Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I've never had consent to have sex in my life, consent has always been a series of groping and kissing moves where I didn't get told to eff off, or slapped or just given some lame excuse.
I would assume S&M is mostly the same.

Look. Trying to cop a feel is a bit different than slapping someone in the face. Bet you've never done that before.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

Look. Trying to cop a feel is a bit different than slapping someone in the face. Bet you've never done that before.

Is there a difference between that and a spanking?

My brain says yes, but in reality, they are both unconsented striking. Socially, spanking in bed is something that I think is pretty standard, but if you did it to someone who didn't want it, could you be facing similar charges? Why/why not?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Look. Trying to cop a feel is a bit different than slapping someone in the face. Bet you've never done that before.

I started dating a bird who was into a bit of rough trade, if you will, she bit my lip hard during kiss on the first date, hard enough to draw blood, not my scene and I bowed out a few dates later, I have no doubt there are smaller 'exploratory' moves made by anyone into this kind of thing.

[peter12]

Thankfully, a poster named "mustache ride" has started viewing the thread.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I've never had consent to have sex in my life, consent has always been a series of groping and kissing moves where I didn't get told to eff off, or slapped or just given some lame excuse.
I would assume S&M is mostly the same.

Sex columnist Dan Savage addressed this point shortly after the story first broke in October 2014:

My theory is that Ghomeshi's MO has been to initiate rough sex—become violent in the lead-up to a sexual encounter—and that he either believes or intends to argue that this was how he got a woman's consent. If he became violent and they didn't respond negatively or didn't leave or if they returned, he saw that as consent. If they reacted negatively, if they were unhappy, he stopped.

The problem with that? Or one of the many problems with that? Only an idiot or a sociopath would interpret actions that could be read one way or another—she came back because she likes this kind of roughness, she came back because she's starstruck and is willing to overlook or hopes to deflect this kind of roughness—as consent to the kind of extreme #### Ghomeshi apparently enjoys. Only an idiot or a sociopath would interpret someone's vague and non-verbal consent to some mild roughness ("I pulled her hair and two weeks later she came back to my apartment...") as consent to being punched repeatedly in the head with a closed fist.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...-jian-ghomeshi

[darockwilder]

The emails are confusing me a bit. I can see that he would have a record of the emails she sent him directly, but didn't his lawyer refer to an email that she sent to someone else too? How are they obtaining these emails to other parties? Are they allowed access to every email she ever sent to anyone?

This whole thing is pissing me off.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I've never had consent to have sex in my life, consent has always been a series of groping and kissing moves where I didn't get told to eff off, or slapped or just given some lame excuse.
I would assume S&M is mostly the same.

S+M is different then sex in a lot of ways.

Without getting into details.

But part of the get off for the S in the relationship is having the other person willingly and trustingly give control over.

So yeah consent is a huge part of it, its also why they have rules in terms of safety defining boundaries that can never ever be crossed and being able to stop.

Talking to one "friend" a sadist who uses someone against their will is somewhere between a pig and a psycho. It would be equivalent to snatching someone off of the street and beating the sh^^ out of them in your basement for your own pleasure and you get off less on the violence then the whole I've got someone unwillingly under my control.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

S+M is different then sex in a lot of ways.

Without getting into details.

But part of the get off for the S in the relationship is having the other person willingly and trustingly give control over.

So yeah consent is a huge part of it, its also why they have rules in terms of safety defining boundaries that can never ever be crossed and being able to stop.

Talking to one "friend" a sadist who uses someone against their will is somewhere between a pig and a psycho. It would be equivalent to snatching someone off of the street and beating the sh^^ out of them in your basement for your own pleasure and you get off less on the violence then the whole I've got someone unwillingly under my control.

I get that but I assume there has to a be a feeling out process before you out and out ask if you can beat someone, I would assume you would at least like to have some sense that the potential partner likes it, it wouldn't be the first thing you bring up on a tinder date would it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by darockwilder

The emails are confusing me a bit. I can see that he would have a record of the emails she sent him directly, but didn't his lawyer refer to an email that she sent to someone else too? How are they obtaining these emails to other parties? Are they allowed access to every email she ever sent to anyone?

