Regarding the NRL/Matthew Johns scandal, Andrew Bolt knows who to blame:
If Johns is sacked, why not Lumby?
Catherine Lumby’s offence?
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.
That was Lumby’s doctrine – what adults did to each other even in the most crowded of beds was fine as long as all agreed to it.
So… Lumby’s focus on consent (in 2004) is to blame if footballers had sex with a woman without her consent (in 2002).
I see.
Says Bolt:
He’s learned that consent does not trump morality, whatever he’s been told by fashionable ethicists.
That’s why he’s been dumped by Channel 9 and Melbourne Storm, and that’s also why one of those ethicists – the National Rugby League’s own gender adviser – should be sacked, too.
That’s not what he’s learned at all. Well – he’s learned that consent doesn’t trump the commercial interests of major entertainment corporations. He’s learned that he’d better stick to their arbitrary version of public “morality” – in this case, that group sex is WRONG BY DEFINITION – if he wants to keep those jobs. And if Lumby were his PR adviser, and had told him that Channel Nine wouldn’t mind if he were revealed to have engaged in group sex, then she’d certainly deserve to be sacked for that – clearly she’d have been astoundingly wrong.
But the main thing Johns is in trouble for is allegedly NOT following Lumby’s subsequent advice, that “informed consent” is vital. It’s the allegation – which may be untrue* – that he stood by as a girl was effectively raped (again, only an allegation) by his team mates. Because – and it staggers me that a prominent newspaper columnist doesn’t seem to get this – consenting to sex with two men does not equal consenting to sex with any man who happens to walk into the room. And standing by while a woman is raped would itself be a crime. (If that was what in fact happened, in respect of which all we know is that the NZ police have investigated those allegations and decided not to prosecute.)
It shouldn’t, in 2009, be all that difficult for any functioning adult to understand.
But Bolt thinks that when Lumby and the law say “consent” they include failing to object or simply acceding to intimidation:
I don’t doubt that she did feel powerless, or at least intimidated and on show, and if she was indeed smart enough to work out at the time that the sex was wrong, she was not strong enough to insist.
Yet even though she consented to the sex – or didn’t object -
Those things are very, very different! Failure to object is not “consent”. Being intimidated into agreeing is not “consent”. They’d both be rape.
You keep using that word “consent”, Mr Bolt – I do not think it means what you think it means.
Consent also means it’s every man for himself. That you can do whatever you can force some silly or intimidated woman to agree to, however much it will hurt them.
If this teenager consented to group sex, there was nothing more for Johns and his mates to know.
That’s complete rubbish. If a woman consents to sex with particular men, then that didn’t mean she’s consented to sex with others. And forcing someone to do something is, again, not consent.
Andrew, you’re attacking consent by describing harmful situations that are clearly not consensual.
Now, responses to this incident have run the gamut from the misogynist “if she said yes to two she said yes to all” to the puritan “group sex is wrong and should be punished”. Bolt’s attempt to blame it all on his cultural war opponents lurches awkwardly from one extreme to the other – if you were to try to tie it together, the only sense you could make is that he blames all participants for falling short of his personal moral code, and thinks that the harm described – the harm of a rape – is simply the consequence of such a failure. He wants to blame Lumby’s focus on consent for an incident that is claimed by the woman now not to have been consensual – for the players she advised allegedly NOT following her advice.
Because Lumby was quite right – it is all about consent. Consent is not a “furphy”, as Bolt refers to it in his column. Adults can consent to things that they might later regret – in every aspect of life, not just sex. (Andrew’s side of politics is a big defender of the right of people to be stuck with poor economic decisions they’ve made.)
Denying adults agency – telling them that there’s a big MORAL AUTHORITY that knows what things are and aren’t good for them (apparently consensual group sex being a contradiction in terms) actually robs them of the power they might need to, for example, say “no” when things get out of hand. Andrew’s position actually makes it worse for young women – who might feel once they’ve fallen afoul of the moral code he espouses (by agreeing to sex with two men) that they’ll get no sympathy if something they DIDN’T want happens to them after that.
Andrew’s position does the hurt young woman at the centre of this scandal – who he patronisingly accuses of being “neither that smart nor that strong” – no favours at all. And it will make it harder for the next woman who knows what she wants and what she doesn’t to have the freedom to do the former whilst having the power not to be bullied into the latter.
The problem is not adult men and women choosing not to follow Andrew Bolt’s arbitrary moral code; it’s cretins thinking that once a woman has strayed from it, now anything goes.
The problem is the dangerous, appalling notion that consent is a “furphy”.
Let’s hope it doesn’t spread to any more footballers.
