PDA

View Full Version : 'Good Day New York' Host Greg Kelly Accused of Rape



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

cruisin
02-01-2012, 10:53 PM
:confused: I think you should read MacMadame's statement again, understand what she said and then read my reply.

I'm not sure that I understand how you are taking her statement.

She said she would not fault someone for having sex with you, if you didn't appear to be out of your mind. I don't think she meant that she wouldn't fault him if he forced himself. I think she meant that, if you appear lucid and capable of making a decision, how is the guy at fault? Should a guy have you sign an affidavit that you are of sound mind and capable of consent for sex? How can a guy know how drunk a woman is, if she appears okay? I have been out and had a bit too much wine. I was fine, could certainly make decisions, but got in the car (not driving) and suddenly it hit me. What if the yes is given while still cognizant?

BigB08822
02-01-2012, 10:58 PM
milanessa was saying that according to what MaMadame said that she should find no fault with Greg Kelly.

MacMadame
02-01-2012, 11:04 PM
Who is Bat? :confused:

I haven't read enough about this case to have an opinion about what Greg Kelly did or did not do. I was responding more to the situation of rape in general.

I do think that just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Likewise just because it's legal, that doesn't mean it's right. And this doesn't even get into the idea of whether or not something is stupid!

So the idea that you should do a breathalyzer test and it's okay to have sex if the person blows .07 but not if they blow .12 is just silly. If someone is drunk and you have sex with them and you don't know them very well, you've done something stupid. It's stupid no matter what their blood alcohol level is and it's stupid even if nothing bad happens afterwards.

OTOH, if they also clearly can't give consent and you have sex with them anyway, then it's not just dumb, it's wrong. And possibly illegal depending on where you live and what the circumstances are.

MacMadame
02-01-2012, 11:05 PM
milanessa was saying that according to what MaMadame said that she should find no fault with Greg Kelly.

No, milanessa was asking a question. You are inferring that's what she wants me to say but she didn't actually say that. ;)

BigB08822
02-01-2012, 11:19 PM
No, milanessa was asking a question. You are inferring that's what she wants me to say but she didn't actually say that. ;)

Technically....lol

MacMadame
02-02-2012, 12:20 AM
Well I also think she wasn't implying it. I think she wanted to know what I thought. But she'll come along soon enough and tell us what she meant, I'm sure.

Civic
02-02-2012, 01:32 AM
...I have to wonder what she planned to do in her office, with a man she had had several drinks with...
IMO, it doesn't matter what she planned to do with him when she suggested they go to her office. What matters is what happened once they were there. Women have the right to say no to sex even if they've behaved seductively with a guy earlier. Having written the above, I freely admit that I don't know what happened between them. I don't know who is lying.

agalisgv
02-02-2012, 06:15 AM
Well I also think she wasn't implying it. I think she wanted to know what I thought. I think she was showing the necessary implication of your statement in this particular case. I guess you can dance around that if you want, but to me it seemed quite clear.

cruisin
02-02-2012, 01:22 PM
Who is Bat? :confused:

Bat is a typo, I meant to write But. :) Damn spell check! :D


So the idea that you should do a breathalyzer test and it's okay to have sex if the person blows .07 but not if they blow .12 is just silly.

I was exaggerating there. I was trying to express how difficult it would be to actually know if someone is drunk enough to be incapable of making a decision, short of stumbling drunk or passing out.


If someone is drunk and you have sex with them and you don't know them very well, you've done something stupid. It's stupid no matter what their blood alcohol level is and it's stupid even if nothing bad happens afterwards.


But, doesn't that go both ways? If you are drinking, isn't it stupid to have sex with someone you don't know? People do stupid things when they drink. The drive, an act for which they are held entirely accountable. How do we then say that the person who choses to go with a stranger and have sex is completely incapable of making a decision and is therefore not responsible (in part) for their choice? Again, if they go willingly and are not incapacitated. What if they are both drunk? Is a man responsible for his drunk actions, but a woman is not?

I cannot stress more, that a woman should not ever be forced to have sex. But, is making a decision, to have sex with a stranger, after you've been drinking, which you may later regret, rape?

gkelly
02-02-2012, 04:54 PM
She brought him to her office, because her boyfriend was home. I have to wonder what she planned to do in her office, with a man she had had several drinks with. I mean, there was no let's have coffee, let's have a drink, let's watch a TV movie, let's sit on a sofa and talk.


IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER. The location DOESN'T MATTER. Yes, she probably brought him up to her office with the idea of having sex. That's a logical conclusion, because wtf else were they about to do there?

I do not have enough information on this particular case to draw any conclusions one way or another.

But for hypothetical purposes, I can use my imagination, and I can imagine plenty of reasons why a woman might invite a man she was having drinks with to her office without intending to "go all the way"

*To chat and get to know him better (first part of a first date) in a quieter environment if the bar was too noisy to hear each other
*To make out without progressing to full intercourse
*To show him something in or about the office that's notable and worth bonding over -- a great view, a great piece of art, family photos on her desk, etc.
*To pick up something she had left there and needed to go back for before heading home, without cutting short the time spent with this guy
*To give him a copy of her resume, etc., if she thought he could help her professionally

Some of those don't even presume that the relationship was already in "date" mode

Again, it sounds like this situation was, but it's not necessary to read that into the mere fact that she invited him to her office


Well I say if you were so drunk you couldn't remember then by definition you were too drunk to give consent. This is similar to the law that says that if a person is young enough, they can't give consent either. There has to be a certain amount of ability to think rationally and understand the implications of your behavior to be able to give consent. If it's not there, it's not there no matter how it appeared.

