• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Laiza

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,171
He nudged. She consented. She changed her mind and stopped. You can paint this as assault. Some will agree with you. Others won't. Franco is still clearly inside the statue of limitations so Violet Paley can take it to the police. For me it was consensual.



I agree with her statements that the power dynamics was off and that is the overarching issue with James Franco. He took leveraged power dynamics. Not that he was guilty of sexual assault. Not unless something else breaks that we don't know about yet.



This post is a great example of the difference of "going in with the assumptions they aren't liars" and taking their word as gospel.
You've got a fucked up definition of "consent", I'll tell you now.

Power imbalances are always relevant when determining consent. You can't simply ignore the pressure of someone who has actual power over your future. That's not how the real world works.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,261
He nudged. She consented. She changed her mind and stopped. You can paint this as assault. Some will agree with you. Others won't. Franco is still clearly inside the statue of limitations so Violet Paley can take it to the police. For me it was consensual.

.

She said no first before being nudged (i.e. physically forced) and him abusing his position of power - she didn't want him to hate her, i.e. ruin her career. It's the same book of sexual assault Weinstein used I'm not sure why you see it differently.
 

Ferrs

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
18,829
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    'purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings'

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    'people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers'

    'within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm'


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.


And with this, 138 goes to seek a place where people agrees with him, his proper echo-chamber, because that's what he really wants, his own echo-chamber.
 

FeistyBoots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,506
Southern California
Can you get out of here with crap like this? That guy was warned because he gave a bunch of links to Twitter posts that had literally nothing to do with the sexual assault in an attempt to attack her character. He deserved what he got, if not more.

To be fair, it does happen. I've been warned for calling out an obvious troll based on their post history, who keeps getting temp bans for pushing alt-right bullshit but keeps coming back to spread lies and FUD under an "I'm just asking questions guys" disguise.

I think the poster you replied to was basically saying "great idea, but it might backfire".
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,567
Questioning accusers isn't believing they're lying. It means figuring out what's what and getting to the bottom of it. That's why I find this whole line of discussion disingenuous. If you believe accusations, it already means you've condemned the accused. You don't get it both ways.

Conservatives LITERALLY tried to use "I Believe Women" to entrap The Washington Times on Roy Moore, except The Washington Times literally did what many people in this thread are calling for: They didn't "believe" an accuser about a claim of sexual assault. Does this mean The Washington Times doesn't support victims? No. But it means that due diligence is required so that we don't turn this into a witch hunt so that people out to exploit a social climate can hurt others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...9345ced896d_story.html?utm_term=.b841910f202c

For me, "believe women" isn't a framework for certainty - in fact, it might be accurate to call it a framework for questioning. It means that in the baseline of your calculations, you don't place undue premium on the mere possibility that they're lying. Instead, you recognize that the vast majority of accusations are genuine, that stepping forward with an accusation is often difficult and places women in tough positions, and that if there is any blindspot you need to be hyperconscious of, it's far and away the blindspot that so often allows men to be sexually abusive with impunity.

In my eyes, the Washington Post followed that to a tee. Their reporting on Roy Moore relied on the basic assumption that women can be generally trusted to tell the truth when it comes to accusations of sexual misconduct. Even in the case of the woman who was hired to lie to them, it's clear they took her claim seriously. What put her under suspicion wasn't necessarily some impossible threshold for evidence, or some sign of imperfection from her past, or something along these lines - it was a series of red flags that genuinely pointed to malicious intent, rigorously followed up on and placed into context. The imperative to believe women is the imperative to avoid those former things, to minimize the societal baggage that has unfairly burdened women over the years. It's not the imperative to be absolutely certain every time an accusation is made. Belief can exist without certainty just fine.
 

Jeffolation

Member
Oct 30, 2017
7,112
And with this, 138 goes to seek a place where people agrees with him, his proper echo-chamber, because that's what he really wants, his own echo-chamber.
That's all there is to it really, nevermind that this thread has plenty of differing views on the matter, once they perceive that everyone isn't in lock step with their beliefs it's tantrum time.
 

Ketkat

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,727
If you feel you like not doing something and do it anyway, courts will usually regard that as consent. That isn't an attempt to downplay sexual assault but is representative of why taking these cases to court is so damn tricky and why there is so much grey area in getting convictions. "I didn't feel like shooting someone, but did it anyway" doesn't fly in a courtroom and typically they try to hold consistent standards in situations like this so when someone says something like this, getting convictions is very difficult. In ERA and more progressive circles this example would still be considered sexual assault and I 100% respect that analysis of the scenario.

