I am not a pedophile
Sam I am
I do not like boys
in that way Sam I am.
I did not touch them in my car
Sam I am
you take this too far
I did not touch them here or there
I did not touch them
not even their hair
I did not touch them in my home
everybody knows
in order to touch them
you must be alone
I did not wrestle them on the ground
I tell you again
we were horsing around
I did not put his penis in my mouth
I did not touch him on the couch
I did not touch him in the locker
I did not touch him in the shower
They are lying
Sam I am
I said it on the radio
I'm not that kind of man
now leave me be
Sam I am
I must go eat
my green eggs and ham.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
The Boolshit
So we find Herman Cain being officially accused of sexual harassment. Some are taking Bialek's account to be that of a case of sexual assault. However; her story doesn't pass the sniff test, the hear test or most tests that you throw at it. Mind you it's not that I get any pleasure from defending Herman "Let me Upgrade ya" Cain but the "assault" angle has me disturbed and perturbed and needs to be dealt with.
Let us understand that legally assault is any physical contact that does not have consent of the touched. The key point being consent. Sexual assault is clearly assault of a sexual nature. In each case establishing consent is key to whether there is an assault or not. When we look at the events as relayed by Bialek we find that using the term assault is unfounded. Let me explain.
There is this Simpsons episode where college Marge was infatuated with a college professor who was trying to score co-ed booty. They were in his office where he declares that he would like to hug Marge and if she was OK with that. Then he went on to verbally ask permission to kiss her. The entire scene is an example of the ridiculous lengths the "consent" argument can go. In real life consent is not always explicitly verbal but is situational and implied through actions and counter actions. For example in the movie Hitch, Hitch advises his client about the 'jingly keys" phenomenon. In effect Hitch tells his client that if a woman is standing at her door and jingling her keys then it is a delay tactic meant to signal that she wants a kiss. Never mind that she hasn't said so, Hitch's client needs to "be a man" and pucker up and move "9-10ths" of the way in.
Really.
Now think about that for a minute. Imagine that upon following this advice (or seeing this film) a man gets a woman to her door and she's jingling the keys because she has a lot of them and perhaps can't make out the right one but because he's been told that such jingling is a "universal unspoken invite" to a kiss, he leans in and goes for it. Now imagine said woman being of the mind that she doesn't want a kiss and says "whoah buster...not!" Has he assaulted her? He *thought* he had consent because he was going by what he perceived were consenting cues that it was OK. The fact is that people in the course of normal human interaction read and misread cues all the time.
So let's take this to Cain. According to Bialek, she met Cain at some company event while she was an employee of the company. If I recall correctly she said that they talked regularly for the 2 day event. She made no mention of Cain making any inappropriate remarks or doing anything 'inappropriate" at that time. Later she is fired from the company. Later while seeking employment she cold calls Cain. Herman Cain who apparently had a sexual interest in this woman seizes the moment. This is not unusual in the least bit. a former employee is fair sexual game. We're going to ignore the fact that he is married for the duration of this piece.
Let's make it clear. If a person is going to refer one for a job the only thing he or she is going to need to see is your resume. Then perhaps have a formal interview, likely at the place of future employment, perhaps a business lunch followed by a yea or nay. Keep that in mind.
Herman Cain, as far as Bialek's account goes, does not ask for a resume or anything of the like that would be required by a human resources department. He immediately invites her to DC. When she arrives in DC she finds that her hotel suite has been upgraded. This is what we call a "red flag". Once Bialek determined that it was Cain and not her "boyfriend" who had upgraded her room she should have known that Cain's interest was not professional. The upgrade was "an offer", a sexual advance. Grown women should know this and know how to act accordingly.
Next Herman Cain takes Bialek to dinner. Really? This is red flag number two in my book. Again I don't see the professional reason to have dinner with Mr. Cain. I see having a business lunch but not a dinner. This was another "sexual advance". Mr. Cain is laying out the "typical" "wine and dine..then fuck" scenario. A scenario I'm sure he's done or has seen done many many times.
