Yes we are all shakeing our heads how could they do that?
Well another side exists to this story, why do we not have headlines about bands or stars who have done very much the same for years?
Let us be clear, its wrong but not in any way unusual, humans have had group sex for hundreds of years.
And willing participants have sometimes wanted to undo their actions after.
Well maybe its only wrong for some?
NRL a very old game, a working class game with working class values.
Nearly 40 years ago I remember after a game girls trying to force their way into dressing sheds after a game.
Oh yes some made it, most players did leave but not all.
Not girls known to player just what we would call groupies now.
The ABC story was old news re hashed news and biased, if one outcome is an improvement in behavior from both sides in these matters we will all be better for it.
And just maybe medea hunting headlines like this will not be rewarded, I await medea watch in hope truth will survive in the ABC.

Step right up! Step right up!

A voyeuristic feast awaits!

In the guise of journalism, your national broadcaster has opened the doors to the private sex life of our working class heros.

Be tittilated by the stories of group sex!
Share the anguish and shame of a sexually assertive woman!
Take thrill in the judgement of 'the woman'!
Take thrill in the judgement of our hero!
Rejoice in the cutting down of a tall poppy!
Sneer at the lower classes while exposing their 'heroes'!
Delight in the exhibition of a mans life unravelling!
Join in the gender politics battle, and marvel at the PR strategies, and the race to claim victim status.
Side with 'the woman', or side with the poor man who's done 'nothing illegal'.
Be first to knowingly quote 'education is the key', 'misogynistic culture'!

Use your prejudice to the full in deciphering the stories available to create that crystal clear picture in your mind of what you KNOW happened!

Belly: "its wrong"

Why? I've yet to hear anyone give a clear explanation of what is actually wrong, if all participants are willing at the time. If they're not, it's assault or rape and that's not being claimed.

Belly: "The ABC story was old news re hashed news"

Yes it was, which makes one wonder what the real motive was for running it in the same week as the release of the Budget... Does anyone know what the budget contained, BTW?

There is also the issue of the pain caused to Johns's wife, Trish, who has not had the benefit of the anonymity afforded to the actual willing participant who was turning on the crocodile tears. Where was ABC reported Sarah Ferguson's concern about the pain and suffering she would endure once this was aired? Let's not forget she is an entirely innocent party in all of this, unlike the woman who willingly spread her legs for the team.

While I'm sure that Clare's life has not been as she might have dreamt it as a child, I'm equally sure that one incident wasn't the cause if she was, at 19, putting herself into these sorts of situations. As Trish Johns said, I'm glad it wasn't my daughter.

The fact that some young men were willing to take advantage of her availability is hardly worthy of crucifiction, distasteful as the whole affair is.

The saddest thing I have heard about these things is the reaction of the NRL in 'education' and announcing they will have sex education seminars for players. I didn't realise that grown men had to be taught how to not have group sex or why fans might get upset by it. Maybe they also get taught why banging your best mates wife might upset him as well? Don't any of these guys have parents?

I'll probably surprise some people by saying that I think that the 4 Corners program is an appalling descent into tabloid-style journalism, although I'd suspect that they're chasing ratings rather than attempting to deflect attention from the Budget.

On the basis of the information presented, there is no suggestion that laws have been broken. However, as Bugsy suggests, clearly there are problems within the Rugby League subculture around attitudes by more than a few players, coaches, officials and fans concerning sex, alcohol, violence and self-control. It is somewhat heartening that the NRL is taking steps to address this unfortunate subculture.

However, given that all of the cases featured in the program involved consenting adults engaged in legal activities, I think that the targeting of a couple of prominent players from among the many who apparently engage in this kind of behaviour is unwarranted - particularly in light of the consequences to their professional and private lives.

I wouldn't want my son (or daughters) to behave like a Thugby League player or groupie, but as Bugsy also suggests, none of them would. They've been better brought up than that.

million dollar/sponcerships/bonus sceme's is hardly working-class

when human pigs get elivated to god like/status..of course the swine will revert to their swine behaviours

the system,..is keyed to protect the intrests of the elites..[to claim a beat up of..'poor'..is pathetic]..sure the system sets up distractions..but this issue must not be glossed over

getting raped is hard enough ..but then the system rapes you at a minimum of 3 more times..[first the cops grill you to test you..[then pre-trial the lawyer rapes you..[then at the real hearing the barrester rapes you while the judge..in the dress gets their jollies]

wont get into how the media rapes us..[or the sports-club gets their bit in,..or the free acces to their own programs,..makes these faulse gods the dddikkk-heads..they clearly are,...booze dont rate a mention..[despite the booze merchants getting their bit in as well]

TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN MUCH IS EXPECTED..get it these faulse gods have the same rules as us...PLUS EXPECTED..RULES OF BEHAVIOUR..only to be reasonable expected from those who are the egsamples..[peers]..for our young

one in four woman is raped..[just raising the topic..is rape all over again]..yes its easy to be macho..[but lets see how you react when its your wife or daughter]..wake up to yourselves..just because the media suports police shows dosnt make crime legal

these faulse gods directly led to the fall of rome..[while the gladiators slaughtered each other the money-changers killed ceaser..[for the same reason the money-changers murdered jfk..[for signing pores order 11,110]..and yes jfk was a pants man too

but this issue isnt about a man getting his wick wet..[it'a about woman accepting men doing the vile they do via peer presure,regretfully channel 9 gave the faulse/god airtime,..allows his fellow..[bed mates]..to gloss over the real facts..[its not a case of res-erecting the past but why it took so long to be revealed]

about time the rest fessed up[they claim to be tough men[lol]..they are ignarnt savages..doing as swines/ears made silk purse..have allways done[cccrap in their own nest,stand on their own stools,..realise there is no hero that crushes their opponant into the dirt fighting over a pig-skin

Focusing on blame is not going to solve the
problem.

The League has got to put into place real penalties
for inappropriate behaviour.

The League must take responsibility for the behaviour of
its players - and setting standards of what's acceptable
behaviour and putting real penalties in place - would
go a long way towards solving the current problem.
If a player knew that he'd lose his job, or that his
salary was going to be cut - he might think twice
about how he behaved.

Maybe for the first time ever I have to agree with CJ (at least partly). As abhorrent as I find the degradation of human being behaving like animals I wonder the value of singling out individuals for things that took place years ago. No laws were broken and the animal like behaviour is not limited to NRL players. If we don't want this sort of thing happening in our society we should ban pornography which encourages men and woman to act as animals rather than human beings. We can't have it both ways. I would imagine their are multitudes of women and men who have have regrets and damage caused by making wrong choices. A major part of the problem is our education system, our media and social engineers encourage people to make wrong choices and have then have no means to heal or repair the damage. Feminism is much to blame for the perception of men that woman are purely sex objects. It fails to take a stand against pornography and the depiction of women on TV as sex objects and then screams blue murder when men carry out what they have been watching.

The biggest disgrace about this is that the media talks big about exposing these type of actions but it is ok for the pollies such a rudd,goss,beattie and several unions to hide it.

Such as the Heiner affair

So until there is transparency it is just talk and the media get their bit of fame again without exposing the truth.

Can’t agree with you Antiseptic,

Some behaviour can be legal but still be in the eyes of society morally wrong.

Matthew Johns’ statements reveal that he knew it as well. He has said he apologised to the girl on the night and that he had been waiting for the ‘phonecall’ for the last seven years.

You use the term ‘young men’ but Johns was 12 years older than her and certainly more worldly for his age than most while she was ‘young for her age’ as described by a policeman who investigated the incident.

The marketing machine that is professional rugby goes to great lengths to have their players idolised by the fans. Johns’ best years as a player would have coincided with this girls formative years and one could surmise that adulation played a fair part in her decision to go with him to his room.

What does it say about the man that he allowed others to enter his room to participate in this act?

Trish Johns has really only one person to blame for the stress she must be feeling, not the girl nor the reporter, but her husband.

I remember as a teenager attending a footy game with some mates. One of them spent most of the game shouting racial abuse at a couple of aboriginal players. Much of it in any other circumstances would have been admired for the wit but I can tell you it still sticks in my craw that I did nothing to stop him that day.

Legally back then he did nothing wrong, morally both of us are indicted.

Just because charges were not laid does not mean that an offence was not committed. A complaint was made to poolice. Both sides had a different recollection of events. Who was telling the truth? Who was not?

Belly,

I agree with you that this has happened in other fields other than sports.

Belly are you seriously suggesting that it was probably the woman's own fault? Are you alleging this woman is a groupie? Can you define deviant behaviour to me based on your football experiences?

But there are many, many unanswered questions.

1. Firstly why would any man allegedly want to partake in such an ugly action? Is this deviant behaviour?

2. Allegedly we have one woman and allegedly a number of men allegedly from the one football team...Didn't the police investigate and the footballers allegedly unitedly say it was consensual... What hope for the truth emerging?

3. How many of the men were married men and why aren't they all named?

4. How does a woman allegedly in such a situation, and possibly in fear, say no?

5. Why would Mrs Johns believe her husband at all after such an allegedly ugly betrayal?

6. Why did the Police investigate if it was allegedly consensual?

7. How can real men think so little of a woman to think that what is alleged is reasonable behaviour?

8. How many of these alleged men have daughters of their own? This lady was afterall someone's daughter!

9. With the numbers allegedly so stacked against this lady what hope did she have in any matter whatsoever?

10. What does a woman do if a group of allegedly male friends/teammates walk in and allegedly watch and then allegedly participate in such an ugly deed?

My heart goes out to the woman involved and I feel for Matthew Johns' kids as they are the innocents involved here!

Didn't Mrs Johns decide to stick by her (insert word here) and at whose suggestion did she appear in the interview?

The fact that this is old news is irrelevant...

If a law was broken we will never know the truth anyway! What chance justice?

Belly isn't it a fairly simplistic, but rather presumptive statement, to just say that some people want to change their mind after the event when mentioned with this event?

Back in my young and wild days, I can remember waking up on the
odd occasion with a sore head, with some regrets about the night
before. But such is life, we are responsible for our actions, we
live and learn.

It seems to me that in this case, there is no shortage of women
wanting to live it up with footballers and sometimes when they do,
they shake their heads the next morning as I did and have some
regrets.

Why is it that the call is for men to act responsibly and ethically,
but not women?

What a footballer does in his own time, is his business, not the
business of the club or community, as long as he is not acting
illegaly.

If a man is married, that is between him and his wife, nobody
else.

If males are expected to act ethically and responsibly, why not
females who are doing the encouraging?

Once again it seems, we have double standards here.

Some interesting quotes...

"In the statements that were made to police, it says she encouraged players to come forward and then she said: 'Someone come forward. Hurry, come forward and have sex with me'. At which one player said he would, and she said no, 'Anyone but you'. And then she pointed to me again, which I declined."

Matthew Johns

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

"t is unfair to expect men to bear full responsibility for sexual mores as the boundaries of acceptable practice are blurred. Young women are told they can act and dress any way they please, and it is men, alone, with their supposedly filthy, uncontrollable sexual desires, who must restrain themselves."

Miranda Devine

"If there is a young woman in Australia who does not now know that having sex with one or two men at once is not risky sexual behaviour she perhaps needs to go back and look at a bit more television,"

Pru Goward

'Most of the time the girl goes back willingly and consents to everything, but sometimes regrets it when she wakes up in the morning and says, 'I didn't want that to happen,' and that's when the problems start.'

Anonymous High profile NRL Player

IF that is the case (the 'Most of the time' is a worry man!), and this behaviour is considered 'degrading to women', why is it up to the men to protect a woman from her own desires and fantasies and actions? With aclohol involved and inhibitions down, we still expect all men (Not just 30yo married ones which would be fair enough) to be the voice of reason, thinking of the future self esteem and future feelings of the woman from her own choices.

I'd say considering the paternal 'if this was your daughter' tone of a lot of the opinion, nobody thinks it even possible young 19yos are interested in group sex, and if they are it's up to men to discourage them.

I'm sure it's in bad taste to not instinctively see the woman as a 'daughter figure', but is this paternal/chivalrous instinct still expected in these days of equality? Isn't patronising to women? Doesn't it deny an adult women's sexual independence and sense of responsibility for her actions? Are we still non-beleiving of the concept of a sexually assertive female?

See the only non disputed facts from both sides are...

1. A 19yo girl invited 2 footballers to have sex with her
2. During the act, other men decided to watch and join in (NOT the guy who is being crucified at the moment)
3. The woman didn't express that she was unhappy with events.

That's it. The rest is in dispute, to be coloured in by peoples prejudices.

What would we assume if a 19yo male had encouraged himself back to the home of a couple of 40yo women on a hen's night, had sex, and 3 other women had decided to join in?

What would we assume if a 19yo bi-curious guy had walked into a gay sauna, had sex with 2 or three guys, and a couple of other guys had hovered around and gotten involved? Where would responsibility lie then? And what if he was gay and not just bi-curious? I'm sure that would change a lot of people's opinions too.

Antiseptic,

'While I'm sure that Clare's life has not been as she might have dreamt it as a child, I'm equally sure that one incident wasn't the cause if she was, at 19, putting herself into these sorts of situations'
Interesting. So only a screwed up girl would do this?
'crocodile tears'
A bit harsh IMO. You're a hard man.

one under god,
Doesn't matter how much they earn. It's the working class game, and I'm not saying the hero is working class, I'm saying those who idolise him are. And the ABC wouldn't do such a job on Rugby Union or private school boys.

Foxy,
'The League must take responsibility for the behaviour of
its players'
WRONG! That's a big part of the problem!

husselbec quoted Matthew Johns,who has been in the media CONSISTANTLY saying he dosnt recall

yet here is a quote...[of no legal weight[but clearly from legal council..[now prostituted upon the public]..to wit read the quote quoted from<<..the statements that were made to police,>>

READ IN the CONFIDENTIAL statements..DECLARED by the accused parties [made to police,..no doudt under lawyer advisement]

<<''..it says''..>>>..note the retarded use by a braindead moron[refering to STATEMENT'SSSS...then inadvertanbtly refering to the''it''..[letter summerising his statement..from the lawyer...lol

anyhow back to the lawyer produced statement..[not legal testimony..[nor PERSONAL recollection,...thus..made under lawyer advisement...lol
<<''she encouraged players to come forward and then she said:'Someone come forward.>>..note the repition of come..forward TWICE,

these dumb pigskin brawlers cant even quote a simplistic lawyers statent correctly as written..lol

but the pre written lawyer statement goes on..<<..''Hurry,..come forward and have sex with me'.>>>..three come forwards[..wasnt the rapist creep a half back/hooker?..[was he playing the ball or the forwards]

<<At which one player..>>one un_named coward..[LIKELY A FORWARD...LOL

<<said he would,>>..AND SO THE LAWYERS SAY SOME FORWARD SAID..<<and she said no,'Anyone but you'.>>..LOL NO FORWARDS MAY COME FORWARD..LOL

<<And then she pointed to me again>>>..INTERESTING HOW IN THE LAST SECONDS OF THE STATEMENTS..[THAT NO DOUDT WILL BE REPLAYED ENDLESSLY ON THE FOOTY SHOW,..THE RECOLLECTION OF OTHERS..BECOMES THE PERSONAL...ME..LOL,..<<which I declined.>>

THAT SHOULD READ WHICH I REPORTEDLY[was told i]..DECLINED...lol

aint them lawyers doing the great hard yards..bringing forward the deceptions of the facts..[no doudt the rapist is not commning forward to make further statements..[its just a shame he fluffed his lines[again]...lol

gabby reveals again he is not slow at comming forward,either..defending yet again the indefensable..with deceptions he seeks so bad to believe in,...way to go joe,you should be more wary[...too much brain damage in your chosen sport..[sport]..lol

footballers are inherantly brain dead..[if not pre their'career'then well and truelly after..when yelling it as a commentator [[or simplt a blogger]..in their next..[post footy..lol..]..incarnation

Dear Houellebecq,

You didn't give my entire quote - and this
gave the wrong impression.

What I said was:

The League must take responsibility
of its players AND setting standards of what
is acceptable behaviour AND putting REAL penalties
in place WOULD go a long way towards solving
the current problem. If players were banned,
sacked or had their salaries slashed - they
might think twice before giving in to temptation.

One under god,

I really wish you would post more clearly, that had the potential to be quite funny.

I think I agree with the jist of what you are saying. I said the quotes were 'interesting'. I don't necessarily agree with them. All I'm doing is challenging people to look at their prejudices. Like your prejudice that anyone who plays rugby league is unintelligent.

As I said in my first post,

'Use your prejudice to the full in deciphering the stories available to create that crystal clear picture in your mind of what you KNOW happened!'

Love quoting me. Also, it's fun playing devil's advocate. Fitting now that I'm OLO's very own devil incarnate.

Foxy,

There is a word limit you know. Cant fill up my posts with your words. Good that you posted them twice for those without a scroll bar though.

I think players should take responsibility for themselves, and they aren't currently as their lives are managed for them. They're treated like children. I'm not in favour of employers being the guardians of moral behaviour for the populace. There's laws and police and Foxy for that!

Anyway as Anonymous player said...

"It's fine for David Gallop to come out and say you can't have group sex but the last thing blokes will be thinking about on a Friday night at the club is David Gallop,"

"It's like saying you can't be homosexual, or you can't have such-and-such sexual preferences. How can he tell us what we can do in our private lives? What if there's more women than guys, is that wrong, too?"

"We already have so many rules: we can't drink on these days, we can't go to these places, now we can't have group sex. About the only thing we can do these days is go to club functions, and just hang around other players. That's just isolating us more from the rest of the world"

I think rather than creating more rules, give players more freedom and responsibility, and encourage wives and girlfriends to social outings.

hi to all the forgotten australians

maybe its about time the 4 corners did a programe on us victims

about the abuse and rapes we suffered while in institutional care through out the states of australia and for their premiers of those state who have yet to addmitt to the truth of us victims , you think matty johns incedent is bad .

what about us victims the goverment of australia still cover up about,where they have even destroyed the evidence to prove victims cases,

least mat johns has apoigized and it was wrong, but the girl said she only gave approval for 2 players that of mat johns and another not any of the others that had sex with her,

i think the state goverment of new south wales should finally stand up and apoligize to the forgotten australians and so should mr kevin rudd,for all forgotten australians,

we victims have been fighting for justice for years , but i don't see any reporters pressing the ,premier of n.s.w. or the prime minister of australia to say sorry to us victims ,their goverments have continued to cover up

so i offer all reporters get of your asses and cover our stories,

and ripp into the goverment about what we suffered in these state run homes and orphanages in australia and N.S.W,

the matty johns incident is tiny compared to that of the forgotten australians victims of some of the most horrendour's cases imagined,

so how about all the reporters ask the prime minister about us victims and the state premier of N.S.W

regards huffnpuff

Interesting thing about these discussions is that suddenly many who claim not to to believe in absolutes suddenly start calling things right and wrong. Despite what many want to believe this incident really has very little to do with football. It has everything to do with the lack of values in society. I am sure their are some here who could speak of similar love feasts in the 70's among the pot smoking hippies and university academics that are no different to what took place in NZ. One recent US President had no hesitation in showing what he thought of women half his age (despite his parties rhetoric on respect for women). His popularity actually went up after being caught out lying as well as treating some woman as 'meat'. To think that many journalist are trying to make a name for themselves by destroying a 'fallen hero' just shows how low people will go.

Why don't these footballers just go to the professionals and pay for their sex. It's not as though they can't afford it. They would probably get better service too.

Belly

I'm sorry but bad/irresponsible behaviour is exactly that and is unacceptable regardless of perpetrator identity.
Your rave about 40 years ago or someone else does it or does it worse are not valid arguments.

Have you ever tried to use those excuses to to get out of a speeding fine? and baring the extraordinary I'll bet they failed...and rightly so. The bit about working class is another furphy.

As is other posters excuse 'why should the men be responsible and not the women' The real question IS "why shouldn't they be responsible for THEIR actions?" Two wrongs don't make a right just because a female is willing to debase her self are the male's actions any less lacking in responsibility and good behaviour.
Other people's responsibility are separate issues.
People in the public eye need to accept that responsible behaviour is one of the costs of the money, power& star status. No free lunch.
Should the others get their come upings you bet but it should be proportional with the fame etc.

Personally, I think the behaviour is morally abhorrent. Group sex in itself seems distasteful to me, and cheating on your wife with a 19 year-old is also disgraceful.

At the same time, a 19 year-old girl is capable of making up her own mind about situations. She is also capable of lying. Yes, police investigated, and found that there was no case to answer. This suggests that evidence showed the act to be consensual. Working with many young footballers, I know that there are many hangers-on who are willing to debase themselves for a taste of glory - a night with a football hero. When a man carves a notch into his belt for a sexual conquest, he is a villain; why are these girls not seen in the same light? It seems quite likely that this happened here.

On A Current Affair last night, Tracey Grimshaw asked Matthew Johns if he thought for one minute that this was someone's daughter, someone's sister. I would ask the victim a question: did she think for one minute that this was someone's husband, someone's father? My question is as valid as hers. Yes, the decision to cheat was entirely his; the decision to engage in group sex was entirely hers. It does, however, speak volumes about the culture of rugby league that she had so many takers for her adventurous night in.

Dear Houellebecq,

I agree with you dear heart, people should
be responsible for their own behaviour -
however - with the NRL players - it hasn't
worked.

The point that I was trying to make
was that instead of focusing on blame -
focus on solving the problem instead.

Leaving it up to the individuals
is what's been done to date with poor results.
Now the League being a Club (like any Club)
should have set standards that it must implement
along with real penalties
if those standards are broken.

That's all I'm saying.

And, I just love your reference to
me with the "police" bit - again, again,
again, again, again, again, again,
again, again, again, again, again,
ad nauseum - again ...

Firstly I must say that I do not like what has happened however, why is his brother still accepted and portrayed as a 'hero' when what he has done must be far worse a case of 'poor role modeling' to young fans.

Group sex is not illegal unles without consent. Drugs are illegal.

This smells of 'double standards' to me.

It's interesting that a retired football player looses his current job for a consentual sexual activity in the past when other high profile people have been treated quite differently.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/dirty-politics/2007/08/20/1187462173845.html (see page 2 as well)

John's is not the firts person to have come from a work trip with some explaining to do with his or her partner. He won't be the last.

His involvement appears to have been in a consensual context. There was an imbalance of power in the room but I doubt that it was anywhere near the imbalance of power when the PM verbally abused a young low ranked military person because a meal was not as expected.

So far there has been no real indication that any of the players acted illegally and plenty of indication that they will suffer real harm if named.

The moralising from many who would be outraged if this was directed at participants in some other unusual sexual activity is very telling.

R0bert

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25477148-421,00.html

This story add a bit of intrigue to the present debate.

If the witness is correct, then what we clearly have here
is two standards, one for girls and one for boys.

Dear Yabby,

Pay attention!

Take the blame out,
and focus on the problem!

dear Foxy,

The perception of a problem, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

As a freedom loving individual, I don't expect others to live by
my opinions, my standards or my rules. I am not that judgemental.

First question, did anyone break the law? It seems not.

Second question, did anyone think there was a problem on the night
in question? It seems not.

Where we seem to have a problem is that somebody later changed their
mind, if the evidence is correct.

Rather then take responsibility for their actions, as the rest of
us do when we make a mistake, we get over it and move on, in this
case that is not happening.

Ah, of course that is the easy option. Blame everyone else when we
screw up, rather then sit down and honestly admit to ourselves that
we got it wrong.

Frankly, what footballers, women over 18 or anyone else does in their
time, is their business, not my business.

So where is the problem?

Perhaps the problem here is that one of the seven people involved in an act that is frowned upon by mainstream society has decided to use that act to ruin the life of one of the other participants. Maybe the act has ruined her life - I don't know - but all of the evidence presented by the media indicates that she was a voluntary participant and that she needs to share the blame with the others.

