We are about to go through a court case in February 2024 with our beautiful sensitive son whose life has been decimated by false allegations. The last two years have been hell and I have had to make sure suicide was not an option for him. He has watched his friends travel, have fun and be happy while he is unable to leave the state. Our hearts are broken for him. His accuser told him she had split up with her abusive boyfriend and an ensuing one night stand and subsequent re engaging with her abuser prompted her to report the mutually consenting encounter a week later at the insistence of the boyfriend. The boyfriend has threatened my sons life and promised him that he would ruin his life. The police told my son that they had no choice but to press charges as they had to keep numbers up. How is this ok?
Feminist mono-braincelled thinking never produces the results they want. 'Gender is a social construct' was meant to prove that women should do everything that men can do and if we don't have 50/50 equity this is due to society sabotaging the efforts of women. And women need compensated for this. The fact that this theory* gave rise to trans-ideology which is making women's lives hell wasn't part of the plan. There probably wasn't a plan - as the question 'how can this possibly go wrong?' should be part of your plan.
Same with not charging false accusers with perjury. The idea is 'perjury charges will only encourage more genuine victims to not come forward for fear of being disbelieved.' There's no logic to this at all. It's just another emotionally abusive plea to let women off with lying. Logic would say that if you wanted women to be believed you would purge the system of as many lying women as possible, so the remaining ones would be believed. But no. We have a legal system that encourages the worst of women to lie. The more liars there are the harder it is to believe any one. I wonder how this can possibly go wrong?
*Theories are actually proven ideas, not propostions or hypothesis. I've used the word wrong, I know. Apologies to all real theories.
The description of the young man's proper 'consensual' sex sounds as much fun as a driving test. Only if you fail your test you get a 'sorry try again' and you've lost your fee. You don't have your life ruined. How is any young man meant to get pleasure from this? And do women get pleasure from men who have to ask all the time and are unable to lead? Can you be consensually ravished? Or is that word archaic?
When you look at the 1970s feminists who were pushing 'rape culture' or making comments that heterosexual sex was indistinguishable from rape (Katherine McKinnon), a disproportionate number - are lesbians (I'm not sure about Susan Brownmiller). Mmm, why would lesbian feminists be encouraging women to be physically revolted by men? Sounds like a pretty obvious recruitment drive to me. It must really gall these man-hating lesbians that straight women prefer men over them. And I mean gall them to the core of their fetid being. The destruction of heterosexual sex as always been a goal. And they're getting there.
Sorry about this note - on a different topic. But please will everyone reading this sign this important petition objecting to the proposed family law changes which will remove any presumption of shared parental responsibility from Australian family law. This is a huge issue. https://bit.ly/3o3xL8t
the other thing that this case highlights for me and many others of course, after a little research via google... is that 'her' name is not mentioned and yet his name is all over the place and his photos... how can that be!! It truly shows how bad a Countries politicians have become and the Media..
How can it be that someone is found innocent and yet his name is still displayed and his photos.
This is morally wrong to me. All of this.
She should be in jail.
As I read Bettina's article and comments, it strikes me and I see this in (too many) German crime movies... a police person will say: we are not interested in whether you cheat the tax office, we just want to know whether you killed Herr Schmidt or not! and whilst that is a movie, it seems it happens in real life!!
She is shown to have lied and seems to get away with perjuring herself but nothing comes of it.. imagine if everything you say during a case was then acted on if it was illegal..
I suppose I will be accused of not being in tune with the modern world
(I'm ninety-two) but I am appalled that such language comes from the lips of young women. I've been in the Airforce, worked in oil refineries, been a professional fireman and I don't think I have ever heard a man talk that way. Of course I heard men swear (but not the way they do today) and skite about triumphs, which most of the time never happened but they bragged any way. But the way that young woman spoke absolutely sickened me. There should never ever be an excuse for rape, no matter how aroused the man may be, if the answer is no it ends there. I have been aroused plenty of time in my long life and limped home in excruciating pain with epididymal hypertension but I never tried to force a woman, I am not a believer so I never had an issue with other forms of relief. The other thing that worries me is the way in which so many are seeing rape accusations as a career path, how to make money or for some diverse way notoriety. Look at the situation in America, sure the men like Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and many others including Trump were using women but the women were also trying to use them and when they didn't make it, you know what. As I said in another way, I'm an athiest so nothing I have said is Bible bashing, I believe that Christ was a philosopher of sorts but nothing more and some of his messages are worthy.
We are no longer wild animals, animals yes but not wild, we are supposed to be civilized and that means caring and respecting but we all need to earn respect.
wow!! I have to say I enjoyed this article because of its honesty in using Language that is normally '***' in main stream media..
The take away for me is - and in true Greta Thunberg style - 'how DARE she lie and cheat when there are people actually suffering out there. How DARE she want revenge sex when there are REAL victims out there. How DARE she use citizens resources just because wasn't sure the had been raped or not! HOW DARE SHE.....'
As for the use of the word 'daddy'.
As a gay man I hear and read this a lot in the gay world. Gee, I've even written Erotic stories using the 'daddy' word.
For me there are many uses for this word and that ranges from being totally dominated by some hot man to sucking up to ones partner for sex or even a cup of tea!!! "can daddy make me a tea?", or, "would daddy like a coffee?"
The guy in this article is too young, in my opinion only, to be a Daddy... so I instantly think the woman involved with Alex was someone that WANTED to be dominated. Liked hard, raw sex or she was totally naive and actually didn't know what the hell she was saying/claiming/asking for.... because in my rather vanilla world, telling a man:: “Fuck me, Daddy?” and another saying, “I want you to fuck me so hard.” is going to get you exactly that... so you better be ready for some hot, passionate, rough and raw sex... if you are not pleased about that, then she should at least be aware of the language she is using AND if she is "a young woman who had an official role advocating for rape victims," well in my head she is not fit for the job if she is either naive or not physically strong enough to handle the consequences of not knowing what she is in acutallity asking for and repeatedly returning to the so-called 'crime scene'....
At the end of this Day of Horror, this is fantastic to have happened because, even I, see that men are having more and more fences of control put around them which actually don't take in account the bad behaviour of those (women) on the other side...
But...are these women charged for false allegations and made to pay the court costs or compensation to the wronged male? Or do they just shrug their shoulders, say "ho hum" and live for another day? Better still, will we ever hear about these wannabees being brought into question. Are the women as equally accommodating to the men during intercourse? Do they consider the man's needs? It seems to me there is now a policy and procedure manual on sexual intercourse which is quite sad. In my time, we knew what we liked and go on with it. And there was certainly no "20-questions" during the act. Just enjoyment of the moment/s.
Never a truer word spoken. To add to what you are saying about "lifetime" statistics they do not even take into account whether the instances actually take place in Australia. This gives a completely false picture of the situation in Australia and helps them with statements like "one in four..." based on the survey, etc.
A quick comment about the man who thought he was doing all the right things, and got accused anyway.
As they say - "We've seen it all before".
I well recall the 1980s and 1990s when men were taught to be "sensitive", to be attentive to their wife's "needs" and so on. Another lesson given to young married men was "to keep the romance alive".
I, like most men of my generation, dutifully did as we were instructed. When we attended "counselling" we listened to our wives complain about us, and resolved to do better.
By the mid 1990s the term SNAG, for "Sensitive New Age Guy" had been invented to mock us. It turned out that women didn't want a "SNAG" after all.
Whatever we did, it wasn't enough. Some wives left us for earthier men, and the wives of earthy men left them for more "sensitive" men. And whichever way it was, the law was on their side and the man got wiped out.
Interesting "development" but ohhhh so sad for the true victims of sexual assault who may now be tarred with the one brush and treated skeptically in future cases. The assault trend from 2016 is ascending, I would love to see a study of the nationalities of the accused/convicted. The huge increase in migration numbers may be an underlying cause? [NOT being parochial, of course, "born and bred Aussies" can and have carried out sexual assaults] ...
