George Takei accused of sexual assault.

[marsh8472]

There are ways to ease someone into something without physically forcing yourself on them. This type of situation is literally why we have the expression NO MEANS NO.

People having "more imagination" is why many rape victims are dismissed out of hand. She dressed provocatively, she let him drive her home, she made out with him beforehand... The victimizer has the imagination to justify what he/she wants, and the victim is left with the consequences.

Not everyone shares the same preferences. Some people don't want to be coddled and want to be taken advantage of. The submissive sort. There's also the issue of the 9th amendment of right to privacy. This stuff is supposed to be private. But dictating to people the proper way to have sex can be an intrusion on privacy rights. I certainly don't want to hear about it as far as the ball grabbing stuff goes. But if he drugged him that's different.

 

[marsh8472]

I am going purely on what he said, while YOU are trying to guess what he meant. Between the 2 of us, YOU are the one assuming something you don't know, not me. Going purely by what he said, he groped people who were skittish or afraid to try to persuade them. On it's face, that is non consensual contact, which is sexual assault. I'm not the one filling in blanks with my own conceptions, YOU are with your justifications.

I'm not making guesses, you are. I offered a hypothetical because you were having trouble imagining any but I don't accept those hypothetical as fact either. Words are not always precise things. I'm reserving judgement until more information comes up.

 

[Jack Watkins]

That's because you're having trouble imagining scenarios where it's not criminal. The whole point was that he didn't go into specifics. So why assume the worst? There's not enough information within those few sentences to come to any conclusions unless you want to fill in the blanks with your own conceptions of what he meant.

My take from the interview is that George feels its okay to touch someone as long as there's no "power" involved; i.e. a boss/employee relationship. Obviously, power can be asserted more subtlety, such as an admired actor inviting a fan to his home. Maybe George wasn't dangling a promotion in front of him, but the kinship of a Hollywood star can be a powerful tool of manipulation.

Frankly, whether is happened or not, I'm not too keen on George. It was a skeevy interview on a skeevy show about a skeevy subject.

 

[JackSparrowJive]

I'm not making guesses, you are. I offered a hypothetical because you were having trouble imagining any but I don't accept those hypothetical as fact either. Words are not always precise things. I'm reserving judgement until more information comes up.

No, I'm not having "trouble" imagining a hypothetical; I'm not TRYING to imagine a hypothetical. Like I said, I am discussing what he actually said, not what he might hypothetically mean. Groping someone who is afraid to try to persuade them is non consensual contact, which is assault. Until George decides to explain those comments, I'm not trying to find some hypothetical way to justify them like you are.

 

[Jack Watkins]

Not everyone shares the same preferences. Some people don't want to be coddled and want to be taken advantage of. The submissive sort. There's also the issue of the 9th amendment of right to privacy. This stuff is supposed to be private. But dictating to people the proper way to have sex can be an intrusion on privacy rights. I certainly don't want to hear about it as far as the ball grabbing stuff goes. But if he drugged him that's different.

This is an interesting point. I briefly dated a woman who wanted to playact rape (I refused; thankfully things ended before it became an issue). Regardless of her predilection, I would have been maced within an inch of my life had I assumed such a thing before our having discussed it. A dominant/submissive relationship is built on trust, such as trusting they'll adhere to a safe word)

"Some people don't want to be coddled and want to be taken advantage of." That's a very dangerous assumption.

 

[marsh8472]

No, I'm not having "trouble" imagining a hypothetical; I'm not TRYING to imagine a hypothetical. Like I said, I am discussing what he actually said, not what he might hypothetically mean. Groping someone who is afraid to try to persuade them is non consensual contact, which is assault. Until George decides to explain those comments, I'm not trying to find some hypothetical way to justify them like you are.

There's not enough information for a sexual assault conviction in those sentences. He could have misspoke, not articulated his words good enough, and not said the right words to your liking, we don't know. Plus you already admitted you don't know other people's psychology. That's why I suspend judgement until more information comes in. No assumptions needed.

 

[ihno]

What an 80 year old man did 40 years ago... I know those questions but usually they were about war crimes, not groping between gay men.
Get some perspective and close down Guantanmo and bring the war criminals to justice.

As if the USA had no other problems. But what is to be expected from a state, where a female nipple causes a national scandal but a president who praises waterboarding is just fine. A beacon of bigotry.

