UK - Actor Kevin Spacey accused of making sexual advances, 12 charges against 4 boys *acquitted in 2023*

[kaen]

The opposite side of the coin is whether careers were made because the predatory sexual behavior was not reported? Everyone is tiptoeing around this because it could be interpreted as victims' compliance in exchange for favours - not always money, but a recommendation, introduction, or party favor.

Surely, you are not suggesting that victims of a crime who did not report the crime are guilty of a aiding and abetting a criminal. These were "quid pro quo" agreements and not crimes, is that what you are suggesting? So victims of human trafficking who are given drugs for free based on their previous addictions are participating in a quid pro quo agreement because they don't call the police and report?

It is my understanding the "quid pro quo" agreements that are not found to be equal can be voided. What you are describing falls into "quid pro quo" harassment which occurs between parties that are unequal. The issue in the Spacey and Weinstein is that there is little civil protection that can ensure that these victims will not be harmed further b/c these cases don't fit the sexual harassment guidelines-- they were not direct supervisors, etc. The only recourse is criminal court which may or may not opt to prosecute. So, if the only redress beside a private settlement is a criminal complaint, then the issue is further complicated by the standard of legal proof required to prosecute. Maybe the LEO who don't prosecute should be held accountable the way some are suggesting victims who enter the said "quid pro quo" agreements as they left future victims to be victimized.

If the perpetrator can't be held responsible and the victim takes whatever "quid pro quo" settlement offered, do you suggest that victims of a crime who did not report the crime are guilty of a aiding and abetting a criminal and should be prosecuted by virtue of allowing the perpetrators to attack others?

I think it is awful to keep asking the questions about accountability of victims, implying that many victims made out so their situations are in a different category or should have a different scrutiny. For whatever reason, the idea that a victim did things to protect themselves to ensure their ability to work or feel safe is a shiny object that some hold on to in a conversation about abhorrent, illegal, and life-altering assaults where victims are finally feeling they can speak. It boggles my mind.

 

[kaen]

Except the kid did not comply. He simply did not press charges. Most 14 year old would be afraid to whether the man was famous or not, then and now.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

All true, unfortunately, the "but" will become that his parents should not have had him there at an adult party. Once again, it waters down the responsibility of the predator.

Imagine if people would have said that Megan Kanka's mother should have watched her as she played b/c, then, the predator next door wouldn't have had access. People could argue that the child was only six and unable to make great decisions about who to trust. IMHO, people would say these situations are are apples and oranges, but I don't believe they are--supervision is supervision, no? It is an anathema to me that anyone would continually call into question the behavior of a victim or the circumstances around a crime instead giving current and future perpetrators the impression that they are 100% at fault.

When we talk about the "quid pro quo" aspect of harassment or sexual assault, it is the same victim blaming that happens in many sectors. We can look at people who tried to sue Michale Jackson to note what happens when people have used the legal system against powerful people-- and those were families of children who were accusing abuse. IMHO, it is gross to place victims in that role.

 

[otto]

Am I reading this correctly? You think that twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years ago the behavior of Kevin Spacey towards a fourteen year old boy was "acceptable at the time"?

I can assure you it was no more acceptable then than it is now.

A few decades ago, it was completely normal for men to make personal, sexualized remarks to women in the workplace. We know from Kevin's brother that there was sexual abuse in their childhood home and they had no where to turn for help. Date rape was not called date rape. Derogatory terms were used to describe gay people, and there was no such thing as gender identity fluidity. Times have changes whether you see it or not.

 

[otto]

Surely, you are not suggesting that victims of a crime who did not report the crime are guilty of a aiding and abetting a criminal. These were "quid pro quo" agreements and not crimes, is that what you are suggesting? So victims of human trafficking who are given drugs for free based on their previous addictions are participating in a quid pro quo agreement because they don't call the police and report?

It is my understanding the "quid pro quo" agreements that are not found to be equal can be voided. What you are describing falls into "quid pro quo" harassment which occurs between parties that are unequal. The issue in the Spacey and Weinstein is that there is little civil protection that can ensure that these victims will not be harmed further b/c these cases don't fit the sexual harassment guidelines-- they were not direct supervisors, etc. The only recourse is criminal court which may or may not opt to prosecute. So, if the only redress beside a private settlement is a criminal complaint, then the issue is further complicated by the standard of legal proof required to prosecute. Maybe the LEO who don't prosecute should be held accountable the way some are suggesting victims who enter the said "quid pro quo" agreements as they left future victims to be victimized.

If the perpetrator can't be held responsible and the victim takes whatever "quid pro quo" settlement offered, do you suggest that victims of a crime who did not report the crime are guilty of a aiding and abetting a criminal and should be prosecuted by virtue of allowing the perpetrators to attack others?

I think it is awful to keep asking the questions about accountability of victims, implying that many victims made out so their situations are in a different category or should have a different scrutiny. For whatever reason, the idea that a victim did things to protect themselves to ensure their ability to work or feel safe is a shiny object that some hold on to in a conversation about abhorrent, illegal, and life-altering assaults where victims are finally feeling they can speak. It boggles my mind.

Not sure where that came from. I asked whether the career of anyone who remained silent benefited from remaining silent, or whether reporting or not reporting made no difference.

 

[JaneEyre]

All true, unfortunately, the "but" will become that his parents should not have had him there at an adult party. Once again, it waters down the responsibility of the predator.

Imagine if people would have said that Megan Kanka's mother should have watched her as she played b/c, then, the predator next door wouldn't have had access. People could argue that the child was only six and unable to make great decisions about who to trust. IMHO, people would say these situations are are apples and oranges, but I don't believe they are--supervision is supervision, no? It is an anathema to me that anyone would continually call into question the behavior of a victim or the circumstances around a crime instead giving current and future perpetrators the impression that they are 100% at fault.

When we talk about the "quid pro quo" aspect of harassment or sexual assault, it is the same victim blaming that happens in many sectors. We can look at people who tried to sue Michale Jackson to note what happens when people have used the legal system against powerful people-- and those were families of children who were accusing abuse. IMHO, it is gross to place victims in that role.

I agree, and personally I understand not reporting something. I am currently trying to write about something that happened to me, and it's always in the back of my mind that people will question why I didn't report it at the time, and question why I got myself into that situation to begin with. I actually told no one, and as an adult I have often wondered if this person did anything to anyone else afterwards that may have been prevented if I had reported it. Those thoughts increase the feelings of guilt in victims. It's a never ending cycle of guilt, unfortunately, even when you would not have blamed someone else in your very situation. Comments like some have made in this forum only add to the frustration and stress a victim feels.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[JaneEyre]

Not sure where that came from. I asked whether the career of anyone who remained silent benefited from remaining silent, or whether reporting or not reporting made no difference.

You could say they benefited by not being marked in Hollywood as a trouble maker. Some would have viewed them as just that, particularly the other powerful men who engaged in the same behavior but who had not yet been exposed. They would have been victimized further. So yeah, they benefited in that way.

See, either way, they were victimized. But by stepping forward their careers could have ended, plus they would have been emotionally victimized by a questioning public, as is happening right here in this forum. So victims have to decide individually how much more victimization their psyches can take at that point.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

I agree, and personally I understand not reporting something. I am currently trying to write about something that happened to me, and it's always in the back of my mind that people will question why I didn't report it at the time, and question why I got myself into that situation to begin with. I actually told no one, and as an adult I have often wondered if this person did anything to anyone else afterwards that may have been prevented if I had reported it. Those thoughts increase the feelings of guilt in victims. It's a never ending cycle of guilt, unfortunately, even when you would not have blamed someone else in your very situation. Comments like some have made in this forum only add to the frustration and stress a victim feels.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

It's always difficult to comment objectively about a topic where there is a personal association. Also, over time, memory changes, and the associated feelings change as well. I'm not convinced that memory of an event from a few decades ago can be trusted as authentic.

