mother to care for her tiny child is paramount. But surely to heaven it's a given ! Every adult accepts a tiny child MUST be nourished, where and when it's necessary ! So let's move on.

And just for the record, I don't believe I've ever heard of a criminal act ever arising out of the natural protocol of nourishing a little baby ? Whenever I see a lady feeding a 'bub' in public, I just avert my eyes and move on. Very occasionally, the lady may give a slight smile, is all.

Lexi,
Three advantages of breast milk.

Its the right formula.

Its the right temperature.

It comes in better looking containers.

I simply do not understand how ANYBODY could be offended by the sight of breasts. They are soft, warm, round and cuddly. I nave never been offended by the sight of them, surprized yes, but pleasantly surprized.

Poirot I consider my posts in this thread as pro women.
Including my thoughts on breast feeding.
It is a fact breast feeding women , once, mostly, took care in doing so.
It may be the case that today any opportunity to claim womans rights over rules the fact SOME put them selves on show, and at times in yes, danger.
I retreat back in to my hole.

'Your rants about feminism are of no interest to me. ' As are your feminist rants of little interest to me Poirot. They are so predictable.

'You can guarantee, runner, that if men were charged with feeding their bubs in the same way, ' Thankfully men were made differently from women Poirot, something you seem hard to accept.

Belly,

It depends what you mean by "took care".

I don't see that breastfeeding is any different now to what it was.

Does "taking care" mean "taking care not to breastfeed in any "non-designated zone"?

Does it mean that women back then who "took care" would find themselves, like me in 1982, scuttling to the nearest toilet to feed bub. Was I taking care in being unsure that I could discreetly feed my daughter without crossing any social lines? Much better that women these days are more likely to just feed their baby or at least there are now comfortable rooms provided in "some" places.

A mother feeding her child is not "putting herself on show"...Sheesh....

However, it's great to see most folks around here don't give a hoot about mums nourishing a baby in the way that nature provided.

Dear Banjo,

What a lovely post.

You obviously were breastfed. ;-)

Yay!

Poirot, it depends on what I mean?
Lets leave it at that, I do not mean not talking to you, I just think it interesting that I need to justifie concern for the woman, some of whom could be in danger.
Kochie O sung wo is, ? the womens bloke they flock to.
He stars in the morning show on TV.
Well respected he is conservative in his views and was supported in a poll run by his station, I think he won 80% of that vote.
I find it interesting.
No truly, that my honestly held view, not a radical one, has bought so much heat.
Are my views revolting? rude? are they discriminatory?
RObert,you are aware I hold great respect for you, and that we will not ever vote the same way.
I have noticed, as is your right, you sometimes think I say other than I actualy do.
You said too much spin?
And pilloried me for a crime I never committed.
Yes some women bring it on them selve, but mate, do you not see?
Some posters blame the woman.
Today , from about the time the pill was first seen, both sexs are free to look for sex, in no0 way will that ever say rape is not the controlling and evil thing it is.
Spin? then I am a spinner.

Bely have another read of my post. I made it clear that I could be misreading you so words like pilloried ar way over the top.

The topic is part of a broader range of issues that we have not really come to grips with yet. Whenever the issue is raised there does seem to be a constant need in some quarters to continue to suggest that the idea of taking responsibility for the risks chosen is somehow saying a rapist is innocent. That gets very tiring, the Sheik does not appear to be part of this discussion and no one else seems to be suggesting that rapists are innocent because of how someone is dressed.

R0bert

Belly and RObert,

Just want to make the point that all of us are inhabiting a society in which rapid social change is the key paradigm over the last hundred years or so.

Our great grandmothers would have felt under-dressed/exposed if they'd left the house showing their knees - their mothers would have felt the same if they'd exposed an ankle. My mum has told me that she and her mother "always" wore a hat and gloves if they went to the shops when she was a teenager and young woman. She took up an apprenticeship in millinery because it was virtually a given that every adult wasn't "properly" dressed unless they wore a hat.

So times have changed. As someone said, you see more boob at the beach than what is visible when a mum is nursing a baby....yet we still have this Puritan ideal that because this action involves a breast that it is somehow sexually linked and therefore something to be isolated from the throng of life.

Yep, I do understand that you guys aren't excusing the rapist. I agree that women (and men) have to be mindful of the sometimes violent nature of "some" men. I've said it before that women need men to protect them from men. I wouldn't dream of walking alone at night or going to dodgy quarters of town...although back in the seventies I had an after school job at a steak house. I used to be able to catch the bus home at night in the city by myself. I was always alert for danger, even then, but I wouldn't let a daughter of mine do that these days.

RObert first, your words every one of them, describe how I feel.
I retract the word pillory, but never would have said it unless it was what I thought.
Poirot my age and life,s experiences talk for me.
My childhood, mum one of 13 and she gave birth 16 times, was a breast feeding one, very much so.
I saw porn introduced here, in a way that upset me,it in my view is no reason to rape, or an excuse.
Let me remind posters, I too am in no way upset by breast feeding in public.
Done as mum and so many Aunts did, discreetly.
Of late, if we care to remember, the rights and wrongs of breastfeeding baby's , even an 8 year old, have been spoken of.
After Koshie made his statement, IMO , some who probably never even heard or saw his mild remark, took to the streets.
SOME porn addicts do not as most do, look away, give the mum and bub a bit of privacy.
A truth in anothers post here, it was women who first complained about the act, the type who likes a winge, and women too who build a mountain out of it.
If thinking not every issue demands shouting crowds I plead guilty, some look for any opportunity ,both sexes.
This was never about not breast feeding in public, poor old Koshie asked for what I believe most females already do, be careful and aware when feeding this way in public.

Belly,

Your last sentence is accurate...mums are already discreet...

So why reiterate it as something sanctioned only as a form of toleration? Okay ladies, you can do it but here's some friendly advice that will help you to realise that breastfeeding is somewhat problematical socially, controversial occasionally, etc.

Why are women occasionally encouraged to move along, scuttle away to breastfeed - it still happens, and comments that make their way surreptitiously into social commentary and banter on the MSM covertly reinforce the idea that women should perhaps think twice before undertaking nourishment of their babies when they are not isolated from the rest of the community.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/i-have-an-opinion--always-have-and-always-will-20130121-2d39n.html
For some of us, if they read the link, this will be the first time they see the story at its source.
I truly doubt we can make a case that this man ever said women should not breast feed in public.
And we all, should compare just what he said and the charges made against him.

Koch is scripted as the media's stereotype of 'Everyman'. Sport is made of this misled, insensitive, opinionated buffoon. He stands as the imperfect male, forever in need of his minders, the impressive evenly balanced, emotionally mature and wise womyn.

It is 'reality' TV. Cheap (and nasty) entertainment, dumbed down for a cretinous audience, which the show has obviously found from the baying of the usual mob.

There are people who like to get angry. Then there is the chance to feel part of a group, to identify, even if it is a mob.

There is little difference between these morning shows and the worst of talk back radio and any difference is rapidly diminishing. But then the audiences are probably the same, even if some would never admit listening to and getting that naughty, nasty little buzz from both. Ain't it great to feel superior to someone, even if it is only some scripted dude playing the TV producer's stereotypical fumbling, bumbling idiot, Everyman. Than God for wonderful womyn like Mel! She does have her hands full with Kochie, eh?

