welcome to the house of fun..

I had the very great fortune of being given a free ticket to see the legendary Pink play at Adelaide's Entertainment Centre.

Sparkles, glitter, gothic funhouse themes...what more could you want? Pink disproves the anti-feminist argument that those who dislike hyper packaged sexuality dislike the act of being sexy in its entirety. With a twinkle in her eye and a set of stomach muscles you could break teeth on, Pink aims a sharpened middle finger at the pouty lipped, bedroom eyed, touseled haired plastic trolley dollies that are spat up by the pop music machine every few months or so; it would be impossible to imagine her pole dancing to lyrics that ask men if they wished their girlfriends were as hot as she.

I don't find the idea of women taking their tops off in bars 'empowering', nor do I find the fact that we can 'choose' to plump our breasts up or pay for labia tucks or sleep with 200 AFL players signs that women are in control of their bodies and filled to the brim with any kind of real self determination.

What I find empowering (and ugh, I am loathe to even use that word, so wholly has its meaning been decimated by the hordes of people who've decided it simply means having the ability to choose anything. If you need it, it can be found languishing in an oubliette of irony for the rest of eternity...) is the sight of a fit, strong woman owning her body on stage in a way that doesn't include silkily draping herself over dudes, or having serpents slither across her breasts, or engaging her nether regions in a manner that implies she's getting fucked while her mouth moans and her eyes look vacant. I love that she sings on stage while jumping around, and she doesn't get tired because she is that fit. I appreciate that, amidst all the frenetic energy and silliness, she can find time to turn the lights down low and sing less popular emo songs on a stool (even though I hate stool singing as a rule).

This is a woman who appears to kowtow to nobody, yet who appears also to love the members of her ensemble back up. Her husband features in a music video which is also a kiss off to him and their marriage - that that can even happen I think demonstrates something very special about their relationship.

I don't know, what can I say. She's a fucking icon. From the smashing covers she did tonight of 70s glam rock, I'd love for her next album to be a tribute to the hyper masculinised rock bands of old. Girlfriend has got pipes on her.

But I think what I love most about her is that, in a sea of people young and old, male and female, a female pop singer can be so incredible (even if you don't fancy her music much), so persuasive and so frakking badass that it can inspire a middle aged man with a shaved head and earrings to get in first at the merch table so he can enjoy the entirety of the arena spectacular dressed like this:



Simply superb. You really are a mother frakking rock star, lady. *salutes*

A babe in the woods

Day the last of my grand detox program.

I thought I'd be more excited. After 15 days of being denied any of the enjoyments that basically make life worth living, I thought I'd be chomping at the bit to retoxify my innards. Booze, cigarettes, copious lashings of caffeine, a monster steak... How can one ever grow tired of these?

Turns out they can. Or, at the very least, after a significant distance from them they seem less important. For the first time in a long time I feel pretty healthy. Clean. Purified. Like a shamen.. *doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo*

Of course, who knows how long that will last. I'll probably be 500 cigarettes down by Saturday- particularly as I finally get to meet the inimitable Ms Cynic - and my entire left ventricle will be pulsing with coffee. Still. It feels pretty good right now.

I'm almost afraid to reacquaint myself with alcohol. I honestly can't remember the last time I went for two weeks without a drink. I would bet 500 billion smackers though that it hasn't been in the last ten years. That's a fairly frightening reflection. Four days before Operation Detox began, I put away four bottles of wine with a friend. I mean....that's just ridiculous.

I do sometimes worry that I'm an alcoholic. I don't drink alone and I don't need a nip of whiskey to wake me up in the morning. But I'm beset by a startling lack of self control. Once that bottle is opened, it's gettin' drunked. I am nothing if not wholly committed to finishing what I started, particularly when it's bad for me. See also: men, food, habits, self deprecation.

