Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

retro:electro

I'm just gonna ask it- how the fcuk would it be pleasurable to masterbate in front of women who are literally just standing there gawking at you? It's the bloody oddest thing. Surely something like that should either be done alone, or mutually beneficial. It sounds like the most awkward, least attractive thing ever.

Mokuba

anna080 wrote: »

I'm just gonna ask it- how the fcuk would it be pleasurable to masterbate in front of women who are literally just standing there gawking at you? It's the bloody oddest thing. Surely something like that should either be done alone, or mutually beneficial. It sounds like the most awkward, least attractive thing ever.

I completely agree with you. I'm sure most people would find it weird, pervy and disgusting.

But in the context of the stories provided, no crime was committed.

retro:electro

Mokuba wrote: »

I completely agree with you. I'm sure most people would find it weird, pervy and disgusting.

But in the context of the stories provided, no crime was committed.

I'm more talking about why someone would even do it in the first place, rather than the criminal side of it. It's the oddest thing.

It's a power trip, I would guess. You're essentially showing that you have power over them. At least that's what all of this stuff seems to boil down to.

Penn

anna080 wrote: »

I'm more talking about why someone would even do it in the first place, rather than the criminal side of it. It's the oddest thing.

Perverted. Just something screwed loose in their minds. The fact that someone's being forced to watch them adds to their sexual excitement for it.

Neyite

anna080 wrote: »

I'm more talking about why someone would even do it in the first place, rather than the criminal side of it. It's the oddest thing.

It's definitely a thing. In a non-celeb world it's probably like the weirdo who masturbates on public transport or a park bench. Probably similar to flashing or sending dick pics. They get their arousal from the shock or disgust they get from the people they force to watch it.

Boom_Bap

People whack off, people whack off to different things. Louis' thing crosses the line if there is no consent.

His premier from his new movie was cancelled, now the distributor has cancelled the release entirely.

Bambi985

I'd say it's more common that people realise too. Brett Ratner and James Toback are accused of masturbating in front of various actresses and there was a few accusations against Weinstein too.

Personally I've had it happen to me twice, once on a public bus in Spain and the second time when I was hiking in Budapest. I was with my sister the second time and my protective instincts kicked in and I literally chased the guy down the mountain and yelled blue murder at him, sick fcuk that he was.

I think a part of it is exhibitionism as well as a sort of sick thrill of "look what I can get away with" type of thing.

Penn

Bambi985 wrote: »

I'd say it's more common that people realise too. Brett Ratner and James Toback are accused of masturbating in front of various actresses and there was a few accusations against Weinstein too.

Personally I've had it happen to me twice, once on a public bus in Spain and the second time when I was hiking in Budapest. I was with my sister the second time and my protective instincts kicked in and I literally chased the guy down the mountain and yelled blue murder at him, sick fcuk that he was.

I think a part of it is exhibitionism as well as a sort of sick thrill of "look what I can get away with" type of thing.

I think I remember a guy from a Louis Theroux doc a few years back who had been arrested several times for following women and flashing them. He maintained that he didn't want to do it and wanted desperately to stop, but any time the opportunity arose for it, his brain would just switch into another gear and he'd convince himself that it was the right thing to do.

Some people are genuinely disturbed in those ways where it's genuinely a mental, psychological issue/compulsion. But I think in cases like Louis C.K, Harvey Weinstein etc, they did it because they could, and because they got off on it. They could control themselves if they really wanted, they just didn't care.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

People whack off, people whack off to different things. Louis' thing crosses the line if there is no consent.

His premier from his new movie was cancelled, now the distributor has cancelled the release entirely.

HBO has cut ties completely with him. He has been removed from an upcoming special about autism and all of his shows are being removed from their streaming service.

_Dara_

So the Louis CK rumours appear to be true. Gotta be honest, this one hurts. I’m a huge fan. His comedy is so full of humanity. This is really difficult to process.

Royale with Cheese

Louis CK was one of my favourite comedians and Kevin Spacey one of my favourite actors. I'm sure there are plenty of Weinstein films I love too.

So by that logic... I love the rolling stones, led Zeppelin, queens of the stone age, Rammstein. Except somebody in there to be next.

Boom_Bap

Is there any timeline on the Louis CK events?

_Dara_

anna080 wrote: »

I'm just gonna ask it- how the fcuk would it be pleasurable to masterbate in front of women who are literally just standing there gawking at you? It's the bloody oddest thing. Surely something like that should either be done alone, or mutually beneficial. It sounds like the most awkward, least attractive thing ever.

Bambi985 wrote: »

I think a part of it is exhibitionism as well as a sort of sick thrill of "look what I can get away with" type of thing.

