‘... the urge to spread genes far and wide lies restlessly at the evolutionary core of all males…’

If that’s the case, then how does this explain a group of men wanting to have sex with one woman at the same time and in the same location? This would mean that sperm from a lot of men is being channelled into one woman – the very opposite of the 'far and wide' evolutionary sperm theory.

‘Such frustration is more likely to find an explosive outlet in a male used to indulging deep primal instincts of team battle and lust.’

So how does this explain the ‘deep primal instinct’ of men wanting to have sex in front of a group of other men? What is the ‘deep primal instinct’ in flashing your thing to other men and showing other men how you use it, and then watching the other men do the same for you?

Evolutionary male lust gene anyone … or might it be that other little evolutionary word beginning with 'H'?

. "But as horrified victims of these misdeeds continue to discover, freedom of choice for women under these circumstances may well be an illusion."

The last sentence says it all. It isn't only the drunk footballers who are culpable, their drunk female companions are equally responsible for getting themselves into these situations in the first place. Too much liquor on both sides is the problem, often provided free by the venue to encourage others to participate, even though the law insists on the "Responsible service of Alcohol". I wish.

David

Perhaps these footballers and their groupies like the Irish in New York, need someone like Archbishop Hughes at
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2003/apr2003p10_1293.html
to convince them of the error of their ways.

David

This type of behavior in my view is unacceptable.

However we all make choices , this girl did and she had every right to do that.
Why are people fuzzing her rights , she is an adult , there is no laws about Gang Bangs , so she was a legally qualified participant and scored a few Celebs .
What people and she are complaining about is her reaction when the Community called her names.
She and the Rugby Players need to grow up . Not everyone in this world is wise .
This is nothing new , (I think it was) Shelly wrote about an event where the participants found the event by the slipperiness of the Cobblestones ; that was in the 18Th century .
What the media did should be illegal , who gave them the right to meter out Punishment making money out of it on the way .
Should the Media be exempt from causing incredible hurt and misery upon three little kids and a wife who appears to be sticking to her marriage vows thru thick and thin .If the Police are impotent so are You and I and the Media , we are legally obliged to back off .
The media of course could campaign politically to lift the age of consent to 30 or lock Rugby Players into same sex activitie

This is the stupidest article I have seen in On Line Opinion. While I agree that many men have a strong desire for multiple sexual partners that desire is easily met by many footballers without engaging in gang bangs. There are, of course, many footballers who are having numerous partners but they have them one at a time and creating no fuss.

Gang bangs are not really about sex per se. They are much more to do with power and humiliation and hatred of women. They are also a way of expressing repressed homosexual desires and a way of enacting a pornographic scenario (the desire to re-enact what we see in TV and movies is obviously not restricted to viewers of pornography).
The entire 'performance' can then become a talking point among men who often don't know what to talk about.

So spare us the primitive biological explanations for this type of event. It has very little relevance, and despite the author's protestations to the contrary, often gets used as a justification or excuse for seriously aberrant behaviour.

This article summed up my general view of some of our 'Sports Heroes' antics.

Exceptions excluded, the average footballer is not Mensa material. Add alcohol to disinhibit any social and moral conditioning and you have boys running on testosterone and animal instinct. That includes indiscriminate 'mating' and explains the 'gang bang' penchant. Dogs will copulate with the same female one after the other, main difference being the vigorous fighting for position. Our sportmen may be a little more 'evolved' -'paper, scissors, rock' or drawing straws perhaps?

Though abhorrent, this is not illegal, provided participants are consenting adults. Herein lieth the problem.

The sole female in most incidents consents to sex with one or two of the boys. Fun stops when what seemed a reasonably private party has swelled to half the team. She indicates enough already, they say no, we all want a turn. Mostly seems she gives in under intimidation. What then? Goes home, has a long shower, cries, tells a friend then days/weeks later complains to Police? They investigate and confirm she had sexual contact with the men named but all deny any coercion - and here are photos and videos on our mobiles to prove it! Will the complaint proceed? Not freaking likely!

With many heavily publicised incidents over recent years, even the silliest starry-eyed groupie must be aware of dirty play happening off-field. Still some take the risk.

