gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
676421 Posts in 27291 Topics by 4032 Members - Latest Member: theangel August 11, 2022, 10:31:11 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 23
126  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Ian Lee interviews Mike Love on: September 09, 2016, 07:38:39 AM
I just had a strange and very unwelcome experience. I had clicked on a link that had nothing to do with Mike Love and ended up listening to the Iain Lee interview. Lee said 'There seems to be a strand of people who are angry with you..'

A strand? Mike could make a whole series of wigs with the strands who are angry with him.
127  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Ian Lee interviews Mike Love on: September 09, 2016, 02:23:55 AM
"Brian had a bad experience with LSD and decided he didn't want to finish it" - Mike on Smile.

I started to listen but couldn't bear it. Now I'm glad I didn't bother. How can an interviewer just let a comment like this one go unchallenged? - and I'm assuming he didn't challenge it. Iain Lee was full of scorn for those who post here but the majority of us have more integrity than that (especially now now that some of the Love apologists have departed for other MBs).

Edited to add that this shows Mike trying to cop out of any personal responsibility for what went wrong with SMiLE whilst YET AGAIN reminding us that Brian did drugs.
128  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board) on: September 08, 2016, 05:04:37 AM
Mike also spends a fair amount of words denying he ever stated the "don't f--k with the formula" quote. On the other hand, he uses plenty of f-bombs throughout the book.

Whether or not he used those words, he has certainly lived by that principle.
129  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: From Brianistas to Lovesters on: September 08, 2016, 01:37:20 AM
I love Brian as he is but I must admit I'd like it. It would be like that moment in Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, when, having put up with Mrs Danvers snotty behaviour for ages, the unnamed heroine finally says "I'M Mrs de Winter now." Maybe there is a touch of that in Brian's book title. Brian has confidence in who he is - he doesn't need to be constantly trying to make himself more important.
130  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board) on: September 07, 2016, 11:50:11 AM
Sorry about that! I've managed to correct it now.
131  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board) on: September 07, 2016, 11:32:23 AM

From the book:

Mike gets a phone call following the Tale-LaBianca murders.

Person on phone:" Prepare to die, pig."
Mike:" F--k you! Come down to Manhattan Beach, and we'll see who dies!"
No one came to visit, and he never called again.

That's telling 'em, Mike!


But why would Mike have assumed this was Manson? There are quite a few people who could have made that call. He's not a universally popular guy lol!
132  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: From Brianistas to Lovesters on: September 07, 2016, 03:17:08 AM
Rick 5150 wrote: "I understand how you feel about Mike's actions, I really do. I am old enough to have lived most of them first-hand and cringed along with the rest of the world when they happened. How do you deal with people in your life that have this type of trait? Do you hang with them less? Avoid them altogether? I am willing to bet you do not go on the internet and anonymously rip them a new one every time they do something you do not like. We can do this because Mike is a public figure and it is easy when we are supported by a mob mentality."

Agreed but Mike makes public statements about his various grudges on the internet, radio, TV and in the Press (admittedly not anonymously but with Mike's ego, one wouldn't expect that). So the fans respond in kind - and not all of them do so anonymously. I use my own name in every one of the posts I have made criticising Mike. But undoubtedly the 'mob mentality' does sometimes take over and it's there to be seen when Mike's apologists get to work too. Like the guy who said he wanted to kill everyone who posted here. Of course he didn't mean it, it was a joke, but he was playing to an audience and some of them are prepared to indulge him. By all means criticise those who are just mindlessly going along with what others say or write but I've read dozens of posts here and elsewhere that have made sensible and well argued criticisms of Mike. To defend Mike with empty threats shows the weakness of one's own position surely?
133  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love will make up anything to sell books on: September 03, 2016, 01:03:38 AM
The funny part is, it's the only aspect of the book the media is talking about!

Yep.  There's that TV show "Aquarius," so that's where the click-bait set is focused.  Maybe it will sell a few Denny cd's?  LOL

That would be the silver lining to this particular cloud.
134  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Iain Lee's Opinion Of This Forum: \ on: September 02, 2016, 02:28:16 AM
The insults and throwing a wobbly certainly aren't unique to the Smiley Smile board. I was involved in a FB thread yesterday in which several really nasty remarks about Mike were made but my suggesting that Mike had a history of litigation was the one that elicited a very rude response from one guy (now unfriended and blocked!).