Which leads to another problem. The media, smelling a great story and terrific ratings potential, have absolutely no qualms about destroying people's lives to earn a quick buck.

Some of us have clearly been influenced by the ABC s witch hunt.
Few have not put this problem in the NRL,s lap.
It is clearly an Australian cultural problem,
Yes I said it was wrong, for some more than others.
But spare me the idea only men get it wrong in sexual things.
Group sex is happening every hour of every day, inffering rape is involved may be quite wrong.
Blame? my good friend foxy blame is the whole target of this story.
IF this girl agreed to it, she may well have, then a whole life has been destroyed , and she is not any more a victim that Matty Johns.
Look each of us, back to our wild oats days can anyone claim they never regreated a one night stand?
NO woman or man EVER should be sexualy assulted EVER but re read the uncontested statement this girl asked Johns to return to her.
We could turn this thread into social commentry, ask why some convict the man and of what?
Or why few want to question both sides.
And yes the rubbish, bigoted rubbish, that its an NRL problem, other football games , like other sports reflect this country,s culture.
It common practice group sex its often offered by the female, groupies do exist.
Lets get our stones ready to flog Mathew , but let he/she with nothing to hide throw first.

Way back up there ^^^ I asked "Why is this "wrong"?" and I've still not heard a reason from the supporters of the witch-hunt. It's a simple enough question, isn't it?

The police investigated and say they spoke to 80 different people, yet they say there was nothing "wrong".

On another thread ("Sexting it Up" in the articles section), there has been a discussion about the credibility of a claim of an attempted rape perpetrated against the author. Her principal defence of her claim, reiterated a couple of times, is that the police took a report and have collected evidence, therefore her claim is verified. The police file is still open, apparently, as no assailant has been located. I have no way of knowing whether the police regard the investigation as active.

If we accept her argument, and it seems that some do, why do we not accept the same argument in this case, especially given that the police apparently carried out a comprehensive investigation and have closed their file on the grounds that there is no case to be made?

I also asked the question about the rights of Trish Johns, which is another one people seem to find hard. She is being punished mercilessly by this hoo-ha, and given the many statements about Johns being stood down "for the good of his family", I suspect there is a great deal of sympathy for her in the NRL. I'd also not be surprised to find there's been a significant payout offer made.

Does the ABC have no responsibility to innocent parties in cases like this? Why is the "victim" afforded all consideration, including complete anonymity, while it is acceptable to wreck the life of a truly innocent bystander?

These are not rhetorical questions: I'd be genuinely interested in some answers, because it's got me beat.

It seems to me that there are several issues being mixed up here and one no sooner answered then it is countered by the next issue.
As I see it Matt Johnson did the unspeakable he ignored other peoples expectation of being a star. Tragically the reality is if you become a star and held up as an idol this is the dark side . As I said there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Next issue Trish Johns as an individual she has been badly treated. But as someone who shared in the benefits she is copping the other side of the coin.

Next issue was the ABC wrong with their slant probably. Simply because apparently they focused on players. Personally I turned it off for all the reasons above and below.

Third issue mentioned in what I saw that NRL and also AFL and other contact sports in order to make money focus solely on the physical prowess of the player (“risk takers”).
The consequences of this are a list of bad public behaviours which are the consequences of both this type of individual and lack of real concern for the players.
The same could be said of rock stars and young movie stars etc. the ego get out of proportion.
The power they wield goes to their heads and they start to believe they ARE different and that they can ignore the consequences at their peril.

Let's not forget the corporate 'focus on $' by both the codes and the media in that it trawls gutters for ratings and therefore $'s. Controlling both these imply both rules and censorship both anathemas to the conservative element in society

It is interesting to note that the US basketball league had a similar issue with violence. And the after a intense study by scientific researchers they came up this the similar conclusions to the above.

Foxy is indeed right all the participants are 'victims' of among other 'cultural issues' in addition the above and therefore blame is counter productive what is needed are solutions. .

Foxy:"Focusing on blame is not going to solve the
problem. "

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Does this mean you don't support the blaming and sacking of Matthew Johns? Also, what is "the problem"? See my last post.

Foxy: "The League has got to put into place real penalties
for inappropriate behaviour. "

What is "inappropriate"? Who decides? On what basis?

csteele:"Trish Johns has really only one person to blame for the stress she must be feeling, not the girl nor the reporter, but her husband."

By her own account, her husband told her of the incident at the time. I'm sure it was very painful for her, but it should have also been the end of it. She is suffering now because of a mendacious "victim" and a reporter with no sense of the ethical responsibility she bears.

Examinator:"Matt Johnson did the unspeakable he ignored other peoples expectation of being a star."

It's Matt JOHNS and he wasn't a "star" at the time, but very much in his brother Andrew's shadow and a middle-rank player. How could he have foreseen the advent of the New Wowsers that feminism seems to have spawned? Tracey Grimshaw even said that a 19-year-old woman is incapable of consenting. I heard Ian Skippen on 4MMM, in reference to someone saying that players are now photographing their prospective partners giving consent, say "they think that lets them off the hook". In a normal world, it would, but not in the world of the New Wowsers. What do you think?

Examinator:"Trish Johns as an individual she has been badly treated. But as someone who shared in the benefits she is copping the other side of the coin."

Are you saying that every spouse is culpable for acts committed by the other? There is a large body of Law that disagrees with you.

Examinator:"NRL and also AFL and other contact sports in order to make money focus solely on the physical prowess of the player"

Every sport does that. When was the last time you saw a slow sprinter, or a high-jumper with weak legs? Business does it too: how many labourers are hired because of their exemplary moral conduct? How many CEOs because of their physical strength?

Examinator: "what is needed are solutions"

What is needed is to work out if there is a problem, because I've not yet seen a case made to support that contention. There are already too many hawking "solutions in search of a problem".

What I'd like to know is why it is apparently some sort of tradition for groups of rugby league players to stand around jerking off while one or more of their team mates has sex. While I don't think that there's anything intrinsically "wrong" with such an activity if all concerned are consenting adults, such behaviour is well outside my relatively broad experience, and that of everybody I've talked to about the current controversy.

I'm certainly no wowser, but there's group sex and there's circle jerks.

It's homoerotic CJ (not that there's anything wrong with that), like a bunch of private school boys playing games with biscuits, or 'splatters', or 'dance of the flaming asshole' (You'd be waiting a long time for the rugby union private school chaps from the ABC to bring those kind of antics out into the open).

Though I'm sure many of the players would be horrified that their actions represent latent homsexuality. Maybe an expose on that angle would be the 'answer' for people who see group sex as 'degrading'.

Amazing that reports are surfacing that the girl at the centre of this romp boasted about it to her friends.
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/05/14/1241894109113.html

Often those who indulge in porn scream for their right to do so and then pretend to be surprised when the fruit of degradation arrives (ie suicide, unfaithfulness and family destruction.

Interesting that our mate Rudd has just given this disgusting organisation, the ABC, even more of our money to waste on this sort of tripe.

I suppose that if this sort of behaviour, this
extreme pack-mentality is viewed as being normal,
and is encouraged, then young players won't
suddenly make for sexually responsible young men.

And of course those involved in this sex scandal,
and other group sex scandals over the past
decade still believe that they did nothing wrong,
as according to the law, they didn't. But consent
and willing participation doesn't always equal
sexually responsible behaviour.

Speaking as a mother of two young boys, I'd like to
ask the question - what of the young men? What of
the players, who've had their lives defined by a
culture that clearly sanctions this sort of behaviour?

As Phil Dye, mass media lecturer, in his recent article
entitled, "The rugby league fiasco: Who's really to blame?"
states,"The coaches, trainers and administrators of the
game have known about this type of 'bonding' behaviour for
decades...while not breaking the law, have shown immense
disrespect towards their players and the women these players
meet. Legal issues aside, it's the impact these encounters
have on the young men in their care - men who should be
mentored into positions of social responsibility, that is
the important issue."

The only way anything is going to change is if the culture
changes that condones and encourages this type of behaviour.
As Phil Dye points out: "...we need to target the leaders
who have built the culture and who profit from it, not
the players who are themselves the victims of it."

We need to have new leaders in the rugby league family
who as Dye suggests, "have a strong responsibility to build
outstanding men who can hold their heads up as players and
role models."

The thing is Foxy, once again you seem to think that it is
the blokes who need to change.

What say you go out and educate those girls, that if they
go around offering themselves to a bunch of blokes,
be they footballers, band members, surfers, you name it,
more then likely they will get laid. Its a bit late then
to turn around and call it disrespectful or anything else.

Sprung it shows my interest in football sub zero, yes I played when I was young and still wanted to be one of the 'guys' but not since, I was 16. Apologies for the name mix up.

I didn't say I agreed with it only stated reality.
Matt is in a 'star' and is therefore in the public's (sic) mind is fair game.
Likewise she shared in the benefits so she shouldn't be surprised.

Consider the Quintex saga because her hubby was a crook ask why Pixie should enjoy the spoils while the dudded share owners (mums and dads) should pay. The same goes for Adler and the HIH crash. The same principle.

Likewise I think it stinks that disgraced directors hide their ill gotten gains by having the wife, children, off shore dummy corps etc.

Yes Corps have the $ first last etc. see Hardie Ind. Gunns et al.(see “stars and stripes” topic) it sucks.

In this vein you argument about the slow runner is moot on several grounds.
The point made was that contact sports have a disproportionate (compared to the population) rate of occurrences of antisocial behaviours including violence etc. (the US NBA investigation of some years back [cited].). I was not saying that physical prowess was needed but it seems to me to be two other issues here.
Duty of care of employees.

Selecting out those that are inclined to these behaviours after all many jobs today require clean records. Take the 'blue(?) card' teachers must have. They too influence children.
And the media needs to have standards beyond the gutter sensationalism. However as stated the conservative element wouldn't accept this.
Personally I believe that we all have responsibility to others be that simply polite on OLO or if we gain fame, and fortune the latter increases our responsibility particularly if we want
to be seen as a pillar of society. That includes taking our lumps if we err.

A year and a half ago something very weird happened between my two children, Foxy and Yabby (no those are not my children’s names).

They were 16 (girl) and 17 (boy). They were of equal size and always good mates.

She was sitting on my computer talking to friends on myspace or something.

My computer had the printer and he had sent his homework from his computer to mine.

He comes in and asks her to move so he can print it.

She tells him to wait.

I am in an adjoining room with a 12 month old playing with stacking blocks.

I see my boy lean over and mummer something I can’t pick up, he is good with words.

My daughter shot up in a heartbeat swinging a clenched fist, boy ducked, girl came again, boy grabbed her by the front of her shirt and started running forward with her racing backwards still swinging.

He is yelling “sit down” and she is screaming (well the editor on this won’t allow it to be repeated).

I am Mum, I launch at them both and pull the boy off while getting in the girls face and screaming for her to settle down. This is when I realized for the first time that I am also of equal size.

Q: Who suffered? A: The baby who for the first time ever woke screaming from her sleep that night.

Q: Who was to blame?

Q: Why wont either tell me what he said?

Next the gender (?) argument. The only reason it appears so is because of the bias of some males . Every time sex is mentioned they seem to go into a frenzy of blaming the woman for playing on men's “uncontrollable urges/needs”. How dare some woman spoil the reputation of our sports bloke.! and she's getting of free!

Consider these examples

A good looking boy 16 while in Seniors at school got into an affair with a 22yr old 'placement' trainee female teacher. The school heard the rumours and the teacher lost her career.
The boy had two problems
1.Bragging. Probably what brought them undone. He was widely applauded as 'jack the lad'.
2.It took him at least 3yrs at uni to lose his grin.

Next the ex Dems leader was I have no doubt given a barely winnable seat I have no doubt because the hierarchy saw her as a time bomb with with her affair with Gareth Evans AND her twenty year ago affair with an ex pupil.

Then there's the corp. executive (Ex Footy star) who had affairs with his secretaries 6 of them in a row all under twenty and he was 39-44 . He was known as a 'bit of a rogue'. It wasn't until one father threatened the company with legal and publication that the board
told executive to move his hunting grounds. The girl was paid off losing her career.

The point here is that this sort of sexual predation is based on inequality/abuse of power, maturity or vulnerability etc.

The woman in the Johns case is either seeking more reflected notoriety or she's suffering as a result of both her and group morality failure. What possessed her to agree to it is yet to be disclosed. I rather think she's in torment. And if it was your daughter?

To fix her/others motivation to allow this is a much harder ask. Perhaps it's this unjustified hyped up hero culture that needs to change.

Dear Yabby,

I'm not assigning blame - both the young
men and women are the victims. Re-read
my previous post.

It's the culture that encourages and
condones this sort of behaviour that
needs to change.

What many people seem to fail to realise
(although Matthew Johns clearly understands
now) is that consent and willing participation
does not excuse anyone's behaviour, especially when
there's a resulting potential for psychological
damage not only for the women but for all parties
involved.

Foxy,

Stop talking about blame man!

Hey now we have a workmate who says...

"She was absolutely excited about the fact. She was bragging about it to the staff and quite willing, openly saying how she had sex with several players," said Boyd.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/05/14/1241894109113.html

"I was disgusted, I was absolutely amazed she had come in bragging about it.

"We were all disgusted by her behaviour. She didn't show any trauma.

"When we were told there was a police investigation four or five days later, it absolutely blew us away. I told police I thought it was all made up, and I believe many of the other staff told them the same thing."

I think these guys are looking more and more 'innocent' every day. Perhaps if she received a more encouraging response from her work mates she would never have been so traumatised. She thought it would make her cool and popular, but those nasty prudish co-workers made her feel dirty.

I think we need to do something to create more sexually responsible young women Foxy. These poor guys are constantly being propositioned by young women for group sex, and it has to stop! The attitudes of young women who see these famous men as purely a sexual conquest or notch in the bed post have to change! We need to re-educate them!

I also think it's time to either investigate all the other 'pillars of society' (arf arf!) like lawyers and politicians and journalists, to see if they have engaged in any group sex, or else make it illegal if it is seen as such a problem.

BTW: I find it funny that some people are now deciding anyone who was there and isn't speaking up is a coward. If I was in such a position, I would find my loyalty to my family (and a desire to protect them from the media sc(r)um) a little more important than adding to the advertising revenue of media organisations. Just why does any of the public or the media think they have a right to continue this voyeuristic feast?

The boy had two problems
1.Bragging. Probably what brought them undone. He was widely applauded as 'jack the lad'.
2.It took him at least 3yrs at uni to lose his grin.

Talking about bias huh? Imagine the attitude if that one was the other way around, a 16yo school girl and a teacher? Most likely the poor 16yo girl would be seen to be traumatised and corrupted by someone in power. Acting out becuase her daddy didn't love her enough and a victim of the predatory male. Interesting the 16yo boy here is seen as the powerful one. Ha!

Hey Foxy, you've got two boys, what would you think if they had a relationship with the school teacher? examinator thinks if said teacher got sacked, it's because you were 'blaming the woman for playing on men's “uncontrollable urges/needs”'.

As I read comments on this I'm doing an exercise of translating them to a different context. Instead of a group sex/jerk off I picture the reaction if the same comments were made about consentual male homosexual activity. Those who express their personal distaste for the activity and who express their views that it's wrong are put in their place. If an employee was sacked from most jobs because they participated in a homosexual act 7 years ago the employer would be in a very difficult legal position.

The act appears to have been consentual at the time. It was legal than and now. Why is this different to other adult sexual activity which some find distastful and or wrong?

R0bert

Yes the young lady did brag about it.
She seems to have been more than willing to take part with Johns and Firman.
Even asking Johns to return.
Was she paid for the interview?
Are we to believe those few idiots who watched ruined her life or those she willingly took to bed?
C J Morgan talks of a circle, if that is true it is a homosexual practice .
Are we however to judge others sexual acts against our morals?
The thread sees some unable to focus on the fact females ,like blokes hunt for sex.
group sex is not abnormal for many.
It is not knew for people to change their minds after the event,
Those rubbishing my game, go the Dragons tonight, should consider this, like it or not its not restricted to one sport.
So many have done worse and not been kicked in the guts like Johns.
Queen Victoria too thought women could not do some things, believe me fathers day in some country towns is total confusion.
She did brag about it, think about that what changed her mind?
Oh Johns should not feed the sharks, given the way he has been miss used he should not give up his ex team mates, no one should,

Belly, Johns is looking more and more like the victim in all this.

I wonder if the sanctimonious prats who still can't tell me what exactly was wrong with what happened will have the balls to stand up and admit they're wrong, as Johns has had the guts to take all this on the chin? I'll offer good odds if anyone wants to place a small wager...

The New Wowsers are anything but courageous, sadly.

Examinator:"The only reason it appears so is because of the bias of some males "

Examinator:"this sort of sexual predation is based on inequality/abuse of power, maturity or vulnerability etc. "

Who was the predator - the woman (not "teenager", as the media like to paint it), or the footballers? Take your time...

What of Charmyne Palahvi, mid-late 30s, openly preys on young male footballers? Are you outraged at the plight of her "victims"?

Frankly, old chap, your thinking bits could do with some work.

Foxy:"I'm not assigning blame - both the young
men and women are the victims"

Fantastic work, Foxy, you've just defined the world's first perpetratorless crime. That's so much more useful than a victimless one, isn't it? Think of all the great jobs for social workers when we no longer need courts or prisons for perpetrators, just lots of victim-counselling. Awesome stuff, you deserve proper recognition. It's a bit of a perpetual-motion machine churning out victims at every turn, isn't it?

R0bert:"The act appears to have been consentual at the time. It was legal than and now. Why is this different to other adult sexual activity which some find distastful and or wrong?"

Good luck with that, I've been asking that since way back at the start and stony silence has been the result (except from Sanctimonator, such as it was).

Examinator, my apologies for the "Sanctimonator" comment, etc. I woke up feeling a bit on the irascible side this morning.

Dear Antiseptic,

Perhaps this may answer the question for you
far better then I ever could. It's taken
from Phil Dye's article that I referred
to in an earlier post and it talks about consent
and willing participation not equalling behaviour
that is morally satisfying.

" Most of us remember consenting to something that
caused us grief or shame. We all, at sometime in
our lives, have regretted participating in an act
because our involvement left us emotionally raw
or compromised. It's life and that's how we learn.

Most of us get over it quickly due to the trivial
nature of the episode and the absence of psychological
damage.

The incidents descrobed both by Johns and the woman
however involved youth, inexperience, celebrity
and sexual extremism facilitating the potential for
psychological damage... not only for the woman,
but for all parties involved..."

Dye goes on to say that our early sexual encounters
can be life affirming or life destroying and can
create a template for intimacy that extends
throughout our lives. They can form a sense of
responsibility for both ourselves and others and that's
important during our early adult sexual experiences.

It's the extreme nature of the NRL's group sex
'bonding' incidents that has clearly impacted
greatly on the lives of many. And as Dye's article
tells us "The naive young woman involved in the Johns
incident, a woman described as 'unwordly' by the
investigating police officer, has been damaged for life.
Numerous other unnamed women...women unwordly yet curious,
have been equally damaged through their naive, yet legal
participation."

I hope this helps answer the question for you and the
other gentlemen on this Forum.

Yes Foxy, it answers the question for me. It seemingly shows
the urgent need for the education of "unwordly, naive young
girls".

From what I've read, it seems that the woman in discussion,
knocked off another couple of blokes in the toilets, just
the night before the incident in question.

I was once in a bar, where a drunk young lady wandered in
and she had just broken up with the boyfriend. She was
going to get screwed by somebody in that bar, anybody,
that was her determination.

Now if young girls go around throwing themselves at
blokes, they will get screwed, its as simple as that.

Isolating footballers is simply what is on the news
today, it could be any group. It does not address the
fundamental question that you are concerned about.

more names were released..[but i cant find them..[clever releasing them on friday]dead news day..note..none of the informative[knowledgable] ones here..bothered posting these heroes names ...lol

the media reveals..yet reveals badly..[just as the miss-informants post but post badly]..selective with the facts..,i saw but their faces quickly flashed on a brief news-cast..[bet no one else saw it][not sure if they were outing them selves or outed],and couldnt care less

[but who care's..its only retaded sport's heroes..and sport is for the mindless..[why the hell is it called news]..so we can halve the real;ly new info the people can get acces to[its just like rome]

some retard is allways going to do..one clever thing..to make the rest look like inteligent thoughtfull brainiacs,..but its clever or fluke or accident[not news]

reminds me of when a dumb farmer [in rubber boots] couldnt read the time and broke a record because he thought his 20 minute sleep, was a full night[even an idiot can makke his body do one last clever thing...lol]

only new foolishness..[not news..[enough to fool their braind-dead sports 'fans;,..flaming their meager flames of fame of ego in their favourite expensive sports team vest..its all enough to make the dullard crowds go breathless..[and lure-in the next retarded groupie]..bah humbug,..on to real issues..real news

i will leave mindles sports reporting..to the mindless

When will the ladies, & some old f4rts on here catch up with todays world?

When will they learn that many many young women go out on Saturday night to GET LAID? Qiute a few go out to get notches on their gun butt, not find just any old bloke. Footballers are a great notch, in some circles.

As a bit of an old prude muself, I was quite taken aback, the first time I heard some of my young lady staff, discussing across an open office, weather they had "scored" on Saturday night. After opening my eyes, I realised that this was a common action with many 20 something ladies. This was in the 70s.

As a successful competitor in a dangerous sport, where people died, I was subject to the attention of some groupies. Some of these were the most gorgeous sophisticated women I have ever met. If only they had been interested in me, not what I did. A few young blokes were quiet shattered when they discovered they were just a cheep thrill.

So get off your high horse, & realise that it's these young "ladies" who have taught most of these young blokes haw to behave, & not the other way around. I suggest you start your remedial action in the right place.

The real tragedy is when these kids, having had sex thrown at them for a year or two, no longer realise this is not normal behaviour, & push their attention where it is not welcome. Then they , & the lady involved both get hurt.

Foxy:"the potential for
psychological damage."

Why is psychological damage worse than physical damage, which people choose to risk for all sorts of reasons, with very few people saying they shouldn't, nor sympathising much when it goes wrong? Do we sack the pilot if a skydiver breaks his leg or neck?

Foxy:"clearly impacted
greatly on the lives of many"

How many, do you think? My suspicion is that it has genuinely negatively impacted on very few. The girl in the Johns case doesn't appear to have been harmed by the event so much as the reaction of her co-workers.

Foxy:"naive young woman involved in the Johns
incident, a woman described as 'unwordly' by the
investigating police officer, has been damaged for life."

I propose that she was damaged before ever this incident took place. I knew quite a lot of naive young women when I was a young man and I had trouble enough getting them to drop their knickers when it was just us two. I bet you didn't go off with footballers for group sex sessions, did you? In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I doubt any of the women posting here would have done what this girl did, which makes her far from naive, in my book.

So, all-in-all, it doesn't answer the question at all. Any risky endeavour entered into freely, with or without all the facts known, is a personal problem from then on it seems to me. Sure, if it goes wrong, feel free to ask for help, but don't ask for help just because it got hard along the way and don't expect to be able to blame someone else if it all goes wrong.

That's what we expect of adults.

Allright gentlemen. I now understand what
you're saying. The recently aired NRL sex scandal
and the bad behaviour among footballers is not
the result of alcohol or "bad apples" in the group
or even the masculine team sports culture.
It's all the fault of "loose" women.

So, we don't really need to be looking more closely
at the way we set the rules of conduct among young men
in sport. There's no link for example between male
violence and male team sport. There don't need to be any
rules to constrain male behaviour.

We don't need to set lifelong inter-personal standards
through agreed rules of conduct, as you say - they're
all adults.

There's no risky drug and alcohol consumption.
It's not higher in male team sports than in non-team
sports. We all know that among rugby league and AFL
players alcohol consumption is not excessive and doesn't
result in inter-personal conflict or violence.
They're not given a social licence to behave violently
on the field.

