Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Agent Coulson

X- Factor Italy just fired her.

RabbleRouser2k

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're focusing on individuals as if they are the movement. The movement is happening even if some individuals involved behave duplicitously.

The fact that the 17 year old actor could come forward IS part of the metoo legacy. The same with the PHD student who was subject of a recent thread. Metoo has given a platform to those people and McGowan can object all she likes.

Isn't the consensus that McGowan is not getting any traction in the Asia case? Doesn't that demonstrate that no matter how influential an individual is within the movement, they can't stop the movement from supporting the alleged victim?

The problem is, they put themselves at the forefront of the 'movement'-so in essence, they are the movement. Or the roots of it.
When the roots are poisoned, the whole system is poisoned. And these ladies are poison.

Notably, if you look at Rose McGowan, she's trying to put the blame on the victim, in this case a male. She's claiming he sent Argento nudes, when he was 12... Well, if that was true, then she should have gone to the police. But it sounds like the nudes were solicited by Asia.
If that was guy, there would be no defence of '12 year old boy sent me nudes/ 12 year old girl sent nudes'... you tell them to stop, or you go to the police and tell them 'this s**t is unsolicited-and they won't stop.'

So 'I believe her' is just that-only 'her'? No children? No males?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6104239/Rose-McGowan-released-explosive-statement-Asia-Argento-sex-scandal.html

We're supposed to 'believe Asia'-not a kid. A kid she groomed. And the more Rose talks, the more disgusting Asia sounds.

If this were a court case, as in trial, judge, jury etc and you put Rose McGowan and Asia Argento forward as witnesses-the case would fall apart. You've got someone who worked with a known paedophile, and another who groomed a small boy and had sex with him when he was underage.
It would be lucky to be called a mistrial.

There was a noticable reason why Asia and Rose weren't invited to the Oscars. This stuff is known about town.

Unrelated, but it sorta still bugs me.

One case that's always struck me as dodgy was the claims Kesha made against Dr Luke. Luke, no doubt, was not a nice guy. Far from it. But, imo, not a rapist or abuser. He was the kind of guy who pushed people the wrong way, but he got em hit singles, so to heck with it.
Kesha, under oath, stated he never raped or molested her. As did her mother. and then they claimed he did.

Their evidence was 'he's a douchebag'...well, so are many people. But they're not rapists. There was also a claim that he raped Katy Perry, yet the court papers have been released, and Perry's response was 'absolutely not'.

El_Duderino 09

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're focusing on individuals as if they are the movement. The movement is happening even if some individuals involved behave duplicitously.

The fact that the 17 year old actor could come forward IS part of the metoo legacy. The same with the PHD student who was subject of a recent thread. Metoo has given a platform to those people and McGowan can object all she likes.

Isn't the consensus that McGowan is not getting any traction in the Asia case? Doesn't that demonstrate that no matter how influential an individual is within the movement, they can't stop the movement from supporting the alleged victim?

The problem is, they put themselves at the forefront of the 'movement'-so in essence, they are the movement. Or the roots of it.
When the roots are poisoned, the whole system is poisoned. And these ladies are poison.

Notably, if you look at Rose McGowan...

‘They put themselves at the forefront of the 'movement'-so in essence, they are the movement’.

That’s just not true though, is it? If metoo was a members club, with an elected council and McGowan was the Chair, then maybe you’d have a point.

If McGowan and Asia weren’t even invited to the oscars by metoo, then how on earth are they ‘in essence the movement’?

I think it takes a large dollop of desire to detract from metoo to pretend these 2people are in essence the movement. Especially considering they were excluded from the Oscars which was one of the major public protests the movement has held.

Asia and McGowan are ‘in essence the movement’ but they couldn’t even wrangle themselves an invite to a major protest? Wouldn't they have been organising the oscars protest if they were ‘in essence the movement’?

RabbleRouser2k

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

‘They put themselves at the forefront of the 'movement'-so in essence, they are the movement’.

That’s just not true though, is it? If metoo was a members club, with an elected council and McGowan was the Chair, then maybe you’d have a point.

If McGowan and Asia weren’t even invited to the oscars by metoo, then how on earth are they ‘in essence the movement’?

