Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 4263 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #50 on: October 16, 2017, 11:34:35 AM »
It's not about 'women', it's about women in the film/theatre industry and what they might be willing to do to get parts. I'm quite sure many would gladly sleep with some guy if it put them ahead of the other woman going for the part, if all other things were equal.

Wrong measure.  It's not about what they are "willing" to do, unless you are positing that a particular woman would prefer to sleep with him and get the part over just getting the part.  The abuse of power is in exploiting what a woman is "willing to do" not in what she wants to do.

This isn't strictly binary, but I believe it's you who has the wrong measure. In terms of what a given actress might want, it's not about whether they sleep with someone to get a part versus whether they just get the part. It's about whether they sleep with someone to get the part, versus going up strictly on merit against the competition.

We may be talking past each other and mean the same thing.  I'm going to try again, because this is important.  It's my view that given the choice between getting the part, and being required to sleep with the director to get the part, virtually no one would choose option b.  Do you disagree?

The problem here is that "parts" are one of the most restricted resources on the planet.  Let's be honest, there are probably at least a thousand or more women that would be actively interested in part, and that's after all those who've self selected themselves out of Hollywood have been dropped.  Honestly, it can't be that only attractive people like to act.  I expect that a not insignificant proportion of people would jump at a part if it fell into their laps. 

When you have job that is that demanded, and that arguably tens of thousands of people (if not more) are qualified to perform (except maybe on arbitrary physical attractiveness standards that help a piece of entertainment make more money) and that even more want and it has a single gatekeeper you have a situation that is grossly ripe for abuse.

You are correct, some women (men too really, but given the current example I'm going to write it this way) will choose to use any means available to get a part and be happy with the trade if they do so.  They should not be required, or permitted to do so.

Other women meanwhile will be left with a hard choice.  When you know that others are just as attractive as you, just as capable of doing the part (within some reasonable degree at the worst), and also willing to provide "extra" benefits to influence a decision, what do you do?  Just give up on the dream?  Wait for an honest casting opportunity?

The only real way to fix this, is to take the power brokers out of the equation.  I can think of lots of economic and criminal sanctions that could have an impact on casting, whether they'd also lower the quality of the resulting products who knows.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #51 on: October 16, 2017, 04:53:14 PM »
In the case of my old girlfriend, she explicitly told an interviewer that intention was to demystify breasts and make them less of a sexual "item."  If they were more commonplace, they wouldn't be such a big deal.

So, no, she didn't want people to look at her "in a sexual way."  And she certainly didn't decide that people should look at her in a sexual way.
Her justification for exhibitionism is pretty weak. Nearly every town of any size has a bar where many women expose their breasts, these types of bars have been around for generations and they're all too common. There are men that go to them all the time and this immersion therapy justification you bought is solidly disproven - these bars would not exist if her approach worked. We can see breasts at will on the internet for the last 20 years, anytime we want, 24/7. And you know what, men still look at them sexually. She absolutely wanted them to look at them in a sexual way, that was the whole point! Once they did, she could shame them, create some type of perceived moral superiority over men. Exhibitionism is not going to keep men from perceiving sexuality, at best it'll empty the $1 bills out of their wallets. And this Joss Whedon style of feminism is more detrimental to women that actual misogyny.

Flip the script here. Go out and wag your penis in public, try to claim you weren't being sexual and it should not be seen in a sexual way. You'll be spouting that justification from the backseat of a police car on the way to jail because everyone knows exactly what you were really doing - "I swear officer, I was snaking everyone for equality and to demystify male genetalia!".  Riiigggghht.   :o

Women exposing their breasts are no different. And when they do, expecting it to be seen as anything other than sexual is naive at best.

You are still getting the concepts mixed-up: intent and result.

I am objecting to the idea that showing breasts is always a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way."  That the woman is intending men to desire her for exposing her body.  I gave an example of my girlfriend who exposed her breasts for another reason.

Now, I never said that her strategy to normalize them was effective. ;)  Nor did I, or she, expect that our culture would be changed in the near future.  Breasts are pretty well ensconced as sexually stimulating in our society, just like ankles are considered sexually stimulating in other societies, or the way navels were considered risqué just a few decades ago.  One woman baring herself ain't going to change anything anytime soon.  So the result of her actions was titillating to some.

But her intent was not to titillate.  It was to protest the objectification of women's bodies.  Like, for instance, the objectification of women's breasts.  Just because it is ensconced doesn't make it good or right.  And what is considered "sexy" in a society does change.  Once ankles were sexy in our society.  Once navels were considered sexy.  If you get to decide that breasts are a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way," why not navels, or ankles, or faces?  After all, she doesn't get a vote.  She's making a "tacit request."

A "request" implies intent.  And there are many reasons, many intents, for someone to look what some would consider "sexy."  But that someone thinks something is sexy does not mean there is a "tacit request."  That "request" only exists in the head of the person who finds it sexy.  And that is not always the intent of the person who dresses in any particular way.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2017, 05:07:09 PM »
Wayward Son, you're kind of dodging the point.  Why did your girlfriend choose to show her breasts to make that point, rather than to hold up a sign?  Shock value, which only comes from enticing people to look in order to be shocked.  Whether she meant it as a "sexual" gesture is a ridiculous point, she clearly meant it to be a public spectacle.  We're not entitled to control how that which put out in public is perceived.  Unless you're saying you've never participated in by watching a viral video - which almost always relies on an unintended perception, you too have taken liberties with the intended "purpose" of a public display.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2017, 05:30:57 PM »
Quote
We're not entitled to control how that which put out in public is perceived.

True.  But, conversely, we are not entitled to control how it was intended to be perceived.  What the request was.

Yes, it titillated.  But the main point was not titillation.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2017, 05:31:38 PM »
as long as she didn't expose her breasts to the flag - no problem

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #55 on: October 16, 2017, 05:54:48 PM »
Quote
We're not entitled to control how that which put out in public is perceived.

True.  But, conversely, we are not entitled to control how it was intended to be perceived.  What the request was.

Yes, it titillated.  But the main point was not titillation.

What's the point of specifying this? What does it gain to assert that one cannot control the intent of someone else? Maybe what you should ask is whether the person in question is aware that their choice will be perceived a certain way. If they are and they do it anyhow then their intent is, as far as I can tell, not extremely relevant. I can go do something, say to myself "I know people will take this to mean X, but really I would like it to mean Y", then what's basically going on is the effective intent really is X regardless of what goes on in the imagination of the person doing it. 'They will be titillated, but I want them to know that I don't want them to be! But they will be anyhow, so I'll do it!' is really a funny way of saying that you're not going to take responsibility for the effects of what you do. It doesn't mean you caused them or wanted them, but they happen. Sometimes that responsibility can be as little as 'I know it will have this effect and I don't care' and sometimes it may be 'I wasn't sure it would have that effect, but it did, so I'll re-evaluate next time.' But if you know what effect it will have and do it anyhow then your imagined intentions aren't that relevant as far as I can tell. That's sort of Weinstein logic, isn't it? "I'm really just doing what everyone does, and I'll help them in the end. I don't intend to hurt anyone." Well the intent there is really irrelevant, and although it's an edge case and not comparable to a person just minding their own business it does sort of illustrate that pretending to act in a vacuum with no context doesn't really do anyone any favors.

In the case of WS's friend it was a deliberate protest so there's meta-content there, but even so the effect is the effect. My point isn't that any time a man gets excited it's a woman's fault, it's more that pretending certain physical realities shouldn't affect a man is just wishful dreaming. In the context of Hollywood it would be idle to deny that a woman's appearance shouldn't have anything to do with business, because it ends up being inextricably linked to it. That doesn't mean a Weinstein gets green light to do anything, but it does mean that when an exec gets 'the signal' from an actress it can easily be confused with another actress who dressed that way just because she felt like it and he interprets that as being a signal too. It's bad from both sides, is what I'm getting at.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #56 on: October 17, 2017, 02:39:30 PM »
So as more and more women in Hollywood speak out, I'm still struck by my original challenge.  Where are the other names?  It's clear Weinstein wasn't the only one, I'm not seeing a culture change coming about unless the others are exposed.  It could not be clearer that support is out there right now, and that if any of those speaking are serious about wanting to protect young actresses and change the culture piling on Weinstein and staying silent about other abusers is not going to get it done.

As an example, Reese Witherspoon came out with a story that she was sexually assaulted by a director at 16 but declined to say by whom.  I can't begin to imagine how hard it is to come forward at all, but to come forward and keep the silence as these stars are doing, reinforces that except in rare cases directors and producers are going to get away with it.  What message should a young person take, when a well known star goes on record both confirming their assault and confirming their silence?

The media is promoting these events as meaningful and good, and maybe I'm being too hard, maybe they are good enough for now.  But it kind of feels to me like a mob witness making a public statement that they aren't going to provide evidence on anyone but the mobster that the government already caught.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #57 on: October 17, 2017, 02:48:28 PM »
Nothing is going to change

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #58 on: October 17, 2017, 03:28:12 PM »
This is one case where there's no good answer. It is unfair to expect people to come forward until we give them respect (not blaming the victim) and until we give them protection (legal, social, and career). I don't know what form that would take. I'm not that clever. But being faced with shaming, vitriol, lawsuits, and the loss of their livelihood, I don't know why we would expect that they can come out and name their accusers.

Just look at what happened to the women who came out and accused Cosby, as one profile example. Until they had an avalanche of support, they were vilified, denied, and dismissed by many.

Another thing we could do - instead of wasting undercover police power on the drug war, maybe we need someone to take an acting call and trap these people as credible witnesses who can't really be dismissed as "consenting" - as well as in corporate America. Maybe we need CI who go to corporate temp jobs and blow the whistle and don't have to worry about keeping that job - because their job is to root out this behavior.

