Matthew Johns sex scandal in 2002

[Parra]

You are big on assumptions and moral judgements of other peoples behaviour.

So are you.

Your judgements are just different than mine.

 

[deluded pom?]

It would appear you have trouble in the plumbing department down there :lol:

If every bloke couldn't get it up when they're pissed then wouldn't be much rooting going on after a night out on the turps.

I have succumbed to the old brewer's droop before

 

[Surely]

It would appear you have trouble in the plumbing department down there when you've had a few :lol:

If every bloke couldn't get it up when they're pissed then wouldn't be much rooting going on after a night on the turps. We all know that's not true.

He is a pom, maybe thats why he is concerned about other peoples sex lives.

 

[deluded pom?]

He is a pom, maybe thats why he is concerned about other peoples sex lives.

I don't have to be concerned about NRL players sex lives. I just read it in the 'papers. ;-)

 

[Parra]

If anything, the number of drunken males increases the chances of stupid things occurring.

Alcohol can't be used to pardon the girl's decision to consent any more than the guys'

I agree - the answer to a lot of the problems could be not to make sure that the players always go out as a group - but to ensure that they never do. One man to a pub.

In case the issue of alcohol / consent / girl in control still confuses people it is probably a good idea to remember, if you need to be told, that any 19 year old girl in a gang-sex situation is not going to be "Ok". 10 on 1 is never going to end in anything other than tears.

That this has to be spelt out is ridiculous.

Judgement, other than from the 19 year old girl, was required. Judgement on-the-spot. Not the next day or next week or 7 years later.

Judgement that you would reasonably expect from a 30 year old man.

Hence the outrage.

 

[Surely]

Hence the outrage at the myth that this behaviour is part of wider society. Sure people outside of the NRL misbehave like this too - but they are also castigated freaks.

More of your moral judgements, who says they are casigated freaks, at what point are you happy with other peoples sexual choices ?

20 years ago you would have been villifying homosexuals.

How about you worry about where you put yours and leave other consenting adults to their own choices.

 

[God-King Dean]

I totally agree with you. if this whole discussion has shown me anything it's that - in Australia at least - the attitude is deeply ingrained that women are the moral guardians of our society. women are either victims or judges, and men are always savages or deviants who can't control themselves and have to be told what is right and wrong by women.

that kinda attitude is destructive to BOTH sexes. it's untrue ... but it's also an unfair burden on women and men both.

but it's not a feminist point of view. if anything ... it's a view held by men and women that predates most feminism. it's been around since victorian times.

women are GOOD. they are there to be moral and restrained, and when they cross that line, they are 's**ts' and get no sympathy or respect from anyone.

men on the other hand get painted as complete testosterone fuelled animals, and they either get the 'boys will be boys' free pass (see the matty johns support groups) or they are written off as monsters.

it's all so unhelpful. and I reckon if you look at the news articles you can see it at work so so easily.

I think this is the best time to tell you how awesome you are.

Tbh your posts are the only reason I read Oh Errol.

I love you.

 

[Evenflow]

I have succumbed to the old brewer's droop before

:lol: I think it's fair to say we all have at one time or another. It's only time to worry when it happens more often than not.

 

[Surely]

I agree - the answer to a lot of the problems could be not to make sure that the players always go out as a group - but to ensure that they never do. One man to a pub.

Yeah great idea, you want to regulate peoples social lives as well.

In case the issue of alcohol / consent / girl in control still confuses people it is probably a good idea to remember, if you need to be told, that any 19 year old girl in a gang-sex situation is not going to be "Ok". 10 on 1 is never going to end in anything other than tears.

Apparently it was smiles for the first four days.

That this has to be spelt out is ridiculous.

Judgement, other than from the 19 year old girl, was required. Judgement on-the-spot. Not the next day or next week or 7 years later.

Judgement that you would reasonably expect from a 30 year old man.

Hence the outrage.

yes yes judgement cast him out into the fiery pit of hell now, burn the sinner burn him.

Are you Fred Nile ?

 

[Parra]

More of your moral judgements, who says they are casigated freaks, at what point are you happy with other peoples sexual choices ?

20 years ago you would have been villifying homosexuals.

How about you worry about where you put yours and leave other consenting adults to their own choices.

10 blokes on one girl doesn't work anywhere or anytime.

Blokes masturbating in front of each other is up to them. In front of the girl - well now it involves her as well.

She hasn't responded well to the experience. And neither has anyone else involved.

Keep saying nothing is wrong - but all evidence points to the contrary. Everyone involved seems to regret it. 100% regret.

 

[Meth]

that any 19 year old girl in a gang-sex situation is not going to be "Ok". 10 on 1 is never going to end in anything other than tears.

Her age is inconsequential

She consented

It was poor judgment from Johns; he cheated on his wife- the rest of the detail is inconsequential

 

[Parra]

Yeah great idea, you want to regulate peoples social lives as well.

No. The edict of how to go out has come from the clubs. Numerous times.

It is bullsh*t.

One man to a pub? It's a tongue-in-cheek comment.

 

[Evenflow]

I totally agree with you. if this whole discussion has shown me anything it's that - in Australia at least - the attitude is deeply ingrained that women are the moral guardians of our society. women are either victims or judges, and men are always savages or deviants who can't control themselves and have to be told what is right and wrong by women.

that kinda attitude is destructive to BOTH sexes. it's untrue ... but it's also an unfair burden on women and men both.

but it's not a feminist point of view. if anything ... it's a view held by men and women that predates most feminism. it's been around since victorian times.

women are GOOD. they are there to be moral and restrained, and when they cross that line, they are 's**ts' and get no sympathy or respect from anyone.

men on the other hand get painted as complete testosterone fuelled animals, and they either get the 'boys will be boys' free pass (see the matty johns support groups) or they are written off as monsters.

it's all so unhelpful. and I reckon if you look at the news articles you can see it at work so so easily.

A fair, well balanced and totally objective view from both sides. Excellent post.

 

[Surely]

Keep saying nothing is wrong - but all evidence points to the contrary. Everyone involved seems to regret it. 100% regret.

Yes they have regret, what seemed like a good idea at the time seemed not so good sometime after the event.

Do people need to be dragged through the mud though, are you so perfect you have never done anything you regret ?

You are trying to force a moral point of view onto something because you don't like it. Plenty of people in the world participate in group sex so called gang bangs, masturbating in front of each other. Who are you to decide if something perfectly legal is something they should not engage in ?

If i found oral sex disgusting should i come on here and condemn everybody who enjoys it ?

 

[Parra]

Yes they have regret, what seemed like a good idea at the time seemed not so good sometime after the event.

Do people need to be dragged through the mud though, are you so perfect you have never done anything you regret ?

You are trying to force a moral point of view onto something because you don't like it. Plenty of people in the world participate in group sex so called gang bangs, masturbating in front of each other. Who are you to decide if something perfectly legal is something they should not engage in ?

If i found oral sex disgusting should i come on here and condemn everybody who enjoys it ?

Where do my morals come into this? You keep raising this issue like some sort of strawman argument that you can rail against. You want to do that - fine, but leave me out of it.

This was not some sort of normal consensual sex act that that moralisers found a bit weird. Did you not understand the hurt the girl involved is feeling? Did you miss the raw emotion of Matt Johns interview?

This is a horrible, degrading, embarrassing , shameful situation for all involved.

If that fits your ideal of sex then that's your problem.

 

[Bengal]

but it's not a feminist point of view. if anything ... it's a view held by men and women that predates most feminism. it's been around since victorian times.

Its the radical feminist point of view. As has already being stated, there's many flavors of feminism - this is part of the "all men are evil, all men are rapists" brigade.

Other than that, I thank you for your well rounded response.

.

 

[Surely]

Where do my morals come into this? You keep raising this issue like some sort of strawman argument that you can rail against. You want to do that - fine, but leave me out of it.

.

Because it was a legal consentual act, do you get it.

Your "outraged" because you dont like it and anyone who does is a freak.

 

[sass]

Its the radical feminist point of view. As has already being stated, there's many flavors of feminism - this is part of the "all men are evil, all men are rapists" brigade.

Other than that, I thank you for your well rounded response.

.

totally disagree with you. if anything most radical feminists reject constructs that see women as victims - and see the attitudes that women need to be 'protected' from immoral and violent men as patronising and a denial of female power and sexuality.

I say that as someone who identifies myself as a nonradical feminist.

 

[Parra]

Suits me.

I don't agree that it appeared consensual. But we'll never know. Consent is not as defined as you might like.

I am comfortable with the tag of someone who thinks that "10 men one one teenage girl sex while mates masturbate" is only condoned by freaks

 

[Bengal]

totally disagree with you. if anything most radical feminists reject constructs that see women as victims - and see the attitudes that women need to be 'protected' from immoral and violent men as patronising and a denial of female power and sexuality.

Note the view I gave that they have of men, not women. If in doubt - google Glenn Sacks.

.