Matt Lauer

[Boy4]

Accused Not only of inappropriate behavior, but now raping a colleague at the Sochi Olympic.

 

Your thoughts?

[+ azdr0710]

even this "new" news is "old" news......he's done and gone for good......this latest article is primarily just a promo for the new book.....

 

he always seemed somewhat-silly and light and never really a hard-hitting journalist (just right for the "Today" show)

[jjkrkwood]

He should make a bid for the Supreme Court, where apparently THAT behavior is acceptable.

 

Admin Note: No Politics in the Lounge.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Cooper

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

Accusation and being found guilty are two very separate things.

 

This is old news being used to sell books. Wake me when they go to trial.

[Jakeenct]

Before he got the gig as news desk boy for NBC, he recalled living in Greenwich CT, jobless, looking out his window, seeing a truck advertising painting services and seriously considered going to work for them; wonder if the job is still open

[spider]

Not only rape, but to use an old Newlywed Game quote “um, that would be in the butt, Bob.”

[+ azdr0710]

Not only rape, but to use an old Newlywed Game quote “um, that would be in the butt, Bob.”

 

ha!!....can't let that classic get by!!.......

 

[Islesguy]

ha!!....can't let that classic get by!!.......

 

I always hated that Eubanks thought this was the best/funniest clip from that era of The Newlywed Game. The blonde woman who didn't know what urban or rural meant was way better.

[+ azdr0710]

I always hated that Eubanks thought this was the best/funniest clip from that era of The Newlywed Game. The blonde woman who didn't know what urban or rural meant was way better.

 

ok..............(oh, that poor girl.....they made so much fun of her)

 

[MscleLovr]

Accusation and being found guilty are two very separate things....

 

I agree. And in this age of 24/7 rolling news, whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

[MassageAdam]

Yeah, she was raped by them but then continued having sex with him..... Doesn't sound like rape to me.

[+ JEC]

I'd fuck him

[spider]

I'd fuck him

 

Not worried about high mileage and STDs?

[alkan]

Yeah, she was raped by them but then continued having sex with him..... Doesn't sound like rape to me.

I don't think this is quite as simple as you make it sound. For instance, if the original incident was brought to light at the time, it probably would not have been regarded as rape by everyone. The perpetrator himself (if the incident happened as described) might not have so regarded it (and this has some bearing on how we regard his subsequent admissions) and the victim herself seems not to have quite thought of it that way, while aware of feeling something to be wrong. If it had happened yesterday, there would be more agreement about how to assess it. (Our perception of how much valid consent a drunk person is able to give has changed. What about the degree of culpability of a drunk perpetrator?)

 

This changing attitude also reflects on how we should look on the subsequent acts of condonation (this may be a Scottish legalism, betraying my roots) you refer to. A steals from B. B gives a present to A. B is to some extent wiping out the original act. A steals property, which B only learns long afterwards belongs to B. In that case does the present-giving condone the original act? Also, in the actual case, the way the "victim" describes the subsequent acts is significant. She says quite clearly that she did not regard the consensual acts as constituting a "relationship". In other words did the original action influence her subsequent consent? And if so, and our attitudes and hers have changed regarding that original action, how does that change affect our perception of how the consented-to acts were influenced?

 

I know it is difficult to believe but this is a shortened version of my original reply. I have tried to condense it and any incomprehensibilities can be put down to this!

[+ quoththeraven]

I don't think this is quite as simple as you make it sound. For instance, if the original incident was brought to light at the time, it probably would not have been regarded as rape by everyone. The perpetrator himself (if the incident happened as described) might not have so regarded it (and this has some bearing on how we regard his subsequent admissions) and the victim herself seems not to have quite thought of it that way, while aware of feeling something to be wrong. If it had happened yesterday, there would be more agreement about how to assess it. (Our perception of how much valid consent a drunk person is able to give has changed. What about the degree of culpability of a drunk perpetrator?)

 

This changing attitude also reflects on how we should look on the subsequent acts of condonation (this may be a Scottish legalism, betraying my roots) you refer to. A steals from B. B gives a present to A. B is to some extent wiping out the original act. A steals property, which B only learns long afterwards belongs to B. In that case does the present-giving condone the original act? Also, in the actual case, the way the "victim" describes the subsequent acts is significant. She says quite clearly that she did not regard the consensual acts as constituting a "relationship". In other words did the original action influence her subsequent consent? And if so, and our attitudes and hers have changed regarding that original action, how does that change affect our perception of how the consented-to acts were influenced?

 

I know it is difficult to believe but this is a shortened version of my original reply. I have tried to condense it and any incomprehensibilities can be put down to this!

Sex with someone who is unconscious or too drunk to be able to consent has always been rape as a legal matter. People's belief that anyone who is drunk is fair game (in effect, assuming the risk) is why you think the legal standard has changed. It hasn't.

 

There is not as much upside to allegations like this as people think. My practice is to believe them unless and until facts are revealed that undermine the allegations. Historically, it's the denials that have been untruthful, not the allegations. And what I think of someone isn't a due process violation. We make decisions every day about other people without going through anything close to a trial process or demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Due process applies to court proceedings. Someone shouldn't be fired without an investigation, but at the most that requires satisfying a civil level of proof, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And given why Lauer was fired, it's hard to even characterize this as defamatory, as what reputation does he have to defend anymore.

[alkan]

Sex with someone who is unconscious or too drunk to be able to consent has always been rape as a legal matter. People's belief that anyone who is drunk is fair game (in effect, assuming the risk) is why you think the legal standard has changed. It hasn't.

 

Not sure really why you were quoting me in your post on this point as I was talking about public opinion, not what the criminal law says about it. I was trying to answer @MassageAdams point about it not really being rape because of the subsequent actions of the parties. That is where the legalism came in. It used to be the law in Scotland, I think, (It is the only legal system I know anything about, and then not much.) that you could not allege rape against someone with whom you had had sexual relations subsequent to the original action. My point was that perhaps you could not be held to condone an act that you had not understood.

 

As regards the legal viewpoint, if we are going to bring that into it at all, does the fact that the offence seems to have taken place in Russia have an effect on how we should regard the matter? Another complication would then be that the original act as described would have been regarded at one time as sexual assault, not rape. (If I know nothing about US law, I know even less about Russian law.) But as you say, perhaps the criminal law is not involved so better not to invoke it.

Edited November 5, 2019 by alkan

[+ nycman]

It‘s a loaded accusation and one that‘s easily made in the MeToo era.

 

I have one straight male friend who won’t have sex with any woman

unless she physically places his penis into her own vagina. It sounds

stupid, but I don’t blame him. The risk of a jilted lover suddenly

”remembering” that their sex wasn’t consensual several years later

is just too high. Sexy? No. Safer? Who knows?

 

My own opinion is that Lauer maybe a creep who used his power, looks

and fame to lure these women into his bed, but that’s a long way from

“rape” in my book. In fact, it probably describes the motivation behind

the vast majority of all consensual sex.

 

So far these events sound more like affairs gone south. Their 15 minutes

is over, and now they want a book deal. “I’m a home wreaking whore who

slept with a married man while he was away from home on business“

doesn’t sell books. “Matt Lauer Raped Me!“.....does.

[+ FrankR]

It‘s a loaded accusation and one that‘s easily made in the MeToo era.

 

I have one straight male friend who won’t have sex with any woman

unless she physically places his penis into her own vagina. It sounds

stupid, but I don’t blame him. The risk of a jilted lover suddenly

”remembering” that their sex wasn’t consensual several years later

is just too high. Sexy? No. Safer? Who knows?

 

My own opinion is that Lauer maybe a creep who used his power, looks

and fame to lure these women into his bed, but that’s a long way from

“rape” in my book. In fact, it probably describes the motivation behind

the vast majority of all consensual sex.

 

So far these events sound more like affairs gone south. Their 15 minutes

is over, and now they want a book deal. “I’m a home wreaking whore who

slept with a married man while he was away from home on business“

doesn’t sell books. “Matt Lauer Raped Me!“.....does.

Most of my friends with adolescent boys are coaching them (starting in high school) to not have sex unless they have a text message from their partner saying “I consent”... ??‍♂️

 

A text message will be easier to present as evidence than a statement that you had the lady ‘manhandle’ you, I think!

Edited November 5, 2019 by FrankR