At this point Ms. Bialek knowing what time it was should have done the "Oh it's getting late and I need to go." Or maybe the "Oh wow...I'm not feeling so well." Or any of the other myriad excuses that women have used for years to brush off a man who is clearly in want of "dessert".
What does Bialek do? After dinner she accepts an offer by Cain to go see the location.
Really?
Why not go there the next morning?
Right.
So Bialek says that Herman Cain, after parking some distance from said building reaches over to put his hand up her skirt while pulling her head to his crotch.
BOOOOOOLSHIT.
As a commenter on Facebook pointed out, how exactly does that work?
Now we don't know what kind of car Herman Cain was driving. Did it have bucket seats or a bench seat? Do yourself a favor and attempt to reach up a leg that is next to you with your LEFT hand while taking your RIGHT hand to push a head towards your crotch.
Not easy right?
Now try that with a center console, found in many upscale cars, between the seats.
I'll wait.
Right.
So clearly Cain could not have physically done what was described *as* described. Now he could have done a double move. That is he could have first put his hands on Bialek's leg and motioned up towards her genitals. But here's the problem: Bialek said that she said "Oh I have a boyfriend."
Really?
A man has just put his hands up your skirt and your FIRST response is "I have a boyfriend"? You had a boyfriend when your room got upgraded. You had a boyfriend when you got taken out to dinner rather than a professional lunch. Didn't seem to be a problem then.
Now that sounds foul but it is what it is, when you start taking gifts that are clearly predicated on future sexual behavior that man is going to follow through because he takes the acceptance of these things as implied consent. And yes, implied consent is a legally recognized concept. For example, when you sign on the dotted line for one of those smart electric meters you have given implied consent to have your electricity use monitored and reported to law enforcement. Driving down a public street gives the police implied consent to observe anything you do in your vehicle that is in clear view. We give implied consent all the time. THIS is why describing the events as related by Bialek as assault is incorrect.
But back to the car. Anyone who has had an affair or knows of persons who have had affairs knows the "I have a wife" and "I have a husband" comment. It is generally speaking not a "no." but a "I'm kinda conflicted but I'd like to fuck" comment. Generally speaking that kind of comment becomes "oh fuck it...". Sometimes it doesn't. In Bialek's case, it became a "no".
What did Herman Cain do when he was told no? After giving his dickhead response of "you want a job right?" he stopped. Exactly what he was supposed to do when told "no". This is a clear cut case of a man who thought he had "consent" finding out that he did not and immediately reversing course. Had Cain not been a dick by trying to get sex for a job offer, he would be THE poster child of how a man is supposed to act when he is told "no".
This is an example of honoring the "no means no" regardless of how much you spent or where you took her to eat.
But was it harassment?
From what I read, Bialek was not an employee of Mr. Cain or the company he worked for. Nor was she in the process of a formal job interview. Bialek was someone who "lucked up" on a douche of a man while seeking employment who ignored all the red flags indicating that there was only one kind of "job" being offered. Cain was not some random guy on the street who made a sly brush of her buttocks. He wasn't a random guy on the street who yelled out sexual commentary to a woman he does not know and therefore has no reason to think he has consent.
Was Cain aggressive? Certainly. Personally I operate on the hands off rule. I don't touch, hug or otherwise make contact with women who have not either first done so with me or have given me explicit invite or I have a previous understanding with. But I am very much aware that this rule does not apply to everyone. I am very aware that there are some women who like and "appreciate" an aggressive man. There are even those who deem that unless a man is aggressive he is not in fact being a man. I'm not going to judge these people. What I will say is that given these varied attitudes towards sexual aggression it is unfair to project those onto other people and then judge them by our own personal value system.
Does this mean that Cain did not assault or otherwise harass women that he worked with? Of course not. When those stories come out they should be evaluated on their own merits, but this one? Booooolshit.
Let us understand that legally assault is any physical contact that does not have consent of the touched. The key point being consent. Sexual assault is clearly assault of a sexual nature. In each case establishing consent is key to whether there is an assault or not. When we look at the events as relayed by Bialek we find that using the term assault is unfounded. Let me explain.
