and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
This isn't BDSM, these are allegations of sexual and physical assault.
now, if only someone gave a shit.........
Having read a number of posts from those more kinky than myself over the last 18 months I understand that 50 Shades is NOT BSDM, but an abusive controlling relationship. The fact that Jian called himself a kinkster, but then referenced said book was a tacit admission that a line had been crossed between consensual private behavior and something less than becoming of a decent human being.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense, much more than anyone's so far.
I honestly always thought he was too good to be true. He's just too nice to his guests, especially the men, whom he always calls "Sir."
And if he isn't using a safe word with his kinky partners, he's an asshole.
Reverse Polarity @7, yes, lots of folks in the scene use safe words because they want the freedom to yell NO NO NO! STOP STOP STOP! and not end the scene. Others use POS (Plain Old English), which has the advantage of being clear about exactly what the problem is.
"Jian Ghomeshi: 8 women accuse former CBC host of violence, sexual abuse or harassment"
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/…
It appears the ex-radio host and his PR team were anxious to miscast as BDSM his non-consensual abuse.
Thankfully the truth is coming out more quickly than his spin campaign is able to suppress.
http://www.nothinginwinnipeg.com/2014/10…
Criminal convictions are not the only way to keep people safe. Gossip helps keep people safe too, and it has the very real advantage of not disturbing the social order.
You know who normalized kink for us? You know who provided the children of Ottawa with their most comprehensive sex ed?
Dan Savage.
I give Dan full credit for his role in this sea change of cultural stigma. But no matter who contributed to it, it's still kind of mind-boggling for me.
If a staff member complained yrs ago and nothing was done about it then, one hopes those who didn't pursue this complaint will also loose their jobs.
Now he just sounds like an asshole.
What has saddened me this evening is to realize these young women, barely out of adolescence, were uniformly too frightened to call the police, and did not feel our courts would protect them and stop his predation upon the young and vulnerable. As a Canadian, I am deeply ashamed.
Keep in mind Ghomeshi is almost 50 years of age, never married, no children. He has been a "man about town" all his life, so I leave it to your imagination just how many women he has really assaulted over the years. And for the life of me, how is it possible CBC "just" figured this out? What have they been tolerating all these years, just because they could make a buck off him? I think THEY were threatened with it all coming out, and so took action at the 11th hour.
It is time for the police to launch an investigation, and for charges to be laid.
(P.S. Dan, my goodness, but do I ever love and respect you! You have no idea how many people you have helped in your "It Gets Better" campaign, for which I admire you immensely.)
Maybe he thinks that they're all secretly "into it" and won't admit it? Maybe he's hoping that once he hits them, they'll realize they actually like it, and is disappointed when they don't? Maybe he just doesn't give a toss for how they feel about it, as long as he gets to live out his fantasy?
Maybe he thinks that they're all secretly "into it" and won't admit it? Maybe he's hoping that once he hits them, they'll realize they actually like it, and is disappointed when they don't? Maybe he just doesn't give a toss for how they feel about it, as long as he gets to live out his fantasy?
So yes, it seems he just got lucky with the woman you spoke to. Given the number of women he has likely assaulted in this way over the years, he was bound to eventually run into one who shared his tastes.
http://jezebel.com/the-awful-details-of-…
This isn't consensual BDSM--this is really horrible abuse perpetrated by someone who counted on his fame, popularity, and power coupled with the relatively powerless status of the victims he chose, to protect him.
You missing the point, apparently. Are you looking for a movie villain? This article is about a man, but moreso about a bad example for how to handle communication that others can learn from.
There's his admission of guilt, right there. Teddy's don't like forced sex play.
Why don't you figure out the details first before going out of your way to make excuses?
If you're going to counter the plausible presentation of the article with a timeline, at least add the pertinent details to match the assumption.
I enjoyed listening to Q. I always found his voice to be very pleasant he gave very thoughtful and interesting interviews. I'm trying to imagine his voice saying "I want to hate fuck you" and I've got nothing
Keep asking questions! Just don't expect answers to come easily. Filter out the nonsense.
I think most of the anonymous reports are recent.
I liked Dan's illustration of critical thinking.
Jian is messed up, but why would you put yourself repeatedly into the same situation?
Jian is messed up, but why would you put yourself repeatedly into the same situation?
You can, but speculation itself can ask its own questions. If you investigated enough to observe one possible trend, but don't want to do the effort to see if the supposedly available facts match your guess, it could come off as devils advocacy or concern trolling. Call it nitpicking if you will, but more important than someone "just asking questions" is how you ask your questions.
Can we take a moment to consider what a false dichotomy that is?
