High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[troutman]

It could be coming forward has more to do with protecting others, than punishing the abuser.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm really uncomfortable with shaming somebody publicly and to the detriment of their personal and professional life just because they're a jerk. It's a sledgehammer response that's way beyond what's necessary. With something illegal - like sexual abuse - it presumably triggers a trial where evidence can come out and at least there's a hope of redemption if the accused is actually innocent. We have a means to determine if the accusations are true/just/represented fairly and punishment is measured and appropriate. This trend of airing of grievances absent of any illegal behaviour has the potential to create more problems than it addresses and is too vulnerable to abuse.

It can't be accepted that just because a woman comes forward with a gripe that we instantly believe her.

Any more that any story about a famous person can be believed?

It’s unique, because we’re in a space where we don’t know these people at all. They have an image, PR, a brand, they are famous for one thing and the rest of their life is more or less a mystery. That said, how often has a story come out about a famous person struggling with mental health, or drug addiction, or charity work, or being a really great person... and you just believe it? Why is it ok to share countless good stories that might end up putting a pretty average or even dickish person on a pedestal, but it’s not ok to share stories that remove them from that pedestal?

What you or anyone else, including the companies who employee these people, do with that information is really up to you and them. Again, I don’t agree with Warner cutting him, but at the same time, why do I care or have some say in their decision to do it? I get it, it’s not like he’s a big star or have a bunch of positive brand association left, so it’s an easy decision.

Again, if you think mental or emotional abuse shouldn’t be mentioned because it’s technically not illegal, I disagree. If you think the only stories people should share about a celebrity are either great ones or ones where they broke the law, why? Why the interest in keeping these people on a pedestal whether they’ve earned it or not?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by troutman

It could be coming forward has more to do with protecting others, than punishing the abuser.

I hear you and I understand why that could be a brave and noble thing to do. It just seems like it needs to be mediated or run through some sort of verification process to ensure it's truthful and a fair representation of the facts, but obviously I have no clue what that verification process looks like. Interesting to watch all this evolve over the past few years, though. I can say that as somebody confident I don't have any skeletons in my closet of this nature. If you were higher profile with some gray area in your past, or with a vindictive ex, this could be much more troubling. On the flip side, of course, is if you are a guilty abuser, hopefully you are crapping your pants at your potential exposure.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Any more that any story about a famous person can be believed?

It’s unique, because we’re in a space where we don’t know these people at all. They have an image, PR, a brand, they are famous for one thing and the rest of their life is more or less a mystery. That said, how often has a story come out about a famous person struggling with mental health, or drug addiction, or charity work, or being a really great person... and you just believe it? Why is it ok to share countless good stories that might end up putting a pretty average or even dickish person on a pedestal, but it’s not ok to share stories that remove them from that pedestal?

What you or anyone else, including the companies who employee these people, do with that information is really up to you and them. Again, I don’t agree with Warner cutting him, but at the same time, why do I care or have some say in their decision to do it? I get it, it’s not like he’s a big star or have a bunch of positive brand association left, so it’s an easy decision.

Again, if you think mental or emotional abuse shouldn’t be mentioned because it’s technically not illegal, I disagree. If you think the only stories people should share about a celebrity are either great ones or ones where they broke the law, why? Why the interest in keeping these people on a pedestal whether they’ve earned it or not?

There's an interesting thought here about how this affects regular people.

The only reason these abusers/victims are being noticed is because one of them is a celebrity, almost always the abuser.

What does it say about our culture that we don't really care about victims who were abused by regular joes? It's pretty disgusting when you think about the psychology behind it all.

There's nothing quite like the draw of celebrity. And the only thing we love more than seeing a celebrity that we're a fan of hit it big, is to see another celebrity (sometimes the same person even!) come back to earth in a spectacular fall from grace.

If this was Jane Doe complaining about John Q Public being an abusive POS, even if it was 50x worse, then nobody would give a ####.

It's not even about successful/rich people being taken down. It is purely about the ability to generate page clicks from the sensationalist headlines. The better the reputation of the abuser to begin with and/or the bigger star they are/were then the more we eat that #### up.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

This might be the worst comment I've read in this thread so far.

My god what an awful thing to say. By the way, don't let the door hit you on the way out if that's how you feel about this community based on the comments of a few people.

If you're the kind of person who thinks it is ok to make disparaging comments about an entire group of people based on the comments of a few then maybe you're the very thing that you're complaining about.

I hope you're thoroughly embarrassed for posting something so incredibly ignorant.

These posts don’t help either

My recollection is that poster is a female, I might be wrong, but slamming her (or him) isn’t always conducive to exchanging ideas or changing opinions.

We don’t know her/his history.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

These posts don’t help either

My recollection is that poster is a female, I might be wrong, but slamming her (or him) isn’t always conducive to exchanging ideas or changing opinions.

We don’t know her/his history.

I don't care. They don't know my story and neither do you. Why should they get to say hateful things without recourse based on their gender/life experience without any regard for others?

Shouldn't I be afforded the same benefit of the doubt?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Any more that any story about a famous person can be believed?

It’s unique, because we’re in a space where we don’t know these people at all. They have an image, PR, a brand, they are famous for one thing and the rest of their life is more or less a mystery. That said, how often has a story come out about a famous person struggling with mental health, or drug addiction, or charity work, or being a really great person... and you just believe it? Why is it ok to share countless good stories that might end up putting a pretty average or even dickish person on a pedestal, but it’s not ok to share stories that remove them from that pedestal?

What you or anyone else, including the companies who employee these people, do with that information is really up to you and them. Again, I don’t agree with Warner cutting him, but at the same time, why do I care or have some say in their decision to do it? I get it, it’s not like he’s a big star or have a bunch of positive brand association left, so it’s an easy decision.

Again, if you think mental or emotional abuse shouldn’t be mentioned because it’s technically not illegal, I disagree. If you think the only stories people should share about a celebrity are either great ones or ones where they broke the law, why? Why the interest in keeping these people on a pedestal whether they’ve earned it or not?

I have no interest in keeping these people on a pedestal in the exact way I have no interest in tearing them down. My reservation on this - and it's a minor one because I don't super care either way in spite of this being my third post in 30 minutes on the subject - is if they're being accused, tried and sentenced based on the unvetted accusation alone.

Is every accuser qualified to diagnose their own mental or emotional abuse and trace back the source to an individual and have the ability to level that accusation in a fair and balanced way? I kind of doubt it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don't care. They don't know my story and neither do you. Why should they get to say hateful things without recourse based on their gender/life experience without any regard for others?

Shouldn't I be afforded the same benefit of the doubt?

Yeah nah I kind of thought that would be your response while I typed.

You do you, enjoy.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Your analogy makes zero sense, has no basis, and is complete nonsense. If you don't believe in religion then why would you be upset if "my book" says you are going to hell? According to you it's a piece of fiction so it doesn't matter what it says as it's just a story. No one is threatening your family as long as you believe the story is fake. Now, if you are truly feeling threatened then you have opened up a whole other can of worms and you may need to have a deep conversation with yourself. So what is it? Is it fiction or not? If your answer is fiction (which I know it will be), than your introductory analogy is stupid.

Your second statement claiming that it is fair to paint every religious person with the same brush just proves how closed minded you truly are. It's an ignorant comment to make and shows how one sided you are. You are making a broad statement that all religious people are uneducated and only rely on faith. That is so far from the truth. I teach in the Catholic school board and I can tell you the curriculum is the same as CBE. Contrary to what you believe, yes we do in fact teach science and math! I don't know of anyone who shuns facts or logic. I teach my students to think critically and question things every single day. Religion is not immune to questioning. You can question and still have faith. I would love for you to attend a Gr. 9 Religion class and partake in our discussions. Some very enlightening and open minded stuff going on.

As for evidence, go ahead and prove that God doesn't exist. I'll wait. Just like I can't prove there is a God you can't prove there isn't. That's where individual belief comes into play. I think you are a lunatic if you believe that everything in our universe has happened by random chance and are not open to the possibility of a higher power or force. News flash....you can believe in science and a higher power at the same time. They are more intricately linked than you give credit for.

Science and religion can and does coexist. There are many scientists current and past who are religious or believe in a higher power. A close family friend who has a PhD in astrophysics and was a professor at UBC (he is not religious nor affiliated with any religious organization) told us once that it would be foolish of any true scientist to completely discredit the possibility of a God. There are some things science simply can't explain.

Your final claim that religious people have been brainwashed and that "educated adults" would balk at the mere mention of a higher power once again shows how little you know. I'm an adult, have 2 university degrees, enjoy science, and teach math for a living. I'm also Catholic and believe in a God. I don't consider myself stupid or uneducated. Your sweeping generalizations don't help your cause.

Religious organizations aren't perfect. People aren't perfect. There is lots of room for improvement that I can't deny. The pedophile priests are a disgrace and it needs to be cleaned up. I hope that they do. The new Pope is moving things in the right direction, it will still take some time. I'm just sick of the loud "atheist" group claiming they are "right" or better than everyone else. You hate the vocal believers for "pushing" their beliefs, well, looks like you are doing the same thing.

Science and God are not mutually exclusive. Science simply seeks to understand how things work. In the past more things were unknown and thus attributed to God, now fewer things are. If there is a God then the ‘mysterious ways’ they work in are just ways we can’t explain yet. Science could ultimately explain everything that an all-powerful God does, but that wouldn’t refute the fact that God is an omnipotent being, it would just explain how those omni powers work. Computers are magical to many people but if you know how they work they are less magical but no less powerful.

None of the above is meant to suggest there is or isn’t a God (I lean towards isn’t but admit there is much we don’t know). I have stronger feelings about organized religion but will keep them to myself.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I have no interest in keeping these people on a pedestal in the exact way I have no interest in tearing them down. My reservation on this - and it's a minor one because I don't super care either way in spite of this being my third post in 30 minutes on the subject - is if they're being accused, tried and sentenced based on the unvetted accusation alone.