Yes. Let's face it.
Life is only tolerable when we can
look down on someone else. ;-)

What for?

Although it would take a passive aggressive to understand I guess.

Hi there BELLY...

So that's the Mr Koch, that everyone's referring too here ? I must admit I've never viewed his show, there again I wouldn't watch TV in the morning in any event.

Still, I would've thought, there were much more important issues to discuss than this particular matter? And I'm not entirely sure 'Breast Feeding' in public, is germane to the Topic ?

As your humble originator, I'd like to thank everybody, for again presenting some spirited views and opinions on this issue. Accordingly, It's time that I took my leave. Thanks again.

Thank you too and see you on another thread.

Yes, sorry about that o sung wu.

I responded to a comment which included an allusion the current breastfeeding issue...it happens sometimes that threads meander a bit. I quite like it on my threads, but I appreciate that others would wish to stay strictly on subject.

Dear onthebeach,

Yes, the same as it takes a certain
amount of nous to understand when a tongue is
lodged firmly in one's cheek.

0 sung wo, sorry.
But never saw a thread that stayed on course.
In ending my contributions here I need to say this.
It is females who made this bloke,and it was them who both came to defend and charge him.
His popularity is unchallengeable, and fed by? women!
And in my view his words, like mine, are far from offensive.
IMO he has a view, we will never know if it was to gain publicity, such is the way these days.
But I know this, my link has been seen right here, some of the expressions against him are,leave others to think on that.
And leave too, those who express near hate for him to first look in the mirror.

The answer to the original question is no of course not.

There is a big difference between taking sensible precautions when one is out and this ridiculous trend of placing part or full responsibility on victims of crime. As far as potentially attracting trouble, generally criminal types need no 'encouragement' and prey on any opportunities. It is impossible for women (or men) to completely live their life in a shell to offset risk against scumbags. Even if you are at home with the door locked and someone breaks a window and rapes, do we blame the victim for not having bars on the window or an alarm system?

When will mainly male judges and some others realise that rape is a crime and the only person responsible for it is the perpetrator.

On yer, Pelly - well said.

Belly,

It's not about hating Kochie....as far as I can see the guy is bit of a morning-telly buffoon (I don't watch morning telly myself)...it's more about this sort of mindset that women have to watch their P&Q's while undertaking a vital act of nurture - in a society that nowadays seems to display everything everywhere. It's about sexualising an aspect of something that is not a sexual act - simply because it involves breasts.

Btw, this all started after a woman was requested to scuttle away or cover up her breastfeeding child at an aquatic centre.

Just for a moment, let's look at this situation. This "mother" is breastfeeding her child while supervising two other small children. She is told to cover up - and the intimation is that if she doesn't then she should go and do it somewhere else. So, if she goes, she has to take the other two small children with her. Where does she go - into the toilets trailing two other fractious kids and allows her baby to suckle there? It's outrageous that this sort of thing still happens. While, as is obvious on this thread, most people don't have a problem at all with this most reasonable and natural act, intimations such as Kochie's somehow puts the onus back on nursing mothers that breastfeeding is tolerated as long as......

'When will mainly male judges and some others realise that rape is a crime and the only person responsible for it is the perpetrator. '

Probably about as much chance of that as getting mothers to warn their daughters about the dangers of getting drunk and going off with strange men.

Well yes, runner,

As has been pointed out many times in this thread that unwise behaviour increases one's chances of coming to some sort of grief.

Nevertheless, a judge will not mitigate a rapist's sentence because a woman indulged in unwise behaviour if a man "chooses" to rape.

If two men end up in a brawl - something common in the same venues where men and women undertake much of their mutual wooing these days - a sentence is likely to be mitigated if two or more or those involved were actively provoking an attack.

It would be odd for a woman who is raped to be found to be "actively" provoking a man into raping her, while simultaneously shunning his sexual attentions.

I realise it's not always a cut and dried situation, however, if a woman makes it clear at a specific point that she does not wish to engage in sex, and the man decides that he will physically overpower her with "violence" and have his way - that is rape - fullstop.

pelican, "When will mainly male judges and some others realise that rape is a crime and the only person responsible for it is the perpetrator"

Always the spiteful gender kicker against men. Yet you would say there are men in your life who value you and hopefully bring joy and some meaning to your life. Is it deliberate or don't you realise you are forever doing that despite the challenges and pleading of men on this site? Men are humans too.

Honestly, what about this contentious case?

<Judge Sarah Bradley last year sparked national outrage by not imposing jail sentences on nine youths and men who gang raped a 10-year-old girl in Aurukun, in western Cape York.

In another case, Judge Bradley gave a teacher, who admitted forcing an 11-year-old indigenous boy to perform oral sex on him, time to gather evidence that he was educating his victim in "men's business".

Teacher James Last pleaded guilty in Cairns before District Court Judge Bradley last week to seven counts of indecently dealing with an 11-year-old boy over a four-month period in 1983.
Advertisement

Judge Bradley granted a three month adjournment to allow Last and his lawyers to find an anthropologist to support his claim that he had been trying to introduce the Torres Straits boy to "traditional" islander sexual practices>

http://news.theage.com.au/national/cloud-hangs-over-head-of-qld-rape-judge-20080215-1shz.html

Poirot

'It would be odd for a woman who is raped to be found to be "actively" provoking a man into raping her, while simultaneously shunning his sexual attentions. '

Whilst I would agree with you on the vast majority of time some things I have observed in Indigeneous family feuds etc does raise some questions as well as eyebrows. Many men in indigenous men in prison will tell you how they were provoked. Not all of them are telling lies. Just as you seem to think I underestimate human goodness I think at times others deny how depraved some men and woman can be.

Pelican yes said the same thing up the thread, a few times.
Sad that a few try to blame the victim.
Well poirot your view of the bloke is not shared.
He is loved and by women too, an expert in finances he built his profile there then became the morning show king.
Had Hockey and Rudd on very week, still I think, only a casual watcher, has pollys flocking to get on.
His remark stacked up against so many truly offensive ones seems innocuous to me.
Just maybe, the pool people had concerns about young kids looking on?

Belly,

"Just maybe, the pool people had concerns about young kids looking on."

I'll tell you what, Belly, if the young kids had looked on, they wouldn't have blinked an eyelid.

It takes years of conditioning to react in a Puritan manner to something so basic as nurturing an infant by breast.

Sheeeeesh!!

<It takes years of conditioning to react in a Puritan manner to something so basic as nurturing an infant by breast>

You imply that it is older people "years of conditioning" and most likely religious "puritanical" who have a hang-up.

But it isn't that way at all is it? Because previous research showed that those aged 18 to 24 were the least supportive of public breastfeeding. Yet they are the children of your generation of feminists and went through a feminised education system. What went wrong?

I happen to support public breastfeeding. But women can do what they like. Too much information and who cares? It really doesn't matter what men think at all. The real opponents are women. Some are reliably likely to be opposed to anything they can construe as 'emphasis' on breastfeeding, which can be something as innocuous as publication of World Health Org encouragement of it.

Breastfeeding is another of those subjects that divide Western women and provoke angry arguments. The merest mention that mention that breastfeeding is an option is greeted with cries of outrage from many women. Why so? In much of the world women just get on with it without the fuss.