My girlfriend was raped when she was younger. A man whose house she was at for a date, spontaneously in the middle of the evening, grabbed her throat, overpowered, and manhandled her, saying "This is how I could kill you." He then began trying to have sex with her. She complied. She reported it to the police, and the officer told her, "Just because sex happened, that doesn't mean it was rape." She told her social group about it, and another girl in her social group told her, "You're full of shit."
Shortly thereafter, another girl in their social group was raped by this man. "Full of shit" girl, now that the story had the credence of multiple accusers, replied this time with "Oh, he tried it on me, too, but I got away!" She wasn't "conspiring" or "colluding". She was loudly and vocally jumping on whichever side she saw as having the greater social support & power.
While my gf is angry about the reaction of the police officer, who was an expression of rape culture, she is still FURIOUS with the other woman, who is an architect and perpetuator of rape culture. Women like this exist, and they exist in more abundance than I think most people are willing to admit.
Also, the likelihood that you'll remember something is proportional to the intensity of your emotional response to it; however, the likelihood that you'll forget and confabulate the details is ALSO proportional to the intensity of your emotional response. Time also increases the likelihood that details will be wrong, since we remember emotions more than facts. Considering that only 1 of the last 4 to come forward is recounting events that occurred within the last decade, it's safe to assume there's a LOT of confabulation going on.
When I read the accounts and consider the similarities between them, especially on random details like the teddy bear, I can't help but hear an abundance of cowitness-contamination, leading questions, and suggestability. The person who initially contacted these women seems to have been the woman that originated the accusation, and I sincerely doubt she was capable, or even willing, to employ Cognitive Interview technique to make sure not to contaminate the other women's memories. Also, by the time these women came forward, the predominate social wind was distinctly AGAINST Ghomeshi.
It would be very easy (and very human) for someone who had a neutral, or even positive, experience with him 10+ years ago and who was horrified by the first account against him to feel angry and betrayed by his alleged behaviour to the other woman and project those feelings onto her faded memories of her own experience.
That's not to say I take Ghomeshi's side, but I honestly cannot take the accounts of the accusers at face value when viewing them critically. I think the underlying truths behind the allegations and defences is that he is a dangerous, un- or under-trained practitioner of advanced BDSM activities, and needs to do some serious work on communication and consent before someone gets seriously injured. At the very least, for his level of play, he should have written contracts before engaging in any BDSM play with his partners.
1) He's an asshole, who
2) Gives legitimate BDSMers a bad name, and
3) Where can I find these kinds of submissive women?
Listening to the various cases, it seems to me that he went a little further than "initiating violent sex" with these women, then backing off if there was obvious protest. Sometimes he backed off, and sometimes he took it further, seeing how much he could get away with. In many cases, these were one-time encounters, so the women didn't come back.
I wonder too if he backed off more quickly with Lucy DeCouture because she is also high profile and has more power in this situation than with, say, a twenty-something fan or CBC aspirant.
I think Ghomeshi took it further, though, than "initiating" violent sex without consent. These were assaults, often sustained assaults. In several of the cases, he continue to hit or punch these women even if they showed shock or seemed upset. He backed off Lucy DeCouture after a few slaps (and the slaps without consent are inexcusable) but one wonders if he was more conscientious with her, given her high profile. So many of his victims were much younger fans, a particularly vulnerable cohort.
It seems to me he was always testing what he could get away with, and it speaks volumes that he was able to get away with so much for so long.
He is really famous in Canada. His celebrity status probably made it easy for him to get away with this for years. Girls fawned over the dude.
And just a reminder that the only person who says that there's a woman contacting a bunch of other women (presumably to play on their "suggestibility"!) was Ghomeshi himself. And his credibility level is zilch at this point.
Yeah, it's almost like I use the words that I mean and have access to Google to look up the exact term and make sure I'm not completely off-base before posting. Crazy.
"mansplainingly"
Oh my god, it's an adverb now, too!? Clearly, your assumption about my gender, and what my gender says about my perspective and competence, completely undermines my credibility.
"And his credibility level is zilch at this point."
"I've decided I don't believe him, which makes everything he says a lie, so we clearly can't trust him." What wonderful circular, self-affirming, womansplaining logic you have.
How low does your self-esteem have to be, for you to even consider being alone with this thing?
Sex?
Not even with a rubber dick, and Dan Savage pushing.
Where's your wing man, Mr E ?
http://www.aspektz.com/the-great-ghomesh…
http://www.aspektz.com/the-great-ghomesh…
Cowitness contamination happens when people see the SAME event, like a shooting or an accident, and one eyewitness's testimony influences the other person.
