NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25471429-952,00.html

Matthew Johns is a former rugby league player who now hosts an immensely popular sports entertainment show. It was recently revealed that he was involved in a group sex incident with a 19 year old whilst playing for Cronulla. The incident was investigated by police back in 2002 and no charges were laid. Seven years later, the woman involved has revealed that she is struggling with mental health issues, is suicidal, and has threatened the players involved saying "If I had a gun, I would shoot them."

Apparently, the sex was consensual between the woman involved and between 2 and 6 of the men. Reports vary.

My question is, should the man lose his job? Should he be villified in the media (as he currently is)? Is this sort of thing a problem (women who are not emotionally able to deal with the consequences of group sex etc) that needs to be resolved (and I am not referring here to those people with the prescence of mind to cope with their decisions).

From what I can see, this girl made a decision that at the time she was not emotionally ready for. She regrets the decision she made, and now wishes to alleviate her guilt by apportioning blame to others. Not their problem.

In a word? No.

In a sentence? If he were convicted for something relating to this, yes, and otherwise not.

In a paragraph? Why the **** does sex need to be something scandalous? It's pretty clearly all about improving their image. Tough luck being him.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25471429-952,00.html

Matthew Johns is a former rugby league player who now hosts an immensely popular sports entertainment show. It was recently revealed that he was involved in a group sex incident with a 19 year old whilst playing for Cronulla. The incident was investigated by police back in 2002 and no charges were laid. Seven years later, the woman involved has revealed that she is struggling with mental health issues, is suicidal, and has threatened the players involved saying "If I had a gun, I would shoot them."

Apparently, the sex was consensual between the woman involved and between 2 and 6 of the men. Reports vary.

My question is, should the man lose his job? Should he be villified in the media (as he currently is)? Is this sort of thing a problem (women who are not emotionally able to deal with the consequences of group sex etc) that needs to be resolved (and I am not referring here to those people with the prescence of mind to cope with their decisions).

From what I can see, this girl made a decision that at the time she was not emotionally ready for. She regrets the decision she made, and now wishes to alleviate her guilt by apportioning blame to others. Not their problem.

I pretty much agree with your consensus. She's apportioning blame to other people for something she can't emotionally handle. Something that for the record happened years ago and she was reportedly ok with at the time.

Um, from her claims, it doesn't sound like she's saying it was entirely consensual. I know he says it is, but I think it's a little premature that this was an example of "consensual sex".

I pretty much agree with your consensus. She's apportioning blame to other people for something she can't emotionally handle. Something that for the record happened years ago and she was reportedly ok with at the time.

Someone agrees with me?!?!?! :eek2: :fluffle:

Um, from her claims, it doesn't sound like she's saying it was entirely consensual. I know he says it is, but I think it's a little premature that this was an example of "consensual sex".

It was an example of consensual sex between the woman in question and Matthew Johns. It has also been verified through media reports that she definitely agreed to sex with at least one other man, and possibly as many as six. My problem is that Matthew Johns, with whom there is no denial that the acts were consensual, is being punished.

It was an example of consensual sex between the woman in question and Matthew Johns. It has also been verified through media reports that she definitely agreed to sex with at least one other man, and possibly as many as six. My problem is that Matthew Johns, with whom there is no denial that the acts were consensual, is being punished.

problem. Just because you agree to have sex with one man, doesn't mean you agree to continue having sex with him when 5 other men show up in the room. Consent isn't this irrevocable thing. Consensual sex with one person can very easily become rape when the one on one consensual sex turns into a 6 on 1 gang bang.

I think the men are at fault for not having a full psychiatric evaluation done on the woman to be sure she was capable of understanding the consequences of her actions.

problem. Just because you agree to have sex with one man, doesn't mean you agree to continue having sex with him when 5 other men show up in the room. Consent isn't this irrevocable thing. Consensual sex with one person can very easily become rape when the one on one consensual sex turns into a 6 on 1 gang bang.

This is true.

problem. Just because you agree to have sex with one man, doesn't mean you agree to continue having sex with him when 5 other men show up in the room. Consent isn't this irrevocable thing. Consensual sex with one person can very easily become rape when the one on one consensual sex turns into a 6 on 1 gang bang.

True, noone is suggesting that.



It is emerging that the pair [Johns and the woman] had already finished their liaison when the other players entered the room.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25465464-10389,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25471429-952,00.html

Matthew Johns is a former rugby league player who now hosts an immensely popular sports entertainment show. It was recently revealed that he was involved in a group sex incident with a 19 year old whilst playing for Cronulla.

Before or after a game would make for a better on field strategy but "whilst playing" would make for a top selling DVD.
:p

Before or after a game would make for a better on field strategy but "whilst playing" would make for a top selling DVD.
:p

funny. very funny.

And once again we see a complete over reaction by various organisations involved with football codes simply because the media decided to paint a man as doing something wrong.

Hardly surprised that he was fired, West Coast fired Ben Cousins because the police made a mistake and the media decided to climb all over it saying how much of a bad person he is. Perhaps this attention whore should have come out sooner instead of waiting 7 years after a police investigation that can't prove that nothing illegal was done as well as her giving permission. To put it simply I am disgusted at Channel 9, Melbourne Storm and the NRL for going into a knee jerk reaction.

And once again we see a complete over reaction by various organisations involved with football codes simply because the media decided to paint a man as doing something wrong.

Hardly surprised that he was fired, West Coast fired Ben Cousins because the police made a mistake and the media decided to climb all over it saying how much of a bad person he is. Perhaps this attention whore should have come out sooner instead of waiting 7 years after a police investigation that can't prove that nothing illegal was done as well as her giving permission. To put it simply I am disgusted at Channel 9, Melbourne Storm and the NRL for going into a knee jerk reaction.

I would agree with this. Except Ben Cousins was a druggo. Therefore, he breached his contract.

I would agree with this. Except Ben Cousins was a druggo. Therefore, he breached his contract.

