The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[JimC]

So a kid is offered a nice sweetie by a big guy with a van load of sweeties with vague promises of something nice at the end of it if she drops her knickers. She does so and the sweetie doesn't materialise but its her fault for wanting the sweetie?

So you're hopping from adults to kids, to try to defend your position?
So what we have in reality are victims who are not victims, and kids who are not kids.

Nobody in this thread have criticised victims, or kids. You are just altering it to suit your narrative.

You have clearly criticised the victims and have clearly suggested some of them deserve what they got or should have known better. If you think that just because the alleged victims were adults that absolves the abuser then you miss the point entirely. Anyone in a position of power or authority, who uses that position to exploit the target in question is abusing their position. I used the kids analogy to highlight the power differential.

I agree, of course. It may be that in some cases, the actions of the young women in the acting game may have been unwise, or there may even be a tinge of venality, in the sense of hoping for some advantage to accrue in terms of casting etc. None of which alters the fact that the male (or female, I guess, though rarer) in a position of power is wrong to coerce sexual favours...

[devogue]

...the guilt has been presumed, not proven...

The details are debatable, but Weinstein very much admitted the underlying truth, i.e. he is a sexual predator. Proof of guilt has been established by his own words. Even if one or more of the allegations concerning him turn out to be complete fabrications it changes absolutely nothing about it. You're attempting to defend the indefensible.

As I have said in earlier posts, Weinstein deserves everything that's coming to him. I am not trying to defend him, on the contrary: the accusations against him should be dealt with in a court of law so he can face the prospect of real punishment. Proof of guilt has certainly not been shown in every accusation and I am sure you would agree that Weinstein, and individuals like David Blaine, deserve to defend themselves from accusations in court rather than face down anecdotal evidence in the media.

You do raise an interesting point, though - I think that pay-offs by the likes of Weinstein and Bill O'Reilly should be equally frowned upon and forbidden.

[mistermack]

You have clearly criticised the victims and have clearly suggested some of them deserve what they got or should have known better. If you think that just because the alleged victims were adults that absolves the abuser then you miss the point entirely. Anyone in a position of power or authority, who uses that position to exploit the target in question is abusing their position. I used the kids analogy to highlight the power differential.

They are still not victims, if they are adults, and have sex with him on a promise.
They are victims if he physically molests them, without their consent, and gets away with it because of his position of power. Because in that case, he would not have had consent.
Victimhood is all down to consent. As it would be in a court of law.

If he uses his position of power to hint at a reward, and they consent, then they are taking a chance on his sincerity, and engaging in consensual sex.
They might be victims of a vague type of con, but they're not victims of a sex crime.
Women use the vague hint of interest to exploit men too. It's called being strung along. We don't call the men who fall for it victims. Idiots, maybe.

[cronus]

With his bodycount now this high, I'm sure in the UK he'd be up by his ear at this time? If only to keep him off the streets.

[Brian Peacock]

You have clearly criticised the victims and have clearly suggested some of them deserve what they got or should have known better. If you think that just because the alleged victims were adults that absolves the abuser then you miss the point entirely. Anyone in a position of power or authority, who uses that position to exploit the target in question is abusing their position. I used the kids analogy to highlight the power differential.

They are still not victims, if they are adults, and have sex with him on a promise.
They are victims if he physically molests them, without their consent, and gets away with it because of his position of power. Because in that case, he would not have had consent.
Victimhood is all down to consent. As it would be in a court of law.

If he uses his position of power to hint at a reward, and they consent, then they are taking a chance on his sincerity, and engaging in consensual sex.
They might be victims of a vague type of con, but they're not victims of a sex crime.
Women use the vague hint of interest to exploit men too. It's called being strung along. We don't call the men who fall for it victims. Idiots, maybe.

First, yes, some women may have thought the indignity was a price worth paying. So what?
Second, you cannot presume that every woman he stripped off in front off before cracking one out consented, was even aware of his intentions, or thought it was a price worth paying.
Third, duped men in the same situation would be victims in exactly the same sense, and the suggestion that certain men might have a fantasy about being sexually dominated by a powerful woman doesn't change that or legitimise that behaviour.
Fourth, stop making excuses for sexual predators.

