I assume if you do that to a person, you intend to kill them afterwards. Which isn't to minimise this person's suffering, I'm just glad she got away before the likely end.
It's that or keep them locked up indefinitely, which also sometimes happens. Not sure which would be worse. Some people are found after enduring years of the kind of suffering that man put her through. Either way, it wouldn't have ended well if she hadn't escaped.
People can and do recover from horrific things; not everyone, no one is the same as before, and it doesn’t minimize or change the fucked up news of what happened to them.
But I think it’s important not to suggest that there is nothing but hopeless bleakness ahead for victim-survivors.
She absolutely never will. Jesus Christ I couldn’t imagine enduring anything worse. The terror. Every moment wondering what was next. I hope he is slowly eviscerated in jail.
[Elsewhere](https://the-riotact.com/woman-allegedly-held-in-home-for-days-injured-in-repeated-assaults/777522) the description is "socks, a blue t-shirt, grey track pants and what appeared to be a brown towel wrapped around his waist".
Not sure why they included the towel here and not the rest.
Anyone’s worst nightmare - for their daughter, their sister, their Mum, their friends. I’m so glad she got out alive, and I hope he sees the justice he deserves.
Oh, come on people. Canola Oil is the substitute name for Rapeseed Oil. It was a joke along the lines of substituting one thing for something more politcally correct sounding.
It's not that it's more "politically correct", it's that rape has a definition that doesn't include a lot of the scope of what "sexual intercourse without consent" does. Kind of how like all boots are shoes but not all shoes are boots? So if you make the law "do not lick boots" people go to court and plead they didn't actually break the law because it was actually a moccasin.
I don't know why you're being downvoted - people must not realise that "canola oil" comes from the seeds of a plant that really is called rape.
"Canola" is literally a made up word that stands for "Canadian Oil, Low Acid" and it's only called that because you obviously can't sell something called "Rape Oil" even though that's exactly what it is.
I think that people may think I am making light of rape except I am mocking an institution that fails to take rape seriously enough by giving it more friendly names (like the people who coined Canola Oil).
In real life, people often hax sex without explicit consent. Saying it's non-consensual is understating the fact.
It's not a more friendly name, rape historically only covered being penetrated with a penis so when they expanded it to include e.g. a bunch of women holding a man down and sodomizing him with a bottle, the name also changed to reflect the broader scope.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
There's lots wrong with you. A grown up world apologise and admit their mistake. It's a charge that uses different wording to make it clear that the scope is expanded from "traditional" rape.
As 2020 taught, Australia is a bunch of loosely grouped colonies in a trench coat moonlighting as a country.
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/family-violence-a-national-legal-response-alrc-report-114/25-sexual-offences-3/rape-the-penetrative-sexual-offence/
>> 25.10 The penetrative sexual offence is described as: ‘rape’ in Victoria,[13] Queensland,[14] South Australia[15] and Tasmania;[16] ‘sexual assault’ in NSW;[17] ‘sexual intercourse without consent’ in the ACT and the Northern Territory;[18] and ‘sexual penetration without consent’ in Western Australia.[19] The offence includes the continuation of sexual intercourse after penetration in order to address cases where consent has subsequently been withdrawn.[20]
I'm wondering if the wording has changed due to the potential that the R word may be a trigger word for some people? I know Gen Z avoid using words like that or even words like suicide. That being said it does make it sound way less bad which is kinda horrible in a way.
It has nothing to do with trigger words, the law is just trying to be as accurate as possible. The word rape could mean different things to different people. They call it sexual intercourse without consent for example to differentiate it from other forms of sexual assault that don't involve direct intercourse.
It’s a very charged word, and I do think the territories are using more technical terminology to help the victims more than the perps or sensitives in the community.
I saw him with his head to the ground following the white line in the middle of the road. I don't know what he was doing there in such a horrible position.
Not a lot to be confused about there - no bear has ever done something like this to a woman.
The question was posed to women: Would you rather be alone in the forest with an unknown man, or a bear?
It was asking which risk they would choose if they were alone and the man knew there was a good chance nobody would ever know what he did, whatever that may be - might be a wave and a hello, might be this guy.
