Firstly, all the tabloids are little more than pulp fiction, entertainment value only. It is difficult to actually to determine what the real facts are, as many papers use artistic license of embellishment and leave certain inconvenient facts out and rely on emotional sensationalism to sell their papers.

Hook people emotionally and then milk the story for all it is worth.

Susie OBrien
Sex never the path to revenge
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/sex-never-a-path-to-revenge/story-fn56aaiq-1226017296613

the media is the covert collaborator in the gender wars.

I'll have to stick with the gender lines on this one although I do think there is plenty of reason to decide that players are not role models and should never be touted (or paid) as such.

"subjected to abuse of power and inappropriate behavior by well paid men held in high esteem by society"

By her own admission the girl claims to have told the player initially involved that she was 19 at the time (and from the footage I've seen could easily pass for 19). She admits to having used a long running false claim of pregnancy. She has breached trust given to her by stealing images from a players computer (not sure why someone would want to keep nude photo's of workmates on their computer though). She has published stolen photo's of people who were as I understand it not in any way involved with her on the internet without their consent.

Just what abuse of power was she subjected to prior to starting her vendetta?

She was only 16 so perhaps some room for cutting her some slack over her choices but that does not make villain's of those she has lied to.

From the coverage I've seen on this the only one with a case to answer is Ricky Nixon who on the face of it appears to have begun a relationship with her knowing her age and what's gone before.

This girl is definitely not the poster girl for demonstrating abuse of male power.

R0bert

Where's the connection?

"A young woman, subjected to abuse of power and inappropriate behaviour by well paid men held in high esteem by society, takes revenge"

Who here is "held in high esteem by society"?

Football players? Their agents? The AFL? Journalists? Radio shock-jocks? Eddie McGuire?

Fell at the first fence.

The critical issue here is the "Age of Consent"(recall the movie?)
This girl was 16 years , was she raped? She wasn't so what's all the fuss , perhaps she is intellectually handicapped if so then a gang-bang would be an assault and consequences applied .
The issue of her IQ was never mentioned , so perhaps she is inspired by attention to be a Snoddie-Burger and simply does what a Snoddie-Burger does so where is the illegality here . Perhaps the Age of Consent for females in any Group event should be twenty five years ?

It never ceases to amaze me what some people genuinely seem to believe.

Questions like "why have they come down like a ton of bricks on a 17-year-old girl?" and "why did St Kilda management launch a public attack on a schoolgirl for distributing photos that their own players took of each other" are utterly ridiculous. Given her long list of attrocious behaviour, both the media and St Kilda have been amazingly forgiving. Any older member of our society would be treated way more harshly. I acknowledge that it is only proper that people are a little forgiving when young people who make mistakes, but don't pretend that her treatment has been in any way harsh.

Furthermore, while the case of Ricky Nixon is quite different, the only crime of the players has been to have casual sex with her. For this, they are accused of hating women. Whatever people think of casual sex, if men are criticised for it, women should also be criticised.

And what of personal responsibility? The article states that men should take note, women will no longer take being treated this way. But yet there is always dozens of women hanging around footballers. If the treatment is so bad why not send a massage by just walking away? If a person says that something is not acceptable and then by their own actions consents to it does that person not hold some responsibility? And what of the parents in this case. If she was 16 at the time why were they not more concerned about why she was spending so much time around footballers, do not they hold some responsibility also?

This entire issue has been taken and twisted into a political and ideological spear for use by those with an agenda. Not once did the author question the 'St Kilda Schoolgirls' responsibility, not once did she question the responsibility of the parents. Nor did she question the responsibility of the groupies that no doubt add to the culture that she finds so repugnant. No, she laid all the blame at the feet of not the St Kilda players/manager but "Men" in general. It seems the author is stating that women should be permitted to do anything they wish because men should always hold all the responsibility.

The fact is that all sides hold responsibility in matters like this. You cannot drink and drive - even at 16 - and get away with it, you cannot assult someone at 16 and get away with it. Yet in cases like this it is always the mans fault, why?