Image credit: here. Matthew Johns makes the wrong apology on The Footy Show.
Guess who really knows how that feels?
This week Australian current affairs program, Four Corners presented a devastating program on rugby league’s problem with sexual violence against women. Among the many incidents the program had at its disposal (spoilt for choice) to use in exploring this issue was one involving a group of professional players, including ‘nice guy’ Matthew Johns executing a truly debasing group sex session on a nineteen year old woman some seven years ago. The woman has been suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome since and has been suicidal. (She bravely participated in an interview for the Four Corners program, and her testimony is heart-breaking stuff).
Football fun.
Matthew Johns’ apology on The Footy Show, which proceeded by a few days the airing of the Four Corners program, is well worth a viewing if only as a study in male attitudes towards sexual violence and exploitation. Why do men let other men rape? Your answer is right there in co-host Paul Vautin’s ‘maaaaate’ response. Johns’ brief apology, which is made not for emotionally traumatising a nineteen year old woman but for embarrassing his family, is greeted with a supportive pat on the shoulder from Vautin and a “well said, let’s get on with the show”. No harm done.
After a lot of defensiveness, finally the National Rugby League (NRL) is talking the right talk about their cultural problem.
“The program dealt with issues that I would hope everyone in the game finds appalling and unacceptable,” Gallop said. “The distress of the victims spoke for itself and to the extent that the game can apologise for the actions of individuals then I offer that apology unreservedly.”
And.
“Violence against women is abhorrent and sexual assault and the degradation of women is just that.
“So much of what we saw last night was fundamentally indefensible.
“If anyone in the game today is ignoring the importance of that message, then frankly they will need to find another career.
“This is not a time for clubs and players to complain about the media or the fact that victims have spoken out.
“It’s a time to accept the changes we are putting in place or get out of rugby league.”
And.
“Like everyone who saw the program last night, I feel enormous sympathy for the girl involved in the incident seven years ago,” said Zappia.
“As a family man I too found some of what was revealed to be unacceptable behaviour.”
But judging from this forum, many of the fans feel differently. Matthew Johns is seen as trapped by a media which is feeding on his plight as the only unlucky player to be named in that group sex incident. And the victim is Matthew Johns.
Anyway generally speaking the sympathy index for the ‘abused” footy groupie go-getter is resting on about “empty…. “Theyre predatory go-getters , ie the girls, after the BIG CATCH, on the make, todays take on women’s most ancient occupation , nothing else, albeit with a little less integrity than a street walker.
They are treated by these guys as badly as they allow themselves to be treated and come back for more.
And.
Did the clever folk at 4 Corner consider the inevitable effect on the Johns family, particularly the young children? Did Sarah Ferguson consider the sorts of questions that M Johns’ young boys will be hounded with, probably for the rest of their school life? And, what of the public humiliation of Mrs Johns – with Mother’s Day right in the middle of the ABC’s self-promotion of this `expose’?
And for pure amusement value, the scientist of stupidity ‘tj’:
I have studied animal behaviour and evolutionary theory (Ed’s note: Of course you have!) because i enjoy the subject and i just wonder how many people have considered (or conducted thought experiments) on the following ideas:
I love sex. I enjoy having multiple partners. I am experienced and intelligent enough to define limits that ensure i am safe as i engage in these marvellous, fun and liberating expressions of my identity. Sometimes i prefer monogamy – it usually depends which drive is stronger at the time. I am a normal, socially functional, tolerant, beautiful, healthy, STD-free!, working professional (acutally, i’m scientist and i love it).
So, if the young lady concerned were to read this, i would want her take away a message that i believe the situation she has found herself in does not make her dirty, immoral or unconscionable – the only person who can place these labels on her and make them stick is herself. I believe it’s ok for sex to occur as she had it BUT as long as the parties involved are careful to think through the likely consequences before the act … So, it’s not the desiring or undertaking of multiple partners for sex that is the problem here. Rather, it’s the lack of thinking it through first …
These vile incidents of sexual violence and exploitation in professional football circles have given every misogynist in the country a regular platform to reinforce their absurd and repulsive little views in public. Every few months we get to reflect all over again on their assessment of some new horrific incident as a case of ’sports groupies’ seeking revenge for hurt feelings or sluts behaving badly. The victim blaming is done under the protective cover of sports worship, a virtual religion in this country. The NRL needs to urgently address the problem of their players’ behaviour, not only for the safety of women who might come across them but because the game is taking us all down with it.
This whole thing has made me feel sick. I am relieved to see that both Channel Nine and Storm have distanced themselves from Johns now. (I wonder what, if anything will happen to the others?)
I can only hope that the incredible bravery shown by those women on Four Corners in sharing their story will encourage others to seek help and healing and perhaps to also tell their stories.
Those forums made me feel really, really ill.
I’m a little bit scared to watch that Four Corners thing.
Well said. I really can’t bear to think too much about it, though I know that I ought to. It just makes me feel too angry and sick to the stomach – especially the pat on the back & “well said” part of it all.
Once again I’m paralysed with frustration and disgust, and mostly feel like imposing my burning hatred upon the rapists, as if my glare could bring the shame and regret down on them. I, too, winced on the ‘let’s get on with the show’ (yes, forget those pesky sexual harrasment discoveries; on with the fun).