Is every accuser qualified to diagnose their own mental or emotional abuse and trace back the source to an individual and have the ability to level that accusation in a fair and balanced way? I kind of doubt it.

Well... they're not... unless you're talking about the court of public opinion which these individuals and the companies they work for bank on for success.

Again, we don't put anything positive through this type of verification process, and in the industries these people work in positive press and a likeable image make bank. People like good stories, a career resurgence after a battle with addiction, a young actor who just stumbled into Hollywood from nowheresville USA. As much as their quality of work matters, the story around them and their reputation plays a big role in their work and opportunities. So why do we just accept these stories that make there people seem a certain way, and then instantly want a verification process for stories that might change our perception. Our original perception isn't based on anything real, so why are we trying to protect it?

And I do get the "tried and sentencing" thing from a public opinion standpoint. Like, person says something, ok, we believe them, people shout about it, company x takes action. But you have to remember that everything in the court of public opinion is this way. You do not have to be a criminal to lose a job that depends on public opinion, you just have to be unlikeable. You do not have to be especially talented or interesting to gain one either, you just have to be likeable. It goes both ways.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Yeah it is always kind of hypocritical that we get all up in arms when the court of public opinion condemns someone but no one seems all that upset when that same court of public opinion puts someone on a pedestal and idolizes them.

Shouldn't we be asking for proof in both scenarios? We're perfectly happy to take someone's word for it when they're extolling the virtues of our local sports heroes.

But when some random celebrity is accused of something bad in the same court of public opinion based on some other person's word, all of a sudden we want a full trial with evidence.

[Locke]

What we need to take away from this is that Artists are Scum.

What we need is more Accountants. You havent heard of any Accountants who have mistreated their partners!

Thats the ticket!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

What we need to take away from this is that Artists are Scum.

What we need is more Accountants. You havent heard of any Accountants who have mistreated their partners!

Thats the ticket!

How do you mistreat your left hand....

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well... they're not... unless you're talking about the court of public opinion which these individuals and the companies they work for bank on for success.

Again, we don't put anything positive through this type of verification process, and in the industries these people work in positive press and a likeable image make bank. People like good stories, a career resurgence after a battle with addiction, a young actor who just stumbled into Hollywood from nowheresville USA. As much as their quality of work matters, the story around them and their reputation plays a big role in their work and opportunities. So why do we just accept these stories that make there people seem a certain way, and then instantly want a verification process for stories that might change our perception. Our original perception isn't based on anything real, so why are we trying to protect it?

And I do get the "tried and sentencing" thing from a public opinion standpoint. Like, person says something, ok, we believe them, people shout about it, company x takes action. But you have to remember that everything in the court of public opinion is this way. You do not have to be a criminal to lose a job that depends on public opinion, you just have to be unlikeable. You do not have to be especially talented or interesting to gain one either, you just have to be likeable. It goes both ways.

Yep, it's all money. You can be the best actor in the world but if no one sees your movies or no advertisers back you, you're hungry. Same with any type of show. Don Cherry only got fired because the advertisers threatened to backed out.



We always have to remember they we vote with our dollars.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

I not going to read this thread anymore! I find almost every comment to be the worst kind of dismissive man-splaining on how these stories do not warrant being called abuse. It makes me sick. This is the problem in a nutshell. I thought the majority of men here were better than this. Apparently not.

There's hundreds of men on CP and maybe a dozen going ultra defensive on this topic.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by troutman

Like with Ghomeshi - within the industry there were a lot of red flags that the general public still does not know about.

Wait, are you saying there were red flags that you know about in the case of Matthew Good or were you musing that that is often the case?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jayswin

There's hundreds of men on CP and maybe a dozen going ultra defensive on this topic.

Not even that...I mean...do people just 'believe strangers?'

We tell our kids about things like this.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Not even that...I mean...do people just 'believe strangers?'

We tell our kids about things like this.

Or perhaps those involved have more information than the public is privy to with respect to these stories.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I dont know where the line gets drawn, but Matt Good's ex said in the following article "everything that took place was consensual".

Thats a very odd statement to make about someone that she is also calling a serial abuser.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globaln...ey-mather/amp/

I think she's trying to establish that he didn't rape her. That the sex was not what she liked but what she did for him as people do. Trying it out for his benefit, if you will.

No doubt, Matt Good has a reputation for being an m####### and a serial philanderer. But I'm not sure if this is a case of him being more than a bad boyfriend who cheated and was emotionally manipulative. Both of those things are terrible but not criminal.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

There's hundreds of men on CP and maybe a dozen going ultra defensive on this topic.

Dozen? I counted one when I scrolled and I think that poster even apologized. Maybe there’s a different discussion I missed.

I guess we all interpret discussion differently but if you’re going to make an accusation like that against so many people, you should back it up.