I think it takes a large dollop of desire to detract from metoo to pretend these 2people are in essence the movement. Especially considering they were excluded from the Oscars which was one of the major public protests the movement has held.

Asia and McGowan are ‘in essence the movement’ but they couldn’t even wrangle themselves an invite to a major protest? Wouldn't they have been organising the oscars protest if they were ‘in essence the movement’?

It was majorly noticed they weren't invited. McGowan was on twitter denouncing folks like Streep and so on, because they applauded people like Polanski, Allen and sucked up to Weinstein. Her and Asia would have caused trouble, and so omitting them was the Oscars way of preventing trouble.

Mira Sorvino, Ashley Judd and Annabella Sciorra were invited to the Oscars. That was noticed. Only one of those women was allegedly raped by Weinstein. The other two had their careers ruined.

Cannes was where Rose and Asia were invited, the Oscars was the most 'fake' showing of 'metoo' that anyone had seen. They were fascistically stating 'we're all wearing black' and then denounced the few women who didn't. The argument being that 'rape victims are always hidden away, we should wear colour and be seen'.

They then had Oprah step out and 'absolve them' of their sins-when really the whole thing showcased the whole 'we're hiding'. They even brought up Kirk Douglas onstage to 'honour' him-despite the allegations he's been linked to, yet forced Casey Affleck to stay away.
The Oscars was farcical, quite frankly.

If you want to see the danger of 'metoo'. You only have to look at this comment from Kelly Clarkson and the Dr Luke case.

https://pagesix.com/2018/08/27/kesha-and-dr-luke-trade-barbs-in-unsealed-court-docs/

“Whether or not Dr. Luke [sexually and verbally abused Kesha], this is his karma and he earned it,” Clarkson testified in a deposition.

“He’s not a good person. I have told him that to his face and I don’t work with him,” she said. She also called Luke is “kind of a bully and demeaning…kind of like the Napoleon complex.”

It seems claiming someone is a rapist whether they did or didn't do it is 'karma'. No its not, it's sick.

PlaneSpeeking

http://www.dailyedge.ie/rose-mcgowan-released-a-statement-cutting-all-ties-from-asia-argento-following-recent-allegations-4205345-Aug2018/

I loathe McGowan anyway - two faced mare - but even she has seen that Argento sort is a complete paedophile.

RabbleRouser2k

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

http://www.dailyedge.ie/rose-mcgowan-released-a-statement-cutting-all-ties-from-asia-argento-following-recent-allegations-4205345-Aug2018/

I loathe McGowan anyway - two faced mare - but even she has seen that Argento sort is a complete paedophile.

So... McGowan knew about this behaviour going on for about ten years, and kept quiet?
This isn't cutting ties-this is protecting herself. The messages were sent to McGowan's current partner. The 'nudes' started when the kid was 12, he's now 22.

Chr!$t, these people are freaking sick.

Agent Coulson

So did Rose McGowan leak all the text's messages to the press or did her partner do it?


If she knew before this well before it was leaked by the press did she inform the proper authorities?


If she went to the press and didn't go to the proper authorities then is she compliant in some sort of cover up?

pjohnson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So did Rose McGowan leak all the text's messages to the press or did her partner do it?


If she knew before this well before it was leaked by the press did she inform the proper authorities?


If she went to the press and didn't go to the proper authorities then is she compliant in some sort of cover up?

Twitter is Roses proper authorities.

Outlaw Pete

Rose knew it was going to come out that the 'being' she is dating was in talks with Asia where she revealed receiving naked images of the boy since he was 12 and of course knew the first thing that the media, and folk on Twitter, would do was slate her for not coming forward with this information, had she not done so.

Rose is in effect just trying to save her own arse in all of this.

All her 'I'm evolving and learning' crap is pathetic. She had fingers in her ears for the past year or so and wouldn't listen to a damn thing anyone was saying. Any article that was balanced and pointed out how she should be too, she retweeted and slated as enabling Harvey Weinstein. Now she's listening, now she's open to it being more about abuse of power than being symptomatic of patriarchal oppression, but only because she has no choice. A woman in a position of power abused it and she can't run from that.

Although she did once say that the patriarchy killed Aileen Wuornos, so guess it's something that she's conceding that Asia did something wrong but I still believe it's all just an attempt to save herself and not the metoo movement as she'd like us all to believe.

PlaneSpeeking

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Rose knew it was going to come out that the 'being' she is dating was in talks with Asia where she revealed receiving naked images of the boy since he was 12 and of course knew the first thing that the media, and folk on Twitter, would do was slate her for not coming forward with this information, had she not done so.

Rose is in effect just trying to save her own arse in all of this.

All her 'I'm evolving and learning' crap is pathetic. She had fingers in her ears for the past year or so and wouldn't listen to a damn thing anyone was saying. Any article that was balanced and pointed out how she should be too, she retweeted and slated as enabling Harvey Weinstein. Now she's listening, now she's open to it being more about abuse of power than being symptomatic of patriarchal oppression, but only because she has no choice. A woman in a position of power abused it and she can't run from that.

Although she did once say that the patriarchy killed Aileen Wuornos, so guess it's something that she's conceding that Asia did something wrong but I still believe it's all just an attempt to save herself and not the metoo movement as she'd like us all to believe.

With that we have gone so far into lunatic territory we ain't coming back!!!!

Wasn't it a lethal injection after she shot 5 blokes ???

Venom

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

http://www.dailyedge.ie/rose-mcgowan-released-a-statement-cutting-all-ties-from-asia-argento-following-recent-allegations-4205345-Aug2018/

I loathe McGowan anyway - two faced mare - but even she has seen that Argento sort is a complete paedophile.

More like a case of rats deserting a sinking ship.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

So... McGowan knew about this behaviour going on for about ten years, and kept quiet?
This isn't cutting ties-this is protecting herself. The messages were sent to McGowan's current partner. The 'nudes' started when the kid was 12, he's now 22.

Chr!$t, these people are freaking sick.

Mcgowan only became friends with her at the start of the metoo gig so I don't think she knew about it that long. I consider Mcgowan an opportunist scumbag but I just don't see how she would know about this stuff back then. It's not like these two D listers would run in the same circles.

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So did Rose McGowan leak all the text's messages to the press or did her partner do it?


If she knew before this well before it was leaked by the press did she inform the proper authorities?


If she went to the press and didn't go to the proper authorities then is she compliant in some sort of cover up?

The three of them it seems, got super pally pally when the guy Agento was with killed himself after news of her having an affair came out. Once the Bennet accusations came out it got her confiding to her new besties about screwing the kid. Mcgowan claims she and her partner went to the cops with the info when they found out but I'd take that with a huge grain of salt.

pjohnson wrote: »

Twitter is Roses proper authorities.

More room in the spotlight for Rosie!

Wibbs

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Chr!$t, these people are freaking sick.

They live in their own weird bubble that's for damned sure. Reading the McGowan wan's statement, it was pretty unequivocal in condemning this Asia person, so fair enough, but man they live in LaLa land. McGowan's girl/boy/whateeeevsfriend "Rain Dove" - which is on the LaLa spectrum already, is referred to her as a "being" she's been dating. Then she studiously avoids all references to her/his/their/the Being's™ gender and refers to people she/he/they/the being™ helped as "entities". Woooooooooooooo

PlaneSpeeking

Wibbs wrote: »

They live in their own weird bubble that's for damned sure. Reading the McGowan wan's statement, it was pretty unequivocal in condemning this Asia person, so fair enough, but man they live in LaLa land. McGowan's boyfriend "Rain Dove" - which is on the LaLa spectrum already, is referred to her as a "being" she's been dating. Then she studiously avoids all references to his/their/the Being's™ gender and refers to people he/they/the being™ helped as "entities". Woooooooooooooo

I just give up!!!! Loons the f**king lot of them!

Dohnjoe

TLDR; fakes, hypocrites and attention seekers are sabotaging the credibility of real victims. All done on an accusation-based platform rather than one based on due-process

Venom

Dohnjoe wrote: »

TLDR; fakes, hypocrites and attention seekers are sabotaging the credibility of real victims. All done on an accusation-based platform rather than one based on due-process

You could almost think it's just a springboard for washed-up actors to get some publicity!

