Nate Parker’s big effort to get ahead of the story blew up in his face. The past two weeks have been full of awful headlines for an artist who, just earlier this year, was being called one of the best young directors in America, an artist telling a vital story with The Birth of a Nation. But Nate Parker the Man has overshadowed Nate Parker the Artist. In 1999, Parker was charged with rape and put on trial. He was eventually found not guilty, but his roommate (and current Birth of a Nation writing partner) Jean Celestin was found guilty. The trial transcripts are public record, as is the lawsuit filed against Penn State for allowing Parker and Celestin to stalk and harass their victim/alleged victim.
In the wake of Parker’s self-serving, victim-blaming interviews, the AFI has canceled a screening and TIFF has backed away from helping Parker promote his film with a press conference. So Parker was sent out again to speak, this time to Ebony. This piece is absolutely worth a read because it is appalling at times, it’s shocking at times, and it’s convinced me even further that Parker should not have a public forum in any way, shape or form. He’s making it worse. I want to say one nice thing though: this Ebony journalist interviewing Parker is named Britni Danielle, and she is AMAZING. It’s worth reading the piece just for their back-and-forth, because she can’t hide the fact that she’s not buying his argument whatsoever. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:
His selfishness: “I think it’s very difficult to talk about injustice and not deal with what’s happening right now. When I was first met with the news that this part of my past had come up, my knee-jerk reaction was selfish. I wasn’t thinking about even the potential hurt of others; I was thinking about myself.”
Male privilege: “This is happening for a very specific reason. To be honest, my privilege as a male, I never thought about it. I’m walking around daring someone to say something or do something that I define is racist or holding us back, but never really thinking about male culture and the destructive effect it’s having on our community. “
What he knew about consent at the age of 19: “To be honest, not very much. It wasn’t a conversation people were having. When I think about 1999, I think about being a 19-year-old kid, and I think about my attitude and behavior just toward women with respect objectifying them. I never thought about consent as a definition, especially as I do now. I think the definitions of so many things have changed…. Put it this way, when you’re 19, a threesome is normal. It’s fun. When you’re 19, getting a girl to say yes, or being a dog, or being a player, cheating. Consent is all about–for me, back then–if you can get a girl to say yes, you win.”
Is that ‘yes’ to having sex? “If I can be just honest about it, just being down. Back then, when I was young and we were out being dogs it was about is she down? You think she down?… Back then, it felt like…I’ll say this: at 19, if a woman said no, no meant no. If she didn’t say anything and she was open, and she was down, it was like how far can I go? If I touch her breast and she’s down for me to touch her breast, cool. If I touch her lower, and she’s down and she’s not stopping me, cool. I’m going to kiss her or whatever. It was simply if a woman said no or pushed you away that was non-consent. Let me be the first to say, I can’t remember ever having a conversation about the definition of consent when I was a kid. I knew that no meant no, but that’s it. But, if she’s down, if she’s not saying no, if she’s engaged–and I’m not talking about, just being clear, any specific situation, I’m just talking about in general.”
He was ignorant… two weeks ago: “I understand [the bad reaction to my interviews] now, but I was speaking from a standpoint of ignorance. Well, when you don’t know, you don’t know. It’s like, if I don’t know how to swim and two weeks later I know how to swim, I know how to swim. Honestly, when I started reading them comments I had to call some people and say, What did I do wrong? What did I say wrong? I called a couple of sisters that know that are in the space that talk about the feminist movement and toxic masculinity, and just asked questions. What did I do wrong? Because I was thinking about myself. And what I realized is that I never took a moment to think about the woman. I didn’t think about her then, and I didn’t think about her when I was saying those statements, which was wrong and insensitive.”
Why did he do the Deadline & Variety interviews? “This is hard; I’ve been trying to figure out how to say this. Not everyone has the best intentions. I thought I was giving the interview, at the time of those two interviews–and one really just bit off the other–I didn’t know the status of the women. I didn’t know. I was acting as if I was the victim, and that’s wrong. I was acting as if I was the victim because I felt like, my only thought was I’m innocent and everyone needs to know. I didn’t even think for a second about her, not even for a second. You asked me why I wasn’t empathetic? Why didn’t it come off more empathetic? Because I wasn’t being empathetic. Why didn’t it come off more contrite? Because I wasn’t being contrite. Maybe I was being even arrogant. And learning about her passing shook me, it really did. It really shook me.
Whether he thought about his alleged victim in the past 17 years: “No, I had not. I hadn’t thought about it at all.”
Nope.
I don’t know what else to say? He’s trying to say that he had a come-to-Jesus moment after his interviews got such widespread backlash. He’s trying to be brutally “honest” about his privilege and his view of consent back then, but he literally admits to ONLY THINKING ABOUT IT NOW. Now that there’s a backlash. Now that he has to think about it because it affects how people see him. Because it’s still all about him. He never thought about it in 17 years. He was always thinking of himself as the biggest victim, because “consent” to him was about how far he could go with a woman too drunk/unconscious to consent.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I have never seen karma being a bigger bitch, and I love it.
+ 1000
I thought he is 38 but he is 36.
When did he have his college age daughter? Before the rape?
Also, a passed out woman is a passed out woman in 1990 or 2016. There is no discussion about consent here, just grossness. I can see why this guy managed to make a hit movie, he is a mega hustler, there is nothing he wouldn’t do or say to get ahead. I don’t expect him to back off just like he did not back off after the victim went to the police. He will be in our faces until the Oscars if not after. Unless someone stops him, unless someone shows the predator he just became a prey.
I couldn’t even get through reading this. When he was going on about consent and if she said no he stopped but if she didn’t say anything and seemed engaged, then that was ok to move ahead and see how far he could go.
How about when she’s passed out? You can do whatever you want. I mean, she didn’t say no!
Seriously, I can’t even read the whole answer to that question. I’m going to be sick.
I also revel in this ‘payback’ but it’s not full karma. She was raped, harassed & then killed herself. His movie is getting bad press & this may cost him an Oscar but he is still making $$$ and has a good life. This is not an eye for an eye but an eye for a lens off the sunglasses that you really like but broke & it’s disappointing but you can replace them for another pair.
Exactly. A woman lost her whole life. He lost a movie. Facts. If karma really digs in he needs to lose everything.
And a boy lost his mother. 🙁
I wish this backlash happened to him years ago, before he had a chance to feel even an ounce of success.
I personally think I’m a smart person but for most of the interview I could barely understand where he was going. I mean I got the point of what he was saying but he was just jumping from idea to idea. It gave Lochte vibes.