This whole thing is pissing me off.

Defence would have access to (in theory) everything crown has plus whatever Ghomishi has.

[Slava]

Isn't there implied consent at some point? I don't quite know where that line is, but surely if a girl is sending you messages saying "I want to eff your brains out" you can see how a guy might believe that she enjoyed herself and thought it was all fine. Like of course his thought is that this was all consensual. Seems like she never told him otherwise?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Isn't there implied consent at some point? I don't quite know where that line is, but surely if a girl is sending you messages saying "I want to eff your brains out" you can see how a guy might believe that she enjoyed herself and thought it was all fine. Like of course his thought is that this was all consensual. Seems like she never told him otherwise?

I thought part of the point was you couldn't consent to being assaulted. So implied consent would still be illegal in this case.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Truthfully, I think they thought they saw a juicy fat, slow pig and figured it'd be easy pickin's and approached it as such. Now they're paying the price for being so woefully unprepared.

With such a high profile case, you'd think they would have been making sure they had all their bases covered. Really is odd how unprepared they seem to be. I saw someone mention on twitter that this trial is supposed to be around 3 weeks long, so maybe the Crown has something coming still which they're betting the trial on? I don't know, this is the first time I've really followed a trial closely so I'm just throwing stuff out there.

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that surely they knew about the defence lawyer they were facing in Marie Henein, her prior work and her work ethic? That right there would have me double, triple, quadruple checking my case to make sure it was as airtight as can be. They had to know that Henein was going to rake them over the coals and leave no stone unturned.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I thought part of the point was you couldn't consent to being assaulted. So implied consent would still be illegal in this case.

That would make all S&M and contact sport is illegal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Isn't there implied consent at some point? I don't quite know where that line is, but surely if a girl is sending you messages saying "I want to eff your brains out" you can see how a guy might believe that she enjoyed herself and thought it was all fine. Like of course his thought is that this was all consensual. Seems like she never told him otherwise?

There's no such thing as implied consent now.

You need to fill in a form with her signatures in triplicate, and it has to be signed by a notary.

And to me its a long road from grabbing her breast or whatever and rearing back and slugging her in the face followed by a good choking.

[Daradon]

Even written consent isn't always a 100% thing. For example, you can't consent to have someone beat you up (as actually came to court in Calgary when they found a fight club here a few years after the movie). As the darker aspects of S&M can involve very serious pain or injury, like beatings, it's extremely grey.

The thing to do, is do it with people you know and trust, even love. Works for both parties. The one taking the 'abuse' knows they won't ever be seriously harmed (cause their partner has their interest at heart), and the one giving it knows they won't ever be sued.

Course, trust and love are moving targets...

The posters who mentioned a feeling out period are exactly correct. Not just feeling out, but frank discussions on what is expected, and what is allowed and of course, what both people want.

It does ruin a lot of the spontaneity, and unfortunately that's often the best part about sex, but it's really the way to go when delving into these extremely murky waters. Sex is grey enough, this is a whole other level.

Ghomeshi was certainly breaking these 'rules' and going about it full steam without enough concern or care. Which, if your a sadomasochist, is probably par for the course, but you should know it's wrong by our laws and collective morals.



As for my personal feelings about the case, I agree logically with everything that Dan Savage said in the quote above, and I think Jian is a pig and ass**** and probably technically a criminal, but I still don't have a ton of respect for these women, especially the second one. I know some will equate it to victim blaming, and maybe it borders on it, but if you were against it, don't e-mail the guy later and tell him that him striking you makes you want to **** his brains out. You don't get to say you enjoyed it and give encouragement to have it happen again, and then be against it a year later.

To clarify, I get the whole, placating the abuser while still in his presence to try and make yourself safe. It'd be a scary thing, and you'd need to have your wits about you. Do whatever needs to be done to get out with minimal harm. I also get how abused people can still feel drawn to their abusers. I also don't judge any promiscuity leading up to the events. I get a lot of the things that can make the abused act in weird ways, and seemingly against their own good.

