Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 10-11-2017, 03:29 PM
tim314 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
In general I agree, but we live in a world of crazy people who do crazy things and in most proven false accusations I've read about the accuser is not someone who behaves rationally. So while I'd agree that most are telling the truth, there's always some doubt. It seems to me that the most challenging thing to do is to believe the accuser but not crucify the accused when his or her guilt is in doubt.
At the risk of turning this into a tim314 / adaher love fest, I agree with you here, too.

It's a tough question. I believe strongly that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the right standard when it comes to throwing someone in jail, but it's not so obvious what the standard should be when it comes to, say, hiring someone for a job. I certainly wouldn't hire a babysitter if I thought there was a 10% chance they might be a child molester, much less if I thought it was more likely than not. But of course that doesn't mean I'd want them denied any employment. It's hard to know where to draw the line in which situation.

I tend to believe the allegations against Bill Clinton are probably true, too. I would have voted for him if I wasn't just a little too young still in '96. I still have a Clinton/Gore t-shirt somewhere in my closet. But if he were running for office today, I don't think I could vote for him. The thought of voting for a President who, if I'm being consistent and not letting my politics blind me, I'd have to call "more likely than not a rapist" really doesn't sit well with me. Trump, if he's accomplished nothing else, has strengthened my resolve not to hold my nose and vote for someone in the event that we end up with a pussy-grabbing liberal candidate in some future election.
  #202  
Old 10-11-2017, 03:39 PM
Starving Artist is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim314
I'm not particularly familiar with the details of Woody Allen's case, but I'm not sure what you find so pursuasive above. In particular, lie detectors are bullshit pseudo-science, whose greatest value seems to be in tricking people into confessing things.

Regarding the claim that the kid at first denied it to the doctor, assuming that's true it still doesn't tell me much. Pedophiles often spend years "grooming" their victims, playing all sorts of mind games to get them not to tell anyone. To give one horrific example, I know of a case where someone had a small child convinced that the perpetrator could see them at all times, and could even wear the skin of other family members as a disguise, so the kid wouldn't dare tell anyone what was happening. I know of another case with an older kid who was told that the perpetrator would murder their family if they told. In many cases kids are told no one would believe them, or that they would be the one who was blamed (both of which are, sadly, sometimes true). [My wife studied child molestation in graduate school (social work), which is why I have a lot of child abuse anecdotes.]
The thing is, there is absolutely no evidence that Allen has ever engaged in pedophilic behavior apart from this one allegation. He's dated adult women all his life and in light of all this publicity no one has ever said anything to indicate grooming behavior on his part. And then when you consider that he is claustrophobic, that he was in the middle of a highly contentious split with Farrow at the time and she would instantly seize upon anything she could to do him in, and that a half dozen other people were there, the idea he would suddenly choose that time to sneak up into the attic and sexually assault 7-year-old Dylan seems preposterous. It's also telling that the basis for the story seems to be a song written by the probably bitter ex-wife of Andre Previn, whom Farrow stole while he was married. I imagine Mia found some sort of poetry in that particular little bit of skullduggery.

Frank Sinatra's valet, George Jacobs, wrote in his book that Farrow had a master plan of accomplished men she planned to marry and have children with. The list included Leonard Bernstein, Pablo Picasso, J. D. Salinger and Bob Dylan. (And he considered them to be friends, no less.) Mia Farrow is a shrewd, cunning, manipulative, egotistical and self-serving bitch who's pretty much ruined her daughter's life with her efforts to get revenge on Woody Allen. I wouldn't believe her if she said the sun was shining without first looking to see for myself.
  #203  
Old 10-11-2017, 04:09 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Consensual behavior has nothing to do with sexual assault. There are accusations of assault against Clinton (and Trump), but that's not one of them. If Clinton had, say, bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women, that would be additional evidence on top of these accusations.
Omg...Clintons behavior was textbook sexual harassment carried out yards away from his wife and daughter. Its despicable to try to wave his behavior away.
  #204  
Old 10-11-2017, 04:55 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv40 View Post
And that’s the problem. Hollywood claims to be so progressive but fine with men in power being sexual predators.
Yes, it's terrible the way Hollywood has rallied around Weinstein since he was accused.

