Forum - View topicINTEREST: 'Far From Perfect': Fans Recount Unwanted Affection from Voice Actor Vic Mignogna
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
whiskeyii
 Posts: 2247 |
|
|||||||||||
I would sincerely hate for this to be your first introduction to marital/spousal rape, but it is a thing, and it happens. The difference between your hypothetical and Sailor Tralfamadore’s is, I think, in the basis of WHO makes the call. Is the reluctant spouse wheedled and cajoled by their eager partner? That’s coercion, and crosses the boundaries of consent because the eager spouse is essentially prioritizing their carnal desires over the bodily autonomy of their spouse, whether they mean to or not. If, on the other hand, the reluctant spouse ultimately decides *of their own initiative* to have sex with their eager spouse, they have granted consent, though they are still free to withdraw their consent at any time during sex. The reason why so many advocates for Yes Means Yes emphasize enthusiastic consent is because of the coercion issue. It’s like that old Family Guy joke; 50 no’s and one yes is still a yes to a lot of people, despite them willfully ignoring how much they had to wear down the other person just to get that single yes. If the other party is unabashedly enthusiastic, it’s much harder for all parties involved to claim to have misread the situation. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Advent_Nebula
Posts: 932 Location: Colorado |
|
|||||||||||
It is not though, other voice actors and convention staff members are now seeming to be more comfortable bring to light what has been an open secret, yet cotoveral topic that is Vic's behaviour. Outside my regular job, I do freelance and podcast for some smaller media LLCs. I have heard second and third hand accounts of his behavior at cons. It was never reported about by them because it was not first hand, or had any substantial data. What ANN has here is a good rundown of of what I suspect is going to become much bigger. And with the way conventions are delisting Vic as a guest, I suspect that their is more to this story to develop over the coming months. What will be intresting to see is if Sony and Funimation respond to this anytime soon. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
AiddonValentine
Posts: 2209 |
|
|||||||||||
We do not live in the pre-modern age anymore. People are under no obligation to have sex with their spouse if they don't feel like it. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Valjean Lafitte
Posts: 62 |
|
|||||||||||
You know what they say about assumptions, right? I never said that spousal rape was not a thing.
It literally does not. Just to be sure, I looked up the definition of the words 'wheedle' and 'cajole', and they're both defined thusly:
Meanwhile...
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/coercion/ Unless you can find a definition of coercion that doesn't involve threats or instilling fear of harm, 'cajoling' a spouse into performing asex act does not qualify as coercion and does not even approach denied consent. Simply put, if you agree to do something and you are not under threat and have not been any reason to fear for the safety or your or your property, you are responsible for your own action. I'm sorry, but that's just common sense. There is no specific law that says you can't annoy your spouse until they agree to do something (not the spouse in my hypothetical was being annoying in any way).
Obviously.
