-
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.
George Takei accused of sexual assault in 1981
- Thread starter Thisman
- Start date
- Status
The way he told the story makes it sound like they had two drinks.
Unless he has some medical condition or weights sixty pounds, I doubt he's that much of a lightweight that two drinks caused a blackout.
...Not sure where you're going with this? Like.. you realize that Ross is kinda supposed to be a terrible person on Friends, right? Like, they all pretty much are (but Ross definitely being one of the worst)? And that particular episode being a case in point of that--Ross being completely, 100% wrong? It sounds like you're kinda reading into that episode as the lesson being that she was wrong to lead Ross on or something, when the point is completely the opposite: that Ross is a terrible person and a creep and that (without even touching on the incest part of the episode, which itself should be a red flag for the kind of person Ross is and how this should have been a terrible idea regardless of what signals he thought she was sending or not) even if you think this or that, at the very least make sure you're actually on the same page before you're trying something and don't just assume anything.
And this ain't a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with anything. Especially since just saying that is itself riddled with connotations of both possibilities being just as likely as each other; that it's a 50/50 chance, he-said, he-said, where either one of them telling the truth is just as likely as the other. Of course, you might not mean to say that--far from it in fact. But whether it's meant or not, whether it's intended or otherwise, that's nonetheless the connotation of phrases like "innocent until proven guilty" and "it's a he-said, she-said (or in this case, he-said, he-said) situation"--that both possibilities are inherently just as likely as each other and we should give them equal consideration and weight.
But that isn't the case. That isn't how any of this works. The victim stands to gain absolutely nothing by coming forward. On the contrary--just admitting this in of itself means reliving those experiences. And then it open yourself up to reliving it time and time and time and time and time and time and time again as picky nitpick and question and mull over ever detail of the event, forcing them to relive and re-experience something that was unpleasant enough the first time that many more times over. And then you open yourself up to harassment from the fans and supporters of the accused on top of that, assuming you're a liar and you're a terrible person and you must have some nefarious motive for coming forward. That's why so many victims never come forward to begin with-because they know that if they do, all that will happen and potentially more. And so they don't.
And so when someone does in fact come forward, saying that they're a victim, that something like this happened to them, that itself is already saying a lot. That's saying that they recognize all that, that they recognize the risks, that they realize they have nothing to gain and in fact so very, very much to lose by coming forward, but nonetheless feel that their story is important enough to come forward regardless. That's not something that's done easily. Far from it. Far, far, far, from it. It takes tremendous courage and is putting everything on the line for absolutely nothing. That in of itself speaks volumes. Just replying to that with "innocent until proven guilty", whether it's intended to or otherwise, completely dismisses all of that, and carries a connotation (again, whether there's an intent to do so or not) that it's easy to come forward. That both possibilities are just as likely.
But that's not it. Just the accusation itself already implies so much, precisely because of how hard it is to come forward. Because it means they recognize it means that they'll have to live this event over and over again as people mill over every detail. It means they recognize that there will probably be people who will harass them over it and call them a liar and try and drag their name through the mud. It may mean that even worse could happen to them, such as someone trying to actually target themselves or a loved one to get back at them for their accusations. But they're nonetheless willing to risk those possibilities anyway because they feel this story is important enough to be shared.
And that's precisely why "innocent until proven guilty" really bugs me in these type of discussions. Not just because this is not a court of law and we have no ability to inflict any type of meaningful consequences or punishment onto accused individuals such as Mr. Takei, but also because just the mere phrase, whether it means to or not regardless carries the connotation that both possibilities are just as likely as each other and if anything that it's more likely that the accusers are lying than they are to be telling the truth precisely because we're starting from a position of innocent until proven guilty. But that's just not the case. Not with how much victims are putting on the line just by coming forward to begin with. Not with how much you're risking for such little gain. You don't do that for no reason. You don't do that without very heavy thought and consideration.
And so the scales very much should be tipped in one direction, because the fact of the matter is that false accusations are so much more incredibly rarer, for precisely all of those reasons and more. Because of how much you're opening yourself up to just by accusing them, never mind taking them to court or anything. The fact that they're willing to come forward regardless of that and feel that their story is important enough to share already speaks volumes. So of course I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, precisely because of how hard it is to come forward at all, with how much they're risking for so little gain. The scales are already tipped against them, the victims, from the very beginning. That they recognize that and are willing to come forward regardless and put everything on the line just to share their stories just says so much to me that I just can't reconcile starting form any other position. They're disadvantaged from the moment they make the accusation--the scales are already tipped against them and it means going through so much for so little. That they charge forward anyway and are willing to endure that much just to share what happened? Given that's the case, I can't help but give them the benefit of the doubt--doing otherwise just doesn't make sense to me and belittles how much it takes just to make an accusation, when that itself is huge and takes so much courage, and belittling that act and acting like it's an easy or simple thing to do by starting from a position of innocent until proven guilty even outside a court of law (it certainly has its purposes within the court, but I'm referring to extending that mindset outside of the courts, such as in the discussions on this site) that assumes that both positions are equally likely and that it is easy to do that and tips the scales so heavily against the victim from the beginning is just something I can't possibly be comfortable with, because it's in complete contradiction to the facts and statistics and trends of cases like this.
