Diddy, Hefner, and the Changing Court of Public Opinion

Want to support the podcast? click the link or tell a friend.

Many Americans were tuned in to the trial of Sean Diddy Combs and I for one found it riveting how many high profile celebrities took had interviews posted where they basically said it was high time Combs was caught. With verdict behind us, I'm curious as to what those same celebrities are saying. Regardless of what the entertainment industry thinks, Women's Right's Advocates did not hold back on publishing press releases stating their disappointment. However, there were always two cases against Diddy: the case placed before the jury and the case put before the public. In the court of public opinion, Diddy loss and it is still undetermined whether waiting things out like Louis C.K. and Kevin Spacey did, will result in an opportunity for a career comeback. There are those like Bill Cosby, where there is no coming back. In this episode I talk about what the case against Diddy was (and wasn't), plus chat about other sex lives that have been put on display in the court of public opinion, notably: Hugh Heffner and R. Kelly. As always, let's chat about what's taboo. 

Music by Mound City by Coleman Hawkins (recorded 1929)

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

I've got two words for you, Ray. Hugh Hefner. And I said, oh my. Well played, my friend, well played. Because it wasn't that long ago when the idea of going to the Playboy mansion and being surrounded by gorgeous bunnies, many of which may have lied about their age. And having access to all kinds of delightful things. And being allowed to do all kinds of wonderful things was not only acceptable, but it was all the rage. I'm the lovely Rae, and I'm delighted to spend a little time with you today. I was born and raised in the US, but over the past few years, I've been fortunate enough to spend some time chatting online with people from all over the world. Thanks to a little website called Cambly. I don't have any strong opinions about the Cambly English Learning Platform. But my conversations with folks from other countries has left me with a lot to think about. So, in this podcast, I thought I'd share a little with you and maybe we can keep the conversation going. This podcast is about stripping down and having real conversations. So, if you're looking for someone to dress things up, well, as the old saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. I save my lipstick for the stage, dearest, and dressing up for the bedroom. I do not dress up my conversations with friends. So I'd love to have a chat. Hello, lovelies. It's such a delight to chat again. And so I suppose by now, at least for those of you interested in American affairs, you may have heard of the verdict for the case against Sean Diddy Combs. And I have to confess that I was a bit dismayed, not in the verdict, but in the public outcry from women's rights activists and from the numerous influencers and YouTubers who took to the internet in order to claim that money must have been what persuaded the jury. My loves, we must remember that when it comes to the United States law, one must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Now, at the same time that the Sean Combs trial was going on, there was also the Karen Reed trial. And in that case, just like in the Combs case, the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the defendant was being accused of. Now, when it comes to Karen Reed, I myself did follow much of that case, and I found that the evidence against Miss Reed was not very strong, and at the very least created reasonable doubt. I mean, the idea of there being some kind of great uh cop conspiracy did seem far-fetched, and yet the evidence that she did do it, mmm, that was definitely doubtful. As one jib put it, why didn't the cops at the very least get brain cameras from neighboring homes? I mean, this is a fellow officer down. Why not interview and ask questions of everybody? And so I understand why the jury made the decision that they did, and I do not think the jury made their wrong decision. However, when you look at the case of Mr. Combs, we have a black male in the rap industry who has lots of money, and so of course he makes the perfect villain. Additionally, we have video of this man being a monster beating his girlfriend in such an unconscionable way. It is disturbing to both heart and mind. And yet, Mr. Combs was not accused of domestic violence. He was not accused of being a shit of a boyfriend. He was not accused of just being a loathsome human being. He was accused of racketeering. He was accused of basically acting like a mob boss. And so it is not surprising that the jury came to the decision that they did. Hmm, yes. But this brings up so many other questions. It brings up so many other issues. Issues of consent. Now it is not uncommon for an individual, especially for a woman, to say yes to something. It might be fun. I'd like to try it. That might be interesting. Only later to go, mmm, I don't know if I'm ready. Or I don't want to anymore. I'm not in the mood. This isn't fun. I don't know. I mean, doubt creeps into all of our minds. We are all allowed to change our minds. And yet, it is not uncommon to say yes to something to appease our partner. And so, what do we learn from this case? Should the ladies have been more forceful or vocal in their nose? In the case of one of Mr. Combs' former partners, this person has moved on with their life. They have sought retribution and accountability through the legal system, through a civil case. And so the state's attempt, or I should say the federal attempt, after all, was a federal case. The federal attempt to seek justice. Was it an attempt to seek justice for her? I doubt that. And so we have to remember, these ladies did not bring this case. It is the federal system that decided they are going to make an example of Mr. Colbs. And while they were unable to accomplish the goal that they set out to, this leaves all of us in the relationship industry very unsure of how to tread. Now I am not saying that either of these ladies were in that situation, but it does give us much to think about. Can we use this public display of these relationships to forge stronger paths, clearer paths in our own relationships? And I'd love to say we can, but unfortunately, I myself find it all just as murky and muddled as it was before Mr. Combs' sex life was blasted out in the media. And now this brings up another very interesting matter that someone brought to my attention. I found myself saying if the man had been accused of being an asshole of a boyfriend, of domestic violence, this he would be guilty. But if the crimes laid against him, mmm, I think not. After all, in the black community in the United States, freak offs, freaknik, this is something