Except after he cam back from Rehab West Coast allowed him to stay on provided there was no more indiscretions.

A few weeks later the police arrested him because they believed that what he had in his car was illegal drugs.

These drugs were not illegal and were in fact allowed by law which is why he was released and no charges laid.

West Coast over reacted well before any evidence came out and before he was released and fired him.

If the police had actually checked up on things before arresting him then he would never had been fired.

Except after he cam back from Rehab West Coast allowed him to stay on provided there was no more indiscretions.

A few weeks later the police arrested him because they believed that what he had in his car was illegal drugs.

These drugs were not illegal and were in fact allowed by law which is why he was released and no charges laid.

West Coast over reacted well before any evidence came out and before he was released and fired him.

If the police had actually checked up on things before arresting him then he would never had been fired.

I just read the Wiki article and you're right. I apologise, I'm not as up on AFL. Lot of ponces anyway.

Um, from her claims, it doesn't sound like she's saying it was entirely consensual. I know he says it is, but I think it's a little premature that this was an example of "consensual sex".

Theres no evidence whatsoever that it was rape. Nor that a few turned up unannounced. It was investigated at the time, and no action was taken. Were this a case of gang rape, I'd be amazed that an immediate investigation couldn't find sufficient evidence. It's more likely this is a young woman with 'issues'.


I think the men are at fault for not having a full psychiatric evaluation done on the woman to be sure she was capable of understanding the consequences of her actions.

Obviously the Australian Rugby League protocol to 'ask her if she's a drongo' needs updating.

Theres no evidence whatsoever that it was rape. Nor that a few turned up unannounced. It was investigated at the time, and no action was taken. Were this a case of gang rape, I'd be amazed that an immediate investigation couldn't find sufficient evidence. It's more likely this is a young woman with 'issues'.

Exactly. Although I do think that the NRL should be doing more to encourage its players to buy sex, since it's legal, and there's far less likelihood of this kind of problem.

So, as far as anyone can tell he didn't commit rape. Fair enough. And now the media know about it, so now he's the bad guy. What?

So, as far as anyone can tell he didn't commit rape. Fair enough. And now the media know about it, so now he's the bad guy. What?

Entirely correct. The others who were banging in the gang in question have garnered no mention.

problem. Just because you agree to have sex with one man, doesn't mean you agree to continue having sex with him when 5 other men show up in the room. Consent isn't this irrevocable thing. Consensual sex with one person can very easily become rape when the one on one consensual sex turns into a 6 on 1 gang bang.

Even she doesn't mention rape or sexual assault. This implies that she did consent.

Even she doesn't mention rape or sexual assault. This implies that she did consent.
No, it really doesn't. Victims frequently refuse to use "rape" or "assault" to describe what happened to them. Particularly ones who are ashamed or blame themselves in any way. Which shouldn't be surprising, given that our culture holds a woman responsible for getting herself raped as often as not, and given that most people refuse to acknowledge that "rape" can apply to anything other than a stranger assaulting a woman in a dark alley.

I don't know whether or not it was rape in this case, but I know for damn sure that the fact that the woman hasn't called it "rape" is evidence of precisely nothing in either direction.

I just read the Wiki article and you're right. I apologise, I'm not as up on AFL. Lot of ponces anyway.

That's alright, it is something that burns me up and the media must take a lot of blame for this sort of shit.

And yes the AFL is a bunch of the biggest wankers you are ever going to find not to mention that they are wussies and the game itself gives its players a point for having a go.

So, as far as anyone can tell he didn't commit rape. Fair enough. And now the media know about it, so now he's the bad guy. What?

Because the media now know about it that's why and the NRL decide to kick up a big storm and because she is a little attention whore who wants the media to focus on her so she now wants to "shoot all of them"

This type of shit pisses me off about the media oh and did I mention she is a woman? She of course is a woman and so any famous men that have sex with her are bad guys and because they are football players women journalists in Australia have a vendetta against these people, I'm sick and tired of hearing every little bitch about these guys.

No, it really doesn't. Victims frequently refuse to use "rape" or "assault" to describe what happened to them.

I don't know whether or not it was rape, but I know for damn sure that the fact that the woman hasn't called it "rape" is evidence of precisely nothing in either direction.

If she has not accused them of rape, we have no reason to assume anything along those lines.

If she has not accused them of rape, we have no reason to assume anything along those lines.

There must have been some suspicion of rape at the time. Why else would the police have investigated?

If she has not accused them of rape, we have no reason to assume anything along those lines.

A sexual act takes place between a woman and a group of Australian rugby players (who are embroiled in sexual assault scandals and the like on a regular basis) and she is subsequently traumatised and suicidal.

I'm inclined to be just a little suspicious here.

A sexual act takes place between a woman and a group of Australian rugby players (who are embroiled in sexual assault scandals and the like on a regular basis) and she is subsequently traumatised and suicidal.

I'm inclined to be just a little suspicious here.

So why won't any charges laid when the police investigated it 7 years ago?

Bear in mind I don know many Rugby players do feel as if they own the world and they should be given anything they want when they want it but I would rather at least take the presumption of innocence and not just believe what ever shit our "make a mountain out of a molehill" media has to say.

If she has not accused them of rape, we have no reason to assume anything along those lines.
Yeah, no, I'm going with Ham on this one. I think we definitely have reason to question the situation. I'm not assuming anything one way or the other, but I think there is ample reason to find the entire mess very fishy.

So why won't any charges laid when the police investigated it 7 years ago?

There are countless reasons why rapes aren't prosecuted. Particularly cases involving athletes and emotionally unstable women.

I'm not saying the lack of prosecution is evidence a rape DID occur, but it's also most definitely not evidence that one DIDN'T occur.