After all male sport is not the source of harmful rules
for violent conduct or violence among men.
Coaches, trainers, administrators and Club owners have
no responsiblity or obligation for the behaviour of
the players under their care.
Therefore all "loose" women should be rounded up and
incarcerated.

Thank you for clearing all this up for me.

Foxy: “Therefore all "loose" women should be rounded up and incarcerated.”

Lucky bloody guards.

I missed this story in detail, my daughter mentioned it when she spotted me reading this and she seemed to know more than me. Her only comment was that it is everywhere and why was I reading about it. I told her that from what I had learnt so far, on here, I suspect it because the budget was rather boring.

Foxy does it work… I mean on here do sometimes you manage to convince someone that they aren’t getting it? I see you trying, wit, intelligence, sarcasm, facts, history, quoting. But they keep responding and really aren’t getting it. I would have beaten the crap out of my vacuum cleaner well before now.

I think it’s like what Peter said to me about writing to Kevin; “they know if one wrote a thousand more did not put pen to paper”. This one woman will be picked to bits while the line grows longer behind her and those who preceded her forgotten.

Robert – what?

The person I am now is nothing like the person I once was.
That is surely true for most of us past 50.
I would not now consider group sex, but the raw country youth, much younger than this lady, did, more did in working class Sydney,s west than did not.
No not rape, by invitation.
Too many years ago, very very famous TV personality hunted men, well youths, to add to her cherry tree.
She had a big show bag of hits and wanted more .
Foxy, sorry, but such females exist, they force doors open haunt sportsmen, groupies
They brag about it like showing stamp collections.
Some haunt truck stops, drivers are their wanted catch, men of course are no better, but not worse either.
Single for a long time let me tell you men like me are targeted by other men,s wives women are as active as men in wanting a safe fling.
It comes down to this, its sexual culture , not ever going to be the perfect world some want.
And if you ever saw the monster, yep that,s what we call her, a girl model like in every way, in action, hunting men for sex, you would under stand why I think Matty [that is what he is know as] is a victim too, and why insulting one sport is laughable.

*Therefore all "loose" women should be rounded up and
incarcerated.*

No Foxy, loose women will get screwed as they requested.

Ridicule is not goint to make your point for you.

Sheesh, I can only conclude that you led a very sheltered
teenage hood. People cut loose, do silly things, learn and
grow. Thats life and part of growing up.

At some point, the woman in question will have to stop
blaming the world and realise that she was responsible
for her actions.

I still think that perhaps she has some agenda that we
don't know about, for going public with all this, after
so many years.

Fact is that had she done the same with her local band, other
sports team, or other group, she most likely would have landed up with
a similar outcome. Men will have sex with women
if they invite them to, especially if those women
are still young and attractive. All your social
conditioning plans will fail, that is the reality.

Whether or not we agree that this particular story is a beat-up, or that the young woman involved in the Christchurch incident is some kind of 'victim' (or indeed whether Matty Johns is a 'victim'), it's apparent that Rugby League has a big PR problem. Public reaction to the media free-for-all this week has been sufficiently negative that major sponsors are apparently getting leery.

Regardless of whether or not the 'group sex' episode at the centre of the latest media storm was consensual, I think that most people would find that the apparent Rugby League tradition of the "bun" somewhat distasteful and indicative of an unfortunate subculture.

I gather that the "bun" involves several blokes 'gang-banging' some star-struck woman, while various others stand around watching and masturbating. While such an activity is legal if everybody is a consenting adult, it's hardly a good look is it? Little wonder the circle-jerkers are unwilling to own up but are willing to let their former teammate carry the can.

That such activities are apparently viewed as 'team-building' exercises within League circles is also a bit of a worry. I think that Houellebecq is closest to the mark here when he identifies the intrinsic homoeroticism of this particular form of group sex - i.e. the woman is a proxy who facilitates the closest thing that these guys can get to actually having sex with each other without actually doing so.

Belly's also right - the 'circle jerk' is a homosexual act, but it seems to me that the Rugby League "bun" functions to mask the innate homoerotic character of the event by involving some hapless woman. Like Rugby League itself, the "bun" is both homoerotic and misogynist. I'd never heard of the "bun" until the latest scandal, but I have to say that it fits well within my observations of the Rugby League subculture.

That said, I quite enjoy watching a good game of League - although Football, AFL or even Union tend to be more entertaining. However, I detest much of the accompanying subculture, and this latest incident reinforces why.

I don't agree with the justification objectification of Sex on this site/topic. It seems to run shallowly on gender V gender. Foxy is getting a bit of a hammering unfairly. I think we are talking on different levels of analysis.

I can hardly claim to be a prude given my past I have no problem with the sexual antics in a bed room between two equal power consenting adults.
Hence my point about a company director I knew, that pitiful excuse for a real man. saw me with a young busty brunette in the pub. In a conversation in front of other senior managers made fun of me claiming "I was a dark horse." recounted the incident with the following description. “Long dark hair reasonably good looking about a "six pot girl", but F# able but big juicy tits.” seeing my discomfort he continued
along the same line laughing at me with "what didn't you get your # in? Bring her round here And I'll show you how.... oh here she comes now watch this....” I was about to go ballistic when his female state manager and “stand by bed mate" told him It was my eldest daughter. “ he then told me I should've told him I had a daughter.(why?)
What I said is irrelevant but this shows that this type of person was so conditioned with Uber 'Masculine' displays/need for male bonding he didn't/doesn't understand that it's not part of the mainstream social mores. given the sociological fact that the further you get from 'common accepted practice' the harder the public are, consequently the ever opportunist media jump to lead the lynch mob.

BTW My daughter has excellent hearing..she handed him her business card (she was an investigator with the department dealing with sexual harassment.)

Hol......
That description was what others incl. His dad said.
The whole point as described was about uneven power. I was pointing to cultural contradictions and that the case isn't universally indicative.
My boys? I would be disappointed, we did a better job than that.

How can saying yes to one man be construed as
saying yes to five more?

How would it be possible for a 19 year old
to be capable of consenting under the circumstances?

Does consent negate moral responsibility?

There are two issues here:
1) Personal responsibility
2) Respect for women

Trish Johns got to the heart of the matter when
she said simply, "I wouldn't want it to be my
daughter!"

Fascinating isn't it, that all responsibility
rests with a very young girl rather than a
dozen or so bulked-up blokes?

You are indeed taking a hammering, but have withstood it with dignity dear girl!

This last post of yours is excellent. Spot on!

It's interesting watching this thread develop..

"BTW My daughter has excellent hearing..she handed him her business card (she was an investigator with the department dealing with sexual harassment.)"

That was brilliant.

Something wrong with my daughter, I can't explain her or why she is the way she is but she would have punched him out without thought (she doesn't have many I suspect).

You my friend have done well.

Dear examinator, Jewely, Ginxy,
CJ,

Thanks for your thoughts on the topic.

It helps I think in an
emotive discussion such as this one to get as
many takes on the topic as possible.

Much appreciated!

Every one is responsible for his/her acts.
The sex between adults is a private issue.
There is no sex scandal if all persons involved on it are adults and they agree with it.
Why we do not leave people alone to do the sex the way they want if they are adults and they agree with it?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Foxy, it sounds like the girl picked and chose whom she slept with,
not just any of them or just agreed to one.

*The Nine Network last night named a second player who the woman reportedly rejected in favour of requesting a "second turn" with Johns, which Johns said he declined. *

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25491151-421,00.html

Just because a man sleeps with a woman, does not mean that he
respects her. I've told you before, respect is earned, not
just given on the basis of sexual organs or gender.

If you don't want it to happen to your daughter, so educate
your daughter.

You are trying to go against basic evolution theory here,
which dictates that males will in fact try to impregnate
females. Females (making the larger investment in terms of
raising the offspring) are thus meant to be the fussy ones,
picking and choosing whom they have sex with. If the girl
is not fussy, she will have no shortage of volunteers.

They once did an exeriment at a university on this. A good
looking girl asked 100 guys on the campus if they would have
sex with her. Something like 95% of blokes said yes. When they
reversed the experiment, nearly all the females said no.

Ignore the laws of nature at your peril, as you try your
social conditioning. You will fail

"Every one is responsible for his/her acts."

Assumption; everyone undamaged, stable, normal IQ, equal.

"The sex between adults is a private issue."

No; Professor/student, doctor/patient, boss/employee celebrity/groupie.

"There is no sex scandal if all persons involved in it are adults and they agree with it."

See previous.

"Why we do not leave people alone to do the sex the way they want if they are adults and they agree with it?"

Some "adults" need protection from themselves and others hence laws required? Yeah? Who is ever left alone?

My thoughts without speaking to any parties involved;
Him: Dirty.
His Wife: Knew it or stupid.
Children: He chose who their father would be.
The woman: Stupid then, suffering now.

What is wrong with you guys?

What is this homoerotic fascination of men masturbating together and 'sharing' a woman together? Do they need to see each other 'do it' with a woman to dispel any worries that perhaps there is a good deal of homosexual love between these manly blokes? You know, grab each other's sweaty body parts on the field can lead to all sorts of thoughts.

If these characters with over-inflated egos and self-worth want to behave in a particular way why don't they pay somebody or at least invite a consenting adult openly rather than mislead a young girl who goes off with a couple of guys. Why should she think somebody as 'nice' and 'heroic' as Matty Johns would let his mates in through the door?

Johns himself says she pointed at him. Not the friends he invited in. Warped sense of hospitality he has.

This must be horrific for his wife. How she can possibly get past this I really don't know. He didn't just have an extra-marital escapade, this is something totally different.

I know I'm still learning about Aussie values, am trying to get my head arround the 'sharing the little woman with my mates-it's so bonding' idea, considering how some men in 'muslim threads' go on and on and on how it is an Aussie value to respect women, which is supposedly why islam is not compatible here.

Remember that case in Sydney? Where a girl got into a car with a group of boys who were of Lebanese background? Perhaps they got 'Aussie values' down pat after all. Well and truly. Funny how it was implied that their cultural back ground had anything to do with their crime. They were just emulating 'Aussie heroes' like football players, it was a simple case of bonding between mates with a girl who willingly got into the car.

Not only would I not want my daughter to have something like this happen to her, I would be sickened and horrified if my son even only knew about it and didn't speak up.

"Warped sense of hospitality he has." (Quote:Anansi)

Another magic comment!

I glad that we can dredge some albeit cynical humour from some of the appalling opinions expressed here.
__________________________

"I've told you before, respect is earned, not
just given on the basis of sexual organs or gender." (Quote:Yabby)

You see this is what gets me. Did you pummel your chest after you wrote that Yabbs?

'I've told you before'? What is this,- a classroom?
__________________________

Jewels, nice and succinct. Way to go!
_________________________

The (rest of) ladies have now entered the Men's Club.

Jewel
If we support, human rights and we respect basic democratic values then we NEVER speak for " everyone undamaged, stable, normal IQ, equal" What means undamaged, stable, normal IQ or equal? What is normal IQ? What is your IQ?
You wrote "No; Professor/student, doctor/patient, boss/employee celebrity/groupie" I say NO ONLY to doctor/patient if the patient do not control him/her self and depend on his/her doctor. I understand there is a problem for the sex between " Professor/student, boss/employee celebrity/groupie" but it is not fear to put for them extrem limits about the sex and ask them to behave different from any other person, controled moves YES but they are human beings and they must have similar basic rights"
"Some "adults" need protection from themselves and others" There is a huge risk for violation of BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS IF WE THINK THAT SOME ADULTS NEED PROTECTION FROM THEMSELVES AND OTHERS.
Milions of people suffer hard from "authorities" because they thought that ""Some "adults" need protection from themselves and others".
It is better for us if we respect basic human rights and accept that all people are equal and all adults are mature.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Anansi
1. I wrote "if all persons involved on it are adults and they agree with it" NOT FOR "mislead a young girl "
2. The Sydney case was a crime! I do not know where did you find the adults in this case and the agreement between the boys and the girl.
I am interested for the protection of the basic human rights and I do not like to see any person to violate them.
About the mass media, the are doing business and they do many things to increase their profits.
THE MASS MEDIA ARE FULL OF LIES,
ABOUT THE SEX I DO NOT WRITE FOR ANY SPECIFIC CASE, ONLY ON BASIC PRINCIPLES!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Examinator:"Foxy is getting a bit of a hammering unfairly."

Foxy isn't "getting a hammering, she's being asked to justify her claims. Why do all you people get so upset when you're asked to justify your claims?

So far, we've had Foxy getting all twisted out of shape trying to invent a perpetratorless crime rather than put her mind to the question, we've had you getting all bent out of shape trying to avoid giving a simple explanation for what Matt Johns did that was actually so wrong, we've had CJ telling us they're all queers (who queerly happen to like sex with women) and we've had the usual "look at moi look at moi, you go grrrl, look I'm a grrrl too, see grrrlpower rox" from ginx, along with a couple of hangers on.

Matt Johns and his wife and family have been pilloried over this, with very little cause, in my view. None of the people here who approve of that have been able to say why they approve, while those who disapprove have made several strong arguments. To my mind, in the absence of something new, there's not much point discussing this much further.

We have quite a storm going here have,nt we?
Just as men can be preditory when it comes to sex, so too can females.
Group sex can be, yes true group, invited by the female, often is.
That circle? well its new to me, never ever heard of it never heard of men who are not homosexual doing it.
Team bonding? do you know some footballers go to play and train ,but never get to know their team mates?
Another press/medea fantasy? most likely ,remember news is made no longer reported.
Have any of us, you too foxy, ever known a woman who might well have invited this sex act, enjoyed it, bragged about it, then as an underlining mental health issue progressed came out years after and told a far different story.
We all have, such people exist.
this 19 year old knew what she was doing, by that age she may have been at least as grown up as the men in that room.
Her own story, reported by her workmates, who blame her for the event, say she had sex with two locals days before, why are some inffering sainthood on her now?
Sex is the driving force behind humanity, we must understand it always will be.

*Did you pummel your chest after you wrote that Yabbs?*

No Ginxy dear, I did not. But I am happy to pass on life's
wisdoms for free :)

Just think about the statement for a while. "I am a girl,
I have 2 breasts and a vagina, thus I deserve respect"

Nonsense. Why is a girl more deserving of respect then a boy?

I read this article in the Age this morning:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/generation-sex-as-norms-shift-20090516-b6tn.html

Sounds to me like schoolkids are alot more sexually forward then
we were, for in those days a blow job was still a big deal.
Not now it seems, as girls compete to leave rainbow coloured rings
on boys penises. So these kids know a fair bit, a long time
before they get to any pub at 18.

I think Foxy just sees this one from her relatively sheltered
youth, compared to what is happening around her, even if she is
not aware of it. That article might be enlightening.

Belly makes a valid point, there are plenty of predatory females
out there. Just last night, the Aussie chick who was commentating
the Eurovision song contest, mentioned how "you could go home with
any of them" (performers), then went on about going backstage
to snare herself one of the Trojans or words to that effect.

So my issue with Foxy is that once again she seemingly thinks that
men should change their behaviour, but what about women?

This sad tale comes about because the Federal Court of Australia is an exclusive club, created by the Liberal Party to assist its gangster contributors, to avoid the consequences of laws passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Some of those gangsters pose as reputable citizens, and publish newspapers. The gangsters can, because the Federal Court of Australia will not file everything presented to it, and when something is filed, will not deal with it according to law.

Matthew Johns, like him of hate him, is entitled to the protection of the Privacy Act 1988, and also to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that guarantee the right to privacy; So too any other sporting personality, until charged and convicted in a court of law. Just because a person plays sport does not make a person public property.

If the politicians in Canberra, would earn their money as members of the Privy Council, the High Court of Parliament, the highest court in Australia and discipline the effete snobs, in the exclusive club entitled the Federal Court of Australia and use their powers under Parliamentary Privilege, to call these irresponsible and ineffective guardians of the law to account, and insist they obey the law, then everyone would be better off all round.

Paul Keating’s government passed the laws to protect us from these money grubbers. The atheists and secularists who have stacked the Federal Courts of Australia with dishonest low life lawyers, instead of insisting they abide the Constitution, and sit with juries in all cases, are the real problem. Without a system that makes the media accountable, and bashes the livin bejasus out of their hip pocket, whenever they break the Statutes passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth the Members in Canberra may as well be dead wood.

I deplore personal attacks on individuals in the media. I deplore gangs, and organized crime. So too did the ultimate victim of organized crime, Jesus Christ. While we tolerate these gangsters in power, we deserve to have our civil rights and personal freedom abused

I’m enjoying the discussion and find the terminology revealing especially from antiseptic.

“Who was the predator - the woman (not "teenager", as the media like to paint it)”

“What of Charmyne Palahvi, mid-late 30s, openly preys on young male footballers?”

“The fact that some young men were willing to take advantage of her availability is hardly worthy of crucifiction”

A quick look at the definition of a teenager finds the following; “Teenager: A person between the ages of 13 and 19; an adolescent.”

So while antiseptic refers to the female involved not as a teenager which she clearly is, not as a young woman, but as “the woman”, those poor footballers are referred instead as “young male footballers” or “young men”.

I find it exemplifies Old Testament thinking.

Proverbs 5:8“Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house.”
5:9“Lest thou give thine honor unto others, and thy years unto the cruel.”

Proverbs 7:7“And behold among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding.”
7:8“Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house.”
7:9“In the twilight, in the black and dark night.”
7:10“And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of a harlot, and subtil of heart.”
7:11“She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house.”
7:12“Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.”
7:13“So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him.”
7:24“Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth.”
7:25“Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths.”
7:26“For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her.”

The ‘young man’ and ‘youths’ are but ‘children’ however the women’s ages are never discussed. Perhaps if Mr Johns had read his bible and heeded its warnings a bit more thoroughly then his honour may still be intact. Geez, that sounds like Runner.

Most of us go on the assumption
that sex should be consentual, safe, and enjoyable.

The trouble with this situation comes when
there's a cloud over consent.

As I tried to point out in my earlier posts -
how can saying yes to one man be construed as
saying yes to five more?

How would it be possible for a 19 year old to be
capable of consenting under the circumstances?

And why does all responsibility rest with a young
girl - rather than a dozen or so bulked-up blokes?

The 19 year old went to the police five days after
the event. Never mind if she's getting slapped in
the face with an erect penis while others watched.
She didn't object, so it must be fine. She's full of
loathing, feels suicidal, walked away from a sexual
encounter, blamed, shamed, and hurt.

And you gentlemen, don't think that's not completely wrong,
unethical,
not illegal mind, just wrong?

Well then I guess there is indeed no point in discussing
this topic any further.

It must be my "sheltered upbringing," that finds something
wrong with the fact that, (borrowing this quote from
Bettina Arndt's quote in The Week-end Australian), "Just
because a woman is silly enough to say yes to a couple of
star footballers doesn't mean she's inviting the entire
team to have a go at her."

See you all on another thread.

I still think the thread is a social comment.
We see reference to God, politics, and the view that a sport and those who play it maybe watch it, are different in matters of sex.
We also see sex as we see it, our own way, is seen by many to be the only way sex should take place.
And hugely funny to me, we see the idea that only men do the wrong thing, only men could?
Stubborn refusal by foxy to understand the evidence displayed so far, seems to point to this girl being willing at the start to have sex with at least 2 men, asking one for more.
Lets not forget ALL football codes, cricket, name the sport, female jockeys have told horrible story,s,but some believe NRL is the problem?
While on the subject of God, maybe it is not true, much in the written media is not, but its said catholic church do not want football players to visit their schools.
If true can we see some action about the never ending dreadful child rapes?
I suspect if we became free to talk about our first years of sexual activity it would make interesting reading.
Sex is not unusual, not dirty, not always within our own rules.
I am baffled by the news this lady is now married, has been for a while, her husband only found out when we all did.
And her wish? only that it all go away!
rational? not in my view.

Foxy:"why does all responsibility rest with a young
girl - rather than a dozen or so bulked-up blokes?"

No one has suggested it does, merely that the "bulked up blokes" aren't some form of low-life women-bashers, because she agreed at every step to what happened. Why should she bear no responsibility for her own situation?

Foxy:"walked away from a sexual
encounter, blamed, shamed, and hurt."

Except she didn't, did she? Her co-worker told of how she bragged about it. It was only when everyone made it clear theyweren't impressed that she got all upset. I still maintain she had other issues that would have come out, regardless.

csteele, as I said, she was a WOMAN, they were MEN.

All that to avoid answering the questions asked. They must be more difficult than I realised.

Foxy feel free not to reply if you really think that this is done but the parting shot warrants comment.

"And you gentlemen, don't think that's not completely wrong,
unethical, not illegal mind, just wrong?"

I can't find a framework to support action based on the idea of wrong in this context that lets me still hold firm to the idea of equality for women. If women of the age of consent are not really able to give consent then what else can't they make decisions about. I'll put my view on the issue of consent further down.

I can't find a framework that lets me say that group sex (or a group jert off) is so wrong that action should be taken about it that lets me also tell those who want action taken against homosexuals that it's not their business.

If I'm to support the right of women to choose then I have to support it even when they make choices which I don't think are in their best interests.

I don't want to give back control to those who think that those who make "wrong" choices need to be protected from themselves. History shows that the definition of wrong gets very broad when they get power.

If the report is correct that one of the footballers was rejected for being too ugly then I don't but they idea that the woman was intimidated into consenting. If the reports of bragging about the encounter are correct then it does not sound like consent was the issue. The impression I get is of someone reveling at the time in the power she exerted over a group of men. Have a look around the web for exhibitionists and you will find that there are some people who enjoy the power of being at the focus of the sexual attention of a group of people. There are women around who find power in the idea of being the woman in a gang bang (and plenty of men who would like to have multiple female partners in the one encounter).

R0bert

Csteele, I read the old testament and it told me to kill my neighbour
for working on the sabbath, but I really like my neighbour. Should
I take notice of the bible for advice in life?

Foxy, whilst you have a great big caring heart, methinks you don't
make a very good sleuth :)

Lets look at the evidence that we so far have from the press which
is all that we have to go by.

1. The female in question was still bragging about her taking on
half a football team, the day after the event, according to those
who were there at the time. Does that sound to you like she did
not consent?

2. She did in fact reject one fellow and he became the butt of jokes
by the other players because of it. So clearly she decided who
she had sex with.

3. This business of no power for females is a myth. Remember the
30 second rapist? The woman changed her mind in the middle of all
that sex, he landed up in jail for years because of it.

4. Men are well aware that if a woman changes her mind and says
no, they can land up in the klink for 6 years or so, hardly a slap
on the wrist. No wonder they are now using their mobile phones to
have evidence of her agreeing.

5. Years in jail because a woman changes her mind or insists on no,
is hardly no power. Fact is women call the shots these days.

If you read that Age URL on teenagers which I posted, you will notice
a little bit about motivation. Females very quickly change their
behaviour, depending on what others think of what they did. If it
is pats on the back, they do it again, if its frowned up by the rest,
they stop doing it. Women clearly care more about what others think,
then men.

My feeling is that it only hit this girl some days after the event
that she had been used. So she complained 5 days later.

A new benchmark - Does anyone ever think to check, at the time; to ask if the woman is enjoying herself? Can a man engaging in such things be achieving more than peer approval? He never gets enough, always wants more afterwards, and is not having good sex, anyway. Group sex - the only way we truly become the animals we actually are.

An interesting thread – 80 posts in 3 days shows the level of interest in the issue.

“Why is it that the call is for men to act responsibly and ethically, but not women?”

Yabby, because the root cause of the problem in this situation is men acting badly. Women naturally react to what men see in them. If men see them as sex objects, some women will always oblige. So attacking the blokey culture is actually attacking the problem on both sides. I believe that once the ARL bad behaviour goes, women will naturally lift their own game. Get rid of the boys’ culture and the rest will take care of itself (until the next crisis) as they say.

