Safe sex used to be simple. Step A: take one vending machine prophylactic. Step B: use it.

Cartoon: Peter Nicholson

These days, everything is much more complicated. These days, protecting yourself from “going viral” may also involve checking for hidden webcams and erasing your ex-partner’s flash drive.

Most of Australia is now familiar with the case of the 18-year-old Australian Defence Force Academy cadet whose peers called her a “skank” and a “dirty whore” after a male cadet secretly recorded the two of them having sex.

This modern day Romeo beamed the footage live via Skype to an audience of six caring and sharing mates, some of whom snapped photos and circulated them round the ADFA campus.

The multiple inquiries that have since been launched into defence force culture are all steps in the right direction. But it’s a mistake to think that high-tech sexual humiliation and privacy violations are only problems in the army.

This is not an isolated incident in a single workplace. What we’re witnessing is the extraordinary impact technology is having on intimacy, and on the divisions between the public and the private. Also evident is the sexual sadism that can ensue when new gadgets are combined with old misogyny.

But first things first. If you’re of a certain age and Luddite status, you may not be hip to the techno tricks of today’s sextually active youth. Here are three things that rarely happen on the dating and mating circuit anymore: 1) meeting a stand-up lass or lad over a nice Jubilee Jig at a bush dance; 2) writing romantic love letters any longer than BTWITIAILWU (which translates – swoon – as By The Way I Think I Am In Love With You); and 3) taking wallet photos of one’s romantic interest from the neck up.

Here, meanwhile, are three things that do happen quite a lot: 1) Facebook “poking” before the first date; 2) outsourcing internet flirting to “click magnet” professionals; and 3) sending Tropfest-style films of one’s secondary sexual characteristics as a sweet, getting-to-know-you type gesture.

The reasons behind these trends are complex. For starters, there’s the exuberant legacy of libertarianism left by all those contraception inventors, free lovemeisters and hirsute Joy of Sex manuals from the 1970s sexual revolution.

Technology is also key. Digitisation, in particular, seems to facilitate disinhibition because amateur photographers and filmmakers are now in charge of their own happy snaps and home movies. (The visual steaminess that ensued once we stopped having to drop our little rolls of film off to an ogling chap in a lab coat down at the local pharmacy was nothing short of eye-watering.)

Yet despite the potential for increased privacy, many of us are opting instead for exponential publication: choosing to expose ourselves to pervillions of potential viewers via the internet.

For many participants in the self-publishing revolution, this is a positive development which permits sexual expression and freedom from shackling shame.

Women, in particular, finally have the chance to experiment with the making and viewing of racy material on their own terms.

Self-pornification is also part of the DIY sensibility of the reality TV and wiki era. After all, stars such as Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson have used their home-porn exposure to enhance their brands, successfully parlaying notoriety into celebrity.

But there’s always the risk that risqué footage will return, like a scary nude poltergeist, to haunt its protagonists.

The internet is notoriously immune to control. Once you upload material online, you have no say over where it travels and who will see.

Stories abound of people who’ve posted provocative images of themselves into cyberspace and then suffered dire consequences at school or at work. (“It seemed like a good idea at the time” has become a common lament.)

It’s critical, however, to emphasise the distinction between consensual amateur production, and non-consensual voyeurism and harassment.

Covertly recording and broadcasting footage of someone nude or engaged in an intimate act is not, as Bob Ellis suggested, an example of harmless frat house slapstick. It’s a gross breach of sexual ethics.

But the issue of consent gets complicated if an amateur porn star consents to a single viewer, then discovers the distribution agreement has changed.

Enter the trusted-sexual-partner-who-turns-out-to-be-not-so-trustworthy scenario.

Canberra legal academic Bruce Arnold cites a number of significant overseas legal cases involving the unauthorised uploading of amateur porn footage – footage that was originally filmed consensually in a relationship because of the understanding it would only ever have an audience of two.

“[But] after the relationship has melted down, sometimes because the victim discovered that the partner was showing the video to his or her mates, the video has ceased to be private,” he says.