There is this Simpsons episode where college Marge was infatuated with a college professor who was trying to score co-ed booty. They were in his office where he declares that he would like to hug Marge and if she was OK with that. Then he went on to verbally ask permission to kiss her. The entire scene is an example of the ridiculous lengths the "consent" argument can go. In real life consent is not always explicitly verbal but is situational and implied through actions and counter actions. For example in the movie Hitch, Hitch advises his client about the 'jingly keys" phenomenon. In effect Hitch tells his client that if a woman is standing at her door and jingling her keys then it is a delay tactic meant to signal that she wants a kiss. Never mind that she hasn't said so, Hitch's client needs to "be a man" and pucker up and move "9-10ths" of the way in.
Really.
Now think about that for a minute. Imagine that upon following this advice (or seeing this film) a man gets a woman to her door and she's jingling the keys because she has a lot of them and perhaps can't make out the right one but because he's been told that such jingling is a "universal unspoken invite" to a kiss, he leans in and goes for it. Now imagine said woman being of the mind that she doesn't want a kiss and says "whoah buster...not!" Has he assaulted her? He *thought* he had consent because he was going by what he perceived were consenting cues that it was OK. The fact is that people in the course of normal human interaction read and misread cues all the time.
So let's take this to Cain. According to Bialek, she met Cain at some company event while she was an employee of the company. If I recall correctly she said that they talked regularly for the 2 day event. She made no mention of Cain making any inappropriate remarks or doing anything 'inappropriate" at that time. Later she is fired from the company. Later while seeking employment she cold calls Cain. Herman Cain who apparently had a sexual interest in this woman seizes the moment. This is not unusual in the least bit. a former employee is fair sexual game. We're going to ignore the fact that he is married for the duration of this piece.
Let's make it clear. If a person is going to refer one for a job the only thing he or she is going to need to see is your resume. Then perhaps have a formal interview, likely at the place of future employment, perhaps a business lunch followed by a yea or nay. Keep that in mind.
Herman Cain, as far as Bialek's account goes, does not ask for a resume or anything of the like that would be required by a human resources department. He immediately invites her to DC. When she arrives in DC she finds that her hotel suite has been upgraded. This is what we call a "red flag". Once Bialek determined that it was Cain and not her "boyfriend" who had upgraded her room she should have known that Cain's interest was not professional. The upgrade was "an offer", a sexual advance. Grown women should know this and know how to act accordingly.
Next Herman Cain takes Bialek to dinner. Really? This is red flag number two in my book. Again I don't see the professional reason to have dinner with Mr. Cain. I see having a business lunch but not a dinner. This was another "sexual advance". Mr. Cain is laying out the "typical" "wine and dine..then fuck" scenario. A scenario I'm sure he's done or has seen done many many times.
At this point Ms. Bialek knowing what time it was should have done the "Oh it's getting late and I need to go." Or maybe the "Oh wow...I'm not feeling so well." Or any of the other myriad excuses that women have used for years to brush off a man who is clearly in want of "dessert".
What does Bialek do? After dinner she accepts an offer by Cain to go see the location.
Really?
Why not go there the next morning?
Right.
So Bialek says that Herman Cain, after parking some distance from said building reaches over to put his hand up her skirt while pulling her head to his crotch.
BOOOOOOLSHIT.
As a commenter on Facebook pointed out, how exactly does that work?
Now we don't know what kind of car Herman Cain was driving. Did it have bucket seats or a bench seat? Do yourself a favor and attempt to reach up a leg that is next to you with your LEFT hand while taking your RIGHT hand to push a head towards your crotch.
Not easy right?
Now try that with a center console, found in many upscale cars, between the seats.
I'll wait.
Right.
So clearly Cain could not have physically done what was described *as* described. Now he could have done a double move. That is he could have first put his hands on Bialek's leg and motioned up towards her genitals. But here's the problem: Bialek said that she said "Oh I have a boyfriend."
