Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear" GUILTY 2 of 3

Cousin Dupree · Jul 5, 2020

That time Laura Prepon helped silence a Danny Masterson victim for Scientology | The Underground Bunker

tonyortega.org

That time Laura Prepon helped silence a Danny Masterson victim for Scientology

By Tony Ortega | June 30, 2020

Laura Prepon, through her publicity team, tried to “handle” the New York Post this weekend with a suggestion that the Orange is the New Black actress is “not currently active in the church.”

That assertion appeared in a story about how Scientology is being sued for trying to silence Danny Masterson’s rape accusers. It was Masterson who brought Prepon into Scientology as they were co-starring in That ’70s Show in the late 1990s, and Prepon suddenly finds herself in an awkward position now that Masterson is facing 45 years to life in prison for raping three women who were all Scientologists at the time.

While Prepon’s Hollywood handlers are doing damage control, however, we wanted to remind readers something we first pointed out three years ago, and that was the part Prepon played in Scientology’s attempt to silence one of Masterson’s victims.

Of the three women whose allegations have led to criminal rape charges, one of them we have referred to as Victim B (“Jane Doe #1” in the civil lawsuit). She alleges that she was raped at Masterson’s Hollywood Hills home after a party there on April 25, 2003. In the weeks afterwards, Victim B went to the Church of Scientology with her allegations, and the church attempted to shut her down by putting her through a series of different “ethics” actions.

On the day after Christmas 2003, Scientology ethics officer Julian Swartz put Victim B under a “non-enturbulation order,” which is one step away from being “declared a suppressive person.” In other words, her reward for coming forward and accusing one of Scientology’s celebrities of rape was to be punished with the threat that if she were written up for any additional infraction of any kind, she would be “declared,” which is Scientology’s version of excommunication, and all other Scientologists, including her family and friends, would be forced to disown her. For many Scientologists, being declared is like a death sentence.
For the next three months, Victim B was required to report daily to the Hollywood Celebrity Center for expensive auditing and sec checking (counseling and interrogations). She paid about $15,000 for “past-life” therapy and interrogations in order to convince her that she’d done so many terrible things centuries ago it accounted for her being a victim in this lifetime.

During that time, Masterson himself was also being interrogated at the Celebrity Centre, and Victim B had to be careful not to run into him. But one day, as she was going through the parking lot, she saw Laura Prepon in her black BMW. We first mentioned the encounter in a 2017 story, and we can go into more detail about it now.

“She saw Prepon in the parking lot, and Prepon was asking her very pointedly, ‘Why are you at CC? What are you doing here? Why aren’t you hanging out with the crowd?” our source, a family friend, told us. “[Victim B] knew exactly what was going on. She had to act chipper, like nothing was wrong, and yet she couldn’t say why she was really there. Prepon even asked her if she was upset with Danny, and she had to say no.”

Our source explained that if Victim B had answered in any negative way, or had acted curt or rude, Prepon could have written her up and it would mean a declare order for her and excommunication, forcing disconnection from her by family members. It’s not unusual for a Scientologist to be written up for being rude or “anti-social,” and Victim B had been written up for something similar just six months before. “And she told me that she had known Laura well before this, and these weren’t the kind of questions she would simply ask a friend,” the source says.

Victim B told her friend that the encounter with Laura Prepon in the parking lot at the Hollywood Celebrity Centre was one of the most difficult things she had to go through during the entire ordeal, and there was no doubt in her mind that Prepon had been sent there to trip her up on Masterson’s behalf.
We’d actually like to see Prepon asked about this encounter in the civil and criminal trials, as it illustrates Scientology’s use of celebrities to silence dissent within the church.

And maybe that prospect, of being asked to testify, is why Laura Prepon’s Hollywood reps are hoping people will believe that she has distanced herself from it.
Despite that creepy encounter, and a strange confrontation with Masterson himself that was set up by the church and went sideways, Victim B defied her Scientology handlers and did go to the Los Angeles Police Department on June 6, 2004. But Scientology swarmed that first investigation with affidavits calling Victim B a liar, and the case was closed.

Then, in August 2004 a church attorney brought Victim B a hand-written letter of apology from the actor, and asked her to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Masterson so she would never make her allegations public. Under pressure from the church, which again threatened to “declare” her unless she complied, she signed the agreement and was paid in the low six figures, our source told us.