Rather than beard that stooge Koch, why don't women and especially feminists come clean on their own ambivalence and very mixed messages directed at one another?

onthebeach,

My reference to it taking years of Puritan indoctrination was meant to convey that this attitude is learned...it wasn't directed at any particular age group above the formative years.

If women or men want to argue about the merits or not of breastfeeding per se, that's up to them.

My point was and is that nursing mothers have every right to feed their children in public - that they are already discreet - and they don't require a prod of patronising language to let them know that breastfeeding in public is "tolerated" as long as........

It wasn't Puritan indoctrination. Women swung against breastfeeding when formula became the vogue. Formula was an obvious conspicuous consumption item that set middle class women above their less well off counterparts who couldn't afford it. Some women like a bit of snob value.

Feminism was responsible for the next wave against breastfeeding. There are some obvious parallels. But the real driver against had to do with feminists devaluing motherhood and family, behind career and materialism.

A double-decker busload of radical feminists wouldn't make a similar contribution to the economy and society as one breastfeeding mother. Worse, they acted to hinder her.

Sometimes women can be their own worst enemies.

Sorry Poirot, best I leave,no room exists for men to think even a little differently.
The modern sister hood is right, always men wrong always.
No woman , praise them! ever breast fed in a wrong way/place

Onthebeach,

You won't get any argument from me about the rise of formulas feeding in modern consumer society.

Somehow, though, the minute I put up my hand and defend a woman's right to nourish her baby by breast outside the confines of select areas, I'm painted a "feminist".

I wonder why contemporary women give up on the notion of breastfeeding? That woman at the pool charged with supervising two young children and meeting the needs of a hungry baby simultaneously, would have had no problem feeding bub if she'd shoved a bottle in its mouth. She wouldn't have been requested to dump a blanket over the kid on a hot day at the pool - or have felt like she had to go and hide the act in the toilet block.

Of the many mums I've known who start out breastfeeding, most only do it for a few months, often for the sheer convenience bottle-feeding provides in a world where they find themselves most days outside the house and in the public sphere.

Belly - every time you disagree with me, do I throw my hands in the air and say "Oh, apparently I'm not allowed to have an opinion?".

Why do you do it?

I am not a member of any bloody "sisterhood". I'm my own women who happens to believe that breastfeeding an infant in most paces is a reasonable act.

And so what if a woman ever fed her baby in the wrong way (how does that go?) or in the wrong place (perhaps not at a funeral:)...it doesn't follow that most women are not discreet and mindful when breastfeeding.

Poirot, I don't think I'd draw the line at a funeral either. At most the issue is about the appropriateness of having a baby in some situations and other than clear safety issues thats probably a balance between need and impact.

I'm still pondering issues in the intersection between this divergance and earlier diversions to the original topic.

How much should others (including broadly accepted community values) taste, values etc impact on an individuals freedom to choose how they act, dress etc. In the case of community values who gets to decide how much is people conforming to mostly imposed values compared to deeply help personal values?

Also pondering some of the side issues. If two drunk people choose to have sex and one regrets it later is that rape? If so how does it fit with the original question?

I'm wondering about what to me seem to be the mixed values, not sure I'm ready to try to articulate that yet.

R0bert

RObert,

"If two drunk people choose to have sex and one regrets it later is that rape?"

Not in my book it isn't.

Rape is the forcible over-powering of an individual for sex.

If the person agrees to have sex willingly, it isn't rape.(I'm talking here of consenting adults)

Someone "accusing" another of rape after the event merely because they regret the episode occurring, isn't about rape - it's about a false allegation.

Poirot, I've never seen specific legislation but it was fairly widely reported some time back the law could treat it as rape (with the male being the rapist).

The premise being that you can't give informed consent when drunk and its assumed that a male who is seriously drunk could not perform the act hence it becomes rape with the male the guilty party.

R0bert

Yes, RObert, I see what you're getting at.

Who knows?.

It seems to me that in places like Australia and Britain, many people imbibe alcohol merely to get drunk. It has a social role, but not in the same way that you might see in a Mediterranean cultures where alcohol is just one part of the whole event of eating, drinking and socialising, family, friends, etc.

If you create a society where people merely get off their faces as some sort of social crutch, isolated from broader social mechanisms which might mitigate a rush of hormones (and regretted consequences) then you're asking for trouble.

My take is that if women wish to woo men while intoxicated, and vice versa, then they should understand that they're are responsible for their actions - even in a situation where their decision-making abilities are impaired.

It's their choice to undertake such actions and it's their choice to make themselves drunk while embarking upon them

<the minute I put up my hand and defend a woman's right to nourish her baby by breast outside the confines of select areas, I'm painted a "feminist">

Unfair because the radical feminists have dumped on women's caring (and nourishing) choices for decades. Superwoman does not exist. But above all of that, it is completely normal and expected that women would go through numerous transitions in life. They will have children. There are very sound reasons and some of them have to do with leading a quality meaningful life, why women choose to devote their attention to their child/ren for spans of time.

Rest assured that it used to be so very ordinary and mundane for mothers to breastfeed in public areas that all of the seniors on this site would have been raised that way. It was so normal that many would probably not remember it especially for their siblings, unless they themselves were weaned to permit more milk supply. It was usual for (say) a two yr old to have a 'nip' to even things out for mum while managing the new babe on the block and prevents breast problems. But one day the newbie's need take over.

<Of the many mums I've known who start out breastfeeding, most only do it for a few months, often for the sheer convenience bottle-feeding provides in a world where they find themselves most days outside the house and in the public sphere>

The bottle isn't more convenient for many reasons. Clothes fashion is a problem (remember?). But the cause of the most inconvenience is the very simple reality that cities and 'burbs are not designed for people. Honestly, if you wanted to make life as difficult as possible for a parent you couldn't go past the modern shopping centre. If those who make a jolly good career from wearing their feminist badge could take some time out from feathering their own nests to do something about that.

onthebeach,

I found breastfeeding far more convenient myself than messing around with bottles and formulas. It's always there, ready, right temperature, etc...especially in the middle of the night!

So I agree with you on that one.

(and your final paragraph too, come to think of it :)

For gods sake Poirot, be thankful you aren't a mother in PNG. No trouble getting your boobs out there, in fact apart from in the more important towns, they are never put away.

Of course you had better not refuse to give the piglets a suck too. A bit ho human milk gets them away real well.

Those 40 year olds with a couple of razor strop like things hanging down their chest got those scars, feeding the piglets.

Personally with all my time in the islands, I've seen enough boobs to make them a subject of total disinterest. Flop them out or put them away, I probably won't even notice.

I'm from the era when a lady had some mystique, & the ditty, "If skirts get any shorter said the fairy to the gnome, there'll be 2 more cheeks to powder, & a lot more hair to comb", was a joke.

No more! Today the cheeks are permanently out, the hair has been waxed, & teenagers are getting plastic surgery on their vagina to put a smile on them. A boob out at the pool is not much to talk about, but surely women could try to get a bit of their old class back.

If you want respect, it would be an idea to show some to others with different morals, & attitudes.

Ah 'koshy', what is he like.

'actually Poirot its the feminist who think they are the only ones with a right to an opinion that have made a mountain out of a mouldhill.'

I have to agree really. In fact I think this onthebeach guy's media critique is quite accurate on the whole.

'Quelle horreur, a man has commented on women. Out comes the mob of womyn to defend secret womyns business.'

That about sums it up. How dare he! It's political correctness gone mad! Love saying that. It continues the proud feminist tradition of expecting women should be immune from any criticism or judgement. As far as I can see, in any situation, even the caring of your baby, it's not at all unreasonable to have class and manners. The silly thing is 99% of women DO, so why the going son? Because, how dare he even go there! They protest too much.

'breastfeeding is somewhat problematical socially, controversial occasionally, etc.'

In fact Poirot, it can be. Now I would agree 95% of the time, no problem. But, consider you fancy your mates wife, or he fancies yours, sometimes obviously, sometimes not. She begins breast feeding, right in front of you. The primary reason for breasts is for feeding, but they are still sexual in our society. You cant easily turn that off. You can be cool, yes, but there is an atmosphere.

So there is discomfort, and a feeling of 'where do I look.' Look away, and you feel like a prude, or you're just being rude. Look generally around and ignore the exposed breast, attempt to continue a conversation, and your mate is watching exactly where your eyes are looking. The whole scene can be uncomfortable. Granted not so uncomfortable as to be more important than nourishing a baby, but it's worthy of an observational remark without being shot down in a blast of fury.

Apart from that I HAVE seen a friend deliberately flop them both out, and give the whole bus a bloody good show, and I know her gender politics quite well, and I guarantee it's relevant to her actions.

Hear my breasts Roar, for I... AM... THE... EARTH MOTHER!! Take that you Conservative misogynist prudes! Wham!

I called her on it and she just smiled, sparing me the gender studies lecture I was baiting her for.

In short, it does happen. This whole business about 'discreet' is all about these two situations, not really about the whole prudery caper. It's about the conflict in men and their desires and while most of the time an infant spoils the mood, it's still tits man! The radar is hard to turn off, and when it finds its target and sees the non-sexual act, it hears the don't be a pervert warning siren. The radar, that wonderful subconscious near uncontrollable force draws them, and then they feel society's wrath, it's eyes burning into them at the same instant they realize it's different, and they recoil, hoping to hide their lack of composure.

'covertly reinforce the idea that women should perhaps think twice before undertaking nourishment of their babies when they are not isolated from the rest of the community.'

Well, as a feminist, I reckon women are adult enough to do what's best for their babies, and ignore the passing comments of breakfast show hosts. Especially ones called 'koshy'

'If you want respect, it would be an idea to show some to others with different morals, & attitudes.'

Yess. Class and maners. Just being aware of the comfort and feelings of others, like 99% of women are when breastfeeding. When I pick my nose, I can do it 'discretely'.

Maybe you're right, Houellie..."...while most of the time the infant spoils the mood..."

Perhaps the whole patriarchal prudery thing is just payback (to mum and bub)for the infant spoiling the mood.

(I inserted the word "patriarchal" just for you, Houellie:)

And what's a mouldhill anyway?

Lastly, I have no idea why someone like me should become the latest breastfeeding/feminist advocate - I mean, I'm a woman who knows the difference between leg stump and off stump...It's a strange old world.

Cheers boys : )

<Hear my breasts Roar, for I... AM... THE... EARTH MOTHER!! Take that you Conservative misogynist prudes! Wham!>

If only the Earth Goddesses had more in common with statue of Isis nursing Horus, than Venus of Willendorf. But no such luck.

I for one am glad Kosh made those comments. It just proves what an old prude he really is. If I hear any more affectionate 'Koshy' comments from his 'fans', I will scream.

Why these morning shows have to have an old bloke like him at the helm is beyond me anyway.
These TV stations seem to only employ stunning younger women presenters, while also employing very plain looking men...!
Maybe the producers are also older, plain looking blokes too?

Get rid of Kosh.

You'd say that Executive Producer Michael Pell and Adam Boland before him are old blokes?

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/5613/TVs-golden-boy-takes-on-Sunrise.htm

I should have though that both would have satisfied some of your criteria.

Suseonline I hesitate.
Dare I.
Poirot. maybe you too, think I am a bit fragile in this area.
Well I am ,confused.
See some of my honestly held views are selectively liked.
The opinion SOME WOMAN, want far too much, may just at times get it wrong
gets me in trouble.
Found a link, long but informative.
It tells my thoughts very well, yet I have to say a few things about it.
All my life, like every male and female who has normal feelings,sex has not been dirty for me.
I , often, saw both sex,s openly use it as a toy, well guilty too.
But always wondered, just how can the male who has had many many sex partners name a women for far less?
should not bother but here is food for thought.
PS Koshys right to think and say as he wishes has my support.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/tables-have-turned-on-slut-shamers-20130125-2dbzb.html

Yes, well, Belly....as far as I can see it's all a pretty tangled web we've devised for ourselves in modern society - especially as Australia seems to have retreated from any cultural mores that may have defined things a little more clearly between the genders. We appear to have taken on a generic "Western" culture which proclaims that men and women are pretty well androgynous in consumer society...I think that leaves us all a tad confused - so why not everyone get blind drunk to do their courting.

Btw, I'm not against Mr Koch per se, (he seems a nice enough bloke) my opinions were directed at his sort of mindset. I see the point Houellie was making that it's hard, especially for men, to disassociate the sexual aspect of breasts from the non-sexual aspect of breastfeeding. From a woman who has breastfed, though, I'm endeavouring to say that feeding bub that way is just such a utilitarian, ordinary everyday action of nurture. when I hear stories like the one about the mum at the pool or patronisng banter "unnecessarily" attaching tacit censure if certain "standards are not adhered to", it irritates me.

"When I pick my nose, I can do it 'discretely'."

But wouldn't the more accurate comparison be if, when you pick your baby's nose in public, you can do it discretely?

But, that quibble aside Houellebecq, yesterday's comments could be regarded as your two nicest hits.

Good point, WmTrevor,

What does an act like such as "picking one's nose" - or - runner's comparison with "going to the toilet" have in common with feeding a baby with the female physical attributes that are designed for the task?

It seems that such comparisons expose the very attitude I'm railing against - that feeding a baby with breast milk from a breast is somehow ingrained in "some" people's minds as comparable with defecation, urination and picking one's nose (things that are not done in public in civilised and polite society) - a "shameful act" - and something to be kept well and truly hidden.

For goodness sake, I haven't noticed lactating breasts flopped out all over the public spaces around us!

It isn't a crime to breast feed your baby in public, so all the poor, delicate loves that find bare breasts offensive should just avoid ogling them and all girlie magazines and girlie bars as well...

"Always the spiteful gender kicker against men."

onthebeach
How so? This was not a comment against men and is an oversensitive reaction on your part IMO. By contrast I note no chiding from you about runner's comment blaming mothers for not teaching their daughters 'not to get drunk and go off with strange men' (not to mention the fact that if using the same logic, Fathers should perhaps teach their sons not to rape women particularly drunk ones who are not in a position to consent). By interpretation clearly runner thinks drunk women are to blame in a rape case and the perpetrator is blameless. "She deserved it" is still a big defence response against women and frankly it is an appalling reflection of attitudes.

It is natural to be blinkered towards one's gender as we all have only experienced life only from a male or female POV but we should all be aware of this in our analysis of these senstive issues.