Mike often comes in for criticism because of the kind of comments he has made and no doubt with the book shortly to be on the shelves we'll see more of it. Brian is far less contentious and so I would be surprised if his book causes the same - or anything like the same - amount of bad feeling.

135  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Iain Lee's Opinion Of This Forum: \ on: September 01, 2016, 08:54:41 AM
TBH I think that fans respond in kind. So if there is a band which has factions and divisions, that is mirrored in the fan base.
136  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Iain Lee's Opinion Of This Forum: \ on: September 01, 2016, 03:41:52 AM
Iain Lee comments on the Smiley Smile board at 45:15 into the video. Published June 15th, Richard Herring's Leicester Square Theatre Podcast - with Iain Lee #101.

"I'd kill everybody on that board. Everybody, without shadow of a doubt, yeah."

https://youtu.be/fp8a_G6YsnA?t=45m15s

Twitter today:



'This place [Pet Sounds forum] seems nicer'? Ignorance is bliss. Instead of writing off all of those who dislike Mike Love, perhaps he should try to find out why. But if he has read the book and still doesn't know, I suppose there's no hope for him.





137  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike's Book and the Smiley Smile Board...? on: August 30, 2016, 04:13:51 AM
Craig (and Billie?), I'm not clear on what is going on here. Are you accusing me of something?

I haven't read the book and don't know of the specific topics guitarfool is talking about but I don't think he is accusing you of anything. All that's being said is Mike's book has some very similar opinions as certain things that that some posters have said. Maybe Mike read some of these things and agreed with these opinions and maybe it's just a coincidence.

I wonder what Mike would do if someone used some of his words without giving credit. Can't imagine!
138  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: The Observer: It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Brian Wilson’ on: June 05, 2016, 07:02:17 AM
this article is not really even worth consideration, full of falsehoods and seemingly no research. more of an opinion piece really, and an awful one at that. but this line may be the most misguided thing I've ever read:

Quote
Foskett has been with the Beach Boys for 34 years, longer than Carl or Dennis Wilson were in the band

i mean, wow.

In case anyone needs to know, Jeff Foskett's total tenure in the touring Beach Boys as of mid-2016 is about 10 and 1/2 years (December 1981 to July 1990, and early-mid 2014 to present). Even if you add his years in Brian's band, it comes to about 24 and 1/2 (the 10 and 1/2 plus 14 with Brian).

Very poorly researched. It'll be interesting to see if certain nitpicky folks who have been known to denounce things for minor factual errors and who might now be posting on other boards will be willing to discredit this article as well.

LOL!
139  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: The Observer: It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Brian Wilson’ on: June 04, 2016, 12:12:18 AM
It is an absolutely stupid premise. The rest of the BBs were not ready to take over for Brian in 1967. That is likely one of the hidden reasons that Brian shelved SMiLE in its original form (aside from the flak and the pressure and a few minor things like that). It's because he knew that there would have to be a transition period to bring Carl and Dennis up to a level where they could write and produce material that could viably restructure the division of labor in the band.

I'm convinced he knew this even as he slowly succumbed to his own sense of failure in not bringing SMiLE off after all of the hoopla, and the next LPs were designed to make that transition by bringing into play new genres of Beach Boys music that would allow all of the other guys in the band a framework for moving forward with or without him.

The article criminally overstates the band's readiness to take over for Brian at this time, and completely misses the idea that Brian was himself looking for ways to make this happen even in the midst of a delayed breakdown as a result of SMiLE's demise. By 1969 the band was able to do just that, but the notion that the band would have been greater without Brian in the ensuing years clearly has forgotten the tracks that Brian was involved in and how he continued to "lead the way" even in his so-called bedroom phase. While Carl may have finished a number of Brian tracks in this time frame, he didn't originate them.

This is article is bombastic, malevolent revisionism at its most egregious and should be forcibly crammed down the author's throat.