Be patient…dollars to donuts that there are other women, who may come forward around Oscar time.
is “die in a grease fire” too harsh?
Let me think about that for a miNO!
NOPE
neither is die in a grease fire after getting 1000 paper cuts, ebola and an IRS audit
LOL at the IRS part 😂😂😂
Well the dact that he comes out and says is straight — that he has nkt thought about this in the past 17 years says it all. I do nit need any further excuses and explanations.
On the other hand he is pushing this PR strategy of being a clueless, privileged man who was never educated about women and their needs and what consent means, well even if there are men like that who genuenly do not understand how they did anything wrong he is not one of them. If you think you did not do anythi g wrong why keep harrasing your “aleged” victim?
And lastly. I tried to give the whole interview a read but could not. He seems clueless,as if someone trained him what to say but he does not really understand even the half of it. He keeps thowimg in there “toxic masculinity” clearly hoping it will resonate with the reader. Does not seem like he understands what that is
Go to hell sir.
Also kudos to the writer she was not having his shenanigans.
I hope he keeps talking cause with every interview he sounds more and more like a rapist asshole.
Agreed, keep talking Nate cuz we see you loud n clear now. A**hole!!!
Ugh. I just visited the Ebony page and posted a comment. Out of the 25 questions asked, 8 of them appeared to be interrupted by Nate before completion. In a charitable moment, it might appear that the Britni Danielle is pausing when “…” is applied. But in some moments, it certainly seems like he is cutting her off.
It makes me loathe him even more. Is there a Razzie for worst PR Performance Ever?
I couldn’t finish reading all his statements. He should stfu. Stop, Nate, just stop.
Same here, I had to stop, I was feeling my blood pressure rise with each of his statements, he does not then or now get it, he will never get it. He will never see what he did as rape and he will never truly be sorry.
The only thing he is sorry for is his past came back to haunt him. Not for what he did in the past, but for the problems it is causing him now.
My ex was like this. I told him what he did was not consented to and it was sexual assault and he said I was a liar. Some men are really just that stupid.
Whether he thought about his alleged victim in the past 17 years: “No, I had not. I hadn’t thought about it at all.”
His treatment of a young woman was so distressing, all-encompassing and poorly dealt with that she ended up feeling violated and became mentally ill. She was so ill she died by suicide. I bet she thought about it daily, hourly.
He never thought of her once. Not once. Not until his actions impacted HIM.
That’s what is so scary. He never thought about her at all. And the whole thing ate at her until she couldn’t take it.
She was so little to him, and the incident that shook her entire world wasn’t even worth a mental glace over the course of 17 years.
I think frequently about the people I was mean to as a young adult, the people I didn’t treat with appropriate respect. The idiotic ideas I had.
These were people who I was a jerk too, not people I RAPED AND STALKED.
How do you have no remorse for something that absolutely broke a young woman?
Because she was barely a person to him, that’s how. Why would he have remorse? Do you have remorse for every game you’ve won? Or every prize you’ve been awarded? Do you even give such things a second thought unless someone else brings them up?
That’s all she, or probably any woman, ever was to him. He says so himself. The game was trying to get as far as you could with a woman before she pushed you off. That was the only rule, if she said no and pushed you off, you had to stop and you lost. Otherwise…… anything goes, including removing a woman’s ability to refuse.
For such an artist I’m actually rather surprised that he can’t invent better things to say about this, or seem to understand effect he’s causing with the things he does say. Then again, his ego shines through in every sentence, so I suppose it’s not that surprising after all.
His response shook me to my core. What a dick. I hope his movie tanks.
MTE.
I hope everything he touches turns to shit and his dick stays Whiskey soft from now to eternity.
Yes this! The only reason he’s doing all of this is because he got called out! It truly makes my stomach churn. It’s similar to Woody Allen, they don’t care and don’t think about the victim at all.
Your comment is everything though. He didn’t care at all about her until became all about him and holding him accountable.
It’s just so shocking that he sees himself as a victim somehow. It’s like saying that you aren’t a real abuser because every husband hit their wife in the 1940s.
No asshole, you are still an asshole. You just happened to find a loophole that made you feel better after some self-serving mental gymnastics, and less people cared then.
His PR team can craft speeches with all the best words, but they can’t make him act or feel like a human being.
Yes, Detritus, he thinks because he was acquitted by some idiot jury, he is absolved. Not exactly.
This. Were the rape not enough, and let’s just pretend for a moment he did have consent, how in the world does that make his harassment and bullying after the fact acceptable? And then not ever to think of her? I’ve never done anything so abhorrent in my life, but I have done bad things, as I imagine everyone else has. Do I think about those people sometimes and feel remorse? Yes, I do.
Exactly Betsy. The biggest regrets I have are not treating people with the respect and kindness they deserve. Of taking the easy route at the expense of others, to serve my own wants.
The people I was shitty to when I was younger? I think about them often. Maybe not daily, but often enough to remind myself that personal growth is never done and that I have a lot of work to do, and a past to make up for.
It’s the remorse that is lacking, he never talks about how she must have felt. He doesn’t ever deal with the fact that he stalked and harassed her, just moseys around the fact that he didn’t get consent.
He never even discusses the whole inviting others to have sex with a passed out girl, one who trusted him enough to be intimate with him earlier. He broke her trust on so many levels.
detritus, I love your honesty and truthfulness. You are nailing it right on the head. 17 years later, he stil has zero EMPATHY for his victim and how his actions affected her.
This really shook me and made my head start spinning. For me, this is the most disheartening part of (some) abusers. My gut is that they fly off the handle, can’t handle their rage, don’t know what they are doing, are drunk, out of their minds but that’s always giving them the benefit of the doubt as a good person who did a bad thing. Sometimes they are just horrible people and that makes me depressed. I would rather people make mistakes then be inherently a-holes.
I knew a guy in high school that abused girls and that part was bad but the worst, for me, was his f-ing attitude and the guys around him that knew and just shrugged. This guy did this repeatedly and just acted like nothing happened & so did everyone around him. When I learned this lesson as a teen it depressed me to no end. This guy had no conscious and people around him never even tried to hold him accountable. I can’t imagine how powerless Nate’s victim felt when he was supported by his peers, given no punishment, & she was harassed on campus……and he didn’t even care enough to think about it.
A few things here that I’m gonna bullet because it’s too much to put in a paragraph/essay form.
1) Yes, it’s 17 years later, however, I still wouldn’t have any problem with someone having a “come to Jesus” moment IF it’s genuine. The issue for me is, judging how genuine it is.
2) Where is Celestin? Is Parker speaking for the both of them? That’s another side-eye from me. Because Parker is the face of the film, he is facing backlash and doing the press for it, but two men raped that girl. And two men need to be held accountable for it. Even if Parker seems genuine, seeing the movie is still supporting Celestin and putting money in his pockets. His only statement on the matter was INCREDIBLY dismissive.
3) Aside from the rape, they stalked/harassed the victim afterwards. So they need to be held accountable for that as well. Everyone is concerned with consent/rape (as they should be), but the rest of the aftermath also concerns me.
4) DAMMIT, NATE. I wanted to see this film. I think you’re a great actor. I was rooting for you and this movie. But you’re not giving me any reason to look on that screen and not see a rapist getting a pass. There was a really great letter from a pastor to Brock Turner that said it best (paraphrasing): You may not be a monster, but you were a monster that night. And, you need to held accountable for those actions.
5) It is incredibly DISCONCERTING/ALARMING/INFURIATING to hear the conversation about this incident and people keep bringing up the fact that it happened 17 years ago and it was college. First off, there’s no expiration date on trauma. Second, rape and sexual assault should not fall under the category of young mistakes/youthful indiscretions.
exactly. he is speaking as if he went to school in the 50s, when women had no rights or whatever. “back then..” bullshit. it was the 90s! we can all remember the 90s right, and i’m not even 30 years old. how much media training did he have in the last couple of weeks and this is all he got? this dude can suck it, he is so effing stupid.
This is what drives me bonkers, I was in college from 90-94 and this is total BS. It was talked about on campus all the time, enough that I can remember sitting in assemblies and going over consent and drinking too much and procedure on what to do. And that is a person is too drunk to stand they are too drunk to give consent.
@KWM, fwiw, my older sibling went to school from ’94-’98 and she heard a lot more about consent on her (much smaller, liberal arts college) campus than I did at my massive state school in ’99. But he’s lying to say no one knew back then. It was the late 1990s, not the 1690s.
Celestin lays low. He actually was convicted at first, so no way he could talk his way out of the mess. I have a bad mental image of these two talking on the phone whining about terrible women screaming rape, because it sure as hell doesn’t look like he understands that what they did was wrong. Woe is them.
I had a long discussion about this whole situation with my boyfriend who is black. I wanted to know his thoughts on how one discerns whether to see the movie on merit – due to lack of black filmmakers who can get movies made vs not seeing the movie because the one making the movie being a rapist along with their co-writer. I explained to him some of the facts of the case and he didn’t care if the movie would be important – he is refusing to support it. Often we look the other way and separate the art from the artist. People do it with various directors and musicians often. I had been torn a bit only because I want more movies like this and do what I can to support them but after our conversation – nope.
He has confirmed my vow to not see this movie. He hasn’t thought about her in 17 years. A rape case… he went to trial…and hasn’t thought about it once. That is disgusting and points to a very serious issue he has.
This whole interview made me want to vomit, then take a hot shower.
“It was simply if a woman said no or pushed you away that was non-consent.”
So in other words, if a woman is unconscious, she’s fair game!
Also, someone needs to tell him that it’s not a “threesome” if one of the participants is passed out.
I’m not going to read the full interview, because I’m already battling morning sickness right now, but–is he asked about his behavior after the rape? The stalking and harassment?
Hope your morning sickness ends soon! 🙁
I think I need a “silkwood shower” (ugh). And like @Swak below, I had no idea that threesomes were “normal” at 19
His 19year old ideas on consent are exactly why drunk women work so well for his definition. In and out of lucidity, you can convince the other party they said “yes”, and, if outright passed out, unable to say “no”
Someone on Jezebel had this to say “…I grew up in Nate Parker’s era and young men knew damn well what they were doing, which is why they were secretive about it. They found rape situations like this FUNNY and joked about it behind closed doors. He even denied that there was a second man involved until she tricked him into confessing by claiming that she was pregnant and needed to know who the father was.”
“
You really aren’t the only one, I want to throw up my breakfast right now. I’m just absolutely disgusted right now.
That threesome comment made me ill. I think he meant to say gang rape.
Zuzus- exactly. He invited his friends and one said, on transcript, that he passed on the invitation by Nate to rape her because “four on one was too harsh”.
Nate should go back to the interviewer, scrap the threesome bit and say “When I was in college in 1999 we thought gang rape was fun”. No- most people didn’t Nate. You did because you are a pos not because of ‘the times’.
I wonder if Nate would give a violent slave owner a pass because nobody gave them the speech that it was not okay when they were young?! Gtfo.
I must be really old and/or prudish, but threesomes are normal for 19 year olds? If that’s what you want, sure, but I, myself don’t believe it’s common at that age. I may be wrong. And how in the heck does someone say no when they are passed out or so drunk that they don’t know what is happening? Wasn’t that the case here – she was so out of it?
Never had one or knew anyone that had one… But gang rapes? Oh yeah, those happened. Heard about several in college. Shut up, Nate Parker. Threesome? F#$k You!!!
It’s only a threesome if she was alert and willing to comply but she wasn’t. That makes it rape.
No. It’s normal for teenage males to talk about it, profess the desire for it, to seek out porn depicting it, and brag to their buddies (untruthfully) about having it. As for the actual act, plenty of people do it, but it’s far from “oh yeah all the 19 year olds are doing it”.
Yes the victim was passed out.
In his vernacular, ” threesome”= gang rape.
Exactly. Threesome to the men, gang rape to the woman.
Technically, there was a 3rd guy Parker invited who later backed out because “it felt wrong”. I don’t know what Parker’s definition of a threesome is, but it’s certainly not 3 guys and 1 unconscious woman. 3 + 1 isn’t a threesome.
I don’t think you sound really old or prudish. I’m just a bit older than him and threesomes were certainly not common when I was in high school or college. And I did my fair share of partying back then, especially in college. I have no idea if that’s the norm now, but I doubt it is.
I can’t stand this man, he’s a big whiny crybaby who needs a reality check. Which he’s getting right now. And this entire thing is the perfect example for why all these teenage rapists need to be punished. Why it’s not okay to let them off easy because those poor babies’ lives might be negatively affected. Because in 17 years, Nate Parker has not thought about his victim at all. Because only NOW, when there are tangible consequences to his actions, is he forced to confront what he did. The woman is dead. And he didn’t care for 17 years. This is why we put people in prison. Because if we don’t, they don’t even think about what they did. And why should they?
ETA: He keeps talking about 1999 like it was 100 years ago. WTF? Granted, things change but come on. “Back then …” Dude, you’re 3-4 years older than I am, don’t act like it’s a forgotten time.
Re: 1999, I know! This is killing me. I was in college in 1999, and consent, rape and rape culture were huge topics on campus! RAINN, Take Back the Night marches and rallies…
The truth is that he was a pampered, arrogant and protected athlete who was taught that if he wanted something, he could take it.
I recently watched The Hunting Ground and seems like college campuses have not changed one bit – Frats boys and athletes like him were protected at all costs, still are.
He and his writing partner are disgusting excuses for men.
I was in college in 1990 and knew all of the shit he is saying wasn’t discussed way back when he was in college. Apparently he went to school in the 1690s.
I think he’s going on about it because it IS sort of a forgotten time, in the sense that the internet as we know it did not exist and things were not broadcast to the world the way they are today. He never expected this to come back to haunt him, because such a thing was not possible at the time. You’d have to travel to the place where the event occurred and go through old newspapers and records to find out anything about the case, and here we are today reading the court transcripts from all over the globe.
Entirely possible. I always read it as “Well, it was 1999, it isn’t fair that the internet and social media are coming to get me. Nobody prepared me for that in 1999.” Like it’s a get-out-of-the-sh*tter-free-card because he couldn’t have known that everything would be unearthed nearly 2 decades later.
I don’t think so.
People burying horrid deeds from decades before were exposed. The media was still able to do it job and dig up scandal
Internet has simply made acquisition of information faster, but you can’t do bad things and think they will remain hidden forever or at all.
No, burying of past scandal and crime is hardly a new thing, but the ease of being found out certainly is, not to mention the swiftness of backlash on literally an international level. Also, the dissemination of the information is different. You used to have to rely on journalists and reporters, and their coverage and interpretation of facts. If you weren’t paying attention you could easily miss salient points or even the story altogether. Now, if you spend even the briefest time on the internet and social media, you cannot escape such stories. If you wish to know more, you don’t have to wait for the next edition of the news, you go to google and a veritable mine of information is at hand. Plus, if the press deemed the story uninteresting (hypothetically), it would easily be a small article with little follow up, and it would take a public outcry or outspoken reporter to bring it to the forefront. Now, anyone can be a reporter, for better or worse.
Also, though we’re far short of where we ought to be, we have moved forward in our intolerance of such crimes. Nobody really seemed to care back then, at least not enough to impart real consequences on him, so I imagine he assumed that would continue on forever.
@LAK I second this. And also internet was around in 1999 for sure. Not the way it is today in terms of social media, but news sources were certainly available on the internet then as well.
Wren: Nope!!!
If anything, journalists and reporters were more thorough about reporting salient facts than sensational, opinion pieces that you have these days.
Plus, fewer news outlets which meant news was reported as news not competing for the gnat sized attention span of the current public who already have too many choices to distract them. This is why the news these days is more entertainment than hard facts because reporters aren’t allowed to do their jobs anymore in the era of naked booty and cat videos on facebook.
Investigative journalists actually did their jobs like the recent lot who finally exposed the duggars whereby they dug for gold based on a rumour,found the receipts and posted the information to the appropriate news sites. They spent months finding their receipts. Something many new journalists aren’t given the time or space to do anymore.
As soon as the telegram/telephone/news radio/news tv was invented and installed world wide, news could be sent around the world in minutes. And the public wasn’t easily distracted by another story thus giving the scandals a longer life.
Hugh Grant’s prostitution scandal in 1994(?) Went prime time worldwide before he’d left the booking station.
OJ couldn’t get out of LA fast enough before TV helicopters picked him up and blasted the footage live worldwide as he tried.
Nixon and Watergate. How much more secure than something involving POTUS, but nope …still got out and blasted worldwide.
How about the transcripts from Clinton’s grand Jury testimony? All dumped on the internet whilst simultaneaously given prime time real estate on TV news shows world wide.
And many more examples of scandal.
Yes, attitudes have improved, but society is always changing and hopefully improving with each passing year or decade.
Being able to report her rapist in 1999 was a victory compared to previous decades were that wasn’t possible at all.
I guess I’m thinking about all the stuff that is just now coming to light about celebrities and whatnot with the power of the internet. Or the stuff that people are just now seeming to care about. The Cosby crimes, for example, where were the investigative journalists then? People did know about that stuff, but it was effectively hushed up for decades. Would we have been able to read the Stanford rape victim’s letter like many of us here have done?
The media has always been biased, with a taste for sensationalism. In the before times, the long, long ago, they had newspapers to sell. Then they had ratings to get. Now it’s clicks and views. Let’s not pretend that there was a time where the news was always pure and perfectly factual, eschewing such base motivations as money and noteriety. Some yes, but they’re still around today too.
Maybe it’s our attitudes towards sexual violence that are changing, but it sure does seem like the internet has a large role in outing these people and keeping them outed.
And my point is that you seem to think this stuff is new and or improved because of social media.
Every era has it’s Bill Cosbys and hot button issues and scandals. Some issues are ongoing and are improving with each passing decade others seem to be going backwards, but that’s always been the case.
As for your specific example about the victim’s letter, again yes. Because it would have been printed in the newspapers.
One of the most popular sections of daily newspapers in ye old times was court proceedings which were reported verbatim. And those proceedings kept the public informed and or fuelled justice movements.
“this entire thing is the perfect example for why all these teenage rapists need to be punished. Why it’s not okay to let them off easy because those poor babies’ lives might be negatively affected. Because in 17 years, Nate Parker has not thought about his victim at all.”
Great point.
Nope. Nope. Absolutely no way.
That’s all the needs to be said but I’ve also been fascinated by the entertainment writers who have started admitting they thought (or heard from others) that the movie is actually not great. Fine, good even; but not great. They didn’t want to “ruin the moment” at Sundance. Extremely powerful story but not actually a great movie. That’s not uncommon. Hollywood is all about narrative. Oscars so white? No way, look at this!…Too bad their golden goose turned out to be garbage.
It’s all so gross.
This whole situation is so sad to me. I wanted him to be a blazing black success story in the face of oscarssowhite but instead he’s a
disappointment and he doesn’t even comprehend the gravity of what he’s done. The only good thing to come out of this is the conversation taking place about what consent means but at what cost?
+1000
I don’t know who’s dumber, Parker or his PR people.
I say Parker because he paying his PR team good money to be smarter them him and this is what they come up with. I mean he could have come up with this BS on his own.
right? isnt the whole job of PR people to make people like him appear a little better not to make it way worse?
His pr people. Parker was happy not to talk about it. It was fox searchlight who thought it would be a problem. Parker is dumb for agreeing to talk about it.
generally the idea is good from a PR pov. they need to get ahead of public opinion and humanize him. the problem was that all their talking points make it worse.