However, I guess where I draw my line is that she explicitly told him, what he did made her want to **** his brains out. That seems pretty damn consensual to me. And even if it isn't, then it's just fricken stupid. What happened to her may be illegal, but it's like she was waiting in the middle of a dark street with dark clothing hoping a car would hit her. There's no awareness or responsibility at all, and almost seems like a bit of entrapment.

The more you hear about this case the more everyone seems like a bad person.

(not trying to bypass the swear filter, hard to talk about this case without a lot of asterisks)

[PeteMoss]

http://canadalandshow.com/article/wh...outeres-letter

Jian Ghomeshi kept Lucy DeCoutere’s handwritten letter to him for 13 years. She was never his girlfriend. They never had sex. Given what we heard at trial last week, it's hard to imagine he was carrying a flame for her. So, why did he hold on to it for over a decade?

Ghomeshi kept files on women in case they would later accuse him of violence.

Here is some of what Jian Ghomeshi wrote in 2013 to a young woman, almost 20 years his junior, after she confronted him to say she believed a recent encounter between them was not consensual sex, but an instance of manipulation which resulted, she told me, in brutal, non-consensual violence:

"dear _______, ....it IS about sex. it WAS.....i have text messages from you saying you want this...the 'rough sex'...was something you were very interested in...you WANTED it to continue the next day and in subsequent messages and notes...reread our texts and re-examine our conversations if you wish... i wish for good karma into 2013. yours, jian"

What a creeper. The whole article is worth a read.

[peter12]

This is guy is something just short of a monster, or maybe the full meal deal.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

http://canadalandshow.com/article/wh...outeres-letter

What a creeper. The whole article is worth a read.

None of the women, who were much younger than him and often his fans, reported having prior experience with BDSM. At no point did they discuss limits or establish a "safe word." One woman described this process to me as "grooming."

One of my initial sources wrote to me that what Lucy DeCoutere endured on the stand made her feel relieved that she spoke to the media and not to the police.

She is not alone.

There have been 23 separate allegations of assault or abuse by Jian Ghomeshi. The current trial involves three women.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You need to fill in a form with her signatures in triplicate, and it has to be signed by a notary.

You've just described the entire plot of the 50 shades of Grey.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by woob

With such a high profile case, you'd think they would have been making sure they had all their bases covered. Really is odd how unprepared they seem to be. I saw someone mention on twitter that this trial is supposed to be around 3 weeks long, so maybe the Crown has something coming still which they're betting the trial on? I don't know, this is the first time I've really followed a trial closely so I'm just throwing stuff out there.

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that surely they knew about the defence lawyer they were facing in Marie Henein, her prior work and her work ethic? That right there would have me double, triple, quadruple checking my case to make sure it was as airtight as can be. They had to know that Henein was going to rake them over the coals and leave no stone unturned.

Interesting article on how witness in these types of cases are prepared:

http://www.chatelaine.com/news/how-a...ssault-trials/

“Crown counsel are explicitly not attempting to get a conviction, but rather to put evidence fairly before the judge and jury. Defence counsel and other trial lawyers will go to great lengths in preparing their clients and witnesses to withstand intense and withering cross-examination. The Crown, however, must be much more circumspect and independent.

“Women who do not have access to their own lawyer are limited to whatever preparation the Crown has time to do with them. This is never enough. Few [Crowns] have had access to appropriate education about trauma, memory and women’s post-violence need to normalize what has happened, in such ways as maintaining contact with the abuser.” — Pamela Cross, lawyer, anti-violence advocate and legal director of Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre in Durham Region.

“It is extremely unusual for survivors to have their own lawyer. There are programs attached to Crown offices in Ontario called Victim/Witness Assistance Programs [there are similar programs in other provinces and territories]. These folks are swamped. They will take you to the courtroom — if they have time — so you’re familiar, comfortable with the area. But they’re not able to prepare you for the possible ways that the defence is going to ask questions or produce evidence.” — Lenore Lukasik-Foss, chair of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres.