Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
How sport got caught between group sex and a dishwasher
|
Et tu Aussie John? The big man of mortgages told Sydney radio this morning that he too would be reconsidering his sponsorship commitments to the Cronulla Sharks, in the wake of electronics giant LG’s decision to “pull the plug” ((c) all newspapers) on $700,000 worth of sponsorship at the end of the year — all due of course to multiple scandals, the most recent being the Matthew Johns Christchurch chop-up. With Cronulla owing nine million to the banks, the club would appear to be well beyond the brink of collapse. One could care, but the interesting thing is how it got to this point. It is not merely that sexual mores have changed to the point where the “(anything) goes on tour” line can no longer be got away with. It is also the product of a culture in which stereotypical versions of masculinity and femininity — Ralph vs. Sex and the City — have to be continually re-asserted. This is necessary not because they are so different, but because they are increasingly similar. Men and women work together in the same sort of jobs, have intermingled social roles, have very few separate spheres of life — in a culture, where, 30, 40 years ago, they were almost all separate. The gang-bang culture has nothing to do with sport per se — it’s borrowed from a rock n roll culture, the Led Zep thing, which can no longer sustain it because, post-Madonna, it too is populated by powerful women who do more than merely front a band. Gang bangs aren’t sexual per se — they’re a celebration of Dionysian excess, but also of Apollonian male power. In your average tribal group s-x fertility ritual, men and women copulate in relatively equal numbers, to replenish the earth, to celebrate a big wedding, etc. The modern asymmetrical gang bang isn’t a celebration of a triumphant masculinity, it’s a neurotic maintenance of a threatened one. The sobby, blubby mutual support groups that the Footy Shows have become couldn’t be better proof of what a soap opera sport has become, an endless performance of wounded post-modern maleness. Just about the only thing worse than this has been the official response, whereby any sort of lapse in manners, decency or morals is the occasion not for either the law or simple disapproval, whichever applies, but behaviour modification via sensitivity training, counselling, anguished Stalin-lite televised confessions (with the wife at the side — isn’t that great! You get to make her feel like sh-t, twice, and televised nationally!) etc etc. As Miranda Devine noted the other day in the SMH. See what you made me do. Where Devine is wrong however, is in seeing player behaviour as some sort of urspring of inherent male behaviour, as if players were just dogs to be tamed by a cabal of officials and consultant feminists. Yes male s-xual aggressiveness is hardwired to a degree, but it’s also culturally produced. Rugby was as violent 30, 50 years ago, but teams didn’t have gang bangs on the agenda. Let’s face it, when sport was something you did as well as holding down a full time job, and getting paid 2/6 to play, your only perk was a warm pastie. If you were horny, you waited for the pastie to cool, then you rooted that. No-one got hurt, except those who couldn’t wait long enough. Devine blames “androgynous feminism” (the sort of androgynous feminism that says a woman can write a politics column, rather than covering hats or Royals). Of course she would. The complex causes behind a scandal such as has hit Cronulla are no competition for continuing the zombie culture wars. Women won’t let men open doors for them, so the only alternative is a vukkake party. Amazing how the places where feminism has really changed the culture — Scandinavia for example — never sees this sort of crap happening. Amazing too, how for Bolt, Devine and others, men’s behaviour is women’s fault, whether they’re in Christchurch or the UNSW cultural studies department. No wonder people can’t take conservatism seriously these days. It’s as weepy, wounded and self-pitying as The Footy Show. Mind you, if it were just a team and some players, the club could tell people to go root their boot if they didn’t like it. But the wider part of this scandal is that players ain’t players no more. They’re a commodity, a billboard, a representative of a household appliances manufacturer — and how much more feminised can you get from that. LG is obviously petrified that women shopping for irons will think of a semen soaked motel room everytime they see the logo, and, a couple of people I know aside, that ain’t a selling point. Sport as a whole is beginning to suffer due to its wholesale rush in the 1970s, from being a low key professional activity, to wilfully becoming an integrated TV/brand/marketing product. One of the reasons its players are so nuts, is because they are now so feminised in traditional terms — treated like Hollywood starlets of old, to be phoofed, primped and paraded for the cameras, the sponsors, the audience. Sport has now discovered that, amazingly, it ain’t sport anymore — its autonomy has been swallowed by a wider system of images. There must be more than a few NRL and club officials sitting at their desks wondering how they got to a point where half their job involves pleasing a whitegoods manufacturer, and the other issuing today’s apologies. If sport really wants to assert itself — here’s a wild idea — the piff off the sponsors, the networks, the spritz, and play for a living-wage in a field. You’ll miss out on the alcopops sponsorship, and attending the new Ford launch, and all those other joys, but who knows — you might start to enjoy the game you once played for pleasure. And you wouldn’t have to sit through re-education sessions or be at the beck and call of Aussie John. |
|
|
20 Comments
A flat-out fabulous rant.
5 stars from me, Margaret.
Spot on Guy. Sportsmen (mostly) and sportswomen are no longer sports players, but entertainers and purveyors of advertising. Another triumph of the capitalist system we (as a majority) persist in voting for.
