So great that this issue is raised here! I examine the "other side" of withdrawn consent in my recently completed novel, SEXODUS. The myopia of the feminists' take on all things sexual is so utterly lacking in the "compassion" they seem to believe they have -- and expect from others. The separation from biological imperatives -- and the willful refusal to consider them -- is a pernicious toxin that appears to be leading us all off a cliff.

Expand full comment

Think 1965. Melbourne. JFK is long dead. LBJ is it. Ranting. Born in the USA. Yes Bruce. But that's 20 years away. 1984. Orwell too.

The Beatles have been and gone. So have the Stones. Judy Garland is in rehab. I hope. My cadetship at Price Waterhouse is bearing fruit. Some good. Some not so good. Some fake. I'm dating Lyn M. Our new office girl Friday. For me she turned out to be Monday through Sunday. For six months. She's 17, nearly 18. I've just turned 20. They want me in Vietnam. To be shot at. Killed maybe. I'm not enthused.

My first exposure to "coercive control". Conscription. Sexist too. No women allowed. Bugger. No dates in Da Nang? My birthdate turns out to be a good one. I lost the lottery. Secular I am. But thanking God I am too. Gotta hedge your bets I say. Existentialism in excelsis. Caveat.

The age gap - Lyn and I - some would think is a mere 2 years and 2 months. The 2 months turned out to be critical. Never gave it a thought. Lyn is slim, trim, sexy and as it turns out slippery as sin as well. And has rabbits as next of kin. I'm growing certain about this.The back seat is her bed of choice. Talk is truncated. Philosophy of Mind. A Cartesian cut out. Descartes not discarded. Cancelled ab initio.

Yet troublesome it is. She's a tad too vacant between the ears. I'm ready to move on. Turns out she's not. The phone call from her father comes to my lodgings with my wonderful Jewish family. I left home at 16. Get him here or I'll call the coppers. George the Dad threatens. Geezus she's preggers. What ? Manny (Emmanuel) my urbane new surrogate dad full to the brainy brim of phronesis is short and to the point.

If George says are you gonna marry her say "NO" - no ifs buts or maybe. Right says I.

I head off down to Seaford in his Morris Minor with my mate Dennis by my side. He's a 'copper'. Newly minted Police force member. Coals to Newcastle. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It was. Sort of. The moment came as Manny had mused.

Lyn over there. Mum to the side. George close. Well he bellows "are you going to marry her ?" NO says I - way too fast. Premeditated in spades. Lyn shrieks. I look the wrong way. The 'king hit' comes. The nose bleed more than spectacular. I escape to Dennis waiting outside.

Mate we're outta here. I splutter. Mother calls come back. Mike. And talk. With a fist. I don't think so. Six months pass. Lyn calls me. She wants to meet. We do. She's sort of sorry. Hot baths she says did it. Flushed the foetus. But the truth is plain as day.

She was never pregnant. Why tell her parents before me ? Another lesson learned.

While, without choice , "you may have a 'dick' between your legs it's best if there's not one between your ears"

Aphorisms aplenty. Now I'm closing in on 80.

Expand full comment

rape statutes were never intended to and should not exist to protect unchaste women from unwanted sex. we have assault and battery laws for that, and i agree with enforcing those laws

at common law, it was rape for a 1) man to have sex with a 2) woman 3) not his wife 4) by force and 5) against her will

every element of this crime that protected women and respected a man's right to have sex with his wife has now been subverted by feminism

now rape can be committed by women even though women are not the targets of prosecution, men are

so the victim can be a man even though men were never intended to be protected by rape statutes. maybe you see nothing wrong with that. i do. the reason rape is not simply assault and battery is that rape laws were an attempt to recognize the special dignitary and reputational interests of a chaste woman in her chastity, or of a loyal wife to give herself exclusively to her husband. all this has now morphed into an all-out attack on male sexuality

the victim can now be a man's wife. bettina, i know you've gone along with this like many others, but consider the time you've spent researching, speaking and writing about men who are trapped in marriages where the wife will not provide sex. the marriage contract always involved an exchange of promises, express and/or implied. the man promised to provide her with support, she promised to provide him with domestic services, and this was always understood to include sex and has always been the primary motive for men (but not for women) to get married. now the man is still liable to provide support, but she is never liable for failing to provide sexual services, which basically turns marriage into a fraudulent but somehow legal device to get men to support women

the force requirement recognized that a chaste woman or loyal wife does not simple freeze when a man not her husband demands unwanted sex, she resists vocally and physically to the extent she can. a woman who is protecting these interests does not simply say, no, and then cooperate with sex. she does not go along with it and does not appear to go along with it at any stage. eliminating the force requirement means that a woman can go along with sex and say it doesnt matter if she went along with it because she didnt 'really' want to

