I'm a poet / essayist / memoirist/
journalist (in the sense of keeping a journal, not of working for a newspaper) and it occurred to me that a blog fits in with all that. If Montaigne, father of the essay, were alive today, he'd keep a blog. This is my self-portrait as frustrated artist who can't believe she's not famous yet. (And because it's part of my artistic endeavor, the whole damn thing is copyrighted. All rights reserved.)
July 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Categories

Archives

  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005

Recent Entries

  • Criminal Gila Monsters Riding Tractors and Eating Artichokes
  • You might want to put a bid on this one tonight, ladies and gentlemen, because we are talking to Phil Collins's people
  • Sunday So Far
  • Darling Lily
  • Even East Coast Super Lefties Think SLC Is WAY Cool
  • The Vamp Ass Buffy Really Kicks
  • Bore vs. Gore
  • The Priesthood is Magic
  • Stunted and Misshapen by the Priesthood
  • Men with First Names and Sweaty Palms

Recent Comments

  • Holly on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Meg on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Holly on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Meg on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Holly on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Mick Hannigan on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Mick Hannigan on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Holly on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Mick Hannigan on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?
  • Holly on Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?

Read These

News Feeds


RSS1 | RSS2 | Atom

Credits

Powered by
Movable Type 4.261

Designed by

« The Jane Austen Survey | Home | Now I Can Say I've Done It »

May 2, 2008

Hey, Don't You Know Sexual Assault Is FUNNY and FUN?

Good god. Some British "comedian" has apparently... I don't know what to say. Go here and read about some piece of shit with the stage name Johnny Vegas who got up on a London stage last week, announced that he had no material, and so decided to have some woman from the audience carried on stage so that he could sexually assault her. Mary O'Hara, a writer for the Guardian, saw the "performance" and wrote a blog entry about all the ways in which it "crossed a line." And of course people come along in the comments and defend Vegas, and explain why it WAS funny AND entertainment to see a young woman assaulted and humiliated in front of an entire audience.

And then there's the nightmarish story of Josef Friztl, the Austrian who kept his daughter Elisabeth in the cellar for 24 YEARS, during which he repeatedly raped, beat and brutalized her, and father seven children by her.

OK, one was intended to be an evening of "comedy" where what really mattered was that the man doing the assaulting got off on it, while the woman being assaulted did not, so that eventually the assaulter wanted to be hidden from public view (he asked that the curtain go down so no one could see the end of his "act"); one was intended to be a way of life where what really mattered was that the man doing the assaulting got off on it, while the woman being assaulted did not, so that eventually the assaulter wanted everything hidden from public view.

Anyone seeing the connection here?

Posted by holly at May 2, 2008 8:29 AM

30 Comments

By Juti on May 2, 2008 11:15 AM

Yes. That sexual assault is wrong, wrong, wrong, and the assaulters know that deep down, because otherwise why would they want to hide it?

Both of these cases creep me out. The fact that member of the so-called comedian's audience have tried to defend his acts and called them funny shows how very much further our society has to crawl in order to stop violence against women.

There is nothing funny or entertaining about humiliating anybody, unless the person observing is sick. But look at some of the stuff on television now -- nothing but organized humiliation.

Ick.

By Sam on May 3, 2008 7:30 AM

I'd agree based on Mary O'Hara's account that what Vegas did is entirely despicable. The only thing is that i was at this gig, on the second row, and her account of events is entirely distorted and decontextualized nonsense. This is in no way to try and excuse sexual assault, just to say that what Vegas did or didn't do needs to be looked at in terms of the context in which it actually happened rather than an on the basis of some hack's biased and potentially libellous rendering.

By Holly on May 3, 2008 7:58 AM

There is nothing funny or entertaining about humiliating anybody, unless the person observing is sick. But look at some of the stuff on television now -- nothing but organized humiliation.

I agree, Juti, and that's also my assessment of the Three Stooges and the Marx Brothers: organized humiliation. I have never found them funny, only revolting.

Sam:

I can't help noticing that you don't bother to try to provide any sort of context of what actually happened. My guess is that you don't because you can't twist events to make them at all defensible. Believe it or not, I actually did some research before I wrote my blog entry--I searched for other accounts of the show by people who'd seen it, and found enough that matched O'Hara's that I felt her view was supported and credible. Given that you, anxious as you are to attack her and call her a "hack," can't offer any sort of account of the "act," I feel entitled to believe her and not you.

By Sam on May 3, 2008 8:35 AM

My main point was that there are many conflicting accounts of events out there and it's slightly unfair to draw parallels with Josef Fritzl at this stage. It's interesting that you characterise any account of events i give as an inevitable 'twisting'. Did i even say that i wanted to defend Vegas? No. What i'm defending is the right of somebody to have their actions judged on the basis of what happened rather than a reactionary acceptance of what people want to assume happened. For what it's worth, I was sat a few seats away from Mary O'Hara and don't know how she can possibly be in a position to claim to have seen things in such a black and white fashion. There was an ambiguity that i think deserves debate. Personally, i saw no 'fingering' or such like and think the levels of coercion described are wildly exaggerated (though not entirely absent). The kiss described seemed to be mutual. But at the same time, that's not to say i don't think Vegas is guilty of abusing his position of power as a performer. The question, rather, is to what extent he did so. I think he stepped across a boundary in coercing a kiss from a girl who has yet to give her side of the story. It's bad. But Mary O'Hara's account is also offensively sensationalist and unhelpful in getting to the bottom of what actually happened. I don't have any more answers than anyone else and wouldn't pretend to. I'm just trying to urge a level-headedness in figuring this out.