Anyhoo, I may or may not write at some point on Ms I've Slept With 200 AFL Players And I'm Fine So Clearly "Clare" Needs To HTFU. Then again, after fielding a majority of comments on yesterday's Mail blog that demonstrated a stellar inability to understand the difference between liberal attitudes to sexuality and assault, I just might not. To be honest, I'm tired of immersing myself in the cesspool of ignorance that seems to comprise the brainmass of the general Australian public. Time to move to Barcelona and marry my Chilean I think...*

Until then, below is yesterday's column. Now that I've been marginalised (literally), I have less words with which to flesh out my argument. As such, I couldn't elaborate on the fact that I believe the double standard when it comes to older parents signifies that women are still expected to do the majority of the parenting, while fathers (especially retired ones) are best employed at teaching children about natural confectionary and giving donkey rides.

For an extra specially fun read, check out the comments afterwards on this Jezebel thread. Many of them defy logic. I love Jezebel, but I especially love how determined most of the commentors are to appear as enlightened superior beings with a talent for biting wit and more than a touch of the dipsomania about them. How very Wilde of them.



******

Despite all it’s given us, there are times when I wonder if science is used to interfere too much with the natural order of things. We have America’s Octomom making a mockery of the IVF system, designer babies looming on the horizon and now yet another post menopausal woman has joined the fray to tinker with nature’s reproductive plan.

Last year, Briton Elizabeth Adeney reportedly travelled to the Ukraine to receive IVF treatment. As a result, the 66 year old is now eight months pregnant and awaiting the birth of her first child.

Despite fiercely maintaining her privacy in this matter, online newspaper commentors across the world have been quick to label her selfish while lamenting the fate of the ‘poor child’ involved. And while I share their concerns, I also grow tired of the hypocrisy surrounding elderly parents.

Unlike most first time mothers, Adeney’s in a position to offer a substantially good life to her child. A wealthy businesswoman, Adeney owns her own home and has already secured the services of a live in nanny to assist with the baby.

Ah! but I hear you scream. A nanny! She’s having a baby and she doesn’t even plan to raise it herself! And then she’ll die! SELFISH!

True, Adeney will be in her 80s for most of the child’s teenage years. She won’t have the kind of energy that parents of young children are ideally in possession of – but then, many young parents of young children lack that same joie de vivre. We are supposedly in the middle of a childhood obesity epidemic after all. The risk that she will die before her child reaches adulthood is high.

But I can think of at least one other person for whom that will also be the case. In fact, they have an edge on Adeney of about 4 years.

In October 2007, the Sunday Mail announced the news that Philip Satchell’s wife Cecily was pregnant by writing, “Retired radio legend Philip Satchell turned 70 last Friday with more than one reason to crack the bubbly – he'll soon become a dad again.”

The double standard was just as apparent then as it is now. While Satchell was to be applauded, congratulated and patted on the back, women like Adeney are viciously dismissed as both ‘desperate’ and ‘selfish’.

Another local ‘legend’ has also recently joined the league of older parents. At 61, Graham Cornes has become a father for the fifth time.

Now, it’s possible I may have missed it given how grossly disinterested I generally am in the Cornes’ lives**, but I’m fairly certain that Graham has also avoided the worldwide approbation and outrage currently being levelled at Adeney.

For the record, I think Adeney IS too old to give birth to a child. British law would certainly not prohibit her from adopting and goodness knows there are children in need of financially stable, loving homes.

But what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. If Adeney is too old to have a child, why are we still ‘cracking open the bubbly’ for men like Satchell and Cornes?

*****

Am I missing something here? Intellectually I can get the argument that science enables us to do lots of things and this is no different. After all, once the baby is born (and out of the woods, rather than IN them so to speak) does it really matter how old the mother is? Sure, Adeney will be 80 when Adeney the Younger hits pubescent horror but so are plenty of fathers. Is it that she's raising the child alone? Well, she has a nanny, money and (presumably) the kind of love to give that comes from defying all odds to have a child. The baby will arguably be better off than many in its generation.