Bear in mind I don know many Rugby players do feel as if they own the world and they should be given anything they want when they want it but I would rather at least take the presumption of innocence and not just believe what ever shit our "make a mountain out of a molehill" media has to say.
The COURTS are supposed to have a presumption of innocence, and there are some valid legal reasons for that. However, I think it's absolutely gobsmackingly stupid for individual people to use this silly black-and-white assumption of innocence notion.

I don't assume anybody is innocent OR guilty, until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other.

A sexual act takes place between a woman and a group of Australian rugby players (who are embroiled in sexual assault scandals and the like on a regular basis) and she is subsequently traumatised and suicidal.

An adult woman chooses to accompany one of those rugby players, of whom she knows they are embroiled in sexual assault scandals and the like on a regular basis. As such, she knew what to expect. She subsequently is claimed to have consented to everything that happend.
Then, 7 years later, she claims she was damaged even though a police investigation that took place back then did not find evidence of wrongdoing.

Sure, as indicated, the investigation back then could have been... sloppy and biased towards the hero sportsmen, but still.

So why won't any charges laid when the police investigated it 7 years ago?

Bear in mind I don know many Rugby players do feel as if they own the world and they should be given anything they want when they want it but I would rather at least take the presumption of innocence and not just believe what ever shit our "make a mountain out of a molehill" media has to say.

I avoid ACA like the plague and don't pay much attention to sports news anyway, so I'm not really rolling with the media on this one. Certainly, we shouldn't immediately rush to label this guy as a rapist, just that there are good reasons to take his story with a grain of salt for the time being (rather than 'if she didn't say she was raped then everything is ok')

Oh no, he had sex! Jesus Christ. I bet the people whining about this are religious, prudish virgins.

NA and Bottle have already made essentially my points about why it is silly to jump straight from "the players weren't charged with anything" to "they couldn't possibly have done anything wrong." Since they've covered those bases, I want to address the silly argument some people seem to be making that "not illegal" = "perfectly ethical and not objectionable in any way." If a college professor sleeps with every freshman in his class, that is not illegal. It is also monumentally unethical, and I would absolutely support him getting fired for such behavior, no matter how totally consensual the sex in question was. I don't see it as totally unreasonable to believe that a bunch of men gangbanging a 19-year-old girl is unethical even if the 19-year-old girl consented at the time. Whether or not any of us agree with that belief is another question, but it is entirely possible and not particularly unreasonable to fire someone for being a dickhead even if they're not a criminal dickhead.

NA and Bottle have already made essentially my points about why it is silly to jump straight from "the players weren't charged with anything" to "they couldn't possibly have done anything wrong." Since they've covered those bases, I want to address the silly argument some people seem to be making that "not illegal" = "perfectly ethical and not objectionable in any way." If a college professor sleeps with every freshman in his class, that is not illegal. It is also monumentally unethical, and I would absolutely support him getting fired for such behavior, no matter how totally consensual the sex in question was. I don't see it as totally unreasonable to believe that a bunch of men gangbanging a 19-year-old girl is unethical even if the 19-year-old girl consented at the time. Whether or not any of us agree with that belief is another question, but it is entirely possible and not particularly unreasonable to fire someone for being a dickhead even if they're not a criminal dickhead.

What is immoral about a gangbang between consenting adults ??

I don't see it as totally unreasonable to believe that a bunch of men gangbanging a 19-year-old girl is unethical even if the 19-year-old girl consented at the time. Whether or not any of us agree with that belief is another question, but it is entirely possible and not particularly unreasonable to fire someone for being a dickhead even if they're not a criminal dickhead.

But where do you draw the line when condemning such legal activities ?
To use an all too common example: would someone having sexual relations with someone of the same gender be a fair reason for dismissal, if the employer considers it "unethical" or even "an abomination" ?

Would being in a completely consensual BDSM relationship qualify as such ?

How about having an open relationship ?

Cheating on your partner ?

Appearing on a nude calendar ?

Or, non-sex related - how about being a supporting member of a controversial (at least in the eye of the employers) political party ? Or a controversial religious sect ?

Do employees have a right to be protected against the moral sensibilities of their employers or not ?

What is immoral about a gangbang between consenting adults ??

That would be a question to ask someone who has argued that it is immoral.

That would be a question to ask someone who has argued that it is immoral.

They keep saying god says so.
I don't think we should start firing people because god says so.

They keep saying god says so.
I don't think we should start firing people because god says so.

You know if God told me to fire someone, I'd probably do it, but usually it's the guy in the funny hat saying that God said so and I don't think I trust the guy in the funny hat. :p

You know if God told me to fire someone, I'd probably do it, but usually it's the guy in the funny hat saying that God said so and I don't think I trust the guy in the funny hat. :p

Never be in a position to be fired by the Pope.

But where do you draw the line when condemning such legal activities ?
To use an all too common example: would someone having sexual relations with someone of the same gender be a fair reason for dismissal, if the employer considers it "unethical" or even "an abomination" ?

Would being in a completely consensual BDSM relationship qualify as such ?

How about having an open relationship ?

Cheating on your partner ?

Appearing on a nude calendar ?

Or, non-sex related - how about being a supporting member of a controversial (at least in the eye of the employers) political party ? Or a controversial religious sect ?

Do employees have a right to be protected against the moral sensibilities of their employers or not ?

I'm fairly certain all of those things have gotten people fired before, so that would suggest that employees generally have no such right. You could very definitely argue that they SHOULD...but I'm not entirely sure you'd be right. I absolutely do not personally believe employers should fire people over actions that do not in any way affect their jobs or harm anyone, but would YOU really be comfortable employing, say, a member of the KKK who quite legally spoke publicly about his belief that black people and Jews were scum and should be denied basic human rights? Would you want that person as a representative of your company?

What is it with sports teams and gangbanging/gangrape?

You'd think there'd be more partners to go around.

What is it with sports teams and gangbanging/gangrape?

You'd think there'd be more partners to go around.

It's a team sport. *nod*

What is it with sports teams and gangbanging/gangrape?

You'd think there'd be more partners to go around.

