Society/Culture How about we all just grow up and not be so petulant. The Chol 'incident'

[CheapCharlie]

I seriously doubt an AFLW coach would be stupid enough.

Use some context Charlie, we're talking about adult male football team mates doing change room antics. Adult males.

Of course it's expected that someone (no surprise it's you) would use something completely out of context to put up a naive and stupid argument. Of course no adult would.

It's not out of context, just out of your thinking.

So again, its okay for an adult male who is attracted to other men to give random taps to the genitals and arse areas whenever they want?

No need for prior consent, they can just go for it, because that's how real men act with each other in change rooms and the workplace?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

It's not out of context, just out of your thinking.

So again, its okay for an adult male who is attracted to other men to give random taps to the genitals and arse areas whenever they want?

No need for prior consent, they can just go for it, because that's how real men act with each other in change rooms and the workplace?

I think you might be wasting your time

A lot of people don't have any standards, they have a view that sexual harassment of any kind should be "let 'er rip 'tata chip"

 

[skilts]

I think the problem lies with the media, as others have suggested. There is a saying in radio that, "the mike is always on". Many a storied and lengthy radio career has been built solely on the ability to refrain from inadvertently using the word 'pudendum' on air.

The players would have had no expectation that there would be cameras depicting their doings as the club song was being sung, because that has never been known to occur previously. Extremely sneaky and totally unexpected behaviour by the media.

If footballers were astrophysicists, moral philosophers or similar, the media would be as nothing. Gross generalisation I know (I'm allowed, by special dispensation from the Papacy), but generally, they are as dumb as dog sheet. This episode is yet more proof of that, if any were required.

 

[conrad_437]

It trivialises actual sexual assault by calling it just that. What sort of message is the AFL sending by getting up in arms over something so inconsequential and widely known as being a common, hyper-masculine act in many sporting circles worldwide, whilst hardly addressing Jordan de Goey's charge over indecent assault? An allegation which probably has a degree of merit to it (still innocent until proven guilty) compared to something that someone who has played any level of senior footy is aware that is commonplace. This faux outrage has got to stop, it's not symbolic of a broader issue. The de Goey issue might be, but this one ain't it.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

It trivialises actual sexual assault by calling it just that. What sort of message is the AFL sending by getting up in arms over something so inconsequential and widely known as being a common, hyper-masculine act in many sporting circles worldwide, whilst hardly addressing Jordan de Goey's charge over indecent assault? An allegation which probably has a degree of merit to it (still innocent until proven guilty) compared to something that someone who has played any level of senior footy is aware that is commonplace. This faux outrage has got to stop, it's not symbolic of a broader issue. The de Goey issue might be, but this one ain't it.

Again.....there is no outrage (other than from people like you)

 

[CheapCharlie]

It trivialises actual sexual assault by calling it just that. What sort of message is the AFL sending by getting up in arms over something so inconsequential and widely known as being a common, hyper-masculine act in many sporting circles worldwide, whilst hardly addressing Jordan de Goey's charge over indecent assault? An allegation which probably has a degree of merit to it (still innocent until proven guilty) compared to something that someone who has played any level of senior footy is aware that is commonplace. This faux outrage has got to stop, it's not symbolic of a broader issue. The de Goey issue might be, but this one ain't it.

Hyper masculine act?
Guys in martial arts and boxing circles grab each other's genitals as a display of manhood?
In what sporting circles is genitals grabbing considering hyper masculine in your view?

I haven't seen too much faux outrage, just a lot of people agreeing that the behaviour isn't appropriate in a workplace environment or a professional sport environment.
Seems like that's a minimum line of respect and maturity.

The outrage is coming from people who insist that genitals grabbing is OK buddy

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Hyper masculine act?
Guys in martial arts and boxing circles grab each other's genitals as a display of manhood?
In what sporting circles is genitals grabbing considering hyper masculine in your view?

I haven't seen too much faux outrage, just a lot of people agreeing that the behaviour isn't appropriate in a workplace environment or a professional sport environment.
Seems like that's a minimum line of respect and maturity.

The outrage is coming from people who insist that genitals grabbing is OK buddy

"We demand the right to grab a guy on the utensil and to stick a finger us his arse, we are sovereign citizens, we will not obey your laws"

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's not out of context, just out of your thinking.

So again, its okay for an adult male who is attracted to other men to give random taps to the genitals and arse areas whenever they want?

No need for prior consent, they can just go for it, because that's how real men act with each other in change rooms and the workplace?

Thinking, context, whatever you want to call it.

You're talking about males who are intent on copping a fee coz they're physically attracted, the subject matter is team mate horse play between footy team mates.

Why don't you actually view the video again and decide if it's guys who are attracted to another guy or team mates being team mates? (Hint this is not the first (or last) time footy team mates have done this while not being physically attracted to their team mate).

 

[CheapCharlie]

Thinking, context, whatever you want to call it.

