Turn Yabby into Hugh Jackman and he will have thousands of groupies of all ages at his door, with many caring little how many join them for sweaty action with the big fellow as long as they get their card punched too.

It might not suit the drivers of the women's victim industry that it is so, but denial of the simple truth that some women are not averse to a bit of group sex is foolish when there is abundant evidence around in the media and especially in women's magazines. For crying out loud, many celebrities have CIA-like security and beefy minders to protect them from the fans who would molest them, given half a chance. Then even the minders get lucky. NRL footballers like Matt Johns would rate low on the desirability stakes for most women, but there is no accounting for taste and they make themselves available for seduction.

Another thing that hasn't really surprised is the underlying prejudice of some recognised feminists against male homosexuals, which made obvious by their sledging of the men for indulging in 'homoerotic' practices. Even if it was homoerotic, so what? Or is heteroerotic OK, but homoerotic is not? Maybe homoerotic is fine for lesbians but not gay men? The readiness of senior feminists to use homoerotic as a slur says a lot about the superficial equality they ordinarily espouse.

Antiseptic and sycophants: As usual show no knowledge of what constitutes rape or even coercion. Btw: It is not the issue of consent or her character under or in need of scrutiny (nobody disputes the facts of the incident; including the NZ Police and the men involved) but a culture that promotes anyone's presumed 'right' to use another person's body any way they like.

Money: Under NZ Comp law at the time, I believe that the amount could be as little as $40.00 and the higher amount had to have incurred physical injury as well (Disease would qualify as that - did anyone wear a condom?).

How much does a motel worker earn? Let's guess that 7 years ago it was $400.00 per week. If she was awarded the maximum; she'd be receiving a taxable amount of about $20, 800 per year. In 7 years that would amount to $145,600. Many of us can earn that in a year; two at most.

Do you honestly think that the NFL or a media outlet wouldn't have paid at least as much. She then wouldn't have had to go through the process of assessment; applying and waiting, as well as spending time in psych services. She could have easily obtained as much (and could now) yet has declined all offers of money to either hush or blab.

Btw: She has made serious attempts at suicide and self-harm. I believe it would be impossible to fake PTSD, especially over an extended perid of time.

Sometimes you make quite thoughtful and interesting comments. The last two posts were not amongst them.

What you need to reflect on is why you feel so compelled to concoct and attribute base motives to this young woman.

JamesH: The 'study' is insubstantial. I investigated the source. Anyone can answer their polls, however, it has two sections: Uncut and Dating. The Uncut ad says: "Uncut adult dating is for singles and swingers looking for a little more fun; casual dating, swingers clubs, adult chat rooms, forums, adult swingers parties, adult personals & sex stories." <- therefore their survey was drawn from a very specific group; which might be referred to in research terms as a convenience sample.

Sharkfin: I agree with your lucid summations and with your suspicions. The ABC has verified that it drew information from police and medical records, and police have not contradicted any information presented in that show. I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL was objecting on one hand and paying non-ABC media on the other to 'creatively' vilify Claire. I wonder if any of the laer commentators have been paid. Does anyone care?

RobP: I agree with you that one's rights ends where they infringe on someone else's well-being.

Yabby: In your rush to impress the lads with your fantasized prowess; you seem to have forgotten the dynamics of the scenario under scrutiny. For your experiment; you and 10 other men would be in the presence of one female.

Btw: In your reductionist theories of biological determinism; how do you account for the men here, such as CJ; other posters and men in the wider community like my spouse and son who manage to control their zippers? To the extent that your outdated but favoured theory has any relevance, I would say they are more highly evolved. Surely it's what everyone should aspire to - since it is in the best interest of perpetuation of the species.

rstuart:"he ceaselessly campaigns to have the womens support groups shut down."

No, I don't, those groups have an important role, which sadly few of them do well.

There are a few things I do object to in relation to this subject, however. The first is that many of those groups are deliberately dishonest in promoting their service and especially when it comes to seeking funding. The sort of guff put about by the NSWRCC is a classic of the type. While "spin" is acceptable, deliberate misinformation produces unacceptably skewed decision-making from politicians and other responsible parties which leads to bad outcomes.

The second is the coupling of the service with feminist ideology. Read about Erin Pizzey's experience after setting up the first women's shelters in Britain and then being forced out by radical feminists because she chose to acknowledge that many of her clients were active participants in the violence they were sheltering from. The ideology was that women are always victims, which she could see was clearly not the case.

The third is that decades of "women's studies" have lead to a group of navel-gazing, self-obsessed, misandric ninnies being in charge of these groups. One such group in Central Coast NSW that drew funding to support people claiming to be victims of violence was so incensed at being told by the State Govt that men are people too and hence would need to be served as well that they withdrew completely from the role. They'd rather not help anyone that have to help men.

Fourthly, I'm appalled by the Wowserism entrenched in these groups and the way Feminism has been perverted into a new puritanism. What was once a genuine efort to redress some of the imbalance in society has become a prurient rush to prevent people being people. there is a story in today's C-M about the girls at a school dance being required to wear bike pants under their skirts just so there can't be any "inappropriate touching", which may "lead to police involvement".

What on Earth?
[cont]

What is the point of going to a school dance if there's no chance of a bit of a grope? I can't see any reason for the police to be called if a few fingers finish the night a bit smellier than they started. I can remember not washing my left hand for a week after 1 school formal...

All of this crap has been abetted by the feminist axis that has formed in the media, the Unions and politics. The Johns affair was a very timely reminder that some of the more virulent of these people are simply looking for an excuse to vilify men and that the impacts on anyone of either gender standing in the way are irrelevant. 10 years ago a story like the Four Corners one would never have run, because the producers would have checked with the police and found there was no assault. Grimshaw would not have had an excuse to trot out her third-rate third-degree and the New Wowsers could have stayed safe indoors where the big bad world couldn't hurt them, instead of sticking their rather drippy noses into other people's bedrooms.

<However, I have a bone to pick with my female counterparts. Feminism is all about each woman having the right to choose her own path. We should be allowed to do whatever we want in this life and not be judged by society’s arbitrary sex roles, right? Absolutely.

What about men? Do they enjoy this right?>

http://open.salon.com/blog/jodi_kasten/2009/05/27/equal_rights_for_men

One thing I found very interesting is that when one of Princess Dianna's lovers opened his mouth, he was widely condemmed, when a woman opens her mouth about her famous lover/s, he is widely condemmed.

Now Grim, could have asked how many of the women in this forum, would/have engaged in group sex. Or how many have cheated on their partner.

Or maybe a bit of voyeurism.