Will JT be a Labour MP?

Written By: - Date published: 7:39 am, November 10th, 2013 - 457 comments
Categories: blogs - Tags: , ,

Tamihere Key

It has been a strange week.

I have found myself in complete agreement with people who I do not normally agree with. I found myself in the unusual position of supporting Matthew Hooton on his stance on Chorus and I then cheered him on as he got himself kicked off JT and Willie Jackson’s Radiolive show.

And yesterday I found myself agreeing completely with Fran O’Sullivan’s column in the Herald where she called their behaviour for what it is.

Misogyny.

She also nails it when she says that “[i]t is to Labour’s credit that the party is trying to even the score when it comes to evening up gender representation in Parliament.”  Because when you strip away the slogans that have been thrown at the proposal it is all about equality and fairness.

Meanwhile on the blogs the debate about Tamihere has raged.

Giovanni Tiso deftly organised an effective advertiser boycott of RadioLive.

And Josie Pagani came to blows with Danyl McLaughlan claiming that he said she supported what Tamihere had said.  She clearly is not, but I do not read Danyl’s post as claiming that she is. Pagani is defending Tamihere’s right to free speech.  It may be that she no longer thinks that he should be an MP and she is now restricting herself to say that his freedom to say what he wants, no matter how appalling, should be preserved.

Danyl’s description may have been scathing but he obviously feels strongly about the issue.  His essential proposition is that supporters of Tamihere’s inclusion in Labour’s caucus could have landed the party with an MP whose views are totally contrary to the party’s core beliefs.  Identity politics are whether they like it or not an important consideration for the Labour Party as is fitness for the job and basic human decency.

If Pagani now believes that Tamihere should not become a Labour MP then I agree with her.  I blogged last November that I did not think that he should be accepted as a member and the reasons are just as valid in determining if he should be selected as a Labour candidate for a Parliamentary seat.  The reasons included:

  • Describing women in a demeaning way.
  • Describing homosexuals in a demeaning way.
  • Standing against Bob Harvey for the Waitakere City mayoralty in 2007.
  • Denigrating the party on his radio show and on TV.
  • Comparing the party to the Head Hunters gang.

To this list can be added:

  • Failing to understand that what was happening with the roast busters was so bad at so many levels and choosing to publicly express opinions on the subject that should have died out with the cavemen.

The progressive nature of Waitakere Man should be appealed to by Labour in its quest for electoral success.  But the party should draw the line against misogyny and those who denigrate women.  We should not seek to improve support by sanctioning in any way opinions that are plainly wrong.

[For the avoidance of doubt these views are entirely my own and not sanctioned by the higher echelons of the party or anyone else for that matter.]

457 comments on “Will JT be a Labour MP? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Linz 1
    10 November 2013 at 7:47 am

    If John Tamahiri becomes a Labour candidate, I’ll leave the party and never vote Labour again. And I’m sure I won’t be the only one.

  2. idlegus 2
    10 November 2013 at 7:52 am

    yeah jt & willie have put the ‘left’ into total disrepute, today im posted an article i like by judith collins! & kerre mcivor has written an awesome opinion piece too. this week i was nodding in aggreement with paula bennet & tau henare, & of course hooton (who mccarten describes as thinking the national party are commies) has shown he has some kinda empathy & integrity. i know these types are all evil, but when the ‘left media’ is only represented by sexist dinosaurs like jt & wilie then that sux. ohi know its borderline if jt & wiilie are really left, but they were members of 2 left parties, so the perception is there.

    • Allyson 2.1
      10 November 2013 at 1:35 pm

      It was Len Brown who put Labour party into disrepute. The shock jocks just made it worse.

      • Crunchtime 2.1.1
        11 November 2013 at 1:37 pm

        What the hell? Are you suggesting that Brown’s personal affairs has anything to do with the reputation of the Labour party as a whole?

        Len Brown’s infidelity has everything to do with him and his (consenting) former mistress. This has nothing to do with the Labour Party, or with misogyny or rape culture either. It could just as easily been a woman having an affair. It also could just as easily have been a National Party member.

        To suggest that infidelity is somehow political shows a wide streak of puritanism. I suggest you get over it.

    • Psycho Milt 2.2
      10 November 2013 at 3:19 pm

      Can anyone translate comment 2 into English?

  3. tricledrown 3
    10 November 2013 at 7:54 am

    If JT becomes a candidate for Labour no one will vote Labour.
    He is a serial idiot a clown
    Labours paul henry.
    Out of date and washed up.
    His baggage would leave a stench on the rest of the party.

  4. lynWiper 4
    10 November 2013 at 7:56 am

    Agree totally on all points mickeysavage. A strange week indeed! If Tamihere hadn’t reached his tipping point by now this has to be it.

  5. Ad 5
    10 November 2013 at 8:10 am

    With Nanaia installed as Maori VP the conservative faction of Maori will not get him through list conference. Or any of their ilk.

    And with Giovanni and Mickey organising against him and for Carmel for the new West Auckland seat, he has no show under Labour.

    Plus Cunliffe loathes him.

    But he will stand with NZFirst and will be a great natural successor to Winston there.

  6. BM 6
    10 November 2013 at 8:15 am

    Tricky one.
    He’d be a dead cert of winning his electorate.

    But he doesn’t really fit with what modern labour is all about, maybe he could join NZ first and convince Winston to partner with National? or join the Maori party and grab a Maori seat.

    • karol 6.1
      10 November 2013 at 8:23 am

      He’d be a dead cert of winning his electorate.

      He lost against Bob Harvey in the mayoral election in Waitakere City. And with the current negative publicity, I doubt JT would stand much of a chance of winning the electorate. He ain’t as popular as you seem to think.

      • North 6.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 8:33 am

        Nor as popular and vital to the nation’s politics as JT himself seems to think he is.

        The cheap wairua of RadioLive fucks up the head of most of those who squawk from it. And renders them studiedly irreverent, hectoring, know-all wahanui.

        Tabloid crap for the bucks.

    • QoT 6.2
      10 November 2013 at 11:34 am

      A few major problems:

      1) The myth of “Waitakere Man” as redneck narrow-minded basically-libertarian voter is bullshit.

      2) Even if it wasn’t bullshit, the seat of Waitakere isn’t actually full of white self-employed redneck bigots.

      2a) Which is proven by the fact that Carmel Sepuloni (who Chris Trotter, the King of Waitakere Man, said was absolutely the wrong choice for the seat) came within 9 votes of dethroning Paula Bennett.

    • Chocolate 6.3
      10 November 2013 at 4:03 pm

      Actually, even NZ First might not be too happy to have Tamihere being wished on to their party.

  7. just saying 7
    10 November 2013 at 8:18 am

    I think the harm and suffering caused by Tamihere lashing the marginalised with hate speech needs to be mentioned, as does the fact that Tamihere doesn’t just disagree with many of Labour’s core prinicples, he actively campaigns against them.

    Coming from a family of “Waitakere men” I find it hard to even articulate how angy it makes me to have the likes of Lady Pagani arguing for people like Tamihere to become Labour repreprentatives. She believes they would bring voters back to Labour. WRONG That people like my whanau, my whole home town, vote primarily out of bigotry. As if for the working class, but nobody else, our predjudices are all we’ve got to think with and about. The idea that we are that fucking dumb and one-dimensional. And naive. That we don’t see straight through the likes of her and her kind.

    • Tat Loo (CV) 7.1
      10 November 2013 at 8:37 am

      She believes they would bring voters back to Labour. WRONG That people like my whanau, my whole home town, vote primarily out of bigotry. As if for the working class, but nobody else, our predjudices are all we’ve got to think with and about. The idea that we are that fucking dumb and one-dimensional. And naive. That we don’t see straight through the likes of her and her kind.

      Exactly. People like Pagani aren’t advocating for Labour to go back to it’s working class roots; they’re demonstrating how completely out of touch and disrespectful Labour is of it’s working class roots.

  8. Craig Glen Eden 8
    10 November 2013 at 8:20 am

    Tamihere is not left wing for a start. This guy stands for nothing but his own ego. For over ten years now I have gone and listened to him talk in local body campaigns/ elections this guy has no philosphical base/moral code that he operates from. Every campaign he goes on about how the Licensing Trust needs to go cos the licensing trust are just corrupt and then he kicks the shit out of the Corner Bar ( a local bar in Kelston) and all who drink at it. He has not once spelt out his vision for change and honestly I dont think he has one. I seriously can not tell you of any other thing that this man has campaigned against or for. He is nothing but ego and that in my opinion this is why he comes out with these outragous statements like ‘front bums’. He will do anything/say anything that gives him profile.

    • Saarbo 8.1
      10 November 2013 at 1:45 pm

      “Tamihere is not left wing for a start. This guy stands for nothing but his own ego. For over ten years now I have gone and listened to him talk in local body campaigns/ elections this guy has no philosphical base/moral code that he operates from.”

      That is the impression I get. I reckon that Tamihere only considered a shot at becoming a Labour candidate again when Shearer et al were Leading the Labour Party, I dont think he would consider it now…he knows he has no real support by Labour supporters/members.

  9. Arandar 9
    10 November 2013 at 8:28 am

    No.

    Like Linz, I will resign my membership if Tamihere is Listed and I told my MP that several months ago when the possibility first arose. There is no place in the NZ Labour Party for a man who holds so many groups of people (not just women) in such contempt.

    We are now told he’s acquainted with the stepfather of RB Joseph Parker. Did misplaced loyalty to a ‘mate’ underlaid the radio ‘interview’ with Amy? Yeah? Nah. He said to Hooton something to the effect that he was attempting to view West Auckland through a middle class lens. I call BS to that. Pack rape is not a behaviour peculiar to any class. Or location. I think it’s a behaviour most often associated with men who are at war, if only with ‘society’.

    This rape club, these young pack rapists, have done us all a favour. They’ve torn the scab off a infected wound that is sickening our whole society that many have been able to pretend doesn’t exist or exists only for an ‘other’ sort of person.

    Sexual violence and predatory behaviour affects us all. It does not exist in a vacuum. Enablers are not just the Tamiheres and Jacksons – they are all of us who have ever said or even thought “But what did he or she do, wear, say, to provoke it?”.

    • just saying 9.1
      10 November 2013 at 8:33 am

      There is no evidence that the young men were “working class”.
      We know that one is the son of a police officer, another, the son of a hollywood actor. Of others we don’t know.

    • Rogue Trooper 9.2
      10 November 2013 at 1:07 pm

      well said Arandar

  10. Sosoo 10
    10 November 2013 at 8:36 am

    He won’t be an MP for obvious reasons.

  11. chris73 11
    10 November 2013 at 8:39 am

    I used to listen to radiolive in my former job (as it was the radio signal I could get at times) and it was interesting listening to both laws and willie and jt over their three hour slots not just a couple of sound bites taken out of context

    Hooten got it right on the money about their support for both Tyson and Clint Rickard, they really did act like they were found guilty because “the man” wanted them found guilty…

    • QoT 11.1
      10 November 2013 at 12:38 pm

      Ah yes, the good old “waaaaaa you took me out of context” because apparently in the 2 hours 45 minutes when JT and Willie weren’t asking a rape survivor:

      How free and easy are you kids these days out there? You were 14 [when you had sex], yeah?

      But if some of the girls have consented, that doesn’t make them rapists, does it?

      You see Amy, when you get to that sort of number and you get people like you who’ve been around for three years, you know what, I find it very difficult to understand why an allegation, if rape has occurred, it hasn’t happened before.

      That’s why I’m getting a bit confused here right. The girls like them, the girls think they’re handsome, the girls go out with them, then you say they get raped, right?

      … they were burning their bras and picketing Miss America.

      No, please, chris, do enlighten us about the “context” which makes those questions not shitty victim-blaming.

      • weka 11.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 2:48 pm

        Out of all the really fuck up things I’ve heard in the past week, this is one of the one’s that stands out –

        “But if some of the girls have consented, that doesn’t make them rapists, does it?”

        On what planet does that make any kind of sense? So not only do individual women now consent to sex forever if they show sexual interest in a man once, but they’re up for it with whoever their friends and aquaintances have sex with.

        • QoT 11.1.1.1
          10 November 2013 at 9:32 pm

          I think the “logic” is something like “well sure they might have raped a few girls, but if they haven’t raped as many as people are saying then that means they’ve been cruelly slandered”.

          But you have to be particularly fucked up to think that makes it better, or entitles you to ask that kind of question.

  12. One Anonymous Knucklehead 12
    10 November 2013 at 8:47 am

    Fairfax Media are now describing Parker/Hales and their associates as a “sex gang”, and don’t forget Granny with her “teen sex scandal”.

    Jackson and Tamihere are not alone in this.

    PS: Tamihere should stand for the Pakeha Party: they’re more his demographic.

    • Roy 12.1
      11 November 2013 at 3:47 pm

      Granny Herald, in the Herald on Sunday, also described Joseph Parker as a ‘young sex braggart’ rather than accurate descriptions such as a ‘self-confessed pack rapist’ or a ‘sexual predator’.

  13. millsy 13
    10 November 2013 at 8:48 am

    My opinion of JT is well known round here….

    Perhaps the Conservatives will be a better fit for him..???

  14. Philgwellington Wellington 14
    10 November 2013 at 8:49 am

    Xox
    How is it that politics seems to attract such flawed and unhinged people. Plenty plenty more come to mind

  15. karol 15
    10 November 2013 at 8:51 am

    Response to micky’s post from Brenda Pilot (PSA Secretary)

    Brenda Pilott ‏@PSAsecretary

    “@thestandard: Will JT be a Labour MP? http://wp.me/piKCS-18kY ” Absolutely no. No chance. No way in hell. Not going to happen.

    • alwyn 15.1
      10 November 2013 at 1:56 pm

      Does that make it a definite no then?
      Are we supposed to accept the fact that the PSA picks all the Labour candidates then?

      • gobsmacked 15.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 2:38 pm

        Don’t be cute, Alwyn. It’s not half as clever as you think.

        Anybody who answers (accurately) that such decisions are made according to the Labour party’s rules, not by fiat, would only get the Gower treatment (“would not rule out”, “leaving door ajar” etc …).

        Brenda is saying – very clearly – that *she* is against it, and that she believes the party will be against it. She’s right.

      • QoT 15.1.2
        10 November 2013 at 9:34 pm

        The PSA isn’t even an affiliate union, alwyn. Learn you some Google.

  16. Ad 16
    10 November 2013 at 9:11 am

    He will never get through Labour women.

  17. Arandar 17
    10 November 2013 at 9:18 am

    It won’t only be Labours women who will stand up against a known bigot, Ad. Reportedly, Tamihere also dislikes Jews and gays. I venture to suggest Tamihere really doesn’t much like anyone who isn’t very very like him.

  18. North 18
    10 November 2013 at 9:20 am

    Completely misunderstanding the comment – Tamihere’s likely response to Ad @ 16 above – “Noooo bro’……..me no poof’ …….me da man !”

    (Willie cackles).

    • Ad 18.1
      10 November 2013 at 9:27 am

      And he is certainly powerful, if you’ve ever try to take him on facing front.

      He is the CE and king of the most powerful of Auckland’s social NGOs.

      He has a tonne of aggressive Maori protectors, and is a harsh and vicious bully.

      He is on the Council’s Independent Maori Statutory Board.

      He is still a major player on the talkback waves.
      …and anyone who think there isn’t a strong (albeit temporarily shamed) constituency for his kind of thinking on gender doesn’t get out enough.

      He is now wealthy.

      He doesn’t need to be an MP when he is far more powerful than a mere electorate MP will ever be.

      I’d suggest Mickey’s post is more in triumph than in fear.
      Tamihere is politically dead. Dead in anything except maybe NZFirst.

      • Chooky 18.1.1
        11 November 2013 at 7:36 am

        …nah( dont try and palm him off)…….he would be a liability in NZFirst too…..I dont think the blue rinse brigade would take too kindly to him…..and Winnie has never put a foot wrong as regards feminism….NZFirst is Winnie

        …Tamihere is associated with Labour for good or ill……the strong arm working class Maori on the up and up….the upwardly mobile machismo…. and he does carry clout over the radio waves

  19. JK 19
    10 November 2013 at 10:00 am

    I totally agree with you Mickey S. and more ….. quite frankly, I think JT should be drummed out of the Labour Party. That might not happen, but surely his membership need not be renewed ?

    • Aspasia 19.1
      10 November 2013 at 10:43 am

      What is required to try to make sure he is no longer a member is a written complaint to NZ Council via a branch, LEC or a regional rep or directly from a member. See discussion in Open Mike yesterday following 2.1.1.1. If you or any others on this thread are LP member then organise to do this rather than assuming that somehow it would be too awful if JT were an MP and it just won’t happen.

  20. ann kerr 20
    10 November 2013 at 10:51 am

    Has Tamihere confirmed he is seeking nomination to be the Waitakere candidate? I know there were mumblings of this when he was admitted back into the party a few months back.

    An electorate committee who nominated him as a candidate would be committing electoral suicide. He will have very little support after recent events, I am sure.

    Can the party over-ride local selection choice? Especially in light of the wonderful new quota for women? Tamihere is one of the reasons we need this quota.

    BTW I have know problem agreeing with the likes of Fran O’Sullivan. Agree she nailed it in her post on the issue. Even unbelievably find myself supporting Hooten!!!

    However I don’t think there has been enough criticism of the very useless Tolley. She initially said she trusted police had done their job properly without investigating. Then was a day or two behind Arden who made a complaint to the IPCA.

    • Anne 20.1
      10 November 2013 at 12:39 pm

      Has Tamihere confirmed he is seeking nomination to be the Waitakere candidate?

      My understanding is: he hasn’t been seen around the West Auckland Labour traps for a long time – maybe since he rejoined the party. That suggests to me he knows he hasn’t got a show so he’s not going to bother to try.

  21. Mary 21
    10 November 2013 at 11:17 am

    If Labour isn’t interested in allowing Cathy Odgers signing up surely it can say the same thing to Tamihere standing.

    • Tat Loo (CV) 21.1
      10 November 2013 at 11:24 am

      Ann/Mary. Any valid Labour Party member can seek a candidacy; just fill out the form and get a few other members to nominate you.

      The constitution then allows for a democratic, contested, candidate selection process between the nominees.

      Labour head office gets some votes in this process, the local party organisation and members gets some votes.

      • Mary 21.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 6:30 pm

        What ever it takes to keep him away. Heaven knows why he would even want to stand for Labour now anyway given the direction it says it wants to start moving towards. Perhaps he’s back for revenge?

        • Chocolate 21.1.1.1
          11 November 2013 at 8:19 am

          For him, it would be a love-hate relationship.
          There’s lots in his psyche to be worked through.
          Labour should now kiss him farewell,
          rather than later having to kick him goodbye.

          And, yes, Chooky @ 18.1.1, Winston would not want someone like him to damage the NZ First brand.

  22. Stephen J 22
    10 November 2013 at 11:26 am

    Section 309 of the constitution provides for “prohibition from seeking or holding candidacy” and for expulsion as disciplinary actions.

    Section 311 provide for any branch, LEC, or other constituent body to apply to NZ Council for disciplinary action, or NZ Council can decide off their own bat.

    Section 313b says that bringing the party into disrepute is grounds for disciplinary action.

    So what any concerned party member should do is:
    – write to NZ Council urging them to act on their own
    – get whatever bodies you belong to (branch, LEC, sector group, …) to apply to NZ Council for disciplinary action

    and make sure you invoke bringing the party into disrepute.

    If you want some reference material to support your application, there is a transcript of questions in this article: http://overland.org.au/2013/11/this-is-what-rape-culture-looks-like/

    • Te Reo Putake 22.1
      10 November 2013 at 12:48 pm

      Cheers, Stephen. I guess the question would be whether he actually has bought the NZ Labour Party into disrepute. He’s currently merely a member, he wasn’t speaking on behalf of the party and he didn’t reference the party (as far as I know).

      Either way, his future isn’t in the renewed party I belong to. It may not be as a paid controversialist either.

  23. gobsmacked 23
    10 November 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Apart from anything else, let’s not forget that this “loyal” Labour man endorsed John Key back in 2008.

    And for God’s sake, why does this have to be about “identity politics” or the “wimmin”? You can be a white hetero bloke (guilty as charged) and still have a basic grasp of the bleedin’ obvious … the man’s a liability, a walking time bomb. It’s not about him being “Waitakere man”, it’s about him being shit.

    • weka 23.1
      10 November 2013 at 2:52 pm

      You can be a white hetero bloke and be agin Tamihere’s misogyny too.

      • gobsmacked 23.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 2:56 pm

        Of course. As I’ve made clear countless times.

        • weka 23.1.1.1
          10 November 2013 at 4:54 pm

          Tamihere targets certain groups including women, he does it from a place of bigotry. That’s why the discussion focusses around that – he’s not being a general misanthrope, he’s quite specific in who he hates on. But I agree with you, both that men can be agin his misogyny, and people can be agin him because he’s generally shit.

      • vto 23.1.2
        10 November 2013 at 3:18 pm

        “You can be a white hetero bloke and be agin Tamihere’s misogyny too.”

        Are you for real there weka? Can you explain how ‘race’ comes into it? Because there is a lot of knee-jerk anti-white bigotry being exposed over this issue. Especially in light of the fact that both Tamihere and Jackson are Maori? Perhaps you should re-word to “you can be a maori bloke and be agin Tamihere’s misogyny too”… People don’t seem able to express this opinion but have no problem whatsoever if they can even remotely get away with tossing the “white” in. (usually followed by that other piece of crap description “middle class”)

        ffs, the amount of absolute shit that has got tossed into the bin of this issue, especially that somehow this is a white thing…. facts point otherwise. How many Polynesian and Maori sexual offences are committed by them each year? Maybe the finger should be pointed at them weka? Yes?

        • gobsmacked 23.1.2.1
          10 November 2013 at 3:36 pm

          Take a breath, VTO.

          “White hetero bloke” is my phrase. I was rebutting the notion that the only people up in arms about this are to be labelled as women or minorities. Defenders of Tamihere like to claim it’s all about “identity” politics. It isn’t. It’s about right and wrong.

          • Papa Tuanuku 23.1.2.1.1
            10 November 2013 at 6:28 pm

            I liked Helen on Q and A today, ‘pale, male and stale’

            • Akldnut 23.1.2.1.1.1
              11 November 2013 at 1:12 am

              Papa Tuanuku – nice handle

            • vto 23.1.2.1.1.2
              11 November 2013 at 10:19 am

              Oh ha ha ha that is clever…

              exactly like when John Tamihere called journalist Andrea Vance a “stupid little girl”.

              for fucks sake what a pile of zero-cred bullshit laced with man-hating sexism as well as bigoted racism.

              Every part of the political spectrum is sexist, racist, ageist. Every part. The left. The right. The middle. The female, the male, the brown, the white, the young, the old.

              • weka …
                11 November 2013 at 10:29 am

                Examples of how Pakeha people have been oppressed by Maori please.

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  11 November 2013 at 10:34 am

                  replaced as All Blacks.

                • vto …
                  11 November 2013 at 10:35 am

                  relates how to the point made weka?

                  • weka …
                    11 November 2013 at 11:51 am

                    You think there is such thing as reverse racism, sexism etc. I don’t, at least not when presented by white men feeling sorry for themselves. I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument. It’s all in how you present.

                    • vto …
                      11 November 2013 at 3:19 pm

                      “I don’t, at least not when presented by white men ..”

                      [This debate is getting somewhat out of hand and I have excised the words that are complained of – MS]

                    • vto …
                      11 November 2013 at 3:21 pm

                      Don’t tell me what I think – reverse racism was not what was being referred to. Try reading and thinking instead of assuming.

                      And you point out no flaw in the point made – you merely perpetuate your own myths (that somehow people subjected to oppression are incapable of racism… talk about nuts). That myth that you believe together with this statement … ” I don’t, at least not when presented by white men” just highlights your own racism.

                      Helen on Q & A says “pale, male and stale”
                      Tamihere on Radiolive says “stupid little girl”

                      Both ignorant people with little understanding. They can each stand next to;

                      Eleanor Catton referring to the age, race and gender of her critics. White men over 45.
                      Beck Eleven (Press dribble reporter) referring to race, age and gender when Gareth Morgan mouths off about something.
                      Michelle A-Court also recently referring to age, race and gender when people comment on matters.

                      All sexist, racist and ageist. It is no wonder you cannot see the problem – you are the same as them.

                      You just don’t recognise the bigotry because you are not subject to it (a feature that I note you are using elsewhere on this thread).

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      11 November 2013 at 3:28 pm

                      ps. I have only praise for Eleanor Catton, yet I did note her reference to the typical critic. Cuts close to the bone, people.

        • weka 23.1.2.2
          10 November 2013 at 4:48 pm

          “you can be a maori bloke and be agin Tamihere’s misogyny too”

          Yes you can, I agree with that. Obviously. The rest of your post doesn’t make any sense to me so I won’t respond further.

  24. Rhinocrates 24
    10 November 2013 at 1:14 pm

    I don’t know why anyone’s patting Hoots on the head. A certain failed artist turned politician from Austria who came to world attention in the 1930s and 40s shared my views on kindness to animals, but nobody congratulates him. The man’s an opportunist attention junkie and hypocrite and he supports the system that enables this.

  25. Rogue Trooper 25
    10 November 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Judith Collins addressing JT, and his little willie,
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11154485

    Yet more Kiwi male Dicks!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154479
    grooming teens online for sex.

    • Rhinocrates 25.1
      10 November 2013 at 1:20 pm

      Michael said the information had been analysed by police but warned the website administrators they could have put their own safety at risk.

