James Franco accused of sexual exploitation or abuse by five women

Addie · Jan 11, 2018

I think it's also important to understand that these accusations are being made only to expose behavior. Violet very astutely noted that her situation was complex. (And it is.) But she's not asking for an indictment; I think she was just attempting to highlight a system where powerful men — setting the law aside — can pretty much exploit young, aspiring actresses without fear of any legal consequences OR other repercussions within the industry, such as loss of reputation or losing acting gigs.

Nerokis · Jan 11, 2018

PhoenixDark said:
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.

Without the framework that #BelieveWomen implies, the Washington Post could have easily reported a very, very different story - if any story at all. The predominant evidence that Roy Moore was guilty of sexual abuse was that these women spoke up about him doing so. If you don't take that as concrete evidence on its own, if you don't trust that women are generally truthful when it comes to such serious allegations, you probably don't pursue a potentially explosive story about them in the same way the Washington Post did. #BelieveWomen is about changing your assumptions on a fundamental level - the sort of assumptions that inevitably inform, say, how you approach a story where potential victims of sexual abuse don't necessarily have absolute proof backing up their claims. It's as relevant to journalists as it is to anyone else.

Kirblar · Jan 11, 2018

Nerokis said:
Without the framework that #BelieveWomen implies, the Washington Post could have easily reported a very, very different story - if any story at all. The predominant evidence that Roy Moore was guilty of sexual abuse was that these women spoke up about him doing so. If you don't take that as concrete evidence on its own, if you don't trust that women are generally truthful when it comes to such serious allegations, you probably don't pursue a potentially explosive story about them in the same way the Washington Post did. #BelieveWomen is about changing your assumptions on a fundamental level - the sort of assumptions that inevitably inform, say, how you approach a story where potential victims of sexual abuse don't necessarily have absolute proof backing up their claims. It's as relevant to journalists as it is to anyone else.

Alyssa Rosenberg had a very good piece yesterday on the necessity of doing journalistic diligence and then deciding to run/kill a story after you've fully looked into it, not before: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wrong-not-necessarily/?utm_term=.3cc9ad6c55a3

Fandorin · Jan 11, 2018

Figboy said:
#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.

Doesn't hurt to quote this once more. Great post.

Addie said:
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?

This one too. Especially that last paragraph which most seem unable to grasp in these situations.

Psychonaut · Jan 11, 2018

Man... This is rough. I've always loved Franco's work-- he's been one of my favorite celebrities at various points in my life. But I've also worked in assault/harassment prevention. I overlooked the teen incident he had a few years ago because he seemed repentant enough at the time and I wasn't as aware/proactive about women's issues as I am now. This is going to be a tough truth to swallow for me, harder than Spacey or anyone else, but these are the necessary standards for living in a civilized society. What a bummer. People gotta stop being horrible.

Vex · Jan 11, 2018

Barry Sandwich · Jan 11, 2018

Sounds like a mini-Weinstein. Will be interesting to see what the repercussions will be for him because he's still trying to deflect it.

As an aside, maybe one day there'll be a film about Franco & Tommy, as The Disaster Artist may be about to take on an ironic new meaning.

wizard · Jan 11, 2018

I bet he says he was method acting in preparation for the deuce.

PhoenixDark · Jan 11, 2018

Nerokis said:
Without the framework that #BelieveWomen implies, the Washington Post could have easily reported a very, very different story - if any story at all. The predominant evidence that Roy Moore was guilty of sexual abuse was that these women spoke up about him doing so. If you don't take that as concrete evidence on its own, if you don't trust that women are generally truthful when it comes to such serious allegations, you probably don't pursue a potentially explosive story about them in the same way the Washington Post did. #BelieveWomen is about changing your assumptions on a fundamental level - the sort of assumptions that inevitably inform, say, how you approach a story where potential victims of sexual abuse don't necessarily have absolute proof backing up their claims. It's as relevant to journalists as it is to anyone else.