On the 4corners show, there was a some footage of anti-sexual harrassment training provided to a team in Sydney. The boys were shown a clip of a girl being raped while drunk (2 mates taking turns), then another of a guy being homosexually raped while drunk. Predictably, they were all “Who goes for a night out expecting to be gay raped?” and the instructors explained the double standard of imagining that one rape is worse than the other (Did the girls expect that?). Hope! I thought. Then I ground my teeth to powder while watching a young player (in the training session) justify-away the idea of rape – that most of the damage happens in the aftermath (what the?) – if only the guy would say a few kind words to the girl afterwards. How noble.
As you can see, anger messes with my clarity.
I am frustrated at the lack of responsibility the girl involved is taking for her own actions, and the willing consent she gave for the actions of the men in that room. At no time did she say she was uncomfortable with what was going on, and at no time did she refuse the advances of the men. Matthew John’s has admitted that what he did was a mistake, and she needs to admit it too. She was a willing participant in whatever went on, and needs to take a good part of the blame for the situation she now finds herself in. Matthew John’s career, if not his life, is ruined because of this, so stand up and own up to your actions.
Subrhythm, I got the impression that this girl was very drunk when this happened. If you put all those things into the combination – drunk, without a friend nearby or in the room, surrounded by large men, surrounded by semi-celebrities, being 19 years old – I mean, I’ve always been a really sensible person, even as a teenager, but I probably wouldn’t have said boo in that situation, out of sheer shock and confusion. The people who are still able to operate themselves are the more responsible parties in that case, by default, and they took advantage of her in many ways. There may be reasons why she got herself there in that room, but they did this to her – they were the doers, they performed the verb, not her.
and why is Matthew John’s career is so much more valuable to the wellbeing and careers of these women?
[sorry BM, for getting into a debate in your comments. I couldn't help myself]
Subrythm, you and many other people out there have no idea how many sexual assault victims freeze because they’re in shock when something happens that is so completely outside what their life experience has led them to believe is a possibility.
Children routinely don’t ‘object’ to sexual abuse, but does this make them responsible for the abuse?
Okay, this girl was 19, but as the police officer said, she was a very niaeve and inexperienced 19.
I found it so interesting how men usually call grown women girls, but not one male commentator, journalist, TV station owner or manager has referred to this girl as anything other than a woman.
I think the others should be named, shamed and thrown out of the game.
As for the young woman, no doubt she punishes herself every day of her life for not having had the strength to say she wanted to leave.
Just like adults punish themselves for decades for not objecting to their child sexual abuse.
The community needs more education about this issue that ruins so many young lives.
According to Matthew’s account she didn’t freeze. In fact she perpetuated the group activity. She went to the room with TWO men to begin with. She consented to sex, and asked for more to join in. She did not make her age known.
His side of the story should be taken into account also. The Police investigated and NO charges were laid. Why does this mean nothing? I feel sorry for how the girl is feeling, if her feelings are genuine, but there is no crime here, only bad decisions.
Well said. I have exhausted myself with blogs on this issue… its just so encouraging to read these intelligent, understanding comments and not 2 dimensional comments like “she consented” “at no time was she in distress” “it was delt with 7 years ago”. Great to read that people actually look further into research behind rape victims and the debiliating effect is has on them asserting their boundaries during the rape. One thing Im worried about is the fact that Matthew Johns wife says she “supports him” all the way. That is sickening to me, and Im not a prude in any sense of the word. Reality check to women out there who would do this. Wonderful comments here.
O.M.F.G.
SubRhythm – Exactly where does it say anywhere that she willing consented to this? the only places i seem to see the word “consent” being thrown around is by the perpetrator saying that she ‘consented’. Where you there when it happened? I highly fuckin’ doubt it. So I wouldn’t even THINK of saying she was a ‘willing participant’.
Charles – According to my rapists statement I didn’t freeze up either, according to him I didn’t cry or say no. And you know what? He’s as full of shit as (I bet) Johns is. He’ll probably get away with this and manage to bag a couple of promotional gigs. Just like my rapist was able to continue his career after he assaulted me, whereas I had to take a break from study and work for three years until I could get my head straight. I smell a rat here, and it’s fucking big and smelly as shit.
That’s victim/survivor blaming if I ever read it!
Bluemilk: Sorry if this is inappropriate – victim/survivor bashing just makes my blood fuckin’ boil, you know, being a survivor and all.
Matthew Johns deserves all he gets. I feel that he knows he was responsible for the degradation and abuse of a young girl. He knows he lured her to that room, knowing full well what would happen to her, and then stood by and watched as numerous men assaulted her.
His admission tonight on television that the incident has haunted him and he has lived in fear of exposure makes it very clear that this was more than harmless and consensual fun, and Johns knows it. A night of ‘consensual fun’ would not have haunted him like this.
As for his wife… how dare she criticise this young woman victim. She says she knows the “full story” of what happened. No she doesn’t. She only ‘knows’ what Johns has told her, and his actions have already showed he is a person of very poor character and judgement, and low integrity. Not a person to be trusted. That was poor Clares only mistake – to trust Mathew Johns.
I am sickened by Johns and his mealymouthed and pathetic whining excuses.
Well….
Im sorry that he has lost his career, but he should have thought about that 7 years ago when he partiipated in something that he KNOWS is not the right thing.
He committed adultery for one thing and that is hardly a good moral look for the young kids that look up to him now is it.
Then take numerous big burly men entering the room through the bathroom window, if they were welcomed why did they come in that way ?