You know that thing where someone responds to you with a counterargument that is so far from from being relevant anything that you said that you can only shake your head in bafflement, at a complete loss for words? Yeah. That's this. Last edited by Valjean Lafitte on Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Arking
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||||||
As someone who used to work in Events as a staff member for 6 years I can kinda address the question here. I'll go through and relate it to ANN's points so it's an easier read as well as some broader points here and there. To start the very basic thing that prevents most people from speaking up is fear of persecution. Victim blaming is a big one, and in the case of conventions and witnesses the perception of being complicit in the allegations. As a staff member for events you're taught to listen and address the concerns of the victim, approach with an open mind and try to understand the difficulty and emotions going on. Investigating the allegations isn't easy and with regards to Vic, it's even more of a difficult task. For the consent in regards to boundaries and his touching of fans there are just too many cases of people consenting to weed out what is acceptable behavior or not. You cannot go case by case with it and instead have to look at the behavior as a whole and consider what if any actions need to be taken. Conventions as a whole have a dodgy relationship with consent and physical boundaries between both attendees, cosplayers, and now guests. It's easy to address cosplayers and attendees, as they give money vs a guest is technically your cash cow earning coin and yet they cost a lot and usually come with a laundry list of requirements. So you tip-toe, you bend and you break to make sure at the end of the day you're paying everyone and everyone is happy. Often times that means incidents and dirt gets swept under the rug, and when the time comes to clean the rug you remove it and clean it far from prying eyes. Thats why most events will quietly distance themselves and not invite individuals that cause too many problems rather than make it public and potentially be accused of fostering the environment where this took place. But this of course is now also under scrutiny in another soon to be published article. So my second point is cost. If a guest is a diva, you chock it up because they bring attendees and that's how you break even. In some cases guests can come to arrangements which is exactly what Vic was doing with regards to bringing his faith to conventions. Was him bringing his religion to a convention a sin? Not really it's just a very awkward situation that conventions did in order to save coin. Who's at fault? Conventions mostly for exposing their attendees to something other than the intents of the convention itself. Vic himself has admitted he's poorly handled humor and his faith in the past albeit with little to no actual remorse. This leads into his alleged homophobia. Is he homophobic? I'd say yes, which he himself admits is due to his aforementioned faith. But and its a big BUT, Vic has expressed and abided by a more of a professional and generous approach to his aversion to all things homosexual. While he himself doesn't support homosexuality he has never been outright caught approaching the topic with malice or hatred as some who are homophobic tend to do. In my opinion it's his freedom of religion and he's practicing it in a harmless manner and simply asking congoers and fans to respect that. Lastly about that lack of malice. So far the only serious point that stands out and cannot be perceived as poorly executed humor, or what have you is the account of J. Proudmore. Her allegation seems the most out of place considering the intimate nature of the exchange and the implied malice coming from Vic. In this case there's nothing to be done, Vic has no defense available and the victims feelings and concerns need to be taken seriously and with a lot of caution. The things to take from that exchange again are the emotions the victim is experiencing, and their perception of the events and how they occurred. You deal with those first and seek truth later, that is to say you don't go to the accused right away and rather deal with the trauma because that is the foremost issue in that scenario and you do what you can to help. Rounding back out my long post is to reiterate the aversion to being seen as complicit in bad behavior. You go through sensitivity training, months of prep and all it takes is one thing to get caught up in a situation you have no ability to control. Careers end and people get blacklisted from ever finding good positions because of poor PR and the handling of sensitive topics. So yeah no one in control really feels in control, and they allow these things to go on out of fear of persecution or bankruptcy. At least that was my experience, and hey in my case everyone lost their jobs. Last edited by Arking on Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
NickPenrhyn
 Posts: 35 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Alright, let's get this very bad argument against affirmative/enthusiastic consent out of the way:
Office on Women's Health - Sexual Coercion
Not to mention:
Is literally addressed first on their table of examples:
And is likely against the law, whether as a form of sexual violence or sexual harassment:
Affirmative consent is the standard endorsed by all U.S. colleges and universities, the U.S. military, government, and numerous states (EDIT: I'm not entirely certain of the standards in Canada, but since this is concerning American VAs I'm comfortable using U.S. standards). That means that it's up to the court/judge's interpretation of the circumstances, and with a prevailing standard like that about sexual coercion I'd imagine you'd need significant evidence that coercion did not take place. Last edited by NickPenrhyn on Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
whiskeyii
Posts: 2247 |
|
|||||||||||
|
@Valjean Lafitte
I'm genuinely baffled by your response to my post. You expressed dismay about the "enthusiastic" requirement, I explained that it's in place to avoid issues of coercion...and then you took issue with my specific definition of coercion??? I thought it was a pretty universally agreed-upon rule that no one should be obligated or pressured into sex (even if the intentions behind it are not inherently malicious), but regardless, my explanation still stands. The "enthusiastic" part is there to head off issues of coercion, which are a common and prevalent problem when it comes to unwanted sexual encounters. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Aresef
Posts: 910 Location: MD |
|
|||||||||||
|
Adam Sheehan (formerly of Funi and now of Crunchyroll) posted something on his Twitter regarding the Jessie Pridemore claims. But since it’s more about the other VA Ashe referenced and his reaction to the allegations against Vic, I’m not going to link it here.