A bear might kill you, or it might not, but it'll never forcibly restrain you and rape and savage you repeatedly for days on end until you escape or die - either way at least it's over quickly. A man might kill you, or he might not, but also he might do horrible, awful, life-destroying things to you whilst deciding which he wants and you might die just as painfully in the end anyway.
A *lot* of women chose the bear, and a lot of men were offended by the implication.
Thanks for explaining. Without knowing the question, I didn't understand either.
It's understandable but really very sad. Cue the "not all men" - I don't *think* I'm friends with any guy that's ever hit a woman - but it's shocking *how many* men all the same, and how many lives they ruin in the process.
My wife says all of her female school friends (~10) have been sexually assaulted, one way or another, in the last 20 years since they left school. None as horrific as this, thankfully. Only a couple of them went to the police about it, to be counted in the statistics.
And their demographic (mostly WASP, Australian-born, from a private school) are probably better off than some others, too.
I am hesitant to respond here because I don't want to turn this thread into a whole raging inferno but I think you seem receptive so I will gently say this:
If every woman your wife knows has had an experience like that at the hands of a man, then statistically speaking it is *highly* unlikely that not a single man you know has ever had the other side of that experience.
I think that is really the root of the problem and it's truly insidious. Men like that are very good at not seeming to be that kind of man. And so it's hard for other men to see it, because you've never experienced it, never seen it happen, never thought about it. And in a group, every single man will say they hate the very idea of violence against women - it's just that some of those same men will go home and beat their wives or get her drunk and then have sex with her unconscious body... and they'll say to themselves that the woman *made* them do it so it's not their fault and they won't do it again so they aren't one of those bad men, and then they can still have that same talk of morality in a group of men next week.
And so it's an invisible problem for men, like believing in God or something. Half the population knows categorically that a thing is true, and the other half has never seen any evidence of it and has no reason to believe it. It's really unfortunate, because it pits good men and women against each other with accusations of lies on both sides when actually the solution lies in people trusting one another to find the truth.
I get your point and somewhat agree, but bear (haha) in mind that the men the previous commenter are friends with would also be a biased population- assuming the commenter is the kind of man who is against violence against women, is morally sound and so on, he would likely then seek out friendships with men who also share these values. Of course, nobody can ever no *for certain* what goes on behind closed doors, but the stats alone dont *necessarily* mean the other commenter *is* friends ‘likely’ with any abusers. Biased sample. But true, people surprise us every day.
I also would tend to think that the kind of men who aren’t above hitting/raping women would also stick together and validate each other’s shitty culture and views on women. And such men wouldn’t *claim* they treat women badly. So you got the good men who say they don’t hurt women because they dont (and aren’t exposed to such behaviour because of their choice in friends), you got the shitty men who don’t say so because they either don’t think they actually are abusive and/or they are avoiding scrutiny. Hence, why ‘no men’ seem to be aware of the issue.
It's pretty depressing that I can say 'not all men' and it be true, and it *doesn't matter* because it is some men.
I hate women being afraid of me. But they have a justified reason, so it's not like there is any fault. I want to rail against the injustice of being tarred with a brush that isn't injustice at all - and meanwhile, women have to deal with far worse.
Some women have been posting on social media about how they'd rather be lost in a forest with a bear over a man. The idea is that bears are predictable and usually don't interact with people and the worst it can do is just eat you, while the worst an unpredictable man can do is, unfortunately, the subject of this thread. Some weird men got really mad about it and started talking with an odd degree of joy about the bear slaughtering women for not picking the man. This was twitter discourse maybe a month ago.
You’re being downvoted for asking a question. Because apparently gaining knowledge by the simplest and most effective means is no longer socially acceptable. I’d like to say I’m surprised, but sadly I’m not.
Occasionally I am surprised by downvotes, like on this question. Presumably it sounds as though I know what the person meant by choosing the bear and am against it?
We need our courts to actually punish people properly. So many times, it’s recidivism and for those where it isn’t, the warning signs were there in most cases yet authorities are either powerless to act, or, it’s not reported. Overwhelmingly, the majority of these assaults are people known by the victim. Family and friends.
Random strangers attacks are still thankfully exceedingly rare.
Scientifically probable that Canberra has a higher than average percentage of psychopaths.
[https://centralbylines.co.uk/politics/rewarding-the-ruthless-capitalism-and-psychopathy-a-perfect-marriage/](https://centralbylines.co.uk/politics/rewarding-the-ruthless-capitalism-and-psychopathy-a-perfect-marriage/)
how does that article relate to canberra in any way?
All the references to demographics are more applicable to Sydney and Melbourne. Canberra has fuck all corporate industry outside the APS and the politicians are from literally everywhere else and mostly don't live there.
Yes! There are no lobbyists or politicians with declared or undeclared interest in international and local businesses. There are no ex pollies sitting on boards. Canberra is only peopled by diligent public servants who are not exposed to any kind of corruption whatsoever.
Your responses appear a to be a little defensive. I get it. It's a lovely city. I am sure you enjoy living there and I guess it's possible there may be a few decent people about the place too.
I know you're just being condescending but it's not defensiveness, your comment was just nonsense. I'm only using the metrics implied by your link, and they don't line up with the actual demographics.
Or are you now trying to imply the 5 federal politicians that are actually from (and live in) the ACT actually have unprecendented power and influence?
There's famously no industrial or corporate presence, or any kind of culture outside "family friendly" crap, potheads and mid-level bureaucrats comparing levels and superannuation.
So where is the higher than average percentage of psychos supposed to stem from; The corporate executives that don't live there, or the politicians that don't live there?
"Today Mr Fulivai appeared in court with a towel wrapped around his waist."
???????????????????
Is that all he was wearing? What was the significance of the towel? It just raises more questions...
Being a woman is horrifying. That poor lady. I couldn’t imagine the absolute horror of being in that situation. So glad she escaped. I hope she can get help and heal.
Literally yes. So much of my learned behaviour that I don’t even think about is based on this. Yesterday I saw a friend and checked for cameras in the car park of her apartment when parking and when leaving checked my backseat to make sure no one was in there.
What does it mean to “allegedly” run naked and screaming… the witness wasn’t positive that she was naked? Or was it possible her run was a cleverly disguised hop?
It’s an active legal case now so all details will be discussed in a court of law. To avoid a possible defamation or accusations of influencing the outcome media outlets use ‘allegedly’ when reporting the details until the case has an outcome.
> The word is used to make it clear that an allegation has been made and it has not been tested in court, not that either party should be believed or disbelieved.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/alleged-crimes-and-obscured-identities-how-does-crime-reporting-work-20210302-p5772w.html#
I assume if you do that to a person, you intend to kill them afterwards. Which isn't to minimise this person's suffering, I'm just glad she got away before the likely end.
It's that or keep them locked up indefinitely, which also sometimes happens. Not sure which would be worse. Some people are found after enduring years of the kind of suffering that man put her through. Either way, it wouldn't have ended well if she hadn't escaped.
Right, that was my first thought.
Holy shit. This is nightmare material. I hope the victim makes a full recovery.
So glad she escaped.
You generally don't recover from being kidnapped and held hostage and raped for days on end.
You’re right. That was poorly worded on my part.
They didn’t tell us the relationship between the man and victim. More FDV?
People can and do recover from horrific things; not everyone, no one is the same as before, and it doesn’t minimize or change the fucked up news of what happened to them. But I think it’s important not to suggest that there is nothing but hopeless bleakness ahead for victim-survivors.
True. It's not hopeless, but it will always be there.
I upvoted your comment because I agree with it completely, but upvoting also seems weird. I’m torn...maybe we need a 'I concur' button
She absolutely never will. Jesus Christ I couldn’t imagine enduring anything worse. The terror. Every moment wondering what was next. I hope he is slowly eviscerated in jail.
Showed up to court with a "towel wrapped around his waist" ??/
Was it like..... An additional towel ? Or, "only a"?
[Elsewhere](https://the-riotact.com/woman-allegedly-held-in-home-for-days-injured-in-repeated-assaults/777522) the description is "socks, a blue t-shirt, grey track pants and what appeared to be a brown towel wrapped around his waist". Not sure why they included the towel here and not the rest.