Yup. Anna, I’d really recommend Louis Theroux’s documentary about flashers. Can’t remember its name but give it a google. It’s a depressing watch but is a good insight into the minds of people who flash and masturbate in front of people.

Celebrity is a weird thing; it's tough (at least for me personally) to separate the horrible people they can be & the horrible things they've done, from their body of work

Polanski, for example, is a disgusting and vile monster that has done deplorable acts, yet the Pianist remains one of the greatest WW2 movies out there -- I think.

Same with CK. Turns out he's a serial public masturbator -- yet is one of the greatest working comedians still today.

I really wouldn't be surprised if allegations come out about Chevvy Chase.

Boom_Bap

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yup. Anna, I’d really recommend Louis Theroux’s documentary about flashers. Can’t remember its name but give it a google. It’s a depressing watch but is a good insight into the minds of people who flash and masturbate in front of people.

That episode is very deep though, there is alot about child molesters in it as well that is difficult to watch.

retro:electro

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yup. Anna, I’d really recommend Louis Theroux’s documentary about flashers. Can’t remember its name but give it a google. It’s a depressing watch but is a good insight into the minds of people who flash and masturbate in front of people.

Is that the one where he goes to the treatment centre? I think I've seen it

strandroad

In terms of consent... Louis CK is a renowned comedian. If he asked me if he can **** in front of me I would absolutely expect it to be a bad joke. I would expect it to be a bad joke from most men (most are normal after all), but from him especially. And I would be appalled if he followed through.

Penn

anna080 wrote: »

Is that the one where he goes to the treatment centre? I think I've seen it

No, he visits a small community where sex offenders live (they tend to live in the same areas due to having to be certain distances from schools etc).

Youtube link to the doc, but it's one of those where half the screen is something else to avoid copyright infringement.

Boom_Bap

Penn wrote: »

No, he visits a small community where sex offenders live (they tend to live in the same areas due to having to be certain distances from schools etc).

Youtube link to the doc, but it's one of those where half the screen is something else to avoid copyright infringement.

I think that there is also a visit to a centre in it....one where a guy is opting to chemically castrate himself and he is questioning some of the images they are allowed put on their walls.

....I could be crossing episodes though

retro:electro

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think that there is also a visit to a centre in it....one where a guy is opting to chemically castrate himself and he is questioning some of the images they are allowed put on their walls.

....I could be crossing episodes though

Yea that's the one I saw.

Just looked the YouTube clip there yea they're two different ones. I shall watch that later on.

_Dara_

Boom_Bap wrote: »

That episode is very deep though, there is alot about child molesters in it as well that is difficult to watch.

Yeah, it’s about various types of sexual deviance. Very tough watch, depressing. And I did actually feel sorry for some of the interviewees. They were no Harvey Weinsteins, twirling their moustaches. Many of them were pathetic figures.

anna080 wrote: »

Is that the one where he goes to the treatment centre? I think I've seen it

That’s the one.

retro:electro

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah, it’s about various types of sexual deviance. Very tough watch, depressing. And I did actually feel sorry for some of the interviewees. They were no Harvey Weinsteins, twirling their moustaches. Many of them were pathetic figures.



That’s the one.

I remember thinking could you ever actually trust these people again. One guy seemed genuinely remorseful and even seemed to gain Louis' sympathy, but you have to remember that these people are professional groomers. They know how to get you on side and how to convince you of their decency.

Outlaw Pete

Wonder if Madonna has any accusers waiting in the wings, she certainly seems handsy with her young fans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q--VdKQ8m_c

Shurimgreat

Mokuba wrote: »

I completely agree with you. I'm sure most people would find it weird, pervy and disgusting.

But in the context of the stories provided, no crime was committed.

I believe indecent exposure is a crime.

Otherwise people would be walking the streets all the time flashing and masturbating on front of everyone. They'd be doing it on the train, in the street, on the bus, no crime whatsoever in your eyes. Or maybe just maybe most countries have laws against it. In which case this guy did commit a crime. A repeat offender would probably find themselves on a sex offenders register. In this particular case, he had his tackle out before they even had a chance to say no.

Call me old fashioned but I think women shouldn't have to watch men masturbate on front of them without at least some consent.

Mokuba

Whether he is telling the truth or not, the third paragraph is particularly accurate.

Mokuba

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I believe indecent exposure is a crime.

Otherwise men would be walking the streets all the time flashing and masturbating on front of everyone. They'd be doing it on the train, in the street, on the bus, no crime whatsoever in your eyes. Or maybe just maybe most countries have laws against it. In which case this guy did commit a crime. A repeat offender would probably find themselves on a sex offenders list. In this particular case, he had his tackle out before they even had a chance to say no.