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
pirateaddict
 SubscriberPosts: 193 |
|
|||||||||||
|
It's getting more and more ridiculous, posting claims and counter claims on social media isn't going to accomplish anything and just create more bad feeling among the fandom. Now is the time for all those involved to take legal advice, decide if they're going to take this to court and then let the evidence and lawyers sort it out. Trial by media doesn't accomplish anything and never will.
It is not for the fans to find anyone guilty or innocent. I'm an anime fan and don't want to see the industry torn apart. I know this isn't going to go away and I'm definitely not saying that we should ignore bad behaviour but let's not let loose lynching parties after particular people. Time for the industry to step up and make some changes, by that I mean conventions. If it takes regulation to get back on track then that is what should happen. By the way I will say this, there are many voicing their thoughts and opinions within the industry. Many were well aware of things happening and there has been a systematic hushing up of too many things going on. Some are NOW speaking up but if they'd done something sooner we might not now be in the position we're in. Staying silent enables others to do what they want. Speaking for myself, I admit mostly feeling sad about all of this. I don't want to see this blown up into something huge that will tear fandoms and actors apart. As to whether any parties are guilty or innocent, I have no idea. Only those involved truly know that so let's not be judge, jury and executioner. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Ashley Hakker
Posts: 115 |
|
|||||||||||
No, regardless of ones opinions on this, now is not the time for that. The genie is out of the bottle and it won't be going back in. This is done now, no matter your feelings on how it came out, it will not go back in. This is now a mess that cons, events, and company HR depts must deal with. For the most part pulling out the lawyers, especially for the accused, can only execute messy and very public revenge which will only fuel the situation. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Lady Multi
Posts: 675 |
|
|||||||||||
You are assuming that they DIDN'T ask for the hug. And regardless of that some people use hugging as a greeting. Just like some people use kissing someone as a greeting. Other people want to shake other people's hands as a greeting. There is a boy I work with that uses hugging as a greeting. I suppose if you don't like touching, you can even claim a handshake is unwanted touching. Regardless, I think this was taken way out of context. My point was he became really used to people asking for a hug that it became generic. And most of the time his girlfriend was right there even when all these little girls are asking for hugs up on stage in front of MANY filming cameras; and those that didn't ask directly rush the stage to attempt to hug and get a picture with him. I saw this A LOT. And he didn't just hug little girls either. And he also complemented on cosplay ALL THE TIME People like to hug for some reason at conventions. In my costumes, I had loads of people who asked to hug me, and saw far more close stranger interactions at photoshoots. But now, years later, a few people felt it was weird; while some that have the same photos refute it being wrong. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Arking
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||||||
^ This. I was 17, and male when I got the whole Vic treatment. I still describe it as creepy because that's how I felt in the moment but it became a lighthearted "this was funny" story I told because I later learned who he was. He randomly approached me hugged, touched, shook hands and seemingly leered. Like I was a young gay guy and I thought he was totally hitting on me with how familiar he was and it made my skin crawl, but in the end he wasn't and that's just how he is with fans. I think my biggest takeaway from this is that he's a very confident and comfortable person who's proud of his talents and his fans. That translates to him sharing a bit more of himself than people are comfortable with including his faith, his opinions and lastly his physical affection. That last part too, especially at conventions is infectious. I grew up in a house and community where hugging wasn't a thing, and you stood an arms length from people, conventions were a place where I was hugged and getting into dog piles in hotel rooms and getting carried around on peoples shoulders (I'm short). I think Vic like a lot of people just gets too comfortable with himself in a North American culture where toxic masculinity is the go-to norm and anyone who doesn't abide by it is viewed as having questionable intents. The only thing that stands out is the J. Proudmore allegation and that's a rather damning portrayal of his character. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
