Worked for Trump
George Takei accused of sexual assault.
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
- Status
In his comments about the Stern thing, Takei does refer to the whole routine as a "sketch," and part of a stage persona that he puts on for the Stern show. So this means that it was not meant to be taken at face value as a straightforward/serious/real-life interview.
I am genuinely curious, is this common for the Howard Stern show? I'm not familiar enough with his show to know if such satirical routines are SOP. I always assumed that Stern's shows were "actual" interviews. And anybody else who doesn't understand the subtleties of Stern's program would probably think the same way if they came across the Takei/Stern routine, and assume that it was meant to be taken for real.
Kor
Last edited:
My only knowledge was from the movie about Howard Stern called "Private Parts" He I think would do stuff like make sex sounds on the radio and had naked girls come down to the studio and he was Fart Man I think for a MtV music Awards show, once. I think he does try to be serious sometimes but i'm not sure.
Jason
Depends on the person. I think some people find it easier to adopt a persona to deal with interview situations. Ever see the way Brent Spiner acts at a convention panel? How often is he ever being truly sincere or really revealing anything about himself? I find it puerile, as I do Takei's "dirty grandpa" routine, but I guess they are giving the public what they want.
It also depends on the show. Howard Stern ain't 60 minutes.
Even he said "they let you grab them by the p" whereas Takei told us that he simply grabbed them by the d.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-accused-sexually-assaulting-model-1981-1056698
So at least this confirms that Brunton didn't come up with the story recently.
So at least this confirms that Brunton didn't come up with the story recently.
I disagree with that characterization of my position. I never said Takei was guilty of what he is being accused of(the person claiming he was drugged). I said his comments on the Stern show were inappropriate and actually describe sexual assault. And guess what? He even admitted they were wrong in his response to them and said he shouldn't have said what he did. So I have not "changed my mind" about anything.
And no crime is being adjudicated here. We are people talking about something on a message board, not a crowd of people in the street.
Further commentary on his response to his Stern comments: I have read some very thoughtful explanation of his comments, putting them in the context of what it was like to be a gay person in previous decades and how the fear he referred to might be in relation to those societal issues, not to simply having a sexual encounter.
Here is the problem: that is NOT how George explained his comments. He brushed the entire conversation off as dirty joking (and admitted he shouldn't have done it). I would find his explanation far more reassuring if he DID actually explain it the way so many others have tried to do in his defense.
With that said I will repeat something I said earlier: since he is claiming his comments on Stern were all a joke and while there is currently only 1 accusation against him, I am inclined to accept his explanation and hope the current accusation is some kind of misunderstanding he can resolve. But if any other accusations happen I don't think I can maintain that view.
Here is the problem: that is NOT how George explained his comments. He brushed the entire conversation off as dirty joking (and admitted he shouldn't have done it). I would find his explanation far more reassuring if he DID actually explain it the way so many others have tried to do in his defense.
With that said I will repeat something I said earlier: since he is claiming his comments on Stern were all a joke and while there is currently only 1 accusation against him, I am inclined to accept his explanation and hope the current accusation is some kind of misunderstanding he can resolve. But if any other accusations happen I don't think I can maintain that view.
Has there been any more news about this?
I'm asking this seriously, Is the "Hollywood Reporter" a credible news source?
I'm asking this seriously, Is the "Hollywood Reporter" a credible news source?
The Hollywood Reporter and Variety are by far the two leading (and competing) US entertainment industry news sources.
Kor
These are just some of the comments you made. The lines in boldface are pretty clear, though perhaps you will try to spin them differently now:
If not for the Stern interview I would agree. But once someone admits to non consensual groping, which is sexual assault, they lose their presumption of innocence.
There is just one tiny problem. Even IF this one specific incident isnt true, what he ADMITTED doing in the Stern interiew is actually sexual assualt. And in light of that, he also loses credibility and presumption of innocence.
If you really listened, you heard him say he would grope people who were skittish or AFRAID to try to "persuade" them. Here is a newsflash: if some is afraid, they arent consenting. And if someone isnt consenting, it is assault, period. There just isnt any way around that, and we cant pretend something isnt assualt because it happened to a gay guy.
What we have here (in the post above) is a MASSIVE double standard. If any man ADMITTED in an interview that he groped women who were AFRAID to try to "persuade" them, that man would RIGHTLY be called a predator. But even though George said that exact same thing, the post above is arguing about implied/implicit consent. Stop with the double standard. If it is sexual assault for a man to grope a WOMAN who is AFRAID, then it is ALSO sexual assault when George ADMITTED he groped men who were AFRAID.
It might be a defense if it were only his word vs hers, but if you had a tape of the man saying what George did, that would be open and shut. You lose your ability to claim you even THOUGHT you had consent when you ADMIT the person was skittish or AFRAID. What part of that do you not understand?
Maybe so, but here is the difference. Takei is accused of sexual assault. In his own words he has admitted to non consensual groping, which IS sexual assault. Regardless of whether this "new" SPECIFIC allegation is true, he has already admitted to the SAME thing. Do any of those episodes in question share that same scenario? Where the person has actually admitting to doing the very thing they are accused of?
That's fantastic. Since George actually admitted to behavior that is sexual assault, he rightly deserves to be exposed for it. If it took this one specific person to bring George's behavior to light, then good for him speaking up.
You repeatedly linked his comments on the Stern show about groping men to his current accusation of having done something similarly to Mr. Brunton. These are your words, and you continued to make those links adamantly throughout your posts until Takei offered another explanation. Then suddenly, you were okay with it.
All these accusations don't surprise me. The fact that most are decades old makes me wonder about the motives. If some of these people have been repeat offenders, up to recently, then it definitely needs to come out in the open. Other "offenses" from the past might have been minor misunderstandings. There are no witnesses, so who's to say what really happened?
What I see is a piling on of people looking for their 15 minutes.
Either way, playing this out in the media is non-productive. If they have a case, let the legal system decide.
That said, I still giggle a bit when a new accusation comes out. Bastards are bastards, and seeing them squirm is kinda fun. Shame on me.
What I see is a piling on of people looking for their 15 minutes.
Either way, playing this out in the media is non-productive. If they have a case, let the legal system decide.
That said, I still giggle a bit when a new accusation comes out. Bastards are bastards, and seeing them squirm is kinda fun. Shame on me.
What, exactly, are you claiming I am "okay" with? I repeatedly condemned Takei's comment's on Stern. That hasn't changed. Just because I said I am willing to believe his explanation about joking so long as there is only 1 accuser does not mean I change my stance that what he said was wrong. He even admitted it was wrong himself. So once again, what are you saying I am "okay" with now that I wasn't before?
Well, in cases where the statute of limitations is over for either criminal or civil proceedings, then getting an acknowledgment and apology from the offender may be the only way for the victim to try to get some kind of closure.
Kor
How on earth can you believe the passing of 30+ years makes the claims suspect? Individuals react and process abuse in different ways, and have equally different ways of responding to/reporting it. There's not always going to be some instant "he did it! he did it last week!" reaction (expected in this social media-battered society).
If Stephen Collins, Cosby, and other sexual predators' abuses can be believed after the passing of decades, then Brunton should be considered--at the very least--credible, particularity after Takei is now trying to rewrite his Stern comments as "humor", when the format of Stern's show has never meant that guests were always joking about their lives and beliefs.
Without passing judgement on the veracity of either side's claims, I do have to say I lost a lot of respect for George watching his To Be Takei film. He came across as the kind of person who says "fuck you" with a smile and you're supposed to take it as a joke. I rather lost all interest in him at that point.
Don't know who Brunton is, and frankly, I don't care. This stuff has gone on since the beginning of time. The outrage now by the Internet cognoscenti is, at best, a big yawn. People in Hollywood have at the very least some idea what they're getting into. The casting couch is no secret. Read "Ecstasy and Me" by Hedy Lamarr for a titillating taste of Hollywood.
It's all just headline grabbing as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.
- Status
Similar threads