The problem is that he was not sincere – for an actor you should at least expect him to make it work but his bad attitude got in the way of a good pre-emptive PR move. He executed the strategy badly and has only continued to deepen the hole he’s in, particularly given the evidence thats now in the public domain. Evidence that am sure he and the studio/PR were not expecting to go public.
Parker.
It’s always good to get ahead of a bad media story coming your way. Gives a chance to control the narrative – see Hugh Grant and his mea culpa ahead after being caught curb crawling ahead of his press tour for NINE MONTHS.
The problem here is that Parker is a very bad interview who truly doesn’t understand why everyone is upset and who sincerely believes in his own innocence coupled with absolute narcissism.
It’s clear he is receiving media training since that first interview and he is still getting it wrong.
At this point, he should be removed from publicity. Send out Gabriel Union or someone else not accused of raping anyone ( i can’t believe i just wrote a sentence in which i’m advocating search for non rapists plural!!! On a single project)
@LAK. Yeah-
“Send out the Non-Rapists!”
*crickets*
“Have we got any? No?”
*Hollywood rethinks marketing strategy*
(please note I do not intend to make light of this situation. Inbetween the weeping for humanity, I’m employing dark humor.)
Elaine: dark humour is the only way to get through this because it *is* absurd. What are the chances of lightening striking twice in the same spot.
…..but seriously, imagine the PR people’s group meeting to discuss strategy on this one. It probably went much darker than you wrote.
How is he still talking???? Nothing he says can help the movie. It will come out but no one wants to talk about that with this guy!
They wanted the awards, I get that. If he wasn’t such a gross narcissist he would go quiet (disappear!) and maybe…maybe, the movie would speak for itself. He is so gross, who wants to be associated with him?!
Reading the article, it was very telling when it said he came out to cheers and we love you from women. This man narcissism is so great, that he thinks the fact that a few women cheering and telling him they love him clears him from all. Even mass murders get crazy fan mail, doesn’t mean the rest of society have forgiven them.
I have no doubt he thought this interview would be a fluff piece that would help clear him. Instead he kept digging deeper, because she was having non of it. And STFU about talking to sisters, go talk to rape victims and see how the rapists actions have effected them and ruined their lives. Stop trying to make it better for you. There is a victim here and it sure as heck is not you Nate Parker.
And he went i to rather alot of detail regarding his college age daughter without clarifying that exactly he is teaching her.
The anecdote he offers about his daughter contradicts his repeated statement that he only learnt about consent 2wks ago and didn’t think about the victim at all during these past 17yrs.
I hope some journalist picks up on that point because once again he is offering up the females in his life as human shields.
“He’s making it worse” 100%, i have seen this voiced on other sites, too.
this is a prime example of how to not deal with PR fallout. it was bad enough as it is but he is digging deeper and deeper. i mean people think he raped a woman who then committed suicide later on. horrible does not come close to describing that. but to then make people think worse about him due to the things he says in interviews is pretty spectacular.
he is as ignorant today as he is ignorant back then. Was a dog still a dog. Never thought about her? of course: male privilege: he took it right there right then and wanted to share with his friends: look, dawg! but it’s funny how a few days ago it was a conspiracy about his race. And now, it’s carefully crafted as “it’s not a white nor a black thing that you are after but the man that I am”.
I just want to smash his effing face. There are millions like him and they still applaud: the woman is always the one who asked. when he used his daughters as a shield of “look I am a family man therefore respectable” he thought it will wipe out his sickening act.
I’m gonna stop here or I’m gonna break into hives
He says words, and they’re almost the right words, but it’s so clear he’s still completely focused on himself and “what did I do wrong?! c’mon guys!!!!” that the right words he’s trying to say carry little meaning.
It’s like he can’t help but tell the truth about himself. He doesn’t think about consent beyond what he can get out of a woman. He hasn’t thought about the incident or the victim in 17 years, because to him it was no big deal so why would he? He can’t bring himself to admit any real wrongdoing, but he sure can bleat on and on about how sad he is over the backlash to his interviews.
This (sorry excuse for a) man is such a quintessential example of how patriarchy and bro-culture screw over women. He participated in the rape of an unconscious woman, then hounded her mercilessly for daring to speak of it. And he thinks “eh, she never really said no so who cares”. I mean, I’m enraged and flabbergasted. I really shouldn’t be, because it’s not like he’s an anomaly and I haven’t met several others just like him, but the deep injustice always washes over me anew.
Saying he participated in it is letting him off lightly. He was the ring leader who then invited his buddies to join in. Let’s get him black out drunk and invite all of our buddies over to rape him and then lets see how much he enjoyed the “threesome”.
And I agree, he is just one of many many men I have encountered in my life, who have the similar attitude.
I meant it as in he wasn’t the only person involved, the sole rapist, if you will, not to let him off in any way. I can see how that choice of words could translate to implying that he was a mere follower instead of an instigator.
Every time he opens his mouth, he just makes it worse and sound even more gross.
The only way I would even consider still seeing this movie is if he and his co-rapist donated any money they earn from it to RAINN or One in Four.
Good job, a$$hole! Keep digging that hole.
Such a ridiculously transparent attempt at damage control. Too late, friend-o
It’s pathetic and disgusting.
Is he actually getting backlash from the industry though? I don’t see it that way – to me it seems more like damage control from the studios (Fox?) part.
E.g. His AFI screening is just delayed – the new date will probably be beneficial to him and the studio as the backlash would (unfortunately) have died down a bit by the time it’s shown.
And is taking away his press con at Tiff a punishment? Didn’t they essentially just give him a hall pass and remove the forum for media to potentially ask him some tough questions.
“His AFI screening is just delayed” yeah to a date to be determined. They announce a new date and all the press mentions why it was originally rescheduled, and we are right back where we started. Thank heavens for too much media, they’ll bring this up in every headline and mention this season…as they should! His movie uses a fictional rape as a motivating plot point. Who could possibly see that and not have the real world circumstances seep in? He was the WRONG person to tell this story.
Parker doesn’t understand what rape is. This interview confirms it. For him a woman has to verbally say no to sex. That’s a dangerous belief to have.
Exactly.
I look back at my life and feel incredibly grateful and lucky for the people I had around me in moments of vulnerability. Summer music festivals sleeping in tents, weekends away with friends, going out during weekends… I never drunk much, but there were some episodes where, if surrounded by the wrong people like this assh*le, I know I could’ve been hurt. It’s almost like what I felt as common decency is apparently rare in some scumbags as him. Even in a relationship I had a boyfriend tucking me in, putting me in my pijamas, making sure I was safe and comfortable even if too drunk to remember it later or to appreciate it at the time. That’s what decent people do. Decent people don’t juts fuck with someone who can barely speak or open their eyes. This is all so disturbing.