Politicians were accused by women of sexual harassment before Roy Moore, and before #BelieveWomen. Multiple major newspapers have reported on Bill Clinton's accusers for instance, including last year before the hashtag arrived. The same thing happened with Bill Cosby's accusers well over a year before this movement began. Journalists tend to do due diligence when major sexual harassment stories arrive in their orbit.

In the Moore case, this would have been an explosive story regardless due to the timing (how close it broke to election day).

uncelestial · Jan 11, 2018

BREAKING: Tommy Wiseau to play James Franco in biopic that makes a mockery of his entire life.

Ignatz Mouse · Jan 11, 2018

wizard said:
I bet he says he was method acting in preparation for the deuce.

He's a nicer guy in the Deuce than in real life, apparently.

Bobby · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
Should that cost a dude his livelihood if that's the extent of it?

Why shouldn't it.

There are other livelihoods someone like James Franco can pursue.

Maybe people who abused their position of power in that livelihood shouldn't be allowed to return to it so easily and resume profiting from it.

this aspect of the DEFEND THE MAN angle shows up in this community's conversations frequently, and it always rings false to me, the notion that a rich and powerful person possibly losing their job and their access to the benefits it provided them to indulge their base, negative instincts is somehow unfair to them.

Ignatz Mouse · Jan 11, 2018

Really, it's not like he'd starve or even face real hardship if he couldn't act in Hollywood anymore.

Fandorin · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
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.

I've seen people lose their livelihood for far less. Of course that would never happen in this reality, but that still doesn't stop people from wondering about it immediately in the face of such scandals.

FFNB · Jan 11, 2018

Persephone said:
preach. This post is everything.

Bobby said:
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.

Ferrs said:
Can we frame this post in every thread about sexual harassment so we can avoid the usual stupidity that plagues them?

hansel said:
This should be required reading for new members.

Dreams-Visions said:
church.

people do get it. I feel better now.

Bobo Dakes said:
Honestly, I'd love for you to make this it's own thread so we can repeat this less everytime someone is accused.

Hecht said:
Great post. I'm gonna add this to the OP.

Thank you all so much for the kind words! It's just frustrating that it takes so much explanation for people to empathize and view these kinds of hard topics from outside of their comfort zone.

I don't think I really understood and was able to empathize myself until I'd have these super informative conversations with my wife about her experiences being a woman in America, and me relating my experiences as a black man living in America and finding a lot of common ground between the two, and opening up to understanding the differences and troubles as well. Even now, I still don't "get it, get it," and am trying to improve there, but I "get it," at least in some small measure, and try to empathize from outside my comfort zone as a man.

ashep · Jan 11, 2018

Bobby said:
Why shouldn't it.

There are other livelihoods someone like James Franco can pursue.

Maybe people who abused their position of power in that livelihood shouldn't be allowed to return to it so easily and resume profiting from it.

this aspect of the DEFEND THE MAN angle shows up in this community's conversations frequently, and it always rings false to me, the notion that a rich and powerful person possibly losing their job and their access to the benefits it provided them to indulge their base, negative instincts is somehow unfair to them.

Because what it seems like on the surface is that he crossed the line for a moment in his personal life with an otherwise consenting partner.

That shouldn't cost someone their career in my opinion.

Imagine if every spouse, male or female, who ever nagged their SO for sex lost their job for it?

Bobby · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
Because what it seems like on the surface is that he crossed the line for a moment in his personal life with an otherwise consenting partner.

That shouldn't cost someone their career in my opinion.

Imagine if every spouse, male or female, who ever nagged their SO for sex lost their job for it?

The problem I have with this line is that it pretends this is a one-time offense and it pretty clearly appears to not be, and further, the hypothetical you follow up with is pretty outlandish, and also needs a vaccuum in which context isn't a factor for it to exist.

