'Good Day New York' Host Greg Kelly Accused of Rape

[MacMadame]

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]

...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]

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]

Who is Bat?

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

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]

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]

*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]

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]

Manhattan prosecutors will not be charging him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/ny...imes&seid=auto

[BigB08822]

Manhattan prosecutors will not be charging him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/ny...imes&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]

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.

[BigB08822]

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.

Yes, this has been stated so many times I can't even remember. Thank you.

[Sasha'sSpins]

I didn't say you automatically have to believe the alleged victim, but this thread so far contains a flurry of messages doubting the woman's story, and saying how could she have waited three months, and I was just trying to balance it out with some theories that might support her story, even though she waited three months and all that.

It is also the dissecting of the events, the doubting thomases that some times cause an alleged victim to recant-or not ever report an assault to begin with due to her actions leading up to the alleged rape being questioned - 'she went drinking with him', 'she barely knew him', etc.

So, that makes it okay if she says no, and he has sex with her anyway? I didn't know that consenting to go to someone's place meant consenting to having sex! I bet you think that a woman is just asking for it if she wears a short skirt at night, too.

Even if she consents to vaginal sex, and he performs anal intercourse, for example, that's still rape.

Well put. It's quite chilling really-like going back to the '70s where the alleged victim's sexual activities prior to a rape are dragged through a courtroom as 'proof' that she deserved it, or was asking for it by being dressed provocatively, etc.

We've come a long way baby-NOT.

No, but I will tell you one thing, I would not consider for one second doing what she did - going out for drinks and then going someplace private with someone I don't know well enough to know that said person has the self-control enough to be able to keep my welfare in mind, above and beyond whatever he may have in mind. The only time I have done the drinks-and-then-someplace-private was when I'd known the guy for well over a year, and what ended up happening was completely consensual on both sides.

I also have no problem with letting people know where I draw the line about how close I let people get to me. There was a minor fire across the street from my apartment 2 weeks ago, and while I was outside watching it (at 1:30/2:00 AM) I was conversing with a guy who lives 2 streets west of me. During the course of the conversation he said something to the point of us "maybe going out sometime." I turned right around on him and said firmly - "2 things. #1 - I don't 'date.' #2 - I don't 'drink.' And if you ever come around ringing my doorbell unannounced, you WILL be dealt with accordingly, because I don't allow that privilege to anyone who isn't a blood relative." And mind you, there's cops standing around as I'm saying this (and the fact that my building's super is a Troy City cop had already come up in the conversation) . Didn't stop the conversation, but it did set him back a bit, and he didn't mention it again.

You seem to be saying 'don't put yourself in that situation, being alone with a stranger-otherwise you deserve it'. You also seem to be saying 'I'm better than that woman'. Or maybe I'm reading you wrong.

What I do know is that 2 years ago a little girl walking to school alone was snatched up by 2 men, taken to an abandoned house they once lived in and raped her. This horrific nightmare happened to that little girl just 3 houses down from where my parents live. She didn't 'ask' to be raped by those men just because she was walking to school alone. Nor did her parents whom I believe worked such hours that they could not walk or drive their child to school. A lot of children are in that latchkey position. It's not okay to be raped by anyone just because you dress a certain way, are intoxicated, or happen to be alone with a stranger, or are walking alone trying to get somewhere. That stranger has NO RIGHT to touch you. None. Poor judgement is no excuse to rape someone either, not EVER.

With all due respect I'd be scared to have anyone who is prejudiced or judgemental in such a way on a jury box.

ETA: I just read a bit more through the thread-so the prosecutors are not going to charge him. It is unfortunate for him if this was a false report. I agree with those who have stated that the damage probably has been done.

[Sasha'sSpins]

Yes, this has been stated so many times I can't even remember. Thank you.

I'm sorry I haven't gone through the whole thread-I was just stating facts as I know them and was not aware of how many times this has been stated prior to my own posts.

[cruisin]

^^ No one is saying don't put yourself in that situation or you deserve to be raped. Two separate things are being discussed.