Really?
A man has just put his hands up your skirt and your FIRST response is "I have a boyfriend"? You had a boyfriend when your room got upgraded. You had a boyfriend when you got taken out to dinner rather than a professional lunch. Didn't seem to be a problem then.
Now that sounds foul but it is what it is, when you start taking gifts that are clearly predicated on future sexual behavior that man is going to follow through because he takes the acceptance of these things as implied consent. And yes, implied consent is a legally recognized concept. For example, when you sign on the dotted line for one of those smart electric meters you have given implied consent to have your electricity use monitored and reported to law enforcement. Driving down a public street gives the police implied consent to observe anything you do in your vehicle that is in clear view. We give implied consent all the time. THIS is why describing the events as related by Bialek as assault is incorrect.
But back to the car. Anyone who has had an affair or knows of persons who have had affairs knows the "I have a wife" and "I have a husband" comment. It is generally speaking not a "no." but a "I'm kinda conflicted but I'd like to fuck" comment. Generally speaking that kind of comment becomes "oh fuck it...". Sometimes it doesn't. In Bialek's case, it became a "no".
What did Herman Cain do when he was told no? After giving his dickhead response of "you want a job right?" he stopped. Exactly what he was supposed to do when told "no". This is a clear cut case of a man who thought he had "consent" finding out that he did not and immediately reversing course. Had Cain not been a dick by trying to get sex for a job offer, he would be THE poster child of how a man is supposed to act when he is told "no".
This is an example of honoring the "no means no" regardless of how much you spent or where you took her to eat.
But was it harassment?
From what I read, Bialek was not an employee of Mr. Cain or the company he worked for. Nor was she in the process of a formal job interview. Bialek was someone who "lucked up" on a douche of a man while seeking employment who ignored all the red flags indicating that there was only one kind of "job" being offered. Cain was not some random guy on the street who made a sly brush of her buttocks. He wasn't a random guy on the street who yelled out sexual commentary to a woman he does not know and therefore has no reason to think he has consent.
Was Cain aggressive? Certainly. Personally I operate on the hands off rule. I don't touch, hug or otherwise make contact with women who have not either first done so with me or have given me explicit invite or I have a previous understanding with. But I am very much aware that this rule does not apply to everyone. I am very aware that there are some women who like and "appreciate" an aggressive man. There are even those who deem that unless a man is aggressive he is not in fact being a man. I'm not going to judge these people. What I will say is that given these varied attitudes towards sexual aggression it is unfair to project those onto other people and then judge them by our own personal value system.
Does this mean that Cain did not assault or otherwise harass women that he worked with? Of course not. When those stories come out they should be evaluated on their own merits, but this one? Booooolshit.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Feminism At Its Most Thoughtless
Saw this article in The Atlantic regarding recent allegations of sexual harassment by Herman Cain. It contained this gem:
I'm glad that was written because I've been making this argument for years. Every time I try to have a specific, fact based discussion on the topic all kinds of "automated responses" are given by the so-called feminist whom apparently are convinced of their own infalibility on the subject. They should take the comment by this individual to shape up their game.
Feminism, at its most thoughtless, engendered an overbroad and unduly subjective definition of sexual harassment that includes speech and behaviors ranging from offensive remarks to actual assaults. Feminism, at its most thoughtless, equated every trivial discussion of sexual relations with political discourse and framed every allegation of sexual misconduct as presumptively true.
I'm glad that was written because I've been making this argument for years. Every time I try to have a specific, fact based discussion on the topic all kinds of "automated responses" are given by the so-called feminist whom apparently are convinced of their own infalibility on the subject. They should take the comment by this individual to shape up their game.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Future Apple
With the passing of Steve Jobs many are going to have their concerns regarding Apple's future move to the forefront of their minds. Anyone who was paying attention knew this was coming once the first treatment for pancreatic cancer, which has a high mortality rate, did not leave us with a Jobs that was "fuller". But this isn't about that, this is about Apple.
I saw a headline for David Pogue's NY Times piece entitled "Often Imitated Never Duplicated". I haven't read the piece but anyone with Apple Inc. on the brain has to think that this means as much within Apple as it does without. I'm not one of those people who proclaim stuff like "We would still be using DOS" or "we wouldn't have chat" or other such nonsense. I've been around long enough to see ideas I came up with as a child (and older) be implemented by someone else. No, the ideas will still flow but what is unique with Jobs and other visionary men and women is the ability and willingness to execute. Apple Inc. has been able to execute and lead but those of us who were around during the "dark days" knows that Apple Inc. has been very much an extension of Jobs. We saw what happened when other people took over the company.
I'm not saying that Apple has to go in that direction. I understand that Jobs and co has done a great deal of work of educating it's leadership and other employees on the Apple Way (tm). I'm also sure that the reason for Apple U, as I hear it's called, was created with the "dark days" foremost in the mind.
I watched the iPhone 4s video yesterday and I was saying to myself that Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs. Not that his presentation was bad. It simply wasn't "Jobsian". I've gotten used to seeing Phil Schiller et-al go and make announcements about products and personally I think Phil is more the stage manager than Cook. This underscores my concern. Whereas Jobs could command an Apple show by himself if he liked, there is already a split in the leadership. Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad but it does reflect a fundamental shift at Apple. Jobs, while still in the flesh should be assumed to be the glue that held the top talent together with him gone, that mediating presence is gone and as with any organization that loses it's founding head those left often have a fraction (how ever large) of the...What shall I call it? Talent.
Some may say that I'm putting too much emphasis on Jobs. They will point out that Cook and others have been running the show for quite some time now. They will say that Apple has plenty of product in the pipeline. I agree. In the short term Apple Inc. will be the Apple we've known since the return of Steve, which is not the Apple I knew in 1989. Which is not a bad thing. The long term question is the one posed by David Pogue. Will Apple become an imitation of itself once the "Jobs products" and "Jobs ideas" have been flushed out the system?
I suppose we'll all know the answer to this question when the first non-Jobs product is announced.
I saw a headline for David Pogue's NY Times piece entitled "Often Imitated Never Duplicated". I haven't read the piece but anyone with Apple Inc. on the brain has to think that this means as much within Apple as it does without. I'm not one of those people who proclaim stuff like "We would still be using DOS" or "we wouldn't have chat" or other such nonsense. I've been around long enough to see ideas I came up with as a child (and older) be implemented by someone else. No, the ideas will still flow but what is unique with Jobs and other visionary men and women is the ability and willingness to execute. Apple Inc. has been able to execute and lead but those of us who were around during the "dark days" knows that Apple Inc. has been very much an extension of Jobs. We saw what happened when other people took over the company.
I'm not saying that Apple has to go in that direction. I understand that Jobs and co has done a great deal of work of educating it's leadership and other employees on the Apple Way (tm). I'm also sure that the reason for Apple U, as I hear it's called, was created with the "dark days" foremost in the mind.
I watched the iPhone 4s video yesterday and I was saying to myself that Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs. Not that his presentation was bad. It simply wasn't "Jobsian". I've gotten used to seeing Phil Schiller et-al go and make announcements about products and personally I think Phil is more the stage manager than Cook. This underscores my concern. Whereas Jobs could command an Apple show by himself if he liked, there is already a split in the leadership. Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad but it does reflect a fundamental shift at Apple. Jobs, while still in the flesh should be assumed to be the glue that held the top talent together with him gone, that mediating presence is gone and as with any organization that loses it's founding head those left often have a fraction (how ever large) of the...What shall I call it? Talent.
Some may say that I'm putting too much emphasis on Jobs. They will point out that Cook and others have been running the show for quite some time now. They will say that Apple has plenty of product in the pipeline. I agree. In the short term Apple Inc. will be the Apple we've known since the return of Steve, which is not the Apple I knew in 1989. Which is not a bad thing. The long term question is the one posed by David Pogue. Will Apple become an imitation of itself once the "Jobs products" and "Jobs ideas" have been flushed out the system?