This timely article highlights a major issue with the way terms such as "sexual assault" are often hijacked in the media by use of the "number of reports" rather than breaking that information down into the constituent parts which show what is actually going on. By using the larger overall statistic serves two purposes for the domestic violence industry and its media allies - 1) artificially exaggerates the number of actual sexual assaults beyond a figure than is reasonably verifiable and 2) ramps up the community attacks on men because all reports of assault are automatically assumed to have been perpetrated by men on women e.g. sexual assaults in the same sex community which are routinely assumed to be committed by men in the overall reporting statistics which don't distinguish the victims and the perpetrators. The overall figure can also be artificially exaggerated by counting multiple reports about the same perpetrator and/or multiple reports about the same incident or series of incidents, by including reports that are considered to be false or exaggerated reports and by deliberately including outlier communities with a high instance of all forms of violence in the overall statistics to boost the numbers and spread the blame for the increased reporting to men in general. Consistent with the Brittany Higgins case, I believe the idea that "women must be believed" has its origins in the confirmation hearings of Brett Cavanaugh to the US Supreme Court which alarmed the left by threatening to tilt the balance to conservatives on the bench when they believe the Supreme Court was supposed to be "theirs" or nobody else's. Because they didn't have anything on Cavanaugh the left and its media allies, in their desperation, concocted a false narrative about Cavanaugh that his accuser had to be "believed" because they were unable to come up with any actual evidence that he had committed the crime he was accused of and the allegation was contradicted by the associates of the accuser who were there at the alleged scene. The fact that the political activists knew their accusation was false and undermined the fundamental human rights protection of the presumption of innocence was given no consideration in their quest to justify their false political narrative. The role of Heidi Yates by degrading her office in the Higgins proceedings was, I think, an unethical attempt to deliver a similar false narrative message that "women are to believed", irrespective of whether or not there is any basis to the allegation. The controversial actions of the prosecutor in this case, now subject to inquiry, appear equally concerning if not more so.
' ... it was her text messages which ultimately brought her undone. It was revealed in court that within 24 hours of the alleged rape, she’d sent Matters an audio message saying, “Fuck me, Daddy?” and another saying, “I want you to fuck me so hard.”'
Which explains why feminists are pressing for phone evidence to be excluded from alleged rape trials.
We are about to go through a court case in February 2024 with our beautiful sensitive son whose life has been decimated by false allegations. The last two years have been hell and I have had to make sure suicide was not an option for him. He has watched his friends travel, have fun and be happy while he is unable to leave the state. Our hearts are broken for him. His accuser told him she had split up with her abusive boyfriend and an ensuing one night stand and subsequent re engaging with her abuser prompted her to report the mutually consenting encounter a week later at the insistence of the boyfriend. The boyfriend has threatened my sons life and promised him that he would ruin his life. The police told my son that they had no choice but to press charges as they had to keep numbers up. How is this ok?
Feminist mono-braincelled thinking never produces the results they want. 'Gender is a social construct' was meant to prove that women should do everything that men can do and if we don't have 50/50 equity this is due to society sabotaging the efforts of women. And women need compensated for this. The fact that this theory* gave rise to trans-ideology which is making women's lives hell wasn't part of the plan. There probably wasn't a plan - as the question 'how can this possibly go wrong?' should be part of your plan.
Same with not charging false accusers with perjury. The idea is 'perjury charges will only encourage more genuine victims to not come forward for fear of being disbelieved.' There's no logic to this at all. It's just another emotionally abusive plea to let women off with lying. Logic would say that if you wanted women to be believed you would purge the system of as many lying women as possible, so the remaining ones would be believed. But no. We have a legal system that encourages the worst of women to lie. The more liars there are the harder it is to believe any one. I wonder how this can possibly go wrong?
*Theories are actually proven ideas, not propostions or hypothesis. I've used the word wrong, I know. Apologies to all real theories.
The description of the young man's proper 'consensual' sex sounds as much fun as a driving test. Only if you fail your test you get a 'sorry try again' and you've lost your fee. You don't have your life ruined. How is any young man meant to get pleasure from this? And do women get pleasure from men who have to ask all the time and are unable to lead? Can you be consensually ravished? Or is that word archaic?
When you look at the 1970s feminists who were pushing 'rape culture' or making comments that heterosexual sex was indistinguishable from rape (Katherine McKinnon), a disproportionate number - are lesbians (I'm not sure about Susan Brownmiller). Mmm, why would lesbian feminists be encouraging women to be physically revolted by men? Sounds like a pretty obvious recruitment drive to me. It must really gall these man-hating lesbians that straight women prefer men over them. And I mean gall them to the core of their fetid being. The destruction of heterosexual sex as always been a goal. And they're getting there.