RabbleRouser2k

Rain Dove is a woman who looks like a dude, and models as both.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/28/rose-mcgowan-shares-park-pda-non-binary-model-rain-dove-romance-confirmed-7771331/

Tbh, this whole 'relationship' with McGowan screams of 'showmance' not 'romance'. Both trying to push their careers, but literally nothing happening in their lives.

pjohnson

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Rain Dove is a woman who looks like a dude, and models as both.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/28/rose-mcgowan-shares-park-pda-non-binary-model-rain-dove-romance-confirmed-7771331/

Tbh, this whole 'relationship' with McGowan screams of 'showmance' not 'romance'. Both trying to push their careers, but literally nothing happening in their lives.

When did Rose become Lesbian? Amazed she hasn't had a big movie since this came out. Guess too busy on twitter to act anymore.

HandsomeBob

Just my own opinion but having deserved Rose I don't think she's in any condition to act right now.

RabbleRouser2k

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Rain Dove is a woman who looks like a dude, and models as both.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/28/rose-mcgowan-shares-park-pda-non-binary-model-rain-dove-romance-confirmed-7771331/

Tbh, this whole 'relationship' with McGowan screams of 'showmance' not 'romance'. Both trying to push their careers, but literally nothing happening in their lives.

What are you basing this on?

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you basing this on?

Some photos show em together-and it's more like 'friend' than it is relationship.
It's different to photos of her in relationships.

pjohnson wrote: »

When did Rose become Lesbian? Amazed she hasn't had a big movie since this came out. Guess too busy on twitter to act anymore.

Doesn't sound like she is-it's more for attention, and less so relationship, imo.

Rose career went downhill faster than a greased up grandpa. After she did Deathproof and Planet Terror, both of which lost money, and an abandoned Red Sonya movie that her then boyfriend Robert Rodriguez wanted to make didn't get off the ground. Then her scenes in Machete (also Rodriguez directing) got cut from the final movie. Robert and her broke up, she went back to TV and some voice roles.

In the interim, she had a serious car accident, and messed up her face. (I have a suspicion she may have picked up a brain injury too, based on her behaviour). Cue some bad plastic surgery, and she no longer looks like she used to. She's had some small voice roles in video games, and comic book tv shows (despite saying she 'quit acting' because its all comic books...:rolleyes:).
But nothing was happening in 2017. Until the 'luck' of the Weinstein thing getting out.

Since then, the last thing she was seen in was a hacked sex tape.

Agent Coulson

She identifies as Non-Binary.


Ok I’m officially old cause I haven’t haven’t a clue anymore.

RabbleRouser2k

Agent Coulson wrote: »

She identifies as Non-Binary.


Ok I’m officially old cause I haven’t haven’t a clue anymore.

Non-binary is just 'tomboy'...but demanding recognition by society, such as exclusive toilets.

I'd just call her 'a 40 something year old woman who's having a mid-life crisis and want's everyone to pay attention'.

Ipso

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Non-binary is just 'tomboy'...but demanding recognition by society, such as exclusive toilets.

I'd just call her 'a 40 something year old woman who's having a mid-life crisis and want's everyone to pay attention'.

Aka, a career move

RabbleRouser2k

Ipso wrote: »

Aka, a career move

Is it tho? A career move is more a reinvention for a long term success. Like when Taylor Swift went from Country to Pop, or David Bowie stopped being Ziggy Stardust, and even dipped his toe into acting.
Or when Ben Affleck stepped behind the camera to direct.

Mcgowan isn't reinventing herself-she's playing victim.

c.p.w.g.w

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Is it tho? A career move is more a reinvention for a long term success. Like when Taylor Swift went from Country to Pop, or David Bowie stopped being Ziggy Stardust, and even dipped his toe into acting.
Or when Ben Affleck stepped behind the camera to direct.

Mcgowan isn't reinventing herself-she's playing victim.

A victim who took a pay off and kept quiet and as a result of said pay off should not be allowed to play victim.

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

They live in their own weird bubble that's for damned sure. Reading the McGowan wan's statement, it was pretty unequivocal in condemning this Asia person, so fair enough, but man they live in LaLa land. McGowan's girl/boy/whateeeevsfriend "Rain Dove" - which is on the LaLa spectrum already, is referred to her as a "being" she's been dating. Then she studiously avoids all references to her/his/their/the Being's™ gender and refers to people she/he/they/the being™ helped as "entities". Woooooooooooooo

Sorry how does that illegitimise the abuse she's suffered?

RabbleRouser2k

And now Gerard Depardieu stands accused of rape.

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/gerard-depardieu-rape-1202921983/

Wibbs

cloudatlas wrote: »

Sorry how does that illegitimise the abuse she's suffered?

Where did I say it did? Merely pointing out the remove from average people's lives that she inhabits.

PlaneSpeeking

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

And now Gerard Depardieu stands accused of rape.

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/gerard-depardieu-rape-1202921983/

Apparently raped "on both 7 and 13 August".

I imagine we're not allowed to question why you would return to the company of someone who raped you in the previous week ?

Smells a tad fishy.

Outlaw Pete

Oh eh, the being that is "Rain Dove" has said that he/they apparently made a mistake about Asia receiving nude pics of Bennett when he was just 12.

Yeah, good luck putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

PlaneSpeeking

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh eh, the being that is "Rain Dove" has said that he/they apparently made a mistake about Asia receiving nude pics of Bennett when he was just 12.

Yeah, good luck putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Rain Dove is not his/her/it's given name!

RabbleRouser2k

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Rain Dove is not his/her/it's given name!

'Rain Dove Dubelewski' is her given name.

During their final year in high school, Dove intentionally became homeless as a social experiment to "document how homelessness affected my academics".[10] It was after this event that Dove became more involved in activism and politics: they reported on being interested in working for the United Nations prior to a career in fashion: "I wanted to work for the U.N. (United Nations) ... I would have applied at the U.N. and would have probably been working in some third world country, or a country that has water rights issues. Gender would be the least of my worries."[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Dove

PlaneSpeeking

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

'Rain Dove Dubelewski' is her given name.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Dove

I stand corrected!

A) Hippy parents and b) that Wikipedia page is terrifying!! Who lives like that ?? Who thinks like that ???

RabbleRouser2k

Seems Olivia Munn is suffering for outing The Director's best friend as a convicted sex offender.
She discovered this because he filmed a scene with her in The Predator, ironically playing a guy who keeps hitting on her and not taking the hint to get lost...yikes.

Shane Black has a habit of casting this same friend, even in movies like Iron Man 3.

https://people.com/movies/sterling-k-brown-supports-olivia-munn-predator-casting-registered-sex-offender/

(The guy was convicted for trying to set up a relationship, online, with a 14 year old girl).

The Crowman

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

And now Gerard Depardieu stands accused of rape.

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/gerard-depardieu-rape-1202921983/

And Luc Besson. More on that.

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/luc-besson-europacorp-allegations-sexual-assaults-harassment-france-1202869487/

RabbleRouser2k

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Seems Olivia Munn is suffering for outing The Director's best friend as a convicted sex offender.
She discovered this because he filmed a scene with her in The Predator, ironically playing a guy who keeps hitting on her and not taking the hint to get lost...yikes.

Shane Black has a habit of casting this same friend, even in movies like Iron Man 3.

https://people.com/movies/sterling-k-brown-supports-olivia-munn-predator-casting-registered-sex-offender/

(The guy was convicted for trying to set up a relationship, online, with a 14 year old girl).

That's an interesting one. The guy was convicted, served prison time. Should he continue to be punished for his crimes? I'm surprised nobody copped the situation quicker and he even got the job.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

That's an interesting one. The guy was convicted, served prison time. Should he continue to be punished for his crimes? I'm surprised nobody copped the situation quicker and he even got the job.