-- -- -- -- -- --

My take on the apparent facts in the Matthew Johns matter:

The fact that Johns has come forward publicly says two things about him – he knows that what happened was wrong and it’s a lot better for him to come out on the front foot, face the music and stunt the incoming attack Captain Ramius style (as he turned the Red October into the path of the incoming torpedo….) It tells me that Johns probably wouldn’t have done what he did if the ARL peer group pressure, pack mentality and groupie response wasn’t as strong as it was, as it’s a lot easier to go along with the flow than stand against it. That was what he did wrong – not have the courage to stand up against the culture at the outset. His recent public outing has forced him to effectively cast adrift some of the other players in the sex affair and break up the player solidarity on the issue which is a good thing.

Was the 4 Corners attack motivated by femonazis? Absolutely. Is it going to have a positive effect on league culture? Most definitely. Have a few players so far been treated more harshly than the others involved? Yes – Johns being the prime example. But, can you make an omelette without cracking a few eggs? No, unfortunately.

Give it a break, If the Good Lord had not made sex fun, none of us would be here. In my experience it is just as much fun for women as men, and consequently not impossible to get. What I don’t like is the judgmental way it is treated. I would not know how a woman feels really having never been one, but I do know that if a bloke makes a good effort, next time is easy.

There are all sorts of reasons some girls have group sex. I have never indulged myself, but with lots of alcohol, and a sometimes insatiable appetite for sex, a girl can wear out one bloke, and want more than one man can deliver. Perhaps that is the origin of the word wanton. Young men and women have raging hormones. That is why they invented marriage, to allow the urges to be positively expended.

This should not be the subject of media damnation. It should not be in the media at all. Perhaps it is our craving for a God, any God, and Sporting Heroes may fit the bill. It is in my thinking a sick way to get cheap thrills, condemn someone. When the God has feet of clay, why should we be disappointed

Foxy,
I understand you "how can saying yes to one man be construed as
saying yes to five more?"
But we, you or me, can not decide what kind of sex other people like.
We can not order them how to do sex or what is the right sex.
I RECOGNISE, I RESPECT, AND I TRY TO PROTECT ADULT'S RIGHT TO DO THE SEX WHICH BOTH SIDES LIKE TO DO.
For me the sex is a private issue, SIMPLE AND CLEAR.
I disagree with any person who thinks we can put rules and orders and cameras in the bedrooms!
Let's leave some freedom for adults on their own private activities.
LET'S STAY FAR FROM PRIVATE ISSUES!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Belly,

I wasn't going to respond to this discussion
any further - but as I respect you, and after
reading your reference to me, I feel you deserve
an explanation.

I'm sorry that we don't see eye-to-eye on this
issue and that you don't understand what you
describe as my "stubborn refusal" to see things
in their true light.

Phil Gould, the well known commentator and coach, speaking
on Tony Eastley's AM radio program said that he saw
this NRL incident as a stern warning to both the players
and young women to re-think their behaviour.

He hopes that the league's latest scandal will lead to
lasting change. As Gould points out, "... for so long,
there's been incidents, whether it was drugs, alcohol
or abuse of women that people have walked away from.
Let's hope the shock and the after-effects of this incident
will be the wake-up call that nobody walks away from.
That it sends a message to all concerned."

Gould says that, "...the night turned sour at the time
the door opened and other players walked in...
From that moment on, this event was headed for disaster,
and tears. From the time the other blokes walked into
the room (the extra party) they were in the wrong.
And even if they feel as though she gives consent
at that time, it's still going to end up wrong.
She's in no position, no age to make that decision.
They completely hijacked her."

This behaviour needs to be addressed. Not only
by all players, young girls, but young people
in general. They need to know that there are no
winners in these type of situations.

*Yabby, because the root cause of the problem in this situation is men acting badly. Women naturally react to what men see in them. If men see them as sex objects, some women will always oblige*

So what you are saying RobP, is that its ok for some women to
naturally react, but not ok for some blokes. Sorry, that is
a double standard. If those women did not throw themselves at
men, there would not be a problem either.

That has been my point all along, this double standard.

Now be honest here RobP, think back to your late teens, early
twenties. If a cute 18 year old offered to shag you, did you
knock em all back? Did your friends knock em all back? That is
just not realistic.

I think that the pressure from sponsors will cool things down,
for if there are no $ coming in, it affects everyone.

But in today's Sunday Times there was an article about the story,
where a Nigel Vagana, who seemingly works with the players points
out that this is not the only place where these things are happening
and that the this is "simply a window on to what's out there in
society". A very valid point.

I had a long think about this question today and I guess most parents
hope for the best for their kids. But if it was my daughter, I'd
rather she come home in tears because some guy shagged her and used
her, then she come home telling me that she is on Ice. That
stuff literally fries their brains, oh what a disaster for parents.

Some friends of mine have lost their kids through Ice and I see it
as a far worse problem for society

Hear, hear Foxy.

And Aussielady, asking a woman/girl whether she is enjoying the experience as a new benchmark. You are hopeful, she just might say no and out the door flies any notion of 'consent'. You get that 'yes', then go for it baby. What do you think, she said 'yes I'd like to enjoy myself with you (or youse) and get my rocks off? No, obviously, as many men on this site will argue, she said 'yes, you and any of your friends who might drop by, get your rocks off, use my body, don't worry your little head(s) about my orgasms'.

Don't you know that once a woman gives consent, that's it, regardless if things aren't quite what she was led to believe or thought she might experience? Heaven forbid that the male myth that being chafed raw by a group of men is the secret desire and bliss of women gets blown out of the sky.

We respect women in Australia, don't you know, we actually think it is right to consider the issue of consent, but there's no piking afterwards, because then you're a teasing man-hating bitch who deserves whatever is coming to you.

The really sad thing is, how many women buy into that too, but to do otherwise would mean acknowledging that there might have been times you give consent, but didn't mean consent for whatever then ensued and didn't have the courage to stop whatever was happening.

As Foxy said, Gould pointed out that the situation changed after the other guys walked in

I had a vision just now.

Yabby was at a motel, and he came upon an open door with a few blokey blokes hanging around outside. He glanced inside, and noticed a naked young woman having sex with one bloke, a couple waiting their turn, and another half dozen standing in a circle around the bed jerking off.

Being a red-blooded male, Yabby's genetic programming kicked in, and he followed his erection into the room. He had no choice because of the genetic imperative, but once inside he quickly came to the awful realisation that he was in a room full of w@nkers, jerking off while someone rooted his daughter.

Fortunately, Yabby woke up then and realised it must have been a bad dream, because he obviously doesn't have a daughter.

Otherwise he couldn't have written what he did above.

Sheesh CJ, you are a worry, you really are. This debate has so
many sides to it and all you seemingly have focussed on throughout,
is those circle jerks. That kind of makes me wonder what is going
on at your subconcious level :)

As a matter of interest, I choose to live a rather quiet life
these days, but I do not deny a pretty wild time in my younger
years. I just think that the pendulum has swung so far in favour
of women the victims, that we need to bring it back somewhere in
the middle.

True, I don't have a daughter, but I do know people who have lost
daughters to Ice. They age 20 years in a couple, they become
psychotic, imagining grubs coming out of their skins, violence
is huge and you can't reason with them or even assist. I'd rather
still have a daughter, then lose her completely.

People can get over bad sexual experiences, but I have yet to see
too many recover from a bad addiction to Ice. Whole lives are
ruined forever. If you know of any solutions, I would love to
know about them, so I can forward them on to those people who simply
don't know what to do next with their addicted kids. Governments
offer no solutions, certainly not in Western Australia.

That last post came from such a very dark dirty arrogant hate filled place that I almost pity you.

CJ you need help.

ASymeonakis "Some "adults" need protection from themselves and others" There is a huge risk for violation of BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS IF WE THINK THAT SOME ADULTS NEED PROTECTION FROM THEMSELVES AND OTHERS."

I’ve met grownups that need advice, told to wake up, don’t deal well with this big wide world, need to have basic stuff explained to them over and over and I for one am sick of calling them mum and dad.

You consider it a risk if we think some adults need protection from themselves and others? Did you think that through?

“It is better for us if we respect basic human rights and accept that all people are equal and all adults are mature.”

If people here agreed with you they would be a lot nicer to each other.

“What is your IQ?”

Social IQ - top notch, Emotional - doing fine. That one where you need to go to school – probably doesn’t get past your average French poodle.

“You wrote "No; Professor/student, doctor/patient, boss/employee celebrity/groupie" I say NO ONLY to doctor/patient if the patient do not control him/her self and depend on his/her doctor. I understand there is a problem for the sex between " Professor/student, boss/employee celebrity/groupie" but it is not fear to put for them extreme limits about the sex and ask them to behave different from any other person, controlled moves YES but they are human beings and they must have similar basic rights"

But if you want fair and you want everyone to be treated the same how does that gel with doctor/patient? This chick probably was someone’s patient. Problem is always going to be that we are all different.

LadyAussieAlone:"Does anyone ever think to check, at the time; to ask if the woman is enjoying herself?"

Is this the new standard? It's rape if the woman didn't enjoy it? What about the man? I've had some pretty substandard sexual partners - can I claim rape because I ejaculated just to get it over with? Wow, this is almost as good as Foxy's "perpetual emotion machine" of victims. Roll up, roll up, everyone's a loser.

RobP:"cause of the problem in this situation is men acting badly. Women naturally react to what men see in them"

Paternalistic much, old chap?

I'm fascinated by the rush of feminists to make the claim that a 19 year old woman is not sufficiently mature to consent. It's really quite a wonderful sight to see all these people who owe their career to the notion that women are "as good as men" falling over each other in a rush to jump on the victim-go-round and at the same time disenfranchise all the younger women. They know how to make the most of a good victim down at the Women's Studies Department.

Ninaf's friend, Karen Willis of the NSWRCC, even got a guernsey on TV on Sunday, but no one explained why, since this wasn't a rape - the police have said so in strong terms. They had Jacqui Magnay on ABC sport, doing the same "all men are bastards", surrounded by 3 out of 5 other presenters who happen to be gay. Can anyone guess what the theme of the day was?

If nothing else, this has clearly shown the power of women in the media today. The papers have been full of polemics and there is a constant refrain of "the community finds it unacceptable", yet a quick glance at any blog site or even the comments pages of newspapers show this to be clearly a divisive issue. None of the "journalists" have chosen to mention the divide, preferring to pretend unanimity, so obviously anyone disagreeing can be painted as "deviant", which is something girls learn how to do very young.

Hasbeen: << ...a very dark dirty arrogant hate filled place... >>

You mean like the motel room in Christchurch, or the toilet cubicle in the Valley, or the motel room in Coffs Harbour, or....?

Yup, spot on. Full marks.

So Yabby, you reckon the 'circle jerk' that is apparently part of the venerable League tradition of the 'bun' is just an extension of normal male sexual behaviour? I don't, which is why I've drawn attention to it.

However, I note that several of you studiously avoid considering its place in the whole tawdry episode. Speaking of which, I didn't call the offending footballers "queers" as Antiseptic asserts. Indeed, I imagine they'd be mortified at the suggestion.

However, I and many others have identified blatantly homoerotic aspects - of which the 'circle jerk' is a prime example - of the Rugby League subculture. I also think that this repressed homoeroticism underlies the misogynistic and abnormal displays of hypersexual conduct with which Thugby League is now publicly identified.

We are still focused on the NRL.
Its players and supporters, can it be we refuse to understand our own culture?
Yes this country bloke was for a while a westy.
Not a word used then but it now known as a western Sydney yobo if you like.
Coastal teen age men are no different.
Group sex was then called a union, yep every one was in it.
Back of the van or FJ Holden.
Next generation around the 80,s called it onion, same deal.
Wiser blokes went to movies of Elvis type and one on one had 50 girls to every bloke to pick from.
Johns raped no one, he refused a request to do it again, maybe he did not return calls in the days after?
So many of those back seat girls of my youth asked for what happened, some demanded it, none ever said it was rape.
In time, not long, I found myself in the movie que, and sheepish about my early learning.
Right now middle 60,s feeling 30 after weight loss and healthy lifstyle, I am not likely to get involved with married women who daily do far worse than Mathew Johns.
Today the ladettes are in control and on the hunt, some clearly refuse to see females can be preditory.
And change their minds? every second!

Jewely
You wrote that "Problem is always going to be that we are all different."
Do you realy believe that it is a problem because we are different, because there are blacks and whites, religious and non religious, progresive and conservative, women and men, young and old persons, etc ?
In democracies there is no problem for different people, of cause the diversity, all people are equal!
IN REALY THIS IS AN ADVANDAGE, NOT A PROBLEM!
For human rights every person deserves our respect and understanding and acceptance and support!
Jewely, I know you are a good person, a humanist but you are "walking" on a slipery ground, first you wrote " Assumption; everyone undamaged, stable, normal IQ, equal" and now that ""Problem is always going to be that we are all different."
Even worst you wrote that"This chick probably was someone’s patient."
Is it a patient any one with different ideas, different behave?
Jewely PLEASE OPEN YOUR HEART AND ACCEPT THE DIVERSITY, ACCEPT PEOPLE WITH "STRANGE" BEHAVE!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hi Antonios,

The way I see things is that the degree of damage, differences in IQ, and a hundred other things, that make us all different. It is a problem in any situation where a rule is made to govern all as if equal. One herd. More of a problem if we react to the breaking of a rule as one herd and condemn - that is when one person is separated from the herd because they were weaker and the lions got them.

At my place… kids go Long Term (Judge grants final orders for them never to be returned to parents). Caseworker approves new foster parents in the system and they come and get whichever child/ren under final orders.

Not once have I been asked (even after parenting child/ren over a year or more) what sort of child they are, what sort of family do I think they should be with. Little child with phobia of dogs goes to live with dog breeders. This democracy you speak of, it damages. It is fair – it damages all with no regard to who any of them are or could have been.

There is a study going on right now trying to find out why foster children do not function as well as other children in society, questioning everything except DoCS themselves and their complete disregard of the individual in the beginning. I offered to be part of it but they don’t want people that have thought about it.

This talk doesn’t merge with what I see happening around me. This democracy does not protect its young, its old, its hurt, the different. Do I have “democracy” confused with how things work in court and government in reality? Are you meaning it is a sound concept even though it doesn’t work with people?

I didn’t know I was a humanist, hadn’t even heard the term before. Is there “individualists”? I do except strange people, except my mental case neighbor who keeps having yelling matches with my mental case daughter at 3am.

'As Foxy said, Gould pointed out that the situation changed after the other guys walked in'

Exactly. So why is Matthew Johns being crucified? Apparantly they climbed in the window (very mature) and he didn't even know for some time.

Anansi,

'but there's no piking afterwards, because then you're a teasing man-hating bitch who deserves whatever is coming to you.'

Exactly! A woman can say no at any time! Even 5 days later!

Hasbeen,

'last post came from such a very dark dirty arrogant hate filled place'

Sounds like my kinda place! That's ok. Someone in CJ's position can just wave his 'established users' pass:-)

CJ,

I cant believe the others cant see the latent homosexuality either. But I don't think the homoeroticism necessarily underlies misogyny.

Antiseptic,

'Why should she bear no responsibility for her own situation?'
Because she's only 19. That makes her someone's 'daughter'. I'm not sure at what age she'd turn into a 'cougar', but if she was a cougar it'd be all ok.

I think there is an underlying hatred of the league blokes because of this very 'daughter' issue. Let's face it in general, it's young men, especially young, fit, athletic men who ARE shagging society's 'daughters'. Now if it was lawyers or nerdy accountant young men, that'd be ok. But for some reason nobody wants their daughters shagged by such virile, non-intellectual type men.

Maybe because they'd have to face the young woman's base desires for 'Hot' guys, and cant reposition it to any romantic, provider type scenario in their heads. It's a woman just wanting a guy for a body that is hard for some people to accept.

"Paternalistic much, old chap?"

Antiseptic, Nope. Just the plain ol' simple truth.

"So what you are saying RobP, is that its ok for some women to naturally react, but not ok for some blokes. Sorry, that is a double standard. If those women did not throw themselves at men, there would not be a problem either."

Yabby, OK I agree with you where the females you refer to are motivated badly (just like some of the males in the Johns saga). Both lots need to change. My point was that women take their cue from men not the other way around. The current feminist revolution (led by a few strong females) I see as a temporary power reversal to get the overall balance back into male-female relationships. Once the feminist movement passes, women will once again, as I said earlier, react to what men see in them. Thoroughly natural and thoroughly good too

CJ, I have no idea why some footballers are keen on circle jerks.
I've never been in their situation, so can't say, but I don't think
its even relevant to the debate. Some guys jerk off over porn movies,
that is their business, not my business. 19 year old blokes full of
testosterone, will have erections over all sorts of things.

I certainly don't think that mysoginy plays into it. That is a whole
different psychological problem.

RobP, the game between males and females has been going on for
eons and I don't think that will change, as one takes their cues
from the other.

I don't believe this story of men having all the power, for I have
just seen too many so called highly powered businessmen and others,
go home and do exactly what the wife tells them.

It all kind of comes back to basic evolutionary biology. Men evolved
to spread their genes around for good reasons, from an evolutiory
perspective it was very successfull. Pairbonding was one way of
doing it, but not the only way. I betcha that there are a few small
footballer babies wandering around out there.

Women evolved to attract a mate to stick around, so that they had
resources to feed the offspring. Sex was what they used to do it.
Look around you today, most women still put their kids first
and foremost, well before the husband

1)

"....>>>>>>>But if it was my daughter, I'd
rather she come home in tears because some guy shagged her and used
her<<<<<<<, then she come home telling me that she is on Ice. That
stuff literally fries their brains, oh what a disaster for parents." (Quote: Yabby).
______________

"That last post came from such a very dark dirty arrogant hate filled place that I almost pity you.

CJ you need help.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 17 May 2009 9:45:25 PM"
_____________________

And there you have it! This is the epitomé of the problem.

A man? put up this vile example, as a rationale. He is graphically 'called' on it:- and THAT is the response; - to a response!!

'my daughter...comes home in tears..a guy shagged her and used her..'

Nothing. Nada. Nix.

But showing that up for what it is.....Ohhhh! the moral outrage from Hasbeen.
___________________________

This thread for a large part put up a 'case' with only a defence. The Boy's Club then reaches the stunning conclusion: 'it looks like Johns is a victim'!!

What a surprising conclusion. Not.

The BC refers to former workmates saying the girl was lying.
The new owner of the motel says she is not welcome.

How many rooms do these slime book up? HELLO?.?.?.?

A current player anonymously states that group sex will continue even if there is no female present. (OK.OK. I put that that part in! Perish the thought... Though all these Neanderthals need is one XX for a whole group of XY's to function sexually. Sad little twerps).

None of the rationalists says anything about his statement.

Cont'd:-today hopefully.

2)

A girl,-she didn't have her birth certificate with her OK, is stupid enough to go to a room with two of these maladjusts.

Then Johns yes JOHNS! sends out invitations. And SHE is at fault because she went into that room.

If you 'barefoot and pregnant' mob were to take of your blinkers, you would be concentrating on the gutless scum who left Johns to take the rap.

And you would be concentrating on WHY.

Because of what happened to him?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that if players were to be open about this incident, there is a chance that some would blame others? Once that occurred, a lot more would come out, I suspect. And the locker-room camaraderie, and on field cohesion would be lost.

There is EVERY reason for these cowards to stay silent, and I suspect they have been told to do so.

It IS silly though, isn't it? After all, the BC has argued strongly that not only have they done nothing wrong, but it's the girls fault!!

So really these 'men' have nothing to fear.., they will have the BC protecting them for a start!!

( And Yabbs; you KNEW what I was referring to previously, but you had to soften it, by blurring the issue. But you can be VERY succinct when you want to , can't you?)

Having spent time in various parts of the world, the question that most OECD (except maybe the US) people would ask is "who cares?". I cannot believe that Australia is so prudish.

From what I understand, the sex was consentual, even if it differred from what most consider normal.

There was no one hurt, except the remose that the woman felt from her promiscuous behaviour, and it certainly cannot be compared to the Darcy incident. Many years after the incident, I wonder if 4 corners is trying for some Jerry Springer type publicity.

The person most wronged by this event was the wife of Andrew Johns, who has obviously managed to forgive her husband for this indiscretion.

In my opinion, AJ has grounds to sue the ABC and the woman, and I think that the ABC deserves contempt for its gutter journalism.

On the logic that many of our posters use to condone homosexuality you would have to argue that these footy players were born with a need to have group sex. No doubt one of our academics have even found a gene that makes them want to behave like this. As usual those who scream the loudest against sex in moral context cry the loudest when the fruit of their philosophy is plain to see.

Yabby, what codswallop, using ‘basic evolutionary biology’ to excuse what happened. If anything it could be used as an argument against what happened.

These men were patently NOT spreading their genes around. Not possible my dear, with one woman. They were dipping into their good mate’s bodily fluids and sharing more than just the grease of their sweat.

You might use your argument to support promiscuous sex, sex with multiple partners, or a group that has a number of women, but certainly not this case. Many little footballers result from many mummies.

Why doesn’t the NRL invest in rubber blow up dolls? The boys can then be rewarded in a hotel room of their choice AFTER a good result and enjoy themselves to their hearts content without any inconvenience that a live woman brings to this bonding activity. You never know, an incentive like that just might result in an even harder, more physical match to the benefit of rugby lovers and their sponsors.

As a reward the Man of the Match gets to go first. Or should that be last? Whatever.

Yes, Houellebecq, a woman or a man can say no at any time during the sex-act. The fact that she didn’t go to the police until 5 days later does not necessarily imply a change of mind later. Johns himself states that he apologized to the girl in question on the night, that implies that he full well knew that all was not well.

Antiseptic, you are not alone in this, some of you are still having trouble with the notion that women too have sex for personal gratification, not only to satisfy ‘virile risk taking young men’ or any man for that matter. If it was just about sub-standard sex, that’d be easy. You decide never to have sex with that person again, as many women indeed do to the bewilderment and lamentation of men like you.

How risk-taking fits into this picture completely mystifies me. Where was the risk to the guys? Or is possible bad PR subsequently seen as the risk?

"In my opinion, AJ has grounds to sue the ABC and the woman,...
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 18 May 2009 1:21:33 PM"

In your opinion..

There are NO grounds. And Johns would never do it, because he and his lawyers are smart enough to know that evidence could be given that COULD damage him further. However, I for one would like to see him do that...

If as reported the girl said “no” to a player she didn’t want to have sex with and that player stopped, (she said she wanted Johns) then this woman was making decisions in this situation and she was not in any way overpowered. She knew what was going on, she was aware of the presence of multiple men, she chose the one she wanted, they respected her choice for the one she didn’t want - how much more consensual does this have to be?

Anasi,

'The fact that she didn’t go to the police until 5 days later does not necessarily imply a change of mind later. '
No, bragging about it to her co-workers the next day would imply that. Also the picking and choosing which guys she wanted on the night as shown above. Even the fact that by her own admission she didn't say no. The fact that the police interviewed so many people, including hotel staff, and were convinced there was no reason to press charges. Let's face it, the police have a lot more information than what we get from the media.

'Johns himself states that he apologized to the girl in question on the night, that implies that he full well knew that all was not well.
'
It may well, and I thought that a bit odd he said that. Quite suspicious. But who knows, he might have apologised on behalf of his team mates for their behaviour in barging in. I don't think that necessarily implies guilt on his part.

'still having trouble with the notion that women too have sex for personal gratification,'

Oh I agree much with that! That's why so many people have used the phrase 'what if it was your daughter'. People cant possibly accept that a 19yo girl wants to shag 2 guys, and then doesn't object when another 10 guys crash the party. She's a 'daughter', young and innocent. The average 19yo rugby league player is a man, nobody's son that's for sure!

Ginx,

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25827566/

"The judge ruled that Mosley “had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property”.

While not exactly the same, there are significant parallels.

The ABC provided a platform for what was essentially a closed "session" to be publicised. That the police found there were no grounds for further police involvement, should be a warning sign to the media that they are simply invading someone's privacy.

