He needed one for his penis. As Ava Gardner said, ’ He was a 120 lbs and 100 lbs was penis.’
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.
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.
TMZ is more accurate than wikipedia. And yeah that is basically what it means, and that is majorly screwed up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
She took his money.
…and you are posting on a message board.
If she believed there was no chance of success in reporting it to the cops, then she behaved reasonably.
Put it this way - if a rich white businessman raped a black woman in 1920 Birmingham, Alabama, would you blame her or criticize her if she took money to keep quiet rather than report it to the police?
Ridiculous. She has a lawyer. She protects all women in the future.
Instead, what did she buy herself - a new car, a big shopping spree? You go girl!
How about any time in human history prior to ca. 19th century when slavery was pretty universally accepted and the women was a slave? How about if now but the woman was before and after the attack literally imprisoned illegally in the attacker’s basement? IOW at some extreme the question answers itself (why she didn’t go to the police?? because she was held legally as a slave or illegally in his basement). But these actresses etc sexually attacked or harassed by Weinstein were not slaves, illegal captives, or even Southern black women in 1920.
I think the problem is the common one of false logic, zero sum accounting of blame. If we know for a fact Weinstein committed particular acts of sexual assault or harassment, then he’s guilty of those, period. If the accusers undermined their moral position by taking hush money or having subsequent consensual relations with Weinstein (as at least one admits to, not McGowan AFAIK) that doesn’t make him less guilty. But it’s still reasonable to take that into account in our view of them, and perhaps by extension the (sub)culture they belong too, one which makes a big point of lecturing others from an assumed position of moral superiority based on post-modern secular morality it tends to make up as it goes along.
The only way the two things interact directly is if we don’t actually know the exact circumstances of the accused assaulter/harasser’s alleged offenses. Then the subsequent behavior of the alleged victims might be used to infer nuances in the actual circumstances. That’s often true, although here I’m satisfied Weinstein is a complete pig. The fact that accusers took hush money or had sex with him voluntarily later or in general tried to remain in his good graces doesn’t serve as any mitigating factor in his favor IMO.
But it’s not entirely irrelevant to my view of the various accusers. The world is full of harsh realities and this is one of them. It’s tough to risk a lucrative career standing up for what one views as right, but it can’t be put in the same category as literally sacrificing one’s life, and it’s not fair to victims who did disassociate themselves with this guy (as some apparently did) at possible cost to career (that’s hard to nail down but not incredible) to view them exactly the same way as ones who played along.
No.
Instead, she pays her bills, keeps a roof over her head and food in the fridge because you can be damn sure she didn’t have people beating down her door to hire her once she told people what happened. A young actress starting it doesn’t take on someone like Weinstein and come out ahead.
At some point, the realization that outing yourself as a victim is not the sexy, money-loaded cachet people seem to think it is. It’s ugly, and changes the way people look at you and treat you, whether they are aware of it or not.
I refer to it as similar to clearing a mine field by walking across it. It will hurt, a lot, and it will suck, a lot, but hopefully if you clear a few, the person that follows you and reports won’t have to clear those same mines.
I wonder who he gave political money to?
You do? Luckily, there’s a readily available source of information for this kind of thing. You might have heard of the Internet - it can be a great way to answer such questions.
If you need more help, please let us know.
I’m sorry but this is fucking pathetic.
You don’t ‘out yourself as a victim’ you go to the police and report a crime. Even the terminology of ‘out yourself as a victim’ is utter lunacy.
WTF is going on in the USA?
Why don’t women living where “honor killing” is practiced simply go to the authorities, or even to their family members, and report that they’ve been assaulted?
Oh, yeah: because they will be blamed, (and, not incidentally, killed).
Isn’t it nice that you live in a world in which women aren’t shamed, or worse, when they report being sexually harassed or assaulted? Very, very nice. So nice.
Too bad it’s not the real world.