Sorry about this note - on a different topic. But please will everyone reading this sign this important petition objecting to the proposed family law changes which will remove any presumption of shared parental responsibility from Australian family law. This is a huge issue. https://bit.ly/3o3xL8t
the other thing that this case highlights for me and many others of course, after a little research via google... is that 'her' name is not mentioned and yet his name is all over the place and his photos... how can that be!! It truly shows how bad a Countries politicians have become and the Media..
How can it be that someone is found innocent and yet his name is still displayed and his photos.
This is morally wrong to me. All of this.
She should be in jail.
As I read Bettina's article and comments, it strikes me and I see this in (too many) German crime movies... a police person will say: we are not interested in whether you cheat the tax office, we just want to know whether you killed Herr Schmidt or not! and whilst that is a movie, it seems it happens in real life!!
She is shown to have lied and seems to get away with perjuring herself but nothing comes of it.. imagine if everything you say during a case was then acted on if it was illegal..
I suppose I will be accused of not being in tune with the modern world
(I'm ninety-two) but I am appalled that such language comes from the lips of young women. I've been in the Airforce, worked in oil refineries, been a professional fireman and I don't think I have ever heard a man talk that way. Of course I heard men swear (but not the way they do today) and skite about triumphs, which most of the time never happened but they bragged any way. But the way that young woman spoke absolutely sickened me. There should never ever be an excuse for rape, no matter how aroused the man may be, if the answer is no it ends there. I have been aroused plenty of time in my long life and limped home in excruciating pain with epididymal hypertension but I never tried to force a woman, I am not a believer so I never had an issue with other forms of relief. The other thing that worries me is the way in which so many are seeing rape accusations as a career path, how to make money or for some diverse way notoriety. Look at the situation in America, sure the men like Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and many others including Trump were using women but the women were also trying to use them and when they didn't make it, you know what. As I said in another way, I'm an athiest so nothing I have said is Bible bashing, I believe that Christ was a philosopher of sorts but nothing more and some of his messages are worthy.
We are no longer wild animals, animals yes but not wild, we are supposed to be civilized and that means caring and respecting but we all need to earn respect.
wow!! I have to say I enjoyed this article because of its honesty in using Language that is normally '***' in main stream media..
The take away for me is - and in true Greta Thunberg style - 'how DARE she lie and cheat when there are people actually suffering out there. How DARE she want revenge sex when there are REAL victims out there. How DARE she use citizens resources just because wasn't sure the had been raped or not! HOW DARE SHE.....'
As for the use of the word 'daddy'.
As a gay man I hear and read this a lot in the gay world. Gee, I've even written Erotic stories using the 'daddy' word.
For me there are many uses for this word and that ranges from being totally dominated by some hot man to sucking up to ones partner for sex or even a cup of tea!!! "can daddy make me a tea?", or, "would daddy like a coffee?"
The guy in this article is too young, in my opinion only, to be a Daddy... so I instantly think the woman involved with Alex was someone that WANTED to be dominated. Liked hard, raw sex or she was totally naive and actually didn't know what the hell she was saying/claiming/asking for.... because in my rather vanilla world, telling a man:: “Fuck me, Daddy?” and another saying, “I want you to fuck me so hard.” is going to get you exactly that... so you better be ready for some hot, passionate, rough and raw sex... if you are not pleased about that, then she should at least be aware of the language she is using AND if she is "a young woman who had an official role advocating for rape victims," well in my head she is not fit for the job if she is either naive or not physically strong enough to handle the consequences of not knowing what she is in acutallity asking for and repeatedly returning to the so-called 'crime scene'....
At the end of this Day of Horror, this is fantastic to have happened because, even I, see that men are having more and more fences of control put around them which actually don't take in account the bad behaviour of those (women) on the other side...
But...are these women charged for false allegations and made to pay the court costs or compensation to the wronged male? Or do they just shrug their shoulders, say "ho hum" and live for another day? Better still, will we ever hear about these wannabees being brought into question. Are the women as equally accommodating to the men during intercourse? Do they consider the man's needs? It seems to me there is now a policy and procedure manual on sexual intercourse which is quite sad. In my time, we knew what we liked and go on with it. And there was certainly no "20-questions" during the act. Just enjoyment of the moment/s.