Oh, no wait... Weinstein was quickly fired and is being publicly condemned and ostracized.
  #205  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:00 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Omg...Clintons behavior was textbook sexual harassment carried out yards away from his wife and daughter. Its despicable to try to wave his behavior away.
Since Lewinsky herself has openly admitted that she initiated the affair, no, it's actually not textbook sexual harassment. I know, I know, it doesn't fit your ideology. Too fucking bad.
  #206  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:01 PM
treis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, it's terrible the way Hollywood has rallied around Weinstein since he was accused.

Oh, no wait... Weinstein was quickly fired and is being publicly condemned and ostracized.
In no way shape or form was he quickly fired. He got away with the abuse for decades.
  #207  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:06 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, it's terrible the way Hollywood has rallied around Weinstein since he was accused.

Oh, no wait... Weinstein was quickly fired and is being publicly condemned and ostracized.
Quickly fired? After years of covering for him?
  #208  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:08 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
Since Lewinsky herself has openly admitted that she initiated the affair, no, it's actually not textbook sexual harassment. I know, I know, it doesn't fit your ideology. Too fucking bad.
It is textbook sexual harassment. The most powerful man in the country taking advantage of an intern and grabbing her by the p......you are in serious denial intoxicated by your ideology.
  #209  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:28 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
It is textbook sexual harassment. The most powerful man in the country taking advantage of an intern and grabbing her by the p......you are in serious denial intoxicated by your ideology.
I'll say it again. Lewinsky has openly admitted that she initiated the affair. You know what's sexist and patronizing? Not acknowledging that women can choose to initiate sex.

Textbook sexual harassment is the use of power and/or intimidation to coerce someone of lesser power and/or a subordinate to submit against their will. This clearly was not the case with Clinton and Lewinsky. I'm sorry this simple distinction escapes you.

In fact, Clinton's biggest sin is being a crappy, non-reciprocal lover. I would say it's adultery, but seeing that republicans just elected a serial adulterer, and turned a blind eye to another (Gingrich,) I don't think that particular sin resonates.
  #210  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:44 PM
treis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
I'll say it again. Lewinsky has openly admitted that she initiated the affair. You know what's sexist and patronizing? Not acknowledging that women can choose to initiate sex.

Textbook sexual harassment is the use of power and/or intimidation to coerce someone of lesser power and/or a subordinate to submit against their will. This clearly was not the case with Clinton and Lewinsky. I'm sorry this simple distinction escapes you.

In fact, Clinton's biggest sin is being a crappy, non-reciprocal lover. I would say it's adultery, but seeing that republicans just elected a serial adulterer, and turned a blind eye to another (Gingrich,) I don't think that particular sin resonates.
Again, Clinton was accused of forcing himself on women, exposing himself to women, and rape. I don't know what Clinton's biggest sin is, but I'm 99% sure it's something worse than "being a crappy, non-reciprocal lover".
  #211  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:52 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
I'll say it again. Lewinsky has openly admitted that she initiated the affair. You know what's sexist and patronizing? Not acknowledging that women can choose to initiate sex.

Textbook sexual harassment is the use of power and/or intimidation to coerce someone of lesser power and/or a subordinate to submit against their will. This clearly was not the case with Clinton and Lewinsky. I'm sorry this simple distinction escapes you.

In fact, Clinton's biggest sin is being a crappy, non-reciprocal lover. I would say it's adultery, but seeing that republicans just elected a serial adulterer, and turned a blind eye to another (Gingrich,) I don't think that particular sin resonates.
Oddly, Harvey Weinstein can and is using the Blank Slate defense against charges of sexual harassment. Sexual activity between boss and subordinate is by definition harassment. It doesn't matter what Lewinsky claims.
  #212  
Old 10-11-2017, 06:16 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Sexual activity between boss and subordinate is by definition harassment.
I'd like to see that definition. It often is sexual harassment. It often is a terrible idea. But I don't think it's harassment "by definition" without more.
  #213  
Old 10-11-2017, 06:16 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
In no way shape or form was he quickly fired. He got away with the abuse for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Quickly fired? After years of covering for him?
If you guys have known about it for all that time, you really should have said something.
  #214  
Old 10-11-2017, 06:34 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
Again, Clinton was accused of forcing himself on women, exposing himself to women, and rape. I don't know what Clinton's biggest sin is, but I'm 99% sure it's something worse than "being a crappy, non-reciprocal lover".
I'm sorry, would typing slowly help your comprehension? I was specifically addressing the affair between Clinton and Lewinsky, which should have been obvious since the only two people I mentioned were Clinton and Lewinsky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Oddly, Harvey Weinstein can and is using the Blank Slate defense against charges of sexual harassment. Sexual activity between boss and subordinate is by definition harassment. It doesn't matter what Lewinsky claims.
Sexist nonsense, and patronizing beyond belief. The ignorance displayed in this thread is mind-boggling.
  #215  
Old 10-11-2017, 07:10 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, it's terrible the way Hollywood has rallied around Weinstein since he was accused.