If we all take this seriously, and understand that most accusations are true, then why would these women put themselves on the block for destruction?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2017, 04:56:03 PM »
Quote
I can go do something, say to myself "I know people will take this to mean X, but really I would like it to mean Y", then what's basically going on is the effective intent really is X regardless of what goes on in the imagination of the person doing it. 'They will be titillated, but I want them to know that I don't want them to be! But they will be anyhow, so I'll do it!' is really a funny way of saying that you're not going to take responsibility for the effects of what you do. It doesn't mean you caused them or wanted them, but they happen. Sometimes that responsibility can be as little as 'I know it will have this effect and I don't care' and sometimes it may be 'I wasn't sure it would have that effect, but it did, so I'll re-evaluate next time.' But if you know what effect it will have and do it anyhow then your imagined intentions aren't that relevant as far as I can tell.

So you advocate that people restrict their behavior because of the effect it may have on other people?  Because you may be sending the wrong message, so you should restrain from doing it?  But what if you don't want constraint?  Or what if you are required to perform that behavior?  Are you still responsible for how other people react?  Are you're imagined intentions irrelevant?

Admittedly, my old girlfriend was an extreme example.  I used that incident to dramatically demonstrate that there can be more than just the "tacit request" to showing-off what you got.  But how about less extreme sexual cues?  Showing off a bit of leg, let's say half-way up the thigh.  Wearing a tight-fitting tube dress, showing off the figure.  A bit of make-up, which highlight the cheek bones, long eyelashes, lip color that simulates blood flowing into the lips.  Aren't these also a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way?"

And are those women's "imagined intentions" not that relevant?

I ask this because some examples occurred to me this morning.  Women who always seem to dress that way, at least in my part of the country.  I refer, of course, to local weather women, the ones who tell you tomorrow's forecast. :)

I don't know why, but at least down here in San Diego, all the TV weather forecasters have become these tall women in tight-fitting dresses, usually in high heels, and often with a lot of bare legs.  They are on more than half the local channels.  It's odd.  (Well, maybe not that odd... ;) ).

Do you believe they all dress that way to present the weather because their main request is to be seen in a sexual way?  Or do you think their main intent is to have a job in broadcasting?

I'm sure they know men will look at them in a sexual way.  But do you really believe every single one of them get up every morning with the specific desire to make men horny when they tell them if it will rain next week?

Because, after all, people almost always "request" things that they desire.  You don't usually "request" to be beaten.  You don't usually "request" to be fired.  You don't usually "request" to have your car repossessed.  Tacitly or not.

Yes, they are knowingly doing it.  They are willingly doing it.  But are they "requesting" it?  Or is it something, like putting on a tie, that they do in this society to fit in, or because it is company policy?  Are those intentions also irrelevant?

I'm saying that intentions are relevant.  I'm saying that sometimes, and perhaps often, a woman's intention is not for men to "look at her in a sexual way."  That it is something that she tolerates to get what she is really after--respect, attention, a job, whatever.  And that this "tacit request" is in the imagination of men.  That usually it was not the intent or desire of a woman who dresses in a certain way to be looked at "in a sexual way."  She may expect it, but she may often not desire it.

So imagined intentions are relevant, even if some believe it to be a "tacit request."

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2017, 08:00:36 PM »
For some reason, many seem to be commenting on some version of the idea that what I said about no one being entitled to proscribe the way others perceive their actions, is the same thing as others being entitled to act out in violative ways.  Why I get the inherent satisfaction in jumping up to validate yourself with the "right" opinion, there's likely no one on here who would even consider endorsing the sexual assaults you are describing.  Why then do they appear on this thread?  It's a validation point?  Is it a motte bailey argument?  Or is it some manner of claim that the two are the same thing?

They appear in the thread in relation that this topic (women's mode of dress, or undress as it were) because it has been used as a defense in the past within the United States legal system, and continues to be used as a defensible position in many parts of the world. Simply put: It isn't the male's fault for raping that woman. It was her fault for looking so sexually appealing that the male in question simply couldn't help to do anything but sexually assault her.

Quote
My point is simply, no one - female or male - is entitled to tell others how to think.  We all are entitled to make any assumptions we choose about others - even hateful and unflattering ones - about others based on how they choose to dress or not dress.  We are all entitled to treat other people differently based on how they choose to dress or not dress.

And I'll largely agree with that, within certain boundaries. I'll even agree that some of those lines will and should vary by geography, climate, and prevailing weather patterns. Which means time of year can factor in as well. For example: Having someone running around stark naked when there is a -40 degree windchill outside obviously isn't in anybody's best interest. Beyond that, we move into "shades of grey" where cultural/religious moores and social conventions come into play. As we claim to be mostly a secular society, that tends to mean any legal restrictions that are imposed need to have rational justifications as to why those restrictions exist, beyond "I don't like it" or "My religion condemns those who do ___."

This is one of those fun intersections between Libertarians and Liberals along the other political axis with regards to certain social issues, where you have the "Social Conservative Libertarians" and then you have the more strict ones who will end up siding with the Liberals on things to a large degree, just for different reasons, and quite possibly with different preferred methods(as the present day "Liberals" will try to enact legal structures to allow/promote it, while the Libertarians will instead try to tear down any legal structures that exist (and are being used) to prevent it--another such example on this would be the range of Libertarian positions on "Gay Marriage").

Quote
We are not entitled to harass people, at least beyond the scope of the law.  All of you are quick to jump on this point, when we're talking about men reacting to a woman making a point.  Jumping right to the defense.  Are you willing to stake out the same position about someone wearing a Make America Great Again hat?  Or is it okay to harass them, assault them and take their hat?

We are somewhat assuming worst case scenario here, and basing on historical and contemporary record. Much as you attempted to insert extreme feminist positions into what we were doing. Although when I was doing so, it wasn't to claim that was a position you held, but rather to point out those justifications are also employed by the people who would rape women or otherwise attempt to sexually assault them using that line of thinking as their justification. 

And I would stake the same position regarding a person in "a Trump Hat" or almost any other kind of hat. The "Legal consequences" for wearing them should be near non-existent. As to social consequences, that may be another matter. However, there obviously is a limit on that. I don't think wearing a Trump hat is justification for raping the person with that hat, likewise, I don't think going about topless justifies anyone raping topless persons of any gender.


Quote
No one is entitled to tell someone else how to feel.  Why would a topless woman have a right to tell a man he is not entitled to feel that is sexual?  The entitlement of the woman is to not have the man treat her in a disrespectful or entitled manner because of such act.

Two different things here. Just because Person B views something that Person A is doing as "sexual in nature" does not mean that Person A actually thinks what they are doing is "sexual" in any way, shape or form. So this gets into a complicated "shades of grey issue" where if we're "prohibiting sexual actions" and Woman A doesn't think that walking around topless is a sexual act(or at least, shouldn't be considered one), then who is Person B to come along and try to proscribe it because they "can't help themselves" and do anything but view it as being sexual.

Why jump to proscription?  Whether Person B views something as sexual has nothing to do with what Person A thinks about it.  If Person B gets off on shoes are they barred from shoe stores?   Or only from pleasuring themselves there, or otherwise staring and harassing people trying them on?

I think you need to make the case, without jumping to "proscription" unless someone is arguing that women should be barred from dressing sexy?

Well some of this get mixed into "top freedom" for women, because the position was staked out that "women's breasts are inherently sexual" for men. So if you in turn define "women dressing sexy" as "women going topless" then yes, we are talking about someone arguing for women being barred from "dressing sexy" even if in that particular case it may be more aptly called "undressing" instead.

It's somewhat moot in many places anyhow, it actually is legal for women to go topless in many cities or even entire states within the United States. Most people don't realize that is the case, although there is a tendency in some areas for local governments to "correct" that once someone starts trying to use it, at least when there isn't a court ruling blocking them from doing so, such as in the State of New York. Although even there, the courts in NY granted the "right" in the 1990's but it wasn't until a few years ago that NYPD stopped ordering women who were going topless to cover up or get cited/arrested for violating laws which didn't actually exist.

Ontario Canada is another place with court-ordered "top freedom" for women going back some 20 years now, most women don't know they have it, most who do know don't exercise it, and many law enforcement types had still been known to order them put more clothes on or get cited for one thing or another.

Quote
Or maybe you mean, like I hinted above, that no one should be permitted to make judgements about people based on how they choose to dress?  Where did the right to bar other people's thoughts come from?  Or the right to be free from consequence come from? 

Our goal in this area has got to be reasonable.  We all agree that no matter how someone dresses, no one should be entitled to assault or unreasonably harass them.

I could care less about people's thoughts, I don't support the thought police.

What I was attempting at was a correction/education item about a commonly held misconception that people use(because it is "the intuitive answer" based on their current experience/knowledge base) to justify restricting others from certain activities. They're wrong, and anyone who confronts them in an angry/hostile way for "being wrong" is also wrong themselves. Much like the notion from 100 years ago that women need to cover their legs lest society collapse due to sexual chaos in the streets because men wouldn't be able to control themselves.

This is something that should resolve itself in due time, if we allow things to run their course and experience/knowledge starts to win out. But that means confronting the legal barriers that still exist across much of the country, and any new ones people try to erect along the way. The biggest problem on this front is that in the areas where women are still restricted, the stakes have been raised in the era of Megan's Law. Women run a real risk of finding themselves on the National Sex Offenders Registry if they were to go topless in the right (wrong) jurisdiction. (Hello, Utah!)

Quote
Quote
Now whose standard are we going to adhere to? There are Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects that hold as a matter of scriptural interpretation that the simple sight of a woman's hair is an intensely sexual act. Islam will of course go even further in some cases, going so far veiling the face and practically every square inch of skin belonging to a woman because "men can't help themselves" when presented with even the smallest glimpse of female skin.

So what?  Are you saying those religions are barred from believing that?  Our laws do, and should, bar them from imposing such a standard.  Bright line on converting your belief into someone else's legal punishment.  But, again, that's a far cry from prohibiting religious men from refusing to associate with "immodest" women.

If you truly feel that way, then we are largely agreed and have common ground/cause.

Quote
Quote
So when was the last you were biologically compelled to rape a woman because you saw her hair? Her face? Her hands? Her Arms? Her legs? Her abdominals?

