Wednesday, April 05, 2017
Bieber news
You may find this hard to believe, but I’d quite forgotten Justin Bieber existed until last week, when someone sent me a picture of him being fondled by an elderly lady (see above). Living in the jungle means that human celebrities flit in and out of my consciousness like fruit flies. Admittedly, Bieber makes louder and more irritating buzzing noises than the rest of the swarm, but this is the first time I’ve thought about him since the end of the last rainy season.
What are we to make of a grey-haired woman laying hands on Bieber’s naked torso? If Bieber were an ape, no one would raise an eyebrow, because older females are more desirable in our society. Although some of Bieber’s antics remind me of a recalcitrant chimpanzee, it’s unlikely he knows anything about their mating habits. Perhaps a dormant gene from the homo erectus era was activated by his use of narcotics.
Seeing this picture had the unfortunate side effect of making me look for current news stories about Bieber. Apparently, he recently invited a dozen models to join him on a pleasure boat, provided that they (a) relinquished their mobile phones before boarding the vessel and (b) signed a non-disclosure contract. Evidently, Bieber has learned from bitter experience that the hoochies who participate in his butt-naked orgies behave like biologists on a field trip, collecting data and evidence for publication in suitable outlets.
I hope Bieber also took the precaution of partying with the girls in a pitch-black dark room, with only a small torch in his possession to help him locate the choice body parts. It’s possible, of course, that an audacious strumpet might have tried to seize the torch so she could inspect Bieber. A bodyguard would have to be present to discourage such effrontery and eject potential transgressors. Any woman who consorts with Bieber must understand that grabbing his torch is a breach of protocol that won’t be tolerated.
Another piece of news about Bieber concerns a lawsuit in which he was successfully sued for throwing an egg at his neighbour. It seems his avaricious neighbour was not satisfied with the damages of $90,000 he received and is now demanding more cash. I have to admit being on Bieber’s side in this particular dispute. Throwing eggs at people is impious behaviour, but the victim forfeits the moral high ground if he acts like a money-grubbing shyster.
In truth, cash is no compensation for an affront to one’s dignity. If the neighbour had truly felt the insult as keenly as he claims, he should have challenged Bieber to a duel. If Bieber ever throws an egg at me, I will not demand a cent. Nor will I challenge him to a duel (an obvious mismatch). Instead, I will inform Bieber’s lawyer that his client can make amends by spending an hour of quality time with a couple of female gorillas. Yes, it’s true – there are female gorillas who adore the little squirt!
Labels: eggs, Justin Bieber, lawsuits, naked bimbos, pleasure boat
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Son of Kirk
William Shatner has said he’s the luckiest man on Earth, and who could possibly disagree with him? Notice that he said “man” and not “human”. He’s obviously not as lucky as those women who can have 12 orgasms in a minute. Nevertheless, he is justly proud of his many achievements and good deeds.
“I've got a beautiful wife, three beautiful children and I've raised a large amount of money for charity,” he declared.
Now, there are some trekkies who think Picard was a better captain than Kirk. I don’t agree with them. Picard was an uptight character who never let his hair down in front of the crew, whereas Kirk was a cool dude who could horse around and flirt with the alien chicks. This made him a better ambassador for humanity than Picard, because no one wants to make friends with a goody-two-shoes species that hides all its vices and doesn’t know how to have fun. Picard was good for signing treaties after Kirk had pressed the flesh.
So why am I talking about William Shatner? I’ll tell you why! A 59-year-old man called Peter Sloan, who claims to be Shatner’s illegitimate son, is suing his alleged father for $170 million. What he has done to merit such a sum is a mystery to me. His mother put him up for adoption at the age of five, and his foster parents did a perfectly good job of raising him. Maybe they would be entitled to ask Shatner to recompense them for their time and trouble, but Sloan’s demand for cash is pure brazen audacity.
You could argue, of course, that Shatner should have done the decent thing and raised the boy in his own home. That would be ignoring the reaction of Mrs Shatner, who might well have sued for divorce on discovering her husband had fathered a bastard son. It’s a foolish captain who causes his ship to capsize by taking on an extra cabin boy.