“Sometimes it is available on the former partner’s blog, usually with derogatory comments. More typically it appears on a dating site or a [porn sharing] site. There are also a handful of revenge cases where the ex-partner has pretended to be the victim and put the video on a site such as Facebook, usually accompanied by what purport to be invitations to engage in group sex, violent sex… and so forth.”

Most of this dodgy digital distribution occurs after a romance has ended. But some 21st Century cynics advocate the taking of compromising photos as a kind of insurance policy.

One contributor to an internet discussion about breaking up in the e-era urges those in relationships to “get naked pictures now, just in case”. Another suggests that lascivious visuals of a couple in action are weapons of mutually assured destruction.
The latter might hold true if the sexual playing field was an equal one. As the ADFA Skype sex scandal has shown, however, the vicious stereotype of the “scarlet woman” still reigns – and there is no “scarlet man” equivalent.

Females are more vulnerable in sexual cyber warfare because of the persistence of the hoary old double standard that sexually active men are studs, while sexually active women are sluts.

This is why it’s difficult to imagine a female army officer secretly videoing a liaison with a male peer and sharing it with a bunch of girlfriends (though the recent internet posting of naked football players by a Melbourne schoolgirl suggests everyone has the potential to be held digitally accountable for their actions).

The unfortunate truth is that no degree of caution will assist if some cyber savvy miscreant is hell-bent on recording you without your permission. But, where possible, it’s probably best to adopt Arnold’s new version of the safe sex message.

When it comes to sex and recording devices: if it’s on, it’s not on.

Delve into more Emma Jane at The Australian.

Most commented

73 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:52am | 18/04/11

      You left out another possible reason for keeping a video record: False rape accusations. Videos of consensual sex can and have been used to save innocent men from female revenge through a misandrist legal system.

      This is the area in which woman have far more power than men. Just one call to the police can ruin a man’s reputation, career and life, and land him in jail or worse. Just to make the system more unfair, an accuser cannot be named in public, while the accused faces the full glare of publicity.

      While the area has not been heavily studied, indications are that as many as half of all rape accusations are false. The way men are treated by the justice system means that video has become something of an equaliser.

    • Carz says:

      06:45am | 18/04/11

      Actually Erick, if you check the police statistic you will find that false rape accusations run at about 5%, much the same as for other crimes. Perhaps what you mean is that about 50% are unsubstantiated, which means that there is insufficient evidence to prove a case one way or another, therefore it is not taken for prosecution. And linking to a blog by the False Rape Society isn’t exactly going to prove your case. BTW, in your opinion is it only women who make false rape claims or do men do it to, given that they can be victims to both male and female perpetrators?

    • Ann says:

      07:35am | 18/04/11

      False rape claims are no more prevalent than false reports of other crimes. Rape also has a notoriously low reporting and conviction rates, so any suggestion that there are vast hordes of men having their lives destroyed by vindictive, lying women is exxageration. It’s more likely that the opposite is true.

      As to filming women without their consent as an ‘insurance policy’ against false rape claims, in doing that you have immediately voided the notion that you are an innocent man, as making pornography of someone without their consent is illegal, and the woman may not have consented to sex at all had she known that you were going to film her. Filming someone during sex without their knowledge or consent makes you a criminal (and also a sleazebag). There goes your ‘insurance policy’.

      Also, there’s no way to tell if a woman is consenting or not by watching a film. A woman may consent to an initial act but withdraw consent for another. Many women go into shock when they’re being sexually assaulted and don’t resist, don’t speak, don’t say no and sometimes even smile or laugh to try and appease and calm the rapist or prevent them from committing even more violence on them. Aside from the fact that the very notion of filming a woman without her consent as ‘insurance’ is illegal and appalling, a film can be very misleading.

    • Jay says:

      07:56am | 18/04/11

      I think that any man who has such a low opinion of women that false rape claims are in the forefront of his mind whenever he has sex, shouldn’t be having sex with women at all.