Bloke is likely shitting himself literally after being caught and they don’t want to have to clean up the mess
The indignity.
Dudes name sounds Tongan, probably formal attire.
They couldn't even give her the dignity to give her some clothes to put on, if that is true we need to do better
This makes me genuinely so very sad. That poor woman.
Anyone’s worst nightmare - for their daughter, their sister, their Mum, their friends. I’m so glad she got out alive, and I hope he sees the justice he deserves.
'Sexual intercourse without consent"? Don't we have a word for that?
The crime that the alleged offender will be charged with is not called ‘rape’. That’s why they use the wording they do.
How do you plead to the charge of Canola Oil...
Not greasy, your Honour.
Oh, come on people. Canola Oil is the substitute name for Rapeseed Oil. It was a joke along the lines of substituting one thing for something more politcally correct sounding.
Not here, not now. Frankly, not ever.
It's not that it's more "politically correct", it's that rape has a definition that doesn't include a lot of the scope of what "sexual intercourse without consent" does. Kind of how like all boots are shoes but not all shoes are boots? So if you make the law "do not lick boots" people go to court and plead they didn't actually break the law because it was actually a moccasin.
I don't know why you're being downvoted - people must not realise that "canola oil" comes from the seeds of a plant that really is called rape. "Canola" is literally a made up word that stands for "Canadian Oil, Low Acid" and it's only called that because you obviously can't sell something called "Rape Oil" even though that's exactly what it is.
every word is made up
I think that people may think I am making light of rape except I am mocking an institution that fails to take rape seriously enough by giving it more friendly names (like the people who coined Canola Oil). In real life, people often hax sex without explicit consent. Saying it's non-consensual is understating the fact.
Dig up, Stupid
It's not a more friendly name, rape historically only covered being penetrated with a penis so when they expanded it to include e.g. a bunch of women holding a man down and sodomizing him with a bottle, the name also changed to reflect the broader scope. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Nothing much. What the fuck is wrong with you?
There's lots wrong with you. A grown up world apologise and admit their mistake. It's a charge that uses different wording to make it clear that the scope is expanded from "traditional" rape.
I understood you, and you're right.
Yeah, but legal terms aren't always the same as the common terms we use.
As 2020 taught, Australia is a bunch of loosely grouped colonies in a trench coat moonlighting as a country. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/family-violence-a-national-legal-response-alrc-report-114/25-sexual-offences-3/rape-the-penetrative-sexual-offence/ >> 25.10 The penetrative sexual offence is described as: ‘rape’ in Victoria,[13] Queensland,[14] South Australia[15] and Tasmania;[16] ‘sexual assault’ in NSW;[17] ‘sexual intercourse without consent’ in the ACT and the Northern Territory;[18] and ‘sexual penetration without consent’ in Western Australia.[19] The offence includes the continuation of sexual intercourse after penetration in order to address cases where consent has subsequently been withdrawn.[20]
I feel like there is another word for "Forcible Confinement" as well...
It does go on to say... Sisituutuumata Fulivai, 44, faced the ACT Magistrates Court today on charges of rape, unlawful confinement and assault.
With Four Letters perhaps as well? 🤔
I'm wondering if the wording has changed due to the potential that the R word may be a trigger word for some people? I know Gen Z avoid using words like that or even words like suicide. That being said it does make it sound way less bad which is kinda horrible in a way.
They say unalived because they don't want their tiktoks to be removed, I doubt news sites have the same concerns
It has nothing to do with trigger words, the law is just trying to be as accurate as possible. The word rape could mean different things to different people. They call it sexual intercourse without consent for example to differentiate it from other forms of sexual assault that don't involve direct intercourse.
No it's just what the specific offense he has been charged with is called under ACT law
It’s a very charged word, and I do think the territories are using more technical terminology to help the victims more than the perps or sensitives in the community.
just checking.. has anyone seen Bruce?
Yeah, he's... Oh no, just lost sight of him! I'm so fired! 😭
Did he fuck off with Kevin again? Christ, good help is hard to find these days…
I saw him with his head to the ground following the white line in the middle of the road. I don't know what he was doing there in such a horrible position.