Never.  But you've jumped shark by even asking this question.  Dodged the debate, skipped the tough question and practically Godwinned the point.

It was hyperbole to make a point, you realize it, but I think you're still not fully processing the implications.

Quote
Quote
There is a very significant portion of the global population that thinks sighting any of these things on an unrelated woman should leave you with the overpowering desire to rape them. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be what I've experienced in reality. Rape statistics in Western Nations also seem to indicate that also isn't the case, but there are plenty of religious groups that will tell that is so.

And?  I have no problem declaring them wrong and their culture wrong for endorsing that.  I'm not a cultural relativist.  Our culture is far better on women's rights than those cultures.

Good, we're agreed on that. We're leagues ahead of much of the planet, but that doesn't mean we're perfect either, we can still improve within our own borders, and that is the one place where we have the most influence. That said, I do also agree there is a disproportionate amount of attention and "Equivalence" that many people pushing such "reforms"/agenda like to proclaim which have no bearing on reality.

The State of Utah criminalizing women going topless in SLC while men can is not equivalent to honor killings in Afghanistan, never was, never will be.

Quote
Quote
Quote
What about the flip?  Should flashing still be illegal?

Which kind of flashing we talking about? "peekabo" short clothing, Girls Gone Wild type, or people in trench coats, or plumber pants?

GGW and the trench coat flashers are overtly sexual, the "peekaboo" type is very likely to be sexual in nature too. The plumber variety, not so much

Honestly, why should it matter "what" kind?  Unless you intend to impose your mores on them why would you need that information?  Whether they intend it to be a sexual act or not can't be a test for how you are entitled to react to it.  How would that even work?

Intent is an important portion of the law. A trench coat flasher is clearly demonstrating an intent, someone running down the street stark naked, not so much. Likewise a woman lifting her shirt to flash their boobs is clearly demonstrating an intent. A woman who simply takes her shirt off, well, that's more than a bit more ambiguous and you're going to have to start looking at a larger context of what is going on.

Generally speaking, the terrible standard of "I'll know it when I see it" basically starts to apply at that point. But you basically end up with the current NYPD standard for topless women in New York. Simply being topless does not constitute a "lewd act" but does not mean that they're somehow magically immune from committing such things simply because they're topless. Yes, that does mean they'll be able to get away with some things they probably shouldn't be able to, but reality is at that point, if they could do it in public with their clothes on, is it really that much worse without the clothes? In reality, there actually would be (a short list of) some things they wouldn't be able to do while in public without the clothes that they could do while clothed because of the lack of a barrier. 

Regardless, the point is, it isn't really a matter of what is or is not being worn. It is a matter of what they are doing at the time. Removing the "dress code" does nothing towards removing the other restrictions that still exist.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Can a man decide to take off his shirt and flex his muscles in front of a random group of women and be entitled to not have them consider it a sexual act?

Depending on context, I think that would be fair.

If it depends on "context," then you are de facto accepting that society has a right to expect certain behaviors from individuals in certain contexts, ergo, there can also be a standard for how women dress and it's just a matter of determine what is appropriate.

It depends on context because there are situations where "a guy flexing his muscles" in front of a random group of women would be considered a sexual act even if he was wearing clothes. I'd take exception to a (random) guy grabbing his crotch suggestively while leering at a group of random women regardless of what he was or was not wearing, so yes, "context matters." (Male strippers in a strip club context potentially being an exception, as that's what he's essentially being paid to do, and the customers expect/want it)

Quote
Quote
Woman(or man) sunbathing in a (private property) backyard which can be seen into from a public park/church?

If the church doesn't want to see it, then can always close the windows or build a wall.

But you've flipped the point.  What we've been talking about, is whether or not the sunbather has a reasonable expectation to expect the church goers not to judge them, and the answer to that is no the sunbather does not.

Well, that one actually is a case that I think might still be working through the legal system in Utah at this point. Senior Citizen (male) nude sunbathing in his backyard in Utah, happened to be visible from the parking lot a of nearby (LDS) Church. He was reported, he was subsequently prosecuted under their ultra strict laws regarding adult "nudity in the presence of minors." (some of the people in that church parking lot) IIRC he's already been convicted, not sure if his case has been or even will sent up for appeal, but I believe he's now on the sex offenders registry.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2017, 02:00:12 PM »
So you advocate that people restrict their behavior because of the effect it may have on other people?  Because you may be sending the wrong message, so you should restrain from doing it?  But what if you don't want constraint?  Or what if you are required to perform that behavior?  Are you still responsible for how other people react?  Are you're imagined intentions irrelevant?

You're mixing up agency and responsibility. A person can admit to having agency in affecting another person's reactions and feelings, while still insisting they aren't responsible for delivering any particular kind of message. A woman can admit that she knows she's dressing in such a way as to turn a guy on, while still rightly saying that while she may be aware of this she doesn't believe this fact ought to constrain how she dresses. Both can be true. But that's a far cry from insisting that a man's reaction to a woman (or her outfit) is his own fault, or at any rate, has nothing to do with anything she's done. If we want to discuss a move towards empathy, then that ought to also include things like this, where we're sensitive to how we affect other people, even in situations where we feel we have the right to do as we please anyhow. And a woman does have the right to dress as she pleases, and that right can be vehemently defended without having to resort to silly arguments such as saying that if she pulls up her top in front of a church gathering that if that upsets them it's their problem that they're offended. I think the ideal should be to be aware of one's effect on others, to respect that, and to then make decisions about whether to carry on with one's behaviors. You want to dress in revealing clothes? Go for it, but if someone interprets that as you wanting to turn heads don't pretend that it came out of the clear blue sky. I think it's reasonable to expect that if a person does something that will predictably have a certain result that they go do it with eyes wide open rather than denying any agency in the result. This is an important issue in a place like Hollywood, where borderline prostitution is an actual tactic on both sides that's in the air. The issue gets murky when unpredictable results occur, such as showing ankle in America and someone from a Muslim country takes offence because he's not used to it. So the cultural context does matter.

Quote
A bit of make-up, which highlight the cheek bones, long eyelashes, lip color that simulates blood flowing into the lips.  Aren't these also a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way?"

Yes. But that's the point, isn't it? That's a funny thing to try to deny.

Quote
I don't know why, but at least down here in San Diego, all the TV weather forecasters have become these tall women in tight-fitting dresses, usually in high heels, and often with a lot of bare legs.  They are on more than half the local channels.  It's odd.  (Well, maybe not that odd... ;) ).

That's a different matter, which is that weather forecasting (and to an extent, female anchoring) has slowly turned from a professional job into an acting gig. Women employed as weather people are basically made up like actresses and even have to act a certain way for the job. I used to take an acting class where a renowned TV anchor in my city was in the class with me, and she told me it was to improve her performance for her job. Weather forecasting is basically a TV personality gig much of the time now. And yes, it's not entirely flattering to women that this is how it's being used.

Quote
Do you believe they all dress that way to present the weather because their main request is to be seen in a sexual way?  Or do you think their main intent is to have a job in broadcasting?

When you're talking about an employee who's groomed for a job it's moot to discuss what 'their' request is. They're fulfilling their job in the way they're instructed to.

Because, after all, people almost always "request" things that they desire.  You don't usually "request" to be beaten.  You don't usually "request" to be fired.  You don't usually "request" to have your car repossessed.  Tacitly or not.

Quote
Yes, they are knowingly doing it.  They are willingly doing it.  But are they "requesting" it?  Or is it something, like putting on a tie, that they do in this society to fit in, or because it is company policy?  Are those intentions also irrelevant?

I don't know why you're so hung up on who's overtly 'requesting' what. We don't read minds and so attempting to identify whether someone in life is requesting something is irrelevant unless you interview them about it (and if you accept their answers at face value). Most communication is done with subconscious signals, and whether someone intends to communicate something often has nothing to do with whether they're doing it. And so yes, someone can communicate something without any intent, it happens all the time. It doesn't mean we get to read any intent we like and then act as if 'they wanted it', but it does mean we can reasonably try to gauge situations without worrying about "but is she requesting I talk to her??!!" You try your best, and if they say no you stop. It's not that complicated. The difficulty is with certain people who read a signal and won't stop. The issue there is that they won't stop, rather than they got the wrong signal. Getting wrong signals shouldn't lead to sexual abuse if you stop.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2017, 04:58:42 PM »
Quote
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said Wednesday that women bear as much responsibility as men for preventing sexual assault and harassment.

“I grew up in a time when it was as much the woman’s responsibility as it was a man’s — how you were dressed, what your behavior was,” Johnson told local media. “I’m from the old school that you can have behaviors that appear to be inviting. It can be interpreted as such. That’s the responsibility, I think, of the female. I think that males have a responsibility to be professional themselves.”

When even the democrats are willing to admit a hard truth, this Joss Whedon style of feminism must be on the way out.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2017, 05:47:31 PM »
Quote
A person can admit to having agency in affecting another person's reactions and feelings, while still insisting they aren't responsible for delivering any particular kind of message. A woman can admit that she knows she's dressing in such a way as to turn a guy on, while still rightly saying that while she may be aware of this she doesn't believe this fact ought to constrain how she dresses. Both can be true. But that's a far cry from insisting that a man's reaction to a woman (or her outfit) is his own fault, or at any rate, has nothing to do with anything she's done. If we want to discuss a move towards empathy, then that ought to also include things like this, where we're sensitive to how we affect other people, even in situations where we feel we have the right to do as we please anyhow. And a woman does have the right to dress as she pleases, and that right can be vehemently defended without having to resort to silly arguments such as saying that if she pulls up her top in front of a church gathering that if that upsets them it's their problem that they're offended.

Basically, I agree with you here, Fenring. :)  A woman can know that dressing a certain way will elicit a certain reaction in certain people, and still do it without the intent of eliciting that reaction, or in spite of it.  And she does hold some responsibility for that reaction.

And I wouldn't even go so far as to say a man's reaction to a woman's dress is "his fault."  His reactions simply are.  How he acts on those reactions are his responsibility, as we are all in agreement about.

The thing that often gets lost in these discussions is that different men react to different things, even in the same culture.  So showing a thigh can elicit a reaction from one man, but not another.  Showing a neck can turn on one man, bore another.  Showing an ankle can turn on someone, while another won't even notice.  Which means that each man decides what is a "tacit request."

And women don't have a vote. :(

A women will know that bearing her breasts in our society will be seen as a "tacit request."  But showing the top of the breast may or may not.  Or showing thigh may or may not.  Or showing neck hopefully will not.  Or showing ankle will, but only to a very few...

So no matter how a woman dresses, it will be seen as a "tacit request" by someone.

So how does "intent" come in, when you can get the same reaction regardless of what you do? ;)

But saying that does not mean that women have no agency in how they affect men by the way they dress.  Certain ways of dressing do elicit more response in men than others.  But assigning a "tacit request" to it is dangerous, because there can be other reasons, like keeping a job or trying to get one, that would be the actual intent.

I guess that a "tacit request" means that a woman has crossed a line between looking nice and looking sexy.  But since every man draws his own line, it is ridiculous to hold the woman responsible for her "request," "intent" or "desire" based on the way she dresses.  It may have been, or it may not have been, even in so blatant a case as a woman bearing her breasts in public.  So it's best to avoid blanket statements or assumptions about it at all, IMHO.

Crunch--I think this addresses your last post, too.  Eddie Johnson hasn't thought this through.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2017, 05:55:02 PM »
Quote
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said Wednesday that women bear as much responsibility as men for preventing sexual assault and harassment.

“I grew up in a time when it was as much the woman’s responsibility as it was a man’s — how you were dressed, what your behavior was,” Johnson told local media. “I’m from the old school that you can have behaviors that appear to be inviting. It can be interpreted as such. That’s the responsibility, I think, of the female. I think that males have a responsibility to be professional themselves.”

When even the democrats are willing to admit a hard truth, this Joss Whedon style of feminism must be on the way out.

Don't count on it, he sounds like he's "Old Guard" while what you're calling "Joss Whedon style" is the Millenials and company.

The Democratic old guard(in particular on the feminist side) doesn't really agree with everything their younger counterparts are getting up to. Witness the outrages that happen whenever Kim Kardashian(sp?)  tries to "break the internet" with a (almost) nude pic on Instagram. Or when Emma Watson("Hermoine Granger") poses for Vogue in a photoshoot where she's practically topless except for some strategically placed material. Where the "Whedon"/Millennial crowd defends the act against attacks from "their older feminist sisters."

The "top freedom"/"body freedom" aspect is a relatively new thing on the national political landscape so there haven't really been any lines drawn on that front, aside from where that "old guard" appropriated "rape culture" from the younger set and have tried to turn it into something else.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #65 on: October 20, 2017, 10:14:51 AM »
Quote
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said Wednesday that women bear as much responsibility as men for preventing sexual assault and harassment.

“I grew up in a time when it was as much the woman’s responsibility as it was a man’s — how you were dressed, what your behavior was,” Johnson told local media. “I’m from the old school that you can have behaviors that appear to be inviting. It can be interpreted as such. That’s the responsibility, I think, of the female. I think that males have a responsibility to be professional themselves.”

When even the democrats are willing to admit a hard truth, this Joss Whedon style of feminism must be on the way out.

Johnson's repulsive, but you'd have to ignore reality to think she's speaking for the Democrats.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #66 on: October 20, 2017, 10:38:31 AM »
Quote
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said Wednesday that women bear as much responsibility as men for preventing sexual assault and harassment.

“I grew up in a time when it was as much the woman’s responsibility as it was a man’s — how you were dressed, what your behavior was,” Johnson told local media. “I’m from the old school that you can have behaviors that appear to be inviting. It can be interpreted as such. That’s the responsibility, I think, of the female. I think that males have a responsibility to be professional themselves.”

When even the democrats are willing to admit a hard truth, this Joss Whedon style of feminism must be on the way out.

Johnson's repulsive, but you'd have to ignore reality to think she's speaking for the Democrats.

On another look at it, it is also possible/likely she's going to walk that back and claim it was "spoken poorly"/misinterpreted/mis-quoted. Ultimately when it comes to sexual assault, the assailant is responsible, 100% of the time, all the time. The sum and extent of the victim being "at fault" is that they did something to "gain their(the assailant's) attention." 

Which cycles back to those other stats about most sexual assaults are carried out by persons known to the victim. In those cases, what they were, or were not wearing at the time, likely had very little to do with "the attentions of the attacker" so the whole argument about how a woman dresses making them responsible for being sexually assaulted is rendered moot much of the time.

As to those occasions where their mode of dress was somehow a factor, I think we as a society need to seriously take a hard look at how such a thing could come to pass. It's easy enough to "blame the victim" in such a case, but the reality points to there being "something wrong" with the attacker in such a case, and a large part of that fault can undoubtedly be laid down at the feet of (portions of) society for the views and attitudes the attacker holds in regards to women which enabled them to behave that way.

Which brings us back to "Rape culture" as it literally is bringing up social constructs that exist which make it very easy for a person to "justify" raping another person. "Look at how that girl is dressed, she looks like a total slut. Doesn't she know she's practically begging to be raped going about dressed like that?" (Which a would be rapist internalizes into: "Hey that girl is dressed like a total slut, that must mean it's ok for me to 'have my way with them,' since they're clearly asking for it.") As society has already validated their action before they actually go about pursuing it.

That isn't to say that people cannot, or should not be held accountable for how they dress(or fail to do so), but people should be a LOT more mindful about how they address that particular issue, and certain avenues of expressing that disapproval really need to be reconsidered. While it does border into and venture well into the realm of thought/speech police on the matter, raising awareness about the issue is well and good. Just so long as they don't start trying to lock people up for "slut shaming" or "inciting rape" for making comments like the above example.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 10:41:53 AM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #67 on: October 20, 2017, 11:38:41 AM »
Ultimately when it comes to sexual assault, the assailant is responsible, 100% of the time, all the time. The sum and extent of the victim being "at fault" is that they did something to "gain their(the assailant's) attention."

Just to clarify, are you strictly referring to aggravated assaulted, e.g. the 'man in the bushes who jumps a lady' scenario?

Quote
Which cycles back to those other stats about most sexual assaults are carried out by persons known to the victim. In those cases, what they were, or were not wearing at the time, likely had very little to do with "the attentions of the attacker" so the whole argument about how a woman dresses making them responsible for being sexually assaulted is rendered moot much of the time.

Because this makes it sound like you're also talking about the 'other' kind of rape, which is the quasi or non-consenting scenario but where an actual attack didn't take place.

Quote
Which brings us back to "Rape culture" as it literally is bringing up social constructs that exist which make it very easy for a person to "justify" raping another person. "Look at how that girl is dressed, she looks like a total slut. Doesn't she know she's practically begging to be raped going about dressed like that?"

I think at this point this is a shibboleth. The vast majority of people don't think like this, and those that do aren't going to be swayed by reading a blog. Rape culture, if such exists, more likely victimizes women as a form of systemic objectification of women on the whole rather than justifying individual cases of assault.

Quote
That isn't to say that people cannot, or should not be held accountable for how they dress(or fail to do so), but people should be a LOT more mindful about how they address that particular issue, and certain avenues of expressing that disapproval really need to be reconsidered.

I agree with this. But the reason I asked the question above is that there are many scenarios that at this point get lumped into 'rape', and modern activism is muddying rather than clarifying the issue and making it harder to discuss. Totally different discussions need to be had about sexual assault, versus mores that lead to locker room culture, versus basic communication issues between people who like each other, versus alcohol culture, versus etc etc. I would much prefer discussions about straight-up predators be differentiated from ones about sensitivity towards women by guys who are already trying their best but can do better. The umbrella term of 'rape culture' ends up lumping it all together and I think this is unhelpful...at best.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #68 on: October 20, 2017, 12:47:11 PM »
Picking three scenarios:

1. Rape
2. Grabbing someone without permission
3. Making a crude sexual comment

In none of these cases should the mode of dress be used as any excuse, or in any way be considered as a mitigating factor. They are all unacceptable. This is true whether the person is a total stranger or an acquaintance. Close personal friends, those who can make crude jokes or sneak up and grab someone in a personal way, there also the clothes are probably not relevant, unless it was what prompted the joke. In that case, however, permission has already been given in some way.

Just because someone dresses to accentuate their sex appeal, doesn't mean they universally did it for everyone in the street, on the subway, or in the office. That's a separate issue entirely, and zero assumptions should be made that because someone is wearing revealing clothing that they want to have anything to do with anyone sharing that particular patch of ground.

With the exception of a t-shirt with a logo proclaiming "Ask me if I want to have sex, I might say yes!", which is how some people seem to act because of a short skirt.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #69 on: October 20, 2017, 01:42:46 PM »
So you advocate that people restrict their behavior because of the effect it may have on other people?

No one said to restrict behavior, that's a strawman.

Quote
Because you may be sending the wrong message, so you should restrain from doing it?  But what if you don't want constraint?

Still a strawman.

Quote
Or what if you are required to perform that behavior?  Are you still responsible for how other people react?  Are you're imagined intentions irrelevant?

Not even sure what this means.  How can one be "required" to perform a behavior?  Are you positing a slave?

And no, you're still not responsible for other people's reactions.  That's a strawman.  Everyone is responsible for their own reactions.  But it's not wrong for them to have a reaction.

Quote
Admittedly, my old girlfriend was an extreme example.  I used that incident to dramatically demonstrate that there can be more than just the "tacit request" to showing-off what you got.  But how about less extreme sexual cues?  Showing off a bit of leg, let's say half-way up the thigh.  Wearing a tight-fitting tube dress, showing off the figure.  A bit of make-up, which highlight the cheek bones, long eyelashes, lip color that simulates blood flowing into the lips.  Aren't these also a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way?"

Yep.  And there's nothing wrong with looking at a person in a sexual way.  If we didn't look at other people in a sexual way we wouldn't even have a species.

Quote
And are those women's "imagined intentions" not that relevant?

In what way?  Seriously in what way?  What we intend is relevant in lots of ways, but it has no bearing on what other people are allowed to think.  It will have bearing on how the interaction between the two people can and should play out.

Quote
I ask this because some examples occurred to me this morning.  Women who always seem to dress that way, at least in my part of the country.  I refer, of course, to local weather women, the ones who tell you tomorrow's forecast. :)

Not clear why you think this is relevant.  There's a simple reason women who work on tv dress that way, attractiveness keeps viewers on the channel.  It's not just women by the way, check out Mike Woods.

http://www.fox5ny.com/inside-fox-5/fox-5-personalities/mike-woods

They've even had him take off his shirt during weather forecasts.  The reward of course is that he has an audience of men and women who watch that morning show because he's on it.  Weather is honestly a commodity that every channel has, there's next to no quality difference between channels.  The onscreen talent doesn't need much, if any, expertise.  It's perfectly designed for competitions on an eye candy basis.

Quote
Do you believe they all dress that way to present the weather because their main request is to be seen in a sexual way?  Or do you think their main intent is to have a job in broadcasting?

Yes and yes.  You are acting like the two are not linked.  Attractiveness and likeability are actually directly related to the job of being an onscreen talent.  You are competing for viewers on exactly those qualities.

Quote
I'm saying that intentions are relevant.  I'm saying that sometimes, and perhaps often, a woman's intention is not for men to "look at her in a sexual way."  That it is something that she tolerates to get what she is really after--respect, attention, a job, whatever.  And that this "tacit request" is in the imagination of men.  That usually it was not the intent or desire of a woman who dresses in a certain way to be looked at "in a sexual way."  She may expect it, but she may often not desire it.

That's not the case you made.  What you described was a mercantile decision.  If I do x, it helps me achieve goal y.  There is no basis to claim that x was not the intention in that circumstance.  Lamenting that you don't believe it should be is not does not void it as a matter of fact.  If a woman chooses to use sexual attractiveness to achieve a goal, then that is an intentional act.

You keep citing as examples, situations where a person is deliberately playing off a social convention of which they are fully aware.  Specifically to achieve a goal.  That's deliberate.

Quote
So imagined intentions are relevant, even if some believe it to be a "tacit request."

Back to the strawman.  No one has even implied that how someone dresses is a request, tacit or otherwise.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2017, 02:34:28 PM »

TheDeamon, much of your post is a refutation of a strawman point.  You keep arguing against an idea that no one here has advocated - that a particular response is justified because of a particular dress mannerism.  That was the point of my comment  that you replied to, and you doubled down on the strawman.

Quote
For some reason, many seem to be commenting on some version of the idea that what I said about no one being entitled to proscribe the way others perceive their actions, is the same thing as others being entitled to act out in violative ways.  Why I get the inherent satisfaction in jumping up to validate yourself with the "right" opinion, there's likely no one on here who would even consider endorsing the sexual assaults you are describing.  Why then do they appear on this thread?  It's a validation point?  Is it a motte bailey argument?  Or is it some manner of claim that the two are the same thing?

They appear in the thread in relation that this topic (women's mode of dress, or undress as it were) because it has been used as a defense in the past within the United States legal system, and continues to be used as a defensible position in many parts of the world. Simply put: It isn't the male's fault for raping that woman. It was her fault for looking so sexually appealing that the male in question simply couldn't help to do anything but sexually assault her.

The fact that historically how someone dressed was used as a justification is not a good reason to keep throwing into a debate with people who aren't claiming that was correct.

Simply put:  It is a male's fault for raping a woman.  It is not her fault for looking so sexually appealing.  There is no woman who is so sexually appealing that a man can't control himself and not rape her.

"Many parts of the world" are not relevant.

None of that, however, relates - at all - to the question of whether a person is responsible for the message they send, particularly when they know they are sending a message.

Quote
Quote
We are not entitled to harass people, at least beyond the scope of the law.  All of you are quick to jump on this point, when we're talking about men reacting to a woman making a point.  Jumping right to the defense.  Are you willing to stake out the same position about someone wearing a Make America Great Again hat?  Or is it okay to harass them, assault them and take their hat?

We are somewhat assuming worst case scenario here, and basing on historical and contemporary record.

Really how?  I'm not assuming any worst case scenario.  Most of the above is an attempt to get people to reflect on whether they are reacting from a consistent principle or reacting to a dog whistle.

Quote
Much as you attempted to insert extreme feminist positions into what we were doing.

Maybe you can identify where this occurred.

Quote
Although when I was doing so, it wasn't to claim that was a position you held, but rather to point out those justifications are also employed by the people who would rape women or otherwise attempt to sexually assault them using that line of thinking as their justification.

I didn't make any justifications.  I'm not responsible for justifications made by others.  I and everyone else agree that those kinds of justifications don't justify behavior.

All of that is a strawman.

Quote
And I would stake the same position regarding a person in "a Trump Hat" or almost any other kind of hat. The "Legal consequences" for wearing them should be near non-existent. As to social consequences, that may be another matter. However, there obviously is a limit on that. I don't think wearing a Trump hat is justification for raping the person with that hat, likewise, I don't think going about topless justifies anyone raping topless persons of any gender.

I didn't ask about raping a MAGA wearer.  I asked about stealing their hat, harrassing them, attacking them.  It's a question of degree, I doubt anyone believes rape is ever justified, I doubt that there is anywhere near that unanimity on whether a MAGA hat wearer is asking for trouble.

Quote
Quote
I think you need to make the case, without jumping to "proscription" unless someone is arguing that women should be barred from dressing sexy?

Well some of this get mixed into "top freedom" for women, because the position was staked out that "women's breasts are inherently sexual" for men. So if you in turn define "women dressing sexy" as "women going topless" then yes, we are talking about someone arguing for women being barred from "dressing sexy" even if in that particular case it may be more aptly called "undressing" instead.

Again, no, you're strawmannig.  I have never even implied that a woman should be prohibited from baring her breasts.  That is a completely different issue from whether I'm entitled to view that as a sexual act.  Which is a different issue from whether anyone is entitled to take an action based on it.

I get why you want to argue it.  There's a clear right answer, but that doesn't magically make it relevant to the harder question.

Quote
I could care less about people's thoughts, I don't support the thought police.

What I was attempting at was a correction/education item about a commonly held misconception that people use(because it is "the intuitive answer" based on their current experience/knowledge base) to justify restricting others from certain activities. They're wrong, and anyone who confronts them in an angry/hostile way for "being wrong" is also wrong themselves. Much like the notion from 100 years ago that women need to cover their legs lest society collapse due to sexual chaos in the streets because men wouldn't be able to control themselves.

Why are you arguing against "commonly held" positions and attempting to "correct/educate" people who don't hold them?

Quote
Quote
Quote
So when was the last you were biologically compelled to rape a woman because you saw her hair? Her face? Her hands? Her Arms? Her legs? Her abdominals?

Never.  But you've jumped shark by even asking this question.  Dodged the debate, skipped the tough question and practically Godwinned the point.

It was hyperbole to make a point, you realize it, but I think you're still not fully processing the implications.

Then enlighten.  I'd be willing to be you are wrong about what I'm processing, but I'm open to finding out.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
What about the flip?  Should flashing still be illegal?

Which kind of flashing we talking about? "peekabo" short clothing, Girls Gone Wild type, or people in trench coats, or plumber pants?

GGW and the trench coat flashers are overtly sexual, the "peekaboo" type is very likely to be sexual in nature too. The plumber variety, not so much

Honestly, why should it matter "what" kind?  Unless you intend to impose your mores on them why would you need that information?  Whether they intend it to be a sexual act or not can't be a test for how you are entitled to react to it.  How would that even work?

Intent is an important portion of the law.

It is, but we're discussing whether a flasher would be entitled to decide it was not a sexual experience for you.  That's the direct equivalent to a woman baring her breasts in a protest and being offended that men see that as a sexual event.

I'm not saying we can't rationally restrict the former and not the latter.  I'm saying, neither person is entitled to pretend that ONLY their own subjective intent is relevant to evaluating what is going on.  Communication requires two people, and both have valid input into what was communicated.

Quote
A trench coat flasher is clearly demonstrating an intent, someone running down the street stark naked, not so much. Likewise a woman lifting her shirt to flash their boobs is clearly demonstrating an intent. A woman who simply takes her shirt off, well, that's more than a bit more ambiguous and you're going to have to start looking at a larger context of what is going on.

There's a lot more ambiguity in all of those actions than you believe.  I flat out reject that you can absolutely determine the other person's intent from your observation.  However, your view of what they communicated is just as valid as an interpretation of the event as their view of what they intended.  That's where Wayward keeps going wrong, he's only valuing the interpretation of the communicator, when there are two valid views of what happened.

Quote
Generally speaking, the terrible standard of "I'll know it when I see it" basically starts to apply at that point.

Now you're making the opposite mistake and only valuing the interpretation of the action.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Woman(or man) sunbathing in a (private property) backyard which can be seen into from a public park/church?

If the church doesn't want to see it, then can always close the windows or build a wall.

But you've flipped the point.  What we've been talking about, is whether or not the sunbather has a reasonable expectation to expect the church goers not to judge them, and the answer to that is no the sunbather does not.

Well, that one actually is a case that I think might still be working through the legal system in Utah at this point. Senior Citizen (male) nude sunbathing in his backyard in Utah, happened to be visible from the parking lot a of nearby (LDS) Church. He was reported, he was subsequently prosecuted under their ultra strict laws regarding adult "nudity in the presence of minors." (some of the people in that church parking lot) IIRC he's already been convicted, not sure if his case has been or even will sent up for appeal, but I believe he's now on the sex offenders registry.

You realize that the way you wrote that up king of misses the point, right?

Personally, I don't think nudity should ever be criminalized, and certainly not nudity on your own property.   However, the law varies on that point and we are all subject to the specifics of the law.

But, and this is a big but, the question that's relevant in this debate, is whether the old man's non-sexual intent is binding on the observers of the nudity, such that they are required to consider it non-sexual (in which case the sex offender registry wouldn't rationally be in play), or if his subjective intent is irrelevant against a background where he knew the nudity would violate the law and be perceived as sexual by the audience that he got.  As you can see from the conviction, his intent didn't matter at all, only the perception of his action.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #71 on: October 20, 2017, 04:20:44 PM »
Quote
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said Wednesday that women bear as much responsibility as men for preventing sexual assault and harassment.

“I grew up in a time when it was as much the woman’s responsibility as it was a man’s — how you were dressed, what your behavior was,” Johnson told local media. “I’m from the old school that you can have behaviors that appear to be inviting. It can be interpreted as such. That’s the responsibility, I think, of the female. I think that males have a responsibility to be professional themselves.”

When even the democrats are willing to admit a hard truth, this Joss Whedon style of feminism must be on the way out.

Don't count on it, he sounds like he's "Old Guard" while what you're calling "Joss Whedon style" is the Millenials and company.
First thing, Eddie Bernice Johnson is a woman. (did you just assume her gender!! LOL, easy enough with a name like Eddie). Second, when I say  "Joss Whedon style" feminism, it's the feminism where men pretend to support women but what they're really doing is using it as a way to seduce them and justify their actions. It's a faux feminism that is actually very anti-woman and exploitative. The flip side is the cuckold feminist who lets women walk all over him, allowing women to justify any action they desire under in name of feminism. Object, in any way no matter how slight, and you're a misogynist. Hang around with the feminist movement even briefly and you'll see these guys.

The Democratic old guard(in particular on the feminist side) doesn't really agree with everything their younger counterparts are getting up to. Witness the outrages that happen whenever Kim Kardashian(sp?)  tries to "break the internet" with a (almost) nude pic on Instagram. Or when Emma Watson("Hermoine Granger") poses for Vogue in a photoshoot where she's practically topless except for some strategically placed material. Where the "Whedon"/Millennial crowd defends the act against attacks from "their older feminist sisters."

The "top freedom"/"body freedom" aspect is a relatively new thing on the national political landscape so there haven't really been any lines drawn on that front, aside from where that "old guard" appropriated "rape culture" from the younger set and have tried to turn it into something else.
The democratic old guard was Harvey Weinstein, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd (of waitress sandwich fame and very recent MPAA chairman), Ted Kennedy. As long as the money and propaganda flows, the old guard agrees with anything - or even actively participates. The "Whedon"/Millennial crowd accepts the act as long as they're doing cool stuff and saying the right things publicly, they look no deeper than that.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #72 on: October 20, 2017, 05:24:19 PM »
Ultimately when it comes to sexual assault, the assailant is responsible, 100% of the time, all the time. The sum and extent of the victim being "at fault" is that they did something to "gain their(the assailant's) attention."

Just to clarify, are you strictly referring to aggravated assaulted, e.g. the 'man in the bushes who jumps a lady' scenario?

I'm going for the more classical definitions, sexual assault was used because it is "the lesser" of the two between rape and sexual assault. Considering all rapes are sexual assaults, they just managed to go further than "touching."

Of course, we can wander off into the proverbial bushes and get lost in the cases where rape or even sexual assault may not actually be either. But that's where you then end up with 15 pages of footnotes and disclaimers and ultimately a whole lot of verbiage that doesn't directly say anything. Staying somewhere in that (likely to be) 90-ish% band simplifies things.

Most sexual assaults and rapes that happen involve persons previously known to the victim. The one exception to that which can skew things is potentially "the anonymous groper" with specific regards to sexual assault(unwanted touching with sexual intent), but generally in that case, that is likely an "act of opportunity" that has more to do with venue and activities the victim is engaged in than it has  any bearing on their attire.

Quote
Quote
Which cycles back to those other stats about most sexual assaults are carried out by persons known to the victim. In those cases, what they were, or were not wearing at the time, likely had very little to do with "the attentions of the attacker" so the whole argument about how a woman dresses making them responsible for being sexually assaulted is rendered moot much of the time.

Because this makes it sound like you're also talking about the 'other' kind of rape, which is the quasi or non-consenting scenario but where an actual attack didn't take place.

And potentially falling victim to the rape statistics that include non-rapes, as drunken sex qualifies as "non-consensual" because "drunks can't give consent." Even if it ignores the matter of their intent prior to getting drunk.

But it still stands that even when you narrow the definition to rape specifically, rather than (overly) broad definition of sexual assault, that the vast majority of rapes are likewise carried out by persons known to the victim prior to the rape. (And also a major contributing factor in non-reporting, which then resulted in the common misconception that most rapes were carried out by strangers--as those were the most likely ones to get reported)

Quote
Quote
Which brings us back to "Rape culture" as it literally is bringing up social constructs that exist which make it very easy for a person to "justify" raping another person. "Look at how that girl is dressed, she looks like a total slut. Doesn't she know she's practically begging to be raped going about dressed like that?"

I think at this point this is a shibboleth. The vast majority of people don't think like this, and those that do aren't going to be swayed by reading a blog. Rape culture, if such exists, more likely victimizes women as a form of systemic objectification of women on the whole rather than justifying individual cases of assault.

The vast majority of people are not rapists, even if the ultra-feminists would like to portray most men as being such. And agreed, blogs aren't going to fix it. Doubly so when comes to the people likely to carry out a rape. That said, for "future generations" it still is something that on a longer-term horizon is something that should start getting addressed, and can help remove some of the ambiguity that leads some people down that path.

It's one of those things that people don't really think about until it's pointed out. Practically everybody agrees that rape is wrong, but there is a large portion of the population that is more than willing to utter comments like that example. Where they are in essence kind of saying "It might be kind of OK for someone to rape people dressed like that." (After all "they were 'asking' to be raped, right?") That the courts actually agreed, literally, at one point in the past just makes it worse.

Which reiterates the following, on which we seem to agree:
Quote
Quote
That isn't to say that people cannot, or should not be held accountable for how they dress(or fail to do so), but people should be a LOT more mindful about how they address that particular issue, and certain avenues of expressing that disapproval really need to be reconsidered.

I agree with this. But the reason I asked the question above is that there are many scenarios that at this point get lumped into 'rape', and modern activism is muddying rather than clarifying the issue and making it harder to discuss. Totally different discussions need to be had about sexual assault, versus mores that lead to locker room culture, versus basic communication issues between people who like each other, versus alcohol culture, versus etc etc. I would much prefer discussions about straight-up predators be differentiated from ones about sensitivity towards women by guys who are already trying their best but can do better. The umbrella term of 'rape culture' ends up lumping it all together and I think this is unhelpful...at best.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #73 on: October 20, 2017, 05:55:25 PM »
First thing, Eddie Bernice Johnson is a woman. (did you just assume her gender!! LOL, easy enough with a name like Eddie).

Yeah, caught that on a latter read-through after the edit window had closed. Probably also initially did that thing studies have shown about spelling and word endings. So on my initial reading it probably quite likely read as "Representative Eddie Bernie Johnson" and without bothering to do further background, my default assumption went to male. (As most Congress critters are male)

Quote
Second, when I say  "Joss Whedon style" feminism, it's the feminism where men pretend to support women but what they're really doing is using it as a way to seduce them and justify their actions. It's a faux feminism that is actually very anti-woman and exploitative. The flip side is the cuckold feminist who lets women walk all over him, allowing women to justify any action they desire under in name of feminism. Object, in any way no matter how slight, and you're a misogynist. Hang around with the feminist movement even briefly and you'll see these guys.

So noted, while I've enjoyed some of Whedon's stuff(in particular Firefly), I've generally ignored his politics aside from knowing he supported Obama in 2012 thanks to his "Zombie Apocalypse" YouTube endorsement of Obama)

Quote
The Democratic old guard(in particular on the feminist side) doesn't really agree with everything their younger counterparts are getting up to. Witness the outrages that happen whenever Kim Kardashian(sp?)  tries to "break the internet" with a (almost) nude pic on Instagram. Or when Emma Watson("Hermoine Granger") poses for Vogue in a photoshoot where she's practically topless except for some strategically placed material. Where the "Whedon"/Millennial crowd defends the act against attacks from "their older feminist sisters."

The "top freedom"/"body freedom" aspect is a relatively new thing on the national political landscape so there haven't really been any lines drawn on that front, aside from where that "old guard" appropriated "rape culture" from the younger set and have tried to turn it into something else.
The democratic old guard was Harvey Weinstein, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd (of waitress sandwich fame and very recent MPAA chairman), Ted Kennedy. As long as the money and propaganda flows, the old guard agrees with anything - or even actively participates. The "Whedon"/Millennial crowd accepts the act as long as they're doing cool stuff and saying the right things publicly, they look no deeper than that.
[/quote]

Emphasis added on the part I was keying to last time around. "Old Guard Feminism" at this point, hypocrisies aside regarding the Clintons specifically, doesn't tend to like or otherwise support even the idea of women acknowledging they have a body men might find attractive, never mind using that to their advantage. With some of the "exploitation" going on, such as with the Kardashian's, I'm not quite sure which side is being exploited there. But I'm more inclined to agree with the Millennials on that one(even if 4-chan also agrees with me, which is very much a mixed bag).  But also agreed that "Millennial Support" for most things tend to lack a lot in terms of depth.

But also on the whole concept of "sexy"/nudes also bear in mind that statistics regarding "sexting." The numbers in regards to Millennials and younger are pushing into the range of almost literally "everybody has done it," although that last 10 to 20% is probably going to hold out for a long time. However, that we're only talking that kind of number of people not doing so is likely a strong indicator of things to come. Never mind what is happening in popular media, where the "Television shows" that "have the energy" are not on the broadcast networks, as the FCC would be throwing fines out left right and center if they did so.

The proverbial line on what is "normal" or otherwise acceptable is likely to start shifting considerably in the next 15 years as the Millennials start hitting their 40's while the Baby Boomers start dying off in numbers.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #74 on: October 23, 2017, 06:16:27 AM »
Fenring,

Quote
Supposedly Matt Damon had the clout - as a messenger of sorts - to squash an article being written on the topic a few years back. I'm assuming the journalist didn't fear Damon in particular, so either he was bribed or something, or else Damon merely conveyed a message of some kind of threat that was convincing enough to stop someone not even in the same field as Hollywood actors.


He didn't kill a story, he was asked to call a reporter (Waxman) and provide his personal experience with an individual who ran the Italian offices of Miramax (Fabrizio Lombardo) as was Russell Crowe. (Presumably Damon knew Lombardo from the 'Talented Mr. Ripley' and Crowe knew him from 'Gladiator').  Neither did anything untoward nor had been told about the content of the piece beyond that Lombardo was part of it.

Here is what Damon says,

Quote
My recollection was that it was about a one minute phone call. Harvey had called me and said, they’re writing a story about Fabrizio, who I knew from The Talented Mr. Ripley. He has organized our premiere in Italy and so I knew him in a professional capacity and I’d had dinner at his house. Harvey said, Sharon Waxman is writing a story about Fabrizio and it’s really negative. Can you just call and tell her what your experience with Fabrizio was. So I did, and that’s what I said to her. It didn’t even make the piece that she wrote. As I recall, her piece just said that Russell and I had called and relayed our experience with Fabrizio. That was the extent of it and so I was very surprised to see it come back.

I was never conscripted to do anything. We vouch for each other, all the time, and it didn’t even make her article. Whether it didn’t jibe with her storyline…it was an incomplete rendering of someone that I was giving but I had perfectly professional experiences with Fabrizio and I didn’t mind telling her that.

I’m sure I mentioned to her that I didn’t know anything about the rest of her piece, because I didn’t. And I still don’t know anything about that and Fabrizio. My experience with him was all above board and that’s what I told her.

http://deadline.com/2017/10/matt-damon-harvey-weinstein-russell-crowe-sexual-abuse-scandal-interview-1202185574/

and if we go to the source (Waxman) - we see that she says the same thing, but fails to use the oxford comma hence leading to confusion.

Quote
After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.

https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/


« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 06:24:55 AM by LetterRip »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #75 on: October 23, 2017, 04:33:23 PM »
Fenring,

Quote
Supposedly Matt Damon had the clout - as a messenger of sorts - to squash an article being written on the topic a few years back. I'm assuming the journalist didn't fear Damon in particular, so either he was bribed or something, or else Damon merely conveyed a message of some kind of threat that was convincing enough to stop someone not even in the same field as Hollywood actors.


He didn't kill a story, he was asked to call a reporter (Waxman) and provide his personal experience with an individual who ran the Italian offices of Miramax (Fabrizio Lombardo) as was Russell Crowe. (Presumably Damon knew Lombardo from the 'Talented Mr. Ripley' and Crowe knew him from 'Gladiator').  Neither did anything untoward nor had been told about the content of the piece beyond that Lombardo was part of it.

Here is what Damon says,

Quote
My recollection was that it was about a one minute phone call. Harvey had called me and said, they’re writing a story about Fabrizio, who I knew from The Talented Mr. Ripley. He has organized our premiere in Italy and so I knew him in a professional capacity and I’d had dinner at his house. Harvey said, Sharon Waxman is writing a story about Fabrizio and it’s really negative. Can you just call and tell her what your experience with Fabrizio was. So I did, and that’s what I said to her. It didn’t even make the piece that she wrote. As I recall, her piece just said that Russell and I had called and relayed our experience with Fabrizio. That was the extent of it and so I was very surprised to see it come back.

I was never conscripted to do anything. We vouch for each other, all the time, and it didn’t even make her article. Whether it didn’t jibe with her storyline…it was an incomplete rendering of someone that I was giving but I had perfectly professional experiences with Fabrizio and I didn’t mind telling her that.

I’m sure I mentioned to her that I didn’t know anything about the rest of her piece, because I didn’t. And I still don’t know anything about that and Fabrizio. My experience with him was all above board and that’s what I told her.

http://deadline.com/2017/10/matt-damon-harvey-weinstein-russell-crowe-sexual-abuse-scandal-interview-1202185574/

and if we go to the source (Waxman) - we see that she says the same thing, but fails to use the oxford comma hence leading to confusion.

Quote
After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.

https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/

Damon wasn’t sent to deliver a message, he was the message (along with Crowe). That two of the biggest A list actors jump when Harvey commands is a mesage of power and influence. Damon knew Harvey did this kind if stuff, it’s been well established that if you knew Harvey you knew about his behavior.  Maybe Damon didn’t know he was being used but i don’t think he’s that stupid.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #76 on: October 23, 2017, 08:50:30 PM »
Damon wasn’t sent to deliver a message, he was the message (along with Crowe). That two of the biggest A list actors jump when Harvey commands is a mesage of power and influence.

If you read the article, you would have read that giving background quotes on people is something that actors and actresses do all of the time. It is a big part of a celebrities job.

Quote
Damon knew Harvey did this kind if stuff, it’s been well established that if you knew Harvey you knew about his behavior.

There is zero evidence that 'Damon knew Harvey did this kind of stuff'.  George Clooney said that he had heard rumors of female colleagues sleeping with executives but had assumed they were people trying to smear the character of the actresses by implying they had slept their way to the top and lacked talent.  Weinstein did not engage in his behavior in public - from every description from actresses I've read - he only did this when he had found an excuse to isolate the woman on a legitimate pretext.

Quote
Maybe Damon didn’t know he was being used but i don’t think he’s that stupid.

Damon isn't stupid and there is zero legitimate reason for him to have thought he was being used - since being requested to talk to reporters about colleagues and coworkers is a part of being a celebrity.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #77 on: October 23, 2017, 10:50:05 PM »
If you read the article, you would have read that giving background quotes on people is something that actors and actresses do all of the time. It is a big part of a celebrities job.

That sounds reasonable out of context. In context he was being asked to go speak to a journalist who was going to publish material about Weinstein's character, and his assignment was to (truthfully) say that Weinstein was a stand-up guy. If Damon literally thought that the story was bunk then yes, he'd just be doing the honest thing by giving his testimony. But that's a big if. If not, whether he knew was being duped or not, he'd have to know that he was trying to get a story canned that was negative about his associate Weinstein.

Quote
There is zero evidence that 'Damon knew Harvey did this kind of stuff'.  George Clooney said that he had heard rumors of female colleagues sleeping with executives but had assumed they were people trying to smear the character of the actresses by implying they had slept their way to the top and lacked talent.  Weinstein did not engage in his behavior in public - from every description from actresses I've read - he only did this when he had found an excuse to isolate the woman on a legitimate pretext.

That's funny, because I've heard from plenty of celebrity sources that the knowledge about this was widespread. Are you surprised that many of them are denying? Well no s**t. Are you aware of Seth MacFarlane's little joke at the 2013 Oscars on the topic?

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

Look at his face after he tells the 'joke'. He and everyone in that room knew what he meant. You don't say that to the entire Academy (i.e. it's not tenable material) unless the majority know what you're talking about.

Quote
Damon isn't stupid and there is zero legitimate reason for him to have thought he was being used - since being requested to talk to reporters about colleagues and coworkers is a part of being a celebrity.

Just because we can't prove he knew he was being used doesn't mean you can then claim there's zero reason for him to think it. There was plenty of reason for him to think it, the most important of which is that he was being used. I rather think the fact that it was true would have been a good reason for him to think it. Whether or not he actually did is out of our purview here. But giving him full credit we should assume he did; otherwise we can give him back some points on ethics but then have to reclassify him as a a bit of a dolt.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #78 on: October 23, 2017, 11:11:16 PM »
Quote
he was being asked to go speak to a journalist who was going to publish material about Weinstein's character, and his assignment was to (truthfully) say that Weinstein was a stand-up guy
No.  Damon was asked to give a professional reference for Lombardo, not Weinstein... that is, if you believe any of the principals in the story, either Waxman or Damon

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #79 on: October 23, 2017, 11:26:27 PM »
That sounds reasonable out of context. In context he was being asked to go speak to a journalist who was going to publish material about Weinstein's character, and his assignment was to (truthfully) say that Weinstein was a stand-up guy.

The article wasn't about Weinstein and he wasn't asked to talk about Weinstein, it was about Lombardo, and he was asked to talk about Lombardo.  He wasn't told anything about the nature of the article by either Weinstein or the reporter except that it was a negative piece. If you can't get basic facts straight, then you really shouldn't be tossing around accusations.

Quote
If Damon literally thought that the story was bunk then yes, he'd just be doing the honest thing by giving his testimony. But that's a big if. If not, whether he knew was being duped or not, he'd have to know that he was trying to get a story canned that was negative about his associate Weinstein.

He wasn't duped, and he wasn't trying to get the story canned and the story about Lombardo was still published and then Lombardo was fired.  Again try to get the basic facts straight.  What did happen, was that Waxman got pressure from the NYT to remove Weinstein from the article - pressure which Waxman attributes to Weinstein contacting the NYT.  Waxman had a source that said that Lombardo had acquired a model for Weinstein, but the model wasn't willing to go on record (she had signed an NDA apparently) - so it could only be done as 'an anonymous source' - which the NYT probably wasn't willing to risk the liability.

Quote
That's funny, because I've heard from plenty of celebrity sources that the knowledge about this was widespread. Are you surprised that many of them are denying? Well no s**t. Are you aware of Seth MacFarlane's little joke at the 2013 Oscars on the topic?

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

Look at his face after he tells the 'joke'. He and everyone in that room knew what he meant. You don't say that to the entire Academy (i.e. it's not tenable material) unless the majority know what you're talking about.

That joke doesn't imply the *censored* that was going on.  That joke would make sense for any studio mogul because it is a common trope of women actresses flattering studio moguls egos to get parts.  There is zero reason to believe that it implies public knowledge of sexual harassment by Weinstein.

Quote
Just because we can't prove he knew he was being used doesn't mean you can then claim there's zero reason for him to think it.

