The media are constantly showing picture of these guys shirtless in the gym or at the beach or pool and female TV hosts seem to be trained to ooh and aah over their physiques, promoting them as objects of desire. Added to this the RL and AFL players are dumb enough to believe their own Press. Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere things go horribly wrong...

R0bert

'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.'

I don't know if you read the Leslie Cannold article link from James above, which makes some similar points. Here is one quote from that article that I particularly like:

'The sexual and feminist revolutions that are challenging rules that have governed female behaviour for thousands of years are only 50 years old. Missteps and uncertainty are inevitable. We need to hold our nerve./We must let girls know that we don't see them as vulnerable victims in need of protection but as women-in-the-making who are as capable as boys of owning their choices and, when they stumble, righting themselves.'

As a society, we still cling to the increasingly outdated paradigm that women and girls must be protected from their own sexuality - to the point that when women choose, or are coerced into, socially non-acceptable sex practices, it does NOT help for us to lazily slip into using terms like 'sexual assault', 'sexual degradation' and 'rape' as catch-all terms to describe their experience.

Unfortunately, the author of the (OLO) essay did this so many times, that she discredited her own otherwise worthwhile arguments.

JamesH

Are you aware that you actually recommended an article written by a feminist, i.e. Leslie Cannold? If not, try not to hate yourself too much in the morning. :)

*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*

I don't think so! They go for the "type" that shouts pick me - I'm half-pissed/high and so want to $%&* a celebrity sportsman or two ..
C'mon big boy - tell me I'm sexy & buy me another cocktail yeah! There's an empty toilet cubicle over there just made for you and me ....

"Clare" was a Barmaid - surely the obvious career choice of all shy naive young maidens. NOT! Others were ladettes out on the town.

Some stupid, slutty young women are so blinded by the status of ball chasing fools that they willingly engage in disgusting behaviour. Then when uninvited participants arrive on the scene - what can they do? What do they do? Seems not many made a big fuss. Intimidation? Possibly. Inebriation? Probably. In for a penny, in for a pound? Maybe .... after all they are all sports stars...

I've no doubt there have been many instances of non-consentual sexual activity, but prove it. It's never going to result in charges let alone Court.

These women are victims - of their own stupid decisions and immoral behaviour as well as the animal males who act like a pack of dogs. While these 'men' find girls willing to go off with them for easy instant sexual encounters, the attacks will continue. The law is impotent as the onus of proof is always going to be near impossible. Clubs with truly upstanding management who stipulate and enforce a high standard of player behaviour and limits on alcohol would help. Trouble is will we ever see one that does?

SJF:"Are you aware that you actually recommended an article written by a feminist, i.e. Leslie Cannold?"

Dr Cannold is a thinker, who in this piece rejected the claims of victimhood and the demands for Wowserism being offered by the "authoritarian (radical feminists and right-wing Christians)" and called for girls to be taught that they are responsible for their own choices and for the regret they may feel.

She specifically rejected the central tenet of the Four Corners piece, which was that because the woman regretted it some days later, she is a victim and the men are assailants. Retrospective withdrawal of consent is not possible, regardless of what the more authoritarian of hangers-on would have us believe.

IOW, she didn't write this piece as a "feminist", but as a "person". It's a shame that the media and seemingly OLO has so few women who are able to set aside their "feminism" in favour of "professionalism" as a quality benchmark.

I suspect that Four Corners is going to be defending defamation action and specific personal damages action from Matt Johns, his wife and family and that the Court will find Dr Cannold's line of reasoning a central part of their own findings if it ever goes to a trial. I also suspect that her bosses at Ch 9 have already had words with Tracey Grimshaw about her own hatchet job and that she has been strongly counselled not to jerk the knee so strongly in future. it's telling that the media pack that ran to this rather sad little hare set free by Four Corners are virtually all the less-talented career-Feminists, while the genuine journalists have stayed away in droves.

Antiseptic

‘... Cannold didn't write this piece as a "feminist", but as a "person".’

Absolutely unbelievable! Can I put that up on my fridge?

This bizarre statement sums up the very essence of all the ignorance that exists in the community regarding feminism as a philosophy and as a movement. However, that is the community’s problem, not feminism’s.

Also, I strongly suggest you read up a bit on cognitive dissonance. You’ve got it in spades.

SJF:"that is the community’s problem, not feminism’s"

Spoken as a true authoritarian. Looks like Cannold was spot on the money with her comment about "authoritarians (radical feminists and right-wing Christians)".

It's nice that you've made it perfectly clear that you see feminism as something to be imposed on a community, regardless of the wishes of the community. Honesty has never been your strong suit in the past, so I'm pleased to see you're making progress.