Chloe Dykstra, Chris Hardwick in She Said/He Said

[JSHAW]

Before yesterday I had never heard the name Chloe Dykstra, but do know who Chris Hardwick is.

The website Kotaku, and many others have accusations and statements of Chloe about a past boyfriend, who most of the internet detectives
figured out was Hardwick.

Just google search either one and you'll see the shit show, which hasn't reached EPIC proportions, no one is firing Hardwick, as of lately, wonder how long that will keep?

Hardwick is denying any sexual assaults as of today in an article posted on Dailymail.com

Not taking anyone's side, but man there are crazy things the woman is saying about Hardwick's alleged behavior towards her during their
relationship.

[Daehawk]

Known of them for years. Used to think she was a cute girl with a big mouth.Cant stand her personality type. Sometimes I wonder if a girl like her says stuff just to get attention because they have dropped off the radar of the industry. Anyways they have not been an item in many years AFAIR.

[pr0ner]

Just google search either one and you'll see the shit show, which hasn't reached EPIC proportions, no one is firing Hardwick, as of lately, wonder how long that will keep?

A) This is being talked about in the Harvey Weinstein thread, which is the catchall for all the sexual abuse stuff going on in Hollywood lately.

B) The part about Hardwick not being fired is untrue - he's already being scrubbed from the Nerdist site (though he's not involved with them anymore), and AMC has already ceased all of Hardwick's "Talking X" shows and his Comic-Con stuff he was going to do for them.

[LawBeefaroni]

Since she didn't name names (although it's obvious who she's talking about) there probably won't be any criminal charges. She would have to press charges or at least give a name.

I fall on the side of believing her but then I don't have to make any hard decisions based on that belief. This falls in the "let them sort it out while I move on" category for me.

[Blackhawk]

I had an 'uh-oh' moment with this one. I read Hardwick's response earlier. My first response was that it was just another lying denial, like all the other accused have made. Then I realized - I don't know him. I don't know her. I haven't seen any tape, or heard any corroboration. Is it possible that everything she said was true and that he's just lying to cover his own ass? Absolutely. Is it possible that she's got serious issues and made the whole thing up to try and hurt him? Absolutely.

And yet my first response was the condemn him and believe her. I asked myself why. I didn't have an answer beyond 'it follows the trend.' That's not like me. I tend to be impartial, sometimes too impartial, and yet I had already condemned him as the aggressor. That's scary, and I'm going to make it stop. The fact that in the past two days he's lost multiple speaking engagements and at least one TV show for no more reason than I had with my knee-jerk reaction. This is concerning to me. His career is likely over, his life likely ruined, even if he's absolved later on. We're in a scary place.

How do we prevent this sort of thing from being used as a bludgeon and destroying innocent lives, while at the same time giving real victims (which Dykstra may very well be) a safe and effective way to speak out?

[LawBeefaroni]

The fact that in the past two days he's lost multiple speaking engagements and at least one TV show for no more reason than I had with my knee-jerk reaction.

You don't know that anymore than you know him. Yeah, he may have lost a show for no reason or the people who employ him and work with him may have a different and closer POV than you do.

[JSHAW]

Just google search either one and you'll see the shit show, which hasn't reached EPIC proportions, no one is firing Hardwick, as of lately, wonder how long that will keep?

A) This is being talked about in the Harvey Weinstein thread, which is the catchall for all the sexual abuse stuff going on in Hollywood lately.

B) The part about Hardwick not being fired is untrue - he's already being scrubbed from the Nerdist site (though he's not involved with them anymore), and AMC has already ceased all of Hardwick's "Talking X" shows and his Comic-Con stuff he was going to do for them.

BEFORE I posted I didn't scrub the internet looking for any firings of Hardwick.

AFTER I posted I went back to Kotaku and found a new article posted which listed the latest news from AMC and how they're dealing with Hardwick, his Talking show and his Comic-Con panels.

Knowing the forum members here I know they are highly intelligent and resourceful, they would take the ball and run with it, and find any updates to
the shit show. I don't willingly and knowingly post things "untrue".

[Jaymann]

Any relation to Lenny?

[pr0ner]

Just google search either one and you'll see the shit show, which hasn't reached EPIC proportions, no one is firing Hardwick, as of lately, wonder how long that will keep?

A) This is being talked about in the Harvey Weinstein thread, which is the catchall for all the sexual abuse stuff going on in Hollywood lately.

B) The part about Hardwick not being fired is untrue - he's already being scrubbed from the Nerdist site (though he's not involved with them anymore), and AMC has already ceased all of Hardwick's "Talking X" shows and his Comic-Con stuff he was going to do for them.

BEFORE I posted I didn't scrub the internet looking for any firings of Hardwick.

AFTER I posted I went back to Kotaku and found a new article posted which listed the latest news from AMC and how they're dealing with Hardwick, his Talking show and his Comic-Con panels.

Knowing the forum members here I know they are highly intelligent and resourceful, they would take the ball and run with it, and find any updates to
the shit show. I don't willingly and knowingly post things "untrue".

