Jump to content

Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood predators


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Orion said:

 

We expect it so the media don't care as much. We all know the music industry is horrendous by now. How some bands have treated groupies has become part of Rock history like Led Zeppelin, Motley Crue etc.

 

"Mick Jagger has sex with 14 year old girl in 1972" would surprise no one. Louis CK worlds number 1 comedian likes to make women watch him masturbate. Beloved actor Dustin Hoffman is actually a bullying dickhead to women. That surprises us and gets clicks/sells newspapers.

 


So you think we are dealing with a double standard attack rather than a generally moral rebalancing? So the Metoo movement is political?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen plenty of stories in the press about people in the music biz. I wouldn’t call it an easy ride. 

 

I suspect the worse metoo stories are yet to come from non entertainment industries industries and workplaces. There’s one involving the US gymnastics team which is devastating in the scope of abuse uncovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the music industry is fully next level. I alone know of a 15 year old who was straight punched in the face by a 30 year old multi platinum singer because she wouldn't give him a blow job. This is a global superstar, and I have testimony in text. Why are musicians getting a pass?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the victims aren’t high profile.

 

The BBC ran a story here

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42368544

 

I think Kesha’s story was also covered quite a bit over the past three years and there are allegations involving Crystal Castles that are still in court.

 

There’s been high profile cases in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia that have led to bands splitting, being dropped by their agents and being dropped by festivals. I think the reason they haven’t stayed in the news is that the consequences for a lot of the offenders has been really swift. Smaller bands exist increasingly on their fan base. When they lose that their power follows.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i used to  ask the same question about the music industry getting a free pass.

 

Around the time it felt like every other DJ or a Top of the Pops presenter was being accused of banging a 15 year old in 1976. At that same time pretty much every rock and roll star you can think off was doing ten times worse every night of the week. I used to think it was purely down to money. Someone like Mick Jagger can shit out 200 grand of hush money every other month for the rest of his life. Freddie Starr has no choice but to face the music...

 

But now Hollywood is in the thick of it and movie stars and directors with real money are going down too. So it can't just be that... God knows.

 

This is a weird one... But maybe it's also down to the fact that a lot of the groupie stuff... The kids at the time didn't see it as "abuse". They were just as predatory in getting what they wanted out of the experience (shagging an idol of theirs) as the rock stars were. Doesn't make it legal and doesn't make it right. But would explain why a bunch of 60 year olds are not coming forward saying they were abused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Broker said:

 

Maybe because people like you who know these things don’t name names or say anything? The rest of us with normal lives aren’t party to this information so we’re at the mercy of what the news chooses to focus on. You apparently know of terrible things done by famous people but not only have kept quiet and not reported them to police, you’re talking about them here without naming anyone, basically using the abuse of teenagers as an opportunity to remind everyone that you’ve got a job in the media and have met famous people, without taking any sort of actual action to help. If you know so fucking much, report it and stop going on about it here.

 

Bingo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Broker said:

 

Maybe because people like you who know these things don’t name names or say anything? The rest of us with normal lives aren’t party to this information so we’re at the mercy of what the news chooses to focus on. You apparently know of terrible things done by famous people but not only have kept quiet and not reported them to police, you’re talking about them here without naming anyone, basically using the abuse of teenagers as an opportunity to remind everyone that you’ve got a job in the media and have met famous people, without taking any sort of actual action to help. If you know so fucking much, report it and stop going on about it here.

He does this time and time again - mentions some story he’s heard about someone famous or he claims to have worked with then goes all coy when you ask him to provide details. It really is the lowest form of attention seeking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Broker said:

 

Maybe because people like you who know these things don’t name names or say anything? The rest of us with normal lives aren’t party to this information so we’re at the mercy of what the news chooses to focus on. You apparently know of terrible things done by famous people but not only have kept quiet and not reported them to police, you’re talking about them here without naming anyone, basically using the abuse of teenagers as an opportunity to remind everyone that you’ve got a job in the media and have met famous people, without taking any sort of actual action to help. If you know so fucking much, report it and stop going on about it here.

 

Yep.

 

When the Weinstein story fully came out in the press, there was a lot of talk about his sexual abuse being an open secret. Did we all know it existed?

 

Well there are 2 types of people who ‘knew’: those who were aware of rumours about his behaviour, and those who knew facts about it through other people’s testimony or their own personal experience. You can’t reasonably expect the former group of people to report much to authorities or speak out, because there is nothing to report apart from rumour and innuendo, and nothing will happen. But - whilst it is clearly very difficult to speak up and name names - the latter group have a duty to report things and speak up about the facts, because otherwise the abusers will keep abusing, there will be more victims and things won’t change.