[mistermack]

First, yes, some women may have thought the indignity was a price worth paying. So what?

So THEY are not victims (victim blaming is what that conversation is about)

Second, you cannot presume that every woman he stripped off in front off before cracking one out consented, was even aware of his intentions, or thought it was a price worth paying.

So they WOULD be victims. But nobody is blaming or has blamed them.

Third, duped men in the same situation would be victims in exactly the same sense, .....

i.e. Not victims

Fourth, stop making excuses for sexual predators.

Nobody's excused him. Or you point to where I did.

[Hermit]

I am not trying to defend him, on the contrary: the accusations against him should be dealt with in a court of law so he can face the prospect of real punishment. Proof of guilt has certainly not been shown in every accusation and I am sure you would agree that Weinstein, and individuals like David Blaine, deserve to defend themselves from accusations in court rather than face down anecdotal evidence in the media.

You do raise an interesting point, though - I think that pay-offs by the likes of Weinstein and Bill O'Reilly should be equally frowned upon and forbidden.

Apologies.I threw you into the same bucket as fuckface. My mistake.

Everybody is entitled to have their day in court. If the person making allegations does not take the alleged perpetrator to the beak, the alleged perpetrator can drag the maker of the allegation into a defamation case. And yes, innocent until proven guilty. That's how it should go.

Frankly, I was never really interested in discussing the issue you raised. It's a no-brainer. What got me posting here was my disgust at the usual bunch of conservative, right-leaning men so predictably jump into the breach once again to speak on behalf of other men while equally predictably showing no concern about the lot of women as victims of men. I made that clear last week: I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male." Keep that in mind next time you read of a ten year old girl who was gang-raped, and the magistrate did not send a single one of the nine perpetrators to gaol on the grounds that the victim "probably consented to it".

In Weinstein's case I simply don't care which, if any allegations are true. Based on what he said and wrote, they make no difference to my opinion of him. It's so weird you should pick him to go all human rights. Same with Rolf Harris. Several charges against him were dismissed. He was judged not guilty on their count, but the ones he was convicted on made him scum of the earth. Really, could you not have picked someone like Ian Ghomeshi when you decided to go on your crusade?

[L'Emmerdeur]

To be fair, 42 repeatedly mentioned that Prince may just be remembering the events differently, which is nowhere near accusing her of lying. That sort of thing happens, and it is well documented that memories sometimes have very little in common with whatever actually happened.

I wasn't referring to Forty Two specifically. His tack of throwing doubt on the veracity of Prince's story aside, there are plenty of people who are less circumspect and are all too happy to engage in explicit character assassination directed at alleged victims of sexual assault. I expect you are well aware that a standard practice of defence attorneys in rape cases is to put the plaintiff on trial. Accusing them of lying is mild compared to some defence tactics, but Blaine's attorney has essentially already accused Prince of lying.

[Brian Peacock]

First, yes, some women may have thought the indignity was a price worth paying. So what?

So THEY are not victims (victim blaming is what that conversation is about)

Second, you cannot presume that every woman he stripped off in front off before cracking one out consented, was even aware of his intentions, or thought it was a price worth paying.

So they WOULD be victims. But nobody is blaming or has blamed them.

Third, duped men in the same situation would be victims in exactly the same sense, .....

i.e. Not victims

Fourth, stop making excuses for sexual predators.

Nobody's excused him. Or you point to where I did.

[Rum]

This whole 'story' is having a big impact here in the UK. Accusations are coming thick and fast, the latest being a promise of revelations about Members of Parliament. This issue and politics are going to make an interesting mix.

[devogue]

Looks like that dodgy bastard George Takei has been sexually harrassing now.

[Rum]

They are dredging all the muck that they can at the moment. Damien Green, one of the less loathsome Tory ministers is headline news for having had (reportedly) porn on a computer at his office years ago when the police were investigating leaked information (unrelated to anything 'dodgy').

Not only is it not illegal, it is tedious and boring, not to mention ubiquitous in places and one wonders what ulterior motives might be at play,

[pErvinalia]

I'd be more concerned about the ones that don't look at porn..

[Animavore]

Are there such people?

[Animavore]

A good article on why, when execs and actors are losing jobs, is President Scumbag still allowed run office.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... ign=buffer