Spider shows he is really a dinosaur

You may think Everitt's comments and revolting and that is your opinion. There are however many other people who support his comments.

Thanks for the kind advvice John

Rich, I dont think we can generalise I was merely trying to counterbalance your "passed out " example. I am not so sure that there are too many footballers (who lets face it dont need to deal with comotose women) who would be dealing with your scenario either, although I think there are many insinuations that this is indeed the case, hence your jumping to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. Normal men do not rape women. Rape is a crime of violence . If a footballer has this defect in his personality, no amount of public debate and councelling is going to prevent him from offending. But I am not trying to defend those personalities that exist in our society footballer or not footballer. I am trying to debate whether we have a right to blindly dismiss, the fact that women have a responsibility as well.

Peter, Clearly we were talking about different things. In relation to your example I'm just not quite how realistic your example is in the real world. I suppose they are some women that will be so nervous they won't explicity say yes or no, but I think most men could tell the difference between a women who was nervous and one who was clearly scared. I suppose it would make things murky it a women did go from aggressive cougar in public to meek kitten in private. However I have not come accross too many women like that in my experience.

Rich, "If a women is unable to express herself and say no (i.e. because she is passed out) and a male chooses to have sex with her, this is technically rape as the women did not give explicit consent." I absolutely agree with you, but I am surprised that you would interpret my comments this way. I was referring perhaps to a situation for example, where a girl may be very vocal and confident (particularly, but not necessarily in front of her peers) but then when she goes home with her conquest, fails to find the same bravado, that she once had in public. A player may in this instance have an expectation that the confident agressive female would be able to "say no" in this situation . However this may not be the case. Is it the players fault that he "missed" the change in confidence/personality? Many would say no Is it the woman fault that she was unable to find her voice in this scenario? No What we have here is a no fault scenario, and yet modern society with its emphasis on political correctness, demands that there be a right and a wrong. A Villain and a Victim, when in this case there is neither.

Peterw, Whislt I agree with your overall sentiment, you need to be careful with following: "If however the brazen flirtacious girl is suddenly unable to express herself and say no once back at the players home, then how is the player meant to know??" If a women is unable to express herself and say no (i.e. because she is passed out) and a male chooses to have sex with her, this is technically rape as the women did not give explicit consent. The doubt revolves around when the women is drunk but still able to consent. Saying "I was drunk" is not a valid defence for male or females in these type of cases.

apaway, Dont get me wrong , I am IN NO WAY condoning males taking advantage of females. BUT when you say that you dont have a view about whether or not its OK for women "to throw themselves" at stars etc, you let yourself down. You on the one hand are making the male completely accountable and responsible on the one hand, but then you are completely indifferent and have no opinion on whether irresponsible behaviour on the females behalf is acceptable or not . This does the female view point no favours whatsoever. "It probably happens at many pubs and clubs in the country on a Friday or Saturday night" Well yes it does , and arent we talking about human nature here?? Lets not forget that (consensual) sex and the process leading up to it occuring , is completely natural, and we should be non judgemental about it occuring. But what is not natural is a male being hunted by a star struck drunk female. (lets make it clear here, I am NOT implying that this is what occurs in every instance) But what I find offensive, is the continual denial that this could be a possibility, and then the consequent insinuation that because there has ben a complaint, then the player is guilty . "I don’t know what “line” you are referring to in your “cross the line” question. Do you mean in a behavioural sense?" What I am trying to get to here, is that there is a point where flirting becomes more obviously a direct (non verbal) attempt to express that the female is "available" . Now I think in many peoples eyes going back to a persons home at 3 am is clearly an act that has gone beyond flirting and moving into the realm of line crossing wouldnt you agree? Now should the footballer have to get the girl to sign a contract saying that she consents to give a ridiculous example or should it be left up to "interpretation" via visual cues and body language and god forbid , interpretation that this girl has come home at 3 am "what does she want?" Now whilst the girls can attribute god like status to these players , in reality they are just normal males, and perhaps given their backgrounds, at a distinct disadvantage, in trying to interpret the females advances. But if there is an overt flirtacious advance made then that overt behaviour should be expected to be able to express no in uncertain terms as well. If that is expressed and the player continues then that is rape. If however the brazen flirtacious girl is suddenly unable to express herself and say no once back at the players home, then how is the player meant to know?? "But ultimately, that’s not what this discussion is about. It’s about the perception that somehow women “ask” for assault later in the night by acting in a certain way earlier in the night. And it’s wrong." I dont think anyone is condoning assault. But there is no doubt in my mind and many others, that the type of behavious we are referring to is indeed a female "asking" for something,

Behaving in an "overt manner" was my description for what people on the site have described as young women "throwing themselves" at high profile stars. Do I think that's OK? I don't have a view either way. It probably happens at many pubs and clubs in the country on a Friday or Saturday night I don't know what "line" you are referring to in your "cross the line" question. Do you mean in a behavioural sense? If so, then a "line" is crossed when someone's behaviour, male or female, is unwanted and they are clearly told so, yet persist. But ultimately, that's not what this discussion is about. It's about the perception that somehow women "ask" for assault later in the night by acting in a certain way earlier in the night. And it's wrong.

