‘Star Trek’ Icon George Takei Accused Of Sexual Assault

I'm curious, let's say he didn't do this.

How would we clear his name? (Or anyone else).

It seems to me when we are talking about a thirty year old incident the person is going to be found guilty in the court of public opinion with no way to defend themselves.

He would honestly do better apologizing regardless of if he did it or not, as either way a significant portion of people are going to assume he did it.

I don't know how much I support people being taken to task for crimes when there are no ways to prove innocence. And beyond that it sends the wrong messege. It's saying sexual assault should be decided via opinion (and of course, the only good option is to side with the person making the claim), harsh opinion, and I don't really agree with that.
 
Hey George, what ever happened to that always believe the victim narrative ?

Why should I believe YOU ?

“The events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur,” Takei wrote, “and I do not know why he has claimed them now. I have wracked [sic] my brain to ask if I remember Mr Brunton, and I cannot say I do.”
Click to expand...

A lot of these other guys accused of sexual misconduct owned up to what they did but the social justice advocate.....?????
 
I'm going to have to think about this some more, but waking up with someone feeling you up after a night of drinking, saying "no", and then being allowed to leave isn't my idea of sexual assault. At least not necessarily.

"Sorry I lost control for a second". Let's just say that with all these accusations coming out that we need to have a reality check. It sounds like both parties were okay with it after the fact.

It's a story Brunton has been telling for the last 30 years. Some reporter caught wind of it and saw a scoop. "Accused"? Is there an investigation? No?

It is implied that Takei may have drugged him, but feeling dizzy while drinking isn't unheard of either, and neither was doing drugs in those days. If he did drug him - different story.

"It is one of those stories you tell with a group of people when people are recounting bizarre instances in their lives, this always comes up," Brunton, now 59, told The Hollywood Reporter. "I have been telling it for years, but I am suddenly very nervous telling it."
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like he's concerned about it. Then again, I'm tired of hearing all this crap. I'm definitely jaded when it comes to people whining about just about anything these days. It's like a trend - "Say, I was assaulted too! Woohoo! Who do I call?"

Where do I get my "I Was Assaulted By A Celebrity" bumper sticker? Is there a clothing store with T-shirts for the victimized? "I was sexually assaulted by _____ and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!"

ETA:
I am having a tough time taking people seriously these days. Too much whining and not enough doing. Or something, I don't know, but I'm very frustrated.
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
I'm going to have to think about this some more, but waking up with someone feeling you up after a night of drinking, saying "no", and then being allowed to leave isn't my idea of sexual assault. At least not necessarily.
Click to expand...
In my state that would be sexual abuse, not sexual assault. But that's far from universal.

mgidm86 said:
It is implied that Takei may have drugged him, but feeling dizzy while drinking isn't unheard of either, and neither was doing drugs in those days. If he did drug him - different story.
Click to expand...
Alcohol itself is a drug - probably a more common date-rape drug than anything that might be slipped into it.

I have no opinion on whether Takei ever did such a thing.
 
Minoosh said:
In my state that would be sexual abuse, not sexual assault. But that's far from universal.

Alcohol itself is a drug - probably a more common date-rape drug than anything that might be slipped into it.

I have no opinion on whether Takei ever did such a thing.
Click to expand...

Surely if two people are drinking and start messing around that is one thing. If someone slips something into your drink without you knowing and with the intention of making that person incapacitated in some way in order to have sex with them then that's another and that is clearly what is being implied.

Although I too have no opinion on whether he did either of those things.
 
It's only one side of the story. The guy was drunk. Does he remember everything. Was he in some way giving Takei the impression that he was actually up for it? Then when he comes to himself enough to realise what's going on and that he doesn't want this to happen, and says so, Takei politely stops, doesn't press the issue further, and gives him advice about not driving home drunk.

Now if that's the actual story, it's not impossible Takei has forgotten all about it. Nothing happened. A potential partner decided he wasn't a potential partner at all, and they parted. The other guy is going to remember because Takei is a celebrity. But why should Takei necessarily remember.

It could be anything from that, through to attempted date rape with a drugged drink. There is no possible way to know. But from the victim's own account of Takei's polite behaviour as soon as he made it plain that he didn't want this to continue, I'm on Takei's side unless more information emerges.
 
Over at Daily Kos, someone sees Putin's hand behind this:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/11/1714699/-Why-the-George-Takei-allegation-is-a-weak-case

ETA: whoops, I hit post before I intended to.

To me it looks like a US right-wing/Putin co-ordinated counter-op. They see this movement of people coming out about stars committing sexual abuse, and figure they can catch one up in it who is their political enemy. Something like this was inevitable.
Click to expand...