You're talking about males who are intent on copping a fee coz they're physically attracted, the subject matter is team mate horse play between footy team mates.

Why don't you actually view the video again and decide if it's guys who are attracted to another guy or team mates being team mates? (Hint this is not the first (or last) time footy team mates have done this while not being physically attracted to their team mate).

I didn't realise you were privy to the sexual mindset of the 3 players involved in the video.
Does it matter if they are attracted to each other or not?
Would it matter if they are gay or not?
Would it matter of one of them didn't like the attention?
Does it matter if the coach is male and the players female?
Does it matter of the coach is female and teh players male?

You have some definite rules for this type of thing in your head, please share.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I didn't realise you were privy to the sexual mindset of the 3 players involved in the video.
Does it matter if they are attracted to each other or not?
Would it matter if they are gay or not?
Would it matter of one of them didn't like the attention?
Does it matter if the coach is male and the players female?
Does it matter of the coach is female and teh players male?

You have some definite rules for this type of thing in your head, please share.

Didn't know you were privy either, never stated I was, I claimed speculatively what is likely.

Read the thread title, has ZERO to do with gay, attracted, male / female player / coach. Or nothing to do with what you think is in my head.

Please do tell us all about these 'rules' I've put up. Actually don't because it is not thread relevant.

The thread is about the over reaction by the media and some on social media (BF) that the incident was actually sexual assault. Which Mabiol Chol has not agreed it is.

Can't be any clearer than that, don't bring in debate that is not relevant.

 

[mcnulty]

If the only option to you is grabing another mans penis in order to "bond", I strongly suggest you seek professional attention.

I think this sums up the whole grubby little incident for me.

Male bonding...

 

[RichLeMonde]

This is not Maccas, how far do we want to sterilize?

The issue should be what the intent is, not what Mrs Jones on the couch thinks.

Just because footy club environments are footy club environments or 'boys club' as you describe does not make AFL clubs unprofessional.

Offence is taken not given, it is no one elses business.

If the AFL want to sterilize to this point, why not exclude players with tattoos or mohawk hair cuts? After all they are taboo, the AFL wouldn't tattooed players getting around in case someone somewhere has ptsd about tattoos and mohawks. How about white players because y'know white male privilege? Where does one draw the line?

How much do we want to 'protect' the minority? Why don't we just go the easy path and shut the game down altogether if this is an issue?

And what if Chol had have been raped when he was a boy? Would forcibly sticking your finger up his arse then just be good joke then, that it was his problem if he didn’t see the funny side of? It’s not about intent. It’s anout the fact that you don’t know someone’s past, and so you’re better off not touching their genitals and/it anus when they are clearly gesturing at you to tell you to stop. Sorry if that offends you and makes you feel short is no longer worth playing if we can’t all just enjoy a good friendly anal fingering

 

[CheapCharlie]

Didn't know you were privy either, never stated I was, I claimed speculatively what is likely.

Read the thread title, has ZERO to do with gay, attracted, male / female player / coach. Or nothing to do with what you think is in my head.

Please do tell us all about these 'rules' I've put up. Actually don't because it is not thread relevant.

The thread is about the over reaction by the media and some on social media (BF) that the incident was actually sexual assault. Which Mabiol Chol has not agreed it is.

Can't be any clearer than that, don't bring in debate that is not relevant.

You have changed your tune in this thread.
You started the thread as a rant against PC culture and as a justification that you should be allowed to touch another player in any way you want because its just a bit if fun.
Now you are reinventing your argument centering around sexual assault

Here is what you said in your opening post

So one of your team mates grabbing you on the ass or giving you a dick punch in a jovial way is somehow detrimental.

Well if that is that is the case which I seriously doubt, then we may as well take our bat and ball and go home. Game over period! Shut the game down if this is the 'protocol' to go on, may as well go on any 'team sport' as well.

FFS world just grow the farg up.

Sick and tired of all this pc bullsh1t coming into our game. FARGIN GROW UP!Fargin children!

 

[Carringbush2010]

And what if Chol had have been raped when he was a boy? Would forcibly sticking your finger up his arse then just be good joke then, that it was his problem if he didn’t see the funny side of? It’s not about intent

Then it is about intent isnt it. That is certainly no joke.

Maybe think before posting - tends to help.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You have changed your tune in this thread.
You started the thread as a rant against PC culture and as a justification that you should be allowed to touch another player in any way you want because its just a bit if fun.
Now you are reinventing your argument centering around sexual assault

Here is what you said in your opening post

Charlie Charlie Charlie, I'm not reinventing the argument, I wasn't the one claiming it was sexual assault.

It's not even an 'argument', I'm just pointing out the hyperbole of media and some on here claiming it actually is sexual assault.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Charlie Charlie Charlie, I'm not reinventing the argument, I wasn't the one claiming it was sexual assault.

It's not even an 'argument', I'm just pointing out the hyperbole of media and some on here claiming it actually is sexual assault.