 

It’s not the first time that kerraig has claimed to know, for a fact, about abuse in the entertainment industry. But he won’t name names, or explain exactly what has happened, or do anything beyond treating it like vague gossip and innuendo. Which is exactly what led us to this situation in the first place. I appreciate that it’s difficult to do the right thing in this situation, but not doing it is just keeping the status quo, allowing women in the industry to be treated in the way we know has become the norm.

 

On a similar note, I wonder: there have been loads of women coming out with specific stories of what has happened to them or women they know, but have there been any examples of men coming forward to name abusers in their industry?

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, NickC said:

 

 

 

On a similar note, I wonder: there have been loads of women coming out with specific stories of what has happened to them or women they know, but have there been any examples of men coming forward to name abusers in their industry?

 

Terry Crews. And....er....um......

 

Unless we're tlaking outside of show business. There's been a lot of men coming forward about insitutional abuse in religious orders.

 

But yeah, men really need to start doing better. Because women have been taking the majority of the risks and hits on this since the 60's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony Rapp (the engineer from Star Trek Discovery) who was the first to publically make an allegation against Spacey.

 

In the games industry there was guy who made allegations against Naughty Dog (makers of Uncharted), but it got swept under the rug very quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kensei said:

That's rather eliding the point, making it about reactions rather than anything substantive.

 

It does not seem - and he doesn't appear to be accused of - anything illegal. There doesn't seem to be any great power imbalance other than his fame - which he can do little to remove - and she initiated the contact. It seems reasonable she fed back to him she had a bad time, whatever you think of their respective actions. It seems less reasonable she fed it back to the entire world. Particularly in pleasant climate.

She was well within her rights to feed this back to the entire world, particularly in the present climate. 

 

I fully believe we need to have a nuanced discussion about consent, and this is a good example to help that discussion.

 

From my own life I can think of three separate instances when I've been on first dates with women, and where we've gone back to mine for some 'heavy petting', which in turn moved to the bedroom, and then in bed they've made it clear that they were not ready for sex - either verbally or non verbally. I can think of one occasion where I non-verbally indicated that I was not ready to have sex, and the woman in question was very understanding.

 

If nothing else, I hope that 'Gracie' bringing up her experience helps people to understand that consent involves fully engaging with your partner rather listening to your own desires.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/01/2018 at 13:19, Unofficial Who said:

 

Marie Le Conte hits the nail on the head.

Much like most of Le Conte's work, I found that a little bit trite and basic (although, unlike Le Conte's other work, not technically incorrect). I thought Ash Sarkar's section from the same article has a lot more depth and is much more astute.

 

Quote

Ash Sarkar: A divergence in perception between men and women must be addressed

 

There’s a truth to the Aziz Ansari story which extends beyond whether or not he behaved in the manner alleged; that all too many of us have had sexual encounters in which one person’s comfort is subordinated to the urgency of another’s desire.

 

Traditional feminist discourse – from Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will to more recent discussions prompted by the Harvey Weinstein revelations – has focused on a figure of the rapist as monstrous and malevolent. However, nearly one in three women have experienced sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner – the archetypical perpetrator looks less like a grotesque outsider, and more like a familiar neighbour. We hold him in affection and esteem. We trust him. We might even desire him.

 

“Whatever we wear, wherever we go – yes means yes, and no means no!” The old Reclaim the Night slogan misled a generation of feminists into understanding consent as binary, and violation as self-evident. We’re supposed to announce our consent (or lack thereof) like we’re entering a plea at trial.

But “yes”, in a context of mutual respect, might be a joyful wordlessness; “no” might come in the guise of “not now”, “maybe later”, or even “well, OK then”. In a society where sex is often seen as something to be extracted from partners like a mineral or an ore, a “soft no” is just so much social sediment to be worn away.

 

A rigidly legalistic model for understanding consent doesn’t encourage men to shift the parameters of how they understand sex. The Ansari allegations show us that the task isn’t to get men to see themselves as rapists, but to see their partner’s pace of desire as being of equal primacy to their own. There is no god-given right to orgasm: even a one-night stand requires patience, empathy and a capacity to interpret more complex cues than what is accepted in a court of law.

 

For what it’s worth, I believe “Grace” in her account of events. I also believe Ansari when he says: “It was true that everything did seem OK to me, so when I heard that it was not the case for her, I was surprised and concerned.” It’s precisely this divergence of perception which men need to address. That starts with viewing consent as the beginning of a social process – not a verdict at the end of a long process of litigation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but she didn't vocalise her own desires though, which seems to be the issue. When she did it ended instantly, and he apologised when she said she felt uncomfortable.