"What we remember changes each time we recall the event. The slightly changed memory is now embedded as “real,” only to be reconstructed with the next recall.

One implication of Schiller’s work is that memory isn’t like a file in our brain but more like a story that is edited every time we tell it. To each re-telling there are attached emotional details. So when the story is altered feelings are also reshaped."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-right/201307/your-memory-isnt-what-you-think-it-is

 

[kaen]

I agree, and personally I understand not reporting something. I am currently trying to write about something that happened to me, and it's always in the back of my mind that people will question why I didn't report it at the time, and question why I got myself into that situation to begin with. I actually told no one, and as an adult I have often wondered if this person did anything to anyone else afterwards that may have been prevented if I had reported it. Those thoughts increase the feelings of guilt in victims. It's a never ending cycle of guilt, unfortunately, even when you would not have blamed someone else in your very situation. Comments like some have made in this forum only add to the frustration and stress a victim feels.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I am sorry that someone/something happened to you. Please know, I believe that you are not responsible for any action of this person/these people.

Your post reminds me that I have broken a personal rule I have. I should not be calling people victims but rather survivors--- people who did what they needed to in order to survive a horrendous situation/s. I wish you peace as you continue your journey. I will be in your corner, as I am in many survivor's corners, knowing that you did the best you could at the time. I hope you can give yourself grace on the reporting aspect because if you felt you could not at the time of the incident you did what was right for you and keeping yourself safe from whatever you feared.

 

[otto]

You could say they benefited by not being marked in Hollywood as a trouble maker. Some would have viewed them as just that, particularly the other powerful men who engaged in the same behavior but who had not yet been exposed. They would have been victimized further. So yeah, they benefited in that way.

See, either way, they were victimized. But by stepping forward their careers could have ended, plus they would have been emotionally victimized by a questioning public, as is happening right here in this forum. So victims have to decide individually how much more victimization their psyches can take at that point.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Reporting the incident is the first step to healing, so no, it's not a no-win situation.

 

[kaen]

Not sure where that came from. I asked whether the career of anyone who remained silent benefited from remaining silent, or whether reporting or not reporting made no difference.

Unfortunately, at this point in this thread and reading the comments about tiptoeing around, the implication and the focus is on the actions or validity of survivors rather than perpetrators, with particular comment about survivors who took money after their assaults--- which, by the way, the people Spacey attacked have not been identified as taking money for their silence. I believe the focus of this takes away from an issue of abuse and lands it in the category of a business deal as you have implied-- give something, get something. If that is the case, then those who participate in a corrupt/abusive situation should be held a responsible as the person who began the chain just like in business, even though there may be lesser or greater consequences for each party involved. So, that is why I wrote my response as posted. We seem to have forgotten that this thread is about a predator who abused and assaulted people and lose more of that focus each time the conversation turns to the responsibility of those who were in the situation making decisions that no one should really ever have to make.

 

[kaen]

Reporting the incident is the first step to healing, so no, it's not a no-win situation.

You can not assert that the first step in healing is reporting. If you were a survivor, that may be true for you. But, that is not the case for all survivors. If they are still at risk, it may be better to be silent and survive. If they do not believe they will have an adequate support system, it may be better to remain silent until they can get what they need. Each person's journey is uniquely their own, which indicates that there may be a no win situation for some. You can assert that it is not a no-win situation but you cannot guarantee it, even if you wanted to do so. It is not knowable.

 

[human]

I read the article that, I think you posted, that ran in the Dailymail. It seems their home environment was brutal, especially for his brother. That did not sound like a very nurturing environment. What roll did it play? Idk. I feel sad they grew up in that as children though.

I think, things were waaaaay different back in that era, thirty sum years ago. I'm tellin' ya, it was a wild and crazy era. I think folks look back into history through today's lens, a lot of times. We had two high school teachers in our town, who married their students, one in the late 70s, and one in the 90s! No uproar. The one from the 90s is still going strong. My cousin married out of state, because she was too young to marry here, (and it wasn't a "have-to" case). I cannot see any of those things happening today, yet we didn't really think that much about it back then.

I know of such situations and people talked about them with disgust. What is different now is we know more about what that kind of thing means.

We are slowly evolving. Every little bit helps to make life better for humanity. We do get smarter, but there are growing pains as people confront uncomfortable things.

Sometimes people fight against things because they have to come to terms with unfortunate things in their own lives.

 

[human]

Exactly, everything that has happened, even if it is twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years ago, was more than likely acceptable behavior at the time. To judge thirty year old behavior by today's standards, for the most part none of this would have happened if today's standards had been in place back then.

No, it was not acceptable. People were creeped out by it. Remember the admonishment about dirty old men and staying away from certain people?

We knew it was creepy and wrong but it had not been talked about and criminalized. We did not realize the effects of it. Just that it was disgusting and things could be done to address it

 

[otto]

You can not assert that the first step in healing is reporting. If you were a survivor, that may be true for you. But, that is not the case for all survivors. If they are still at risk, it may be better to be silent and survive. If they do not believe they will have an adequate support system, it may be better to remain silent until they can get what they need. Each person's journey is uniquely their own, which indicates that there may be a no win situation for some. You can assert that it is not a no-win situation but you cannot guarantee it, even if you wanted to do so. It is not knowable.

I think the field of psychology would disagree with your suggestion that it is better for victims to remain silent.

 

[kaen]

I think the field of psychology would disagree with your suggestion that it is better for victims to remain silent.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ling-the-sexual-wounds-sexual-abuse-survivors

https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Trauma-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse/dp/0313363218


Not reporting. But, rather, making a commitment to the journey of healing, which includes not judging about past actions/inactions and working with a skilled person to help address what is needed to feel safe, comfortable and healthy.

 

[otto]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ling-the-sexual-wounds-sexual-abuse-survivors

https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Trauma-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse/dp/0313363218


Not reporting. But, rather, making a commitment to the journey of healing, which includes not judging about past actions/inactions and working with a skilled person to help address what is needed to feel safe, comfortable and healthy.

Working with a skilled person is reporting.

 

[kaen]

I think the field of psychology would disagree with your suggestion that it is better for victims to remain silent.

I said remain silent AND survive and I said, "remain silent until they can get what they need."

 

[angelainwi]

Working with a skilled person is reporting.

Working with a therapist or any kind of behavioral health professional/group is not reporting.

 

[otto]

Working with a therapist or any kind of behavioral health professional/group is not reporting.

Now we're splitting hairs. I said that the first step to healing is reporting, but apparently there has been an assumption regarding what that means. Reporting the experience to a parent, a friend, a therapist, an official all fall under the category of 'reporting'. It almost seems like there is argument for the sake of argument, where something that is not said is argued as having been said.
'

 

[kaen]

Now we're splitting hairs. I said that the first step to healing is reporting, but apparently there has been an assumption regarding what that means. Reporting the experience to a parent, a friend, a therapist, an official all fall under the category of 'reporting'. It almost seems like there is argument for the sake of argument, where something that is not said is argued as having been said.
'

In the mental health field, reporting is mainly connected to notification to authorities. If what you meant is disclosure, then I can agree that processing through and addressing the issue is part of the journey. When we talk about adults who begin to deal with prior acts of abuse, the first step is a determination that they want to heal and seeing that dealing with their past abuse is essential in the healing.

No argument for the sake of argument from me. I will say that I clearly struggle with your POV on how you question survivors and their potential non-victimization if they take care of themselves outside of a legal context. Reporting is often seen as an action that is more legal as opposed to personal in the healing process.

You are right that I assumed legal and you didn't clarify what you meant by reporting either---- error all the way around.