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!