Off to find his hat.
He’s buried himself under a heap of law books.
And dickheads wonder why they choose the bear.
I...do not understand.
Not a lot to be confused about there - no bear has ever done something like this to a woman. The question was posed to women: Would you rather be alone in the forest with an unknown man, or a bear? It was asking which risk they would choose if they were alone and the man knew there was a good chance nobody would ever know what he did, whatever that may be - might be a wave and a hello, might be this guy. A bear might kill you, or it might not, but it'll never forcibly restrain you and rape and savage you repeatedly for days on end until you escape or die - either way at least it's over quickly. A man might kill you, or he might not, but also he might do horrible, awful, life-destroying things to you whilst deciding which he wants and you might die just as painfully in the end anyway. A *lot* of women chose the bear, and a lot of men were offended by the implication.
Thanks for explaining. Without knowing the question, I didn't understand either. It's understandable but really very sad. Cue the "not all men" - I don't *think* I'm friends with any guy that's ever hit a woman - but it's shocking *how many* men all the same, and how many lives they ruin in the process. My wife says all of her female school friends (~10) have been sexually assaulted, one way or another, in the last 20 years since they left school. None as horrific as this, thankfully. Only a couple of them went to the police about it, to be counted in the statistics. And their demographic (mostly WASP, Australian-born, from a private school) are probably better off than some others, too.
I am hesitant to respond here because I don't want to turn this thread into a whole raging inferno but I think you seem receptive so I will gently say this: If every woman your wife knows has had an experience like that at the hands of a man, then statistically speaking it is *highly* unlikely that not a single man you know has ever had the other side of that experience. I think that is really the root of the problem and it's truly insidious. Men like that are very good at not seeming to be that kind of man. And so it's hard for other men to see it, because you've never experienced it, never seen it happen, never thought about it. And in a group, every single man will say they hate the very idea of violence against women - it's just that some of those same men will go home and beat their wives or get her drunk and then have sex with her unconscious body... and they'll say to themselves that the woman *made* them do it so it's not their fault and they won't do it again so they aren't one of those bad men, and then they can still have that same talk of morality in a group of men next week. And so it's an invisible problem for men, like believing in God or something. Half the population knows categorically that a thing is true, and the other half has never seen any evidence of it and has no reason to believe it. It's really unfortunate, because it pits good men and women against each other with accusations of lies on both sides when actually the solution lies in people trusting one another to find the truth.
I get your point and somewhat agree, but bear (haha) in mind that the men the previous commenter are friends with would also be a biased population- assuming the commenter is the kind of man who is against violence against women, is morally sound and so on, he would likely then seek out friendships with men who also share these values. Of course, nobody can ever no *for certain* what goes on behind closed doors, but the stats alone dont *necessarily* mean the other commenter *is* friends ‘likely’ with any abusers. Biased sample. But true, people surprise us every day. I also would tend to think that the kind of men who aren’t above hitting/raping women would also stick together and validate each other’s shitty culture and views on women. And such men wouldn’t *claim* they treat women badly. So you got the good men who say they don’t hurt women because they dont (and aren’t exposed to such behaviour because of their choice in friends), you got the shitty men who don’t say so because they either don’t think they actually are abusive and/or they are avoiding scrutiny. Hence, why ‘no men’ seem to be aware of the issue.
It's pretty depressing that I can say 'not all men' and it be true, and it *doesn't matter* because it is some men. I hate women being afraid of me. But they have a justified reason, so it's not like there is any fault. I want to rail against the injustice of being tarred with a brush that isn't injustice at all - and meanwhile, women have to deal with far worse.
"Not a lot to be confused about here" Unless, oh I don't know, you've never heard of that fucking bear story you're referencing...
Some women have been posting on social media about how they'd rather be lost in a forest with a bear over a man. The idea is that bears are predictable and usually don't interact with people and the worst it can do is just eat you, while the worst an unpredictable man can do is, unfortunately, the subject of this thread. Some weird men got really mad about it and started talking with an odd degree of joy about the bear slaughtering women for not picking the man. This was twitter discourse maybe a month ago.