Well said. I was assaulted when I was young and I still wouldnt make a big deal as people who never even been through this make it out on forums with "Jesus!" and "OMG!" and "Holy sh#t!' dramas. I'm with Takei on this and with many others who will be accused of with no actual proof.
I'm sorry, what? So you telling me you would side with the accused in a case where a woman claimed to be raped, went to the police, got a kit done, and has been waiting years for it to get processed?
Wow dude.
Maybe he used medicine before, maybe he didn't eat enough, maybe something he ate made him dizzy. We will never know and it all could have happened. Accusing someone based on one account and some vague possibility that maybe some substances were involved will never fly in any court. Especially after such a long time. With that said, I will stay neutral in this.
That story.. That's horrible.
Noone moves on from rape or Sexual assault.
Just move on from sexual assault?
Even if your last sentence has merit, the previous two are a little worrying...
EDIT: damn, I love our mods. <3
These things happen, apologies if my post wasn't clear. :)
Last edited:
If Takei really drugged him it makes sense that he would carry that with him forever. It's such an extreme violation I feel like it would make me permanently wary of strangers.
Reading is difficult I understand.
What I said is that if there is a rape kit and nobody in the police works on it then that is on the police and has nothing to do with you or me. It shows that your police is badly trained and doesn't take their job seriously.
This here is a single accusation in a 1on1 situation with drinks involved after almost 40 years. Sorry if I am skeptic about the incident without prove and/or more accusations.
Also no police case and most judges would probably laugh you out of court with this little evidence.
Otherwise, want me to write up a story like that about one of the forum members? You should side with me then, if you stay true to your principles.
I will remain neutral. If more comes out or he can prove it then throw the metaphorical book at him. But in this situations nothing will come out of it and he took the weight of being the spear of the charge onto himself. We will see what comes of it.
What does how long ago it occurred have to do with anything?
And what do you mean by "move on"? This ain't the type of thing you just "move on" from. Like, there's no right or wrong way to handle or process something like that. It ain't for you or me or anyone else to decide for him to "move on." That's just incredibly offensive. =/ Like, this didn't happen to me. I'm fortunate enough to have never been a victim of sexual harassment or assault or anything like that, so I have no clue what it's like to experience it, never mind having to keep it locked away for years in the back of my mind. It's not the place of you or I to say when victims need to "move on" and attempting to do so is just incredibly offensive and belittles what they go through. Like, this applies regardless of whether or not this particular incident is true or not. To even go there regardless of what the facts end up being in this particular case is just completely gross as it's just not the place of anyone but the victim's themselves to decide something like that as no one else but them knows what exactly that was like and how it affected them (not that they should need to to be able to have empathy in the first place, but I digress) and just completely belittles their experience and what they went through. =/
Last edited:
Poor choice of words. Sexual assault and rape can affect a person for life, so it's not something a person can just "move on" from despite the time frame.
For the celebrities being outed, I can't even imagine having to be reminded every time they go across the screen, receive awards, or are in headlines for something or another.
I second this.
Yes everything regarding this topic is very serious but you don't just are guilty because somebody said something about a 1on1 situation.
No, reading your incomprehensible dribble trying to defend an alleged sexual assailant is hard.
Let me make it as simple as possible for you to understand.
-In both scenarios, there is no ""proof". You need proof to believe the accused.
-There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of pending rape kits.
- You don't think any of those women should be believed until their kits are worked. You don't believe the accusers here because there is no proof.
Is that your general M. O?
Or maybe it's incredibly difficult to come out against sexual abusers and we should always support the ones who come forward instead of supporting the accused because they started in a show you liked once.
I just find it interesting how firm you want to hold on to that belief.
Totally get what you mean, but I think it's better when a new name comes out that as many people know as possible this way.
How so? I'm not seeing it, or I missed another statement he made.
You being cool with someone groping you without consent and your wife having her way with you while unconcious really don't mean anything when talking in generalities.
Ah, I see. Will have to watch the video later to confirm for myself (at work right now).
