Fantastic article. I think it is interesting that in the whole debate we have not sought to dismantle this whole concept of ‘consent’. If a women (or a man) tells another that it is ok to hit them then is it ok?
Just a thought.
Janice

As Liv pointed out in her article last week, the Johns incident isn’t questioning the morality of group sex – or at least, it shouldn’t be – so much as highlighting the issue of sexual consent. While I think individuals should have a right to privacy, the notion of celebrity undermines that: the two are often antithetical states. Potentially, there’s a parallel between the notion of sexual consent in the Johns case (viz: consenting to sleep with one man is not the same as consenting to sleep with ten of his mates) and the rights of celebrities to privacy (viz: consenting to a career in the public eye is not the same as consenting to a total lack of privacy). But the Johns case isn’t about privacy. It’s about the allegation of a serious crime, and in that circumstance, there is no right to privacy: not for celebrities, and not for the rest of us. The mysogynist culture in football is relevant to that discussion. The sooner people focus on that, the better.

I agree with the point what you say; they got rid of advertising from cigarette manufacturing companies, and strong alcohol is on the way out, so it is perfectly logical that the NRL officials don’t want their players being seen as people you wouldn’t invite into your home, especially if you have young daughters.

Although that these guys enjoy being so high-profile, but it’s not just 19 year-old girls who have an interest in these people, there’s 7 year-old kids who follow their heroes, I wonder what their perspective on all of this is.

“Normal people avoid these acts being made public”?

Do they need to do anything to avoid publicity? Who tries to publicise it? Your assuming normal people experience the same scrutiny professional sports people do and we both know that’s not true.

“though I do not think it is for us to condemn orgiastic fraternity on a consentual level”

I wasn’t condemning, but yes the media is, and they seem to be voicing the beliefs of our society???

You also say:

“who are we to say what people do in private is wrong?”……….maybe!

But you then say:

“However, no matter which way you look at it, if you are being paid to be a role model to a society (whether a conformist straight-laced one or not), then your job requires that of you in all aspects, including in a private situation which may at any time become public due to your celebrity status.”

I think this is a common thought. We sit back and say “what they do behind closed doors is their business”, but at the same time demand they act appropriate to their status at “all times” when things go south. This sends a mixed message to these players, no wonder they are frustrated.

cheers

Adam – yes, there is a bigger issue at hand, though I do not think it is for us to condemn orgiastic fraternity on a consentual level. Non-consentual is a whole other ballgame. Normal people avoid these acts being made public, I do not think they are not going on, that would indeed be naive. We could look at society in general, but then I would begin to agree with the unnamed footballer, who are we to say what people do in private is wrong? Consenting adults have that right, and deserve that right. However, no matter which way you look at it, if you are being paid to be a role model to a society (whether a conformist straight-laced one or not), then your job requires that of you in all aspects, including in a private situation which may at any time become public due to your celebrity status. To believe otherwise is to be naive of the influence you have as a celebrity.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the public imposed the same judgements on themselves as they do on these “role models”. I certainly don’t condone their behaviour, but find it hypocritical of the media, who are also members of the public, to shame this behaviour when it is clearly a product of our society.

To say normal (and I assume you mean majority) people can manage to avoid these acts, I believe, is off the mark. Unfortunately this behaviour is quite normal, and I think it would be a more productive discussion if we first looked at society in general.

Just a thought.

cheers.

“It seems that people in the public eye can’t be seen doing things that are not suitable for the public eye. Who would’ve thought that the companies who pay millions of dollars in sponsorship wouldn’t want to be associated with drunkenness and polygamous debauchery?”

I guess that’s a point which has not been made clear enough.

I bet you they could come up with 10 things to do in there free time that doesn’t involve getting pissed and getting it on with some girl and 5 to 10 of your closest friends if they really put their collective minds to it – normal people seem to be able to manage that.