Much as I’m rooting for Shatner in this dispute, one aspect of his strategy does worry me: he is denying paternity out of hand. His publicist made the following statement on his behalf:
“Mr Shatner has three lovely daughters, but no sons ... Mr Shatner is aware of the lawsuit, but there's nothing there because he isn't his father.”
Sloan insists that Shatner admitted to being his father in private and now wants a DNA test to settle the matter. At the age of 85, Shatner might be playing for time in the belief that he’ll be dead before the court orders him to comply. I would have preferred to see him acknowledge his son, while condemning him for his greed and unwarranted sense of entitlement.
Of course, this lawsuit could only arise because American courts have got a reputation for giving people large sums of money for no good reason. As we say in the Congo, if you feed one crocodile, be prepared to feed ten the next time.
Labels: Kirk, lawsuit, lawsuits, Picard, Star Trek, William Shatner
Wednesday, April 06, 2016
Legal wrangling
An email correspondent asks me whether I’m going to comment on the sexual harassment lawsuit against Elton John. To be honest, I was hoping to avoid the subject. Sexual harassment is one of those vices that humans feel obliged to denounce in very strong terms lest anyone doubt the sincerity of their disapproval. Yet there are obviously wide variations in the degree of aggravation caused by deeds of a different nature. I know from experience that no one has much sympathy for a 500-pound gorilla who is the victim of an unsolicited butt massage from an infatuated human female. In such a situation, the gorilla is expected to shake the woman off gently and provide her with counselling and a souvenir.
Now, Elton John is a man I have grown to admire. I strongly approve of his commitment to family life, which includes marriage to a trouser-wearing husband and two beloved boys produced by a surrogate mother. He is also a musician of note. Some may argue that my high regard for Elton makes me biased in evaluating the allegations against him, but I shall strive to be impartial. As a former circus ape, I have plenty of experience in mediating between feuding humans.
The name of Elton’s accuser is Jeffrey Wenninger, a former police officer in the LAPD. The alleged incidents occurred while he was working for Elton as a security guard. According to Wenninger, Elton committed the following misdeeds:
1) Telling Wenninger to “get your todger out and say hello to Uncle Elton”;
2) Attempting to grope the said todger with his hand;
3) Twisting Wenninger’s nipple while saying “you gorgeous thing, you”.
Elton’s lawyer has issued a strong denial, but I’d be lying if I said I found it convincing. I remember seeing Elton talk about his sexual preferences in a chat show. It clearly irritated him that heterosexuals were unable to appreciate the attractions of their own sex, while he had found sleeping with women perfectly tolerable. He didn’t seem like the type who would wait for subtle cues before trying it on with a man who took his fancy.
In spite of this, I just can’t find it in me to sympathise with Wenninger. To put it bluntly, a former LAPD officer shouldn’t have allowed a silly old queen like Elton to harass him. How can a man who has apprehended hardened criminals be cowed so easily? Elton may have been hardened, but he certainly wasn’t a criminal. One firm tweak of his nose would have put him in his place.
All of these considerations make this a very difficult case to judge. Wenninger has probably exaggerated what happened to bolster his claim for damages, but there’s no smoke without fire. Elton clearly did something to him, but it was most likely nothing worse than behaving like a silly old tart. I hope it is settled out of court for a nominal sum of money and a souvenir dildo from Elton’s private collection.
Labels: Elton John, lawsuit, lawsuits, sexual harassment, todger
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Scarlett's denial
Scarlett Johansson has said that she’s “not a nudist by nature” and I believe her. Exposing her soft, creamy skin to the elements would be a foolhardy pastime to practice on a regular basis. In my part of the world, the mosquitoes and leeches would be queuing up to taste her tender flesh and gorge on her blood, which doubtless tastes better than a tomato smoothie. If I saw Scarlett sleeping naked in the jungle, I would order a chimpanzee to fetch a box of cling film from the safari camp, so I could wrap her up like a slice of melon. Naked actresses are no less worthy of conservation than African wildlife, and I’m sure my friend Davy Attenborough would agree with me.