    • Erick says:

      07:58am | 18/04/11

      Acrtually, Carz, if you check the more detailed studies at my link, you will find that false accusations are claimed to be anywhere in the range from 2% to 90%, depending on who makes the claim. The true extent of false rape accusations is a huge grey area, and for politically sensitive reasons few people are willing to make serious investicgations.

      What is not open to doubt, however, is the fact that men who are falsely accused of rape will often have their carers and lives destroyed in the glare of publicity, while the identities of accusers are suppressed even after they have been proven to be lying. See the Theo Theophanous case for one very good example.

      The simple presence of a video camera could have saved an innocent man. Yet the false accuser remains anonymous and unpunished for her crime.

    • KH says:

      07:59am | 18/04/11

      What, were you ‘falsely accused’ Erick? You really just keep beating this drum, despite this article not being about non-consensual sex.  Where exactly were we talking about rape?  Did you even read it?

    • Buzz says:

      08:03am | 18/04/11

      Carz, just ignore erick-the-loser, he’s playing victim again. Cos it’s all a feminist conspiracy! He’s a weak, bitter, hate-spewing misogynist who revels in his victimhood. Pathetic.
      So, now back to the REAL topic ... respecting yourself and others.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:09am | 18/04/11

      @Erick

      Rape is a vastly unreported crime. Why? Because women and men know how hard it is to get a conviction, even when they have physical evidence and a rape kit.

      I am not saying that false rape accusations do not exist, but there would be many, many, many more people dealing with the aftermath of their assult that never reported it.

    • KH says:

      08:59am | 18/04/11

      cloud strife - you are right on the money there…........ and it isn’t just fear of not getting a conviction either - its fear of being violated again in court - first reliving the crime itself, then being covered in innuendo about your clothing or previous perfectly normal consensual relationships, as if they are even remotely relevant.  There is also a fear of seeing the criminal again. Or the desire to just put it behind you as soon as possible, because the time lag between the event itself and the court case can sometimes be years.  Don’t get me started on the embarassment - you really do feel like you have failed in some way, because you were a victim.  I admire people who do go through the reporting and court processes - that takes some serious courage - its not an easy road to take.

    • progressivesunite says:

      09:41am | 18/04/11

      Yes yes Erick - women run around all day every day making false rape allegations…when they’re not busy making false allegations of domestic violence….and aborting men’s children - it’s a dreadful world out there for men isn’t it? So much danger….

      Just a thought - you might find the “equaliser” is in the woman’s favour. Perhaps women should always have a webcam set up, so that if they are raped, the man can’t wriggle out of the conviction… Careful what you wish for there….

    • bev says:

      10:27am | 18/04/11

      First I do not believe filming without consent is moral even if it is not illegal.
      Second Erik not sure but I think such evidence would not be accepted by courts and in any case Ann is right it dosn’t necessarily show consent for all the reasons Ann mentions.

      As for the rest we do know a few things. 
      The number and rate of rape convictions has remained reasonably static over the years (there is no epidemic except in feminists minds).

      80% of accusations do not proceed to trial. Either there is not enough evidence, the case is considered iffy because her story seems some what weak or is inconsistant or she decides she doesn’t want to continue.

      Recent changes to sexual assault have made much easier for the victim in the court room to testify and removed the ability for defence to raise things like how she dressed or her past sexual history. She may testify by video link and the defendent cannot question her directly.  It has broadened the definition of sexual assault and put emphasis on positive consent to the point where can be real mine field for men. It has also added that a women being drunk means she is not responsible and cannot give consent but a drunk man is always responsible (highly sexist in my view). Either both are responsible or both are not.

      While the number of cases brought has increased conviction rates have fallen resulting in conviction numbers remaining unchanged.  It would seem jury members (particularly women) are not buying it in iffy or he said she said cases.

      We also know (even if no conclusive studies have been done) that proven false rape claim have increased since victims names have been supressed.  They pop up in the news with increasing frequency and only blind Freddy (or feminists cannot see it). Though it seems such cases are not often prosecuted despite the fact that a mans life can be and is in almost all cases destroyed. To the point where a conviction for rape is a bonus as the destruction of a mans life has already happened.

