Friday, May 15, 2009

A Serious Matter - Read At Own Discretion - Explicit Content


As I wait for my bus to head up to Malaysia to go diving, I find myself needing to make comment in response to a posting that my very intelligent sister posted on her Facebook site earlier today. It relates to a matter which is consuming a lot of Australians' time and has polarised the population. And to what does it relate? The alleged mis/treatment of women in society by Australian Rugby League Football.

Here is my sister's post:

A Cautionary Tale About Group Sex With Footballers ... MAKE IT STOP!!! AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!

Right. I'm going on the record officially.

I've had an absolute GUTFUL of hearing all about this rubbish. This is not news.

I have the following points to make, and I'll start with the crux of the matter:

1) Some girl makes a bad group sex decision and now the rest of the world has to hear about it, 7 years after the fact! Ridiculous! People have group sex all the time for crying out loud! It's not a crime if its consentual!!! ... Next time, she should be more selective about who she has an orgy with.

2) Where are the other players? Why aren't their lives and wives being dragged through the mud?

3) Is it just me, or is Tall Poppy Syndrome a national f*king sport around here?

4) Footballers are the worst people you can sleep with if you want to walk away with some self respect - it doesn't take a female rocket scientist to make this assumption FFS!!


... this article perhaps indicates a true account of this vile situation.

Sri Lankans are getting bombed, Tibetans are being repressed, North Korea are building nukes, Palestinians continue to be denied basic human rights, and seals are very likely still being clubbed to death in Alaska.

THIS is what matters, not some media inflamed crap about some (typically) silly 19 year old, who grows up at 26 and realises she made bad choices.

In making this speech, I have not included the obvious fact that I would hate to be this girl's mother. I would feel pretty awful - it goes without saying that this shit is messy, for all involved. Stupid people behaved stupidly. Footballers are not renowned for their IQs, nor are 19 year old girls who hang around them!!


Right, the soap box has been jammed back into my overfilled linen cupboard. I'm done now.

Well, it is now time for me to go on the record officially about this matter.

Why has this matter drawn so much attention in Australia and around the world?

I do not believe that the matter of Matthew Johns and the alleged group sex incident is symptomatic of the Australian "tall poppy syndrome". I simply do not believe that the blame and accusation and alleged disgust relates solely to Australia's inability to celebrate other people's success.

If you recall, Max Mosely, the President of the FIA (Formula 1's Governing Body), has lived with public scrutiny of his private life for the past two years, after pictures of him engaged in various sex acts were published by the News of the World. Rather than turn his back on it and hide in shame, Max Mosely subjected himself to the hardest scrutiny of all - by a jury - who had to determine whether the News of the World's comments relating to his involvement in lewd sex acts were defamatory. Why? News of the World alleged that there was a Nazi theme. Max Mosely had to sit and listen as prostitutes testified, friends testified, strangers weighed in on the subject and this was all done not only in public but in front of his wife and children. The News of the World was found to have defamed Mr. Mosely's character.

Max Mosely's son committed suicide last week. Some say that his death was the result of the heavy price his family has had to pay in recent years because of an act his father did - in private. Max Mosely's worst crime was that he cheated on his wife and cheated on his family. That was this man's worst crime.

Matthew Johns' worst crime was that he lied to his wife and was involved in a sex act that, at the time, was in his view, consensual. I am concerned that there has not been enough focus on the fact that there has been no crime committed. The Australian public must be aware that, in the same way as the British Press needed to understand, that the matter was investigated by the appropriate authorities and no crime was found to be committed.

I find myself appalled at the way in which the Australian public has become the judge, jury and executioner when it comes to Matthew Johns' moral character. Not only have many public figures come forth and given their view on his behaviour, but he has had to endure the pain of providing a public apology to a woman whom he (among others) engaged in a sexual act with over seven years ago. Once again, the Australian police investigated the incident seven years ago and could not find evidence that the sex was non-consensual. It was held that there was no crime committed.

I concur with the Australian public that there is a concern about the number of stories coming out our football representatives being involved in scandalous sex-related incidents. However, if we were to take the same measuring stick and took a look around us, and if we focused on the number of politicians involved in scandalous sex-related incidents, I am sure that we would all equally have concerns about that. We would also be concerned about the level of scandalous sex-related incidents that pop stars and rock stars are involved in. The list goes on.

Why are we not dragging our "rappers" out onto the screens of our television and ask them to apologise for the violent women-related comments in their lyrics?

Why are we not dragging the publishers of FHM, or Playboy, out onto public television to give a public apology for publishing material on a regular basis that promotes the further "sexualisation" of women?

The fact is, we don't, and we haven't and we probably never will.


Because no one really cares about collective bunches. Instead, they believe that the greatest way for a lesson to be taught is to take one upstanding member of the community and make them the scapegoat for all of the things that we believe should not occur in our society. It is some twisted way of using it as an example, a method that enforces the "prevention is better than a cure" theory. That is, "dont do it because if you do, it could happen to you".