Because they weren’t. There is no way that a 19 yr pld consented to being mauled by 12 or more massive burly Footballers. Being slapped around her face with their penises while another had sex with her ?
This girl was either held down, frightend to death, or heavily drugged or drunk..There is no way in hell I will ever believe that she consented to all these big burly blokes having sex with her , degrading her and deaming her not just as a woman but as a human being – willingly.
The only reason that Johns is saying she was a willing participant to ALL ACTS is to try and save his ass.
What the blokes that were with Johns should do is come forward , MAN UP And confess to their part and NOT make him to be the fall guy.
Because it could be very likely that she DID CONSENT To having sex with him. But thats it
If she had shown enthusiasm throughout then Johns would not have been moved to apologize afterwards. He could barely choke out that statement about her insisting that others “come forward”. I smell a rat too. This was a gang rape.
Great post bluemilk – it ishard to imagine how what has happened to this young woman is anything other than sexual assault.
Even if she consented to sex with one person, having others come into the room and queue up at the bed… well, it is almost impossible to imagine what she must have been thinking and how great her fear must have been at that point.
What would any of us have done in that situation?
She was young, naive and probably unable to imagine what could happen by going into a room with one or two football players.
Matthew Johns’ recent actions has shown that he has no concept of what he has done to this woman. His apology first to his family, and then to the victim after intense media pressure, and then finally, his statement that he is guilty of stupidity – it shows clearly that he is not remorseful or even aware of what he has actually done.
What should not be forgotten is that the other players who participated in that sexual assault are as yet unidentified. They may still be playing, and they may have done this to other women. That side of the investigation must continue.
This is a really interesting debate about the notion of consent, and how the law does not take into account the inability of many men to respect the human dignity of women (misogyny).
If my interpretation of the story is correct, neither parties say it was rape. The 19-yr old woman wanted to have sex with 2 blokes. That’s fine. What young woman (especially after she’s had a few drinks) doesn’t want to shag a couple of beefy blokes? And there is nothing ‘depraved’ about group sex if all parties are into it. What went wrong was when more than 2 blokes turned up and intimidated her into continuing. And let’s be honest a room full of 12 huge men is going to intimidate a 19-yr old woman. She may have not said ’stop, I don’t like this’, but her 4corners testimony makes clear that she did not enjoy it, and furthermore, that the men involved didn’t even talk to her during the incident – that is, they treated her like an object and not a human being. As grown men (Johns was 30 at the time) they cannot say they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong and totally degrading for the woman. And the fact that Johns admits he ‘apologised’ afterwards is damning evidence of that.
So while it may not have been legally defined ‘rape’, because the woman did not (apparently) ask them to stop, it was a horrible and de-humanising act against a woman perpetrated by men who should have known better.
If they didn’t even talk to her during the incident, why didn’t they just have sex with a sex doll? I’ll tell you why. Because that would not involve de-humanising a woman, and that seems to be what ‘group sex sessions’ are all about for these guys.
If Johns was really ’sorry’ at the time, why did he not tell the others to get out? I hope channel 9 doesn’t weaken and let him back. I also hope his wife wakes up and leaves him.
Charles – where did you see this account by Johns? I’ve not come across it.
In the coverage of this story it has been stressed continually that charges were not laid after police investigations, so I disagree with you that this has not counted. People rarely get to hear from the victims in these incidents and I think people have found this young woman’s account very compelling and very distressing and they have come to suspect that sexual violence crimes are difficult to prosecute.
Whatever happened in that room, whatever degrees of consent were given or not given, someone does not generally leave a normal, happy sexual experience with post-traumatic stress syndrome. That is the kind of psychological damage people sustain after enduring natural disasters or combat.
I think others here have addressed the ridiculous notion that terrified silence equals consent. So I won’t go further.
Aileen and Alison, no need to apologise, you haven’t derailed the thread.
Bluemilk – <3
“Whatever happened in that room, whatever degrees of consent were given or not given, someone does not generally leave a normal, happy sexual experience with post-traumatic stress syndrome. That is the kind of psychological damage people sustain after enduring natural disasters or combat.”
You know, I’ve been looking for a sassy statement of sorts for the last few years to cut down the assholes who ask ‘Are you sure?’ when I’ve said I’ve been raped. You just supplied me with it. And most likely made my day as well (but I am meant to go to a vegetarian cafe later so we’ll see) hehe.
The fact that the young woman lodged a complaint with the police suggests to me that she did indeed consider it to be rape. She may avoid the term now, knowing that the police cannot lay charges but I honour her first instinct, she may not have been able to muster strength to say ’stop’ but she was raped nonetheless. The legal definitions are manifestly inadequate for dealing with the nature of rape because they must balance the rights of the accused. The law may not be able to acknowledge the nature of her violation but I do. She was treated as the inanimate tool for other’s gratification. She was not present as a person for them. She was raped.
Blue Milk- You will find Matthew John’s version of events, in part, on the channel 9 website.
After everything i have read here i still find nothing LEGALLY based to substantiate the actions taken by Channel 9 and the Melbourne Storm. The only thing on this page is conjecture, judgement based on personal ’subjective’ experience and certainly no room ‘innocent until PROVEN guilty’.
OK, these kinds of offenses s in the past have been shockingly swept under the carpet to the point where women believe there is no hope in pursuing justice. But just like in child custody battles the pendulum is swinging to a more fair medium. You simply cannot just yell rape and expect everyone to believe you.