      Oh FFS. “Won’t anyone think of the poor perpetrators?!”

      • Rogue Trooper 25.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 1:42 pm

        yep, dripping with confirmation / conformation all these status quo utterances this past week.

  26. Draco T Bastard 26
    10 November 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Rape is a hate crime

    Of course, not all of this week’s conversation has been enlightening. Again, I refuse to write their names, but some of the radio talk has been ill-judged at best, brutal to some ears, and no doubt re-traumatising for rape survivors and the people who love them who may have been listening.

    A lot of questions have been asked about the victims. What was she wearing? Had she been drinking? Why was she there? Was she a virgin before this? All versions of, “Did she behave in a way that made her vulnerable to sexual assault?”

    Nowhere – did I miss it? – were any of these questions aimed at the perpetrators. I have no idea what they were wearing, whether they were sober, or anything about their sexual history. And I’m really not sure I need to know these things either because none of them are relevant to an act of rape.

    • RedLogix 26.1
      10 November 2013 at 2:34 pm

      A lot of questions have been asked about the victims. What was she wearing? Had she been drinking? Why was she there? Was she a virgin before this? All versions of, “Did she behave in a way that made her vulnerable to sexual assault?”

      I do have another question DtB … how many times did these girls go back into this situation? Does anyone know the answer to that?

      Lets examine for a moment the separate components of this scenario.

      Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who drinks alcohol?

      Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager under the age of 16 who has sex?

      Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who posts stupid stuff on Facebook?

      Are we going to make every teenager who does something stupid they later regret forever a victim?

      Personally I’m beginning to think that the cops would have been better advised to have NOT waited until they had a watertight criminal case to take to Court … but to have simply stepped in much earlier and talked to everyone involved. That’s my question; why wasn’t this hosed down two years ago?

      This kneejerk idea that every unwise or stupid thing to do with sex is automatically criminal rape may not be always be helpful.

      • just saying 26.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 3:25 pm

        I’m not going to get into another days long marathon with you on rape culture RL. I know only too well how fruitless that is. But I would like to ask for a citation of anyone here suggesting any of the above.

        And your first question is offensive in the extreme imo.

        • RedLogix 26.1.1.1
          10 November 2013 at 4:15 pm

          And your first question is offensive in the extreme imo.

          Why? At least one witness has claimed that some girls did ‘come back for more’ … so I’m not sure it’s an offensive thing to ask about or try and establish some facts around.

          And if you think it’s beyond the pale I should ask the question … do you think the Police should not have?

          • Tat Loo (CV) 26.1.1.1.1
            10 November 2013 at 4:25 pm

            The question speaks directly to the issue of consent. In court, it is one of the questions which will definitely be asked, alongside questions of coercion etc.

            • just saying 26.1.1.1.1.1
              10 November 2013 at 4:30 pm

              Of 13-year old who was stupefied?

              That may be what would happen, it doesn’t make it right.

              • RedLogix …
                10 November 2013 at 4:40 pm

                That was my second question … are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who drinks alcohol?

                Because there is a fair bit of distance between choosing to be drunk enough to loosen inhibitions (have we not all been there?) and involuntarily stupefied.

                Again a whole bunch of information we don’t really know.

              • greywarbler …
                11 November 2013 at 4:04 pm

                just saying
                This is a perfect example of how difficult it is on the site to discuss this rape problem in any sort of adult, measured way.
                Red Logix – how many times did these girls go back into this situation? Does anyone know the answer to that?
                just saying – Of 13-year old who was stupefied?

                You answer a general question with a particular question about one extreme example, in this case a 13 year old, extremely young, very much under age. The question asks how many and attempts to gain an overview of the different cases.

                Are you discussing this individual case latest RL, or are you talking about the general social behaviours that are going on that are risk-taking by girls and young women? You had better be clear which RL or it ends up everyone at cross purposes and cross with each other too.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  11 November 2013 at 4:12 pm

                  “Risk taking.”

                  Like being female near a rapist, for example. It’s like owning property is an invitation for thieves. Nice house, is it? Asking for it, aren’t ya?

                  • vto …
                    11 November 2013 at 4:55 pm

                    OAK “Like being female near a rapist, for example. It’s like owning property is an invitation for thieves. Nice house, is it? Asking for it, aren’t ya?”

                    You still going on with that example. Perhaps you should think a little more…. it may go like this… own a nice house with lots of things thieves would be attracted to ….. so the owners of these places generally don’t put the goodies on display…

                    This is the one part-issue of this that has not been fully evaluated – turning a blind eye to some unpleasant realities.

                    there you go – tear into that one OAK. I’m sure you will relish it with all your predetermined views and witty one-liners.

                    This issue has turned into a shitheap quagmire with everyone talking past each other

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      11 November 2013 at 5:09 pm

                      “…the owners of these places generally don’t put the goodies on display…”

                      Except in House & Garden, and popular media, and on rich lists.

                      As for the rest, I’m done trying to explain this to you. Obviously you think you have a right to blame the victims, because they transgressed some random behavioural code that you made up, and since “bigot displays bigotry again” is neither surprising nor entertaining nor informative, I can see no reason to help you soil yourself any further.

                    • vto …
                      11 November 2013 at 5:20 pm

                      and I’m done trying to explain to you

                      wilful blindness, kneejerk reactions, assumptions, bigotry, hypocrisy you show the lot

                      out

                    • Crunchtime …
                      11 November 2013 at 5:23 pm

                      No amount of “dressing slutty” or getting blotto drunk will ever make rape OK. EVER.

                      Blaming the victim perpetuates rape culture.

                      Until you can understand that, vto, I kindly invite you to STFU.

                    • Bill …
                      11 November 2013 at 5:50 pm

                      @VTO and others.

                      I could put my rather stunning hot body ‘on display’ (as some have put it)…if there were clothes around that served that purpose well…. and I’d probably only get to feel a bit chilled for all my pains.

                      But, let’s say I’m gay. I think I’m right that even other gays wouldn’t feel they were somehow entitled to my body. Some might – I dunno. But the prevalence of entitlement just isn’t there. If it was, there’d be ‘gay on straight’ rape and assault all the fcking time….I mean all the time…like at about the same rate as heterosexual rape. But there isn’t. (Though there’s some weird fears go around some circles about that one)

                      But then again, there is a high incidence of straight on lesbian rape.

                      And that’s down to…..drum roll fellas!….entitlement.

                      Meanwhile, me and my sexy self ‘on display’…you think large numbers of women are suddenly going to up and be feeling my sexy arse, copping sneaky wee gropes and leary lears at my sexy bod and thinking of looking to get me completely shit faced so they ‘could have their way’? Don’t fcking think so. No sense of entitlement = none of that shit happening.

                      A wee bit of thought – just a wee bit – blows this crap about dress sense and what not outta the water. It’s entitlement; the conviction of too many men that women and their bodies and their sexuality are all there for them and so they have a right to the woman, her body, her sexuality.

                      And unless you are saying that’s all natural and right….then hey.

                    • vto …
                      11 November 2013 at 6:21 pm

                      Well no actually Bill and Crunchtime. This particular part-issue is not about blaming the victim. When will people try thinking a little closer.

                      It is about two different issues, which interact, and result in offence.

                      The offender is entirely to blame. But the victim, in many many many crimes, often does things which puts them in danger – usually accidentally, sometime intentionally.

                      This is no way excuses the offender – it is separate to that.

                      If a honky walks into a mongrel mob house party and gets caned ……… two things going on. One, the mob commit an offence which is never ok. Two, what the fuck was the person doing walking in there.

                      The One is real.
                      The Two is also real.
                      They are separate. The culpability of the One is entirely separate from the foolishness of Two.

                      You can go on and on and on all you like about the mongrel mob and its bad-arse ways but it doesn’t mean you haven’t been somewhat foolish in crashing one of their parties.

                      What is so difficult to understand about this? Are people afraid of calling out foolishness (not the same thing as “they deserved it” – a subtlety flying over everyone’s heads)?

                      This is a very real issue and people can rant and whine all they like. It keeps coming up every few years, decades, it just goes on and on. It goes on and on because there is an element of reality to it. Perhaps if this reality was addressed somehow then the issue’s solution may become apparent. Otherwise, ignoring realities mean the problem will never get addressed.

                      And Bill this here… ” It’s entitlement; the conviction of too many men that women and their bodies and their sexuality are all there for them and so they have a right to the woman, her body, her sexuality.” Sorry, disagree.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 November 2013 at 6:41 pm

                      What is so difficult to understand about this? Are people afraid of calling out foolishness (not the same thing as “they deserved it” – a subtlety flying over everyone’s heads)?

                      The trouble is that, as WJ and JT demonstrated, the act of “calling out foolishness” is in itself a weapon of rape culture. And it’s also completely useless, because rape is not predictable.

                      For rape, dangerous situations are often not the extreme cultural juxtaposition with big neon warning signs that you describe as the “honky getting caned at a mongrel mob party” (although I’ve been in similar situations perfectly comfortably, so again your stereotyping falls short).

                      Essentially, the only way for a woman to be almost completely safe from being raped is to be completely isolated from all males, be 100% sober and awake at all hours, and be as paranoid as a meth-head. That way, if she is raped (because the local rapist might have a thing for paranoid shut-ins), it is unlikely a friendly, community-minded rape apologist will be able to say “you should have done [avoided] X. It’s the rapist’s fault, and everything, but somehow you made it easy for him, or provoked him“.

                      For people who like to do risky things such as have coffee with a man, or park their car in town, or catch a taxi home, or car pool, or sit in their garden, let alone drink or wear clothes they like, there will always be that “I should have”.

                      And as soon as people stop drinking, rapists move onto other methods, anyway.

                    • Bill …
                      11 November 2013 at 6:55 pm

                      Okay VTO. If you disagree with it being a sense of entitlement…one that is encouraged and nurtured in 1001 subtle and powerful ways…then why is it, in your mind, that some men are rapists?

                      I’m assuming you are not of the mind that ‘all’ men are rapists. So, you have to then explain why some are and some aren’t.

                      And whatever your explanation is, it would have to account for the far lesser proportionate incidence of straight men being raped or sexually assaulted by gay men and why so many lesbians are assaulted or raped by straight men.

                      I’m all ears.

                    • wtl …
                      11 November 2013 at 7:26 pm

                      please see my reply below

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:26 am

                      The Dogs of War

                  • greywarbler …
                    11 November 2013 at 9:41 pm

                    OAK
                    Try to hold on. Just think about the problems and the ways to reduce them such as education. And less risk taking by young women. Why don’t you like that suggestion. Do you actually care about these young women, and want to stop the attacks and encourage others to think of ways to support and help them or do you like posturing and exploding with angry scornful comments?

                    • miravox …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:58 am

                      “And less risk taking by young women”

                      But not less risk taking by young men? Do you not think these young men were taking risks by abusing young girls? The risk of reputation, accusation and imprisonment? Or is it different for men?

                      I have no problem with educating young girls about the risks of drugs and alcohol, but that is an only sometimes intersecting problem with rape.

                      Are there any other behaviours that we should be teaching young men? Such as girls dress for themselves and to be part of the peer group, not for rape? or will boys just be boys?

                      And when do we start teaching these young women about how to avoid risk? When they’re 12? What about 8? Lots of girls are sexually assaulted at 8 – and younger. Were those pyjamas or swimming togs too risque? Does the risk for younger girls increase as older young women become more aware? Or do men suddenly stop acting out on their sexual thoughts if they don’t see young teens out in short skirts?

                      What risks are we going to teach these young women to avoid? Are we going to teach them how to read minds – to know that some guys in their social circle will make out with you and stop when you say ‘no’, but that they can learn the secret of how to pick out the one who will coerce, threaten or abuse? You’ve got the goods on how to spot that one? Or are we going to teach them to fear all men, because one might be that guy? As much as you’d like to believe it’s only badly-dressed teens who accept a drink that get raped, it’s not true. Not by a long way.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 1:10 am

                      point being miravox

                    • miravox …
                      12 November 2013 at 1:46 am

                      Point(s) being
                      1. that educating young girls about risky behaviours won’t educate any rapists not to rape.
                      2. the education of young girls about ‘risky behaviours’ would need to start a whole lot earlier than might be expected.
                      3. Would anyone really think the outcome of teaching young girls about risky behaviours might not be very healthy for male-female relationships?
                      4. educating young men about their own, and their friends, preconceptions and risky behaviours might be a better way to stop rapist raping.
                      5. I still have embroidery on my mind (typical woman, can’t let it go huh? 😉

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 2:15 am

                      it is certainly a complex web that some nest in. However, I hear you loud and clear in my sleep. Night.

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      12 November 2013 at 2:27 am

                      Rest, Ample in our Beds

                    • miravox …
                      12 November 2013 at 8:02 am

                      Appreciated Ghost/RT.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      12 November 2013 at 9:00 am

                      Greywarbler, I “don’t like that suggestion” because it mistakes ignorance for wisdom and in doing so supports rape culture.

                      Risks require volunteers.

                    • Crunchtime …
                      12 November 2013 at 9:07 am

                      I’ll boil miravox’s points down a little more:

                      What will fix rape culture and reduce the risks for young women?

                      1. Teach men not to rape.

                      That’s it. There is no other education necessary. Seriously, none.

                      Teaching women to dress sensibly and not like a whore is for their own self respect. It might also help for avoiding the unwanted attention of the wrong kind of people… But NOT for reducing the risk of getting raped.

                      Teaching women to avoid getting too intoxicated in the presence of strange men is to help avoid doing something they might later regret… But NOT for reducing the risk of getting raped.

                      This is crystal clear for me. I know what consent is, I know when it is not given. I wish for everyone to know same.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      12 November 2013 at 9:17 am

                      Crunchtime, I hardly know where to start with that middle paragraph.

                      Prostitutes don’t have a dress code. “Slut shaming” is part of rape culture too.

                    • Crunchtime …
                      12 November 2013 at 9:45 am

                      I thought I was perfectly clear. Teaching someone what to wear is not going to reduce the risk of getting raped. Sorry if my choice of words offended.

                      Seriously, I have concerns about the way some women dress – and tbh some men! But that has nothing to do with ANY discussion about rape. Ever.

                      I’ll go further: what a victim was wearing on the night should not be admissable as evidence in a rape case.

                      Those who rape actual prostitutes are just as culpable and just as liable for prosecution as those who rape anyone.

                    • greywarbler …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:33 am

                      miravox
                      It appears that you are all for equality for young men and women in risk taking. Personally I consider that there should be affirmative action for women in the circumstances of protection and safety, if seen as necessary.

                      For years women were not able to do night work because it was felt they were vulnerable and that limited what work they could participate in. Now night nurses might be escorted to their cars by hospital security at night, so recognising and coping with that difficulty of possible vulnerability from attacks by predatory males.

                      It is definitely males who need the most education, about relationships more than sex, but females also need this discussion though there are not so many predatory females – any? But an understanding of the mode of relating to others in a predatory way should be faced and talked about.
                      It is males who need to be scrutinised for ‘bad’ attitudes to sexuality. Males need a different method of being school educated, parent educated, socially educated to stop this shitty attitude.

                      It is so far from being an approach taught, that there is a case of a gang member introducing his son to sexual attack and I think rape as part of his idea of what he needed to learn to be a staunch man suitable to belong to a Man’s Gang. This is an example of the rape culture you refer to.
                      http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=11

                    • miravox …
                      12 November 2013 at 8:52 pm

                      greywarbler,

                      I’m all for people understanding risks – that’s why I taught my sons and daughter to cross the road safely, learn to swim, not shout at the teacher if they didn’t want detention, tried to encourge them to keep away from people who belittled them etc, etc. The problem with encouraging women to withdraw from part of public life to prevent rape is that, although they might not be raped in public, this strategy will not prevent rape – it will just be someone else who is raped, or the rape will happen in a different place. Because this approach doesn’t change the attitudes and behaviours of potential rapists.

                      I’d like to know what you think about:

                      1. Who are we protecting young girls from?
                      2. At what age should this risk prevention education occur?
                      3. How does a young person identify a potential rapist?
                      4. If young girls are taught to fear men as potential rapists is this going to make for a better community, or not?

                      I agree we with you that we need to ‘do something’ about changing the the perceptions that lead some young men to believe it is ok to humiliate, ridicule and physically or sexually assault women. This is a community / societal problem because this is where these perceptions are learned.

                      The attitudes and behavours resulting from these perceptions – that lead to sexual assault, that support the perpetrators, and shame and blame the victims are part of rape culture. Your example of Joseph Thompson is at the extreme end.

                      I suggest working to change these attitudes in boys and men will lead to a safer, happier society than teaching women to avoid the risk of rape, when that risk is more likely to come from a member of their social circle than from the evil stranger like Joseph Thompson.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 9:40 pm

                      1. Society
                      2.As soon as comprehension has developed
                      3. around about here
                      4.For them.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:00 pm

                      The problem with encouraging women to withdraw from part of public life to prevent rape is that, although they might not be raped in public, this strategy will not prevent rape – it will just be someone else who is raped, or the rape will happen in a different place.

                      Not sure about this rationale. Police and hospital records will likely show that the vast majority of weekly violent incidents occuring “in public life” involve alcohol and occur after midnight, and that getting home earlier having drunk less is best for everyone. Everyone.

                    • weka …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:09 pm

                      Sounds like an argument for a curfew on men CV.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:14 pm

                      Got no problem with that, weka. Opening hours and age of drinking liberalisation hasn’t done much good for public health.

                    • miravox …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:19 pm

                      ” Police and hospital records will likely show that the vast majority of weekly violent incidents occuring “in public life” involve alcohol “

                      Violent incidents involving alcohol does not equal rape incidents.

                      Although I do absolutely agree that everyone should be aware of the damage alcohol is associated with and learn ways to reduce their exposure. I don’t see too many people telling young men not to walk home when drunk (possibly wearing something someone else might want to take off them) in case someone king hits them – yet that was by far my biggest worry about late night drinking when my boys were teens.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:25 pm

                      I don’t see too many people telling young men not to walk home when drunk

                      +1

                      When boys are taught and learn how to look after themselves and each other better, they will learn to look after girls better. That’s how it works. The idea matches very closely with some of your own comments.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:33 pm

                      Not sure about this rationale. Police and hospital records will likely show that the vast majority of weekly violent incidents occuring “in public life” involve alcohol and occur after midnight, and that getting home earlier having drunk less is best for everyone. Everyone.

                      Oh, public disorder and violence, definitely.

                      But rape is not a public crime.
                      If you happen to be around town late at night with any frequency, you’ll see a fair bit of street violence at various ends of the scale.
                      But you wouldn’t see sexual assaults nearly so much. Which is why conflating the two ignores the problem.

                      Personally, I think you’re fixated on the intoxication(& possibly stranger) scenario, whereas you have nothing to base the alcohol association on, most rapists are friends or even closer, and the rape frequently at the survivor’s home or place of safety.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:48 pm

                      Please note. I’m not suggesting, nor looking for a magic bullet answer. Preventing some sexual assaults is a good start while other avenues are progressed down as well.

                      But rape is not a public crime.

                      Agree. It’s not. But at the same time the ODT has reported on many instances of rape occurring in public spaces very late on Fri and Sat nights.

                    • miravox …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:53 pm

                      RT
                      2 and 3 – yes, much younger than many would expect, I suspect… and you’re indicating a way of life education in the perception of risk, rather than what seems to be some idea of a training in preventing risk-taking.

                      1 and 4 – losing a trust society does no-one any favours. I can’t see that a loss of trust, increase in fear and cloistering kids somewhere safe (?) will improve the world for young people at risk of sexual abuse, and it will definitely make it worse for those who will never come across it. I believe kids can be given advice on how to respond to an imminent threat or actual sexual abuse – but that the cognitive development required to perceive risk takes a little while to achieve.

                      Better that the society works on the behaviours and attitudes that perpetuate abuse and alongside this teach children about inappropriate approaches (rather different to telling children not to take risks) and touching, how to respond and having trusted adults who they can confide in when such things happen. Rather that than looking at every man they come across in terms of their potential to rape.

                    • vto …
                      12 November 2013 at 10:55 pm

                      Just typed up a big long post only to have it get lost…… grrr.. to summarise briefly…

                      Michelle A-court was on Jim Mora’s program today and said twice that she cannot understand how society can abhor this roast-busters attitude and at the same time embrace the sex culture so rampant (think Miley Cyrus).

                      It was a dichotomy she could not understand she said.

                      I suggest that is because, like many people on here, she has not thought in any depth about the part-issue I keep referring to and that is that sex culture which I expressed by example of woman wearing short skirt can make men think “legs, attractive, sex” and the consequences that can flow from that. Is it natural for men to think that? Do women know that? What are men to make of such if women do know it makes men think that way? How does that relate to the bigger problem issue? There are some questions that flow that have not been given due consideration. This is the point I have been making.

                      People have not looked carefully at this – they just shout down “blame the victim why dontcha” – see OAK above. Instead they need to think again about it.

                      This is one of the missing links imo in resolving this big problem.

                      Michelle A-court admitted she couldn’t work it out. Twice. I suggest that that is because she, like many on here, has simply bought the parroted lines and not done any independent thinking about it. Hasn’t thought carefully enough about short skirts. (it doesn’t surprise me that she couldn’t work it out as she has exhibited disgraceful sexist, ageist and racist attitudes previously, indicating her lack of depth, but that is another story and irrelevant)

                    • miravox …
                      12 November 2013 at 11:06 pm

                      vto,

                      Yes, I know plenty of men see legs and think sex, but that is different to see legs think rape, don’t you think?

                      btw, I really, really dislike raunch culture, Miley’s dress sense and all. But that’s hardly the point.

                      Just two more questions – do you think Mr average guy who sees legs and thinks sex is going to rape Miley, even if she doesn’t have her security team around? If not, why not?

                    • McFlock …
                      12 November 2013 at 11:09 pm

                      Agree. It’s not. But at the same time the ODT has reported on many instances of rape occurring in public spaces very late on Fri and Sat nights.

                      A few a year, maybe. Including students walking home from the library (sober). And cross-reference it with the court news reporting the circumstances of sexual assaults prosecuted. Then whack in the reporting bias that needs to be overcome to get to trial.

                      The thing is, especially northD is actually incredibly safe, street-wise. Every so often some jerk thinks “drunk chicks = easy target”, but there are a lot of eyes and a number of organisations that routinely travel the entire neighbourhood. So even if an attack is successful (and drunks with rings on their fingers can throw a mean punch), there is normally somebody who saw something before, during or after, and collectively they provide enough info for the police to pick up an individual with a high degree of accuracy. But as for “he said/she said” incidents between flatmates, class groups, or clubs, that’s an issue that could be an iceberg.

                    • weka …
                      12 November 2013 at 11:15 pm

                      Vto, you say short skirts, men, sex as if none of us are aware of this. Duh, of course we are. What you don’t say, but imply, and should really be overt about, is that short skirts lead to men being sexually arosed which leads to them raping the woman with the short skirt*. If you were just honest about this, instead of insultingly saying that we haven’t thought about these things, then maybe people would respond to you.

                      So, I guess we should stop wearing short skirts and wear burkas instead. And not go to parties without chaperones. And not have relationships with men (because afaik that is the one consistent risk factor).

                      *if that’s not what you mean, then bloody well say what you do mean.

                    • just saying …
                      13 November 2013 at 7:45 am

                      I keep referring to and that is that sex culture which I expressed by example of woman wearing short skirt can make men think “legs, attractive, sex” and the consequences that can flow from that. Is it natural for men to think that? Do women know that?

                      Laughed Out Loud.

                      Do you get what people are saying to you Vto?
                      Do you understand that most women, and many men, find male bodies attractive. But precious few women believe that sexual feelings bestow any rights or entitlements. It’s an outrageous idea when you think about it. Very ‘slave owner at the plantation’.

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 7:55 am

                      weka, seriously, please stop reading things which are not said. Your habit of assumption is pointless. Examples;

                      “Vto, you say short skirts, men, sex as if none of us are aware of this. Duh, of course we are.” ….. No, what I said is that it has not been considered in detail in relation to this big issue. Re-read it and you will see.

                      “What you don’t say, but imply, and should really be overt about, is that short skirts lead to men being sexually arosed which leads to them raping the woman with the short skirt*.”….. I have never said that at all and no such implication exists – that is your subjective reading. I said the link needs more robust consideration. Instead is subject to overly simple “blaming the victim, blaming the victim”.

                      “So, I guess we should stop wearing short skirts and wear burkas instead. And not go to parties without chaperones. And not have relationships with men (because afaik that is the one consistent risk factor).”…… and again.

                      Your whole post is assumption.

                      I originally said several days ago that the relationship between sex culture (miley cyrus) and rape culture (roast busters) has not been examined sufficiently. Michelle A-court admitted such yesterday and I take that as an indicator confirmation of what I was saying and the relevance of this intersection.

                      I enjoy swapping posts with you from time to time but I recall some time ago you said you assess what people do and say on the basis of their characteristics (race, mana, gender, etc) rather than an objective assessment of said acts and words, and I think that manner leads you to all these incorrect assumptions and things you wrongly see between the lines.

                      Do you have any thoughts on the intersection of sex culture and rape culture and the implications for this big problem issue which roast-busters has highlighted?

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 8:09 am

                      miravox and just saying…

                      You each refer to that unexamined question… which no comment has been made on. All I have done is stated that this question has not been robustly considered. I have not offered any thoughts on the actual question – merely its existence. But everyone seems to jump to all sorts of conclusions about what I might consider answers to the question.

