I have doubts about the John Patrick Shanley sex lawsuit

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 5:54pm

Yes, DOUBTS. I know it's way too much to hope for a rag like Entertainment Weekly to write about kinky sex in a non-sensationalistic way, but in Grown Up America of my mind, it'd be reality.
$5 m

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 6:06pm

Links not working, but I picked it up on the google.


She has no case.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 6:46pm

If her basis for being forced is his "Svengali-like hold on me" and nothing more, this isn't about doubts, its laughable.

[bwayboi4life42]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 8:15pm

Rape and coercion aren't funny. As long as you think her claims are "laughable," there will be women too scared to admit they were raped for fear of not being believed, and the rape culture in this country will only be perpetuated.

Shanley is innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't mean Jencsik is a liar until proven not a liar. Have some tact. You wouldn't think it was funny if it was someone you loved.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 8:45pm

^Of course rape and coercion aren't funny. But anyone claiming that she (or he for that matter) is forced to do sexual acts because the person accused has a "Svengali-like hold" on her is the one making a mockery of sex by forcible compulsion. Not me.

I have no idea if that is the sole basis for claim, as I said in my post. I specifically stated that IF that is what she is basing her lawsuit on, her lawsuit is laughable. In no way did I imply that she was lying about anything. And if her claim alleges additional facts which support her being forced against her will to engage in sex with him, then of course it is no laughing matter. But judging by what I read in the link (or rather since the link didn't work what I found on google), his Svengali-like hold on her was the only basis given for her claim. Of course the link may not tell the entire story, which is why I conditioned my remark on whether that is the only basis for her claim.

Moreover, if someone I loved told me that she was thinking of suing her sexual partner because she regretted some of the things they had done together in bed and felt she only did it because he had some kind of magnetic power over her a la Svengali, I wouldn't laugh at her, no, but I would tell her that that is absolutely no reason to sue him, that she is a grownup, and should stop thinking of herself as a victim or equating in any sense what she had been through with rape. She was not forcibly compelled to engage in sex. She was not unable to consent by reason of youth or mental disability. And that while she may feel as if she had been seduced into doing things she did not want to do, she as a consenting adult cannot see herself as a wronged party or her partner as her violator and sexual offender.

Let me also add that by Svengali-like hold, I took her to be claiming that Shanley was powerfully seductive, controlling, manipulative and irresistible, and not to be implying that he had literally hypnotized her into doing things against her will a la The Manchurian Candidate.







Updated On: 3/30/12 at 08:45 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 8:57pm

Well put, henrik.

In short, do we want the law to treat women as if they were fragile, Victorian flowers with no willpower of their own? And historically speaking, isn't that just the other side of the coin that portrays women as irresistible temptresses who are to blame for all sexual violence committed against them?

In principle--because I admit I haven't seen the briefs and don't know everything about this particular case--I think that's a very slippery slope.

[bwayboi4life42]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 9:01pm

There is more to her claims: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/mister_write_did_me_wrong_xNKw6kIsGBDbkvlxn2taYO

[bk]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 9:10pm

I'm sure you don't mean "there is more to her claims" in the way it reads. These are "claims." If it goes to trial then the truth, yay or nay, will hopefully come out. But right now this is just a lawsuit, yes?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 9:11pm

^bwayboi, indeed that article provides much more information.

I said before, if that (which was spelled out in the article I originally read; perhaps there would have been less confusion if OP's original link had worked as we all would have had the same frame of reference, as it was I went online myself and read a very truncated summary of the lawsuit which led me to the statement I made) was the only basis for her claim, it would be laughable. I don't retract what I wrote. Because I was careful to state what I did in the conditional.

But you are correct, that is not the only basis for her claim. Not at all. She indeed alleges forcible compulsion. And her lawsuit is not laughable.

Of course, as you have also stated, whether Shanley did or did not force himself on her is a different issue. I have no preconceived notion as to whether Shanley violated this woman or not.

* * *

bk, perhaps you didn't understand me or bwayboi in terms of our statement about claims; we were both speaking as to what she was basing her lawsuit on.

I was remarking, based on another article I had read which suggested that what she might be basing her legal claim of tortious injury by Shanley on was the fact that she would not have performed S&M activity with him but for his "Svengali-like hold" on her. What I was saying was if that were the only basis for her claim, her lawsuit would not survive the laugh test.

Again, it is now clear that that is not the only basis for her lawsuit.







Updated On: 3/30/12 at 09:11 PM

[bwayboi4life42]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 9:27pm

Now we're saying the same thing, having both seen the same material. Sorry—I read the NY Post article and then your post and couldn't separate the two.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 9:54pm

^no problem, and I sincerely regret having given the impression I first gave as a result of our responding to very different reports. I can well understand your response to my post based on your reading of the piece in the Post.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 10:49pm

"Shanley is innocent until proven guilty."

I hate when this inaccurate phrase is tossed around. Shanley is presumed innocent until proven guilty (an important distinction indicating that there is a legal process built on a well thought out foundation) and the only article I read is the one in EW, which is the one I commented upon for it's use of kinky imagery to titillate and influence people's opinions on that presumption. Do I even have to click on the Post link to know if they followed the same track?

ETA Try to parse out the language in the Post link. After their second dinner date he lurrrrrrrred her back to his apartment. I have no idea the nature of the relationship, I wasn't there, but in this juvenile culture, kinkiness is an automatic sign of guilt.

Updated On: 3/30/12 at 10:49 PM

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 3/31/12 at 2:56pm

IMHO, the woman is 100% scammer. Just a perfunctory perusal of GOOGLE (on her name), reveals A LOt. As a woman MYSELF, this kind of shakedown is reprehensible.. Newfangled casting couch, to the max. If I'm proved wrong, I sincerely apologize. Just doesn't ring true (to me).