Well, he's a friend of the director's, so the blame rests on his shoulders. Claiming he 'didn't know' sounds fishy to me. Criminal records are often looked into (for insurance purposes, for example. Robert Downey Jr was so uninsurable when Mel Gibson hired him for Singing Detective, Gibson paid the insurance himself. So that the studio wouldn't lose out). Alex Salva, because of his sex abuse crimes, isn't allowed work with minors on his films. Not without a supervisor on set, at least. (Hence why there are no children in his movies).

Also, as a registered sex offender-and noting that his 'prey' was 14 year old girls, it's quite disturbing to note there were a number of young girls who worked on Iron Man 3, like teen girls. Possibly similar happened on The Predator. That's pretty messed up.
Also, as a registered sex-offender, he notably violated his parole by being around minors.

So, yeah-he's got to continue to serve his time. That's sort of the punishment you get when you break the law.

Outlaw Pete

Just seeing this video which Sky News have been running all day (from around seven years back) of Harvey in a business meeting with a woman in an NY hotel that he is alleged to have raped a few hours later............... curious what others think of it:

https://news.sky.com/story/world-exclusive-video-shows-harvey-weinstein-behaving-inappropriately-with-businesswoman-11496038

I get that she was pitching a product and so she'd understandably be reluctant to be rude to Weinstein but there was numerous opportunities (which Harvey himself seemed in fact to give her) for her to decline his advances without losing face and/or create hostility. Instead though, she did the opposite and gave clear signs that she was not wholly opposed to his advances.

She says she felt his offer to meet her for a drink later on was purely business related but come on, he has just had his hand up her skirt, how naive is she that after that he just wants to meet to discuss business.

Harvey is clearly a sleaze bag who abused his position of power to try get laid, as often as he could, there's no question about that, but yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.

What they don't seem to go into here and what I'd like to know is what happened after this alleged rape. Did she have many more meetings with him. Did they continue to work together. And the biggest question of all wasn't even put to her (in this interview at least): why didn't she report the rape.

If the answer to that is in line with the others, that they felt it would jeopardize their working relationship with him, well then that attitude is as much part of the problem as anything else.

RabbleRouser2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just seeing this video which Sky News have been running all day (from around seven years back) of Harvey in a business meeting with a woman in an NY hotel that he is alleged to have raped a few hours later............... curious what others think of it:

https://news.sky.com/story/world-exclusive-video-shows-harvey-weinstein-behaving-inappropriately-with-businesswoman-11496038

I get that she was pitching a product and so she'd understandably be reluctant to be rude to Weinstein but there was numerous opportunities (which Harvey himself seemed in fact to give her) for her to decline his advances without losing face and/or create hostility. Instead though, she did the opposite and gave clear signs that she was not wholly opposed to his advances.

She says she felt his offer to meet her for a drink later on was purely business related but come on, he has just had his hand up her skirt, how naive is she that after that he just wants to meet to discuss business.

Harvey is clearly a sleaze bag who abused his position of power to try get laid, as often as he could, there's no question about that, but yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.

What they don't seem to go into here and what I'd like to know is what happened after this alleged rape. Did she have many more meetings with him. Did they continue to work together. And the biggest question of all wasn't even put to her (in this interview at least): why didn't she report the rape.

If the answer to that is in line with the others, that they felt it would jeopardize their working relationship with him, well then that attitude is as much part of the problem as anything else.

Who brought the camera, btw?

An interesting part of the Weinstein accusations is how they try to portray 'hitting on women' as assault. Uh, no. That's putting you in an awkward situation, but awkward situations are anything from not having change at the till, to having to deal with someone hitting on you while you're in a relationship.

I think conflating the two only dilutes the trauma of those he assaulted. The Lysette Anthony and Annabella Sciorra.

There's a constant 'dodging the hard questions' that I think does more harm than good. Ask them. Ask the hard questions, regarding why they didn't report and so on.
And ask why they took money to stay quiet, and potentially allow it to happen again, and again, and again.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just seeing this video which Sky News have been running all day (from around seven years back) of Harvey in a business meeting with a woman in an NY hotel that he is alleged to have raped a few hours later............... curious what others think of it:

https://news.sky.com/story/world-exclusive-video-shows-harvey-weinstein-behaving-inappropriately-with-businesswoman-11496038

I get that she was pitching a product and so she'd understandably be reluctant to be rude to Weinstein but there was numerous opportunities (which Harvey himself seemed in fact to give her) for her to decline his advances without losing face and/or create hostility. Instead though, she did the opposite and gave clear signs that she was not wholly opposed to his advances.

