Girls are not to blame for their own exploitation

Humans are capable of institutionalising irrationalities until they seem normal. An impending irrationality soon to appear normal is same-sex 'marriage'. A current irrationality is the skirt which, especially at knee length or above, appears to have no purpose but to draw attention to the leg (which is fine if one has a male eye). As such, skirts have about as much place in a school as a condom. If anything, Miss Sobotker should be disdaining the idea of skirts for that of the trouser, very much more practical in all circumstances, formal and informal. If one had to scamble over a wall to escape a fire or some other exigency without appearing too ridiculous, the trouser would win. And as for the Queenslander who placed a self-nudie on a public telecommunications system, well, no matter how you slice it, brainless is brainless. Certainly, everybody would have said so if she did the same with her Internet banking code and password. But Internet banking codes and passwords aren't as ideological as the sexual autonomy of the female in a climate where the idea of modesty, deriving from religious and cultural sources, is a pawn in the battle between theism and a-theism.

When will we talk about men who lack responsibility and respect, let alone not following Jesus examples? Roy once again places all the responsibility on women. Skirt lengths, really Roy? Women under 16 are children and that is the law. I am sick of weak, spoilt young men who abuse women, break all the rules and face little or no consequences. I have many young men in my wider family and they are lovely, strong respectful men. Fathers, Mothers, teachers and the Church, step up and discipline your boys or safety and our Christian way of life will be lost. How many women have died at the hands of men again this year? Far too many.

What kind of training do judges and magistrates get - and the legal profession generally? They appear to learn nothing from previous outrageous comments. In cases like this, what accountability mechanism is there to bring these men up to the mark?

This concept, which Madeleine seems to endorse, that "...they (young women/girl) can be (and behave?) whoever they want to be" is very dangerous and bound to lead to personal hurt and tears and social meyhem. Madeleine, why don`t tell Faith "no you can`t; instead always behave with dignity and self-respect". And what about taking into account the weaknesses of others, who in a sense also become victims of such irresponsible and indecent behaviour.

The biggest human challenge is learning to control one’s desires, whether they be power, materialistic or sexual. It’s ok to be a great admirer of the beauty and miracle of the human body at every age. We should all be able to walk around naked and still show each other courtesy. Courtesy should not be dependent on the clothes you happen to be wearing. Courtesy needs to be shown no matter what. Provocation is in the eye of the beholder, it used to be “a glimpse of stocking was something shocking”. Btw I’m off to buy some trousers in case there is a fire and I need to climb a fence.

Eugene, I would like to challenge your view here. Even if an underage girl walks up to a man completely naked and begging for sex, by law *she* is the victim if he agrees, not he. Adult men have the psycho-social maturity (though that is obviously not always apparent) to make a sound, responsible decision - young adolescents do not.

Roy and Eugene, it is opinions such as yours, that boys will be boys and that it is us females who are responsible for controlling male desire, and that a short skirt is tantamount to a lack of self-respect, that perpetuate and reinforce the view that violence against women is acceptable. How about men stop raping people? Shouldn't that be the focus?

And 50-60 years ago, convent girls were instructed that trousers/slacks were 'unladylike'. On stage, our 'hose and/breeches' had to be undivided!!

Roy, your analogy doesn't work - if someone posts their internet banking password online, it is still a crime to steal their money. Vulnerability of the victim does not exculpate the offender.

Surely, Eugene your proposed admonition "no you can`t; instead always behave with dignity and self-respect" should be directed to the boys at school, not to the girls. IE 'no you cannot disrespect or rape a female child or adult, nor can you have sex with a girl under 16, full stop. How she dresses is for her to decide; how you respond is yours. And, Roy, 'irrationality' is a term most frequently used by those who find behavioural, cultural, social or sexual difference threatening to their own sense of personal safety or security. It usually demands a change from the other rather than from the self. Hence 'skirts must be longer', goes the prescription, not 'boys must stop oggling'. For the same-sex-attracted, marriage is perfectly rational; while for those threatened by same-sex-attraction it is judged irrational. But, to pick up on your religious & cultural conclusion, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour's eye." (Mathew 7:5) Responsibility for my behaviour, Roy, rests with me, not she.

JanetM, you confirm the point that irrationalities can be institutionalised until they appear to be God's own truth. HannahRobert, try replacing 'vulnerability' with 'stupidity'. In the first case, perhaps a case where she is mentally challenged or, for whatever reason, unusually naive, you gently tell the victim that she was imprudent. In the second, you ask her, perhaps a little stridently, what she was thinking. Either way, you tell her what she did was silly, unless, of course, it's now the preferred culture that it's OK in general for a female to send a nudie of herself to a male other than her husband? Well, it may be outside Eureka Street blogland but isn't the idea here to contest Catholic culture with the issues of life? You don't think Catholic culture might issue the Queensland girl with a teeny-weeny infringement ticket?

"For the same-sex-attracted, marriage is perfectly rational; while for those threatened by same-sex-attraction it is judged irrational." Well, Dr Donovan, you do have a point here, that is, if you think it's rational for Lucifer to be given his tiny slice of the unlimited real estate that is Creation (visible and invisible) in return for us not being bombarded with temptation and the risk of eternal ruin. (I must confess I'm rather partial towards this idea.) But apparently, God thinks that's irrational. So, does God have a log in his eye? If he doesn't, I guess everything he does is rational, including coming up with the concept of a stumbling block Does the notion of a stumbling block mean that responsibility for your behaviour doesn't always rest with you? Apparently, the law regards under16s who have had consensual sex before enough of a stumbling block to acquit an accused. You might think God would never approve of such a law. Perhaps not, but I'd like to hear the Law's side of the story. So, maybe, skirts should get longer, or, better still, be replaced by trousers in case the only thing between death and life is a fence.

I tried to answer Madeleine and Susie`s remote toy contribution, but seems to have been censored. So now with Frank adding censure as well, I will try again. My main point is that behaviour needs to take into account the realities of risk management in the red world where our fellow citizens do not always behave as we would want them to; I truly hope for the Kingdom of God but I also recognise that it is here only partially. Thus, I would dearly love to see all males everywhere behave lays like pure gentlemen; but I am also aware that there will be many men, though I think minority, who will not resist substantial temptation in sex matters. This will be a mix of genetic personality traits, and poor education, plus cultural and up-bringing factors. But it does mean that young women sensibly need to take these dangers into account in their behaviour and degree of vulnerability they expose themselves to. And this is NOT a value judgement, but purely pragmatic social risk prevention management, like your grandmothers understood; non-PC as it is.

Dear Roy, like rationality and irrationality, stumbling blocks tend to be created by humans - usually acting in their own perceived interests (whether to not fair or reasonable). I'm not sure God is either rational or irrational, though I am aware that both concepts are often attributed to God by humans - again acting in their own perceived self interests. As for Lucifer's interest, I'm afraid you lost me there: I'm not sure he has any ideological preference for homosexual over heterosexual humans. Though I do recall he has a special interest in those who find it difficult to respect members of either sex, unless the image presented conforms to their own values about who and what should or should not be respected. Surely i is not beyond us to admire a shapely pair of legs and respect the brain that commands them? Or should we be teaching our boys that a girl's worth is to be judged by the length off her skirt?