Oh, no wait... Weinstein was quickly fired and is being publicly condemned and ostracized.
Because the MEDIA outed him and he became expendable. If he's the only one who goes down, that means Hollywood still protects sexual predators.

I'm not even calling for heads here. How about something like a Truth and Reconciliation commission, where people who come forward and confess their misdeeds get a sort of social amnesty? While Weinstein is being kind of schizoid, he has seemed to internalize that he's done terribe things and according to reports I may have rushed to judgment on Lisa Bloom, who was apparently hired before this all became public to help Weinstein behave better.

So how about we "reeducate" Hollywood for lack of a less loaded term, and then Hollywood can truly claim to set an example for other industries.

A more draconian approach would be to treat Hollywood like a college campus and make them use Title IX standards when addressing harassment or assault allegations. "Preponderance of evidence" standards and you're out of the industry if convicted in their tribunals.
  #216  
Old 10-11-2017, 07:14 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I'd like to see that definition. It often is sexual harassment. It often is a terrible idea. But I don't think it's harassment "by definition" without more.
There are actually situations where consensual sex between two adults is a crime. Some states bar teachers and students, and many businesses consider what Clinton did a firing offense.

To bring Trump back into this as well though, I've said this before and I'll stand by it: we may say we hold politicians to a high standard, but our response towards wrongdoing by politicians says that we hold them to the lowest of standards when it comes to a wide range of behaviors. Trump has said so many things as President which would get him fired from most Fortune 500 companies.
  #217  
Old 10-11-2017, 07:20 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,654
FTR, I think Weinstein is guilty as hell.

I'm not even a big Bill Clinton fan, but I'm far more disgusted by the Marc Rich pardon than the non-harassment affair with Lewinsky.
  #218  
Old 10-11-2017, 08:23 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I'd like to see that definition. It often is sexual harassment. It often is a terrible idea. But I don't think it's harassment "by definition" without more.
Yes, I agree. I don't think a boss is guilty of sexual harassment if her underling suddenly grabs her bosom.
  #219  
Old 10-11-2017, 08:40 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,034
It's sad that the casting couch is alive and well and making movies.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #220  
Old 10-11-2017, 09:52 PM
GuanoLad's Avatar
GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 25,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim314 View Post
It would be great if this were true, but what are you basing this on?
Since writing that post I am no longer so certain. But it just seems like the Lefty Hollywood crowd are generally more socially aware and supportive than in the olden days, so it's more of a rarity.

I am quite possibly wrong.
  #221  
Old 10-11-2017, 10:03 PM
Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Oddly, Harvey Weinstein can and is using the Blank Slate defense against charges of sexual harassment. Sexual activity between boss and subordinate is by definition harassment. It doesn't matter what Lewinsky claims.
It may depend on where you are. I know up here in Canada, the definition of sexual assault/harassment includes any relationship that is seen as “exploitative”. So, by that definition, yes, Lewinsky could not have consented because of the nature of their professional relationship. It would still be unlikely to be prosecuted, but that is the law as per the Criminal Code of Canada, as least as it reads to this layperson (and several SMEs in the area of sexual assault counselling).

I am not as familiar with the laws in the US.