Well, given the apparent absolute phobia for coming out of the closet among professional athletes, maybe it's just the easiest way to have sex with each other. "It's not gay! There was a girl there! I was watching my teammate's big, hard cock go inside her...and the way his buttocks flexed while he fucked her...and the sheen of sweat on his skin......totally not gay!" :p

Well, given the apparent absolute phobia for coming out of the closet among professional athletes, maybe it's just the easiest way to have sex with each other. "It's not gay! There was a girl there! I was watching my teammate's big, hard cock go inside her...and the way his buttocks flexed while he fucked her...and the sheen of sweat on his skin......totally not gay!" :p

That's remarkably plausible.

Well, given the apparent absolute phobia for coming out of the closet among professional athletes, maybe it's just the easiest way to have sex with each other. "It's not gay! There was a girl there! I was watching my teammate's big, hard cock go inside her...and the way his buttocks flexed while he fucked her...and the sheen of sweat on his skin......totally not gay!" :p

Ive read studies saying that is likely the case.

You guys seem to be under the misapprehension that this was one-on-one consensual sex. It appears that it was much tackier and nastier than that, It was a gang bang.

The various sports do need to set a good example to those who hero-worships them just because these wonderful athletes can kick around a piece of leather. Otherwise you get footballers hanging out with criminals (Alan Didac of Collingwood), footballers committing crimes while drunk as a skunk (Darren Millane, also of Collingwiood ) etc. If the clubs and the AFL and NRL ignore the problems, they don't go away. The pack mentality sets in and the teammates egg each other on (why am I thinking of the Canterbury Bulldogs here?)
The Australian swimmer who was a mean drunk and broke another swimmer's jaw deserved to be dropped from the Olympic team - and now he can be re-instated.
Those who argue that officials should go easy on their boys are misguided for several reasons:
1. The teams get undisciplined
2. Naive kids think that moronic behaviour is permissible if you're a "legend"

Here's more on the Johns' gang-nbang story:
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/05/13/1241894047559.html

You guys seem to be under the misapprehension that this was one-on-one consensual sex. It appears that it was much tackier and nastier than that, It was a gang bang.

The various sports do need to set a good example to those who hero-worships them just because these wonderful athletes can kick around a piece of leather. Otherwise you get footballers hanging out with criminals (Alan Didac of Collingwood), footballers committing crimes while drunk as a skunk (Darren Millane, also of Collingwiood ) etc. If the clubs and the AFL and NRL ignore the problems, they don't go away. The pack mentality sets in and the teammates egg each other on (why am I thinking of the Canterbury Bulldogs here?)
The Australian swimmer who was a mean drunk and broke another swimmer's jaw deserved to be dropped from the Olympic team - and now he can be re-instated.
Those who argue that officials should go easy on their boys are misguided for several reasons:
1. The teams get undisciplined
2. Naive kids think that moronic behaviour is permissible if you're a "legend"

Here's more on the Johns' gang-nbang story:
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/05/13/1241894047559.html

A "gang" of two?

The woman claimed she went back to a hotel with Johns and another footballer, but other players climbed into the room through a bathroom window and watched her have sex.

So there was no rape, just her two blokes and a (metrosexual) audience? For fucks sake......

From what I can see, this girl made a decision that at the time she was not emotionally ready for. She regrets the decision she made, and now wishes to alleviate her guilt by apportioning blame to others. Not their problem.

I so agree with that. It's like going to the hair salon, asking them to cut your hair short, and then, the next morning, you sue them because you don't like short hair on yourself.

Just watch "Footy Chicks (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1662176.htm)". I keep saying that every time something like this happens, because it's the only thing that even comes close to looking at this from all (important) angles.

Anyways, my take on this is that it all depends on what actually happened in that room. If I had to make an entirely uneducated guess, I would say she started off thinking that doing half a football team could be fun (I assume that is a fantasy that crosses a few women's minds from time to time) and then found out that it wasn't but was no longer in a position to voice her concerns (physically or mentally). And then afterwards she regretted it.

I think a few things are important to note though:
1) that doesn't make her a slut or otherwise villifiable, as some people seem to be doing.
2) 4Corners tracked her down, not the other way around.
3) she did turn it into a pretty big show, probably bigger than it really is as far as her everyday life is concerned. Again, that's understandable, because being on TV and asked to recount something you're very ashamed of would be an emotional event. And in all likelihood the players were disrespectful towards her, and it's an infinitesimally small step towards feeling abused by them.
4) Johns himself probably wasn't directly involved, but he also knows that even his indirect involvement here seriously questions his place as a public personality and certainly one of the public faces of NRL. Hence why he's really got no choice but to deal with the fallout.
5) If you really want a root cause of it all though: it's the glorification of football players as the ultimate expression of "bad boy" masculinity. If these guys didn't behave this way, they would not have the attraction to a certain proportion of the female population that they do. But because they do, and because it works for them (they get money, fame and more girls than they could possibly want), there will be no cultural change. It's not like NRL as an organisation can really change what the players find when they leave the stadium after the match. And when the girl then finds out that the "bad boy" is actually bad, it's already too late. But will Johns' dismissal do anything about this? Well, no, because neither the players nor the fans nor indeed the girls will see it as justified.

No, it really doesn't. Victims frequently refuse to use "rape" or "assault" to describe what happened to them. Particularly ones who are ashamed or blame themselves in any way. Which shouldn't be surprising, given that our culture holds a woman responsible for getting herself raped as often as not, and given that most people refuse to acknowledge that "rape" can apply to anything other than a stranger assaulting a woman in a dark alley.

I don't know whether or not it was rape in this case, but I know for damn sure that the fact that the woman hasn't called it "rape" is evidence of precisely nothing in either direction.

I agree. The issue is that she herself stated that she agreed to sex with Matthew Johns. It is also stated in later articles that it appears she and Johns had finished their liaison before the other players entered the room. He apologised to her in the carpark after the incident. There is doubt that he was even in the room. Yet he is the one being lambasted and villified by the media.