 

[Maurice]

What an 80 year old man did 40 years ago... I know those questions but usually they were about war crimes, not groping between gay men.
Get some perspective and close down Guantanmo and bring the war criminals to justice.

As if the USA had no other problems. But what is to be expected from a state, where a female nipple causes a national scandal but a president who praises waterboarding is just fine. A beacon of bigotry.

Ah yes, ye olde fallacy of relative privation: "nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening."

Fuck that.

 

[Flork]

There are 2 ways your statement can be taken. One is that you think non consensual groping is not a big deal, because that is what he described doing. The other is that you think what he described was just a joke. I'm hoping the later, but feel free to clarify.

The problem though is this: IF he was in fact joking when he described non consensual groping, HE should be telling us it was a joke. But he ISN'T saying that, which is why your position blows my mind. He SAID he did something. It's obviously been taken by many to support recent allegations, which he denies. But he ISN'T addressing what he said he did on Stern. Why would you assume someone is joking when they aren't even saying so themselves?

I don't understand how my statement could be interpreted to mean I'm saying non-consensual groping is not a big deal, unless you're trying to create a straw man.

Here's what I literally said that you quoted: "I'm saying his making those statements on The Howard Stern Show doesn't strike me by themselves as an admission of anything."

How does one get what you interpreted out of that?

He's on a show whose very premise is to be comedic and shocking. It's not the PBS Newshour. It's not an interview with The New York Times. The guests say all sorts of things they may or may not mean, and they don't preface those statements with "What I'm about to say is a joke just to make sure your any listeners unfamiliar with this show's premise understand."

So, what I'm saying is banter on the Stern show is simply not enough to make any conclusion. If Takei comes out later and cops to it, that's different. If someone else corroborates the event, that, too, could change things. But the venue alone is not to be taken seriously.

 

[ihno]

Ah yes, ye olde fallacy of relative privation.

Fuck that.

Yes. Rational people keep a perspective and that includes to put things into realtions.

I can understand if something happened recently but not 38 years ago [excluding: rape, murder, atrocities etc.]. And not about "someone groped someone's ass in 1979" or "Dustin H. asked me if I had sex over the weekend in 1974". You know there is a reason why there's a statute of limitation. And people can change. I'm not the same person of 38 years ago any more.

And I'd suggest to look at the present (- 10 years or so) if you [a general you] want to do something against sexism.

There is something totalitarian and cruel about this, since most people just gobble it down and believe every accusation.

This is just a new form of clickbait:
https://consequenceofsound.net/2017...-of-sexual-misconduct-since-harvey-weinstein/

Who needs "in dubio pro reo"?* Not really new though. Look the cruel mugshot system you've established, which is nothing but a clickbait-gaudium for the public. When the US police takes a picture it goes online on a dozen pages, if you're guilty or not. Only goes off if you pay hundreds of dollars.

One mistake and the mugshot system/internet is only too willing to destroy you. But the same public who is outraged now (with a little homophobia thrown in), occasionally demanded a model career for the "sexiest mugshots".

And that's what I call bigotry.

*and if you have a criminal before a court, he can go free like Cosby (if I remember correctly).

 

[Timewalker]

What an 80 year old man did 40 years ago... I know those questions but usually they were about war crimes, not groping between gay men.
Get some perspective and close down Guantanmo and bring the war criminals to justice.

As if the USA had no other problems. But what is to be expected from a state, where a female nipple causes a national scandal but a president who praises waterboarding is just fine. A beacon of bigotry.

Age is not the issue. A few years ago one of my junior high science teachers was charged, convicted, and jailed for raping one of my classmates over a 3-year period... over 40 years ago (she was able to get justice by contacting the police and recording this now-retired teacher reminiscing about those times, so he was on tape admitting what he did).

His lawyer tried to argue "he's over 70, jail would be a hardship, let him off" but thankfully the judge didn't. As for my thoughts on this, I don't know who the student was (have some suspicions), but I don't doubt her for one second. Warnings were passed around among the girls at that school during those years to stay away from this teacher, as much as possible because he was creepy... he got smarmy with me one day in Grade 9, trying to turn on what he imagined was charm, but I just felt disgust. I tuned him out, and after a couple of minutes of getting nothing but an indifferent reaction, he went off somewhere else (this was track and field day, and I was taking a break from working in the canteen).