I mean, I'm comfortable with my apprehension because I distribute it evenly between men and women. I have a basic view that people shouldn't be reproducing after a certain age. (But then, I have some other views I would never dare share with anyone other than my close friends for fear I'd be labelled a Nazi supporter of eugenics. Heh. Turns out I actually am a femi-Nazi.)

Can general opposition to older mothers be reduced to the fact that we can't escape the visceral reality of what's happening to their bodies? Specifically, that pregnancy by its nature is a side effect of sex and therefore reminds us of it.

Essentially, are people disgusted simply because they don't like to think of post menopausal women - and their attendant post menopausal, dried up old grey leathery veejays - getting frisky?




* And the dear chap sent me a message today telling me he's waiting for it. Tempting, tempting, every day...

** For the record, I am actually so disinterested in the Cornes' lives to the point that I woke up in a panic sometime before dawn on Saturday fretting that perhaps Nicole had lost the baby along the way and I was about to commit an obscene act of cruelty.

Buying the milk when you get the cow for free....or something like that.

Hmmm.

Online virgin Alina Percea reveals her $20,000 sexual encounter

A TEENAGER who sold her virginity online for $20,000 has revealed the details of her tryst with the winning bidder - a 45-year-old man - in Venice.

Alina Percea, 18, auctioned her virginity on a website so that she could afford to pay for her computing degree.

The winner of the auction was a 45-year-old Italian businessman but she had no qualms about going through with the deal.

The businessman from Bologna paid for her to fly to Venice where the couple toured the sights before spending a night in a luxury hotel.

It's not the auctioning itself that I have a problem with. Of all the horribly impersonal things in the world, this rates fairly low on the list of things that hurt my heart. As I wrote for my Sunday Mail blog back in March:

The value placed on female virginity through the ages has always been despicably high. Hanging the marital sheets out after the wedding night to display the telltale signs of deflowering; women undergoing hymen replacement surgery to ‘fake’ virginity for male family members who seem to think it’s any of their business; the idea that women need to somehow ‘save’ themselves for their husbands because their virginity is the most precious gift they can give them – virginity has ALWAYS been commodified.

It’s just that the sale of it was never controlled by the women who actually owned it.

In Alina's case, even her autonomy in selling her virginity (and, as I also wrote for the Mail, I still can't quite grapple with the idea that one could ‘sell’ something as abstract as virginity – or more specifically, that one could ‘buy’ whatever elusive and yuksome feeling they imagine comes from being the first to stake their claim on previously unchartered territory. All hail the conquering hero! and so forth..) was undermined along the way:

The auction was hit by controversy three weeks before its culmination when a teacher at Alina's former school claimed she was not a virgin.

But Alina, who had already undergone a medical examination, was seen by a second doctor, who confirmed at a press conference she'd never had sex.

And...that's gross.

Sex is not drenched in intimacy each and every time you have it. For many people 'intimacy' doesn't even have to be present to have an enjoyable, satisfying sexual experience.

However, I would imagine that the majority of people - and I'm going to go out on a gender limb here and say perhaps females especially - would like to believe that their experience of losing their virginity is going to an enjoyable, respectful affair, hopefully done with someone they like and maybe even love. I mean, I can't imagine anyone actually idealises the idea of losing it in a backseat or at a house party with someone they barely know. Even people who claim they want/ed to just 'get it out of the way' probably wouldn't, if they were being honest, say that those were ideal situations within which to Do It for the first time.

That's not to say I think it should be candles and rose petals - it's different for everyone. For me, it was enough that I was with someone whose company I really enjoyed, who I didn't find sexually threatening in any way (vastly more experienced, domineering, overly persuasive etc) and who, apart from dating, I was actually friends with.

Alina doesn't contradict this desire. In her online ad, she wrote:

"I don't smoke and own a certificate from a gynaecologist which says I'm a virgin. I want my first time to be special and not very abrupt....I want to meet a gentle, respectful and generous man."

She also explains in the article that she'd been hoping to "meet a nice man, like in the film Pretty Woman".