the consent requirement was there because sex is inherently forceful and can be forceful in varying degrees, so it needed to be established that the force used was not merely the normal force of penetration and was associated with or opposed to a clearly communicated lack of consent. if a man honestly didnt understand this lack of consent, then he lacked the requisite criminal mental state, and this was a defense. later this was amended to require that the man's understanding was objectively reasonable and honest. in other words, a man could be held criminally liable even if he had no criminal intent, as long as his understanding was unreasonable, or not the way a normal man would perceive it. and feminists are pushing to revise this ever more, with a 'reasonable woman standard', enthusiastic consent, documentary consent that is instantly revocable without a document, etc

in my view, the traditional definition of rape should be reclaimed by statute, including, and perhaps most importantly, the marital exemption. or else the 'crime' of rape should be abolished, leaving aggrieved women to pursue charges of assault and battery either through the criminal system, by private lawsuit, or both. 'rape shield' laws should be abolished as well. these are designed to restrict the scope of defense and make it easier for prosecutors to succeed than than in other trials for serious offenses

Expand full comment

"more victims come out on top" Interesting article as a recently separated male, I'm thinking, I may be better to stay celibate to avoid the mid- flight withdrawal syndrome. I once heard Billy Connoly talking about the withdrawal method of contraception he said " a team of horses couldn't pull his arse in another direction'' . I think that says it all!

Expand full comment

So what is wrong with the men in Australia that they let themselves be so easily manipulated into finding other men guilty on these flimsy, absurd charges?

Expand full comment

Think 1963. JFK is not dead yet. I'm 18. My team the Geelong Cats win the VFL premiership. The Beatles are in Melbourne the next year. 1964. The Rolling Stones 1965. Louis Armstrong and a very drunk Judy Garland in between. Judy lasted 15 minutes on stage. Great days. I'm dating Anne S. She's also 18. Liverpudlian. Then a very fashionable accent. Way more Pauline than Paul "if you know what I mean". I love her accent and her. She's hot. And humorous. If a tad pale in a bikini. But the body - Elle McPherson - definitely came 2nd. Hot and heavy one night Anne and I are making love. For the first time at least for her not so much for me. She pulls away. The coitus was interruptus. To my credit, I like to think, I simply said geez are you ok? Yes she replied but....ok the next day I call. We speak. Did you do anything she interrogates ? I get it straight away. She's scared about pregnancy. I barely pause. Nah you're fine. She tells me she never wants to see me again. I could say I was gutted. But hell I'm 18. Sad I was though. And then decades later I thought about the panties on the floor beside us. Orange with white lace trim. And realise she put them there. I sure as hell didn't. The loss of control was hers not mine. And that scared her way more than me.

And now as I approach my 80th birthday I see clearly now how rejecting responsibility has weakened women. I've tried to tell Tina this but she's not listening. So few are. The Feminism Fallacy is much more about the weakening of women than the relentless abuse of men. Why have I remained strong ? I've never ever outsourced my self-respect. Read Epitectus. Perhaps Seneca. Marcus Aurelius. But that's history and some ( most ) are busy erasing it. Read Santayana - ignore it and be doomed to repeat it. The destruction of democracy is down to one thing. The absence of courage..............I think............no I know..........I've had the very best of it.

Expand full comment

Great article again Bettina. This has been going on for many years now. I was on a jury 7-8 years ago for a case exactly as described in your article. It was an accusation that came after a relationship finished but the girl didn’t want to accept that it was over. The accusation came after she found out that the ex boyfriend had a new girlfriend. Subsequently she tried to withdraw the case but apparently the police would not allow this. She then visited him at his house and the following day reported him to police for breaching an intervention order in place (yep, even in his own home). This trial scared the crap out of me. It should never have gotten to court and was the clearest case of a witch trial I’ve ever known of. The guy was lucky. All that happened to him was 2 years of sleepless nights and $20k in legal fees.

Expand full comment

Yes...not only were these the statements made by the women at this event in September 2023...I have seen the same argument used in trainings and public programs by university sexual harassment advocacy programs going back 30 years! They actually argue for this in Title IX proceedings and often get their way. It often comes in the form of a consensual relationship the night of the "event" but the next day or more when the woman realizes she has made a mistake, or the man says he really doesn't want to continue the relationship that suddenly the argument becomes, "He used you...he raped you!" even when it was the WOMAN who was the person who drove the relationship and began the intercourse. This happened to my roommate. The university's sexual harassment program fully supported this woman and attacked everyone who dared to stand up for the concept of due process, including with threats that they would be forced out of the university.

The same organization kept secret files of anyone who had ever said anything that might be twisted as hostile to the "status" of women obviously including things like standing up for due process rights of the accused but also telling young men to be careful of how a particular innocent situation could be used to file harassment/rape charges against them if misinterpreted. The latter occurred when 2 groups in the student outing club had to share a cabin on the first night of weekend trips. The loft space had plenty of room for the 22 or so people staying but it would be 2 rows of sleeping bags parallel along each side of the loft to do so. By happenstance one trip was all male, the other all female. The male trip I was leading arrived first. When they learned that the other trip was all women the mostly 18 year old participants said, "cool, if we spread out our bags in the space the women will have to sleep between us." I told them this immature and innocent idea was not wise and that the women would see right through it and undo it. Sure enough...as soon as the women arrived and saw the sleeping arrangements they pushed all the men's sleeping bags into the center space and arranged themselves as they saw fit. The disappointed young men commented, wow...you guessed that right.