The issue here with Takei is one of evidence. Of course it's impossible, after all these years, unless Takei says, "Yes, this did happen as he said." Or, as others have mentioned, if many more people say, "This happened to me, too."

Even then it's not proof. But then we're getting into a rerun of the 1950s, when even just a rumor can wreck someone's professional reputation, never mind anything approaching evidence or at least corroboration from other prople.

 

[Flork]

Fortunately his interpretation doesn't matter. If I walk into a store and steal something, my interpretation of stealing won't save me. Plus, he himself said if someone was afraid he would grope them to try to persuade them. He damned himself with his own statements implying he knew how the person felt and still acted anyway.?

Actually, it could matter a great deal in a court of law.

Were it brought to trial, a significant amount of time would, in fact, be spent on whether or not the accused thought he had consent, once it was established the event happened at all. The decision to prosecute in the first place would be decided by a D.A. considering whether he or she could prove the accused did not, in fact, have consent.

That could be quite tough in a case where the accuser claims to have been drinking and passed out. Despite what TV shows like Law and Order: SVU may posit, the burden of proof is on the accuser/state to show a crime was committed and not on the accused to show he or she didn't commit the crime. That's how the legal system works. Otherwise, the mob would simply decide guilt or innocence based on their feelings, which might or might not be accurate, instead of the facts. They might mete out justice based on bias rather than reason.

What facts could there be after 40 years?

Was the drink or the accuser tested for drug residue? Were there witnesses? Did the accuser pass out or black out -- there is a legal difference. The former assumes the person is incapacitated and could not give consent; the latter suggests they could have given consent and simply not remember. Which is it here? In addition, the events happened 40 years ago. Memories are known to degrade over time in most people.

Takei has denied so far all the allegations made against him. His making general statements on a comedy show may or may not speak to his true philosophy or history and are unlikely to impugn him, especially if no other evidence exists.

 

[ihno]

Age is not the issue. A few years ago one of my junior high science teachers was charged, convicted, and jailed for raping one of my classmates over a 3-year period... over 40 years ago (she was able to get justice by contacting the police and recording this now-retired teacher reminiscing about those times, so he was on tape admitting what he did).

You are talking about a captial crime - like I did too. I mentioned war crimes - which includes rape, murder, torture, atroticties and stuff like that.
There was this woman who recently claimed that Spacey made her son drunk and molested him. Police can investigate this, no problem.

But that Dustin H. story or the Takei story are different. I don't believe this rape drug thing btw.
I find it more likely that it was just a strong drink - which can happen if you're out on a date. You drink five beers and one glass of wine and then you're feeling dizzy suddenly.
The "rape drugged" person still could go home, could he not?

His lawyer tried to argue "he's over 70, jail would be a hardship, let him off" but thankfully the judge didn't.

Yes, when there is proof and in cases of capital crimes you can and should do that. Like the trial against Cosby. As long as you keep minimal standards in a "country of law".

I also support that rape victims get more time to go to the police. Still: laying down on someone or groping a crotch is not "rape".

The issue here with Takei is one of evidence.

That he used rape drugs? Or that the mixed a strong drink?
I someone used rape drugs on me I would not demand "an apology" like this guy said.

Or that he dated a young model guy, took him to the cinema, got drunk and groped his crotch? I'm sure you can imagine or know gay people grope each other sometimes on dates. There are many countries where this was and is still a crime but I have no problem with it, being gay. I hope you don't mind too.

Even then it's not proof. But then we're getting into a rerun of the 1950s, when even just a rumor can wreck someone's professional reputation, never mind anything approaching evidence or at least corroboration from other prople.

I see this danger too, this is leading back to the 50s, maybe the 30s of the USSR, when people are being removed from movies.

But it's a money machine.

@Flork: I don't believe this "drug" story, it sounds like a date gone wrong. But even if I would, I doubt that this is not an outdated offense or crime. Mixing strong drinks surely was not a crime. I agree with Brunton himself, who called it "a bizarre incident".

And as for "Were it brought to trial..." - it wasn't and you can't turn back time as much as you trust the accusations and turn a "bizarre indicent" into rape 40 years later. And again: I posted the clickbait list, where things are listed that weren't a crime back then.

 

[Commishsleer]

The Fox News articles says Brunton and Takei had met up a few times and exchanged numbers.
Now Takei says he never heard of the guy so all Brunton has to do is find someone who saw them together.
That wouldn't prove what happened that night but might prove Takei a liar (or at best mistaken)

I know its been 40 years but the reporter said he'd talked to Brunton friends about it.

 

[ihno]

Do you remember everyone whom you met three or four times 20 or 40 years ago? I don't. And memory doesn't get better with age, though they say you remember the past better than the present after a certain age.

 

[Commishsleer]

Takei denies meeting him.
He doesn't say it could have possibly happened like Spacey did.

Of course Takei is 80 years old and may have forgotten but if we accept that then we should accept Rolf Harris denying molesting all those children 40 or 50 years ago as I'm sure he didn't keep track of his victims individually.

Takei's alleged actions are no where near as bad as those of Rolf Harris of course

 

[ihno]

Takei denies meeting him.
He doesn't say it could have possibly happened like Spacey did.

Stories change over time. Even you are changing the things you say in ten minutes.

In #194 you wrote, that Takei doesn't remember and now you write that he denies meeting him, which are two different things.

So what did he say? "I don't remember" or "I have never met him". But Takei has to be 100% accurate over four decades or it makes him seem like a liar.

If you google it, I guess he said "I have wracked my brain to ask if I remember Mr. Brunton, and I cannot say I do"
That's not a denial. Maybe he denied it in the meantime. If not, than it's your interpretation, nothing more.

Of course Takei is 80 years old and may have forgotten but if we accept that then we should accept Rolf Harris denying molesting all those children 40 or 50 years ago as I'm sure he didn't keep track of his victims individually.

First of all I don't know who Rolf Harris is and secondly I don't think this analogy works.

Takei's alleged actions are no where near as bad as those of Rolf Harris of course

What, taking him out to dinner and the theater and then home? What people call a date and what turned out to be a "bizzare incident".

I would not translate that as raping children either, yes.

Let's not forget that most forms of gay sex were a crime in most parts of the USA till the early 21. century. But that's long forgotten, right?

But those with a "historical interest" could still feel very offended by all the crimes that gay people commited, when they had sex anyway.

 

[Maurice]

My point earlier is that I don't buy relative privation, that people should only focus on the most important or significant issues. And, even if I did, who gets to decide what's significant? So while a single accusation may seem insignificant compared to other things, sexual abuse and predation are super serious and widespread issues, and so this one accusation joins a bunch of others to illustrate a huge societal problem. So while some may think the Takei accusation is small potatoes even if true, it's significant because it's part of the growing dialog about how widespread sexual harassment and assault are.

That said, I'm not in a rush to judge the veracity of either Brunton's claims or Takei's denial because I and we only have their opposing statements to go on, which is not enough to decide guilt or innocence.

Let's not forget that most forms of gay sex were a crime in most parts of the USA till the early 21. century. But that's long forgotten, right?

Rubbish. Only about 35% of states had such laws by 2000, which is far from "most" even though it was too many.

 

[Timewalker]

You are talking about a captial crime - like I did too. I mentioned war crimes - which includes rape, murder, torture, atroticties and stuff like that.
There was this woman who recently claimed that Spacey made her son drunk and molested him. Police can investigate this, no problem.

But that Dustin H. story or the Takei story are different. I don't believe this rape drug thing btw.
I find it more likely that it was just a strong drink - which can happen if you're out on a date. You drink five beers and one glass of wine and then you're feeling dizzy suddenly.
The "rape drugged" person still could go home, could he not?

I wouldn't know, since I don't drink or do drugs. The one time that I drank alcohol unknowingly was over 30 years ago, when someone spiked the punch in a room party at a science fiction convention. I noticed I wasn't feeling quite right, so I left the party and rested awhile. When I felt better I returned and avoided drinking anything that didn't come out of the hotel pop machine.

Yes, when there is proof and in cases of capital crimes you can and should do that. Like the trial against Cosby. As long as you keep minimal standards in a "country of law".

I also support that rape victims get more time to go to the police. Still: laying down on someone or groping a crotch is not "rape".



That he used rape drugs? Or that the mixed a strong drink?
I someone used rape drugs on me I would not demand "an apology" like this guy said.

Or that he dated a young model guy, took him to the cinema, got drunk and groped his crotch? I'm sure you can imagine or know gay people grope each other sometimes on dates. There are many countries where this was and is still a crime but I have no problem with it, being gay. I hope you don't mind too.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with some of this. If you're American, that means we're looking at this from different legal perspectives, since I'm Canadian.

And no, I have no objection to gay/lesbian people. As far as how people behave in a movie theatre, I would hope that they sit quietly, watch the movie, and don't disturb anyone else. That applies to everyone. But since I don't go to movie theatres anymore (last time I did was literally last century), what goes on there really doesn't affect me personally.

I see this danger too, this is leading back to the 50s, maybe the 30s of the USSR, when people are being removed from movies.

If people - any people - are going to use a theatre for a bedroom, that's not in keeping with the etiquette expected so other people can enjoy the movie without being distracted.

My reference to the 1950s was more in keeping with people being blacklisted for their personal and/or political activities and views. Just think if McCarthy had had something like Twitter or Facebook. The persecution some people faced was bad enough as it is, but nowadays it's so much easier with one tweet reaching millions of people.

 

[ihno]

I wouldn't know, since I don't drink or do drugs. The one time that I drank alcohol unknowingly was over 30 years ago, when someone spiked the punch in a room party at a science fiction convention. I noticed I wasn't feeling quite right, so I left the party and rested awhile. When I felt better I returned and avoided drinking anything that didn't come out of the hotel pop machine.

Yes, that's not very nice.
But they obviously did consume alcohol. A non alcohol consumer would not have taken a drink. And btw. "Come in and have a drink" between adults after an evening in the theaters normally means something more but I guess B. was somewhere else with his thoughts.

From what Brunton said - according to the Hollywood reporter - they were out having dinner and then in atheater. And that he was heartbroken.
I guess that Brunton - in his heartbroken state - only had his Ex in mind and might have misunderstood Takei's interest but that's all something very normal.

I see it like this: Takei was hoping for sex and the guy was in a different world. I guess they both drank a bit because mineral water is not very likely if a) you want to hit on someone or b) if you are heartbroken.

And like I wrote above: Stories change over time, esp. stories you tell again and again. Quote: "It is one of those stories you tell with a group of people when people are recounting bizarre instances in their lives, this always comes up. I have been telling it for years, but I am suddenly very nervous telling it."

Do you really think that a "rape" (like some suggest here) is a casual party story? "bizzare incidents" are, rape is not. I guess the suggested drug is a later misattribution.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-accused-sexually-assaulting-model-1981-1056698?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR Breaking News_now_2017-11-10 18:11:10_ehayden&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews

I'm not sure where you're coming from with some of this. If you're American, that means we're looking at this from different legal perspectives, since I'm Canadian.

German with the german experience with both dictatorships in the 20th century in mind.

And no, I have no objection to gay/lesbian people. As far as how people behave in a movie theatre, I would hope that they sit quietly, watch the movie, and don't disturb anyone else. That applies to everyone. But since I don't go to movie theatres anymore (last time I did was literally last century), what goes on there really doesn't affect me personally.

You have not missed much.
Today most people buy beer and popcorn. And when they have dinner they might have some wine or something more, esp. if the one, who pays the bill has an interest (again, that's not a crime).

If people - any people - are going to use a theatre for a bedroom, that's not in keeping with the etiquette expected so other people can enjoy the movie without being distracted.

Well, there are certain gay cinemas... but let's not go into that.

My reference to the 1950s was more in keeping with people being blacklisted for their personal and/or political activities and views. Just think if McCarthy had had something like Twitter or Facebook. The persecution some people faced was bad enough as it is, but nowadays it's so much easier with one tweet reaching millions of people.

I've thought something like that for years about about the GDR-"Stasi" (Secret service). They had so many spies, if only they had facebook.

What is happening now? People lose their jobs over accusations. They can be accurate, they can be false, they lose them anyway before the companies take no time to investigate. And all of that happens publically.
The "public" part is the one I find most appalling and if you compare it to McCarthy (I agree) he didn't make it up as clickbait-entertainment.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2017...-of-sexual-misconduct-since-harvey-weinstein/
Here they have updated their list and they end with a joke about Trump. "…and lest we forget…"

I find this really creepy.