Nick Riewoldt publicly proclaimed that the explicit photo taken of him and Zac Posen was “just a joke”.
The question in my mind in the Dikileaks case is what kind of joke is it?
What is funny about two guys standing next to one another naked with a condom?
Maybe its a private joke; something to be kept in the clubhouse. All the stories coming out of the St Kilda Football Club have all so far involved girls and women. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I guess it is either taking him a thousand words to get to the punchline or its a private joke that I don’t get.
The alternative explanation is that the lads are making fun of homosexuals.
So which is it Nick?
Nick may have had the photo taken in the privacy of his Miami hotel suite, but he made a statement in public in a press conference that it was “a joke”.
This is not about whether his right to privacy was breached, rather whether his private attitudes, which he explained publicly, are appropriate.
The question is what the humour beneath the photo symbolises. What a person does in private or what they do to defend what they said they did privately is even more illuminating of their character than what they do in public.
I have seen many reactions to Riewoldt’s photos such as “he doesn’t get drunk, he doesn’t take drugs, get accused or rape, urinate on windows or beat women, get off your moral high ground”.
Let us in on the joke and we could perhaps enjoy the humour too.
Does he think it is funny that someone would use a condom?
Does he think it is funny that someone from St Kilda would use proper protection?
Does he think that anticipating group sex with women is funny?
Does he think it is funny that two men would be using a condom for a shared activity? If so, obviously the Bulldogs have a much stricter code of conduct, as Aker attracted the ire of everyone.
The standard of behaviour expected of St Kilda players is lower than the criminal standard. A St Kilda player looks more likely to be charged with a criminal offence before they run afoul of alleged violations of codes of conduct.
What are the possible artistic interpretations of the joke?