Oh dear me Glen Writer,

The reason Gemma has put 'alleged' is because it is defamation to label someone as having done something (especially a criminal offence) unless it has been proved in a court of law.

If she didn't John or Ashley could sue her.

Instead of attacking Gemma why don't you just come out and say you're an apologist for the two of them and think what they did was reasonable and fun. Perhaps you'd like demonstrate how fun and reasonable it was by getting someone to stick their genitals in your face? You could post a picture of it occurring i'm sure the moderator won't mind.

What those boys did was inappropriate behaviour that was demeaning and disrespectful in the extreme. Make no mistake about that.

The first things all the commentators should have done, before opening their mouths or applying pen to paper, was to review the footage of the incident.

Had they done so before pinning their colours to the mast, they'd have realised that things played out in a way that was nothing like what the media coverage has suggested.

The two guys involved may have overstepped the mark, but only by a little. It was not an assault within the usual meaning of the word. It was also, despite Pru Goward's valiant attempts to drag the issue into her own bailiwick, nothing even vaguely resembling sexual harassment.

As a result, this event cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a social problem. One may exist, but it will require other evidence to show it.

Sylvia

Interesting points made by all. Must say I wholeheartedly agree with Gemma, but disappointed that Sylvia Else believes that "overstepping the mark, but only by a little" is OK. Overstepping the mark is not OK at all - does that mean "a little" sexual harassment is OK, or "a little" bit of stealing is OK? "A little" is still over the mark - the mark is actually there for a reason. Just because these people are parading their lives on national television does not give them the right to bend the rules of society.

If little Johnny Bonsai wants to live in the 1960's morally, industrially that's fine by me, if he wan't to try to persuade by rational arguement, that's fine by me, he can begin at his own ABC. The yank cartoons shown in the early mornings to young children with adult overtures would be a good beginning to axe.

As long as we don't upset our US masters, goodness me, what a bloody hypocrite this little bloke is.

Cootha

"overstepping the mark" is an expression. I was not saying that they only assaulted the girl a bit, or only harrassed her a bit. I do not believe they did either of those things.

Sylvia.

So, are we going to see another 'stack' of posts from the Bill Muehlenberg/Australian Family Association lobby like we saw following his 'Big Brothel'article yesterday? I hope not because that would damage OLO if it became a trend.

I somewhat agree with this article however I do not agree that the episode was a sexual assault or should be referred to as an 'alleged sexual assault'. Only a few people who were not involved have soalleged. A woman allowed 2 men to get into her bed, and a bit of horseplay followed. When one of the men attempted the 'turkey slap' the woman put a stop to the episode. While not edifying viewing or behaviour, if anything, it showed that even rather silly people who may have been intoxicated knew how to set and/or obey limits to their silly behaviour.

It was not seen on TV and if it were not for all the ill-advised commentary and over-reaction that followed it, exploited cynically for political purposes, it would not be worthy of any further attention