Shia LeBeouf "raped" by a woman while on public display - Laughable or Serious?

lackblogger

lackblogger

SasqWatch
Joined
November 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Shia LeBeouf "raped" by a woman while on public display - Laughable or Serious?

Because this is Shia LeBeouf and it's Shia LeBeouf performing an art instillation the scenario is quite a strange one, to sat the least. However, Shia LeBeouf is using the word rape when he describes how a woman entered his instillation (where he was sitting in silence, like an object to be viewed by the general public) and proceeded to have sex with him. With both the girl's and Shia's other halves standing outside. By the rules of his instillation he could not speak or react to what the public did to him:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ing-his-performance-art-project-iamsorry.html

“One woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for ten minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me,” said LaBeouf. “There were hundreds of people in line when she walked out with disheveled hair and smudged lipstick. It was no good, not just for me but her man as well.”
Click to expand...

This is a bit more silly a situation than a traditional rape scenario... but then is it? There is clearly some interesting and theoretical lines being drawn and crossed here.

On the one hand is this a laughable use of the word rape by someone who has a reputation for being a bit of a public mockery?

Or

On the other hand is this an example of how women are as equally susceptible to unwelcome sexual deviance as men, should the right conditions present themselves? Shia himself obviously believes this is rape, but, then, no criminal investigation?

Or

Is this a non-story (baring in mind the current climate on such a topic)?
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
LaBeouf claims that a woman entered the room and proceeded to have sex with him against his will
Click to expand...
Yes, that is rape. There are no valid excuses of having sex with anyone against their will.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,223
That's obviously a tabloid site, so I'd take that article with a grain of salt. The incident supposedly took place last February and nobody ever heard of it until now?

Oh.. and Shia LaBeouf is an idiot.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,422
Location
Florida, US
I'm sure everyone's seen it, but worth a repost

 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,193
Location
San Francisco
JDR13 said:
The incident supposedly took place last February and nobody ever heard of it until now?
Click to expand...

Give him a break. He only recently recovered this memory while under hypnosis.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Myrthos said:
Yes, that is rape. There are no valid excuses of having sex with anyone against their will.
Click to expand...

In your quote you added the phrase against his will. That was not in the original text, and yes, that's the common understanding of the definition of rape, that of sex against someone's will. But, in this scenario, the person has not used that term, just the term rape. But then he did say that people could do anything they wanted to him. So it's his use of the word rape that is of interest here. (also see below Time article quote re: the legal aspect).

JDR13 said:
That's obviously a tabloid site, so I'd take that article with a grain of salt. The incident supposedly took place last February and nobody ever heard of it until now?

Oh.. and Shia LaBeouf is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Here's a Time article if the source is of importance:

http://time.com/3609444/shia-labeouf-says-he-was-raped-during-a-performance-art-project/

The time article has the very sensible finisher line of:

"It’s unclear if LaBeouf has reported the assault to authorities."


Edit: it's also understood that current law does not take length of time between crime and declaration of crime as a factor in whether a crime took place.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
If such a case would go to trial, a judge would look at whether a reasonable person would have had the possibility to see signs of non-consent. It sounds like in this case Shia was bedazzled by the woman's frantic and forward behavior, but it doesn't look like it was non-consensual.

It is a very big gray and controversial area though. There was a great article about this in the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...he-decline-and-fall-of-the-sexual-revolution/

Sex hasn’t been liberated very much if people still think they’ll be stained in the public mind for having it forced on them. And that fear reflects the lack of recognized barriers in sexual relations between men and women. There was a time when a man interested in a woman signaled it by sitting in a room with her parents, chatting cheerfully while they passed judgment on whether he would be allowed to speak to her in a less formal setting. It was suffocating and restrictive but at least everyone knew the rules.