Call me old fashioned but I think women shouldn't have to watch men masturbate on front of them without at least some consent.

He wasn't in public. Indecent exposure specifically relates to public places.

They gave consent. You might say they were awkward/joking/etc - but they gave it. In the other scenario where consent was not given, he did not perform any act.

Shurimgreat

Weinstein at all have denied they committed any crime or did anything to anyone.

They are hardly going to hold their hands up and admit it. If they did, they would be heading straight to jail, their careers would be ruined and they'd probably have to pay significant compensation.

Their denials are utterly meaningless.

Hande hoche!

Louis CK's show is not going to age well.

Shurimgreat

Mokuba wrote: »

He wasn't in public. Indecent exposure specifically relates to public places.

They gave consent. You might say they were awkward/joking/etc - but they gave it. In the other scenario where consent was not given, he did not perform any act.

WTF? He was in a room with two women who gave no consent. Your defence of him and the others is going to frankly bizarre lengths.

Next you will be saying Weinstein did nothing!

Shurimgreat

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Misandric horseshite.

Elaborate like a good lad.

Shurimgreat

Deleted User wrote: »

HBO has cut ties completely with him. He has been removed from an upcoming special about autism and all of his shows are being removed from their streaming service.

Good enough for me. Career ruined and all his own fault. Whatever about it being a crime or not, its ruined his reputation. Women I'd say wouldn't work with him again unless they like some dude taking out his bits every so often to have a play.

Wibbs

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

So by that logic... I love the rolling stones, led Zeppelin, queens of the stone age, Rammstein. Except somebody in there to be next.

Well the Stones had Wyman getting the leg an underage girl, one Mandy Smith, who he later married when she turned 18, however he was "seeing her" when she was 13 and according to her they had sex when she was 14 and he was nearly 50. Led Zeppelin had Jimmy Page, another who was sleeping with at least one underage 13/14 year old when he was in his late 20's. Took her with him on tour. David Bowie another in the mix. There's a long list of rockers sleeping with underage girls, but they seem to get away with it. A) because it happened years ago and scrutiny was generally lower and they come outa the gate as "depraved rockers, sex and drugs and rock n roll" so I suppose the hypocrisy factor isn't there to nearly the same degree as Hollywood types, who with a few exceptions have always peddled the wholesome, Right on, squeaky clean image.

Mokuba

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Weinstein at all have denied they committed any crime or did anything to anyone.

They are hardly going to hold their hands up and admit it. If they did, they would be heading straight to jail, their careers would be ruined and they'd probably have to pay significant compensation.

Their denials are utterly meaningless.

That is a completely ridiculous and very dangerous thing to say. Some denials could be truthful but you are just going to categorise them all as meaningless.

Scary stuff.

Outlaw Pete

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Elaborate like a good lad.

You're saying, but for the law, men would be "walking the streets all the time flashing and masturbating in front of everyone"...... no idea if you're a man or woman, but that is utter bollox. You make it sound like men are all a pack of sexual deviants, only thing keeping us in check the fear of being arrested.

Mokuba

Shurimgreat wrote: »

WTF? He was in a room with two women who gave no consent. Your defence of him and the others is going to frankly bizarre lengths.

Next you will be saying Weinstein did nothing!

Did you read the articles?

They gave consent. They gave him thumbs up when he asked, they laughed before and during.

One of the 5 quoted in the sexual assault/misconduct article was on the phone with him. That is insane.

My defense of him is based on the fact that this seems to be turning into something very, very dangerous - where accusations are taken as fact.

Shurimgreat

Mokuba wrote: »

That is a completely ridiculous and very dangerous thing to say. Some denials could be truthful but you are just going to categorise them all as meaningless.

Scary stuff.

They might be innocent, the might not be.
They will be judged on if several independent accusers come forward. And there may or may not be a trial. As I said earlier its unlikely these women would make these accusations without valid reasons. Its easy to be deemed a trouble maker and never be given another job.

Do you think a film director for example would hire an actress with a reputation for making truthful or even false accusations of sexual assault? They'd probably think they'd be accused in the wrong next.

server down

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I believe indecent exposure is a crime.

Otherwise men would be walking the streets all the time flashing and masturbating on front of everyone. They'd be doing it on the train, in the street, on the bus, no crime whatsoever in your eyes. Or maybe just maybe most countries have laws against it. In which case this guy did commit a crime. A repeat offender would probably find themselves on a sex offenders register. In this particular case, he had his tackle out before they even had a chance to say no.

Call me old fashioned but I think women shouldn't have to watch men masturbate on front of them without at least some consent.

It was indoors though. He could possibly claim consent - since they stayed. The legality doesn’t really matter as his career is toast.