Given the noise feminists have made about the witch hunts one might expect them to defend the presumption of innocence to the death.
Never a truer word spoken. To add to what you are saying about "lifetime" statistics they do not even take into account whether the instances actually take place in Australia. This gives a completely false picture of the situation in Australia and helps them with statements like "one in four..." based on the survey, etc.
A great article!
A quick comment about the man who thought he was doing all the right things, and got accused anyway.
As they say - "We've seen it all before".
I well recall the 1980s and 1990s when men were taught to be "sensitive", to be attentive to their wife's "needs" and so on. Another lesson given to young married men was "to keep the romance alive".
I, like most men of my generation, dutifully did as we were instructed. When we attended "counselling" we listened to our wives complain about us, and resolved to do better.
By the mid 1990s the term SNAG, for "Sensitive New Age Guy" had been invented to mock us. It turned out that women didn't want a "SNAG" after all.
Whatever we did, it wasn't enough. Some wives left us for earthier men, and the wives of earthy men left them for more "sensitive" men. And whichever way it was, the law was on their side and the man got wiped out.
#seenitallbefore.
Interesting "development" but ohhhh so sad for the true victims of sexual assault who may now be tarred with the one brush and treated skeptically in future cases. The assault trend from 2016 is ascending, I would love to see a study of the nationalities of the accused/convicted. The huge increase in migration numbers may be an underlying cause? [NOT being parochial, of course, "born and bred Aussies" can and have carried out sexual assaults] ...
This timely article highlights a major issue with the way terms such as "sexual assault" are often hijacked in the media by use of the "number of reports" rather than breaking that information down into the constituent parts which show what is actually going on. By using the larger overall statistic serves two purposes for the domestic violence industry and its media allies - 1) artificially exaggerates the number of actual sexual assaults beyond a figure than is reasonably verifiable and 2) ramps up the community attacks on men because all reports of assault are automatically assumed to have been perpetrated by men on women e.g. sexual assaults in the same sex community which are routinely assumed to be committed by men in the overall reporting statistics which don't distinguish the victims and the perpetrators. The overall figure can also be artificially exaggerated by counting multiple reports about the same perpetrator and/or multiple reports about the same incident or series of incidents, by including reports that are considered to be false or exaggerated reports and by deliberately including outlier communities with a high instance of all forms of violence in the overall statistics to boost the numbers and spread the blame for the increased reporting to men in general. Consistent with the Brittany Higgins case, I believe the idea that "women must be believed" has its origins in the confirmation hearings of Brett Cavanaugh to the US Supreme Court which alarmed the left by threatening to tilt the balance to conservatives on the bench when they believe the Supreme Court was supposed to be "theirs" or nobody else's. Because they didn't have anything on Cavanaugh the left and its media allies, in their desperation, concocted a false narrative about Cavanaugh that his accuser had to be "believed" because they were unable to come up with any actual evidence that he had committed the crime he was accused of and the allegation was contradicted by the associates of the accuser who were there at the alleged scene. The fact that the political activists knew their accusation was false and undermined the fundamental human rights protection of the presumption of innocence was given no consideration in their quest to justify their false political narrative. The role of Heidi Yates by degrading her office in the Higgins proceedings was, I think, an unethical attempt to deliver a similar false narrative message that "women are to believed", irrespective of whether or not there is any basis to the allegation. The controversial actions of the prosecutor in this case, now subject to inquiry, appear equally concerning if not more so.
What a contrast to my recollections of campus life
How sad and frightening for the few young men there and how lonely for many young women
I remember having so much exciting fun with girls many are still friends
There needs to be punishment for false accusers.
' ... it was her text messages which ultimately brought her undone. It was revealed in court that within 24 hours of the alleged rape, she’d sent Matters an audio message saying, “Fuck me, Daddy?” and another saying, “I want you to fuck me so hard.”'
Which explains why feminists are pressing for phone evidence to be excluded from alleged rape trials.
'He was the very model of woke manhood.'
The phrase is an oxymoron.