The evidence being that apparently Russian-affiliated Twitter accounts were pushing the story on Twitter.
Because some readers are having trouble believing that there could be Russian involvement in this allegation, here is an illustration. It is from the Russian intelligence Twitter monitoring site Hamilton 68. Visit and read their “about” page to learn how they work.

Here is the graph on bot activity in the past 48 hours at 4:35 pm Eastern time Nov. 11, 2017:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I believe this, btw. Just because they are pushing the story doesn't necessarily mean they planted the story.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
It's only one side of the story. The guy was drunk. Does he remember everything. Was he in some way giving Takei the impression that he was actually up for it? Then when he comes to himself enough to realise what's going on and that he doesn't want this to happen, and says so, Takei politely stops, doesn't press the issue further, and gives him advice about not driving home drunk.

Now if that's the actual story, it's not impossible Takei has forgotten all about it. Nothing happened. A potential partner decided he wasn't a potential partner at all, and they parted. The other guy is going to remember because Takei is a celebrity. But why should Takei necessarily remember.

It could be anything from that, through to attempted date rape with a drugged drink. There is no possible way to know. But from the victim's own account of Takei's polite behaviour as soon as he made it plain that he didn't want this to continue, I'm on Takei's side unless more information emerges.
Click to expand...


If Takei was drunk also, how do we know which one was the actual victim? Currently, especially on college campuses, if a heterosexual couple has drunken sex, the women is automatically considered a victim and the man is automatically considered a rapist if there are any later regrets. How do you determine the hierarchy of victimhood if the drunken incident is between two guys or two women?
 
Depends. It seems now you also have to take into account power dynamics which means Takei is at fault because he's famous compared to the rando he allegedly assaulted.
 
Here's the thing, George Takei, until recently didn't matter. Let's say he assaulted you and you reported it in 1985. The industry would probably have believed you. It's not fair and it's not right but the industry pretty much knew that Talkie's gigs on the Star Trek movies back then was charity work. He was never the Hollywood powerhouse that Weinstein was. So, I have a hard time with the claim coming out now when if the model complained when it happened, no one would have cared. People would have been like, "I totally see that". Or George who? I don't give a ****".
 
It can seem there is a huge reaction and some people consider an overreaction to much of this "fuss" about past and recent sexual harassment/assault/rape but the facts are very clear which ever we try to slice it, there has been a historical lax attitude to these types of matters in the entertainment industry. And it may well be we have to look over the past with a new eye and it may mean that some entertainment from the past needs to stay in the past.

If that is the cost of us preventing sexual harassment/assault/abuse/rape going forward then so be it.

BUT and it a big but we do have to be careful what we view as harassment/assault/abuse in the light of adults wanting to have sexual relationships with other adults. Sex is part of day-to-day human interaction, to pretend it isn't means we'd end up with the pseudo-morality that the Victorians so liked to portray. And anyone with knowledge of that historic period knows how exploitative and abusive that time was.

People will mistake signals, people will give out mixed signals, if we can get the idea of sex out of the gutter and stop it being treated as if it was inherently "dirty" and make it simply like other human behaviour we can deal with this type of problem. No means no, and adults should be brought up to understand that and it should be a shrug of the shoulders and then you move on.
 
Darat said:
It can seem there is a huge reaction and some people consider an overreaction to much of this "fuss" about past and recent sexual harassment/assault/rape but the facts are very clear which ever we try to slice it, there has been a historical lax attitude to these types of matters in the entertainment industry. And it may well be we have to look over the past with a new eye and it may mean that some entertainment from the past needs to stay in the past.

If that is the cost of us preventing sexual harassment/assault/abuse/rape going forward then so be it.

BUT and it a big but we do have to be careful what we view as harassment/assault/abuse in the light of adults wanting to have sexual relationships with other adults. Sex is part of day-to-day human interaction, to pretend it isn't means we'd end up with the pseudo-morality that the Victorians so liked to portray. And anyone with knowledge of that historic period knows how exploitative and abusive that time was.

People will mistake signals, people will give out mixed signals, if we can get the idea of sex out of the gutter and stop it being treated as if it was inherently "dirty" and make it simply like other human behaviour we can deal with this type of problem. No means no, and adults should be brought up to understand that and it should be a shrug of the shoulders and then you move on.
Click to expand...


People have joked that Darat is too reasonable, but here we have a heartfelt post.

I disagree with what you seem to be saying here.

You seem to be saying, in response to a post half-jokingly wondering whether Taki's scenes should be removed, that we should consider removing or not viewing material from the past because the morals of the actors were sketchy?

Everything should be available. When we watch Star Trek or House of Cards we should forget about the actors, except perhaps to shudder at how well Spacey plays a manipulative person.

Smoking shouldn't be removed either. No social engineering here, please.

Also, sex is dirty in every sense of the word.

What needs to be gotten rid of is concepts like sin, which aren't based on realistic psychology.
 
Wildy said:
Depends. It seems now you also have to take into account power dynamics which means Takei is at fault because he's famous compared to the rando he allegedly assaulted.
Click to expand...

There's a "power plus" definition for rape, now?
 
Darat said:
Never have understood that concept. Get away with a crime for long enough and you are scot-free.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the point. The point is that if you wait 35 years to come out with an accusation, the physical evidence is long gone and it's your word against the accused's. It makes it harder to make a case, and harder to believe the plaintif.
 
Even if the story is true and complete, was any of it a crime in 1980, in the place where it happened?

I still think it's unlikely the story is complete. The part between the guy feeling dizzy and coming to his senses being groped is missing. Did he simply pass out, absolutely passive, or was there some drunken fumbling and mutual pawing that he simply doesn't remember? Was he more compliant and accepting when he was further out of it, then came to a bit and decided no, I don't want this?

His own account of Takei being absolutely respectful of his wishes as soon as he communicated them to him suggests to me that until that point Takei had no reason to think his advances were unwelcome.

It's a nothing of a story, and bringing it up now to smear the name of an 80-year-old who seems to be an all-round good egg is pretty low.
 
theprestige said:
Sexual harassment has always had a power plus component.
Click to expand...

Has it? Does that still apply to speeding on the highway, too?

If this "power component" is simply the fact that you do what you want to do, then everything has a power component and the inclusion becomes meaningless.

No, sometimes people do things simply because they want to do them.
 
Argumemnon said:
No, that's not the point. The point is that if you wait 35 years to come out with an accusation, the physical evidence is long gone and it's your word against the accused's. It makes it harder to make a case, and harder to believe the plaintif.
Click to expand...

No that isn't the statue of limitations that the USA uses. It is a cut off point after which someone can't be prosecuted. Some states in the USA have modified their laws to reflect say the finding of new DNA so that a prosecution can happen after the statute of limitations expires but fundamentally it means you got away with it.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
No that isn't the statue of limitations that the USA uses. It is a cut off point after which someone can't be prosecuted. Some states in the USA have modified their laws to reflect say the finding of new DNA so that a prosecution can happen after the statute of limitations expires but fundamentally it means you got away with it.
Click to expand...

But I gave you the reasoning. Of course you can reword it to mean anything you want. But why are those statutes there, in your opinion? Because we want criminals to get away with their crime?
 
Argumemnon said:
No, that's not the point. The point is that if you wait 35 years to come out with an accusation, the physical evidence is long gone and it's your word against the accused's. It makes it harder to make a case, and harder to believe the plaintif.
Click to expand...
That sure sounds like a good reason, except that there's no statute of limitations on murder. Is it really that much easier to prove old murder cases?
 
Babbylonian said:
That sure sounds like a good reason, except that there's no statute of limitations on murder. Is it really that much easier to prove old murder cases?
Click to expand...

No, but it's one of the crimes where it's seriousness means it's worth the cost of trying for unlikely evidence. Not to mention there is often evidence of murder even years after-the-fact.

Not everything has a statute of limitations, and they can vary from state to state. The wiki article gives a good overview, both of the laws and the reasoning for them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#United_States)
 
Stout said:
Hey George, what ever happened to that always believe the victim narrative ?

Why should I believe YOU ?
“The events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur,” Takei wrote, “and I do not know why he has claimed them now. I have wracked [sic] my brain to ask if I remember Mr Brunton, and I cannot say I do.”
Click to expand...

A lot of these other guys accused of sexual misconduct owned up to what they did but the social justice advocate.....?????
Click to expand...

Huh?!?!
 
Information Analyst said:
Huh?!?!
Click to expand...

There is some debate as to (w)racking one's brains.

Probably the most sensible attitude would be to ignore the etymologies of rack and wrack (which, of course, is exactly what most people do) and regard them simply as spelling variants of one word. If you choose to toe the line drawn by the commentators, however, you will want to write nerve-racking, rack one’s brains, storm-wracked, and for good measure wrack and ruin. Then you will have nothing to worry about being criticized for—except, of course, for using too many clichés.
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/rack-vs-wrack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom