Johns bidding war: our TV networks are run by goldfish

Eric says:

05:17am | 30/11/09

It was a media scandal, not a sex scandal.

Dan says:

05:30am | 30/11/09

Give me a break. The sex was consential. Whether or not this woman’s life was ruined is irrelevant. Just as with the woman who accused Rann of having the affair, the fact their life was ruined might not be nice, but (if consentual) is really more their responsibility than anyone else’s. No, the only thing that should matter is whether it was consential, and legally it appears that it was.

People might not like it, you might not like it, Grimshaw might not like it. But who cares? Thankfully, the law does not operate on what the host of A Current Affair thinks. Which BTW is an absolute joke. The host of ACA is judging others on their morality!

I’m sick to death of moralism, this self-righteousness that people like Patrick Smith have taken to this issue. It’s gone from being an issue of consent to one of morality, when really if it is an issue of morality, then Johns doesn’t owe an explanation to anyone! What kind of sex he engages in, as long as it’s consential, is nobody else’s business!

Personally, I am delighted that Johns is coming back to television. Hopefully not to Channel Nine, the way they treated him was disgraceful, but I would love to see him back. You say that the ‘network bosses sure do have short memories’, I say good on them. I definitely approve of them cutting a cheque for him.

Cameron says:

07:19am | 30/11/09

Johns was the last straw for me. No more rugby league for me ever!

Chrissy says:

07:56am | 30/11/09

The first two comments are typical of the culture that exists in the NRL of having no respect for women and treating them as objects to be played with. The key to this issue is whether the sex was consensual and apparently because no criminal charges were laid you are presuming that it was consensual. How very sad.

I agree with Cameron and will not support the NRL in any form until there is a massive change in culture and attitudes.

Steve Smith says:

08:00am | 30/11/09

It simply comes down to TV networks realising they had no right to throw the first stone. The same can be said about this article and those who choose to take the moral high ground.

Donald says:

08:06am | 30/11/09

Some men just dont get it-who had the power in the room? Not the intimidated young female.

Tony says:

08:42am | 30/11/09

If Tracy Grimshaw is judged the best tv interviewer in the country, it doesn’t say much for the state of current affairs in this country. Her interview style is a joke.

Tim says:

08:45am | 30/11/09

Donald,
what does power have to do with anything?
There are power imbalances in every decision we make in life. People have to take responsibility for their own decisions and stop blaming others if things don’t turn out the way they wanted.
This woman made a decision, she never objected to anything that went on, which she admitted in the four corners interview. Yet we still have people like Chrissy above who thinks the sex wasn’t consensual. What a joke.

Jack says:

08:50am | 30/11/09

Simple notion that the people watching league want one of their buffons presenting it. This is all about ratings. The average League punter would be fairly in the Johns corner.

Since when did network execs have a social conscience..?They report to shareholders, not social commentators.

Andrew Goff says:

08:52am | 30/11/09

Simple question regarding rugby league for me. Do you support a culture that supports gang banging?

Even given that it was totally consensual, do you support it?

Johns needs answer to no one on his moral choices. They are his and his alone to live with and deal with the consequences. But if Rugby League condones his choices, where do you stand?

Left and Right can come together on this one: the lefties becuase of their “treatment of women” crusade, and the righties because he has shown the sexual morality of the sort that will send him straight to hell. The fact his actions were not criminal doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be condemned.

Mort says:

08:57am | 30/11/09

Surely there are more articulate and interesting ex players that could fulfil the role better than Johns.

Tim says:

09:09am | 30/11/09

Andrew Geoff,
i am assuming your comment goes for music and arts as well where the incidence of “gang banging” would be just as prevalent.

DG says:

09:14am | 30/11/09

@Chrissy (08:56am | 30/11/09)

What’s the alternative? To assume that it was not consensual and, as a ‘default position’, maintain that person is guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the western world on nothing more than the fact that one participant decided that it ruined her life?

@Donald (09:06am | 30/11/09)

I don’t agree that she was powerless. She could have said “No” - she didn’t. How on earth are the participants supposed to know of the intentions of one of the parties if they don’t take any action to make their position known?

I agree that it is a terrible situation if she went through with these acts because she was afraid of the consequences. But how could the players possibly have known that? Sure they were probably aware that it was a possibility. But when that participant didn’t say anything how could they know?