You're setting up a (ludicrously) false scenario in order to defend James Franco's right to an entertainment career above other people's rights to pursue their own entertainment careers without being made to feel like they're one or two bad male decisions away from being sexually assaulted at all times.

Again, this is an example of being unable to look at the situation from any other POV that isn't the most easy to slip into: The POV of the misunderstood, unfairly maligned man. "I'm a guy. I've been misunderstood before. I sure wouldn't like to lose my job for a misunderstanding. DEFEND THE MAN."

Once you stop viewing every one of these things FROM that POV, the idea that an abuser in a position of power shouldn't maybe get to keep that position or work in that industry anymore is suddenly a lot less unfair sounding.

Ignatz Mouse · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
Because what it seems like on the surface is that he crossed the line for a moment in his personal life with an otherwise consenting partner.

That shouldn't cost someone their career in my opinion.

Imagine if every spouse, male or female, who ever nagged their SO for sex lost their job for it?

In isolation, all sorts of offenses can be forgiven. This is part of a pattern though--

Physically Pushing sex on a partner in a public place
Going after 17-year-olds
Leveraging his position as a teacher and star to coerce students into nudity beyond what was agreed
...and I am probably missing one

Kirblar · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
Because what it seems like on the surface is that he crossed the line for a moment in his personal life with an otherwise consenting partner.

That shouldn't cost someone their career in my opinion.

Imagine if every spouse, male or female, who ever nagged their SO for sex lost their job for it?

Stop focusing on the micro and look at the macro. You don't need to nitpick the details when there's a pattern piling up w/ his behavior.

Shadowrun · Jan 11, 2018

Figboy said:
#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.

This post is legit fire, and I hope people bookmark it for use in every one of these threads going forward.

ashep said:
Because what it seems like on the surface is that he crossed the line for a moment in his personal life with an otherwise consenting partner.

That shouldn't cost someone their career in my opinion.

Imagine if every spouse, male or female, who ever nagged their SO for sex lost their job for it?

False equivalency mixed with a hint of whataboutism. Also, as others pointed out, these cases, including Franco's, are about calling out habitual line steppers, people with a pattern of abhorrent behavior, i.e. career-ending worthy infractions.

ashep · Jan 11, 2018

Bobby said:
The problem I have with this line is that it pretends this is a one-time offense and it pretty clearly appears to not be, and further, the hypothetical you follow up with is pretty outlandish, and also needs a vaccuum in which context isn't a factor for it to exist.

You're setting up a (ludicrously) false scenario in order to defend James Franco's right to an entertainment career above other people's rights to pursue their own entertainment careers without being made to feel like they're one or two bad male decisions away from being sexually assaulted at all times.

Again, this is an example of being unable to look at the situation from any other POV that isn't the most easy to slip into: The POV of the misunderstood, unfairly maligned man.

Once you stop viewing every one of these things FROM that POV, the idea that an abuser in a position of power shouldn't maybe get to keep that position or work in that industry anymore is suddenly a lot less unfair sounding.

Mate you don't know anything about me, my life experiences and those of my friends/family. If you want to respond to what I've said, do so, but don't attempt to pigeonhole my perspectives.

You've made a fair point, that this seems to potentially be a pattern of behaviour rather than an isolated incident.

I'd like to understand what makes my "scenario" ludicrously false. Partners navigate situations all the time which in the context of an otherwise happy relationship wouldn't register more than a blip on the radar but when framed by an ex once a relationship ends, can take on a different context.

I've seen shit happen both ways so don't @ me with your dismissive misunderstood man rubbish.

Bobby · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
I've seen shit happen both ways so don't @ me with your dismissive misunderstood man rubbish.

I'm sorry are you feeling misunderstood right now?

Ignatz Mouse · Jan 11, 2018

Being concerned over the car thing is really something.

I have a friend who, in a moment of extreme rage, physically assaulted his wife (now ex). He was put on probation over it, he was forced to take classes. He's still my friend, because HE DOESN'T HAVE A PATTERN OF THIS. He didn't do it before, he hasn't since.