Do they deserve to be assaulted? No, but likewise the passenger who enters a car with a known drunk driver doesn't deserve death or injury. Personal responsibility dictates we assess risks attached to certain behaviours and accept that possible outcomes may not all be favourable.

My opinion - Society rather than being 'in league' condemns both assailants and victims. The men for criminal and morally reprehensible acts and women for morally offensive behaviour which made for great risk of harm. Legally, this type of crime defies control. Best bet - Clubs with responsible management who educate, stipulate high standards of conduct and punish wrongdoers harshly. Likewise messages to young women to avoid inebriated males travelling in packs.

"But despite considerable efforts by clubs in past years to punish offenders and re-educate players, flagrant offences continue. Why is it so?" (Quote: Andrew Baker).

You base your entire subsequent argument on the basis of 'despite this-they still misbehave so it must be something else';-and then go on to describe that something else.

But what if no REAL attempt has been made? And it has not!

Was it Phil Gould?? who said that this type of behaviour has gone on for a long time, and was practised by those former players now involved in the hierarchy?

THEY saw nothing wrong in it,-and are hardly likely to submit players to any genuine penalty. What is happening now, is that many (many!) are now questioning this culture. So that hierarchy have to be seen to be doing something.

'Being seen to be doing something'. Quite a common practice nowadays.

Penalty of 'indefinite suspension' usually lasts a metaphorical 9.6 seconds!

I don't give a damn about the nature of man....or woman, for that matter. The way to stop this, or at least minimise it is currently happening. Cut off their sponsorship.

Strip them of their cash cows. All clubs need this type of cash inflow. Let it depend on their good 'ol boys keeping their trousers zipped.
The groupie slags might lose interest, or just develop into fans and not *^^!*^'s!
And if these bankers want to bank én masse. Then do so. Sans females.

That way their image is not tarnished, and the dollars flow in.

Your piece Mr Baker is yet more rationale. Nothing more. We've had a super abundance of it.

I think it is obvious that many footy players who are involved in group/gang sex are doing so through the learnt perverted behaviour of watching the typically debased and depraved plots found in porno flicks.
Most men do not have a desire to engage in sexual activity with other men watching on or participating by taking turns or masturbating. This is porno behaviour.
Porno has affected the culture and has clearly affected many Australians. Most Australians however, are not caught up in this addictive and learnt behaviour and so are puzzled by the lack of remorse or even sense of shame in those sportsmen who wish to continue to defy the NRL.

*The groupie slags might lose interest, or just develop into fans and not *^^!*^'s!*

Ah Ginxy, there is your problem. You want to tell those "groupie
slags" what they should or should not be doing in their own time,
despite them being females responsible for their own actions.

To take your concept further, lets say that you were a hairy
legged lezzo, who liked to knock off other girls. Should we
as a society, stick our nose into what you do between the
sheets and perhaps broadcast your exploits on television?

Or should adults be responsible for their own actions, when
it comes to sexual matters?

Webby,

There are records of orgys in Roman times, and apparently a lot more common and socially acceptable than today, and managed to do so without porn or the internet.

Ginx,

You care so much about the private sexual frolics of others that I wonder if this is due to a personal frustration, a genuine desire to cramp the entire world into your strait jacket, or just a religious based "thou shalt not"?

Yabbs little petal, can't win eh?

If I recognise only the male role?:- well read for yourself;-including your own posts, where that gets us gels!

If I recognise female responsibility in these matters, look where that gets me!

TRY. Just try to be a good boy. You know how going in ever decreasing circles leads to a sad..er, end.
________________

Shady Mini: ooohhhh! it's religion! You got me. I confess I wear 'mummy don't trust me' pantaloons down to the knees, (I wore them once,-they are great when the wind gets round the willows),-and I never let kitty out with those awful tomcats**. AND I NEVER allow my furniture to show bare legs-I keep them covered up!-thank-you VERY much!!

YES. That IS right. You ARE talking bollocks.
_________________

**Two spinsters live very quietly with their cat Emily..,who they never let out because of all those darn tomcats...

One day, one of them ups and gets married!!??!!
The next day she sends a telegram to her sister. All it said was:

"Let kitty out tonight".