You wouldn't have to "scrub" the internet looking for any firings of Hardwick. All you needed to do was Google him, and you would have found out at the top of the search page.

As for the rest of your post, .

[Daehawk]

Seems as soon as someone says anything now the other person loses their job and livelihood. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Is it legal to fire someone for hearsay?

Im also firmly in the boat against firing say a teacher because she posted a pic of herself in a bikini from after school / work. That kinda thing should surely be illegal.

[gameoverman]

If you can be fired/let go/canceled/banished/exiled then you might be by your employer for any number of reasons, including being accused of sexual assault. That's nothing new, it's just public in this case.

As to she said/he said, I fall on the side of innocent until proven guilty. If he were to admit to assaulting her then that's the same as being proven guilty.

So then with a denial I'm on the fence. There's an accusation, there's a denial, now what?

I read her blog post/article about this. I notice she says point blank that she agreed to everything. She gave reasons why she made that mistake, but she did say she consented. This means I'm waiting to hear where the criminal part(assault) is in all this. Someone forcing you to have sex is one thing, you deciding to have sex with them even though you don't want to because you don't want to damage the relationship is another. A person can be a total scumbag and not be a criminal. She doesn't say there was so much as an implied threat from him or fear of harm on her part. No coercion in other words.

[Daehawk]

Then theres nothing to it. She seems to have brought it up only to harm his life.

[Fireball]

She brought it up because he was abusive to her, and she is sharing her story so that other women in the first stagings of the emotional manipulation that abusers usually engage in can recognize the signs and get out before feeling forced to consent to things they don’t want to do, or obligated to change their lives in ways they don’t want to. She says that right there in her post.

Also, if you search the Twitters you can find threads where others who were tangentially connected to their relationship have vouched for her descriptions of his temper, his self-absorption and controlling natures.

[gbasden]

Then theres nothing to it. She seems to have brought it up only to harm his life.

You don't have to use physical force to be a controlling, abusive scumbag.

[McNutt]

I don't understand the claim of sexual assault. She said she let him sexually assault her. What does this mean? Her example was that she told him she wasn't in the mood and he said something to make her think that the relationship would end if she didn't have sex. Is that what we're calling sexual assault now?

[GreenGoo]

Then theres nothing to it. She seems to have brought it up only to harm his life.

That seems unlikely. Just making an accusation results in all sorts of negatives for a woman. While there are plenty of women who's lives are already so shitty that the negative attention from making an accusation doesn't matter, those women are few when compared to the number of women that have to endure the shitshow that making an accusation entails.

If Cosby can go decades drugging and raping women, I have no problem believing these lesser cases of abuse. How the people closer to them react is on them. If they choose to fire someone or they choose to ignore the accusations, that's on them.

As far as I'm concerned, dude is a likely abuser.

[GreenGoo]

I don't understand the claim of sexual assault. She said she let him sexually assault her. What does this mean? Her example was that she told him she wasn't in the mood and he said something to make her think that the relationship would end if she didn't have sex. Is that what we're calling sexual assault now?

We call that date rape and it's against the law.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I'm inclined to agree with GreenGoo. In the court of public opinion, 'he said/she said' situations invariably favour the accused. Because the end point is typically that we're supposed to just collectively shrug and say "Oh well, I suppose we cannot know. There’s two sides to this story and the only people who do know are the two of them." So it’s the societal equivalent of a hung jury -- we just don't know -- or an acquittal, where we say the victim never proved their claim beyond some standard of reasonable doubt. With the net effect being that the accused always has the advantage. Because there's a seriously high bar to overcome to be able to prove such allegations, and the more prominent and powerful the accused individual is, the higher that bar gets.

And so we wonder why victims are afraid to come forward? I suspect because of situations much like this.

[McNutt]

I don't understand the claim of sexual assault. She said she let him sexually assault her. What does this mean? Her example was that she told him she wasn't in the mood and he said something to make her think that the relationship would end if she didn't have sex. Is that what we're calling sexual assault now?

We call that date rape and it's against the law.

No we don't and no it's not.

[pr0ner]

Did you really just say that date rape isn't against the law? If so, WTF are you smoking?

[McNutt]

No. What she is accusing him of doimg (at least with the example she gave) is neither date rape nor against the law.

[LordMortis]

she told him she wasn't in the mood and he said something to make her think that the relationship would end if she didn't have sex.

I'm missing something. Forget everything else. If someone threatens to leave because they're not getting laid and the other person relents to threat, it's date rape? Unhealthy and "codependent" I get and I sign you should let them go, definitely. In the work place where one person has authority over the other, cause for civil suit and termination of the person in power, I understand. But date rape? Things have changed, I guess.

[McNutt]

If he ever made her go to an event that she didn't want to go to I guess we can add kidnapping to the list.

[LawBeefaroni]

Why get hung up on legal/illegal? She is alleging that she dated an abusive, controlling asshole. As far as I know she isn't calling for legal prosecution.

Is what her boyfriend did, if true, abusive and controlling? Yep.

[McNutt]

Yes, but she is claiming he committed a crime.

Edit - she is claiming the unspecified person committed a crime.

[Daehawk]

So now when a girl says yes..admits she said yes...its a crime too? We're fucked as a species.

[Blackhawk]

So now when a girl says yes..admits she said yes...its a crime too? We're fucked as a species.

Our species is currently arguing about why she may not be correct.

[msteelers]

So now when a girl says yes..admits she said yes...its a crime too? We're fucked as a species.

What are you talking about? She isn't trying to get him arrested, she's detailing her experience in an abusive relationship.

At the beginning of our relationship, I was quite ill often due to my diet, something I’ll get to in a bit. One night he initiated, and I said, “I’m so sorry, can we not tonight? I’m feeling really sick.” He responded, “I just want to remind you, the reason my last relationship didn’t work out was because of the lack of sex.” It was a veiled threat. I succumbed.

Every night, I laid there for him, occasionally in tears. He called it “starfishing”. He thought the whole idea was funny. To be fair, I did go along with it out of fear of losing him. I’m still recovering from being sexually used (not in a super fun way) for three years.

Illegal or not, that's terrible. Nobody should be in a relationship like that.

[Fireball]

So now when a girl says yes..admits she said yes...its a crime too? We're fucked as a species.

If one person says no, and the other badgers him/her into saying yes, then that can be an assault, and even a crime in some places. No means no, it doesn’t mean “convince me,” and a person who is badgered or threatened into giving consent hasn’t really consented. There’s a line there between someone changing their mind and feeling like they have no choice but to change their mind, and when that line is crossed, there’s no real consent.

[Smoove_B]

Probably the best thing I've ever seen on consent.

[Victoria Raverna]

So now when a girl says yes..admits she said yes...its a crime too? We're fucked as a species.

If one person says no, and the other badgers him/her into saying yes, then that can be an assault, and even a crime in some places. No means no, it doesn’t mean “convince me,” and a person who is badgered or threatened into giving consent hasn’t really consented. There’s a line there between someone changing their mind and feeling like they have no choice but to change their mind, and when that line is crossed, there’s no real consent.

When you're in negotiation with someone, if someone say no, you can't convince him/her to change to "yes" because if his/her feel like having no choice then it is an assault?

[McNutt]

Define "having no choice." To me it seems she had a choice.

I'm not saying that he was a true gentleman. This doesn't sound like a man I'd want my daughter to date. But it also doesn't sound like sexual assault.

[Fireball]

So now when a girl says yes..admits she said yes...its a crime too? We're fucked as a species.

If one person says no, and the other badgers him/her into saying yes, then that can be an assault, and even a crime in some places. No means no, it doesn’t mean “convince me,” and a person who is badgered or threatened into giving consent hasn’t really consented. There’s a line there between someone changing their mind and feeling like they have no choice but to change their mind, and when that line is crossed, there’s no real consent.

When you're in negotiation with someone, if someone say no, you can't convince him/her to change to "yes" because if his/her feel like having no choice then it is an assault?

Sex isn't a business deal. If someone says no, the other party should back off, not pressure for a "yes".

[Daehawk]

Sex isn't a business deal.

Theres a certain class of woman that would disagree.

[Fireball]

Sex isn't a business deal.

Theres a certain class of woman that would disagree.

Touché.

And not just women.

[GreenGoo]

And a certain class of man who consider it an obligation.

Daehawk, I consider your views on sexuality different from my own, after years of listening to you talk here on OO.

I am unlikely to find your points of view compelling.

[Fireball]

Sex isn't a business deal.

Theres a certain class of woman that would disagree.

Touché.

And not just women.

Just to be clear here, I was talking about actual prostitution, which clearly is a business deal. And which should be legal.

Moving beyond that marginal case:

No one in a relationship owes the other person sex. "No" always means "no," and trying to persuade someone who has said "no" to switch to "yes" can quickly cross the line into abusive behavior.

[pr0ner]

Sex isn't a business deal.

Theres a certain class of woman that would disagree.

Touché.

And not just women.

Just to be clear here, I was talking about actual prostitution, which clearly is a business deal. And which should be legal.

Moving beyond that marginal case:

No one in a relationship owes the other person sex. "No" always means "no," and trying to persuade someone who has said "no" to switch to "yes" can quickly cross the line into abusive behavior.

On OkCupid, one of the many "match questions" they asked is whether "No means no". It was always fascinating how many women who answered that it sometimes meant yes in disguise. I didn't understand that mentality at all.

[LordMortis]

Sex is not owed but breaking off a relationship because "you aren't gettin' any" seems valid to me, the threat of such thing should not be equated with date rape. This in no way justifies Hardwick if things are as stated and in no way makes it alright to try and wage a personal form of psychological warfare on your sig other, when you do something this shitty and you aren't a position of authority like Hardwick. But it's still not date rape. Why be padantic? Because when we remove Hardwicks postion of authority and you remove codependent abuse of the concept of self worth. You are still saying the the threat of breaking off a relationship due to lack of sex is sufficient cause to pursue legal action for date rape.

[LawBeefaroni]

Any relation to Lenny?

None.