If she decided to “go along with it” that could further support the belief of the other participants that she was ‘willing’. It would be impossible to know whether she was faking or not (after all that is the whole point of faking).

As yourself this - have you “Formally” received consent to every sexual encounter in your life? I know that there have been instances where a sexual encounter has from from first kiss to snoring without a word being said - did that constitute sexual assault? In those instances I have taken the conduct of the other participant to be ‘consent’.

Maybe I should change that theory - after all I am a big guy, maybe the other participant was just scared…....

I should also point out that I tend to think that the players would have stopped if she had said “No” (you may disagree, after all this is purely “what if” territory).

Tim Chapman says:

09:20am | 30/11/09

Dan, you can’t even spell ‘consensual’.

T.Chong says:

09:26am | 30/11/09

AG 9:52 as far as group sex goes. If the men are scumbags , or at least sleazy for what they did, then what do you say about women who also take part.?
Whether some people like to acknowledge it or not, some women ,like some men, get their kicks this way. plenty of blogs exist out there that have the gals boasting of what they did.
Should there be social disgust against all people who are outside of your definition of whats nice and proper?
Its easy to cry victim.

Sam of Sydney says:

09:30am | 30/11/09

@DG
What does it matter if she did not say ‘No’. It is whether she said ‘Yes’ that matters, because consent is not assumed it has to be given. If she said nothing then consent has not been given, unless you assume that you have the right to consent.

The real problem, is the culture that condones, this sort of behaviour. You may go on about their private lives, but they become rolemodels when they become Rugby League players, and it is their responsibility to behave in a sensible manner. Is having sex with all of your friends good behaviour.

Paul says:

09:34am | 30/11/09

Chrissy - Please!

Nothing was proven either way yet it seems OK for his career to be ruined. Ease up. Let the bloke get on with his life - hasn’t he been humiliated enough (for a legal act)?

Em says:

09:42am | 30/11/09

I was thinking similar things when I heard this news Tory. Thanks for articulating it. I despise The Footy Shows and the double standards the networks exhibit.

Helen says:

09:45am | 30/11/09

Give me a break. The sex was consential. Whether or not this woman’s life was ruined is irrelevant.

Just a hint, Dan: Properly “consensual” sex doesn’t usually end in someone’s life being ruined, at least that’s what I’ve found. If you find “life ruined” to be a frequent comment made by your exes after having had sex with you, some reexamination of your life is in order.

No, the only thing that should matter is whether it was consential, and legally it appears that it was.

“Legally it appears that it was” sounds like an admission that you really know Johns and the rest got off on a technicality. No one who has actually read the transcripts is under any illusion at all that it was consensual.

rod sexton says:

09:57am | 30/11/09

What was the girl thinking when she went to the room - that she was going to have a cup of tea?

Tim says:

10:03am | 30/11/09

Helen,
how many charges were laid?
no one that has actually read the transcripts is under any illusion at all that it wasn’t consensual.

T.Chong says:

10:03am | 30/11/09

@Helen should we have a legal system, or should we have a system where one person can claim horrendous violation without being able to substantiate the claim?
If you ,as an example was accused of something as awful as sexual assault, should your accuser have to prove it, or is their word alone, sufficient enough to convict you?

DG says:

10:09am | 30/11/09

Sam of Sydney (10:30am | 30/11/09)

So your answer to my question is “Yes” you consider sex without a word being spoken to be sexual assault.

Then lock me up for years, because on my wedding night I can assure you there was nothing in the way of discussion between the moment that I managed to extract the bride from her cloth cocoon and the consummation of our union.

By your theory the only thing keeping me out of Long Bay is the fact that she hasn’t yet gone to the Police.

I would argue that the word “yes” need not be uttered to grant consent - a person can grant consent by their actions. This is a problem in cases such as this, the actions of the person were consistent with that of a person consenting - there has been little evidence that the person demonstrated signs of intimidation or excessive intoxication etc. How could the other participants have told the difference between a person pretending to be a willing participant and a person who sets out to hide the fact that they are not a willing participant.

I agree that a person does not have to say “No” to deny consent - but my point is that the failure to say “yes” does not mean that the person does not consent.

Bruce says:

10:14am | 30/11/09

Matty Johns is a funny man, however, he is now a stain on the NRL. Really do you think the NRL want to have to deal with him in any future Rugby League issues? Seven and TEN network must have some other plans for Matty !

Jade says:

10:24am | 30/11/09

why is it that everytime someone in the public eye gets caught having sex they have to loose there jobs etc.  Doesnt make sense, them having a sex life doesnt affect people.  I think there are too many up tight people in this world living in the stone age.

jed says:

10:25am | 30/11/09

oh geez, all this again. forget the scandal, talent should keep him off the air - he has none. his banter is at home at up country sportmen’s nights and his comedy isn’t even on the level of comedy inc.

if grimshaw is a walkley award winning journalist, and johns is an in demand tv personality, our media is really in the crapper.

Andrew Goff says:

10:26am | 30/11/09

@Tim (10:09). Yes, absolutely.

@T Chong. Same for the men and woman involved. I’m not suggesting social disgust at anything - merely that each individual look at their standards. I expressly said that Johns (and everyone else consensually involved) alone needs to deal with the moral implications - he can do what he wants. But if a group in society says that his behaviour is OK, then of course I have the right not to support them.

I’m astonished there isn’t consensus on this! Wheter you consider it adultery or misogyny (or both). Please: hands up who is saying that gang bangs are acceptable?

Beckala says:

10:42am | 30/11/09

Tony posted: If Tracy Grimshaw is judged the best tv interviewer in the country, it doesn’t say much for the state of current affairs in this country. Her interview style is a joke.

At the same awards night, Today Tonight received an award too.

Enough said.

SM says:

10:49am | 30/11/09

Free to air TV executives - is there an original, creative idea amongst the lot of them?  Too much easy ad revenue for too long.  Now there’s real competition from pay and online.  The only answers they have is to dumb the content down a bit more, punt on yet another cop/medical drama starring Peter Phelps, and look to the past for new ideas. 

As for Rugby League, Channel Nine haven’t a clue.  They do nothing but preach to the converted in terms of marketing the product.  Matthew Johns (and his alter egos) primary appeal is to the already converted blue collar traditional core league supporter.  As a sports presenter he’s a lightweight, and Nine would do well to try and unearth someone fresh, who’s a bit more of a thinker, and not necessarily an ex player, in order to try and generate some awareness from some different markets

Simple Symon says:

11:00am | 30/11/09

It was determined during the time of the incident that there was insufficient evidence to support any sexual assault claims and after the alleged victim aired her allegations on the ‘Four Corners’ programme apparently further analysis still determined that there was insufficient evidence to support any sexual assault claims.  Once the ABC decided to air the story, the fate of Matthew Johns was sealed.  Consensual or otherwise, the picture painted was somewhat unsavoury and despite the rather pathetic attempts of Johns to deflect the attention on the Footy Show prior to the ABC airing the programme probably made the situation worse rather than better.  Watching the interview on ‘A Current Affair’ was akin to watching a car-crash in slow motion and probably wasn’t the wisest advice John Fordham ever gave to his client.  Rather than paint Johns as a victim in the whole incident, it made him appear rather pathetic and the unnamed participants as even more pathetic.  Whether or not the incident was deemed consensual, a moral compass, should you possess one, will tell you that what you’re doing is of a baser nature and would very likely not’ve occurred had all of the participants been in a sober state.  Once the details came to light, and as Johns is a role-model for both Channel 9 and the NRL, there was no choice but to sack him for his behaviour.  Despite society becoming increasingly permissive, sponsors who fork out the readies for Johns et al to be the role models, still recognise that it isn’t in their company’s best interests to be associated with such behaviour.  Johns is a funny and talented man, the girl made his bed and he lay in it, but the only person left laughing is Tracy Grimshaw.  If this interview was worthy of an award for current affairs then bring back Anna Coren and the female before her.  Tracy’s interview with Gordon Ramsay prior to his nasty remarks was probably more worthy.

DG says:

11:06am | 30/11/09

Andrew Goff (11:26am | 30/11/09).

My hand is held high.

If people want to do that, go for it. Personally I’ll stick with my one partner for life philosophy, but I don’t presume to tell consenting adults whom they may or may not sleep with and the circumstances in which they may do so.