I was just reading about common “good guy” tropes in film. Have you noticed the recurrence of a scene where the girl is passed out or wasted, and the guy decides not to take advantage. Not being a rapist is being a good guy!
It’s really disturbing to see that, like they get a prize for being decent. Shouldn’t that be a minimum requirement? After reading this lame person’s interviews I almost feel I should thank my male friends for not taking advantage of me, how twisted is that?
Another one of this summer’s “nice guys” Brock Turner, whose sentence should be up shortly. They should team up for their campus road show.
/sarc
I think the issue is he understands EXACTLY what rape is. He’s just doing a PR dance with words to act like he didn’t understand (and it’s disgusting). Even in the case of toxic masculinity, with someone as smart as Nate Parker, I have find it hard that he has the cognitive dissonance to believe that a woman saying no is rape, but having sex with an unconscious woman is not. The guy he invited to join but declined, stated in the trial that the victim wasn’t moving and didn’t say anything. So while Nate is trying is very best now (and did back then) to convince the public that the victim was simply “blackout drunk” (in which one can say/do things, but not remember the next day), the victim was passed out.
I Stopped Halfway, Good New Publicist Bro, Bye IDC
I can’t read that kind of thing anymore, it makes me physically ill. We are never getting rid of rape culture, are we?
I am terrified to send my daughter to college in 10 years and heck I even worry when she heads to middle school.
I feel you KWM, even if I don’t have kids. I’m sick of all the passes these pos get for destroying women pride and lifes. It’s scary and depressing.
He never thought about consent after having 4 daughters? I get never thinking about the victim (even though it’s selfish and horrible, but I get that from him)-but never after having daughters did he think about the life lessons he would be teaching them?
And apparently if you’re passed out and unable to talk then you’re ‘down’ for it. Or something. I just….no. Mind you, this interview is more honest than the ‘what will it do to my awards’ garbage he’s been giving and maybe if he started with this it wouldn’t be as bad. He still doesn’t get it though. Not at all.
How can someone go to trial for rape and not think about consent when that’s exactly what’s on the table? How does that work? How can someone face all we read at those docuemnts and not wonder “well, maybe this is wrong”… I just cannot overcome how clueless he is about this.
All this conversation doesn’t show any kind of accountability. He probably still feels innocent. Poor girl:/
Because as that wonderful jury reinforced if a women says yes once, it is a lifetime pass to have sex with her whenever you want.
He hasn’t had to think about consent because his entire life he was told it was cool, she gave you a bj the day before, of course that means you can bang her and invite all your buddies to join in.
it’s not that he doesn’t understand it, he doesn’t care about consent. put in a similiar position, no chance of getting caught/suffering consequences, i think there’s a pretty good chance he’d do it again.
“almost everything in life is about sex, except sex. sex is about power.” francis underwood
@KWM: I understand that reasoning, but even if you have outside justifications for that how can you not think about it? Not even question it? They harassed the girl. This wasn’t just a moment of lapse of judgement. This is all so disturbing.
@ Miss S, I was speaking with a heavy dose of sarcasm, I am with you how can you sit through a trial and do all the horrible things they did in terms of harassment and then in an interview just come out as say you never thought about it, for 17 years. That what gets me, we know all the torture they put this girl through to make sure she would never testify, and he is so flippant to say he never thought about it for 17 year. 17 f’en years!!!
Makes me sick to my stomach.
I assume the life lessons he’s teaching his daughters sounds something like this: Don’t be a slut, because men are dogs and they’ll use you up and spit you out; respect yourself enough to hold out and men will respect you.
I’m sure it’s inconceivable to him that his precious girls would ever put themselves in a position to be raped.
Wow. The more he says the worse it gets. He needs a REAL come to Jesus moment.
to paraphrase that wonderful tweet “Nate Parker, why do you have the stance of Robin Thicke”?
Sounds like a good movie but I won’t see it. Oddly, I probably would have if he hadn’t given himself the starring role.
I would like this to asked to him and then I’ll know how sorry he really is: “Looking back, knowing what you know now do you think you should’ve been considered guilty of rape?”
To me, it seems he is using the “ignorance” card to get a pass. He was made to look at what he did 17 years ago for the last two weeks BUT NEVER questioned his actions or thought about the victim during the process of being in court 17 years ago while seeing he friend found guilty ??? HOW?
Even if I accepted the ignorance as some sort of justification (I don’t), If I hurt someone without meaning to (run over the person with my car, shoot the person by accident…) it will still be a crime. I was negligent. His lack of awareness of consent doesn’t mean he is innocent.
And having sex with someone who seems to be responsive means what exactly? Just the word “responsive” freaks me out. We are talking about a human being. Responsive is not the same as being engaged, NO ONE can assume that’s right. If he truly felt it was ok then I must assume he is a sociopath (psichs around here, correct me if this is not the word).
His continuing lack of compassion for his victim is glaring.
This interview is still very focused on himself. What he learnt. What he has realised. What he has found out. And using his daughter, female friends, colleagues and female columnists as shields.
And still not a word of apology for the victim. For the rape and the harrassment afterwards. No recognition or remorse that he irrevocably damaged another human being.
Someone on the THR website commented
“Thirty four “I’s” but no “I am sorry”. Yeah, I bet he feels bad.”
And Rick Manigault is doing his best one-hand typing: “Nate was found Not Guilty by a jury… She consented”.
Urgh at that rick person.
Miss S: IKR? He’s using ambiguous terms to roll back on “the encounter was unambiguously consensual”.
Personally, I have long felt that any man who panics upon learning he is about to become a father to a daughter is not blind to this problem & his own contribution to it. They can’t process the very idea that their daughter might grow up to earn the label of The Lying Slut.
Before I thought he was just a horrible person.
But now I think he’s truly a sociopath.
Ditto.
Is a three some normal at 19? Is that what he is hoping for his daughters?
And he is he really wanting us to buy that the 19 year old heterosexual male fantasy of a threesome is 2 guys and 1 girl.
I guess in the bro-verse, it’s cool if both guys *only* penetrate the girl & not each other.
‘Cuz them athletes NIMBY up real fast when they find out they’re getting a homosexual team mate.
He was either a misguided or criminal 19 ur old. A teenager. Someone who seems to have been rehabilitated and lead a productive life. I read his words and i am just glad this man saw the error of his ways and continues to grow and change. People thought his earlier statements were selfish and toxic, now he is admitting to that as well and it’s not enough. I’m not sure what he’s “supposed” to say. I also like what he said about consent. We weren’t having conversations about it growing up beyond “no means no.” There were times when I was incapacitated by alcohol and it was simply easier to let things i definitely did not want just happen to me. I felt violated, but wouldn’t have ever called ot rape because I never said no. It’s good to see the “yes means yes” era.
He is using his ignorance to get a pass. He didn’t clearly admit his responsibility, he isn’t being accountable, he is in circles saying things we would like to hear, justifying it. Even if I don’t mean to hurt someone and I do, I still hurt the person and I’m responsible for it. He doesn’t even go there.
If you can’t say no because you are too intoxicated then it’s rape. Would you be sexual with a person who was “half there”? Do you REALLY need the person to say something when clearly that person is not in a position to really do it? Where is common sense, humanity and empathy?
He is not rehabilitated, by his own words he never gave it any thought. Being rehabilitated would mean he knows what he did is wrong, he feels contrite and has worked over the past 17 years to change his life. In his own words he never saw taking a women who was too drunk to speak, having sex with her and then inviting his buddies to join him, as doing anything wrong.
@ KellzBellz
😂😂😅😄 Thanks for for the laugh, clearly you have not read his words. The fact that you believe the BS is beyond sad, he has not seen the “error of his ways” HE STILL THINKS HE DID NOTHING WRONG, and doesn’t get the backlash.
How has he been rehabilitated???
Please take your BS some place else, we are not buying it and phase stop using the word teenager like it’s excuse for crim.
Misguided is not the same thing as criminal.
Many people are misguided. That doesn’t automatically mean they are criminals or exhibit criminal behaviour.
And unless you grew up in the 50s/60S, the yes means yes movement was upon us by the 90s. His ridiculous argument that we didn’t know about consent in 1999 is as ridiculous as his stance that he only learnt about consent 2wks ago.
Which he then negated in a follow up paragraph when he said he has had long talks with his daughter about consent.
So Nate, which is it, did you just learn about consent or have you been having talks with your daughter about consent???
Because you can’t have it both ways.
hello, yes means yes has been around for a long time. i grew up in the 60’s and 70’s and men knew that consent was an issue. the laws may not have been enforced but they were there. men know that rape is wrong. trying to say he just learned it is complete and utter nonsense.
honey, that IS rape. just because you are drunk doesn’t mean a man taking advantage of you is ever your fault. men put the blame on women (as do so many other women as yourself) because they’re blinded by their own ignorance. educate yourself. rape is rape, yes means yes…not saying anything at all does NOT mean yes.
this kind of victim blaming is what keeps women down and keeps men like this up.
please educate yourself.
I’m not saying it’s not rape. I’m saying what was called rape and how we think about it and discuss it has changed, thankfully.
I grew up with no means no, and I was born in 1982. For those telling me that I had some other experience – I unfortunately did not. My family, friends, and school did not discuss rape beyond this. Feel fortunate that you had a different experience than mine, but do not presume to tell me about my own life and experience. Thank you.
The one thing (well, the one I’ll focus one) that he NEVER says is, “I am so sorry for what I did to that woman. I am so sorry for the pain and terror I caused. I am so sorry my actions resulted in her killing herself” Instead it’s, ” I so sorry you all are misunderstanding me.” F#uck off.
THIS
+1
Yep.
OK, I need to say this at the expense of blowback. I am not defending Nate Parker. I am glad he’s getting a backlash. The thing is, I think the backlash IS making him learn– in absolute baby steps, but the thing is, I think the backlash is serving a purpose in the dialogue about rape culture and consent.
Compare what Nate Parker is saying to Chris Brown’s response to the backlash over Rhianna. No, Nate Parker is not taking as much responsibility as he should be. No, he’s not admitting that what he did was rape. His excuse now, if I’m reading him right, is that because he was ignorant of consent, he shouldn’t be held responsible. He’s certainly not addressing the fact that his and Celestin’s harassment of the victim (and I’m sure there was more harassment, campus-wide) has as much to do with the trauma this woman went through as the rape itself. That’s shitty.
However, I WANT him to be honest about what he thought about consent. It’s awful to hear that he thinks that unless the woman is saying no and fighting back, he’s got the right to do what he wants to her. It is awful to hear this mentality of, I just want to push it as far as I can. But it’s NECESSARY for us to hear it, because it is the mentality of so many young men out there. If I look back at my experiences with pushy men, oh my God they have this mentality. I have had men be so damn pushy that I got scared of them and did some sexual things with them so that they wouldn’t rape me. I think a lot of women have had those experiences. This mentality is responsible for those experiences. I actually appreciate his honesty here, because this kind of truth-telling is what we need to make progress. If no men admit that they have this mentality, if they equivocate and vaguesplain, then women have a hard time pointing out what goes wrong in those situation. All we know is guys seem pushy, and we often interpret is as– do they not know, do they not understand? They UNDERSTAND that they are pushing. They might not understand it’s wrong (but then again, they might), and I think they certainly don’t understand how scary it can be. They don’t understand how we can feel so much pressure because we like the guy and to keep his interest we feel compelled to give him something.
I also appreciate his willingness to be honest that he was selfish, that he was honest that he hasn’t given this women any thought. Would you prefer for him not to admit that? Would you prefer for him to be like Chris Brown? That kind of honesty IS a step in the right direction. He simply has to be honest about more things.
no. women are not social workers in charge of explaining the difference between yes and no to some obviously morally challenged men. this little speech of his is too little, too late. besides, he knows what he did, only until now he didn’t have to face the consequences and he still doesn’t. he isn’t honest or remorseful, he is looking for a way to save face.
ladies, go and learn how to fight for yourselves, physically and mentally. no woman is responsible for a man’s bad behaviour. but if he does behave badly, hit him where it hurts and do not feel regret.
No, he is still just giving lip service. He is claiming he is just now learning about what consent really means, but then he says he sat down and talked to his college age daughter and it wasn’t the first time they discussed it. So he is so full of shit going on with this I never really thought of consent until 2 weeks ago narrative. Plus he mentioned he had a discussion with one of the female cast members while filming about consent.
What he is really saying was I never thought of consent with her because I did not need it. She was into me, she wanted to date me, she was there, I wanted sex, so I took it. He sees nothing wrong with it. And if this was never brought up, he would be going on like he did nothing wrong 17 years ago.
I am so tired of women and girls being held responsible for the behavior of men and boys.
what kind of person wants to have sex with a non-responsive person? if she is unconscious, why would you continue a sexual act? who invites someone else in? men know this is wrong. we don’t need to teach them. they already know. ask mr. rapist if it would be ok for his rape buddy Celestin to treat mr. rapist’s daughters that way.
pipsqueak, you’re gullible as hell and this sociopath has you in his pocket, as is what he wants.