I too would like this to go to court so that I can find out how little privacy I really have.

What a textbook exercise in playing up anything that condemns the girl, and playing down anything condemns the 'men'.

Pathetic!!

Tell me what woman is not some ones daughter.
What crap.
and NRL my how we forget.
Sports men, even sports women have played up always.
And come, some of us have too.
The ABC let me down, this story is farmed rubbish, it is to me a true fan of the old girl,this is as bad as that Sydney news paper.
Yes that bad.
Johns is a victim.
It like it or not is part of this countrys cultor group sex.
IQ or social standing has nothing to do with it.
Believe me north shore girls are no different.

*Yabby, what codswallop, using ‘basic evolutionary biology’ to excuse what happened.*

Anansi, you clearly don't understand the basics of evolutionary
biology. There is a thing which IIRC they call "parental investment".
It does not just apply to humans. In the case of a male, if all
he invests is an ejaculation, there is virtually no risk, bar a bit
of protein, because he could do the same again a few minutes later.

So how many men slept with the girl would not matter, his sperm
could win and beat the other little sperms. She on the other hand,
risk years of feeding the offspring, so makes a large investment.
In nature, she would be the fussy one.

There is actually a species of bird, where the males raise the chicks,
build the nest etc. They are VERY fussy about which female lays
an egg in their nest, whilst the females just lay one, wherever there
is the opportunity.

In other words, there are clear patterns in nature and we humans,
being part of the species gene pool, also tend to follow those
patterns.

If you look at chimps, when the females come on heat, they do the
"groupsex" thing. Males have evolved to have larger testicles compared
to say gorillas, for more sperm means a higher chance of their sperm
beating other sperm in the race towards the egg. All quite simple
really :)

Ginxy, you are doing a great job at circling the wagons for the
OLO girls club, but sadly your posts lack substance. We'll just
have to keep unhitching those wagons, as you try and circle :)

I did hear on tv on one station, something about the girl having
been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder by some bloke
appearing before a NZ Govt compensation commission. I've heard
nothing more about it since, but does anyone know if she is trying
to claim compensation and has perhaps gone public for that reason

What are you on Ginxy:-)

Nobody is condemning anyone. One can defend the innocence of a man without condemning 'the woman'. You may see voluntarily partaking in a gang bang as condemnation, but I don't. I don't see any of the posters condemning the woman at all, but I see plenty of posters condemning the men.

As I said at the outset, and then again, and now again!

Use your prejudice to the full in deciphering the stories available to create that crystal clear picture in your mind of what you KNOW happened!

What you 'know' happened is that a poor innocent 'daughter' was corrupted and used like a piece of meat when all she wanted was a nice dinner and maybe a kiss on the cheek. What some other posters may 'know' happened was a girl who wanted to shag a couple of footballers and brag about it to her mates later decided she shouldn't have done that and felt dirty when her peers weren't impressed. What I think is that the police probably did their job pretty well, and the rest is speculation based around what people want to believe. I think it's probable that she did feel degraded well after the event, and that the guys who entered the room are the source of the problem here, but nothing non-consentual happened.

Incidently, why would her work mates lie? There'd be just as much attention if they relayed how traumatised she was. Why would they give false statements to police?

Oh, Ginx, what a textbook exercise in playing up anything that condemns the men, and playing down anything condemns the 'daughter'.

I just got back and have read the responses.

Ansi I'm not nor was I bent out of shape. I merely pointed out that we were talking on different levels. By that I clearly meant that most of the posts were at the level Romany alluded to. Foxy (to some degree) and I are both looking at it from more personal disengaged level. Not so much of the specifics of this case but from a wider (what does this mean) level i.e. What can we learn from this rather than the specifics of Matt Johns + umpteen others gang banged a girl X.
In that context I answered your question.
Gang bangs/bun are NOT mainstream sexual behaviour and hence they tend to be sensationalised and draw lynch mob behaviour from the masses and media.

Below that level the conversation becomes an exercise in dissonance and a W.O.T.

I rarely get comment at that level all the examples I gave were examples that illustrated the need for a wider perspective.

Again I mentioned the evolutionary 'urges' that is often put as justification for what is simply a lack of self control/common-sense and in doing so reduces sex to its primeval state ignoring the evolved cultural adaptations since. i.e. equating sex as being a part (not necessarily essential) of an affection display. If this wasn't the case masturbation would be as meaningful as copulation and the 'after glow' the sense of well-being and connection. I personally have found that opportunistic (or predatory) one night stands are unsatisfying and and after the flush of hormones 13- 18 ish they held little interest for me.
This may or may not apply to others.

What is clear if you take young impressionable men and women and put them in this pressure cooker of hormonal demand for the extreme then you get ...outside of two standard deviation nominal common sexual practices (statistically).
The solution is more interesting to me.
BTW Belly mum tells me the Sunday Mail leads with another 'alleged sexual misconduct' by footballers

Shadow Minister
I agree with you. We should respect people's privacy.
I DID NOT EXPECT TO SEE CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE WITH OPENED MIND!
Continue to this direction!
I found from this thread that some progresive people are more conservative about the sex and privacy, than the real conservatives.
May be it is better to remove the labels from us and start an open, honest discusion from the begin!
About the sex scandal, I do not think it was any scandal, I think we had to be more fair with the persons involved in the sex and
NOT TO HUMILIATE THEM PUBLICLY.
We should protect people's essencial rights, respect and protect their integrity and do not write comments which could hurt and create problems to them.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Aha, the plot thickens!

*But since then the New Zealand Accident and Compensation Commission has made weekly payments to Clare after finding she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and was suicidal.*

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2567625.htm

Sounds like they will pay you 80% of your salary for doing nothing,
as long as you can keep convincing them, that you are still
suffering. (That info comes from another NZ website.)

By the sound of things, Clare is still cashing in every week and
will continue to do so, whilst the poor dear remains "stressed".

Ginxy, I seem to remember it was you on another thread, mentioning
ulterior motives?

Sounds like they will keep paying, whilst Clare can convince them
of her "suffering".

Sounds to me more and more, that even the OLO girls club will have
to admit that Mathew Johns was indeed the victim and that the ABC
were perhaps rather gullible in all of this.

Personally, I'd be appalled if either my son or my daughter/s participated in something like the Christchurch 'menage a scrum'. It would say something very distasteful about the values I'd imparted to them as a parent. Frankly, I would be ashamed of them.

However, I acknowledge that there are people out there - male and female - who find such behaviour acceptable or even desirable, and good luck to them as long as they're all consenting adults. They're just not the sort of people I'd have anything to do with, any more than I imagine would most civilised people.

Which is the main point of this brouhaha to me, really. Forget the gender wars for a moment, and consider Yabby's Discovery Channel version of 'biological determinism'. The essence of what he says is reasonably valid, at least in as much as we share various biological imperatives with our genetic relatives. However, what distinguishes us as humans is that we have developed far more elaborate cultures than other animals, and these provide us with not only repositories of knowledge, experience and technology, but also values, morals and rules by which we are able to live lives with each other that are not "nasty, brutish and short", like other animals.

Actually, with the exception of "short", I think that's a pretty good description of Thugby League and its values, actions and culture. There are many good things about the Rugby League subculture, but overall I think it's a pretty ugly sociocultural phenomenon. I also think that the scrutiny it and its players, fans and administration are now receiving in public discourse is probably a good thing.

Paradoxically, we seem to be becoming less civilised despite the breathtaking technological advances of the last century or so. That bothers me even more than stuff like climate change does.

Just to set the record straight...

Matthew Johns was 30 at the time.
The girl was 19.

Matthew Johns - Victim?

Thanks examinator and CJ for your inputs.

Sheesh Foxy, you are a worry, you really are.

Last week we had a story on 4 Corners, about a seemingly gullible
19 year old, who decided to sleep with half a football team and
according the reports, is still cashing in on a weekly basis.

I could be wrong, but you seem to think that age is a excuse.

This week on 4 Corners we have a report of a self appointed guru,
who claims to be the son of god, who landed up sleeping with
7-8 of his female followers, who actually believe him. That it
seems, is just the tip of the iceberg and the females are of
all ages, not just young.

How old do you girls have to be, until we can agree that you
should be responsible for your actions and not use age as
an excuse any more?

I hear no excuses here from the OLO girls club, for the actions
of 19 year old male footballers.

I hope they bring in the old adultery laws again (as this case concerned two women) Or may be up the "age difference" by 7 years.

Yabby has it right,the sexual drive is part of our very human make up, primitive maybe but it is inherited.
Foxy again has skipped over the fact this girl took two footballers to a toilet block ,had sex with them, and bragged about it days before this event.
C J Morgan our greeny much respected contribitor, finds an extreme conservative stand here.
SEX it exists in all its forms, it is the reason for mental illness, it makes or breaks lives, we can not ignore it has many forms.
I just can not believe some think only their views are right.
Thugby league? just maybe the bias is against the sport not its players?
culture[ sorry about the spelling in last post] its our culture, group sex is no judge of a person.
I focus my dislike on child sex, rape, forced sex but we walk shoulder to shoulder with people who practice forms of sex we must execpt are different.

Foxy:"Matthew Johns was 30 at the time.
The girl was 19.

Matthew Johns - Victim?"

There was no "victim" in what happened. Matthew Johns is a victim of the witchhunt that people like you have been happy to perpetrate.

BTW, under the law, a 19 year old is an "adult", or "woman", not a "girl" - unless uou're advocating that the age of suffrage for women should be raised? Perhaps you're right; this episode has certainly shown that most women don't trust a 19 year old "girl" to be up to the level of judgement required to cast a meaningful vote.

CJMorgan:"overall I think it's a pretty ugly sociocultural phenomenon"

How on Earth do you come to that? There are thousands of kids playing Rugby League every week and hundreds go on to play at first grade level. The vast majority are never in trouble.

Groups of young men, whether footballers, private school boys, church groups, soldiers or any other group you care to name occasionally have some runaway situations where testosterone-fuelled stupidity gets out of hand. It's especially common in groups in which there is a strong group interdependence, such as sporting teams and the military. Do you suggest we get rid of the military because some soldiers do silly things when in company?

The other side of the coin is women in groups, who are just as prone to let their oestrogen run free, with sometimes horrid results. Should we ban netball and stop groups of women congregating in pubs? I know I've been more commonly abused and heckled by women in groups than by men in groups or alone. They don't seem to be aware that they are on the wrong end of a power imbalance, as the grrls brigade seem to be trying to claim.

How much further do you New Wowsers want to take your pturience?

CJMorgan:"we seem to be becoming less civilised"

No, you're just getting older and less tolerant, as we all do to some extent. The Golden Age is always in the past...

Ginx,

Now there are stories coming out about this woman having several liasons with multiple partners, and the one with Johns involved famous personalities, that there is a scam here.

As for her "stress" it is like a drunk saying that one beer got him drunk, and he thinks it was the 7th.

'Just to set the record straight...

Matthew Johns was 30 at the time.
The girl was 19.

Matthew Johns - Victim?

Thanks examinator and CJ for your inputs.'

Hahahahahaha

This really is getting funny. Foxy were you ever a school teacher? I see what you're doing, and I've noticed Fractelle do the same thing, is attempt to 'show them' by praising the 'acceptable' opinions at the end of a topic, while ignoring the 'unacceptable' 'boys club' opinions. i.e. I'm not talking to you anymore because you don't agree with me. Johns was 30, and he had consent, but the average age of a league player is under 25.

It really is starting to become very obvious when the 'girls club' come up against an argument they have no answer to. Praise the people they agree with as being 'reasonable' and 'behaving' like good little boys, issue an edict to the others that "this one shouldn't be responded to",or talk about a 'boys club', or say how they're ignoring the 'abusive' posters. It's all a massive smoke screen to avoid responding to points raised that you have no comeback to. Ginx and Fraccy even admit they either dont read or skim the 'boys club' posts, but then get all upset by them, and complain about being 'dismissed' because they're women.

Then the irony, after attempting to exclude posters who's opinions you don't like, accuse THEM of being a club that is silencing you. Great stuff!

Soooo...

In Foxy/Fractelle style....

I'd just like to end this topic by thanking Antiseptic and Robert for your interesting points, and for entering into the spirit of the discussion. It's a pity that Ginx decided to disrupt the good points about consent with childish 'boys club' abuse.

I think robert said it best 'I can't find a framework to support action based on the idea of wrong in this context that lets me still hold firm to the idea of equality for women. If women of the age of consent are not really able to give consent then what else can't they make decisions about'

It seems that on this thread we're no
closer to understanding the psychology
of group behaviour, including exploitation,
group sex and voyeurism.

Chris Rattue in his article, "Exposure of
sex scandal can only do good," in The
New Zealand Herald, 13 May 2009 sums up
the situation rather well:

"I'm not sure if bad group sex is only a
league specialty in the world of sport, but
I assume it isn't...

Presumably, hordes of eager young blokes realise
they are not about to be ravaged by all of the
Pussycat Dolls plus a couple of their sisters, so
don't bother making that long bus trip to hang
around a hotel lobby in Houston.

Women have every right to hunt down superstars, and
the shagadelic stars can covort as they wish, so
long as it is legal.

But when you throw in all the factors - including
alcohol - grey areas emerge. One, it must be imagined,
is what constitutes consensual sex, as a woman faced
with surprisingly insurmoutable odds may not be
strong enough to reveal her true feelings.

As to the morning after, it is also extraordinarily
difficult to prove that sex wasn't consensual,
especially when the witness list ratio is 10-to-one."

As Rattue says, "It is so difficult for a prosecutor.
Those deemed innocent are not always innocent and
those who escape court appearances should not always
have done so."

I agree with him that, "It is unfair to demonise
sports teams in general because not every player is
tarred with the same brush... there will be those
who do the right thing."

However I agree, "...exposure of the NRL's shame
should make women increasingly aware of the risks,
which might help keep a few of them safe...
However...within their enclaves, these young men
feel invincible...the young women, flirting with
fame, may well feel the same...until they find out
otherwise..."

As Rattue stresses, "At least the issue is out of
the closet."

We will not progress this subject until we understand the NRL, sportsmen in general, did not invent sex.
Group sex toilet sex groupie sex no it existed before sport, or we would not be here.
It stuns me,the thought some think it was imposable for this woman to have invited this action, all of it, then took 5 days to change her mind.
Yes women do hunt stars, for sex, the sex drive is the biggest drive in our lives head shrinks have told of that drive behind almost every problem in our lives.
I think some interesting cases could be found by one looking in to this threads posts.
Right now, some place near you, a group sex act is taking place trust me.
The view it is dirty is based on religion, not fact, and as for comparing this act with animals, has any one seen monkey groups having sex?

"Seriously man that's just sad and sickening. I'll bet they'll lap it up too." (Hollowbeak)

He responds to Examinators thanks to females on another thread.

"I'd just like to end this topic by thanking Antiseptic and Robert for your interesting points, and for entering into the spirit of the discussion." (Hollowbeak)

THAT; of course, is different...
_____________________

Thank-you for using my terminology Yabbs and Hollowbeak. When one is bereft of anything original to say..? Happy to share.
_____________________

'Johns is a victim....victim...VICTIM'....er,

Nope! I've repeated it enough and he didn't become one!!
______________________

We will NOT progress on this subject, until we stop spinning around attempting (not succeeding) in intense analysis of sex/group sex/animals and sex/masturbation/boasting in bars/delays/etbloodycetera!

11 so-called adults. 1 young woman.

10 of those men gutless damn cowards. The other one frightened for seven years that this would come out.

Tell him boys;-why worry about it? You did nothing wrong,-it was HER fault.

Cowards.

Ginx still not grasping that there is no 'fault' in consential sex....

'THAT; of course, is different..'
Of course it is as I was taking off Foxy/Fractelle. If you cant grasp that I can see why the topic is such a struggle for you.

Some weeks before I wrote that some lefts from this forum are champions in hypocricy about migrants rights, one said that I am a tired old trojan horse, yesterday I wrote that "some progresive people are more conservative about the sex and privacy, than the real conservatives."
Today I want to inform them that in Canada the " age of sexual consent is 14" and according to Supreme Court of Canada "partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/dec/05122104.html
Some times while we think we are opening highways to the future in real we drive direct to Victoria era.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

According to an Editorial in the Courier mail,
May 17 2009,

"All we need to know is that it is wrong.
All the football clubs need to know is that
the public is running out of patience with
immoral, immature, and unmanly behaviour
from those who wear their colours..."

"It is time that some young men - so
athletically gifted but so morally shortchanged
realised they are killing off the game that gives
them the fame and the fortune that some women
find fatally attractive..."

As I said in my previous posts let's hope
that this incident sends a stern warning to both
the players and young women to re-think their
behaviour. That this latest scandal leads to lasting
change. That the shock of the after-effects of this
incident will be a wake-up call that no one walks
away from. That it sends a message to all concerned.

Ginxy, you still don't get it, but then perhaps you are just so busy
defending the sisterhood with your wagons, that you are not thinking
straight.

Of course MJ is a victim. He seemingly did not lie to this Clare.
She was still bragging about her exploits with him the following
day. Now perhaps you or one of the other OLO females have had a
little sexual adventure in life that you are not that proud of.

If some bloke was to go on national TV and tell the world about
it, I bet you would be mightely pissed off. Next if that
person was making money by claiming victimhood, you would be
screaming from the rooftops.

Foxy, I think that your real problem is that you think others
should live the straightlaced lifestyle that you have and do.

Believe me its not going to happen. Put the plug in the football
genie and it will pop out elsewhere, as we saw last night on
Four Corners, with the son of god guru, knocking off all those
women.

There is alot more going on out there in suburbia, then straighlaced
people like you are aware of. So you only know about it, when
it is broadcast on tv.

Perhaps we'll need to introduce some school lessons like
"Critical thinking for gullible young women" or similar.

But continue to see the world through your rosey coloured glasses,
I assure you, the real world is quite different.

The rule of the jungle prevails, at every opportunity,
despite all that so called social conditioning.

Dear Yabby,

Pappa don't preach!

I can only hope that you're wrong
about the social conditioning not
going to work.

I can only hope that this latest
NRL incident will act as a stern
warning as I said earlier, to both
the players and young women to
re-think their behaviour.

Yabster, I know you mean well -
but we're going to have to agree
to disagree on this.

You see things one way - I see
things differently. I would never
have described myself as being "straight-laced,"
but perhaps in this matter that's not such a
bad thing, is it?

*I would never
have described myself as being "straight-laced,"
but perhaps in this matter that's not such a
bad thing, is it?*

Foxy, one thing I try not to do is to put a judgemental
value on other peoples sexual habits. It is their
concern, not my concern, what happens between their
sheets. I can think of far worse things in life then
sexual habits.

So I simply live by my personal ethics and morals,
for my own good reasons, but that is just me. For
instance, despite my many err experiences, I never
actually lied to get into anyone's knickers. I am
actually proud of that, but many would call it silly,
for deception is the oldest trick in the book in the
everlasting game of boys trying to get into girls pants,
whichever way they can. Anything goes out there. Its
part of nature taking its course.

So even if you were knocking off the pool boy once a week,
that would be your business, not my business.

IMHO the NRL clubs will have to been seen to be pulling their
heads in, for when sponsors like Westfield and others
close off the money tap, they are in deep crap.

Meantime the players and their girly fans will simply move
the whole thing to something like Facebook and meet in a less
formal manner then before. Young people don't take well to
being told what to do and defying authority is a thrill in
itself at that age. So don't kid yourself that there will
be less wild sex parties.

I am wondering why anyone, including me would respond to Ginx, a rudeness, willingness to insult and miss use names is always there.
Over night we hear ,just maybe who told Fox news, sorry ABC, its hard to find a difference.
A team mate, a Christian has been quoted ,not as the sorce but read between the lines.
Why did he wait this long?
Yes yabby has it about right, sex has its way many different tastes but I still see some do not want to think this girls form, her history of sex out.
And her workmates reports , see we all know some one like that, we may not know they are like that but they are not rare.

The whole thing separating opinions seems to swing on the word "consent".
IMHO, not screaming and fighting DOES NOT constitute consent, it is far too easy to say that. As she described it, it just happened, they just kept arriving, and joining in, she was trapped and in shock. I'm sure if a female relative or friend came to you and told you that it had happened to her, you just might feel a little differently! THINK ABOUT THAT!
As for the "men" involved, OF COURSE they're going to say she wanted it, it's classic rapist-speak, but you'll notice they're all so confident of that that they hide, true Heroes all!
I give NO credence to that work-mate's claims of bragging, it never came up until the media got into the act and started waving wads of cash around for related stories. Dubious, at best, and disgusting no matter what.
No matter what you think, the facts remain, it happened, she DID go to the police, and was simply ignored on the grounds that the offenders claimed she was "up for it", a disgraceful outcome at best, and a corruption of the legal system no matter which way you look at it.
Do we now accept that if a group of men rape a woman then claim she wanted it, then it's OK? After all, there's more of them, so it must be true? That's the precedent here!
She deserved a fair hearing and investigation at least, not to be abused as she has been here!

Maximillion:"offenders claimed she was "up for it""

And so did the rest of the 80 people that the NZ Police interviewed. Were all 80 of them lying? She may not have expected what she got, but the old principle of "caveat emptor" has to have some application, surely?

The fact that it was distasteful to you or me doesn't make it "wrong", or the people involved "offenders". As Belly keeps pointing out, they're just people. I'm sure there are many, many more incidents that go unreported because everyone enjoys themselves. If footballers were really such ravenous sex fiends, little better than rapists, do you not think that there may develop a shortage of women willing to be psrt of their "depraved" games? There aeems to be little trouble spreading all sorts of other good information via "girl talk". The girls still like to hang out with the boys, so something's not adding up...

People are prone to doing risky things, often much, much more risky than "pulling a train". People die doing some of them and yet we don't have hordes of people clamouring to ban mountain-climbing, or skydiving, or driving a car. The plain simple difference here is that there is an opportunity for some to jump on the bamdwagon in search of further increasing their own power.

If the most macho of men can be brought to heel, it's a clear sign that victory has been achieved for the career feminists: "Now stop being naughty, you boys." At which point Dad pipes up, saying "Listen to your mother".

The real irony is that the women's-libbing, bra-burning, affirmative-actioning, sexually-revolting 70's feminists have given rise to the New Wowsers of the 00's.

At times, the debate is polarised between two camps: those who think she asked for it and that's the end of the matter and those who think she was exploited. It could easily be that many of the views in the media have an element of truth in them.

OK, the girl is young and exuberant and naively thinks that she needs to get the affections of a high-profile league player. If she turned out becoming that player's wife, would anyone complain? No. That's probably the prize at the end of the rainbow she was looking for. However, she got more than she bargained for when the others came into the room – metaphorically, it's not the dog that's the problem, it's the flea on the back of the dog.

She bragged about her experiences to her friends over the next few days possibly trying to salvage something positive. When it became obvious that no one cared, she felt used and abused. The more she thought about it, the worse she felt until the pressure got so great that she had to speak out about it to relieve the pressure.

What has come out of this? She made a mistake and paid a high personal price and she reciprocally outed the bad ARL culture. That doesn't mean that because she asked for it originally, she wasn't abused and the bad culture doesn't exist. In fact, the clear-eyed will see that the episode just confirms it

Dear RobP,

Thank you so much for your
balanced comments.

Comparing your last post and that of
Antiseptic's -
(especially -his last sentence about
the bra-burning ... 1970s females...
etc...) has really confimed
the fact that sadly, not all men
are created equal...

I don’t really see how any imbecile editor or producer could let such a rabid and harmful invasion of privacy get to see the light of day. It is a mark of the breakdown of society as a whole, that private events like this are splashed all over the front pages of newspapers, and peoples lives are destroyed because of it.

There is a law against it. There is a serious stumbling block in the way of enforcing that law, and OLO readers should be asking for it to be abolished. The Federal Court sits without juries, which it shouldn’t, and it won't file controversial court cases which it also should. A Paper or TV Station should be prohibited from trying cases by newspaper of documentary, until after a trial has been conducted, because the Federal Court of Australia was obliged to sit with a jury. The jury would be influenced by the newspaper articles or TV, and no one can get a fair trial under those circumstances.

