Kevin Spacey accused of sexual assault on minor......and he's gay

[Brainster]

Exploiting the generally good nature of others is common in sexual predators. The classic example is making someone think that they were leading the predator on. A decent person can't help but examine their own actions, and such a person wouldn't be sanguine about the idea of potentially feeling responsible for ruining someone else's life, even if feeling that way is unreasonable.

There's an example of that feeling of leading the predator on as well in the article:

In fact, he recalled feeling like he had given Spacey, who he’d heard was closeted, "the wrong impression a little bit.” He continued: “I think I had this weird kinda like, Oh gee. Oh man, I feel bad.”

At the time, the 16-year-old felt like he “'should've realized” that Spacey wanted him to come over for reasons related to sex. “Like maybe this was kind of a coded thing or something that I agreed to."

 

[Arcade22]

It's interesting to see it broken down that way. In the U.S. this is mostly defined by state statutes. The guy who woke up with Spacey (committing a sexual act) was definitely raped IMO, unless they'd already had consensual sex. (He also has every right to end the sex act after he wakes up).

I think according to Swedish law it would be considered rape depending on the actual "sex act". If it didn't include penile penetration or oral sex it probably would be judged to be some other offense.

Here's the specific offense according to google translate:

Anyone who, through abuse(assault) or otherwise by force or by threatening a criminal offense, forces a person to intercourse or to act or withstand another sexual act which, in view of the seriousness of the violation, is comparable to sexual intercourse, convicted of rape to imprisonment of at least two and highest six years.

The same applies to the person who carries out sexual intercourse or sexual act which, according to the first paragraph, is comparable to sexual intercourse by unauthorized use of the person due to unconsciousness, sleep, serious fear, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, bodily injury or mental disorder or otherwise, given the circumstances, there is a particularly vulnerable situation.

Is a crime referred to in the first or second paragraph in view of the circumstances of the crime to be regarded as less serious, convicted of rape to imprisonment for a maximum of four years.

Are crimes referred to in the first or second paragraph to be considered gross, convicted of serious rape in prison for at least four and not more than ten years. In assessing whether the crime is gross, particular consideration should be given to whether the violence or the threat was of a particularly serious nature or if more than one was abused by the victim or otherwise participated in the abuse or if the offender had regard to the approach or otherwise demonstrated particular ruthlessness or roughness. Law (2013: 365).

Except that if the guy was a minor, it couldn't be consensual.

At least according to Swedish law this isn't true. Although the specific offense is called "rape of a child" the way it's written and interpreted means that someone under the so called "age of consent" can actually consent to sex (or some other comparable sexual act) but it would still be a crime irrespective of whether consent was given or not. Put in another way: consent is not a legally valid defense for that offense, but it is of course a mitigating factor in terms of sentencing compared with if it were non-consensual.

What is the age of consent in Sweden?

It's 15. Generally the formal term used in Sweden is the "age of sexual emancipation" since it's supposed to be the age when someone is deemed mature enough to take responsibility for their own sexuality like adults are. Informally people generally refer to someone as being "byxmyndig" which is a little bit hard to translate straightforwardly but in English would be something like "being old enough that you can take off their pants" and presumably have sex with them, or something like that.

In the case of potentially consenting adults, or even non-adult peers, it's hard for me to draw a distinct line. Just, I know both men and women who have consented to sex because it was less trouble than saying no. It was a different time period, though. Much of what I'm talking about is before the AIDS epidemic, which definitely would make you think twice before engaging in a casual encounter.

I know for certain that there are people still today, of any sex and sexual orientation, that have a problem saying no to peoples advances. More so if they feel that they owe someone something in return for their help. Even without physical force or illegal threats and coercion it's not uncommon for people to be pressured into sexual acts that they really didn't want to but consented to for some other reason.

 

[dann]

Anyone who, through abuse (assault) or otherwise by force or by threatening a criminal offense, forces a person to intercourse or to act or withstand another sexual act which, in view of the seriousness of the violation, is comparable to sexual intercourse, convicted of rape to imprisonment of at least two and highest six years.

I'm not trying to derail this thread, and maybe my question should be turned into a poll instead, but here goes:

There are an awful lot of legal ways to have sex with people who aren't really interested in you, who aren't horny for you, who don't love you. There are several kinds of getting somebody who does not really want to have sex with you to perform the act, to go through the motions: money (prostitution, also in the form of presents etc.), emotional blackmail (you owe me one, if you don't do this for me, I can't believe that you still love me, I can't stay in this relationship with you, etc.).