And okay, I have a *facepalm* moment at that, but I also have to remind myself that there are far fewer opportunities for women in Romania and to earn $20,000 for one night's 'work' so that she can make her dreams of going to university a reality is not for me to judge.

So what if it's, as some illiterate online forum fans critics argue, 'nothing more than prostitution'? Is it the prostitution itself that offends them, or the idea that a woman might choose it for herself rather than having the socially sympathetic ease ofbeing the victim of a pimp (or father) who forces her into it?

For that matter, is that why the auctioning of virginity is considered so offensive - because the person determining the situation, parameters and outcome of its loss is a woman who, while not necessarily required to be in command of her emotions regarding the situation, is at least in command of the financials?

So many interesting things to ponder regarding the commodification of sex. We've created (and been complicit in that) the kind of society where sex can sell pretty much anything, yet women are still called sluts if they deviate from what's expected from them (or, as Emily Maguire says and I always quote, have sex in a way that the namecaller does not approve of) or behave in manners non compliant with the notion of a genteel, 'self respecting' chaste kind of woman or an emotionally crippled, dirty slut. There are so many avenues to wander down with this topic, most leading to some kind of social self reflection.

But what does the comments board on this article yield instead? The following:

This is unreal. I had no problems with this 'woman' doing this however, after reading that they used no protection and her idea of being safe was taking the morning after pill - I am horrified to say the least! She didnt want her first time to be 'abrupt' - one day is not adrupt? What a croc! We shouldnt even be advertising that this happened! This so called woman needs to face reality and needs some education on how to act and how to be a responsible adult!

Posted by: whatcanIsay of

Colour me completely unsurprised that there's not a skerrick of outrage or criticism levelled at the man who paid to deflower her. But then again, how could he have refused? He's a man! And as the next few comments will demonstrate to you, they simply can't be held responsible for their manly urges when slatternly whores parade it about it in front of them.

Observe:

I wonder if in 7 years or so, if she changes her mind and regrets her decision we can be subjected to another trial by media who can ask why he didn't take responsibility for her "vulnerability"?Then he can be sacked from his job and have his life ruined.

Posted by: No means No and yes means maybe of who knows where it ends

Because the two cases are strikingly similar. Oh, except that they're not, not at all. For a start, there was only one man in that hotel room in Venice as opposed to an entire rugby team who weren't fucking invited. And I'm pretty sure none of them gave "Clare" chocolates prior to assaulting her, degrading her and laughing about it.

Then we have:

In a few years she is likely to regret it, just like that group sex girl in NZ.

Posted by: John of Golden Grove SA

Ah yes, the 'group sex girl'. Firstly, it wasn't group sex. Secondly, if you're going to bother to cast aspersions on the validity of people's stories whilst simultaneously likening them to other incidents whose only similarity is that there is both a woman and sex involved, then you might at least give them the courtesy of referring to them by name and not just as 'that group sex girl'.

But this one's my favourite.

excellent - so in a few years we are going to have another media frenzy about another 'responsible' and morally intact 'lady' who is claiming violation of her by evil males; Now as she regrets her decision, she would like a 'trial by media' of the 'said' male to make him pay for taking advantage of her - oh, and of course an, unknown cash payment from the trash media for telling her 'story'.

Posted by: bicks of syd

Some favourite words and phrases here:

media frenzy - NRL players do something heinous and wrong, media reports, nation debates. ZOMG LEAVE THEM ALONE THIS IS NOT A FEEDING FRENZY!! WHATEVER HAPPENED HAPPENED SEVEN YEARS AGO! WHAT MAN WOULDN'T ETC?!

