A giant bamboo dildo used in the sexual assault of a woman is a weapon, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Tuesday.
I hate to seem prudish, but how can this even be debatable? How is it that the appeals court, which reduced the man's sentence, was able to say that the baseball bat-sized instrument used in the sexual assault was not a weapon? Is there some sort of sick sexism going on here? Was the thing NOT a weapon because it was NOT used against a man? Was it not a weapon because it was used by a man in a sexual assault against a woman? Was the blushing, bashful Appeals Court so embarrased by the way it was used, or so uncomfortable about the term used for it—dildo—that that they actually chose not to look at it in the cold light of reality?
The appeals court opinion which revised the original sentence should have been titled, How to Commit Assault with a Giant Bamboo Stick, and Get Off with a Dildo.