Adultery - well that hasn’t been a crime for some time and, given the number of people who currently have sex out of wedlock, most people don’t consider it to be a problem.

misogyny - I’m still not sure how group sex constitutes a hatred of women. Now if it were done with the express intention of hurting the woman I could, perhaps, understand. But I just don’t think that group sex has anything to do with the hatred of women, I imagine it has its basis in fantasy (possibly also control and power) but it doesn’t appear (at least to me) to indicate a hatred of anyone.

Marian says:

11:25am | 30/11/09

this is so efffffing disgusting.

i literally recoiled of my moniter when i started reading this:///

Gerry Sinclair says:

12:01pm | 30/11/09

Jed has it right - forget the sexcapades (if you can and anyway you cut it Johns doesent pick up any points as a man or human being out of the episode), the bottom line is Johns is a no talent loudmouth who doesent even know much about the game, so let the TV stations use him if they see fit, but please keep him away from Rugby League there are already enough no talent loudmouths commenting on the game as it is including his mooted new partner Hadley.

Helen says:

12:24pm | 30/11/09

What was the girl thinking when she went to the room - that she was going to have a cup of tea?

Do you see the logical end of what you are saying? There is a lot of screaming on this thread that it was “consentual”, No it wasn’t rape nononono… Yet what you just said above suggests strongly that some of you know damn well that it was. So it morphs into “yes well, but she should have known what she was getting into”.

The corollary of the above statement is that “a woman going to a room alone with a man/men excuses rape”.

This is rape culture, and the problem, Rod, is that you and other people as parents and friends in the community pass these memes onto the new generation. So boys continue to think of girls as the other kind of human: if you congregate somewhere quiet with a few mates it means boozing and talking, but if you go somewhere quiet with a woman it means boozing, talking and free access to her body if you so want it. Ugh.

It’s treating women as second class citizens, pure and simple, and unless you can countanence the thought of being in a room with a woman and not raping her, but just treating her as you would any other human being, you and the other Johns apologists on this threat are wimply perpetuating the cycle.

DG says:

12:57pm | 30/11/09

Helen (01:24pm | 30/11/09)

“Do you see the logical end of what you are saying? There is a lot of screaming on this thread that it was “consentual”, No it wasn’t rape nononono… Yet what you just said above suggests strongly that some of you know damn well that it was.”

I’m not sure which version of logic claims that Rod Sexton’s comments are support for rape. I do agree that it may have been a little insensitive and could have been better worded. Perhaps his indication should have been “it is well known what an invitation back to ones hotel room is intended to lead to.”.

Admittedly the fact that she went back to the room is all but irrelevant when it comes to the issue of consent (she has the right to change her mind at any time, but not AFTER)

I can see that some may argue that it shows that she went back to the hotel with the intention of having sex or knew that sex was a high probablility but it is circumstantial at best.  I’m not sure how you manage to claim that the use of such circumstantial evidence is ‘proof’ of the rape allegations.

That aside, you imply that the claim it was consensual is akin to approving rape. I have no idea how on earth you can maintain that logical fallacy. the evidence for the suggestion of rape is, at best, equal to the evidence that is was not rape (i.e he said, she said).

There is simply no way of ever knowing the truth - personally I would sleep better at night knowing that a guilty person was free than an innocent person were in gaol for something that they didn’t do. Not to suggest guilt, but to suggest that there is something horribly wrong with a world in which the word of a ‘victim’ is, without further evidence and despite the testimony of the accused, enough to have a person locked away for a serious crime.

Again, the circumstantial evidence of her reason for going back to the room really doesn’t improve the debate at all (except as suggested above in relation to the intention of the participants some time before the Act, but that is circumstantial at best - and perhaps, hints that she wasn’t scared of being alone with those men*).

* for those that claim that she was scared for them so went along with it - however, as I recall she didn’t know that the whole team would be turning up so this defense is not really relevant to the issue of consent.

Tim says:

12:59pm | 30/11/09

Helen,
once again you miss the point. Who cares if she did think she was going to the room to have a cup of tea? What matters is the fact that she then consented to sex through her actions in that room.
I can’t see any comment on this thread that says that rape is OK but you seem to have it in your head that they do. Must be those invisible comments that only you can see.
And as for Rape Culture? Puhlease, what country are you living in?

AdamC says:

01:09pm | 30/11/09

Tory, you are being a little unreasonable here. While Johns’ conduct in this scandal was distasteful, it appears it was not illegal. And let’s not forget the events themselves took place many years ago.

