When Actors claim Defamation!

[LP]

There is so much in the posts above that I want to address.

Firstly LP, I don't think any accusers have professionally benefited from coming forward with their stories of abuse. Sure, some have received publicity, but I can't think of a single one who has found an increase in work because of it. In fact in nearly every case, the work for the accuser has dried up.

As for the prevalence of victims, it's probably in line with society as a whole and is not isolated to Hollywood. Statistically speaking (using Australia as an example), according to the ABS approximately 28% of women and 18% of men reported some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 16, and 17% of women 15 or older and 4% of men also experienced a sexual assault. Those are huge numbers. I remember talking about it with a group of friends in my early 20's and of the 5 women chatting, 3 disclosed that they had been abused as kids, and that's not uncommon.

Capcom, to state that 'many' accusations of sexual assault are fraudulent is pretty appalling. What benefit is there for any person to create a fake abuse accusation?  It is true that only 17% of reported cased end in a conviction, but that that is due mostly to our poor judicial system and certainly not because of false accusations. I think it's actually a very sad indictment on the values of our society.

The fact of the matter is, most cases of abuse won't even make it to court, or even be reported for that matter, mostly because of the attitudes above. Until we stop victim blaming and shaming, and actually hold perpetrators accountable for their actions (in an actual courtroom, not just a media courtroom), no one is safe.

btw., From my investigations many of the stats categorise students as children, and the qualification varies widely from region to region so much so that meta-data studies are rendered almost worthless. In some regions under 21 qualifies, while in other regions over 16 will exclude! The media won't report that difference, just as they won't report the scope of sexual assault which also varies widely from region to region! Many of the alleged offenses statistically reported in childhood sexual assault stats fall into adolescent categories which in detailed investigation then seem to be more sexual misadventure!

One problematic area seems to be Universities, where the definition of sexual assault for grounds to discharge can vary from rape to a lack of recognition for a non-verbal queue, or even in some cases two drunks having sex neither deemed capable of consent at the time yet charges laid retrospectively!

I think the problem is here the breadth of the definition of "sexual assault", some read it purely as rape, while others can label a disgruntled relationship or unsatisfying intercourse as an assault.

I've read reports of young men being discharged from employment or education for allegations of sexual assault because after receiving consent they failed to stop intercourse quickly enough when they didn't notice a tear in their partners eye in a dark room! The inference being that the lack of empathy in the absence of all other communication is enough to be found guilty of abusive neglect.

In one case it was even argued that after asking a participant if the intention was to dissatisfy their partner and they had replied no, that answer was enough proof of a lack of empathy and therefore neglect which led to a charge of sexual abuse! What really disturbed me was the claim by some that this wasn't an error, and that even if it was perceived to be an error it was an error in the right direction. Stats do not lie!

It all seems to stem from the perception that all interactions are expected to be heavenly, hardly and I am sure that whether someone sleeps with one or one thousand the chance is high enough that people will probably end up dissatisfied more than satiated.