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...