In these circumstances, while it is important to censure our sports heroes and other ‘role models’ for unacceptable behaviour, we also need to forgive them and move on. I think Johns has been adequately punished by the media; we should give him a chance to redeem himself.

footy fan says:

01:26pm | 30/11/09

Great article Tory. I’m a massive rugby league fan, and a former fan of Johns, but whatever program he presents, I simply won’t be watching.
I wish him and his family well, but he is not the person that younger players/fans and the like need to be looking up to. If league is serious about attracting more fans, they need to do much better than having people like this as the face of the game. Had he shown any real remorse or understanding when the hard questions were asked by tracey, I would have a little more sympathy for the bloke.
Instead, he looked like a bully who had cornered and made to face what they had done.

6c legs says:

02:06pm | 30/11/09

meh. aside from the libs debacle it must be a slow news day… so ‘lets drag up the Johns “affair” -again’

granted that Grim-shaw “won” a Walkley for the inteview.

re the Walkleys; I WANNA KNOW WHO THIS YEARS “JUDGES” WHERE!??? i bet there’s some spinning happening in a certain grave.

Helen, girl, I’m right there with YOU!  seems that you hit the tender spot of some posters. LOL.

Jed, spot on!

*sigh* looks like we’ve still some way to travel getting through some mens thick scones, *sigh*...

BULMKT says:

02:14pm | 30/11/09

and what’s worse, Johns’ isn’t even funny.

RICKY says:

02:16pm | 30/11/09

DG, very well said.Your comments are spot on.Helen, you speak crap.I am fairly certain you need medication if you believe what you are writing.

Louise says:

02:49pm | 30/11/09

I wonder what they’ll do with him if the ratings are bad

Owen says:

03:23pm | 30/11/09

When will women take responsibility for their own actions and rid themselves of the victim mentality?

JC says:

04:07pm | 30/11/09

@DG
My point is that the failure to say “yes” does not mean that the person does not consent.

Does that mean that I should be allowed to walk into the next office and start feeling up the women who works next to me in the office. After all she has never told me *not* to do that so how am I supposed to know that she doesn’t want me to do that to her.

Or maybe I can walk into my room mates room the next time he brings a girl home and start masturbating.  After all she has never told me *not* to do that so how am I supposed to know that she doesn’t want me to do that to her.

Or maybe I start start flimiing local schoolgirls at the pool.  After all they have never told me *not* to do that so how am I supposed to know that they doesn’t want me to do that to them.

Your default position is to assume that any women in the world is fair game.

David says:

05:13pm | 30/11/09

Who’s room, who was naked, who is she kidding?
Oh and by the way Tracey who?

Dan says:

08:29pm | 30/11/09

Tim Chapman @ 10:20am, so your only response to my post is to criticise my spelling. Wow, what a great retort! You really need to learn debating skills!

Dan says:

09:01pm | 30/11/09

Helen @  10:45am | 30/11/09

” “Just a hint, Dan: Properly “consensual” sex doesn’t usually end in someone’s life being ruined, at least that’s what I’ve found. If you find “life ruined” to be a frequent comment made by your exes after having had sex with you, some reexamination of your life is in order.” That stupid and idiotic personal dig aside, my point is that feeling horrible after the event does not change whether it was consensual. If she consented, that is all that matters. People regret having consensual sex all the time, but it doesn’t make it rape.

” “Legally it appears that it was” sounds like an admission that you really know Johns and the rest got off on a technicality.” No, it’s an admission that I don’t know exactly what happened. Neither do you.

“No one who has actually read the transcripts is under any illusion at all that it was consensual.” I disagree. There is no doubt that it was consensual.

Helen, you seem to think that people are guilty of sex crimes because the partner retrospectively regrets it. Happy to say, it doesn’t work that way. If the woman consents, it is NOT a crime. Since none of us were there, none of us can truly know what happened, however I’ll trust the judgement of the police over yours, and they ruled that no crime was committed.

Helen says:

07:59am | 01/12/09

Right. So if I’m a foolish young girl who bonks you thinking it’s True Lerve (and you have an occupation which makes you highly desirable) it’s then OK for all your mates to come into the room and have a go? Stay far, far away from the rest of us.