By Holly on May 4, 2008 8:02 AM

Sam:

You said pretty damn little in your first comment, aside from calling Mary O'Hara a hack and claiming her account was inaccurate, so don't blame me if I had to draw a few inferences about what your nebulous point in commenting might have been. You write in your second comment that you "sat a few seats away from Mary O'Hara and don't know how she can possibly be in a position to claim to have seen things in such a black and white fashion.... Personally, I saw no 'fingering' or such like." But O'Hara doesn't claim to have seen any fingering herself; she writes,

According to [James] Williams, who had a different view of the stage from me, Vegas ended up 'fingering her through her clothes for a second or two'. What I heard was an audible sharp intake of breath from the audience as they realised that the woman was getting much more than the kiss Vegas had told her to expect.

I'm inclined to believe that you watched the show with as much care as you read O'Hara's review of it, and that your view isn't to be trusted or relied upon.

Furthermore, I would point out that the bulk of her review is devoted to analyzing the discussion that followed. I don't see how you can call her "offensively sensationalist" when she's quoting multiple conflicting views in a discussion--she ends with a statement by someone who loved the show, so that view gets the last word. She also makes it clear that she and her paper asked Vegas and show host Stewart Lee (via his agent) for comments, which they declined to offer. With regards to that, O'Hara writes, "That is a pity. Friday's gig needs to be openly debated." Your refusal and/or inability to see and acknowledge that is offensively lazy and dishonest.

Finally, I do not think I am failing to be level-headed when I point out that there is a whole of range of sexually abusive behaviors men engage in, in which victimization of women is precisely part of what provides the abusers pleasure. After all, that's a fairly common insight, because all in all, the behaviors are fairly common. Yes, behaviors like Josef's Fritzl's are rarer and more extreme, particularly in that he kept his daughter alive in a cellar for 24 years--it's far more typical for a sexual predator to kill a woman he's captured--but depictions of women being held captives, beaten and raped aren't at all rare: just watch CSI.

In any event, all such behaviors, including Vegas's and Fritzl's, show a profound sexual selfishness and a horrific contempt for women. I believe that society's persistent ability to be entertained and titillated by the milder forms helps to enable the more vicious forms, and I think it is entirely responsible to point out the ways in which Vegas's behavior was entirely unacceptable and thoroughly reprehensible, as it still occupies a place on the continuum of sexually abusive behaviors.

By Sam on May 4, 2008 12:17 PM

Personally, I think it's important to read the quotations that a journalist provides in terms of their wider context. I think you're being somewhat disingenuous in presenting O'Hara's account as though it's actually balanced rather than simply designed to give the appearance of balance. So ok, she presents alternative takes on events but if you read the article carefully she does so in order to characterise alternative accounts as tantamount to an acceptance of sexual assault. She chooses 'alternative' takes on events which fit in with her condemnation of Vegas as an a priori sex-mad abuser of women rather than more reasonable and balanced accounts which might conflict with the information she presents and undermine the appearance of what shes saying as some absolute truth. The final paragraph is a good example of this. The quotation you cite is one which occurs following a number of decontextualized quotations from Vegas himself (e.g saying that he wanted to be 'inside' the girl; rambling on about lap dancing clubs). Gone is any comedic context. I don't think it makes me a sexual-assault apologist to suggest that you can talk about lap dancing without actually being a potentially woman-hating rapist-in-training. But in mentioning lap dancing and the 'i want to be inside you' quote to begin with, Vegas is painted as the kind of man who you might expect such behaviour from. Essentially, you're led to interpret such quotations in terms of the allegation of sexual assault which they're used to back up. Personally, having been witness to the context in which they occurred i think it's unfair not to at least entertain the possibility that Vegas' earlier comments fit in with the character's usual satirization of a pathetic and socially incompetent oaf. Dangerous satirical comedy flys close to the edge and in the first half of the show Vegas did this in what i see as being a challenging and perhaps even progressive fashion. Nearly everybody there appeared to understand the joke at that stage: that's why nobody walked. Then things got way murkier and we're still not sure what the hell happened. I'd say it went too far, but there's still an ambiguity that needs to be addressed. In accepting O'Hara's account, i worry that engagement with this ambiguity and the need for debate is closed down. This seems to happen in your last paragraph where it seems that you've accepted Vegas' hatred of women as complete fact. I completely agree that sexually abusive behavior needs to be condemned but only once there is some kind of consensus that sexual abuse is what actually happened. Otherwise there's a risk of giving ammunition to the 'mad-feminist' rhetoric of the real rape apologists.