It wasn’t until October 2016, when another victim, Chrissie Carnell Bixler, reached out to her and to another woman we refer to as Victim C, that the three of them realized they weren’t alone. They then went to the LAPD and Victim B’s case was reopened. More than three years later, LA District Attorney Jackey Lacey filed three counts of rape against Masterson on June 17. He’s set to be arraigned on September 18.
Scientology’s attempt to silence these women had failed. But it wasn’t for a lack of trying.

Cousin Dupree · Jul 5, 2020

SOME OF OUR PAST REPORTING ON THE MASTERSON CASE
March 3, 2017: LAPD probing Scientology and Danny Masterson for multiple rapes, cover-up
March 8, 2017: Danny Masterson: Victim C gets support from a veteran actress
March 11, 2017: Scientology made Danny Masterson’s Victim B search past lives to explain being raped
May 9, 2017: Masterson hires Michael Jackson criminal defense attorney Tom Mesereau in rape probe
Nov 2, 2017: Read the threatening letter Danny Masterson’s attorney Marty Singer sent a victim’s husband
Nov 26, 2017: EXCLUSIVE: Scientology interrogated Danny Masterson and accuser, didn’t notify LAPD
Feb 14, 2018: PROSECUTORS PREPARE CHARGES CARRYING LIFE SENTENCE FOR DANNY MASTERSON
Apr 27, 2018: Strange days for a woman accusing Danny Masterson of rape — and for her rocker husband
July 8, 2018: Masterson witness fears for safety as investigation drags on and on
Nov 30, 2018: LEAH REMINI: Los Angeles DA Jackie Lacey, do your job already
Aug 14, 2019: RAPE ACCUSERS SUE DANNY MASTERSON, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, AND ITS LEADER
Jan 22, 2020: Cedric Bixler-Zavala blames Scientology for poisoned dog he had to put down yesterday
Feb 3, 2020: Here’s Scientology actor Danny Masterson’s legal response to his rape accusers
Feb 10, 2020: Another dog poisoned: Bobette Riales says harassment worse since suing Scientology
Feb 26, 2020: SEVENTH victim comes forward to LAPD accusing Scientology actor Danny Masterson
Feb 29, 2020: Amended complaint filed against Danny Masterson with new stalking allegations
March 14, 2020: Danny Masterson’s victims speak out in sworn documents in lawsuit against Scientology
May 4, 2020: Masterson: Drop me from Scientology lawsuit if the ‘Jane Does’ won’t name themselves
June 17, 2020: SCIENTOLOGY CELEB DANNY MASTERSON CHARGED ON MULTIPLE RAPE ALLEGATIONS
June 18, 2020: How will Scientology react to Danny Masterson being charged with rape?
June 19, 2020: Records show Danny Masterson is a woeful Scientologist — would he turn on the church?
June 23, 2020: The key thing about Danny Masterson’s ‘DJ Donkey Punch’ nick is why he stopped using it
June 24, 2020: Danny Masterson’s Scientology upbringing: An interview with former stepdad Joe Reaiche
June 25, 2020: Masterson finds himself in a changed era, but his victims came forward before #MeToo
June 27, 2020:The PI who started out working for Danny Masterson & now may testify against him

GrandmaBear · Jul 5, 2020

Cousin Dupree said:
Imagine that you were absolutely convinced that getting raped was YOUR fault. There must be something wrong with YOU. So you are put on a lie detector test and grilled about multiple things that have nothing to do with anything and you're charged a lot of money for the privledge. You do it until they convince you that it's your fault and you are a miserable person for even blaming the man. So after that you pay for more and more grilling until the "problem" that made you behave that way has fully been removed from your mind and the brain washing has been completed.

This is the psychological hold Scientology has over their people.

Oh, and you may even be punished for saying it in the first place by being placed on the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force). You'll be forced to run from task to task with others on the RPF. You can be ordered to scrub out dumpsters with a toothbrush and you'll do it happily because you were wrong and deserve it. You're served horrible food and punished in other ways too. So you stop complaining about being raped and others find out why you were on the RPF and they stop too.

Good example. I can see it and am in no way decided on this case. There is guilt to begin with put on the victim in such cases (not fair) and the victim is revictimized quite often without adding in the scientology part which would exacerbate it by millions.

I just try not to get too decided on a case until I know more and in this one I freely admit I have not read much about it or of the facts.

Scientology itself? Oh no problem with what I think of that. I am extremely opinionated on that.

Howell · Jul 6, 2020

sfr826 said:
Most of the victims were in their early 20s, which means their brains weren't finished developing yet. A lot of sexual assault victims (whether they were a legal adult or not) don't immediately recognize they were sexually assaulted. Sometimes it takes years to realize it. Every victim is different.

If you believe this, then we need to address the larger question of what age women should be responsible for themselves. Should we raise the age of consent to 25? If young women in their 20s are incapable of recognizing whether or not they consented or whether or not they were assaulted, how can we allow them to make their own decisions regarding sexual relationships?

GrandmaBear · Jul 6, 2020

Howell said:
If you believe this, then we need to address the larger question of what age women should be responsible for themselves. Should we raise the age of consent to 25? If young women in their 20s are incapable of recognizing whether or not they consented or whether or not they were assaulted, how can we allow them to make their own decisions regarding sexual relationships?

Consent and rape are not the same as you clearly know. I think that needs to be clarified. It is consent that often makes the difference on whether it is rape or not. And consent is the very thing often argued. In many of these cases, there was no "decision" made by the rape victim to enter into anything. They all differ.

It is not always the incapacity to recognize it until an older age, it is the fear of coming forward as we all know.

If one looks at the Epstein case, we have an entirely different case as well. Many of the females came of age while in his "power", yet some were older and recruiting...

No two people are the same and no two cases are the same.

Imo.

Howell · Jul 6, 2020

GrandmaBear said:
Consent and rape are not the same as you clearly know. I think that needs to be clarified. It is consent that often makes the difference on whether it is rape or not. And consent is the very thing often argued. In many of these cases, there was no "decision" made by the rape victim to enter into anything. They all differ.

I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify; obviously consent is the difference. I don't know what happened in this case, but my issue is when women come forward years later, often after having continued to engage with their alleged attacker, and essentially say, 'I consented then, but not really, because now I feel he took advantage of me, or 'I was drinking', or 'he was famous, powerful, etc'.

GrandmaBear · Jul 6, 2020

Howell said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify; obviously consent is the difference. I don't know what happened in this case, but my issue is when women come forward years later, often after having continued to engage with their alleged attacker, and essentially say, 'I consented then, but not really, because now I feel he took advantage of me, or 'I was drinking', or 'he was famous, powerful, etc'.

Just trying to keep things clear and unmuddied since in various cases different factors come into play. Sometimes these very factors have no play in a case. In no way do all cases have women saying "I consented then", sometimes they never consented.

Not disagreeing with anything, just saying all cases are different and the very same factors do not play into all such as power or consent. Or drinking. Etc.

SleutherLou · Jul 6, 2020

Howell said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify; obviously consent is the difference. I don't know what happened in this case, but my issue is when women come forward years later, often after having continued to engage with their alleged attacker, and essentially say, 'I consented then, but not really, because now I feel he took advantage of me, or 'I was drinking', or 'he was famous, powerful, etc'.

I see what you are getting at,but sometimes clarity doesnt come until you are no longer in a situation,you might not realise at the time that you had a choice,or that what happened wasnt your fault or just to be expected.
Many of these victims,female and male,dont recognise that they have a voice at the time,they feel that they put themselves in that situation and society has always been geared to blame the victim..What were you wearing?,had you been drinking?,Did you consent to going to their hotel room? Etc,the onus has always been that victims brought it on themselves somehow especially with date rape. It isnt always a case of not realizing at the time that it was assault but more a case of realising it wasnt ok just because of something you may or may not have done at the time and sometimes that knowledge and empowerment can only come with time and life experience.
It doesnt make a claim any less valid because the victim has only just found their voice IMO.

sfr826 · Jul 6, 2020

Howell said:
If you believe this, then we need to address the larger question of what age women should be responsible for themselves. Should we raise the age of consent to 25? If young women in their 20s are incapable of recognizing whether or not they consented or whether or not they were assaulted, how can we allow them to make their own decisions regarding sexual relationships?

I didn't say that their age automatically made it impossible for them to consent to any sexual activity. I meant that they were young and inexperienced, which is true. Generally, a person in their early 20s doesn't have a lot of life experience. This can make it hard for them to recognize their trauma.

Also, a sexual assault victim of any age (whether they are in their 30s, 40s, or 50s) can initially believe that they "consented" or that they did something to cause the assault. In my opinion, it is easy to see why young women who were intoxicated and unconscious (and in one case, in a relationship with the perpetrator) did not immediately believe they were assaulted and/or did not file a police report. Especially considering their rapist was famous and a member of Scientology. And because the victims were also Scientologists, they were prohibited from reporting him to law enforcement. A Scientologist cannot report another Scientologist to law enforcement, or they will be deemed a "suppressive person" and kicked out of the Church.

A lot of people still believe that rape/sexual assault only occurs when a perpetrator abducts someone from off the street and attacks them. If the victim knows their perpetrator and are perceived as provoking the attack (wore certain clothes, drank alcohol, used drugs, etc), they are blamed and shunned. Look at the Steubenville High School rape case or the Brock Turner case. The victims are still harassed.

I think our culture is changing and getting better, but we still have a long way to go.

Howell · Jul 6, 2020

SleutherLou said:
I see what you are getting at,but sometimes clarity doesnt come until you are no longer in a situation,you might not realise at the time that you had a choice,or that what happened wasnt your fault or just to be expected.
Many of these victims,female and male,dont recognise that they have a voice at the time,they feel that they put themselves in that situation and society has always been geared to blame the victim..What were you wearing?,had you been drinking?,Did you consent to going to their hotel room? Etc,the onus has always been that victims brought it on themselves somehow especially with date rape. It isnt always a case of not realizing at the time that it was assault but more a case of realising it wasnt ok just because of something you may or may not have done at the time and sometimes that knowledge and empowerment can only come with time and life experience.
It doesnt make a claim any less valid because the victim has only just found their voice IMO.

I think we just disagree then. First, I understand that sometimes a victim is not going to report immediately, and why. But when does that responsibility end? After a month? 6 months? 10 years??!!! Second, I've never heard of any man who was allegedly assaulted as an adult coming forward years after the fact and claiming that he now believes he was sexually assaulted but didn't realize it at the time.
I also think that asking the questions you mention of an accuser are quite fair. If one is going to call a man a rapist, she needs to take responsibility for own her behavior as well.

Howell · Jul 6, 2020

sfr826 said:
I didn't say that their age automatically made it impossible for them to consent to any sexual activity. I meant that they were young and inexperienced, which is true. Generally, a person in their early 20s doesn't have a lot of life experience. This can make it hard for them to recognize their trauma.

I understood what you said, but my question remains. If women in their early 20s aren't mentally developed enough to recognize immediately that they were assaulted, then how can we as a society allow them to make such decisions? That's the entire point of having age of consent laws.

sfr826 said:
Also, a sexual assault victim of any age (whether they are in their 30s, 40s, or 50s) can initially believe that they "consented" or that they did something to cause the assault. In my opinion, it is easy to see why young women who were intoxicated and unconscious (and in one case, in a relationship with the perpetrator) did not immediately believe they were assaulted and/or did not file a police report. Especially considering their rapist was famous and a member of Scientology. And because the victims were also Scientologists, they were prohibited from reporting him to law enforcement. A Scientologist cannot report another Scientologist to law enforcement, or they will be deemed a "suppressive person" and kicked out of the Church.

A lot of people still believe that rape/sexual assault only occurs when a perpetrator abducts someone from off the street and attacks them. If the victim knows their perpetrator and are perceived as provoking the attack (wore certain clothes, drank alcohol, used drugs, etc), they are blamed and shunned. Look at the Steubenville High School rape case or the Brock Turner case. The victims are still harassed.

I think our culture is changing and getting better, but we still have a long way to go.

I don't agree that it's easy to understand the choices made by these girls. If a girl genuinely believes she's been raped, I can not understand how she can continue to have a willing relationship with her alleged attacker.
Our culture is certainly changing, but unfortunately, it's getting a lot worse. The Weinstein verdict has made it extremely risky for a man to have sex with a woman without a signed consent form for every encounter. This case is looking similar in a number of ways.

SleutherLou · Jul 6, 2020

Howell said:
I think we just disagree then. First, I understand that sometimes a victim is not going to report immediately, and why. But when does that responsibility end? After a month? 6 months? 10 years??!!! Second, I've never heard of any man who was allegedly assaulted as an adult coming forward years after the fact and claiming that he now believes he was sexually assaulted but didn't realize it at the time.
I also think that asking the questions you mention of an accuser are quite fair. If one is going to call a man a rapist, she needs to take responsibility for own her behavior as well.