You cannot tell me with any confidence that every rape claim that has been made is correct. People lie all the time, including women. The legal system is there to decide the truth of it, not public opinion. Whether you agree with the legal system is irrelevant. There was no LEGAL wrong doing in this case, there were no charges laid.
If it came to light that this was a bogus claim and a money grab, as many of the women i have spoken to, including rape victims believe, would you personally write a letter to Matthew Johns apologizing for adding to his discredit?
Do you mean to say the ability of our (apparently flawless) legal system to find guilt (aka truth) is always reliable?
Do you mean that ‘no charges laid’ means he was wholly innocent? or just not guilty enough? or ‘he’s been given a good scare; that’s enough’?
I don’t think we’re debating the reliability of rape claims in general, and I don’t this this particular case supports your point that not all rape claims are ‘correct’. The bottom line for me is that if I had to put the case into ‘likely to have been a rape’ or ‘unlikely to have been a rape’, the former is heavily in favour.
And, to be honest, I see no reason why Channel 9 or Melbourne Storm should have a (criminally) legal base for their decisions – its their business how they respond to this public and ethical issue.
I found this to be an extremely distressing show.
What most frustrated me in the show, and to some extent in comments, is the presentation of sexual assault by footballers as deviant and a breach of social norms if not criminal laws, rather than an extreme manifestation of the presumption that women are sexual objects available for the viewing and the taking. This is not the say that all men or footballers are rapists but in presenting this as an issue that is somehow not connected the broader cultural context and gendered power relations it presents sexual assault and objectification as the province of a minority of young men who just need better social skills and some non-sexist training in a classroom.
A particular point to piss me off: using the players’ ‘aggressive and risk taking personalities’ (appropriate on the field) as an explanation for drunkenness and sexual exploitation off the field. This show makes me think there’s very little risk in sexually assaulting or exploiting young and often drunk women. If you get reported there’s a chance of public embarrassment or maybe unemployment for a brief period but criminal charges? Not so much. Public shaming? Not so much. Long term trauma? Not so much.
Two other things that consistently make me grind my teeth:
1) Rape is a crime and it is up to the police to collect evidence and prosecutor to take it to court. Victims do not ‘press charges’ in criminal proceedings and shouldn’t be held responsible for a decision not to proceed. And that decision to not proceed doesn’t equate to innocence on the part of the alleged perpetrator.
2) Legally and surely ethically consent to sexual acts has to be made without intimidation or threats. It has to be free and true consent. I’d argue that any ‘consent’ in circumstances where a woman is surrounded by a number of physically and socially powerful men in a space with limited exits, is not on its face consent.
Long comment, B.M. but I don’t have a blog anymore and watching that show made me very much long for a chance to write these things down.
Also – Johns has said that he apologised after the incident (why apologise if it was fun that everyone was up for?), his wife has commented that what he told her about it made her ’sick’ (what did he say that made her feel sick?) (beyond, one presumes, the infidelity aspect), and Johns has said that he’s been worried/guilty about this for years – why would you be guilty for years if you thought everything that happened was fine?
Clearly, something very wrong happened that night.
kris has raised a great point about the lack of risk inherent in these practices for the men involved. I too was very upset by the reiteration of the term ‘risk takers’ as if that was some kind of excuse. What seriously had me incensed was that particular League official’s comment that it would be unreasonable to train them to be a certain way on the field adn then to ‘put them in a suit and expect them to be submissive males.’ As if men who do not assault or demean women are ’submissive’.
It appears that the victim was proud of her actions the morning after the event.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813924
As i asked previously, who here is willing to write to Matthew and apologize for further slandering his reputation?
Alison- It does not matter if you believe the justice system works or not. It certainly does not matter whether you ‘think’ this case is ‘likely to have been rape’ or not. there were no charges laid because there was no law broken. If you want to talk morality, then why was she willing to have sex with the TWO men in the first place. Not what you would call outstanding moral behaviour (depending on your moral standards). Regardless, morality seems to be a relative term now days.
So what happens if this is a money grab? what happens if it all comes out and completely clears Matthew of ANY wrong doing and she orchestrated the whole thing?
Too many people, too quick to judge with too little information.
Matthew Johns deserves all he gets. He knows he is responsible for the degradation and abuse of a young woman. He knows he lured her to that room, knowing full well what was going to happen to her, and then stood by and watched as numerous men assaulted her.
He admits he had sex with her, then claimed he didn’t know other men had come into the room, so when he realised they had, he states simply stood back and allowed them to have sex with her. Well, where was the consent? If he didn’t even know they were there, how would she have? Exactly what form did this ‘consent’ take?
His admission that this incident has haunted him and that he has lived in fear of exposure, makes it very clear there was a lot more to this than ‘consensual’ sex and Johns knows it. A night of fun and consensual sex would not have haunted him like this. He is haunted because he knows this girl did not consent to what happened to her.
As for his wife… she says she ‘knows’ what happened on the night. No she doesn’t. She knows what Johns told her, and he is already revealed as a man of poor character, bad judgement and low integrity. Not trustworthy at all. That was Clare’s only mistake – to trust that she would be safe with Matthew Johns.
I am sickened by Johns and his pathetic whining excuses.
Well then, if no charges laid means there was no law broken, then I’m off to go rob a bank, or something, and as long as I don’t get caught, well then, I haven’t broken a law, have I?
And, morality has always been relative term and if you want to bring morals into it, why were TWO men, at least one of them married, willing to have sex with one woman in the first place. Indeed, morality is relative.
Well, said hmph, esp. on the front of her morals vs the men’s morals.
I don’t feel obliged or compelled to apologise for my part in Matthew John’s ’slander’ – the only thing he and I disagree on in this matter is the girl’s consent, and I’m entitled to my opinion. I haven’t called him any names. I haven’t presumed anything beyond what was presented by the parties involved.
And, to be really honest, and run the risk of being labelled ‘in denial’, the revelation of the girl’s bragging about the event doesn’t deter me from my opinion that she was taken advantage of. I’m in a position to have watched a lot of young people brag/go on about a regretful incident in the hope they can talk themselves around to being ok with it – its quite common. That’s my opinion.
Props to the Radical Radish below too.
Charles, how is this a money-grab? Will you please tell me how this woman has benefited financially from all of this? (That is, notwithstanding the compensatory payments and psychiatric care she has received from the NZ government as a sufferer of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder…)
[...] is waaaay bigger that one man, no matter how high his profile. As has been noted by bluemilk, the New Zealand case was just the tip of iceberg, 4 Corners were spoilt for choice. There [...]
Charles – given that group sex surely relies on an even higher standard of consent (given the capacity for it to go wrong or boundaries not to be clear enough), surely the onus was on the football players to make absolutely certain that the young woman consented every step of the way. It’s a weasly excuse to suggest that she wanted sex with one or two or that she wasn’t clear enough in saying no or that they assumed she was up for it.
Yes means yes and Johns should have made damn sure that she was saying it EVERY step of the way. Otherwise this just begins to sound like a legally acceptable way to rape.
Hmphh- If that is your real name, you can rob a bank if you feel like it, that is up to you. However, instead of deflecting through generalization, lets look at the specific case we are all talking about here. Matthew Johns was investigated and cleared of any LEGAL wrongdoing. It wasn’t a case of not enough evidence, but simply that there was no case to answer for.
On the point of morality, I’m surprised you think this supports your position. My point about morality is that those here who admit to there being no legal wrongdoing say that there us a moral wrongdoing and that Johns and Co should have known better. In other words, judging him by their version of morality. If it is ok to judge him on his choices based on your moral principles, then it is also ok to judge her based on another set of moral principles.
Alison- You said you haven’t called him any names, yet in your opening statement you said, “Once again I’m paralysed with frustration and disgust, and mostly feel like imposing my burning hatred upon the rapists”. Calling someone a rapist is a very heavy accusation. I wont label you as being in denial as labels never help anyone. I would like point out though, now there are 2 people whose story line up. Tania Boyd is the only third party to weigh in at this stage, but still you seem to think this changes nothing. why is it so hard for you to believe that she gave consent, and maybe even encouraged the group sex? You are entitled to your opinion, as i am mine, but a mans career and reputation has been destroyed and you feel it is ok to call him a rapist. This is just unfair until all parties, including the others in the room, have shared their sides of the story.
Spilt Milk- I have absolutely no grounds to definitively say this is a money grab. I will cut and paste my original statements:
“So what happens if this is a money grab? what happens if it all comes out and completely clears Matthew Johns of ANY wrongdoing and she orchestrated the whole thing?”
“If it came to light that this was a bogus claim and a money grab, as many of the women i have spoken to, including rape victims believe, would you personally write to Matthew Johns apologizing for adding to his discredit?”
My statements were asking a hypothetical question to a possible hypothetical situation. The question has been put to 4 Corners as to whether she was paid for the interview, but they have not replied.
The Radical Radish- I completely agree with you, but unfortunately one man has copped all the criticism, name calling and character trashing and treated like a criminal, yet there have been no criminal charges pressed and when the situation was investigated he was cleared of any wrongdoing. Yet, it still seems like it is ok to punish without trial.
Clare- It has been said, by Matthew Johns, that she did say yes every step of the way. He said that she asked for more to come and have sex with her. That sounds like a resounding yes to me. I don’t recall in the interview on 4 corners whether the woman was asked if she consented. This, one of the most important questions, was not well covered. Add to that, Tania Boyd has gone on record to say that she was quite happy to be involved to the point of making everyone in her workplace aware of the act.
So it appears, according to what i have been reading here that yes does not mean yes. Yes, in fact, could mean no. This is a very blurred line. No definitely means no. Yes means yes if she of the age of consent….. unless she is considered “naive” for her age, then it means no. “Someone come and have sex with me” means yes…… unless she will regret it 4-5 days later, then it means no.
Sex just got a whole lot more complicated.
why cant yes mean yes, and no mean no?
And so the fact that a womyn is suicidal and post traumatic because of this bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever?
I was going to give a point by point argument as to why the bulk of what you’re saying is nothing short of fucking horse shit but today I am just much, much too angry honey.
Oh! Not f*cking a drunk 19 year old while eleven of your mates stand there in the same room looking on and masturbating…(while being married and in the course of your professional work, although that’s totally secondary)
Yeah, that’s complicated! :-/
Um, that last comment was a response to the fatuous “sex just got a lot more complicated”.
Morality has nothing to do with this. The fact that some people regard extra-marital affairs as immoral is as irrelevant as the fact that some people regard group sex as immoral.
