You have avoided dealing with the central issue here: if you alleged that you had been sexually assaulted by a dozen footballers would you think it is fair and reasonable to have your name published and face interrogation from the media?

As, of course, the answer is no then one can only conclude that your belief that a traumatised woman should do so is indicative of the kind of heartless misogyny that is prevalent in a significant part of Australian male culture.

As for Johns, he admits that he put her into an extremely degrading situation. That is enough to justify his naming. For those harping about a rather legalistic view of consent let me ask this: did Johns inform this naive starstruck 19 year-old, before or after she entered the room, that there was going to be a gang-bang with up to a dozen burly men? That some of these men would be ‘invited in’ through the window? That all would be watching and some masturbating? Did he as a ‘mature’ 30 year old advise this much less worldly young woman that the experience might well be humiliating and degrading?

No, I don’t think so either.

Was this kind of ‘event’ a one-off?

No, I don’t think so either.

Did you watch the 4 Corners report on this though (if not it’s up on their website)? At one stage the report focused on women who deliberately target football players, ask for pictures of them and organise, in group meetings with other girls, to go and have sex with them. They do this as a one night fling, and move onto the next guy. Judge that sort of action as you will, but it highlights womens role in this as well. They have a choice and it would appear can be just as preditory as men if they so choose.

The instant protection of the woman at the centre of this saga confuses me? What are we protecting her from? This has never been a question of sexual assalt, so we aren’t protecting a victim of crime. Is it that we feel this woman has too much to loose by being named? Why do we not afford this same protection to Johns?

Isn’t this a blatant case of double standards?

ABC reporter: There have been stories of a culture of group sex in rugby league. What do you think of group sex? Do you think it’s OK if it’s consensual?

Lumby: Speaking as an academic, I think that there’s no problem with any behaviour which is consensual in sexual terms.

And further in respect of accusations of group sex involving the Canterbury Leagues players at that time:

“The idea that group sex is abhorrent is a very particular view”
“What matters is that we avoid asserting moral beliefs as moral truths.”

As the $1 million ‘Playing by the Rules Project’ that Lumby and her team developed for the NRL proclaimed, all that players really needed was:

“ongoing education about how to negotiate sexual encounters in a way which ensures informed consent is always obtained”.

Indignant ‘Chris’ Johnson: ‘The cheek of those outrageous Christians….how dare they express their extremist views…’

Leftists are hypocrites seemingly now by definition……

Are you up for that? If not, then you can take your lousy misogyny and shove it.

As in any industry, especially one as sensational as the media can be, there will always be information that is kept between individuals for any number of reasons. They may not always be the right reasons, but I doubt the public are naive enough to believe that everything the media are told is reported on.

For instance, not everyone agrees that was has happened in the Johns case is a fair way of dealing with this situation. Naming one player involved, who has done nothing illegal, has ended up destroying a career. It has also left the woman who participated a ‘nameless’ victim?

I completely understand that some of what the NRL allows and the conduct of clubs and indvidual players may be considered unsavory from time to time. A professional level of conduct needs to be established as we all know these sorts of sports people are role models to a lot of people, especially young people.

Have we though, gone and named the woman involved in this? Why shouldn’t we? She has been protected by a veil of anonymoty Mathew Johns hasn’t had the privilage of. The woman involved in this does not have to face any questioning for her actions, which so far have been reported as being a willing participant of an age to conscent to sex.

Now the can of worms has been opened, should the media not talk openly with this woman and ask some of the same questions Mathew Johns has had to face?

This is my problem with all the discussion regarding this mediaevent, it’s all so moralistic and the assumptions about sex and men/women are so outmoded: Sarah Ferguson doesn’t bother to explore the failings in the justice system that led to the women’s allegations of abuse being unsatisfied and instead puts up young male players for ridicule; Jesse Fink denounces groupsex as leading to “depression … mental anguish and trauma” and “relationship break-up[s]”; and Charlie Happell seems to believe that using a hairdryer is a sign of effeminacy incompatible with the masculine courage required to play rugby.

Individual instances of abuse which have arisen, it seems, out of a culture which was/is extant in the NRL are deplorable, but moralising in general about sexual practices and forms of masculinity/femininity is distracting and, I believe, destructive.

You’ve got to be kidding? Surely this pales into insignificance when compared to the outrageously corrupt relationships between political reporters and politicians, financial reporters and their subjects etc on exactly this basis. Surely this is the LEAST important and/or destructive class of corrupt relationships in the media? Not saying it’s good in any way but come on!

Is it an exercise in public morality training? If so, what’s the actual lesson?

This issue is just total nonsense.

Although I can’t see why, these sportsmen are treated with adulation when out socialising. They are commodities traded between clubs for enormous sums and are paid well for ruining their bodies in a short ten-year career. Great prestige comes from being with them socially so they are often seen as notches on the belts of those with whom they hook up. The message to these guys is that they can do anything they like. Where are the usual boundaries and signals of acceptable behaviour for these young men? I think the answers to the angst generated by this matter is part of a wider social issue and really needs to be addressed much closer to home than most commentators find comfortable.

Too many people still miss the whole point. How males interact with girls/women is ‘taught’ before birth, by the waiting parents perception of the roles of boys and girls. For too long, there’s been an unhealthy boys club attitude to girls and women - it must stop, and it must stop now! I haven’t listened/watched a game of Rugby League since the disgraceful situation caused by the Bulldogs - and I don’t intend changing that practice any time soon! The ‘boys club’ attitude is beyond my comprehension, it defies any deserving degree of respect. Matthew Johns had to be almost ‘operated on’ before he even acknowledged the pain of “Clare”? I’m not convinced that his so-called mates who were also in that room ascertained, that “Clare” was in agreement with what was happening to her, or going to. Did each one of them ask her permission?

The laws in NSW are pretty clear - any person engaging in a sexual encounter MUST be 100% sure of consent; and it must be sought if and when anything changes,eg extra male participants. It must also be sought before different activites are engaged in. If the woman is drunk or in shock or ?? then all activity must CEASE! And, putting her in a cab and saying, ‘thanks for that’ is repugnant, and won’t cut it with me, or thankfully the laws of this state.

Matthew Johns was not a kid - he was supposedly a 30 year old man. There’s no excuses, ever. Those so-called ‘mates’ of his are just low life - in every sense! And Matthew, your greatest crime wasn’t being unfaithful to your wife - in the scheme of things, that doesn’t even count. This is not a ‘family matter’? This insults every woman in this country! You failed to recognise this, as do your ‘mates’? The NRL could start changeing things by stopping the use of scantilly clad ‘cheer leaders’. And as for that supposed “senior NRL player” who proudly boasted that this behaviour would continue - he should be forced to show his face, and then sacked - immediately! Start getting the message fellows- it must stop! I’ve had a gutful of the lot of them! Animals have too much self respect to behave in this manner! I’m not convinced, that we won’t be visiting this issue again - probably too many times! Anybody who makes ‘breaks’ for them should resign too!

” That’s not to say they’re all blockheads, because they’re not, “

- ” but neither do many of them get manicures, have their poodles shampooed or their kaftans dry-cleaned. Nor do they have a hissy-fit when they can’t find their blowdryer.”

I can assure you neither of those two descriptions are worthy of a real man.

But how are you to know that , you are only a man.