Last edited by Poysyn; 10-11-2017 at 10:03 PM.
  #222  
Old 10-12-2017, 12:16 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Because the MEDIA outed him and he became expendable. If he's the only one who goes down, that means Hollywood still protects sexual predators.
He was accused on Thursday and fired on Sunday. What are you calling for? Should we start firing people before they're accused?
  #223  
Old 10-12-2017, 01:53 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
He was accused on Thursday and fired on Sunday. What are you calling for? Should we start firing people before they're accused?
...the point is he wasn't "accused" on Thursday. He's been the subject of lawsuits and settlements going back 30 years. What happened Thursday wasn't that he was accused. It was that the accusations entered the public domain. They knew. The board knew. His friends and associates knew. We would have known a few months ago if NBC hadn't killed the story. He wasn't fired because he was a despicable arseshole. He was fired because he had become a liability.
  #224  
Old 10-12-2017, 02:47 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
He was accused on Thursday and fired on Sunday. What are you calling for? Should we start firing people before they're accused?
Except they didn't fire him because they just found out about this stuff. They fired him because we just found out about this stuff.
  #225  
Old 10-12-2017, 03:29 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv40 View Post
Trump is boorish and his “locker room talk” is repulsive, but Bill Clinton has been accused of sexual assault several times and his accusers have never backed off of their claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
And if Juanita Broderick is to be believed, Clinton flat out forcibly raped her, kissing her so roughly while doing so that it left her with a cut and swollen lip, for which he callously suggested ice as he left the room.
Actually, Juanita Broaddrick did "back off her claim", filing an affidavit that Clinton had not "made unwelcome sexual advances" to her. And then later on television she recanted the affidavit and said that he had.

I'm not choosing one story over another - I can think of compelling reasons why she might lie about being assaulted when she hadn't been, and compelling reasons why she might lie about not being assaulted when she had been - but it is untrue that none of Clinton's accusers have changed their stories. And it suggests a certain amount of caution is required before unquestionably accepting one version over another.
  #226  
Old 10-12-2017, 08:35 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyn View Post
It may depend on where you are. I know up here in Canada, the definition of sexual assault/harassment includes any relationship that is seen as “exploitative”. So, by that definition, yes, Lewinsky could not have consented because of the nature of their professional relationship. It would still be unlikely to be prosecuted, but that is the law as per the Criminal Code of Canada, as least as it reads to this layperson (and several SMEs in the area of sexual assault counselling).

I am not as familiar with the laws in the US.
I see the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal as more of a hostile workplace situation than a sexual harassment situation. I'm not saying this to minimize it. It was sleazy and wrong and if she'd been a couple of years younger it would have been rape. But she was the instigator by all accounts. It's my opinion that she had psychological issues that should have been obvious and should not have been exploited. On the other hand, she was legally considered a competent adult.

There will always be women who are willing and even eager to have a sexual relationship with their boss. They often get special favors and preferential treatment with regards to salaries and promotions. But even if they don't, they will always get something of value - access. One on one time with your boss is a privilege in most cases. Getting to hang out with the President of the United States in his private office is a privilege.

This can put women who don't fool around with the boss at a disadvantage in the workplace and if it is tolerated and allowed to flourish it can create a hostile work environment where sexual favors become expected. Plus it makes associates and coworkers uncomfortable and creates unnecessary workplace drama. Then situations are created where other employees are pushed into complicity. This seemed to be what happened with Weinstein.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 10-12-2017 at 08:40 AM.
  #227  
Old 10-12-2017, 08:48 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Except they didn't fire him because they just found out about this stuff. They fired him because we just found out about this stuff.
It was the subject of jokes on the TV show 30 Rock. Jenna claimed "she wasn't afraid of anyone in show business" because she "turned down intercourse with Harvey Weinstein on at least 3 out of 5 occasions".

And there was another reference. Link is below
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-...ession-w508433

