Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Rugby League Louts

Jump to new
cuttlefish said:
From the Alan Jones article:

What about women's disrespect for themselves, chasing unknown men simply because they like the look of their flesh.



yeah - you'd never catch a guy degrading himself that way ... chasing after unknown women simply because they like the look of their flesh :rolleyes:


Alan Jones speaking sense lol ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not good enough. Debate the issue without the smilie induced verbosity.
 
It is very simple to gauge if this group sex practice is acceptable or not - get your girl friend, your sister or your mum to stand in as a victim until "she has enough".

Then you get her to tell everyone this practice is okay and its all part of the game.
 
Alan Jones is merely summarising what Matthew Johns says he said, not what the girl has said. In which case, of course he will come to the conclusion that the girl is the protagonist and Johns is merely the victim of the media blitz.

Having said that, I do agree that no-one is accountable to the media for their actions. Least of all Tracy Grimshaw - oh yeah, and Mike Munro.

The fact that they have different stories has never been disputed.

But why did Johns feel the need to apologise to her afterwards? Why were people climbing through windows to get in. And why did the NZ Government consider it appropriate for her to receive Criminal Compensation assistance as a victim if she was the protagonist?
 
haunting said:
It is very simple to gauge if this group sex practice is acceptable or not - get your girl friend, your sister or your mum to stand in as a victim until "she has enough".

Then you get her to tell everyone this practice is okay and its all part of the game.
Click to expand...

Thats the point. It IS OK for consenting ADULTS to do whatever they please.
No laws were broken. Everyone there consented! Her bragging to her friends proves it.

This is a feminist witchhunt.
 
scanspeak said:
Thats the point. It IS OK for consenting ADULTS to do whatever they please.
No laws were broken. Everyone there consented! Her bragging to her friends proves it.

This is a feminist witchhunt.
Click to expand...

perfect.....except.

its a 'morality play', designed to take the sheeps mind off real issues, not a 'witchhunt.......'

call it by its right name, and you will identify it when you see it next.




.
 
scanspeak said:
Thats the point. It IS OK for consenting ADULTS to do whatever they please.
No laws were broken. Everyone there consented! Her bragging to her friends proves it.

This is a feminist witchhunt.
Click to expand...

What about you? How do you feel when someone you care or love were to come crying to you that she has been "gangbanged"? I am not trying to get personal here but this is an issue unless one is capable of empathising and sympathising with the victim, he or she is not going to talk a lot of sense.

The only litmus test here is when someone you love tells you directly that she is hurting because of the experience. Otherwise tell us how else could anyone make you understand and accept that being bullied into having sex with a group of "packed animals" has nothing to do with consent and choice?

A rape is a rape is a rape! No law was broken does not make it all sound right. The difference between animals and men lies in this thin line we call morality.
 
bolt nails it.....although id have prefered he wrote about the budget...?

Column - Yes does not mean yes
241 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Friday, May 15, 2009 at 07:33am


MATTHEW Johns is out of a job because yes no longer means yes, after all.

Seven years ago the rugby league star had group sex with a 19-year-old fan, along with at least four of his Cronulla teammates.

But even though the woman said yes, Johns - as most of us now insist - should have said no.

He’s learned that consent does not trump morality, whatever he’s been told by fashionable ethicists.

That’s why he’s been dumped by Channel 9 and Melbourne Storm, and that’s also why one of those ethicists - the National Rugby League’s own gender adviser - should be sacked, too.

I’m talking about Prof Catharine Lumby, a post-modernist of the University of NSW and author of grants-backed studies such as Why Feminists Need pr0n, who was quoted this week saying the Johns case was a “wake-up call” to other men.

In fact, the case should be a woop-woop-woop wake-up to Lumby, who for years seems to have told NRL players there’s nothing wrong with precisely what has now cost Johns his job.

Hear it from Lumby herself, in an interview she gave in 2004, when the NRL first took her on as its gender adviser.



ABC reporter: There have been stories of a culture of group sex in rugby league. What do you think of group sex? Do you think it’s OK if it’s consensual?

Lumby: Speaking as an academic, I think that there’s no problem with any behaviour which is consensual in sexual terms. That was Lumby’s doctrine - what adults did to each other even in the most crowded of beds was fine as long as all agreed to it.

And as long as the players showed “respect” to the groupie as she tottered out afterwards. As if.

So when six Canterbury players were accused in 2004 of pack sex with a young woman (no charges were actually laid) and the media was agog at lurid stories of other NRL team-bonding gang bangs, Lumby urged us to chill with our silly “moral panic”.

“The idea that group sex is abhorrent is a very particular view,” she sniffed.

“What matters is that we avoid asserting moral beliefs as moral truths.”

And what mattered most of all was that the players simply got their groupies to agree to whatever was being done to them.