Being concerned that one incident of going over a line might end somebody's livelihood or get them permanently ostracized is ignoring how this really works. People make mistakes. That's not the issue. Habitual behavior is the issue.

We wouldn't even have this thread if this car incident happened one time in a vacuum.

FFNB · Jan 11, 2018

Bobby said:
Why shouldn't it.

There are other livelihoods someone like James Franco can pursue.

Maybe people who abused their position of power in that livelihood shouldn't be allowed to return to it so easily and resume profiting from it.

this aspect of the DEFEND THE MAN angle shows up in this community's conversations frequently, and it always rings false to me, the notion that a rich and powerful person possibly losing their job and their access to the benefits it provided them to indulge their base, negative instincts is somehow unfair to them.

Right? I will never understand it. "That poor dude in a position of power that he used to prey on those underneath him shouldn't be forced out of said position of power that he used to prey on those underneath him! Won't somebody think of this poor rich dude?!" It rings very false. The notion that a predator is somehow being inconvenienced by getting punished for his predatory behavior by losing the job that contributed to his ability to be a predator never ceases to amaze me. Or at least never ceases to illicit a face palm from me.

ashep · Jan 11, 2018

Kirblar said:
Stop focusing on the micro and look at the macro. You don't need to nitpick the details when there's a pattern piling up w/ his behavior.

No, I'm going to go ahead and disagree there. The details absolutely matter.

#meetoo, #timesup, #believewomen et al are important and worthwhile movements. However getting caught up in the macro at the expense of the micro, when you're dealing with individual lives and careers, is a big mistake.

Nerokis · Jan 11, 2018

PhoenixDark said:
Politicians were accused by women of sexual harassment before Roy Moore, and before #BelieveWomen. Multiple major newspapers have reported on Bill Clinton's accusers for instance, including last year before the hashtag arrived. The same thing happened with Bill Cosby's accusers well over a year before this movement began. Journalists tend to do due diligence when major sexual harassment stories arrive in their orbit.

In the Moore case, this would have been an explosive story regardless due to the timing (how close it broke to election day).

The point isn't that #BelieveWomen somehow made it possible to report on sexual harassment claims - the general subject of sexual misconduct has always had a place in the news. The point is that it has created an environment more conducive to such claims being taken seriously. This means that it might have not taken a comedian publicizing the allegations around Cosby, and then multiple women (including at least one famous one) going on news programs to tell their stories, for the media to seriously scrutinize him. After the accusations against Bill Clinton, the reporting around him might not have been quite as indifferent to the fact of those accusations. Maybe it wouldn't have taken so long to see the media take the allegations around Harvey Weinstein seriously, and outlets like the NYT and NBC wouldn't have felt compelled to kill stories along the way to a real reckoning. In the aggregate, the assumption that women are generally trustworthy when it comes to sexual harassment claims would have made a big difference.

In the case of this Washington Post story, whether or not you attribute any aspect of how it was reported to #BelieveWomen, a series of normal women recalling stories from decades back were heard and taken seriously. That implies a framework that is 100% compatible with #BelieveWomen. Before publishing such a story, any outlet will have to ask itself, "Do we have sufficient evidence, considering the explosiveness of the story?" It helps getting to "yes" if the voices of women are given proper weight in the calculation.

Volimar · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
Because what it seems like on the surface is that he crossed the line for a moment in his personal life with an otherwise consenting partner.

That shouldn't cost someone their career in my opinion.

Imagine if every spouse, male or female, who ever nagged their SO for sex lost their job for it?

What if that person denies it ever happened, or (in the abstract) downplays it as not a big deal?

Ketkat · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
No, I'm going to go ahead and disagree there. The details absolutely matter.

#meetoo, #timesup, #believewomen et al are important and worthwhile movements. However getting caught up in the macro at the expense of the micro, when you're dealing with individual lives and careers, is a big mistake.