For the record, I don't know who that guy is on both sides. I base it on both accounts, that is all the information I have.
Yes I believe a woman that have been raped, especially if she took a rape kit because that is already further then simply just saying it. Involves police, laws, etc. .
You seem to misunderstand something. I am talking about two different layers. There is the law layer and the society layer. If the kit is at the police it doesn't matter if I believe the woman or not as the police has an obligation to truthfully work on the kit and bring the truth to the light. In society it depends on how the individual person believes both sides. As I said, I will stay neutral because it is a "he said/he said" situation with substances involved that is on top of it, every old and almost impossible to prove if there are no witnesses. Maybe it did happen, but I won't crusade someone just because one person said something.
You seem to think I need proof to believe but that is incorrect. I need proof for a conviction, at the same time I will be open minded and believe that it may have happened but I will not crusade the accused just because someone said something.
Lets compare Weinstein and Takei:
Weinstein:
- never ending rumors everywhere before anybody said anything
- 1 accusation resulted in many more coming out and accusing him of the same behaviour or some degree of it
Takei:
- no rumors as far as I am aware outside of him being "angry"
- 1 accusation in a 1on1 situation with substances and nobody else has come forward so far
I even took out the age and lets keep them all recent even if it is not the case. Age doesn't matter for this.
It is obvious that the chance of Weinstein being innocent is nonexistent while Takei has only 1 incident that has no other supporters. The 1 incident can still be true but for now it is an even balance between guilty and innocent while Weinstein is full on moved to guilty.
Therefore, the law and what society believes are different. Here there is no Rape Kit (maybe I missed that then please point me to it) and it is a simple accusation.
Do you believe everything somebody says? Doesn't matter which topic, could be Nessie, could be murder, could be a cooking recipe.
If I accuse someone on this forum with murder, will you then defend me and automatically accept that I have to be correct? The chance of me being correct is in a 1on1 situation pretty even. Outside factors and relationships play a role in how much you believe someone though.
In the end we should always believe the victim while being cautious. Automatically accepting something as true is never a good stance to have (look at Pizza-Gate, etc.)
I will always support victims if their story is logical and sound (which here it is), some wishy washy contradicting story will always raise doubt.
Of course it is very difficult to go down that path but the best way, if your law enforcement supports you fully and is trustworthy in these cases, would be to directly go to police, get your blood tested for any drugs and make a case. Then the police is forced to work on your case, support you and bring the truth to light. At the same time you get closure and the accused gets punished.
Edit: A video got posted, haven't watched it but if he talked openly about assault that pushes the balance more into guilty as it is a piece of evidence in a pattern of behavior. Which makes me more inclined to say that he is guilty of these accusations.
We all want sex. (Presumably.) The inherent problem is that it takes at least two people and the act of initiating sex is awkward particularly for people who haven't been in a relationship for any length of time.
Alcohol removes the inhibitions surrounding the initiation of sexual relations with a new partner but it can go wrong if the other party is not reciprocating, badly wrong it appears. I do feel that if you are a person who has sex and isn't in a long term relationship that there has to be expectation that there is the possibility that you may get it wrong with others and others may get it wrong for you. The key is stopping any further advances when being asked.
Nooooooooooo!!!
This is extremely upsetting.
Of course, my personal disappointment doesn't mean shit compared to the plight of the victim(s), but man, this is a real bummer.
This is extremely upsetting.
Of course, my personal disappointment doesn't mean shit compared to the plight of the victim(s), but man, this is a real bummer.
This sounds awful, but I'm not going to condemn the guy over a single accusation in a 1 on 1 scenario. If he's really a predator, I doubt this was his only excursion into abusive behavior. Something more will come out.
Dude, no. Not all people want sex. The assumption that all people are walking around really sexually charged is just super wrong.
Obviously agree on no further advances. But alcohol and consent is such a dangerous mix. It's better to play it safe. But if somebody is unconscious? Don't go anywhere fucking near them sexually.
Wow. He just blatantly admits it and then tries to excise himself saying it's ok how he did it because his wasn't about "power" and holding someone's job over their heads to do it. Holy crap. This is a recent interview too, even talking about the whole Harvey deal and everything. Disgusting.
In case you're just opening this thread, Takei has already admitted to grabbing guys cocks who didn't want sex to try and persuade them. This is not a secret or unclear, he openly confesses to sexually assaulting people and still finds the whole thing hilarious.
He has since (courtesy of his PR team no doubt) tried to walk back with a Facebook post that contradicts his own words and past behaviours.
Takei admits to having guys at his house and grabbing them by the cock (he clarifies specifically that he did this firmly) who he acknowledges didn't want to have sex with him.
