Plácido Domingo, world-renowned singer, conductor and administrator, has been accused of sexual harassment by several women, over a period of decades, going back to the 1980s. Of course the 78-year-old tenor has denied all accusations.
There have been cancellations of his appearances, but not universally. Investigations ensue.
While obviously accusations are not in themselves sufficient to conclusively prove guilt, it’s worth noting that the AP confirmed that the women in question had discussed the conduct with others at the time it allegedly took place, that Domingo and the individual women were indeed working together at the time and location of the alleged incidents, and that there was a consistency to the stories. Personally, I have to say that while I have no specific knowledge of what happened, there’s nothing in the AP story that I find remotely implausible.
To be clear, even though the article says he’s “denied all accusations”, what he’s actually said is that he believes all interactions he had were consensual and welcomed by the women, not that interactions didn’t happen.
There’s a connotation to the language “denied all accusations” that implies that, or example, an interaction never took place, as opposed to what he is saying which is that an interaction happened, but he thought it was all good.
Clueless old fart. Good voice in the day though.
I heard him on TV saying, “That? That’s just what we did back then.”
Clueless old fart indeed. And, considering his profession, surprisingly tone deaf. rimshot
If you keep singing La donna è mobile over and over again, presumably you start to believe that “no” means “yes”.
I imagine tons of beautiful women over the years has been sexually harassed, on the job or in the time before it wasnt allowed on the job. I know beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but I doubt most women, similar to the character of Amy on Big Bang, were or ever will be sexually harassed. Very few incidents anyway.
How is the phrase he used; “that’s just what we did back then,” how is that not true? I am talking about “innocent” touching incidents not sexual abuse
And no I have never been sexually harassed that I would define it as
IANA woman but I strongly suspect you are greatly underestimating what men are willing to do to women regardless of appearance.
The phrase “that’s just what we did back then” applies both to “touching incidents” and full-on sexual harassment and abuse.
That’s pretty much what my wife said about Domingo… and Harvey Weinstein before him… and Les Moonves before him… *
She pretty much accepts that old men who were powerful in their careers decades ago, especially Hollywood moguls and big corporate bosses, let their hands roam and used their ability to hire and promote to persuade women to have sex with them. I think things have definitely changed for the better, but some of these accusations are using current norms to judge what happened decades ago. She is certainly not saying it was proper or moral, but some of this is judging people based on changed rules.
I don’t think the rules have changed, just their enforcement.
What makes it “innocent touching”? I’d like to know what kinds of innocent touching I can do to my coworkers.
IAA woman and I can personally confirm that looking plain and frumpy definitely does not prevent one from being sexually harassed and assaulted. It’s true that beautiful women generally have to deal with that shit much more often, but WildBlueYonder is deluding himself if he imagines that non-beautiful women simply never (or almost never) have to worry about it. (He’s also overlooking the harassment that non-beautiful women frequently get specifically for the crime of not being beautiful. Men who think they’re entitled to make lascivious remarks to total strangers just because they like their looks generally also think they’re entitled to make insulting remarks to total strangers just because they don’t like their looks.)
This kind of reminds me of Donald Trump claiming that he couldn’t have possibly raped a woman because “she’s not my type.”
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but not matter how I look at it, it’s not good.
The problem is all those “Innocent touches” were not that innocent. Women just didn’t feel empowered to be able to speak out against it.
Ok, picture this: You’re a world-renowned - and very handsome - operatic tenor, and you’re constantly surrounded by women (attractive and otherwise) who continuously fawn over you like an idol. So you hug a few and kiss a few. And instead of drawing away, they keep coming back for more.
I think that’s what he meant by “that’s just what we did back then.” And if he stopped there, I can agree with him. But according to the accusations he didn’t always stop there. That’s when it became inexcusable.
I know women were largely excluded from theater (at least in England/Europe) until around 1620, and they had the same approximate social status as prostitutes until well into the 20th Century. Is there a similar timeline for women in opera? Is Domingo living out some cultural tradition not well known or understood outside the world of opera? It shouldn’t affect the penalty or consequences, but I’d appreciate a little perspective.
A sleaze is a sleaze, even back then. It was never admirable for a man to frequent prostitutes, or treat women as such. Tolerated and accepted, yes. Even perfectly legal. But if it ever had any positive effect on a man’s reputation, it was only as a cool bad boy thing to do.
I think it’s an utterly ridiculous idea that in the 20th century the women that have accused Domingo expected in the remotest sense to be treated as prostitutes because they worked in opera. And there’s no equivalence between visiting prostitutes and exploiting a position of fame & power to get away with sexual assault. The latter has never been peculiar to opera and theater; and it has been a widespread “cultural tradition” only in the sense that men felt that they could get away with it, not in the sense that anyone ever thought it was right.
I think a one way to judge whether certain things were ever generally viewed as a morally acceptable part of the culture is to look at whether they were done publicly. The fact that some early American heroes kept slaves is troubling in light of our modern moral values, but they didn’t do so in secret; we can’t say that they knew they were doing something evil and just went ahead and did it anyway. But unless powerful men publicly claimed droit de seigneur, the exploitation of their position to extort sexual gratification has always been done in secret. It may have been traditional that both they and their victims knew they could get away with it, but the secrecy tells you a lot about whether they thought it was moral to do so.