    • BJ says:

      12:18pm | 18/04/11

      Oh Erick you’re so predictably misogynistic with this comment it’s boring. Can’t you find another hobby horse to ride & jump off the “I hate all women” one for awhile. That old nag must be exhausted by now.

    • BK says:

      04:36pm | 18/04/11

      @progressivesunite

      Webcams are prone to failure. You really need a witness. Next time you have sex, get a friend to join in.

    • baal says:

      05:06pm | 18/04/11

      So you advocate secretly recording all your sex acts with women in case you might get accused of rape?
      If that is a real concern then I think you need to take some time out and work on your interpersonal relationships rather than shopping for spy cameras.
      Also that link you supplied was pretty unconvincing, I studied law at Uni and honestly if you wanted to get away with a serious crime I suggest you rape a female, steal a car then supply teenagers with booze and statically nothing will happen Erick.
      The patriachy oppresses everyone erick, male and female.

    • ted thorne says:

      10:30pm | 18/04/11

      So true Erick, unless you keep a video of the event then most women will claim rape even though they have consented simply because they are afraid that their friends may find out about the encounter and mock them.
      So for guys, maintaining a video is mandatory.
      For every false rape claim proved there are 50 other false rape claims that the man is wrongly convicted of.

    • bev says:

      11:09am | 18/04/11

      Note however she never looked worried or the least bit scared.  If I remember correctly she was just as capable of handing out verbal abuse, nagging and sarcasm to the point where she made him look miserable a buffoon or a fool.  Audiences laughed at that too.  Generally if my memory serves me correctly it most times after one of her serves that we saw what the clip shows. See its easy to take things out of context isn’t it?

    • Joan says:

      08:10am | 18/04/11

      The smart woman having casual sex has it on her terms and her place of choosing. If she is ditzy enough to go back to the guys place/choice , the guys set up…. well she gets what she gets. Don’t mums teach girls about stranger/boy danger any more?

    • KH says:

      09:02am | 18/04/11

      What the hell are you talking about?  Did you read the article? Wow there are lot of people here today who apparently didn’t. 
      Many of the cases and examples referred to are from relationships that went bad - they weren’t strangers - they were a person that had been trusted - presumably a relationship wouldn’t be too good if you didn’t trust the person you were with.

    • AliceC says:

      09:22am | 18/04/11

      So men don’t need to be educated about respecting others, all the repsonsibility should fall on the woman?

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      09:47am | 18/04/11

      AliceC, respecting women is no way to a satisfying and varied sex life.

    • Ez says:

      01:36pm | 19/04/11

      Wow Joan, ascribe to the uncovered meat argument much?

    • bec says:

      08:12am | 18/04/11

      Sad irony of the situation is that the dudes who are narcissistic and anti-social enough to film their unknowing (and thus non-consenting) partner to have sex with with them are the very last people you ever want to see naked, doing the deed, at all. Skanky asses and no technique. I’ve seen plays more entertaining than some of that secret camera home-made porn. Honest to god, *plays*.

    • Tim says:

      09:45am | 18/04/11

      Why are you watching secret camera home made porn in the first place?

    • bec says:

      09:58am | 18/04/11

      Because I am both refined and accomplished. Refined in the sense that I always at least blow on a piece of food that has dropped on the floor to dislodge the dirt, and accomplished in that my greatest life achievement has been to once sit in the same room as Leo Sayer.

    • Tom says:

      08:18am | 18/04/11

      Hang on, what about the teenager filming the steamy tryst with Ricky Nixon? What about the StKilda footballers. Oh, that’s OK because it was women doing it?

      Gawd you feminists are disgusting with your blinkered misandry.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:34am | 18/04/11

      No, that’s not OK either, and I don’t think anyone is saying it is.

    • KH says:

      08:42am | 18/04/11

      Again - did you read the article?  This was mentioned, and it is just as illegal (not to mention lower than low).......