Not true actually. A bit more extreme but someone being held at gunpoint might go along so they don't get shot. That doesn't mean they consented
 

isual

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
667
i am not surprised. when he went to UCLA, i knew one girl who got hit on by him quite a bit. now, whether it was too strong or sexual, i do not know. but bottom line, i am not surprised.
 
No, saying hi is not enough to be called sexual assault and no one has ever pushed for it to be. Slippery slope arguments about what constitutes sexual assault are a little ridiculous because its downplaying how serious sexual assault is that you think women would make an accusation about something like that. Him feeling up students that he's in a position of power over is definitely not okay.
Please do not think im downplaying the severity of the accusation made against Franco. I was more saying this that there are also people out there misusing the whole #metoo hashtag for own selfish gains which i feel does insult to the people who are actually being victim of it. Its these people who go as far as thinking that a hand wave is #metoo worthy. It's not.

Not a slippery slope, just a nuance.

I see some others also argue a similar point and get confronted that they need to ''list them''. Like, i dont understand that instant aggression mentality when you make the nuance that #metoo gets misused, and that's what makes it even more terrible for the true victims out there. You will get into that situation when this happens to you, you explain and say #metoo, and you won't be believed, because of these narcisistic clowns stripping the #metoo tag of any value that it has.
 

Deleted member 4518

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,278
Like I said in the last thread, this is extremely disappointing since I generally liked James Franco's work, but I'll never be able to look at him in the same manner now.

Glad that women are finally speaking up - hopefully these women can feel some kind of justice has been served by the end of all of this.
 

WarLox

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
574
There is NO difference! Saying that you might get more parts if you accepted more racist, stereotypical roles based on your skin color is accepting and promoting said racism.

Stating that fact to a struggling actor in itself is not racist (to me). Just because hollywood is racist, navigating those waters to survive doesn't mean you accept nor support it.
 

D i Z

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,085
Where X marks the spot.
I think sometimes it is hard to talk about the nuances in some of these cases without being labeled and sometimes banned.

Just reading the story, I don't see nothing wrong being told that being open to nudity would lead to more parts. As a black male, I thought about how I would feel if I was told that I would get more parts if I was open to being a thug, drug addict, or drug dealer. I don't personally think that is racist but I could understand how some people would.

This one hit most of my bingo card.
 

FireSafetyBear

Banned for use of an alt-account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,248
I think sometimes it is hard to talk about the nuances in some of these cases without being labeled and sometimes banned.

Just reading the story, I don't see nothing wrong being told that being open to nudity would lead to more parts. As a black male, I thought about how I would feel if I was told that I would get more parts if I was open to being a thug, drug addict, or drug dealer. I don't personally think that is racist but I could understand how some people would.

It's wrong, regardless. Women are more than nudity.
 

Cyclonesweep

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,690
Stating that fact to a struggling actor in itself is not racist (to me). Just because hollywood is racist, navigating those waters to survive doesn't mean you accept nor support it.
It 100% depends on how it was said. Telling a girl to do a nude scene for you cause it will get her more roles is being part of the problem.

Tell a struggling actor that they may get more roles if they accept stereotypical bullshit, as a form of "the industry sucks" advice is one thing.

The way Franco said it was being part of the problem.
 

BloodHound

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,000
And watch as all the people in the last Franco thread that argued otherwise are long gone.

How many times does it need to be said before arrogant, ignorant men, especially on this board, get it? WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS.
Nah, ton of black college athletes, or black men in general, when it comes to white women, would like to disagree.
 

Anubis

User requested permanent ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,392
I wonder what the fallout of this will be because he just picked up a Golden Globe.

He should be ostracized immediately, no?
 

WarLox

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
574
It 100% depends on how it was said. Telling a girl to do a nude scene for you cause it will get her more roles is being part of the problem.

Tell a struggling actor that they may get more roles if they accept stereotypical bullshit, as a form of "the industry sucks" advice is one thing.

The way Franco said it was being part of the problem.

Thats the part I dont understand about the story. Were they creating parts just to see the women naked? I thought an acting studio was just a school.
 

Anubis

User requested permanent ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,392
And watch as all the people in the last Franco thread that argued otherwise are long gone.

How many times does it need to be said before arrogant, ignorant men, especially on this board, get it? WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS.

Like Morrigan clarified in the other thread, I agree with giving a chance to every woman to be heard but I don't espouse believing them 100% without vetting and doing one's due dilligence. Absolutism is not the way to go about this.

This phrase needs to be modified as it continues to incite people and take this thread into a redundant and pseudo tangent.
 

Cyclonesweep

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,690
Thats the part I dont understand about the story. Were they creating parts just to see the women naked? I thought an acting studio was just a school.
Here is the thing, he told them plenty of parts would be available...then he kept messaging the one offering her fucking parts as a prostitute or a hooker.

Telling them the cruel reality of the industry is one thing. Actively being part of that cruel reality is the issue.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Going to ask that we drop the line of discussion based on Chaparral's post going forward. Most are not advocating an absolutist point of view.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
Didn't James Franco do some sort of charity event or awareness campaign or something for women? AWKWARD.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,442
I can't help but feel like people are reminded of that terrible Rolling Stones article when people discuss false reports. God what a setback those people caused.

It's very important for women to feel comfortable and supported when they come forward and I know there's a fear that men will co opt the movement in order to downplay it but I just feel like we should make all accusers feel like they can come forward regardless of their gender or that of the person they're accusing. That's why I've been very pleased with Time's Up so far. They want people to be able to stand up against those in power, whether it's power in employment, power in an industry, or power in a relationship. Time's Up wants women and men to have the agency to say that it's not acceptable to be treated that way.
 
Oct 27, 2017
951
Not true actually. A bit more extreme but someone being held at gunpoint might go along so they don't get shot. That doesn't mean they consented

I agree. But did Franco really hold her at gunpoint? Considering he turned around and started a relationship with her, as the article says "Paley has defended her right to speak out while also acknowledging that her story is complicated by her and Franco's consensual relationship. "It's been hard to come forward about this," she wrote on Twitter.", I agree with Paley that this is a complex situation and not as cut and dry as some are making it out to be, least of all the victim herself.
 

Morrigan

Spear of the Metal Church
Member
Oct 24, 2017
34,354
Its a hard time believing those women who are doing it just to jump on the bandwagon. (And sadly, there are men/women that actually do this. You would think that given the likelyhood that women are getting #metoo'd, you would think twice on abusing that for your own selfish gains, but i guess not.) Because that is (unfortunately) what is happening now aswell, men/women misusing metoo to categorize everything as ''sexual assault''. Next you have it that saying hi is ''indecent''.
No one has said that. This is a ridiculous mix of strawman and slippery sloppe fallacy and doesn't help your case at all, so please stop it.
 

Deleted member 16609

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,828
Harlem, NYC
I think sometimes it is hard to talk about the nuances in some of these cases without being labeled and sometimes banned.

Just reading the story, I don't see nothing wrong being told that being open to nudity would lead to more parts. As a black male, I thought about how I would feel if I was told that I would get more parts if I was open to being a thug, drug addict, or drug dealer. I don't personally think that is racist but I could understand how some people would.
Fam, that shit is not gucci if a director or your agent tells you that. David Banner took a firm stance that he wants more positive roles for his acting. I salute the man for that. I'm still tight Denzel got it for Training Day, and Halle Berry for Monsters Ball. They should have gave him the award for Malcolm X.
 

Bobby

Banned
Dec 30, 2017
842
Portland
This phrase needs to be modified as it continues to incite people and take this thread into a redundant slight tangent.

I don't feel the phrase needs to be modified so much as the way it is (mis) interpreted here in this community needs to be pushed against. The problem isn't the phrase itself, it's the immediate way people who are already against what it represents tend to use it against others.

"Believe Women" is a perfectly good distillation of the sentiment behind this movement. You can't begin to make things right on a larger scale without that aspect coming into play.

I talked about it in a locked thread prior, but what keeps happening here is a pretty basic division: People react badly to "believe women" in many instances because their default when it comes to these conversations is "Defend the Man."

If your sympathies lie with people you are familiar with, people familiar to you, people similar to you, it only makes sense that your POV is going to easily, closely align there. At which point it's only a hop-skip-jump to taking accusations/discussions about that man personally, as if they're talking about you. Because you can easily imagine a scenario in which it could happen to you. In fact, imagining scenarios in which you're unfairly maligned is a regular concern here. It happens very, very often. And then all arguments from that point basically come directly from that stance, and you don't even really notice that you've basically dismissed most of the possibility that the woman's accusation has merit.

