James Franco accused of sexual exploitation or abuse by five women

LionPride

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,804
I think sometimes it is hard to talk about the nuances in some of these cases without being labeled and sometimes banned.

Just reading the story, I don't see nothing wrong being told that being open to nudity would lead to more parts. As a black male, I thought about how I would feel if I was told that I would get more parts if I was open to being a thug, drug addict, or drug dealer. I don't personally think that is racist but I could understand how some people would.
 

motherless

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
2,281
Read the thread some. Its just about believing victims without going in with the assumption that they're lying, which people were doing with the James Franco story already.
I quoted the posted specifically for a reason, which is why my response is appropriate to that quote. I strongly disagree with what I quoted. "And watch as all the people in the last Franco thread that argued otherwise are long gone.

How many times does it need to be said before arrogant, ignorant men, especially on this board, get it? WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS."
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,395
Man what a fucking creep. That article puts him on Weinstein-tier.
 

entrydenied

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
2,782
Sign...It's so hard having to see posters having to explain to people over and over again and to fend off these "women lie" and "witch hunt comments."

We're having a discussion here, not preparing to activate a mob to snatch James Franco and banish him into jail forever. There's a difference. And obviously when someone says believe women, it does not apply when it's about women commiting crimes. Call it "believe accusers" if it makes you feel better.

Also, no matter what word is being use, sexual assault is sexual assault. Sometimes victims might choose to use the words like "nudge" because very often you women are called bitchy and its many equvelents of the word. I'm not a woman but I am aware that women have learned how to downplay things and to smile and laugh things off because of the things people call them when they try to be firm and assertive.

Even with all these accusations, i doubt anything will happen to Franco anyway. None of the men who have been accused in the last year have suffered any dire or legal consequences except for Weistein but of course that's because there's 30 years worth of accusations behind it. I also don't doubt that some of his political enemies in Hollywood also took the chance to get rid of him.
 

138

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
416
Rape apologism is bullshit and unacceptable and this is a private space where such things do not have to to be tolerated.... We do not need to debate everything.... and that does not make it an echo chamber.

We also don't tolerate homophobia, transhpobia or bigotry in general.... This is not the wild west... and it's not an Echo Chamber either.

echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
 

TreadTalks

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
2,417
United States
And watch as all the people in the last Franco thread that argued otherwise are long gone.

How many times does it need to be said before arrogant, ignorant men, especially on this board, get it? WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS.
I disagree with your assessment and with your command. I much prefer “take every accusation seriously.”

In this case I lean strongly toward believing the accusations because of the specific nature of the accusations and the multiple accusers.

In the Michael Douglas case - as of yesterday - i have to take a wait and see approach until more surfaces.

It’s not out of arrogance or ignorance, it’s about wanting to treat each situation individually.
 
Oct 27, 2017
951
Read the thread some. Its just about believing victims without going in with the assumption that they're lying, which people were doing with the James Franco story already.

When will the slippery slope of calling out sexual assault end?

Its exploitative to only give roles out to the people who are willing to get naked for you. And based on the allegations of what he did at those nude shoots, its kind of obvious he had other motives with that.
Questioning accusers isn't believing they're lying. It means figuring out what's what and getting to the bottom of it. That's why I find this whole line of discussion disingenuous. If you believe accusations, it already means you've condemned the accused. You don't get it both ways.

Conservatives LITERALLY tried to use "I Believe Women" to entrap The Washington Times on Roy Moore, except The Washington Times literally did what many people in this thread are calling for: They didn't "believe" an accuser about a claim of sexual assault. Does this mean The Washington Times doesn't support victims? No. But it means that due diligence is required so that we don't turn this into a witch hunt so that people out to exploit a social climate can hurt others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/womans-effort-to-infiltrate-the-washington-post-dates-back-months/2017/11/29/ce95e01a-d51e-11e7-b62d-d9345ced896d_story.html?utm_term=.b841910f202c
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,866
I think sometimes it is hard to talk about the nuances in some of these cases without being labeled and sometimes banned.

Just reading the story, I don't see nothing wrong being told that being open to nudity would lead to more parts. As a black male, I thought about how I would feel if I was told that I would get more parts if I was open to being a thug, drug addict, or drug dealer. I don't personally think that is racist but I could understand how some people would.
Nigga, WHAT?!
 

Persephone

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,443
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
"I can handle misogyny and rape apologism but banning people for minimising sexual assault is where I draw the line!"

So brave *wipes away tear*
 

Ketkat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,403
I am not sure. ''Sexual assault'' is a pretty definitive definition. Is saying hi enough to fall in that line? I dont think it is.
Franco's removing the plastic guardians between genitals is coming awfully close of that definition however. But for what it exactly is is only in the hands of a court. I can imagine it could also be seen as ''flashing'' or regular assault aswell.
No, saying hi is not enough to be called sexual assault and no one has ever pushed for it to be. Slippery slope arguments about what constitutes sexual assault are a little ridiculous because its downplaying how serious sexual assault is that you think women would make an accusation about something like that. Him feeling up students that he's in a position of power over is definitely not okay.

I quoted the posted specifically for a reason, which is why my response is appropriate to that quote. I strongly disagree with what I quoted. "And watch as all the people in the last Franco thread that argued otherwise are long gone.

How many times does it need to be said before arrogant, ignorant men, especially on this board, get it? WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS."
I don't get your point, I told you what that poster was saying when it came to that, because he's clarified it a bunch of times.

Questioning accusers isn't believing they're lying. It means figuring out what's what and getting to the bottom of it. That's why I find this whole line of discussion disingenuous. If you believe accusations, it already means you've condemned the accused. You don't get it both ways.

Conservatives LITERALLY tried to use "I Believe Women" to entrap The Washington Times on Roy Moore, except The Washington Times literally did what many people in this thread are calling for: They didn't "believe" an accuser about a claim of sexual assault. Does this mean The Washington Times doesn't support victims? No. But it means that due diligence is required so that we don't turn this into a witch hunt so that people out to exploit a social climate can hurt others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/womans-effort-to-infiltrate-the-washington-post-dates-back-months/2017/11/29/ce95e01a-d51e-11e7-b62d-d9345ced896d_story.html?utm_term=.b841910f202c
Its about going in with the assumption that they aren't liars. You believe what they're saying, but you don't have to immediately slap down consequences on the accused. You can look into it, see if the story can be corroborated, but you don't go into it with the mindset that she's a liar like people were doing in the previous thread. That's all that statement is about.
 

WarLox

Member
Oct 30, 2017
533
Read the thread some. Its just about believing victims without going in with the assumption that they're lying, which people were doing with the James Franco story already.



When will the slippery slope of calling out sexual assault end?



Its exploitative to only give roles out to the people who are willing to get naked for you. And based on the allegations of what he did at those nude shoots, its kind of obvious he had other motives with that.
I'm not in hollywood, so I'm not going to pretend like I know how those things work. What would be interesting to know is was he only saying this to women or were the males also included in those conversation. If he was singling out the women, then that would add more evidence to his creepiness.
 

Fauxpaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
330
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
This is just sad.

Questioning accusers isn't believing they're lying. It means figuring out what's what and getting to the bottom of it. That's why I find this whole line of discussion disingenuous. If you believe accusations, it already means you've condemned the accused. You don't get it both ways.

Conservatives LITERALLY tried to use "I Believe Women" to entrap The Washington Times on Roy Moore, except The Washington Times literally did what many people in this thread are calling for: They didn't "believe" an accuser about a claim of sexual assault. Does this mean The Washington Times doesn't support victims? No. But it means that due diligence is required so that we don't turn this into a witch hunt so that people out to exploit a social climate can hurt others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/womans-effort-to-infiltrate-the-washington-post-dates-back-months/2017/11/29/ce95e01a-d51e-11e7-b62d-d9345ced896d_story.html?utm_term=.b841910f202c
Reset is not a news organization. If we were held to the standards of actual reporting, there wouldn't be a forum. "Believe women" is something for everyday people in everyday life. Nobody here is advocating for publishing stories or hit pieces without anything to back it up. This is being pedantic.
 

GotMineGood

Banned
Nov 25, 2017
801
I'm not in hollywood, so I'm not going to pretend like I know how those things work. What would be interesting to know is was he only saying this to women or were the males also included in those conversation. If he was singling out the women, then that would add more evidence to his creepiness.
no, it's creepy either way, and I work and live in Hollywood.

echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
edgy. I'm sure your impending mini ban will let you see the errors of your ways.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,522
USA
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
Is this really the hill you wanna die on?