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 10-12-2017 at 08:48 AM.
  #228  
Old 10-12-2017, 09:22 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
It was the subject of jokes on the TV show 30 Rock. Jenna claimed "she wasn't afraid of anyone in show business" because she "turned down intercourse with Harvey Weinstein on at least 3 out of 5 occasions".
He wants another crack at her, though. Harvey Weinstein 'hopes for second chance'
  #229  
Old 10-12-2017, 10:13 AM
ivylass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 22,282
Rose McGowan had her Twitter account temporarily suspended. Interesting timing.
  #230  
Old 10-12-2017, 10:25 AM
DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivylass View Post
Rose McGowan had her Twitter account temporarily suspended. Interesting timing.
She was being kind of a dick calling out male actors for not coming forward completely oblivious to the fact that the same reasons that women chose not to come forward apply to them, not to mention the added fear that the women would not back them up.
  #231  
Old 10-12-2017, 02:26 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,416
[Moderating]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Unbelievable that some in this thread are actually defending this dirtbag. They actually seem incapable of distinguishing between asking a woman out on a date and leering at her while waggling your dick and demanding that she suck it or she'll never work in this town again. (That's probably Dr Deth's idea of a romantic evening.)
aldiboronti, this is very clearly a personal insult, and very clearly over the line. Don't do this again.

EDIT: I assigned a Warning earlier, but apparently forgot to mention it here. Consider it mentioned.

Last edited by Chronos; 10-12-2017 at 04:08 PM.
  #232  
Old 10-12-2017, 02:30 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
He wants another crack at her, though. Harvey Weinstein 'hopes for second chance'
Whoops. I've read the article, and it turns out I misunderstood his statement.
  #233  
Old 10-12-2017, 04:49 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
She was being kind of a dick calling out male actors for not coming forward completely oblivious to the fact that the same reasons that women chose not to come forward apply to them, not to mention the added fear that the women would not back them up.
...she is not calling out men for "not coming forward." She is calling out men who are obvious hypocrites. She is calling out men who told her one thing privately and then are acting like those conversations never ever happened. She is calling out men who have condemned Weinstein but are guilty of groping and other bad behaviour themselves. So no, I don't think she is being "kind of a dick." She has been at the forefront of calling out these actions for years. But no one listened to her before.

According to twitter she was suspended because she tweeted a phone number which is fair enough: but others have done the same as her (notably Trump back in 2015) and have not been suspended. Now that the number has been deleted the suspension has been lifted.
  #234  
Old 10-12-2017, 07:03 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I do understand why they didn't and why they still won't.
My own opinion is that Hollywood exists today, to launder money. Its a laundramat for the Mob, and if those actresses still after all this time won't come forward, its not because of Weinstein.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #235  
Old 10-12-2017, 07:49 PM
WordMan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 22,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
My own opinion is that Hollywood exists today, to launder money. Its a laundramat for the Mob, and if those actresses still after all this time won't come forward, its not because of Weinstein.
Um, what?
  #236  
Old 10-12-2017, 10:52 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,192
Those who are defending Weinstein (this was 'unwanted advances,' really?) - Rose McGowan is alleging flat-out actual rape.
  #237  
Old 10-13-2017, 01:37 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,047
Sometimes I enjoy being wrong. Oliver Stone is now getting the treatment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-breast.html
  #238  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:35 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
The thing is, there is absolutely no evidence that Allen has ever engaged in pedophilic behavior apart from this one allegation.

<snip>

Frank Sinatra's valet, George Jacobs, wrote in his book that Farrow had a master plan of accomplished men she planned to marry and have children with.
And you accept this on the basis of this one allegation?
  #239  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:39 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,884
Well, we finally have our token left-of-center celeb defending Weinstein. And looks like it just might be a case of birds of a feather.
  #240  
Old 10-13-2017, 08:09 AM
Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,719
Frank Sinatra had a valet ?
  #241  
Old 10-13-2017, 11:06 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Drake View Post
Frank Sinatra had a valet ?
He needed one for his penis. As Ava Gardner said, ' He was a 120 lbs and 100 lbs was penis.'
  #242  
Old 10-13-2017, 11:33 AM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,907
Is it wrong for an exec to explicitly tell an aspiring actor "Have sex with me and I'll put you in a movie." Assume that this hopeful person has never acted and is working as a server in a restaurant and the exec is the CEO of the company and doesn't have anyone to answer to.

One of Weinstein's victims was a waitress who went up to his suite to read some scripts, only to find him naked in the tub asking her to take her top off. That is clearly morally wrong since he was deceptive and put her in a very uncomfortable and scary position. But what if when he saw her in the restaurant he said "Have sex with me and I'll put you in the movie." instead of "Come up to my suite to read some scripts.". He's a creep either way, but is it wrong in both cases?