(Defend the Man is often couched in verbiage/terminology that makes it sound like what's really being championed is fairness and logic always which makes Defend the Man go down a lot more smoothly as that assumes an air of intellectual above-it-all kinda bullshit - it's also usually where the faulty, busted comparisons to a court of law, and "innocent until proven guilty" cliches source from)

Believe Women doesn't need to be changed. The default status of "Defend the Man" needs to be examined more closely.

A large reason why more women don't even come into these threads once Defend the Man has been established is because now the atmosphere for their POV is basically poisoned. It's partially what makes Persephone 's thread so useful/necessary, and also what makes it such a contrast to the parade of sexual harassment threads that typically crop up here.
 
Oct 28, 2017
699
When the mods clearly don't give a shit about the misogyny other then the clear cut cases, and not the underlying, insidious misogyny found within the forum that goes back to GAF, then it is sort of pointless to bring this up with mods, isn't it?

I have brought this up with mods, in a more general sense. I was soundly ignored.

I'm tired of it.

Shameful shoving of faulty rhetoric down our throats. Good on the mods for the ban.

For me, its more important than ever to listen and take accusations more seriously and at the same time, give the accused a chance to defend themselves. This is a fair, balanced approach that will help resolve these issues in a more productive manner rather than having witch-hunts on the accused.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,053
Is our ghost of war really insinuating that any form of consent at any time overrides any further decision that the person in fact is NOT okay with continuing sexual acts?

Let me come out and say this: if you or anyone else in this thread has ever disregarded a woman who says no after she first said yes and continued to have sex with her, you are a rapist. Full stop.
 

Ketkat

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,727
I agree. But did Franco really hold her at gunpoint? Considering he turned around and started a relationship with her, as the article says "Paley has defended her right to speak out while also acknowledging that her story is complicated by her and Franco's consensual relationship. "It's been hard to come forward about this," she wrote on Twitter.", I agree with Paley that this is a complex situation and not as cut and dry as some are making it out to be, least of all the victim herself.

No, he didn't hold her at gunpoint. The point is, just because someone goes along with it does not mean they consented. She felt that she had too, so as to not upset him. Her being in a relationship with him doesn't really change the fact that she told him no, and didn't want to do it.

Please do not think im downplaying the severity of the accusation made against Franco. I was more saying this that there are also people out there misusing the whole #metoo hashtag for own selfish gains which i feel does insult to the people who are actually being victim of it. Its these people who go as far as thinking that a hand wave is #metoo worthy. It's not.

Not a slippery slope, just a nuance.

I see some others also argue a similar point and get confronted that they need to ''list them''. Like, i dont understand that instant aggression mentality when you make the nuance that #metoo gets misused, and that's what makes it even more terrible for the true victims out there. You will get into that situation when this happens to you, you explain and say #metoo, and you won't be believed, because of these narcisistic clowns stripping the #metoo tag of any value that it has.

People want lists because talking about people who think a hand wave is #mettoo worthy is kind of unbelievable. Its ridiculous that you think people are doing that on a scale that matters, let alone that people at large will take it seriously on nearly the same level as other accusations.

Shameful shoving of faulty rhetoric down our throats. Good on the mods for the ban.

For me, its more important than ever to listen and take accusations more seriously and at the same time, give the accused a chance to defend themselves. This is a fair, balanced approach that will help resolve these issues in a more productive manner rather than having witch-hunts on the accused.

He was banned a long time ago, move on and stop bringing it up.
 

Lord Brady

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
8,392
I wonder what the fallout of this will be because he just picked up a Golden Globe.

He should be ostracized immediately, no?
The story sounds like it was in the works regardless. Either that or the LA Times didn't spend much time fact-checking their story. I'm going to assume they've been doing the work for awhile.
 
Oct 27, 2017
951
Is our ghost of war really insinuating that any form of consent at any time overrides any further decision that the person in fact is NOT okay with continuing sexual acts?

Let me come out and say this: if you or anyone else in this thread has ever disregarded a woman who says no after she first said yes and continued to have sex with her, you are a rapist. Full stop.