 

Her actual complaint was him not picking up on "nonverbal cues". What are the "nonverbal cues" you're supposed to pick up when going down on each other? Because it seems the consequences for not picking up on them is pretty extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She says he ignored both verbal and nonverbal clues.

 

But on the subject of nonverbal clues if you keep moving a woman's hand into your dick and she keeps taking it off and moving to other parts of the room, perhaps she's not keen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then after that they're getting naked and going down on each other and go to the bedroom to have sex, and in her own words she describes her verbal cues as "mumbling".

 

This isn't some historical case where the evidence is long gone, she has photos, if there's a problem there's nothing to stop her from going to the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's part of a bigger conversation about how men treat women in general. It feels like the right time to have it. And consent is what divides sex-havers from sex offenders, it seems like questions of what constitutes consent and how to discuss it with a partner are pretty important at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems pretty awful to brand someone a sexual assaulter in order to have that conversation.

 

The reticence to acknowledge this maybe oversteps the line in here is weird, you can do that while still being supportive. A category error doesn't do anything to undermine or trivialize the actual abuses brought to light by #MeToo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think she called him a sexual assulter though?I  thought She just told her account which was at odds with his perceived character.

 

The media is reporting it that way, but there are also a fair amount of articles expressing the opposing view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's written in a way to give the impression of sexual assault, lack of consent (to the level of wine choices) and includes phrases used for sexual assault, like "taking advantage", while avoiding mentioning those words specifically.

 

And boy do I not appreciate the "if you take issue with this you're alt-right" hot take The Bag posted on the last page, especially as it seems the site that sought this out is actually a right-wing Murdoch site that seemed to be wanting to both derail #MeToo and wanted to take down a progressive voice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, that's not what that was saying.  It was pointing out the poor way the original article was written wasn't helping and certain people with certain political viewpoints were seizing on this to try and discredit it.  It's certainly not if you take issue with it you're alt-right, come on man I expect better from you.  I posted it because it provided a counter point to the pieces by conservative talking heads also posted on that page.  Did you read the rest of the article or just the small snippet I posted?  I'd encourage people to read it all.  My feeling on the matter is whilst he didn't do anything illegal he does seem to have acted like a selfish dick with no consideration towards her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MechE said:

She was well within her rights to feed this back to the entire world, particularly in the present climate. 

 

I fully believe we need to have a nuanced discussion about consent, and this is a good example to help that discussion.

 

From my own life I can think of three separate instances when I've been on first dates with women, and where we've gone back to mine for some 'heavy petting', which in turn moved to the bedroom, and then in bed they've made it clear that they were not ready for sex - either verbally or non verbally. I can think of one occasion where I non-verbally indicated that I was not ready to have sex, and the woman in question was very understanding.

 

If nothing else, I hope that 'Gracie' bringing up her experience helps people to understand that consent involves fully engaging with your partner rather listening to your own desires.

 

Do you want your experiences - and for the sake of argument, assume they are also filtered through the ladies who did not have a good time - published out, held up to forensic public scrutiny in the middle of a moral shift/panic/whatever way you wish to best describe it. My sexual history is hilariously limited to my wife, and I'd still not like my worst date to be prodded in that fashion. 

 

Second, there is a certain amount of infantilising the lady here. "I felt pressured" does not mean "I must automatically do this". She's an adult. There is no inkling she was threatened or otherwise coerced into doing anything against her consent. The outcome is in part due to her own choices. If that isn't true here and I am accusing the victim, personal responsibility is dead.

 

And finally: two blowjobs can't even be *mistaken* for "enthusiastic consent" now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that when #metoo started to expand beyond Weinstein I was discussing it with my wife and as part of that conversation we made some predictions about what would follow. I remember us predicting the following:

 

  1. It won’t be long until some of our favourite actors are revealed to be pretty horrible people.
  2. There will be some cases where the rights and wrongs are not clear cut, and this will be used by people in positions of power to drive a wedge between #metoo supporters. This will have the effect of diluting the overall #metoo message or cause people to argue over the minutia rather than think about the overall message.
  3. There will be someone who is outed that will take their own life, or do something similarly awful. This will result in a major setback for the movement.
  4. There will be a lot of public discussion and agreement but nothing significant will change – no laws, no pledges, no nothing.

 

The first prediction in retrospect was pretty obvious – it was always going to happen. And it certainly did.

 

The second prediction feels like it may be starting to happen now.

 

The third prediction obviously hasn’t happened. Hopefully it won’t. We were probably being overly dramatic and pessimistic there!

 

The fourth prediction… let’s see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.