The law no longer has anything to do with this either – that’s not what this debate is about. The issue is about the abuse of power by the 12 men in room against one 19-yr old woman, and how this reflects a broader misogynistic culture that regards women as little more than sex toys.
The 19-yr old consented to sex with 2 men. The problem arose when more than 2 men joined in without asking her if it was ok to do so. And if you listen to Johns’ statement, even he recognises that was wrong – he apparently ‘took a step back’ when he realised there were more people in the room, and then apologised after the incident. This indicates that he comprehended what was wrong about the situation but did nothing to stop it. He deserves what he is getting now, and so eventually do the others who haven’t stepped forward yet.
They are in positions of power both physically and socially (because of their fame and money), and in a situation like the incident in question, this power surely served to silence the woman who was probably pretty bloody scared.
My apologies to everyone – I’ve started a very serious conversation here and then been unable to participate properly – totally tied up with 2wek old and 4yr old. Sorry. Thank you to those who’ve taken up the task so well of keeping the discussion here feminist and intelligent.
Charles, I understand that you are representing a viewpoint in disagreement with pretty much everyone else’s, but I’m finding some of your comments fairly offensive. Let’s keep the discussion more grounded, can we. This space is a feminist space and I am most keen that women and survivors of sexual assualt generally are comfortable here, even with such a triggering discussion. Choose your words carefully.
Also, you keep referring to a statement somewhere from Matthew Johns where he claimed the woman asked for more players to join them – where is this? I’ve not see it. Have you got a link to it?
Also, can you stop all the hypotheticals, I don’t believe the ABC pays for interviews, 4 Corners included.
I think I recall Johns saying – not sure on which shows –
“She actually said ’someone come forward and have sex with me’ ”
and I remember it because I immediately thought “Someone come forward”?
Yeah, that’s a common phrase during sex!
I’m relieved that the echo on this thread is about the attitude toward women – not the legalities, the contradictions or the extra parties – but, at the end of the day, a group of privleged men (certainly privileged in that situation) felt entitled to do that to a woman.
Blue milk- Im sorry if have offended you, however, i believe my posts to be very grounded, free of insults and swearing, trying to stick to facts that have come from a variety of places including the 4 corners interview, Matthew Johns’ innterview with Tracy Grimshaw and also Tania Boyd’s interview. the later 2, as i stated in a previous post, can be found on the channel 9 website.
So am i to understand that regardless of what testimony or evidence comes out you will condone Matthew Johns being called a rapist? It appears so, as you have not tried to censor any other opinions, except mine, which is as you pointed out, “in disagreement with pretty much everyone else’s”, regardless of the harsh content. Are you interested in truth, or just being right? there are 2 devestated people involved here, i would think a discussion of the facts will serve better than venting of personal feelings based on personal experiences.
Why has no one addressed the testimony given by Tania Boyd? Why does no one accept Matthew Johns’ version of events? you said you wanted this to remain feminist and intelligent. If feminist means only taking ‘calres’ account of the events with complete disregard for all others, then you have succeeded in keeping it feminist, but failed at keeping it intelligent.
Good Day.
Actually Charles, Alison addressed the comments made by Tania Boyd. As she pointed out, sometimes people brag or talk a lot about an incident in an attempt to make themselves feel comfortable with it. Personally, I wonder why no one is questioning Tania Boyd’s motives in the same way that they are questioning the complainants? What is her personal investment in the story? Her words were that the woman’s colleagues at the hotel thought the event was ‘hilarious’. Hmmm.
I think the point you’re missing is that it doesn’t really matter if Matthew Johns’ version of events is accurate or not. Even if it is, the incident was appalling. He apologised to the woman after the event for the other men coming in to the room, and he apparently told his wife about it and feared reprisals for years – in other words, he KNEW there was something not right on that night. What he perhaps knew instinctively but failed to fully understand (and perhaps still fails to) is that there was an enormous power imbalance in the room. I don’t think it really matters what one drunk woman says to eleven hugely strong men, does it? How could she possibly have felt safe and in control of the situation?
Even if, let’s say, no actual criminal activity occurred, the actions of the team were clearly unethical. They showed shocking disregard for the woman as a human being. And even if we disregard the inherent misogyny in this episode of ‘bunning’, in the practice itself, and in the many other actions by Rugby League players that did – and didn’t – make it into the Four Corners story, it was still a despicable event.
I would not expect to get away with a ‘group sex’ incident involving colleagues whilst on a work trip, which resulted in police involvement and the name of my workplace being brought into disrepute. This is effectively what Matthew Johns has involved himself in, and yet certain people think that losing his job is a harsh penalty?
There is nothing about his actions that is defensible, by his own admission. So I’m a little perplexed by the need of some others to defend him so vigorously for them.
What is the harm in making it clear to all society that lack of respect for women (let’s put it mildly, shall we?) is completely unacceptable?
Charles – I think it is a shame that this individual case is being tried in the public sphere/by media as clearly it involves huge amounts of conjecture (whether the Johns case is rape or just demeaning and exploitative is one of those problem areas).. but I’m pleased that this case has prompted discussion in the public sphere about the boundaries of player behaviour, about consent in group situations, about the degradation of women, about exploitation, and about misogyny generally.
You’ve commented on the dangers with calling this case a rape when we don’t know all the facts, I think that is a fair point and I left it unchallenged accordingly, and I’m content that the discussion is generally more focused on topics like boundaries of consent.