Two pieces of legislation stand in the way of justice, S 39Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules. Abolish those two scurrilous pieces of legislation, and the media would be the ones without their pants on, and their shirts too.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is law, but currently unenforceable, so the Parliament of the Commonwealth is just a paper tiger. Just imagine if it was you being damaged by a newspaper report of something that happened years ago. If the poor girl had a great preacher, she would have realized she would be forgiven in any event. There is too much emphasis on fear and revenge and not enough on love and forgiving

Foxy:"Comparing your last post and that of
Antiseptic's -
(especially -his last sentence about
the bra-burning ... 1970s females...
etc...) has really confimed
the fact that sadly, not all men
are created equal..."

Yes, mine was pretty good, wasn't it? I especially liked the "sexually-revolting" bit, didn't you? As I recall the 80's, the revolution was still in full swing, but it obviously passed you by.

You can go back to practising pursing your lips and saying "you boys wait till your father gets home" now...

Examinator; RobP; Maximillion - it was a pleasure to read your insightful posts. You restore my faith in humanity.

Foxy and Ginx - agree!

Well said all :)

Hollowbeak: still not grasping that consensual does not mean 'you/me-and the 5th Cavalry'.

Yabbs: 'not thinking straight'. That classically shows which one of us is not thinking straight.
__________________

"I am wondering why anyone, including me would respond to Ginx, a rudeness, willingness to insult and miss use names is always there." (Quote: TINKERBELLY)

Damned if I can figure that out Tinks! Same way I can't figure out a so-called Union guy with conservative views, and with such a low opinion of women! Or did you only represent men?

Now, Tinkerbelly: don't respond. It only encourages me.

( NB: I got that jibe because I disagree with you,....in a way that does not meet with your approval;...about what constitutes a victim. Tough mammies).

*That doesn't mean that because she asked for it originally, she wasn't abused and the bad culture doesn't exist. In fact, the clear-eyed will see that the episode just confirms it*

You and others miss the point completely, RobP. It is just your
own narrow opinion about what is "bad culture". If it is seemingly
that bad, then make it illegal. I am simply less judgemental and
more tolerant then you are.

Now look at this critical point. The night before this episode,
the girl took a couple of footballers to the toilets and knocked
em off there. If you, Foxy, or her mother, had pointed out that
it was not a good idea, she well may have laughed in your faces.

This is it with young people, they think they are invincible,
untill they learn otherwise. Why do you think they prang so
many cars below 25?

Cold hard reality is a fast way to learn about life, even if it
causes a bit of pain. Experiencing adversity teaches us how to
deal with it.

If we don't learn in our teens, sometimes we learn much later.
I've seen gullible public servants, who simply don't understand
the cold hard reality of the business world, lose their life
savings and retirement money, because they never learned these
things earlier in life.

Its a fact, sometimes we need a bit of pain to learn.
Mollycoddle and protect people from every adversity, as mothers
commonly try to do, and in the end they will fall so much harder,
when something really tragic happens in their lives.

"You and others miss the point completely, RobP. It is just your
own narrow opinion about what is "bad culture". If it is seemingly
that bad, then make it illegal. I am simply less judgemental and
more tolerant then you are."

Yabby,

Whaddya mean "the" point? You mean your point, don't you?

Seeing as though you choose to see things relatively, I'll rephrase bad culture as "less good" culture. Is it right that people who live by a higher or nobler culture are subjected to a less good culture and potentially dragged down? Because this is, in reality, what can happen in a gang-bang situation. At the very least, people can be made to feel uncomfortable. Agreed or not? If so, how can a "dragging down" be good in any way, shape or form

Rob, it's not a "culture" that I like. It does seem to debase people. One of the difficulties is that I see the same problems with other area's where most have realised that the harm done by attacking outweighs any benefits.

Two which come to mind are aspects of the gay movement and some of the issues around abortion. Much of what I've seen of the Mardi-gras and gay nightclub scene leave me very uncomfortable. In my own case I'm talking about the public spectactle not the bit about individuals and loving relationships but others would take that discomfort/sense of wrongness much further and have reasons which to them seem very valid.

I'm not personally comfortable with the use of abortion except in extreme situations. It raises a number of issues which concern me. Those have been canvassed far to often by too many for me to want to raise them again here.

Having said that I can also say that on both those issues I've reached the conclusion that the consequences of trying to limit people's freedom to choose far outweigh's any "good" that might come from such limitations. I've concluded that the consequences of villifying those who make choices which don't meet my own preferences or taste outweigh any betterment of society which might come from an attempt at social engineering.

I've recognised that many others who stand up for the rights of those who make such choices don't necessarily personally like those choices nor would they make the same choices if in the same situation.

There was probably an element of "being used" in this from both sides. The footballers used someone who was silly enough to mistake their fame and their fit bodies for something meaningful for a short term sexual pleasure. The woman used them for her own purposes (bragging rights, a brush with fame). Neither is noble or admirable.

The tyrany of intefering between adults consentual choices far outweighs any benefits which we might think come from trying to enforce "better" standards.

R0bert

Bravo R0bert! You have right!
Some people are interested only for their self, only for what they think is good.
For me progresive means every move, every step which tranfers power to people, to individuals, and limited the power from beaurocracy on individuals, withouht of cause the state to abolish its duties, its obligations to individuals, to its citizens, to protect their basic rights.
In undeveloped, undemocratic countries individuals, especialy women and young persons have very little power, very weak voice, if anything at all.
In developed, civilized, democratic countries individuals, the persons, the women or young etc have a voice, have some power, have a hope for a better future.
As we transfer more power to individuals, to women, to youngs, to migrants, to woprkers to ... we create a fairer, a happier society. Happier society means more democratic society, more tolerand soc iety, more opened society, with more understanding, acceptance, and diversity.
Today women or young persons have some power to promote their interests, to claim their rights.
About the sex women or young persons have the right to decide if, when, with who, and how to make sex.
The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14. According to Supreme Court of Canada the Clubs that allow group sex and partner swapping" do not harm Canadian society and should not be considered criminal"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/12/21/SCOC-swingers-051221.html
This is a victory for indiduals, a victory for men and women, a victory for young people.
No one can press anyone for sex but no one can block him/her if both parties agree for sex.
Unfortunatly there are some "progresives" who try to push our society backward, I think they are in the wrong side and if they continue their way, if they extent their way they will reach the... Victorian era or they will move parallel to the same direction with the Talibans!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Ah Ginx, thanks for confirming every thing I said about you.
And special thanks for confirming my often used quote unions there is a difference.
Aware some think brain dead leftys calling people comerade are unionists, but not me, not my members.
Conservative? not in this thread look at the rubbish in display, Maximillion is now calling it rape.
bleeding heart tales tell of being forced ,can any woman tell me they would not fight or scream if it was unwanted?
Would anyone so badly treated wait 5 days?
A quick search has found pages of information on other sports, has this debate heated up because its NRL?
is there ANY chance come be honest ANY chance this woman was unstable before the event?
Could that account for her sex romp in a toilet with 2 local footballers?
Are any women wrong in matters of sex or only men?
Some are jumping to huge conclusions here no basis for their charges has been given in media reports I have seen.

<"...can any woman tell me they would not fight or scream if it was unwanted? Would anyone so badly treated wait 5 days?">

Yes I can tell you that research bears out the fact that many people 'freeze' when they're in a threatening or painful situation.
Research has noted a passive acceptance while in a dissociative state especially amongst victims (female and male) who were victims of sexual asault as children. The explanatory theory is that they were taught very early in life that resistance brings more suffering; that when confronted with overwhelming power that compliance gets the event over with as fast as possible and avoids enraging the aggressor. Going somewhere else in their heads (ie: dissociation) during an assault is a learned survival technique.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/erlyons/dissociation.htm

Taking 5 days to report is not unusual; most people don't report at all.

<"is there ANY chance come be honest ANY chance this woman was unstable before the event?
Could that account for her sex romp in a toilet with 2 local footballers?">

Yes it's possible she, or any woman who engages in promiscuous behaviour, is already unstable. It's well established that people who have been abused or raped sometimes feel so worthless and despised that they reenact the punishment to themselves over and over again with disinhibited behaviour.

Surely the footballers would have a clue that some of the women who vie for their attentions MIGHT be unstable. In which case they shouldn't be taking advantage of that. Certainly it seems they have met enough such women that they should be able to discern which is which. They could do so much good by kindly declining any opportunity to reenact abuse; by letting the peron know that they can be regarded as valuable for something other than their genitals.

In any case men who are desperate enough to take sex anywhere they can get it need to understand and take responsibiity for the consequences they may bring on themselves by engaging in reenactment with someone unstable.

“bleeding heart tales tell of being forced ,can any woman tell me they would not fight or scream if it was unwanted? Would anyone so badly treated wait 5 days?”

I have been in MC clubs when this stuff goes down Belly, I have seen the stupid girls who think they will control what happens.

The control they think they have is in their bravado.

They don’t know what is about to happen, the men do, they’ve done it before.

They girl will tell you about it with a smile on her face a few days later. Maybe after awhile they can retell it without the shame but I never found one again.

The men will tell the story over beer right up until another stupid girl comes along.

But I do know what happens to the ones that fight, I think they figure it out too, they choose flight with nowhere to go.

*Surely the footballers would have a clue that some of the women who vie for their attentions MIGHT be unstable. In which case they shouldn't be taking advantage of that.*

Says Pynchme the intellectual. It seems to me Pynchme, that you
should know more about young, tesosterone loaded footballers :)

Alot of these guys are not exactly Rhodes scholars you know.
Rugby is no game for sensitive petals either. Alot of these
guys are 19-20, so as naive about the world as young girls.
Alot of those girls are fairly drunk, so are the blokes,
so I think your chances deep intellectual contemplation are
frankly peeing in the breeze and unrealistic.

RobP, Robert answered my point for me. If you think that
I should become intolerant of all those things that I don't
personally practise, or think leads to a more "noble culture",
the world would become a pretty sad place. We have seen
enough of that in history, with all the disasters that
followed.

So the one thing that I am intolerant of, is the intolerant.

Like I always say, I don't care if you swing by your testicles
from your chandelier, as long as both are yours and not mine :)

.

Pynchme
Is not it strange that a person with this kind of problems, with so big fear, one time had sex with two in the toiletes and next time with more persons?
If " dissociation tends to be not well recognised or understood (even by mental health professionals)" then how can you expect from the men to understand that she had a problem?
What will happen if every person first agree for sex and later claim that had dissociation problem which even the mental health professionals can not understand?
Do not you think that with these stories you are converting the sex to a DRACUMEN?
Do not you think that you are trying to convert a simple, clear, legal, group sex to a crime?
Do not you know that any one must agree for the sex before it happened and not days later?
If she feeled bad after the sex this is an other story, I understand it but she can not blame any one else EXCEPT FROM HER SELF.
We can not victimize innocent people because one part change mind or try to benefit from it with any way or because she had a problem which even specialists can not recognize.
We must be responsible and think for the consiquenses of our writings.
WE HAD A LEGAL GROUP SEX, WHERE ONE PERSON FOR UNKNOWN REASONS LATER CHANGED MIND ABOUT IT.
This happened every day, everywhere and we can not blame anyone for it!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hi Antonios,

Thanks for obviously taking the time to consider what I posted.

I agree with you. Prior trauma doesn't make current sexual choices
illegal - where there is a choice, that is.

However, the woman in this situation was bing villified because she didn't put up a fight; as well as because she went to the poice days later. I was simply illuminating why those things occur and that they don't indicate any dishonest motive.

Another point to be made is that Matthew Johns said he apologized to her in the car park for the other men coming and joining in. That means that she didn't know what was going to happen. It also means that he didn't help by telling the team - he was leader too wasn't he? - to bugger off. He just left her to fend for herself with crowd of hyped up young men. I would like to know how they knew to go into the room and participate. Was the whole thing a set up? Was Mattew Johns actually procuring for his team?

Also, much is being made of claims that she bonked a couple of blokes the day before or something - so wht? Is anyone holding THEM acountable for being sluts the day before ? (no) Prior behaviour is of no significance; though a smart man would weigh up the odds of whether it's wise to engage in that sort of behaviour with someone who might be unstable.

Lastly, if women, like this one, are expected to be discerning in their sexual encounters, then why not men? The testosterone excuse just doesn't wash. There are plenty of circumtances in which men control their sexual impulses. Therefore, they can be held responsible for their choices.

Dear Antiseptic,

Just to set the record straight again, for you:

I do not purse my lips - ever. I've got some
very bad memories of a mathematics teacher
that had a habit of doing that - he was
an extremely narrow-minded, frustrated, lonely
old man - who took out his revenge on his young
female students. Sound familiar?

And I have never, ever told any of my children,
"Wait till your father gets home," when it came
to punishment. Simply because I think that is
psychologically a bad thing to do.

A child can
understand very well when you give him a slap in
anger. He knows you're mad at him and he understands
why. What a child cannot understand is when he disobeys
his mother at 10am and she tells him, as you suggest,
"Wait till your father gets home." Then when dad arrives
home he's expected to administer a spanking which will
"really teach the boy a lesson."

That's the kind of cold-blooded spanking a child can't
either understand or forgive.

I hope this information helps clarify some things for
you. If you'd like to learn more about
parenting - I'm sure your local library can help.

"If you think that I should become intolerant of all those things that I don't personally practise, or think leads to a more "noble culture", the world would become a pretty sad place."

Yabby,

When have I ever said what you should do? Somehow or other you've taken it as a personal attack. Either that or you're spoiling for a fight. It's my view that the gang-bang culture is not a good one - that's basically all I've said. You've got a bit of a tendency to verbal people which I'm starting to take a dislike to. It's a pre-emptive strike that I've seen before from some of the intelligensia and I don't think is warranted in this instance.

Now you answer the question - does an unwelcome sexual advance on a woman who has not given direct consent potentially result in a degradation of her? A yes or no will suffice.

I'll give you a hint - even if one of the group has lascivious intent and the others do not, it is still a bad act. What's the odds that a whole row of modern-day rugby players will be pure as the driven snow in terms of their intent? Two-thirds of three-fifths of sod all I'd suggest.

RobP, if your previous post was interpreted differently to how
you meant it, I was not the only one to do so. Robert and Antonios
seemingly did the same, for they responded in a similar fashion
as I did.

*A yes or no will suffice.*

Ah I seldom answer yes or no, for life is full of shades of grey.
It depends on the situation. In the case of Clare, what we know is
that she did in fact do some choosing, rejecting one fellow. She
was simply very surprised that after having closed her eyes, when
she opened them, there was a queue.

From her persective, it was seemingly surprise at the time. From a football
players perspective, if all this happens regularly, the mind
works by association, they would think it was just another willing
footy chick. Alot of these guys don't think deeply about life
and psychology, as some OLO posters do. Expecting them to, is
also quite unreasonable. Try and see the world through their eyes,
not your eyes.

Players seemingly do understand the word rape and the 6 years in
jail that could be involved. No wonder they are becoming careful
and are actually videoing chicks giving consent now, with their
mobiles.

The intent of the players is quite simple, they want to get their
rocks off. The intent of the girls is seemingly to knock of their
hero footballers. Those players have the same intent as most young
guys down at the pubs, most Saturday nights.

Ok, I'm out of posts for a while.

Yabby
Did I tell you that I did not like you because you was hard with poor people? Now I told you!
But now I want to tell you that you was VERY GOOD in this thread and you have promoted the interests of young people.
YES Yabby IN THIS THREAD WE DID NOT FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS ON THE SEX, (I AM ABOUT 60 YEARS OLD), BUT FOR YOUNG'S RIGHTS.
Let's leave our young people free to enjoy their life and trust and respect them AND SUPPORT THEM, IF THEY NEED OUR SUPPORT, WITHOUHT TO HUMILIATE THEM.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Rarely do I give evidence on behalf of the other side of a debate.
But every one in this thread should read this mornings story in the Sydney morning Heralds online edition.
It changes nothing for me,I still think Mathew Johns climbed in no window, had by invited sex, refused more.
But the club behind it? dead surely.
My game, not my team, on the record a clear enemy of my team.
We play this Saturday night, ex players from my team often go to them, we will win.
But if ever a club needed to tip management, bar some idiot supporters and let the fans run the club now is the time to save this club.
I have been honest in presenting this story, but I know for sure some are unwilling to understand Johns is no demon no idiot just an Aussie bloke doing what we did.
Yes young and fit its natural to have sex.
I grin every time we see the fragil female line, we all know women grow up faster than men.
We do know the sex drive is universal both sex,s want it both get it wrong, but in who,s mind is what wrong?
This girl asked for sex bragged about it, she may be no better than Johns and no worse.
Sharks fans? its your club in your hands or dead.

Antonios, well said.

Belly, I share your disgust at the Cronulla club's management. Of course, the New Wowsers are going to jump on the bandwagon to try to paint this as somehow representative of all League players, which as we know, it isn't. It's representative of what happens when you let a bunch of people with no talent but lots of connections get control of an organisation that has potentially got rivers of money flowing through it. They stuff it up...

It should be remembered, however, that this was an incident involving the Leagues CLUB, not the NRL-franchised team. The club is a separate entity whose business is entertainment and gambling. Unfortunately, when the New Wowsers get on to it, they'll act as though the entire team lined up to punch this poor woman and call for a mass lynching. It's become very clear that the grrrls in the media are feeling their oats and won't be happy till someone's been given a really good kicking.

Does anyone else find it intriguing that there has been almost no political comment on the Johns matter, with only a couple of second-raters in Goward and Ellis having much to say? The PM was extremely low-key, for him, which tends to indicate that the political spin-doctors knew this was going to be a witchhunt with no clear right or wrong, but merely some victims to be sacrificed on the altar of wowserism.

At least it shows that our PM has some clever people around him. Shame about Four Corners: they used to attract good people too.

Miranda Devine seems to be sniffing which way the wind's blowing. I often disagree with her views, but not this time. From the SMH :

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/natural-men-scolded-into-timidity-20090520-bfn3.html?page=-1

I quote Miranda:

"The attacks on former Footy Show star Matthew Johns, rugby league and men in general - branding them as dangerous predatory brutes who need to be chained, scolded and nagged into submission - have gone too far."

and

"You always know when zealotry creeps into a story there is another agenda at work - and that is that the Johns case is a beachhead in the war against masculinity, waged by those who think the only difference between men and women is cultural."

and

"In the end, men's drives aren't all violent and predatory. Most have a deep, possibly hard-wired, desire to be noble and chivalrous. That's why in situations such as the Port Arthur massacre, so many men died shielding their wives or women around them."

and

"decades of androgynous feminism have stamped on chivalry, deriding men who opened doors or stood back for women as being sexist and patronising.

It would have been better for women if feminism had appealed to men's better natures."

Couldn't have said it better. I recommend the article to the House...

Dear Antiseptic,

You quoted something about feminism
"deriding opening doors..." for women,
as patronising et cetera.

Well, think about it - instead of
just hopping onto the bandwagon,
(anything anti-feminine).

On the surface it seems no more than a
courtesy, however the ceremony helps
underscore existing patterns of inequality -
which is one reason why a woman who opened
doors for men would draw reactions of
discomfort rather than gratitude.

Just as interesting is the question of WHY
men open doors for women is the question
WHICH doors they open for women: certainly
not the symbolic doors that lead to positions of
power, wealth, and influence.

So, there's always two ways (at least) of looking
at things - as this thread is proving.

Perhaps one thing we can all agree on however -
and that is that exposure of this latest NRL
scandal should make young women, flirting with fame,
increasingly aware of the risks involved, which might
help keep a few of them safe.

Even though NRL boss David Gallop has apologised for the
"appalling and unacceptable behaviour" of some NRL
players towards women - I think that the players won't
care for Gallop (an authoritarian figure), within their
enclaves, these young men feel invincible - until they
find out otherwise.

But at least the issue is being discussed - and is out of
the closet as one reporter observed.

Gentlemen, you can go on arguing about this topic.

I'm moving on ... and Antiseptic - I don't know why
you keep on about "feminism," that was my mother's era -
and so yesterday - you seem to be mentally stuck in
the 60s - move on ... unpack the baggage
you're carrying - enough already!

"RobP, if your previous post was interpreted differently to how
you meant it, I was not the only one to do so."

Translated: as you're part of the majority here, you must be OK (which is exactly what I'm fighting against on this occasion). The point of my posts was not to stand up for those who voluntarily agree to engage in group behaviour, it's for those who get caught up in it and who do not want or deserve it - by the 50% rule, that's half the population. In today's news is described an outing of the culture of secrecy in Ireland where young people were humiliated, beaten and sometimes worse in the "care" of authorities in the past. If everyone was like you, this sort of stuff would never have been outed. Now I fully get your point that the doyennes of the feminist clergy are using the situation to push their own barrows. However opportunistic they are, that still doesn't change the fact that some unsavoury incidents occur and there's no way of changing that until the bad behaviour is exposed.

Foxy, you echo my thoughts when you said: "So, there's always two ways (at least) of looking at things - as this thread is proving." The problem is that there are potentially a multitude of reasonable ways of looking at things. The problem is not that people are not serious about their views, but that one man's meat is another's poison.

Now, what we're really missing here is what the silent majority think about all of this. I can't help thinking that most Australians do not like the excessive behaviour, but are busy keeping their heads down. If enough of them spoke up and acted, the problem could be solved relatively quickly. There would be a reversal in peer group pressure that would similarly reverse some of the bad prevailing cultures. But I suppose if that happened, they would be accused of being stooges for the Church or something.

The moral of the story: You can never win when ya fight all by yourself.

“Now, what we're really missing here is what the silent majority think about all of this. I can't help thinking that most Australians do not like the excessive behaviour, but are busy keeping their heads down. If enough of them spoke up and acted, the problem could be solved relatively quickly. There would be a reversal in peer group pressure that would similarly reverse some of the bad prevailing cultures.”

This is simple RobP, it must begin (like all things) with children. More people, with brains and ethics intact, to foster children and take an interest in all children.

You teach them, they pass it on. But most people would be too busy or cannot stop earning what they earn to do this.

It isn’t a very exciting concept but if everyone started paying attention to the children, their rights, how they are doing, maybe a difference would be made by the grown ups taking this sudden interest in what all the little Aussie kids are learning, how they’re coping.

"Another point to be made is that Matthew Johns said he apologized to her in the car park for the other men coming and joining in. That means that she didn't know what was going to happen. It also means that he didn't help by telling the team - he was leader too wasn't he? - to bugger off. He just left her to fend for herself with crowd of hyped up young men. I would like to know how they knew to go into the room and participate." (Quote: Pynchme).

That is pivotal to this incident. Absolutely pivotal.

But it will be dismissed or distorted-more of the same.

Me? I've only just got started on this topic.

(And Tinkerbelly; take your own advice;-don't respond! Especially not with stuff about comerades (sic). A bit of a waffle..).

1 server error.
2 server error.

Antonious, thanks for your comment. Yes on this matter, we largely
agree. On other subjects, we might agree to disagree.

I don't get emotionally involved to the point where I love or hate
OLO posters. Some, like Pericles, I respect for their sheer ability
to think rationally. OLO is worth reading, simply for the occasional
gem that appears, from all sorts of posters. Sometimes it lets me
examine things from another perspective, which is always a good
thing.

*Translated: as you're part of the majority here, you must be OK*

No RobP, translated: perhaps if you had made your point more
clearly, there would not be a misunderstanding by so many other
posters.

*it's for those who get caught up in it and who do not want or deserve it - by the 50% rule, that's half the population.*

Perhaps I am just not smart enough to understand your point, RobP.

Nobody forces anyone into groupsex. If they do, they will land up
in jail. But people should also use sound judgement in their lives.
If I was a young and cute teenager, who went to a bar where
footballers hang out, flashed my breasts at them and invited a
couple of them into the toilets, I should not be amazed if things
get out of hand. Nobody is forcing anyone to go to a pub and hang
out with footballers, so how does it affect those people in the
community?

Why don't you just come clean, or perhaps explain to a simple
minded fellow like me, if what you really would like is just
to have groupsex banned altogether, as it is seemingly
"dragging down the culture".

"*it's for those who get caught up in it and who do not want or deserve it - by the 50% rule, that's half the population.*"

Yabby,

Yes, I should have been clearer and said something like: "by the 50% rule, half the population is potentially susceptible to being dragged down or degraded by the antics of a few." In other words, it could easily happen to anyone in half the population.

"Nobody forces anyone into groupsex. If they do, they will land up in jail."

How can you be so sure? In order to get the perpetrators in jail, one needs to have the courage and platform to first stand up against it, support from the political, police and judicial authorities as well as overwhelming evidence. That's a pretty rare combination to get in practice.

You, after all, were the one who said that the Law of the Jungle operates out there. Does the Law of the Jungle ever stop to see how the victim is faring afterwards? Does it even recognise victimhood? Never. Given that, how can you say it never happens. Apart from the few involved in it, who'd ever know it was going on?

Blind Freddy can see that you've got your freight train and you're sticking with it no matter what.

To answer your question, I do think that the group sex culture has to go. But it won't be me that does it. It will be a few administrators, sponsors, journalists, commentators etc that have some input on the subject and it will happen in its own way and it's own time. So, yeah, it will happen, but just not in a way that anyone thinks it will.

2 posters make claim to speak on behalf of the silent majority, now that is stretching things is,is it not? We all feel our views are the right ones, but the wise umung us know we sometimes get it wrong.
The true unwise claim far too often that those who think differently to them are wrong.
But to put words in the mouth of the silent majority to back up your views?
ROFL!
again words will not restore this woman,s virginity, she lost that before this event, she bragged about her intentions, later about carrying them out.
Yet total blame, is layed at the door of a bloke who knocked her back for more sex.
Just maybe some of the silent majority are laying low in the hope their teenage sex never comes out, people have sex outside relationships and outside rules others make.

*How can you be so sure? *

RobP, if people arn't being locked up for rape, then that is the
first thing that needs fixing! Having laws is not much good,
if they are not enforced. Fact is we know of plenty of people
being locked up for rape, even the 30 second rapist. We also
know that some were locked up when they were not guilty, so
a fair system needs to be in place.

The law of the jungle is more about genetics. Think about it,
the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years or so, trying to get
its priests to only have pure thoughts. They have failed
miserably for 2000 years, for people are clearly sexual creatures
by nature.

*To answer your question, I do think that the group sex culture has to go.*

That does not really answer my question. Yes it will go underground
in football, the sponsors will see to that. Just today the Sharks
lost another 700k in sponsorship from LG.

There is however groupsex going on at all sorts of levels of society,
from wild swinger clubs to cricket teams etc. If you are against
groupsex for NRL players, then do you think that all groupsex for
all people should officially be banned by law? I'm just trying to
get to the point where we clearly understand each other and our
positions on this, so that there are no confusions.

Ginx
When the girl asked to have sex with the team she said ok to all men except from one man , The UGLY one!
I do not care for the girl or the rest from the team because they was adults and they agreed for the sex and they took what they wanted
I ONLY think for the "UGLY" man, who was rejected!
Ginx can you imagine him?
For him was realy a BIG problem!
If he takes to the court the rest of the team I will understand and support him!
He was the real victim!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"There is however groupsex going on at all sorts of levels of society,
from wild swinger clubs to cricket teams etc. If you are against
groupsex for NRL players, then do you think that all groupsex for
all people should officially be banned by law?"

Yabby, I think the group sex thing needs to ultimately go from everywhere. But the realist in me says that there are limits to what any one approach can achieve. I'd say that the law is limited only to wherever a spotlight can be shone and where there is a social benefit in doing it. There are still some places where the spotlight can't be shone and there's always going to be some subjectivity in terms of where to draw the line between good and bad activity.

I know what you are getting at: that the law will be twisted around and used against those that have done nothing or little wrong. Point taken. What I'll say is that the situation needs to be scrutinised to see that the bad behaviour doesn't pop out and threaten healthy activities in society. Once it does, the authorities should use carte blanche to crack down on the worst of it IMO.

Belly, you may roll around on the floor laughing. Don't hurt yourself now.

*Yabby, I think the group sex thing needs to ultimately go from everywhere*

RobP, fair enough, if I understand you correctly, in your ideal
world you would ban group sex. What else would you ban?
Gay sex? Lesbian sex? Sex between unmarried people?

I don't have a problem agreeing to disagree with people.

What I am trying to establish is what your values are and
why. I haven't read enough of your posts, so I really
don't know.

Antonios and varius others; have any of you acually seen the show or read anything about it before condemning this woman??

Please note - TWO players and APOLOGY -

Lateline transcript:

<"ADRIAN RASCHELLA: Last night, ‘Four Corners’ detailed two sexual encounters, one of them involving Matthew Johns. In 2002, a woman known only as 'Clare' went to a Christchurch hotel with two Cronulla Sharks players. She said it turned into a degrading group sex session with six players and another six watching on.

'CLARE': If I had a gun I'd shoot them right now. I hate them. They disgust me. I want them dead. I hate them so much.

ADRIAN RASCHELLA: Matthew Johns and Brett Firman were first to have sex with the then 19-year-old. Four Corners says Firman told the program she was, "Up for it 100 per cent." Johns said he apologised to her in the car park for the others coming into the room.">

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2568678.htm

This young player is the same age that Claire was at the time - 19; well actually he's 20. If we can feel sympathy for his youthful faux-pas (and I do) - that he's receiving COUNSELLING for, why can't the same kindness be extended to her?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25474132-5001023,00.html

- and here are some further clarifications. Could people claiming that she would be all cashed up please take note:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2575275.htm

Damned Taliban.

<"Two months ago, after we had begun researching a story on Rugby League, one of the members of the Cronulla Sharks tour to New Zealand told Four Corners about the events in Christchurch. Through our research we found Clare and asked her to take part in a program looking at off-field incidents in the NRL, attitudes to women in the culture of the game and the possibility for change. On that basis and knowing there were other women also speaking out, she agreed.">

One of the Sharks blabbed about it first to 4C, not Claire. She declined media offers to talk about it then, has not been paid for the interview and has asked that the media leave her alone now.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2575275.htm

As to "group sex" <- implies an equal balance of power; is that the same as a gang bang?

As to whether it's something we should say is AOK; if some of the men here STILL claim that she was freely consenting to 'group sex', then the fact that she has been diagnosed as PTSD and been suicidal since tells us that the consequences are negative. Therefore the activity is socially undesirable.

One Under God: Just wanted you to know that I appreciated your posts -your insights and compassion.

I've seen peeps write that your posts are hard to understand; I don't find them hard to read and I enjoy a novel style. Don't change :)

Antonios:

You were saying that players/men/whomever can't be expected to work out whether a groupie is emotionally or psychologcaly damaged before they bonk her, and you referred to mental health professionals having a hard time diagnosing PTSD. That's true; trauma work is a somewhat specialized area amongst the MH professions. However, the finer points of diagnosis are not what is being proposed; they don't need to differentiate between PTSD and personality disorder. However, th possibility should make them VERY wary. I don't see why they can't b expected to be more discerning about the people they choose to bonk.

Maybe developing a relationship with a woman before agreeing to sex would be one path they could choose; as a way of getting to know whether the person is stable and as a way of protecting themselves against unwarranted charges. (I am not referring to Claire's case; but to casual sex generally and especially group sex).

The transcript states that, "One player told police that at least one of them had climbed in through the bathroom window and crawled commando-style along the floor of the room."

It was one of the players who told police that someone climbed through a window, not Claire.

I mention this because she has been claimed to be a liar by a media story stating that someone who claimed to work at the establishment said it wouldn't be possible to climb in a window. I wonder how many of the current interviewees have been paid for their 2 cents?

Also, "The manager of the hotel in Christchurch, Clare’s boss Keith Burgess, said that Clare was “a stable person” and “the last person to be involved in that kind of thing.” Clare says she doesn’t know the owner of the hotel who has recently made derogatory remarks about her."

Matthew Johns said that the worst possible outcome of the story would be for people to go after the girl.

Now put your stones down.

Ah there you go Pychme, four posts in a row, you got it all off
your chest and should feel better now.

Sadly I don't think you have yet read what has been posted so
far on this thread, but never mind.

*Therefore the activity is socially undesirable.*

People get killed skydiving, rock climbing and skiing. Do we call
them socially undesirable sports?

Clare is in fact receiving weekly payments for her trauma, did you
read the link that I posted? She has an ulterior motive in all this.

But your posts have revealed something else to me, ie why these
problems occur in the first place. You think that blokes should
see the world through your eyes and think like a girl thinks.
You can't understand that they don't. Now let me tell you that
the flight or fight response of a rugby player is quite different
to yours and he probably assumes that you see the world as he
sees the world. For that kind of bloke, yes means yes and no means
no. A crowd of mates is not uneven power, but friends. His perception
of the world is quite different to your perception. That is
the core of it really.

Bob Ellis made a valid point tonight on Q&A. If girls are seemingly
not yet ready at 19 to be responsible for their own actions, perhaps
they should change the age of consent.

The reason that some of us have continued to debate this topic
is because we are sick of OLO girls club going on about women
the victims. What about women being responsible for their actions?

Group sex, exists, but we are told in the last few posts it should not?
Even told police should crack down on it, no wonder I roll on the floor laughing.
Lets ask why? it seems the informant was a well know great footballer and nice bloke,a total Christian.
Our posters thinking the act was dirty surely use Christian standards to come to that conclusion?
Is that the Christian moral basis that let Catholic churchmen and nuns rape both sexs in their care?
And do not forget the church of my birth church of England.
We know do we not? church,s preach one thing and practice another.
Consensual sex, willing sex is none of our business.
The showing of news clips about this is of no use if the clips that tell of other sex acts like the toilet with other footballers is left out.
Or the word of Clare is taken but not several of her workmates, sorry but its clearly a witch hunt.
It ,group sex takes place every day ,if it was in mid day on the Sydney harbor bridge ,20 men one unkown female the headlines would be a one day event.
Sex? let my christian freinds who are without sin throw the first stone.
At my age I have no time to intrude into others sex lives.

Belly:"Group sex, exists, but we are told in the last few posts it should not?"

The New Wowsers don't much like the idea of sex even in the missionary position with the lights out and the door locked, let alone when several people are involved.

Pynchme, well done you! A veritable explosive regurgitation of the Party line and not a single independent thought expressed. A new peak!

Pynchme
I do not condemn the woman for the sex! It was her choice and she is adult and she have full right to do what she did. I understand and support her!
It is not first not the last time that men or women after the sex feel bad or have huge problems.
I understand the women and her desire to leave her alone.
I am afraid that the big publicity has created problems to the girl.
If we did not blame the group sex as something terible wrong the situation for all persons could be many times better.
All this publicity all this rubish about the group sex created a huge press on the girl.
PERSONALY I BELIEVE THAT PRIVATE ISSUES AS THE SEX, WHEN THERE IS NOTHING ILEGAL, SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH.
You write "However, th possibility should make them VERY wary"
Do you mean NO SEX before we have a cerficate from a specialist that the other side, man or woman has no problem?
Do you mean no sex if we do not know a person for long time?
It is like you try to tell us to follow catholic church or muslims about the sex.
I did not tell that I like this kind of sex but I SUPPORT PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO DO THE SEX THEY WANT IF THEY ARE ADULTS, ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Pynchme, we have here a personal problem, of cause the group sex but we could not allow ourself to damage BASIC RIGHTS ON THE SEX of cause this problem.
I unterstand the problem, I feel sorry for the girl BUT we can not blame the men for a problem which was difficult to recocnize AND most important NOT TO LIMITE OR VIOLATE THE SEX RIGHTS, BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, OF CAUSE THIS PROBLEM.
As you can understand MY main interests are for the SEX rights.
If you are not a religious extremist, then be carefull because this personal problem could damage the SEX rights.
Please try to understand what I say and why I say it.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

This was nothing short of a “gang bang”, in fact if I had to describe one (oh I think I did earlier) that is exactly how one looks Pynchme. Thank you for the links.

ASymeonakis, do we know if the “ugly one” is getting counseling? Compensation? Poor bugger.

If a group of rock climbers got together and acted like this repeatedly over time it would call attention and they would be viewed with suspicion. But if the team was admired by the public for their climbing skills and lots and lots of good ol’ Aussie blokes supported EVERYTHING they did – they would just keep on doing it.

Wouldn’t matter what their mummy’s taught them growing up, being one of the team “gang” and that pressure takes over.

The only way to keep a conversation going, and online that is important, is to debate something. I think over time it gets to be impulse to argue like on a debate team, you might not agree but you get in there and back one side anyway. I think you boys understand this stuff but don’t let that get in the way of a nice long discussion.

Your NRL (what is AFL?) boys are badly behaved, always have been.

Did anyone see on the news the other night about how they get lessons in treating people?

One young dude of whichever team goes “yeah they should have thanked her and put her in a taxi”. I cracked up laughing, much better than the feeling of horror that was about to take over my emotions.

The bottom line in this is that a wave of bad behaviour has steadily built up over a period of time in the ARL fraternity and it finally preyed upon a person who at least partly didn't want or deserve it. Because she had the balls to stand up to it, she received support from others who wanted to help her. To that extent, what's happened is completely fair enough.

Now that the ARL have received a reciprocal bollicking in kind, the worst offenders and their supporters are squealing like stuck pigs. I've got to say that Matthew Johns has handled himself pretty well in the episode but maybe only because he's seen up close what effect it's had on his own wife. There's another problem exposed - people often only take things seriously when it affects them - they don't in the first instance worry about the effect on the other party. So many problems could be averted if they did.

The problem with the open-ended frolics that go on in the ARL and elsewhere, is that the only way it'll ever stop is when someone or something stops it. This is now happening as sponsors see that their once rock-solid investment in the ARL is looking shaky. Once the shake-out is completed and the dust clears, the law may have a role in punishing some of the most incalcitrant or nasty offenders that emerge.

May the process continue.

Jewely, the point about the rock-climbing example was that it is a risky activity that sometimes has bad outcomes. In other words it is analogous to the "sport" that some women have with footballers and other groups of men.

As Miranda Devine said, "the Johns case is a beachhead in the war against masculinity, waged by those who think the only difference between men and women is cultural."

Yes, footballers have always behaved badly - young men often do, yet there is no shortage of young (and older) women willing to participate in their bad behaviour. Are those women all under the fiendish mind-control influence of these often rather dimwitted young men? Don't girls talk to each other? My guess is that they do and what they say is "footballers have great bodies and simple minds and love sex, so if you want a great shag, find a footballer", which sort of gives the lie to the whole "footballers are all sexually deviant thugs" thing.

Hmm... I must confess to not knowing a lot about females. I am very much a mummy and housewife and my passion is caring for children so you would think me all sugar and spice.

Thing is, grew up helping on relatives farms. Left home at 17 years old and was flatting in a large house with 8 men (19 – 28 years old) and the only female there. When not at home with “those” men (big mix) I hung out with bikers (they had Harleys and bantams etc) wore leathers, they were a gang even if they called themselves a MC.

I was so entrenched in men that I did have a huge amount of control, I could see the girls that wondered in and out had none. I never heard the “girl talk”. But I was witness to how men treat them, what they do to them.

Even young I had mummy status, I looked after them, fed them, give them a sound telling off and they found me funny, I joked a lot and they liked me telling jokes. This meant I had complete protection from other males. But yes, gawd some of them were stupid and if really dumb the other men would treat them quite badly.

This is a group of big tough men who are mean to others and treat females badly – any with wives and children, wives and kids weren’t invited to the pad.

But no, the females stayed away from me. I got pregnant and would not even acknowledge any of these boys on the street every again.
This was done easily, men in groups are dangerous and no child of mine was going to be allowed near them.

You want to know about the Maori gangs – they go blasting in to another gangs pad… they have their kids around them often… kids get picked up and thrown against walls. Individuals, can be lovely guys.

I wish I could write like some of you people on here, I think my messages would be clearer, without blithering.

Pynchme,

God help us from the blue rinse brigade who think sex is for procreation and enjoyment is a sin. Anything other than the missionary position is socially unacceptable, and foreplay consists of "brace yourself shiela"

We don't burn gays at the stake and unfaithful wives are no longer stoned.

We are supposed to be in an age of tolerance, not of tolerance only for what is deemed socially acceptable by the self proclaimed "moral" minority.

I personally will boycott the footy show until Johns is returned, not because I think he is wonderful, but I am disgusted with the lack of backbone of the program managers.

"Ginx
When the girl asked to have sex with the team she said OK to all men except from one man , The UGLY one!" (Quote: Antonios)
_________

Did she now?? The plot thickens...

1) She did nothing of the kind.

2) Now we get to the 3-ring circus:...Antonios, are you seriously suggesting that 'the ugly one' has a legal case because she discriminated against him?!?!?

....okkkkkkk....

I look forward with eager anticipation to that court case!!
___________________

'2 posters make claim on behalf of the silent majority'!

Do they? Where? where?

Just the two, Tinks? THAT'S what that comment was designed to show. Just two. Awwww...just two..
___________________

Over to you. Little macho muffins.

Ginx
I thought you know me! I am tired from this simple, clear, legal, event, group sex!
We started with a simple story where both parties agreed for the sex and now we speak for a difficult to recognize mental problem.
It was an innocent joke!

Jewely
You wrote "ASymeonakis, do we know if the “ugly one” is getting counseling? Compensation? Poor bugger."
I knew from your first writting that there was a little problem with you and I wrote to you that you are "walking on a slipery ground" Today I learned that you had some very bad experiences in your life. I am very sorry.
You missunderstand me I try to protect the very basic human rights because we have problem with them and every time we have a problem some grabs the opportunity to violate them.
About the "Ugly" man I supposed you understand that it was a simple, innocent joke and of cause a reminder that the 19 years old woman had full control on her acts, Come you go ok, you too, No! You Go!
You understand what I say do not you?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

How come? some females think good manners are only for men?
Ginx often uses her words to flog men, even insulting terms like tinker?
Hardly fits but needlessly rude, compare her insults.
Yes I know better, I took the bait ...........again.
But try Ginx to understand, on the evdence in your posts your self confidence is miss placed.
Yes our fair lady did knock back the ugly bloke, love to know who he is, then invited[read the reports] Johns back.
Why skip around the sex of days before?
The bragging?, the warning she intended to do just what she did bonk that team.
Never get her in the record books, it happens every day.
Every sport , in places young gather and not so young.
Get the boots on Ginx, its expected of you but I will retreat and not answer again.
Strange but true last weekend a rash of women trying to get into NRL [that,s what its called ARL is the international game] dressing sheds.
They will need a tank from now on .

Hello Antonios, Yes I got the joke about the ugly one. I am also getting that basic human rights are missing in this country, maybe they were missing back in NZ just the same but I was seeing things differently then.

I think I was witness to a lot of other people’s bad experiences. I used to try and tell these girls to go, I tired many different ways to tell them to leave, the men are watching you, stop flirting, the boys are getting too drunk now.

We (I am 41) were raised as girls and taught about rights and women’s lib and that we can get what we want. Our working mothers did not teach us about boys/men in groups - just about how we are all equal now.

They taught us what a crime rape is – they forgot to say not to be stupid and wear short skirts while walking down dark alleys. I do blame mothers, and their mothers.

Gosh was a long time ago now… but no, then and now I don’t see a 19 year old as a “woman”. Maybe a100 years ago at 19 they had better maturity, not the last few generations. The last few with men and women are all confused.

Pynchme
it seemes that you have a problem with the " casual sex generally and especially group sex"
Probably I have bigger problem with this kind of sex than you.
BUT what You or Me believe about these kinds of sex is one story, our personal story and what other people believe and what are the human rights for the sex it is an other story.
Because you or me do not like the group sex it does not give us the right to try to block other people for group sex, OR TO TRY TO SCARE THEM FOR THE CASUAL OR GROUP SEX.
Today a huge part in our society are singles, men or women, their sex relations are casual in high degree, if we said them "Be carefull in the other side there are many with mental problems which it is difficult to recocnize then we create A HUGE SOCIAL PROBLEM PLUS WE OPEN THE DOORS FOR VIOLATION OF THE SEX RIGHTS.
Do you understand me Pynchme?

Ginx
It was a joke only the following "If he( Ugly man) takes to the court the rest of the team I will understand and support him! He was the real victim!"
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

As we stumbe towards the end of this thread may I ask?
Why has the word rape found its way into this thread?
And why have some female contributors failed to address the questions in my last post?
I refuse to believe some think 19 years old is not adult.
Try telling your 15 year old daughter she is not grown up.
Remember the invited sex, the bragged about conquests and intent to bonk a team.
It seems some look for the worst not the facts.
Yes if females did not want sex then its rape, even the so called victim did not say it was rape, did she?
Laws based on sexual wish based on what Churchs view of our bedroom have always failed, homosexuals suffered badly [yes I understand some think its ugly but it is none of our business]
Groupies, heard how many mothers tell their children one of the Beatles is their father? after just short stay in Sydney its a fact they exist groupies in all walks of life and sex is the result often group sex.
Way back up the thread I said a person looking for sex based problems would find the thread interesting, even I see signs some do not want to live in the world as it is.

Belly baby a gang bang is rape. I believe it was a gang bang. How it started doesn’t matter to me.

Her personality and stupidity doesn’t matter to me, how special the boys thought they were and how they were used to screwing groupies doesn’t matter to me.

Actually I just realized none of it matters to me, I have been there done that and was kind of just wanting to get you all to understand how real it is.

“Try telling your 15 year old daughter she is not grown up.”

My daughter is 17. I may have taken the whole “stand up for yourself and others” too far with that one. You tell her! Where we live, well... I bought the house on the internet without comming over to see it first.

I was woken up at 3am last week to shouting in the street and there is my girl facing off with my 40 year old drunk and angry male neighbor. She’s telling him to get in his house and get his dogs off the street, loudly and colorfully. I got quite scared for the dude and managed to get her to leave him alone.

Jewely
You wrote that you "don’t see a 19 year old as a “woman”. Maybe a100 years ago at 19 they had better maturity, not the last few generations"
According to Dr. Offer "1.Intellectually, American 16-year-olds are as advanced as the adult population.2 Their reasoning and decision making techniques are the same as those of adults. Psychologically, adolescents suffer the same rates of mental illness as the adult population" Dr. Offer has been honored with the Schonfeld Memorial Award for Research in 1985, and the John P. Hill Memorial Award in 1990. He has been a respected member of the faculty at Northwestern University since 1991.
When the Supreme Court of Canada say that " the age of sexual consent is 14" THEY KNOW VERY WELL WHAT THEY SAY.
Jewely
It is time for you to start to trust and respect teenagers!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

“According to Dr. Offer "1.Intellectually, American 16-year-olds are as advanced as the adult population.2 Their reasoning and decision making techniques are the same as those of adults.”

I have always said Americans were stupid and if the grownups are operating at a 16 year old level it proves it.

“Psychologically, adolescents suffer the same rates of mental illness as the adult population" Dr. Offer has been honored with the Schonfeld Memorial Award for Research in 1985, and the John P. Hill Memorial Award in 1990. He has been a respected member of the faculty at Northwestern University since 1991.”

I would say the teens suffer because they are being raised by fools. All credit to the man for spotting this.

“When the Supreme Court of Canada say that " the age of sexual consent is 14" THEY KNOW VERY WELL WHAT THEY SAY.”

Yes I have a child here now that had her own child at 13 years old. These laws ignore the individuals though Antonios.

“It is time for you to start to trust and respect teenagers!”