He has since (courtesy of his PR team no doubt) tried to walk back with a Facebook post that contradicts his own words and past behaviours.
Takei admits to having guys at his house and grabbing them by the cock (he clarifies specifically that he did this firmly) who he acknowledges didn't want to have sex with him.
Last edited:
Yeah... like... wow. He does just straight up say it. I almost feel like this should be added to the OP because it definitely adds a lot of context to this that people seem to be missing or taking into account. I'm not sure if that would be appropriate it or not, but it definitely feels like an important thing to keep in mind either way and that people should definitely listen to.
Feels like a lot of people are putting more weight in a FB post we don't know was even written by Takei than in that YouTube clip featuring his own words.
This and the video make it almost certain that the accuser is correct. Just wanted to point that out as somebody accused me of always defending the accused.
In the end not much will come of it in a legal sense though. He might loose some jobs maybe, I don't know.
The amount of people choosing to live their life abstaining from sex is a tiny tiny minority, my point was that if any of us want to have sex in our lives that there is a risk of us getting it wrong with others and others getting it wrong with you when trying to initiate sexual relationships.
We need to be careful that a simple act of attempted unwanted sexual initiation that could happen to anybody stops the second when asked is not conflated to be the same as a sexual assault where sexual contact is forced if consent is removed.
Aw... fuck. I was willing to wait and see but this doesn't look good for George.
I think the reaction to these abuses on the progressive and conservative side of the equation has really revealed to me hard far we have to go as a country.
***Before I say anything else, this isn't to minimize sexual assualt. It's a reaction to my "sides" reaction to this sort of thing.***
[...I was going to type about conservatives too, but I'm tired of writing this post. This is a left leaning board, so my criticisms of the left are more prescient here, I think.]
On the left, you have people attempting to enforce complete zero tolerance policies across the entire nation without any context to a particular organization or the nature of the sexual harassment or assualt. On the right, you have people basically ignoring the whole thing (or being intentionally misled) unless it involves a political opponent.
Both reactions are completely absurd in my view.
The left is treating this like it has every other problem since 1965: zero tolerance in all cases in every level of severity. In this approach, the victim's perspective is believed wholly and fully, without any curiosity for the accused's viewpoint.
We see this with the Confederate Statues debate- where the feelings of a few activists escalate into public squares being renamed and statues being replaced with civil rights heroes. Now, as a black man, I'm not completely against this, but something must be said for needlessly stirring the pot on the issue of statues. I'm pretty sure most black people in the south would rather trade a higher minimum wage for some Confederate statues. But of course, that's not what our sainted activists fight for. Things like minimum wage increases are a fringe benefit to these people. The most important thing to the activist is their own personal experience with whatever their cause is.
Back on the topic of sexual harassment and assualt. Yes, I know that there are many people whose lives have been changed forever by these attacks. I am personally aware of two people in my life, one of whom I was present for the immediate aftermath of the assualt.
But that doesn't mean that every instance of varying severities and contexts can be viewed nationally through a binary "zero tolerance" lens.
With respect to Louis CK, many people are saying that he should literally never work in Hollywood again due to these accusations. People are saying his shows should be removed from Netflix, and that he should essentially be cast out of polite society. The Cosby Show was summarily removed from TVLand when his accusers came forward. There's even an attempt to erase Weinstein's name from the credits of his movies.
Do you all understand how absurd this all sounds to "regular" people? To attempt to deprive the public audience (whom Hollywood works for) of these people's existence for the sole purpose of satisfying your own personal morality standards is patently ridiculous. It is equivalent to the logic of the war on drugs. "If we ban it from society, people won't use (x) thing!" Not only is that illogical, it's probably intellectually dishonest from a good number of people.
Finally, it's hypocritical from us progressives as a group. How can we advocate for re-integrating criminals into society, if we aren't willing to do it within our own house? Such re-integration REQUIRES forgiveness from the public and I would even go so far as to say the victim.
Unfortunately, the result of all this absurdity is what has (primarily, in my view) brought us President Trump. Many of you simply don't understand how upset people are at the idea they have to constantly walk on eggshells in professional settings, tolerate ESPN anchors suddenly being ripped off the air for minor infractions of the liberal code, and being told they can't be an Indian for Halloween because it upsets a small number (not a majority) of Native Americans in this country. Trump leveraged that against the embodiment of this logic (HRC) and won.
***Before I say anything else, this isn't to minimize sexual assualt. It's a reaction to my "sides" reaction to this sort of thing.***
[...I was going to type about conservatives too, but I'm tired of writing this post. This is a left leaning board, so my criticisms of the left are more prescient here, I think.]
