Celebrity Sexual Harassment Charge Sheet

[pErvinalia]

Sugartits is a she, and yes, she has a good voice and delivery, and is Australian.

Oh right. I didn't actually listen to this video. I just saw the screenshot of the bear and figured it was the same person that you often post. I'm guessing they must be partners. It was the male one that I enjoy listening to (even though he is a twat).

[Forty Two]

I don't "often" post Bearing's videos. If I did once or twice, that would be it. Well, if you consider once or twice at most being "often" then, sure.

Twat or no, he is correct most of the time.

[pErvinalia]

I don't "often" post Bearing's videos. If I did once or twice, that would be it. Well, if you consider once or twice at most being "often" then, sure.

Who gives a fuck? God you are sensitive! I wasn't even meaning to trigger you. It's irrelevant to me how many times you posted him before. The point was that I've seen his vids before from your posts.

Twat or no, he is correct most of the time.

No he's not. Twats normally aren't.

[Brian Peacock]

Not Poe. Check out her youtube channel. She's quite good. She's Bearing's wife or girlfriend. That's why they use the same cartoon character, with Sugartits having a little bow to misogynistically designate her self as a female.

Not really sure about the takeaway message in that then. What do you think it is? Is it making a general point or a specific one?

[Forty Two]

I don't "often" post Bearing's videos. If I did once or twice, that would be it. Well, if you consider once or twice at most being "often" then, sure.

Who gives a fuck? God you are sensitive! I wasn't even meaning to trigger you. It's irrelevant to me how many times you posted him before. The point was that I've seen his vids before from your posts.

Probably not plural. I doubt I even posted his videos more than once.

I'm not bothered or triggered in any way.

Twat or no, he is correct most of the time.

No he's not. Twats normally aren't.

So, you've seen one video of his from my posts (I actually did not post a video of his more than once), and yet you feel comfortable saying that most of the time he's not correct? Figures.

[Forty Two]

Not Poe. Check out her youtube channel. She's quite good. She's Bearing's wife or girlfriend. That's why they use the same cartoon character, with Sugartits having a little bow to misogynistically designate her self as a female.

Not really sure about the takeaway message in that then. What do you think it is? Is it making a general point or a specific one?

If you had to guess, what would you think she intended to say with that video?

[Brian Peacock]

Nice try. I'll show you mine if you show me yours You did post it after all.

[JimC]

42 has missed the point about harassment. Sure, when push comes to legal shove, every case that comes before a court involves an individual judgement. However, the issue (especially in the past, but still to a certain extent) is that the majority of positions of power are held by older men, often with aggressive and domineering characters (which is what it takes to get to the top). Quite a few use that position of power to put a lot of pressure, sometimes amounting to career blackmail, on young women (and occasionally young men). On top of that, as rEv said, typically a male is stronger and more intimidating than the young women involved, and the harassment can (and clearly has) easily slide into rape, with the final twist being the warning "no one will believe you" and/or "if you tell, you'll never work in this business again, I will see to that". A culture had grown up of sweeping the whole thing under the carpet, and making light of it with casting couch jokes. When the deceitful edifice started to crumble, it's no wonder that a flood of complaints from the past emerged. A few may be incorrect, opportunistic or exaggerated, but clearly not all. Hopefully, like after lancing a boil, things can only get healthier...

[pErvinalia]

I don't "often" post Bearing's videos. If I did once or twice, that would be it. Well, if you consider once or twice at most being "often" then, sure.

Who gives a fuck? God you are sensitive! I wasn't even meaning to trigger you. It's irrelevant to me how many times you posted him before. The point was that I've seen his vids before from your posts.

Probably not plural. I doubt I even posted his videos more than once.

I'm not bothered or triggered in any way.

Yeah right, that's why you keep going on about it.

Twat or no, he is correct most of the time.

No he's not. Twats normally aren't.

So, you've seen one video of his from my posts (I actually did not post a video of his more than once), and yet you feel comfortable saying that most of the time he's not correct? Figures.

Do you need a safe space or something?

