*Are you feeling ok? I’m really worried about you. *
(Sorry, just passed that strip on the biannual rereading of the OOtS)
No, we’re discussing Mel Gibson abusing and threatening his girlfriend. Calling it “fighting” suggests that it’s mutual, and I STILL don’t understand why you think whatever motivated her attraction to him has any bearing at all on the abuse.
An “altercation” suggests mutuality. There is no mutuality. There is no “altercation.” There is one person abusing another.
None of those things are smears on her character, and none of those things imply that she is to blame for her own abuse.
I would at least like to refrain from gratuitous and baseless speculation about her character which has no bearing on his culpability and carries an unavoidable implication that she deserved the abuse.
This is misdirection. You repeatedly brought up the “gold digger” accusation in conjuction with the abuse. Maybe you did not intend to insinuate that she deserved it. I don’t believe you think that way, for what it’s worth, but while other tangents may be equally irrelvant, insinuations about her personal character are (however unintentionally on your part) hurtful and all too familiar to abuse victims. I know this for a fact.
Man no kidding. I keep waiting for the big reveal of why Sampiro keeps digging this hole. Is it the principle of the thing? Does he feel very strongly about his right to smear and make snide insinuations about victims of domestic abuse/assault & battery/insane motherfuckers?
You got me. I hate all women.:rolleyes:
A man who beats or kills a prostitute should be treated the same as the man who beats or kills a nun, that’s my honest opinion, because the unprovoked crime is the same either way. I think it’s silly however to pretend that the prostitute is a nun or the nun a prostitute or that the two professions are at equal risk of getting beating or murdered. The only degree to which I think her mercenary interest in Gibson is responsible is that it made her too quick to enter into a relationship with him, and that’s something that’s pretty much record- she met a married guy with 7 kids and a reputation for insanity and very soon after she was pregnant by him- I haven’t said and don’t believe she deserved abuse, but don’t tell me for a secong that shows remotely great judgment or doe eyed virtue.
You really are kind of going off the deep end here. Insisting that an informal group conversation about a very public breakup between celebrities essentially ends at “he hit her/he yelled at her”. Period, end of statement, may be useful in a lecture about DV law, but in a message board chat thread it’s just silly. Your insistence that everyone has to agree with and follow your lead on drawing these bright lines, or else they are enabling abuse in some fashion is controlling and borderline absurd.
They had a complex relationship. I don’t think anyone is arguing he’s not an abusive douchebag, but discussing her perspective and the choices she made is hardly tantamount to blaming the victim or diminishing his abusive behavior.
I guess I don’t get it. Once somebody has become famous and rich, they can’t ever fall in love or be in a relationship because by definition, the other person is a gold-digger?
So, anyone who dates someone rich and famous is, by definition, a gold-digger?
From what I can tell (not that I’m expending a huge amount of effort on this situation), Oksana Ican’tspellherlastname had a baby a while back (13 years ago) with Timothy Dalton. And now she’s in a relationship with Mel Gibson.
And by definition, those two relationships with men who are famous make her a gold-digger?
So if she’d stopped at Timothy Dalton, would she be a gold-digger? Or is a relationship between a not-famous person and a famous person always going to be described with the not-famous person as a gold-digger?
Once you get rich and famous, you have to limit your dating pool to those who are AT LEAST as rich and famous as you? That’s gonna create a whole host of problems in itself.
Man, my head hurts just trying to figure this out.
Not the Mel part - that’s easy. He’s a fucking psycho (either psychotic or psychopathic or both).
I never said you hated all women, I don’t even think I implied it. And I still don’t understand why her “doe eyed virtue” or lack thereof is even an issue. I’m sure you’ll keep explaining it but I don’t get it. Perhaps because it makes absolutely no difference to me why she entered the relationship, only that once there, she was clearly subjected to verbal assault with a good dose of physical battery. And since it makes absolutely no difference to me how it all began when the ending is so awful, I honestly can’t figure out why you care so much and why you’re so willing to argue that it does matter.
If it’s not to defend your right to do it, what is it?
Well, I AM a little put off by you right now, but you get points for being concerned about her son so I may come around.
The point Dio is trying to make is that Mel is abusive. Nothing else matters. If she’s a gold-digger it doesn’t matter. If he persued her, it doesn’t matter. He’s a drunk, it doesn’t matter. If she provoked him, it doesn’t matter. The only thing of concern is that he’s verbally and physically abusive to her.
Dio is being his usual uberquoting debatey self about it but he’s right and the reality, as we know it, is that Mel is extraordinarily verbally abusive and admitted to hitting her. Everything else is pure speculation and doesn’t matter.
He is also right in that you’re doing all DV victims a disservice by focusing on anything other than the abuse and his behavior. Everything else is pure speculation and doesn’t matter.
No one is trying to imply that the nun is a prostitute. We’re just saying that nun or prostitute is not relevant when it comes to abuse like this.
If you don’t think that Gibson’s behavior would have changed either way, what are you gaining by pointing out over and over that you think she’s a gold digger?
Now that you mention it, I am feeling a bit warm. Maybe it would help if you blow me.
I think the point Samipro is trying to make is this. If this is a CSI case, your’re right her perspective, and her choices have nothing at all to do with the fact that she was verbally, and most likely physically, assaulted. It’s an irrelevancy. He hit her and that’s that.
This is, however, not a CSI case, it’s an informal discussion about a celebrity breakup and the messy details surrounding that situation including violent and abusive behavior. That discussion can include considerations of, and opinions about, the motives of both parties for beginning, maintaining, and ending that relationship. Insisting that those considerations are beside the point for how we got to the finish line of a woman being verbally and physically assaulted is great for the aforesaid CSI report, but sort of bizarre in the context of a general informal conversation about the scenario.
But I’m not arguing that it’s irrelevant to the case. Clearly Sampiro believes this matters. I’ve been reading his posts for many, many years now, and I’ve never seen him so willing to latch onto a bone of contention like this–especially one like this. My question of “why” is a sincere, legitimate question.
It’s startling, and disturbing, to see people dismiss a victim as a gold-digger (ie, a whore) and regardless of what Sampiro (or you) are saying now, that was the tone of this thread and the other threads before the 4th tape surfaced. On many levels and it brings up many of the questions that other posters have already articulated. But Sampiro won’t actually answer those questions, he just reiterates that it’s possible to think she’s a whore (why not just say it?) and a victim at once.
I don’t think it’s bizarre at all because these are the kinds of conversations your everyday victim’s friends will be having about her marriage. If she thinks the culture is such that those friends and family will fault her for getting into the relationship or leaving, she’ll be less likely to get out successfully.
The most important thing a DV survivor needs is the support of friends and family. It goes far beyond simple “CSI” discussion. So when this happens to high profile victims, we should emphasize support. These things have an effect on how the everyday victim will see it.
Nevertheless, that kind of speculation is insensitive and hurtful to the feelings of DV victims who are part of the discussion…who are reading this thread. How clearly does it have to be spelled out to you? When you’re standing on someone’s foot, intentionally or not, the polite thing to do is to apologize and stop.
I pointed it out once actually; the rest of the posts were variants of saying “That doesn’t in any way mitigate that his actions are criminal”, which I said some variant of in the first point. Oddly enough it’s the “Mel is EVIL and what she did is irrelevant” people in the thread who
1- Seem to think this is a court of law rather than a message board
2- Seem to think that whores need killing and gold diggers deserve beating as evidenced by the fact they think to bring this up is trying to justify killing whores and beating gold diggers
As for whether any rich celebrity who dates somebody who isn’t a rich celebrity is by definition dating a gold digger- well, it’s certainly a consideration always, but no, usually it’s not. This isn’t ANY rich and famous celebrity though- it’s a guy who was exposed as a nutcase many years ago and then kept tossing out more evidence of it every time people were in danger of forgetting it.
Take the drunk driving incident for example: some stand-up comedian, I forget which (maybe Kathy Griffin) made a really valid point: “How the fuck do you even get to ‘sir would you step out of the car please?’ to ‘Jews start every fucking war in history!’”. It’s NOT a natural progression- this guy is unhinged. And if it were JUST that it might make a difference- well, we’re all entitled to a monumental fuck-up once or twice a lifetime, but he’s also the same guy who
1- Said in a televised interview that his wife and the mother of his 7 children, a woman he married when he was unknown, is a much better person than he is and that unlike him she’s never done drugs, fooled around, or had an anger problem- BUT she’s going to hell because she’s not the same religion he is
2- Said he’d like to wrap Frank Rich’s intestines around a stick and kill his dog because he wrote an unflattering article about Gibson’s father
3- Funds the building of a Catholic separatist church yet leads a lifestyle that’s at complete odds with his own teachings (infidelity, drug abuse, unforgiving, etc.)
4- Produces a movie that is two solid hours of a man being tortured and killed- not just a bio of Christ but the most viciously graphic reinterpretation of a passion play (with negative gay [Herod Antipas of all people- the man not only wasn’t gay he couldn’t keep it in his robes with the women in his family] and Jewish stereotypes thrown in for good measure)
5- Makes a big show of asking forgiveness but then calls a reporter an asshole for bringing up what everybody was thinking about when his next movie comes up
And there are others, but the point is he’s not just any man- he’s KNOWN to be volatile and irrational. And VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY rich.
So again- is it his charm? By most accounts he has very little. His looks? Twenty or even ten years ago maybe, but decades of chain smoking and being in the sun and general age and lots of crazy have faded those. His intellect? He’s batshit crazy.
And VERY VERY VERY VERY rich.
So yes, if you have unprotected sex with Robin Williams it might be because you find him funny, or with Steve Martin it might be because you think he’s very intelligent and talented, or with Ed McMahon— well, there’s the voice and the fame and all and before the last few years he was in good shape. But if you have unprotected sex with Mel Gibson- while he’s still married and shortly after he’s agreed to produce your album on his label- I think it’s fair to suspect you’re a gold digger.
Which in no way implies she deserved to be beaten, only that imo it’s not unfair to suspect she’s a gold digger.
Meet me in the jacuzzi. Bring some Winnie the Pooh bath gel.
THANK YOU!!! (Remind me to send astro some Winnie the Pooh bath gel.)
Oh Christ, we’ve moved from CSI to Nancy Grace and now we’re shooting an after school special of some sort. If you’re a victim of DV and you base your decisions or self worth on a message board discussion of Mel Gibson’s break-up then you’ve got WAAAAAAYYY bigger problems than what I think of Oksana Grigorieva.
These tapes are making me uncomfortable now. Because if they are legit it sounds like he has real mental problems and should be getting help instead of having these tapes released to the public and getting tried in the court of public opinion.
Maybe the “Leave Britney Alone” chick will speak out for him.
I’m not entirely sure what a person’s expectations should be for an open message board discussion involving a messy and complex subject, but in a free and open general discussion of the situation regarding this violent and contentious relationship to say it’s very bad form and offensive to talk about the motives and decisions of the person who was assaulted because someone in the discussion may have experienced domestic violence, is controlling, censuring and does not lead to a useful exchange of views or a useful conversation.
I didn’t say anything about decisions or self worth. I said you were being insensitive. The “gold digger” bullshit is rude and uncalled for and presses right on sore spots. It’s not going to destroy their lives, but it isn’t nice and it’s ungracious to keep harping on it in what is supposed to be a friendly conversation.
I’m sure some of the victims killed in 9/11 were assholes, but I wouldn’t keep harping on that kind of speculation in the presence of survivors. Whatever you think your point is, it’s tactless to keep going on about it.
This gold digger thing reminds me of the arguments I read at a different board when Matthew Shepard was murdered.
“Matthew Shepard was HIV positive!”
“Matthew Shepard was a heavy drug user!”
No matter how many times it was presented that even if these things were true he wasn’t deserving of being murdered, some people liked to bring them up ad nauseum
I didn’t know about this. I just did an informal poll in a chat I’m running at the same time as reading this and most of them had no idea either. These are girls that love celebrity gossip too.
I’m not sure how widely known this is either.
You and I know that’s crazy, but living in the Bible belt, as we both do, we know that many many many many Christians live lives that’s totally at odd with their religions teachings. That’s common, not evidence of crazy.
That movie had him worshiped by many critics and religious people alike. I remember when the fucking thing came out all I heard from the Fundies around here was how I should see it because it would change my life. A quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes shows that roughly half of critics agreed that it was a good movie. I think it’s nuts to make a snuff film about Jesus and call it a religious experience and so do you, but many many people disagree with us.
Happened after she was in a relationship with him. This was the first indication I had that maybe he hadn’t gotten better after the famous ‘Sugar Tits’ incident.
Well, beauty is subjective, but I think he’s still pretty good looking, although he does look every year of his age. He just has a pleasing face.
His charm? Whoopi Goldberg is running to his defense and calling him a friend. Obviously he charms some people.
But on second thought I’m not sure why I’m even arguing this. It doesn’t matter. Let’s just assume you are right and she is a golddigger. These kinds of conversations are going to happen amongst groups of friends when a marriage breaks up due to DV. If we don’t use these high profile opportunities to emphasize support for the victim, then victims may not leave because they fear not having the support of family and friends. They fear being blamed. After years of being beaten emotionally and physically, that’s the last thing they are going to want and what they will go out of their way to avoid. That’s why these comments worry me.