Andrew Baker writes:

"When it comes to sex, women are generally choosy whereas men prefer not to discriminate. This is the evolutionary foundation on which gender wars are waged: women have a rare resource they aim to protect (an egg) whereas men have a common resource they wish to promote (their sperm)."

Really, then why is the human male penis the shape it is?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus

Plumbers would understand the technology as described in the article above.

I have to ask why a woman would want all her eggs fertilised by the one male. Makes sense to have a variety of fathers for her offspring but settle with one male who is good parent material.

Andrew I would posit that it is probably best not to make assumptions about either male or female sexuality.

Just would like a world where men and women treat each other with the consideration and respect they would want for themselves.

Fractelle

Were you being tongue in cheek, or do you subscribe to the crackpot assertion in the SA article you linked to? (As articles go, I much prefer David's somewhat non-sequitous link above to the Irish in New York.)

The reason for newly injected sperm displacing old sperm in the vagina is just a matter of physics – i.e. a moving force displacing a sedentary object. The idea that evolution somehow designed the penis in such a way as to send sperm into the vagina to slam the opposition is rhetoric strangely reminiscent of … well … locker room pep talks at Half-time.

The trouble with evolutionary theories about sexual biology is that they identically parallel the socio-political power structures of the era and society in which the theorists are living. In a society in which men are overwhelmingly encouraged to compete with other men to dominate the cultural space, it's only logical that theories of sexual biology will give sperm the exact same agenda.

Well, well it really did not take long for my former prediction to come true (ie that someone would be claiming that group sex like homosexuality and every other perversion is in the genes). Of course its nothing to do with the failure to admit that unless morals are taught around sexual behaviour people act like animals. I doubt whether the author would argue that the many pedophile homosexual priests were born that way or that the prostitute has it in her genes to want to have sex with the multitudes. Once again the author shows what absolute rot his evolutionary based theories are. He forgets that the theory of evolution teaches the fallacy that man is evolving into a higher more intelligent state. The theory fails miserably as we see men and women doing what they always have done without a knowledge of God (become more and more perverted)

SJF

Tongue most assuredly placed in cheek, however my point remains that Andrew's ideas on male/female characteristics are rather limited. Human sexuality is varied as it is complex.

The thought that a group of men feel entitled to use a woman like an inflatable doll in jerk-off ring, sounds more like a result of culture rather than nature.

I know too many wonderful men who value the women in their lives. What we need is to pass on these same values to our sons and for our daughters to have the sense of self to avoid such situations. I doubt that Johns feels the same depths of shame that the young woman who agreed to sex with him and found herself in an unrequested male fantasy from which she would've had a great deal of difficulty in speaking out. A memory that will remain with her for the rest of her life. Her conflict with that night is evident in her first attempting bravado by boasting, but as the memory would not rest easy within her mind, by finally having to speak out. With all the blame that attaches itself to women who dare to say in retrospect that she felt used. It does create a minefield for some men to navigate - however, perhaps if they would not like to see their wife/daughter/girlfriend in such situations then maybe they can act to protect a women from making a drunken mistake instead of giving tacit approval by doing nothing.

Raunch culture brings out the worst in men and women - time for women to realise they do not have to please all men all the time and for men to speak out against using women as sex-toys.

*This would mean that sperm from a lot of men is being channelled into one woman – the very opposite of the 'far and wide' evolutionary sperm theory.*

Actually not so, because the investment is a mere ejaculation, ready
to be repeated a short time later. The female invests years of
her life.

*I have to ask why a woman would want all her eggs fertilised by the one male. Makes sense to have a variety of fathers for her offspring but settle with one male who is good parent material.*

That is why kids do have a variety of fathers, the plumber, the
milkman, the pool boy. Women have flings like men have flings.
But as the female needs the provider of resources for her offspring
to stick around to feed them, it makes sense for her to pretend to
him that they are his.

*then maybe they can act to protect a women from making a drunken mistake instead of giving tacit approval by doing nothing.*

Err, we hear on this very forum that women know what they are doing,
they are equal to men and some say that chivalry is not welcome.
Fair enough. Would I rescue a bloke, if he was wandering off with
a group of girls who claimed to want to seduce him and he seemed
willing? Absolutaly not. Are you now saying that we should treat
you differently to men?