That doesn't mean I'd fault someone who had sex with you if you didn't appear to be out of your mind. OTOH, if you friends were drinking too, I'm not sure I'd trust their judgement about how lucid you were. ;)


So the idea that you should do a breathalyzer test and it's okay to have sex if the person blows .07 but not if they blow .12 is just silly. If someone is drunk and you have sex with them and you don't know them very well, you've done something stupid. It's stupid no matter what their blood alcohol level is and it's stupid even if nothing bad happens afterwards.

OTOH, if they also clearly can't give consent and you have sex with them anyway, then it's not just dumb, it's wrong. And possibly illegal depending on where you live and what the circumstances are.

This makes legal sense if the person who initiates the sex is sufficiently sober and the person who allows him (or her) to proceed is too drunk.

But what if both participants are too drunk to give legally valid consent and both make poor judgment to engage in ill-advised sex? Can they be said to mutually rape each other?

If one initiates the sex and the other merely drunkenly agrees/doesn't protest, then is the initiator guilty and the agreer not?

If one participant is male and the other female, is the male necessarily the guilty one, even if neither can remember who started it?

In a same-sex scenario, if both were too drunk to legally consent and both were too drunk to remember exactly what happened, is it less possible to consider rape than in a male-female scenario?
At least pregnancy wouldn't be a consideration in that case though.

cruisin
02-02-2012, 05:26 PM
*To chat and get to know him better (first part of a first date) in a quieter environment if the bar was too noisy to hear each other
*To make out without progressing to full intercourse
*To show him something in or about the office that's notable and worth bonding over -- a great view, a great piece of art, family photos on her desk, etc.
*To pick up something she had left there and needed to go back for before heading home, without cutting short the time spent with this guy
*To give him a copy of her resume, etc., if she thought he could help her professionally

The first two are still not smart. I don't think it's a good idea to bring someone you don't know to a private place, like an empty office building.

The 3rd point is rather unlikely, though, I suppose possible.

The 4th & 5th are more legitimate reasons, but still not a good idea if you don't know the guy.

But, none of the reasons would explain why she said nothing until she got caught, or why she continued to test him asking why he hadn't called.


This makes legal sense if the person who initiates the sex is sufficiently sober and the person who allows him (or her) to proceed is too drunk.

But what if both participants are too drunk to give legally valid consent and both make poor judgment to engage in ill-advised sex? Can they be said to mutually rape each other?

If one initiates the sex and the other merely drunkenly agrees/doesn't protest, then is the initiator guilty and the agreer not?

If one participant is male and the other female, is the male necessarily the guilty one, even if neither can remember who started it?

In a same-sex scenario, if both were too drunk to legally consent and both were too drunk to remember exactly what happened, is it less possible to consider rape than in a male-female scenario?
At least pregnancy wouldn't be a consideration in that case though.

Totally agree. Determining that someone is incapable of making a decision, because of alcohol consumption gets tricky. It's something that cannot be proven, after the fact. And something that is too variable - how much is too much? How drunk is too drunk? If both are drunk, who is more to blame?

Again, not blaming a woman, here, but it's never a good idea to drink so much that you don't know what you're doing, when you're with someone you don't know (female or male). It's never a good idea to go someplace, alone, with someone you don't know, especially if you've been drinking. People make poor choices when they drink - one big one is unprotected sex.

MacMadame
02-02-2012, 08:21 PM
I do not have enough information on this particular case to draw any conclusions one way or another.

But for hypothetical purposes, I can use my imagination, and I can imagine plenty of reasons why a woman might invite a man she was having drinks with to her office without intending to "go all the way"
Me too. I was somewhat mystified by the comment that she had clearly brought him to her office to have sex. That wasn't in the linked article and I know the last place I'd take someone if I wanted to have sex was to my workplace.


But what if both participants are too drunk to give legally valid consent and both make poor judgment to engage in ill-advised sex? Can they be said to mutually rape each other?
Then I think it's like when two kids who are too young to consent have sex. Regrettable, but no crime has been committed.


If one participant is male and the other female, is the male necessarily the guilty one, even if neither can remember who started it?
You'd think that based on some postings. ;)

But the thing is, something can be wrong without being illegal. If both have been drinking, but one knows the other is too drunk to know what they are doing and takes advantage of that, that is wrong. You most likely aren't going to get arrested for it, let alone convicted, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. And, again, it doesn't matter what the amount of alcohol is or whether the other person is over some legal limit. If you are in a situation where you even suspect the other person is too drunk to know what they are doing and you have sex anyway, you need to question your moral compass.

soxxy
02-08-2012, 12:59 AM
Manhattan prosecutors will not be charging him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/nyregion/manhattan-prosecutors-wont-charge-police-commissioners-son-in-rape-accusation.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

BigB08822
02-08-2012, 04:04 AM
Manhattan prosecutors will not be charging him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/nyregion/manhattan-prosecutors-wont-charge-police-commissioners-son-in-rape-accusation.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

No surprise, there!

Can he sue her? The damage is done and she probably did file a false report. Although, I suppose all the things that make this hard to prove in her favor also make it hard to prove in his favor if he files against her. You don't want to start setting a precedent that if a woman is raped and there is a lack of evidence that she should fear being counter sued by the rapist. That would be awful but at the same time you can't go around crying rape because you got caught cheating. Slippery slope...

Sasha'sSpins
02-08-2012, 08:29 AM
That may have not been his decision. He may have been informed by his superiors to stay home until this is settled.

It sounds very very fishy. 3 months!? I hope she is telling the truth because if not she has permanently hurt his reputation and that is a shame.

3 months? Some times it can take a victim YEARS before they can speak of an assault, let alone report it. I do grant that taking so long to report it will make it very hard for her to seem credible. Obviously any evidence of the alleged assault likely has been compromised/long gone.