"There is no truth to this," Salling's rep tells omg! in an exclusive statement. "It's the textbook case of a disgruntled girl looking to cash in on a TV star's success. We turn the rest over to Mark's attorneys and have no further comment."
That kind of reasoning is always used to discredit sexual assault victims, and it's very destructive.
When I see that someone is suing rather than pressing charges, I see a money making opportunity. If someone commits sexual battery against you, call the cops, press charges, see a medical specialist so you can prove the bastard did it, and have him locked up; don't just wait two years and then try to sue. Maybe I am wrong or being ignorant, but this seems like a common sense thing to me.
It'd be difficult for her to get a sexual assault charge seeing as how she originally consented and then withdrew consent. It's hard enough to get a rape charge without having the fact that you first consented. Plus, some states don't count that as sexual assault.
According to the article linked by the OP she did file a police report when the incident first occurred. As to why she waited so long to file a court case I can not say.
"That kind of reasoning is always used to discredit sexual assault victims, and it's very destructive."
I'm not sure what you mean by your apparent criticism of this reasoning as "destructive". Do you mean that it can be effective? Do you mean that it is harmful?
The facts are that it is a legitimate defense and it is sometimes the truth. Not all people who complain of sexual assault are telling the truth, just as not all people who complain of anything are telling the truth. That's why there is a process for adjudicating a complaint.
Here, there is a complaint, there is a defense, and the outcome of the case will hopefully be determined in complete accordance with the law. None of us were there and none of us know the merits of the complaint. Or lack thereof.
AEA AGMA SM: Read the article again. She didn't make a police report, he did when she broke down his door. During the report, she may have made the claim to the police that responded (but that is not stated).
"Gorzela claims that Salling engaged in unprotected sex with her when she expressly communicated to him that he wear a condom while they were intimate. Following the alleged incident, Gorzela claims that she confronted Salling about his actions. At this point, she claims he pushed her to the floor causing injuries to her head and knees. A police report was filed on March 25, the day of the alleged attack."
I see nothing in there about Salling filing a report about this girl knocking down his door. I haven't dug too deeply into it, but the way this article is worded it leads me to believe that she filed the report after the incident in which she claims he pushed her to the floor. If there are further articles out there that state otherwise then I admit I have not seen them.
I'm not sure what you mean by your apparent criticism of this reasoning as "destructive". Do you mean that it can be effective? Do you mean that it is harmful?
The facts are that it is a legitimate defense and it is sometimes the truth. Not all people who complain of sexual assault are telling the truth, just as not all people who complain of anything are telling the truth. That's why there is a process for adjudicating a complaint.
It's harmful because the idea that the victim is probably lying is a known rape myth (one of the many ways through which our society is able to deny, legitimize, or minimize sexual assault). The fact that sometimes people lie about sexual assault is often used to discredit victims. Furthermore, a very small percentage of sexual assault reports are false (9-11%) and in fact rapes are estimated to be under-reported if anything. His publicist could have stated his innocence without perpetuating this very harmful rape myth. Maybe she is lying, but spreading the idea that there are scores of women just out to get money by crying sexual assault/battery is offensive and not supported by research.
I tend to fall on the side of "believe the victim" though--it's my bias as someone who researches and works with sexual assault victims. Also, I have a hard time believing that a woman would put herself through the trauma of a court case in which she is called a liar, a whore, crazy, etc, and often ostracized by friends, family, and neighbors, just because she wanted money or regretted having sex.
Under MOST circumstances, I'm totally with you, Sporky. And I'm willing to wait to hear what else we hear. This just sounds (from what little is in the article) to be suspect.
And is having unprotected sex sexual battery? (I'm asking, I really don't know.)
I think the issue is more that she consented to sex under the condition that he wear a condom, and he had sex with her without wearing one. He violated the condition of consent, so consent was revoked.
But Sporkgodess, the response by a person accused of sexual battery that the complainant is not telling the truth is to be expected, just as the response by a person accused of ANYTHING in court that the complainant is not telling the truth. One can't expect people accused of sexual misconduct to admit their guilt as a matter of course.
On top of which, she may not be telling the truth.
Of course the idea that the victim is probably lying - without examining the facts in question - is reprehensible. But an equally damaging notion is that the victim is always telling the truth because why would anyone put herself (or himself) through such a thing if it weren't true.
The fact is that completely fabricated accusations may well be far less common than true complaints, but they do happen. This is true whether the accusation is rape or anything else. People lie for a variety of reasons whether it's about a robbery, an assault or a sexual violation. It happens. (here, of course, we are discussing fabricated complaints against a specific defendant, not the issue of a victim wrongly or unreliably identifying the defendant as the wrongdoer, which certainly doesn't apply to this instance as the parties are known to each other).
What I object is to kneejerk and wholesale rejection of a complete fabrication defense on the grounds of a prejudice that it could never be true. Or because it so rarely happens that it can be dismissed outright. It can be true. Fabricated rape complaints have happened. If it rarely happens, that in no way changes the fact that every case must be examined on its merits.
We have come from a culture that revictimizes rape complainants to one in which many take what rape complainants say as true just by the very virtue of it being a rape complaint.
I dunno, something about how he'd never do that to a woman instead of just calling her a liar. But you're right in that he might not have had a hand in writing the statement.
Bea Arthur Nude Sells For Nearly $2 Million At Auction
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
Gyllenhaal, Pine in Talks to Join INTO THE WOODS Movie?
John Bantay Talks to Richard Jay-Alexander About Musical Mondays Farewell
BWW TV Exclusive: Prince, Lewis & More Remember Kevin Gray
BWW Interviews: ABC's Newest BACHELORETTE Desiree Hartsock
Seth MacFarlane Will Not Host 2014 OSCARS
Rooney Mara is the Face for New Calvin Klein Scent
BWW Reviews: LEGENDS At 30 Is Still Lots of Fun
iWatch Update: Apple Looking Into 1.5 OLED Screens?
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: John Cranko's ONEGIN at American Ballet Theatre
VIDEO: Must Watch - Mel Brooks AMERICAN MASTERS on PBS May 20!
joined:6/29/10
Posted: 1/19/13 at 08:57pm