I suppose we'll all know the answer to this question when the first non-Jobs product is announced.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Dealing with Stress
I don't usually post health related stuff here but I thought this item from Psychology Today was something to bring to people's attention:
A lot of times we hear about "living in the moment" and many write it off as some kind of new ageism (or whatever) but here it is, the science. It is our ability to project our fears to the future that do the most damage to us.
I've read this before in other venues and it is true. We set ourselves up failure mentally by creating anxiety about the future (near or long term). It is this fear that stops us from reaching our potential. It is our fixation on "the enemy" that also causes stress. There are a lot of people who assume that because I am "pro-black" that I spend my time worrying and thinking about what white people are doing, saying or have done or have said. I can honestly say that I don't spend the majority of my time thinking about them because I understand that which we focus on is that which we gravitate to. Better to think on and focus on where I wish to be, who I wish to be and the situation I want to have created, than to focus on those who I deem are stopping me from reaching these things.
Animals don't think something is wrong with the world, despite their survival challenges. Reptiles have thousands of offspring and most are eaten by predators. Lions fail to catch their prey 95% of the time and often go hungry. Male mammals don't get to have sex unless they fight their way up the status hierarchy, and female mammals are dominated by older females their whole lives. Of course animals don't conceptualize their stress, or project it into the future. They release it in the moment. But the next moment they confront a new stressor. They never give up, however. They just keep trying.
As long as you keep trying, your cortisol doesn't get the better of you. You evolved for action.
A lot of times we hear about "living in the moment" and many write it off as some kind of new ageism (or whatever) but here it is, the science. It is our ability to project our fears to the future that do the most damage to us.
Humans have one kind of stress that animals don't have: awareness of our own mortality. Your brain reacts to this awareness as if it were a clear and present danger. Animals don't have enough neurons to terrify themselves with their own mental constructions. You can't escape from the knowledge that the world will spin merrily along without you some day. The thought triggers so much anxiety that people try to avoid it. They project the anxiety onto other things, like health care and finances. No amount of health care and finances will keep you alive forever, so you are better off accepting the fact that you are a vulnerable bit of protoplasm.
I've read this before in other venues and it is true. We set ourselves up failure mentally by creating anxiety about the future (near or long term). It is this fear that stops us from reaching our potential. It is our fixation on "the enemy" that also causes stress. There are a lot of people who assume that because I am "pro-black" that I spend my time worrying and thinking about what white people are doing, saying or have done or have said. I can honestly say that I don't spend the majority of my time thinking about them because I understand that which we focus on is that which we gravitate to. Better to think on and focus on where I wish to be, who I wish to be and the situation I want to have created, than to focus on those who I deem are stopping me from reaching these things.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Toll Hike Letter
Dear ____________
By now you should have heard that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have decided to increase the tolls on the Hudson River crossings to $12. In light of this event I regret to inform you that I can no longer by your "boo across the bridge" as you are now in the category of "geographically unsuitable".
Don't take this personally. It's not you it' me. Actually no, it's the Port Authority. If by chance you decide to move to this side of the Hudson I may be persuaded to continue our relationship. However; until or unless that happens I will need to find a more toll suitable partner.
Sincerely yours
_____________
PS: If you do find yourself on this side of the Hudson, I'd still hit it.
By now you should have heard that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have decided to increase the tolls on the Hudson River crossings to $12. In light of this event I regret to inform you that I can no longer by your "boo across the bridge" as you are now in the category of "geographically unsuitable".
Don't take this personally. It's not you it' me. Actually no, it's the Port Authority. If by chance you decide to move to this side of the Hudson I may be persuaded to continue our relationship. However; until or unless that happens I will need to find a more toll suitable partner.
Sincerely yours
_____________
PS: If you do find yourself on this side of the Hudson, I'd still hit it.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
About Dominique Strauss-Kahn
[updated 5-16-2011]
I wasn't there for the event but the story as related via the media has me very curious. The story, as I understand it, is that Kahn was taking a shower when a maid entered his room. Kahn then came out of the shower completely naked and sexually assaulted the maid. Does this sound strange to anyone else?
I'm not saying that it is not possible that this Kahn fellow believed his own hype so much that he thought he could just randomly attempt to rape a maid in a high end hotel in his room where he is known to be staying. Most criminals try to have some kind of alibi or excuse. A person in his position knowing full well he does not have diplomatic immunity and is not on his home turf makes me think the story just putting himself out there legally is a bit off to me.
I believe that Kahn was expecting a prostitute, a high end one at that. I suppose that he usually requests role playing in which she is supposed to be "shocked" at his naked appearance, show some level of resistance and then succumb to his "manly ways and 'charm'" and end up fucking; in the bathroom makes sense. I will suppose that it is usual for these women to be "let in" by some staff (perhaps even given a key). I think he came out and did his usual 'oh well...hello madamoiselle....". I suppose she did what any actual uninterested maid would do by rebuffing his advances but keeping it "professional". Kahn, not realizing this isn't the prostitute, become more aggressive (and turned on) and when it was too late realized that this was not the prostitute and he was now on the hook for at least sexual assault and probably attempted rape (it will probably get plead down to sexual assault). Realizing the legal issue at hand he hastily dressed and grabbed his particulars and made a rush to the airport before police could arrive and did not expect that he would be unable to get out of the country.
Again, I could be wrong and he could just be the type to think he could just grab up a random maid in a high end hotel, but I know that men of his position use prostitutes on the regular and those prostitutes usually provide men like him with certain fantasies that are not likely to be had at home. The maid scenario makes sense given the apparent power dynamic involved.
Update-
Having recently reviewed the news in regards to earlier history I'm going to put the odds at 60-40 for prostitute expectations to "believing his own hype" I say that for a couple of reasons:
1) The young woman in France said that when Kahn planned on assaulting her he invited her to an empty apartment that only had a bed and a camera. So it is CLEAR that this fellow not only wanted to have sex with that woman but expected to film it. Perhaps then he has a stash somewhere with his previous "exploits".
Furthermore that assault makes sense for someone who knows what he has in mind is illegal. An apartment where there is no chance of people traffic. A place easy to remove evidence. A place where he is not known and, depending on the arrangement, one he could 'deny" being. None of which applies at the Sofitel.
The second thing that is here that underscores my earlier scenario was how the woman said his aggression came in stages, which I am all but certain happened at the Sofitel.
2)UN "Peacekeepers" and other international bodies are known to have been raping African women with impunity. The maid in question is an African (by what I heard this AM) and if this guy believes his own hype could certainly think that "poor African women" are easy prey.
3) It was said this morning that if Kahn had been on IMF business then he would have had diplomatic immunity. That changes things a bit since:
a) he could have believed himself to be on IMF business or like other business people could make it look like he was on IMF business. However the latter is unlikely given the IMF's response to this matter. It could be the case that he forgot he was not under diplomatic immunity when he caught the 'unholy spirit".
b) What then was he doing in NY at a 3k a night hotel without his wife? I understand that she has her own life and business matters, but it goes to underscore what I believe to be normal for men of his position. Was he in NY at a high dollar hotel expecting the services of a high dollar prostitute expected to role play? Does this guy have an MO of soliciting hotel maids?
His lawyer is saying that is client will plead not guilty which is completely expected. Only dumb asses without lawyers plead guilty. The experts are saying that he may either deny the charges or claim it was consensual. The former is unlikely to fly, the latter plays into the "I thought she was a prostitute" angle. Assuming they actually use that as a defense to get from rape to sexual assault. Of course he would have to admit in public that he uses the services of high dollar prostitutes when away on IMF business (or non-business). I'm not clear that he's willing to go there. Then again these charges have already ended his career and political future so aside from his wife (and the possible financial fall out from a divorce) I don't see why he shouldn't admit to that to avoid jail time.