But the fact is most judges who have made ridiculous statements about rape victims (including the recent male judge who declared some women like rape) have been men. I used the phrase 'mainly male judges' because there may have been some female judges that I am not aware of with a similar mindset but at posting I could not think of any women judges who have made anti-women judgements. The case in Nth QLD Indigenous community was such a case, you are right.

Surely it is not an indictment against all men to point out poor judicial decisons and judgements otherwise we may as well all shut up and not say the truth about anything lest we offend someone.

pelican,

That is a load of self-justifying, disingenuous rationalisation. All of it could be directed back at you.

You didn't have to direct your criticism at male judges, just judges.

suseonline, "so all the poor, delicate loves that find bare breasts offensive should just avoid ogling them and all girlie magazines and girlie bars as well.."

The delicate loves you refer to are women. The stereotypical 'Everyman' of your young gay executive producers is scripted to make truly dumb-ass remarks to garner an audience -predominately women- on slow news days.

Honestly, doesn't anyone understand how a TV show works. Or more likely doesn't it matter because it is dumbed down to an audience who get their adrenaline from getting faux shocked, and angry, "Oh, I never...." and "Scratch him to death..".

Isn't Everyman Koch lucky to have such wonderful, wise and emotionally mature womyn like 'gorgeous', 'beauuuutiful' Mel to scoff at him and scold? Just like the popular "Mere Male" column of a women's magazine, but faux reality and nasty.

Who watches that pap? Women do. But some would like something better that doesn't do their head in.

Poirot we can not hide from it, men and women are different.
And for most of our lives we are addicted to one another.
We also fight, never know why, over silly things, usually not related to what we are truly upset with.
A thought, both sexes have sluts, men and women.
I do not talk of most who may have many partners but the extremes, getting close to the norm.
I can say men who best earn that name, are best kept away from, unless you are only playing, women too.
You can not expect honesty trust or faithfulness ever from them.
Now most will agree with me.
Why then will they not do so if I say some women should be careful how and when they breast feed?

Belly,

I agree with most of your post - but what's it got to do with nourishing a baby?

As in why should women have to "be careful" in how and when they breastfeed?

And what is the connection between providing nourishment for an infant and the fact that some men and women are sexually promiscuous?

onthebeach
What an inappropirate response. It is mainly male judges who make these disparaging remarks about women. You are new on here and I haven't been here for a while,only on and off but I am often in there defending men in various threads if you care to wade through the history.

In this case I stand by my words. If we don't examine as a culture why male judges still hold some of these views we fail everybody including men who may one day be falsely accused of a crime. Truth counts in everything and benefits everyone. Nothing to do with feminism but humanism.

I rarely see people like you defending women when there are broad generalisations made so it is somewhat hypocritial and disingenuous of you to take the 'offended' stance. In the case of judges it was not a generalisation about men but male judges, and then only 'some'.

You have to read what is being said rather than cherrypick the bits you think offensive to men. The point of my post was obviously lost on you.

So be it. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Pelly,

Actually on thebeach reminds me a tad of "antiseptic" (remember anti? - perhaps he's undergone a coastal reincarnation :)

In any case, it's obvious that onthebeach has been here before in another guise. I can always tell by the immediate confidence displayed by "new" posters, whether or not they are actually "newbies".

Poirot
Possibly. I am never good at picking out the newbies from the oldies. :) I left OLO because I was sick of the ridiculous gender arguments. Ultimately it is not about men or women but people, both men and women make mistakes, can be sexist or biased towards their own gender, and are on the receiving end of different sorts of 'injustice'. But thankfully the world is slowly evolving. Trouble is I seem to get the ardent masculinists offside as much as the ardent feminists. Ha ha. Guess that is inevitable.

Pelly,

I wouldn't take too much notice of the response you've received from onthebeach. Most people around here would consider you one of the more balanced and sensible posters. onthebeach is being deliberately provocative to you on this thread - seemingly responding in an over-the-top manner to your views, IMO.

Yes, we all know how much trouble an intelligent species like ourselves has in devising its gender roles and responses.

(I'm glad you come back here occasionally:)

Pelican,

JUDGES make the decisions and women judges are as prone to rulings that are criticised as any other. I gave the link and the case was directly relevant to the subject of the thread, rape.

You unnecessarily introduced the qualifier "male". Your weak excuse is your allegation that male judges make sexist comments. That is a lame excuse and shows likely prejudice.

Poirot,

' feeding a baby with breast milk from a breast is somehow ingrained in "some" people's minds as comparable with defecation, urination and picking one's nose (things that are not done in public in civilised and polite society) - a "shameful act" - and something to be kept well and truly hidden.'

'Shameful'? WTF! A false interpretation of the analogy. The analogy pertains to social mores for the consideration or the comfort of others, class being an exercise in being socially aware. I see no reason why breastfeeding should be immune from etiquette, and it confirms my belief that this is all really about women being immune from any judgement.

What the argument seems to boil down to is that if you think you're within your rights to do something, and it is an objectively good or 'natural'(Synonymous with good these days for some reason) thing you're doing, you should ignore all etiquette. Perhaps even going so far as to rub their faces in it to prove your point? That's not class.

It's not wrong, there's no law against not having class, it's just not classy.

Regardless of what you're doing, whether you feel it is a just thing you're doing, IF it takes little effort to make someone of a different world view and different life experience (ie most old people) more comfortable, why is it such a big deal?

Answer; because women should be immune from judgement. The mighty earth mothers are just and righteous, and the barest expression of discomfort from an old guy brought up in a world where these social discomforts were dealt with by sweeping them into the privacy of people's homes (with the negative result of women feeling isolated, granted), is an outrage!

And I HAVEN'T weakened my whole argument with the last sentence, because lets just weigh up slightly conceal (ie bed discreet) what you're doing from an oldie, against the social awkwardness and discomfort the oldie is feeling.

I feel no shame in picking my nose, I just don't think others would like to see it.

Suze,

'find bare breasts offensive'

Who does? Who has even said this? You're the straw man king! It's nothing to do with offense, it's a possible social awkwardness in men not being able to know how a breastfeeding women wants to be addressed, a woman exposing a sometimes sexual part of her body in public.

It's actually men's discomfort in not knowing how to make a woman comfortable while she's having to expose her breasts in public and wanting to hold a conversation with them. Can no women even at all imagine what it would be like if men had to expose themselves for some reason in a totally non sexual way. I mean I've been to nudist beaches and it's all cool there, but down at the pub?

I fail to see how women cannot relate at all, and somehow turn it into some sort of judgement on what they are doing. In our society even when women go swimming they mostly cover their breasts, yet if any man dares to even relate that he doesn't know where to look when she's breastfeeding, whether the woman wants him to ignore her for half an hour, or stare over her head while he talks to her to ensure she doesn't think he's checking out her tits.

All summed up, men don't want to be seen as a perv. What happens; they get called a perv for what boils down to being conflicted how best to consider a woman's feelings, yet women should have the right to totally disregard his when she could make often simple steps to create a more comfortable social environment.

Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 26 January 2013 1:22:42 PM

Standing ovation! That's gold.

Hoellie,

Yes well, the term "for the consideration and comfort of others" shouldn't be aligned to social mores that are static. Imagine all those oldies who had to endure girls cavorting round in bikinis in the sixties - or exposed knees in the twenties.

My earlier point was Kochie's trumpeting of an immature cliche was unnecessary and patronising because most women "are" discreet. Yes I know you've seen a woman flop them out, but you don't see it often. Most of the time women are breastfeeding and people aren't even aware that they're doing it.

That breasts are a male sexual totem is one thing - and it's purely the reason why any activity associated with them is deemed not suitable for public demonstration. It would be nice if such an advanced civilisation could get over the schoolboy titters regarding the nurture of infants, don't you reckon?

Sorry but the analogy of scraping waste out of your nose - and your declaration that you feel no shame doing it - doesn't really work for me. I presume when you're on your own that your feel no shame in eliminating other waste products. Perhaps it's time that women weren't made to feel as if they were doing something that was inconsiderate or discomforting to others because certain mindsets have perpetuated the view that breastfeeding is on the same social par as "picking one's nose".

Some earlier arguments remind me of comments about gays and lesbians... "Why do they have to rub our noses in their homosexual practices?" becomes "I don't want women's breasts shoved in my face."

Being in public often requires behaving in a way considerate of the public. Most women (like most men) are.

For those conflicted about where to look when a woman is breastfeeding, my advice is to look at the baby and say things like, "What a credit to you. S/he looks so happy and adorable and cute. You must be a proud mum." You'll probably be thanked.

"All summed up, men don't want to be seen as a perv." Eloquently argued, H...

Especially voyeurs. Destroys the frisson.

I'd also like to make the point that it's actually quite difficult to see more than 30 percent of the breast when a baby is suckling. There is more breast exposed at the beach than when a mum is breastfeeding.

I don't see the social police stopping women at the beach advising them to be more considerate of people's discomfort.

I wonder why breastfeeding women, in that case, are always given the towel-flick of mild censure? Perhaps it's just to let them know that any tacit toleration of the act of breastfeeding is subject to "conditions".

Well actually I do know why breastfeeding is singled out - and why it is compared to acts of waste elimination.

Like defecation, urination nose-picking, etc...breastfeeding reminds us just how carnal we are. Most of man's "civilising" mores have been an effort to psychologically override the fact that we are animals. We prefer (especially in our public demonstrations) to pretend that we are above all that.

Seeing a human female suckling her infant in the same way as any other mammal would, explodes our little delusion quite literally.

Good points both about the ability for social mores to change. From my observations they change regardless, and old people are already made to walk around in an alien world, and as young people are more adaptable it isn't much to bother seeing things from their perspective.

They'll be dead soon enough.

' most women "are" discreet.'

Which proves my point. Most women take others into consideration, and by their actions agree with 'koshy'. His crime is to be male and middle aged and have a preference on how a women does something. It's disingenuously translated to him dictating a code of behaviour, and worse shaming and banning it altogether. He did no such thing.

'It would be nice if such an advanced civilisation could get over the schoolboy titters regarding the nurture of infants, don't you reckon?'

So you can envision a society where men aren't allowed a preference, or aren't allowed to express it, or men aren't attracted to breasts or men are able to totally change contexts with no residual attraction to breasts in a different context, or where women walk around topless all the time?

I think it would be much easier for women to take a preference on board, and not feel they are 'made' to feel or do anything.

'Perhaps it's time that women weren't made to feel as if they were doing something that was inconsiderate or discomforting to others '

Nobody can 'make you feel'. It is discomforting to some. The actual act is not inconsiderate, it's necessary, it's all in the execution. It's not unreasonable to be aware of the people around you, which is WHY most women are.

'I don't see the social police stopping women at the beach advising them to be more considerate of people's discomfort. '

Why is it when a man admits to a preference, or reveals a sensitivity, it's the 'social police', when a woman does so it's considered a liberating confession to be shared and empathized an luxuriated over.

Anyway do we ignore context altogether?

'"What a credit to you. S/he looks so happy and adorable and cute. You must be a proud mum." You'll probably be thanked.'

Call me an old cynic Trev, but that reads to me as; 'I would love to stare at your tits some more, and see if I can see the nipple when you swap sides. I will make mawkish comments in an attempt to disguise my voyeuristic activities.

Oh what the hell, in for a penny.... 'I will save the outline, darkness and texture of your nipple in my wank bank, to bring out in my sexual fantasies at a later date.'

Hahhaha!

See, all we want is not to be considered a perv.

This is what the eyes of husbands are accusing friends of thinking as their friends talk to the breastfeeding wife.

There, I feel liberated, and I look forward to the tidal wave of empathy and validation that will be forthcoming!

'Like defecation, urination nose-picking, etc...breastfeeding reminds us just how carnal we are. Most of man's "civilising" mores have been an effort to psychologically override the fact that we are animals. We prefer (especially in our public demonstrations) to pretend that we are above all that.

Seeing a human female suckling her infant in the same way as any other mammal would, explodes our little delusion quite literally.'

So in other words, you agree it's not classy:-)

I am outraged! As a mother, I should have the right to not hearing any opinion that could 'make' me feel anything other than a nurturing earth mother goddess for my efforts in breast feeding my baby!

That is one thing that conflicts with the Zeitgeist on breastfeeding. If breast feeding (according to the ubiquitous breastfeeding Nazi cult we have today) is the all encompassing irreplaceable private bonding activity with mother and child, spiritually higher than sex magic, an otherworldly bonding experience that shows why women are better parents and better nurturers and that men will never understand the mother love, why are women wanting to share such a deeply private and personal experience, on a bus.

The social police don't seem to have any problem expressing opinions if the topic is men in budgie smugglers.

There is a lot of effort put into trying to make men (including one well known Iron Man competitor ) feel that wearing a pair of budgie smugglers is something they should not do because of the comfort of others.

Sometimes expressed that if you are young and with a six pack then its a desirable thing but otherwise a social no-no. Perhaps for the sake of the children to add some credibility.

R0bert

Houellie, you know I luv ya...but don't pull the "earth-mother-NAZI" one on me.

I'm not saying mothers are anymore of anything than the father. I'm saying they have different roles to fulfillin the overall nurturing of a child.

As a women, I have the physical equipment to nourish my child, one with exactly the right nutrients to do it. I'm also saying that if in our culture it's perfectly all right to display the greater portion your boobs and body in public, why the patronising attitude to nursing mothers?

And what is this "classy" thing?...just another middle-class affectation to distinguish ourselves?

We're not classy - we go to the toilet we grunt when we have sex, we eat and drink and bicker and fight and vomit. Some of these things are done in private, some of them in public....to gather breastfeeding up and lump it with being "classy" or "not classy" is bunch of...... IMO

I have no doubt it's uncomfortable for women being an object of desire at times, especially when they want it turned off or to be able to act like it doesn't even exist when they change the context to feeding babies, but by god it must be fun at others. If I was a woman I'd really flaunt it. Then if men got uncomfortable I could admonish them for being either prudes or pervs.

See r0bert you have successfully found a situation where women don't know where to look, and it's even with men clothed. The jokes and goings on are a result of women feeling uncomfortable put in the position of the voyeur. Men get that every day. Women seem to feel a-ok with saying fat older men shouldn't wear smugglers too, but men are not supposed to make such comments about women's bodies or threaten their body image. They also seem pretty uncomfortable when young good looking sex gods like myself wear them.

We should mess with them more often. I think they'd like it. It would bring the sexes together, and promote some empathy. I wish I could organize men en masse to wear budgie smugglers and fishnet vests to work every day. Then if there were any comments from women, even breakfast TV hosts about their preferences, it would be sexism! The female gaze!

I am more than the outline of my trouser snake!

Forget about women being 'forced' to conform to some beauty ideal, why don't men ever get to be objectified and desired in the same manner women do.

I'm totally hetero man, trust me;-) but I cant help but feel flattered at the attention I get at gay bars. It's such a trip!

They probably think I'm a tease, but they're just sexist misogynists who are objectifying me so that's ok. They don't understand my context, and that's going for a quite drink with a mate who happens to be gay. I refuse to be 'made' to feel guilty for leading them on with my cheeky grin and tight butt.

Poirot,
Good onya, you are doing well.

Houie is trying to rev you up, its his favourite pastime and a subject about females.

Actually i expected Houie to be posting far earlier, on page 1, when the subject was what the tittle said. He must have been away on hols.

'don't pull the "earth-mother-NAZI" one on me.'

Not on you personally matey. See Poirot, you're a victim of the breast feeding like a junkie in a public toilet vision, my partner's a victim of you're not a real mother if you don't breastfeed. Different times, different society.

My opinion is that women should be able to do it when the baby needs to feed, it shouldn't be an issue for them, most times they can cover their tits a bit like a guy covers his dick clumsily with a towel around him changing back into dry shorts at the beach. Not much to ask if you can manage it. Not a crime for an old coger like koshy to say he'd prefer a bit of discretion.

I'm pro gay rights, I hate Abbott, but I like his honesty when he said homosexuality is confronting for him. He should be allowed to have an opinion.

But breast feeding is not some irreplaceable mystic activity unless you desire to make it so. The mystical shtick is the latest PR propaganda from the breast is best directive. You would have loved that back then because you could manage it, the times would have suited you better, but my partner had problems feeding.

So your outrage-o-meter goes haywire when the same old fart says you should get-back-in-yer-toilet-luv, mine goes when I hear the screeching breast is best cult saying my kids gonna be a malnourished retard, and jumping on some old fool who make a passing comment.

BTW: I don't profess to being 'classy', or even that it is a desirab;e aim, obviously it is for all those mothers to be offended to POTENTIALLY be labeled un-classy. I just think it isn't classy to ignore the comfort of others in a social situation. Breast feedin as you say is not classy or not. But, now that you raise it, it wa the upper classes who had a we nurse, and the resources to not work and hence not have to feed in public.

And there was me thinking I'd solved your problem, Houellebecq as to where to look when talking to a breastfeeding woman on a bus… by looking at the baby whilst talking to its mother. Since it is socially acceptable in this situation to look at the baby and the breasts without making eye contact with the mother – compared to being socially unacceptable to look at her breasts without making eye contact when she doesn't have a baby to feed.

To really prove your 'right to be a mother' you could always offer to breastfeed the baby yourself and then the woman has the problem of where to look.

As for, "This is what the eyes of husbands are accusing friends of thinking as their friends talk to the breastfeeding wife", my suggestion is to find friends who know how to share.

Its good that you "feel flattered at the attention I get at gay bars. It's such a trip!" and I'm sure it's not that they're appalled at the strange mixture of textures and materials and wanting to do a makeover. Nor should you "be 'made' to feel guilty for leading them on with my cheeky grin and tight butt"

If the 'cheeky grin and tight butt' are one and the same they could be after advice as to how you make 'it' smile?

"I don't see the social police stopping women at the beach advising them to be more considerate of people's discomfort"

How long is it since you went to a beach? Or is it is that you are so 'informed' by your feminism you don't see what is inconvenient? Of course what you term "social police" have always been active at the beach and yes, the amount of flesh displayed is monitored and offenders marched off.

It would be recognising rather obvious reality to say that the source of such censure and complaint is always women, with the excuse being, "What about the children?". The said children always have better things to do and mum should be watching them instead of the perky boobs on the sweet young thing thirty metres away. Women are highly competitive and they get insanely jealous of other women. I have been involved in a SLSC for years and none of us want to be the instruments of botherers on their own beach patrol. Honestly, people can be trusted to look after themselves. It is the censorious, nagging botherers who are the problem. They would be interfering with their neighbours on god knows what back home too. Always a compliant.

The highly functional and iconic Speedos are next it seems. Interfering womyn are the complainants this time.

Any 'problem' with public breastfeeding is between women. The same petty jealousies apply. With a new edge, because feminists have lauded the superwomen who can raise a family while working as executives. As well, feminists display ambivalence towards nursing and caring for children - State childcare instead. Complicated.

Years ago it was simple and public nursing was common. It is a now a complex (?!) area for women, apparently. Maybe it is just that talking heads needs something to chin wag about. Nothing to do with men though.

Last sentence, make that 'need' not 'needs' before some bothering schoolmarm has a go at me.

onthebeach I don't agree that it's nothing to do with men. I know of at least one man who made life difficult for a daughter in law insisting that she remove herself to an isolated room (generally without fan or AC) to breastfeed children when she was at their home.

Likewise some of those determined to get rid of speedo's are male.

Mrs Grundy and her spot it and stop it squad has male counterparts.

R0bert

RObert, "I know of at least one man who made life difficult for a daughter in law "

The odd exception proves the rule.

"Likewise some of those determined to get rid of speedo's are male"

The operative word is some. The general statement is not disturbed by a few male complainants. The Speedos were invented for speed and ease in sea conditions. There is nothing better for the purpose. It is mainly Left womyn who have sandy v's over them. Most of it is politically motivated and is aimed at Abbott.

I should add that SLSC women have worn Speedos for countless years and SLSC members have received complaints from female members of the public about them. "Why don't (whingers have lots of 'don'ts') they always wear board shorts", for example.

There are far too many botherers in the world and in Australia the censorious nags seem to be in a growth phase. 'Bother thy Neighbour' is becoming a national pastime and a defining element of Australian culture. The growth of envy. Why so?

I donno, I'm a male, and I reckon I have a steak. I'm a steak holder. Medium rare.

I was just thinking about this latest outrage-a-thon, I'm addicted to them i find them fascinating, such passion people have, and really Australia isn't actually an easy going laid back country, if it ever was. God help us when Juliar brings in her new laws against offending people.

I suppose my main point on here is there really is no need to shoot 'koshy' down for saying what he did. He's not some god who has to be obeyed, and women have their own minds so I really don't like all the fuss about one guys opinion. 'It's damaging' they say. Don't make me laugh man. It's just a vehicle for the breast feeding Nazis and feminists to symbolically beat the middle aged white male about and make an example.

In the end I reckon a chick should be able to breast feed at the pool, because who wants to round the brothers and sisters up out of the pool and into the 'mother's room' when you can just slyly pop it out and keep supervising. Though It would be hard to drop a baby poolside to save the other drowning kids I suppose.

Doesn't mean I don't agree with the broader 'koshy' passing comment of discretion.

Common sense is the first casualty of an outrage outbreak. Hey anti I bet the actual complainant was a chick, and the poor guy running the pool had to do their bidding. Still he coulda shown some back bone and told the complainer to get nicked.

I've much preferred wearing boardies since okanuis. I'm quite image conscious. I try to read Esquire, Vogue living and I never miss Executive Style. I cant imagine executive style condoning speedos. There's something about the idea of... you're wearing shorts, and then they're swimmers, and then they're shorts again, it's all so convenient and even huck-finn like. Did he actually have jeans cut off into shorts does anyone know? I don't think that would look very good.