                      But to offer some 2c….
                      Imo there is a link between sex culture (miley cyrus) and rape culture (roast busters). Rape of course involves many complex factors and relationships. However it is difficult to ignore the fact that both cultures involve male erections being inserted into female vaginas. Not sure how this fact can be ignored to the extent it is in this debate, but it is in my opinion, as evidenced by the likes of your replies and others.

                      Another link is that rape is to a large extent about objectification and Miley Cyrus intentionally highlights this objectification (witness twerk of teddy bear at music awards).

                      Sex culture and rape culture have a link, reasonably strong in my opinion, and these would be two reasons why.

                      But as said, there are of course many other complex facets to be taken into account as well.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 November 2013 at 8:13 am

                      The “…big problem issue…” is rape culture. Pretending that dress codes make people safer is rape culture.

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 8:20 am

                      OAK, do you not see a link between sex culture and rape culture? No credibility in the two examples provided above (both involve erections and vaginas, both involve objectification of women)?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 November 2013 at 8:23 am

                      Yes, there might be a vague smidgeon of a shadow of a possibility that rape culture produces behavioural phenomena. Ya think?

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 8:38 am

                      Well yes possible I guess. How such intersection may have arisen is a fair point but more important imo would be the effects of that intersection in todays day. Can rape culture (the problem which needs addressing) be attended to in part by looking at our current sex culture? If rape culture was expunged from society but Miley Cyrus continued to twerk people on stage would rape culture return in some form?

                    • miravox …
                      13 November 2013 at 8:48 am

                      “Imo there is a link between sex culture (miley cyrus) and rape culture (roast busters). “

                      You didn’t answer my questions either, vto… let me give my answers – Miley won’t get raped no matter what she (doesn’t)wear, because she is powerful.

                      The second question, imo – No, attractive legs think sex does not equal attractive legs, boobs, eyes, hair. bright red lipstick, whatever… think rape. However natural the progression is from attractive legs to thinking about sex, it is not a natural progression to think rape.

                      As I said, personally I don’t like the raunch culture, that’s a preference, and I can understand completely that you’d like it to disappear. But rape culture will not disappear with it, it will just morph. Raunch culture might be an excuse for rape culture these days, but I reckon a few of us (definitely one of us) here have been sexually abused and raped by over-sexed young men before sex culture, as you put it, existed. I’m not sure what the excuse was back then that made these young men think that girls were up for it, but I’m thinking powerful guys, less powerful girls has a lot to do with it.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 November 2013 at 9:03 am

                      “…intersection…”

                      No. I said “produces”. Your desire to control how women dress and behave isn’t a product of rape culture though: it is rape culture.

                    • Crunchtime …
                      13 November 2013 at 9:22 am

                      A’Court was way off base and so are you vto.

                      Rape culture has existed for centuries. Rape culture was old, ingrained and long established when “sex culture” started growing in the 60s and 70s, bloomed in the 80s and has pretty much been running rampant ever since.

                      What has this sex culture done to rape culture? Made it worse? No. Exposed it. Made it clearer what it actually is. Hopefully it will eventually be clearer to you vto. Until it does, you will continue to sound like a misogynist.

                      Not impressed with A’Court either.. goes to show that not only men help perpetuate rape culture.

                    • weka …
                      13 November 2013 at 9:44 am

                      vto, “Do you have any thoughts on the intersection of sex culture and rape culture and the implications for this big problem issue which roast-busters has highlighted?”

                      Yes I do. And this is a topic that many people have thought about and discussesd for a long time, so please stop saying that it’s never been looked at properly. There are very obvious reasons why people aren’t engaging with this topic with YOU.

                      I notice in your reply to me that you still haven’t clarifyied what YOU think when you say men, legs, sex, and why you would bring that up in a discussion about rape. You also didn’t deny when I suggested that you are linking sex and rape.

                      And btw, men, legs, sex isn’t ‘sex culture’. It’s just human sexuality that some men find some women sexually attractive in some ways. I still have no idea what you are on about because you STILL haven’t said. So I am going to assume again (because you leave no option), that you are trying to make a connection between what women wear and how men respond to that sexually. I still have no idea why you would bring that up in this conversation abou rape unless you were implying that short skirts = men’s arousal = leads to rape.

                      You keep asking these unclear, leading questions and then don’t like where they go. I suggest you just man up and say what YOU think.

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 10:37 am

                      OAK, your assumption that I want to control what women wear is just plain silly and reflects your preconceived approach to things.

                      miravox, it seems you don’t think there is an intersection between sex/raunch culture and rape culture. I don’t think that’s right. You also say that rape has existed since day dot and it no doubt has. Sex culture as it is today has not existed since day dot but sex has. Sexual attractions does not lead naturally to rape, as you say, but I doubt that it has no effect in the road to rape, which road contains many other and larger potholes as well.

                      I am not saying sex culture is an excuse for rape culture. I am suggesting that there is a link – amongst much more. No excuse.

                      Crunchtime, sure sex culture as it is today has not existed in this form, but sexual attraction has. Todays Miley Cyruses as you say, highlight it more than previously. And as for misogynist – feel free to prove the allegation. I could similarly call the people stating that it is a male problem man-haters given it is women who majority raise these sons….. dig,poke..

                      weka,…….. “Yes I do. And this is a topic that many people have thought about and discussesd for a long time, so please stop saying that it’s never been looked at properly. There are very obvious reasons why people aren’t engaging with this topic with YOU.”
                      Ignoring the personal …… I maintain that it has NOT been discussed sufficiently and the example I provided to support that contention was Michelle A’court’s lack of understanding of the dichotomy. I don’t make that claim on the basis of responses to me but on the basis of wider public discussion on this issue – Michelle helpfully provided an example of that.

                      “I notice in your reply to me that you still haven’t clarifyied what YOU think when you say men, legs, sex, and why you would bring that up in a discussion about rape.”
                      Yes I have. I outlined two reasons – both involve erections and vaginas, both involve objectification, amongst more.

                      “You also didn’t deny when I suggested that you are linking sex and rape.”
                      See recent posts just above. This my entire point – examination of sex culture and rape culture and its intersection, if any.

                      “And btw, men, legs, sex isn’t ‘sex culture’. It’s just human sexuality that some men find some women sexually attractive in some ways. I still have no idea what you are on about because you STILL haven’t said.”
                      I give up. It is all outlined above.

                      “So I am going to assume again (because you leave no option), that you are trying to make a connection between what women wear and how men respond to that sexually. I still have no idea why you would bring that up in this conversation abou rape unless you were implying that short skirts = men’s arousal = leads to rape.”
                      I give up again. See all above. I have explained why it has been brought up.

                      “You keep asking these unclear, leading questions and then don’t like where they go. I suggest you just man up and say what YOU think.”
                      weka, there is nothing unclear. The fact you think it is leading reflects on your approach and manner, as stated further above. Your constant assumptions are yours alone. Don’t assume that by asking a question I am trying to lead the conversation to a certain outcome.

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 10:47 am

                      weka, let me try and be as clear as possible what I am saying here…

                      1. There is a problem with rape culture. (a given)
                      2. The intersection between sex culture and rape culture has not been examined sufficiently. (Michelle Acourt example)
                      3. In my opinion there is a link between sex culture and rape culture (erections, vaginas, objectification).
                      4. I seek others views on the above.

                      That’s it.

                      Nothing more.

                      Kapiche?

                    • Crunchtime …
                      13 November 2013 at 11:15 am

                      vto, your replies to weka in this thread are rude. You need to re-examine your approach to this and consider where others are coming from and where you are pushing them to. It’s not just about your one little wheelbarrow that you are pushing here. Into other’s legs, painfully.

                      There has been plenty of replies indicating that there has indeed been sufficient discussion between raunch/sex culture and rape culture.

                      Rape culture has been around far longer. It is not caused by sex culture. If anything it is exposed by it. As it were.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 November 2013 at 11:48 am

                      vto:

                      2: yes, it has. For many years, ever since women started wearing mini skirts. There is no link other than that rape culture molds itself around the dominant culture of the day. But should “sex culture” change tomorrow, rape culture will not diminish – it will just mold itself around the new cultural norms.

                      3: In my opinion, not only are you wrong, but your concentration on your own pet bugbear (omg, Miley twerks!) actually inhibits a full-frontal confrontation with rape culture. It is an excellent demonstration of how rape culture protects itself through cultural changes.

                    • weka …
                      13 November 2013 at 11:49 am

                      vto,

                      1. There is a problem with rape culture. (a given)

                      Yes.

                      2. The intersection between sex culture and rape culture has not been examined sufficiently. (Michelle Acourt example)

                      I haven’t heard the A’Court piece, but am inclined not to take your view on it, given the last time you did this, you completely misrepresented something to ts readers (it turned out the person you were referring to was John Ansell).

                      I will say again, that many people have examined sex culture and rape culture. That you are not aware of this doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

                      3. In my opinion there is a link between sex culture and rape culture (erections, vaginas, objectification).

                      But you don’t say what the link is. I will say again: you appear to think that sex leads to rape, but you don’t provide any evidence or credible theory for that. Many of us here disagree with your basic premise (sexual arousal can lead to rape), which is why this discussion is not progressing past this point.

                      4. I seek others views on the above.

                      You are getting people’s views. Why not tell us what YOU think about sex culture and rape?

                      Edit: thank-you Crunchtime 🙂

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 12:20 pm

                      rude crunchtime? where? I consider people putting words in my mouth to be rude.

                      mcflock, I have not concentrated on a bugbear. It has been made abundantly clear that I consider this part-issue to be only a minor part of the rape problem and have been at pains to state that on many posts. Please don’t say I consider it to be some kind of be-all and end-all.

                      weka, I consider that I have already answered that.

                      But sheesh, you know the conclusion I come to after yet another talk-swap with you is that people seem to see the world differently and engage it differently to a very significant material extent. I think this is the problem we have and it leads to these communication problems…

                      … anyway, if I might have one further bash at the issue of whether a link between sex culture and rape culture has been examined sufficiently… I offered an example sample that it hasn’t in A’Court’s puzzlement at the dichotomy. Would anyone like to offer some evidence as to why they consider that it has been examined sufficiently?

                    • Crunchtime …
                      13 November 2013 at 12:50 pm

                      Rude to weka in the post you made immediately above mine where I called you rude.

                      Many other instances where you get all hot and bothered, offended that others are misinterpreting you but never actually explaining that you mean anything different from what they say you mean. An ugly combination of insistent, pushy and vague.

                      Let me put it plainly: suggesting any link between “sex culture” and “rape culture” is suggesting there is a link between sex and rape. THERE IS NONE.

                      Suggesting there is a link between the two is also utterly distasteful. It’s a backhanded way of blaming the victims for behaving in a sexual way.

                      Kapiche?

                    • weka …
                      13 November 2013 at 12:51 pm

                      Ok, you think that sex leads to rape, and that women twerking leads to men raping. We’re all clear on that now, thanks. Most of us here disagree with you.

                      A’Court didn’t say what you said she did. See the convo futher down the page

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/will-jt-be-a-labour-mp/#comment-727094

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 1:11 pm

                      “Ok, you think that sex leads to rape, and that women twerking leads to men raping. We’re all clear on that now, thanks”

                      ffs having fun on that planet of yours?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 November 2013 at 2:04 pm

                      […]I consider this part-issue to be only a minor part of the rape problem and have been at pains to state that on many posts.

                      The reason you’ve had to state that on many posts is because it’s wrong.

                      It’s not even a minor part of the “rape problem”.

                      The entirety of the “rape problem” is in the raping.

                      And removing a minor part of discussion about the “rape problem” away from the raping is actually refusing to confront the “rape problem”. Because the “rape problem” thrives when not confronted, this helps perpetuate the “rape problem”.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      13 November 2013 at 2:13 pm

                      McFlock, we’ve had some serious and unnecessary personal arguments but I’d really like to congratulate you on your contributions on this issue.

                    • weka …
                      13 November 2013 at 2:30 pm

                      “Ok, you think that sex leads to rape, and that women twerking leads to men raping. We’re all clear on that now, thanks”

                      ffs having fun on that planet of yours?

                      And yet you don’t deny or correct what I have said.

                    • Tracey …
                      13 November 2013 at 2:41 pm

                      vto wrote

                      “The intersection between sex culture and rape culture has not been examined sufficiently. (Michelle Acourt example)”

                      A’Court is NOT a researcher. Just because she says something you agree with doesn’t validate it.

                      Have you looked for such research? Have you contacted Rape Crisis or the Rape Prevention Education Trust to find out?

                      Have you considered that such research might not have been carried out because rape and sexual assault isn’t as much of a priority as some say it is?

                      Have you googled?

                • just saying …
                  11 November 2013 at 4:19 pm

                  I was answering Tat Loo (right above my answer) who said :
                  In court, it is one of the questions which will definitely be asked, alongside questions of coercion etc.
                  Who was referring to rape complainants specifically.

                • greywarbler …
                  11 November 2013 at 4:19 pm

                  I put this in the other night but don’t know if anyone noticed it so I’ll pop it in here.

                  I wonder if there is a list of requests prepared (for politicians) for the Nov 16 walk with new protections to prevent more sexual victims? It would be a lasting thing to have beyond the end of the walk -perhaps a general list of actions aimed at preventing it occurring again.

                  If one or various lists could be prepared and copied around the country and printed on coloured paper that matched the ribbons adopted by various groups, teal or red, for two that are concerned, it would make a colourful visual symbolic effect.

                  • karol …
                    11 November 2013 at 4:36 pm

                    greywarbler, I’ve added a link today, to my post on next Saturday’s day of action, to an Auckland press release. That PR includes a list of actions/aims (which,as it happens I can still paste from the last copy & paste):

                    On Saturday November 16th at 2pm we will be marching from Britomart to Myers Park as part of the National Day of Action Against Rape Culture. We are calling on our communities and government to start taking rape seriously and lead initiatives that support our survivors and initiate a culture shift.

                    • We want rape crisis centres adequately and sustainably funded.
                    • We want educational programmes that focus on prevention and awareness.
                    • We want the police to put measures in place to allow for better support of survivors.
                    • We want the Law Commission report into pre-trial and trial processes for sexual assault victims to be reinstated immediately.
                    • We want implementation of recommendations by TOAH-NNest and Wellington Rape Crisis

                    • greywarbler …
                      11 November 2013 at 9:35 pm

                      karol
                      Thanks for that. Sound good. Will Paula Bennett be appearing or receiving petitions or such I wonder. Or anyone from the gummint?

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    11 November 2013 at 4:37 pm

                    coming back for seconds gw.

                • wtl …
                  11 November 2013 at 7:23 pm

                  I know I said I’m off this thread. I haven’t read all the comments but it seems that the discussion is still going nowhere, so I’ll try one time to see if I can add something of use.

                  vto and redlogix: It is never a good appropriate to discuss the the victim’s clothing and behaviour when it comes to sexual assault. I understand where you are coming from but please consider this:

                  1) As far as I know, there is no evidence that females who dress or act in a certain way are more prone to becoming victims of sexual assault than other females. So, even though you think that your arguments make common sense, it is not clear whether or not they are true in the real world.

                  2) Discussing a victim’s clothing or behaviour tends to lead to the victim feeling like they are at fault. And sexual assault is already something that is very hard to deal with, so the last thing we want to do is make it worse for the victim. Therefore, even if you think you are right, it is much better that you refrain from talking about such things for the benefit of the victims.

                  3) People who commit sexual assault tend to use the same lines of reasoning to rationalise what they have done and avoid accepting any blame or guilt. Therefore, even if you know in your mind that the perpetrator is entirely to blame, by perpetuating arguments regarding the victim’s clothing or behaviour you may be inadvertently encouraging or supporting sexual assault.

                  In other words, just don’t go there. Instead, there are other ways of talking about how to prevent sexual assault which stay well away from things that can be considered victim blaming.

                  • ann kerr …
                    13 November 2013 at 9:45 am

                    just adding to your excellent post, I read some research that when rapists were asked later what their victims were wearing, or if they were unknown to them, what their victim looked like they were unable to say. I’d love to give the reference for this and I probably could did it out, but don’t have it to hand.

                    I work in the field. If anyone has any doubt (ad they shouldn’t) of the damage that rape does to the mental health and psychological well-being of the victim, they need to do some serious research on this. The impact can be and often is both devastating and long term.

                    BTW for the life of me I cannot see why they haven’t arrested those guys (the RBs) wtf?????

          • ann kerr 26.1.1.1.2
            10 November 2013 at 5:32 pm

            You are bringing up red herrings here.

            The first girl who made the formal complaint had to move school because she was been bullied by a perpetrator. So although I cannot be 100% sure, it seems extremely unlikely “she went back for more”. So even if others did “go back for me” lets just stick to this case.

            Secondly, san we rely on what these witnesses are saying? Were they there? There has been some support for the RB’s from friends including young women who are trying to protect these boys.

            There is also a phenomenon where people who have been traumatized allow themselves to be re-victimized again (think of women who go back to situations where they have been beaten by a partner). They are vulnerable and have internalized the idea that “That’s all I am worth”. This may apply to any young girls who “went back for more” if this is what did happen.

            What I am struggling to understand is how when there has been one formal complaint, three informal complaints, admitting to the crimes on social media sites by the perpetrators and even an apology from one of the perpetrators, that there have been no arrests? Even in the last week, when I heard that search warrants of the boys homes obtained and materials recovered (why not two years ago) WTF is going on?

            • RedLogix 26.1.1.1.2.1
              10 November 2013 at 6:29 pm

              There is also a phenomenon where people who have been traumatized allow themselves to be re-victimized again (think of women who go back to situations where they have been beaten by a partner).

              Yes I get that. But you have to admit it may well have been a point lost on the boys involved.

              What I am struggling to understand is how when there has been one formal complaint, three informal complaints, admitting to the crimes on social media sites by the perpetrators and even an apology from one of the perpetrators, that there have been no arrests?

              Again maybe we simply don’t know enough information.

              From what I can make out, underage drinking and sex is extremely common these days. I’m not sure we want the Police criminally prosecuting every case of it as serious rape. The distinguishing feature here is that the young men/boys involved went the one step way too far and boasted about it on social media.

              As I said before, the separate components of the RB scenario are not unusual; teenagers drink unwisely, have sex unwisely and post very unwise things on the net. It is the convergence of all three in this case which is has clearly disturbed many people… yet has still left the Police is a difficult situation.

              • McFlock …
                11 November 2013 at 5:30 pm

                The allegations aren’t just that they “had sex unwisely” – the allegations include stupefication and rape where the other party was explicitly saying “no”, in addition to the age thing.

              • weka …
                12 November 2013 at 2:02 pm

                From what I can make out, underage drinking and sex is extremely common these days. I’m not sure we want the Police criminally prosecuting every case of it as serious rape. The distinguishing feature here is that the young men/boys involved went the one step way too far and boasted about it on social media.

                RB, please take some time to understand what I am saying, because this is why so many people are pissed at what you have been posting.

                Underage drinking and sex does not = rape. What you have done above is conflate the two things (drink/sex and rape). You make a statement about drinking/sex, and then a statement that we don’t want the police prosecuting every case of it as rape. I take it to mean not to prosecute drunken sex as rape. Well of course not. They’re not the same things, and I have to wonder now if you truly don’t get this.

                Now with regards to the rape gang, WE don’t have to know what happened. We are not the police nor the courts/judge/jury. What we can do is form opinions about rape based on what is being described to us. eg if a 13 year old girl says that she had 3 older teen males trying to have sex with her and she didn’t want it and tried to get it to stop, and it went on for a while but eventually stopped, that IS sexual assault (that’s an actual description from one of the young women involved). This is exactly the same situation as Assange. At this distance we have no way of knowing what happened, but if what the women say is true, then it IS rape.

                If you think that what the 13 year old said didn’t happen (eg she is lying, or mistaken), then say that. Don’t redefine it as sex.

        • weka 26.1.1.2
          10 November 2013 at 4:58 pm

          just saying, I also walked away from RL’s comment earlier. For me it’s not just that the first question is insenstive, it’s that we don’t know why it is asked. We are left to guess or speculate. I’m not going there today. If RL wants to say why he would ask such a thing, and why the police would ask such a thing, then maybe someone can put that in a rape culture context. Until then it feels like another attempt to raise a discussion about something in an indirect way, and I think that is fraught with all sorts of mess. It’s also possible that RL doesn’t understand how that question could be taken badly, but I see he hasn’t come back for clarification, so again, I’m leaving the ball in his court instead of engaging.

          • RedLogix 26.1.1.2.1
            10 November 2013 at 5:09 pm

            For me it’s not just that the first question is insenstive, it’s that we don’t know why it is asked.

            Tat Loo has answered the question. It speaks to the question of ‘consent’. (Yes I’m fully aware that none of the participants under the age of 16 could legally consent). At the very least it addresses the question of willing participation.

            And if you don’t think a Court should consider this, then what test do you think should apply?

            • weka 26.1.1.2.1.1
              10 November 2013 at 5:20 pm

              Edit: RL, if I have the wrong end of the stick with where you are going with this, please let me know. I would really like to understand where you are coming from.

              ___

              “It speaks to the question of ‘consent’”

              No, it doesn’t. It speaks of you questioning issues of consent. I can think of all sorts of reasons why some 13yr olds would go repeatedly into that situation and none of them constitute consent. Really, how many fucking times does this have to be explained. Previous action doesn’t = consent. Knowing that you are in the presence of a rapist doesn’t = consent.

              “At the very least it addresses the question of willing participation.”

              How? You don’t know what went on.

              I also think that the fact that we don’t know what happened is irrelevant. We are discussing hypotheticals based on a few facts available from the media. So please do tell us under what hypothetical situation you think that returning to that social setting = consent.

              I have no doubt that there are girls and women who have had consensual sex with the rape club men. But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about girls who were raped (see DtB’s comment that you replied to). If you want to talk about consensual sex, then say so.

              Like some of the other conversations we’ve had around rape culture, I find your comments now to be very unclear. If you think that girls returning to a potentially dangerous situation somehow means they contribute their or other people’s rape, please just say so. As it is, it’s really unclear what point you are trying to make.

              • RedLogix …
                10 November 2013 at 5:43 pm

                At the age of 14 I very nearly, seriously died of exposure on the side of Ruapehu. I came within literal minutes of making a small headline the next day.

                It was the result of my own inexperience and choices. I could also point to a wider context in which this dangerous situation arose, but for myself I took full responsibility for what happened and took care to learn from it.

                It’s the complete infantalising of the girls involved that troubles me here. We want them to have rights in this world, yet we deny them any responsibilities whatsoever. Moreover we are pretending that their choices had no consequences.

                Now you and I live in one world, but in the mind of a 15-17 yr old boy (nope they are not ‘rape club men’ … they aren’t even 18 yet) when a girl turns up for drinking and sex a second or third time that pretty much equals consent. Not legal consent, not moral consent, not even very well thought through consent and certainly not one that you or I would recognise, but in the real world of stupid, inexperienced, testosterone peaking young boys … it may well have looked like consent.

                That was my third question …are we going to criminally prosecute for rape every teenager under the age of 16 who has sex?

                Maybe that’s the difference here. I totally accept these kids were putting themselves into dangerous situations here, like I did all those years ago on the mountain, but I don’t feel like condemning them for being young and foolish. I want them to learn from it and grow up.

                • Naturesong …
                  10 November 2013 at 6:38 pm

                  Really?

                  You’re arguing that men, like the elements on the side of a mountain, have no free will and are a force of nature? If a woman is vulnerable in the presence of a man she will be raped?

                  You can fuck right off. Seriously, fuck off.

                  • RedLogix …
                    10 November 2013 at 8:10 pm

                    You’re arguing that men, like the elements on the side of a mountain, have no free will and are a force of nature? If a woman is vulnerable in the presence of a man she will be raped?

                    You blatantly put words into my mouth. It’s an old debating trick that is great for derailing a conversation that has taken a turn you don’t like.

                    My point was .. I was 14. I was full of my own ignorance and sense of invulnerability. Do you think there was no lesson for me to learn there?

                    Equally do you think it is wise for 13 and 14 yr old girls to choose to go again to a party where they know that last time they got very drunk and finished up having group sex? Do you think there was no lesson to learn there?

                    The core problem with the ‘victim is never ever responsible for anything’ logic, is that with only a minor shift of emphasis … it can be applied equally to the perpetrator as well. It essentially says that there are never any lessons to be learnt from life and that anything that ever goes wrong is always someone else’s fault.

                    What you are maybe arguing is that women are always vulnerable, child-like creatures who need men to take full responsibility for all things sexual. To ensure that regardless of the scenario they never, ever mis-read a situation, mis-cue a moment of arousal, or simply get caught up in a stupid situation that later everyone regrets … and it’s always, always the man’s responsibility to get this right every time he has sex.

                    Or face vilification and 20 year imprisonment. What’s the opposite of misogyny again?

                    (And in the RB scenario we are discussing … try and keep in mind that everyone involved are just kids really. They should not have been drinking, having sex and boasting about it on FB … but quite how all this makes them the villains of the century is a little lost on me.)

                    • Naturesong …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:26 pm

                      You blatantly put words into my mouth. It’s an old debating trick that is great for derailing a conversation that has taken a turn you don’t like.”
                      No, I did not. You compared 16-18 year old young men preying on young women and girls to an implacable force of nature.

                      “What you are maybe arguing is that women are always vulnerable, child-like creatures who need men to take full responsibility for all things sexual”
                      I’m not arguing that at all. I’ve met women who are very knowledgable and forthright about about sex and some who are less knowledgable and more timid, some who have been very liberated sexually, and some who are very repressed, I’ve met women who smart, some who are stupid, women who are strong, and some who have very little willpower, women who are wonderful, and some who are just assholes. Unsurprisingly, I’ve met men who fit into all these categories as well.