You don't think him abusing his power on his students shouldn't be something that affects his career? And its a big mistake to hold him accountable for that?

Bobby · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
getting caught up in the macro at the expense of the micro, when you're dealing with individual lives and careers, is a big mistake.

Why is it a "big" mistake to focus on the larger context of making the entertainment industry (industry in general, really) safer for half our population to operate in, as opposed to the very specific possibility James Franco might have to get a regular job.

Why is this a mistake at all, much less a large one that necessitates we refocus on what's really important here - the micro. Individual lives and careers.

Individual lives and careers of habitual sexual offenders, specifically.

FFNB · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
Because what it seems like on the surface is that he crossed the line for a moment in his personal life with an otherwise consenting partner.

That shouldn't cost someone their career in my opinion.

Imagine if every spouse, male or female, who ever nagged their SO for sex lost their job for it?

Uh, why would I nag my wife for sex, though? Like, am I owed sex because we're married? If she's not in the mood for sex, we don't have sex. And it goes both ways. If I'm not in the mood for sex, we don't have sex. It's not a complicated set up, man. I'm not clubbing her over the head and dragging her into the bedroom when I'm horny. Also, equating what these dudes are being accused of doing to these victims with a spouse wanting to have sex with their partner is disingenuous. Even if she was in a relationship with Franco or whomever, if he forced her to give him a blowjob, and she went along with it because she was afraid of upsetting him, that's still abuse. People aren't owned by other people, and people can change their minds about sex any time, yes, even in the middle of having sex, and even if the person is in an intimate relationship with the other person.

DVCY201 · Jan 11, 2018

Figboy said:
Thank you all so much for the kind words! It's just frustrating that it takes so much explanation for people to empathize and view these kinds of hard topics from outside of their comfort zone.

I don't think I really understood and was able to empathize myself until I'd have these super informative conversations with my wife about her experiences being a woman in America, and me relating my experiences as a black man living in America and finding a lot of common ground between the two, and opening up to understanding the differences and troubles as well. Even now, I still don't "get it, get it," and am trying to improve there, but I "get it," at least in some small measure, and try to empathize from outside my comfort zone as a man.

I finished reading your post, and I think it captures everything perfectly. It was fantastic.

As for this news, shame on Franco. I hope those affected feel less burdened now by getting this out there.

Bobby · Jan 11, 2018

Figboy said:
Uh, why would I nag my wife for sex, though? Like, am I owed sex because we're married? If she's not in the mood for sex, we don't have sex. And it goes both ways. If I'm not in the mood for sex, we don't have sex. It's not a complicated set up, man. I'm not clubbing her over the head and dragging her into the bedroom when I'm horny. Also, equating what these dudes are being accused of doing to these victims with a spouse wanting to have sex with their partner is disingenuous. Even if she was in a relationship with Franco or whomever, if he forced her to give him a blowjob, and she went along with it because she was afraid of upsetting him, that's still abuse. People aren't owned by other people, and people can change their minds about sex any time, yes, even in the middle of having sex, and even if the person is in an intimate relationship with the other person.

Once again: Thanks man.

Kirblar · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
No, I'm going to go ahead and disagree there. The details absolutely matter.

#meetoo, #timesup, #believewomen et al are important and worthwhile movements. However getting caught up in the macro at the expense of the micro, when you're dealing with individual lives and careers, is a big mistake.

One bad story out of 5/10/15 is fine, you can discard the iffy ones and there's still overwhelming data to tell you "something is wrong here."

Franco has a history with barely-legal groupies, nearly all of the accounts coming forward have a similar angle to him (he's leveraging a position of power). Yes, paying attention to details is important, but getting hung up on them isn't.

ashep · Jan 11, 2018

Ketkat said:
You don't think him abusing his power on his students shouldn't be something that affects his career? And its a big mistake to hold him accountable for that?