*We have no idea what occurred on that night, and are not alleging anything. We are commenting on the general issues raised by the subsequent discussion. Mr Johns has not been charged with any offence, and the allegations against him that are being widely discussed in the national media are just that – allegations. We know nothing more on the specific incident that prompted the debate than that.
UPDATE: There have been some minor changes made to this post to make the above note doubly clear. Obviously, this post is about the general issue, not the specific incident in question. It is responding to Andrew Bolt’s thoroughly disturbing suggestion that consent is merely a “furphy” – and his ridiculous attempt to use the incident to try to get a “culture war” opponent sacked.
42 Comments
You keep using that word “consent”, Mr Bolt – I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
Boltite comment:
So will the ABC now do an expose’ on womens behaviour. Why do some women throw themselves at rich, powerful, successful famous men.
Men are genetically programmed to procreate – not much chance of changing that.
Why do women want to marry someone richer than they are when men don’t discriminate on wealth or social status.
Of course women treat themselves like a minority group. They have special ministers and departments that come out once a year and declare that women don’t earn as much as men. How’s that when every award pays the same whether male or female.
Why do we have we a doctor shortage? Because we train more women and once they have found the rich husband they work part time. Fact
Try that ABC. And before I get labelled a misogynist debate the facts. Yes I’m married and no my wife doesn’t work and we share the chores.
Of course, a mysogynist wouldn’t get married would they?! And he does some chores! She must be so grateful to be married to such a SNAG and an intellect!
The Boltites do not even realise that there have been documentaries and series made about women throwing themselves at League and AFL players. SBS has repeated one not too long ago about how they go about it.
The column and associated articles on this matter are Andrew’s “Social Commentary”. He cannot figure out how to approach Turnbull’s proposed increase in governement welfare and taxes which we all know the liberals are against. So he has a go at this.
I married a woman who earns more than me, does this mean I failed? Should I have married someone poorer?
Andrew’s take on this is so wrong it is hard to know where to begin, firstly when did Lumby become a regular on The Footy Show? Or a coach for an NRL team?
The real scandle in this story is that while Johns has accepted that he has done harm and apologised to the woman at the centre of all this, Channel 9 still employs Sam Newman despite Press council rulings.
The words “functioning adult” and the name Andrew Bolt should never appear in the same post.
The words “unhinged” or “deranged” do come to mind, however.
But what is a “fashionable ethicist”? Does Lumby wear Prada?
Yep Dam Buster, quick to pay out on the Rudd budget….
Not so quick to comment on the Liberal budget reply….
@2
My god, here’s a genius revelation, men are genetically programmed to procreate and that can’t be changed. But by omitting it I gather the Boltite means women aren’t genetically programmed to procreate and if they are that can be changed?
And what has a man being genetically programmed to procreate have to do with many men having sex with a woman at the same time? Are men now genetically programmed to have group sex and that can’t be changed and women genetically programmed to have as many men as possible at the same time to ensure procreation?
Just how fucked is this line of reasoning when taken to its conclusion.
I see Bolt’s attempts to justify Johns as part of a wider News/Nine push to ease criticism of the Footy Show and their overall investment in the sport. I now see someone has been unearthed in Christchurch claiming the victim was bragging about the exploit in the week after the incident. I would be wrong to suggest that chequebooks have been waved at anyone who could come up with this story, wouldn’t I?
This whole rancid coverage has made me angrier than almost anything else I’ve ever seen Bolt write. Selfish, ignorant, filthy journalism.
“You keep using that word “consent”, Mr Bolt – I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Nice touch
Of course, we do have to remember that Andrew is a regular on Noine’s “Romper Room for gwown-ups” morning show.
So he wouldn’t want to go in too hard or they might look to replace him with David Marr.
“If Johns is sacked, why not Lumby?”
I would have thought it’s because there’s no suggestion that Lumby possibly pack-raped someone, Andrew.
Having an opinion that doesn’t tally with Bolt’s is on a par with being accused of being involved in pack-rap, now?
I think it is perfectly clear why he blames Professor Lumby. Here is his description of her…
….I’m talking about Prof Catharine Lumby, a post-modernist of the University of NSW and author of grants-backed studies such as Why Feminists Need Porn…
You know how much Andrew loves government grants- and to a “post modernist” to boot!
“Men are genetically programmed to procreate …”. And women are genetically programmed to have babies. God works in mysterious ways.
“…when men don’t discriminate on wealth or social status”. No they just discriminate on breast size, youth and attractiveness. It just dawned on me all men are Benny Hill. No that’s not true. All Boltites are Benny Hill.