                      “The core problem with the ‘victim is never ever responsible for anything’ logic, is that with only a minor shift of emphasis … it can be applied equally to the perpetrator as well. It essentially says that there are never any lessons to be learnt from life and that anything that ever goes wrong is always someone else’s fault.”
                      This is the crux of it. If a woman or girl is raped, it doesn’t matter if she was drunk, or wearing a short skirt, or was naked.
                      It’s not the womans fault – it’s the fault of the person who chose to rape her

                      “Equally do you think it is wise for 13 and 14 yr old girls to choose to go again to a party where they know that last time they got very drunk and finished up having group sex? Do you think there was no lesson to learn there?”
                      Not sure where you got this from. My understanding is that some girls who went to a party, got drunk and were subsequently raped by 2 or more young men went to the police and lodged a complaint.

                    • just saying …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:38 pm

                      I once spent a couple of days discussing the minutiae of consent with you in good faith, including specific situations from my own life. It was a complete waste of time. So I’ll just say this: We have sovereignty over our own bodies. If I touch another, even gently, against their will it is assault. If I touch another sexually against their will it is sexual assault. If I have sex with someone who is not conscious it is rape or sexual assault depending on the details. Performing sexual acts on the unconscious or stupefied body of another is not sex – sex is something that two or more people do willingly, together, not something one forces on another, or does to another’s body while they are not present in it.

                      Consent is not the vague, nebulous concept you continually make it out to be. If it were really so difficult to determine surely one who respected another’s bodily autonomy and integrity would ask. You know, if they cared about what the other wanted, and weren’t just using a quasi-ambiguity to get away with forcing themselves on an unwilling person.

                    • wtl …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:45 pm

                      I’m sure there have been many boys that have had sexual contact with girls when the boys themselves where either too drunk to consent or too shy to say no, especially given the societal expectation that males always want sex. Yet the discussion here has entirely been framed in the manner that the boys are always at fault and the girls are always the victims. It is probably not intentional, but I think it is something worth reflecting on.

                    • just saying …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:51 pm

                      wtl
                      My comment was gender neutral. We all have sovereignty over our bodies

                    • wtl …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:57 pm

                      just saying: I wasn’t referring specifically to your comment. Have a look at how the whole thread is going.

                    • Naturesong …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:00 pm

                      wtl
                      Yes, consent applies whether you are male or female, Just Saying explains it better than I can.

                      However in this particular case the girls were the victims, and the perpetrators were young men which is why I have used gender specific pronouns.

                    • wtl …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:15 pm

                      But why focus entirely on this case? Let’s step away from the particular case for a moment – after all, it seems to me that many of comments here and elsewhere have been of a general nature, regarding teenagers having sex and underage drinking.

                      It is all very easy to say that issues of consent apply equally to boys and girls. Yet how many boys would go to the police after sexual contact with a girl which they did not consent to? I think the number would be very close to zero.

                      My point was that the discussion here and surrounding this case has served to strongly reinforce the stereotypes that males at always at fault and females are always the victims. And I’m not sure that is a good thing.

                    • karol …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:23 pm

                      wtl, as far as I’m aware, males are most often the perpetrators of sexual assault and rape, but there are some women who do commit such acts.

                      The victims are most often female, but there are also a significant minority of cases when a male is the victim of another male, plus some cases where the male is a victim of a sexual assault by a female.

                      There is also the issue that most men are stronger than most women, putting a sizable number of women at a disadvantage.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:29 pm

                      In the general case. Are we about to criminalise a lot of young people here. And to what end? There is no ability in the law for someone under 16 to give consent, period, to anyone who is 16 or older. Not for sex, not for kissing, not for touching. In the law it’s all indecent acts on an under 16 year old (up to 7 years in an adult prison), or worse.

                      Being a 16 or 17 year old (male or female) with a 15 year old partner (male or female) is not the place to be. The older person is culpable to the full extent of the law.

                    • wtl …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:32 pm

                      Karol: Are the statistics that clear cut when heavy drinking is involved and all parties involved are teenagers? Would young males even consider sexual contact with girls without active consent (on the males part) sexual assault (even though it may be)? I doubt I’m the only one to think that a lot of young males do in fact experience sexual contact from girls that they do not actively consent to.

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:33 pm

                      You compared 16-18 year old young men preying on young women and girls to an implacable force of nature.

                      Only in your mind. See here’s the problem. I’m saying one thing … and you are reading another. You quite insist you are right. Despite the fact that I’m quite adamant that I know what I said was different. Crossed wires as usual.

                      Yet maybe you have a point, perhaps I’m not all that far off in comparing sex to a force of nature. Yes humans can control it most of the time, but you only have to look at the Catholic priesthood to see what happens when you pretend it can be made to go away completely. We are talking about the deepest river of adult human experience here.

                      My humble observation is that the most important difference between the two genders is that female sexuality, while more intense and stronger than men’s, is more ‘programmable’ .. in other words more amenable to change due to cultural or life-experiences. Women are totally accustomed to thinking about sex in terms of choices, of selecting and controlling. At a deep biological level they value this power of choice very highly.

                      For this reason I think one thing most women don’t get about male sexuality is just how ‘hard-wired’ it is by contrast. For men the prime sexual question is not choice but opportunity. Indeed just what a remarkable an adaptation it is (look about at the predatory, combative male behaviour of almost all other mammal species for a contrast) that human males actually behave with as much restraint and cooperation as they do … almost all of the time.

                      But once a male gets the signal that a female is interested (regardless of whether the signal was correctly interpreted or not) there is an instinctive hard-wired response set in motion. The extraordinary thing is that human males 99.999% of the time actually moderate that response correctly. With age and experience you get better at it. Inexperience, ignorance and alcohol definitely drive to getting it wrong. ( And not I’m not arguing any kind of justification for rape. That is usually driven by an entirely different motive rooted in anger, shame or exploitation. Rape, despite it’s sexual context is not not driven by normal sexual desire.)

                      That’s more or less how I see this whole RB scenario .. a potent mix of alcohol, ignorance and inexperience creating a ‘got it badly wrong’ situation I’d strongly suggest everyone now hugely regrets. And why men and women have so much trouble communicating to each other about it.

                      But if you think throwing all the males involved in prison will make all this somehow better please then go right ahead … you are entitled to your opinion. Otherwise feel free to misinterpret me as usual.

                    • karol …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:34 pm

                      Tat, are you saying just leave the young ‘uns to it, and if some young people happen to be coerced into unwanted sex, raped etc, – well so be it, because it’s all so similar to consent between minors?

                      In the RB case, 4 young women complained to the police. The police should just ignore them?

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      10 November 2013 at 9:58 pm

                      karol – no I meant what I said. There is no room in the law for someone under 16 to consent to any sexual activity with anyone 16 or older. And the prison sentences are severe.

                    • Naturesong …
                      10 November 2013 at 10:41 pm

                      @RedLogix

                      “You compared 16-18 year old young men preying on young women and girls to an implacable force of nature.”

                      Only in your mind. See here’s the problem. I’m saying one thing … and you are reading another. You quite insist you are right. Despite the fact that I’m quite adamant that I know what I said was different. Crossed wires as usual.

                      Actually you did.
                      Your analagy compared you placing yourself in danger on the side of a mountain with the girls putting themselves in danger by drinking at a party.
                      I’ve pointed out that your analagy is flawed, unless you think that the weather can decide not to get cold and kill the person on the mountain?

                      My humble observation is that the most important difference between the two genders is that female sexuality, while more intense and stronger than men’s, is more ‘programmable’ .. in other words more amenable to change due to cultural or life-experiences. Women are totally accustomed to thinking about sex in terms of choices, of selecting and controlling. At a deep biological level they value this power of choice very highly.

                      For this reason I think one thing most women don’t get about male sexuality is just how ‘hard-wired’ it is by contrast. For men the prime sexual question is not choice but opportunity. Indeed just what a remarkable an adaptation it is (look about at the predatory, combative male behaviour of almost all other mammal species for a contrast) that human males actually behave with as much restraint and cooperation as they do … almost all of the time.

                      But once a male gets the signal that a female is interested (regardless of whether the signal was correctly interpreted or not) there is an instinctive hard-wired response set in motion. The extraordinary thing is that human males 99.999% of the time actually moderate that response correctly. With age and experience you get better at it. Inexperience, ignorance and alcohol definitely drive to getting it wrong. ( And not I’m not arguing any kind of justification for rape. That is usually driven by an entirely different motive rooted in anger, shame or exploitation. Rape, despite it’s sexual context is not not driven by normal sexual desire.)

                      Your argument is incoherent, not sure what your point is here.

                      That’s more or less how I see this whole RB scenario .. a potent mix of alcohol, ignorance and inexperience creating a ‘got it badly wrong’ situation I’d strongly suggest everyone now hugely regrets. And why men and women have so much trouble communicating to each other about it.

                      This is factually incorrect. The young men specifically targetted young women and girls, stupified them with alcohol, allegedly raped them, and bragged about it. Telling one of the girls “they can’t unrape you” is not youthful hijinx.

                      But if you think throwing all the males involved in prison will make all this somehow better please then go right ahead … you are entitled to your opinion. Otherwise feel free to misinterpret me as usual.

                      Please don’t mis-represent me. I haven’t advocated for a prison sentence. My point is that there is prima facie evidence, and that the young men should have been arrested and charged.
                      You can tell by the way I linked the appropriate legislation the young men could have been charged under, and castigated the police for not arresting and charging them

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 1:40 am

                      @Naturesong.

                      Your analagy compared you placing yourself in danger on the side of a mountain with the girls putting themselves in danger by drinking at a party.

                      I think you’ve taken the wrong component of the analogy. As more than a few people keep pointing out however drunk a girl gets, whatever she wears is not, is never a justification for rape. I would have thought that so obvious its painful to see people repeating it.

                      Next question. You find your 13 yr old daughter way drunk, wearing next to nothing at a party with lots of other drunk young men and women in the early hours of the morning. So far they all seem to be behaving perfectly decently.

                      And you quietly leave happy that all is well?

                      In a different world maybe … but I’m pretty sure how 99% of parents in this country would respond to this scenario. And daughter would not get a free pass either.

                      Your argument is incoherent, not sure what your point is here.

                      Forget it. Hard to communicate something like that in three paragraphs.

                      I haven’t advocated for a prison sentence. My point is that there is prima facie evidence, and that the young men should have been arrested and charged.

                      What having convicted them you’re expecting the courts to discharge without conviction? Whose being incoherent now?

      • Martin 26.1.2
        10 November 2013 at 3:34 pm

        looks like a moral panic to me.

        prima facie

        regardless of who may have led who on or who failed to charge whom.

      • Naturesong 26.1.3
        10 November 2013 at 3:35 pm

        Police admit they could have done more:
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154669

        Professor Mark Henaghan “says the public needs to know, as the reasons given by police are “vague”. “There’s something missing here,” law faculty dean professor Mark Henaghan said. ”
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9372665/Professor-Police-must-explain-Roast-Busters-inaction

        The police have been aware of this for 2 years.
        4 compaints of rape were laid.
        Green Bay High School were aware of it – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11153314

        This is not knee jerk reaction, but a monumental failure by the Police.
        We do not give the Police the benefit of the doubt because they have a long history in failing to investigate and prosocute rape cases.
        It’s long been recognised that there is a culture within the Police force that is at the root of this failure.

        • RedLogix 26.1.3.1
          10 November 2013 at 4:35 pm

          Yes I mostly agree with Prof Henaghan .. there does seem to be “something missing here”. This entire affair so far seems to lack a lot of hard facts or evidence. Even whether these facts should be put into the public domain is another question.

          This of course makes it easy to assume that this a “monumental Police failure” … yet if I were making a root cause analysis into an engineering or technical failure I’d want to know a lot more detail before I drew any final conclusions.

          I don’t think we will ever get that information …. perhaps we shouldn’t get it … so therefore I’m willing to acknowledge the limits of my knowledge and hold back from a conclusion just yet. Sometimes saying “I don’t know for sure” is the truth and the wisest answer.

          At the same time I’m not sure about the Prof’s last para … it’s my understanding that the offending started two years ago … and logically the boys were 15 then. And for obvious reasons the NZ Police don’t go round treating every case of a 15 yr old having sex with a 13 yr old as a ‘serious criminal offense’. If we demanded the Police consistently pursued every current and historic case of this … and convicted to the full weight of the law … our prisons would be very full places indeed.

          I stick to my original comment … this should never have been allowed to go on for so long. It would have been a simple matter of community policing to have hosed it down two years ago by talking to all the participants.

          • Naturesong 26.1.3.1.1
            10 November 2013 at 5:40 pm

            “… it’s my understanding that the offending started two years ago … and logically the boys were 15 then”
            No, two years ago the boys young men were 17, they are now 19.

            “… this should never have been allowed to go on for so long. It would have been a simple matter of community policing to have hosed it down two years ago by talking to all the participants.”
            The boys young men were spoken to by the police and nothing was done. That led them to believe that they could get away with it.
            They published what they were doing online, they admitted it, they documented the abuse.
            And for 2 years the police just watched them do it, while sitting on 4 compaints.

            Monumental failure by the Police is not an assumption, it’s the only logical conclusion.
            Remember also, this this is not a one off, the Police have a long a documented history of failure in this area.

            From the Herald article

            In a 2007 report, Dame Margaret Bazley identified a culture of scepticism within police when dealing with sexual assault complaints. The report urged changes to police attitudes and behaviour.

            You can see the progress year by year here:
            Response of the New Zealand Police to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct: First monitoring report
            Response of the New Zealand Police to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct: Second monitoring report.
            Response of the New Zealand Police to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct: Third monitoring report
            From the 2012 Report

            Details of the relatively poor progress on adult sexual assault investigation

            3.13 In our view, the Police’s progress with adult sexual assault investigation and support services is relatively poor, given that it is five years since the Commission published its recommendations.

            3.14 We have therefore made an overarching recommendation about the Police’s adult sexual assault investigation work. We will also do some additional targeted review of the Police’s progress on this work before our final planned report in 2017.

            There are problems within the Police force with how sexual violence is investigated and prosecuted.

            • Rogue Trooper 26.1.3.1.1.1
              10 November 2013 at 5:42 pm

              Sadly, this is so , no amount of spin can alter the core.

            • RedLogix 26.1.3.1.1.2
              10 November 2013 at 5:51 pm

              Conflicting information in public domain:

              Three close friends of the Roast Busters sex gang say the group’s ringleaders exaggerated many of their sexual exploits to impress their classmates and were now living in fear of their lives due to the public’s reaction to the scandal.

              Three childhood friends of the boys at the centre of the teen sex controversy spoke out for the first time yesterday on condition of anonymity.

              They told Fairfax those in the group made up many of their claims about sex with drunk girls and never targeted those who were under-age.

              The so-called Roast Busters is a group formed by two West Auckland youths, understood to now be aged 17 and 18, who allegedly had sex with girls as young as 13 and then bragged about their exploits on a public Facebook page.

              Police have confirmed a 13-year-old girl laid a formal complaint of rape two years ago but say there was not enough evidence to bring a prosecution. They are now re-examining the case.

              The Roast Busters associates, who deny being part of the group and claim they have never been present during a “roast”, said much of what was posted on social media was “a joke”.

              “I hang out with them and go to parties with them,” one friend said. “They’re good people, one on one. It’s all a persona, a front, like ‘we’re bad, we get with girls’.

              “None of us thought it would come this far. At the start it was a joke between the bros. It wasn’t a big deal but then those two made choices and they have to deal with it. I think making a Facebook page and publicising [the Roast Busters] was the stupidest thing they could have done.”

              The group also denied the Roast Busters specifically targeted under-age girls in order to get them drunk and have group sex with them. “No, it wasn’t like that because you go to parties and you see girls and they lie about their age and stuff.”

              However, a female friend of the pair said it was common knowledge the Roast Busters had sex with 13-year-olds – when the boys themselves were under 16.

              “He’s definitely had sex with people that are under-age,” she said about one of the gang, “but everyone has nowadays. That’s how society is so stuffed up nowadays, people are having sex when they’re 12, 13. It’s just life, it just happens. He’s not the only one who’s done it,” she told the Star-Times yesterday.

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9383119/Friends-of-Roast-Busters-speak-out

              Yes it may well be self-serving drivel … but then again you and I were not there.

              • Eddie …
                10 November 2013 at 5:59 pm

                remember, consent isn’t an issue when we’re talking underage people – they legally can’t consent. If the boy is 16 and the girl is 13 and they have sex, that’s rape.

                • RedLogix …
                  10 November 2013 at 6:03 pm

                  How many prisons do you want building Eddie?

                  • QoT …
                    10 November 2013 at 9:40 pm

                    Enough to house all the rapists. It’s okay, RL, I do understand that this will involve a massive investment in new infrastructure, because thanks to people like you, there are a lot of rapists out there who carry on victimising people safe in the knowledge that you’ll make every excuse for them.

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 November 2013 at 10:49 pm

                      Welcome aboard QoT. I was waiting for your shouty, sweary and uncompromising contribution. Just dissapointed a little that you didn’t manage to insinuate something more sinister about me. Would have been a more effective derailing.

                      Oh ..any idea what proportion of men you define as rapists? Might be worth my while buying some Serco shares.

                      More seriously I realise that humans have spent 10,000 odd years controlling female sexuality with purdah, honour culture, rape, violence and patriarchy.

                      So maybe it’s only reasonable that women have a turn at 10,000 years or so of locking away all the males. Fair’s fair.

                    • Naturesong …
                      10 November 2013 at 11:11 pm

                      @RedLogix
                      About 1 in 4 in the asia pacific region
                      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/an-un-survey-reveals-asia-pacific-rape-crisis/4949898

                      Though this study has come in for some criticism in its methodology, Mary Koss’ 1987 study of rape prevalence shows about 4-5% of the male population at the time to be rapists.

                      It’s worth noting though that every single male can be considered schrodinger’s rapist.

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 November 2013 at 11:29 pm

                      OK so we imprison 100,000 male New Zealanders as out and out rapists (Lets put a hard number number on it.)

                      Plus I think to be consistent we should also go for all the males of any age who ever had any kind of illegal sexual contact with a female (or male) under the age of 16. Statutory rape as it is clearly defined under NZ law. No time limitations.

                      That should take care of another few hundred thousand at least.

                      Then of course there are all the ‘potential rapists’. Like potential terrorists I guess they should all be rounded up too…. at the very least kept under constant surveillance.

                      Then there are all the apologists and enablers …

                      Sorry if you think this is a strawman … but I’ve built him from the bales of the stuff you left lying about..

                      Or maybe you have some other strategy in mind… please I’d genuinely like to hear it.

                    • Naturesong …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:20 am

                      Actually I do. It’s a pretty novel approach;
                      How about the Police to take rape complaints seriously and charge those accused under existing law.

                      We could also recognise that Rape Culture is entrenched within New Zealand and start to address that.
                      Start here: WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women – Recomendations

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:38 am

                      Nope that’s the same ‘hang em all high’ strategy dressed up in fluff.

                      Over and over you stress how prevalent rape and rape culture is and you insist that all male perpetrators must be charged, convicted and spend decades in prison.

                      Yet you willfully refuse to acknowledge the simple logical conclusion of this … that you are demanding the incarceration of a huge swathe of the male population. Not just the 5000 odd criminal prisoners we have now … but potentially 50-100 times that number.

                      If that’s your cure … it’s daft and morally bankrupt. I was hoping for better.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:48 am

                      The “Schrödinger’s rapist” comment is quite revealing. A vision of males as the archetypical Jekyll and Hyde, an ever present and unpredictable threat (not unlike the propaganda idea that all Muslims are potential terrorists). Such Jekyll and Hyde males must be carefully monitored, controlled, punished and incarcerated whenever necessary. Even if those troubled males are still just boys (and who as Louise Nicholas pointed out – really need to reach out and get some help) shall be given no quarter or understanding. Into the criminal justice system and crime university (prison) as the first port of call.

                      Perhaps the only safe (and probably young and coloured, given our prison stats) male is the one behind bars?

                    • Naturesong …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:58 am

                      I’ve been pretty clear all in all my posts.

                      – The police have failed in their duty and still have systemic issues in dealing with sexual violence.
                      – There is existing law that clearly could be used to charge the young men in this case.
                      – I’ve supported my arguments with links to appropriate legislation, the reviews of the Bazley Report which clearly show Police failure.
                      – I’ve also recognised that this issue is wider than just the police though the main thrust of my arguments have been about the police.

                      I have never advocated sentencing at all, and in previous posts have made my view of the short sighted approaches which confuse justice with retribution.

                      You have consistantly misrepresented my position all the way through, while at the same time I have addressed your points clearly and in good faith.
                      I do not know if you are willfully and cynically misrepresenting my arguments, or that your filters are so thick you are unable to read anything without twisting it to confirm to a world view that appears to me to be quite limited.

                      Don’t think in terms of what you think I am advocating, simply read the aguments I have presented take them at face value.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 1:18 am

                      The police have failed in their duty and still have systemic issues in dealing with sexual violence.

                      This is of course true. I would think that the Police, being an essentially conservative institution is unlikely to be ahead of the rest of society. They have never been in the vanguard of social change and expecting them to be so on this seems a wishful hope.

                      There is existing law that clearly could be used to charge the young men in this case.

                      Fine .. go right ahead. This particular case has generated so much public angst that there is no doubt the police will eventually act and bring charges. However bear in mind the same law equally criminalises many, many other people as well and I keep wondering if that is a can of worms we really want to open.

                      I have never advocated sentencing at all, and in previous posts have made my view of the short sighted approaches which confuse justice with retribution.

                      I think I lost track of who has said what … apologies.

                      short sighted approaches which confuse justice with retribution.
                      On this point I utterly agree.

                      Here we are as grown adults having trouble communicating clearly … can we not put ourselves into the position of much younger and far less experienced people (along with a fair amount of alcohol) who get even the most basic communication totally screwed up?

                    • Naturesong …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:31 am

                      @Tat Loo (CV)
                      I think Schrödinger’s rapist is simply a recognition of rape culture.

                      If you take the analagy and remove the rapey bit, say … Schrödinger’s asshole; everyone you meet is potentially an asshole, you don’t assume everyone is an asshole, but yes until you meet them and get to know their character, you simply don’t know.

                      Schrödinger’s rapist is simply a way to understand what living in rape culture is like.

                      As a man I see it when I’m walking down a street at night, and the woman walking toward me crosses to the other side of the road, you know, just in case. Or as you get closer she rattles her keys at you so as to warn you she can defend herself if she needs to.
                      I want to call out to her, “it’s not me, I’m not an attacker!”.
                      But I don’t, I feel angry and ashamed of the men who are responsible.

                      Did you know, that as a single man, I will not be seated next to an unaccompanied child in an aeroplane?
                      I kinda appreciate not having to deal with an unaccompanied child on a plane, but I also recognise that it means I’m Schrödinger’s pedophile.

                      Most of all though, I just feel sad.

                    • QoT …
                      11 November 2013 at 7:55 pm

                      I was waiting for your shouty, sweary and uncompromising contribution.

                      If you think that’s me being “shouty and sweary” you obviously haven’t been around here long.

                      Oh, except you have, which makes that comment just a misogynist “I’m going to discredit you by saying you’re not ladylike” piece of shit. From a misogynist piece of shit.

                      Seriously, RL, I don’t need to “insinuate” anything about you, your behaviour on this thread makes it very clear you’re someone who should never be left alone with a woman.

                    • QoT …
                      11 November 2013 at 7:57 pm

                      Such Jekyll and Hyde males must be carefully monitored, controlled, punished and incarcerated whenever necessary.

                      Jesus Christ, Tat, that’s such a male response it makes my teeth hurt. Of course you can look at the Schroedinger’s Rapist idea and see a meany-poo anti-male agenda. Why not take two minutes to consider why so many women think it’s a basic description of their lives?

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 8:04 pm

                      Jesus Christ, Tat, that’s such a male response it makes my teeth hurt.

                      Awesome phrasing.

                      Why not take two minutes to consider why so many women think it’s a basic description of their lives?

                      I certainly have. This thread has been very informative in that regard. I for one choose not to belittle widely held perspectives out of hand.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:30 am

                      thats a bit of a stretch (gape) Queen.

                  • KJT …
                    11 November 2013 at 8:42 am

                    Seeing as I pretty much agree with everyone here I conclude you all basically agree. The 4 of you seem to be talking past each other.

                    I wish that I had read the Schrodinger’s rapist article when I was a teenager.

                    It would have explained some of the puzzling, and to me hurtful, reactions I had some times when approaching young women. Of course, as I got older I realised that it was not personal.
                    From my, admittedly ignorant, point of view I expected them to know I had no intention whatsoever, of doing anything they did not want me to do.

                    I reiterate that we need to teach young people more about relationships.

                    There is little doubt in my mind that what those boys claim to have done, if the papers have got it right, (Given NZ “Journalism record of sensationalism, not facts) is rape.

                    However sticking lots of people in jail may not be the answer to reducing crime, (It is not very effective for other crimes). A change in systematic social attitudes, I think, will be much more effective in making women safer.

                    To my mind anyone who thinks that the way these boys conducted their relationships is OK, needs help.

                    I am not so sure that a couple of underage teenagers playing “doctor” by mutual consent, can be called a criminal offense.

                    And, If a women picks you up in a pub and takes you home, I do not think you need to ask for an evidential breath test to establish if she is able to consent.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 8:24 pm

                      Seeing as I pretty much agree with everyone here I conclude you all basically agree. The 4 of you seem to be talking past each other.