    • Sal says:

      08:55am | 18/04/11

      I don’t think it’s OK if a woman does it, but the reality is that in the vast majority of cases it’s men doing it. I think that fact calls into question the author’s idea that ‘self-pornification’ can be in any way empowering for a woman or represents a woman making porn ‘on her own terms’. It seems that most men who use and distribute these images amongst their friends are using them in a predatory way, as a means of humiliating women and thus shoring up their ‘masculinity’, not celebrating ‘empowered’ female sexuality. If there’s anything good about it at all it’s that these men are unintentionally revealing themselves. I think women need to wake up and pay more attention to what it is that they’re revealing to us about their attitudes towards women.

    • adie says:

      09:04am | 18/04/11

      No, thats not ok.  I think its disgusting when anyone films anyone having sex without permission.  Male or female, its the same thing. 

      The male cadet shouldnt have filmed him sleeping with the female cadet without her knowing.
      The st kilda schoolgirl shouldnt have filmed ricky nixon without him knowing.

      Its that simple.

    • Tom says:

      10:01am | 18/04/11

      Yes, KH. “This was mentioned ... ” a miniscule, mumbled afterthought, two lines in the third last paragraph. Just to fend off the legitimate accusations of bias.

      Misandry plain and simple. How about some honesty for a change girls?

    • TChong says:

      08:40am | 18/04/11

      Dear Emma has historically been an “All women are super hot, sexy , but victims, while all men are rapists ” Feminism 101 advocate for a few decades, the lowest point was when Ms Toms was lauding a French indie flick “Baise Moi” because the heroines went around killing men they had picked up, immediately post coitus - great stuff Ms Toms reckoned.
      Dont expect too much from Emms as far any type of balanced comments in gender issues.

    • James Hunter says:

      11:01am | 18/04/11

      TC,
      Realy?  As some one who has followed Emma’s articles foe a long time I have always found her to present a thought provoking , incisive argument. That she as a she does this from a womans point of view can in no way take away from the veracity of her arguments , observations or feelings.
      I wonder if perhaph you are a man who is of the variety that would be simply scared of meating someone like Emma in a dark bedroom ?
      N.B. To Emma: Go girl,go.!

    • Tim says:

      09:04am | 18/04/11

      So where was this article when the St Kilda Scandal was going on Emma?
      Oh, I forgot it’s only wrong when the victim is a woman isn’t it.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:16am | 18/04/11

      The so-called double standard you mentioned exists because of the other double-standard often perpetuated by women that the man must do all the work while the woman sits in judgement.

      You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

      Dragging out the “m” word whenever a man tries to hold a woman to account for her actions is lazy thinking, too.

    • BK says:

      10:11am | 18/04/11

      Exactly. When this woman entered an environment full of young males, she was assured of getting all sorts of favours and attention. Maybe this was part of the appeal of going to ADFA, maybe it wasn’t. When there are places that men can enter and be sure that a hundred women want to have sex with us, you can complain about double-standards.

      I also notice that no-one ever writes articles complaining about the way that women conduct their sex lives. Apparently, men who sleep around are sexist pigs while women who do the same are liberated and not to be criticised.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:57am | 18/04/11

      @ BK: “Apparently, men who sleep around are sexist pigs while women who do the same are liberated and not to be criticised.”

      Oh, come on, mate.  The word “slut” is applied to women 90% of the time, not men.  “Ladies’ man”, for obvious reasons, is not.  Same concept; different view by society.

    • Markus says:

      11:14am | 18/04/11

      I have never heard a man use the term “ladies man” in a serious manner in my life.
      I have, however, heard the term regularly used by women. Along with the word “slut” - primarily to describe other women getting more male attention than themselves.

    • marley says:

      11:28am | 18/04/11

      Two points.  In this particular instance, it was the girl, not the boy, who got called a “skank” and a “slut” so don’t tell me that it’s always men who get the short end of the stick.

      And second, the issue isn’t the two of them having sex (they were both wrong to do that) - the issue is that one of them taped the encounter without consent.  And I don’t care what the gender of the taper happens to be, it’s morally repugnant and possibly legally wrong as well. In lots of places it would be a clear-cut sexual offence. 