Apaway, The problem with sexual assault cases it that they are very difficult to prove or disprove objectively. If in court a judge asks a man: "This women claims you raped her, how do you plead? the man replies: Not Guilty, I admit I had sex with her at the night in question but I claim it was consensual". How does one objectively prove it was or was not consensual? With no witnesses actually there at the time of the alleged offence it comes down to two different stories from the alleged victim and the accused. They may also be no physical evidence of non-consensual sex taking place, particularly if the alleged victim has delayed coming forward. So it comes down to more subjective claims. If witnesses at a nightclub saw the women throwing herself at the man earlier in the night, then in the jury's mind that adds weight to the argument of the defence e.g consensual sex. Yes she may have been have changed her mind later on back at his place, but she may changed her mind the day after and at the time she did consent. You also get into the "character" witness testimony you had in the Brett Stewart trial which has nothing to do with the offence. In the end there is usually too much doubt and taking into account the presumption of innocence (which I think some people forget) the jury deliver's a not guilty verdict. It does not mean the man did not do it, it means there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, which is why mud sticks. It seems what you are saying that if a women claims they were sexually assaulted before, during or after the event took place then she WAS sexually assaulted end of story. It is not as simple as that.

apway, are you saying it is ok for women to behave "in an overt manner"? Exactly what are the boundaries that this overt behaviour covers. When do they "cross the line" or is it simply impossible to do so in your eyes?

The public's perception? You've lost me. So if the public see a woman behaving in an overt manner then the automatic assumption is that they are "asking for it" or something. And the "shades of grey" comment is the very thing that has made it all the more difficult for sexual assault allegations to be proven, and is why women are so reluctant to pursue them, even if they have been legitimately assaulted. Sorry, but I find your stance disturbing.

I never said that it was an excuse. Nor has it anything to do with the law. This is about the public's perception in relation to these incidences. Surely taking responsibility is making a consciouness decision to avoid a potentially confrontational situations all together. Instead of changing your mind when you are half naked in someone's bathroom, you should avoid approaching these players when they are out celebrating if you have no intention of going home with them. It isn't one person's "fault" there are shades of grey.

"Running high on adrenaline and testerone there’s every chance some players will overstep the mark if a women all of a sudden has second thoughts." Sorry, Rich Daddy, that's no excuse. And why is this never considered: Maybe by saying "no" at the point where the probability of a sexual act seems likely, a woman IS taking responsibility. Why should there be a presumption on the part of a woman that if she decides not to engage in sex, that her choice won't be adhered to, and that it's her "fault" for behaving in a way that might have suggested otherwise earlier?

It's hard for people to see these women as "victims" if they throw themselves at men who are already pumped up and excited from winning a premiership and having a drink for the first time in months. The single players are also probably looking for a partner for the night and if a women is offering them that on a platter then in all likelihood they will jump at the chance without thinking about the potential ramifications. Running high on adrenaline and testerone there's every chance some players will overstep the mark if a women all of a sudden has second thoughts. It is not about condoning sexual assault but the view that men and women both need to take responsibility for their actions.

Why do so many people post comments describing the "disgraceful" way in which young women "throw themselves" at sports stars? Why is this even relevant to the debate? Does their "predatory" behaviour mean that the usual rules don't apply to them and that they are disqualified from the laws governing sexual assault because they have acted in an overt manner? It seems to me that some posts on this thread are condoning the possibility of sexaul assault because a woman's behaviour did not conform to some prim and proper Edwardian standard. Sorry, doesn't work that way. And Everitt's comments were ill-informed at best, dangerous at worst.

Seriously as a Female I never wish this sort of thing happen to any woman. But somehow somewhere I do agree what Peter say... And isn't it that's what in most people mind too... He can speak his mind... He no need to be political correct so he won't offend anybody... And do you ever see some of "these girl" who spent their time to get into the footballer pants... The way that they behave... It's not pretty, and sometimes it's awfully overwhelming... Just ask the footballer wife and girlfriend... Obviously not everyone is like that... Unfortunately that's many Skank and Whore in the Sea so as the Dump Footballer... But don't strip away our freedom of speech and most importantly HONESTY...

Redb - there's an unalienable right to say 'no', but, it helps if it's coherent, and said before the event and not after, no one is suggesting otherwise. However, Spider true, ought have kept his thoughts a little more private. But, again, amazing how many people are thinking it and tending to agree - even Kerrie-Ann.

what sort of comment is this one? How is this in anyway deemed appropriate?

Onya Rich_daddy Rape is not okay. Saying no means no! But.....having seen first hand some of the predatory females who chase sports stars (or any stars for that matter), I am inclined to be sympathetic to the young men involved. My reasoning....how did the media get hold of this information? If these girls were really concerned, did they go to the police? If they did, who told the media? The police? I don't think so. The girls looking for notoriety? I think this is much more probable. It is very easy to accuse as has been mentioned, but very hard to prove that no wrongdoing has taken place, and unfortunately these allegations will follow the players involved for the rest of their lives. I expect and demand respect from men, but act accordingly. If I make a mistake, I take it on the chin. Not all girls are "good girls", and not all men are rapists. I'm also with you on your comments re Sawas Tzionis. What is that tosser on????