The intention behind Scarlett’s remark was to assure critics that the nudity in her latest film role was essential to the plot, and not a brazen attempt at titillation. In this film, Scarlett plays an alien femme fatale who kills the men she seduces in order to harvest their bodies. Not having seen the movie, I cannot explain the motive for these egregious deeds. One would hope those extra-terrestrial chicks aren’t like female spiders who make a hearty meal of the poor dope that impregnates them. I wouldn’t want to see Scarlett practising cannibalism on the big screen – it’s not a healthy dining habit and the African tribes that did it suffered from heartburn and halitosis. Stick to green vegetables and insects if you want to live long and prosper.
Let’s hope that no mentally disturbed woman engages in copycat behaviour after seeing the film. That could lead to tiresome lawsuits, which are the bane of humanity. I groaned and thumped my chest when I heard that Miley Cyrus is being sued by a workman who was hurt while erecting the giant tongue used in her stage act. One would have hoped he had more dignity than to claim he was injured by a tongue. My advice to Miley is to settle this quickly before the lawyers descend like vultures.
Back in my circus days, a clown once threatened to sue me for injuring his buttocks during our act. There was a little swelling, but nothing that couldn’t have been cured by sitting on an ice pack for a few hours. I offered him a month’s wages from my own pocket.
“Take the cash and I will moderate the force of my kicks,” I told him. “Otherwise be prepared to suffer for your art.”
He wisely took the money and got his arse massaged by a professional.
Much as I dislike lawsuits, I have no fear of testifying in court should the need arise. I was once called as an expert witness in a libel trial in London.
“M’Lud!” I declared. “No human in a gorilla suit could tempt a real gorilla into the unnatural acts described in the journal. The anatomies are incompatible!”
I’m proud to say that my evidence decided the case.
Labels: lawsuits, Miley Cyrus, nudity, Scarlett Johansson
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Forced pleasure
A female charity executive who allowed her boss to hypnotise her is claiming that he fondled her bosom and repeatedly brought her to orgasm by means of hypnotic suggestion. Seeking redress for this gross abuse of trust, Ms Susan Patroski is suing her former employer for five million dollars.
When I told the manager of the safari camp about this case he was astonished. “She wants five million dollars for having an orgasm!” he exclaimed. “How much would she want for a trip to the moon and back? Ten million?”
“You are forgetting that he felt up her boobs before tricking her into climaxing,” I replied. “The ends do not justify the means, and the chest of a hypnotised woman is a forbidden zone in both law and common morality.”
“Fine!” barked the manager. “Let her do to him what he did to her. I bet he wouldn’t mind if she fondled his chest and gave him an orgasm.”
“That’s how Solomon and Sheba settled their lawsuit in 970 BC, isn’t it?” I remarked. “It’s a pity you’re not the man’s lawyer so you could dazzle the courtroom with your brilliant legal insights.”
Detecting a hint of sarcasm in my remarks, the manager blew a small raspberry and went off to play with his remote-controlled Barbie doll. Much as I abhor his crass opinions, I find myself agreeing with him that this dispute does not belong in a courtroom. Can any sum of money, no matter how large, ever compensate a woman for being forced to have an orgasm? Even five million bucks would never wipe away the shame of being made to moan ecstatically while waves of toe-curling rapture wash over her quivering body. Once again, it seems that a rapacious law firm has persuaded a woman to pursue litigation that will bring her no satisfaction in the long run.
The other problem, of course, is that Ms Patroski has now revealed to the world that she has no control over her climaxes. Although this is not the worst condition in the world, perhaps being the opposite of frigidity, it does make her a tempting target for fiends and perverts. Speaking as a former circus ape, I can assure you that the dwarves I knew would have been creaming their tights at the thought of getting into a confined space with Ms Patroski. Although small in stature, they preferred normal-sized women and had fingers that could poke holes in a watermelon.
