Victim or not?
A couple of weeks ago a well known NRL (National Rugby League) player and media personality hit the front page of the newspaper because he’d had group sex, SEVEN years ago.
What I’m about to write may be controversial. Don’t shout at me if you don’t agree.
I was annoyed by the revelations of the woman that she had spent the last seven years mentally scared by the consensual sex act that took place in a hotel room in 2002. She was 19 at the time and had sex with up to six NRL players while another six watched. She wasn’t drugged and was there by choice. Five days after the event, she went to the police and cried foul. They investigated and found no wrong doing on the part of the male players.
The woman, identified only as ‘Clare’ has brought this up seven years after the event, by appearing on an ABC program. She outed a particular high profile player and NO ONE else. That player has appeared on television with his wife since, the wife said ‘this was discussed between us seven years ago. It has been dealt with, the only thing he did wrong was betray my trust.’ As far as they are concerned it was done and dusted.
Today, a work mate of ‘Clare’ came out and said that she boasted about having sex with NRL players in the days that followed the 2002 hotel room romp.
The only named player has been stood down from his jobs as presenter and assistant coach.
My questions are these.
Are Matthew Johns and his family being dragged through the media for all to see and discuss as a scapegoat because the NRL doesn’t know who else to blame for the poor behaviour of players?
When does a woman who consented and bragged about a sexual encounter become a ‘victim’?
Is it just me that thinks there are more important things than a seven year old not story that deserves space on the front pages of the national media?
links:
A Current Affair Interview
Johns Stood Down
Woman Bragged
Who's Really to Blame?
If you want more on this story, search for Matthew John in Google News, the above is random selection of over 1000 links
2 comments:
Trial by media. Not the Forth Estate as it should be. This issue does however bring into question how society views sexual practices and the dynamic of sex as capital. In a media soaked environment that has sex as its common currency, hypocrisy is more rampant than any footy gang bang. Is the audience to blame?
The woman should be put on trial. She's obviously doing this now to boost herself in some way -- fame and money my guess -- which puts her in the ranks of paid prostitute; up a notch from whore I suppose.
Everything was legal. Group sex is a lot of fun, as her post bragging would confirm.
The only victim here is the poor Australian public who gets to answer the lovely question over the dinner table, "Mommy, daddy, what's Group Sex?"
Post a Comment