I have mentioned this in discussions with other men, and they also seem (of course, some might be lying; it's hard to tell, but I didn't get that impression) to think that the whole idea of having sex with somebody who isn't really into having sex with you is repulsive.

Apparently, there are also a lot of people out there who don't seem to be repulsed by having sex with reluctant 'partners', and to some of them it might even be a turn-on, I don't know. I just have a hard time grasping the idea emotionally. Primarily because the whole point of having sex seems to be about mutual pleasure and enjoyment.
(I can anticipate the Darwinian argument that producing offspring doesn't require more than one who is eager to have sex and doesn't mind having to subjugate his (her) partner, but 1) nature doesn't have intentions or a will, 2) at least in the case of humans, it has made both sexes able to enjoy the act instead of making one of them a rapist and the other one a more or less (un)willing 'receptacle'. Nature, after all, did come up with the clitoris!)

I'm aware that I never got around to asking my question, but I think it is something like this:
Why the hell isn't everybody repulsed and turned off by the idea of being with somebody who doesn't like what's going on?! And why is it even an important part of jurisprudence in this field to make meticulous distinctions between legal and illegal ways of making reluctant or even repulsed partners have sex despite their reluctancy and repulsion?

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm aware that I never got around to asking my question, but I think it is something like this:
Why the hell isn't everybody repulsed and turned off by the idea of being with somebody who doesn't like what's going on?!

"Different strokes for different folks" is the succinct answer. To expand, there are all kinds of sexual fetishes. Most people with a particular fetish for dominating an unwilling sexual partner can get by with role-playing (with controls, including "safe words," in place), and they probably don't need to do so every time they have sex. Crossing the line to true coercion or rape would probably be as repulsive to most of these people as it would to people who don't enjoy that fetish.

And why is it even an important part of jurisprudence in this field to make meticulous distinctions between legal and illegal ways of making reluctant or even repulsed partners have sex despite their reluctancy and repulsion?

Lines have to be drawn somewhere, and attempting to prove some of the subtler forms of coercion would be virtually impossible, even if the repulsion was as universal as you imply.

 

[dann]

"Different strokes for different folks" is the succinct answer.

No, unfortunately it's just the succinct lack of an answer. It doesn't answer anything, i.e. you might as well use it to explain why a guy decided to kill a lot of people riding bicycles in New York a few days ago!

To expand, there are all kinds of sexual fetishes.

Almost the same answer, still doesn't explain anything.

Most people with a particular fetish for dominating an unwilling sexual partner can get by with role-playing (with controls, including "safe words," in place), and they probably don't need to do so every time they have sex. Crossing the line to true coercion or rape would probably be as repulsive to most of these people as it would to people who don't enjoy that fetish.

And now we're getting somewhere. We had a very long discussion about sado-masochism in the JREF forums about ten years ago (I've tried to find the thread, but couldn't), and I think that most sadists really don't want to hurt their sm-sexpartners, which is why they agree on safe-words etc. before the act. (Why they enjoy the fantasy of hurting and humiliating them, however, is another story.)

Lines have to be drawn somewhere, and attempting to prove some of the subtler forms of coercion would be virtually impossible, even if the repulsion was as universal as you imply.

Yes, that is a given, in as far as the different kinds/levels of coercion exist, but what I find very hard to understand is why anybody would enjoy having sex with somebody by exposing them to any kind of coercion, even "the subtler forms."
And, no, I don't imply that the repulsion is in any way universal, but I don't understand why it isn't, i.e. how people can enjoy having sex with somebody who's been coerced, subtly or not.
Let me try to explain it in a different way: In our society, people are coerced to do all kinds of things that they find unpleasant, distasteful, harmful … Having exhausting, boring, backbreaking jobs, working for the minimum wage or even below that, is something that people are coerced to do by having no other way to support themselves: otherwise they won't have food on the table and a roof over their heads. But the people who exploit them are so far removed from them that they don't even have to see them or know their names, and this is probably how they prefer it: to be in denial.

But that is obviously not the case when we are talking about sexual coercion: Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey. On the contrary, the relationship couldn't be more physically intimate!
And I can't imagine that the majority of the human race or the majority of the male sex enjoy (or are even able to enjoy) having sex with a woman (or man) who has been coerced.

 

[Babbylonian]

And I can't imagine that the majority of the human race or the majority of the male sex enjoy (or are even able to enjoy) having sex with a woman (or man) who has been coerced.