On the left, you have people attempting to enforce complete zero tolerance policies across the entire nation without any context to a particular organization or the nature of the sexual harassment or assualt. On the right, you have people basically ignoring the whole thing (or being intentionally misled) unless it involves a political opponent.
Both reactions are completely absurd in my view.
The left is treating this like it has every other problem since 1965: zero tolerance in all cases in every level of severity. In this approach, the victim's perspective is believed wholly and fully, without any curiosity for the accused's viewpoint.
We see this with the Confederate Statues debate- where the feelings of a few activists escalate into public squares being renamed and statues being replaced with civil rights heroes. Now, as a black man, I'm not completely against this, but something must be said for needlessly stirring the pot on the issue of statues. I'm pretty sure most black people in the south would rather trade a higher minimum wage for some Confederate statues. But of course, that's not what our sainted activists fight for. Things like minimum wage increases are a fringe benefit to these people. The most important thing to the activist is their own personal experience with whatever their cause is.
Back on the topic of sexual harassment and assualt. Yes, I know that there are many people whose lives have been changed forever by these attacks. I am personally aware of two people in my life, one of whom I was present for the immediate aftermath of the assualt.
But that doesn't mean that every instance of varying severities and contexts can be viewed nationally through a binary "zero tolerance" lens.
With respect to Louis CK, many people are saying that he should literally never work in Hollywood again due to these accusations. People are saying his shows should be removed from Netflix, and that he should essentially be cast out of polite society. The Cosby Show was summarily removed from TVLand when his accusers came forward. There's even an attempt to erase Weinstein's name from the credits of his movies.
Do you all understand how absurd this all sounds to "regular" people? To attempt to deprive the public audience (whom Hollywood works for) of these people's existence for the sole purpose of satisfying your own personal morality standards is patently ridiculous. It is equivalent to the logic of the war on drugs. "If we ban it from society, people won't use (x) thing!" Not only is that illogical, it's probably intellectually dishonest from a good number of people.
Finally, it's hypocritical from us progressives as a group. How can we advocate for re-integrating criminals into society, if we aren't willing to do it within our own house? Such re-integration REQUIRES forgiveness from the public and I would even go so far as to say the victim.
Unfortunately, the result of all this absurdity is what has (primarily, in my view) brought us President Trump. Many of you simply don't understand how upset people are at the idea they have to constantly walk on eggshells in professional settings, tolerate ESPN anchors suddenly being ripped off the air for minor infractions of the liberal code, and being told they can't be an Indian for Halloween because it upsets a small number (not a majority) of Native Americans in this country. Trump leveraged that against the embodiment of this logic (HRC) and won.
no, no, no. You are not both-sidesing this. He was touching someone who was passed out after drinking. We have audio evidence of him admitting that he's done this type of thing before. There's nothing defensible here.
I'm not defending it. I'm critiquing the reaction. I don't see how you got a defense of sexual assualt from reading that post.
Why are you critiquing the reaction when it's actually justified in this thread?
I would, but I'm also a straight man. I've never been in a situation of fear or that of someone in a position of power over me. I can completely understand the person feeling assaulted.
Justice and justification is more complex than simply being outraged on an internet forum.
Let me repeat the situation we in.
Takei got accused of groping and attempting rape against someone.
We find that just a few weeks ago he's admitted to similar behavior.
This all sounds very similar to a certain situation that caused this forum to be created.
Man this is hard to hear as I love this guy. :/
But you know what, not only was it not ok, it was a crime. I will have to extend my personal boycott to Takei as well.
I hope he didn't ruin anyone's life or career over this, but he caused real harm to Scott and his other victims, and didn't want to take responsibility. Horrible.
But you know what, not only was it not ok, it was a crime. I will have to extend my personal boycott to Takei as well.
I hope he didn't ruin anyone's life or career over this, but he caused real harm to Scott and his other victims, and didn't want to take responsibility. Horrible.
Yeah I'm not sure what's up with some people saying "guys let's wait and see the facts and context" when he's openly admitted to this kind of behavior himself and seems to think it's mostly ok.
I've been a big Takei fan over the years and especially over the past decade with the social causes he's backed and helped get the word out on, but that's not going to clout my ability to condemn blatantly predatory behavior. This shit is insanely disappointing to me.
I'm not seeing the problem here. I think there should be a zero tolerance approach to rape and sexual assault. The law agrees with me -- you don't get to rape somebody, and then dodge a jail sentence because you only did it once.
"Sexual harassment" is sometimes a murkier area, because one person's risque sense of humor may be another person's hostile work environment. But that's not what we're talking about with people like Weinstein and Louis CK and Takei.
- Status