I don't get it. This is what's most important to you in a thread about five women accusing a powerful white male of sexual harassment/assault/misconduct? The definition of echo chamber and sticking up for people who were banned for downplaying blatant manipulation and sexual assault? You're passionate enough about this to risk your account?

Bizarre
 
Last edited:

Fjordson

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,476
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
lmao

Yeah, what a terrible echo chamber. One must be open to all opinions on whether or not sexual harassment and abuse is bad.
 
Oct 27, 2017
951
Member warned for ignoring reports act wasn't consensual. Downplaying accusations of sexual assault.
Its about going in with the assumption that they aren't liars. You believe what they're saying, but you don't have to immediately slap down consequences on the accused. You can look into it, see if the story can be corroborated, but you don't go into it with the mindset that she's a liar like people were doing in the previous thread. That's all that statement is about.
I agree with everything you're saying. But many people skip the assumption that the women aren't liars and go straight to the "I always knew Franco was a scumbag."

The issue, in this case, is about 1) low pay for nudity 2) types of roles offered: hookers 3) a consensual blowjob. That's what at stake here. And to a lot of people that isn't damning enough for the kind of vitriol that's being thrown around here which is what's leading to the witch-hunt accusations.
 
Last edited:

WarLox

Member
Oct 30, 2017
533
Theres a difference in saying you can only do those things and if you were willing to do those things you would get more parts. It seems logical that if you limit what you are willing to do, then less things would be available for you to choose from. Again, I'm not in hollywood so I have no idea what I'm talking about.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,866
Theres a difference in saying you can only do those things and if you were willing to do those things you would get more parts. It seems logical that if you limit what you are willing to do, then less things would be available for you to choose from. Again, I'm not in hollywood so I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Then maybe you should just stop.
 

motherless

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
2,281
I don't get your point, I told you what that poster was saying when it came to that, because he's clarified it a bunch of times.
Your first response to me did not say anything about that poster clarifying his point. "read the thread some". I did. I did not read every post, there are a lot of posts. If he said he no longer agree with this, fine. I did not see that as I did not read every post. You don't get my point? My point is I don't agree with this quote. "WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS."
 

tatsu123

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,684
I think sometimes it is hard to talk about the nuances in some of these cases without being labeled and sometimes banned.

Just reading the story, I don't see nothing wrong being told that being open to nudity would lead to more parts. As a black male, I thought about how I would feel if I was told that I would get more parts if I was open to being a thug, drug addict, or drug dealer. I don't personally think that is racist but I could understand how some people would.
I second this Nigga What, but NOT because I don't KINDA agree. WarLox is correct in his thinking that nude roles for women, and thuggish, Drug Dealer, Gang bangers roles aren't COMPLETELY beneficial for women and Black men. Where he gets MY "Nigga what?!!!!" is him not thinking it's racist. It's COMPLETELY racist. And sexist. Fuck that shit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,567
Brooklyn
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
I can't tell if you're just arguing for semantics or are you really fighting for the right to downplay sexual assault.

If you're not trying to have a discussion, why reply?

Most of us here don't work in hollywood, the conversation isn't limited to only those that do.
It's 100 percent racist if they only want you, a black actor, to play the role of drug dealers or drug addicts.
 

Ketkat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,403
I agree with everything you're saying. But many people skip the assumption that the women aren't liars and go straight to the "I always knew Franco was a scumbag."

The issue, in this case, is about 1) low pay for nudity 2) types of roles offered: hookers 3) a consensual blowjob. That's what at stake here. And to a lot of people that isn't damning enough for the kind of vitriol that's being thrown around here which is what's leading to the witch-hunt accusations.
Consensual? Is that what you got from "I didn't want to do it and told him I didn't, he nudged me down and I had to make up an excuse to get out of it midway"? What vitriol is there besides people being frustrated at the people coming in to tell us about how women could be liars constantly? You can feel they're not a big deal, and that's your prerogative. But just because others do see them as a big deal doesn't mean that they're overreacting or starting a witch hunt.

Your first response to me did not say anything about that poster clarifying his point. "read the thread some". I did. I did not read every post, there are a lot of posts. If he said he no longer agree with this, fine. I did not see that as I did not read every post. You don't get my point? My point is I don't agree with this quote. "WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS."
Okay, you don't have to read the whole thread. Just read what I say to you.

Its just about believing victims without going in with the assumption that they're lying, which people were doing with the James Franco story already. Its about going in with the assumption that they aren't liars. You believe what they're saying, but you don't have to immediately slap down consequences on the accused. You can look into it, see if the story can be corroborated, but you don't go into it with the mindset that she's a liar like people were doing in the previous thread. That's all that statement is about.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,866
I second this Nigga What, but NOT because I don't KINDA agree. WarLox is correct in his thinking that nude roles for women, and thuggish, Drug Dealer, Gang bangers roles aren't COMPLETELY beneficial for women and Black men. Where he gets MY "Nigga what?!!!!" is him not thinking it's racist. It's COMPLETELY racist. And sexist. Fuck that shit.
That's precisely want my initial reaction was saying.

"Hey man, you're a great actor and all but no one really believes a nigger can be Nick Fury. Listen, there are a lot of great, open parts out there that fit people's perception of a darkie. I've got some friends who need parts filled for thugs, drug dealers, and amateur rappers. What do you say? Remember, I'm not racist. I'm just telling you your own limitations within the industry which I partially control."
 

Git

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,365
Yeah that Colbert interview was very telling - the victims' statements are grim, christ.
So fucking weird that he's seemingly doing an apology tour
 

Just_a_Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,008
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
Coming in here to whine about the plight of those who defend those poor rapists and sex assaulters. Real fucking nice.
 
Nov 13, 2017
6,401
echo chamber


NOUN
  • An enclosed space where sound reverberates.

    ‘purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings’

  • An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

    ‘people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers’

    ‘within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm’


I'll take that ban now.

Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
 

tatsu123

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,684
That's precisely want my initial reaction was saying.

"Hey man, you're a great actor and all but no one really believes a nigger can be Nick Fury. Listen, there are a lot of great, open parts out there that fit people's perception of a darkie. I've got some friends who need parts filled for thugs, drug dealers, and amateur rappers. What do you say? Remember, I'm not racist. I'm just telling you your own limitations within the industry which I partially control."


Let's not act like that's not an EXACT quote somewhere. Ol' Liberal Hollywood. Always at the forfront of progressiveness. They gave an oscar to Hattie McDaniel. In the 30's! Playing a slavish maid. NOICE!!!!!!
 
Oct 27, 2017
951
Consensual? Is that what you got from "I didn't want to do it and told him I didn't, he nudged me down and I had to make up an excuse to get out of it midway"? What vitriol is there besides people being frustrated at the people coming in to tell us about how women could be liars constantly? You can feel they're not a big deal, and that's your prerogative. But just because others do see them as a big deal doesn't mean that they're overreacting or starting a witch hunt.
"He was kind of nudging my head down, and I just didn’t want him to hate me, so I did it.”
He nudged. She consented. She changed her mind and stopped. You can paint this as assault. Some will agree with you. Others won't. Franco is still clearly inside the statue of limitations so Violet Paley can take it to the police. For me it was consensual.

Today, she said she would have handled the encounter in the car differently, especially in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. “I would say, ‘No, stop, get out of my car,’” she said. “The power dynamic was really off.”
I agree with her statements that the power dynamics was off and that is the overarching issue with James Franco. He took leveraged power dynamics. Not that he was guilty of sexual assault. Not unless something else breaks that we don't know about yet.

Career over

Never liked him, in his acting and interviews there is always a smell of arrogance, same with his brother
This post is a great example of the difference of "going in with the assumptions they aren't liars" and taking their word as gospel.
 

motherless

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
2,281
Okay, you don't have to read the whole thread. Just read what I say to you.

Its just about believing victims without going in with the assumption that they're lying, which people were doing with the James Franco story already. Its about going in with the assumption that they aren't liars. You believe what they're saying, but you don't have to immediately slap down consequences on the accused. You can look into it, see if the story can be corroborated, but you don't go into it with the mindset that she's a liar like people were doing in the previous thread. That's all that statement is about.
The persons statement I quoted isn't remotely like what you just stated. If he/she clarified later, fine (he never did to me and I didn't dig around for a follow up) but I hope you see the massive difference in the two.

I don't know either person so I have no basis to automatically have a mindset to believe or disbelieve what they are saying from either side.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,174
Oh yeah, because a smear on here would really take effect...........................lol

Where do you think you are, Washington Post newsroom?

Simply stated that the both of them irritate me
One thought within a social group is all it takes for an idea to start to take hold.