If I was paying a great deal of money to young athletes to perform in my team, I would want them at their best, when they played. I don't think this can be the case when they are abusing themselves with constant binge drinking episodes.

I would therefore have a clause in their contract restricting their behaviour. This may of course, make it hard to get the top players, but if the whole code implemented such a policy, much of this problem would disappear. One problem is that much of the management, & coaching staff are ex players, who have been there, & done that, & don't really see a problem.

What must be remembered is that these fit healthy strong young men are extremely attractive to a large percentage of young women. Just a few generations ago they would have represented the top of the tree in breeding partners, & are still up there in many circles. These blokes are going to get rushed by the mob, every where they go.

It was even still the case, when I went to school, in country NSW. How many remember the pop song that went, "You've got to be a football hero, to get away with a beautiful girl; You've got to be a touchdown getter you bet, if you want to get, that beauty to pet". Well it was pretty well true, at high school in my town.

Fortunately for me, there were only 24 of us [boys & girls] in 5Th year, & 35 in 4Th year, as it was in most country towns back then, so it wasn't too hard to make the senior football team, or I'd never have got a girl.

Apparently (according to a newspaper report) all it took for a footballer to entice a female into a nightclub toilet cubicle for sex was to walk up to her at the bar and say “Hi Sexy”.

If the male was not an easily recognised footballer would this approach have worked?

Probably not.

The footballer expected to get sex because of his perception of himself and how he perceives women.

The female is willing to have sex because of her perception of herself and how she perceives footballers.

*What must be remembered is that these fit healthy strong young men are extremely attractive to a large percentage of young women*

Hasbeen, you raise an important point in relation to this article,
for of course the author is claiming that genes and instinct matter.

Some of our potential social engineers of course think that culture
can change anything. Yet even some of those females, have a seemingly
fatal, instinctive attraction to the kind of males that you describe.

As was explained to me " a woman will make a list of things she
wants in a guy, then run off and follow her feelings". There is
some truth in that.

If we look at these athletic types, they would have made great
hunters and providers, 500 grandmothers back, when we still lived
in caves. In evolutionary terms, that is an eyeblink.

Forget Bill Gates etc, its the muscular football types that many
women will drop their knickers for, seemingly fairly easily.

Which kind of proves the authors point, that genes and instinct matter,
perhaps far more then some other OLO posters care
to admit.

Fractelle,
I read this thread last night late and the article in the link you gave and on going to bed I could not sleep for laughing. That is the funniest thing I have read since 'The Loaded Dog' by Henry Lawson.

I can't think of a better reason for the shape of the human penis but I never thought of the penis as a bucket pump. Apparently the penis in the virgina works similar to one of those plastic pumps used to extract air from freezer bags. The mind boggles!

I never ever thought that when having sex, I was, in fact, multi-tasking.

More useless information to fill my brain. Excellant stuff.

Let's face it... these sports people are boofheads, plain and simple. And the TV programs that support them are full of boofheads, the commentators on sports programs are boofheads, and of course the ex-boofs who run all these sports and clubs are boofheads too...then there are the people who slavishly support 'their team' without questioning what they are doing, or why.... and the investors who are laughing all the way to the bank.

I am tired of seeing these boofs assaulting each other on TV, and then going off to 'The Jew-dishery' for their quasi court appearances.

Absolute rubbish!

And the time devoted to entertainment, and the money that goes with it... really.... what a waste.

The author called them 'gladiators'... pathetic... entertainers maybe... dimwits perhaps.... we'd be better off, and some of our products would be cheaper, if we simply stopped funding them all and allowed 'entertainment' to fade from life and 'sport' to return as an activity for each of us, not as a capitalist trap for the weak and simple minded who know only how to sit and watch.

While there's a quid to be made for otherwise hard-to-employ knuckleheads and their backers, this sort of claptrap will continue.

The Blue Cross:

Nice one!!

Banjo

I thought the article hilarious too - I mean what does that mean?