I would also note that there is feminist merit in supporting victims in recognising when a situation they experienced wasn’t just “boys being boys and things getting out of hand” but was sex without consent and therefore rape. Some of the exploration of rape here I would see as being consistent with that too. I’m not speaking specifically about the woman in the Johns case, though.
[...] here which does actually make a lot of sense if you have half a brain. Is it really that difficult for [...]
Blue Milk- you said,
“I would also note that there is feminist merit in supporting victims in recognising when a situation they experienced wasn’t just “boys being boys and things getting out of hand” but was sex without consent and therefore rape. Some of the exploration of rape here I would see as being consistent with that too.”
Alos, Spilt milk paraphrased Alison by saying,
“sometimes people brag or talk a lot about an incident in an attempt to make themselves feel comfortable with it.”
There is nothing untrue about these statements, but to apply generalizations to a specific case like this, with testimony to coroborate, is as offensive as me saying that 40% of rape accusations are false, so this one is too.
One man has been unjustly punished before all facts have been explored. I do not agree with with victim bashing but i do also not agree with trial by media and punishment due to misandrists claims of guilty by gender.
Alison- you said,
“I would not expect to get away with a ‘group sex’ incident involving colleagues whilst on a work trip, which resulted in police involvement and the name of my workplace being brought into disrepute. This is effectively what Matthew Johns has involved himself in, and yet certain people think that losing his job is a harsh penalty?”
This is true. however, he was employed by the Cronulla club at the time. not the NRL, not Channel 9 and not the Melbourne Storm. What kind of outraged response would there be if a woman had a group sex activity 7 years ago, then changed eomployers only to have that employer stand her down for what she did? that is an unfair dismisal claim waiting to happen.
Charles – we will have to agree to disagree on whether Matthew Johns deserves dismissal from his media/promotional/coaching jobs. I, like his employers, and the NRL believe it warrants dismissal.
One man has been unjustly punished before all facts have been explored. I do not agree with with victim bashing but i do also not agree with trial by media and punishment due to misandrists claims of guilty by gender.
He hasn’t suffered any legal punishment. He has suffered punishment on two grounds – firstly, he compromised the coommercial interests of the television station that has employed him, secondly he has compromised the good public standing of rugby league.
When I listened to that woman talk about her experience, she says that from the time the group assault started there wasn’t a minute when she wasn’t “being handled”.
I have no objection to group sex. I object to people whose approach to sex is dehumanising of other people. The woman who told her story on 4 corners became an object to be used, her function to provide a point of contact and connection to the men who stuck their dicks in her, etc.
I am staggered that it appears to be such a priority for some people to defend the right of privileged young men to exploit and dehumanise young women.
I doubt that some of the really straight men I know would want to put their penises where their friends’ have just been.
Yep, my last comment wasn’t a great one. This case brings up awfully strong emotions and I’m finding making clear arguments difficult. I think what Zoe said hit the nail on the head,
“I am staggered that it appears to be such a priority for some people to defend the right of privileged young men to exploit and dehumanise young women.”
I think it’s that as much as the story itself that’s upsetting.
Zoe thank you. I have been wanting to get back here and make that exact point and haven’t had a chance. You summed it up perfectly!
“People lie all the time, including women”
well, shucks. Nice to be included in the human race even if it is as an afterthought.
I’m so over all these folk who wave the consent banner- the “technically, she said yes” get out jail free card…and who seem completely oblivious to the distress of the person who feels abused or taken advantage of.
AS a member of the public, I’m very happy NOT to have to see a middle aged man who involved a drunk 19 year old girl in a session of group sex with a bunch of his also middle aged colleagues as a face on a national TV. The contempt he showed on four corners by waving the ‘technical consent’ flag instead of showing some concern over the effect of his behaviour on a another human being only makes it worse.
Unjustly punished! good grief. he behaved in a way that disgusted the public – those who watch the game he is representing – and this is the consequence.
“She was a willing participant in whatever went on, and needs to take a good part of the blame for the situation she now finds herself in. Matthew John’s career, if not his life, is ruined because of this, so stand up and own up to your actions.”
She has, by the sound of it, ‘taken the consequences’ of being involved with these men. Weren’t there suicide attempts? And now Matthew Johns is taking the consequence of his involvement. And of his very visible lack of of compassion for another person’s feelings.
[...] Radish analyses some of the issues, there are extensive discussions at Hoyden about Town and Blue Milk, and Stef debunks common rape myths. The whole thing makes me feel ill, and I feel even worse [...]
Zoe- You said,
“firstly, he compromised the coommercial interests of the television station that has employed him, secondly he has compromised the good public standing of rugby league.”
ON the first point, the majority of public opinion would disagree. There were reported 6000 calls of complaint to channel 9 the day after the 4 Corners program. Within less than a week of the same event, one facebook support group has grown to over 150,000. I read the forums that used to be in the groups profile before it was changed to a fan page, and i was absolutely astounded at the amount of women supporting him. More than men i would suggest. The question i have is, why does Matthew Johns get publicly shamed while the like of Sam Newman still have a weekly slot?
On the second point, the ‘good’ standing of rugby league has been compromised for some time. I am certain i would not have to list the recent events of similar nature to you. That is partly the problem. One man has taken the fall for all of it. People saw an opportunity to to well and truly tag someone and make up for the ones they missed. It was bound to happen. But it doesn’t make it right.