Had I been Ms Patroski’s confidant, I would have advised her to seek justice by other means. For example, she could have hired one of those detective agencies that secretly film adulterous liaisons, and instructed them to make a video of her boss masturbating. Threatening to make the footage public would have surely persuaded him to apologise and perform appropriate acts of penance. I should imagine he would have shaved his head and pierced his nipples to avoid having his exertions displayed on the internet. Checking thy body may amend thy soul, as we say in the jungle
Labels: hypnosis, lawsuits, orgasm
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Christmas lawsuits
I arrive in London for Christmas and decamp at Dr Whipsnade’s residence. During an afternoon stroll in Regents Park, I see a man in dark glasses and a grey fur coat, feeding the waterfowl what appear to be pickled onions. On nearing I recognise him as my old circus chum, Bernie Anus, and greet him affectionately:
“Bernie, you enormous bumhole!” I exclaim. “What the devil are you feeding those ducks?”
“Nothing you would you enjoy, you hairy-arsed hulk!” he replies amiably.
After this exchange of pleasantries, we repair to a nearby pub to renew our old camaraderie.
“Bartender!” I cry. “A tankard of your finest ale for my friend, Mr Anus! I will have a glass of pineapple juice, if you please.”
I ask Bernie how the clowning business is going.
“It’s mostly children’s birthday parties these days,” he says. “It pays OK when I’m not being sued.”
“Who on God’s Green Earth would want to sue you, Bernie?”
“Last summer I had a birthday gig in The Dorchester,” he explains. “When I walked into the lobby in my costume, a little dog jumped on my shoe and tried to nip my ankle. So I removed a can of spray-paint from my jacket and dyed its head green. It ran off whimpering.”
“That taught the little varmint!” I snigger. “What happened then?”
“Nothing at first. I went to the kiddies’ party and did my act to huge acclaim. But when I was leaving I got collared by a couple of policemen. It turned out that the dog belonged to some snooty old cow with a title. Lady Magnolia Handjob, wife of the Earl of Wank, or words to that effect. They took me in for questioning but released me without charge.”
“I should hope so! I couldn’t imagine a clearer case of self-defence.”
“Indeed. But soon afterwards I got a summons to appear in court to answer a civil suit. Lady Magnolia was seeking damages for the physical and emotional pain inflicted on her precious mutt, as well as the cost of cleaning its head.”
“Did you abscond? I would have given you sanctuary in the Congo if you’d asked.”
“Oh I turned up all right, and in my business suit too. His Worship took one look at me and said ‘You’re not giving evidence in my court wearing that ridiculous costume!’. So I looked him up and down and replied: ‘You’re a fine one to talk!’. He fined me for contempt and I had to pay Her Ladyship five thousand as well.”
“What can I say, Bernie? The law is a rectal probe for the rich and powerful to use on the hapless peons they oppress. May this Lady Magnolia and her vile pooch fall into a barrel of monkey piss.”
“Thank you, GB. I would have called you as a character witness if you’d been here.”
That evening, I reflect on another case in which a wealthy woman has bent the law to her will. Jennifer Lopez has persuaded a judge to issue an injunction preventing her former husband from releasing a tape of their marital frolics. It seems that he and Ms Lopez enacted a spanking scene when relations between them were still cordial.
Yet the ruling did not stop her ex-husband from publishing a transcript of the dialogue, mere gossip not yet being illegal. As luck would have it, a reliable source has provided me with a copy of this document. In normal circumstances, I would respect the intellectual property rights of Ms Lopez and keep it to myself. But Christmas is a time to share, as well as to redress the inherent biases of the legal system. A short excerpt is given below.
J-Lo: Oh, I’m such a naughty girl!
Ex: Thwack!
J-Lo: Don’t stop until I’ve learned my lesson!
Ex: Thwack!
J-Lo: Make my big ass red!
Ex: Thwack!
J-Lo: Smack me hard, Dr Badfinger!
Ex: Thwack.
I like the ‘Dr Badfinger’ line best. It shows imagination.
The Japing Ape wishes his readers a Merry Christmas and will return at the start of the New Year.
Labels: Jennifer Lopez, lawsuits, Regents Park, spanking