To be fair, the accusations that he straight up told women there were parts on the table in exchange for sex? Yeah that's fucked up.

I'll admit my original reply was in response to side discussion in the thread specifically regarding what happened in the car and I wasn't fully up to date on the latest round of news. The replies to what I said kinda dragged it into the broader discussion over his pattern of behaviour.

Viewed in the broader context, yeah the evidence is mounting that he's a shit bag and I certainly wouldn't blame people for not wanting anything to do with him going forward.

excelsiorlef · Jan 11, 2018

Why are some folks acting btw like #believewomen is the main banner of the current movememnt... it's a subbanner that is invoked here because ya know it's about women being abused by a man...

The movement is actually called ya know MeToo... Men can absolutely use it... So complaining that somehow #BelieveWomen is excluding men and not the right term is frankly yeah wrong.

ashep · Jan 11, 2018

Figboy said:
Uh, why would I nag my wife for sex, though? Like, am I owed sex because we're married? If she's not in the mood for sex, we don't have sex. And it goes both ways. If I'm not in the mood for sex, we don't have sex. It's not a complicated set up, man. I'm not clubbing her over the head and dragging her into the bedroom when I'm horny. Also, equating what these dudes are being accused of doing to these victims with a spouse wanting to have sex with their partner is disingenuous. Even if she was in a relationship with Franco or whomever, if he forced her to give him a blowjob, and she went along with it because she was afraid of upsetting him, that's still abuse. People aren't owned by other people, and people can change their minds about sex any time, yes, even in the middle of having sex, and even if the person is in an intimate relationship with the other person.

You're constructing a number of strawmen here.

I never said anyone is ever "owed" sex. However to deny that sex only ever occurs in relationships when both partners are equally eager is to ignore human nature. That may be the case in your relationship, and I'm sure it's the case the majority of the time, in the majority of others, as it is in mine. But sex where one partner is less "in the mood" than the other is not exactly a novel or heinous concept.

That is absolutely not the same issue as consent so your little caveman strawman is not appropriate.

Also I'm not talking about "these dudes", I was talking about Franco and a specific situation.

As I mentioned in my previous post, in the context of the subsequent allegations against this guy, yeah the minutiae of that specific allegation loses relevance, but the point still stands.

OrangeAtlas · Jan 11, 2018

ashep said:
You're constructing a number of strawmen here.

I never said anyone is ever "owed" sex. However to deny that sex only ever occurs in relationships when both partners are equally eager is to ignore human nature. That may be the case in your relationship, and I'm sure it's the case the majority of the time, in the majority of others, as it is in mine. But sex where one partner is less "in the mood" than the other is not exactly a novel or heinous concept.

That is absolutely not the same issue as consent so your little caveman strawman is not appropriate.

Also I'm not talking about "these dudes", I was talking about Franco and a specific situation.

As I mentioned in my previous post, in the context of the subsequent allegations against this guy, yeah the minutiae of that specific allegation loses relevance, but the point still stands.

There's a big difference between being less-enthused and saying "no".

No means stop.

Period.

Volimar · Jan 11, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
Why are some folks acting btw like #believewomen is the main banner of the current movememnt... it's a subbanner that is invoked here because ya know it's about women being abused by a man...

The movement is actually called ya know MeToo... Men can absolutely use it... So complaining that somehow #BelieveWomen is excluding men and not the right term is frankly yeah wrong.

I don't think there's a central component. Me Too, Believe Women, and Times Up kind of all intersect and curl around each other. If you are ready to speak out I think you should just use which one speaks most to you.

ashep · Jan 11, 2018

Ok fuck it. Its dawning on me that I'm making a point here that clearly doesn't need to be made.

Kirblar you're right, I'm getting hung up on a detail and debating for the sake of debate, which detracts from the broader discussion which is obviously more important.

I'll stop.

excelsiorlef · Jan 11, 2018

Volimar said:
I don't think there's a central component. Me Too, Believe Women, and Times Up kind of all intersect and curl around each other. If you are ready to speak out I think you should just use which one speaks most to you.

MeToo is absolutely the main banner.

Volimar · Jan 11, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
MeToo is absolutely the main banner.

If you say so. I'll admit only use twitter so I don't know what's prevalent on other social media.

Spinluck · Jan 11, 2018

That Meyers interview, yikes.

Not even a little bit of denial.

Tesseract · Jan 11, 2018

better late than never is hollywood's modus operandi. lord of creeps, franco has become.

excelsiorlef · Jan 11, 2018

Volimar said:
If you say so. I'll admit only use twitter so I don't know what's prevalent on other social media.

Dude this was you

Volimar said:
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.

You were getting all up in arms about Believe Women not being inclusive enough...

My post was addressing posts like yours... to let you know that Believe Women is not the banner... it's part of it but men can use MeToo.

I'm at a loss at your replies to me frankly.

ronaldthump · Jan 11, 2018

isual said:
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.

You may be shocked that in the real world that guys hit on girls all the time

FFNB · Jan 11, 2018

DVCY201 said:
I finished reading your post, and I think it captures everything perfectly. It was fantastic.

As for this news, shame on Franco. I hope those affected feel less burdened now by getting this out there.

Thank you!

I swear I remember hearing shit about Franco from friends that have worked in the industry, but it was so long ago I can't be sure. I just remember having a reason for disliking him as much as I did back then. I thought he was fun as Harry Osborn, but I never cared too much for him. He triggered my creepdar, and that was before I knew a thing about him.

Trojita · Jan 12, 2018

That thing about removing the plastic guards on the actresses vaginas is fucked up. You can't give them protection or some modesty and then take it away.

The final accuser, another former student named Katie Ryan, said that Franco made it clear to many students that "there were possible roles on the table if we were to perform sexual acts or take off our shirts." She says he emailed her frequently, offering her only roles as "a prostitute or a hooker."

Clarification, when she says sex acts, does she mean performing or he was literally telling them to have sex with them for parts? In any other industry I'd say it would always be the latter of course, but in a case like this where he wants them to dance at strip clubs a clarification on sexual acts is needed.

Lappe said:
I love James Franco, he's been an awesome actor since Freaks & Geeks. Can't honestly wait for the Disaster Artist.

About this drama surrounding him. Innocent until proven guilty, without a shadow of doubt. Like everyone should be.

About the mod edit. I'd caution to call this sexual misconduct or sexual abuse allegations. All reputable journalist outlets use those words. So far no allegations of sexual assault themselves have been made.

scourge_of_tirany · Jan 12, 2018

Messofanego said:
Don't worry, I remember their usernames and will be glad to point them out next time they decide to repeat that kind of behaviour again.

For real?

phantomx · Jan 12, 2018

Barry Sandwich said:
Sounds like a mini-Weinstein.

Not really. Like not at all.

phantomx · Jan 12, 2018

ashep said:
To be fair, the accusations that he straight up told women there were parts on the table in exchange for sex? Yeah that's fucked up.

The accusation, as I read it, was that he said there were parts on the table if you were ok getting nude and simulating sex on camera. Which isn't abnormal for movies that deal with graphical sexual situations.

Now, I'm not saying it isn't creepy to make movies with graphic sexual situations just to cast them and film them...(even though I do believe Franco really does see himself as an artist and his work as art)...but that's wayyyyy different than withholding a role unless you have sex with the producer/director...or threatening to fire someone for not having sex.

It shouldn't be treated as the same situation.

James Franco accused of sexual exploitation or abuse by five women

One Winged Slayer

Associate Game Designer

Associate Game Designer

volunteer forum janitor

Associate Game Designer

Bad Praxis

volunteer forum janitor

Bad Praxis

volunteer forum janitor

▲ Legend ▲

Bad Praxis

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Associate Game Designer