'responsible' and morally intact 'lady' - Firstly, she went into that room with them so she's already a big fat slut. Lady? I don't think so. Morals? Hardly. And we all know that morally bankrupt whores GET WHAT'S COMING TO THEM.

claiming violation - Liar.

evil males - Feminist conspiracy! Why must they continue to castrate us and stop us following our neeeeeeeeeds? For eff's sake, they were only having a bit of fun and she was TOTES UP FOR IT. Slut.

now, as she regrets her decision - Because rape when committed by men we know and respect and could totes have a beer with down the pub is never actually rape. We all know it's just some dumb bint regretting it afterwards. And well she might; I mean, I'd probably regret it too if I was getting it on with a couple of hot rugby guys (not that I'm gay) and then heaps more just turned up and used me in turn and laughed about it and basically, the sex that I thought I was going to get turned out to not be the sex I had and they made me feel scared, dirty and ashamed because they were basically forcing me and pretty soon I didn't even know what was going on and then EVERYONE said I just a dirty liar out to ruin careers and marriages. I would totally regret that. But it's hardly rape, because how were they to know that treating someone they're gang banging - and who didn't invite them in the first place - as less than human is wrong?

unknown cash payment - Liar AND a grifter.

trash media - I mean, imagine them actually reporting the news! And discussing it! Especially when these aren't even Muslim rapists*! I mean, THAT I could understand because we all know how they treat women....but this is the NRL! They're like us! But stronger!

'story' - Which has ruined the lives of good, decent family men for whom this happened seven years ago. Fucking slutbitch cumstain whore from hell and her fucking lies.

And I was having such a good day.

I wrote the following comment. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't been uploaded so I shall publish it here. Ah! The power of the internet...

Are you serious? You are actually attempting to connect this situation with the fallout from the 4 Corners story? Did you even watch 4 Corners? Have you read any of the articles connected to the story? If you had, you'd realise that there is a gaping difference between a girl selling her virginity online and being extremely open about the fact, and a girl who consented to having sex with two men, found herself in a situation with more than that, was very probably (and by her own claims) humiliated and degraded by them - within a culture which we KNOW has a habit and history of this kind of behavior, and of a fairly vile attitude towards women - to the point where she has suffered PTSD, and that she is now the subject of a swagload of hatred from people too stupid to accept that obtaining sexual consent does not give someone the right to invite other people without permission or treat their sexual partner with less respect than they would an animal.

Matthew Johns IS culpable for her vulnerability in that situation - by his own admission, he left the room when he realised other players had entered and were watching. One woman against a roomful of rugby players? Are you honestly going to sit there and claim that SHE'S the malicious
predator in this situation?

Here's a novel idea - if rugby players and their ilk don't want to lose their jobs for being involved in degrading pack sex parties, perhaps they shouldn't, you know, be involved in them.

It's NOT "Clare"'s fault for revealing what went on. It's their fault for doing it. She may have been silly enough to trust two rugby playes with her body, but silliness and stupidity do not deserve to be punished by rape and sexual abuse.

And in case that didn't sink in, from an article I'm working on at the moment:

Because even if the sex was consensual, one could reasonably argue the intent behind it wasn’t; that is, the sex itself was likely far from respectful or with a view to mutual enjoyment.

This was about domination and degradation – it’s pretty hard to come much closer to degrading someone than lining up to screw them while your teammates loiter around watching, as if the main participant was little more than a mechanical bull.

There are days when I truly do hate society at large, and could quite happily beat the living daylights out of every dumbfuck, ignorant shit-for-brains who crosses my path. In this light, I can totally understand why Alina Percea auctioned off her virginity.

What I hate most about shit like this is that it puts me in a position where I have to remind myself that there are exceptionally good men in the world and not all of them think like that - because the temptation to just shut up shop and fuck off to an unchartered part of the tropics can be overwhelming.

The worst part is that we can be certain those rallying around the NRL, the code, the right of those men to behave the way that they did - like the members of all the Facebook groups I cannot bring myself to look at - have probably not read a single discussion piece on the case and are instead basing their opinions solely on the tactical debating sources of the noughties - soundbites and screen grabs.

I wish I could put my heart to bed with a cup of homemade chicken soup and a copy of Oliver Jeffers Lost and Found.