1 year later, when the head of the sexual harassment program called me in for re-education because I had written some newspaper articles in support a professor being falsely accused of harassment (as ruled ultimately by the federal courts), she cited the incident of the cabin implying that my warning to the students was somehow promoting harassment. It was designed to show that they were monitoring people like me and could twist things however they wish. This was BEFORE she outright threatened my continued status as a graduate student at the university if I continued to "cause trouble" by standing up for due process rights. Fortunately for me, the federal court ruling in the professor's case was announced the very next day or else who knows what they might have done.

So...yes...women studies have long been attacking both common sense and due process rights. When Rush Limbaugh came out with the term Feminazi...he was more right than he knew!

Expand full comment
Feb 4·edited Feb 4

Boys and men have no right to consent to parenthood and their right to consent for heterosexual sex is dubious at best.

From talking to my nephews it's pretty clear consent is largely taught to girls as a right and to boys as an obligation.

Expand full comment

Withdrawing consent in the middle of the act does not constitute rape, ever. Do we think so little of women that we can't expect them to make good decisions about one of the most important aspects of their lives?

Expand full comment

When enough men stop dating and engaging sexually with women this crap will come to an end.

Expand full comment

This is indeed all true and defense attorneys need to be made aware of this information and demand that it be presented to juries. This past Fall our college hosted an organization providing a program on 'consent' that was designed to precisely send the message to women that they can play the sexual aggressor, send clear physical signals that they want sex while sending mixed signals that they want some steps but not others and then blame the male for not being able to follow the split second changes of the woman's attitude.

This was done with a skit which was designed to portray this situation. I and others in audience pointed out that the woman was the person driving the situation, that she was the person who brought the man home when she knew her roommate would not be there, she is the person who was physically putting her legs on top of the man and engaging in foreplay while saying she did not want to have sex. (In the skit they had had sex before.) When things start to get physical (she initiates the killing etc with her legs on top of the man while they are sitting on the couch) she then objects and pushes him away saying she doesn't want that. The man then gets up to leave as its probably better if he just heads home but she INSISTS he stay and prevents him from leaving. As the same conduct then resumes, they start again to mock having sex and the woman objects. The man takes several seconds to ramp down and stop. She then moves to the floor crying how she was raped as the man sits there confused as to what just happened.

What was amazing is that black and international students backed my argument that the woman was sending mixed signals and that she bore at least some responsibility for the situation that occurred. A male faculty member began to get threateningly violent toward me and others for refusing the ridiculous narrative threatening to take out any one who did this to "his" daughter. I pointed out to "Dad" and the group that if the purpose is to avoid such situations from occurring, by insisting on clear communication to avoid misunderstandings, that the woman was the person in charge for the entire skit save for the few second between saying no and the man responding. I stated that actual rape is indeed a terrible thing to experience, as is a false accusation of rape, and that both parties have an obligation to take steps to protect themselves and their partner from the results of miscommunication. The organizers of the event, white women in the audience and "Dad" refused to admit that miscommunication was a factor or that the woman had any obligation what so ever to take steps to avoid such situations. The organizer from the "acting group" became threatening when I pointed out that what he insisted was rape was not and that a jury, not feminists activists, would make that judgment in court. I actually thought he was going to attack me like a religious zealot whose prophet had been insulted.

Amazingly after the discussion, various women claimed that their women's studies classes had taught them that consent can even be withdrawn the day AFTER the event to turn regret into rape. This type of thinking has grown worse over the last 35 years and, to be blunt, at this point makes me doubt that "date" rape actually ever exists but is really a measure of sexually aggressive women who aren't prepared to take responsibility for their own conduct. How far we have come from the 1950's.

Expand full comment

What a wake up of an article Bettina. Thank you.

My head exploded.

The articles quote were good to read...

Expand full comment

Hi, Bettina

Copy below of posts on the website “Macarthur Notice Board”


Cassie Hawkings

Hi all, I’m a journalist researching domestic violence and I was wondering if anyone would be willing to have a chat about it as it is a conversation that needs to be have. Also, are there any local services that cater specifically to men as my research is largely male based?

Thank You In Advance

Julian Connelly

Hi, Cassie Hawkings

I assume you are aware of Bettina Arndt’s monumental work and regular newsletter emails on the men who suffer under domestic violence, court bias and police inaction.

Julian Connelly Hi Julian. Yes, I am aware of Bettina Arndt. She had crossed my mind to look into her research. I’m still tossing up on whether I will or not. Worth a look though.

Expand full comment

Just a small point as to style: "law only recently put in place" laws are not 'put in place', they are 'made', or 'come into force'.

Expand full comment