And Dave Franco should not be associated with what his brother has or has not done simply because you don't like the look of him.
 

Ketkat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,403
He nudged. She consented. She changed her mind and stopped. You can paint this as assault. Some will agree with you. Others won't. Franco is still clearly inside the statue of limitations so Violet Paley can take it to the police. For me it was consensual.

I agree with her statements that the power dynamics was off and that is the overarching issue with James Franco. He took leveraged power dynamics. Not that he was guilty of sexual assault. Not unless something else breaks that we don't know about yet.
That's not how consent works. If you feel you have to do it, that's not consent. The fact that she would today tell him to fuck off should show you that she was not consenting and that she didn't want to do it.

The persons statement I quoted isn't remotely like what you just stated. If he/she clarified later, fine (he never did to me and I didn't dig around for a follow up) but I hope you see the massive difference in the two.

I don't know either person so I have no basis to automatically have a mindset to believe or disbelieve what they are saying from either side.
They're banned, they can't respond to you right now. I told you they clarified this in the first response.
 

WarLox

Member
Oct 30, 2017
533
That's precisely want my initial reaction was saying.

"Hey man, you're a great actor and all but no one really believes a nigger can be Nick Fury. Listen, there are a lot of great, open parts out there that fit people's perception of a darkie. I've got some friends who need parts filled for thugs, drug dealers, and amateur rappers. What do you say? Remember, I'm not racist. I'm just telling you your own limitations within the industry which I partially control."
How is that even remotely close to what I said?


Theres a difference in saying you can only do those things and if you were willing to do those things you would get more parts. It seems logical that if you limit what you are willing to do, then less things would be available for you to choose from. Again, I'm not in hollywood so I have no idea what I'm talking about.
 

plagiarize

Don't touch your face!
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
11,338
Cape Cod, MA
Takes off moderator hat.

Here's the thing. This statement: 'BELIEVE WOMEN ALWAYS. PERIOD. NO QUESTION.' completely underserves what the #believewomen hashtag was meant to represent, and just sets it up for a cheap retort. That's what you get with hashtags, though I guess.

Really, for everyone scratching their head (or losing it) at a statement like that, what we're talking about is 'take the accusations seriously.'

This shouldn't be remotely controversial. When a work place or the police receive an accusation of sexual assault, they don't shrug their shoulders and go 'they might be lying.' No. They take it seriously, and look into the report to see if it can be substantiated. If people don't do this when a woman comes forwards with accusations, it just aids the accused to get away with it. It won't prevent people who are lying from getting caught out, but it might stop people afraid of coming forwards and having people presume they're lying from staying silent.

It isn't saying a woman's word is good enough to prosecute someone. It's saying we shouldn't brush off and ignore the allegations, which has been far too common in the past.

Would you rather marginally hurt someone's career and public image, or make it easier for people who commit sexual assault to get away with it? That's the dilemma here. Do you value the one in ten (say) innocent men who go through a period of trial via media over however many innocent women will be assaulted if we don't change the way we talk and think about cases like this?
 

bill crystals

Member
Oct 25, 2017
550
If you have any kind of empathy AT ALL I think you quickly realize that lying about sexual assault allegations against an incredibly powerful individual just doesn't make any sense. That seems like one of the worst things you could do to yourself, for basically no reason.
 

Just_a_Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,008
He nudged. She consented. She changed her mind and stopped. You can paint this as assault. Some will agree with you. Others won't. Franco is still clearly inside the statue of limitations so Violet Paley can take it to the police. For me it was consensual.
The consent is not yours to decide, it was hers to give or take away. If she felt forced into the act, that is not consent, that's an assault.
 
Oct 27, 2017
951
That's not how consent works. If you feel you have to do it, that's not consent. The fact that she would today tell him to fuck off should show you that she was not consenting and that she didn't want to do it.
If you feel you like not doing something and do it anyway, courts will usually regard that as consent. That isn't an attempt to downplay sexual assault but is representative of why taking these cases to court is so damn tricky and why there is so much grey area in getting convictions. "I didn't feel like shooting someone, but did it anyway" doesn't fly in a courtroom and typically they try to hold consistent standards in situations like this so when someone says something like this, getting convictions is very difficult. In ERA and more progressive circles this example would still be considered sexual assault and I 100% respect that analysis of the scenario.