...Not sure where you're going with this? Like.. you realize that Ross is kinda supposed to be a terrible person on Friends, right? Like, they all pretty much are (but Ross definitely being one of the worst)? And that particular episode being a case in point of that--Ross being completely, 100% wrong? It sounds like you're kinda reading into that episode as the lesson being that she was wrong to lead Ross on or something, when the point is completely the opposite: that Ross is a terrible person and a creep and that (without even touching on the incest part of the episode, which itself should be a red flag for the kind of person Ross is and how this should have been a terrible idea regardless of what signals he thought she was sending or not) even if you think this or that, at the very least make sure you're actually on the same page before you're trying something and don't just assume anything.
And this ain't a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with anything. Especially since just saying that is itself riddled with connotations of both possibilities being just as likely as each other; that it's a 50/50 chance, he-said, he-said, where either one of them telling the truth is just as likely as the other. Of course, you might not mean to say that--far from it in fact. But whether it's meant or not, whether it's intended or otherwise, that's nonetheless the connotation of phrases like "innocent until proven guilty" and "it's a he-said, she-said (or in this case, he-said, he-said) situation"--that both possibilities are inherently just as likely as each other and we should give them equal consideration and weight.
But that isn't the case. That isn't how any of this works. The victim stands to gain absolutely nothing by coming forward. On the contrary--just admitting this in of itself means reliving those experiences. And then it open yourself up to reliving it time and time and time and time and time and time and time again as picky nitpick and question and mull over ever detail of the event, forcing them to relive and re-experience something that was unpleasant enough the first time that many more times over. And then you open yourself up to harassment from the fans and supporters of the accused on top of that, assuming you're a liar and you're a terrible person and you must have some nefarious motive for coming forward. That's why so many victims never come forward to begin with-because they know that if they do, all that will happen and potentially more. And so they don't.
And so when someone does in fact come forward, saying that they're a victim, that something like this happened to them, that itself is already saying a lot. That's saying that they recognize all that, that they recognize the risks, that they realize they have nothing to gain and in fact so very, very much to lose by coming forward, but nonetheless feel that their story is important enough to come forward regardless. That's not something that's done easily. Far from it. Far, far, far, from it. It takes tremendous courage and is putting everything on the line for absolutely nothing. That in of itself speaks volumes. Just replying to that with "innocent until proven guilty", whether it's intended to or otherwise, completely dismisses all of that, and carries a connotation (again, whether there's an intent to do so or not) that it's easy to come forward. That both possibilities are just as likely.
But that's not it. Just the accusation itself already implies so much, precisely because of how hard it is to come forward. Because it means they recognize it means that they'll have to live this event over and over again as people mill over every detail. It means they recognize that there will probably be people who will harass them over it and call them a liar and try and drag their name through the mud. It may mean that even worse could happen to them, such as someone trying to actually target themselves or a loved one to get back at them for their accusations. But they're nonetheless willing to risk those possibilities anyway because they feel this story is important enough to be shared.
And that's precisely why "innocent until proven guilty" really bugs me in these type of discussions. Not just because this is not a court of law and we have no ability to inflict any type of meaningful consequences or punishment onto accused individuals such as Mr. Takei, but also because just the mere phrase, whether it means to or not regardless carries the connotation that both possibilities are just as likely as each other and if anything that it's more likely that the accusers are lying than they are to be telling the truth precisely because we're starting from a position of innocent until proven guilty. But that's just not the case. Not with how much victims are putting on the line just by coming forward to begin with. Not with how much you're risking for such little gain. You don't do that for no reason. You don't do that without very heavy thought and consideration.
And so the scales very much should be tipped in one direction, because the fact of the matter is that false accusations are so much more incredibly rarer, for precisely all of those reasons and more. Because of how much you're opening yourself up to just by accusing them, never mind taking them to court or anything. The fact that they're willing to come forward regardless of that and feel that their story is important enough to share already speaks volumes. So of course I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, precisely because of how hard it is to come forward at all, with how much they're risking for so little gain. The scales are already tipped against them, the victims, from the very beginning. That they recognize that and are willing to come forward regardless and put everything on the line just to share their stories just says so much to me that I just can't reconcile starting form any other position. They're disadvantaged from the moment they make the accusation--the scales are already tipped against them and it means going through so much for so little. That they charge forward anyway and are willing to endure that much just to share what happened? Given that's the case, I can't help but give them the benefit of the doubt--doing otherwise just doesn't make sense to me and belittles how much it takes just to make an accusation, when that itself is huge and takes so much courage, and belittling that act and acting like it's an easy or simple thing to do by starting from a position of innocent until proven guilty even outside a court of law (it certainly has its purposes within the court, but I'm referring to extending that mindset outside of the courts, such as in the discussions on this site) that assumes that both positions are equally likely and that it is easy to do that and tips the scales so heavily against the victim from the beginning is just something I can't possibly be comfortable with, because it's in complete contradiction to the facts and statistics and trends of cases like this.
