Harvey Weinstein & the Great Hollywood sex scandal

[Danny]

3 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

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.

I like you Harvey but you need to talk in layman terms man I've got 1 fucking GCSE 

But to respond to 50% of what I understood I definitely think it's a women's right thing alongside whatever else is at play. He clearly has no regard for them as humans as do most of those types like him. I don't think you can just look past the fact that the victims in sexual assault/rape amongst adults are a majority female by a landslide. There maybe different reasons causing different people to carry these acts out in difference circumstances but it all comes back to a male disregarding a females right for their own pleasure.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

I like you Harvey but you need to talk in layman terms man I've got 1 fucking GCSE 

But to respond to 50% of what I understood I definitely think it's a women's right thing alongside whatever else is at play. He clearly has no regard for them as humans as do most of those types like him. I don't think you can just look past the fact that the victims in sexual assault/rape amongst adults are a majority female by a landslide. There maybe different reasons causing different people to carry these acts out in difference circumstances but it all comes back to a male disregarding a females right for their own pleasure.

 apologies. Anyone who commits a crime that has a victim must have no regard for the victim, even if it is pick pocketing. You're speculating that the victim is chosen because of attitudes towards their gender, rather rather simply because they possess what the attacker wants, vagina, and are individually vulnerable (his abuse of his power over them). It assumes that the rest of us men don't rape women because we're told not to, rather than because we're inherently good people. Think of it like stealing a car, if I want to steal an Audi I don't go to a Ford garage, when a heterosexual man wants to rape someone he rapes a woman not a man.

I don't look past that victims are usually women, I believe they are usually women for other reasons than social attitudes towards their gender. Testosterone is linked to violence for example, which is the strongest connection for why men commit more violent acts and why you get more violence among lesbians than heterosexual women. Men also have the bits to commit rape, women do not, which means the sexual assault women commit takes place usually within relationships and goes unreported. Many men in fact don't know when they are being abused because it simply isn't talked about.

Most rape victims know their attacker, that is the case with Weinstein, he's not one of those drag a random women in the bushes extremely violent rape types. He hides within, he holds down legitimate and normal looking relationships with women and seeks out opportunities where he will not get caught. Just like any massive predator, like Jimmy Saville. Saville didn't touch kids inappropriately on live tv, he waited until he had the opportunity to get away with it. These people are proof that me and you don't commit these crimes because we are inherently good people, rather than the idea that we don't commit them because the law said it was wrong, we think morally that it is wrong, they have these immoral inclinations and the law acts to challenge them into thinking whether or not it is worth it for them to act on it. When you see a camera on the high street it is not to control your behaviour, you're not inherently a thief, it is to make those who are question whether it is worth it to them or not. This is the problem in hollywood, there has been no policing for decades, predators have roamed free. The law was created because good people like us knew it was wrong to rape, but that law had to be created because some men are born without that compass, why would the patriarchy make them into rapists and not us if it did not have a significant genetic or biological component that cannot be controlled by saying "women's rights"

[Danny]

I do agree with what you're suggesting largely, but I don't necessarily agree that it assumes the rest of us don't rape because we're told we're not to. I think you could make the argument that it's also differing ends of a vast spectrum of behaviour. At one end you have the Weinstein's, the sexual predators. Further down you have the creeps that go around clubs randomly squeezing girls arses when they get a chance to not get caught doing it, further down you have men who take nudes during sex and then proceed to post them online as revenge, or less brazenly, show their mates because it suddenly makes it alright. You could go further and further down into more accepted acts in society but nonetheless all still born out of the same disregard for the opposite sex.

Maybe that comes down to the higher levels of testosterone and further down the spectrum aggressive acts become passive aggressive.

Then you have the fact that a lot of men don't even know what rape is and some assumed what they were doing was right until they were caught doing it and found out it was wrong. I imagine once the dust settles for those they'd be at it again in some capacity.

[Honey Honey]

59 minutes ago, Danny said:

I do agree with what you're suggesting largely, but I don't necessarily agree that it assumes the rest of us don't rape because we're told we're not to. I think you could make the argument that it's also differing ends of a vast spectrum of behaviour. At one end you have the Weinstein's, the sexual predators. Further down you have the creeps that go around clubs randomly squeezing girls arses when they get a chance to not get caught doing it, further down you have men who take nudes during sex and then proceed to post them online as revenge, or less brazenly, show their mates because it suddenly makes it alright. You could go further and further down into more accepted acts in society but nonetheless all still born out of the same disregard for the opposite sex.

Maybe that comes down to the higher levels of testosterone and further down the spectrum aggressive acts become passive aggressive.

Then you have the fact that a lot of men don't even know what rape is and some assumed what they were doing was right until they were caught doing it and found out it was wrong. I imagine once the dust settles for those they'd be at it again in some capacity.