I'm not really sure what to say to that :shakinghead:

kdg411 · Jul 6, 2020

SleutherLou said:
I'm not really sure what to say to that.

It's not worth exploring. :hugs:

However, I do have something to say to that.

Howell said:
If one is going to call a man a rapist, she needs to take responsibility for own her behavior as well.

This statement defines why NO MEANS NO! It does NOT matter what the accused perceives.

In this case, Mr. Masterson will not be allowed to hide behind the shield of Scientology. He will have to finally take full responsibility for his actions.

Howell · Jul 7, 2020

kdg411 said:
It's not worth exploring.
However, I do have something to say to that.

This statement defines why NO MEANS NO! It does NOT matter what the accused perceives.

In this case, Mr. Masterson will not be allowed to hide behind the shield of Scientology. He will have to finally take full responsibility for his actions.

But it does matter, as there exists the concept of implied consent. If a girl clearly says "NO", I will totally agree with you. If you've followed my comments on this thread, you should know very well that this isn't the type of situation I'm talking about. I'm referring to situations where a girl does not say "no", but later(sometimes much later) claims she was "unable to consent", or "felt pressured", or "was taken advantage of" or whatever. Sex later regretted is not rape.

In this case, we're just going to have to wait and see what the facts are. Maybe he did rape someone. Maybe it's just a vindictive ex-girlfriend. I'm keeping an open mind.

kdg411 · Jul 7, 2020

Howell said:
But it does matter, as there exists the concept of implied consent. If a girl clearly says "NO", I will totally agree with you. If you've followed my comments on this thread, you should know very well that this isn't the type of situation I'm talking about. I'm referring to situations where a girl does not say "no", but later(sometimes much later) claims she was "unable to consent", or "felt pressured", or "was taken advantage of" or whatever. Sex later regretted is not rape.

In this case, we're just going to have to wait and see what the facts are. Maybe he did rape someone. Maybe it's just a vindictive ex-girlfriend. I'm keeping an open mind.

I don't know all of the individual circumstances however the court documents I posted provided, at least one of the victims, was a one sided perspective of a woman who was raped. The issue I take offense with is implied consent.

“Consent” is defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to the exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved. California Penal Code § 261.6.

Consent cannot be procured through inducing fear in the victim. See West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 266c

"Every person who induces any other person to engage in sexual intercourse, sexual penetration, oral copulation, or sodomy when his or her consent is procured by false or fraudulent representation or pretense that is made with the intent to create fear, and which does induce fear, and that would cause a reasonable person in like circumstances to act contrary to the person's free will, and does cause the victim to so act, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network

apps.rainn.org

I am looking forward to seeing the actual charges however to gain a better legal perspective.

Another thought is why the Church of Scientology isn't being pursued by the LA DA's office.

Howell · Jul 7, 2020

kdg411 said:
I don't know all of the individual circumstances however the court documents I posted provided, at least one of the victims, was a one sided perspective of a woman who was raped. The issue I take offense with is implied consent.

“Consent” is defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to the exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved. California Penal Code § 261.6.

I'm not sure why you take offense with it. That's what the law you quoted spells out, and that's precisely what I'm saying. A woman who willingly goes alone to a man's hotel room/bedroom/dorm room and gets in bed with him is fulfilling every legal definition of consent.

kdg411 said:
Consent cannot be procured through inducing fear in the victim. See West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 266c

You're just stating the obvious. Of course, acting under threat is not consent. We all know and agree with that.

kdg411 said:
Another thought is why the Church of Scientology isn't being pursued by the LA DA's office.

For what reason? What crime have they committed?

Cousin Dupree · Jul 7, 2020

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
https://www.wright.edu/sites/www.wright.edu/files/page/attachments/Was%20I%20Raped.pdf

Alcohol and Sexual Assault

pubs.niaaa.nih.gov

I was drinking when I was raped

www.rapecrisishelp.ie

https://ocrsm.umd.edu/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf

Why more women don't report sexual assaults: A survivor speaks out

Survivors have been sharing their stories using the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport.

abcnews.go.com

Why Women Can Take Years to Come Forward With Sexual Assault Allegations (Published 2018)

Some common reasons for doubt, like a long delay before speaking out or a hazy recall of some details, are exactly what experts say they would expect to see after a sexual assault.