that's been going on for quite some time. The idea that this man had copious amounts of baby oil and offered ivy drips sounds to me like he was somebody who set up his establishment to ensure that all of his guests were well taken care of. And wouldn't you expect nothing less than a party hosted by someone who has a lot of money? And so this individual said to me, I've got two words for you, Ray. Hugh Hefner. And I said, Oh my. Playboy represents a time when women were ogled over their body parts. And yet, do I have to remind you that Playboy once was a very respectable publication. It featured writing from some of literature's most well respected authors, including Margaret Atwood, Jack Carroll, World Dahl, Ian Fleming, and the list goes on. Additionally, the opportunity to be on the cover of Playboy to be a playmate was also something that was respectable. Celebrities like Pamela Anderson, Drew Barrymore, many, many women grates the cover of Playboy without shame. And so we would be silly to try to say that Hugh Hefner's taste was not a taste that was shared by others and celebrated. Now you might say, but to celebrate the magazine, to celebrate the literary accomplishments featured in the magazine, to celebrate the empowerment that it provided women with at one time. This is not the same as celebrating the sexual preferences of the man behind the magazine. And I concur. You are not wrong there, my friend. No no no no no. We can appreciate someone's work and yet not appreciate how they live their own life. However, it is with question as to whether or not the life of mister Hugh Hefner was frowned upon during the time of his being alive. After all, many people have been in and out of the Playboy mansion and have had their own experiences. Now some former playmates and romantic paramours of Mr. Hefner have been on record to say that they had a lovely time and that he was a gentleman. They simply no longer found that that lifestyle worked for them. And then there are others who have been on record to say that they were forced to do things they did not want, had things done to them they did not want, or just found themselves entangled in a lifestyle that they could not escape. But I am not here to judge Mr. Hefner, nor am I here to judge Diddy. In fact, I'm not here to judge anybody, baby. I'm just here to tickle your thinking abilities and ask you to give it all just a little more thought before you cast stones and place judgment on others for doing things that you feel are abominable. Perhaps we take just another look at different cultures, different times, different ways of life. Now, don't get me wrong, I do not approve of being abusive physically, financially, mentally towards others, regardless of it being a husband, a wife, or girlfriend, boyfriend. No no no no no. Abuse is not acceptable. But we also must remember that, at least in the United States, the law was designed in the way it is designed, and the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And so knowing that the charges were what they were, I found myself thinking, why oh why did the federal government choose to go for the RICO Act? I mean, could they not have found a lesser charge to focus on? Did they overreach? And then I found myself thinking of none other than R. Kelly. Now, rumors had been swirling very openly for a very long time that R. Kelly had a preference for young women, and yet every time the legal system tried to hold Mr. Kelly accountable for his actions, they simply were unsuccessful. The young women said that they had maybe lied about their age, the cases fell apart, couldn't quite prove who was in the video, and so for a very long time, Mr. Kelly was able to do as he pleased. Until finally, one day, the federal prosecution felt they had enough information and enough people to testify to put an end to Mr. Kelly's um infamous adventures. And so, what does make the Diddy situation different from the R. Kelly situation? I mean, after all, in both cases, the federal government went for the RECO Act. What's the difference? Well, in the case of R. Kelly, we were looking at multiple instances of underage women. And we also had evidence that Mr. Kelly had engaged the assistance of other individuals who were fully aware of what they were being asked to assist with. Assist with the illegal coercion and apprehension of these young women. And so, yes, in that case, the RICO Act was a part of a litigation, and Mr. Kelly was found guilty on at least one count. Boys will be boys, and boys will be bad. And yet is it really just a matter of boys being bad? Or is there something more? How often do we see in society where people may be attracted to one idea, but simply things escape, things get out of hand? I do wonder these extraordinary cases of abuse, of sexual deviance, are these cases really only exclusively in the realm of big money makers? I do wonder in how many small towns throughout America will you find grown men committing the same offenses and young women caught up in the same disastrous relationships? And I also wonder, does it ever play out the other way? Are there women out there who are dangling carrots in front of young men trying to tempt them to do things that they may not want to do? And yet, when we look at criminal cases against teachers who have sexually abused their students, that alone tells us that things do go the other way. Yes, but this isn't really about that, is it? This is about what do we learn from putting other people's sexual preferences on display? And what do we learn from celebrating one lifestyle one day only to have things change and to question our relationship to that lifestyle years later? Do we still celebrate the past? Do we frown upon it? Are only certain people allowed to be considered kings or queens of certain domains? Or does the different point of view have us maturing over time, seeing things through a different lens? I do wonder now. You may say, Hey Ray, Freaknik came to an end. It came to an end because of concerns over crime, concerns over assaults. And you're right, it did. And yet, I know I was not alone in thinking how brave of that woman to wear that outfit with all of its rips, that body hugging, pair of pants, that top that has vomit spoops billing out, that look that says, I am here. Notice me. Yes, it is true. Women should be allowed to wear what they please, as should men. And what we wear does not mean there is an open invitation to be treated in any way. This is true. I just find myself tossing and turning. Can I really demonize someone for living a life that is different than my own? Alas lovies, I don't have a solution on this one. Just a mere musing, just a mere thought. And I hope these thoughts amuse you, if only a little. Something to think about as we stroll through the day. And so until next time, it's been lovely chess.