AUSSIE FOOTBALLER LOSES HIS JOB FOR EXTRA-MARTIAL SEX !!!!

[Daanyeer]

Seven Years Later, Aussie Footballer Loses His Job for Extra-marital Sex

Source: mensdaily
By Robert Franklin, Esq. | May 19, 2009

Seven years ago, several members of an Australian rugby team had sex with a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room in Christchurch, New Zealand. [Read about it here (Herald Sun, 5/14/09), here (League HQ, 5/14/09) and here (ABC, 5/8/09).] The next day, according to her co-workers she bragged about what had happened. The Christchurch police thoroughly investigated the matter, taking some 80 interviews. They determined that the sex had been consensual and that no crime had been committed.


End of story, right?

Wrong. Now, seven years after the fact, the woman has come forward and publicized the incident in an interview with ABC. She now claims to have been traumatized by the event, including a suicide attempt. Her publicizing the incident has resulted in former player Matthew Johns losing his job as a part-time coach and television commentator.

At the time of the incidient, Johns told his wife everything, and they patched up their relationship and had moved on. Now Johns's wife Trish is in the news defending her husband. For his part, Johns is entirely contrite, while emphasizing the fact that the woman willingly took part in everything that went on.

I don't approve of adultery. I think that, in this day and age, if you want to be single, that's your privilege and no one thinks the less of you for doing so. If you're single, you can have sex with whomever you want as long as he/she has the same desire. But if you're married, you should act like it. If you gave your solemn oath to your husband/wife, you should stick to it. If you don't want to stick to it, divorce is the quick solution.

So I'm not terribly sympathetic towards Johns, but, in his defense, he's not asking anyone to sympathize with him. But, once you clear away all the tawdry debris from this case, what it amounts to is this - if you're Johns, or presumably some other sports star, it is a condition of your employment that you remain sexually faithful to your wife. Actually, that's not quite right. He's been employed for seven years since he was unfaithful to his wife; it's the fact that the woman went public with the encounter that got him fired.

So I wonder who else that rule applies to. Do the executives of the television network that employed Johns apply it to themselves? Is everyone certain that the attractive anchorwoman on the evening news has always been scrupulously faithful to her husband? If not, would she be fired if we found out, or would we be instructed by indignant keepers of public morality that adultery was her private choice and none of our business? I think it is her private business, but I think that about Johns too.

Of course there is no such rule. Sexual fidelity to one's spouse is not required to become or remain employed. The Johns matter is about women's power over men. In this case, seven years after having consensual sex with him, the woman can get him fired for that reason alone. His infidelity to his wife may be between her and him, but the woman's ability to have him fired from his job is of concern to all of us.

I don't believe for an instant that, if the sexes were reversed, the pretty young anchorwoman would lose her job. The various articles on this case come larded with statements about how men must respect women. Aside from the fact that the woman we're supposed to respect had sex with at least six strangers while others looked on and then bragged about it to friends, the one-sided nature of the exhortations is clear - whatever she does, respect the woman. So if the sexes were reversed, the anchorwman keeps her job. After all, how does it show respect for women to drag her extra-marital affair into the public square?

Thanks to Sonja for the heads-up.