Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

People saying that some women had consensual sex with him to further their career and in those cases, it wasn't rape are correct.

No one is saying they didn't do that, in fact I said that plenty had and are staying quiet now. The issue is that people are accusing McGowan and others of having voluntarily had sex with him and now crying rape. Their proof seems to be that she isn't. a great actress and obviously did it to further her career. It's the age old, well I don't think its rape because in that situation I'd over power the 300 pound man and escape

Others are saying he's not a rapist till a judge says so, does that mean that Saville is an innocent victim as he was never convicted of anything?

Theboinkmaster

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The issue is that people are accusing McGowan and others of having voluntarily had sex with him and now crying rape. Their proof seems to be that she isn't. a great actress and obviously did it to further her career.

What people? Haven’t seen anyone accuse her of that? Didn’t he make a settlement with her and paid her off, lending more weight to her story? I certainly believe her but also think she’s making the most of it now trying to further her career and make more money.

Theboinkmaster

Theboinkmaster wrote:

What people? Haven’t seen anyone accuse her of that? Didn’t he make a settlement with her and paid her off, lending more weight to her story? I certainly believe her but also think she’s making the most of it now trying to further her career and make more money.

What about posts like this ...

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

Did he force her into the tub ? No. Did he force her to perform the act she did ? No. Did she have the talent to make it as an actress any other way ? No. Has she got a new career out of this ? Yes - slacktivism on Twitter needs no talent Is Weinstein a scumbag ? Probably Is he a rapist ? I'll tell you after he has been convicted of such - if he is. Remember due process ?

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

...... The last time someone tried to get justice from Weinstein he was able to pay off those investigating and then ruin a woman's life.

"Able to pay off..." - you mean true victims traded justice for a few dollars ?

Surely not. /sarcasm

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

"Able to pay off..." - you mean true victims traded justice for a few dollars ?

Actually I was referring to the District Attorney who refused to file charges against Weinstein and who then received a nice campaign donation from Weinstein. But don't let facts get in the way of your sad and pathetic defence of a man who raped dozens of women and then, when they tried to get justice bullied them and ruined not just the careers of those he raped but their loved ones too.


It's shocking just how far you will go to attack rape victims and support the man who raped them.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

What about posts like this ...

And I stand by that. She was at a Hollywood party. With company.

Fully clothed.

A choice (remember when we were allowed to make those freely ??) was made to remove her clothes and enter a hot tub.

A choice was made to perform/receive a sex act on/from Weinstein.

A choice was then made to take a few hundred grand to keep quiet about this.

Weinstein is a pig. A complete and utter pig of the highest magnitude. I wouldn't go within a thousand miles of him.

However - McGowan tried the age old tactic of the less qualified; she slept her way to the top. Well, middle - if that. She has taken an incident and run with it to make a career ("Citizen Rose" anyone ??).

Is he a rapist ? That is for 12 good men and women of a jury to decide. Not you. Or Twitter. He's certainly a horrific human being and a complete pervert.

Polanski however - rapist. Found guilty in a court of law. Legitimately. And yet some of the Weinstein detractors not only defend RP they work with him!!!

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

However - McGowan tried the age old tactic of the less qualified; she slept her way to the top. Well, middle - if that. She has taken an incident and run with it to make a career ("Citizen Rose" anyone ??).

So where is your proof? You seem to hate women given that in this thread you have repeatedly attack victims of rape and accused them of lying. I bet you're one of those people who knows how a women should react when raped and if they don't then they are lying. I hope that if you never find yourself alone with a man who is considerably larger than you and who has a history of violent outbreaks and who then forces himself inside you and violently rapes you that you don't get replies like on PlaneSpeaking is a talentless slut who used her body to get ahead.

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

Is he a rapist ? That is for 12 good men and women of a jury to decide. Not you. Or Twitter. He's certainly a horrific human being and a complete pervert.