You also said, “I have no objection to group sex. I object to people whose approach to sex is dehumanising of other people. The woman who told her story on 4 corners became an object to be used, her function to provide a point of contact and connection to the men who stuck their dicks in her, etc.”
This statement is founded on the basis of 1 testimony of the events. there have now been 3 testimonies from those in the room and 2 testimonies from workmates. All five point in the same direction. I think Aileen Wuornos put it best, “Where you there when it happened? I highly fuckin’ doubt it.”
As for your statement, “I am staggered that it appears to be such a priority for some people to defend the right of privileged young men to exploit and dehumanise young women.”
Please read the above paragraph.
Rose- I will not wave the, “technically, she said yes” get out jail free card”, if you dont wave the “he behaved in a way that disgusted the public” banner. We have already pointed out that judging this based on a “particular” set of principles is not the correct way to form an opinion. Morals are as varied as the person who holds them.
As for being a member of the public, you should know that our laws, and those of New Zealand, are written by publicly elected officials. They are elected from the people, to speak for the people. The law in this case found no reason to press charges.
There are those who would appear to be waving off the issue of consent as if it has no bearing on this at all. Well, it appears that the men in that room think that it did. I cannot remember the first time i saw a protest with someone waving a banner saying, “NO mens NO”. but i do know that it has been drummed into the public for a long time. Young men get this message given to them at least once. I know i was taught it in high school. So the issue of consent is thrust at them as the highest level of importance. Now, for these men, it has become a total non issue. Consent doesn’t matter anymore, it is how they are feeling, or going to feel in a few days from now.
Now add to that, our society addicts young men to sex, through music and media. It is still seen, not just in rugby league, but in society as a whole, as a right of passage. No one wants to be the star of their own ‘40 year old virgin’ movie.
Lets add something else to the mix. I am truly surprised at how many people, even on this blog, say, “i have nothing against group sex”. We live in a society now where sex has gone beyond, “don’t be a prude, missionary is the only position”, to, “do whatever makes you feel good. have multiple partners. Have gay/lesbian partners. Go to brothels. have orgies. but the most important thing is to EXPRESS yourself sexually. really, its ok. it all about you”
Add these things together, and you have yourself a loaded gun.
I said this not because i necessarily agree with it all, but this is, none the less, the world we live in. Why do people keep raising the consent issue? It is not just that she appeared to say yes. It is the distinct lack of NO that people keep on about this issue. No no, wait, hold on, stop, what are you all doing in here? nothing. This has people confused. she said yes, more than once and didn’t say no, or anything resembling no, at all. this goes against all we have been told. NO means NO. There are obviously women out there who do actually like this kind of group sex, just use google images for proof, was she one of them? we know now that is not the case, but what methods do you have at your disposal to find out when your in that room? maybe check to see if she is saying yes or no?
For the record, they weren’t all middle aged men, they were mostly quite young, in their early 20’s. They know that no means no. so why didn’t they know to stop by reading any boy language she may have been communicating? maybe they were naive too. These are football players. not scholars.
charles – that is your last comment here and this is why ..
firstly for using homophobia in your arguments: having same sex partners is not equivalent to a loaded gun and does not represent some kind of moral decay in our society. Overwhelmingly, we’re talking heterosexuals in this problem culture in rugby so why even concern yourself with gays and lesbians. And don’t hide behind others views but then use their views to make your point.
second, for boring me near to death: ok, ok, we get it, you think matthew johns has been victimised.
(and yet you yourself believe he has the majority of the community on his side. poor,poor little football star, heaven forbid a group of women on the net should show more concern for a young, shattered woman than for a very privelleged man).
third, the direction you’re taking the ‘consent debate’ in: it is anti-feminist and it is ignorant, do some reading on the experience of rape before you try and advance ideas like rape being about addiction to sex, or the idea that the more men who collude in a gang bang to endorse one another’s versions of events the more weight should be given to their version against a solitary woman’s.
got a complaint? check out some of the other forums run by supporters of johns and see how women with opposing views are being tolerated there – see here for examples http://fuckpoliteness.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/how-do-you-title-a-post-like-this-trigger-warnings/#comment-1147
Bye, Charles. Can’t say it’s been a pleasure.
It is interesting how many people have leapt to blame Teh Gay for this entire team-pack-rape culture. Charles in one way, mainstream reporters in another (‘OMG those blokes must all be gay and just using her as an excuse for getting naked together!’)
This is a problem with the way heterosexual masculinity is constructed by many people. Heterosexual. Problem. Yes, there is such a thing.
Charles seemed to mistake my pingback (from the Radical Radish) as a comment agreeing with his position, which I don’t. Had he actually read my post he may have realised that Johns has been stood down, NOT actually fired as he has been ranting. If Charles had watched some more of those interviews that he was advocating for everyone he might have caught one with Phil Gould in which Phil says that Johns’ decision to step down form both channel nine and the NRL were mutual. Johns is trying to step away from the spotlight as fast as he is being pushed by those particular brands. All these people, like Charles (and as you note bluemilk there’s an awful lot of them out there) getting so righteously indignant for poor MJ should put their misplaced concern into more constructive areas.
Dear Charles
As for the compromise to the commercial interests of Channel 9, the public aren’t the ones who matter. The advertisers are, and they think this stinks.
As for the good standing of rugby league and whether “One man has taken the fall for all of it” – well there are some blokes who can fix that up quick sticks, and they’re all apparently really good mates with Matthew Johns. Really good mates.
See ya!