She says she felt his offer to meet her for a drink later on was purely business related but come on, he has just had his hand up her skirt, how naive is she that after that he just wants to meet to discuss business.

Harvey is clearly a sleaze bag who abused his position of power to try get laid, as often as he could, there's no question about that, but yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.

What they don't seem to go into here and what I'd like to know is what happened after this alleged rape. Did she have many more meetings with him. Did they continue to work together. And the biggest question of all wasn't even put to her (in this interview at least): why didn't she report the rape.

If the answer to that is in line with the others, that they felt it would jeopardize their working relationship with him, well then that attitude is as much part of the problem as anything else.

Is your point that abuse by a person in a position of power leads victims to behave differently than how you’d think? Because I think that’s a common thing. Whether it’s domestic violence victims, clerical abuse victims or Weinstein victims, it’s common that victims don’t report abuse.

What is your point exactly?

PlaneSpeeking

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just seeing this video which Sky News have been running all day (from around seven years back) of Harvey in a business meeting with a woman in an NY hotel that he is alleged to have raped a few hours later............... curious what others think of it:

https://news.sky.com/story/world-exclusive-video-shows-harvey-weinstein-behaving-inappropriately-with-businesswoman-11496038

I get that she was pitching a product and so she'd understandably be reluctant to be rude to Weinstein but there was numerous opportunities (which Harvey himself seemed in fact to give her) for her to decline his advances without losing face and/or create hostility. Instead though, she did the opposite and gave clear signs that she was not wholly opposed to his advances.

She says she felt his offer to meet her for a drink later on was purely business related but come on, he has just had his hand up her skirt, how naive is she that after that he just wants to meet to discuss business.

Harvey is clearly a sleaze bag who abused his position of power to try get laid, as often as he could, there's no question about that, but yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.

What they don't seem to go into here and what I'd like to know is what happened after this alleged rape. Did she have many more meetings with him. Did they continue to work together. And the biggest question of all wasn't even put to her (in this interview at least): why didn't she report the rape.

If the answer to that is in line with the others, that they felt it would jeopardize their working relationship with him, well then that attitude is as much part of the problem as anything else.

"Am I allowed to flirt with you ?"

Sorry but you reply to that with - girlish giggle, coquettish flick of the hair, "Ummm we'll see, a little bit." - and you're up for it.

When did women stop having balls to say "no thanks" ???

What pathetic Victorian level vapours hsving victims are we becoming ????

Kivaro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Am I allowed to flirt with you ?"

Sorry but you reply to that with - girlish giggle, coquettish flick of the hair, "Ummm we'll see, a little bit." - and you're up for it.

When did women stop having balls to say "no thanks" ???

What pathetic Victorian level vapours hsving victims are we becoming ????

It's a bit more complex than that. There's a dynamic going on in this business meeting and the conversation will have some leeway in that context.
After watching the video, I thought it was a textbook case of sexual harassment and it showed how sleazy this powerful man was/is.
It also showed how much of an expert manipulator he was ........... knowing when to pull back with his harassment at the right times.

The video was disturbing because it showed the grooming/manipulation process at work by a man with a lot of experience with it.
Don't forget that this is not the claim by just one woman.
Many women have claimed identical encounters in similar scenarios, which led to alleged rapes and sexual assaults by Weinstein.

PlaneSpeeking

Kivaro wrote: »

It's a bit more complex than that. There's a dynamic going on in this business meeting and the conversation will have some leeway in that context.
After watching the video, I thought it was a textbook case of sexual harassment and it showed how sleazy this powerful man was/is.
It also showed how much of an expert manipulator he was ........... knowing when to pull back with his harassment at the right times.

The video was disturbing because it showed the grooming/manipulation process at work by a man with a lot of experience with it.
Don't forget that this is not the claim by just one woman.
Many women have claimed identical encounters in similar scenarios, which led to alleged rapes and sexual assaults by Weinstein.