Re The Williams quote: It might be attributed to someone else, but it entirely fits with the underlying message of O'Hara's piece and so you have to consider her choice to use it and her use of other quotations in this context. I'd say in recognising this, i'm demonstrating a far more sensitive reading of O'hara's piece than you give me credit.

By Holly on May 4, 2008 1:29 PM

Jesus Christ, Sam, if you think O'Hara is such a dishonest hack, can you actually offer an account of what happened instead of just saying she's wrong? Because if you can't do more than assert, as vaguely and as verbosely as possible, that O'Hara is morally culpable simply for actually having a point of view about what she witnessed, then quit wasting my time, and go be a troll on someone else's blog. The closest you come to stating your own view is this:

Dangerous satirical comedy flys close to the edge and in the first half of the show Vegas did this in what i see as being a challenging and perhaps even progressive fashion.

I feel quite confident, based on everything you've written here and everything I've been able to find out about Vegas from sources other than O'Hara, that your assessment is thoroughly full of shit.

And don't you DARE suggest that "comedy" can be dangerous, but analysis of comedy can take no risks, nor draw any conclusions about the way comedy succeeds or fails as humor, or what the consequences of that success or failure might be, or how comics might suck at their chosen profession. O'Hara is, after all, doing her job--far more responsibly and well than Vegas, as far as I can tell.

You write,

In accepting O'Hara's account, i worry that engagement with this ambiguity and the need for debate is closed down.

O'Hara asks for a certain kind of debate, so she's who you should be engaging with now, not me. I'm not asking for that debate. I am SICK TO DEATH of tired defenses of misogyny as entertainment, having been subjected to them for over 40 years, and I'm not going to "debate" on my blog the validity of yet another example of the same exhausted, exhausting and insulting bullshit. That's not on the table for discussion here. If you have a problem with that, then go leave your comments elsewhere. My goal on this blog has to do with this statement from you:

I completely agree that sexually abusive behavior needs to be condemned but only once there is some kind of consensus that sexual abuse is what actually happened.

If we stop defending the indefensible victimization of women, stop worrying about certain forms of "ambiguity," particularly ambiguity engineered by the perpetrator, as if that excuses anything, then we can arrive at that consensus sooner and more easily.

By Mr Nighttime on May 5, 2008 9:10 AM

Sam, it seems to me you are over analyzing O'Hara's piece to justify your own position. You claim that what Vegas did was entirely despicable, yet also attack her of distorting the facts and presenting them out of context. You are playing both sides of the fence here. If you agree that what Vegas did was despicable, then what other context needs to be defined?

(From the article by O'Hara.)"Others wondered if the issue was whether it was Vegas or his stage "persona" doing the groping, and, if so, what was the underlying point of it."

As an actor, all I can say is that the idea that it was his "stage persona" that was doing this is bullshit. Every actor, stand-up comedian, etc., brings part of themselves into their characters. At the end of the day, if the account is even half correct, (which it appears to be, at the very least.) then Vegas, stage persona and all, is responsible.

I found no fault with the way O'Hara depicted these events. She wrote what she saw, from her POV, added other eyewitness accounts, (which is good journalistic ethic) and an opposing viewpoint.

There were some other posts to this article (in the article's comments section)that have suggested that the woman he brought on stage actually enjoyed herself. This is of course, hearsay, and unless there was a direct quote from the woman herself, I would not believe. Even if it were true, this takes his act from one of comedy into the realm of soft core porn. Personally, if I really need that kind of a thrill, there are places I can go to get it, and they don't involve stand-up comedy.

I have to wonder if after all this dust up, if the owners of the club will have him back, try to play up the controversy as a way to generate revenue, or ask him to pack his bags. It will be interesting to follow the fallout......

By Holly on May 6, 2008 8:52 AM

Hi Mr. Nighttime--

thanks for jumping into this conversation. A couple of my friends have emailed or called me about Sam's comments, but you're the only one to respond here. I agree with you that it's hard to figure out what Sam's point is: he claims that is "defending is the right of somebody to have their actions judged on the basis of what happened rather than a reactionary acceptance of what people want to assume happened," but he absolutely refused to provide any account of what happened--just kept saying O'Hara was wrong.

But as you point out, O'Hara's piece was well-written. It was believable. She didn't claim to have all the answers, and she asked for more debate. Sam himself acknowledges that "Vegas is guilty of abusing his position of power as a performer" and that "it's bad." So I don't feel I've been duped or reactionary in accepting O'Hara's contention that Vegas "crossed a line" and did something pretty dreadful.

And I also agree with you that the whole business has very little to do with "comedy" in my book.

In any event, I doubt Sam will be back here. Having failed to convince me to be as confused and muddled as he is, he has probably moved on.

p.s. I sent you a couple of email messages; did you get them? I just want to make sure your email program didn't send them to a spam or junk folder.

By Sam. on May 6, 2008 10:30 AM

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you discern contradictions in what i'm saying that's because i'm entirely sure what happened (and i was in the second row, near MOH) and wouldn't pretend to be. But O'Hara's account isn't like anything i saw, and i just wanted to urge caution in taking it at face value along with the accounts she selectively presented.

I think the discrepancy in comments on the Guardian page give a good idea of how hard it was to tell for sure what was happening, both on the night and in retrospect. All i was saying is that i don't think it's fair to start the witch hunt until we know for sure what happened. I know people who spoke to the girl at the follow-up show and i've not really got much more to say until she's spoken which will hopefully be fairly soon.

Thanks for the space for debate though.

By Holly on May 6, 2008 11:21 AM

Sam has come back to leave more muddled nonsense, writing:

If you discern contradictions in what i'm saying that's because i'm entirely sure what happened (and i was in the second row, near MOH) and wouldn't pretend to be.

I assume you mean that you AREN'T entirely sure what happened and wouldn't pretend to be.

If you ARE entirely sure what happened, please enlighten me. But even if you AREN'T entirely sure what happened, you could at least offer your sense of what you think happened. If you can't do that, don't come back to my blog. Do you understand? If you can't take the time to write an account of what you saw, don't presume to use my forum to announce that O'Hara is wrong, and you know this, because you saw something different. If you think she's wrong because what she describes doesn't match what you saw, THEN FUCKING TELL ME WHAT YOU SAW, OR GO THE HELL AWAY. And if you can't tell me what you saw, then frankly, I believe you're lying.

Let me spell it out: If you can't explain how what you saw is different from what O'Hara saw, I will suspect (let me underscore that: SUSPECT, NOT "ACCEPT AS A CERTAINTY") that you saw pretty much the same thing she did, you merely reacted to it differently: you didn't find anything wrong with Vegas's telling a woman, "Don't fucking move" while he hiked up her skirt and fondled her breasts in front of an audience, and it bothers you that others did.

So that's one reason I think your statements are contradictory, muddled and meaningless; another is that you're not a careful writer; still another is the fact that while you can acknowledge that what happened is "bad" and that "Vegas is guilty of abusing his position of power as a performer," you seem unwilling to admit that bad behavior and abuse of power are things that can harm the people subjected to it.

And how am I conducting a witch hunt? It's not like I'm writing to British authorities to demand that Vegas be legally prosecuted--though I admit I wouldn't disappointed if someone in power decided to do just that. In any event, I have a right to think Vegas's brand of "humor" is NOT funny and is harmful to women, much like Andrew Dice Clay from the late 80s and early 90s.

By Mick Hannigan on May 9, 2008 3:02 PM

No assault took place. Mary O'Hara's Guardian article has been comprehensively discredited by numerous eyewitnesses. The victim here is Vegas who's reputation has been shredded by the offending article and the chinese whispers of the very many blogs which quoted it.

The article is now the subject of a 'legal complaint' by Vegas, and it and the accompanying blog have been removed from the Guardian website.

By Holly on May 9, 2008 6:41 PM

Mary O'Hara's Guardian article has been comprehensively discredited by numerous eyewitnesses.

Sam or Mick Hannigan:

could you please, pretty please with sugar on top, refer me to even one statement that significantly contradicts O'Hara's? Because even if lawyers persuaded the Guardian to take down her blog, I'm still able to find things like this from Bruce Dessau:

While the woman lay on the floor Vegas climbed on top of her, kissing and stroking her. According to different reports the extent of his actions varied. But from where I was sitting, my concern was more about his substantial bulk bearing down on her than where his wandering hands were.

Yet since the gig there have been mutterings that Vegas overstepped the mark. Was this borderline sexual harassment? The woman, once coaxed onstage by the performer, could hardly have refused to go along with the star's behaviour.

Our very own Richard Godwin was at the gig and he was closer to the action than me. He clearly felt Vegas went far too far. Others have also made similar allegations, that Vegas took advantage of an innocent woman.

and that all sounds like a violation and assault to me.

The victim here is Vegas who's reputation has been shredded by the offending article and the chinese whispers of the very many blogs which quoted it.

First: Did Vegas have much reputation to get shredded? His schtick is that he's an ugly, paunchy, pathetic, lousy schlub no self-respecting woman would go near; has anything that has happened at or since the show really damaged his ability to claim that?

Second: Chinese whispers? Chinese whispers? Thanks for adding a little glib racism to go with the sexism in the mix.

By Mick Hannigan on May 10, 2008 1:19 AM

Holly you ask for "even one statement that significantly contradicts O'Hara's". Here are nine taken from the Guardian blog from people who attended the gig.

Note from H: M, you argue that it's so important that the Guardian site has been removed, and then go and quote from what's been removed. But as it's gone, I can't verify that these were reproduced as originally printed, or even printed in the first place. Therefore they have been deleted.

There are other reports and eyewitness accounts elsewhere on the net such as the Chortle website.