www.nytimes.com

Why women don't report sexual assault - PubMed

This study was designed to determine whether or not more women are reporting sexual assault, and whether or not previously noted theories about why women do not report continue to be valid. The study revealed that only 18% of the adult women's rapes and only 11% of the assaults of children were...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Why many sexual assault survivors may not come forward for years

Why would someone who experienced sexual assault wait years or decades to come forward? Research shows the answer is complicated.

journalistsresource.org

Why we often don't believe women who report sexual assault

The response to sexual assault allegations made by writer E. Jean Carroll against President Trump is again raising questions about what women face when they take their accusations public. Judy Woodruff speaks with Emily Bazelon of The New York Times Magazine and Soraya Chemaly of the Women’s...

www.pbs.org

RAINN | The nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization

www.rainn.org

Howell said:
But it does matter, as there exists the concept of implied consent. If a girl clearly says "NO", I will totally agree with you. If you've followed my comments on this thread, you should know very well that this isn't the type of situation I'm talking about. I'm referring to situations where a girl does not say "no", but later(sometimes much later) claims she was "unable to consent", or "felt pressured", or "was taken advantage of" or whatever. Sex later regretted is not rape.

In this case, we're just going to have to wait and see what the facts are. Maybe he did rape someone. Maybe it's just a vindictive ex-girlfriend. I'm keeping an open mind.

Before posting again, you might want to read all the articles on SHMNBN's reading list.

kdg411 · Jul 7, 2020

Howell said:
I'm not sure why you take offense with it. That's what the law you quoted spells out, and that's precisely what I'm saying. A woman who willingly goes alone to a man's hotel room/bedroom/dorm room and gets in bed with him is fulfilling every legal definition of consent. You're just stating the obvious. Of course, acting under threat is not consent. We all know and agree with that.For what reason? What crime have they committed?

There's always a fine line with this topic because a victim has to prove that her intent was made clear by saying no. Even if she did go to the persons home, hotel room, bed, etc. she still has the right to say no. At any point she says NO, that's it.

If the accused refuses to accept her response & chooses to force himself on her because he's aroused then he is guilty of rape.

The Church of Scientology has taken fear & intimidation too far. By using their position of power that controlled the victim. Who had the power?

SheWhoMustNotBeNamed · Jul 7, 2020

You don't even have to verbalize "no" in many instances.

Was it rape? Thinking about consent and unwanted sex

If you had a sexual experience and you think it might have been assault, we have some questions you can ask yourself.

powertodecide.org

.

Not saying no isn’t the same as consenting. If you were too scared or embarrassed to say no, or if you were worried that saying no would put you in danger, what you experienced could still be sexual assault.

If you didn’t want to do something and someone continued without your consent, it’s sexual assault no matter what your relationship status.

If you felt too drunk to say no, or if you were otherwise impaired, and someone did something to you anyway, that’s considered sexual assault. Part of consenting or agreeing to sex is about being fully aware and willing to make that choice with your partner. If, for any reason, you weren’t aware enough to agree, your partner crossed a major line.

It is okay to give consent and then decide that you want to stop or change your mind. Your body is always your own, and if something makes you uncomfortable, tell your partner. A partner who continues after you say no or express discomfort is violating your consent.

Howell · Jul 7, 2020

kdg411 said:
There's always a fine line with this topic because a victim has to prove that her intent was made clear by saying no. Even if she did go to the persons home, hotel room, bed, etc. she still has the right to say no. At any point she says NO, that's it.

If the accused refuses to accept her response & chooses to force himself on her because he's aroused then he is guilty of rape.

Well, we simply do not agree on this. "At any point" is a totally unreasonable standard. A woman who has willingly removed her clothes and placed herself in a man's bed has given consent, period.

kdg411 said:
The Church of Scientology has taken fear & intimidation too far. By using their position of power that controlled the victim. Who had the power?

Again I'll ask: What crime have they committed? It's not illegal to be powerful or influential. If they've committed crimes, I agree that the DA should take action. What crimes are you alleging?

Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear" *GUILTY 2 of 3*

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Howell

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Howell

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

#LivelikeLizzy

Member

Howell

Howell

#LivelikeLizzy

Administrator

Howell

Administrator

Howell

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Administrator

Administrator

Howell

Forum statistics

Danny Masterson Charged with Three Counts of Rape "By Force or Fear" GUILTY 2 of 3