Just because harmful behavior has been normalized doesnt mean it's somehow not harmful anymore. It means that you don't care about the people harmed.
It's not happening you absolute rape apologist goblin, you aren't owed people's private lives and traumas, and power imbalance is a fucking issue holy shit absolutely get bent. Sexual coercion is not part of a healthy relationship it's a violation
Sorry, very badly put. What I meant is that this band do attract that kind of people though — obvi not just that, but case in point and probably why I wouldn't feel comfortable attending any lineup with pinegrove on it
This album worked really well on my second listen during this sunny fall day. I don't think it's "boring" except for maybe Thanksgiving. The closer is probably my favorite on this.
So this is very clearly not resolved. This is very clearly not a successful case of rehabilitation. We're not just two separate conversations, we're people recconing with this not being resolved and people acting as if this is resolved. I don't blame anyone who's uncomfortable with the music discussion as the only reason anyone is talking about the music is because of false/incomplete information from that P4k article. Listeners either think Evan is all better or don't care that he's not. Survivors and people who care about survivors are probably going to be made uncomfortable by that.
bit of a generalization. im sure some people listening care he’s not better, people draw their own lines on what to listen to or not, they can listen and still be invested in what’s going on
I've written and deleted about ten drafts of a response to your first post, but staying polite was tough. Genuine question: Have you read the article and the discussions around it or just decided to join and make insensitive comments? I'm not sure what you're trying to do.
I listened. More than once. I find it very hard to believe lyrics were written before the incident tbh. A lot about change and who I am now. Etc
Nearly all of these songs (I believe every one of them except for Thanksgiving) were performed live and/or demoed and released before the accusations were made and those performances/demos can be found on YouTube, just FYI. But it's definitely odd. In that way, in totally different circumstances of course, it kinda reminds me of Andrew McMahon writing the songs on Everything in Transit prior to being diagnosed with leukemia. Although, I guess the caveat there is that Evan likely knew or could've predicted he might be facing some sort of allegations beforehand.
I don't know if your post is bait or not, but if you are genuinely curious about definitions, I would suggest reading through this page: What is sexual coercion I would suggest (or you know, assert outright) that sexual coercion by definition isn't part of a healthy relationship.
Just thought I'd weigh in on one aspect of the discussion here re: what constitutes sexual assault. From a strictly legal standpoint, sexual assault (generally speaking, because it can vary slightly from state-to-state) involves sexual contact with another person without that other person's full consent. Consent that is given under duress IS NOT FULL LEGAL CONSENT. Duress doesn't have to mean threats of physical violence but rather can also refer to any kind of pressure or, yes, coercion. Therefore, if you coerce someone into having a sexual encounter with you then you are criminally liable for sexual assault, regardless of the methods of coercion or how subtle that coercion might be. I'm not here to say whether or not anything that occurred involving ESH should be considered an assault. I don't have full knowledge of the facts and I'm just a law student, not an expert. But given my limited understanding of the situation, some of the categorical statements folks made a few pages back about how the things that occurred couldn't possibly be an assault don't ring true to me. That being said, I think it's important to remember that the law should be thought of as a bare minimum when we think about what amounts to human decency and respect for the other person. Hopefully this goes without saying, but not technically breaking the law shouldn't be considered an excuse for vile sexual behavior. End rant!
The kid thought they were in love, she was torn and he persisted. His position as Pinegrove frontman made her more susceptible to coercion and that power imbalance possibly facilitated the whole affair. Is this the extent of ESH's abuse? Am i missing info that the people disgusted by ESH have? Power imbalances should be observed and responsibly addressed - but IF that's all there is, I feel like this is FAR from physical abuse or anything even remotely approaching rape.
going off what we have, it was sexual coercion. I don't think it's productive to be having this conversation rn, that'd just be speculating.
What’s the issue with you all and wanting to know every detail to a situation that doesn’t involve you. If the victim tells you it’s bad, fucking believe them. Who do you think you are, exactly? The nerve on these gremlins
I agree but what should be the consequence to messing up like this, like what if his intent wasn’t evil but his affect was. So he educated himself on the situation and has taken the steps to make himself understand what happened and how he can prevent it from happening again in the future. Should his career be over for that, I’m not so sure.
It seems to me, since we're making assumptions based on on a handful of vague tweets, that details do in fact matter when it comes to determining if someone is able to come back to their industry based on the severity of what happened and the level to which they've worked to rehabilitate themselves. On the victim note, if we are supposed to believe the victim, then shouldn't we be ok with the album and them touring....? Since that is what the victim and mediator have agreed upon and confirmed? Or are we just going to think we know more about a situation that I think most of us don't have all the answers to. Getting angry and name calling people who haven't made assumptions that end up on the same side of your assumptions isn't very productive and doesn't lead to a lot of people learning and growing from this situation with civil discussion.
who said anything about his career being over. he has every right to come back and make music from what we know of the victims wishes. everyone else, including the victim, has every right to not feel right or okay about it. i think its entirely reasonable that the victim would say yeah you can come back but also not feel at ease with the situation
This is ridiculous. I'm wondering if you even read the last few pages, because you're repeating the same (false) things again and again without looking at the facts. The victim is not okay with this! The pitchfork article was wrong! How many times do we need to repeat that til you people get this through your thick skulls? You just choose to believe that dodgy ass article as fact because it's convenient to you. And yes I do happen to know more about this situation than you, as I've said numerous times. But you refuse to even listen because a bogus, biased PR statement told you that your fave creepy guy who should get a haircut is totally good now, look at how he, uh, still deflects responsibility. Accountability, woo! I don't give a fuck if you don't like me name calling you, and you calling for civil discussion means nothing to me. We are not having a debate here. You're clearly not participating or taking into account new information. You just pick and choose. Also!! you don't get to know what happened. Again, nobody owes you shit. You've decided to take the side of the abuser by default, that's your problem and it says tons about you.