1. That the woman's story falls apart for several reasons. Most obvious, the texts that were sent to Kelly after the alleged rape.

2. That women need to be safe. Bad things can happen anyway, but we need to make decisions that do not put us at risk. That is just common sense, not blame.

Anyway, it is moot. The courts have exhonorated Kelly. Now, it remains to be seen if he gets his job back. If he doesn't, maybe he should sue.

[WindSpirit]

^^ No one is saying don't put yourself in that situation or you deserve to be raped. Two separate things are being discussed.

1. That the woman's story falls apart for several reasons. Most obvious, the texts that were sent to Kelly after the alleged rape.

2. That women need to be safe. Bad things can happen anyway, but we need to make decisions that do not put us at risk. That is just common sense, not blame.

Funny how a "separate" thing was being discussed while rape in general was branded off topic in this thread.

BTW, including that "separate" thing in a thread about rape accusations does make it seem like it's about judgement and blame, and that's why many people have taken it as such.

[cruisin]

I disagree. We can discuss rape and still discuss ways to lessen our vulnerability. Women and men never deserve to be raped. Nor should they ever be blamed for being raped. However, it behooves us to keep ourselves safe. There are things we can do to lessen our vulnerability. By discussing those things, we do not assign blame, we offer suggestions for limiting putting yourself in an unsafe position. As I said, bad things can happen regardless of the precautions we take. But we should still take them.

That said, I think this discussion would have been different if this woman seemed more credible. I hate to doubt the victim. But her actions, especially after the alleged rape, seemed very questionable. Clearly the courts agree with that. As much as women can be raped, women can also lie. We may never know exactly what happened here. But, it seems that, in this case the victim is Kelly.

[Andora]

Crusin, I get that you're not trying to assign blame TO women who, in your view, "don't take care of themselves," but it still takes blame away from the actual attackers.

ETA: I just read a bit more through the thread-so the prosecutors are not going to charge him. It is unfortunate for him if this was a false report. I agree with those who have stated that the damage probably has been done.

In general, I'd agree, but considering even in here people were immediately suspicious, I wonder if his reputation really is THAT damaged-- in this case, anyways. An untrue rape accusation is a very damaging thing.

[cruisin]

[QUOTE=Andora;3472416]Crusin, I get that you're not trying to assign blame TO women who, in your view, "don't take care of themselves," but it still takes blame away from the actual attackers[\QUOTE]

It absolutely does not. If a person chooses to rape someon, it is entirely their responsibility. It's like getting into a car with a person who's been drinking. If they crash the car, it's not the passenger's fault. But they should not have gotten into the car. We make choices that can put us in danger, we need to be more careful - for our own sake. That does not mean that we cause ourself to be attacked, but we do need to try and protect ourselves from dangerous situations.

[cruisin]

Andora, it is what I've been saying. You just can't seem to get it through your little head. Stop leaving nasty, ignorant rep messages. I don't care if you agree with me. I don't care if you don't like me. But, behave like an adult. Stop telling me what I really mean. Put me back on ignore.

So, let me ask you. When I respond to your comments am I asking for your ugly, obnoxious comments? Or is that totally your responsibility? You like to hide behind the rep option. You twist opinions to serve your own warped interpretation. You have no interest in what I actually mean, you simply like to attack me for everything I say.

[Beefcake]

ETA: I just read a bit more through the thread-so the prosecutors are not going to charge him. It is unfortunate for him [STRIKEif[/STRIKE] that this was a false report. I agree with those who have stated that the damage probably has been done.

Fixed. (Sorry.) This was a false report, clearly now. And I look forward to this woman's name and other dirty laundry (including, perhaps, that she never really did get pregnant) being released. Kelly had to endure some dirt digging, and you know what, he came up very clean. Her turn.

Too bad she won't be charged with a false report, though, but at least her reputation can be tarnished as retribution to the damage she caused Kelly and - importantly - people who truly have been sexually assaulted and need their claims to be trusted.