                      Heh. Interesting isn’t it. This thing called interpersonal communication is not that easy eh. For teenagers or ‘adults.’

              • Naturesong …
                10 November 2013 at 6:22 pm

                Looks like I had the age on one of the young men wrong, 18 now instead of 19.
                However, the age of the young men is irrelevant

                Consent
                A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity

                Sexual conduct with young person under 16 is illegal

                So in order to get a conviction they had to prove anyone of the following.
                – Sex had occurred with a girl under the age of 16
                – Sex had occurred with a girl (under the age of 16) or woman (over the age of 16) who was intoxicated.

                It appears that the reason no charges were brought was because there was no will by the police to do so.
                And again, the NZ Police have history here, this is repeat behaviour, not something new, or extraordinary.

                “Yes it may well be self-serving drivel … but then again you and I were not there.”

                The 4 girls who laid complaints with the police were there.

                • RedLogix …
                  10 November 2013 at 6:34 pm

                  Again I ask three simple questions:

                  Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who drinks alcohol?

                  Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager under the age of 16 who has sex?

                  Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who posts stupid stuff on Facebook?

                  What I am asking is … do you think serious criminal prosecution is the best way to stop these young people from doing these things?

                  And if you do … how many prisons do you want to build?

                  The 4 girls who laid complaints with the police were there.

                  Yes. Twenty people in a room will report twenty different versions of what happened. This does not discredit nor diminish any of these accounts, but certainly does reflect on how difficult it might be to achieve a consensus on ‘consent’ or coercion.

                  • Tat Loo (CV) …
                    10 November 2013 at 6:40 pm

                    It’s actually more than that RL.

                    sexual conduct with young person under 16 is illegal

                    Yep. A 16 year old person being intimate with their partner who is 14 or 15, even with NO SEX involved, can be charged with a serious criminal offence (committing an indecent act) and face up to 7 years in an adult prison, from my reading of that link. By definition, no one under 16 can give consent for this activity.

                    So at least in theory, that’s potentially a lot of high school kids going to prison. And adults who did similar in school but have long left school – since there is no statute of limitations.

                    But I don’t think that would serve any true sense of justice particularly well. And how young people are supposed to learn anything about their own physical intimacy in a healthy way under these legal conditions, I have no clue.

                    • greywarbler …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:10 am

                      Tat +1 💡

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:22 am

                      “And how young people are supposed to learn anything about their own physical intimacy in a healthy way under these legal conditions, I have no clue.”

                      The problem there isn’t the law (although I agree if the law were being prosecuted in the way you suggest it would be). The problem is our culture’s attitudes about sex, sexuality, body sovereignty, gender, power etc. This focus on the written law, as opposed to what actually happens is a red herring. It’s also deeply ironic and offensive given how difficult it is to get the most obvious of rape cases a proper hearing legally.

                      Edit: and I have to note that it’s the people who are most inclined to defend men who are running this line. We haven’t had this discussion fully yet, but mostly I’ve seen people who want rape culture addressed as saying they want rape culture addressed, as opposed to saying “let’s put lots of men in prison”. It’s RL etc who have got all concerned about men in prison as if putting men in prison is THE solution to rape culture. That’s not what I’ve been hearing from feminists and others who want rape culture changed.

                  • Naturesong …
                    10 November 2013 at 6:45 pm

                    Your misogyny is showing.

                    “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who drinks alcohol?”
                    It’s not the girls fault she was raped, it’s the rapists fault

                    “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager under the age of 16 who has sex?”
                    It’s not the girls fault she was raped, it’s the rapists fault

                    “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who posts stupid stuff on Facebook?”
                    Judith Collins wants to, do you agree?

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 November 2013 at 7:43 pm

                      Well for #1&2 you answered a related but different question. If I had wanted to ask that question I would have asked it … but I didn’t because I agree completely with the plain answer you give.

                      But the actual questions I asked are a simple, factual re-framing of the scenario. I conclude you don’t want to answer them, not because they are wrong questions, but because they have ‘wrong answers’.

                      Because once you step outside of the “all drunk and/or underaged sex = criminal rape” framing … you really have to start building a lot of prisons. And as Tat Loo above points out no-one really thinks that would serve any true sense of justice.

                      However I take that neither of us want to see stupid posts on social media criminalised … so I’m assuming we both agree on #3; that is no.

                    • Naturesong …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:05 pm

                      Ok we agree on #3

                      I’ll try a different approach;
                      “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who drinks alcohol?” – In this statement you have immediately framed the girl as the criminal. Yes, she drank alchohol, and if she was disorderly in public, she would likely be arrested, or hopefully, driven home to her parents with a warning.

                      But you are missing the point, a drunk girl is incapable of giving consent.
                      So your question should be:
                      “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who has sex with a drunk person who subsequently lodges a complaint of rape with the police?”
                      The answer is yes. Yes we do.

                      “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager under the age of 16 who has sex?” – Again, the girl was under sixteen. She isn’t the one who is at fault here.
                      However, for the purposes of argument, say it was a boy who was 15.
                      Now given that the girl has laid a complaint with the police, you would expect that the police could charge the boy with statutory rape at least.

                      So, if you remove the straw man (hint, it’s not about sex), youir question would read as follows: “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager under the age of 16 who has had an allegation of rape made against them?
                      To which I would answer yes. Absolutely.

                    • miravox …
                      10 November 2013 at 10:55 pm

                      “Are we going to criminally prosecute every teenager who drinks alcohol”

                      The police could have prosecuted the guys who gave the girls alcohol. That would have been a start…

                      And it should be up to the courts to decide whether the four rape complaints held up – not the police – and because the girls filed rape complaints surely the issue of consent is moot until it is judged in the court. Obviously the girls are sure they did not give consent. The police should collect evidence. In this case it appears they didn’t bother. NB – one of the guys has remorsefully admitted the then 13-year-old was telling the truth.

                      We don’t let young people off charges for drink-driving, punching someone outside a pub, putting a broom up another drunk boy’s arse – just boy stuff, yet somehow this boy stuff, where young men could be charged with sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl should be treated differently? I think not.

                      And if the the sentence is too harsh on young rapists that’s a discussion that needs to be had in the public domain, not a factor in whether a charge should be laid or not.

                      This sort of situation just shows how useless the paradigm of the lock ’em up brigade is, not that the a rapist should be let off because he’s young and stupid. Hopefully if this goes through the legal process and if there is a guilty verdict a sentencing judge will use the discretion they have to make appropriate punishment decisions.

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 November 2013 at 11:10 pm

                      This sort of situation just shows how useless the paradigm of the lock ‘em up brigade is, not that the a rapist should be let off because he’s young and stupid.

                      Thanks … I pretty closely agree with that comment.

                      At no point did I suggest that these young men should be ‘let off’. That’s the problem with this kind of debate … everyone assumes that if you don’t totally agree that somehow you must be saying the binary opposite.

                      What I keep trying to convey is that all this has happened not just in the context of a culture many women find sexually hostile (rape culture) … but one in which all people are to some degree ignorant, conflicted and blighted around their sexuality.

                    • just saying …
                      10 November 2013 at 11:57 pm

                      But to then extend our cultural attachment to cars as ‘car culture’ and then by extension label all car drivers as ‘car murderers’ seems like a step more than a few here have already taken.

                      Who exactly?
                      Prove or withdraw this allegation

                      edit:
                      Bugger – that was supposed to be a response to RL’s answer to bill below.

                    • wtl …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:04 am

                      Who exactly?
                      Prove or withdraw this allegation

                      just saying: Well, “schrodinger’s car murderers” at least, see naturesong above.

                  • Bill …
                    10 November 2013 at 11:28 pm

                    @RL. So, let’s assume I got smashed, stoned, pilled up or whatever as a young teenager. And let’s imagine I’d staggered in front a car and got collected. Bad choices, bad luck and tough shit. – All my responsibility.

                    But what if some bad bastard had been driving around looking for some-one to run over?

                    What part of their running me over am I to blame for now? I mean, if I got serious or long term injuries, I dare say I might regret I hadn’t been sober or whatever on the basis I might have been able to dodge them or see them coming or whatever. And I suppose I might blame myself on some level or even think I deserved what happened because….except no. I wouldn’t. Because only a fcking lunatic would try to apportion to me any of the blame for the deliberate injurious actions meted out to me by such a person.

                    Now let’s say I was raped instead of being run over. Why am I suddenly to blame for what happened to me?

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 November 2013 at 11:52 pm

                      Fair enough Bill. You are entirely correct … except did that person’s criminal intent evermake it smart for me to get so smashed I was that much of a target?

                      The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Getting that smashed was still my responsibility, as you say, if it was a pure accident it would indeed be all responsibility.

                      But as a deliberate criminal action the responsibility is now shared, me for getting that smashed and the other party for their intent. (Note that only one of us gets to be charged with a crime.)

                      And I suppose I might blame myself on some level or even think I deserved what happened because….except no.

                      So now it’s perfectly ok to go out and get that paralytic … nothing to be learnt here? I was just the helpless victim? Is that what you are saying?

                      I don’t think their bad intent absolves me entirely of taking some responsibility for my stupid choices.

                      Let me be clear … none of this subtracts one iota from the criminal intent and liability of the driver or rapist. There are plenty of cases of sexual assault and rape where there is a clear lack of consent and the presence of plain coercion. None of us have any problem treating that as a serious criminal matter.

                      Where I get troubled is seeing the concept of rape culture being so stretched out that virtually every male is potentially at risk of being accused of being a rapist.

                      The best analogy I can think of is your own. Some people are killed in car accidents, and we should do everything in our power to reduce that number. But to then extend our cultural attachment to cars as ‘car culture’ and then by extension label all car drivers as ‘car murderers’ seems like a step more than a few here have already taken.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:16 am

                      Who exactly? Prove or withdraw this allegation

                      Oh I don’t know … lots of people seem to have no problem leaping to wrong conclusions about what I am saying. Now you are getting prickly when you think I’ve gotten you wrong.

                      Seems we’ve crossed our wires again. Or is this because you are scanning my comments for snippets you can be outraged about .. and selectively ignoring the rest?

                      Last attempt:

                      What I keep trying to convey is that all this has happened not just in the context of a culture many women find sexually hostile (rape culture) … but one in which all people are to some degree ignorant, conflicted and blighted around their sexuality making it very hard for us to communicate clearly about. The sort of thing that is good for establishing clear consent I’d have thought.

                      I don’t think most men gain anything from this hostile gender environment either but so far the main approach I keep hearing about the way forward on this is to keep locking up males. Any other ideas?

                    • just saying …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:37 am

                      So you have no evidence to back up your allegation. What a surprise.

                      I’m guessing you also see no irony in making unfounded and extreme allegations while complaining that others are making extreme and wild allegations.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:44 am

                      wtl provided one instance … but certainly if you think that there is an alternative to simply locking up tens of thousands of men as rapists of one sort or another … I’ve yet to hear it from you.

                      The sheer narrowness of this debate is terrifying.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 12:54 am

                      There’s an interesting reverse Victorian morality thing going on. I can’t quite put my finger on it yet. It is something which is quite powerfully non-rational.

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 8:30 am

                      “but certainly if you think that there is an alternative to simply locking up tens of thousands of men as rapists of one sort or another”

                      Firstly, no-one except YOU has suggested locking up tens of thousands of men as rapists. Your argument seems to be that we should redefine what rape is because if we went with current definitions, or god forbid, what women experience, then we would have to admit that tens of thousands of men are out there raping. Why do you think it’s that number Red?

                      I haven’t read everything from the last half day but having followed your posts in a number of these conversations now I really think you have some pretty screwed up notions about what rape is and what sex is, and that you struggle to understand what is is about the rape gang that makes it rape. You seem to want to define it as sex (albeit underage sex) to save men from being punished, irrespective of what actually happened or the effect on the girls. I’ve seen you run this argument before, and the thing that’s notable about it is the attempt to define the issue as about men’s wellbeing rather than women’s.

                      But let’s assume that there were tens of thousands of men traumatising the women that they sleep with. Because this is the issue, trauma. You seem to think rape is wholly defined by what happens in court, some arbitrary set of rules that are culturally imposed. I would say that just about everyone else in this discussion thinks that rape is what happens with the woman’s body and pysche, and the potential effect on her, irrespective of what happens in court. This is why there is so much misunderstanding when you enter into these debates. We are talking from such different premises and those premises aren’t overtly acknowledged.

                      As for putting men in prison, myself I prefer restorative justice models, where the men are held accountable for their actions and required to make ammends to the extent that that is possible. I think we are a long way from being able as a culture to even envision what that might mean in rape cases, not least because rape is many different kinds of abuses, but mostly because there are still too many men who think like you. But I suspect that you aren’t really asking for an alternative to putting tens of thousands of men in prison, but instead you want rape redefined so that those men can carry on acting the way they do without being held accountable.

                      The other thing that stands out about your comments is that they’re pretty much what Tamihere/Jackson, and presumably the WO lot say except your words are dressed up in nice, liberal, lefty language so that it comes across as much more reasonable (it’s not actually more resonable when you pick it apart, but it’s presented as such). This is why in my experience, living in conservative communities where men are much more direct about their beliefs about rape is often easier than living in communities of lefties where rape culture is much more hidden. It’s also partly why the left is still relatively bad at dealing with rapists within its own ranks.

                      “Where I get troubled is seeing the concept of rape culture being so stretched out that virtually every male is potentially at risk of being accused of being a rapist.”

                      The more I read of what you write, the more I think your understanding of rape culture is pretty limited. You are a smart guy otherwise, so it’s getting harder and harder to not see your lengthy arguments here as self-serving rape apologism. I don’t have the time or energy to engage with the details of what you are arguing in the past day, but I think having your words out there visible is very instructive.

                    • miravox …
                      11 November 2013 at 8:57 am

                      Yes, you are very good at explaining all this weka. I really appreciate your perspective and the effort you put into your comments.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 8:58 am

                      Firstly, no-one except YOU has suggested locking up tens of thousands of men as rapists.

                      Actually, Naturesong proposed stats that around 5% to up to 1 in 4 men are rapists. So RL suggested a low number in terms of prison muster impact “tens of thousands”. However the true number, if those stats are correct, is around 100,000 men, rising up to 500,000 men if the one in four number is more indicative.

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 9:00 am

                      Thanks Miravox.

                      Tat, can you please link to Natursong’s comment? I missed that.

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:00 am

                      Thanks Tat. I notice that those were figures for Asia, including places like Papua New Guinea which has a civil war going on.

                      However I note that RL was running the ‘we will have to fill the prisons if we take rape seriously’ line before Naturesong posted those links. So I still think this is something going on in RL’s head. See his reply to Naturesong’s links –

                      OK so we imprison 100,000 male New Zealanders as out and out rapists (Lets put a hard number number on it.)

                      Plus I think to be consistent we should also go for all the males of any age who ever had any kind of illegal sexual contact with a female (or male) under the age of 16. Statutory rape as it is clearly defined under NZ law. No time limitations.

                      That should take care of another few hundred thousand at least.

                      Then of course there are all the ‘potential rapists’. Like potential terrorists I guess they should all be rounded up too…. at the very least kept under constant surveillance.

                      Then there are all the apologists and enablers …

                      Sorry if you think this is a strawman … but I’ve built him from the bales of the stuff you left lying about..

                      Or maybe you have some other strategy in mind… please I’d genuinely like to hear it.

                      What is that about?

                    • wtl …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:21 am

                      I think the point RedLogix was trying to make, albeit in a somewhat clumsy manner, was that the solution cannot be simply “we should imprison all rapists”. This isn’t because we shouldn’t take rape seriously, but instead because prison is really the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Punishment is necessary, of course, but what we really need to be doing is having a discussion about how we can change societal attitudes to stop rape happening in the first place.

                      There has been some discussion around this, but in my view a lot of it has been ideological and academic, shall we say (for lack of a better word). That is, it involves a lot of slogans (e.g. “smash the patriarchy”) and theorising about rape culture, but not a lot of discussion around how to take practical steps to make a difference, especially in terms of helping young people successfully negotiate their hormone-filled teenage years.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:27 am

                      Naturesong appears to believe that every allegation of rape should result in a charge with time in court, with the courts and not the police the arbiter if there is something to answer for. Mainly because the police have shown to be incapable over and over again to act fairly towards sexual violence victims.

                      RL in response seems to me to have said – fine. But this is going to be the scale of the outcome – lots of men in prison, for years at a time. At 5% of men its 100,000 new convicts. Especially if we are consistent and criminalise all sexual activity under 16 years of age not just sex. And is this the best way to solve anything?

                      QoT’s response demonstrates one attitude – if we have to build a stack of new maximum security prisons to make it happen, so be it.

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:34 am

                      wtl, RL has repeatedly tried to reframe what rape is, so sorry, but I don’t agree.

                      Tat, is RL’s question rhetorical? Because I don’t see him doing anything other than saying that boys will be boys and girls shouldn’t be so stupid and should man up and take responsibility for their bad decisions, and we can’t put all young men in prison so we may as well redefine what rape and rape culture are.

                      Do you really think that QoTs thinks the solution to rape culture is to build lots of prisons? Or do you think she was making a point with how she replied to RL?

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:38 am

                      Naturesong’s precis (upthread) of what they’ve been saying –

                      – The police have failed in their duty and still have systemic issues in dealing with sexual violence.
                      – There is existing law that clearly could be used to charge the young men in this case.
                      – I’ve supported my arguments with links to appropriate legislation, the reviews of the Bazley Report which clearly show Police failure.
                      – I’ve also recognised that this issue is wider than just the police though the main thrust of my arguments have been about the police.

                      I have never advocated sentencing at all, and in previous posts have made my view of the short sighted approaches which confuse justice with retribution.

                      Like I said, the putting tens of thousands of men in prison is RL’s thing.

                    • wtl …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:43 am

                      And yet here we are, arguing over what some pseudonymous commentator on a blog really meant, instead of having a discussion about things that can be done to prevent rape.

                      I’m out, because this is simply a waste of time, and isn’t doing anything to solve the real issues, which are far far more important.

                      edit: FWIW, the main point of my previous comment was to try to steer the conversation back to something more productive, not really to defend what RedLogix said.

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 11:22 am

                      Fair enough wtl.

                      There has been some discussion around this, but in my view a lot of it has been ideological and academic, shall we say (for lack of a better word). That is, it involves a lot of slogans (e.g. “smash the patriarchy”) and theorising about rape culture, but not a lot of discussion around how to take practical steps to make a difference, especially in terms of helping young people successfully negotiate their hormone-filled teenage years.

                      For me, talking about rape culture isn’t theorising or academic. It’s educating and raising awareness so that the culture changes. It’s direct action and it’s the most practical use of my time. Challening RL’s rape apologism, esp since he’s commenting alot in the past few days, is part of that, because the attitudes he is expressing are the ones that allow the rape club to exist with impunity.

                      In terms of how to help young people, I think education about rape culture, and education about healthy sexuality, are the most important things that the general public can do. That’s huge. And at it’s base has to be an acknowledgement of rape culture (hence all the talk about the patriarchy). If you don’t talk about rape culture, if you talk about things like teen drinking, then I can’t see the problem actually being changed because drinking doesn’t case rape. In this sense I take the people who have been observing, discussing, analysing rape culture for decades to be the experts in the field and we should be listening to them about what needs to be done.

                      In terms of actual education of young people, I think it requires a shift in the culture, so that educators, health promotion teams, parents, schools etc all form a context in which safer and healthier sexuality can be nourished.

                      That’s probably all too big picture for what you were getting at, so I guess we could instead talk about what constitutes a healthy sexuality for teens (or adults for that matter), and how that can be communicated.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 2:32 pm

                      Challening RL’s rape apologism, esp since he’s commenting alot in the past few days, is part of that, because the attitudes he is expressing are the ones that allow the rape club to exist with impunity.

                      Really. That’s the usual kind of silencing that you resort to when you don’t get it. Let me spell it out in words of one syllable or less because you seem to be too thick to understand any more nuanced:

                      I 100/% condemn the culture of structural exploitation, coercion, misogyny, abuse and violence that has meted out to women for thousands of years.

                      Men need to take responsibility for their actions and beliefs that perpetuate all of this.

                      Where there is clear evidence that sexual contact has been coerced on anyone, where there was a clear lack of consent, then it is a serious crime and the police should get on with making a prosecution.

                      But if you imagine that women screaming ‘rapist’ at all men collectively is going to somehow bring about useful change …. well fuck me I thought it was us men who were supposed to be thick about communication.

                      Let me resort to an analogy. When I look at the endemic structural, economic inequality, poverty and violence in this world … part of me would like to hang some bankers. But a political discourse this does not make.

                      That’s probably all too big picture for what you were getting at, so I guess we could instead talk about what constitutes a healthy sexuality for teens (or adults for that matter), and how that can be communicated.

                      Now we are on the same page. Was that so hard?

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 2:47 pm

                      Sorry RL, but that is a classic example of what I mean about some men on the left presenting themselves as being on teh right side, but still not being. And the fact that you get some of it doesn’t mean you can’t be apologising for rape in other ways or areas.

                      I have in no way at all silenced you. Saying that I have, or am trying to, is an understandable reaction, but men really need to get over their fear or anger at being called on rape apologism. Put the same situation in a racism context and see if you think it’s appropriate for Pakeha to say they’re being silenced by Maori, when Maori point out racism that Pakeha can’t see.

                      These paragraphs makes sense to me, and fit with what I know of you:

                      I 100/% condemn the culture of structural exploitation, coercion, misogyny, abuse and violence that has meted out to women for thousands of years.

                      Men need to take responsibility for their actions and beliefs that perpetuate all of this.

                      This is getting muddy, because it depends on who defines ‘clear’:

                      Where there is clear evidence that sexual contact has been coerced on anyone, where there was a clear lack of consent, then it is a serious crime and the police should get on with making a prosecution.

                      Based on what you have said, I don’t think you should be the one doing the defining.

                      But it is this shit that makes me seriously question where you are coming from:

                      But if you imagine that women screaming ‘rapist’ at all men collectively is going to somehow bring about useful change …. well fuck me I thought it was us men who were supposed to be thick about communication.

                      That you think the past week has been about women screaming ‘rapist’ at all men tells me you really have no idea of the amazing cultural shift that just happened in this country, and it confirms for me that you really don’t get what rape culture is or how to deal with it beyond the superficial politics.

                      Now we are on the same page.

                      I don’t think we are. You can’t wipe out the rest of what you have said in the past few days with the top paragraphs above.

                      We can go deeper with this. If I have time I’d really like to explain the huge difference between having an accident while out in the hills, and the trauma that results from being raped. They are very different kinds of experiences, importantly so and it’s crucial to understand the differences. That you used that analogy tells me that you still don’t get it.

                      There is also the issue of your belief that the girls need to share some responsibility for their rapes. Until those things are dealt with, I can’t see how we can have meaningful dialaogue about solutions.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 November 2013 at 3:08 pm

                      RL,

                      As far as I can tell, nobody’s saying hundreds of thousands of men should be locked up.

                      What has been said in so many other words is that tens of thousands of men (at a minimum) need to look at their behaviour and attitudes and acknowledge that what they did was wrong, and that they make a conscious decision to never do that again, and not say the complainant contributed to it if she makes a complaint.

                      And hundreds of thousands of other people need to look at what they failed to do to protect people from rapists, what they failed to do to prevent a sexual assault, what they failed to do to support someone they knew who had been raped, the side they picked when the stories hit the social circle and some people thought the guy could not have done it because he was a good bloke, and so on.

                      When we acknowledge our part in the problem, if only to ourselves, we can begin to start helping to reduce the problem.

                      Oh, and a driver deliberately running down a drunk pedestrian is 100% at fault, the pedestrian 0%. Why? Because the driver would still have run down a pedestrian – maybe not the same pedestrian or in the same spot or at the same time, but they still would have done it. Because the key part of the story is that the driver wants to hit a pedestrian, just like a rapist wants to rape someone.

                    • just saying …
                      11 November 2013 at 4:03 pm

                      We can go deeper with this. If I have time I’d really like to explain the huge difference between having an accident while out in the hills, and the trauma that results from being raped

                      It’s groundhog day. Women have spent days telling RL of their own experiences, or those of their nearest and dearest, about personal details of positive and negative experiences of consent, and of the consequences of sexual assault and rape. But these conversations require good faith on both sides. And imo RL is not discussing this in good faith.

                      I don’t know if he has some hang-ups that get in the way or if this is some kind of nasty game-playing, but I reckon you’d be better of doing something enjoyable, and not wasting your time and your sincerity.

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 8:35 pm

                      Thanks js, you are right of course, and I appreciate the sentiment 🙂

                      And thanks McFlock, good summing up.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:06 pm

                      @McFlock

                      At no point whatsover have I ever implied that the victim of a rape is ever responsible for the actions of the rapist. In no fashion are they to blame or responsible for the actions of another person with bad intent. Got it?

                      What I have implied is that maybe we have a collective responsibility to ask about are the fundamental reasons why all this happens so bloody often and what makes it all stop. In hindsight I realise I expressed that clumsily.

                      But as you suggest this issue has to go well beyond just locking up men who offend. For instance we know that misogyny is not inherent in the human race .. we can point to some good examples of indigenous cultures where the incidence of coercive rape, anxiety and depressive disorders, addictions, paraphilia’s and all manner of sexual dysfunctions are quite rare. What are they doing that is so very different to us?

                      And given that rape occurs in such a deeply sexual context, is it worth examining our basic assumptions about sex … and what has science discovered about it over the last decade that would be useful to add to the discourse?

                      And if we are going to dismantle the patriarchy … what do we replace it with? Something that looks just like a patriarchy with the gender roles reversed? Maybe you already know all the answers to this … if so I like to get beyond yelling ‘rapist’ at the RB’s and ‘misogynist dinosaurs’ at the police.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:43 pm

                      Yeah got that. Just as I got “the two are not mutually exclusive”.

                      We’re actually pretty good at culture change in NZ. The recipe that works seems to be a double tap of immediate and tangible consequences for the actions to be discouraged, and tailored campaigns that encourage peer pressure against actors in different demographic segments.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:53 pm

                      That’s an awesome and very simple formula. You’d wonder why things like legal highs have been so difficult to deal to, given that this classic approach is so elegant and effective.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:58 pm

                      Just as I got “the two are not mutually exclusive”

                      Yeah .. that doesn’t read right at all.

                      Yes, expectation is the most potent driver. Without wanting to start another quibble though, its worth pointing out that rape has been a serious crime for very long time now. Many people detest rapists and sexual offenders far more than they do murderers.

                      This suggests that while we’ve been doing one part of the ‘double-tap’ for a long time now … we’ve been missing out on some other ingredient.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 November 2013 at 11:00 pm

                      because, unlike tobacco and drink driving and some effort at host responsibilty, it hasn’t been used with legal highs.

                      Or with sexual assault.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 November 2013 at 11:12 pm

                      Rl

                      It seems to me that as a culture we frown on the continuum of sexual assault when it’s done to someone we know. We don’t frown so much on our mates doing it to people we don’t know. For some sectors I might go so far as to say that the outrage is based more on infringement of ones property rights rather than humanitarian principle. Very little difference between the rapist and the lynch mob, sometimes.
                      So the peer pressure is lacking, and the pathetic arrest and conviction rates the odds ar against tangible repercussion

                      Probably worth a try though.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 November 2013 at 11:44 pm

                      This contribution hits the mark for me as well:

                      An ideal place for such discussion is in school-based sexuality education classes. Quality school programmes can educate teens about the effects of alcohol and help them develop strategies for staying safe at parties, and for helping keep their friends safe. Such programmes can also help young people to question the messages they get from the porn industry and social networking sites (Ask.fm, Facebook, and so on) about sexuality, identity and relationships.

                      Cultural norms that enable young men to derive power and prestige from the abuse of girls need to be questioned, challenged and discussed by young men and women. Indeed, many boys, as has also been reported, are appalled by these acts and want nothing more than to condemn them and distance themselves from such cultures. The issue of consent is crucial.

                      Research suggests that teens of both genders are unaware of the rules of consent, that no means no, and the social, emotional and legal consequences of ignoring this issue. The Roast Busters seem to be parodying what they believe are powerful and “cool” forms of masculinity without any awareness that their peers, and society in general, view them as criminal.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11154785

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      11 November 2013 at 11:50 pm

                      Programmes which teach girls how to keep themselves and their friends safe at parties and safe around alcohol effectively endorse and excuse rape culture; parties and alcohol are not responsible for rape, only rapists are responsible for rape…

                    • McFlock …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:14 am

                      tat, why would you only teach girls to look out for their mates?

                      Anyhoo, some schools are better than others at teaching their kids decent life skills – some are still in the mode of elevating e.g. the first fifteen beyond others, and literally rounding up the usual suspects if there’s a smell of dope in the bogs.

                      Back in my hospo days I was surprised at the difference in attitudes by some faculties – one school had a slight smell of dope in the toilets, and they literally dragged students out of the formal and interrogated them. Which was a bugger, because they were demanding confessions when one of the kids was obviously stoned off his nut and really didn’t someone shouting into his face. Another school basically (when someone came back smelling of smoke) had a teacher say “oh, I didn’t think you were dumb enough to do that stuff”.
                      Oh, and it was the first school that had a massive problem with sly grogging and visibly drunk kids by the end of the evening.

                      RL
                      interesting link. I tend to think that it goes beyond simply sexuality, and goes into general ideas about status and what it means to have and be friends, male and female. If anything, teenage girls tend to be better at it than teenage guys.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:16 am

                      To clarify – I think that alcohol and risk minimisation education for young people including coaching them to look after each others’ well being is absolutely critical in today’s environment.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:25 am

                      tat
                      I agree that it’s something we can do much better on.

                      But I still think the alcohol culture is a different issue to rape culture.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:29 am

                      Sure they are different. But they are not independent of each other.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:37 am

                      a couplet: Free market .Pick your battles.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:40 am

                      I dunno about independant of each other, but if this guy was drunk at midday, I think that is the least of his problems.

              • Crunchtime …
                12 November 2013 at 4:05 pm

                Rape complaints to the Police are not a “joke”.

                Police suggesting to complainants that it had something to do with what they were wearing is simply horrible.

                Police sitting on their hands and doing nothing for TWO YEARS is unbelievably bad.

                There may well be conflicting information, but it’s undeniable that there is rape culture in the Police, and far too much rape culture in NZ, and it’s not a joke, and it needs to end.

          • Huginn 26.1.3.1.2
            11 November 2013 at 8:54 am

            I agree with you on this, RL.
            It looks like a massive fail for Youth Justice/Police Youth Aid.
            It’s a disaster.

  27. Rhinocrates 27
    10 November 2013 at 2:02 pm

    Here’s what that jellyfish Marshall should be saying right now:

    “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept”.

    • fappity 27.1
      10 November 2013 at 3:14 pm

      ‘Commentators in Australia and the U.S. say the withering message was exactly what everyone — victims and abusers alike — needed to hear.

      The words are powerful. But the utterly credible fury is what nails it. It is a validation of the frustration and anger a whole lot of people who have been on the receiving end of that ‘toughness’ have been enduring for a very long time. And it says, yeah, you’re right. This is goddamn outrageous.

      Morrison’s direct, unflinching attacks on abusers have left observers slack-jawed. “Er, hang on,” writes Sean Power at Mamamia. “Where are all the weasel words, the evasive language, and the spin?… This bloke is the real deal.” ‘

      http://theweek.com/article/index/245631/watch-australias-army-chief-demonstrates-how-you-address-sex-abuse

      • Murray Olsen 27.1.1
        10 November 2013 at 7:06 pm

        He made a nice speech, but it’s still happening. Given the creeps now in federal government, I expect any action against sexual abuse in the ADF to be put on the back burner. Abbott’s long history of inappropriate behaviour with women suggests that he thinks boys will be boys, all a bit of fun, etc………..

  28. Rhinocrates 28
    10 November 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Look out – the pigs are trying tracking their critics.

    Marshall just tried to call me personally at my own home. I hung up immediately when he identified himself.

    Maybe he had naive honourable motives… but if that were the case, it’s too little, too late.

    I find it personally disturbing that he can find out who I am and where I am. It’s intimidating.

    They’re definitely watching you.

    • joe90 28.1
      10 November 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Fuck, that’s a worry.

    • just saying 28.2
      10 November 2013 at 4:00 pm

      Is this the only place they could have tracked you from?
      Because that is a worry

      • Eddie 28.2.1
        10 November 2013 at 5:29 pm

        the same comment has been made under a different pseudonym on Public Address.

        I’m not saying Rhinocates is wrong but I find it hard to see how Marshall could get that information and hard to understand why he would use it to phone a random blog commentator who, presumably, hasn’t been saying anything that others haven’t also said.

        • Pascal's bookie 28.2.1.1
          10 November 2013 at 6:26 pm

          I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Rhino is telling the truth, that a phone call was made as he describes it.

          Rhino has been open about his autism. This is simply not the sort of thing he would just make up, or be wrong about.

          Whether or not is wa the police commissioner is a different story, but even if it wasn;t, it means someone found his home phone number and therefore his identity and rang him claiming to be the PC.

          Whatever else it is, it is an awful thing to have happened.

          • Anne 28.2.1.1.1
            10 November 2013 at 6:39 pm

            +1
            As someone who was on the receiving end of similarly contemptuous behaviour in the past, I know what it feels like and how frightening it can be.

          • karol 28.2.1.1.2
            10 November 2013 at 7:13 pm

            I think it’s more likely that it was someone claiming to be the police commissioner. But, as you say, that’s still creepy and scary.

            • Anne 28.2.1.1.2.1
              10 November 2013 at 7:18 pm

              In some ways that makes it worse karol because how did the possible hoaxer find out who Rhinocrates was? That is serious and needs to be investigated and the person dealt to…

              • Tat Loo (CV) …
                10 November 2013 at 7:44 pm

                Russell Brown from Public Address just tweeted saying that apparently, it WAS Police Commissioner Marshall who contacted Rhinocrates. Nothing untoward apparently, although a real and unwanted shock to RC (hope you’re doing better). And other details about the event also available.

                https://twitter.com/publicaddress

    • Anne 28.3
      10 November 2013 at 4:08 pm

      Rhinocrates, you are referring to Police Commissioner Marshall? He phoned you? He identified himself? I hope you will ring the police headquarters and try to get that confirmed because this is appalling. It comes across as an attempt to silence their critics.

      I’m not surprised. Perhaps you should have waited a little to find out exactly what he had to say…

      • Jimmie 28.3.1
        10 November 2013 at 6:12 pm

        [Bad taste Jimmie – MS]

        • Anne 28.3.1.1
          10 November 2013 at 6:32 pm

          Oh dear, we have an ignoramus with a very low IQ and no comprehension of what he reads in newspapers or hears on the telly. He is Jimmie- appropriate name.

        • Pascal's bookie 28.3.1.2
          10 November 2013 at 6:33 pm

          Well Russell Brown is looking inot it, (the call may be related to comments either here or at PAS) and he says:

          https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/399406411370614785

          “Not yet confirmed the caller was Marshall. But police spokespeople not ruling it out …”

          You’d think it would be fairly easy to rule out, wouldn’t you?

          • karol 28.3.1.2.1
            10 November 2013 at 7:33 pm

            Latest comment from Russell Brown at Pb’s link:

            RB: 13 mins ago

            Update: Police comms say that Marshall has been responding personally to complaints made via the police website (which I’m told requires contact details).

            I’m wondering if he has been reading this site and simply didn’t grasp the line he’d be crossing by directly contacting Kracklite.

            But that’s just a guess.

            • Anne 28.3.1.2.1.1
              10 November 2013 at 7:52 pm

              I’m wondering if he has been reading this site and simply didn’t grasp the line he’d be crossing by directly contacting Kracklite.

              If that proves to be the case, then it would be beyond gobsmacking. That a Police Commissioner didn’t know he was crossing accepted privacy boundaries.

              • karol …
                10 November 2013 at 7:55 pm

                Apparently, according to Russell Brown, it has been confirmed it was Marshall who called, following up a comment made to the police website. Apparently a person has to enter their contact details to make comments there.

                But it is odd for Marshall to follow up personally with a phone call, and on a Sunday.

                • just saying …
                  10 November 2013 at 8:03 pm

                  I’m assuming Marshall would know how intimidating that could be for the recipient.

                  No-one logging in to complain about the police handling of the case would expect the police commisioner to call them personally. I’m also assuming that Rhinocrates didn’t leave his phone number and invite the commish to give him a call. I expect he expected his confidentiality would be respected that his info would not be passed on to the (very powerful) individual he was complaining about, it being a police website ‘n’ all…

                  • Rhinocrates …
                    13 November 2013 at 3:22 pm

                    Exactly. It wouldn’t have mattered if he’d shown up on my doorstep with a bunch of roses and a box of chocolates. In fact, that would have been worse.

                    It’s nice in theory to have access to people with power – that is one of the great things about New Zealand (though I find my local Labour MP, Grant Robertson, entirely unresponsive).

                    However, power is real, it is always present in any relationship and in the case of the police it has been frequently demonstrably abused. In such cases the implicit message is “I’m being nice now… but some of us aren’t and we know who you are and where you are. I am being nice only because I have chosen to be.”

                    The police have to consider their image not in terms of simple PR, but in terms of trust.

                • Anne …
                  10 November 2013 at 8:06 pm

                  But it is odd for Marshall to follow up personally with a phone call, and on a Sunday.

                  I agree karol and you have to wonder if there was some intimidation involved. Certainly Rhinocrates felt he was being threatened.

                  PS. I hope this doesn’t stop you commenting here Rhinocrates. I always enjoy your contributions.

                  • Chocolate …
                    10 November 2013 at 8:32 pm

                    “Police Commissioner Peter Marshall …. today personally phoned a man who has been publicly criticising the police over the matter.”

                    Reported this evening at 8:16pm
                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154818

                    I was just stunned speechless!

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:38 pm

                      I think it’s a nice touch that our top cop is relatively accessible and responds to some ordinary citizens complaints about the police personally.

                      However, a bit of a fail on scaring the crap out of people unnecessarily. Having an assistant make the call and say…this is what this call is about, would you have a few minutes to talk to the Commissioner…would be much less intimidating.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      11 November 2013 at 9:00 am

                      Phone calls are a bit much I think. If the comment is via the internet then an email response would seem to be appropriate, which could contain an invitation for the commenter to call the spokesperson or whoever if they wish to.

                    • weka …
                      11 November 2013 at 10:04 am

                      A phone call on a Sunday seems just bloody weird to me.

                  • weka …
                    10 November 2013 at 8:36 pm

                    “PS. I hope this doesn’t stop you commenting here Rhinocrates. I always enjoy your contributions.”

                    +1, take good care of yourself too though.

                    • just saying …
                      10 November 2013 at 8:47 pm

                      Likewise Rhinocrates.
                      I feel for you. Hope you’ll be back sometime when you’re ready. In the meantime, warmest wishes and take good care.

              • mickysavage …
                10 November 2013 at 8:03 pm

                Thanks Karol.

                I was pleased to read this. If the Police obtained Rhinocrates’s details from his comment here then we should all be really, really afraid …

                And kia kaha Rhinocrates. I have always enjoyed and respected your comments. Today has shown just how weird the roast busters stuff has become.

            • weka 28.3.1.2.1.2
              10 November 2013 at 8:42 pm

              Does anyone have a link to the police complaints website? Would like to look at their privacy statement, and what details they require.

              • karol …
                10 November 2013 at 9:01 pm

                I guess it’s here.

                But there are various kinds of complaints one can make. This one, a formal complaint online, Has this privacy statement:

                Your privacy

                The information you provide in this form will enable Police to assess the feedback you have provided and take steps as considered appropriate by Police. Police will not disclose your personal information unless authorised or required by or under law. You have the right to request access to and correction of your information by writing to: Privacy Officer, New Zealand Police, P O Box 3017, Wellington 6140.

                There’s the same privacy statement for making an “Expression of Dissatisfaction”>

  29. Philgwellington Wellington 29
    10 November 2013 at 7:25 pm

    Xox
    Maybe police are under resourced and busy raising revenue from boy racers, and speeding tickets. They are revenue raising, in spite of their assertions to the contrary. The public are becoming wary of their boys in blue. Trust is eroding, unfortunately.

  30. Bill Drees 30
    10 November 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Tamihere was never ever going to get a Labour nomination.
    No LEC was ever going to accept him.
    Tamihere’s induction intro Labour by Shearer, Pagani, Curran, Paul C and others was one of the mistakes for which the membership punished the ABCs.
    Tamihere, like Shearer and Curran, were never going anywhere in Labour.

    • JK 30.1
      10 November 2013 at 9:22 pm

      Thanks Bill Drees. That’s useful info to have – as to who brought Tamihere back into Labour – hadn’t realised Paul C was right up there with them. It helps to know who is on whose side !

  31. Tracey 31
    10 November 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Rl

    I note you dont paste the bit where the perpetrators are angry their privacy is being breached. Irony anyone?

    speaking through their friends on the basis of anonymity?? The paper shld hve refused to publish

  32. karol 32
    10 November 2013 at 9:43 pm

    wtl @ 9.30pm – I had a web page recently that said something about men having unwanted sex, but don’t think it mentioned alcohol. Can’t find the site again. But it said quite a few men had sex when they didn’t want too, and that the main reason given was peer pressure. I think it was about men feeling they had to live up to masculine ideals.

    However, that suggests there’s just too much social pressure on young people to have sex.

    When it comes to sexual violence, the 2009 NZ Task force said:

    Sexual violence iS a highly gendeRed cRime
    ƒ overwhelmingly sexual assault is perpetrated by men against women. it is both a consequence and cause of
    gender inequality.

    • wtl 32.1
      10 November 2013 at 10:58 pm

      Considering men tend to be more violent the women, I have no doubt that sexual violence is committed significantly by men more than women.

      However, I’m sure you’ll agree that sexual assault does not need to involve violence. I just think that if we want society as a whole to seriously re-evaluate attitudes regarding sexual consent, we have to be very careful to avoid sterotyping the issue in a gendered way. In that way we can ensure that we teach both young men and women to treat all others with due respect.

      I think the point around peer pressure and masculine ideals is an important one. In my mind the stereotype that ‘males always want sex’ is in some ways very damaging to males, especially young ones. It seems quite likely that many sexual assaults are committed by males in part because of this stereotype – i.e. males feeling like that have to have sex to be ‘real men’. Being rather unfamiliar with the subject, I’m not sure whether this stereotype/attitude is considered an important contributing factor to rape culture, but I would personally think that it is.

      • karol 32.1.1
        11 November 2013 at 8:21 am

        It seems quite likely that many sexual assaults are committed by males in part because of this stereotype – i.e. males feeling like that have to have sex to be ‘real men’. Being rather unfamiliar with the subject, I’m not sure whether this stereotype/attitude is considered an important contributing factor to rape culture, but I would personally think that it is.

        I would say yes – and because being “real men”, in this culture, also implies that men are dominant and have power over women. ie it is the dominant version of masculinity in our culture, masculinity being a set of values and behaviours expected of and/or associated with men.

        Any attempts to imply or state that men are just as much victims as women, however it is stated, ignores the whole gendered power structure and value system. Some men are victims when other men act to exert masculine power by raping or sexually abusing other men. Some women also attempt to exert a masculine type of power over others,through sexual assault – maybe as an attempt to acquire “masculine” power.

        It’s not about saying “all men are rapists”. But it is to do with the way rape culture works to reinforce traditional masculine dominance.

        • wtl 32.1.1.1
          11 November 2013 at 8:55 am

          But again, sexual assault does not need to involve violence or dominance. If a teenage girl kisses or grabs a teenage boy in a sexual way without his consent, then that is a form of sexual assault. I have seen many arguments that we need to take all formed of sexual assault seriously, and the reverse situation, where a boy touches or kisses a girl without her permission (but goes no further), is given as example of the kind of behaviour that we shouldn’t ignore or excuse. All I’m saying is that there is a good reason to teach young people and talk about issues surrounding consent in a non-gendered way. I’m not saying that men are more victims than women,

          I also think that there is a lot more to rape culture than male dominance, and concentrating entirely from that the point of view risks blinding ourselves to some potential solutions to the problem.

          • karol 32.1.1.1.1
            11 November 2013 at 12:51 pm

            wtl, I speak as a lesbian. I have been on the receiving end of unwanted sexual harassment, from men. Can’t think of an instance of being on the receiving end from a woman.

            All sexual relationships involve some negotiation. This requires sensitivity towards the other, showing respect towards the other, and not making assumptions about what we think the other person is wanting done to them.

            I also think that there is a lot more to rape culture than male dominance, and concentrating entirely from that the point of view risks blinding ourselves to some potential solutions to the problem.

            Really? Please explain – and keep in mind some physical realities: rape involves a man inserting part of his body into another’s, in a way women can never do; most men are physically stronger than most women, and this puts most women in a vulnerable position.

            • Rogue Trooper 32.1.1.1.1.1
              11 November 2013 at 1:21 pm

              all credit you for your stamina and persistence in the face of adversity over this issue karol; I’d be weary, yet heading on to some new frontier by now. 😎

            • Crunchtime 32.1.1.1.1.2
              11 November 2013 at 3:27 pm

              Men can and do get abused by women. Wikipedia states that in a study of over 17 thousand child abuse cases, 23% of them had a single female perpetrator. That may be higher than the norm, but I suspect the norm is a lot higher than people think it is.

              Forget mechanics of bodies. People say the same thing about homosexual couples – especially lesbian couples! Neither partner has a “thing”, how do they get it on?? Ridiculous, right? Sex and all things relating to sex, good and bad, healthy and abusive, come from the mind. How that manifest physically or mechanically is in myriad ways I’m sure we need not discuss.

              The reason why a significant minority of perpetrators are female I suspect is very likely to be what you suggest: another side-effect of rape culture. Likely a woman wanting “manly” control or power. I’m sure it also sometimes has to do with abuse victims ending up becoming abusers themselves. Violence in all forms is often perpetuated, sadly.

              • karol …
                11 November 2013 at 4:00 pm

                There is a mix of “the mind”, cultural practices, social institutions and biological capabilities. The biological realities are why most women prefer not to wander the streets alone at night, while it’s not such an issue for the majority of men. It’s why a woman alone in a small enclosed space with a man is more likely to be at a disadvantage, and it is more likely that the man will be able to be violent towards the woman – unless there are implements readily available, or the woman has taken steps to make some implements or weapons readily available.

                • Crunchtime …
                  14 November 2013 at 8:58 am

                  I’d just like to clarify that “the mind” also includes cultural practices. And the reason why women tend to prefer not to wander the streets at night is, I think, far more to do with culture than anything else.

                  Having said that, I do appreciate that men are as a rule larger than women, and stronger, and tend to be more physically intimidating.

                  • karol …
                    14 November 2013 at 9:09 am

                    I think cultural practices re- walking at night – include the way the physical environment is constructed – for instance the lack of street lighting in many places – the lack of public transport perceived to be safe, etc.

                    However, I also think the rule of law can contribute to a more safe and secure environment for women. However, that needs to be improved a lot.

                    The relative strength of most males compared to most females, also puts women, (and children and the disabled, and the elderly, etc) at a disadvantage in enclosed environments on a one-to-one basis, such as the home. For that to become more secure, requires the justice system and culture to work together.

                    PS: There is a factor about the differences in sex-base biology. There is something qualitatively different about men using a part of their body as a weapon, as compared with using implements.

                    • Crunchtime …
                      14 November 2013 at 9:36 am

                      Yeah… Again, the physical side of things helps reinforce the situation but I think it’s far from being the primary driver. It’s the mind – and culture. That men tend to be in a position of power, and rape culture, is why men are at an advantage.

                      These quotes that sexual assault is a “highly gendered crime” actually are harmful to male victims of sexual assault and abuse. And as I said, while they are by far the minority, they are still a significant minority. 10% or so – is still a lot of male survivors.

                    • karol …
                      14 November 2013 at 9:47 am

                      Crunchtime, I’m not saying either physical realities or culture are the primary drivers. I’m with Elizabeth Grosz (as in her book “Volatile Bodies”, when she says that gender differences are like a double helix (as for DNA) where it’s not possible to identify exactly where culture and material bodies begin and end.

                      It’s like a specific instance of the nature-nurture debate. But Grosz says there are some physical differences between most women and men that need to be considered, and that result in different life experiences: e.g. that most women menstruate and have babies during a specific section of their lives.

                      In general, I always see culture and material realities in this way – culture is not just something totally constructed by people, un-influenced by physical environments and material realities.

                    • Crunchtime …
                      14 November 2013 at 10:09 am

                      We’re getting a bit metaphysical here… Totally agree there are huge differences in gender and the experience of gender, and that affects culture – and is affected by it. I feel moved to ask: are you open to the possibility that there may have been matriarchal female-dominant societies in the past?

                    • karol …
                      14 November 2013 at 10:20 am

                      Matriarchies?

                      Certainly some societies have been matrilineal. Some seem to have worshiped female deities in a way different from today.

                      Why is this important? And depends what is meant by matriarchies.

                      I think that society would be the better for being organsied more in keeping with significant experiences of women (and differently abled people): e.g. an occupational/work structure that is more in accordance with those giving birth to and bringing up children, rather than treating it as an issue of exception.

            • wtl 32.1.1.1.1.3
              11 November 2013 at 6:50 pm

              Karol:
              I agree that females are much more likely to be the targets of sexual assault and rape and males the perpetrators of assaults, for anatomical, biological and societal reasons. What I am trying to say, however, I think it is a good idea to use a more inclusive and non-gendered approach when discussing sexual assault and finding solutions to prevent it. This is because, firstly, we should not discount or ignore female on male sexual assaults just because they are less common or because they do not involve the victim being penetrated, and secondly, I believe that using a more inclusive and gender-neutral approach is more likely to succeed in gaining the acceptance of wide ranging groups in society.

              Really? Please explain – and keep in mind some physical realities: rape involves a man inserting part of his body into another’s, in a way women can never do; most men are physically stronger than most women, and this puts most women in a vulnerable position.

              My point is that we do not need to use ‘male dominance’ as a starting point for discussing all things to do with sexual assault. Instead, there are other ways we can think about and find solutions for preventing sexual assault. Here are a few I came up with off the top of my head:

              1) We could teach both males and females that all sexual contact requires clear consent. For males in particular they need to learn that they cannot use their physical strength to coerce others into sex. For females, they must also learn that they cannot take sexual consent for granted just because ‘males always want sex’ or that ‘females cannot rape males’.

              2) We could break down the stereotypes regarding sexual behaviour for males and females. For example, as a society we should not consider females having multiple sex partners any better or worse than males doing the same. Hopefully, this will allow healthier interpersonal and sexual relationships to arise. They will be less societal pressure for males to engage in multiple sexual relationships to ‘prove their manliness’ and encourage females to very directly tell their sexual partners what they do and do not want to engage in.