You are attempting to reframe your position
You started off as a rant against PCness and now you claim you are against it being called sexual assault

Would the law ever consider unwanted touching of genitals to be sexual assault?

 

[Gough]

Charlie Charlie Charlie, I'm not reinventing the argument, I wasn't the one claiming it was sexual assault.

It's not even an 'argument', I'm just pointing out the hyperbole of media and some on here claiming it actually is sexual assault.

Go up to someone in the street and try to shove your thumb their arse and when the magistrate asks you to explain yourself, we'll see how the who'll boys will be boys defence goes.

 

[RichLeMonde]

Then it is about intent isnt it. That is certainly no joke.

Maybe think before posting - tends to help.

What? My point is that if Chol, or anybody, has a past history of abuse, then even an action with no malicious or sexual intent, like Vlaustin’s, can still do damage. We don’t know people’s pasts, so it’s better not to stick our fingers up people’s arses. Not sure why that is a controversial point to you

 

[Carringbush2010]

Go up to someone in the street and try to shove your thumb their arse and when the magistrate asks you to explain yourself, we'll see how the who'll boys will be boys defence goes.

Team mates are not someone on the street, and a classic example of you over bowing it. It was not a 'shove thumb up ass' it was clearly grab ass cheek with hand.

Stay in the lane mate.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

What? My point is that if Chol, or anybody, has a past history of abuse, then even an action with no malicious or sexual intent, like Vlaustin’s, can still do damage. We don’t know people’s pasts, so it’s better not to stick our fingers up people’s arses. Not sure why that is a controversial point to you

Its really weird that that people get so outraged that simply asking others not to grab people on the utensil or to keep their thumb out of someone else's arse.
What part of that outrages them so?

 

[Carringbush2010]

What? My point is that if Chol, or anybody, has a past history of abuse, then even an action with no malicious or sexual intent, like Vlaustin’s, can still do damage. We don’t know people’s pasts, so it’s better not to stick our fingers up people’s arses. Not sure why that is a controversial point to you

You're not getting it are you, you're 'looking' for a possible problem.

AFL footballer mentally effected by team mate with no malicious intention = probably not mentally strong enough for the rigors of AF at the highest level. So highly unlikely - even Chol himself said he was not offended. Why not believe him?

 

[Carringbush2010]

You are attempting to reframe your position
You started off as a rant against PCness and now you claim you are against it being called sexual assault

Would the law ever consider unwanted touching of genitals to be sexual assault?

You're attempting to 'gotcha' me.

I never claimed anything about unwanted touching- that's on you.

I'm not gonna go with you clowns down a rabbit hole.

The incident has been overblown from the outset by the media to make it out as something it likely is not. That's it, that's what the thread is about.

Before jumping to conclusions like the media has and you seem to be - just look at it for it for it likely is. No need to take offence to it.

/Thread.

 

[RichLeMonde]

You're not getting it are you, you're 'looking' for a possible problem.

AFL footballer mentally effected by team mate with no malicious intention = probably not mentally strong enough for the rigors of AF at the highest level. So highly unlikely - even Chol himself said he was not offended. Why not believe him?

So if your son was abused by a priest as a boy, somehow managed to get his life together, played team sport as an adult, then when he was 18 someone without warning shoved his fingers up his arse, you’d sit your boy down and tell him, ‘sorry son, you’re just not mentally strong enough to play sports’.
I agree that the probability of an abuse background in any individual case is low, but are you really saying it’s more important to protect people’s right to shove their fingers up teammates’ arses for fun than to provide a minimally safe environment so that people who’ve been abused in the past can actually play team sports? You sound like a great bloke.

 

[CheapCharlie]

You're attempting to 'gotcha' me.

I never claimed anything about unwanted touching- that's on you.

I'm not gonna go with you clowns down a rabbit hole.

The incident has been overblown from the outset by the media to make it out as something it likely is not. That's it, that's what the thread is about.

Before jumping to conclusions like the media has and you seem to be - just look at it for it for it likely is. No need to take offence to it.

/Thread.

There is no need to attempt a gotcha moment on you given your position doesn't stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
I was pointing out you seemed to have come to a semblance of realisation your POV in your opening post is wrong so are now changing the lines of your argument.

Before jumping to conclusions like the media has and you seem to be - just look at it for it for it likely is. No need to take offence to it.

I took it as unwanted touching of Chol's genitals by two teammates who thought it was funny.
As an impartial observer, I wouldn't expect to see see that in any sporting teams or workplaces.

Your attitude is that any one who speaks out against having their genitals and arse touched and probed is seen as a wowser who just doesn't want to play along with the game.
What is your line of where genital tapping can and can't be performed in sporting clubs?

 

[Evolved1]

Then it is about intent isnt it. That is certainly no joke.

Maybe think before posting - tends to help.

Intent is such a slippery slope to peg your tent on. Pun intended.

You're an intelligent person, and it's unlike you to ignore opposing views without reason.

Do you see intent as a more pertinent factor here than the effect of the behaviour?