Houellie,

"But breastfeeding is not some irreplaceable mystical activity unless you desire to make it so..."

Precisely!

I's a very ordinary activity which "apparently" according to some people requires advising nursing mothers to "be classy and discreet" - even though most already are.

If a woman has trouble breastfeeding and decides to bottle-feed - or who just decides in favour of bottle-feeding per se - no problem. I'm not going to wave about the "breast is best" motto in her face. I respect her position.

She, however, is not going to feel that she has to hide the bottle-feeding regime from the public. The question is never going to enter her mind...and the only difference there is the receptacles from which the milk is delivered.

Would a bottle-feeding mum ever be considered to be acting in an "unclassy" manner when she feeds her infant in public?

Regarding budgie smugglers - so what is the big deal about a bloke wearing those?...I mean for someone who has outgrown pre-teen smirks, and considers themselves a grown-up, what is the problem with a man wearing a brief costume for swimming - at this particular juncture in Western social history?

Honestly, why the kicker? Do you snigger at what the girls wear too? Come to a surf comp. These cossies have been on Aussie beaches for years. Iconic. Beached whales might complain, but hey...

onthebeach,

Whom are you addressing with your last post?

"I mean for someone who has outgrown pre-teen smirks etc"

Honestly Poirot, just whose experience are you drawing on? Kids and surf Nippers wear Speedos and similar. Boys and girls (girls' Speedos).

The view from your keyboard is just not good enough. Go to a surf carnival. Look at men and women competitors. No-one smirks at the cossies, they are functional. Ever seen the pants on women athletes? "Pre-teen smirks"? It is all in your imagination and in Labor spin directed at Abbott.

onthebeach,

Oh good...that's straightened out...you were addressing Poirot.

Let's have a look at the crux of the comment to which you were replying.

"Regarding budgie smugglers - so what is the big deal about blokes wearing those?...what is the problem with a man wearing a brief costume for swimming - at this particular juncture in Western social history?"

I was addressing RObert's comment which went thus:

"There is a lot of effort put into trying to make men....feel that wearing a pair of budgie smugglers is something they should not do because of the comfort of others."

My comment above was showing solidarity with men on the issue of Speedo type swimming attire. My view is anyone with maturity would see them as reasonable swimming attire in this day and age - as you say they've been around for yonks, especially in the surf lifesaving sphere and competitive swimming - and there is no big deal about them.

Good old onthebeach however, comes roaring back, all guns blazing, attempting to insinuate that I somehow criticised Speedo-type attire.

But good old onthebeach as is his wont, is still trying to stir up an argument where none exists.

(Better luck next time)

Poirot, <Let's have a look at the crux of the comment to which you were replying.

"Regarding budgie smugglers - so what is the big deal about blokes wearing those?...what is the problem with a man wearing a brief costume for swimming - at this particular juncture in Western social history?">

No, you have deliberately censored your own words. Why?

This is what you wrote originally,
<Regarding budgie smugglers - so what is the big deal about a bloke wearing those?...I mean for someone who has outgrown pre-teen smirks, and considers themselves a grown-up, what is the problem with a man wearing a brief costume for swimming - at this particular juncture in Western social history?>

Now go back to my responses in reply and try again. I reckon you just can't help yourself. It is seemingly impossible for you to avoid some 'off' implication directed towards men. Yours was what is commonly referred to as a backhanded compliment - towards men who wear Speedos. Superficially you appear to support them but there is always that little kicker the backhander, to follow. In this case in your view the wearing of said Speedos warrants rising above pre-teen smirks, which obviously makes you snigger as well or else you wouldn't say it.

Speedos are just normal work wear for the thousands who volunteer in the surf lifesaving. That applies to men and women, although thankfully (but no surprise) the women do not attract your sniggers of superiority.

You are now on the defensive. Otherwise why did you censor your own quote?

onthebeach, Poirot is one of the few women who posts on OLO who generally does not play the girls club routine.

I think you are looking for insult where there was none intended.

Kids do have pre-teen snickers about "doodles" and any evidence of their existence, most of us outgrow that but not all.

On the broader discussion -
My suspicion is that many of the morals campaigners are fighting some pretty big personal issues about sexuality. I suspect a lot want it all to be dirty because that makes it more fun. Their secret sin would be not nearly so enticing if it was all normal healthy human life. They spend far too much time contemplating what they consider to be sin or dirty for their own good (or anybody else's). The product of a diseased sexuality manifested by outward proclamations of a commitment to public values and morals and private trips to a quiet spot for some private sin.

R0bert

I didn't misquote.

onthebeach,

Okay, Mr-I-want-to-pick-an-argument-for-no-particular-reason.

My quote:

"Regarding budgie smugglers - what is the big deal about a bloke wearing those?...I mean for someone who has outgrown pre-teen smirks, and considers themselves a grown-up, what is the problem with a man wearing a brief costume for swimming - at this particular juncture in Western social history."

How can you construe from that an "off" implication towards men?

You say:

"In this case in your view the wearing of said Speedos warrants rising above above pre-teen smirks..."

What a stupid argument.

My point being that people who would quibble or snigger over the wearing of Speedos would perhaps have the maturity of a pre-teen, for whom such attire might raise a few giggles.

Now deary, I realise you get your jollies from deliberately misconstruing and misrepresenting other poster's views...and then loading your rhetorical cannon full of bollocks to fire in their direction.

Shame it keeps blowing up in your face.

I didn't misquote you.

You misquoted yourself to leave out the key section that I queried with you. Why you did that you still will not say. Or even admit it was omitted.

It should have been easy enough to admit you erred and move on.

In the post I originally referred to it would have been easy enough for you to agree that yes, the subject clause could have led to misunderstanding and was superfluous, and move on.

They were simple, reasonable questions. Your anger is out of proportion.

There is nothing to be gained from a rude exchange. So I will move on.

onthebeach

I did "not" misquote.

I abridged my quote to highlight the gist of my point.

Yes I realise that you grabbed hold of: "....I mean for someone who has outgrown pre-teen smirks, and considers themselves grown-up...."

So what?

I could just have easily have said: "For any mature person..."

There is no big deal about that passage. I was merely pointing out that it takes an immature and pedantic mind to quibble over men wearing Speedos.

It takes an even more immature and pedantic mind to quibble over such a passage.

I watched you try this line on Pelican recently, attempting to blow her position out of proportion with a little cherry-picked precision.

I'm interested occasionally on this forum to analyse the the devices employed by "some" posters.

Yours are a case in point.

You cherry-pick a portion of a post. You then proceed to deliberately misconstrue its intent. After which you carry on the travesty by misrepresenting and denouncing the poster you have chosen for your "treatment". - as you have done to me here and on another thread.

It's called trolling.

And then, when you are challenged, you feign delicate sensibilities as in: "Your anger is out of proportion....There is nothing to be gained from a rude exchange. So I will move on." (btw, that's me abridging your post - not misquoting you:)

That's rich!

You intentionally skewed the entire meaning of my post to match your "confected" line of attack. Anyone reading my post (as RObert noted) would understand that you contorted my meaning in a misguided attempt to provoke me.

Hint: - If you're going to provoke fellow posters with vacuous points of order, at least attempt to render your misrepresentations a little less obvious