              3) We can stop considering sex ‘icky’ so that people are more willing to talk about sex and problems such as sexual assault in a mature manner.

              4) We should ensure that people understand that sexual contact that involves drugs and alcohol can be a risky business. This is because the loss of inhibitions following alcohol consumption can end up in people doing things that they would not otherwise have done, such as commit sexual assault. (In no way am I saying that the victim consuming drugs or alcohol is ever to blame for what happens to them).

              • karol …
                11 November 2013 at 7:16 pm

                Hmmm. wtl, I do agree that there are times when it is helpful to focus on sexual assault without mentioning gender eg in relation to education about sexual relationships, and respecting others.

                Nevertheless, it is done by ignoring the elephant in the room: that, as the NZ 2009 Taskforce report says (on the first page after the title page:

                Sexual violence is a highly gendered crime

                ƒOverwhelmingly sexual assault is perpetrated by men against women. It is both a consequence and cause of gender inequality.

                ie it is part of the way male dominance is reinforced and maintained. Consequently, some men have no interest in giving up the power they feel they achieve through sexual assault.

                Furthermore, sexual abuse and rape are at the centre of a whole complex of processes that include sexism and denigration of women:

                Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety.

                So I don’t see how rape culture can be countered, without at some point (in fact very often), dealing with the kind of misogynistic cultural practices that help maintain it.

                And at the centre of that is the issue of power. Many people with access to power don’t willingly give it up by talking nicely to them, and avoiding the crucial issues related to power dynamics.

                • RedLogix …
                  11 November 2013 at 8:11 pm

                  Many people with access to power don’t willingly give it up by talking nicely to them, and avoiding the crucial issues related to power dynamics.

                  Alternately you could come up with a better offer. As long as we keep playing this as a zero sum game we are essentially pitching one half of humanity against the other.

                  I can see that everyone has latched onto the wrong component of my little story on Ruapehu. That’s my fault… I failed to make it clear. I really wasn’t implying anyone was to responsible for what happened that day, nor was it meant to be an direct parallel with the experience of a girl the same age being the victim of a rapist.

                  My point was simply, they are both bad situations … what lessons are to be learnt? When something goes badly wrong we’re allowed to ask why without getting tangled up in blame. That’s how we collectively learn how to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Which is absolutely not the same thing as blaming the victim.

                  In my case there were some simple lessons to be learnt around exposure and risk management. In the case of the girl being raped there are much harder questions around why do so many men do this? Sure we can throw all the bad men in prison, but does that give us any useful information on why and how to prevent this violence from just happening over and over as it has done for thousands of years?

                  All I am asking is questions as to WHY men are so very prone (the statistics you keep producing are shameful and a blight on the conscience of all men) to getting this so badly wrong. Being a rapist or sexual abuser is really no gain to anyone, absolutely not the victim and in reality not for the abuser either. Everyone stands to gain by moving out of this dark power abuse paradigm we’ve been stuck in for so long.

                  We can absolutely start by telling men to take responsibility for their behaviour (like we did for drink driving) … but getting to the root of why men are prone to this might take some lifting of the bonnet and digging around a little… without getting stuck on blame. Like wtl has so deftly done above.

                  And just because I’m making some people uncomfortable does not make me insincere. Really. If you can’t cope with my honest conversation .. how the hell do you think we’ll make any progress with a wider world outside this blog?

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    12 November 2013 at 12:41 am

                    everyone again!

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 November 2013 at 1:00 am

                      feeling cuddly?

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 1:17 am

                      Nope, not at the moment, all loved out over the weekend (to this possible watershed in NZ socio-cultural development, but then, asphyxiation is not really my bag). What happened to Departure? Back so soon with a vengeance . 😀 Couldn’t leave a sinking ship? Now, you know I believe it’s going down. Only been (looks at sundial) almost two years, and where are we now… The Technological Society . So Grand.

                      ps, no need to climb down off a perfectly useful horse 😉

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 November 2013 at 1:30 am

                      Now everyone knows … about the captain that is.

                      In between Sinkings a sliver of bandwidth opened up.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 2:05 am

                      before I refreshed to see your post, this was raised (was cleaning my teeth).

                      “And if I say to you tomorrow
                      …
                      Everybody I know seems to know me well
                      But they’re never gonna KNOW that I move like hell”

                      -John (may the Lord continue to bless you Red, and all who depend on you). Night.

          • QoT 32.1.1.1.2
            11 November 2013 at 8:00 pm

            If a teenage girl kisses or grabs a teenage boy in a sexual way without his consent, then that is a form of sexual assault.

            You think giving someone a clear physical sign that you don’t respect their autonomy and privacy isn’t about dominance?

            • wtl 32.1.1.1.2.1
              11 November 2013 at 8:37 pm

              I thought my example was more of a selfish or thoughtless lack of respect of one individual for another, not dominance per se, but define it as you will. I’m not getting into a conversation about what constitutes ‘dominance’ and what does not. In my mind, it’s completely pointless, just like a lot of the discussion involving RL and others above.

              My point was, and still is, that we should get away from slogans and academic arguments (like insisting on the correct terminology). Instead let’s just have a honest conversation about what can be done to stop rape.

              • RedLogix …
                11 November 2013 at 9:31 pm

                Instead let’s just have a honest conversation about what can be done to stop rape.

                Well I tried. I wasn’t very good at it and it turns out that if you stray just a little from the slogans and academic arguments … it does indeed become very rapidly pointless.

                However I have read all the contributions with care and appreciation. Yours especially.

                • Tat Loo (CV) …
                  11 November 2013 at 9:57 pm

                  So as this thread stands, how effective do you think efforts to stop rape and eliminate rape culture are likely to be?

                  • RedLogix …
                    11 November 2013 at 10:19 pm

                    In my experience the most effective way to get people to change their behaviour permanently is:

                    1. Appeal to their better nature. Telling them they are all bad people usually just generates pointless defensiveness.

                    2. Show them a win-win way forward where everyone has a shot at getting what they want. Most people can spot a zero-sum game several light-years out.

                    3. Reinforce the change with reward for the desired behaviour and disincentivise the undesired.

                    4. Create a safe space where people can express their concerns, doubts and misapprehensions.

                    If we treat men as the enemy guess what … they will be. Expectation is the most potent predictor of outcomes.

                    Looked at in those terms I have to think that the potential for real change at this point is pretty modest. I’d like to be wrong.

                    • wtl …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:01 am

                      I agree with all your points, and I think this is especially important:

                      If we treat men as the enemy guess what … they will be. Expectation is the most potent predictor of outcomes

                      This is the reason I kept talking about keeping things gender neutral. It re-frames so that it seems fair, even though it is effectively saying the same thing.

                      In my mind, perhaps the simplest way of dealing with the complex subject of rape culture is the radical feminist notion that women are people too. The reason men should make sure they treat women more respectfully isn’t because that is the right way to treat women, but because it is the right way to treat other people. Replace ‘imagine if it happened to your wife/sister/daughter’ with ‘imagine if it happened to you’. All it really means is extending empathy and understanding to people of the other gender, yet it is something many people struggle to do. But if we manage to achieve that we would have accomplished a lot.

                    • Tat Loo (CV) …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:02 am

                      RL. The key has to be strategies around teaching, supporting and appropriately socialising young people. As you have recognised previously, brains are wired up for and conditioned to stimuli early on in life.

                      Looked at in those terms I have to think that the potential for real change at this point is pretty modest.

                      I think you are an optimist.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      12 November 2013 at 12:52 am

                      slim

                • wtl …
                  11 November 2013 at 11:17 pm

                  Well I tried. I wasn’t very good at it and it turns out that if you stray just a little from the slogans and academic arguments … it does indeed become very rapidly pointless.

                  Part of the problem is that this is a highly emotional-charged subject. Many people, especially women, tend to get upset very quickly if there is any suggestion of victim blaming, even if unintentional. This happens for good reason, which I’m sure you can (and do) appreciate. When that happens, perhaps the best thing to do is to admit fault, taking it as a learning experience so you know what ground to avoid threading on and trying again from square one, hopefully finding some common ground next time.

  33. Tracey 33
    11 November 2013 at 6:11 am

    Red logix was scarier to me than the pc calling Rhinocrates. And I find that bloody worrying. Shout out to rhino.

  34. lonelyavenger 34
    11 November 2013 at 1:41 pm

    Labour’s facebook page has reported that Tamihere is not a member of the party (presumably his membership lapsed 12 months after his application in October last year).

    • Rich 34.1
      11 November 2013 at 3:27 pm

      Which prevents the party from having the pleasure of expelling him.

      (Though there remains the horrible, if unlikely, prospect that he might rejoin and get selected as an MP. Highly unlikely he’d find an electorate willing to do this, but it would make sense to have a rule that MPs had to have been financial members for two or three years before the election?)

      I think this affair has terminally damaged the “proletard right” faction in Labour, which was already suffering from the National Party media attempting to foist Shane Jones as party leader. Labour should be about making peoples lives better, not dividing and ruling by class/gender/race. I think Cunliffe gets this in a way Shearer didn’t.

      • Tat Loo (CV) 34.1.1
        11 November 2013 at 8:15 pm

        Highly unlikely he’d find an electorate willing to do this, but it would make sense to have a rule that MPs had to have been financial members for two or three years before the election?)

        Such a rule does exist, yes. It applies to candidates.

  35. aerobubble 35
    11 November 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Initially I thought, well no surprise there, two jock shocks wanted in on the roast PR, that is their coin after all. But now that you mention his ambition to become a MP, well doesn’t the political custom, better them peeing out than in apply. Well not if they don’t have a job in the media to go to! Or are inclined to pee themselves.

  36. Morrissey 36
    11 November 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Put him in ACT. It’s the natural party for a moral imbecile—and it would simultaneously increase the average IQ of Labour and ACT.

  37. Tanz 37
    11 November 2013 at 9:08 pm

    JT is no more extreme in his views that what Russell Norman is. Double standards.
    And much as I don’t agree with JT and what he said, it is only his opinion.
    Free speech is always in danger when it comes to the hard left…
    he is a shock jock, looking at all the angles. Honestly. so much for open debate.

    • karol 37.1
      11 November 2013 at 9:13 pm

      Actually, I disagree with labelling JT’s problem as him being “extreme”. It’s that he’s a misogynist.

      All the angles? Really? As far as I can see, JT usually takes the misogynist angle. Haven’t seen him taking up the cause for women generally, for gays, or for feminism for instance – or for sexually abused young women – except maybe when pushed to apologise by his employers.

      • toad 37.1.1
        12 November 2013 at 8:45 pm

        Yeah, have always thought that since the “frontbums” interview.

        This guy has no place in progressive political parties. He should fuck off to Colin Craig’s misogynist and homophobic Conservative Party and take his chances there.

    • greywarbler 37.2
      12 November 2013 at 10:22 pm

      Tanz JT is a shock jock yes. Shock is his stock in trade. We here are not paid to discuss what we think and write, it is what we think is important for informed citizens. We take it seriously too, well most of the time. There seems to be a yawning chasm between JT and the Standard. And you are falling into it.

  38. Tanz 38
    11 November 2013 at 9:43 pm

    Karol, the man has a right to his views, and I believe he is not a leftist anyway.

    • Retired Engineer 38.1
      11 November 2013 at 11:31 pm

      Re 38.
      Tanz, Prejudices and views should not be confused.

      “Prejudice is a baseless and usually negative attitude toward members of a group. Common features of prejudice include negative feelings, stereotyped beliefs, and a tendency to discriminate against members of the group. While specific definitions of prejudice given by social scientists often differ, most agree that it involves prejudgments (usually negative) about members of a group.”

      “A view point requires a value system and a belief system from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience, cohesively forming a coherent belief, typically for comparing with another.”

      Tanz, did Tamihere express a view point or just a predjudice?

    • Tracey 38.2
      13 November 2013 at 3:23 pm

      sure he does, and he has lost his job for them. He can say whatever he likes but no one has to pay him for them, and now they’re not.

  39. captain hook 39
    12 November 2013 at 2:13 pm

    no because he is a pinhead.

  40. mickysavage 40
    12 November 2013 at 8:09 pm

    Well it appears that Tamihere’s chances are comparable to that of a snowflake …

  41. Crunchtime 41
    12 November 2013 at 11:26 pm

    cunliffe has weighed in now – he thinks JT has a snowflakes chance. Nice choice of words.

  42. karol 42
    13 November 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Running out of reply buttons above. But with mention of Michelle A’Court on RNZ, I remembered she did an op ed piece on Stuff on this issue. here are some extracts: ‘A tough week to be a woman’

    These are useful things for parents to hear this week, that there is something we haven’t done and could do better for our sons and daughters. To tell them to practise not just “safe sex” but “kind sex”.
    […]
    A lot of questions have been asked about the victims. What was she wearing? Had she been drinking? Why was she there? Was she a virgin before this? All versions of, “did she behave in a way that made her vulnerable to sexual assault?”

    Nowhere – did I miss it? – were any of these questions aimed at the perpetrators. I have no idea what they were wearing, whether they were sober, or anything about their sexual history. And I’m really not sure I need to know these things either because none of them are relevant to an act of rape.

    Let’s say some things, though, about how women dress. My daughter is now 20 years old, and I have spent much of the past few years wishing she would put more clothes on. She and her delightful friends dress in a way that, to my middle-aged eyes, looks kind of slutty.

    Doubtless, my mother said the same thing about me, and hers about her. Every generation has two sartorial aims – to not dress like their mothers, and to dress like each other. It says everything about fashion, and nothing about behaviour.

    This might be hard for a middle-aged radio jock to understand so I will write it clearly: a tiny skirt does not mean she wants to shag you. And to men of all ages, let’s say this really clearly: if you want to have sex with her, ask her, not her clothes. And then listen to what she says.
    […]
    If we can learn anything this week, let’s make it this: rape is not about sex. It is about power through violence and control.

    In fact, it may be useful if we think of rape, not as a “sex” crime, but as a “hate” crime.

    So rather than take vto’s word for what A’Court said on RNZ, maybe it’s more helpful to read what she wrote on the issue.

    • weka 42.1
      13 November 2013 at 12:20 pm

      Ka pai karol.

    • NZ Femme 42.2
      13 November 2013 at 12:28 pm

      Thanks Karol. Wanted to post Michele’s post also, but to be honest, this thread feels like a toxic snake pit to this rape survivor.

      Michele’s radio interview:

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2576090

      The relevant section begins at around 19 mins or so.

      A big shout out of thanks to Weka, Miravox, Mcflock, Karol, Just Saying, (and others challenging the rape myths popping up in this thread) for continuing to fight the good fight.

      • weka 42.2.1
        13 November 2013 at 12:46 pm

        🙂

        Download link

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2576090/the-panel-with-michele-a%27court-and-jeremy-elwood-part-2

        There is also a short bit earlier on at 7mins where A’Court starts by referring back to the article that karol linked to, and talks about consent and respect. After a bit she talks about the juxtposition of editorials on misogyny in newpapers that have lifestyle articles on how to make your eyelashes look longer (and notes that many of the articles on rape culture have been in the same lifestyle section).

        At 18:45 there is a discussion about Lady Gaga’s nearly naked image is removed from Auckland buses, and how the image is similar to Botticelli’s Venus.

        Mostly the discussion is about a general one about the sexualisation of children and how much the media and popular culture are involved in that. The male guest talks about the socialisation of young men that women are there to be objectified and used.

        Then, the freedom of marketers and musicians etc vs the freedom from misogyny. A’Court makes a point about the supposed paradox of third wave feminism (which I disagree with. It’s not feminism that’s creating misogynistic culture).

        I didn’t hear anything about short skirts, legs, men’s arousal leading to rape. Nor did A’Court say what vto said upthread.

        • vto 42.2.1.1
          13 November 2013 at 1:03 pm

          She said she could not understand the dichotomy. Twice.

          imo that is because the miley cyrus / roast busters intersection has not been examined sufficiently. That was the point being made.

          Don’t infer anything else.

          • weka 42.2.1.1.1
            13 November 2013 at 1:39 pm

            What dichotomy exactly? And how about posting the exact time of the two mentions, so we can put them in context?

          • Tracey 42.2.1.1.2
            13 November 2013 at 1:51 pm

            feel free to post your questions for the perpetrators, your analysis of them and their lives and behaviour. I don’t think any of them have rung a radio station.

            No deluge of perpetrators sharing their stories about why they raped.

            As long as you cant get your head around the majority of rapes and sexual assaults NOT involving alcohol/drugs and revealing clothing, you will probably attract some vitriolic reaction.

    • vto 42.3
      13 November 2013 at 1:05 pm

      Karol, what she said on the radio was different from the article (though within the larger issue). She said she couldn’t understand how sex culture and rape culture exist side-by-side to the extent they do. My postings were about the seeming lack of investigation into this.

  43. greywarbler 43
    13 November 2013 at 1:14 pm

    Rape. It shouldn’t happen. How can we prevent it happening? Can’t talk about anything because as soon as a discussion is started someone will ambush it with an outraged comment that it is advancing rape culture. End of discussion.

    All I hear at present. Outrage, protests, slut marches, more protests, more marches, condemnation, confusion. Closed minds. Nothing helpful can be done because it is someone else’s fault and a fog of blame and accusations of callousness are thrown. Rape culture is referred to again. And the circle goes round, and round. It’s a vicious one.

    • vto 43.1
      13 November 2013 at 1:20 pm

      Yep, exactly. Impossible to try and discuss unless it goes in this one direction.

      It is like one of those fireworks spinning wheels – spinning wildly, going nowhere and firing shots all over the frikkin’ place.

      To all those out there who consider greywarbler and I to be the enemy – we aint. We are trying to discuss it in good faith.

      • NZ Femme 43.1.1
        13 November 2013 at 1:37 pm

        “…We are trying to discuss it in good faith…”

        And yet, in a highly charged thread about rape, you found it appropriate to refer to Weka as a “Racist Bitch”.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/will-jt-be-a-labour-mp/#comment-725706

        • weka 43.1.1.1
          13 November 2013 at 1:45 pm

          Wow, I hadn’t seen that. Just goes to show the thin veneer that vto has.

          • NZ Femme 43.1.1.1.1
            13 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

            Indeed. Makes me sick to my stomach.

            • marty mars 43.1.1.1.1.1
              13 November 2013 at 3:07 pm

              I’m sorry that you had that abuse directed at you weka. This is how vto works and you know I know – and it makes me sick too. I just want to say thank you to you weka and all of the commenters to this thread who have honestly tried to contribute. I have learned a lot especially how to counter the idiotic arguments of those that don’t see or understand rape culture. Thank you all again.

          • vto 43.1.1.1.2
            13 November 2013 at 3:17 pm

            No veneer weka. You base your assessment on people’ words and acts on various of their characteristics such as race and gender. You have admitted such yourself. That is a form of racism.

        • vto 43.1.1.2
          13 November 2013 at 3:15 pm

          Did you see why NZ Femme? It stands. Racism is ugly, as is sexism.

          • Crunchtime 43.1.1.2.1
            13 November 2013 at 3:23 pm

            She said she couldn’t take reverse sexisim/racism seriously coming from a white man feeling sorry for themselves… You quoted only part of her statement. You took her comment out of context and then called her a racist bitch. Rude and insulting.

            I agree with weka. You definitely shouldn’t take reverse sexism/racism seriously. Racism and sexism has a real tangible effect when it is used by the dominant group as a tool of oppression. Going the other way? Sorry, doesn’t really happen unless you’re a white man feeling sorry for himself.

            • vto 43.1.1.2.1.1
              13 November 2013 at 3:34 pm

              she bases her opinions on race and gender

              • Crunchtime …
                13 November 2013 at 5:23 pm

                She bases her opinions on what makes racism racism and what makes sexism sexism in the first place: who holds the power, and abuses it to denigrate people based on their gender, race, sexuality, cultural background, etc.

                If you have no clue what racism and sexism are then go find out. This isn’t school.

                • vto …
                  15 November 2013 at 7:09 pm

                  ” to denigrate people based on their gender, race”

                  is what she did.

                  and it is most amusing to note that you lot are blaming the victim here. weka subjected me to racism and sexism, I bit back, and you lot side with the perpetrator and continue to hammer the victim. Unbelievable.

                  • Crunchtime …
                    15 November 2013 at 8:48 pm

                    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

                    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
                    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
                    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

                    weka did none of the above. It was very rude of you to call her a “racist bitch”.

                    You really need to go back to school and learn some fundamental things about human behaviour, culture and history. AND some manners.

              • weka …
                13 November 2013 at 5:36 pm

                “she bases her opinions on race and gender”

                She bases her opinions on the politics of race and gender.

                fify

          • Tracey 43.1.1.2.2
            13 November 2013 at 3:31 pm

            ” woman wearing short skirt can make men think “legs, attractive, sex”

            Is this what you think when you see a woman wearing a short skirt vto?

          • NZ Femme 43.1.1.2.3
            13 November 2013 at 3:32 pm

            There is no room for that kind of sexism on a thread discussing rape. None. If you, (or anyone else who believes they are discussing rape and rape culture in good faith) really care about rape, rape culture, and survivors of rape, you would abstain from calling someone a Bitch on a rape thread.

            Because it is triggering. How many rape survivors do you think were called Bitches/Cunts/dirty little sluts while they were being raped? I’ll tell you how many. Every single rape survivor I have met in the last 2 years at my Rape Crisis therapy group.

            If you cannot refrain from using sexist slurs, even on a thread discussing rape, you, vto, ARE the enemy. YOU are rape culture. And every “stay at home and do your embroidery” concern troll like you.

            [This debate is getting somewhat out of hand and I have excised the words that are complained of – MS]

            • vto 43.1.1.2.3.1
              13 November 2013 at 3:54 pm

              Yes it is getting out of hand, as greywarbler said above. Racist bastard would have been much more acceptable.

      • Crunchtime 43.1.2
        13 November 2013 at 2:37 pm

        In all honesty, if you are trying to “discuss it in good faith” then you are doing a terrible job. Really, really offensively terrible.

        Unless you can make it perfectly clear, I still stand by my comments that you are just being rude, ignorant, and perpetuating misogynistic views that being raped is in any way the responsibility of the victim.

        • vto 43.1.2.1
          13 November 2013 at 3:16 pm

          never done that – that is your own interpretation

          • miravox 43.1.2.1.1
            13 November 2013 at 9:05 pm

            ” never done that – that is your own interpretation”

            Actually, you have done that. I live in the inner city. I feel safe going outside in the city because there are lots of people around. I feel anxious walking around where no-one (except a rapist?) is. Having some experience with this subject, I always lock the doors at home when I’m alone, because bad things can happen if someone knows I’m alone….

            Thanks to the words of people like you, vto, and greywarbler, when I went for my jog today I felt unsafe. I checked what I was wearing – whats any skin showing? Was my shape showing? (The temp was 8 deg, btw, so I was well covered). I ran with my jacket on until I was so hot it was really uncomfortable, then when I did take it of, I wrapped it around my hips, in case the shape might have made someone in this busy place where people were enjoying the autumn sun, think ‘arse’ ‘rape’. I made sure my top had not got clingy and someone not might think ‘breast’ ‘rape. I avoided eye contact with every male jogger coming the other way and veered away from every other man who was there alone. It took a huge effort not to change my usual route along the river where I could imagine men hiding.

            Yet, intellectually and through jogging this route time after time, I know that none of these things I did or feared yesterday was ever going to protect me from being raped. Only locking myself inside alone would do that. It was just the words that a few people on a blog said that made me think I needed to watch myself. Thanks a bunch.

            Can we please talk about how to change rapists behaviour so I don’t need to change my own anymore? Or is that too selfish of me – to these people who just can’t help themselves when they see a bit of a woman’s body?

            • Rogue Trooper 43.1.2.1.1.1
              13 November 2013 at 10:40 pm

              phenomenal and great exposition as well.
              I won’t know if you read a comment I made last year to the effect that the majority of females I met intimately had been sexually violated in some way. In fact (just realizing) these recent events and their ripple into the national consciousness may be behind my close friend in her forties heading off to begin counselling for the first time since childhood occurrences.
              The process, as indicated above, of healing can be unsettling to say the least, yet to let the tentacles remain entwined in every aspect of identity and embodiment is to slowly die from within one’s own fortifications.

              • miravox …
                13 November 2013 at 11:50 pm

                Yes, I did read that comment. Sexual violation in one form or another, is far more widespread than people may realise – for men and women.

                Best wishes to your friend. I’ve not done that – I don’t want to open the can of worms that will result, lol. Still I know it’s very, very good for others. You’re right, of course about slowly dying from within one’s fortifications – and that is one of the big effects of all this and other such stuff – is that it takes so long afterwards, many years even, to learn how to just be – be yourself, not be fearful, be expressive, believe in yourself and others.

                I have taken so much of value from the commenters here, especially (along with a few others) from your good self. Only a few cause me doubt, but I’ll get over them. In the big scheme of things they are irrelevant.

    • weka 43.2
      13 November 2013 at 1:43 pm

      “Rape culture is referred to again.”

      That would be because rape culture promotes, supports and causes rape. Are you seriously suggesting that we look at solutions to rape without talking about rape culture?

      Your view on what is happening is about you. I look at the past week and I see lots of women and men in NZ, including many people who have the kind of power in society that effects change, standing up and saying it’s not ok to blame women for their rape. They’re also saying the police need to sort their shit out. That in itself is a massively huge shift from previous debates like this. It’s a very very good thing, and I’m sorry that you cannot see the value in it.

    • Tracey 43.3
      13 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

      Sorry but solutions have been suggested, including by me and others.

      This government doesn’t have enough money, and the public will forget about it all soon enough.

