NeoGAF forum owner accused of Sexual Misconduct

[ARikozuM]

11 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I know I'll be accused of being 'puritanical' or 'Victorian' in my views,

I won't accuse you as long as you don't make me wear starched clothing and a fuzzy beard.

[Commodus]

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

men typically deal with emotions differently than women. Admitting to being raped as a man is demasculinizing. most men will avoid this just like they would avoid showing most types of vulnerability. I mean when women endure emotional distress they usually develop anxiety or depression which would lead to seeking help. men on the other hand tend to develop addiction issues trying to self medicate and avoid the issue. this makes women far more likely to report compared to men.

Fact is, though, that women face sexual assault much more often than men, and you'd be arguing for a dramatic shift in demographics to claim that the ratio would suddenly be much more even with everyone accounted for. 

 

Incidentally, just today the BBC published a study showing that half of UK women were sexually harassed at work, while a fifth of men could say the same.  And notably, the ratios of people refusing to report weren't that far off: 63 percent of women who'd faced harassment didn't report it versus 79 percent of men.  Yes, this is 'just' workplace harassment, and just in one country, but I think it illustrates the point: while there is more of a stigma for men reporting sexual harassment, that doesn't change the truth that women are far more likely to be targets of harassment.

 

What I don't get is why so many of us men fight viciously to cling to the notion that sexual assault and harassment are almost as common for us as it is for women, even though the numbers and anecdotal evidence almost always prove that claim wrong.  It's like we're afraid of acknowledging the truth because it'd mean having to tackle a broader issue with male culture as it exists today, admitting that we don't really want to question our own behavior.

[Jito463]

9 hours ago, Commodus said:

it reflects a pervasive culture that fosters that kind of behavior.

18 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's like we're afraid of acknowledging the truth because it'd mean having to tackle a broader issue with male culture as it exists today, admitting that we don't really want to question our own behavior.

I almost responded to your first post, then decided to leave it alone.  Then you post it again, so I feel I must comment.  You make this assumption that all men are part of some "culture" that encourages sexual harassment against women.  In my 40 years, I've not known one single person who would have acted that way or would approve of it.

 

Before you give your predictable response, allow me to provide my obligatory disclaimer.  I'm not saying there aren't those who act and feel towards women that way, or that there aren't segments of society that maintain such an attitude, but to assume that it pervades the culture of all men is presumptuous at best.  It's a strawman that you hope nobody will confront, because you don't have the evidence to support such a broad claim.

 

Now, maybe you live in an area surrounded by people who behave towards women that way, but that doesn't mean it's something inherent to all men.

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I almost responded to your first post, then decided to leave it alone.  Then you post it again, so I feel I must comment.  You make this assumption that all men are part of some "culture" that encourages sexual harassment against women.  In my 40 years, I've not known one single person who would have acted that way or would approve of it.

 

Before you give your predictable response, allow me to provide my obligatory disclaimer.  I'm not saying there aren't those who act and feel towards women that way, or that there aren't segments of society that maintain such an attitude, but to assume that it pervades the culture of all men is presumptuous at best.  It's a strawman that you hope nobody will confront, because you don't have the evidence to support such a broad claim.

 

Now, maybe you live in an area surrounded by people who behave towards women that way, but that doesn't mean it's something inherent to all men.

I'm not going to give the predictable response, other than that you're trying to "not all men" the discussion.

 

The issue is not that all, or even most, men do this.  But when the clear majority of sexual assault and harassment is men against women, when roughly 1 in 5 women has been the victim of sexual assault, there is a problem in male culture.  And the problem isn't just the actual perpetrators; it's when we downplay it or look the other way.  When we say "oh, boys will be boys;" when we see a guy catcalling and choose to do nothing to stop it; and of course, when we're more interested in finding excuses to attack the character of women who complain about sexual harassment/assault than the men who perpetrate that behavior.

 

For goodness' sake, I saw someone in this thread insist that the claim against NeoGAF's owner was a fake ploy by 'feminists' -- that's about as good an indication as you can get that there's a problem.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Commodus
Grammar

[Sauron]

14 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I agree that you should always take accusations like these serious and should investigate it thoroughly. You still need evidence never the less. Also the whole drunk thing is a very hard thing to say is rape. If both parties are drunk and neither can technically consent then did they rape each other? I mean bottom line is that is a very grey area and should be treated as such. I mean if a girl comes on to you while they are drunk and regret it in the morning is it the guys fault for not refusing? I mean it seems unfair to simplify it to if a girl is drunk and you have sex with them then it's rape. I mean I know plenty of guys who have gotten drunk and ended up having sex with a girl and really regretted it then next day. Does that mean those women raped them because technically they couldn't consent as they were thoroughly drunk?

There is a difference between getting drunk and asking for sex, and getting drunk and being unable to refuse sex. If either party decides to sue, that is for the judge to decide. You can generally tell if someone is too drunk to refuse, and if you're that drunk it's unlikely you'd be able to "come on to" someone. But yes, the same rules should apply to both men and women, and your friends could sue the girl if they believed they had been abused in some way - courts and lawyers are there for a reason.

 

All of this could be avoided if people were more responsible and 1) didn't drink to the point of doing things they later regret and 2) didn't treat sex as recreation on the same level of playing cards. In general I have a hard time empathizing with someone who willingly got drunk enough to not know what they were doing and regret it the next day.

 

Aside from that, I don't see how this is relevant to the topic at hand - the guy was *accused* of sexual misconduct and before facing legal consequences he will have to be deemed guilty by a court. The reason NewGAF crumbled shortly afterwards was a consequence of his actions towards the community, and his behaviour is all too consistent with the allegations to avoid a certain level of assumption that he is, in fact, guilty - nevertheless, none of his rights are being violated here.

12 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

men typically deal with emotions differently than women. Admitting to being raped as a man is demasculinizing. most men will avoid this just like they would avoid showing most types of vulnerability. I mean when women endure emotional distress they usually develop anxiety or depression which would lead to seeking help. men on the other hand tend to develop addiction issues trying to self medicate and avoid the issue. this makes women far more likely to report compared to men.

Women can be scared or unwilling to report assault for various reasons too. Assuming the contrary is naive at best. Statistically, there are no grounds to believe men get raped nearly as often as women, regardless of whether they report it or not. I wouldn't peg this specifically as a societal issue, or as a reason to distrust men in general (the vast majority of men do not rape or assault women), but it is undeniable. Just the simple fact that men are statistically much stronger physically (as much as 50% more muscular strength, a massive advantage in any struggle) makes the rape of a man by a woman much less likely to happen.

[knightslugger]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Just the simple fact that men are statistically much stronger physically (as much as 50% more muscular strength, a massive advantage in any struggle) makes the rape of a man by a woman much less likely to happen.

there is an effective equalizer for those situations. why many women in the US don't understand that is baffling.

[Sauron]

19 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

there is an effective equalizer for those situations. why many women in the US don't understand that is baffling.

If you're referring to stuff like pepper spray, first of all you may not have it close enough at all times; women don't (and shouldn't) constantly worry about being raped, especially when it's someone they know and/or in their own home. Secondly, while it may be occasionally effective at deterring rape, it's definitely not effective at holding someone still while you rape him - therefore it can't have an effect on these statistics (not that more women raping men would be a good development). And besides, perhaps the offender has pepper spray as well, and he will get the jump on the victim almost every time. It's the old argument of "if everyone has a gun they can defend themselves", whereas what actually happens is that the criminal always gets to shoot first and is likely more efficient at it than the unsuspecting victim. Pepper spray is a last resort when you're conrnered, not an effective fighting tool or equalizer - you only use it if running isn't an option.

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If you're referring to stuff like pepper spray, first of all you may not have it close enough at all times; women don't (and shouldn't) constantly worry about being raped, especially when it's someone they know and/or in their own home. Secondly, while it may be occasionally effective at deterring rape, it's definitely not effective at holding someone still while you rape him - therefore it can't have an effect on these statistics (not that more women raping men would be a good development). And besides, perhaps the offender has pepper spray as well, and he will get the jump on the victim almost every time. It's the old argument of "if everyone has a gun they can defend themselves", whereas what actually happens is that the criminal always gets to shoot first and is likely more efficient at it than the unsuspecting victim. Pepper spray is a last resort when you're conrnered, not an effective fighting tool or equalizer - you only use it if running isn't an option.

Been there, done that, came out on top. Pepper spray isn't always effective as some people have an inhuman tolerance to capsaicin, whereas I have yet to meet a person who has the same tolerance to flying lead. Tasers aren't effective weapons either. if he's on top of you and you hammer him with 1M volts, both of you are going to take the ride.

 

Women aren't powerless. They choose to be. I don't know WHY, I wish i did, but now having this entire conversation... If the reader is a woman, why on EARTH would you go into the world UNARMED knowing damn well you would stand a far greater chance against a male attacker if you are trained, practiced, and armed?

 

legit question for the women in the thread.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Been there, done that, came out on top. Pepper spray isn't always effective as some people have an inhuman tolerance to capsaicin, whereas I have yet to meet a person who has the same tolerance to flying lead. Tasers aren't effective weapons either. if he's on top of you and you hammer him with 1M volts, both of you are going to take the ride.

 

Women aren't powerless. They choose to be. I don't know WHY, I wish i did, but now having this entire conversation... If the reader is a woman, why on EARTH would you go into the world UNARMED knowing damn well you would stand a far greater chance against a male attacker if you are trained, practiced, and armed?

 

legit question for the women in the thread.

Weaponizing the entire population is not a solution. As I said, a criminal is going to shoot first - and if he isn't going to kill you, you have no right to use lethal force. The reason people don't go around with a gun might be they don't want to be murderers. If you think shooting someone is an appropriate response to groping you should check your priorities. Even if you're being violently assaulted, killing the guy places you in the wrong.

 

Also, we don't live in a warzone. It is not normal to constantly expect to be assaulted. The majority of women don't get raped. By your logic you should go around in a tank "just to be sure".

[knightslugger]

Just now, Sauron said:

and if he isn't going to kill you, you have no right to use lethal force.

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Even if you're being violently assaulted, killing the guy places you in the wrong.

 

What planet do you live on? Lethal force against someone who is physically assaulting you with the intention of inflicting a minimum of great bodily harm is absolutely justifiable use of lethal force in just about every state statute that exists. I pretty damn sure rape falls squarely into that category. Simple assault (a grope) does not.

 

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It is not normal to constantly expect to be assaulted.

I don't expect my house to burn down either, but i have fire extinguishers and smoke alarms place all around the house... just in case.

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

 

What planet do you live on? Lethal force against someone who is physically assaulting you with the intention of inflicting a minimum of great bodily harm is absolutely justifiable use of lethal force in just about every state statute that exists. I pretty damn sure rape falls squarely into that category. Simple assault (a grope) does not.

 

I don't expect my house to burn down either, but i have fire extinguishers and smoke alarms place all around the house... just in case.

I live in a planet where I'd rather not kill a person. If your conscience is comfortable with the thought of killing anyone for any reason, you do you - I'm just glad we don't live in the same continent and I don't risk running into you. I consider it murder. And groping is sexual assault, so... your solution doesn't work. A man is much more likely to get away with groping a woman than vice versa, because the woman can't stop him without going well outside of reasonable force.

 

Also you have to make some pretty serious mental gymnastics to equate being ready to shoot someone with having a fire extinguisher.

[suicidalfranco]

9 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

What planet do you live on?

Italy, just like me so:

welcome to Italy! A country where if you shoot a burglar you'll be convicted for excessive self defence!

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

There is a difference between getting drunk and asking for sex, and getting drunk and being unable to refuse sex. If either party decides to sue, that is for the judge to decide. You can generally tell if someone is too drunk to refuse, and if you're that drunk it's unlikely you'd be able to "come on to" someone. But yes, the same rules should apply to both men and women, and your friends could sue the girl if they believed they had been abused in some way - courts and lawyers are there for a reason.

 

All of this could be avoided if people were more responsible and 1) didn't drink to the point of doing things they later regret and 2) didn't treat sex as recreation on the same level of playing cards. In general I have a hard time empathizing with someone who willingly got drunk enough to not know what they were doing and regret it the next day.

 

Aside from that, I don't see how this is relevant to the topic at hand - the guy was *accused* of sexual misconduct and before facing legal consequences he will have to be deemed guilty by a court. The reason NewGAF crumbled shortly afterwards was a consequence of his actions towards the community, and his behaviour is all too consistent with the allegations to avoid a certain level of assumption that he is, in fact, guilty - nevertheless, none of his rights are being violated here.

Women can be scared or unwilling to report assault for various reasons too. Assuming the contrary is naive at best. Statistically, there are no grounds to believe men get raped nearly as often as women, regardless of whether they report it or not. I wouldn't peg this specifically as a societal issue, or as a reason to distrust men in general (the vast majority of men do not rape or assault women), but it is undeniable. Just the simple fact that men are statistically much stronger physically (as much as 50% more muscular strength, a massive advantage in any struggle) makes the rape of a man by a woman much less likely to happen.

You are assuming that men are being primarily raped by women. Although it happens most men who are raped are by other men. Also when women rape me it often times isn't by force but rather drug induced which makes the strength argument kinda irrelevant. 

[knightslugger]

58 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If your conscience is comfortable with the thought of killing anyone for any reason, you do you

How did we get from defending one's self against rape to, let's say, blasting someone for looking at you cross-eyed in church?

 

And you talk about mental gymnastics!

58 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Also you have to make some pretty serious mental gymnastics to equate being ready to shoot someone with having a fire extinguisher.

there's a difference between setting the house on fire, and being ready to put the flames out. Just as there's a difference between being prepared to defend my life and body to shooting another person.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

If you're referring to stuff like pepper spray, first of all you may not have it close enough at all times; women don't (and shouldn't) constantly worry about being raped, especially when it's someone they know and/or in their own home. Secondly, while it may be occasionally effective at deterring rape, it's definitely not effective at holding someone still while you rape him - therefore it can't have an effect on these statistics (not that more women raping men would be a good development). And besides, perhaps the offender has pepper spray as well, and he will get the jump on the victim almost every time. It's the old argument of "if everyone has a gun they can defend themselves", whereas what actually happens is that the criminal always gets to shoot first and is likely more efficient at it than the unsuspecting victim. Pepper spray is a last resort when you're conrnered, not an effective fighting tool or equalizer - you only use it if running isn't an option.

Also I have had girls do stuff with me while I was blackout drunk and regretted that it happened. I would have never done anything while I was sober but the problem is that it was my fault for getting blackout drunk. If I make dumb decision while that drunk then it's my fault. Also important to note that it was my first time drinking so I don't do that anymore.

[Sauron]

40 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You are assuming that men are being primarily raped by women. Although it happens most men who are raped are by other men. Also when women rape me it often times isn't by force but rather drug induced which makes the strength argument kinda irrelevant. 

So you've had this happen to you... multiple times? It's probably time to get help! And yes, of course with drugs it's possible to overcome the man's strength, I never said it can't or doesn't happen, but inevitably the strength difference influences the chances of something like that happening. As for men being raped by other men, I can't help but feel we're going deeper and deeper into very small rates of occurrence... but of course, the same applies for that as well.

40 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also I have had girls do stuff with me while I was blackout drunk and regretted that it happened. I would have never done anything while I was sober but the problem is that it was my fault for getting blackout drunk. If I make dumb decision while that drunk then it's my fault. Also important to note that it was my first time drinking so I don't do that anymore.

As I said, getting drunk to the point where you pass out definitely doesn't help - but that doesn't mean people are justified in taking advantage of you! If you leave your car unlocked you made a silly mistake, but that doesn't mean the thief is now allowed to take the car.

46 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

How did we get from defending one's self against rape to, let's say, blasting someone for looking at you cross-eyed in church?

 

And you talk about mental gymnastics!

there's a difference between setting the house on fire, and being ready to put the flames out. Just as there's a difference between being prepared to defend my life and body to shooting another person.

Willingly shooting to kill is murder in my opinion, regardless of circumstance. You're talking about setting their house on fire so they can't do it to you, not about putting out your own fire. If you can't see that, we'll never agree on this topic.

[knightslugger]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Willingly shooting to kill is murder in my opinion, regardless of circumstance.

What do you mean willingly? If someone is going to die in an altercation, either them or me, i choose me as the one who lives. I don't know anyone who would not want the same (unless they are suicidal). No one with a conscience wants to shoot another person, but by god if they aim to kill, maim, or make me with they'd finished the job i'm going to do everything in my power to stop them from doing that. Last time i checked, people stop murdering you when they're dead.

 

Honestly i don't know where your thought pattern is here. Who said anything about burning a house down to prevent a rape? Where the hell did that even come from? My example of fire extinguishers in the home was to illustrate a prepared for the unexpected mindset that you seem to be utterly incapable of grasping. I go about society armed because if i'm attacked, i have the means to defend myself at the ready. That mindset has already saved my life once.

 

Anyone who values life should refuse to be a victim.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

I live in a planet where I'd rather not kill a person. If your conscience is comfortable with the thought of killing anyone for any reason, you do you - I'm just glad we don't live in the same continent and I don't risk running into you. I consider it murder. And groping is sexual assault, so... your solution doesn't work. A man is much more likely to get away with groping a woman than vice versa, because the woman can't stop him without going well outside of reasonable force.

 

Also you have to make some pretty serious mental gymnastics to equate being ready to shoot someone with having a fire extinguisher.

I'd rather be armed and never have to draw my weapon, than be disarmed and find myself in a situation where my life (or that of someone else) is in imminent danger.  No one who carries responsibly ever wants to shoot someone.  I pray every day that I never find myself needing to pull my weapon in self defense.  The issue is whether you'll be a victim or not.  If being a victim floats your boat, then by all means feel free to be a victim.  I, however, refuse to be one.

44 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

No one with a conscience wants to shoot another person, but by god if they aim to kill, maim, or make me with they'd finished the job i'm going to do everything in my power to stop them from doing that.

Hear, hear!

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'd rather be armed and never have to draw my weapon, than be disarmed and find myself in a situation where my life (or that of someone else) is in imminent danger.  No one who carries responsibly ever wants to shoot someone.  I pray every day that I never find myself needing to pull my weapon in self defense.  The issue is whether you'll be a victim or not.  If being a victim floats your boat, then by all means feel free to be a victim.  I, however, refuse to be one.

Hear, hear!

I'd rather die than kill someone if given the choice.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I'd rather die than kill someone if given the choice.

By not arming yourself, you're leaving the choice up the criminals.  Your call, though.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

By not arming yourself, you're leaving the choice up the criminals.  Your call, though.

I'm not, because in my country the vast majority of criminals are not armed, or at least not with anything that can instagib me from range, and since the general population is not armed they are not nearly as likely to panic and slice you. The US is really the only western country where that is a concern, statistically.

[Jito463]

Just now, Sauron said:

I'm not, because in my country the vast majority of criminals are not armed, or at least not with anything that can instagib me from range, and since the general population is not armed they are not nearly as likely to panic and slice you. The US is really the only western country where that is a concern, statistically.

Actually, it's really not.  The statistics are skewed because of a few cities with high gun violence.  Cities such as Chicago have hundreds of gun murders every year, and the vast majority of those are with illegally owned firearms, which only goes to show that gun control doesn't work on criminals.

[knightslugger]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not, because in my country the vast majority of criminals are not armed, or at least not with anything that can instagib me from range, and since the general population is not armed they are not nearly as likely to panic and slice you. The US is really the only western country where that is a concern, statistically.

Is rape not a problem in your country? I don't know the data points, but i'd hazard a guess (gut feeling) that the majority of reported rape cases in the US do not include a firearm.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Actually, it's really not.  The statistics are skewed because of a few cities with high gun violence.  Cities such as Chicago have hundreds of gun murders every year, and the vast majority of those are with illegally owned firearms, which only goes to show that gun control doesn't work on criminals.

And yet it only happens in the US.

[Jito463]

Just now, Sauron said:

And yet it only happens in the US.

Uh........WHAT?  Are you naive or being intentionally obtuse?  Gun homicides are not specific to the US, and even in countries that have banned guns they still have to deal with homicides.  Eliminating guns doesn't eliminate violence.

 

Anyway, I have to get back to work (my break was actually over 7 minutes ago).