George Takei accused of sexual assault.

Hey, if it was published somewhere it MUST be true. I mean, didn't Cash Markman prove that Star Trek was a ratings success by misreading and conflating the various rating services reports and cherry picking data to support his pet theory? That's facts, for ya!

 

“Who would have relieved approximately $20 million each”
I think he meant “received” because you can’t really relieve money.

Please, tell me, do I need to check all his sources or is the paper too old? Pick one.

I have seen that Wikipedia page. In its opening paragraph it states that in 1996 there could possibly been an 8% false accusation count. That’s nothing near the 75% number you give up top, nor does it warrant complete dismissal of all accusations as you’d like us to. And even then the last line is “Due to varying definitions of a "false accusation", the true percentage remains unknown.“ That’s because “where the accuser did not physically resist the suspect or sustain injuries [are filed] under headings such as "unfounded" or "unproved"”. Meaning any instance where there isn’t proof of injury in a physical altercation. “As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.” And anyone with half a brain knows not all rape is brutally forced. There was an entire reddit thread with hundreds of contributors admitting to knowingly raping someone where there was no force, but no consent. *They* called it rape. They knew what they were doing. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...d_is_now_the_subject_of_a_research_study.html

“She (albeit nonverbally) implicitly consented to something she felt she had no choice but to consent to. She was wrong and she did have a choice, but if she didn’t realize that in the moment then what difference does it make?”

Take those into account and that 8% probably sneaks down a lot. In fact, according that page the lower end of false accusations is 2%. In the UK is waffles between 8% and 3%. And in most provably false rape allegations a perpetrator is not even named. So, yeah.

 

In consideration of this thread's subject--like the Andrew Kreisberg thread--this is no "something out of nothing" matter. Assault is not imaginary, or jumping to a conclusion, or being PC. The way to allow sexual assault to continue unchallenged/punished is to either deny it, like the Takei or Moore supporters, or say nothing, such as certain women at MSNBC regarding Mark Halperin or Fox News' Kimberly Guilfoyle and Dana Perino who said next to nothing about Roger Ailes, Eric Bolling, et al,...because you know...gotta keep that job, or perhaps like some, they believe it all boiled down to making "something out of nothing."

Takei can do whatever he desires--which seems to be the case, but it does not mean the rest of society sits by and lets him slip by because "he's George Takei", as if all of whatever that means absolves him of guilt, or even justifiable suspicion based on the one-two punch of his accuser's remarks, and Takei's own all-too-similar comments while on the Stern show.

 

What would the reaction have been 30 years ago or whenever?
Do you seriously think anyone in the media let alone the law would have had sympathy for a gay man in that situation and probably not for a woman in that situation either?
I'm not even sure Takei committed a crime here even if he did what he was accused of unless he really did spike the drink..
Sure its definitely not OK to take advantage of people while they're drunk or unconscious but Takei allegedly stopped when confronted. While its morally wrong I'm not sure its criminally wrong.

Not saying Takei is innocent or guilty here but the delay proves nothing just as the Stern interview proves nothing.

 

Both women and men can be victims of assault. It's important to remember that in both cases the abuser is, by a wide margin, a man. It’s the identical problem and there is no reason for a double standard of any kind.

I do believe Takei's accuser. George talked about this identical scenario with Stern. It didn't sound like a joke. It sounded uncomfortable. Takei is literally flailing right now, blaming the Russians for spreading misinformation. That would be one hell of a conspiracy between Putin, the accuser, and the four people who remember him discussing this with them right after it happened.

This is a serious situation involving what seems to have been drugging. The accuser wasn't at Takei's place for sex. They had been friends for awhile. Even if this had been a hookup situation, that doesn't give Takei the right to drug someone. Even if they were making out and sex was discussed it is someone's right to take away consent at any time for any reason. It could be for as minor a reason as you smell funny, no one is obligated to have sex with you no matter how teased you feel.

I completely agree. You could barely be out of the closet back then. The act itself was illegal in some places until 2003.

I disagree with you here. For one, the guy describes passing out after two glasses of wine. That's unusual to say the least even for a light weight like me. Second, an unconscious person cannot consent making any sexual activity with them rape unless they said you could do these specific things to them while they were asleep before hand or during an established relationship where some kind of implied consent exists until it's explicitly removed. Neither of those scenarios existed here.

 

Over here in the UK it's called PC! Political Correctness and it was invented by that worm Tony Blair as another chain around our necks!
JB

 

Terrible if indeed true! I've never understood the need to force people into sex acts or anything else for that matter and with children that's disgusting! Kids should be protected against that sort of evil thing! Is Collins still acting or has he been boycotted by the producers, directors? Then again why would they when sexual abuse is rife in the industry!
JB

 

In the end it doesn't really matter. If you are a public figure and the mob decides you did something "wrong" then your brand is tarnished and you're no longer employable.

It's kind of arbitrary who has been given second chances (think Robert Downey Jr, Mel Gibson, Arnold) and who hasn't (anyone seen Michael Richards lately?).

 

Looks like Shatner was right for blowing off the 2nd bananas as he's reputed for having done during The Original Series' run ...

 

The generally protected Takei spent decades in interviews, talk shows, conventions and anywhere else trying to trash Shatner (like the WOK "lines" lie), not just as a brand (the associated end result), but as a human being , so one could argue that he's getting a dose of his own medicine, only in Takei's case, if true, it is not based on jealously and career envy, but sickening abuses.

You already have individuals trying to dismiss or undercut the gravity of sexual abuse in general, and specifically where Takei is concerned, so "second chances" or more to the point, an attempt to erase the accusation from human knowledge--is already happening.

Takei was just some day player who let convention noise go to his head, along with the Roddenberry-created myth of the "Star Trek family" as if they were some like-minded pack living the dream of a fictional TV series long after being cancelled. No one promised him a larger role, and the audience--during its NBC years--were not demanding "more Sulu! More Takei!" It would be as silly a thought (or actor-created sense of entitlement) as Stafford Repp--the actor behind the 60s Batman's Chief O'Hara--suddenly demanding more of a presence beyond the built-in limits of his supporting role, or attacking Adam West & Burt Ward for not getting more lines, and being the true draw of the series.

His thinking he deserved a "Sulu Trek" leaves any Shatner-ego BS in the dust.

 

From what I've read here and on other sites Shatner is the last one to be condemning anyone for sexual harrasment

 

Wherever I go, when someone has made up their mind they just don't like a famous figure, they usually start their post with "he was just some". Look, regardless of what he did or didn't do, what he's accomplished in his career is independent of it. I can understand how hate would drive someone to want to revise history and marginalize the guy's accomlishment in the eyes of the public, but that speaks more about the hater than it does the object of the hate.

 

On two occasions, someone has forced themselves on me when I had already said "no." And I've more than one person in a bar or club grope me without my consent. So reading some of the excuses, defenses and dismissals on this thread has made me sick.

 

Oh ... the ... dear!!!

 

Apparently, while still denying the accusation, he is apologizing for comments he made on the Howard Stern broadcast, in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. The comments, he claims were just jokes, & part of a naughty act he was playing. However, after having listened to that broadcast, before all the videos of it on youtube were pulled, I find it's really difficult to reconcile what was said as being just humor, in light of his accuser coming forward. It isn't just humor in bad taste, it's a pattern of behavior which at the very least lends some credence to the claim. That you can joke about having done it, makes it not a joke, especially after someone comes forward

http://www.wcvb.com/article/george-...asteful-joke-about-sexual-misconduct/13788243

 

Has The Shat ever been accused then, Commish? And is the guy taking any legal action against Takei or is it just to name and shame him?
JB