[Forty Two]

42 has missed the point about harassment. Sure, when push comes to legal shove, every case that comes before a court involves an individual judgement. However, the issue (especially in the past, but still to a certain extent) is that the majority of positions of power are held by older men, often with aggressive and domineering characters (which is what it takes to get to the top).

equal opportunity aggression and dominance is not sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is harassment based on the sex of the alleged victim. And, whether most positions of power are held by men, old or not so old, it doesn't mean that the same conduct becomes sexual harassment when it otherwise would not be.

Quite a few use that position of power to put a lot of pressure, sometimes amounting to career blackmail, on young women (and occasionally young men).

Sure, and a person uses their position of power as an employer to pressure, through career blackmail, a person based the person's sex, then it's sexual harassment. That would be what they call quid pro quo sexual harassment.

On top of that, as rEv said, typically a male is stronger and more intimidating than the young women involved, and the harassment can (and clearly has) easily slide into rape, with the final twist being the warning "no one will believe you" and/or "if you tell, you'll never work in this business again, I will see to that".

Absolutely, that happens. But whether it's sexual harassment depends on if there was a quid pro quo situation, or if the conduct of the offender was severe and pervasive AND unwelcome, and created a hostile work environment. Single touches on the knee, quite simply, are not sexual harassment.

A culture had grown up of sweeping the whole thing under the carpet, and making light of it with casting couch jokes. When the deceitful edifice started to crumble, it's no wonder that a flood of complaints from the past emerged. A few may be incorrect, opportunistic or exaggerated, but clearly not all. Hopefully, like after lancing a boil, things can only get healthier...

Of course not all. I figure most of the allegations are probably true. I've not said otherwise. All I did here was accurately define what sexual harassment is.

Generally, if the guilt of the offender is clear, nobody sweeps shit under the carpet. In the Hollywood context, people sweep it under the carpet when sticking their neck out will result in their head getting chopped off, or they think their head will get chopped off, because of thorny issues of proof. It's like if you are at work, and you hear about a woman getting sexually harassed by your manager. Do you believe the woman and then publicize the allegations in the company and elsewhere? The reality is that "on the ground" people have to evaluate whether or not to come forward, and the offender, it's sad to say, is often - at least for a time - able to structure plausible deniability. He or she can say the allegations are false - it's one person's word against another - what do third party's do with that? Usually not much. The alternative, just going ahead and believing accusers, even where most allegations are true, is not workable because then we simply set up a system of guilt by association.

At bottom, the Harvey Weinstein allegations are horrible. If i'm a betting man, I bet he did most of what he's accused of, and it finally reached a point of non-deniability. Good, he should get what's coming to him, and he's getting indicted in a couple of jurisdictions, so he hopefully will have his comeuppance and his victims will get a healthy dose of justice. I haven't defended the abusers here.

[Forty Two]

Twat or no, he is correct most of the time.

No he's not. Twats normally aren't.

So, you've seen one video of his from my posts (I actually did not post a video of his more than once), and yet you feel comfortable saying that most of the time he's not correct? Figures.

Do you need a safe space or something?

No. I was just curious how someone whose hardly listened to a word the guy said could conclude that he's both a twat and incorrect most of the time. But, I mean that rhetorically, because that's your modus operandi anyway. You don't need to listen to what people say in order to know what they think.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, move on. You are going on about something that is so utterly irrelevant it's embarrassing.

[DRSB]

All harassment is sexual, to quote Oscar Wilde: "In life, everything is about sex, except sex, sex is about power".

[DRSB]

Trump harassed by women, he, he!

Ex-Trump security chief testifies he rejected 2013 Russian offer of women for Trump in Moscow
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's long-time confidant Keith Schiller privately testified that he rejected a Russian offer to send five women to then private-citizen Trump's hotel room during their 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant, according to multiple sources from both political parties with direct knowledge of the testimony.

Schiller, Trump's former bodyguard and personal aide, testified that he took the offer as a joke, two of the sources said. On their way up to Trump's hotel room that night, Schiller told the billionaire businessman about the offer and Trump laughed it off, Schiller told the House intelligence committee earlier this week.
After several minutes outside of Trump's door, which was Schiller's practice as Trump's security chief, he said he left.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/09/polit ... index.html

[Animavore]

Looks like CK Lewis just came right out and admitted it without excuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... ?CMP=fb_gu