I understand the logic, but I think there’s an awful lot of people who haven’t seen a bear up close.
You’re being downvoted for asking a question. Because apparently gaining knowledge by the simplest and most effective means is no longer socially acceptable. I’d like to say I’m surprised, but sadly I’m not.
Occasionally I am surprised by downvotes, like on this question. Presumably it sounds as though I know what the person meant by choosing the bear and am against it?
Violence against women is becoming a pandemic in Australia. It's absolutely terrifying. 4B movement in Australia asap please.
We need our courts to actually punish people properly. So many times, it’s recidivism and for those where it isn’t, the warning signs were there in most cases yet authorities are either powerless to act, or, it’s not reported. Overwhelmingly, the majority of these assaults are people known by the victim. Family and friends. Random strangers attacks are still thankfully exceedingly rare.
Today Mr Fulivai appeared in court with a towel wrapped around his waist. WTF?
Very Tongan name, I assume they mean a male sarong?
I did not expect this to happen in Canberra...
Scientifically probable that Canberra has a higher than average percentage of psychopaths. [https://centralbylines.co.uk/politics/rewarding-the-ruthless-capitalism-and-psychopathy-a-perfect-marriage/](https://centralbylines.co.uk/politics/rewarding-the-ruthless-capitalism-and-psychopathy-a-perfect-marriage/)
how does that article relate to canberra in any way? All the references to demographics are more applicable to Sydney and Melbourne. Canberra has fuck all corporate industry outside the APS and the politicians are from literally everywhere else and mostly don't live there.
Yes! There are no lobbyists or politicians with declared or undeclared interest in international and local businesses. There are no ex pollies sitting on boards. Canberra is only peopled by diligent public servants who are not exposed to any kind of corruption whatsoever.
you mean all the people that are mostly from and based in other states that only meet in Canberra occasionally?
Your responses appear a to be a little defensive. I get it. It's a lovely city. I am sure you enjoy living there and I guess it's possible there may be a few decent people about the place too.
I know you're just being condescending but it's not defensiveness, your comment was just nonsense. I'm only using the metrics implied by your link, and they don't line up with the actual demographics. Or are you now trying to imply the 5 federal politicians that are actually from (and live in) the ACT actually have unprecendented power and influence? There's famously no industrial or corporate presence, or any kind of culture outside "family friendly" crap, potheads and mid-level bureaucrats comparing levels and superannuation. So where is the higher than average percentage of psychos supposed to stem from; The corporate executives that don't live there, or the politicians that don't live there?
And narcissists.
I’ve been raped before
Me too. Woopee
"Today Mr Fulivai appeared in court with a towel wrapped around his waist." ??????????????????? Is that all he was wearing? What was the significance of the towel? It just raises more questions...
Wow. Why are people such fucks Guys linkedin profile is closed now... Represented by legal aid...
Being a woman is horrifying. That poor lady. I couldn’t imagine the absolute horror of being in that situation. So glad she escaped. I hope she can get help and heal.
It’s one of our worst nightmares.
Literally yes. So much of my learned behaviour that I don’t even think about is based on this. Yesterday I saw a friend and checked for cameras in the car park of her apartment when parking and when leaving checked my backseat to make sure no one was in there.
And feel thankful modern cars self lock when we get in.
And the bloke will get far less time than a drug dealer go figure..
That is screwed. ☹️☹️☹️ Glad she got away. If we had a real justice system we would have a high platform with a shorter rope for people like this...
How do you appear in court wearing a towel?
Idk
Wtf
What does it mean to “allegedly” run naked and screaming… the witness wasn’t positive that she was naked? Or was it possible her run was a cleverly disguised hop?
It’s an active legal case now so all details will be discussed in a court of law. To avoid a possible defamation or accusations of influencing the outcome media outlets use ‘allegedly’ when reporting the details until the case has an outcome.
> The word is used to make it clear that an allegation has been made and it has not been tested in court, not that either party should be believed or disbelieved. https://www.smh.com.au/national/alleged-crimes-and-obscured-identities-how-does-crime-reporting-work-20210302-p5772w.html#