Excellently put. The title was enough for me to know it was going to annoy me but I read it anyway, finding that the arguments presented by the author were laughably unconvincing to anyone who had the slightest knowledge of the history. As for Mike being 'gentle' and 'kind' and giving money to charity, what the hell does that have to do with whether he is talented or capable of competing musically with Brian Wilson? (There are also numerous incidents of Mike being less than 'kind' which the author conveniently chose to overlook.) The timing is indeed suspicious too.
140  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Thread for arguments with or about moderation on: May 29, 2016, 05:09:24 AM
[quote author=Emily link=topic=23872.msg577985#msg577985 date=1464053460

-The only woman posting here that I can think of off the top of my head who is completely open about her identity is Debbie KL. Whether women's discomfort with openly identifying themselves on an open board is validated by stats or not, it's real discomfort based on the many horror stories we hear on a regular basis.
[/quote]

And me! I post under the same - my own - name here, on FB, Brian's MB and so on. I even post rarely on BBB - as Angela since I forgot my password and couldn't use Ang Jones as it was already registered.

I haven't been following all of this because of being away at BW shows but I think we should refrain from getting too personal or at least perhaps write privately to each other first. It is easy for bad feelings to be blown out of proportion. We're all here through love of the music. We're bound to disagree, we have strong opinions but in my experience we all clap together and on time when we hear 'Surfin' is the only life, the only way for me now, surf....'

Love and mercy as the man says!
141  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / The Quietus interview on: May 23, 2016, 12:23:01 PM
'Wilson said that he “knew Pet Sounds would be a real special album - the voices made me feel that.” “The voices” – the frequent auditory hallucinations about which he has long spoken openly – are symptomatic of the bipolar and schizoaffective disorders from which he has suffered since 1965. Although his mental health has improved in recent years, he still hears “the voices”...'

http://thequietus.com/articles/20279-interview-brian-wilson
142  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian Wilson 2016 Tour Thread (Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary Tour) on: May 23, 2016, 08:32:55 AM
I posted my thoughts in the UK Pet Sounds Review thread, but I copied it here as well.


I was at the show at The Palladium last Saturday and before you read the rest, I had an amazing night and it was great. BUT...

It was just sad to see him on stage like that. He didn't really hit the right notes, his voice was just ruff. And he totally didn't seem to be in the same room as the rest of the band. He never smiled or laughed or anything (at least from my seat). It was really depressing to see him there. And before the break he didn't even stay on stage until the last song was over.  It was kind of weird. If I was just a random fan, someone who only went to the show because it said Brian Wilson and Pet Sounds, I would never go to a Brian Wlson show again.

I always go to Brian shows because of his amazing band. If he didn't have them it would be even more awkward. Blondie on the other hand was out of control and rocking the house!


But you have to give him credit for having the courage to go on tour and perform albums like Smile and Pet Sounds. Mike would never do stuff like this.  So as long as Brian is touring I will always go, because I'm a fan of his music and his band, but not of his stage-appearance. And like every other Brian show, I still ha a blast because of the band.

A few questions that someone here might be able to answer:
1. Is he aware of his live voice?
2. Why does he still go on tour when he's clearly not enjoying being on stage?

So much from me,
Rüdiger


The Saturday show was great - the one I frankly expected to be the best, with a very excited and enthusiastic audience. But IMO (and admittedly, I was very tired, having only got to bed at 3 am on Saturday morning so not in the best frame of mind to appreciate the Saturday show) the Sunday show was even better. Brian DID smile during this one. He was smiling during Blondie's brilliant Wild Honey rendition and he continued to smile. At one point he got up and waved to the audience, causing an immediate outpouring of love and making me realise how much more response he would have got with just a few more such actions. He is so loved by his fans.

As for Brian's awareness of his voice, there's this, from the Manchester Evening News: "'“On stage is kind of scary. The eyes are watching. I might sing good or not sing good,” says Brian about live performance - a part of the job he once famously avoided. “But I’ve got (former Beach Boys members) Al Jardine and Blondie Chaplin on tour with me and they’re both great singers and help me out.” ' http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/brian-wilson-pet-sounds-isnt-11321275
143  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian Wilson 2016 Tour Thread (Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary Tour) on: May 19, 2016, 02:36:27 PM
What I think some seem to be forgetting is that Brian has throughout the last 14 years had his off nights. I'm sure most performers do and Brian has problems to contend with that most don't. The idea that Brian has been doing wonderfully throughout those 14 years and is now noticeably worse is IMO mistaken. Some nights he is better than others - that has always been true. I enjoyed the Birmingham show and at Cardiff Brian seemed even more relaxed. The audience loved it and gave warm applause and ovations.

As long as there are people who want to see him and as he is enjoying performing, what is the problem? Of course, I don't want to see a situation in which Brian's performances become weaker, more jaded and he is evidently not enjoying himself but to me that time has not come yet. And when it does come, I hope that Brian can work that out for himself.

I don't think a tour as long as this one can be convincing if Brian truly is past it. Most of the reviews I have seen so far have been good. Not all will be because this depends not just on the performer but the reviewer's own mindset. Some will miss certain band members; for some it will bring back memories of a time when they were younger, life was different. But for me, even some of the differences in Brian's voice, though not an improvement, brought more nuances of emotion to the piece. I Just Wasn't Made for These Times was brilliant, so was Caroline No. Don't Talk was so moving.

It is the last time Brian will be performing Pet Sounds. Won't last forever - I intend to enjoy it whilst I can because it is an amazing experience.
144  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread on: May 11, 2016, 03:04:52 PM
You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.
Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.


No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?



I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.
I'm on my phone in my car at a gas station so I'm not going to navigate in-line answers.
He, from his statement, still seems to think it wasn't rape. My point is that he probably didn't think it was rape because he seems to think, from his statement, that "kissing and fondling" means it wasn't rape. That, sober or drunk, his mindset is that it's all ok because they kissed and fondled. A mindset replicated here.
She, from the description of the video - and if you don't believe this to be necessarily true, perhaps Ang doesn't, I don't know, that would be a reasonable demurral to my mind - was drunk enough that she was unable to walk on her own - that's how they ended up on the floor in the hall - and that she was unable to get to her room after. This is too drunk to consent; something that evidently Mr. Bennett and several people on this board don't fully grasp.

This is from the NY Daily News but the others seem consistent: "After Bennett blocked the 21-year-old woman from exiting the elevator, the two get off at the 12th floor and at one point he tries to carry the victim down the hallway, according to the affidavit.
The two then lie down on the hallway floor and Bennett appears to sexually assault the woman, the surveillance footage shows."  "The two then lie down..." no mention of her collapsing. Perhaps she did BUT IT DOESN'T SAY SO. I admit openly that maybe had I seen the video I'd have also found Scott Bennett guilty but we are relying on a report which isn't detailed enough to prove to everyone's satisfaction that justice has been done. Hence it being unhelpful for us to continue to speculate about it.

I'm sorry really that I ever heard about the incident, ever read the comments on the various MBs. Brian Wilson's stance was the best: to refuse to comment at all. I didn't mean to come back to it but it's like biting on an aching tooth.
145  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread on: May 11, 2016, 12:02:20 PM
I'm sure she feels awful about her choices that night. But, legally, the person who stole your car still stole it. The court won't find "the keys were in it" to be a mitigating factor on their behalf.

No argument except that we don't know enough.
146  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 11, 2016, 11:45:47 AM
Quote
Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video.  

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.
By the way, Ang, the charge would have been different and more serious if she were underage. And the planned/impulse aspect is usually taken into account at sentencing. "Rape by instrumentation" is probably analogous to "sexual assault by penetration" and is not as strictly sentenced usually as flat-out rape. So the there's a fair amount of similarity.

I keep promising not to post further but, yes, there are similarities. I was pointing out the differences because this may explain some difference in attitude between posters.

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

Another analogy. What if you left your keys in your car and it was stolen? Of course the criminal would be the thief but you might find the insurance company wouldn't pay up because they might feel you hadn't taken adequate care of your property. Those who allow themselves to become so drunk that they are passed out on the floor in a public place are also not taking due care. It may not be a criminal act; it may, though, be a misdemeanour. I've behaved irresponsibly on occasion and been lucky. If I got THAT drunk I'd be ashamed of myself as well as furious with anyone who had taken advantage of me.

147  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 11, 2016, 02:30:03 AM
Quote
Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video. 

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.
148  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 08, 2016, 02:08:29 PM

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

Since that quote about "hoping it's true" could obviously be taken out of context and be hurtful, I just want to stress that when I said "hope" what I meant is that if for some reason (not apparent now) this is NOT all true, and the same penalties apply regardless, then the situation is more tragic than I am personally prepared to take in.  

Yes, of course I realised what you meant. It is awful to think of someone who is innocent of the charge suffering these consequences. I'm not suggesting full innocence because obviously there is no way this was a good way to behave.
149  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 08, 2016, 12:46:23 PM
There's no excuse for what we know Scott did, even spinning the best possible scenario for the events.

I can be appalled by the effects of rape and the aftermath (I too have had someone close to me go through this, not that it's anyone's business, but it apparently needs to be said) and still be concerned about the deliberate tone of the article (to which most of us, myself included, reacted exactly as intended) and also have an understanding of the weird non-reality of the touring musician (which is not an excuse, but it is context) and also of how media and law enforcement tend to spin facts.

This is not taking sides, nor is it excusing anything.  It's holding a lot of different ideas in one's head simultaneously and sifting through them and trying to have a fuller understanding of what happened.  We all have things we stand for.  Fairness, entertaining all sides of a question and thinking for myself, even when it's socially uncomfortable or makes people mad, is what I do - anyone who follows me on FB knows this.  Whatever horrible biases or denials people may ascribe to that trait - you're wrong.  I know me and you don't.  And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on.  I've learned too many times that later more facts emerge and what seemed like a clear picture is a lot blurrier.  I can reach a conclusion for myself in a day, a week, or a month.  And it's very possibly going to be exactly the same conclusion that everyone else has reached already.  But if it isn't, I'm going to be glad I didn't just go "fry him, the monster!"  It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  (And the need for/responsibility to have a moral compass in all circumstances is the central question of this event, no?  Since substance abuse, nor peer pressure in another situation, is not an excuse for this kind of act)

No one's excusing Scott.  No matter what happened, even if there were exculpatory facts, he behaved like a pig and an idiot and apparently showed zero concern for the welfare of the woman.  And he's also been convicted so he's lost his presumption of innocence.  

I think everyone who is up in arms about the idea that anybody is "minimizing rape" needs to face one salient fact:  Scott's life is over. If he doesn't win on appeal, he's going to jail for a long time, and face years of monitoring, difficulty getting work or finding a place to live, after he gets out.  If he does, he's still damaged goods and he probably won't be able to work.  So whatever he has done he will be amply punished in full.

I personally hope (assuming that the verdict holds) that it's all true and Scott is a sack of crap, because he is most likely going down regardless of what the full circumstances may have been.  People who might point fingers because some of us are a little concerned with some of the questions around the edges and think that concern is somehow going light on Scott or the topic of rape need to keep that in mind.  Rape is serious business; so are the penalties for sex offender laws in this country, and so are the flaws in the media and in law enforcement.  It is possible to be concerned about all these things, simultaneously, without denying due weight to any one of them.

That's my final post on this topic.  I've been clear; anybody who wants to project something further on it - meaning absolutely no acrimony or disrespect (since I know this is a highly charged, emotional topic with widely differing experiential sets between genders that can frustrate any discussion), but I am very clear that such a projection is a function of your own views and biases, and not mine.

The woman endured a horrible trauma.  The guy's life is over.  That's bad enough.  I don't do pitchforks, tar and feathers. I'm sorry.

Well said.

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.
150  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 08, 2016, 07:00:19 AM
Many years ago I did jury duty. We were told that we MUST NOT discuss the case outside of the court, the reason being that we would be given advice and therefore influenced by those who had not heard all of the evidence.

None of us has seen the footage nor I'm assuming heard the evidence in full. To express sympathy for those hurt by this is understandable and commendable and also to examine the articles closely to make sure our views are not being manipulated by the media. I commend the posts of Heartical Don and Adamghost but like them, I am not condoning what was done. At best, it was the worst kind of sexual opportunism even if somehow Scott Bennet believed the woman was compliant. I completely agree that there are only losers here and that it is tragic. I hope the victim recovers fully from the experience.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 23
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.277 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!