Fool me once, shame on Jian. Fool me twice and I am the fool.

Sexual politics is a tar-baby.  Shouldn’t be touched.  I know that.  I have just pulled the pin on a hand grenade…

For the record: I do not like – in any way – Jian Ghomeshi.  Didn’t like his personality, didn’t like the CBC show and I was particularly put off with what he allegedly offered up as seductive foreplay for his groupie-like dates.  Not my kind of guy at all.

Well, it was not just alleged, actually, the weird behaviour was admitted by him as well. Doesn’t make it any better.  The guy is some kind of bully, doing silly, immature power-displays over his surprised and intimidated dates.

I have a tendency to want to punch people like that.  Forgive me.  I carry a bias of chivalry. Or chauvinism, if you prefer.  I think I am coming to the rescue. You know, fair maidens in danger…?  That kinda thing?  Disney-esque?  

It seems I am judged wrong to feel that way these days.  “I can take care of myself!” is the fashionable female response even if the opposite is obviously true.  (I once saw a guy meanly manhandling and yelling viciously at a much smaller woman and so I politely intervened.  No punching!  After the guy left, she told me that she was totally capable of handling it and I should not have interfered.  I apologized and blamed the superhero comic books I read as a kid.  Hard to know what the right thing is sometimes).       

And it is also NOT fashionable to judge sexual practices these days either unless you represent a women’s organization and then it’s OK just so long as the bottom line is that all men are still all bad all of the time!  Seems some men don’t behave as they should. Who knew?  But, regardless, I am inclined to think anything that whacked-out weird is still really NOT OK. So, I judge, too. And I judge JG as a bully.  A punk, really.

Mind you, I have some minor judgments forming about the women who date him, too.  So, I am bad all-around, I guess.  It is really me who is at fault.


I have to keep my mouth shut over most of it, though, on the assumption all the weirdos are simply just different and can’t help it.  And it is all OK.  Apparently all 50 shades of deviation are OK except judging it.  And, oddly, there is nothing wrong with that topsy-turvy way of seeing things.

Nowadays, it is OK for some Dominatrix to whip a willing-someone into submission but for me to judge that behaviour as sick, is not OK.  So, once again, I am bad and it is really me who is at fault.


And, anyway, I have already judged that Ghomeshi could help it.  Apologies to all the ‘chokers and slappers’ out there just expressing themselves naturally.

But – and here’s my point –  so could the victims have helped it.  SO COULD THE VICTIMS!

Of course, they could have had a much better response than they did at the time of the incident but I fully understand the moment of shock and surprise eliminating immediate rational thought.  I understand that seeing a guy ‘turn’ on you like that would be so shocking as to leave one helpless and traumatized.  Maybe even semi-paralyzed for awhile.  In fact, NOT immediately calling the cops makes a great deal of sense to me. Examining your own role in the matter first makes even more sense to me.  “Geez, what did I do to warrant that?”  Not making accusations is probably healthy. You first have to try to understand the something weird that is determined (eventually) NOT understandable.

I get that. Take your time.  Get your head together.

Hint: first question to consider asking yourself, “What the hell was I doing there, in the first place?”

But I also admit that there are many much bigger questions that arise from such a weird incident and the weirdo should do most of the answering.  That first personal question still counts but the next ten or so should be directed at the weirdo.

However, it makes no sense to me to THEN later go on another date with such a person! Simply by doing that, you have implied forgiveness of the original incident if not acceptance.   ‘You were really, really sick, bad and evil but I forgive you.  Be good from now on, OK, my cuddly-dums?’

That almost makes some kind of sense, too, if you are the naive, forgiving type without a brain in your head.  But even the wooden-headed should know that they can’t THEN later charge the dufus with a crime!  Charging the dufus comes BEFORE the second date!

And there should be NO second date.

You are – Ms Woodenhead – by your actions, at the very least, forgiving him his wayward kinks if you go back for a return engagement.  In fact, one might argue that you were inviting more of the same bad behaviour simply by recreating the opportunity.  Don’t you see that?

Doesn’t matter if you do or don’t. Forgiveness makes it consensual.  Sick but consensual. No charges.  No crime committed.

But the charges were laid anyway.  And, oddly, I don’t really have too much trouble with that, either.  Not really.  It was stupid of the Crown.  But, so what?  The system ain’t perfect or fair and it is the accused who gets smashed all to pieces from the allegation, anyway. Allegations are good enough to ruin someone these days.  OBVIOUSLY not all people charged with a crime are guilty but all men are all-guilty of all-sex crimes, it seems.

And that is another hot topic to address some day….

The point: sexual politics has shifted the basic principles of law.  And perspectives. Women think the law no longer cares about them.  Men think the law no longer cares about the male.  He feels he is simply guilty until proven innocent now.  She feels like a target.  Neither are relying on evidence-based processes anymore.

In fact, any woman can allege her husband hit her and the police – without any evidence present, nor questions asked – will take him to jail.  It is Ministry of the Attorney General policy nowadays.  So, that twisted process has to play out.  I think that is wrong, too, but why not at least let it play out?

Women think it plays out but to the advantage of the male.  Men think otherwise.

So, lay the charges, prove the allegation.  Or not. That’s life. Who cares?  Move on.  But, in this, the Ghomeshi case, at least, the evidence was weak, the accusers were proved to be lying.  Ugly, deviant, bully-man got off.  But there is no doubt in my mind, the legal verdict was just.

The court of public opinion will likely find differently.

End result?  Ghomeshi is largely finished as a conventional personality.  Or should be, anyway. We’ll see if he doesn’t yet work his personal madness into a new form of celebrity and make a deal for a show on the FOX network.  Maybe him and Kim Kardashian?  

And there would be nothing wrong with that!   

The public have also called the judge and the law into question. Fair enough, I guess. Justice is a spectator sport, after all.  By design, too. But how can they cry ‘injustice’ when the accusers were proved to be lying?

Answer from women’s groups: ‘Lying is OK, if the original story, in some form, is true enough for our standards?’

Not only is there something significantly wrong with Mr. Ghomeshi, there is something even more wrong with the perspective of women’s rights and political groups if they are prepared to abandon the legal principles on which our society is based.

Jus’ sayin’….