I wasn't there for the event but the story as related via the media has me very curious. The story, as I understand it, is that Kahn was taking a shower when a maid entered his room. Kahn then came out of the shower completely naked and sexually assaulted the maid. Does this sound strange to anyone else?
I'm not saying that it is not possible that this Kahn fellow believed his own hype so much that he thought he could just randomly attempt to rape a maid in a high end hotel in his room where he is known to be staying. Most criminals try to have some kind of alibi or excuse. A person in his position knowing full well he does not have diplomatic immunity and is not on his home turf makes me think the story just putting himself out there legally is a bit off to me.
I believe that Kahn was expecting a prostitute, a high end one at that. I suppose that he usually requests role playing in which she is supposed to be "shocked" at his naked appearance, show some level of resistance and then succumb to his "manly ways and 'charm'" and end up fucking; in the bathroom makes sense. I will suppose that it is usual for these women to be "let in" by some staff (perhaps even given a key). I think he came out and did his usual 'oh well...hello madamoiselle....". I suppose she did what any actual uninterested maid would do by rebuffing his advances but keeping it "professional". Kahn, not realizing this isn't the prostitute, become more aggressive (and turned on) and when it was too late realized that this was not the prostitute and he was now on the hook for at least sexual assault and probably attempted rape (it will probably get plead down to sexual assault). Realizing the legal issue at hand he hastily dressed and grabbed his particulars and made a rush to the airport before police could arrive and did not expect that he would be unable to get out of the country.
Again, I could be wrong and he could just be the type to think he could just grab up a random maid in a high end hotel, but I know that men of his position use prostitutes on the regular and those prostitutes usually provide men like him with certain fantasies that are not likely to be had at home. The maid scenario makes sense given the apparent power dynamic involved.
Update-
Having recently reviewed the news in regards to earlier history I'm going to put the odds at 60-40 for prostitute expectations to "believing his own hype" I say that for a couple of reasons:
1) The young woman in France said that when Kahn planned on assaulting her he invited her to an empty apartment that only had a bed and a camera. So it is CLEAR that this fellow not only wanted to have sex with that woman but expected to film it. Perhaps then he has a stash somewhere with his previous "exploits".
Furthermore that assault makes sense for someone who knows what he has in mind is illegal. An apartment where there is no chance of people traffic. A place easy to remove evidence. A place where he is not known and, depending on the arrangement, one he could 'deny" being. None of which applies at the Sofitel.
The second thing that is here that underscores my earlier scenario was how the woman said his aggression came in stages, which I am all but certain happened at the Sofitel.
2)UN "Peacekeepers" and other international bodies are known to have been raping African women with impunity. The maid in question is an African (by what I heard this AM) and if this guy believes his own hype could certainly think that "poor African women" are easy prey.
3) It was said this morning that if Kahn had been on IMF business then he would have had diplomatic immunity. That changes things a bit since:
a) he could have believed himself to be on IMF business or like other business people could make it look like he was on IMF business. However the latter is unlikely given the IMF's response to this matter. It could be the case that he forgot he was not under diplomatic immunity when he caught the 'unholy spirit".
b) What then was he doing in NY at a 3k a night hotel without his wife? I understand that she has her own life and business matters, but it goes to underscore what I believe to be normal for men of his position. Was he in NY at a high dollar hotel expecting the services of a high dollar prostitute expected to role play? Does this guy have an MO of soliciting hotel maids?
His lawyer is saying that is client will plead not guilty which is completely expected. Only dumb asses without lawyers plead guilty. The experts are saying that he may either deny the charges or claim it was consensual. The former is unlikely to fly, the latter plays into the "I thought she was a prostitute" angle. Assuming they actually use that as a defense to get from rape to sexual assault. Of course he would have to admit in public that he uses the services of high dollar prostitutes when away on IMF business (or non-business). I'm not clear that he's willing to go there. Then again these charges have already ended his career and political future so aside from his wife (and the possible financial fall out from a divorce) I don't see why he shouldn't admit to that to avoid jail time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