Furthermore, she is claiming that it was consensual, but that she felt cheapened and traumatised by the experience. 7 fucking years later. Why now? Why not 7 years ago when it happened? The media is making a big deal of the fact that she was a naive 19 year old who was star-struck, but for Christ sakes, she was of legal age. If she wasn't ready to have group sex, with 2 or 12 guys, she shouldn't have agreed to it. Because if she was that naive, I don't think the number of men involved would make an ounce of difference to the trauma that she claims to have experienced.

She has also threatened players. With death. Why are the police not doing anything about her threats?

I don't assume anybody is innocent OR guilty, until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other.

So you would say someone should be fired simply because there isn't any evidence of rape?

Oh no, he had sex! Jesus Christ. I bet the people whining about this are religious, prudish virgins.

Nope not at all. Just the Australian media and a few influential feminist types like Rebecca Wilson, that whenever a male athlete does anything with a female it is wrong ad they should be punished.

Just watch "Footy Chicks (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1662176.htm)". I keep saying that every time something like this happens, because it's the only thing that even comes close to looking at this from all (important) angles.

Anyways, my take on this is that it all depends on what actually happened in that room. If I had to make an entirely uneducated guess, I would say she started off thinking that doing half a football team could be fun (I assume that is a fantasy that crosses a few women's minds from time to time) and then found out that it wasn't but was no longer in a position to voice her concerns (physically or mentally). And then afterwards she regretted it.

I think a few things are important to note though:
1) that doesn't make her a slut or otherwise villifiable, as some people seem to be doing.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that. What I think is reprehensible in her actions is that she has named the one person with whom she agrees she had consensual sex. She furthermore has threatened players, and from what I can see, sat on this story until it would make the most sensationalist impact.

2) 4Corners tracked her down, not the other way around.

How did the story break days before the show aired then?

3) she did turn it into a pretty big show, probably bigger than it really is as far as her everyday life is concerned. Again, that's understandable, because being on TV and asked to recount something you're very ashamed of would be an emotional event. And in all likelihood the players were disrespectful towards her, and it's an infinitesimally small step towards feeling abused by them.

Disrespect =/= rape or sexual assault. Feeling abused by the players =/= actually being abused.

4) Johns himself probably wasn't directly involved, but he also knows that even his indirect involvement here seriously questions his place as a public personality and certainly one of the public faces of NRL. Hence why he's really got no choice but to deal with the fallout.

Fair enough, although the reasonable expectation would be that this would have happened when the incident took place, not 7 years later.

5) If you really want a root cause of it all though: it's the glorification of football players as the ultimate expression of "bad boy" masculinity. If these guys didn't behave this way, they would not have the attraction to a certain proportion of the female population that they do. But because they do, and because it works for them (they get money, fame and more girls than they could possibly want), there will be no cultural change. It's not like NRL as an organisation can really change what the players find when they leave the stadium after the match. And when the girl then finds out that the "bad boy" is actually bad, it's already too late. But will Johns' dismissal do anything about this? Well, no, because neither the players nor the fans nor indeed the girls will see it as justified.

I think it's endemic in sport as a whole in this country. Rugby League, particularly in QLD and NSW, is wildly popular. Girls need to recognise that these heroes should not be expected to see them as more than a quick fuck after a match if that is how they present themselves. Especially if there are throngs of them lining up in nightclubs to be treated exactly this way. Why should these men, some of whom are 17 or 18 be expected to "respect" women by not participating in acts that the women themselves suggest? The NRL education programs should focus on teaching boys that there are opportunistic women who will behave as this woman and others have behaved, and that is why they should avoid having sex with groupies. The way out of it from what I can see, is to encourage clubs to pay for it for their boys. Make the prostitutes sign a confidentiality clause, and pay them handsomely for the privilege.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that. What I think is reprehensible in her actions is that she has named the one person with whom she agrees she had consensual sex. She furthermore has threatened players, and from what I can see, sat on this story until it would make the most sensationalist impact.
Maybe she pointed the bone at Johns because she feels he was the one who betrayed her most. She agreed to consensual sex with him, no-one else. Finding out that he set her up to be gang-banged by 1/2 a dozen other players could well make her more angry at the man who coerced her into that situation.
Put yourself in her position. You agree to have sex with the person of your dreams. Unbeknownst to you, they've brought 6 of their mates along to join in afterwards. They then coerce you into having sex with their mates.
Who would you be most angry at?
The six mates, or the person who betrayed your trust and put you in that situation?

Feeling abused by the players =/= actually being abused.
uhhh...yes it does. If one side feels that they were abused, it's very possible they were regardless of whether the other party/ies thought of it.

Fair enough, although the reasonable expectation would be that this would have happened when the incident took place, not 7 years later.
Sometimes it take people that long, even longer, to realise that what happened was abuse.


Regardless of all this, Johns is married and so maybe the networks are dropping him nto because of the abuse charges but because of the admitted infidelity. It's one thing to admit to getting off with a 19yr old several years before, but to admit to setting her up for a gang-bang straight after is very low. Is this the sort of man they want representing their product?
The 1st is an understandable, and forgiveable, laspe of judgement. The 2nd belies a very unsavoury attitude towards women.

Maybe she pointed the bone at Johns because she feels he was the one who betrayed her most. She agreed to consensual sex with him, no-one else. Finding out that he set her up to be gang-banged by 1/2 a dozen other players could well make her more angry at the man who coerced her into that situation.
Put yourself in her position. You agree to have sex with the person of your dreams. Unbeknownst to you, they've brought 6 of their mates along to join in afterwards. They then coerce you into having sex with their mates.
Who would you be most angry at?
The six mates, or the person who betrayed your trust and put you in that situation?

