Boots
Well-known member
Take this as a metaphor.
He 'asked' when he did it the first time
They answered when they came back for it a second.
Jian Ghomeishi alleged sexual assault.
- Thread starter ashkan
- Start date
He 'asked' when he did it the first time
They answered when they came back for it a second.
Ok, but if I randomly punch you in the face, and you come over to my place for a beer the next day, that doesn't undo the punch does it? Also, it doesn't mean that you'd like me to punch you again. Perhaps you want to discuss why I shouldn't punch you.
So, if someone walks up behind you and smacks you in the back of the head with a baseball bat, they're just asking if you'd like it?
Boots
Well-known member
Fortunately, sex and relationships are a little more complicated than someone walking up to you and smacking you in the back of the head.
But if I got smacked in the back of the head with a baseball bat, and said to the guy "You kicked my a-- last night and that makes me want to f--- your brains out", surely I enjoy getting smacked in the back of the head with a baseball bat. And if I go to the police after getting smacked in the back of the head with a baseball bat years down the road because I thought to myself "Damn, you know I really don't enjoy thinking about that right now" I'd expect to get laughed out of the police station.
If I were representing JG I would advise to wait. Choking the chicken now would be a ham fisted way of showing the court how much of a wiener you really are.
ashkan
Banned
If i punch you in the face and you dont like it, You either punch me back, go to the cops and cut your relationship with me. If you come back and say hey, you punched me last night and i loved it and i want more (in wriring no less), then yes, you want it and you have no right to complain.
Also, punching is not a good example. This was rough sex not punching which are not equal in any way. Rough sex is something some people are into. dont know many people who like getting punched. But if it's their thing and it makes them happy, so be it. But you dont ask someone to punch you over and over, then turn around and sya he punched me. Well you asked for it and you wanted it.
And there is no discussion here. You wanna punch me, ill punch you back and then grab a beer with you. I wont go to court crying about it 13 years later for some fame and lots of money.
Kri$han
Well-known member
Except he wasn't a "significant other"; he was just a dude that gave it to them whenever they wanted it. They had no kids together, no marriage; there would be no other reason to go back to him unless they actually liked/consented to it.z
I didn't care at all about this guy, and now I outright hate him. Who the **** criticizes their own (paying) fans? A spoiled/entitled *******, that's who.
LOL
Sexual assault in a way reminds me of motorcycle safety.
It's easy to get your M-1 by knowing the laws but to survive as a motorcyclist you have to recognize that a lot of people don't give a crap about the laws or don't know them. People from other countries are used to different laws.
It bugs me that I have to defend what is legally mine. In Fantasyland there would be no locks or keys.
A person could park a bike in a condo garage and not worry and a woman could walk through the same garage without carefully choosing her route.
We see videos of bike crashes and comment that the rider could have avoided the crash, even though the crash was technically someone else's fault. The same logic could apply to women not being proactive enough, something men rarely have to worry about.
It sucks that people don't respect the lives of others.
Re the trial, it doesn't look good for the crown IMO as the women appear as opportunists / revenge seekers. In reality there are hundreds of books on why women go back to abusive relationships, alcoholic spouses, drug addicts etc. Whether any of that logic filters through to the verdict remains to be seen.
Ghomeishi's life is ruined?
More like he has lost his facade like the macho actor that is outed as gay. How it affects his career depends on how he plays his cards. Celebrity Boxing didn't last long. Maybe Celebrity S&M will do better.
JG is now free to do what his inner self wants. If life turns out to be a disappointment those are the cards he was dealt and he should revel in his uniqueness. (A touch of sarcasm)
It's easy to get your M-1 by knowing the laws but to survive as a motorcyclist you have to recognize that a lot of people don't give a crap about the laws or don't know them. People from other countries are used to different laws.
It bugs me that I have to defend what is legally mine. In Fantasyland there would be no locks or keys.
A person could park a bike in a condo garage and not worry and a woman could walk through the same garage without carefully choosing her route.
We see videos of bike crashes and comment that the rider could have avoided the crash, even though the crash was technically someone else's fault. The same logic could apply to women not being proactive enough, something men rarely have to worry about.
It sucks that people don't respect the lives of others.
Re the trial, it doesn't look good for the crown IMO as the women appear as opportunists / revenge seekers. In reality there are hundreds of books on why women go back to abusive relationships, alcoholic spouses, drug addicts etc. Whether any of that logic filters through to the verdict remains to be seen.
Ghomeishi's life is ruined?
More like he has lost his facade like the macho actor that is outed as gay. How it affects his career depends on how he plays his cards. Celebrity Boxing didn't last long. Maybe Celebrity S&M will do better.
JG is now free to do what his inner self wants. If life turns out to be a disappointment those are the cards he was dealt and he should revel in his uniqueness. (A touch of sarcasm)
ashkan
Banned
I dont see how you can interpret the situation that way. If you work all your life and make something of yourself, then someone (for the sake of argument) lies and accuses of something you didnt do and you loose your entire career because of it, how is that fair?
How can you say he was outed like a macho man for being gay? He was never outed. there is nothing wrong about liking rough sex as long as its consensual. Thats not the issue. The issue is whether he lost his job based on a lie or truth.
I dont know whats your personal life like but most people work hard to make something of themselves to have all of that ripped from you because of a (possible) lie, is the most unfair and unjust experience to go through.
Thats my opinion.
Reading the lines and between the lines my sense is that these women feel the ends justify the means because with the passage of time JG has revealed himself as a despicable narcissist which is saying a lot, imho, because the whole artsy/creative/look-at-me crowd by it's very nature attracts that type of personality. The accusers are sloppy/clumsy fakers and the crown gets a nice make work program out of this deal. These people deserve each other. And his lead lawyer? What a game.
It appears that JG likes it rough. If 99% of the population hate people that like it rough and his true nature gets established as rough he has to live with it. You eventually have to take the hit for what you are. What you have done after you committed a crime or disgusting act may affect the sentence / public opinion but JG, war crimes, drunken stupidity can all come back to haunt you.
My problem with the system is that the ALLEGED perpetrator gets named but when found totally innocent the stigma remains. The unnamed victim doesn't have to answer for their erroneous charge.
The crown's problem is that the victims seemed to want to continue in some relationship, suggesting some form of consent. With the possible exception of a choking charge it may be that JG is a creep but not a criminal.
It sounds like he was subject to dismissal for other inappropriate actions. This case just triggered the move. I would be banned for language usage if I got into why CBC didn't can him until he became a public embarrassment instead of nipping the problem in the bud.
Re"I dont know whats your personal life like but most people work hard to make something of themselves to have all of that ripped from you because of a (possible) lie, is the most unfair and unjust experience to go through."
I agree but it appears he wasn't an angel around the office. If you are the world's best brain surgeon you can always get a job even though people despise you. When your job is based on people liking you it's a different matter. Don't act like a jerk.
What if you were a model citizen and after spending your whole life doing all the right things you drove drunk once and killed four people? Do they just let it go?
Last edited:
ashkan
Banned
See, i agree with almost everything you said in the examples you used.
The difference IMP is that if you drive drunk and kill someone and its proven that you did it, then yes, i agree. But even as i type, he has not been found guilty and CBC shoudlnt have fired him.
And to address your point about a job being based on people liknig you. Thats a valid point so IF JG publically became despised and then CBC fired him, your argument would stand IMO. But the fact that the public liked him before this whole CBC canning him. Public had no issues with him. People started disliking him after he was canned and CBC went after him like a wild dog.
If CBC didnt take pre-emptive action against him, this issue wouldve never become such a huge media frenzy. IMP CBC shouldve held off until either he was found guilty (that'd be the just thing to do) or at least wait till public catches wind of this and maybe then fire him to safe face.
But to deliberately creating a monster out of him before he even sets foot in court and spend day after day demonizing him (i listen to CBC almost everyday in the a.m) is not only unfair but a deliberate push to make everyone else hate him too.
Idk. I thought that he had already admitted to hitting them earlier. If that's the case then they aren't lying about that. I'm not quite sure how relevant what they did afterwards is to the matter. At the same time it might have been better to charge him with straight assault. Whenever sex is involved, the court gets messy. Losing his job, isn't what this is about. That was a different decision, by different players. Let's not confuse things more than they are.
Right away he said it was consensual. Maybe true maybe not. But they fired him anyway. Now his accusers have been shown to collude and lie. I'm not Bill Burr so I can't endorse hitting/choking women but they didn't really suffer from it if they wanted more of his attention and time. And sex. Ten years later, women scorned? WTF?
The firing was something different, and involved different people, I thought.
That one could have gone through the HRC which I don't really like.
They are pretty arbitrary in their decisions.
Boots
Well-known member
I think they did suffer. the lack of oxygen to the brain from the choking clearly made them lose brain cells.
And that statement, is why arguing with you is completely pointless.