Ross
And let’s not forget that NRL is pretty much owned by News and Nine. What gets me most about this is the way it has now become (in Andrew’s mind) about Lumby and her role in advising the NRL. How can she be held responsible for actions that happened before she began advising the NRL?
Agreed, David. This is less about issues of consent and morality (although Jeremy eviscerated Bolt on that point too) then it is about Bolt having another dig at his perceived enemies in academia.
pretty disgusting really from andy. maybe he’s simply star-struck like all the other usual suspect apologists for revolting male behaviour (a footy legend wouldn’t really do these things therefore the woman must be lying). can anyone remember his stance on the Sam Newman / mannequin affiar?
Daniel
One has to wonder why Andew hates Academia so much? I know it plays well to his audience but as he has to then rely on some academics to add wieght to his argument.
Pru Goward seems to not agree with Andrew http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/14/2570136.htm?site=local
nor Jill Singer http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25475902-5000117,00.html
Now I know Andrew isn’t a Singer fan but surely Ms Goward must carry some wieght in Bolt’s world?
surlysimon,
Pru Goward has ‘proven’ to be quite the ‘latte liberal’, in contrast to her earlier appearances as a Liberal party candidate with links to John Howard.
She is part of the ‘Turnbull is too left’ set. That is, I think she would support Turnbull over a more right wing leader like Costello.
surlysimon, Van Patten over at Boltville has raised the comments of Pru Goward only to be shouted down as a troll. Never get in the way of the Boltites and their need to throw stones.
Oh dear, this will upset Andrew http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/05/15/1242335860019.html
How twisted is Kedgie @ 11? Let me spell it out for you Kedgie: It is utterly ridiculous of Bolt to try to equate Lumby’s considered ethical position on matters of sexual behaviour (whether you disagree with it or not) with Johns’ treatment of the young woman in question. One was attempting to work out a code of sexual ethics that makes sense in the contemporary world; the other involved himself in what can charitably be described as degrading behaviour. Why is that difficult for you to understand? Bolt’s position on this is contemptible and indefensible.
Some commenters have noted (in still-moderated comments) that this post was taken offline for a period of time. Alterations have been made to this post and no comment or speculation about the changes made or the reasons behind those changes will be published.
Thanks for your understanding on this matter.
what happened to my comment in this thread?
I deleted it because it was trolling. Post on topic, don’t post personal attacks and don’t hijack or derail threads on this site – or you can just post at your own blog instead. We value reasonable and informed debate here.
Here’s something that gave me a bit of a wry chuckle.
I was thinking about the infantile ‘bonding’ culture that seems to foster this kind of behaviour in NRL players, and trying to imagine what sort of bloke might actually go against the pack mentality and not get involved in this degrading gang-bang muck. Only one player came to mind.
Step forward Hazem El-Masri, committed family man. And devout Muslim.
I wonder if Bolt will do a piece extolling his Muslim virtues? Yeah, and the Rabbitohs’ll win back-to-back Premierships.
Well said, monkeywrench. And supported by evidence – El-Masri was well clear of the allegations surrounding the Bulldogs in Coffs Harbour five years ago.
But I’d imagine that if you managed to raise the issue with Bolt, it’d be because he’s a Muslim who has assimilated with Australian values.
I don’t think El Masri as assimilated at all. Bloody Muslims coming here and not taking part in a good old Aussie gang bang or shot-gunning cans of Tooheys. Any wonder why they’re not wanted in Camden.
A comprehensive pwning, Jeremy. Good on ya.
{Speculation about personal character as well as implications about criminality removed – Toby}
Also Andrew Bolt ignored completely a vital question posed by the Four Corners program.
During the re-education session which one of the teams is going through. The footballers were shown two videos. The first one depicted a victim being gang raped. There was a nudge nudge reaction. Implicit was the snigger snigger attitude. ’she was up for it’ [perception was obvious.
The next video showed a homosexual gang bang. There was stark silence, complete horror and a Faustian perception of hell.
Could someone please ask Andrew Bolt what he thought of the double standards being portrayed? Fine, male-bonding, experience to participate in the mass fucking of a woman especially as the participants who are waiting for their slice of the action are busy masturbating over the unfortunate victim. But it is innately appalling for a man to be subjected to mass buggery. Work that one out.
since finding this blog after the bushfires i’ve been a regular reader and usually agree with her take on things. but Patti Chong has the Johns saga all wrong in my view. by choosing the focus solely on the legality of the allegations and whether charges could/should be layed falls into a fucking huge hole that goes something like “he wasn’t charged therefore move along, nothing to see here”. and how’s this for a revolting line from a legal professional who should know better:
It conjures up images of 70+ year old old-school lawyers in rape trials, the classic “askin for it defence”. isn’t this using the same ‘moral’ reasoning as the 2GB / tabloid newspaper crowd?
Thank you Tobias @27,
The reason I thought of El Masri was, of course, his appearance on ABC’s “Australian Story”
here, where you can read the transcript.
But this snippet was what stuck in my mind: ( sorry for the length)…
ARWA EL MASRI, WIFE: I’m the third daughter to a Palestinian family. I was a university student at Western Sydney Uni. I wasn’t sure how I’d go with the other partners at the Bulldogs.
DEBBIE SPILLANE, FORMER BULLDOGS MEDIA MANAGER: Footy wives are normally dressed to the nines and in very sort of alluring, fetching sort of outfits. So when you saw a lady in a long dress and a veil, it was quite obvious that was Hazem’s wife.
ARWA EL MASRI, WIFE: I kept away from the football scene. I wanted to know what I was all about first, because people were going to identify me as being Muslim and an ambassador for my religion and I realised that if somebody was to ask me one day – why exactly have you got this piece of fabric covering your head – I was able to give them an answer that they could understand. I chose to veil when I was 23. It was after we had gotten married. And before that I never experienced any kind of prejudice or racism in any way but it was a big shock to my system when I walked out in public for the first time with a veil, just the experience of just being looked at differently or even being assumed that you don’t speak any English. I think what most people think Islam is about is that it’s a hierarchy system where the husband is number one and then the wife is number two, and then the kids follow. I’ve never felt that in my marriage or in the time that I’ve had with Haz. It’s an equal relationship. And I think that for him to see that I decided to take this upon myself and do it and commit to it, I think he felt proud because he thought well, she’s moving to the next level in her own faith.
HAZEM EL MASRI: I went out one time and come back and all of a sudden, she had it on and I thought she was just trying it on. And then she said, “No, no it’s staying.” And she had a tear coming down her eyes as well. And I said, “Okay then,” you know, and I give her a bit of a hug. It’s her own choice and she stuck by it and I was very proud of her.
ARWA EL MASRI, WIFE: We made an appearance on “The Footy Show” and I think that’s the first time that the general public got to see what I looked like. A couple of weeks after that the first letter, and the only letter that Hazem ever received that was hate mail, was from an unidentified gentleman who chose to use every vulgar term he could find to describe my appearance. It really upset me. I think it took about, you know, two weeks for me to stop thinking about it. But it was probably one of the, one of the most disappointing things to happen I think to him personally.
HAZEM EL MASRI: Things like that make you more determined. That’s what drives me to be more successful and drives me to be more going out there and promoting a unity amongst people and eliminating that ignorance. I think a lot of people are hostile towards the Muslim people or the Muslim faith, it’s because of their ignorance. I think it’s the fact that they don’t know much about the Islamic religion itself, they don’t want to learn.
I wonder which blog that hate-mailer might feel most comfortable in?
Nice piece from Maxine McKew here and begrudging kudos to News.com.au for carrying it. If something can inflame Bolt to the point of faecal incontinence, it will be the Goddess of Bennelong buying into the debate. Watch the Tubes, brothers and sisters!
One of the most sickening threads Bolt and his untermenschen have EVER come up with, and that’s saying something. I’ve had three goes at reading it, each time I’ve had an irresistible need to have a shower. And twice have actually had a shower.
So far I’ve seen blamed: the girl; the ABC; Four Corners; the sexual revolution (caused of course by the Left); sexual depravity (the Left, again); in fact practically everything but those who are really to blame, which is the players involved. And more generally, the clubs and the League which privately condones players having these sorts of misogynistic attitudes. I’ve been waiting for some drooling cretin to bring up Kevin Rudd’s earwax, but so far they’ve avoided that one, sad to say.
Quote du jour for andy’s thread and the other apologists for revolting male behaviour from footballers:
top that.
Bloods05 – Did you read what I wrote? That’s what I was saying.
Twisted? The only thing twisted is your reading of a perfectly straight-foward comment.
Confessions – Might be worth making the distinction – that’s from Andrew Crook’s Crikey article, not Andrew Bolt’s piece.
Yes i know, but when you read some of the comments in response to bolt’s post, you still can’t go past lauredhel’s remark.
Sorry Kedgie, your use of italics confused me. My mistake.
Confessions, I looked for lauredhel’s reply but couldn’t find any. Has it been deleted? Can you give us the gist of it?
Uhm. I’m SO offended by Bolt this time I just don’t know what to say.