This seems to be the crux of your posts and it just seems pointless to me, both because things exist whether or not you can imagine them, and because you clearly can imagine this scenario or you wouldn't bring it into the discussion.

Regardless, since I don't think anyone has posited that the majority of the human race prefers coerced sex over consensual sex (there would hardly be the current outrage if that was true), it's far outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[dann]

This seems to be the crux of your posts

No, it's not. Notice the "And …"

and it just seems pointless to me, both because things exist whether or not you can imagine them, and because you clearly can imagine this scenario or you wouldn't bring it into the discussion.

Yes, things exist, but understanding how (and maybe why) they exist is very different from the fact that they exist (or don't). Otherwise Newton could have stopped when he noticed that apples tend to fall to the ground. Everybody else did.

Regardless, since I don't think anyone has posited that the majority of the human race prefers coerced sex over consensual sex (there would hardly be the current outrage if that was true), it's far outside the scope of this discussion.

Again: It's not the point!

 

[mgidm86]

Looks like I was wrong earlier about him not being accused of actual assault, though I don't think he was at that time. Anyways...

In a statement, a representative for Spacey said: “Kevin Spacey is taking the time necessary to seek evaluation and treatment. No other information is available at this time.”

Taking the time necessary? Good one.

Where is this magical place where the celebrities go to get better so that they can maybe hopefully avoid jail? I wonder if he and Weinstein are getting a group rate at the Polanski Center For Celebrity Sexual Predators? Maybe they can fix Spacey's gayness too.

Looks like Claire got the last laugh after all.

 

[Pterodactyl]

This seems to be the crux of your posts and it just seems pointless to me, both because things exist whether or not you can imagine them, and because you clearly can imagine this scenario or you wouldn't bring it into the discussion.

Regardless, since I don't think anyone has posited that the majority of the human race prefers coerced sex over consensual sex (there would hardly be the current outrage if that was true), it's far outside the scope of this discussion.

Over the course of my career I’ve had to undergo various psychological evaluations to qualify for certain jobs. I think the most common version is referred to as an MMPI.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory
I can’t speak to the validity of the test, but i do recall it being comprised of many odd questions, one of which this conversation reminded me of.

I recall the question was “Have you ever fantasized about raping someone or being raped?”

After the test I asked the administrator about that specific question, and was told that answering “yes” was considered a typical answer. So I don’t know that this applies to “most of the human race” but apparently it applies to a large enough portion of the population that answering yes isn’t considered abnormal.

 

[Arcade22]

And I can't imagine that the majority of the human race or the majority of the male sex enjoy (or are even able to enjoy) having sex with a woman (or man) who has been coerced.

Maybe not majority but a large enough portion of the male population throughout history (and pre-history) has been engaging in coerced sexual relations in various degrees of severity.

Raptio^WP, bride kidnapping^WP and other forms of sexual slavery are a great example of this occurring on a large and being socially acceptable or even strongly encouraged. There are countless historical examples.

The practice is surmised to have been common since anthropological antiquity. In Neolithic Europe, excavation of the Linear Pottery culture site at Asparn-Schletz, Austria, the remains of numerous slain victims were found. Among them, young adult females and children were clearly under-represented, suggesting that attackers had killed the men but abducted the nubile females.

Abduction of women is a common practice in warfare among tribal societies, along with cattle raiding. In historical human migrations, the tendency of mobile groups of invading males to abduct indigenous females is reflected in the greater stability of Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups compared to Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups.

The Rape of the Sabine Women is an important part of the foundation legends of Rome (8th century BC). Romulus had established the settlement on the Palatine Hill with mostly male followers. Seeking wives, the Romans negotiated with the neighboring tribe of the Sabines, without success. Faced with the extinction of their community, the Romans planned to abduct Sabine women. Romulus invited Sabine families to a festival of Neptune Equester. At the meeting he gave a signal, at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men. The indignant abductees were implored by Romulus to accept Roman husbands. Livy claims that no sexual assault took place.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Richard Dreyfuss's son says Spacey groped him during a script reading with his father in the room! There's creepy behavior, and there's just plain crazy. To take that kind of risk? Spacey might have been getting off on the possibility of being caught, as well. Or maybe he's literally insane. Maybe he has a vascular condition that he can't simultaneously have blood supply in both brain and erection?

 

[Babbylonian]

Richard Dreyfuss's son says Spacey groped him during a script reading with his father in the room! There's creepy behavior, and there's just plain crazy. To take that kind of risk? Spacey might have been getting off on the possibility of being caught, as well. Or maybe he's literally insane. Maybe he has a vascular condition that he can't simultaneously have blood supply in both brain and erection?