I’m not one to say well done (I think the $140/yr says that already) but that made me laugh out loud!
And reminded me of a classic song by Sam & Tully, about a trip back from the match and a “Gaytime” icecream.
It’s depressing to hear just about everybody (in just about every sport) refer to what they do as a ‘product’. When teams play boring footy the professional commentators talk about the need to make the product more attractive to advertisers etc.
At least things aren’t as bad here as they are in the US (whose football players make ours look like a bunch of Sunday School teachers), but they seem to be heading in the same direction.
It’s wishful thinking to want to abandon professionalism (regardless of how romantic the idea of playing for fun, rather than pay, may be) but surely the various governing bodies can come up with better ways to occupy their employees’ time. Mandatory trade or tertiary courses? Who knows. But with swimmers punching people out, footy players (of all codes) treating women (and animals) like conveniences and the legendary efforts of our cricketers, surely it’s time to get serious about all this.
(Not that I believe anybody will - it’ll just get chucked in the ‘too hard’ basket.)
Guy…about that phrase at the beginning of your second paragraph. Do you really mean “One could care, but …”? I suspect you mean “One couldn’t care less, but …” or do I misinterpret you?
The commentary by Miranda Devine (in the SMH) is spot on. She presents an outstanding analysis of contemporary feminism and the diminishing status of the male.
“If you were horny, you waited for the pastie to cool, then you rooted that. No-one got hurt, except those who couldn’t wait long enough.”
ROTFL
I’ll never be able to look at a pastie the same way again.
I guess this means that four and twenty won’t be sponsoring the sharks either?
Wonderful stuff Guy.
Quaintly hypocritical that Crikey should write a piece about these castrated nonces that used to be sportsmen – and then publish it with a children’s bad-word filter. “Sem-n, “s-xual”, “cr-p”.
What are you – castrated bloggers that used to be journalists?
The bullshit about web-filters just doesn’t wash – after all, you offer people an unmangled version on-line. What the fuck is going on over there? Why are you filtering?
Just to come back to “Crikey” there, the web filter explanation does wash when you deliver content via email. That’s why we hyphenate sex, semen and the like.
I write as a visiting Martian (akshally an unreconstructed, cave dwelling 60s freek) so I know nowt, and care less, about footy or team sports but the male cohort behaviour is as old as the bronze sword/horn hoe division.
I dimly recall the 50/60s when Sydney league was played by working men on their weekends for pleasure, suburb based and probably went to school together which needed no MBA/focus group w*nked/bonding rituals. The only reason for such krap is that it IS so entirely artificial, meeting a non-existent (in the real work-a-day world) need for it’s advertising streams. It ain’t about sport but TV product, indistinguishable from cornflakes or anything else in the electric fog.
Group s*x, as opined above, was about GROUPS, interchangeable and mutually involved. Many men & one receptacle ain’t s*x, it’s a daisy chain with a crocus in between to hide the obvious.
Morality and Hypocrisy are conjoined twins, wherever you find sweet little Morality stinking ugly Hypocrisy will be nearby, deploying her lethal weapon the double standard to create as much misery as possible.
There are currently three different standards of sexual morality commonly to be found.
The first is that derived from Christianity which is that sex is sin, full stop. A person to be righteous should go from birth to grave celibate. There is a grudging acceptance of marriage but I hear a distinct sound of sniggering behind the words of the Christian wedding service.
Next there is the hedonist standard, sex for all is OK as long as no one gets hurt.
Third there is the alpha male high testosterone (or gang bang) morality favored by practitioners of footbrawl (not a misspelling). It is contaminated by remnant of the Christian no sex standard, but only for judging the behavior of women. Men are judged to fail if they don’t have lots of sex with lots of different women, but women fail if they do not confine their sex contact to their boy friend or husband. By this standard a gang bang is OK if the girl consents, but consent consisting of saying ‘YES’ to the first male who is not her boy friend. If he then decides to share her with all his mates as he is in entitled and indeed obliged to do, she is obliged to put up with what follows.
The thing is that a girl who agree to sex with one man think that both she and the man are employing the hedonist morality, and that the sex act does not lead him to despise her but then finds out that he is using standard three, and that she has lost all right to any respect from him, his mates and anyone else he knows about it.
On the 4 Corners forum posting is running heavily in favor of Matthew Johns and against Claire, Sarah Ferguson and Four Corners. What is being missed is how the double standard that I just discussed is an unstated assumption underlying many of the comments.
Some of the propositions stated or implied are:-
1/ There was no criminal conviction nor indeed prosecution so bringing the issue up at all in public is wrong.
2/ That it is unfair to bring it up after 7 years have passed.
3/ That Matthew Johns should sue for defamation.
4/ That Claire is the one deserving criticism because she consented and then [edited: felt abused later]
Answering these in order:-
1/ A conviction gives the law the right to apply punishment. Because there has not been a conviction the law is not entitled to punish Matthew Johns or his mates, but that does not mean that the event must not be discussed in public and that those of us who disapprove are not entitled to say so and boycott sponsors of the League, The Sharks and the Footy show, and that the Footy Show is not entitled to decide that Matthew Johns continued employment would damage its brand and sack him.
2/ I would ask those who made this point whether the statute of limitations on bringing this is issue to light is one week or two?
3/ I would love to see Matthew Johns sue, because I think a court case would reveal more information that ought to become public.
4/ The question is how much did Claire’s story change between the day of the event and the time of her reporting to the police? It may not have changed as much as those hostile to her seem to think. It may simply be that she did not understand what happened until some times afterward. When she consented she may have thought that everyones’ perceptions and moral interpretations of the happening were governed by hedonist morality, that she was among friends [portion of comment edited]
I have no doubt that Claire consented in a legal sense, that the police were right not to prosecute, that had there been a prosecution a jury would have been right to acquit. That does not mean that I believe that Claire is a liar in the way that her critics seem to think she is. I suspect that in looking back on her thought processes at the time she realized that she had been subject to pressure from fear and perhaps a desire to preserve an illusion of self respect by pretending that she was
willingly not withdrawing consent. If she consented she did so in an environment full of coercive elements which she could not or did not deal with at the time.
In conclusion, it is the double standards associated with morality that judge men and women differently for the same behavior that are the real problem and especially when teamed up with alpha male morality.
But a big part of the reason why people give a gnat’s ass at all is because players aren’t just players, but “a billboard, a representative” … If over-commodification of sport means that players are being called to account for atrocious deeds, even if only to “please a whitegoods manufacturer” rather than out of any genuine remorse or contrition, then maybe that’s a good thing.
You come to believe that in this era that some Sports People are playing the part of entertainers for some viewers perhaps this is good for some, but not so for others.
I guess life changers, and every one in a certain way move withe times, oh what a
challenge.
I think it’s about time Crikey attached a glossary to Rundle (Maul?) contributions. I’d like to know how to spritz my vukkake.
Very interesting article Guy. However, you fail to mention that alcohol acts as a suppressor of all dignity and it encourages behaviour which these sportsmen(?) possibly would be unable to do if sober. Countries which have virtually no record of gang-banging also have access to alcohol yet behave themselves. Why the difference between the cultures. Some research into Oz beer and it’s ability to arouse aggression-mixed with testosterone-could be of interest.
For Miranda Devine to suggest mens’ behaviour is the fault of women, contains, like many sweeping statements, the germ of an idea. However, she hasn’t quite tackled the subject, treating it instead as a flip statement to be trotted out.
I venture to suggest that the ‘sporting players and their public’ are saturated, sodden with womens’ sexuality. (Yet, somehow cricketers don’t seem to be affected) The advertising industry, movies, womens’ magazines-all forms of media-reiterate day after boring day.”Look at Angelina Jolie’s tits, she is the sexiest female on earth.” “Look at that English woman with the enormous tits’.Implication being ‘she is the sexiest woman on earth’. Anyone around to suggest that what comes out of all these womens’ mouths is a far greater turn-on/off than mere breast implants. Gaze at womens’ legs where they meet up with the crutch.’ This is the great orgasmic moment? Fill in your own descriptions of sexuality amongst women.
The flip side being women have become idealized as young, gormless, vacuous characterizations of women.
Where has a man’s sexuality disappeared to? Thanks to the previous villains I mentioned, it has been reduced to a light-hearted joke about budgie-smugglers. So there is the emasculated male. Emasculated by the people who run the advertising industry, the media, et al. Perish the thought that a man should enjoy women as human beings. Women fare no better as they have to believe big tits and bums are the gateway to getting a life partner.
Ther one has it; on the one hand you have a life-sized barbie doll who promises the world. That she will not deliver is beside the point. On the other hand there is a life-sized, budgie-smuggling, [edited] youth about the age of fifteen.
How can this emasculated male get to perform with this tits and bum image of movie stars? He can’t. Therefore he has to wait until he and his mates are sodden with beer and one of them brings up the subject of the blonde over there at the next table.
If anyone thinks I am condoning this revolting practice they are dead wrong. All I am trying to say is ‘Where are the trained people to help and reorganize the stunted responses of both sexes?’
Football players by the stage of sexual awakening are an explosive mass of rioting hormones. Of course they want to have sex. But thanks to their parents, brain-washing by religious fundamentalism, together with all of the above. Have all combined to neuter the poor bastard.
As for the women? Well they can always fake an orgasm.
I accept there might be some truth behind that reasoning, but at least, it should be an opt-in measure, and not automatic self-censorship. If Conroy is going to put his hands in your trousers, it should be by invitation, not obligation.
Jonathon Green: Quite so.
Re-reading my comments I see that I’m the guilty party re: s-x, se-uality, cru-ch? Sorry about that.
A note to the moderator.
I thought the bit edited out of my previous comment contained some important ideas.
Any suggestion how I coulld restate that bit to render it publishable.
Regards, TheEvilOne.
I google words that intrigue. “Vukkake” ..shades of something Greco-Romanesque ? Stab my eyes it was Stephen Conroy’s worst nightmare. Granted there’s no literary or artistic value in such gatherings but then I doubt they’re convened for that purpose.
You should see the short-crust beauties my local bakery stocks. Reminds me of the Viz character, Fru.T.Buns