Any idiot knows dry-humping staff is a no-no, and Ghomeshi is a lot of things, but he isn't an idiot. Ghomeshi was a left-wing women's-rights advocate, he had to know that the actions and comments he engaged in were inappropriate -- he just didn't think that applied to him. It was a choice, not ignorance. Intense narcissism is no excuse for wilful ignorance.
There is no one common reaction to sexual assaults. Survivors' behaviours following such traumatic events can vary from minimizing the incident and pretending everything is fine (e.g. kissing and cuddling in the park, or writing gushing love letters, as DuCoutere did following the assault); to suppressing the incident altogether, essentially blocking it from your memory; to blaming yourself, somehow, in an attempt to rationalize the trauma. It is not unusual in my caseload to see women, years after the fact, still believing they were somehow responsible for the incident.
Many legal definitions of sexual assault, including Canada's, try to balance two things: the rights of the accused to remain innocent until proven guilty, and the rights of the complainants to seek justice in a fair and balanced court of law. However, our laws are strongly biased in favour of the accused because of one little clause.
As I suspect is the case with many other people across the country, I am closely watching the Jian Ghomeshi trial. There were times yesterday when I found myself holding my breath, wishing that this very public trial might be a pivotal moment in our society -- one in which we can finally begin to openly and honestly address the prevalence of sexual violence in our communities.