Shurimgreat

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're saying, but for the law, men would be "walking the streets all the time flashing and masturbating in front of everyone"...... no idea if you're a man or woman, but that is utter bollox. You make it sound like men are all a pack of sexual deviants, only thing keeping us in check the fear of being arrested.

Ah relax. I didn't say all men. A small minority of men would, if there was nothing to stop them. Thankfully there are laws to stop that kind of thing.

server down

Mokuba wrote: »

Did you read the articles?

They gave consent. They gave him thumbs up when he asked, they laughed before and during.

One of the 5 quoted in the sexual assault/misconduct article was on the phone with him. That is insane.

My defense of him is based on the fact that this seems to be turning into something very, very dangerous - where accusations are taken as fact.

For old crimes of abuse, multiple accusations from independent sources are often taken as fact.

_Dara_

anna080 wrote: »

I remember thinking could you ever actually trust these people again. One guy seemed genuinely remorseful and even seemed to gain Louis' sympathy, but you have to remember that these people are professional groomers. They know how to get you on side and how to convince you of their decency.

I think I recall another interviewee saying that he would not be able to live amongst the general public again because he would not be able to stop himself flashing. Bleurgh. At least he was honest, I guess.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wonder if Madonna has any accusers waiting in the wings, she certainly seems handsy with her young fans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q--VdKQ8m_c

Very possibly. She was heavily criticised for that, rightfully. Think is, the girl said she was fine with it. I don’t think it was fine myself personally but if someone doesn’t consider themselves a victim, there’s not much you can do.

Hande hoche!

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Louis CK's show is not going to age well.

That reminds me of that infamous appearance Jimmy Saville on Have I Got News For You and how he more or less admitted to doing whatever he can get his hands on.

Yes, there's no comparison between the two whatsoever - Saville was a monster but CK is a delinquent at best, when put against Saville.

But Graham Linehan's comment of, "he was hiding in plain sight", seems to accurately represent CK in that image, which I'm guessing is a screengrab from his show, Louie?

It's interesting that he's openly admitting to it in some regard.

bloodless_coup

Bit annoying to have someone like Louis CK being ostracized by distributors and production companies due to some allegations. I am being denied access to his content due to the trending outrage. I couldn't care less what he's done, I'll still watch his shows.

A Little Pony

Soon won't have any entertainers on TV.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

That reminds me of that infamous appearance Jimmy Saville on Have I Got News For You and how he more or less admitted to doing whatever he can get his hands on.

Yes, there's no comparison between the two whatsoever - Saville was a monster but CK is a delinquent at best, when put against Saville.

But Graham Linehan's comment of, "he was hiding in plain sight", seems to accurately represent CK in that image, which I'm guessing is a screengrab from his show, Louie?

It's interesting that he's openly admitting to it in some regard.

Louis made several public cries for help through his material but no one listened. Shame on us all.

A Little Pony

suicide_circus wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

That reminds me of that infamous appearance Jimmy Saville on Have I Got News For You and how he more or less admitted to doing whatever he can get his hands on.

Yes, there's no comparison between the two whatsoever - Saville was a monster but CK is a delinquent at best, when put against Saville.

But Graham Linehan's comment of, "he was hiding in plain sight", seems to accurately represent CK in that image, which I'm guessing is a screengrab from his show, Louie?

It's interesting that he's openly admitting to it in some regard.

Louis made several public cries for help through his material but no one listened. Shame on us all.

Help for what? Acting like a scumbag? He is a douchebag along with the rest of them. If they can't handle the "Hollywood" type fame then just get out of the business.

Autecher

A Little Pony wrote: »

Help for what? Acting like a scumbag? He is a douchebag along with the rest of them. If they can't handle the "Hollywood" type fame then just get out of the business.

It was a joke pal.

Easy Rod

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're saying, but for the law, men would be "walking the streets all the time flashing and masturbating in front of everyone"...... no idea if you're a man or woman, but that is utter bollox. You make it sound like men are all a pack of sexual deviants, only thing keeping us in check the fear of being arrested.

You're deliberately misinterpreting the poster's point to get a dig in about misandry.

strandroad

Mokuba wrote: »

Did you read the articles?

They gave consent. They gave him thumbs up when he asked, they laughed before and during.

One of the 5 quoted in the sexual assault/misconduct article was on the phone with him. That is insane.

My defense of him is based on the fact that this seems to be turning into something very, very dangerous - where accusations are taken as fact.

Did you read the article?

He was doing it on production sets. Walking around offering your penis show to junior employees = sexual harassment in the workplace = lawsuits, if not criminal proceedings.

Why do you they are all dropping him now? Who wants to pay out compensations or lose production insurance for harbouring him?