And many have claimed it for other more self serving reasons.

Yeah he's a perv with a far too high opinion of himself but she was either stupid or up for it and neither makes a man a rapist.

She gives him permission to flirt with her, then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him. She doesn't reject his advances when he strokes her arm, the agrees to go to drinks with him.

The only victim here is the viewer, somebody is trying to dupe us.

Senature

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Yeah he's a perv with a far too high opinion of himself but she was either stupid or up for it and neither makes a man a rapist.

Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet on this particular issue. She's stupid is she? She has done well enough in her career to find herself in a meeting with an extremely successful and influential person who then agrees to buy the product/service she is selling. If the company she was working for thought she was stupid they would have sent someone else and she probably wouldn't even be working there in the first place.
I don't get how some men are so concerned about other men being wrongly accused and seem to care not a jot that they've just witnessed someone experience sexual harassment. It's not difficult to know that business meetings are not an appropriate place for physical contact between strangers. She is clearly uncomfortable, but he keeps doing it anyway, and I think she is just trying to see the meeting through to it's conclusion and close the deal. It wouldn't be easy for her to go back to her boss saying that she walked out of the meeting because Weinstein touched her arm or leg and "flirted" with her. Or that he kicked her out when she asked him to stop touching her.
Nothing I saw in that video led me to believe she was flirting with him, or responding positively to him touching her. Everyone has experienced looking back at an event and thinking of all the things they could/should have said or done differently. Why is the onus on her to respond in the perfect manner to this completely unexpected and uncomfortable situation she suddenly finds herself in?

Pelvis

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just seeing this video which Sky News have been running all day (from around seven years back) of Harvey in a business meeting with a woman in an NY hotel that he is alleged to have raped a few hours later............... curious what others think of it:

https://news.sky.com/story/world-exclusive-video-shows-harvey-weinstein-behaving-inappropriately-with-businesswoman-11496038

I get that she was pitching a product and so she'd understandably be reluctant to be rude to Weinstein but there was numerous opportunities (which Harvey himself seemed in fact to give her) for her to decline his advances without losing face and/or create hostility. Instead though, she did the opposite and gave clear signs that she was not wholly opposed to his advances.

She says she felt his offer to meet her for a drink later on was purely business related but come on, he has just had his hand up her skirt, how naive is she that after that he just wants to meet to discuss business.

Harvey is clearly a sleaze bag who abused his position of power to try get laid, as often as he could, there's no question about that, but yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.

What they don't seem to go into here and what I'd like to know is what happened after this alleged rape. Did she have many more meetings with him. Did they continue to work together. And the biggest question of all wasn't even put to her (in this interview at least): why didn't she report the rape.

If the answer to that is in line with the others, that they felt it would jeopardize their working relationship with him, well then that attitude is as much part of the problem as anything else.

It's a well known fact that if you flirt with a woman before 12pm, you can have sex with her that evening without her permission, and it's not rape.

What the actual fuck is your point here? Let's say she was agreed to go for a drink with him as part of a date, is she obliged to have sex with him?

Honest to ****in' christ.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She gives him permission to flirt with her, then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him. She doesn't reject his advances when he strokes her arm, the agrees to go to drinks with him.

The only victim here is the viewer, somebody is trying to dupe us.

She's getting her 15 minutes here plus a big payout from Sky.
"this footage was shot only HOURS before she was ALLEGEDLY raped by HARVEY WEINSTEIN".

Weinstein is a creep and deserves the exposure he's getting but this story is just such nonsense. Yet again we have a narcissistic woman looking for her pay out from a scandal diluting the suffering of women who have really suffered at the hands of abusive people.

Senature

Deleted User wrote: »

then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him.

Where is this bit in the video? I definitely missed it.

PlaneSpeeking

Senature wrote: »

Where is this bit in the video? I definitely missed it.

Try watching it without the feminist blinkers - it's there.

Senature

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Senature wrote: »

Where is this bit in the video? I definitely missed it.

Try watching it without the feminist blinkers - it's there.

I don't need to watch it again, you are claiming she flirts outrageously with him, what did she do that would accurately be described as such?