I didn't call you a rapist at all. I said anyone who does what you said in the above quote is a rapist. What you take away from that is your own deal.
Edit: phone multi quoting quoted the wrong poster initially
-
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.
James Franco accused of sexual exploitation or abuse by five women
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
I didn't call you a rapist at all. I said anyone who does what you said in the above quote is a rapist. What you take away from that is your own deal.
Edit: phone multi quoting quoted the wrong poster initially
There's intersecting issues here with systemic issues w/ sexism combined with the abuse of power and sexual assaults towards both men and women. Push back against both is great but neither angle can really capture the full breadth of the issues on its own. (and probably shouldn't try to.)
That's a false equivalence unless you legitimately don't understand what BLM means.
People wonder why women don't come forwards... why the fuck would we when we know all we're going to get is accusations of being liars or condescending explanations of why it wasn't really assault you silly hysterical woman. Ugh.
How is that a false equivalence?
BLM is asking for justice for African-American lives lost to police brutality and profiling.
Alllivesmatter wants all races to be included.
You want to cover every possible way sexual assault could happen.
Kind of a weird thing to bring up in a thread about a man sexually assault multiple women.
BUT HEY MEN GET SEXUALLY ASSAULTED TOO GUYS! DON'T FORGET!
That's absolutely not my intention and the comparison is unfair because the alllivesmatter people aren't being treated as if their lives don't matter whereas women and men are being victimized by women and men. I get that it's an inclusive movement but I'm saying that I prefer Times Up in part because it gives agency to everyone. No one has to take my position to an unintended extreme to discuss it.
All I'm saying is that it's helpful to have positions like Times Up to take away any confusion that men and women have that they might not have the support they need depending on who they're accusing.
I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time being accurate with the Louis CK allegations. I've also heard "He whips it out" in legitimate articles.
Of which none of these are true to what's been reported and what I read. From my knowledge, he asked women if he could jerk off in front of them. Some working professionals, people hanging out in his room, etc. I feel like people need to exaggerate things to make their point or fit their agenda, and its a very disingenuous contribution to an otherwise important discussion.
#believewomen shouldn't have to be explained any more than #blacklivesmatter but here we are. People contort themselves with all sorts of mental gymnastics to whip out some tried and true whataboutism whenever uncomfortable topics like sexual abuse and sexual assault of women, and the perpetual effects of institutional and systemic racism that affects minorities, in particular black people in America. Anything to downplay it and shift blame/onus to the victims.
It's frustrating, because it's clear to anyone willing to engage in good faith that #believewomen does not mean "women never lie, have never lied, and will never lie, so believe everything that comes out of their mouths and disbelieve the accused regardless of what they say in their defense." It's a simple call to take a woman's accusations of sexual assault seriously, because history has shown us that false sexual assault/rape allegations are 1, very rare, and 2, tend to cause more blowback to the victims coming forward than the accused. Especially in the instances where their abuser is in a position of power over them (this could be a parent, a boss, a politician, and yeah, an actor who's influence can literally make or break your career), the victims are almost always ostracized and ridiculed and called "liars" or "gold digging whores" just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame and a sweet sweet payday.
And we wonder why victims stay quiet for years, even decades, and only come forward when they feel they may be "safe" from their abuser, with the bitter irony being that by waiting so long, the statute of limitations is up, and nothing can be done to the abuser, legally. Even worse is that in the cases of sexual assault and abuse, evidence is almost never present because of the nature of most sexual assaults/sexual abuse.
The hostile and toxic environment victims expose themselves to when they finally find the strength to speak out against their abuser is disgusting. And that's for the victims that come forward. Imagine how many more victims stay quiet because of the reactions of some people in threads like this. Not being believed when you live with the effects of your abuse for the rest of your life, and knowing that coming forward will more than likely make things worse for you, not your abuser, who will probably go unpunished, is indescribably awful, and emotionally scarring.
#believewomen isn't just a catchy hashtag for likes on social media. It's a tool for victims and those who legitimately support the victims to empower them and embolden them so maybe they won't feel so isolated and alone, and are able to dig deep and find the strength to say, "this person abused me, and I'm not going to stay silent anymore." Or at the very least, give them support and strength to go forward with their lives. I can't say there is a woman in my life that wasn't sexually abused at some point in their lives, and being there for them (as well as living with my own sexual abuse) is about all we can really do. It's not always about justice, Internet justice or legal justice. But if we can stop predators like Franco and Spacey and Weinstein from being in those positions of power that allowed them to prey on innocents unchecked for so long, as well as shift the culture that allows these predators to wield so much power? Sign me up to burn it all down.
So many stories of abuse float around Hollywood circles, but very few names are spoken aloud. Those days are changing. Good. Out them all. I don't give a fuck how much you enjoy their movies. If it was your son or daughter, or niece or nephew, or brother or sister being abused by these assholes, would you still be using mental gymnastics to look your loved one in the face and say, "Well, it wasn't that bad, right? You knew what you signed up for, daughter. Just suck his dick when he wants," because this dude made a movie you liked? Pathetic.
The amount of people willing to turn and look the other way so they can keep watching a tv show is disgusting and disheartening.
It's frustrating, because it's clear to anyone willing to engage in good faith that #believewomen does not mean "women never lie, have never lied, and will never lie, so believe everything that comes out of their mouths and disbelieve the accused regardless of what they say in their defense." It's a simple call to take a woman's accusations of sexual assault seriously, because history has shown us that false sexual assault/rape allegations are 1, very rare, and 2, tend to cause more blowback to the victims coming forward than the accused. Especially in the instances where their abuser is in a position of power over them (this could be a parent, a boss, a politician, and yeah, an actor who's influence can literally make or break your career), the victims are almost always ostracized and ridiculed and called "liars" or "gold digging whores" just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame and a sweet sweet payday.
And we wonder why victims stay quiet for years, even decades, and only come forward when they feel they may be "safe" from their abuser, with the bitter irony being that by waiting so long, the statute of limitations is up, and nothing can be done to the abuser, legally. Even worse is that in the cases of sexual assault and abuse, evidence is almost never present because of the nature of most sexual assaults/sexual abuse.
The hostile and toxic environment victims expose themselves to when they finally find the strength to speak out against their abuser is disgusting. And that's for the victims that come forward. Imagine how many more victims stay quiet because of the reactions of some people in threads like this. Not being believed when you live with the effects of your abuse for the rest of your life, and knowing that coming forward will more than likely make things worse for you, not your abuser, who will probably go unpunished, is indescribably awful, and emotionally scarring.
#believewomen isn't just a catchy hashtag for likes on social media. It's a tool for victims and those who legitimately support the victims to empower them and embolden them so maybe they won't feel so isolated and alone, and are able to dig deep and find the strength to say, "this person abused me, and I'm not going to stay silent anymore." Or at the very least, give them support and strength to go forward with their lives. I can't say there is a woman in my life that wasn't sexually abused at some point in their lives, and being there for them (as well as living with my own sexual abuse) is about all we can really do. It's not always about justice, Internet justice or legal justice. But if we can stop predators like Franco and Spacey and Weinstein from being in those positions of power that allowed them to prey on innocents unchecked for so long, as well as shift the culture that allows these predators to wield so much power? Sign me up to burn it all down.
So many stories of abuse float around Hollywood circles, but very few names are spoken aloud. Those days are changing. Good. Out them all. I don't give a fuck how much you enjoy their movies. If it was your son or daughter, or niece or nephew, or brother or sister being abused by these assholes, would you still be using mental gymnastics to look your loved one in the face and say, "Well, it wasn't that bad, right? You knew what you signed up for, daughter. Just suck his dick when he wants," because this dude made a movie you liked? Pathetic.
The amount of people willing to turn and look the other way so they can keep watching a tv show is disgusting and disheartening.
Why focus on the posts that are outliers and ignore the huge wealth of support?
As Aviator Irelia said, consent can be given or revoked at any time. Violet revoked her consent, then gave it by committing to the action, and then revoked it again when she stopped. That is how I read the situation. I'm strictly going by what is the legal definition of the word consent and how consent would be applied in a court of law. If this went to court, Franco would get off. No doubt about it. According to her statement, Franco did not use violence against her.
No, this doesn't mean it's okay what he did. He's sleazy as fuck. But what we're side-stepping into is what a progressive definition of consent is and what a legal definition of consent is. I 100% believe Violet Paley. The article never mentions "Assault". It describes "Exploitation". I agree with the article 100%. James Franco exploited these women.
http://beta.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-james-franco-allegations-20180111-htmlstory.html
Last edited:
If your engagement with this topic is primarily about striking down "Believe Women" and not about Franco, I hope you can step back for a minute and examine why that might be. You have a guy with a seedy reputation being accused by multiple women of sexual assault/exploitation, and yet a bunch of people are zerg rushing into this thread to go after a post about believing women when they talk about sexual assault. If you're one of those guys, maybe ask yourself why THAT'S the part of this topic that pissed you off.
I understand, and could see that, I'm just trying to explain to you the similarity there that you might not be catching, and why it's causing you pushback in this specific instance.
Again: The problem in these conversations isn't really that BELIEVE WOMEN is unclear/inaccurate phrasing. I don't think it is at all, and I think it's a pretty clear, concise call that is pretty readily understood in a lot of places (even here, to some degree). The problem in these conversations is the unspoken rule of DEFEND THE MAN being enacted and pursued within the first page or two of the news being shared with the community.
The problem is there are a lot of men here who simply can't (or just don't want to) step outside their POV. They so easily and readily relate and identify to the problems and complications of other men that they don't want to use that energy to investigate other people's experiences. With a wider perspective and frame of reference, it's no longer as easy to apply that defense, especially not as it's often applied, in the name of "logic and fairness."
edit: Figboy with the goods. Thanks.
The more I read and the more I see I think #believewomen is a good movement and a good thing to push for.
Yes men get assaulted too but the thing there is, it's a completely different issue entirely and has its own world of problems, so in an instance of a man doing this to a woman, we do not need to bring up the mens issues.
The men being sexually assaulted need to be talked about to but its a completely different discussion that doesn't need to just be brought up all the time (especially cause it's just brought up and never actually discussed).
Yes men get assaulted too but the thing there is, it's a completely different issue entirely and has its own world of problems, so in an instance of a man doing this to a woman, we do not need to bring up the mens issues.
The men being sexually assaulted need to be talked about to but its a completely different discussion that doesn't need to just be brought up all the time (especially cause it's just brought up and never actually discussed).
Can we frame this post in every thread about sexual harassment so we can avoid the usual stupidity that plagues them?
Oh darn it, and i was trying my best to word what i meant as clear as possible. i was just making a general point here, nothing belittleling anything. :/
This is exactly what i feared would happen whenever i would enter a thread with this subject. The point i was trying to raise does need to be made but i don't want anyone, especially you, to think im simplifying the whole issue here (Not at all.)
I can understand the need for ''receipts''. Unfortunately what i would show is only Dutch links so it would introduce an extra barrier of language. I dont think its on a scale that it will matter enough that it is newsworthy, (Or that it is on the same level of other accusations) but as with any topic that is around sensitive issues, you can expect people to misuse it. I mean, that is just a general trait. Inherently shitty people will misuse those things that are meant to give victims a voice, an outlet they can rely on.
You're right, and Kirblar is right. Though my intention was to give support for Times Up, it doesn't have to be one or the other and though it might seem like it I really don't mean to conflate what women have had to deal with historically with modern power dynamics and their abuses. I apologize if people thought I was trying to muddy the waters.
Edit: agree with Cyclonesweep's post as well.
Its hard not to when they're the ones that stick around the threads and they say disgusting things over and over again. And you personally haven't done anything that shows support in this thread
You're reading into it wrong. She said she didn't want to do it. She felt she HAD to. So she did it. And then managed to find an excuse that would embarrass him to get out of the situation. At no point did she consent to doing it when she felt she had to just because she did it. And its getting really disgusting how hard you're defending this. Violence has nothing to do with it,
That would be a great first step for the introspection (especially amongst men) this movement needs and asks for.
I'm talking about in the real world outside of this thread. But thanks for keeping score.
I don't mean to stuff this thread up, but from the NY times article I guess it's implication is before they answered? I don't really know, but its not cut and dry. Wrong either way, but I thought we're putting the emphasis on the inappropriateness of the question, and the power difference, because it becomes speculation and exaggeration after that. Ala jerking off on them
Honestly? Put the assholes who keep posting the same shit on ignore, have good discussions with the good hearted people.
Do you think the real world outside this thread is somehow better than what's happening here?
Feeling you have to do something and being made to do something are different. Feeling you have to do something through coercive means that aren't physically threatening isn't illegal. That isn't a defense. It's legal fact and is a perfect example of why Franco would survive a trial and get either a not-guilty verdict or a hung jury. He didn't blackmail her. He didn't threaten her physically. That you think it should be illegal is perfectly respectable. But it doesn't change that it isn't illegal. I'm trying to explain to you how this would play out if this went to court. If you disagree, this is a perfect opportunity to discuss how consent laws should be changed.
And let me blunt: I can be 100% wrong on this. If there are any defense lawyers who tried cases like this and are more familiar with legally how consent works, they can step in give anecdotes on how judges and juries have ruled on similar cases like this. I'd be happy to be educated. Other than that, I agree that our conversation is becoming redundant so I'll step out for the moment unless someone has something to add on the legal ramifications of other cases like this.
Last edited:
Stuff like Spacey/Singer is rooted in the same power dynamics. It's absolutely ok to talk about them in relation to things like this. It's just not the only angle on it, and shouldn't be treated as such. Focusing on only assault leaves out women having to deal with sexism but who've never actually been assaulted, focusing only on sexism leaves out men who have been assaulted. Both angles are a necessary component of addressing abuses of power and making things better going forward, they're just absolutely not exclusive in any way and shouldn't be treated as such.
Yes, that would be why I said it. It's where real change is happening.
In your opinion he didn't legally rape or sexually assault. Did he morally rape or sexually assault in your opinion?
Just given the sheer numbers difference it should be easier to focus on the support rather than the negativity. But so many of us have that fault where we can have 9 people say supportive things and one person say something nasty and we focus on the nasty. I'd say there's worth in engaging people who believe differently but at the end of the day it's okay to just think, "well that person's wrong and I have these folks watching my back".
Well that's kind of my point.
The issues that plague men with sexual assault are almost entirely different then the ones plagueing men. They are part of the same root issue but it's quite different.
The WaPo treated the stories like any other noteworthy accusation or rumor they come across: they investigated them. There was no special treatment or automatic "believe women" protocol at work, nor should there be for journalists.
I believe women. I also recognize women are people, and people can lie. I believe the allegations that have come out over the last year and see no logical reason to not believe them. On the flip side, I'm also a black guy who recognizes white women have a long history of lying about rape in relation to black men for instance. So there's a balance at work.
The universal principle at work IMO is that men who harass/rape women don't just do it to one woman. I can't think of a single case over the last year where it's simply a he/said she/said between two people. Where there's smoke there's fire...and each celebrity male has been hit with multiple women, often coming out within a span of days/weeks. Which is why, btw, those who defended Roy Moore looked so stupid. It was obvious more women would come out, and that's what tilted the situation.
Yep. One of the most important aspects of this movement is that it give support for people to come forward because you get the sense that once someone names one of these people abusing their power, many more will feel empowered to say yeah he did that to me too. And so often that has been the case. These people don't just do this to one person.
Ah yes, "believe everyone." The "all lives matter" of sexual assault.
This.
When Al Franken's first accuser came forward, he apologized and she accepted-- I said that would be good enough for me unless more women came forward, and that I expected there to be more. And there were.
This stuff isn't isolated to single incidents usually. It's not like a guy turns into a creep one time and then reverts to nice guy.
Honestly, I'd love for you to make this it's own thread so we can repeat this less everytime someone is accused.
As a former federal prosecutor, I generally only chime in to say this: the legal definition of consent (and mistakes as to whether consent existed) are jurisdiction specific and honestly have NO bearing on what's at issue here.
Franco isn't being prosecuted. You aren't on his jury. You aren't the judge. You can and should understand that something can be perfectly legal and absolutely awful.
The "I didn't say no because I felt like I had to do it, and then I did it, but I never really wanted to" probably is grounds for a mistake of fact defense as to consent. (That is, Franco reasonably believed she never withheld consent.)
But it's still fucking scummy. Of course he knew the context and the situation. Of course he knew vulnerabilities and exploited them.
The fact that it might not make him a rapist (in the strictest sense, legally speaking) doesn't excuse predatorial behavior. And did you ever think that people in Franco's shoes understand that? That they can offer parts, mentoring, preferential treatment... and as long as they stop when someone actually says "no," that they can continue to engage in this kind of behavior without any fear of repercussions?
If someone said "If you don't have sex with me, you're fired." There's no violence involved there, but that wouldn't count as consensual sex either. You have really strange views on consent, that you should really do some research into before coming in here and calling what he did consensual.
Tone it down tough guy.
I don't feel its anywhere close to 9:1 honestly.
But she did say no? She said "Can we do this later?" Does that not count as a no in courts?
You can also apply this to the inverse. When there have been false initial accusations, it has always been an isolated accuser or multiple people having coordinated. 8+ people just don't come forward independently making things up in these circumstances- there's just no benefit to it.
I think, at least according to the law, more info is needed and context is needed.
To me, someone not wanting to something at the time is a no and I back off.
What's needed in the law is what was the whole conversation.
Did she say "Can we do this later?", he said "But I really want you to do this now." and then she said "Fine I'll do it" Then I think according to consent laws she did end up consenting to it.
If she said "Can we do this later?" and he just kept forcing her head down and then she went along with it, that's 100% sexual assault.
Yeah there is a lot of muddled nothing mixed in with these accusations. The girls need to weed out all the stuff that's not specific to abuse.
Leave out the stuff like " being replaceable " because yes almost everyone is replaceable at every job. Or all the " he didn't make me do it but I felt like I had to" It doesn't help the case.
If he specifically said " you have a better chance if you have sex with me " then that's something you should focus on.
Leave out the stuff like " being replaceable " because yes almost everyone is replaceable at every job. Or all the " he didn't make me do it but I felt like I had to" It doesn't help the case.
If he specifically said " you have a better chance if you have sex with me " then that's something you should focus on.
Apologies — I'm on mobile and don't have the full fact pattern, because I really just wanted to raise my previous point (that something can be technically legal and horrible at the same time).
But candidly, if the victim in my case only said "Can we do this later?" and then carried out the activity, I wouldn't be at all optimistic about my chances of a conviction — or if prosecution would be warranted at all. And that's not even raising their prior (I think?) sexual relationship, which is relevant and admissible when it concerns the accused and the victim (but not between the victim and other partners).
But as I said, the court of public opinion is not a court of law. And that's a good thing in these cases.
Regardless of whether it's technically assault, if his gf felt pressured into doing something she didn't want to do, then something scummy absolutely went down.
Dudes need to be educated that you're not a good guy just because you didn't pin someone down and forcibly rape them.
Should that cost a dude his livelihood if that's the extent of it? I don't know.
Dudes need to be educated that you're not a good guy just because you didn't pin someone down and forcibly rape them.
Should that cost a dude his livelihood if that's the extent of it? I don't know.