whiskeyii
Posts: 2247 |
|
|||||||||||
There are pictures with corresponding testimonials about how people expressly *didn't* want the hug, though. Even if Vic became accustomed to hugging fans as a rule rather than as an exception, he REALLY should've asked first. (And the boy you work with SHOULD be asking if hugs are okay, *especially* at a workplace environment.) Just because Vic's behavior became normalized, that doesn't mean that it should be encouraged or continued. In the early days of cons, when glomping and swat paddles were a thing, I could see this being swallowed up in "bad con behavior", but after people cracked down on that kind of behavior *at cons*, it baffles me that Vic didn't follow suit. If people don't like being surprised-tackled/hugged by strangers, it stands to reason that people wouldn't like a more "normal" surprise-hug either. And I can actually sort of buy that Vic was so used to just hugging people willy-nilly that he never stopped to reflect on whether or not he SHOULD be hugging people willy-nilly. But I'm also really rankled by his response. I'm glad he agreed to change his approach to fan interactions, but the way he paints it is so "woe is me, this too-politically-correct world is *ruining* fan interactions" that it's practically dripping with condescension rather than owning up and admitting "Welp, even if I didn't mean to skeev people out, I totally did, and I effed up, my bad". It makes me think that he STILL doesn't realize why impromptu hugging was bad in the first place. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Arking
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||||||
Well in all fairness these accusations have cost him three major conventions and likely more as times goes on. It's also alienated and exposed him to the behind the scenes opinions from colleagues, and the wrath of fans who feel he's acted in an intentionally predatory and lecherous manner. ...So yeah the "poor me" part likely comes from a very real place of fear, confusion and pain considering he's gone his entire career thus far being this way or rather "being himself" around fans and is now being exposed to it not as a running joke but rather a serious allegation that could be career ending. Like many people have said, if he comes from a culture of physical affection it's understandable that he'd not realize when and if he's hurting people. Reminds me of a coworker who came from Brazil whom got a sexual harassment ticket at my former office. Dude was always calling people "my friend", and hugging them, putting hands on their shoulder etc. After he got pulled aside by HR he shut right down, lasted two more months and then quit. But in those two months he was constantly distant from the rest of staff and those that were opposed to his behavior grew more confident in joking of how he behaved prior to being made aware and you could see it hurt him and his perception of himself. Not saying it's a bad thing but there was a very obvious lack of sensitivity and tact in it because he was the perpetrator. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
whiskeyii
Posts: 2247 |
|
|||||||||||
It's not so much the "poor me" aspect that I don't understand, it's the self-centeredness of the "woe is me" response. If you hurt someone, your focus should be on the people or person you hurt, not in justifying why you were totally in the right to (inadvertently or not) hurt the other person. Still, I personally think the "affectionate family culture" explanation sounds more than a little bunk to me. It takes a unique kind of a lack of self-awareness to somehow not notice the con scene getting increasingly more consent-centric over DECADES and not adapt to that. Coupled with the fact that this isn't the first time Vic's behavior has been called into question, and it really sounds like more of an excuse than a valid explanation. EDIT: This is off-topic, but I've also dealt with foreign co-workers who had to be reminded (or in some cases taught) why X behavior wasn't appropriate. All of them, bar one who was prone to pretty egregious behaviors even after being called out on them, took it in stride. This isn't meant to downplay your co-worker's experience, I just want to illustrate that changing inappropriate behavior isn't some kind of immutable barrier. It can be done professionally and without maliciousness; it's the response to being called out on bad behavior that I'm most concerned about, and the fact that it took years for Vic to reach this point despite knowing about Internet allegations and rumors is what I find the most disconcerting. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group