By Mick Hannigan on May 10, 2008 1:26 AM

Regarding the phrase Chinese Whispers here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Chinese whispers...is a game in which each successive participant secretly whispers to the next a phrase or sentence whispered to them by the preceding participant. Cumulative errors from mishearing often result in the sentence heard by the last player differing greatly and amusingly from the one uttered by the first... It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies of rumours or gossip.[2]

The name "Chinese whispers" reflects the former stereotype in Europe of the Chinese language as being incomprehensible.[3] It is little-used in the United States and may be considered offensive.[4] However, it remains the common British name for the game.[5]

By Mick Hannigan on May 10, 2008 1:31 AM

"First: Did Vegas have much reputation to get shredded? His schtick is that he's an ugly, paunchy, pathetic, lousy schlub no self-respecting woman would go near."

I agree that is indeed his schtick, but even ugly, paunchy, lousy schlubs don't deserve to be accused of crimes they did not commit. Surely?

By Holly on May 10, 2008 8:30 AM

There are other reports and eyewitness accounts elsewhere on the net such as the Chortle website.

All I found on Chortle was this, which doesn't contradict much.

And as I wrote before, I've managed to find eyewitness accounts that support O'Hara's assertions--there were sure as hell plenty on the deleted Guardian blog. Simply telling me that eyewitnesses disagree with O'Hara doesn't prove much unless I can read or hear the accounts myself and judge their credibility.

But thanks at least for the bare-bones attempt to provide one single source of information I can consult.

re: Chinese whispers: Yeah, I googled the term as soon as I saw it; I found plenty of sites explaining that it's the game Americans call "telephone." The fact that the Brits have enshrined a bit of their own ignorant racism as entertainment and amusement doesn't make it cool. As a child I learned a really racist term for Brazil nuts, and another really racist term for someone who offers and then withdraws a gift, and another for driving a hard bargain. I would never dream of using those terms now, and I call people who do use them on their offensive racism, like I'm doing now with you, no matter how someone strives to defend it.

In other words, you really should pay attention to the bit stating that "It is little-used in the United States and may be considered offensive."

re: your statement that I agree that is indeed his schtick, but even ugly, paunchy, lousy schlubs don't deserve to be accused of crimes they did not commit.

People are accused of crimes they didn't commit all the time. That's one reason we have trials, so that as a society we reduce if not eradicate the extent to which innocent people are officially and legally punished for crimes they didn't commit.

Keep in mind, the fact that Vegas might have accused O'Hara of libel doesn't mean she's guilty of it. A court will decide that.

And if we're going with the "deserve" route, surely you can agree at the very least that that poor woman didn't deserve to have that fat ugly bastard sit on her, did she?

Duh.

By CSV on May 10, 2008 1:05 PM

My brother is a cop in Los Angeles who works domestic violence and sex crimes. He is admittedly politically conservative, but his line of work has forced him to recognize particular systems of power, especially with regard to women. He has witnessed the impact such violence has on women, and he has told me repeatedly that what is most striking is the extent to which perpetrators justify their crimes through narratives of individual consent and refrains of "well, she asked for it." He maintains the most depressing aspect of his job is witnessing how many people tend to come forward to protect the perpetrator while simultaneously attacking the victim on grounds of intent and morality. According to my brother, domestic violence and sexual assaults are unlike other crimes in that the victim is made to justify whether or not a crime occurred in the first place. Why is there such debate over whether or not the woman at the show was violated? Why are folks trying to justify the act rather than see that the act (and the interpretation of the act) as violence? Why can we not see that acts like this happen ALL THE TIME and that sexual violence is an end result of hatred? The initial connection Holly made is one that has been lost in the debate. Rather than debate whether or not the reporter "got the story right," we should actually ask ourselves how we can finally "get it right" and practice a deeper commitment to human rights.

As an Asian American woman, I was also distressed by the use of what I actually "consider" offensive. In fact, I don't just "consider" it offensive. It is offensive. As is the case with the debate over the article, I have to say that the use of such a term (and its justification) glosses over a history of very real racial violence and oppression. My most traumatic memories involve moments where my "foreign" appearance has been the basis for questioning my legitimacy as a human being, which took the form of not serving me at restaurants, telling me to "go back to where I came from," and physical violence.

By Holly on May 10, 2008 1:23 PM

Thanks, CSV. I can't help noticing that the woman involved in Vegas's "act" has yet to make a statement; I can't help wondering if it's because she doesn't want to be subjected to the sorts of attacks on her morality and integrity that would no doubt occur were she to make any statement at all, one way or the other.

In other words, just as you point out, just as I discuss in an entry about a woman convicted of manslaughter because her husband shot a man in the head, I am sure people will find a way to make the entire business the fault of the woman--the woman who, all accounts agree, Vegas commanded to play dead, sat on, fondled and kissed in front of an audience. It all pretty much adds up to a very gross abuse of power and assault as far as I'm concerned, but still, by all means, find a way to exonerate Vegas; say it wasn't assault; or say that if it was, it was HER fault. Because he was just giving a woman the sort of treatment you might expect from a fat ugly misogynist bastard women rightly avoid; and why should he be punished for that?

By Mick Hannigan on May 12, 2008 8:28 AM

".... that the Brits have enshrined a bit of their own ignorant racism..."

An entire people are ignorant and racist? Are you being ironic here?