      So, before anyone thinks about secretly taping you and your partner to make sure you don’t get accused of rape, be damn sure that the secret taping doesn’t negate the consent to a private sex act - because if it does, you’re in a world of trouble of your own making.  And that goes for either sex.

    • BK says:

      04:48pm | 18/04/11

      I am going out on a limb here, but I am fairly sure that we all have a higher opinion of the girl than of the bloke. I don’t disagree with this judgement, but don’t pretend that men don’t get judged.
      I also think it fairly unlikely that the woman in question was so principled that she has never taken advantage of other double-standards. She must have flirted to get something, at some time. When she meets a bloke who is more attractive than her, she isn’t refusing to have sex with him because men cannot have casual sex with more attractive women.

    • BMJ says:

      09:54am | 18/04/11

      You know what sucks?

      I would never even think of doing any of these things and I can’t find a nice chick.

      Life isn’t fair. *sigh*

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      10:49am | 18/04/11

      Tattoo your neck. Problem solved.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:55am | 18/04/11

      Look at it from the other point of view.  Life is keeping you out of poisonous relationships.

    • Justin says:

      01:14pm | 18/04/11

      Share the pain mate. In fact, I lost interest in the article and mostly skimmed the last half. I figured after being told no one writes romantic letters anymore, that I’m not the sort of person this article is aimed at anyway, after the “empowered feminist” response to my handwritten shakesperian sonnet was not only romantic rejection, which I am man enough to live with, but seen as reason enough to be angry with me for having the gall to suggest I even had feelings beyond mere friendship, and we are now no longer in contact at all. Why should a bloke bother to attempt nostalgic romantic gestures when a lady can’t even have the class to respond with any form of dignity even whilst dealing out rejection.

    • Markus says:

      10:45am | 18/04/11

      Petty revenge on the internet has always been equal opportunity.

      Surely you haven’t forgotten those websites run by women for women, where they are allowed to post all the juicy gossip (read: blatant lies) about their ex-boyfriends’ shortcomings?

      As I recall, these type of sites were actually promoted by journalists and lauded by feminists - a far cry from the claims of ‘gross breach of sexual ethics’ being thrown about now.

      As for the ‘hoary old double standard’?
      - In my experience women are the ones labelling another woman as a slut more often than men.
      - It is women’s attitudes to males that encourage men to be as ‘experienced’ as possible. Feel free to start deriding such men as sluts at any time.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:02pm | 18/04/11

      Spot on. Women set sexual market value. If there are more scumbags around than ever before, and there are, it is because women have encouraged their Cro-Magnon behaviour by throwing their downstairs-accountability-killer at them. When women are encouraged to pursue what they want without consequences, we get the society we have today. Look at the first generation it created. They are vapid, selfish and inconsiderate. They chase superficial pursuits like fame for nothing and wealth without hard work or discernible skills. They know nothing about history or science or even current events. They glorify loose behaviour. They are always looking for the easy ride. Sound like anyone?

    • AliceC says:

      04:53pm | 18/04/11

      SSR

      I’m trying to work out if you’re being sarcastic or not….

    • BK says:

      04:54pm | 18/04/11

      Markus’ last sentence said it all. If women were all smart enough to avoid male sluts they would save themselves alot of heartache. If I was female, I would hate them with a white hot passion.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      05:07pm | 18/04/11

      They don’t know the truth when they read it.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      10:52am | 18/04/11

      I find it difficult to feel deep sympathy for this cadet. ADFA rules are evidently very clear that sex between cadets is forbidden. Had she kept it in her pants, rather than knowingly and happily breaking the rules, she would not be in this position.

      There are very good reasons why fraternisation among cadets is forbidden. If cadets cannot understand why they shouldn’t be carrying on with each other, quite frankly, I’m not sure I trust them to protect the country I love.

    • Markus says:

      11:10am | 18/04/11

      Queue someone accusing you of a double standard for not explicitly stating that this applies to the male cadets too.