The most horrifying thing I've read today was someone speculating that perhaps the elder Dreyfuss was pretending not to notice that his son was being repeatedly groped. I find the idea all but impossible to believe but it truly sent chills down my spine.

BTW, Here's a link to the story.

 

[theprestige]

Or maybe Dreyfus is complicit in the culture of abuse.

 

[Apology]

Looks like I was wrong earlier about him not being accused of actual assault, though I don't think he was at that time. Anyways...

I think that it's important to note that in Rapp's original accusation, he said that Spacey picked him up, dropped him on the bed, and got on top of him. This alone constitutes sexual assault.

If Spacey had picked him up and dropped him on the bed without getting on top of him, it would have constituted simple assault.

If Spacey had attempted to tear off Rapp's clothes or refused to get off of him after being asked to stop, it would have been attempted rape.

I think a lot of people are confused about the difference between sexual assault and attempted rape. Sexual assault has a lower threshold than attempted rape. Forcibly kissing someone who is struggling to get away can be sexual assault but wouldn't be attempted rape unless it was followed by other, more egregious actions. The only "unwanted advance" that is safe is a verbal one, but don't try this at work---it leaves one liable to claims of sexual harassment, even if it only happens once.

So, best practices:

1. Ask first, withdraw if rejected
2. Never ask at the workplace

 

[dann]

There are countless historical examples.

You are well intended, Arcade22, but please, I don't need proof that the phenomenon exists, I just have difficulties grasping the concept, which is why I suggested that it might be better suited for a poll: How many of you guys find the idea of having sex with an unwilling partner a turn-on?

I don't think that I could possibly maintain an erection if I as much as imagined that the person I was with might be even slightly reluctant, albeit consensual, and not because I ever had problems in that area so far, knock on wood, no pun intended …

And I can't imagine that I'm the only one who feels this way.

 

[theprestige]

How would a poll help you grasp the concept?

 

[cullennz]

Or maybe Dreyfus is complicit in the culture of abuse.

I'm assuming your joking that he would ignore his own son being groped with zero evidence.

Either that or the witch hunt has got a bit feral.

If the later your pitch fork is in the cupboard

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

 

[cullennz]

2. Never ask at the workplace

Before the internet most relationships started in the workplace



Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

 

[dann]

How would a poll help you grasp the concept?

It wouldn't, as such, it would only give an idea of the extent. Unlike the conversations I've had with friends and acquaintances, the polls are anonymous. But a lot of the participants in the polls at this forum also have comments of their own, which would be interesting.

And there's another thing I've been wondering about: We hear about a lot of celebrity cases, of course, because they are celebrities (as in the case of Spacey), but actually many celebrities also seem to lead pretty respectable lives without any outrageous behavior, apparently quite content with their spouses and with no intentions of molesting anybody or even committing adultery.
On the other hand, many comments, here as well as in the rest of the world, seem to imply that everybody (male, that is) would exhibit much the same behavior as Spacey (or at least Tiger Woods, but in his case we don't seem to enter the area of illegality) if only they were rich celebrities. I remember at least one episode of South Park making this point, as if all men are wanna-be 'pussy grabbers', but just lack the power, wealth or position that would enable us to get away with it.

There is also the question of sexual sadists: Is SM nothing but sexual roleplaying for most of them, or does it reflect the way that they would want the actual world to be if they were powerful enough?
I know of one case where that seemed to be the case: a Danish celebrity who was into sado-masochism, usually with 'consenting adults', but at one point he also blackmailed a young woman into participating, which resulted in a scandal when he was found out. (Allegedly, he had actually fallen into a trap set up by the woman and her boyfriend in order to blackmail him, as described in his semi-autobiographical novel.)


PS I don't even think that this is in any way shows that men are somehow worse than women. There are many cases of women forcing or coercing men or other women to do things that they are reluctant or unwilling to do, but for obvious reasons it's much more difficult for a woman to rape a man than the other way round.

 

[Arcade22]

If Spacey had picked him up and dropped him on the bed without getting on top of him, it would have constituted simple assault.

At least according to Swedish law this would not be true. In order for it to constitute assault there needs to be physical pain and/or damage. Simply picking someone up, grabbing them, pushing, pulling, holding or restraining someone would be considered battery (ofredande) instead of assault (misshandel).

Of course people aren't usually charged with battery unless it's done repeatedly or as a part of more general harassment in large part because people don't report it to the police.