  44. Crunchtime 44
    13 November 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Just because A’Court “can’t understand the dichotomy” does not mean she is drawing any kind of link between sexually provocative behaviour and rape.

    • vto 44.1
      13 November 2013 at 1:27 pm

      and such was never even remotely suggested

      • weka 44.1.1
        13 November 2013 at 1:44 pm

        Yes, you suggested it every time you said legs/men/sex are connected to rape.

        • McFlock 44.1.1.1
          13 November 2013 at 2:11 pm

          To put it bluntly, I saw a number of pretty women in short skirts during lunch today, and didn’t want to rape any of them.

        • vto 44.1.1.2
          13 November 2013 at 3:28 pm

          ” every time you said legs/men/sex are connected to rape”

          The only way I suggested there may be a link is, one, both involve erections and vaginas, and two, both involve objectification (miley cyrus scenario). Given that, the issue is worthy of at least examination.

          That was it.

          • Tracey 44.1.1.2.1
            13 November 2013 at 3:34 pm

            ” woman wearing short skirt can make men think “legs, attractive, sex”

            Do you think sex when you see a woman wearing a short skirt vto? If yes, do you then think, she is inviting me to have sex with her? If yes, do you then try and have sex with her? If yes, do you then have sex with her whether she consents or not?

            • vto 44.1.1.2.1.1
              13 November 2013 at 3:39 pm

              “Do you think sex when you see a woman wearing a short skirt vto?”

              Leaving the personal out, thanks. But your next question could also be…. If yes, and the woman understands that this will happen then what is the man to infer about her intentions in arousing such? (or do women never dress for this purpose?)

              (and please don’t assume I am trying to lead this anywhere. It is just a question only)

              • Tracey …
                13 November 2013 at 4:08 pm

                how can you not answer the question? If you can’t where did you get the idea tat man sees mini skirt and thinks legs, sex? That must have come from somewhere? You expect everyone else to have answers for you?

                It IS NOT just a question OR you would answer mine…but you are actually trying to defend your own supposition by repeating it relentlessly. I actually answered you litany of questions on this line when you FIRST posted them but you refuse to answer mine.

              • McFlock …
                13 November 2013 at 4:40 pm

                vto, even though it’s complete bullshit, let’s go with that scenario: let’s say a woman dresses in a sexy way with the intent of having someone be sexually attracted to her.

                Does that mean she wants to have sex with every man who sees her?
                No, of course not. She might not even want to have sex with the guy she’s meeting – it’s called “flirting”. Hell, it might just be called “looking good”.

                Does that mean that any man who sees her and is attracted to her (although she does not wish to have sex with him) must then rape her?
                No, of course not.

                Does that mean that any particular man’s decision to rape her was based on her attire?
                No, of course not. It was based on his desire to rape. That is why, over the last few days, media have reported sexual attacks on women and girls ranging in age from 11 through to 87. Rape is not about sexual attraction – this is a concept that you have difficulty comprehending. Research going back decades reports rapists as being motivated by power, by their own description. Shere Hite, for example.

                Frankly, the idea that a man chooses to rape someone in part because he is attracted to someone is an insult to men, as well as an excuse for rapists.

              • Rhinocrates …
                13 November 2013 at 5:36 pm

                Well this sounds awfully postmodernist, but really it’s timeless: sometimes an advertisement is an advertisement for itself.

                Judith Collins (I can’t believe that I’m writing this) wrote that girls who dress “provocatively” are dressing for themselves. They want to be cool, they want to be sexy. Being sexy is an invitation to be admired, not be raped.

                And a lot of people who are raped are certainly not even “inviting it” .

                In the course of my job I see beautiful women all the time and I’d admired their beauty in all its diversity as I’ve come to know them, knowing that it’s more than skin deep (actually, what would make anyone ugly? Tentacles? Slime?). I still haven’t raped any of them despite the years of “provocation.”

                If a woman is wearing a short skirt and showing nice legs, then it’s either because the weather is hot or that she wanted to show off her legs, to which my mental response would be, “nice legs”. If an “unattractive” person appears, then their body is still an expression of their persona, not meat.

                Every woman with whom I had sex has wanted to have sex with me, not have it done to her.

                I would say that rape is the kind of sex you have with a blow-up doll, but in fact it’s the kind of “sex” one would have with someone you want to reduce to being no more than a blow-up doll. Really, it’s not even sex, but the act of humiliation that perpetrators call sex.

                I’m not even being some saint over this – I used to teach life drawing when art schools thought that it mattered and I’ve seen a parade of naked bodies of all shapes in both sexes in front of me. They’ve all been fascinating, but none of them have been triggers to uncontrollable impulses.

                So to Hell with anything that excuses anything that hints of “provocation”. We’re all “provoked”, all of the time, by all sorts of things. Nobody is obliged to follow their “provocations”, ever. Rape is not loss of control, it’s malice.

      • Crunchtime 44.1.2
        13 November 2013 at 2:40 pm

        that’s exactly what you suggested directly and repeatedly, with your supposed “link between sex culture and rape culture”.

        • vto 44.1.2.1
          13 November 2013 at 3:22 pm

          No you’re wrong, I did not suggest that “she is drawing any kind of link between sexually provocative behaviour and rape.”

          But it is very interesting that she says this… “My daughter is now 20 years old, and I have spent much of the past few years wishing she would put more clothes on. She and her delightful friends dress in a way that, to my middle-aged eyes, looks kind of slutty.”

          Why would she be worried about how many clothes her daughter, and her previously, wears?

          Why?

          Why is she worried about it?

          • Crunchtime 44.1.2.1.1
            13 November 2013 at 3:25 pm

            You took that comment out of context for your own ends and it is now meaningless.

            You are letting your conservative views get in the way of any useful discussion.

            A discussion about rape is not the place to discuss the way young women dress.

            • vto 44.1.2.1.1.1
              13 November 2013 at 3:29 pm

              Why would she be worried about it?

              • Tracey …
                13 November 2013 at 3:38 pm

                because like you she totally misunderstands who the vast majority of rape victims are, but you carry on focusing on the small percentage and the alleged connection to sex culture. I wonder how many woman not wearing short skirts were raped or sexually assaulted today? You and Ms A’Court are an example of a small amount of knowledge being dangerous.

                You think you are on the cusp of some insight but you aren’t. You seem so eager to explore this but why restrict yourself to this site which contains no knowledge or experience of this area. Try rape crisis and rape prevention education trust and see if they can answer your questions.

                • vto …
                  13 November 2013 at 3:41 pm

                  I have said countless times that this particular part-issue is a small part of the bigger problem.

                  I don’t go to other sites and will soon be abandoning this site too. That should keep everyone happy – you can all go along dreamily agreeing with each other and only asking the permitted questions.

                  • Tracey …
                    13 November 2013 at 4:05 pm

                    if you actually cared about what you say you want to know why wouldn’t you go close to the source, like rape crisis or rape prevention education, or are you happy just assuming stuff and wasting time with others who also assume stuff instead of finding out?

                    as for your “Im taking my ball and going home.” you don’t see how that compounds that this is about you,not the topic?

                  • Tracey …
                    13 November 2013 at 4:13 pm

                    this from the man who keeps refusing to answer mine.

                    there is nothing dreamy about rApe. I have twice given you suggestions for where you might find research to answer your question. I have also suggested a solution is to get rape prevention programmes in all high schools, publicly funded, not just in a few schools.

                    So, by all means convince yourself that I live in a dreamy world when in fact I live in a world shaped by sexual assault, personally and broader in society.

                    Your poor misunderstood me, they just don’t see the sophist in me routine is a crock. You sir, may be the one labouring under a delusion. My eyes are very wide open on this topic. That you suggest to me that you might see my posts but you don’t really read them, except the one you took to be validating your position of course.

                    We could make mini skirts illegal tomorrow (seriously we could) but we wouldn’t stop sexual assault or rape. Isnt that all you really need to know?

              • McFlock …
                13 November 2013 at 3:44 pm

                lol

                Repeated denials, always followed by a “but”.

                VTO, I can’t speak for A’Court. I can suggest that a parent being concerned about their child dressing in tight and very revealing clothes could well have nothing to do with provoking or enabling a rape. You use the term “worried”. It could just be a parent who doesn’t want their child to look like a plonker.

                • vto …
                  13 November 2013 at 3:47 pm

                  Ok, so she doesn’t want her daughter to wear minimal clothes because it makes her look like a plonker

                  • McFlock …
                    13 November 2013 at 4:12 pm

                    Or maybe because she didn’t think her child was ready to be judged by others.

                    Or whatever.

                    The point is that the “connection” between what A’Court said, clothing, and rape is purely your own projection. Yet it’s your justification for an immense derail against holding rapists responsible for their actions.

                    • vto …
                      15 November 2013 at 7:01 pm

                      mcflock “The point is that the “connection” between what A’Court said, clothing, and rape is purely your own projection.”

                      Nope. Never did such projection. Go see if you can find it. It aint there. Stop making shit up mcflock.

                      ” Yet it’s your justification for an immense derail against holding rapists responsible for their actions.””

                      Nope not that either but feel free to provide evidence to back up you mindless accusation.

                      And in case anyone has forgotten, the roast-busters phenomenon is not just about rape, it is also about sexual harassment, abuse, general bad behaviour and lack of respect between the sexes in certain circumstances. The debate is not all about rape – it encompasses many other spheres which all interact.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 November 2013 at 9:10 pm

                      Read the bit above where you claimed to not have made the connection before, and then followed it with a “but”.

                  • Tracey …
                    13 November 2013 at 4:14 pm

                    Do you accept that Ms A’Court is NOT an expert on rape or sexual abuse vto?

                    “because like you she totally misunderstands who the vast majority of rape victims are, but you carry on focusing on the small percentage and the alleged connection to sex culture. I wonder how many woman not wearing short skirts were raped or sexually assaulted today? You and Ms A’Court are an example of a small amount of knowledge being dangerous.

                    You think you are on the cusp of some insight but you aren’t. You seem so eager to explore this but why restrict yourself to this site which contains no knowledge or experience of this area. Try rape crisis and rape prevention education trust and see if they can answer your questions.”

              • Crunchtime …
                13 November 2013 at 3:47 pm

                she worries about it because she’s worried about how her daughter might be viewed by others. Not because she’s worried it’s a big “rape me” sign.

                As I said, you took it out of context, if you read the whole thing instead of cherry-picking, you would know why she’s worried, and you wouldn’t be asking stupid questions.

              • miravox …
                13 November 2013 at 9:12 pm

                You assume she’s worried about it

                I assume she’s like me, and finds she needs a little time to appreciate the reality of her daughter as a fully-grown woman, with a woman’s sexuality.

                Maybe you should ask her, rather than assuming, if this little snippet concerns you. Just so you read the wrong thing into her words

                • vto …
                  15 November 2013 at 6:53 pm

                  miravox “You assume she’s worried about it”

                  For fucking fucks sake, don’t you lot read? I didn’t assume she’s worried about it. She said she’s worried about it. It is right there in black and white. Get your facts rights.

                  • miravox …
                    15 November 2013 at 8:14 pm

                    Black and white…
                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/9383919/A-tough-week-to-be-a-woman

                    Let’s say some things, though, about how women dress. My daughter is now 20 years old, and I have spent much of the past few years wishing she would put more clothes on. She and her delightful friends dress in a way that, to my middle-aged eyes, looks kind of slutty.

                    Doubtless, my mother said the same thing about me, and hers about her. Every generation has two sartorial aims – to not dress like their mothers, and to dress like each other. It says everything about fashion, and nothing about behaviour

          • Tracey 44.1.2.1.2
            13 November 2013 at 3:27 pm

            She actually should be more worried about her 85 year old mother…

            you are chasing a HUGE red herring vto.

            I wonder what the 7 people raped near manukau superbowl were wearing? Gym gear? Cycing gear? The 13 year old girl in the playground? Provocative shorts and a t-shirt? Any yet they were raped… seemingly unrelated to the sex culture you are so focused on.

            I was swimming in the sea during one of my sexual assaults. I suppose I shuldnt have worn a bathing suit. I was 11. It is you and greywarbler who have become distracted by focusing on a tiny tiny percentage f rape victims.

            • Crunchtime 44.1.2.1.2.1
              13 November 2013 at 3:31 pm

              It’s worse than that. As much as they vehemently deny it, they continue to perpetuate rape culture. They continue to shame rape victims who might be reading this and thinking, “what if I wore something different”.

              You are dead right Tracey, it doesn’t matter what you wear or how you behave. What matters is the behaviour of the perpetrators.

            • vto 44.1.2.1.2.2
              13 November 2013 at 3:32 pm

              ” focusing on a tiny tiny percentage f rape victims.”

              Finally some acknowledgment of what I am questioning.

              I have made it perfectly clear on many occasions that this is a very small part of the wider big problem.

              • Tracey …
                13 November 2013 at 3:41 pm

                Congratulations vto, you have actually made it all about YOU and that you needed to be proven right to be trying to find a link between your sex culture and rape culture.

                I’m glad you are feeling pleased that somehow I validated your position. Sadly the victims are still victims, no further advanced toward reporting, and in some case because of your diversionary self aggrandisement some may feel worse for you drawing an unsubstantiated ink between short skirts and rape.

              • Crunchtime …
                13 November 2013 at 3:43 pm

                You’re STILL saying that, even for a tiny percentage, what they were wearing or how they were behaving had something to do with getting raped?

                If that’s not what you are saying, then explain very clearly please what you ARE saying.

                • vto …
                  13 November 2013 at 3:46 pm

                  I am not saying that, I am questioning that.

                  see the difference?

                  and I have thrown some personal opinion that there seems to be a link in certain cases and circumstances. Tracey has suggested similar. So, it seems, has A’Court with her worry about what her daughter wears. Why would she worry?

                  Why would she worry about what clothes her daughter wears?

                  • Crunchtime …
                    13 November 2013 at 3:52 pm

                    You are questioning it and that is deeply inappropriate and has resulted in a lot of people taking offense at you vto.

                    Can you understand that?

                    • vto …
                      13 November 2013 at 3:56 pm

                      No I don’t see it as inappropriate to ask questions in these circumstances in these places.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 November 2013 at 4:18 pm

                      ask questions

                      You didn’t. You asked the same question over and over again in the vain and futile hope of getting an answer other than the one you’ve been getting over and over again: the answer you don’t like, the one Crunchtime just articulated (again).

                    • Crunchtime …
                      13 November 2013 at 4:22 pm

                      Well it is. As I have said and others have said ad nauseam, questioning what rape victims were wearing or how they were behaving previous to them being raped is offensive and exactly why JT and WJ were kicked off air.

                      I’m surprised you haven’t been kicked off here for doing so.

                      Most of the people trying to tell you this on here have mentioned that they are rape victims. Try to imagine what effect questioning what they were wearing at the time has on them. I’m not a rape victim, so I can only imagine how crap you are making them feel with your “questioning”.

                    • vto …
                      15 November 2013 at 6:49 pm

                      crunchtime “questioning what rape victims were wearing or how they were behaving previous to them being raped is offensive”

                      I never did that you fucking painful idiot. Read what I write instead.

                      Go find a link to prove what you claimed there or piss off and stop putting words n my mouth.

                    • Crunchtime …
                      15 November 2013 at 9:17 pm

                      “Fucking painful idiot?” This is really unfortunate vto. It’s friday night and you’re losing your rag on the internet.

                      It’s friday night and you are jumping on the internet and personally insulting me. I thought you didn’t like personal insult?

                      and then you go on to repeat that same old line “that isn’t what you meant”.

                      I’ve already stated previously in this thread and others have too, and you’ve chosen to ignore it and fail to explain yourself. But I’ll restate it once again, in nice clear terms that you can understand (hopefully):

                      You have talked about “sex culture” which you defined alternately as “Miley Cyrus” and “legs, attractive, sex” as having some link to rape culture.

                      The thing is, there isn’t a causal link. And as I and others have said repeatedly, to suggest there is a link at all is denigrating all women who go out dressed “sexy” or whatever who get raped. Because what they were wearing, as you have already agreed, had nothing to do with them getting raped.

                      Suggesting that the victim has some responsibility for being sexually assaulted is what you are saying when you suggested a link between “sex culture” and rape culture.

                      Now either confirm that this is what you are saying, or tell us what you ARE saying.

                      Or option 3, much preferrable to the other two: stop digging yourself a big hole, and don’t reply to this article again.

                  • Tracey …
                    13 November 2013 at 4:18 pm

                    Tracey has stated that a “tiny tiny percentage”, so be very clear if using me to valifate you.

                    You understand that A’Court and I are not experts in sexual abuse don’t you vto? We cant actually validate any of the thoughts you are having.

                    Can you explain why you have chosen to focus on a tiny tiny percentage of those raped or sexually abused rather than on the majority?

                    I know you only like to ask questions not answer them, but I keep trying. I thought you were leaving the site?

                    • miravox …
                      14 November 2013 at 10:39 am

                      You’ve done an power of good on this thread Tracey. Being confronted with the realities makes the cowardly apologists disappear, so they won’t reply. Hopefully some of the others will think about your words.

                      Other people here, however, respect your experience and support your argument.

                    • vto …
                      15 November 2013 at 6:36 pm

                      “Being confronted with the realities makes the cowardly apologists disappear, so they won’t reply.”

                      no actually, it is impossible to get cyberspace in certain parts of NZ

                      and there is no apology for anyone. why would you think I am an apologist? It doesn’t fit with any of the words I have written (although it may well fit with many of the replies which are loaded with incorrect assumptions)

                    • vto …
                      15 November 2013 at 6:47 pm

                      Tracey “Can you explain why you have chosen to focus on a tiny tiny percentage of those raped or sexually abused rather than on the majority?”

                      I didn’t actually focus on a tiny tiny percentage of rape victims. That is where the issue led to….

                      The question I raised was the sphere of culture in society that embodies miley cyrus and the sphere of culture within society that embodies roast busters, and whether they had any relationship.

                      Do you think they spin entirely independently of each other? Obviously you do. That is what everybody has said. They bear no relationship to each other.

                      That’s fine, I wont ask it again. I know that is what pretty much every single poster here thinks.

                      I don’t. I think the two spheres operate and spin co-dependently to at least some degree. (this is absolutely not a statement that dress causes rape, ok. it is a statement of opinion about the roastbusters phenomenon and the miley cyrus twerking phenomenon, and how they intermingle. And it is raised within a debate about roastbusters and wider matters in society)

                    • miravox …
                      15 November 2013 at 9:00 pm

                      “and there is no apology for anyone. why would you think I am an apologist?”

                      So you did come back – my apologies for being rude, and for thinking you may have walked away because you’d taken on board some of the things that have been said on here.

                      The thing is I do believe there is a link between popular culture and the way some people might behave. I just don’t believe that Miley twerking invites rape. If you have written about how graphic, rapey internet porn and the like can give young, inexperienced teens the wrong idea about how to approach young women and what they want (assuming they have no other input into their sex education) we may have come to some agreement – but then you’d have to believe that was a bigger problem that Miley’s skirt.

                    • Crunchtime …
                      15 November 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      +1 Miravox.

                      vto, I have very little doubt if you had suggested there is a link between “sex culture (Robin Thicke)” and rape culture then most people here would have agreed with you.

                    • vto …
                      16 November 2013 at 8:34 am

                      crunchtime.. “vto, I have very little doubt if you had suggested there is a link between “sex culture (Robin Thicke)” and rape culture then most people here would have agreed with you.”

                      sheesh, that is exactly what I have been questioning – that link, if any.

                      ….. I wonder how much faster our world could advance if we could all communicate with near 100% effectiveness. Communication – the unnecessary problem in so many of the world’s issues.

  45. vto 45
    15 November 2013 at 7:16 pm

    the world of miley cyrus and…

    the world of roast-busters….

    operate and spin totally independent of each other with no influence or effect in operation between them.

    I think I can safely state that that is the case according to pretty much every poster here.

    Personally, I don’t think that is right.

    Righto, let’s move onto another part-issue in this big problem.

    edit: and I’m going back to the sea and bush where there is the refreshment of honesty in abundance

    • weka 45.1
      15 November 2013 at 7:46 pm

      “I think I can safely state that that is the case according to pretty much every poster here.”

      No, you can’t. Originally you talked about legs, mini skirts, sex and men’s sexual responses and tried to make a connection to rape. You are now giving us a new analogy and trying to spin the whole conversation to fit in with that. I’m calling bullshit.

      For all of this thread you refused to clarify your position. And you don’t respond openly and in good faith to what people say in response to your original question. Your comment today is self-serving and manipulative.

      • vto 45.1.1
        16 November 2013 at 8:10 am

        “No, you can’t. Originally you talked about legs, mini skirts, sex and men’s sexual responses and tried to make a connection to rape. You are now giving us a new analogy and trying to spin the whole conversation to fit in with that. I’m calling bullshit.”

        weka, if you go back and look you will see that I have used this analogy on many occasions. It is not new.

        As for not clarifying my position, I’m not sure what there is left to say but this (has been on my mind)….. some long time ago I was in the employ of one of NZ’s more successful people and the one big thing I learned is that it is more important to get the questions right, than to concentrate on the answers…

        … The answers to questions can always be found, but the trick is to ask the right questions and in the right order. That is how I go about much of my life’s times when things need to be worked out – the important process is “what is the question.” and not “what is the answer.”

        I imagine it is this approach which causes you some frustration when we swap posts.

    • weka 45.2
      15 November 2013 at 8:02 pm

      vto, I think somewhere in there you probably had something interesting to discuss. But your almost complete failure to express what that was near the start of the conversation meant that people had to guess. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again now – just say what you think upfront. Honestly, even if everyone disagrees with you, it can’t be any worse than the mess that this discussion has been.

  46. marty mars 46
    15 November 2013 at 7:46 pm

    “I think I can safely state that that is the case according to pretty much every poster here.

    Personally, I don’t think that is right.”

    Your comprehension skills are well below average but if for arguments sake they aren’t, then isn’t it time to stop talking and start listening? Or are you going to do a self-ban against everyone above whose posts you can’t get your head around.

    edit – weka – great minds and all that… 🙂

    • weka 46.1
      15 November 2013 at 7:53 pm

      +1

      Just had a look at the large handful of posts vto has just made. Even leaving aside the vitriol, for the most part it’s just telling people they are wrong but not clarifying where or how. Wasteful.

      edit: indeed marty 🙂

      • Adele 46.1.1
        15 November 2013 at 9:14 pm

        Kiaora Weka

        A vto argument is as tortuous as a twisting tuna (eel) and sometimes equally slimy.

        He buggers off to the bush yet I struggle to catalogue him as a bush creature. He is far too uptight and unnatural. Although admittedly the bush is not always about serenity.

        He never says what he means or means what he says. His readership however have learnt to decipher his form of dyslexica and can now accurately read between his lines.

        • weka 46.1.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 10:58 pm

          Kiaora Adele,

          that’s a pretty good description, thanks. I guess I need a new strategy for next time.

          • vto 46.1.1.1.1
            16 November 2013 at 8:13 am

            Yes and me too so we can genuinely swap ideas without such a mess, although when I go back and read posts they clearly, to me, say what I mean…. something goes astray – at one end or the other

            • vto 46.1.1.1.1.1
              16 November 2013 at 9:12 am

              weka, I just had a read of your thread with Chris Trotter on Bowalley Road. I see the exact same communication and understanding problem there that you and I seem to have had here. Imo this communication / understanding thing is worthy of deep examination as it seems to constantly lead to views flying past each other.

              The way Trotter sees something is clearly very different to the way weka sees the same thing. It seems to be a difference that is fundamental. Both have credibility but they don’t seem able to match up.

              what is to be done about it

              • Crunchtime …
                18 November 2013 at 4:22 pm

                That’s because Chris Trotter has a great big blind spot. This isn’t any real failing on the part of weka.

  47. vto 47
    16 November 2013 at 8:20 am

    If I might have one more crack at what I have been trying to suggest as the insufficiently examined part-issue in this big issue….. and call on Sinead O’Connor for assistance… Sinead seems to me to be touching on the same issue again (and she helpfully uses Miley Cyrus too)

    http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/03/sinead-o-connor-open-letter-miley-cyrus

    And in particular this piece…
    “You ought be protected as a precious young lady by anyone in your employ and anyone around you, including you. This is a dangerous world. We don’t encourage our daughters to walk around naked in it because it makes them prey for animals and less than animals, a distressing majority of whom work in the music industry and it’s associated media.”

    This is what I have said needs examining. It seems to be supported (from my view angle) by Sinead.

    Have I missed anything this time in anyone’s view?

    (p.s. and please note that the very issue I refer to has men being described as dangerous as wild animals. I am doing my gender no favours)

    • Crunchtime 47.1
      18 November 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Sinead wasn’t referring to rape or rape culture – she was addressing Miley Cyrus and saying not that she is being unsafe, but that she is being exploited for commercial gain.

      Referring to men as “dangerous wild animals” doesn’t just do men a disservice. It does EVERYONE a disservice. The assumption that men are not in control of their own “urges” is very unhealthy for all involved.

      What needs examining is what we teach boys and girls about consent, and about what sex is, and when it becomes rape or abuse.

      Not about how they dress, or how “provocative” they act. Teaching girls how to “be safe” is teaching them to be fearful and restricting them. Giving energy and attention to this, as has been said many times here, is perpetuating rape culture.

      Teaching men empathy, teaching men not to rape, is the key.

  48. Tanz 48
    2 May 2017 at 6:52 pm

    He’s awesome, one of the few conservative Labourites left, with large dollops of common sense and he is down to earth. Labour needs more like him, they would get more votes.

Links to post