Aussie sports on the spin cycle - distinctly unmarketable

Homo-eroticism. It's OK, we can say it, now, in this era where people from all walks of life, religions, preferences and cultures, are meant to be treated equally, and legislated for and against, equally.

Group sex has been taboo among decent society for centuries, but with the dynamic in the post-Christian society that exists in Australia today - multicultural, affluent, progressive, we should theoretically be independent enough in our thinking to challenge accepted belief.

As a society we should similarly be progressive and independent minded enough to challenge the tripe that media outlets with a share in rugby coverage spew forth.

Could there be a contempt of court charge available for the next stupid bitch story, where some two-bit-crack-ho has been paid off by the rugby club's flack catchers to make it seem like women predominantly enjoy losing their pelvic floor & developing throat cancer (from HPV) under a mindless scrum of superficial idiots? Don't hold your breath - rugby league tv coverage is worth mega dollars, enough to bury a million rape complaints in red tape and pay-offs.

But for the plebs out here in television land, the rugby homo-erotic group-sex debacle is really a bit 'out there' - a bit middle ages - a bit Da Vinci Code-Opus Dei, and right now, the rugby clubs' publicity people are firmly wedged in damage mode and most likely scoffing mylanta & bex like they're going out of style.

Has the over-funding and publicity of sports coverage, which unquestionably has mass appeal, irreparably corrupted the nature of the game?

Can players be expected to keep one or both feet on the ground, when they are amped up to be pseudo-Gods by a slick, twisted PR machine with millions of execs and publicity people feeding off the carcass of Australian sports?



Poor Mary Jones, law-abiding middle-class soccer mum, going out of her way to drive her babies Matty and Andy to sports training every week, when they are being taught misogyny - she, according to the media, wasted her damn precious time - could have spent it with the rugby coaches instead, turped up & having a whale of a time - because apparently, if the stories are to be believed, that's what the league's social scene revolves around.

Mary, being the fine, upstanding hard-working mum that she is, would surely have to question the wisdom of leaving her kids in the care of males with such strong furtive, and alternative ideas about male bonding - clearly she didn't read the disclaimer's fine print in the membership forms for the junior leagues.

But those players (among others) who choose to take part in ritual homo-eroticism shouldn't be subject to a witch hunt and if society was more broadminded perhaps a safer climate could exist for those unique females who wish to take part, which wouldn't involve shame, drugs, or coercion.

Or is it, that those factors are the key draw cards for the types of males who are ashamed of their sexuality and have to try so hard to conceal their radical, sexual, homo-erotic practices?

Groups who traditionally embraced alternative views on sex have always been vilified as 'out there' and were fodder for media vilification. For example WA's Rajneeshies were, ironically, a favoured freak show of the national media, but still generally not considered as sexually predatory in the way rugby players have been perceived, which seems to link back to a couple vital differences in ethos.

Media coverage of the S&M trend in the 90's, created a public awareness of a type of buddy-system(for want of a different term) and their code of signals for safe and consensual sex, even for situations that involve potentially risky behaviours that could be perceived as aggressive, are as such already known and in the public domain for those people with fringe sexual habits, such as the rugby players who featured so much in the news this week.

So do rugby players who 'do it in a scrum' clarify the ground rules beforehand for their female recipient?

If these keen(if the most recent mainstream media's stories are accurate) female participants are really making informed choices, and consenting, do all the participants establish signals for the female whereby she can indicate if she changes her mind, wants to opt out, or if she becomes uncomfortable with the way things are going?

It would appear from some of those women who have spoken out in the media in the last fortnight that unless these safe ground rules exist, the group sex interaction among rugby players could be inequitable, objectifying, and illegal.

Forgive the momentary lack of cultural sophistication, but isn't the sexual dynamic just between two people, complete with typical Aussie ineptitude in communications, complex enough?

Going by the post-match interviews(which are clearly mostly monosyllabic)rugby players aren't exactly breaking the boundaries of communications - and in light of this, exactly how competent are they, or could they ever endeavour to be, at knowing whether that sole female participant is actually OK with what's going on?

Though the decisions about, and ethics of, group sex would be enough to boggle the most capable and lateral mind, it is really hard to bypass the longer term prognosis for these 'beautiful people' engaging in such activities, tragically visible in the outing of a certain public identity, built up in an unacceptable way, just to be shot down in an equally unpalatable way.

For the community to condemn that identity's questionable actions should we not also be calling for him to name each of the other alleged perpetrators, so as to ensure a culture of rape is not tolerated, and that juniors players aren't exposed to their unhealthy influence?