I didn't say or insinuate that any form of consent at any time overrides any further decision. Please quote me if I did and I'll amend that statement for misspeaking. What I said was that she seemingly consented and then changed her mind at which point she stopped. If Franco had forced her to continue, it's as you say, he's a rapist. Implying that I'm a rapist is straight up bad form, however. This is where the witch hunt accusations come from.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,442
As much as I understand and support the reasoning behind believe women, I feel like, as a call to arms for a movement it's not fitting. For one thing it completely ignores Spacey and his accusers. And are we meant to believe Mariah Carey over her bodyguard? Who do you believe in the case of Melanie Martinez and Timothy Heller. The last thing I want is for ill intentioned men to co opt the movement so they can downplay it, but I think it's better to say Support Accusers rather than Believe Women.
 

Ketkat

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,727
I didn't say or insinuate that any form of consent at any time overrides any further decision. Please quote me if I did and I'll amend that statement for misspeaking. What I said was that she seemingly consented and then changed her mind at which point she stopped. If Franco had forced her to continue, it's as you say, he's a rapist. Implying that I'm a rapist is straight up bad form, however. This is where the witch hunt accusations come from.

She told him no beforehand, and said she didn't want to do it while doing it but felt she had to. That is not consenting to it. I really don't know how to explain to you that someone explicitly saying no is not consent.
 

hansel

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
454
As much as I understand and support the reasoning behind believe women, I feel like, as a call to arms for a movement it's not fitting. For one thing it completely ignores Spacey and his accusers. And are we meant to believe Mariah Carey over her bodyguard? Who do you believe in the case of Melanie Martinez and Timothy Heller. The last thing I want is for ill intentioned men to co opt the movement so they can downplay it, but I think it's better to say Support Accusers rather than Believe Women.

Omg, why are people so intent on finding loopholes in this?

Its really fucked up.
 

Krauser Kat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,701
I don't feel the phrase needs to be modified so much as the way it is (mis) interpreted here in this community needs to be pushed against. The problem isn't the phrase itself, it's the immediate way people who are already against what it represents tend to use it against others.

"Believe Women" is a perfectly good distillation of the sentiment behind this movement. You can't begin to make things right on a larger scale without that aspect coming into play.

I talked about it in a locked thread prior, but what keeps happening here is a pretty basic division: People react badly to "believe women" in many instances because their default when it comes to these conversations is "Defend the Man."



Believe Women doesn't need to be changed. The default status of "Defend the Man" needs to be examined more closely.

A large reason why more women don't even come into these threads once Defend the Man has been established is because now the atmosphere for their POV is basically poisoned. It's partially what makes Persephone 's thread so useful/necessary, and also what makes it such a contrast to the parade of sexual harassment threads that typically crop up here.

I Like this. thank you for it.
Defend the man is part and parcel with patriarchy. Which is a system that is used to oppresses women.

Any change to this system is usually met with cries of oppression by the oppressors, as we see in the thread.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,442
Omg, why are people so intent on finding loopholes in this?

Its really fucked up.


I'm not looking for loopholes. It's why I like the Times Up movement. It gives agency for all victims to stand up and speak out. I understand your concern. I don't want to dismantle the movement in any way but there are barriers to everyone who feel like their voices aren't being heard and I prefer a more inclusive means of support, that's all.

If a woman or man is being abused or assaulted by a woman I don't think they should feel any confusion about whether it's okay for them to come forward.
 

hansel

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
454
I'm not looking for loopholes. It's why I like the Times Up movement. It gives agency for all victims to stand up and speak out. I understand your concern. I don't want to dismantle the movement in any way but there are barriers to everyone who feel like their voices aren't being heard and I prefer a more inclusive means of support, that's all.

Why can't it just be a way for women to speak up against abuse by MEN?

You know, like a great majority of the abuse that happens?

This is like asking for #ALLLIVESMATTER.
 

Bobby

Banned
Dec 30, 2017
842
Portland
I'm not looking for loopholes. It's why I like the Times Up movement. It gives agency for all victims to stand up and speak out. I understand your concern. I don't want to dismantle the movement in any way but there are barriers to everyone who feel like their voices aren't being heard and I prefer a more inclusive means of support, that's all.

I get what you're saying, and I understand the sentiment behind it, but this is also shades of "All Lives Matter"-ing.

"Believe Women" is fairly inclusive as it is. The examples you're pointing out as reasons for it being tossed aside in support of what seems like a reasonable alternative aren't reasons that are canceled out by "Believe Women" existing. It doesn't prevent people's voices from being heard. At worst, it suggests maybe those voices can/should use other means/avenues of amplification.

edit: Hansel beat me to it.