Myth No. 1: The girl was "asking for it" by going back to a hotel

So it was reasonable for the girl to expect something other than sex to eventuate. A critique of the etchings in the hotel room perhaps?

Sarah Ferguson: "A woman involved in degrading group sex can still be traumatised whether she consents or not."

I don't doubt it. But somehow after she has asked to participate in group sex, it's becomes the man's fault for proceeding? Miller expects him know whether she will her acquiescence as a mistake. Not all women do.

Myth No. 4: Misogyny is simply a part of male sports, there's nothing we can do about it.

Here I was, an avid participator in male sports in my youth, and was never aware of it. Dr Easteal should learn to discern between correlation and causation. I don't doubt men involved in highly physical sports are more violent towards women. They are more violent towards everyone. Sadly that mentality seems to make for better players in some sports.

Dannielle Miller: "It is vital to emphasise that the onus of preventing assault should not lie with young women."

I would have thought it was so much "vital to emphasise" as obvious. The only responsibility a woman has is to say no. Yet apparently that is asking too much.

Mia Freedman: "her interview with Matty Johns, spoke out stridently condemning him"

I haven't paid much attention, but I understand Clare wanted to have sex with Johns, and perhaps some others. Later more uninvited players came along and things spiralled out of the control of both Clare and Johns. Johns knew things had gone wrong and evidently like Clare felt could not do much about it, but nonetheless apologised for the actions of the others AT THE TIME. And now he is being declared persona non grata. It seems there are two victims here. One is Clare. The other is Johns, at the hands of Dannielle Miller and her ilk.

... and Miller goes on and on. Is this drivel what passes for feminist thought nowadays?

A very informative piece and well-researched. It seems that people's reactions to these types of articles are always going to be strong and at times heated, if what is suggested is close to home and hard to accept.

There is no problem saying that porn is bad. There are no good effects of porn, and while people are free to use it, it does not offend anyone to say that it is bad. Just because something is possible, not illegal, in common use and feels good, does not make it good.

As another article argues today, law and morality aren't the same thing. There are plenty of poor examples of moral actions that aren't and shouldn't be governed by law, but this doesn't mean that they aren't bad for you. Society's degradation in morality has left many without a moral compass and the law fills this gap, but it's not an adequate answer for that most essential human question: "What ought I do?" Instead it leads to the dangerous question: "What can I get away with?"

A great example of this is the strip club that put up a large sign disallowing NRL players. They fail to understand that having "20 half-naked ladies walking around" (as the owner said) creates exactly the culture that leads to the sort of behaviour we see by NRL Players. It might be legal, but it's morals are in the gutter, engaging in mass degradation of women for a bunch of pervert blokes. Then it takes the moral high-ground to ban certain people from its premises. Maybe they don't like the language of NRL players and were banning them because of swearing. I can't figure that one out.

It is true that men need to stand up and make tough calls. It is hard to go against an entrenched culture, but if we can provide NRL players an education on what is more broadly accepted in society, it might wake them up to some of the contradictions of their own behaviour, such as visiting hospitals and bedsides on Tuesday, and strip-clubs on Saturday.

Reading between the lines here, I can see two reasons for this article.

The first, & most obvious one, is business promotion.

However I have detected a second. Dannielle is jealous of Clare. I think she is really upset that none of these sexy footballers want her.

Perhaps this is the case with all the outpouring of female rage, on this subject, rejection.

Now that you have the definitive post on the subject, could we get onto something a bit more interesting than the lack of morals these females display, in leading our nice footballers astray.

I was amazed to read the Dr's fix , learn martial Arts , does she realize that the strength of a rugby player of this order of fitness and violence could punch a young woman so hard in the face that his fist could penetrate her head ....very bad advice I think .

The debate makes too many assertions about what happened how would some hold up in court ?
If sex becomes too complicated , the girls might have to forgo by Law some of their more revealing apparel and take Mum or Gran along armed with an Utzie or maybe observe Tali Ban Laws or a simplified fix might be a Permission to Shag License or maybe ear rings Phallic Symbol on one ear and bronze , silver or Gold tick Symbol on the other indicating their enthusiasm .

Too much weight has been put on Rugby , 98% OF RUGBY PLAYERS are decent human beings 2% are violent F-Wits yet you condemn the lot , you carry your conscience in a wet paper bag .

The Code should sue you .

Is anybody else left wondering how much harm is done to society and genuine victims by continued attempts to blur the line about what is a victim and what constitutes assault?

If the accounts of the incident as made public bear a reasonable resenblance to the events which actually took place Clare is like at least one other party a victim of her own poor choices but not someone elses victim. She and Johns appear to have both made a choice which they have later regretted. They have both made a choice which has impacted on their lives beyond the evening the event took place.

Clare did by all the accounts I've seen consent to have sex with Johns and at least one other player. Nothing I've seen has suggested that when the circumstances changed she gave any indication that she was unhappy with the change. If anything it appears that she made active choices about who she would have sex with. A real victim does not get that choice.

Nothing that I've seen of this case suggests that her expressed wishes were ignored, nothing I've seen suggests that there was any real or implied threat to her safety. She was with well known footballers not an outlaw bikie gang.

Perhaps the title should read "It is never the victim's choice"

All of those who took part in this should think more carefully about who they choose to have sex with and the nature of the relationship with that person. Johns and any others involved who cheated on partners had cause to answer to those partners. Women who find a power imbalance threatening need not seek out powerful men (nothing I've seen here suggest that applied in this case but the power imbalance has been mentioned often).

This article might seem useful to the gender warriors but by it's dilution of what constitutes a victim and what constitutes assault it certainly does not help those who have no choice when they are assaulted.

R0bert

*As stated in the article, the footy players don't go for strong, confident women, they go for the shy and easy to manipulate type*

Err, more likely the footy players do what most young males do,
they go for the young and cute female who says yes. Thats what
young blokes do on the weekends, hope to shag some girls. Its
common in every pub in Australia. Its also fairly natural.