His honesty has only revealed that he’s a terrible person who views women as objects.
He keeps saying ….’1999 situation with 2016 eyes’, yet clearly his brain is stuck in 1999 because he still says things that show he thinks like 1999. If he had truly changed to 2016, he would react and say different words and different attitude to this.
Also, how can you not know that black out drunkeness isn’t consent? He didn’t know this until 2wks ago??!!?
There are movies and TV shows for decades demonstrating that drunkness isn’t consent.
There were so many political movements in the 90s screaming about consent including the fact thst a husband could be charged for ‘forcing’ himself on his wife.
These movements articulated all the ways non-verbal consent looked like.
…but most importantly, how do you see a drunk, passed out person and think to violate them rather than help them??
And then there is the stuff he isn’t addressing which reporters should nail him on, the stalking and harrassing after the fact.
if he is serious about educating young boys and young men on the detrimental insidious reality of toxic masculinity, if he is serious about speaking of ingrained male privilege, then i can do nothing more than say “please do.”
i read the whole piece and it seems to me that he is truly trying to GRASP the ramifications of it all. i honestly get a vibe that he is trying to crack his own glass ceiling. no, not fully there yet,,,but definitely awake to concepts.
the fact that he is speaking of the changes having to come from educating young boys and men, indicates to me that he is in fact starting to SEE.
hoping that his next steps are attached to firm actions.
Yeah, I read it a little differently than others. Like he is saying, I didn’t think about her in 17 years, I thought that as long as she never said no it was all good, but wow, that was all very awful and wrong. He is saying he was awful and wrong. However, I do doubt his sincerity and the mechanisms by which he claimed to come to this enlightenment seem dubious and self-serving. I don’t think he should get a pass from everyone now that he has made a slightly better statement, but I do think the statement is useful for deflecting some of the arguments his fans (or random misogynists) were making to support him.
Education is great, sure. But if you’re the ring leader in the gang rape of a dead drunk woman, no amount of education will fix that sort of psychopathy. And then there’s the sheer malice and cruelty of the harassment of the victim after the fact. I have zero pity for this man.
Let this walking piece of garbage crucify himself. I love it, every minute of this sicker making it that much worse for himself XD
Too bad about double jeopardy because IMO he just keeps admitting he raped a woman.
Okay, this is a bit off topic but I keep thinking of this short story by Margaret Atwood. I don’t want to give away too much in terms of plot developments, but it is told from the point of view of someone who was date/gang raped as a teenager and fifty years later runs into her rapist who fails to recognize her:
“Stone Mattress” – By Margaret Atwood
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/12/19/stone-mattress
Thanks for this @PennyLane. I love Margaret Atwood.
@PennyLane I hadn’t read any books by this author. I will now. Just ordered the paperback of short stories with this one included. Thanks for the link!
and Margaret Atwood is the source of that often repeated quote:
“Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men are going to kill them”
I think all anyone needs to know about who Nate Parker is as a person came from his own mouth. “No I had not. I hadn’t thought about it at all”.
You sad excuse for a man
How about this idea for a movie?
The rape and harassment of a college student, eventually leading to her taking her own life?
Based on a true story.
Someone make this happen.
Let’s put the gang rape he instigated off to one side for a second. What about all the despicable things he did to this woman after her allegation? Along with his partner in rape and filmmaking, Mr. Celestin? As set forth in the woman’s lawsuit against Penn State? I want to hear his justification for THIS.
https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/civil-complaint-2-wm.pdf
That’s what I want some reporter to go after–“okay, you said she consented. But what about this other terrible shit you did?”
I only feel sorry for all the people who contributed to this film, which seems to be a good movie from all accounts. Justice came knocking when least expected. Bill Cosby anyone? I guess he is joining the Woody Allen and Roman Polinski of the world. Wait, Hollywood applauds the work of these men. It is art. We should separate the work from the man they say. Seperation my as*! They are a bunch of self involved, entitled men.
I wonder what Gabriella Union thinks about this, she has been quiet, right?
also I wonder what that teacher thinks about whole this situation who said that white women will accuse him of pregnancy and who said to him to be quiet
I feel like he just used his feminist friends to gather some terms he could throw around and seem like he gets it.
He pulled out his Rolodex from his Binder Full of Women and called some. I’d love to hear THEM speak on how the conversation went.
I’m glad they keep sending him out. The nanoseconds you about to think about other things and forget his case, he come out and remind us. Good. Keep on talking rapist douche.
He really has walked through his whole life with blinders on. Wow. Talk about a totally unevolved man. He is one step above caveman.
One of the most disturbing things I read in the court documents was when the victim saw her rapists one week later walking a drunk girl to McDonald’s! But they turned around when they saw her.
That just says volumes about how it was his m.o. to rape unconscious drunk women.
He said he put her to bed and she agrees with this. So how does he explain her waking up to him on top of her?
This guy is sick, but the scary thing is he is probably not too different than most high school, college and professional athletes or men in general. Nate has the attitude that she gave him oral the night before so he has a free pass to have sex with her the next night because he decided this means she’s “down.” (This terrifyingly worked in a court of law). And then he tries to convince the girl she was really into sucking off his friend even though she was asleep when they started.
Nate’s looking for a pass because for him his behavior was just him acting like a “dog” and that it’s ok for men to act like dogs when they’re young or whenever they want.
It also disturbs me that he cheated on his girlfriend at the time when he had oral with the victim and then raped her, but that his girlfriend forgave him and now she is his wife and the mother of his kids. How crazy is that?!
And he has the gall to say he never thinks about the victim. I hope he says that because he doesn’t want to offend his wife, because if he really hasn’t thought of the victim in seventeen years then he’s an extreme narcissist or sociopath, imo. He’s married to and friends/writing partners with people who were there at the time, it had to be traumatic enough to be burned into their memories.
I agree with all you said except for “This guy is sick, but the scary thing is he is probably not too different than most high school, college and professional athletes or men in general.”
I honestly do not believe most men are like this – even athletes or “ballers”. They may be macho and sexist but that’s not the same as being a rapist, a predator, a bully and pimp/gang-rape encouragist. This man is evil. He can wear his suits, produce movies, be an actor, etc. but first and foremost he is and will forever be a rapist. That’s not true of most men. Don’t be a man-hater because of a few bad apples. That’s no more fair than saying all women are gold-diggers or try to trap men into marrying them with “oops” babies. We’re not all the same. Generalizations have no place in conversation anymore.