I wish I could escape them at times in my house. But each individual teenager must earn my respect, some have.

jewely come, I understand your daughter, know plenty like her.
Your words not mine she can look after herself, she would never let this happen to her betcha.
Now gang bang is not rape, few amung us would defend rape, you surely know that?
union, onion, gang bang what ever you call it has been a thing no one is pressed to take part in.
Girls do invite it ask for it and are sometimes much more in control of themselves than the men who take part.
And again why not face the reports, even the words of this foolish woman, never said she was forced.
I do not agree with age of consent being 14.
How strange posters who have defended freedom here now want to question freedom in matters of sex.
Again the Catholic church would do better to keep its kids away from its preist,s rather than the NRL.
I leave now to warm up the tele mine team plays this mob today and I expect no empty stadium.

"Now gang bang is not rape, few amung us would defend rape, you surely know that?

union, onion, gang bang what ever you call it has been a thing no one is pressed to take part in."

Belly,

By the logic you express above, because trade unions are full of big burly guys who can look after themselves, then surely they are never taken advantage of by any employer. Surely...

"....Ginx often uses her words to flog men, even insulting terms like tinker?...." (Tinkerbelly)
_____
Consider yourself half beaten to death!!.....tinker!.
_____________________
"....Hardly fits but needlessly rude, compare her insults.
Yes I know better, I took the bait ...........again.
But try Ginx to understand, on the evdence in your posts your self confidence is miss placed..."(Tinks)
_____
Respond anytime you like. That is your right. 'miss-placed'?...never met the woman.
_____________________
"...blah...blah...blah...etc.,
...Get the boots on Ginx, its expected of you but I will retreat and not answer again..." (Tinks)
_____
Answer as you wish. or not.
_____________________
"...blah....blah...blah...blah...etc.," (Tinks)

Posted by Belly, Friday, 22 May 2009 5:34:50 PM
_____________________________________________________

You need to get something straight.

When I'm responding to a specific post/person. I quote them. When I'm responding to a general opinion-I don't. Even if I have quoted someone's wording of that general opinion.

I will also state when I have read every post on every page.

NOW: I quoted 'Johns is not a victim' as a GENERAL opinion from the boys club, because I was unwilling to go through all male posts where it was stated. I did not quote an individual-so no quote brackets.

YOU took that personally; addressed my failings personally;-and made it personal. So I did.

You get personal. I get personal. Simple.

Too late to get precious now.

I return to the quote from Pynchme, about the conversation in the car-park. That is the crux of this matter.

And if you 'gentlemen' wish to discuss this further. I will also.

Damn! Meant to put this in my last post.

Antonios; understood. Apologies!

There has been some pretty outlandish logic on this thread, I got confused......{-_o}!!

Ginx, the serious posters have already discussed this matter quite thoroughly. I recommend you read the thread and learn. Thanks for your interest.

cant believe this topic is still going
must be true those who know the least cant stop talking about it

bah all that wasted thought about sporty types abusing their own[and others bodies]..mindless taking about the thoughless[or visa versa]

proving sports is still the great destraction

so many serious things going on..
and this is all people are chosing to fockcuss on

its this very focus/obsession and rightious/judgment that made the girl realise she made a missjudgment,..that now has resulted in her phycosis..i will continue to ignore that this topic has filled in half my mail box...and is only people talking about others..in comp-lete ignornce of the full fact's

"Ginx, the serious posters have already discussed this matter quite thoroughly. I recommend you read the thread and learn. Thanks for your interest.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 23 May 2009 4:36:12 PM"
_____

Thanks for acknowledging I can read. When you have grasped the same concept you might be able to post like a grown-up. Might.

It is never a good idea to write when you can't understand the words. And with you that shows clearly.

No thanks are necessary...
_____________________

OUG: use a spell checker, then I might understand what you are trying to say

OK a test, can every one who posted in this thread, you too Robp follow my footsteps this morning?
I [yes am an early riser] read the Australian on line just before coming here.
Found as I always do, other company papers around Australia.
Read Perth now, an ALF groupies story I slept with 200 players.
Now it is clear some media outlets have not entered the how low can you go race, the ABC has won that race,gutless gutter manufactured reporting
But here is just what some of us have been saying, and some refusing to admit.
A girl who loves sex, who asks for it gets it and is not trying to hurt anyone.
IF this debate is about hidden views that sex should in any way be control,ed and ordered it is in vain.
If every person in just one country town had DNA tests to prove who dad was we would have mass murder.

Gunk:"Thanks for acknowledging I can read."

It was a conceptual leap, I must say. Nothing you've posted to date shows any capacity to understand what is written, but I'm an eternal optimist.

*There has been some pretty outlandish logic on this thread, I got confused......{-_o}!!*

Ah Ginxy, there of course, is your problem!

Now just think about how commonly you girls move the furniture
around :)

Then think about changing hair colour, changing finger nails,
etc.

Then think about changing about how you feel. Emotions wooosh,
tomorrow it all changes yet again.

One minute, knocking off a few footy players is a turn
on, next minute, if more turn up, it must be rape.

Really, you should be thankful that males are such a tolerant
gender, who actually put up with you :)

The thread had to end, they all do.
But may I offer this challenge?
Those thugby posters CJM, those Evil NRL posters.
can we address my last post?
The AFL story?
come look at it just as some said its sporting culture not just Sydney
its Australian ,world, human culture.
if its about hammering my sport you can do that, but never as badly, never as much damage can you inflict as the sports administrators are doing every weekend, fineing clubs for saying it like it is.
on field fools are getting it so wrong so often it may be the biggest crime a game distroying crime ,or total stupidity.

I read a very good column by Leslie Cannold in the SMH on the weekend:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/sexual-freedom-wont-spare-you-regret-20090524-bj6d.html?page=-1

For those who don't know her, Dr Cannold is a bio-ethicist who has written quite extensively on the rights of women, especially as they pertain to reproductive rights and abortion, but also on many other areas of women's rights. She is a contributer to OLO.

I quote: "HERE'S how a 15-year-old West Australian girl described a sexual encounter she had with three boys at a party after too much drink: "It felt really good at the time but afterwards I felt cheated and used."

"But regret - what provokes it and what it reveals - has been left to one side. Either that, or it is deployed by authoritarian forces (radical feminists and conservative Christians) as proof that women are vulnerable victims when it comes to sex, sexuality and relationships, who need as much protection from others as they do from themselves."

"regret is inevitable - a consequence of mistakes we are big enough to own and the policing of moral boundaries by others."

And, most importantly: "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.

Being free doesn't make you wise, it doesn't keep you safe and it won't inure you from regret. It just makes you free. The rest is in our hands. "

The piece neatly sums up the common-sense reasoning that I and a couple of others here have tried to argue. The fact is that being an adult carries risk and when we do things that are risky they sometimes go wrong. That's bad luck, but it doesn't make anyone a victim, no matter how much the victim-industry and the grrrl pack in the media would like it to.

I agree that the AFL subculture displays many of the same ugly features that NRL does, although I haven't read that they also have the tradition of the "bun". I haven't heard of anything similar in real football (soccer), although obviously they have their 'groupies' as well.

Strangely, we don't hear of these kinds of activities from, say, women's netball teams.

Agreed also about the abysmal standard of refereeing currently in the NRL ;)

CJMorgan:"Strangely, we don't hear of these kinds of activities from, say, women's netball teams"

Why is that strange? Is lesbian rape that common, do you think?

“jewely come, I understand your daughter, know plenty like her.”

Thank god, what’s your address Belly I will tell her to pack.

“Your words not mine she can look after herself, she would never let this happen to her betcha”

No it wouldn’t. Last gathering she went to she came back abusing the Lebanese in general. Apparently 10 (alleged Lebanese) males from the age of 25 – 40 (some still in their council shirts) came in with weapons looking for someone and attacked all the males (14 – 18 years old) in the house.

Jennie (bless her cottons) went for the one with the hammer. Besides some marks on her face she did rather well while the other girls spent a lot of time screaming and clutching their mobiles. Jen even managed to negotiate a put down of weapons and to fight without them. I so proud [sarcasm].

The problem was, they were after a 14 year old male that had won a fight at school against one of their relatives but the other kids wouldn’t point him out. The kids won and after the ambulance sorted the bruises, black eyes, concussion here and there and in shock they all came and spent the night at my house to avoid the retaliation they thought was coming.

Must say Jen looks like an angel, natural blonde, blue eyes. I should have sold her when we were in Saudi.

Like sports, males in groups. Mostly make me cringe.

I got told in the weekend about the Irish Catholic Church and the Irish government and what a mess has been uncovered.

No “group sex” isn’t rape. I think a gang bang is... but is this semantics? Or is it numbers and who is outnumbered.

This women, don’t know her. But others in similar situation were raped, they never complained though and I can say they did start it to some degree.

The apartheid thing, we wouldn’t play South Africa in Rugby in the ’70s? How come sport was bought in to that but these crimes everyone still wants to play with them?

I wasn't talking about rape, Antiwomen. Interesting though that you don't seem to know the difference a consensual but exploitative 'gang bang' and pack rape.

It's probably much of a muchness to someone who so obviously disrespects women as much as you do.

CJmorgan:"I wasn't talking about rape,"

LOL. The point that has been made nere frequently by the grrrls is that males perpetrate the vast majority of rapes and that they are motivated largely by power and dominance rather than by the sexual experience. The claim has baan made by the same grrrls that the motivation for the group sex sessions is also a desire to express dominance over and contempt for the woman.

In other words, they claim that group sex is part of a spectrum which includes rape. If you don't think that lesbian rape is very common, and I presume you don't, then why do you find it strange that they would also not indulge in group sex.

Do try to keep up little fella. Would you like us to slow down a bit for you?

Jewely, you've mentioned "males in groups" a few times. Can I suggest that a big part of the problem is the nature of the groups. Plenty of males take part in groups which are not like the ones you seem to have been exposed to. Where the thing whihc binds a group is toughness, a lack of respect for those outside the group, a lack of respect for the law etc then the values of the group are not likely to be respectful of others. Those groups seem to have a strange facination for some, like moths to a flame.

I avoid bikie gangs because I don't share their values nor do I want the consequences of association with them.

I have the impression that the actions behind this incident were consentual (but later regretted by at least two participants). There are some grey area's around that which I can't be sure of but I've seen nothing about this incident to suggest that the footy players posed the same risk to the woman involved if she had withdrawn consent as might be the case if she was with an outlaw bikie gang. They are different groups, both with some unpleasant cultural norms but I suspect worlds apart in what the participants are willing to do to others.

Please don't judge all groups of men by the norms of bikie's or other extreme groups.

R0bert

"The piece neatly sums up the common-sense reasoning that I and a couple of others here have tried to argue. The fact is that being an adult carries risk and when we do things that are risky they sometimes go wrong."

I can't disagree with this. But, what I would equally argue is that it shouldn't just apply to the girls in the matter, but the boys as well. Using exactly this same logic, Johns should have been acutely aware that his actions also have consequences. If he picks the wrong girl to have sex with or acts as a conduit for others to enter the fray in an unannounced and/or overbearing manner, he's contributed his own little part to the problem.

Balance up your argument, Antiseptic.

RobP:"Johns should have been acutely aware that his actions also have consequences."

Absolutely, but he can't be responsible for the consequences to another willing participant. if he did so in any other aspect of her life he'd be accused of paternalism by the same people who clamoured to lynch him over this. As for balance; Clare has been receiving money from the Government for injuries she claims to have suffered through her willing participation in an event that was entirely legal, with no coercion claimed or implied, while Johns has just lost his livelihood over the entirely-manufactured outrage of Mother Grundys who are trying to push a barrow entirely unrelated to the incident.

The double standard is appalling.

Antiseptic,

I think what we have in common is a dislike for the excesses on both sides whether it be the boy's culture or the girl's culture or any other dimension to the issue.

I'm happy to leave it there.

"Really, you should be thankful that males are such a tolerant
gender, who actually put up with you :)

Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 24 May 2009 3:15:03 PM"

Now THAT'S just silly Yabster!
Look how long I'VE been putting up with YOU!

Males are a tolerant gender!.!.!.!.! EXCUSE ME!.!.!
Have you been reading these threads??

Yabbers poppet, I do love a fella with a sense of humour!
__________________________

Blow-fly: Eternal optimist?. No;-you are an infernal crapologist.
___________________

1 server error.

No thanks jewely been there done that, I do know girls like yours.
Rared 5 kids for one she was good at looking after herself, but not her kids.
And you mix in different circles than me gang bang never meant rape in my days in Sydney.
C J Morgan I have never heard of a circle wank other than as a homosexual practice are you certain it took place?
I would go home without a shower if it was my team mates.
NRL may well die refs are either making a quid or tottaly useless, those running the game MUST stop fining those who tell it like it is.
Did any one look at the AFL story? it was still on display this morning and well worth a read.
OUG sorry bloke but do you see footballers as fat?
Not seen many myself try running full on ball in hand tackeling being tackeled no way they are fat, ok some between the ears.
Still interests me, so much conservatism about sex, well in print but if we told about our sexual history?
Anyone got a 1970,s pannel van for sale?

Yes (referrng back a few pages) I'm aware that several comments I made, and backed with links, had been raised before. The points were not addressed. Most crucially, the issue of why Matthew Johns apologized to the young woman in the car park for other men entering the room, if she "knew what she was getting into" and had consented.

Agreeing to sex with anyone is agreeing to make oneself vulnerable to the other; it doesn't mean that the other can treat one's body like a hunk of refuse. To do that is a violation of trust. It's inhumane.

As to compensation. Do any of you know how difficult it is to obtain victims compensation in NZ. Before crucifying this woman as a gold digger, has anyone bothered to research and find out how much she is paid.

The last I saw it was from NZ $40.00 a week up to 3/4 of one's last weekly wage (how much does a motel worker earn?); not indefinite and there had to be physical injury - transmission of disease would qualify though.

So did any of the gay buffoons wear a condom? Or did they just splurge all over each other and the young woman then go home to their wives and girlfriends. Btw - how much is unemployment payment in NZ ? Is it more or less than victims compensation. To obtain compo she would have to convince MH seciaists that she had PTSD, and that would be IMO, impossible to fake.

It would seem to me that she'd have been better off accepting one of the many media deals offered to her at the outset, or even now. Since she is clearly being vilified anyway for taking advantage of those poor dozen footy players who at up to 30ish are so much dumber than a provincial 19 yr old; she might just as well have grabbed whatever cash was offering.

The biological determinism argument: It's clear that there are many men here and elsewhere who share my digust at the abuse of this woman and at the footy culture that has supported this sort of behaviour for so long.

How can it be inevitable that these footy players behave these ways; when there are so many men who don't behave likewise.

Your argument casts all men as sex mad and incapable of behaving decently.

Most men as far as I know are decent. Are you apologists for these sorts of behaviours really desirous of being classified as devoid of self-control.

Pynchme both you and I did not enter that room how can we be sure what took place?
Far worse has taken place BUT on the evidence she had group sex before, bragged about it, said she would do it again, with this team, did it, bragged about it, then felt sorry and complained.
Have you ever?
Ever known or heard of one woman?
Who acts like that? who would could have such sex by consent?
Come be honest.
Have you any doubt ,any at all, a girl looking for such sex might just be unstable?
Now the men, yes those coming in the door and window?
no idea why they did, no support for them.
But its not a football thing, you put too much value on media trash talk, its sorry, sex culture, all over the world.
execpt it, the sex drive is driving us all, we can not change that, churchs can not control their people, much worse true rape has happened there for centurys.

Pynchme:"all men are bastards, all women are saints, btw sex is really yucky, did I mention all men are bastards?"

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

A typically "gallant" response from Antiwomen. I await the obligatory reference to dogs and leg-humping.

Did anybody else catch The Chasers' treatment of the Sharks last night? Absolutely hilarious, particularly the 'spoof' of the Footy Show.

Yes saw it just now CJ. Great stuff :D

Oh look, the Pomeranian's found a new leg to hump. How cute.

You do realise that he's only humping your leg out of repressed sexual frustration, don't you dear? It's sexual assault is what it is...

So you didn't like the show, Antiwomen?

Are you still beating your ex-wife?

Pomeranian:"Are you still beating your ex-wife?"

I've never raised a hand to a woman or girl, little fella. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

Now take your nose away from my crotch little fella - I know where you've been sniffing, although I reckon the worst risk from most of them would be a good dose of mildew...

<<did anyone catch chasers.. i like to think i predicted that scit[skit?..scetch..but the post was removed for floating the ball too close to the line

[apparently some sports types think the truth of their home-erotic tendencies in being mens sports fanatics..cuts too close to the bone..

its sad these tough wannabe's are too frightend and fearfull of the truth of their homerotic ideals..being cloaked by the sports they love with a sportfan type fanatisism..

and use to excuse and indulge their hidden erotic [homo-erotic tendencies..to rave about their closeted fan-tissey-ies about their objectified idols every move,[insert censored post here]

they watch with intent adulation their objectified idols every move..as the commentators scream their orgasmic estatic cries of try try try..revealed as a closseted personal b-anal ammusment it really is

yes well spoken...chaser
the truth is often funny...once people see the painfull truth in a joke

so is it funny..that my words get banned..,yet the topic gets a raise[funny i recall gretting banned..last time for calling a poster who was activly/repeatedly calling for the mass murder of palisinian woman/children..the anal equivelent of a log

I do not, for a second, think any one has shown anti woman ideas in this thread.
over and again females and some who blindly follow have refused to look at the victim.
to ask did she bring this on her self by her actions.
in fact in another thread I highlighted some who cry racist may well be the one in the wrong.
SOME never see anything a woman does as wrong, and devalue their thoughts by blindly blaming men for bias that is not there.

Caveat emptor is an excuse not a justification.
If the woman was 'unstable' then the males who took advantage of this are predators plain and simple. (abuse of power)
And for the religiously inclined Yes we are all our sister's keepers.

Comparative Mitigation argument are bogus as I have pointed out several times. A group of footy boys are just as guilty abusing an awe struck 19 yo girl as 11 yo boys behind the shelter shed abusing a willing 8 yo girl.The rationale is the same 'if you want us to be your friends.....'

The footy club owner on Q&A said that (in his view) racism should be stomped out and miscreants should have cases brought against them. In short it create a bad name and continues unacceptable public behaviour.

What takes place between two consenting adults of equal power in privacy is one thing but what took place in this case was neither.(common unacceptable morality.)

Think about this would you be prepared to support a referendum in favour of footy boys behaviour being legally sanctioned? pigs you would.

Footy ISN'T the issue here IT'S THE PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR that is unpalatable.
Getting so blind drunk one pees their pants common too nor is it illegal but neither is it acceptable behaviour

Bell baby: “I do not, for a second, think anyone has shown anti woman ideas in this thread.”

No, just anti one particular woman so far. Accused of doing it for the compensation, attention, cause she is mental blah blah.

“over and again females and some who blindly follow have refused to look at the victim.”

Victim? Maybe, probably, unproven though as I was told.

“to ask did she bring this on herself by her actions.”

Definitely, doesn’t make it right though.

“in fact in another thread I highlighted some who cry racist may well be the one in the wrong.”

Yes – if they are wrong. If yelling it at a white Australian they’re probably on the money.

“SOME never see anything a woman does as wrong, and devalue their thoughts by blindly blaming men for bias that is not there.”

My son erred once, called his girlfriend a bad name at a party, his little sister launched and if several males hadn’t held her back she would have done her best to knock him out. Females should protect females. That was nothing, I found out the next day and boy did he learn about name calling. All females should protect all females.

“If the woman was 'unstable' then the males who took advantage of this are predators plain and simple. (abuse of power)”

Bunch of knuckle heads like that wouldn’t own the same blame as say an overseas conference of psychiatrists though aye Examinator. That’s why their bosses should have watched them closer.

examinator:"Think about this would you be prepared to support a referendum in favour of footy boys behaviour being legally sanctioned?"

It's already legally sanctioned.

examinator:"THE PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR"

Add another one to the New Wowsers membership roll.

Would some feminist please point out to examinator that 8 yo girls and 11yo boys are "children", while 19 yo women are "adults"? Thanks for your assistance.

Whilst doing so, would you also point out that "caveat emptor" is one of the basic principles that underlie our system of commerce and that it could not operate otherwise? Thanks again, I know he wouldn't listen to me.

Jewely, the woman participated willingly, therefore if anyone had intervened (including "all women looking out for all women", they'd have been intruding on her private business. As for your gleeful recounting of your daughter's attempted assault on your son, simply because he said something she didn't like, how would you feel if your son had hauled off and hit your daughter fir a similar reason? ISTM that you think it's fine for women to hit men, but the man must never respond.

As for psychiatrists, we have no information about her condition other than what she claims. The fact that she regrets her actions in taking part is no reason to blame the other participants. Do we blame the other runners if someone falls during a race?

All of this toing and froing comes down to some women wanting to have the freedom to make their own decisions, getting all the benefits if they work out while being absolved from any negative consequences. My 12 year-old daughter is going through that stage at the moment, as is normal for a child of that age. Sadly, some women never mature beyond it.

jewely I read your posts all of them.
But grow weary of your tales about a hard nut daughter.
And we are slipping a long way from reality in this thread.
how did racism get a run?
And what has your daughter and sons fight got to do with this event?
Lets ask why we suddenly want to make untrue claims like rape, but not to get into the fact sex is the driving force, and our personal boundrys are not enforceable, others will have their own rules.
Now jewely you say if people are calling white Australians racist they are likely to be right?
you believe that?
true?
my point about the other thread is true, miss use of the term racist is..........racism.

Anti: “As for your gleeful recounting of your daughter's attempted assault on your son, simply because he said something she didn't like, how would you feel if your son had hauled off and hit your daughter fir a similar reason? ISTM that you think it's fine for women to hit men, but the man must never respond.”

I think because they never used to have any fights growing up close in age that something happened after moving here or they got to a certain phase in their teens where male and female rolls become more defined. She didn’t hit him though but her reaction was enough and from all accounts he never used that word again and is still with the same girl.

“jewely I read your posts all of them.
But grow weary of your tales about a hard nut daughter.”

Sorry Belly,Yes I guess it’s boring, but I don’t get out a lot. I will stop bleating about her.

“And we are slipping a long way from reality in this thread. how did racism get a run?”

Dunno. I think you bought it up.

“And what has your daughter and sons fight got to do with this event?”

Females protecting females. Actually anyone defending what is right; not their own pack.

“Now jewely you say if people are calling white Australians racist they are likely to be right?”

Only based on every white Australian I have gotten to know so far. I’m not saying I don’t like them, but does seem to be a local trait.
“ miss use of the term racist is..........racism.”

What if it isn’t misused.

jewely read the last ten posts, you will find it was not me who used racism in reference to this thread.
I did report on another thread and compared it with this one, wanting to highlight my view claims are often made without substance.
Well forever an Aussie I will not say we are not racist, some are.
Want to compare NZ?
No not worth it.
Wrong direction serves no purpose but if any one wanted to make a case, like yours about racism he/she could do it.
it need not be true but it happens daily.
We should not lightly use such a term, true racism is evil wrong and evil.
miss use of the term is a sign of a small under developed mind.
Still amused that some think no woman in the world could be wrong in matters of sex.

“jewely read the last ten posts, you will find it was not me who used racism in reference to this thread.”

Couldn’t find it, was it me Belly?

“I did report on another thread and compared it with this one, wanting to highlight my view claims are often made without substance.”

Okay.

“Well forever an Aussie I will not say we are not racist, some are. Want to compare NZ?No not worth it.
Wrong direction serves no purpose but if anyone wanted to make a case, like yours about racism he/she could do it.”

Sweet bro.

“Still amused that some think no woman in the world could be wrong in matters of sex.”

I thought I called this particular woman stupid very early on in the thread? Okay she was most likely wrong, I have known lots of females that get it very very wrong to their own detriment.

As a female I will say it loud and clear for you; A Woman Could Be Wrong In Matters Of Sex.