      ADFA rules are also very clear on talking to the media. She went public while a joint investigation between the ADF and AFP was ongoing, I’m not sure how she can claim to be a victim in this regard (I’m not referring to the original incident here) after breaching everyone’s trust in such a manner.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      11:25am | 18/04/11

      @Markus - I agree completely with regard to her going to the media as well. Unlike these more recent allegations of rape made by both male and female cadets, which if true, demonstrate a deplorable lack of sensitivity or sense on the part of the ADF, there was no reason whatsoever for this girl to go public. The incident was the subject of an investigation, and she was receiving significant support from her superiors.

      The fact that she had a hearing for a discipline infraction related to going AWOL and alcohol infringements really suggests to me that she went public to avoid punishment for these infringements, rather than out of any sense of “victimhood” she may have had.

      She and the male cadets should be thrown out of ADFA.

    • bec says:

      11:26am | 18/04/11

      And the story never would have gone to the media had the male partner, in this instance, not decided to publicly broadcast it.

    • Markus says:

      11:27am | 18/04/11

      Cue*
      Although if there are multiple accusations posted, I suppose they could be forced to get in line…

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      11:49am | 18/04/11

      My point is, bec my dear, that the whole stinking lot of them should have been thrown out for breaking the rules. Regardless of whether it was broadcast or not, “Kate” and her partner broke the rules of ADFA. If they cannot follow orders at the Academy, what hope do they have when called to duty?

      I don’t really care how it got to the media. They broke the rules, they deserved to get thrown out. If she had chosen to obey the rules, she wouldn’t have been in this mess to begin with.

      We can blather all we like about how nasty the boys were, or how much of a victim she is, but in reality she broke the rules just as much as her partner did. Had this occurred while she was on leave, and been the result of a fling with a civilian, I would have all the sympathy in the world. But she decided that she was better than the rules she swore to live by, and got more than she bargained for.

    • bev says:

      01:09pm | 18/04/11

      bec says:11:26am | 18/04/11

      And the story never would have gone to the media had the male partner, in this instance, not decided to publicly broadcast it.

      Not quite right the original complaint to the ADF was made by another MALE student (fancy that) after he saw photos which were being circulated. Only after she was told about it by the ADF and an inquiry by police had started did she go public (instead of waiting for the outcome).  That bit seems to have got lost.
      For your information no public servant or defence person is allowed to comment publicly on what happens in their department without authorization. (remember Andrew Wilki and other whistle blowers) and what happened to them, no different here.

    • bec says:

      01:24pm | 18/04/11

      Of course they should all be thrown out. They’re all idiots in the matter. But it doesn’t change the fact that video-taping someone else without their consent is completely scummy and people should be talking about it; they’re not idiots created equally, as someone is clearly more fucking doltish and unimpressive than the others.

      So what if she had alcohol infringements or sex? Yes, they are infringements. But filming and broadcasting sex without the informed consent of both parties is far worse.

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:28pm | 18/04/11

      The alcohol and AWOL incidents were PRIOR to the filing of consensual sex. It wasn’t the same act. She infact broke ADFA rules on 3 separate occasions. When the Commandant pulled her up he offered to delay the proceeding on her prior charges until AFTER the current investigation was completed by both the ADF and the AFP. ‘Kate’ chose to have her prior indiscretions heard immediately. She also chose to go to the Media even though it is quite clear that NO serving ADF members are allowed to speak to the media. She did this despite knowing that there was on ongoing investigation by both the ADF and the AFP.

      Yes, she was a victim of an immature and arsehole act. But her own actions, over several occasions and within her first 10 weeks at ADFA also show she isn’t fit to be an officer and should be punted as well. Being a victim doesn’t absolve her of everything else she has done wrong.

    • Muz says:

      11:46am | 18/04/11

      Has anyone noticed that it is becoming more and more common for females to send naked/pornographic pictures of themselves to the guy they are rooting/want to root even if such photos aren’t requested? Not just from young naive ones but supposed grown woman also. Personally, I think it’s pretty stupid and extremely whorish.

    • JulesG says:

      11:47am | 18/04/11

      Written like a true misanthrope!

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:03pm | 18/04/11

      I suppose for some people, filming sexual activity and or posting it online floats their boat. I always figured that if the people involved in any sexual activity understand it doesn’t leave the room, they can be disinhibited enough to do whatever their ultimate freaky fantasises are.