By Holly on May 12, 2008 9:02 AM

Oh jesus christ, Mick, is that the best you can do? Are you denying that the phrase "Chinese whispers" is a Britishism, or that, as the Wikipedia entry you quote points out, it "reflects the former stereotype in Europe of the Chinese language as being incomprehensible"?

I did not write "This sort of behavior is what I'd expect from the British, an appallingly ignorant and racist group of people," did I? People, both individuals and nations, can be guilty of ignorance and racism, without having those attributes define the overarching nature of their character. Pretty much everyone is ignorant about something, and most of us have been raised with racist attitudes. The important thing is to abandon rather than defend, as you do, these attitudes and their effects in the world when they're pointed out to us.

What a sad life you lead: defending pathetic losers and bad behavior.

By Mick Hannigan on May 12, 2008 11:00 PM

I don't lead a sad life thank you very much so please don't patronise.

Let me try and simplify this.

If Johnny Vegas has done what the Guardian said he has done I would not be defending him.

It's because I believe he did NOT do what the Guardian reported, i.e. committed sexual assault, that I am defending him.

My reasons for concluding that he did not commit sexual assault are the many reports of eyewitnesses who where at the gig and who contributed to the Guardian blog. I supplied, at your request, reports of nine of these eyewitnesses but you chose to delete them from my post.

Your stated reasoning, as far as I can follow it, being that as the blog was now removed, you could not verify it and perhaps I made up the nine reports. The real reason of course is that it did not fit your agenda that the "piece of shit" as you call him, is guilty as charged and no need to ask any awkward questions.

But he is not a piece of shit, he is a human being. And yes, even pathetic losers deserve to be defended if they are unfairly pilloried, though Vegas is far from pathetic and I would be very surprised if he emerges a loser in his case against the Guardian

Being unfunny is not a crime. Being objectionable is not a crime, Being offensive is not a crime. Being fat is certainly not a crime. Nor is being a pathetic loser a crime.

Committing sexual assault IS a crime and a very serious one. It is so serious that one should not lightly accuse anyone of committing it. Certainly not without compelling evidence; the evidence of the alleged victim or the evidence of eyewitnesses. There is no evidence from the so-called victim and the evidence of the Guardian writer has been contradicted.

So on what basis do you reason that the "piece of shit" Johnny Vegas, is guilty of sexual assault?

Slander and libel are also crimes.

By Holly on May 13, 2008 7:36 AM

I don't lead a sad life thank you very much so please don't patronise.

You do from my perspective. You also don't understand punctuation, legality, or ethics, so I'll treat you as I choose.

And don't tell me you have a problem with that. Don't tell me that you have a problem with someone who has considerably more power in a given situation exercising it to his/her advantage and the disadvantage of someone else. Because, after all, that's what you're defending Vegas for. I mean, the stakes are NOTHING here! it's just a small blog an ocean away from you; you don't provide any information about yourself that would allow anyone to track you down. Given that you defend the right of some fat bastard to misuse his power when the stakes are really big and involve sexual contact (breast stroking is sexual contact) and body fluids (saliva is a body fluid), you can't REALLY be offended or upset when I patronize you, or point out that you're a complete idiot--especially since you keep coming back for more! You seem to like it! You get off on it! You WANT me to talk to you like this! I bet right now you're sitting in front of your computer, looking like you won the lottery! (Which was what one blog commenter said about the poor woman Vegas fondled, sat on and kissed.)

Let me try and simplify this.

Thank god! Finally! I'll let you try, Mick; I'll certainly let you try. I hold little hope that you'll succeed, but I'll let you try.

If Johnny Vegas has done what the Guardian said he has done I would not be defending him.

It's because I believe he did NOT do what the Guardian reported, i.e. committed sexual assault, that I am defending him.

You don't believe that calling some woman out of the audience and telling her to play dead, having six "pall bearers" bring her onto stage, commanding her to be completely passive and to submit to his pawing and kissing her, stroking her breasts and sitting on her (and all of that is well documented), in a situation in which he hold considerable power and demands that she, a complete stranger, relinquish every bit of her power, is sexual assault?

I feel sorry for anyone you date--or pay to date you.

My reasons for concluding that he did not commit sexual assault are the many reports of eyewitnesses who where at the gig and who contributed to the Guardian blog. I supplied, at your request, reports of nine of these eyewitnesses but you chose to delete them from my post.

My reasons for believing that he DID those things include the many eyewitnesses who said he did.

Your stated reasoning, as far as I can follow it, being that as the blog was now removed, you could not verify it and perhaps I made up the nine reports. The real reason of course is that it did not fit your agenda that the "piece of shit" as you call him, is guilty as charged and no need to ask any awkward questions.

Wrong. I went looking for things still on the web that would support your position. I looked up Chortle myself, since you weren't generous or smart enough to supply a link. I couldn't find anything still on the web to support your position.

There's also the fact that comments on a blog don't really constitute meaningful evidence. You can post anonymously; it's entirely possible that the people who defended or attacked Vegas on the blog, claiming to be eyewitnesses for or against, weren't even at the show. I'm not saying that's necessarily true; I'm just pointing out that the anonymity of the web makes it difficult to prove. In order to be a truly meaningful statement either for or against Vegas, it needs to made by someone one who signs his/her full name and provides contact information. Like O'Hara did.