If there are rules now, they are clearly not widely understood. In at least one of the Ottawa cases, that of Massimo Pacetti, the allegations appear to turn on what constitutes “consent.” The woman, we are told, provided a condom, but didn’t view that as “consent.” Whatever else may have transpired, it seems possible that Mr. Pacetti might have reasonably interpreted the signals otherwise. The courts are still passing judgment on that sort of issue, and when courts get involved it’s further evidence that rules aren’t understood.

It seems likely that the confusion will persist for some time. As the Calgary drawing party suggests, the rules aren’t the same for both sides. Activities that are acceptable among women aren’t acceptable among men. Meanwhile it’s obvious that too many men still think the “rules” consist of what they can get away with. Even where there are laws – as in, you don’t force yourself on someone – the people they are meant to protect are reluctant to participate in enforcing them. If that’s the case, how can further laws do anything to change the situation?

Public sympathy is clearly shifting, as awareness of the extent of the abuse, and confusion, grows. But, thanks to technology, public awareness is a rampaging bull that tends to leave a shambles behind wherever it goes. The mere allegation of impropriety is enough to destroy a person, and thanks to technology, the allegations are everywhere before the target even knows they’ve been made.

Revolutions rarely achieve much in the short run. Successful ones may manage to quickly tear down the established order, but it takes decades, or even centuries, to rebuild in its place. Zhou Enlai may not really have said it was “too early” to judge the impact of the French Revolution, but the sentiment was apt nonetheless. The sexual revolution may have overthrown hoary old prejudices, but we are clearly still sorting through the mess it left in its wake. We may yet start wondering if it was all worth it.
Click to expand...

So Shia is doing a disservice to victims of real abuse if he uses a term so casually if what really happened is more like I described above in the first paragraph, in an era where questions of consent are already a very murky, gray area fraught with controversy and subjectivity. It is not a good idea to stretch the definition of rape, it must be reserved to serious and tangible crimes so it remains clearly defined.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
lackblogger said:
In your quote you added the phrase against his will. That was not in the original text....
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should take the time to read the article you link to. Third paragraph, it's an exact copy of the text.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,223
Myrthos said:
Perhaps you should take the time to read the article you link to. Third paragraph, it's an exact copy of the text.
Click to expand...

I thought I did. I do have mild dyslexia though so I do often miss stuff like that.

I guess the point is, it was the reporter who used that phrase, not LeBeouf. Lebeouf used the term rape and the reporter used the term against will. But the point of this thread is, was it against his will? And, should this be a criminal matter?
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
Myrthos said:
Yes, that is rape. There are no valid excuses of having sex with anyone against their will.
Click to expand...

Calling this rape disrespects the word. He was conscious, capable, he could have just told the woman to step off.

He couldn't, why? Cause it wasn't in the game's rules? Yeah, I played some make-out games when I was younger, I don't go around calling it mouth rape after.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
39
Humanity has risen! said:
A crock of shit
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind me snipping your post HHR, I don't normally act in such a cruel way but that whole quote and associated write-up just read like baseless propaganda. Someone giving their opinion and then someone using an opinion piece as some kind of factual contribution.

There never has been a time of perfect sexual heaven when everyone knew the rules and the supposed sexual revolution hasn't blurred the lines in any way whatsoever. One of the biggest reasons for the UK's hard stance on underage sex, for example, is because the UK came near the bottom of the European League Table of underage pregnancies. And the reason the UK had such high rates was because of a culture of non-education - go back to the old days LOL, sorry, but what a joke. Maybe you'd like to visit an amateur abortion clinic and have your shit removed just so you can experience "the good ol' days" LOL
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
I will be the voice of reason, I am sure not many people care. Sorry getting sick of actors and the such thinking we care or should care about them.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
Why was he on public display? Because he can't get anyone to pay to come see him.

Sorry, but really....there are real problems in the world.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
lackblogger said:
You mean rape isn't one of the world's real problems? Some people might disagree with you?
Click to expand...

Was it really rape? Because it was then yes you are correct. Trust me I am not making light of the word "rape" or people that have been. This just seems to me like.....

Anyways maybe I should have stayed out of this thread.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
CelticFrost said:
Was it really rape? Because it was then yes you are correct. Trust me I am not making light of the word "rape" or people that have been. This just seems to me like…..

Anyways maybe I should have stayed out of this thread.
Click to expand...

No, you're fine. In this instance there's room for this to be rape and room for it not to be rape. That's the purpose of the discussion, to get to the bottom of this whole "what is rape" question and in what circumstances is it correctly applicable. If you feel the evidence of it being Shia making the claim (past history) and there are other factors of the case which suggest it wasn't rape, then that view is helpful to the discussion.

Saying there's no discussion here is probably the only oddety from my point of view, but you are free to express that, though it will likely be countered if you frame it a certain way that triggers someone.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
lackblogger said:
I hope you don't mind me snipping your post HHR, I don't normally act in such a cruel way but that whole quote and associated write-up just read like baseless propaganda. Someone giving their opinion and then someone using an opinion piece as some kind of factual contribution.

There never has been a time of perfect sexual heaven when everyone knew the rules and the supposed sexual revolution hasn't blurred the lines in any way whatsoever. One of the biggest reasons for the UK's hard stance on underage sex, for example, is because the UK came near the bottom of the European League Table of underage pregnancies. And the reason the UK had such high rates was because of a culture of non-education - go back to the old days LOL, sorry, but what a joke. Maybe you'd like to visit an amateur abortion clinic and have your shit removed just so you can experience "the good ol' days" LOL
Click to expand...

No, I don't mind. I have to disagree though because I thought this article contained many good points and I agree with the author.

Do you have any proof that the high rate of teenage pregnancy in the UK is due to a cultural preference for abstinence in education? In such situations there are always many confounding variables at play. I know that in my own Quebec, the government eliminated sexual education at school more than ten years ago, without any ensuing upshot in teenage pregnancies. My personal opinion of the UK situation is that it's rather the byproduct of the generous financial support given to young families on the "dole" which creates a climate of low responsibility and of such sexual recklessness and nonchalance.

Can you point to any system of state sexual education that achieved any of its purported aims? As far as I know, anywhere in the civilized world all the education and propaganda in the world doesn't stop youth STD rates from booming to absurd and exponentially higher rates.

I think the point the author was also getting at was that a social model that would endow people with unlimited sexual license would be doomed to become a quagmire. Is there even such a thing as safe promiscuous sex? Have we been sold a lie? Can the accompanying social ills that have accompanied the so called sexual revolution be taken in serious consideration, such as the destruction of families, the children growing in broken homes, and the general jadedness and perpetual unfulfillment and malaise of today's modern adults toward dating and marriage in general?

And of course you have all those murky questions of consent and difficult situations that generate a lot of bad will. As of late there has also been the Jian Gomeshi story which was mentioned in the story and was hugely controversial, stretching what our definitions of "consent" should be to the limits.

Even if you are of the view that the sexual revolution was a good thing I have a hard time understanding how it didn't make things a whole lot more complex and difficult and unpleasant for the near totality of the poulation.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
I have no idea why that would happen in Quebec. Perhaps it's because the concept of education is a bit wider than simply a few hours in a classroom once every couple of years.

Everything else about your post looks like some kind of religious propaganda. You blame social welfare for teenage pregnancy? Utterly unreal. It's for this kind of hideous infilling and thread hijacking that I simply wont communicate with you on the matter. You clearly have an agenda and if the topic was "star dies in road accident" you'd find someway to twist the topic onto "Modern decline" and blah blah blah.

The topic is rape and the definition thereof. If you believe that people shouldn't have sex with anyone unless being married to them and, once married to them, the state of rape doesn't exist, then, for heaven's sake, just say that and stop hiding that view behind a smokescreen of every issue you have with everything.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,778
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom