In case you don't keep up with the sexual comings-and-goings of rugby league players, a story came out this week that, during a tour several years ago, a group of Australian rugby league players, including the apparently famous and very married Matthew Johns, took a 19-year-old Christchurch girl to their hotel and proceeded to have group sex with her. The woman has finally decided to come forward and, as a result, Johns, the only man named so far, has lost his jobs as a broadcaster and coach, or some such. Perhaps understandably, the now-mid-twenties woman is not too happy about the incident - but today's Herald/AAP article claims that she loved it:
A former work colleague of the woman at the centre of the Cronulla Sharks sex scandal in Christchurch involving Matthew Johns claims her co-worker bragged about the incident.Well that's nice. But is this what the story is actually about - the sexual perversions of the woman in question? Or is it actually about how several highly-paid sportsmen, at least one of whom was married, took it upon themselves to take a teenage girl to their hotel room for group sex? I haven't been following the story too closely, but is the woman's main claim that the men should be prosecuted, or is it just that this kind of behaviour should come out in the open? Character assassination of the woman in question seems like a pretty low blow. You should be really proud, media - not to mention the 'former co-worker' who blew the whistle in this particular article:
Tania Boyd has told the Nine Network that the woman in the ABC's Four Corners report, identified as "Clare", had boasted to her workmates about bedding several players and only contacted police five days after the alleged incident.
"We all just thought it was hilarious until five days later the police came to work and were horrified she had now changed her story to say she was now a victim of crime."What a champ.
"She is saying she is still traumatised etcetera, well she wasn't for five days, or four days at least, after that affair."
"I can't work out what's happened. Does it take five days for it to sink in?"
Anyway, as you can imagine, this story has not only hit the top of the most-viewed stories, but has also reached the highest bar of the court of public opinion:
hey you (Waiotaiki Bay): Silly girl out for a thrill is revolted about it in later life, consentual (at the time though now deemed barbaric) fun returns to haunt, is there a flip side perhaps? should she be sewn shut?.
At the time or immediately after is the time for a genuine complaint to laid and acted upon not 10 days after and certainly not 7 years. Needle and thread for this methinks.
Authority (Mt Albert): The root cause is that some dopey girls think enjoying group sex makes them cool and popular so they'll win a trophy boyfriend.Yeah, that's clearly the root cause. You're truly an 'Authority' in this area.
When they realise they're not, they become bitter and twisted, and then revise events to demonise the men and thereby clear themselves.
The girl in question originally boasted of her sex romp. But now she finds it easier to blame everybody else for her problems, rather than accept responsibility for her own life. And she thinks murder is a good solution.
Honestly, I can barely bring myself to read any more. It's not just the chauvinist retards who blame women for getting raped (I mean in general, not in this case - it was 'consensual'). It's the media that give this kind of article (and these kind of views) a forum, either to sex up a story or in some mistaken attempt at a perverse 'balance'. Some 65-year-old redneck's misogyny I can deal with, because I don't (apart from on YV's) have to deal with it, and they'll be dead soon. It's a different story when it's the media saying that 'she loved it'.