But he is not a piece of shit, he is a human being. And yes, even pathetic losers deserve to be defended if they are unfairly pilloried, though Vegas is far from pathetic and I would be very surprised if he emerges a loser in his case against the Guardian

He is a human being who is also, metaphorically, a piece of shit. And I don't think the treatment he's getting is unfair.

Being unfunny is not a crime.

I'm with you there.

Being objectionable is not a crime, Being offensive is not a crime.

Depends on the venue and the extent. You can be prosecuted for including porn in a video for children.

Being fat is certainly not a crime. Nor is being a pathetic loser a crime.

I'm sure you personally know all about the extent to which being a pathetic loser is not a crime.

Committing sexual assault IS a crime and a very serious one. It is so serious that one should not lightly accuse anyone of committing it.

I don't believe it was lightly done.

Certainly not without compelling evidence; the evidence of the alleged victim or the evidence of eyewitnesses.

O'Hara was any eyewitness! The people she quoted were eyewitnesses! Jesus Christ, you fucking idiot, do YOU only consider someone an "eyewitness" if they support your view of things? I've been willing to consult accounts by eyewitnesses who have different accounts of the event. I just haven't been able to find any that are still on the web.

There is no evidence from the so-called victim and the evidence of the Guardian writer has been contradicted.

I wrote earlier about why I think the "so-called victim" hasn't come forward, and the evidence of Mary O'Hara (can't help noticing that you can't even supply her name now) has also been supported.

So on what basis do you reason that the "piece of shit" Johnny Vegas, is guilty of sexual assault?

I've stated it above. See if you can figure it out.

Slander and libel are also crimes.

Calling someone a "piece of shit" is not criminal. We in the US have a different sense of libel than you in the UK; we actually support free speech in that we don't prosecute it as readily as you do in the UK. We might find things offensive, like your racist name for the game "telephone," but we recognize that being offensive is not, as you pointed out, a crime.

But I am beginning to think that you are criminally stupid.

By Mick Hannigan on May 13, 2008 9:32 AM

We are not simply on different continents but on different planets when it comes to debate. Your approach to debating an argument is to abuse the person making that argument, nothing more.

"You also don't understand punctuation, legality, or ethics, so I'll treat you as I choose."

"you're a complete idiot"

"I feel sorry for anyone you date--or pay to date you."

"I'm sure you personally know all about the extent to which being a pathetic loser is not a crime."

"you fucking idiot"

"you are criminally stupid"

You present yourself as "a feminist struggling for justice". Whatever you are struggling for.. an outlet for your generalised rage, for some undefined revenge, for a comforting world view of victims and villains but you are not struggling for 'justice', an important concept in any society. 'Justice' has enabled us, thank God, to transcend mere abuse in sorting out disputes.

By Mick Hannigan on May 13, 2008 9:38 AM

"Slander and libel are also crimes.

Calling someone a "piece of shit" is not criminal. We in the US have a different sense of libel than you in the UK"

Of course not. That was not my point. Wrongly accusing someone of sexual assault is a crime though and that is what the Guardian are now learning.

By Holly on May 13, 2008 9:58 AM

Wrongly accusing someone of sexual assault is a crime though and that is what the Guardian are now learning.

I am sure the Guardian has a fairly clear understanding of what libel is.

We are not simply on different continents but on different planets when it comes to debate.

No kidding. Your approach to debate is to resort to vague generalizations and to ignore any and all counter-arguments. Mine is to actually present evidence, to ask for additional evidence, and to weigh its credibility when it's presented.

And, eventually, to get annoyed when the asshole who has come to my forum and ASKED ME to debate him refuses to supply elements necessary to a real debate.

Your approach to debating an argument is to abuse the person making that argument, nothing more.

Oh! Well, although I'm a bit annoyed that you can't recognize or acknowledge any of the actual points I've made defending my position, I am pleased to see that you CAN recognize that some people--certainly not people interested in justice, but other, silly, angry people with ridiculous agendas--might find something wrong with certain abuses of power. You can't do any lateral thinking and apply the same logic to Vegas's situation, but still, you can acknowledge the validity of the basic principle I was trying to illustrate.

For future reference, what I did in that previous comment is called an "ad hominem" attack. I knew what I was doing. I did it on purpose. It was a deliberate rhetorical choice. It's not a crime, so it's completely defensible, right? I didn't REALLY do anything wrong, right? Because hey, it's not a crime. Stuff is only REALLY wrong if it's a crime, something that can get you thrown in jail or fined by the state--or if it's a man who's the "victim" (poor Johnny Vegas! the "real victim here," as you put it), as opposed to a situation where a man does something to a woman, in which she's a "so-called victim."

you are not struggling for 'justice'

I'm sure in your view that's true, because you don't think justice involves protecting women from sexual predators.