I would say yes, it is morally wrong in both cases. Even if he's up front with his intentions, he's contributing to the culture of sexual harassment and making this hopeful actress think that the only way to get ahead is through these kinds of sexual deals. It demeans the profession and all people in the decision making process.
  #243  
Old 10-13-2017, 01:42 PM
ivylass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 22,282
Apparently, Weinstein's contract allowed him to reimburse the company (plus a fine) for any sexual harassment suits.

TMZ, so take it with a grain of salt. But if this is true, doesn't it mean the company profited anytime they had to settle a lawsuit?

I need a shower.
  #244  
Old 10-13-2017, 02:13 PM
DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivylass View Post
TMZ, so take it with a grain of salt.
TMZ is more accurate than wikipedia. And yeah that is basically what it means, and that is majorly screwed up.
  #245  
Old 10-13-2017, 02:17 PM
Mighty_Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Somewhere Warm
Posts: 4,782
Oh, like a swear jar. A "rape jar", if you will.
  #246  
Old 10-13-2017, 02:29 PM
ivylass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 22,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty_Girl View Post
Oh, like a swear jar. A "rape jar", if you will.
Oh, man, that's clever. Sick and twisted, but I think you nailed it.
  #247  
Old 10-13-2017, 02:36 PM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,201
It's a tad absurd that this is now becoming about, "You haven't said anything about Weinstein on Twitter or Facebook so you must be a horrible person and approve of his actions". Some people don't use social media and some that do aren't in the habit of commenting on everything bad that happens. Many stars and producers have been castigated for their 'silence' when in fact they may have been very vocal and condemnatory about Weinstein in private to their friends. But in this age if you don't instantly rush online to share your thoughts you're presumed to have dark and sinister reasons for not doing so.

I for instance have stated my contempt for his actions in this thread but because my Twitter account is silent I must be a sleazebag and probably a rapist myself.We live in strange and disturbing times.
  #248  
Old 10-13-2017, 02:54 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyn View Post
It may depend on where you are. I know up here in Canada, the definition of sexual assault/harassment includes any relationship that is seen as “exploitative”. So, by that definition, yes, Lewinsky could not have consented because of the nature of their professional relationship. It would still be unlikely to be prosecuted, but that is the law as per the Criminal Code of Canada, as least as it reads to this layperson (and several SMEs in the area of sexual assault counselling).

I am not as familiar with the laws in the US.
It's not a US v Canada thing but general legal principle, based on a general moral principal. There are adults who can not consent to sex with other adults. Female inmates at prisons for example have been raped if they have sex with a guard unless they physically forced or coerced the guard. A female prisoner 'coming on' to a male guard and sex results: guard raped the prisoner.

In Lewinsky's case and under any idea of legal common sense so I'm sure applies to Canada too, the constraints on her wouldn't have put Clinton and her in that position *legally*. However the fact that (again US or Canada or most western countries) a boss could and often would be fired for such an affair is based on the same principle, just a lower level violation of it.

Anyway the gambit of 'let's *just* talk about Lewinsky when it comes to Bill Clinton' is a dodge. He was reasonably credibly accused of far worse, and his impeachment wasn't based on the act itself of the Lewinsky affair but lying about it in a court proceeding (ie Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit). People are entitled to their opinions how this stacks up against 'all the great things Bill Clinton did' but it's a political talking point to keep steering it to just the Lewinsky affair itself. That's not the main point about Clinton sexual harassment/assault.
  #249  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:15 PM
up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Those who are defending Weinstein (this was 'unwanted advances,' really?) - Rose McGowan is alleging flat-out actual rape.
And then she took his money rather than press charges.

So that's great for women and justice.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #250  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:30 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by up_the_junction View Post
And then she took his money rather than press charges.

So that's great for women and justice.
...what is actually not great for women and justice is blaming women for sexual harassment, sexual assault, and for getting raped. Unless you happen to have some sort of special insight into what happened with Rose McGowan (and I very much doubt that you do) then Rose protecting herself is great for women and justice. Few have been more outspoken in Hollywood than Rose has been in defense of women. She has been calling this shit out for years. And she's been attacked and disbelieved consistently for her stance, and now that you know that what she was talking about was true we should be standing behind her, not shaming her.

Last edited by Banquet Bear; 10-13-2017 at 07:33 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017