You don’t seem to understand that the girl was initially under the impression that she was bonking Matty Johns. This would be the female equivalent of a male punter bonking, oh I don’t know, some movie star or other. This would make them an admirable superstud, but in the eyes of the Sharks, obvs brought up in the default Aussie male culture, the same behaviour on the girl’s part just rendered her a Dirty Slut(TM). In the popular mind, of course, Dirty Sluts(TM) can’t be raped, because as you imply, they are in a permanent state of consent! lalala come and get it! Right?

That’s the rape culture of good old Oz that we need to address, especially in sportspeople.

DG says:

08:23am | 01/12/09

JC (05:07pm | 30/11/09)

“Your default position is to assume that any women in the world is fair game. “

That’s simply untrue. It is a logical fallacy to say that A does not require X therefore if there is no X, there must be A.

I have said that consent can be granted without the word “Yes”. That does not mean that the absence of “Yes” means consent.

Not to question your integrity but was that a simple mistake of logic or do you disagree with the above statement?

I consent to being charged for parking, to purchase goods or to participate in a football game without saying “yes”. Behaviour may indicate consent, if I behvae as if I have consented, and the other person has no reasonable grounds for doubting the sincerity of that behaviour, I can not then use the defence “I didn’t say Yes”. It’s one thing if there is the threat of violence - but when if there is no ‘threat’ of violence only a fear of violence, and that fear is hidden from the other party?

Essentially, if they have behaved as if they have consented, but as doing so for some other reason, how could the other person know that? In some circumstances they certainly could know - in others, it would be impossible to tell.

This is very different to a situation in which a person give no indication either way. A person who gives no indication could not reasonably be expected to have consented, but I do believe that there is an issue when it comes to that line between doing nothing and consenting. Especially when considering the prior relationship and possible “standing consent”.

For your three scenarios I can see circumstances when each would be permissible (i.e would not be a sexual assault).

The office:
If touching this person is a normal behaviour between the two people it may be acceptable (i.e they are in a relationship). But if they say “No” then the consent is revoked. However I suspect that it is more likely that if you work with someone that you are in a “touching” relationship with there will be an understanding that the touching is not to happen at certain time or in certain circumstances.

The Mate crashing:
If it is normal for you to join the couple concerned in their little romps I think that a reasonable argument could be made that there is no sexual assault. Provided the you ceased the behaviour as soon as they became aware that there was no consent (i.e “What the hell are you doing?”). The fact that the activity is normal with the group concerned could well go to establishing that the couple in the room had consented to that behaviour. it becomes messy if you have the standing consent of one party but not the other (i.e assume your mate Matty regularly lets you join him and his usual partners have let that happen, now you get home, hear that he is at it - are well aware of the standing “consent” so you enter the room tackle out as it were. Is there a sexual assault in that moment? What about the instant that you realise that it’s not his usual partner?). In that case I just don’t see how it could be anything worse than honest mistake (so long as the behaviour ceased as soon as the person became aware that there was no consent).

Filming people at the local pool: Being as the pool is a private venue (owned by the pool operator), they may have rules about taking pictures - otherwise, I would suggest that anything in a public place SHOULD be free to be the subject of a photo unless consent is expressly denied. By being in a public place one consents to being seen and, unless that implied consent is denied, the capture of that moment should be completely acceptable. If you don’t want to be seen or captured doing something, DON’T DO IT IN PUBLIC!

Tim says:

09:16am | 01/12/09

Wow Helen you really are deluded.
You can keep trying to put words into other’s mouths if you like but your argument is completely nonsensical. No one here has said anything like what you are alluding to.
Rape Culture? Repeating this crap doesn’t make it true.

See DG’s comments if you want to learn something about consent.

Rybags says:

01:08am | 09/12/09

Easy solution. {CLICK} Change the channel. In fact, turn the TV off, go outside and play with your kids or take your wife for a walk instead.

Helen says:

07:43am | 09/12/09

DG thinks it might be perfectly normal for a footy team to trap a woman in a room and all have sex with her and I’m the one who’s deluded. Right.

*Backing away slowly*

It appears that in Australia if any woman is alone with any man in a room, that means the man has the permission to rape her (“what was she thinking, going to his/her room alone with him”?) This thinking never raises the possibility that the woman was still under the impression that relationships between men and women have improved and that she would be treated as a, you know, human being.

That is rape culture. It is no different in effect from Sheik Hilaly and his “uncovered meat”. People who think our culture is so different in this regard are the ones who are deluded.