The interviews by Kevin Donovan and Jesse Brown are not depositions. They are interviews with reluctant participants. To interview the women involved, they had to go to great lengths to protect their anonymity. The reporters are going to protect their sources, and not share their accounts with other sources. The reporters have been working on this story for a year. Ditto that the CBC investigation on Jian and the sexual harassment allegations have been going on for months beforehand.
Nothing in the women's stories show faulty memories, given they talked about their shock in being beaten, choked and for some sexually assaulted, they explain in other details leading up to the events of their assault.
Jian doesn't want to role play or practice BDSM. He just wants to physically assault women. These are physical attacks. Many of the attack came out of nowhere, not a BDSM relationship or some talking about what was about to happen by Jian. This is about more about a paraphilia of Jian than it is about BDSM. Jian is using BDSM to minimize the assault that took place.
Ugh, gross that they would even bring this up. If he's playing by a different ruleset not discussed with all of them beforehand, that's not BDSM by any definition. The practice requires informed consent by both parties, redefining BDSM to mean abuse is pretty sleazebag of them.
The trick is, you've got to "man up" and actually take the lead - but be careful or you'll end up like Ghomeshi and taking the lead a little too forcefully.
@76 Awesome link. Fave was Blind Ignorance - "Apply quickly, confidently, and without really critically thinking".
@54: How many women would the Star have to interview anonymously or not before their stories started to have more credibility than Ghomeshi's? Is his voice worth the equivalent of ten abused women? Twenty? Fifty? Can we take a moment to consider what a preposterous, disingenuous rationalization your post is?
"I honestly cannot take the accounts of the accusers at face value when viewing them critically. I think the underlying truths "
So they are both "critical" and observing of "underlying truths". It's sad how pathetically they're going out of their way to look for excuses to discount the experiences of everyone who has been assaulted by Jian.
The other comment with this:
"I figure that six months down the line, he'll "bravely open up" and come out of the closet and will claim to be "healed" and "empowered". His legions of swooning fans will flock back to him and all will be forgiven because he was oh so brave to open up and heal. This is, of course, only a theory on my part."
The other comment with this:
"I figure that six months down the line, he'll "bravely open up" and come out of the closet and will claim to be "healed" and "empowered". His legions of swooning fans will flock back to him and all will be forgiven because he was oh so brave to open up and heal. This is, of course, only a theory on my part."
Even if your (implausible-sounding but ok, whatever) theory that Ghomeshi is a closeted homosexual is correct, he would still have to be a sociopath or an idiot to think it’s ok to behave towards women the way he does, or to think he can get away with it indefinitely.
Other evidence does not square with your interpretation — for instance, the bits where he has intercourse with his dates or where the woman Dan interviewed says he treated her well.
To think that the closeted-homosexual hypothesis is more plausible than the just-likes-to-beat-women hypothesis, it would help to have evidence that women are more likely to beaten by closeted gay men than by out straight men. Since I don’t think you have that evidence, occam’s razor suggests that the closeted-homosexual hypothesis introduces unnecessary complexity.
I don't see how that would preclude the former two. Being in the closet wouldn't turn you into an abuser?
Apparently, Gomeshi is the kind of person who "hires" an unpaid intern for CBC to do his laundry and clean his house, who never even sets foot in the CBC offices.
What an opportunity.
However, it seems likely-ish that during the final weeks of October 2014, Jian Ghomeshi made senior production staff, radio management and human resources officials at the CBC privy to visual depictions of the same young woman who volunteered to share her story with Dan Savage. Regardless of how consensual their play was, that consent doesn't cover his sharing of text messages, photographs or video of her (or of any one else) in his last-ditch effort to keep his job. It has been reported that the images Ghomeshi showed in his defence were contained in a smartphone owned by the CBC; it would come as a great shock and disappointment to all if the CBC allowed Mr Ghomeshi to leave the building on 26 October without surrendering a piece of public property of such high evidentiary value. I hope that both the CBC and the Toronto Police Service are making every effort to investigate whether consent was given in every instance for the production and dissemination of the images contained in that device.
However, it seems likely-ish that during the final weeks of October 2014, Jian Ghomeshi made senior production staff, radio management and human resources officials at the CBC privy to visual depictions of the same young woman who volunteered to share her story with Dan Savage. Regardless of how consensual their play was, that consent doesn't cover his sharing of text messages, photographs or video of her (or of any one else) in his last-ditch effort to keep his job. It has been reported that the images Ghomeshi showed in his defence were contained in a smartphone owned by the CBC; it would come as a great shock and disappointment to all if the CBC allowed Mr Ghomeshi to leave the building on 26 October without surrendering a piece of public property of such high evidentiary value. I hope that both the CBC and the Toronto Police Service are making every effort to investigate whether consent was given in every instance for the production and dissemination of the images contained in that device.