That women prefer gang bangs? If you take the simplistic Yabby-evolutionary-biology-is-destiny POV from this, then what have we been pairing off for?

Honestly I couldn't think of anything more frightening than drunkenly bedding down with one footballer, to suddenly finding myself surrounded by a roomful of overly large, testosterone excessive, wonking males. Yet according to Basic Plumbing 101, that's how men have evolved to, er, well if you've read the article, you know.

Quite the conundrum, does this mean that pack rape is the norm rather than the aberration?

I think not. I prefer to make love. Sometimes I've just gone for the sex but only with man. Even the thought of two men at once is scary. And I suspect that most men would agree with me - except about two women at one time, which is not at all scary and quite the common male fantasy.

The Blue Cross:"'The Jew-dishery'"

Ginx:"The Blue Cross:

Nice one!!"

Oh dear, Gunky...

There always were vamps who preyed upon anything in trousers and with a frivolous disregard for the probable partnered status of their targets. The vamps are in the workplace, in the community, at pubs and sure they they 'dog' men with status and especially celebrities - where their ruthless, immoral pursuits inevitably attract public attention.

Feminists in their ivory towers have demonstrated how completely out of touch they are by painting such exploitative women as 'victims'. Very few woman could ever agree with that!

In the subject case, crucial aspects of the alleged victim's claims have been dispelled by the accounts of independent witnesses. For example it wasn't possible for men to have climbed in through the very small window as she claimed.

Would the John's case have been screened by the ABC at all if it didn't involve a successful, white, heterosexual man? Most likely not and that says something about the claimed independence of the ABC, especially given that the story was so poorly researched in the breathless haste to bring it to air.

Yabby,
Fancy that! Researches reckon a penis works the same way as a windmill pump. i.e. brings fluids to the surface. next time I have to service the mill, I'll look at it working and smile.

Fractelle,
Never again will I be able to help the missus get the meat ready for freezing by packing in bags and extracting the air.

Banjo

I'll never think of "servicing the mill" in quite the same way either. Now when you tell your missus that you're checking on the mill - just what will she think?

I don't always agree with you, but love to have a laugh and I'm glad you caught the humour on this one.

Cheers

*If you take the simplistic Yabby-evolutionary-biology-is-destiny POV from this, then what have we been pairing off for?*

Clearly the topic is well over your head Fractelle, my claim btw has
always been that biology has a huge role in destiny and its not
simplistic at all, but quite complex. Perhaps just too complicated
for you :)

You are pairing off for good reasons. Human babies need lots of
resources, as do the babies of other species which pair bond.
A female 10'000 years ago, without a mate and kids to feed, would
easily have starved to death. Thats 500 grandmothers back, in
evolutionary terms a mere blip.

*Yet according to Basic Plumbing 101, that's how men have evolved to, er, well if you've read the article, you know.*

Nope, it means that if you screwed the milkman, women do, there is
still plenty of time for your partners sperm to compete, when he
gets home. Women do screw around without being in gangbangs, its
common.

*Even the thought of two men at once is scary.*

To you perhaps. Clearly not to the footie chick in the Sunday Times,
who claims to have screwed over 200 players, sometimes a dozen at
a time.

Women have traded sex for resources for as long as we know. That
means lots of sperm competing. Any evolutionary trait that would
have an advantage, would evolve and become dominant.

Fractelle,
Wonders will never cease, that is now twice that we agree on something. I agreed with your comments about our culture on the other thread and now the article you gave the link to. I do not see how anyone could not see it as funny. Amazing what some Unis research and what jobs some people have. Am still laughing.

In regards to this topic, I agree with yabby. Saw a show on SBS awhile back called 'footy chicks'. If it comes back it is worth a watch to be informed about how some young women throw themselves at topline football players of all codes. They deliberately frequent the pubs, etc. where the players go and compete with each other for attention and not just for socializing either.

"The Blue Cross:"'The Jew-dishery'"

Ginx:"The Blue Cross:

Nice one!!"

Oh dear, Gunky...
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 25 May 2009 2:18:57 PM"

You KNEW exactly what I was endorsing..., or did you?

You going to distort this thread, with more pettiness, odious blow-fly?