If you don't like what you get from me, then go away. I'm not leaving comments on your blog; I won't track you down if you disappear. I'm perfectly willing to continue to follow the larger story about Vegas, the act, and O'Hara's review of it, to see how it plays out. You're not. You've decided that you won't reply to a single one of my points about what Vegas actually did, about what it means to be an eyewitness, etc. You say nothing of substance, and you use any excuse to avoid actually engaging in real debate--about what sexual assault is, or what evidence is, or about overarching issues of gender and power, or ANYTHING, really: all you say is that Vegas is "innocent" and the Guardian is bad. And oh, you got your feelings hurt 'cause I mocked you, and you will not be mocked.

Yeah. Boy. Someone in this discussion really doesn't give a shit about justice or debate or sorting out disputes--and it's you.

By Meg on May 13, 2008 10:40 AM

I was at this gig on the front row. Thought i'd offer what i saw in case it’s of any interest. Not sure what you’ll make of it, but I thought I’d post it anyway. Internet being what it is, i'll try and back the ‘I was there’ claim up with some details: JV came on stage wearing a Bukowski t-shirt (with a safari jacket on top) and drinking a can of Guinness. He started shouting at a group of us down the front and told us to 'fucking come together, i'm fucking coming at you, if you don't fucking come together i'll fucking have you'.

JV then staged dived onto a big guy a few seats across from us. He did improvised anecdotes about lapdancing clubs and shitting on babies heads to teach negligent parents a lesson, which got a really good reception. Reading that back, all I can say is I guess you had to be there. I was a bit scared but found it pretty fucking exhilirating and kinda hilarious. I've never seen him before but some friends had texted to warn me he does this kinda stuff when we found out he was coming on. It was all clearly improvised and quite exciting to watch.

Then he started going on about not being able to 'get girls' because he’s a washed-up loser. The quote that the Guardian lady edited was 'you're like me (pointing at 'fat' guy in front row who he'd jumped on earlier). We're the same. Except i'm famous. And that makes people do crazy things. I bet i could get any woman in the audience. I've got no material, I'm only here to get laid so why don't we test the theory?'. I think most of us took that as a kind of dig at celebrity.

Then he started talking to a girl on the second or third row who told him she was shy and he immediately moved on. Another girl who was with the guy who'd been jumped on went up and cuddled him. He took the piss out of her but i can't remember exactly what he said. I was getting really nervous cos i hate being involved in this sort of stuff. Then he started 'chatting up' the ginger librarian girl. He took the piss out of her hair a bit while lay face down on the stage attempting to 'seduce her'. This went on a while but to be fair she seemed to be responding well to it (she offered to go and get a hair cut). I'd agree that she seemed quite shy though.

Then it went into the 'sleeping beauty' bit. He had 6 people carry the girl on stage so they could cement their 'love' for each other. The girl got up and they carried her onto the stage. He got a guy to sing Shakespeare's sisters 'stay' (think that what it's called). He did shout 'don't move or i'll kick you in the ribs' but to us it seemed like this was intended to kinda subvert the mawkishness of the song and the 'love' scene. He glided his hands over her body a bit. From where we sat it didn't look like there was contact but it was hard to tell for sure. Then he went down to kiss her. He kissed her on the lips at first. From where we were sat it looked like she definitely kissed him back but with tongues. He asked for a curtain to be brought down to close the performance. Simon Munnery came on and held his coat over them but we could see he was chatting to her at this point. Before it finished, he chatted to a few of the people and the girl in a fairly amiable way. She came off stage looking kinda confused but we heard her tell a few people that she was fine.

(Apologies for the bad grammar - i'm writing this quickly at work on the sly)

By Holly on May 13, 2008 11:01 AM

Meg--

thanks you, thank you, THANK YOU for providing your account of what happened. I truly appreciate your taking the time to write this. Even by your account, it sounds pretty dreadful to me.... Yeah. Threatening to kick a passive woman in the ribs is definitely a nice antidote to a song that is remembered primarily because it and its video were so creepy and threatening. (Love Siobhan Fahey!)

I agree with O'Hara that the "act" deserves to be widely discussed. Thanks again for taking the time to tell me what you saw, instead of simply showing up and saying, "Nothing bad happened, Vegas is a victim."

By Meg on May 13, 2008 12:02 PM

Um, yeah. I just listened back to that song on youtube and totally agree that 'mawkish' is the wrong word. Good song though. I just need a dictionary!

By Holly on May 13, 2008 6:43 PM

Hi Meg--

I'd say "mawkish" works for the first but not the second half of the song. And it's the second half, esp. in the video, when Siobhan F. comes out in that crazy glitter suit and scary makeup, that makes the song really memorable.

And in case I didn't make my feelings clear, THANK YOU for explaining what went on at the show. Seriously, after all the vague, information-less comments I've gotten here, it was WONDERFUL to have someone say, "Here's what I saw and heard; here's what I didn't see; here's what I don't remember; here's what's problematic about what I did see; here's how others have interpreted various things; here's how I interpreted them." It's always a bit tricky, knowing if you can trust anonymous blog comments, but I trust you nonetheless, and believe that you've told me the truth as honestly and clearly as you can. And I really appreciate it.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.