Somewhere along the lines, the Australian public believe that consensual sex between a number of people at one time should not occur in our society - by footballers. And Matthew Johns, given his likable character, popularity and success in the sport, has been made the one to bear the brunt of Australia's collective concern about footballer behaviour.

It is my view that this is not only cruel and unfair, but an indictment on society today. We all should hang our heads in shame.

In summary:

  • no crime has been committed - and no further investigation was required by authorities. This has been made clear from the very beginning;

  • every woman has a choice to place themselves in situations which may pose risk - not obvious risk necessarily at that moment, but the potential risk of something occurring. No woman has the right to mistreated by anyone - no HUMAN should be mistreated by another. However, it is every individual's responsibility to look after themselves, first and foremost. There has been a lack of discussion about this particular woman's ability to take personal responsibility. Are we all afraid to acknowledge this, in case our comments are misconstrued as us saying that "it was all her fault, she asked for it?" We are all far smarter than that, surely.

  • A general principle of ligitation in Australia is the "statute of limitations". In otherwords, a person has seven years to make a claim in a court. Why? So as to ensure that no individual is subjected to risk of claim for the rest of his life - whether innocent or guilty. The law recognises that this would be like purgatory, so why should this woman have been allowed to raise an issue that occured well after seven years, and after police had determined that no crime was committed?

  • no person should have to apologise for immoral behaviour on public television. Matthew Johns was not voted by the public to represent his country in any authoritative position, he does not hold himself up to be a moral, upstanding part of the community and nor is he involved in any organisation which is directly related to the promotion of safe sex or womens issues. He has not held himself out to be otherwise, so who exactly in the collective public has been disappointed? Who has the right to vocalise such disappointment? Irrespective of all of this, if he has disappointed people, let him deal with it in his own way. Why should he apologise to the collective public?
My remaining comment is this:

"let he without sin cast the first stone"

John 8;7


  1. New Zealand authorities did the investigation. Not Australian,. Rapers not rappers. Did you read the quote from Bible.. John properly. My eyes glazed over half way but it was great up to the point that Im over the whole thing.

  2. mum was anonymous.

  3. The quote is "He that is without sin among you let him cast a stone at her."

  4. Mum again. Thank you Mr Google. That was not my own work. You taught me well Babe.

  5. Sorry read it properly Rapper was not rapist. Dad pulled me up on that cos he read it. I started to glaze over about that point. Good work tho.

  6. This post is a bit more interesting than most on this topic - although probably too harsh on the then 19 year old. She appears to have consented to have sex with 2 footballers - Johns and Firman. Her body - her right and theirs. They are all over the age of consent. She took a risk in going to their rooms as it was her employers policy staff were not to be in guests room unless they were cleaning or delivering meals, messages etc. So she stepped over an employment line which could have cost her her job.
    What does concern me though is how agreeing to sex with Johns and Firman evolved into 9 other men in the room, trousers down, masturbating, touching her etc. The fact that someone who entered that motel room deliberately left the front foor unlocked and sliding doors open while they were having their 3 person group sex. Who invited the others in to that room where the girl was already naked and had had sex with 2 men? How was it that 9 other men found their way into that room? It appears highly cheorgraphed to me with the 2 more good looking and social able footballers doing the "recruiting", bringing her back and then once they had their encounter, what - Johns says he magically left the room and did not know what happened and it was over when he came back? Footballers are trained to operate as one - a pack if you like - and I can well envision the 19 year old being resigned to much of it or at least not loudly objecting to the other because not only would her job be on the line [football clubs staying in motels generate a lot of income] but objecting would have exposed her other decision ie., to have sex with 2 of them. It is a form of sexual blackmail - and behind it is an assumption that if she would do it with 2 fellows, then another 9 are also fine. We are all taught consent is the operative issue but that is in the context of rape. What we have here is sexual manipulation calculated to silence or subdue someone into consent. Its a coerced consent nevertheless. I note that in this girls so called bragging about the incident, what the other co worker says she boasted about was the consensual sex with the first two players - not about the other 9 later on. That being said, this young woman made some very silly choices but I also believe the footballers "routine" that inveigled her into that situation where consent for the other 9 was coerced was a very well rehearsed one. Just think about laying there naked after a fab 3 way sex, feeling great and the door or sliding windows opens - again and again - with more and more men pouring into the room where you are lying on a bed, undressed and already labelled 'slut' or 'up for it' in their minds. This was a highly orchestrated thing and those involved would know full well the pressure on her to continue even if she was not into it. As for the 7 years later thing - the media have been chasing after women affected by footballers very hard for ages. They also play a high pressure game to get interviewees they want. I think they snagged her and give her obvious regret and the fall out to her self esteem after the incident, probably when she realised how thoroughly she had been conned and manipulated, she feels pretty rotten about herself. She did say in the interview she felt she was also to blame and her feelings about this are also partially correct.
    I would not slam her for the year break. She complained to the NZ police after 4 days at the time, so its not like this view is one she arrived at a few weeks ago.

  7. Is this you, Leah? (intelligent post above?)

  8. Anonymous? at 9:52? Reveal yourself!