It really isn't, you are now arguing that a person can only be called a rapist if convicted, will you be defending Jimmy Saville given that the man never saw the inside of a court and as such by your logic is an innocent man.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

Polanski however - rapist. Found guilty in a court of law. Legitimately. And yet some of the Weinstein detractors not only defend RP they work with him!!!

No he wasn't, he accepted a plea deal to a lesser charge. He never was judged by 12 people of a jury. Why are you so quick to call Polanski a rapist when he wasn't technically convicted of rape?

He admitted to having unlawful sex with a minor (statutory rape) that is why people call him a rapist. He never faced a jury because he fled AFTER he pled guilty.

Ffs.

You love your Jimmy Saville example. And again, as with weinstein, I have no doubt that he was an evil man, but I'm also hesitant to believe every story. Unfortunately there are a lot of people in the world that will fabricate a horrendous act in order to achieve fame or monetary gain.

And please stop accusing people of being women haters just because they don't automatically look as them as helpless victims incapable of lying.

If you believe in trial by social media instead of trial by a jury then that's fine, and it also explains a lot about your baseless accusations against some posters here.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

He admitted to having unlawful sex with a minor (statutory rape) that is why people call him a rapist. He never faced a jury because he fled AFTER he pled guilty.

Ffs.

You love your Jimmy Saville example. And again, as with weinstein, I have no doubt that he was an evil man, but I'm also hesitant to believe every story. Unfortunately there are a lot of people in the world that will fabricate a horrendous act in order to achieve fame or monetary gain.

And please stop accusing people of being women haters just because they don't automatically look as them as helpless victims incapable of lying.

If you believe in trial by social media instead of trial by a jury then that's fine, and it also explains a lot about your baseless accusations against some posters here.

+1

I love most women. I am one. I admired the f**k out of my mother who taught me a) never get into a situation you cannot get out of; b) never do anything for money you wouldn't do for free and with a good clear conscience and c) anyone lays a finger on you - hit them back. Then she taught me to throw a punch.

I am not responding to the poster in question, that is for a mod to decide.

But I will say that no, I do not believe every accusation about Jimmy Saville. Same as I don't believe every accusation about Rolf Harris, or Cliff Richard or any of the Operation Yewtree cases.

I believe in the rule of law, of evidence, of facts and of science. A civil court will rule on whether something "is more likely or not" - differing from criminal trials and "beyond a reasonable doubt". This is why 40 years or more after the fact cases go for damages, rather than "justice".

It genuinely terrifies me as the friend, sister and daughter of very fine men that there are people willing to believe every single accusation made by a woman without hearing any details. It chills me, it really does.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

So where is your proof? You seem to hate women given that in this thread you have repeatedly attack victims of rape and accused them of lying. I bet you're one of those people who knows how a women should react when raped and if they don't then they are lying. I hope that if you never find yourself alone with a man who is considerably larger than you and who has a history of violent outbreaks and who then forces himself inside you and violently rapes you that you don't get replies like on PlaneSpeaking is a talentless slut who used her body to get ahead.

Tone it down please, Darko. This is your one and only warning. If you feel other users are provoking you, use the report post button. We don't have time to scrutinise every post.

That goes for everyone else as well. This is not AH.

/mod

I'm out, let this thread continue to be a place where posters can accuse rape victims of being liars and then defend a man accused of rape by over a 100 women. It's amazing how quickly boards users are to not just to defend but repeatedly go to bat for man who ruined so many lives.

If Weinstein is innocent till a court says otherwise then the Saville comparison stands. You can call him a monster all you want but no court ever found him guilty of a crime and surely you heroic defenders of men won't let him be called a rapist as like Weinstein no court has said he is. What of R Kelly, are we to ignore the dozens of almost identical stories till a court says so? What of Bill Cosby, he was found not guilty due to a deadlocked jury the first time, does the second trial negate that one or is there doubt there now given that one jury was unable to convict?

What about the tragic stories of women who report rape and then when police forces drag their heels and nothing is done they rake their own lives, are these women's attackers poor innocent men given that no court will ever hear the case.

The argument that, anyone can be accused and tried in social media doesn't hold up. Plenty of people have been accused of things and it went nowhere with the accuser being called out. With Weinstein it's not 1 or 2 or even 12 women making accusations, its well over 100 including some the most famous women in the world coming out. Are we to assume they are lying until 12 random people on a jury say they are not?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm out, let this thread continue to be a place where posters can accuse rape victims of being liars and then defend a man accused of rape by over a 100 women. It's amazing how quickly boards users are to not just to defend but repeatedly go to bat for man who ruined so many lives.

If Weinstein is innocent till a court says otherwise then the Saville comparison stands. You can call him a monster all you want but no court ever found him guilty of a crime and surely you heroic defenders of men won't let him be called a rapist as like Weinstein no court has said he is. What of R Kelly, are we to ignore the dozens of almost identical stories till a court says so? What of Bill Cosby, he was found not guilty due to a deadlocked jury the first time, does the second trial negate that one or is there doubt there now given that one jury was unable to convict?

What about the tragic stories of women who report rape and then when police forces drag their heels and nothing is done they rake their own lives, are these women's attackers poor innocent men given that no court will ever hear the case.

The argument that, anyone can be accused and tried in social media doesn't hold up. Plenty of people have been accused of things and it went nowhere with the accuser being called out. With Weinstein it's not 1 or 2 or even 12 women making accusations, its well over 100 including some the most famous women in the world coming out. Are we to assume they are lying until 12 random people on a jury say they are not?

Nobody is defending Weinstein. We are all hoping that he gets what he deserves. I am uneasy with calling anyone a rapist until I know facts or until facts have been presented to people to come to a verdict.

How many accusations would it take for you to class someone as a rapist? Are the lads in the rugby trial rapists? Is John Leslie a rapist?

We can all have our opinions on people based on their public persona, but to categorically state that you KNOW that they are guilty of a crime without knowing facts is downright lunacy.

Using the example of women who take their life is an emotive tactic that is a little underhanded but if you wish to go down that route, what about the men who have been falsely accused of assault or misbehaviour that lose their careers, their family and sometimes their lives? Are these men's accusers delicate innocent women that felt that they had the right to be automatically believed?

You seem to want to paint me as a woman hater / man advocate. That is not in any way true. I believe in equality and that extends to disbelieving both genders in the same way. Just because you have no penis, that doesn't make you a victim. And vice versa.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is defending Weinstein. We are all hoping that he gets what he deserves. I am uneasy with calling anyone a rapist until I know facts or until facts have been presented to people to come to a verdict.

How many accusations would it take for you to class someone as a rapist? Are the lads in the rugby trial rapists? Is John Leslie a rapist?

We can all have our opinions on people based on their public persona, but to categorically state that you KNOW that they are guilty of a crime without knowing facts is downright lunacy.

Using the example of women who take their life is an emotive tactic that is a little underhanded but if you wish to go down that route, what about the men who have been falsely accused of assault or misbehaviour that lose their careers, their family and sometimes their lives? Are these men's accusers delicate innocent women that felt that they had the right to be automatically believed?

You seem to want to paint me as a woman hater / man advocate. That is not in any way true. I believe in equality and that extends to disbelieving both genders in the same way. Just because you have no penis, that doesn't make you a victim. And vice versa.

I remain penis-free and despite some feminists wanting it to be otherwise - I am not a victim.

Having someone grab your behind will never, ever EVER be akin to what the girls taken by Boko Harum went through. Although I have been told "all unwanted sexual contact is akin to rape".

Then I am a rapist. I was quite keen on a young chap not long back and during a dance, the hand was dropped. Went nowhere, forgotten, poof!

Had I been a man and he a woman (and way less cool) I no doubt would have been pilloried - I may have even lost my job as he was a colleague.

And just once more for the cheap seats rattling their jewellery - Weinstein is a complete and utter sicko who got his rocks off with alarming regularity with women who should have known better and acted differently.

I know rape victims, I have counselled one or two in College - you tell them that their experience is the same as a rich actress thinking a BJ for a part is the same. They'll kill you.

pixelburp

From tragedy to farce? So given it was me who mentioned Ashley Judd and her claims Weinstein nuked her career (with Peter Jackson coming in on her side), I didn't realise this had actually gone to court. Looks like Weinstein's lawyers are now hitting back: effectively claiming Judd agreed to sexual favours in exchange for career advancement.

Specifically, that 22 years ago Judd agreed to sleep with Weinstein if he got her an Oscar, so according to Weinstein's lawyers, he "then attempted to live up to his part of the bargain by trying to cast plaintiff in as many roles as possible that could earn her an Academy Award". If it's true, it runs counter to Jackson's claims Weinstein intentionally warned the director away from Judd, claiming her a 'nightmare', with insinuation being it was revenge for rebuffing the producer.

This case is in LA, so isn't the criminal one opened in New York for rape.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/harvey-weinstein-asks-judge-to-dismiss-ashley-judd-lawsuit-37134215.html

One things for certain: as with most of these cases, the only real winners will be the lawyers.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

Weinstein's lawyers are now hitting back: effectively claiming Judd agreed to sexual favours in exchange for career advancement.

They would say that, wouldn't they?

And it doesn't explain Jackson's statements.

pixelburp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They would say that, wouldn't they?

And it doesn't explain Jackson's statements.

It's certainly brazen; I would have thought the tactic might have been to simply deny the charge, rather than basically admit that Weinstein kicked down doors to sleep with Judd. Seems like it's opening up the possibility that sex very much was on the cards in all these cases, thus creating a question of consent in every one of them.

Jackson does contradict the whole thing though, and he has been pretty insistent that his story's straight.

Like I said the last time, I'm not aware that Judd (or Mira Sorvino, how was also part of Jackson's story) is a tough person to work for or with; those kind of tales do tend to get reported with some glee (XYZ is an a**hole to work with etc.)

Sad Professor

Weinstein was a ruthless bastard before, so imagine what he's like now. With over a 100 accusations (a dozen of them for rape), simply denying the charges was never going to be enough. His reputation and career is over, he's fighting now to stay out of jail.

PlaneSpeeking

I can easily believe that 22 years ago a half decent actress would be willing to sleep with Weinstein to get an Oscar.

Miramax was all powerful in the late 90s, bestriding the twin stools of blockbuster and cultural gem - and making a s**tload of cash off both.

Jaysus even Gwyneth Paltrow got an Oscar and my spaniel acts better than her when he's asked who ate that sweet off the table!

PlaneSpeeking

pixelburp wrote: »

From tragedy to farce? So given it was me who mentioned Ashley Judd and her claims Weinstein nuked her career (with Peter Jackson coming in on her side), I didn't realise this had actually gone to court. Looks like Weinstein's lawyers are now hitting back: effectively claiming Judd agreed to sexual favours in exchange for career advancement.

Specifically, that 22 years ago Judd agreed to sleep with Weinstein if he got her an Oscar, so according to Weinstein's lawyers, he "then attempted to live up to his part of the bargain by trying to cast plaintiff in as many roles as possible that could earn her an Academy Award". If it's true, it runs counter to Jackson's claims Weinstein intentionally warned the director away from Judd, claiming her a 'nightmare', with insinuation being it was revenge for rebuffing the producer.

This case is in LA, so isn't the criminal one opened in New York for rape.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/harvey-weinstein-asks-judge-to-dismiss-ashley-judd-lawsuit-37134215.html

One things for certain: as with most of these cases, the only real winners will be the lawyers.

So she did say "I'll f*** you if you win me an Oscar" but then backtracked and said it was a 'mock bargain' to leave the room??

Odd. Definitely odd.

pixelburp

Even assuming what Weinstein's lawyers say is true, I could see a scenario in desperation, given the producer's now publicised aggressive lechery, someone might blurt out anything to get the hell out of Dodge at that point. I'm sure barring bulletproof ego, most actors wouldn't foresee an Oscar in their future, any kind of award or nomination really. Certainly if the actor wasn't 'celebrity' focused and had no desires towards that sort of thing.

A sort of "if you were the last person on earth..." kinda promise, forgetting you just said that to a Mad Scientist

PlaneSpeeking

pixelburp wrote: »

Even assuming what Weinstein's lawyers say is true, I could see a scenario in desperation, given the producer's now publicised aggressive lechery, someone might blurt out anything to get the hell out of Dodge at that point. I'm sure barring bulletproof ego, most actors wouldn't foresee an Oscar in their future, any kind of award or nomination really. Certainly if the actor wasn't 'celebrity' focused and had no desires towards that sort of thing.

A sort of "if you were the last person on earth..." kinda promise, forgetting you just said that to a Mad Scientist

That's actually a really good point - I did actually say to someone "only if everyone else in this bar was dead" - worrying if I was actually fit and he took it as a challenge!

Agent Coulson

Asia Argento who one of the female actress who is very vocal about #Me2 is now being reported to have paid off a child actor she abused.


That doesn’t take away from her being abused.


I do wonder now how the #Me2 movement will publicly deal with her.

Sad Professor

He was 17, below the age of consent in California but hardly a child actor.

New York Times:

Mr. Bennett’s notice of intent asked for $3.5 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, lost wages, assault and battery. Mr. Bennett made more than $2.7 million in the five years before the 2013 meeting with Ms. Argento, but his income has since dropped to an average of $60,000 a year, which he attributes to the trauma that followed the sexual encounter with Ms. Argento, his lawyer wrote.

lol.

p to the e

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Asia Argento who one of the female actress who is very vocal about #Me2 is now being reported to have paid off a child actor she abused.


That doesn’t take away from her being abused.


I do wonder now how the #Me2 movement will publicly deal with her.

Argento is one seriously odd fish.

Pelvis

Sad Professor wrote: »

He was 17, below the age of consent in California but hardly a child actor.

New York Times:



lol.

He was below the age of consent, she was 37.

Yeah, lol indeed.

Agent Coulson

37 year male actor has sex with 17 year old female actress who is a minor.

Public attitude what a bastard preying on young girls he should be destroyed by the #Me2 movement.


37 year female actress has sex with 17 year male actor who is a minor.


Public attitude lol go on the lad!

pixelburp

Well it seemed inevitable that at least one case of female-to-male abuse would crop up - it does happen - though despite the equal inevitability that some will use it to discredit the hashtag movement with, I'd argue that this potentially (if the course case pans out) shows that #metoo is working. It's digging up all the skeletons, regardless of target, as well it should if it was ever serious about its mission.

Sad Professor

Pelvis wrote: »

He was below the age of consent, she was 37.

Yeah, lol indeed.

Yep, that’s what I said. I'm not sure why you said it again or what your point is, but a 17 year old is not a “child actor” which is what I was responding to.

And you took my "lol" out of context. It was specifically in response to the excerpt from the NY Times that revealed that he is a millionaire who is now only earning 60k a year. This is all about money.

Agent Coulson wrote: »

37 year male actor has sex with 17 year old female actress who is a minor.

Public attitude what a bastard preying on young girls he should be destroyed by the #Me2 movement.


37 year female actress has sex with 17 year male actor who is a minor.


Public attitude lol go on the lad!

So I'm representative of "public attitude"? I've been a critic of Metoo since the minute it turned into a witch hunt, which was pretty much immediately.

inforfun

pixelburp wrote: »

Well it seemed inevitable that at least one case of female-to-male abuse would crop up - it does happen - though despite the equal inevitability that some will use it to discredit the hashtag movement with, I'd argue that this potentially (if the course case pans out) shows that #metoo is working. It's digging up all the skeletons, regardless of target, as well it should if it was ever serious about its mission.

It is not just female to male abuse, it is one of the loudest mouthpieces of #metoo to male abuse.