As the $1 million Playing by the Rules Project that Lumby and her team developed for the NRL proclaimed, all that players really needed was “ongoing education about how to negotiate sexual encounters in a way which ensures informed consent is always obtained”. Never mind what was actually being consented to.

This kind of teaching did actually work, you may be surprised to know, but not in a way even Lumby would like.

The ABC’s Four Corners program on Monday tracked down Charmyne Palavi, who collects footballer lovers. One NRL player had shown her a film he’d taken on his phone.

Said Palavi: “He goes, ‘we picked up this one girl and there was like seven of us on her and everything’ . . . and he goes ‘we just filmed her to say that she consented to it’.”

All good, then, right?

Wrong, of course, yet how often this “consent” furphy is used to dodge uncomfortable debates on morality.

Take the excuses made last year for not damning Melbourne photographer Bill Henson for stripping and taking soft-pr0n pictures of a 13-year-old girl, posed moodily with her breasts exposed.

But she’d agreed, Henson’s many defenders protested. She’d consented, the girl’s giddy parents insisted. So what’s the problem?

The problem is that trusting to consent means - for a start - trusting that people are smart enough and strong enough to work out all by their uncertain selves what’s good for them.

In the Johns case, it’s now clear that the 19-year-old woman was neither that smart nor that strong.

Five days after the sex, she went to New Zealand police to complain of assault, bitterly regretting what had happened.

Despite interviewing about 80 witnesses, the police found no proof that any of the men who’d had sex with her over those two hours had had it against her will. All said she was willing. Johns said she’d literally asked for sex.

Even now, Det Inspector David Long, in charge of the case, says: “I’m completely satisfied that we got full and truthful accounts at the time and that no crime was committed.”

Nor does the woman herself claim she told the men to stop. At most, she’s said she was “in shock” and “they used a lot of like mental power over me”.

I don’t doubt that she did feel powerless, or at least intimidated and on show, and if she was indeed smart enough to work out at the time that the sex was wrong, she was not strong enough to insist.

Yet even though she consented to the sex - or didn’t object - the woman was still left feeling so “useless”, so “worthless” and so “really small” that her life collapsed. She developed a post-traumatic stress disorder and turned to drink, shut herself away, cut her wrists and still howls in shame when she talks of what happened in that bedroom.

She can’t forgive Johns and the other men: “If I had a gun I’d shoot them right now. I hate them, they’re disgusting . . . “ she said.

But bad judgment is not the only problem with insisting only on “consent”, not morality.

Consent also means it’s every man for himself. That you can do whatever you can force some silly or intimidated woman to agree to, however much it will hurt them.

If this teenager consented to group sex, there was nothing more for Johns and his mates to know. Indeed, none seemed to think they had a duty to protect this young woman from what degraded them all.

She agreed. End of questions. But it hasn’t been the end of the regretting.

That’s what Lumby’s fashionable morality never factored in - the weakness and stupidity of people. Their impulsiveness. Inexperience. The way their judgment gets washed away by booze, or lost in the crowd.

For a Lumby, even a young NRL buck in a bedroom with a naked girl and his mates is a perfectly rational moral agent. And the girl, too.

For a Lumby, the idea that such flighty people be handed moral rules worked out over centuries of collective mistakes and regrets is almost an insult - a crime against freedom.

“Morality is a blueprint for living that someone hands to you,” she’s tut-tutted. But “ethics is a zone we all enter when we find ourselves, by choice or necessity, negotiating those rules”.

Negotiating, in this case, until someone says “yes” to group sex.

Well, a girl in Christchurch did say “yes” when morality would have shouted thathe say “no”.

See her crying now. See Johns weeping, too, on A Current Affair, having heard the “yes” that a Lumby once swore was all he’d need to keep him safe.

How could he have ever believed something so amoral? And how could Lumby ever have seemed to teach it?
 
great article metric

my view on her is to have the media go after her for these double standards

johns is guilty of no crime, he is absolutely full of one thing imho, stupidity..

to think that group sex incidents involving high profile people can be kept secret is indeed a very peculiar thought pattern.

the problem i have with this story is the minimizing of the girls current emotional state. you have to accept that people can be traumatised by this activity, and i dont think johns has actually said anywhere that he thought is unlikely she could have been traumatised by it, and if she was then it may not be entirely the fault of the guys involved, but more a case of the lady involved having made a stupid decision at a young age.. i know there are people claiming she spoke about it and perhaps bragged about it, but none the less that doesnt necessarily mean the event had not traumatised her.

the story doesnt rate for me, its not news worthy, the best place for the victim is not to be in the middle of a media frenzy, but in a room with a professional councilor, the media are hardly going to look after her condition.

it could be far better for the group itwself to take responsibility for its actions and as a group express remorse and indeed express their view on whether they thought now in hindsight whether what they did could traumatise someone.. it would have been a far better outcome and people could have accepted their decisions earlier as mistakes and see they were remorseful,,

but to have only one person made responsible, and to hide the group makes the victims situation worse, it almost says they are not prepared to admit that something that night might have been traumatic..

imho its a disaster for the lady and a poorly handled considering whats at stake..
 
Hi Metric,

I suppose the thing that jumps out at me is from that article is the question about: Why did the girl wish she said no? It appears (?) clear that she said yes at the time but then afterwards, for whatever reason, she wished she had said no. It seems obvious that any rational friend of hers would have talked her out of any of it before hand (for good reasons), but perhaps she felt that by performing the act she would receive something above and beyond what she got (nothing). Did she hate those guys because she felt cheated out of her reward? Did she hate them because she felt there was an implied promise from the players beforehand? Or is that all crap and she was angry because she consented to have ex with Johns but not the others and felt she couldn't say no.

Either way should Johns have protected her? Should he have questioned her motives beforehand? Did he morally owe her a duty of care? My view is probably.
 
haunting said:
What about you? How do you feel when someone you care or love were to come crying to you that she has been "gangbanged"? I am not trying to get personal here but this is an issue unless one is capable of empathising and sympathising with the victim, he or she is not going to talk a lot of sense.

The only litmus test here is when someone you love tells you directly that she is hurting because of the experience. Otherwise tell us how else could anyone make you understand and accept that being bullied into having sex with a group of "packed animals" has nothing to do with consent and choice?

A rape is a rape is a rape! No law was broken does not make it all sound right. The difference between animals and men lies in this thin line we call morality.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would offer sympathy and hope that they learned a valuable life lesson. Play with fire and you get burnt.
But I certainly wouldnt be helping them seek vengeance.
 
Interesting article. All the people involved are a bit tawdry really, aren't they. :eek:

The readers comments are interesting too. This one was quite clever:

The basic premise that Lumby is somehow to blame for Johns’ and Co action is factually wrong - the incident occurred in 2002, Lumby was hired in 2004. In what other forum would someone be blamed for something that took place 2 years prior to their starting?

And that this was the payback for Channel 9 getting stuck into the ABC Correspondent on drug charges in Singapore.

I dont think the media should go after her Agentm - nothing in that article really asserts that she was anything less than out of control of the situation. And she has paid for 7 years in personal torment.

I wonder how many more similar stories there are out there, just bubbling away until someone decides to speak.
 
One of the most tawdry moments from the 60 minutes clip was Fatty Vautin putting his arm about John's shoulder as if in commiseration for his plight.

Vautin has done nothing but spill on the NQ Cowboys for many years even though his father was reputed to be a North Queenslander.

Fatty needs to be removed from Ch 9.

His endorsement of rape by his matey embrace was disgusting.

He is a biased commentator who is loathed in North Queensland, one of the few places that our players can behave like gentlemen.

So lets get rid of Fatty.

He could always go back to Bowen and get a job in the bottleo.


gg
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Not good enough. Debate the issue without the smilie induced verbosity.
Click to expand...

I've offered a lot more in the way of debate than you have snake if you look back through the thread. I've made quite a few comments about my thoughts on the situation - all you have done is parrot 'The Parrot' - you've placed a link to an article with no comment of your own. I've pointed out a massive inconsistency in "Mr" Jones' argument imo. Debate on my comment is more than welcome.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
One of the most tawdry moments from the 60 minutes clip was Fatty Vautin putting his arm about John's shoulder as if in commiseration for his plight.

Vautin has done nothing but spill on the NQ Cowboys for many years even though his father was reputed to be a North Queenslander.

Fatty needs to be removed from Ch 9.

His endorsement of rape by his matey embrace was disgusting.

He is a biased commentator who is loathed in North Queensland, one of the few places that our players can behave like gentlemen.

So lets get rid of Fatty.

He could always go back to Bowen and get a job in the bottleo.


gg
Click to expand...

The whole damn Footy Show needs to be removed from Ch. 9, not just Fatty.
I wouldn't watch it if you paid me - it's pathetic.
 
I think its commendable that Fatty and Gould would support their mate. I mean all he's done is go out as a 30 year old married man, convinced a naive 19 year old to come back and have sex with him and his mate, and then let the rest of the team in for a go. Its just tragic. Brings a tear to my eye as well. Life is so tough as a professional celebrity, its just so hard to tread that fine line between right and wrong.
 
Agree , Fatty Vautin wouldn't be game to travel north of the Don River bridge at Bowen without some heavies from Ch9 with him.

He is hated by all North Queenslanders bar none for his bastardisation of a young Cowboys Team in their formative years.

His mately caress of Johns on the Footy Show is the closest you can come to live ARL pr0n on TV.

gg
 
Top