Harvey Weinstein & the Great Hollywood sex scandal

[Panflute]

double post - delete

[Honey Honey]

The study has nothing to do with physical appearance.

[Panflute]

I know but what I'm saying is that it's perfectly logical to draw that conclusion without need of a study

[Honey Honey]

2 hours ago, Panflute said:

I know but what I'm saying is that it's perfectly logical to draw that conclusion without need of a study

I disagree, plenty of ugly men with no sexual attention get power and don't sexually harass, logic would point to a difference in mindset but that is its limit. It would be strange for a granny type wisdom to be able to isolate what the study did without having long term exposure to those who go on to be sex pests.

[Panflute]

Granny-type wisdom otherwise known as common sense.

Hashtag not all ugly man who get into power will use it to swarm onto women but the reverse is true in that the men who do this kind of stuff tend to be those who couldn't otherwise attract women of that calibre.

[Honey Honey]

Odd post.

[Panflute]

Yeah I'll keep you posted on my peer-reviewed study on whether ugly guys who work their way into the upper echelons of the movie industry are more prone to awkwardly hit on women that are out of their league.

[Honey Honey]

I wasn't referring to the study for that purpose as I have tried to explain from the off. 

Your post was odd because the first part had no relevance. The second part was a turn of phrase you no doubt picked up from your anti Islam obsession and poorly put it together for this topics purpose and again it was completely irrelevant.

[Panflute]

In turn you're now talking about things that are both irrelevant and non-existent, gj

[IgnisExcubitor]

On 14/11/2017 at 8:40 AM, Harry said:

The biggest surprise to me is how many men seem to want women to watch them jack off. 

Seems you aren't aware of the extreme popularity of public fapping porn.

[bozziovai]

On 11/14/2017 at 7:33 PM, VanPaddy said:

You have to say that alot of the women in Hollywood are sluts and attention seeking whores who go around sucking these casting guys cocks to get famous! then moan about it after, they didn't have to do it and why didn't they say anything at the time before going ahead with the deed and is this really the industry they want to get into by doing this.  They really have to ask themselves also as do the men or women who are doing this taking advantage by these fame hungry people.

exactly.  

that's how the entertainment business is all around the world.  

 

now this shit is getting to the point of ridiculous.    A lot like a lot of them have "CAME OUT" with their sexual harassment stories... facking bitches.

[God is Haaland]

On 12.10.2017 at 7:58 AM, Fairy In Boots said:

I find it glorious watching these pompous virtual signalling cocksuckers squirm at every opportunity. Ben Affleck is a great example he’ll happily pontificate about society and politics with an air of anyone not on the same page as me is evil about him, yet he’s a friend & protege of a rapist and he’s also been a bit naughty himself. This is fabulous for Trump puts all those attacking his grab her by the pussy line massively on the back foot.

No wonder the pedo apologist went crazy on Maher. It's 100% projection and distraction.

[Danny]

On 15/11/2017 at 6:08 AM, Kitchen Sales said:

I disagree, plenty of ugly men with no sexual attention get power and don't sexually harass, logic would point to a difference in mindset but that is its limit. It would be strange for a granny type wisdom to be able to isolate what the study did without having long term exposure to those who go on to be sex pests.

It's got to be more than just their looks, they wouldn't need to manipulate a system to suit them like that when they're that rich. Do you think Harvey Weinstein  really struggled for consensual sex? Maybe as a poor man but not as a rich man. 

It'd be interesting to see what their family lives were like, how they were brought up, relationships with females within their own family. To completely disregard someone's rights because they are female has to be something deeper ingrained than just they struggled to pull when they weren't mega rich.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

It's got to be more than just their looks, they wouldn't need to manipulate a system to suit them like that when they're that rich. Do you think Harvey Weinstein  really struggled for consensual sex? Maybe as a poor man but not as a rich man. 

It'd be interesting to see what their family lives were like, how they were brought up, relationships with females within their own family. To completely disregard someone's rights because they are female has to be something deeper ingrained than just they struggled to pull when they weren't mega rich.

The post chain isn't about looks it is about power. It doesn't matter that he can get consensual sex once rich because the point is that sexual harassment is higher in men who went from a position of self perceived powerlessness to a position of power. Ugliness is just being considered as a factor that can contribute to that period of self perceived powerlessness. 

I doubt sexual perversions are about a disregard for women's rights, more likely they are about sex itself, since women and gay men can sexually harass. 

[Danny]

32 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

The post chain isn't about looks it is about power. It doesn't matter that he can get consensual sex once rich because the point is that sexual harassment is higher in men who went from a position of self perceived powerlessness to a position of power. Ugliness is just being considered as a factor that can contribute to that period of self perceived powerlessness. 

I doubt sexual perversions are about a disregard for women's rights, more likely they are about sex itself, since women and gay men can sexually harass. 

It would depend on the person. You had the nutter who thought it'd be a good idea to grab Terry Crews by the bollocks in which case he definitely swung both ways, but has there been anyone male come out against Weinstein?

The man has had allegations of rape thrown against him which is more than just sexual harassment. Sex drives a lot of non-sexual actions and vice versa, if you're talk about someone who has had multiple allegations of sexual harassment and rape put against him and to date only from women then you would also have to take into account his personal life and relationships with women prior to the power he has possessed imo.

Sexual perversions in these cases are an invasion of women's rights, so whilst the sex may/will play a part in the lust for power they now have, it'd be correct to assume that there is something there from childhood onwards. Whether the assumption is correct is a different story, but it'd be correct to assume until full details are disclosed.

[Honey Honey]

42 minutes ago, Danny said:

It would depend on the person. You had the nutter who thought it'd be a good idea to grab Terry Crews by the bollocks in which case he definitely swung both ways, but has there been anyone male come out against Weinstein?

The man has had allegations of rape thrown against him which is more than just sexual harassment. Sex drives a lot of non-sexual actions and vice versa, if you're talk about someone who has had multiple allegations of sexual harassment and rape put against him and to date only from women then you would also have to take into account his personal life and relationships with women prior to the power he has possessed imo.

Sexual perversions in these cases are an invasion of women's rights, so whilst the sex may/will play a part in the lust for power they now have, it'd be correct to assume that there is something there from childhood onwards. Whether the assumption is correct is a different story, but it'd be correct to assume until full details are disclosed.

 

You do not choose your sexuality. Just because the victims are women does not automatically make it a matter of women's rights instead of individual rights.

[Fairy In Boots]

So what’s with all the buggering of young boys about then? Wider field than Hollywood what’s with religious sexual exploitation? 

Is that linked to ugly people? I just think it’s power more than looks, I can see the logic in the theory of ugly men indulging themselves after coming from a place where these women were at one point unobtainable.  It still boils down to a power thing though to my mind

[Danny]

8 hours ago, Kitchen Sales said:

 

You do not choose your sexuality. Just because the victims are women does not automatically make it a matter of women's rights instead of individual rights.

It definitely does make it a matter of women's rights. Wanting to have sex with a woman and raping a woman are two things driven by entirely different desires. I find it hard to believe it's entirely about power and has nothing to do with experiences he has had with women close to him.

[Honey Honey]

2 hours ago, Danny said:

It definitely does make it a matter of women's rights. Wanting to have sex with a woman and raping a woman are two things driven by entirely different desires. I find it hard to believe it's entirely about power and has nothing to do with experiences he has had with women close to him.

Why is it "definitely" a matter of women's rights rather than individual rights? Why do you think that sex attackers are socially constructed by gender inequality and not in any way biologically influenced by sexuality when selecting their victims? 

I also don't know how many times in this thread I am going to have repeat myself but power is based on statistical probability of one variable at two points in time. That is it. Not certainty, not exclusivity and not entirety. It supports and refutes itself simultaneously as all social science tends to. Guesses (ugliness) as to what factors might cause the existence of the variable (perceived powerlessness) at the first point in time (before accumulating perceived power) is just a bit of conjecture. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Danny]

6 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

Why is it "definitely" a matter of women's rights rather than individual rights? Why do you think it is fact that sex attackers are socially constructed and not in anyway biologically influenced? 

I also don't know how many times in this thread I am going to have repeat myself but power is based on statistical probability of one variable at two points in time. That is it. Not certainty, not exclusivity and not entirety. It supports and refutes itself simultaneously as all social science tends to. Guesses (ugliness) as to what factors might cause the existence of the variable (perceived powerlessness) at the first point in time (before accumulating perceived power) is just a bit of conjecture. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because as far as I'm aware his victims have all been women. And as far as I'm aware you know as much about the attacks and his personal life as the rest of us, which isn't a lot, so as far as I'm aware you're in no position to suggest what is fact and what isn't when talking about the cause of his actions.

[Honey Honey]

Just now, Danny said:

Because as far as I'm aware his victims have all been women. And as far as I'm aware you know as much about the attacks and his personal life as the rest of us, which isn't a lot, so as far as I'm aware you're in no position to suggest what is fact and what isn't when talking about the cause of his actions.

Now I get some of your earlier replies. So you are saying there is no sexuality component to all forms of rape and harrassment. What evidence have you got for that claim?

 

[Danny]

1 hour ago, Kitchen Sales said:

Now I get some of your earlier replies. So you are saying there is no sexuality component to all forms of rape and harrassment. What evidence have you got for that claim?

 

You've llost me

[Honey Honey]

4 hours ago, Danny said:

You've llost me

Women's rights are about socially constructed gender discrimination. If innate sexuality can be a matter of a genders rights without the social construction then it would have to extend to the ludicrous argument that if you're not bisexual you are being sexist.

[Danny]

7 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

Women's rights are about socially constructed gender discrimination. If innate sexuality can be a matter of a genders rights without the social construction then it would have to extend to the ludicrous argument that if you're not bisexual you are being sexist.

No, but women will be the vast bulk of people sexually assaulted or worse here so it's a clear problem targeted largely at women. I think it's fair to say there's a women's rights issue there even if a small minority of men have been sexually assaulted.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

No, but women will be the vast bulk of people sexually assaulted or worse here so it's a clear problem targeted largely at women. I think it's fair to say there's a women's rights issue there even if a small minority of men have been sexually assaulted.

Is that really the standard of evidence required to say something is definitely at play over just being a possible line of inquiry? Despite the myriad biological differences between men and women if the victim is a women and the attacker a man it must have been the result of gender discrimination? Really? Rejection of such significant fallability looks more like the product of a political school of thought and giving weight to what suits the desired ideal interpretation of the world.