      Indiscretion is so often mixed with our raunch culture, but to me it seems weird. Because discretion seems a necessary condition for uber high levels of sexiness.

    • bev says:

      12:06pm | 18/04/11

      Though I find filming without concent moraly wrong on has to think as to how society changes. Things change we no longer think public floggings or hangings are acceptable.  If you give it some thought how much real long term hurt is caused?  Sure some are devastated but most move on we all have sex (well most), we all have the same bits and most of the evidence gets quickly buried (I know its still there) and forgotten as other stuff turns up. The more it happens the less the shock value. So in the future we will shrug our shoulders and say “whatever”. I believe so.

    • bec says:

      12:39pm | 18/04/11

      I don’t believe so. The filming remains on the internet and on the public record. It can be used against both men and women when they try to seek employment, future relationships with other people, or a career in politics. It can cause ongoing anxiety, depression, and potentially suicide for the people implicated. There may be people who are gormless or just not principled enough for whom the filming won’t bother them, but it does have real repercussions.

    • bev says:

      06:43pm | 18/04/11

      You miss the point.  Once enough people are up there on the internet it loses it shock value and thats the way we are heading like it or not.  Lets say in the future most political candidates have sometime in the past had pictures put up.  There is no shock or smear value left.  It becomes a non event.  No use pointing at theirs because yours are there too.

    • mike j says:

      03:35pm | 18/04/11

      Honestly, if you can’t figure out why promiscuous men are celebrated, while promiscuous women are reviled, then you are completely unqualified to comment on gender politics.

      And if you, again, deem this comment unworthy of publication, feel free to email me and point out specifically what is wrong with it, so that I can tailor my implied right to free speech to your delicate sensibilities.

    • The Key says:

      07:47pm | 18/04/11

      If I had a key that could open many locks, it’s a Master Key. However, if I had a lock that any key could open, it would just be a shitty lock.

    • Mahhrat says:

      03:51pm | 18/04/11

      @bec, while you’re exactly right, it still took two to tango.

    • TQS says:

      04:55pm | 18/04/11

      Any thoughts on creating an actionable per se “breach of privacy” tort for situations where consensually filmed/photographed intimacy is later published without consent? A few cases with high nominal and/or punitive damages (plus costs) could prove very discouraging.

      Non-consensual filming/photography of private acts for sexual gratificaiton is already - rightly - a crime in NSW (Crimes Act 1900 s91I-M).

    • Glen says:

      06:19pm | 18/04/11

      I have only one question - where does one meet loose women in the frat like this?

      Guess not in the nerds’ dorm.

    • ted thorne says:

      10:26pm | 18/04/11

      Oh the irony of a misandrist writing about the topic of mysogony, and of course trying to dismiss the high rate of false rapes claims being a myth of course!

    • Johnelle says:

      10:58am | 21/11/11

      Kudos to you! I hadn’t thohgut of that!

    • { says:

      12:27am | 12/06/12

      I love post idea lists like this (Sean Platt also did a great one recently). Your second topic is a great one – I think another idea you can add to it is blogging about a failure you had and what you learned from it.Great work!

    • Geoword1231231 says:

      01:54pm | 10/09/12

      Most misogynists are in denial of themselves. The most frustrating annoying and boring men in the world are misogynists, why? they spend all their time hating women and playing the victims of society: “Poor me, I’m a man, I can’t manipulate my way through life without having a vagina”. Little boys fearful of women who control men through sex. Too bad.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@rebeccacaroe would like to be able to eventually

Paul Colgan

Nice moment in Moore. Blitzer: You've got to thank the Lord. Survivor: I'm an atheist. Smiles all round. http://t.co/YykwGKPNlG by @jyarow

Lucy Kippist

Meet the 28 year old running NSW, http://t.co/u55hdDYPNY

Lucy Kippist

RT @newscomauHQ: Sydney CBD backed up with police cars and fire trucks in four directions. http://t.co/hXbJAfUOIA

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter