Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually it was martingriff who brought it up.

Again I have to point out that the vast majority of metoo posts do not name anyone and hence do not ruin any reputations. It’s telling that you keep ignoring this.

Yes HC has to be careful not to harass women. How awful.

Its telling that you keep ignoring that for all the good it supposedly does it can and has been used for abuse.

Also to be fair to HC the way the likes of rape and stuff is being defined i would also be careful.

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

Its telling that you keep ignoring that for all the good it supposedly does it can and has been used for abuse.

Also to be fair to HC the way the likes of rape and stuff is being defined i would also be careful.

The good far outweighs any abuses I’ve seen.

You would also be careful? Your behaviour towards women has the potential to be classified as rape? I’m a little worried about you now.

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

The good far outweighs any abuses I’ve seen.

You would also be careful? Your behaviour towards women has the potential to be classified as rape? I’m a little worried about you now.

Of course you wouldn't doesn't fit with your hierarchy of victimhood mentality.

Sorry re-read what you said on the rape thing, what i meant was that there are certain folks online trying to reclassify what rape is, was a big thread on board a couple of months back about it. Essentially not really feeling like sex but going along with it anyway without saying no can also possibly be defined as rape.

I would be fairly careful about who i engage with, as a one night stand as a celebrity could turn into a nightmare as with the current metoo movement there is allot of leverage to blackmail.

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't doesn't fit with your hierarchy of victimhood mentality.

Sorry re-read what you said on the rape thing, what i meant was that there are certain folks online trying to reclassify what rape is, was a big thread on board a couple of months back about it. Essentially not really feeling like sex but going along with it anyway without saying no can also possibly be defined as rape.

I would be fairly careful about who i engage with, as a one night stand as a celebrity could turn into a nightmare as with the current metoo movement there is allot of leverage to blackmail.

So because certain people online supposedly are trying to redefine rape in the way you suggest they are HC should be careful?

Firstly, have they been successful at redefining rape? Is there any jurisdiction in the world that defines it in the way you’ve suggested certain People online are attempting to redefine it?

If not then what does he have to be careful of?

And HC talked about flirting and pursuing. Not actual sex. Are these online people trying to redefine rape as something that can happen through flirting?

Again if not what does he have to be careful of?

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

So because certain people online supposedly are trying to redefine rape in the way you suggest they are HC should be careful?

Firstly, have they been successful at redefining rape? Is there any jurisdiction in the world that defines it in the way you’ve suggested certain People online are attempting to redefine it?

If not then what does he have to be careful of?

And HC talked about flirting and pursuing. Not actual sex. Are these online people trying to redefine rape as something that can happen through flirting?

Again if not what does he have to be careful of?

Well its generally feminists and left leaning folk who are trying to refine the whole interaction between male and female. I would be very careful if i was in a public position in the current environment when one persons word against another can destroy career.

Look at the UK system which in recent times has come under some very serious problems because of how we are changing the approach to how rape is defined. In the case of the UK the crown prosecution has just had allot of cases thrown out because it had hid evidence exonerating the accused. I suppose in this case they didnt change the law but you don't have to change the law as seen in the UK to still go after innocent people.

I never said people were trying to redefine flirting as anything more but if he is in public image then he has to be careful as one accusation could sink his career no matter how true or not. He unfortunately is straight and can't hide behind victimization.

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

Well its generally feminists and left leaning folk who are trying to refine the whole interaction between male and female. I would be very careful if i was in a public position in the current environment when one persons word against another can destroy career.

Look at the UK system which in recent times has come under some very serious problems because of how we are changing the approach to how rape is defined. In the case of the UK the crown prosecution has just had allot of cases thrown out because it had hid evidence exonerating the accused. I suppose in this case they didnt change the law but you don't have to change the law as seen in the UK to still go after innocent people.

I never said people were trying to redefine flirting as anything more but if he is in public image then he has to be careful as one accusation could sink his career no matter how true or not. He unfortunately is straight and can't hide behind victimization.

As long as he behaves appropriately he’ll be fine.

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

As long as he behaves appropriately he’ll be fine.

Maybe maybe not but as has already been said the current culture is open to abuse. So i can see exactly what he is saying, as for as many victims are out there you can come across people who would profit from the situation.

Anyway its late, before i go i will say i do see your point on the benefits of the metoo movement. I always have, i just feel that it can be open to abuse. I have a feeling folks in Hollywood and around the world for the next while will have to be allot more Christian/Puritan lest they find themselves in a spot of bother.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

As long as he behaves appropriately he’ll be fine.

Who determines what is appropriate? The woman he is flirting/dating with. Her own perception of the events will decide that. And you have already suggested that we should believe the woman in her claims.

So behaving appropriately isn't really much of a defense if a woman becomes offended <for whatever reason>, or decides she would like the publicity of taking down someone popular.

Calhoun wrote:

How do you genuinely do it?

LLMMLL wrote:

Maybe don’t do it in a thread about women’s experiences as a means to criticise women? That’s be a good start.

Could you actually answer this one, rather than deflecting it? I was genuinely interested in what your answer would have been.... because I have no idea how a metoo campaign for men would actually be approved/accepted.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

As long as he behaves appropriately he’ll be fine.

I see 2 problems with that statement..

1) It's not true
2) What constitutes behaving appropriately ?

There are crazies out there who think looking at a woman for more then 5 seconds is a form of assault.

We also need to bear in mind that all it takes to ruin a mans career is an accusation. Whether something happened or not is irrelevant.

George Hook is a great example of how these self righteous head cases are ruining careers here..

They're relentless in not only taking down men replacing them with women for the sake of it which seems counter intuitive to equality..

http://time.com/5053867/sexual-misconduct-men-women-replacements/

Aziz Ansari was another great example of how some attention seeking headcase with an axe to grind can destroy a career with one post..

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

You would also be careful? Your behaviour towards women has the potential to be classified as rape? I’m a little worried about you now.

A part from that being a bit of a scummy comment from you (the last bit) the poster has a point. It seems some sections almost want a written consent form. The amount of times I've gone home with a girl or vice versa and we've done the no pants dance without either of us explicitly verbalising consent outweighs times when it has been said aloud. This, in some warped minds, equates to no consent and therefore rape.

seamus

Omackeral wrote: »

A part from that being a bit of a scummy comment from you (the last bit) the poster has a point. It seems some sections almost want a written consent form. The amount of times I've gone home with a girl or vice versa and we've done the no pants dance without either of us explicitly verbalising consent outweighs times when it has been said aloud. This, in some warped minds, equates to no consent and therefore rape.

The implication from some quarters, and from Henry Cavill's statement is that there are loads of women out there for whom a good night out consists of a bit of a drinking, a bit of dancing, a bit of flirting, and who knows, if you get to throw in some sexual assault allegations against someone, that's the icing on the cake.

It's basically the whole "women are evil temptresses trying to distract men from the path of light" nonsense dressed up in modern clothes.

The easy answer is that if you're unsure of how to interact with the opposite sex without finding yourself being accused of assault, then maybe you...shouldn't?

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

The easy answer is that if you're unsure of how to interact with the opposite sex without finding yourself being accused of assault, then maybe you...shouldn't?

That used to be true..

The rules of engagement have changed..

For your own sake, i'd suggest you catch up..

They eat the likes of you for breakfast..

Omackeral

seamus wrote: »

The easy answer is that if you're unsure of how to interact with the opposite sex without finding yourself being accused of assault, then maybe you...shouldn't?

Listen, the vast vast majority of people are decent. 98% of men and 98% of women are probably good folks. The fact that stuff like blows up is because a minute amount of headtheballs have access to such public forums and have imbeciles (not necessarily bad people) following them on the likes of Twitter and FB in their droves. Things are automatically believed and exaggerated and it spirals out of control in a trial by social media.

To me and you, that's probably not much of an issue as nobody probably really cares about what we get up to but for a celebrity, you're open to it. That's what I took from it anyway.

On the other hand maybe you're right. Maybe just steer absolutely clear and then you can't get accused. Well, it'd be tougher anyway.

professore

seamus wrote: »

The implication from some quarters, and from Henry Cavill's statement is that there are loads of women out there for whom a good night out consists of a bit of a drinking, a bit of dancing, a bit of flirting, and who knows, if you get to throw in some sexual assault allegations against someone, that's the icing on the cake.

Definitely true for celebrities. And you forgot selling your story to the Huffington Post for $100k.

seamus

Omackeral wrote: »

To me and you, that's probably not much of an issue as nobody probably really cares about what we get up to but for a celebrity, you're open to it. That's what I took from it anyway.

I agree entirely on certain corners of the web getting all hot and bothered about these things, and the tiny proportion of people who will do or say anything for a bit of attention.

But that's of no real consequence. Have we seen any celebrities find themselves in any real trouble; legally, personally or professionally; after a trial by social media? I don't think so.

All of the people exposed and destroyed by the #metoo movement have been actual dirtbags. They've done actual scummy things. I've yet to see any evidence of even this 2% causing any real ructions. Versus the incredible spotlight it has shone on the reality of unacceptable behaviours in multiple spheres, it's a worthwhile thing.

If Cavill and other people feel like they need to double-check their behaviour, or have a think about whether they're about to do something appropriate, is that actually a bad thing? Shouldn't we conduct all interactions with other people, cognisant of the context of that interaction and the appropriateness of what is said?

DONTMATTER

It's amazing how people here can paint themselves as decent people fighting against some crazy nutjobs. Let's look at the facts. The metoo campaign has been a campaign against rapists and sleazebags, people here are against the metoo campaign. The metoo campaign was one where women got a chance to tell their stories, people here tell these women that they doubt their stories.
You may not realise it or fooled yourself into thinking different but you're on the same side as the rapists and scumbags. Instead of supporting women and trying to change things for the better, you have attacked them, questioned their stories and supported those who've being involved in questionable behaviour.

Lux23

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Nope there's absolutely no bollocks involved.fannys only.

Terry Crews has plenty of bollocks.

py2006

We...are....on....the....same....side....as.....rapists.....and....scumbags!




She found us out guys!

No need for further discussion

givyjoe

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's amazing how people here can paint themselves as decent people fighting against some crazy nutjobs. Let's look at the facts. The metoo campaign has been a campaign against rapists and sleazebags, people here are against the metoo campaign. The metoo campaign was one where women got a chance to tell their stories, people here tell these women that they doubt their stories.
You may not realise it or fooled yourself into thinking different but you're on the same side as the rapists and scumbags. Instead of supporting women and trying to change things for the better, you have attacked them, questioned their stories and supported those who've being involved in questionable behaviour.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what's happened here. You definitely haven't made that part up/completed distorted what was being said. :rolleyes:

I thought you'd legged it from here anyway?

professore

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's amazing how people here can paint themselves as decent people fighting against some crazy nutjobs. Let's look at the facts. The metoo campaign has been a campaign against rapists and sleazebags, people here are against the metoo campaign. The metoo campaign was one where women got a chance to tell their stories, people here tell these women that they doubt their stories.
You may not realise it or fooled yourself into thinking different but you're on the same side as the rapists and scumbags. Instead of supporting women and trying to change things for the better, you have attacked them, questioned their stories and supported those who've being involved in questionable behaviour.

I don't see this at all. I see people against MeToo being used as yet another tool to bash all men and as a means of control and power by feminists.

Mokuba

Think it's the 4th time now DontMatter has left only to come back in a blaze of trolling glory.

py2006

Mokuba wrote: »

Think it's the 4th time now DontMatter has left only to come back in a blaze of trolling glory.

That should be a song title or a movie title



...or a name change for certain posters

The Bishop Basher

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You may not realise it or fooled yourself into thinking different but you're on the same side as the rapists and scumbags.

Comments like that turn people away from your cause in their droves..

DONTMATTER

py2006 wrote: »

We...are....on....the....same....side....as.....rapists.....and....scumbags!




She found us out guys!

No need for further discussion

Yes and you don't realise it!

DONTMATTER

givyjoe wrote: »

Yes, that's EXACTLY what's happened here. You definitely haven't made that part up/completed distorted what was being said. :rolleyes:

I thought you'd legged it from here anyway?

People here have questioned women's stories, they're believing some random scumbags instead.

You wish I legged it!

DONTMATTER

professore wrote: »

I don't see this at all. I see people against MeToo being used as yet another tool to bash all men and as a means of control and power by feminists.

It's bashing rapists and other scumbags. How can you associate that with bashing men? Unless you think all men are rapists and scumbags?

DONTMATTER

Mokuba wrote: »

Think it's the 4th time now DontMatter has left only to come back in a blaze of trolling glory.

I think this is the problem right here! The men here want to control everything, women standing up for themselves doesn't sit well with them.

DONTMATTER

Rennaws wrote: »

Comments like that turn people away from your cause in their droves..

Actually, men questioning women who have been raped and assaulted and calling them liars turns everyone off the men's rights cause, as that is basically their only cause!

py2006

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I think this is the problem right here! The men here want to control everything, women standing up for themselves doesn't sit well with them.

That's EXACTLY right! You are amazing!

seamus

Rennaws wrote: »

Comments like that turn people away from your cause in their droves..

That's interesting though, how much you see this as someone else's cause - as a cause which is adversarial to you. Which in part actually validates DONTMATTER's post.

That is, it shouldn't be "your cause". It should be everyone's cause. To say that it's someone else's cause/problem/crusade, is to suggest that you don't believe that it has any validity.

Either that, or you're indifferent about it altogether, but the number of posts you have on the topic says that's not the case.

Mokuba

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I think this is the problem right here! The men here want to control everything, women standing up for themselves doesn't sit well with them.

You tell everybody you are leaving 4 times in grand proclamations. You come back each time with more bile.

Yet you accuse me of not wanting women standing up for themselves because I have pointed out your mental, attention seeking behaviour?

Bore off.

7aubzxk43m2sni

seamus wrote: »

I agree entirely on certain corners of the web getting all hot and bothered about these things, and the tiny proportion of people who will do or say anything for a bit of attention.

But that's of no real consequence. Have we seen any celebrities find themselves in any real trouble; legally, personally or professionally; after a trial by social media? I don't think so.

Aziz Anzari?
George Hook?
Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding?

Scarlett Johannson: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44829766

7aubzxk43m2sni

seamus wrote: »

That's interesting though, how much you see this as someone else's cause - as a cause which is adversarial to you. Which in part actually validates DONTMATTER's post.

That is, it shouldn't be "your cause". It should be everyone's cause. To say that it's someone else's cause/problem/crusade, is to suggest that you don't believe that it has any validity.

Either that, or you're indifferent about it altogether, but the number of posts you have on the topic says that's not the case.

It's difficult because the cause is not clearly defined.

Of course the majority of people are against sexual harassment, violence, etc. Does that not go without saying?

seamus

seamus wrote: »

That's interesting though, how much you see this as someone else's cause - as a cause which is adversarial to you. Which in part actually validates DONTMATTER's post.

That is, it shouldn't be "your cause". It should be everyone's cause. To say that it's someone else's cause/problem/crusade, is to suggest that you don't believe that it has any validity.

Either that, or you're indifferent about it altogether, but the number of posts you have on the topic says that's not the case.

DONTMATTER's cause is to blindly believe all females and brand any male who thinks stories should be validated as a supporter of rapists.

It has nothing to do with #metoo really. He or she has just hijacked it in order to run around screaming "Rape SUPPORTER!!!" at anyone he or she can.

If you deem that a worthy cause or something worth supporting, you might as well start with now and call me a supporter of rapists.

Wibbs

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Unless you think all men are rapists and scumbags?

You seem to believe many, if not most Men™ are on the same side and potential rapists or apologists for them, particularly Irish men, "foreign" men are apparently more respectful. Which is a complete bloody nonsense of course. You claim every single woman you know has been raped and unless the minority of actual rapists gets around... More bloody nonsense.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Actually, men questioning women who have been raped and assaulted and calling them liars turns everyone off the men's rights cause, as that is basically their only cause!

From what I've read of the men's rights types rape as a subject at all is well down the list. It seems to be about father's rights, fewer social supports for men, inequality in partner violence and the like.

As for Men™ not believing Women™? As I noted before on the matter: In studies of rape cases brought to trial the chances of a successful conviction increase with the number of men on a jury and decrease with the number of women. In Ireland a UCD study into it found that over the last twenty years where a jury had majority women not a single case ended with a conviction. Consider that. Not one. Whereas with male majority juries the conviction rate was a quarter, where it was more 50/50 men/women split the conviction rate dropped again(11% IIRC). Kinda goes against your narrow worldview were men don't believe women. It seems more women are suspicious of women's testimony than men are and for any rape victim finding a jury majority male is more likely to see justice done. No doubt in your headspace that's somehow the "patriarchy" and men's fault too.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

It has nothing to do with #metoo really. He or she has just hijacked it in order to run around screaming "Rape SUPPORTER!!!" at anyone he or she can.

Yes! Now, there you go.

Because swanner rennaws's motivation, and clearly needwater's too, is to bundle as much as they can together and say that it's all coming about because of #metoo.

And then they can say that DONTMATTER is clearly some kind of totem for #metoo. When she's not, she's off on tangents of more hardline feminism.

Then they can go, "Look at these crazy people and their crazy cause, they're crazy!"

When, like you say, most of these have nothing to do with #metoo, or are only loosely related by virtue of being roughly on the topic of sexism or sexual assault.

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually it was martingriff who brought it up.

Again I have to point out that the vast majority of metoo posts do not name anyone and hence do not ruin any reputations. It’s telling that you keep ignoring this.

Yes HC has to be careful not to harass women. How awful.

I just brought it up in relation to a comment most women can't be sleazy.

Just because you do not create a toxic environment about men. It is done by the way you speak and actions.

givyjoe

DONTMATTER wrote: »

People here have questioned women's stories, they're believing some random scumbags instead.

You wish I legged it!

Safe to safe to say we all do, if not most. Mostly because your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent ramblings.

The random scumbags are unidentified in most of metoo. We don't even have their side of a story, so we don't really have an opportunity to believe said random 'scumbags'. I'm specifically referring to the unnamed randomers, allegedly guilty of harassment FYI.

Rory28

seamus wrote: »

And then they can say that DONTMATTER is clearly some kind of totem for #metoo. When she's not, she's off on tangents of more hardline feminism.

Then they can go, "Look at these crazy people and their crazy cause, they're crazy!"

When, like you say, most of these have nothing to do with #metoo, or are only loosely related by virtue of being roughly on the topic of sexism or sexual assault.

I'd agree with this. DONTMATTER is a terrible representation of the #metoo movement.

7aubzxk43m2sni

seamus wrote: »

Yes! Now, there you go.

Because swanner rennaws's motivation, and clearly needwater's too, is to bundle as much as they can together and say that it's all coming about because of #metoo.

And then they can say that DONTMATTER is clearly some kind of totem for #metoo. When she's not, she's off on tangents of more hardline feminism.

Then they can go, "Look at these crazy people and their crazy cause, they're crazy!"

When, like you say, most of these have nothing to do with #metoo, or are only loosely related by virtue of being roughly on the topic of sexism or sexual assault.

Please don't speak as to what my motivations are.

Can you define what the #metoo cause means?

You told another poster that if they did not consider it their cause, then that poster did not think it was a valid cause.

Additionally, I never held DONTMATTER up as a representative for #metoo, because clearly they're incoherent.

seamus

Alessia Spicy Simpleton wrote: »

Can you define what the #metoo cause means?

The core of the cause is/was to demonstrate the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual harassment in society, mostly in the workplace, but also in the more general sense.
The word "too", has two effects;

1. It illustrates that it's not something that occurs in tiny pockets or in freak circumstances, but that it's widespread. Thus, people like you and I who are completely unaware of it, might take notice when the people in our lives are saying, "me too". Pretty easy to dismiss a load of hashtags of twitter, but when your wife, sister or mother (or indeed brother or father) are saying it, that tends hit home harder.

2. It serves as support for people who have been subject to this harassment; that speaking up about it won't be lost into a vacuum, that it's not a freak occurrence nobody will understand or ignore.

martingriff

DONTMATTER wrote: »

People here have questioned women's stories, they're believing some random scumbags instead.

You wish I legged it!

This is a simple question and please answer it simply do you believe ALL #metoo stories without question?

Now I know you will want me to answer the question also so here it is. No I don't believe all the stories without question. I believed the #metoo when it started and even a few now however I believe it has evolved into something worse. I fully am behind the original reason for #metoo for women to have a voice and get support. Rather then these stories been on social media they should go to the proper authorities in relation to them and you me and others should be supporting them to do this. As we live in a world of innocent until proven guilty.

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovq8dEpCAYE

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The implication from some quarters, and from Henry Cavill's statement is that there are loads of women out there for whom a good night out consists of a bit of a drinking, a bit of dancing, a bit of flirting, and who knows, if you get to throw in some sexual assault allegations against someone, that's the icing on the cake.

It's basically the whole "women are evil temptresses trying to distract men from the path of light" nonsense dressed up in modern clothes.

The easy answer is that if you're unsure of how to interact with the opposite sex without finding yourself being accused of assault, then maybe you...shouldn't?

The problem with that logic is that it removes the behavior of the woman from the equation. Her choices. Her perception of the events before, during, and after the experience. Her responsibility for what occurs.

On the basis of your logic, any intimacy with a woman is fraught with peril, and therefore should be avoided. The guys who assume that the woman is interested, accepting, and willing for the intimacy to occur, are likely to be the guys that women are complaining about regarding harassment, or sexual assault. And the "nice guys" who don't want to hurt or offend a woman will be encouraged not to be with women.

The fact is that women need to make their interest known in very real terms, but that's not going to happen in most cases. Otherwise, there really is no chance of being secure in thinking your "partner" is willing and will remain willing after the fact. So... your advice is that we all just stop dating, or entering into relationships?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who determines what is appropriate? The woman he is flirting/dating with. Her own perception of the events will decide that. And you have already suggested that we should believe the woman in her claims.

So behaving appropriately isn't really much of a defense if a woman becomes offended <for whatever reason>, or decides she would like the publicity of taking down someone popular.

General consensus. If a woman posts that she got talking to HC in a bar and he asked for her number then withdrew swiftly when she declined nobody would bat an eyelid.

It SEEMS you are saying any women can post any random experience, slap #metoo on it, and gain universal support. That’s not how it works.

Could you actually answer this one, rather than deflecting it? I was genuinely interested in what your answer would have been.... because I have no idea how a metoo campaign for men would actually be approved/accepted.

I have one point on this and one point only. Any seeming lack of support for men recounting experiences of women’s harassment is because it’s solely raised as a criticism of metoo. It’s aim is not to change women’s behaviour towards men (as in harrassment) but is used in an attempt to silence women criticising their own harrassment by men.

I have zero interest in drawing you a roadmap of how a men’s metoo movement should be started, and that’s not a deflection. The one piece of advice I would give remains the same. Don’t do it to silence women on their own harrassment.

Rory28

LLMMLL wrote: »

If a woman posts that she got talking to HC in a bar and he asked for her number then withdrew swiftly when she declined nobody would bat an eyelid.

I certainly would. Who would turn down Superman? She is obviously up to something nefarious.

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

I see 2 problems with that statement..

1) It's not true
2) What constitutes behaving appropriately ?

There are crazies out there who think looking at a woman for more then 5 seconds is a form of assault.

Right and there are crazies who think sex is a mans right and he should be free to take it at will. We generally ignore the crazies. If you’re trying to characterise metoo as being mostly women complaining about someone looking at them for more than 5 seconds then I’m afraid that’s not going to work.

We also need to bear in mind that all it takes to ruin a mans career is an accusation. Whether something happened or not is irrelevant.

George Hook is a great example of how these self righteous head cases are ruining careers here..

I must have missed where GH was accused of sexual harrassment.

Aziz Ansari was another great example of how some attention seeking headcase with an axe to grind can destroy a career with one post..

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

There’s no indication that his career has been ruined. Master of None season 3 has not been cancelled.

Mokuba

LLMMLL wrote: »

General consensus. If a woman posts that she got talking to HC in a bar and he asked for her number then withdrew swiftly when she declined nobody would bat an eyelid.

It SEEMS you are saying any women can post any random experience, slap #metoo on it, and gain universal support. That’s not how it works.

This is pretty ironic and hilarious. Because the specific example you gave has been given as a metoo story.

What you write about in your second paragraph is exactly what is happening. Trivial, nothing situations are being slapped with #metoo, when clearly there has been no wrongdoing. That is what the likes of Liam Neeson was saying on the Late Late show and what Cavill is saying here. An unwanted advance, an unwelcome glance, an accidental touch - metoo. And what Cavill is saying can ring true, it's safer to avoid all interaction than risk the wrath of someone hoping to be the next hashtag case.

The movement was fine at the outset and now it has descended into utter farce. Women going to social media getting men trialed in the eye of the public with automatic assumption of guilt.

Luckily, I don't think people in the real world take too much notice.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

A part from that being a bit of a scummy comment from you (the last bit) the poster has a point. It seems some sections almost want a written consent form. The amount of times I've gone home with a girl or vice versa and we've done the no pants dance without either of us explicitly verbalising consent outweighs times when it has been said aloud. This, in some warped minds, equates to no consent and therefore rape.

I was simply highlighting the absurdity of the posters claim. He takes about HC having to be careful of being perceived as a rapist when all HC talked about was flirting and pursual. It was a ridiculous scaremongering link he was making. “Oh the nasty feminists are going to make flirting illegal” type stuff.

LLMMLL

Alessia Spicy Simpleton wrote: »

Aziz Anzari?
George Hook?
Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding?

Scarlett Johannson: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44829766

Jaysus.

George Hook was not accused of sexual harrassment.

PJ was accused of rape. The complainant testified she said no. Whether you believe her or not is irrelevant. PJ wasn’t prosecuted under some new crazy law about rape where the woman decides after she was raped while seemingly enjoying it at the time.

There’s no indication the AAs career has been ruined.