Revenge porn is more a matter of women's rights because of the reason the act is revengeful, which is that a women's sexual behaviour is considered sacred in comparison to a man, making it considerably more powerful as an act of revenge and a direct attempt to use their gender to humiliate them. Men aren't more revengeful than women, so why are men more revengeful in this particular way? The easiest answer is that their behaviour is the consequence of gender discrimination, not testosterone or any other biological difference.

Kiss and tell is about social image. Bragging to your mates about a sexual harassment act, like Donald Trump did, is reinforcing a culture of sexual harassment to win social points, anyone can become part of any culture built on reward like that. 

I know girls who used to go around pinching bums, it's easy to separate the self from the victim in that act because it doesn't create much emotional trauma in either the attacker or the victim. Most people don't rape because the violent experience would be traumatic for themselves. Whipping your cock out in front of an unwilling participant, or worse, physically rape them, requires severe perversion. I don't think it shares a spectrum with other acts.

[Tommy]

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42633291

 

God damnit, not Franco. I want to believe. 

[Viva la FCB+]

8 minutes ago, Tommy said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42633291

 

God damnit, not Franco. I want to believe. 

Innocent until proven guilty 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Trial by Twitter continues it seems, especially as the New York Times cancels an event to promote his film, according to the article.

[Tommy]

 

His response seems sincere, and it's kind of dodgy that the actress took her tweet down already. Of course if he did something wrong, he has to face the consequences, but damnit, I need James Franco in my life. 

[Danny]

I'm not saying it makes him guilty, but this is a man in his 30s who has chatted up a 17 year old online...hardly groundbreaking if it turns out to be true.

[Inverted]

I agree that public outrage shouldn't be limited to things that are outright illegal, and that a lot of things fall short of rape and sexual assault that are still unethical or immoral. However, a 30 year-old chatting-up a 17 year-old isn't imo outrageous.

It's weird and kinda slimy, but I really don't think it's a properly bad thing to do. I know a few girls my age who've had moments of being interested in older guys, older than 30, even. I know girls who've been hit on by grown men and they're either into that kinda age dynamic, or they think it's weird and they laugh it off. This argument of his celebrity granting him some kind of undue influence, or power in the interaction, seems to me to be essentially saying that celebrities can only ethically hit on other celebrities.

[Danny]

I didn't say it was illegal I just said it was weird, if I had a mate doing that I'd rip the shit out of them and that's if they done it in person, doing it online just takes it to another level of strange.

Again not saying it makes him guilty of the other stuff but it is weird, she's between being a kid and an adult.

[Tommy]

17 hours ago, Inverted said:

However, a 30 year-old chatting-up a 17 year-old isn't imo outrageous.

 

The 17 year old in my darts team constantly flirts with me. Am I being harassed? 

 

[Fairy In Boots]

But it is illegal, in the state of California age of consent is 18. 

I don’t think Franco is a serial sex offender, he’s just basically what a lot of them are. That’s a jack the lad type who’s made it and suddenly get more pussy than they know what to do with. We’d all be no different from the cast of Entourage given half a cunt hair of a chance  at that sort of existence. 

[Inverted]

16 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

But it is illegal, in the state of California age of consent is 18. 

I don’t think Franco is a serial sex offender, he’s just basically what a lot of them are. That’s a jack the lad type who’s made it and suddenly get more pussy than they know what to do with. We’d all be no different from the cast of Entourage given half a cunt hair of a chance  at that sort of existence. 

I think it happened in New York, it might have been legal but I'm not wholly sure. If I recall he's addressed in public which makes it sound like he wasn't trying to do something illegal. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

30 minutes ago, Inverted said:

I think it happened in New York, it might have been legal but I'm not wholly sure. If I recall he's addressed in public which makes it sound like he wasn't trying to do something illegal. 

It was in New York, so it wasn't illegal. But a bit questionable.

The recent allegations about how he removed the protective guard from the accuser's vagina during a sex scene makes it sound pretty bad. Another of his accusers though is saying he exploited her because she slept with him and then didn't get a part in a movie - not so sure that that counts as sexual abuse. Seems like she was using her sex there as a commodity and is upset she didn't get a particular role.

Trial by twitter is probably not the best way to handle it... but here we are, living in the trial by twitter age. But if the accusers tweets might be enough to sink someone's career... should we also not take other tweets of theirs into consideration. For instance, one of Franco's accusers said shit like:

[Harry]

It's scary the extent to which your reputation can be irreparably damaged right now by one person that may have many reasons to lie or exaggerate. 

[Fairy In Boots]

 Stan Lee got accused now his appointments are being cancelled it’s full blown witch hunt season

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I don't understand Weinstein, Louis CK, and Stan Lee masturbating in front of other people. Why the fuck did they think that would be sexy, who gets aroused by being witnessed stroking your snake?

Weirdos.