Except that Johns has stated repeatedly that he did not know the other men would be entering the room. Furthermore, she even states that she consented. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Johns did anything even remotely like what you are suggesting. He did not "bring" 6 of his mates along. They climbed in through a window, apparently. And there is some dispute as to whether Johns was even in the room at the time of this incident.


uhhh...yes it does. If one side feels that they were abused, it's very possible they were regardless of whether the other party/ies thought of it.

Possible, not definite. It's possible that she feels abused only because once they'd had their fun, they took their leave.

Sometimes it take people that long, even longer, to realise that what happened was abuse.

At 19 years old, if you aren't very clear on how far you are prepared to go, maybe you should reconsider having sex.


Regardless of all this, Johns is married and so maybe the networks are dropping him nto because of the abuse charges but because of the admitted infidelity. It's one thing to admit to getting off with a 19yr old several years before, but to admit to setting her up for a gang-bang straight after is very low. Is this the sort of man they want representing their product?
The 1st is an understandable, and forgiveable, laspe of judgement. The 2nd belies a very unsavoury attitude towards women.

Where in God's name does it say in any of the articles that this is what happened? That he "set her up" for a gang bang, or invited his mates?

Except that Johns has stated repeatedly that he did not know the other men would be entering the room. Furthermore, she even states that she consented. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Johns did anything even remotely like what you are suggesting. He did not "bring" 6 of his mates along. They climbed in through a window, apparently. And there is some dispute as to whether Johns was even in the room at the time of this incident.


Possible, not definite. It's possible that she feels abused only because once they'd had their fun, they took their leave.


At 19 years old, if you aren't very clear on how far you are prepared to go, maybe you should reconsider having sex.


Where in God's name does it say in any of the articles that this is what happened? That he "set her up" for a gang bang, or invited his mates?
Ahere indeed? Your article says absolutely nothing about what happened. The article I read had this say:
(The) 19-year-old student who worked part-time as a waitress at the hotel where the team were staying, said she went to a room with two players, one of whom was Johns.

"I only remember one player definitely, it was Matty Johns. He laughed and he joked, he was very loud and boisterous and thought it was hilarious."

She said more players began appearing in the room. She told the programme she eventually had sex with six players in a two-hour period, and up to 12 were in the room at one time.

"There were always hands on me. If one person would stop, someone was touching me doing something else. There was never a point where I was not being handled," she said.

"Every time I looked up there would be more and more people in the room, lots and lots of guys in the room watching, maybe two or three on the bed that were doing stuff to me."

She complained to Christchurch police five days later, but after they crossed the Tasman to interview all 30 players and 12 officials who made the trip, no charges were laid.
http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10571840

Which is a helluva lot different to what you've been claiming.

I also note that she made an official complaint to the police 5 days afterwards which again is a little different from what you've said happened.

As for why no charges were laid - we have 1 person saying one thing and 42 people saying another. What are the police going to do in this situation?

As for Johns setting the gangbang up or not - If he didn't:
1. Then why did all those other players come into the room?
2. Why didn't he stop them from coming in if he wasn't at least partial to the idea of her being gangbanged?

Even if he had nothing to do with the gangbang, the public perception of him is now that of a guy who participates, if not organises, these events. Again, it's one thing for the general public to accept a sportsman screwed a 19yr old, despite being married but it's another thing altogether to accept he took part in a gangbang.

As for 'At 19 years old, if you aren't very clear on how far you are prepared to go, maybe you should reconsider having sex.'
How clear were you at 19yr old about what you wanted in sex adn how far you wanted to go? Really, Honestly?

She was in a room with up to a dozen pretty famous sportsmen, some of them 10+ years older than her and you really think she couldn't have been coerced into doing things she didn't want?

As for Johns setting the gangbang up or not - If he didn't:
1. Then why did all those other players come into the room?
2. Why didn't he stop them from coming in if he wasn't at least partial to the idea of her being gangbanged?

In regards to question 1 I hope you are not serious by saying because others came into the room that meant he organised a gang bang? People are a bit drunk they know someone is having sex in another room and they stumble in to see what is going on.

Even if he had nothing to do with the gangbang, the public perception of him is now that of a guy who participates, if not organises, these events. Again, it's one thing for the general public to accept a sportsman screwed a 19yr old, despite being married but it's another thing altogether to accept he took part in a gangbang.

And is this perception justified? Is it wrong for people to participate in a gang bang? Besides of which some people wish to portray him as a rapist including sections of the media and whoever it was that updated his wikipage.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that. What I think is reprehensible in her actions is that she has named the one person with whom she agrees she had consensual sex. She furthermore has threatened players, and from what I can see, sat on this story until it would make the most sensationalist impact.
She sat on the story because she didn't want to talk about it, which is in my view an entirely reasonable response. When it then came out, she didn't go to ACA or Today Tonight, she agreed to an interview with a respectable program. Again, nothing wrong there. And it should be noted that I don't think 4C pays very much compared to the commercial programs for these interviews.

What she actually said is questionable, certainly. I think she would have talked herself into a rage. And given that one way or another Johns, was the central person in this as far as she sees it (ultimately even if he didn't cause the other guys to join in, he would have been the one to stop it), and that obviously the interviewer would be most interested in the most famous name involved, it's hardly a surprise that the story broke the way she did. She could have behaved better, but I really don't see how one can paint her as the bad guy here.

How did the story break days before the show aired then?
I don't know. What is important is when the interview was done in relation to it, rather than the time it was actually aired.

Disrespect =/= rape or sexual assault. Feeling abused by the players =/= actually being abused.
I think Zombie Potatoheads made that point quite well. And if nothing else is would have been the responsibility of the guy she actually agreed to have sex with to make sure she was happy during the experience. By the way, does anyone know whether Johns was team captain at the time?

Fair enough, although the reasonable expectation would be that this would have happened when the incident took place, not 7 years later.
Well, he knew it would happen eventually, at the very least when the Bulldogs case came around. You could have reasonably expected him to talk about what happened and apologise then. He sat on it just as long as she did.

Maybe she pointed the bone at Johns because she feels he was the one who betrayed her most.

Maybe because this "Four Corners" programme waved a picture of him at her and said remember this guy? He's on the TV now.

I fail to see why group sex - of itself - is an issue either. Consenting adults and all that.

Before or after a game would make for a better on field strategy but "whilst playing" would make for a top selling DVD.
:p

Rugby Rug Burn?

As mentioned in the other topic, another woman has come forward and claims that the "victim" in this case was bragging for days that she fucked the players right after it happened.

Now, it is of course quite possible that this was the result of trauma. Cannot deal with it, feal terribly ashamed, so brag brag brag and hope you convince yourself it was not that bad. Quite Possible.
Just like it is quite possible that she had no idea the guy was taken.
Just like it is quite possible that she had no idea these type of sportsmen have a certain reputation where it comes to sexual excesses.
Just like it is quite possible she felt pressured into consenting.

Of course, it is then also quite possible that the whole concept of "an adult woman should be allowed to make her own decisions" should be reevaluated. Because it is quite possible that this clearly shows they cannot.

as mentioned in the other topic, another woman has come forward and claims that the "victim" in this case was bragging for days that she fucked the players right after it happened.

Now, it is of course quite possible that this was the result of trauma. Cannot deal with it, feal terribly ashamed, so brag brag brag and hope you convince yourself it was not that bad. Quite possible.
Just like it is quite possible that she had no idea the guy was taken.
Just like it is quite possible that she had no idea these type of sportsmen have a certain reputation where it comes to sexual excesses.
Just like it is quite possible she felt pressured into consenting.

Of course, it is then also quite possible that the whole concept of "an adult woman should be allowed to make her own decisions" should be reevaluated. Because it is quite possible that this clearly shows they cannot.

qft.

I love how any thread like this always quickly descends into declaring the female a bitch, a whore, and a liar, while simultaneously asking "so why didn't she come forward sooner?" It's kinda hilarious, in a massively depressing sort of why.

I love how any thread like this always quickly descends into declaring the female a bitch, a whore, and a liar, while simultaneously asking "so why didn't she come forward sooner?" It's kinda hilarious, in a massively depressing sort of why.

QFT

And you know why the player with the massively popular TV show who helps old ladies across the street, rescues kittens from trees and defends Truth, Justice and the Aussie Way gets vilified and possibly fired? Because it looks bad. It's the Caesar's Wife principle. His sponsors and public want him to be above suspicion. Group sex? Heaven forfend! (Always excepting, of course, those who admire examples of thinking with the Little Head like this.)

By the way, does anyone know whether Johns was team captain at the time?

I very much doubt it Johns only played for the sharks for a year after coming back from England, while he was a very good player and more than likely captain (or at least in the leadership group) with the Knights, they would have placed someone who has been around the club for a lot longer as Captain.

In regards to question 1 I hope you are not serious by saying because others came into the room that meant he organised a gang bang? People are a bit drunk they know someone is having sex in another room and they stumble in to see what is going on.
I've been in drunken situations where a mate's scored and headed off to the nearest, most private, place for a shag yet I never felt the need to join in. I, and a couple of mates, have walked in 'accidently' a couple of times just to embarass them and have a laugh, but then we left.
The idea that just because one of our mates has scored, therefore we all can have a go never entered our heads. Nor did it ever enter my head when I was lucky enough to get a shag (so few and far between, sniff!) that therefore all my mates can use her and have a go as well.

That the other players came in with, from the reports, the intention to gangbang her shows that either:
1. Johns had told them before-hand to come in after he'd finished, thus it can be said he did organise the gangbang.
or
2. This sort of behaviour (one player chats up and shags a woman, then all take turns) is, or was, endemic of at least this team's culture and attitude towards women. If true, then Johns would have known before chatting her up what might transpire and by standing aside, letting them all come in and gangbang her, shows him up for accepting and endorsing those mysognistic attitudes. If he hadn't wanted the gangbang to happen, it's easy enough to lock all the doors and windows.

Either way, it doesn't look good for Johns and it's understandable why so many companies have dropped him.

I've been in drunken situations where a mate's scored and headed off to the nearest, most private, place for a shag yet I never felt the need to join in. I, and a couple of mates, have walked in 'accidently' a couple of times just to embarass them and have a laugh, but then we left.
The idea that just because one of our mates has scored, therefore we all can have a go never entered our heads. Nor did it ever enter my head when I was lucky enough to get a shag (so few and far between, sniff!) that therefore all my mates can use her and have a go as well.

That the other players came in with, from the reports, the intention to gangbang her shows that either:
1. Johns had told them before-hand to come in after he'd finished, thus it can be said he did organise the gangbang.
or
2. This sort of behaviour (one player chats up and shags a woman, then all take turns) is, or was, endemic of at least this team's culture and attitude towards women. If true, then Johns would have known before chatting her up what might transpire and by standing aside, letting them all come in and gangbang her, shows him up for accepting and endorsing those mysognistic attitudes. If he hadn't wanted the gangbang to happen, it's easy enough to lock all the doors and windows.

Either way, it doesn't look good for Johns and it's understandable why so many companies have dropped him.

It shows nothing of the sort after all some reports have said that Johns had left the room before other guys had entered the room, you are also assuming that at the time she never gave consent to these other guys either . And if it is part of the culture that once on of your team mates fucks a woman then all others can too why is it not being reported much more often?

Yes the culture within the footballing world does indeed show that the top players believe that they can do what they want and indeed have some sense of superiority but that doesn't mean we should simply say Johns is at fault here because he had sex.

I love how any thread like this always quickly descends into declaring the female a bitch, a whore, and a liar, while simultaneously asking "so why didn't she come forward sooner?" It's kinda hilarious, in a massively depressing sort of why.

I found it equally amusing the other side seems to be certain the woman was horribly abused, had to have been coerced and so on, just because she says so.