* Because you just know that if these men weren't rugby players but were instead Lebanese Muslims, the public reaction would be oh so very different. See also: Aboriginal, poor, African.

and the circle of stupidity continues in Australia's Great Sporting Codes

Much time has passed since I've dwelled on this page. This is not for lack of trying or even desire, but rather more because I am completely incompetent and find simple tasks like choosing internet providers wholly insurmountable. How can it be that difficult to connect the internet? One would imagine the process must be undertaken in complicated clicks and grunts for the amount of trouble it's given me.

To be fair, the extent of my research has been googling 'internode' and perusing their packages. How quickly it all fell into the Too Hard basket. It seems like it would be easy to select a service and follow through, but that would require one to deal with lengthy phone calls and fiddlesome contracts. SIGH. Not for the first time, I wish I had a little gnome to run around and complete my errands for me. Or a house elf. I would call him Dobby II and give him a little bed by the fire and everything. Then he could bring me a chamberpot of some description when I wake in the night needing number onesies but am too tired to crawl to the WC. And he could just deal with all my fuss and bother and my life would be so much SIMPLER.

I'm currently on day 5 of a complete body detox, so I could perhaps be forgiven for not realising that an obnoxious cyclathon being conducted in the mall to the thumping beat of oppressively awful music was in fact a fundraiser for juvenile diabetes. As such, it so happens that I stood there for a good five minutes with a carefully composed look of derision on my face and a slight lip curl. This is repeat lesson #293450 in why the execution snobbery is at best concealed and at worst mindnumbingly stupid.

Speaking of mindnumbingly stupid:

Matthew Johns.

It was a fair bet that it was this case which would tug me out of my wintry hidey hole and back into Blogland.

I mean. Honestly. Apart from anything, can we all just say together, 'ewwwwww'?

For a start, can we all just stop with the crocodile tears already? Regardless of whether or not there was anything for Johns to be 'caught' for (excepting adultery), why are tears such as these always so conveniently shed after the fact? I can understand Johns' emotion - at a stretch (although I can't help but feel like it was all a bit 'woe is me' rather than actually regretful). But why on earth would Phil Gould feel it necessary to get caught up in the hubub on last night's Footy Show and shed tears for his mate and all the hardship he and his wife have gone through?

Here are a couple of things that immediately spring to mind when thinking about both those issues:

1. Yes. It is extremely hurtful and intrusive for Johns to have part of his sexual history paraded before the public to be judged and condemned. Welcome to your average rape trial. How many times have women who've brought cases against rapists - sporting stars especially - had their own private lives laid bare before the both the legal court and the one of public opinion? How many of them have had to read that it was their decisions, their behaviour, the pattern of their sexual history that led to them being raped. What else did they expect?

Johns has had just this one case trotted out for the public and it has professionally, for the moment at least, ruined him. But the difference between the two scenarios is that some people will blast a woman for behaving provocatively, or having dared to have sex in a way that they choose not to approve of, and will tell them they should be held responsible for their behaviour. What did you expect when you went home with him? What did you expect when you got drunk with him? What did you expect when you let two men have sex with you and another three wanted to join in? Just what exactly did a slut like you expect?

And yet those same people respond to cases like Johns' with outrage that a man could be vilified for a sexual encounter that happened seven years ago. It's in the past! It shouldn't matter! How dare anyone dredge this up and try and besmirch a good man's name!

O, the hypocrisy! I can never quite come around to the acrid taste of it.

2. Phil Gould's tears. Gould, like many commentators, have gone to lengths to express their admiration for Johns' wife. Apparently 'incredibly brave', she has naturally gone through the wringer having to deal with media scrutiny and embarrassment because seven years ago her husband couldn't just not keep his piece in his pants but got himself involved in a situation which should be extreme even for an adulterous husband. Trish Johns has come out in support of her husband, even going so far as to sit next to him while Tracey Grimshaw grilled him on A Current Affair. It reminds me of the Elliot Spitzer press conference, when either Feministing or Jezebel applauded Spitzer's wife for seemingly being the first publicly wronged wife to not give her husband a pass by standing by as the cameras rolled to bask, if not drown, in his humiliation.

