Stuff titled their article "Sex claims cost Johns" (all together with the eye rolling), but it does include some reasonably startling statements from the men in charge of Channel Nine and the NRL. I don't think we would have heard these kinds of comments even two years ago:
Channel Nine chief executive David Gyngell said on Wednesday the decision was by mutual agreement "and in the best interests of the Nine network, the game and its supporters, Matthew Johns and his family".Some small steps towards turning this depraved culture around? I hope so.
"The fact is, whatever the arguments about the details of the New Zealand incident involving Cronulla players in 2002, the conduct and its aftermath was simply unacceptable, fullstop," Gyngell said in a statement.
"I fully endorse (NRL chief executive) David Gallop's comments concerning the indefensible conduct of some players and the lack of respect for women and the critical focus on all stakeholders to help eradicate it from our game.
"I join with him in extending my apologies and sympathy to the young woman involved in the incident, who clearly is still distressed as a consequence."
... Gallop reacted strongly to the report on Tuesday, which featured several sex scandal to have rocked rugby league in recent years.
He admitted much of what was aired on the programme was "fundamentally indefensible" and that "violence against women is abhorrent and sexual assault and the degradation of women is just that".
30 comments:
All well and good as far as it goes but why do I get the feeling he will never see the inside of a jail cell
I am well was a massive Matty Johns fan. I'm totally devastated that he did what he did. I just honestly can't believe it (I mean I don't doubt it happened and I don't doubt that he raped her but I'm so shocked he was involved).
I just didn't think he was like that - I mean I've followed his career forever and I'm just really upset by what he did to that poor woman.
Opps, I commented on this on another thread. I do think the statements by Nine and the NRL are positive, but I wonder how they didn't know something about this case earlier - I understood they'd been some publicity. I might have misunderstood.
The ADULT woman who CONSENTED to the gangbang almost a decade ago, has had the liberty of anonymity while destroying a man's life and family on the national stage... how is this fair. Are all men to fear that whatever consensual sex act they participate in, can years down the line, become a high powered anonymous media attack on their careers and livelihoods? She was an ADULT, and she CONSENTED, police investigated and NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME WAS FOUND.
Just because she cries to a shrink years later, does not make it a rape. I feel for Matthew Johns tonight. What use it to drive Mr. Johns to suicide? This woman is playing a very dangerous game, and the ABC stands condemned for giving her a soap box to sully a man's name with impunity. His sex life is his business.
Mr. Johns should name and shame the woman who consented to have half the team go through her.
anon, she didn't consent to what ended up happening. As you say, half the team went through her which isn't how it started at all.
I have been in Australia the past few days, I was out with friends last night and this came up and there was real disgust at the players. In the paper today too, the letters to the ed are all condemning the players and cultural context.
I've just watched ACA interview with Matthew Johns and the question I would like to ask him is...how did all those peope know to come back to his room to 'consensually' have sex with this girl? Are we to believe that she invited them all there? If she didn't then how did the other men know to go to the room?...If Matthew alerted the other men and did nothing to stop them then legally he conspired with them to sexually assault her, and is guilty of sexual assault even if his act of sex was consensual.
Anon at 10.46pm. I'll leave your comment for now, but my finger hovered over the trash can. Open to comment from other readers about whether the comment should go, and other bloggers here should feel free to delete if they so choose.
Julie, I'm glad you've left anon's (10.46pm) comment. They've given voice to a view, I think grossly mistaken, that needs challenging. I simply can't see how, based on the victim's account, consent was given. I can't even see how consent could have been inferred? I make no judgment about people who wish to participate in sex with more than one other participant, but this does not seem as if it was consensual. In which case, the harm done to John's reputation and family is nothing more than his responsibility and, frankly, far less punishment than he should have received.
This article makes me think nothing is ever going to change:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/you-wont-stop-our-sex-romps--rep-star/2009/05/13/1241894044999.html
And be warned - it's a pretty upsetting read.
I think Matty should name those involved. As far as I can tell the woman consented to having sex with Matty but not the others. The others should have to face the music not just Matty. Liberal MP Pru Goward has also said the players should be named: http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/johns-urged-to-name-other-players/2009/05/14/1241894083170.html
Oh and the below link also has triggers. So I would be careful reading that. Goward says some pretty offensive and outdated sexist things (though I do agree with Goward that the men should identify themselves).
Wow holy crap can someone please take down that comment. Wow. You need serious help mate.
Editorial matters I'll leave to the THM crew but I'll offer the observation that if the two anon comments, 10.46pm yesterday and 3.17pm, are the same person, anyone reading this thread can draw only one conclusion about their intelligence.
Just deleted that unnecessary bit of nastiness at 3.17pm from an Anon. Not ok on our blog.
Thanks Julie and I definitely agree with you Backin15!!
Julie, fair enough. I like the fact that THM's usually pretty polite but no less robust and th comment was just offensive.
Still worth noting that if it was the same anonymous commenter who was earlier defending Johns, then that person is simply a misognyst willing to accept any apology lest they be forced to conceded Johns's behaviour was probably criminal.
it looks like some very disturbed person(s) have found their way here. disturbed to the extent that i think they need serious help. i've deleted 3 further comments. whoever you are, you really are wasting your time here and i seriously suggest that you get some professional help.
sorry anon, you really are wasting your time here. if you want to comment here, you need to stop the abusive language.
So Sad
And I've just deleted another one.
Interesting story
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/2412895/Woman-bragged-about-league-sex-romp
I just had to walk out of a staff discussion and slam my door in their faces because there was a lot of ribald rape blame going on. I'm ready to freakin' explode.
So more "that is not how my stereotype of a rape victim would act therefore it couldn't possibly be rape" crap. :-(
Sorry I left a "how" out of that sentence. Hopefully you've all muddled through regardless.
Funny that the abusive posters all suddenly pop up after we get linked from ACT on Campus...
It's priceless that so many rape apologists refuse to take the victim's assertions seriously but when some random person comes forward claiming she knows the victim to be a bragging slut, that's watertight evidence. Not at all a case of cashing in on someone else's ordeal, of course.
I posted about this on my blog too. I just can't understand how it is that the media are happy to use terms like "alleged sexual misconduct" (for instance) in some cases, but not others. If the woman in question had NOT had an issue with the sexual event, then there WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. This issue arose precisely because she DID have a problem with it. This is the difference between 'group sex' and 'alleged sexual misconduct', or 'alleged rape', or any number of terms that indicate that although no one has been convicted, there was a sexual event that one participant at least was traumatised over.
The media trod so lightly over this, but it's been heartening to see the NRL step up, even if its been less of a statement of 'we're cleaning up our act' and more of a statement of 'we can't have sex without our mates, but that's normal, right?'
It gets weirder and weirder.
And to nicely make a point, Stuff have photos from the "Lingerie Football League" on the front page. See! Sluts want to get near sports guys all the time!
I think I'm missing something. Why would you breast-feed a toddler?
OOps wrong post!
Post a Comment