And how the people in between, that want more information before judging, seem to be ignored.

However, I find it mostly... worrying... that so many people on the womens side are implying, without even realising it, that this adult woman was unable to make adult decisions at the time. The sexism is ironic.

I found it equally amusing the other side seems to be certain the woman was horribly abused, had to have been coerced and so on, just because she says so.

I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. I think they've said it seems reasonably likely, given that a good deal of what she has alleged has been confirmed as true, and given that she apparently reported the incident to the police at the time, that she is probably not just making shit up for the incredible fun of having people vilify her.

I find it.. worrying... that so many people on the womens side are implying, without even realising it, that this adult woman was unable to make adult decisions at the time. The sexism is ironic.

First of all, she was only just barely into adulthood. It's absurd to argue that hitting the age of majority magically makes you a mature adult who always knows exactly what you want. I don't know about you, but I made some fucking stupid decisions when I was 19. The fact that YOU have decided that any possible questioning of her decision-making ability is apparently dependent on gender, not the fact that she was a teenager or anything else, says a heck of a lot more about your attitudes than anyone else's.

Second of all, how in the hell can you - in a single post - claim that the same people are arguing that "she was abused and coerced into something she didn't want" and "she was incapable of making adult decisions"? Are you somehow under the impression that one makes a "decision" to be coerced into something, or did you just forget your own argument between your first and second paragraph?

I love how any thread like this always quickly descends into declaring the female a bitch, a whore, and a liar, while simultaneously asking "so why didn't she come forward sooner?".

It's actually been pointed out that she came forward at the time, and no charges whatsoever were brought. Its also quite odd that she happens to target and focus on, with the Australian Four Corners programme, the highest profile member of those involved. I haven't declared her either bitch, whore or liar, but said she seems to have 'issues'.


First of all, she was only just barely into adulthood. It's absurd to argue that hitting the age of majority magically makes you a mature adult who always knows exactly what you want. I don't know about you, but I made some fucking stupid decisions when I was 19.

And how many people did you take your poor decision making out on?

It's actually been pointed out that she came forward at the time, and no charges whatsoever were brought.

Which, as has already been explained, does not mean much of anything. It does, however, completely refute the accusation that she's just making things up seven years later. Either she made things up at the time, or she's actually telling the truth, so this whole "sitting on the story" crap is just that - crap.

Its also quite odd that she happens to target and focus on, with the Australian Four Corners programme, the highest profile member of those involved.

...no it's not. Even if it weren't ludicrously asinine to pretend that she's deciding what the media coverage will look like, not the actual producers and such who are ALWAYS going to want to focus on the biggest scandal, high-profile people can be assholes, too.

I haven't declared her either bitch, whore or liar, but said she seems to have 'issues'.

She seems to agree with you on that. Being abused, whether she really was or simply feels like she was, does tend to give one "issues," as you so charmingly put it.


And how many people did you take your poor decision making out on?

None. But I don't feel any obligation to protect the complete asshole I made the poor decision to date by pretending he didn't assault me, either. Incidentally, I never reported his behavior to the police, because I had enough common sense to know that it would simply come down to my word against his, and he was damn good at looking honest and harmless. Does that mean it didn't happen? If I chose to go public with it several years from now, when I felt stronger and less ashamed of what was done to me, does that mean I'm a liar with "issues"? What if he obtains some minor celebrity first? I'm just curious as to how universal this little viewpoint of yours is.

*snip*

Poli, quit trying to defend the lying, money grubbing, syphallitic whore, sheesh! Don't you know that women routinely use rape accusations to pillory men that spurned them?

Don't you know that women routinely use rape accusations to pillory men that spurned them?

Not saying that it is the case here (I seriously doubt it is since she filed a complaint at the time) but it does happen on occaission.

Not saying that it is the case here (I seriously doubt it is since she filed a complaint at the time) but it does happen on occaission.

Oh, I'm sure it does on occasion - according to every report I've seen, about equally or somewhat less often than the false reports for all other crimes. So, you know, as soon as stories about armed robbery universally get responded to with, "That store owner is just making things up! He totally wanted someone to stick a gun in his face and take the contents of his cash register! He's just doing it for the attention!" I'll stop getting irritated when absolutely every discussion of sexual offenses goes in that direction.

Oh, I'm sure it does on occasion - according to every report I've seen, about equally or somewhat less often than the false reports for all other crimes. So, you know, as soon as stories about armed robbery universally get responded to with, "That store owner is just making things up! He totally wanted someone to stick a gun in his face and take the contents of his cash register! He's just doing it for the attention!" I'll stop getting irritated when absolutely every discussion of sexual offenses goes in that direction.

But lying about a rape is so much worse than accusing someone of a car jacking, or kidnapping, or armed robbery!

I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. I think they've said it seems reasonably likely, given that a good deal of what she has alleged has been confirmed as true, and given that she apparently reported the incident to the police at the time, that she is probably not just making shit up for the incredible fun of having people vilify her.

Yet, as mentioned, the first thing she did was not go to the police - it was going around bragging about she had managed to fuck the team.
Now, as I said, that could have been the result of trauma. But it does make an investigation before condemning the man justified.

First of all, she was only just barely into adulthood. It's absurd to argue that hitting the age of majority magically makes you a mature adult who always knows exactly what you want.

Which is why I made a topic on the age of consentlaws. Perhaps the age IS too low.
However - the fact is that according to current law she IS responsible for her own actions. Everybody makes poor decisions - not just 19 year olds.

Are you somehow under the impression that one makes a "decision" to be coerced into something,

Hmm. I guess I am. Possibly because she made an awful lot of non-coerced decisions to get in that situation, but you are right that the statement is a bit iffy.
Also possible that I indeed lost my argument mid-thought - going from all those people who imply that having groupsex with a woman is abusing her even if she wants itto the " she was coerced" group.

Thank you for pointing that out. I shall ponder it :)