While it's none of my business whether or not Trish Johns appears publicly beside her husband or not, I do question applauding her for it. Ah, the poor, woebegotten wives, dealing with our lot. How very bloody brave we all are. Applause from Gould and his ilk for the strength and calibre of Trish Johns - but very little from the sporting fraternity for all the women who've bravely brought rape cases to trial when the likelihood of winning is not only minimal, but they also have to contend with being called sluts and liars and just out to make a fast buck at the expense of Good Men who couldn't have been expected to control themselves under the circumstances.

Here's what I think about it. Johns may well be an innocent victim in this scenario. He claims the woman was a willing participant, though I suppose we'll never know for sure. It's possible she consented to having group sex with 2 or 3 players and perhaps a few others joined in because, well, she's there and she's obviously loving it so as if she's got a right to say no? Sadly, most courts at that time would probably have agreed.

It's also possible that she's said yes to all of them, said no at one point and they just kept going. It's even more possible that she said yes, as Johns claims, but was subjected to acts of humiliation and degradation - to the point Johns felt he needed to apologise the next day for - because why should a woman who consents to having sex with five or more rugby players, while others watch, be deserving of any kind of sexual respect or consideration?

Whatever this was, consensual or not, no one could ever argue it was done in the spirit of mutual respect or enjoyment. This was a gang bang. Forgive me a spot of parochialism, but I'd wager these players would never want their sisters, girlfriends, mothers or daughters to behave like this. Indeed, to stretch they stereotype further they would be baying for blood from the men involved. Trish Johns herself said "I certainly wouldn't like it to be my daughter."

And thus they draw a distinction between women of calibre - ones they'd date, marry, be friends with, call family - and women who are there as nothing more than to serve as sexual objects for their mutual enjoyment and use. "Clare" may very well have been complicit in this - but it's an incredibly sad day for us all when a group of men would perpetuate an activity which anyone could reasonably deduce as having a power imbalance and as being degrading and humiliating (if not only through sheer lack of respect for the woman involved as anything other than an object to be used) - and that a woman might be either too consumed by the idea of rejection, of using sex to gain some flimsy and superficial feeling of power or simply too afraid to say no in the first place.

Johns may well be the NRL's sacrifical lamb, but he's a necessary one and the NRL and Channel Nine have only got themselves to blame. I believe Mike Harris of Prahan articulates it perfectly in his Letter to the Age:

I AM not a fan of Matthew Johns or The Footy Show (either code). And in no way do I support the boorish, thuggish and misogynistic behaviour of footballers across all codes. However, Johns seems to be the scapegoat in what is a typically superficial response from the rugby league administration and the media. That is, find the highest-profile person involved and land the blame there while giving lip service to the need for reform.

If Channel 9 were seriously concerned at such poor behaviour, it would have sacked Sam Newman from the Australian Rules version of the show long ago; but seemingly ratings outweigh social responsibility. If the NRL were serious about improving the behaviour of its footballers to socially acceptable standards it would do a lot more to punish and stop such behaviour. When Canterbury breached the salary cap, the league's response was severe and cost the club premiership points — the club hasn't reoffended.

Well said Mike. Well said.

Ring a ding ding

I'm fairly sure that you've just let the cat out of the bag Mr Southall.

"There's a speck of coral in the Whitsundays called Heart Reef that is about to play a pivotal role in the life of Ben Southall.

As its name suggests, it grows in the perfect shape of a heart.

And it's the first place the winner of the Best Job in the World wants to visit when his girlfriend Breanna flies in from Vancouver to join him for his six-month stint promoting the islands of the Great Barrier Reef.

It doesn't take a genius to work out why he wants to take her there - he hopes she'll say I do."

If she's very lucky, you'll film the event and post it on the travel blog you are being paid insane amounts of money to write so that everyone in the world can share in your special, private moment.

Did I mention that I hate public proposals? And women who squeal when they're given a ring?