Yes I can claim that - he was asked to perform a similar task to one he has performed probably 100's of times a year - and the task he was asked was perfectly innocuous and in line with what he had done many times before.

Quote
There was plenty of reason for him to think it, the most important of which is that he was being used.

How could he possibly know that?  He was asked to give a comment about someone he had worked with - a task he was regularly asked to do and regularly performed for a variety of people he had worked with in the past.

Quote
I rather think the fact that it was true would have been a good reason for him to think it. Whether or not he actually did is out of our purview here. But giving him full credit we should assume he did; otherwise we can give him back some points on ethics but then have to reclassify him as a a bit of a dolt.

You seem to have misconceptions about what he actually did, which then seems to make you think he had knowledge about things there is no reason to think he had knowledge about.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 11:35:33 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #80 on: October 24, 2017, 03:03:00 AM »
The article wasn't about Weinstein and he wasn't asked to talk about Weinstein, it was about Lombardo, and he was asked to talk about Lombardo.  He wasn't told anything about the nature of the article by either Weinstein or the reporter except that it was a negative piece. If you can't get basic facts straight, then you really shouldn't be tossing around accusations.

To you and Donald: yes, I mis-wrote that. He was asked by Weinstein, but the article was about Lombardo. Sorry, I typed my last response quite quickly without reading it over. Anyhow, according to Damon what Weinstein did was not only tell him it was a negative article, but that it also involved the notion that Lombardo didn't have any professional experience. He asked Damon to simply report to Waxman that he had worked professionally with him once. Taken purely at face value, yes, this isn't much of a big deal since it was true that Damon did, in fact, have a professional interaction with him at one time. But again, isn't that an odd message to convey to a journalist? Any journalist would have been able to look up the fact that Lombardo organized a screening of The Talented Mr. Ripley, so all Damon's call added to that fact is that it was a positive experience. This is additionally pertinent because the charge being made was that Lombardo was, in fact, only installed as the head of Miramax Italy so that he could procure women for Weinstein, and that his lack of experience showed that there was no other legitimate reason for him to have that job. So Damon's comment in fact would play directly into creating the narrative that Lombardo was qualified for the job in his own right.

In terms of what Damon might have known about this, sure, it's possible he knew nothing. He may never have connected Lombardo with Weinstein, and even if he was aware of Weinstein's habits it's still possible he thought this particular call had nothing to do with it. As I mentioned, we can't know what Damon knew or not. But we have to assert that he didn't assume any connection between Lombardo and Weinstein, any ill behavior on the part of either, or connect either of these to the fact that he was being asked to try to help make a negative story go away. It's all possible, I grant that for sure. But as Crunch mentioned, aside from the fact that his message wasn't particularly relevant to whether Lombardo had professional experience (since Waxman would already have the record on Lombardo's involvement in Ripley), him delivering it was the message. Maybe this is indeed commonplace in Hollywood, in which case we can nevertheless conclude that an environment of favors and no questions asked is probably the sort of fertile ground for the kinds of sexual abuse that were going on. You scratch my back, kind of thing. Once the quid pro quo is in place is becomes quite difficult to back out and make some kind of moral stand without being ostracized. That's the thing to remember: Even if Damon had known everything, his actions would likely have been the same despite his claims that he would have taken a stand to try to expose Weinstein. I'm sure lots of people would claim until they're blue in the face that they would have done so had they known, but the fact is that no one did for years and so it's all talk and hindsight. When we consider that had he tried his career would have possibly been over instantly, I'm not quick to assume Damon would have done anything other than what he actually did regardless of what he knew. In other words, we'll never know; both cases most likely present the same outward data.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #81 on: October 24, 2017, 07:36:00 AM »
Damon wasn’t sent to deliver a message, he was the message (along with Crowe). That two of the biggest A list actors jump when Harvey commands is a mesage of power and influence.

If you read the article, you would have read that giving background quotes on people is something that actors and actresses do all of the time. It is a big part of a celebrities job.

Quote
Damon knew Harvey did this kind if stuff, it’s been well established that if you knew Harvey you knew about his behavior.

There is zero evidence that 'Damon knew Harvey did this kind of stuff'.  George Clooney said that he had heard rumors of female colleagues sleeping with executives but had assumed they were people trying to smear the character of the actresses by implying they had slept their way to the top and lacked talent.  Weinstein did not engage in his behavior in public - from every description from actresses I've read - he only did this when he had found an excuse to isolate the woman on a legitimate pretext.

Quote
Maybe Damon didn’t know he was being used but i don’t think he’s that stupid.

Damon isn't stupid and there is zero legitimate reason for him to have thought he was being used - since being requested to talk to reporters about colleagues and coworkers is a part of being a celebrity.

Damon knew:
Quote
Two weeks after proclaiming that he had no idea that Harvey Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted women, Matt Damon admitted Monday that, well, he did know about one incident involving Gwyneth Paltrow that has since made headlines.

And his good buddy Ben Affleck told him.
So your zero evidence assertion is disproven. Anyone that knew Harvey, knew Harvey. The raft of stories coming out where nobody is surprised, the jokes and references in interviews, it was more than common knowledge.

If you think the whole thing had nothing to do with Harvey and only Lombardo, you’re not really thinking at all.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #82 on: October 24, 2017, 08:38:33 AM »
We can lay to rest the idea that Damon "had no idea".

Quote
Matt Damon admitted his friend and fellow actor Ben Affleck had told him about Gwyneth Paltrow's experience with Harvey Weinstein.
In 1999 he said he worked with actress and the producer in The Talented Mr. Ripley but says he never asked her about what happened.
Matt told ABC's Good Morning America: "I never talked to Gwyneth about it. Ben told me, but I knew that they had come to whatever agreement or understanding that they had come to. She had handled it.

article

Now, he may not have known about the bathtub follies, but from this story he certainly knew Weinstein was using his influence to intimidate women into having sex with him.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #83 on: October 24, 2017, 09:52:00 AM »
Letterrip, I'm not sure I understand the defense you are making. I understand Damon's point, references are are common thing that people in the industry do all the time.  Of course in this case, it was specifically being done because he was told a negative article was coming out and Weinstein wanted to provide some positive examples to the journalist to balance it out.  Maybe Damon believed that was all it was.

On the other hand, even if the sexual assault behavior wasn't something he knew about (of course as you saw above he walked that back already), he did know that Weinstein engaged in ruthless media manipulation and career destruction of his enemies.  Getting unsolicited calls from A-listers undermining an unpublished article is designed to demonstrate that someone has power and does not want it published.  I kind of put that up there with not looking too closely if a mafia boss were to ask you to speak with someone.  Do you really just shrug it off as an industry thing, and buy that there is no awareness of the implications?  In fairness maybe, but if Damon wants to claim to be an intelligent person maybe not so much.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #84 on: October 24, 2017, 10:13:54 AM »
The industry knew the individuals, and society in general, just didn’t want to know.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #85 on: October 24, 2017, 11:28:39 AM »
Fenring, you want to twist things - that is your perogative.  Matt Damon should be psychic and be able to tell the one incidence out of thousands that a story about a coworker isn't one of the millions of slanderous teardowns that happen every day in Hollywood in gossip magazines but rather is a legitimate investigation.  He should use his psychic powers to intuit the content of the article beyond what he has been told, knowing that the man he has met in a professional capacity a few times - also engages in unsavory behavior that Damon would have no reason to know about.

You want to posit guilty knowledge when there is no rational or reasonably feasible way for him to have that knowledge or for anyone to have told him anything.

Clearly you guys have a hate hard-on for the guy and refuse to believe the straight forward and obvious story preferring to think the worst of him.

As to Gwyneth Paltrow - the incident was nearly 20 years ago. If you heard second hand your boss had been an ass to a friends girlfriend who was a coworker and friend, and it was something they hadn't told you personally - what exactly would you do at that time?  Hell what would you do now?  If you bring it up with her - then she might feel her boyfriend betrayed her trust.  You can't bring it up in public without opening yourself up to a lawsuit and violating both your friend and her trust - also there is every possibility both parties will deny it. Bring it to the police?  Even if Paltrow had reported it then it would have gone nowhere, a third hand report likely won't even be accepted.  There wouldn't have been any sort of HR for an actor to bring the complaint to.  Perhaps a guild grievance?  Again you have to balance violating the trust and privacy of friends vs your desire for justice and the likelihood that it doesn't accomplish anything other than bring pain to your friends and hurt all of your careers.  Also a third hand report is likely to not be accepted back then.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #86 on: October 24, 2017, 12:20:34 PM »
LR,

Your points are most valid. There is nothing Damon could have done despite his self-serving protestation that if he'd known about he would have done something. My stake in this particular point isn't that Damon is directly complicit in setting up this kind of abuse and that therefore he's a terrible guy. It's just that the environment was rife with quid pro quo and agreed silence, where most everyone knew but few if any had direct proof or the ability to do anything. It was the prime predator's playground, made worse by the fact that actresses no doubt had a dilemma between trying to get ahead and trying to do the right thing. Damon was a part of this system, but admitting that isn't the same as saying he's a monster. He may have known some things, and maybe not, but either way he played his part in protecting sexual abuse. What's funny about the interviews with him now isn't that he denies having known anything about it - which is predictable - but that he seems to not show any shock at what his actions inadvertently (being charitable) achieved. Maybe I missed it, and actually I'd appreciate if anyone saw him comment in the following way as it'd make me feel better about it, but I find it galling that he hasn't said something to the effect of "I never intended any harm and tried to be honest, but now that I know that my actions were protecting a sexual predator I just feel awful about it. I'm very sorry I had anything to do with that, even though I wasn't aware of it at the time." This wouldn't even be some ham-fisted PR move, it's literally what I would feel in that situation if I had done something terrible without being aware of it. It's like Valjean when he realizes he stood by and allowed Fantine to be fired and turned to prostitution. That moment of realization alone causes him to renounce his position, his wealth, and his safety, and he devotes the rest of his life to saving Fantine's daughter.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #87 on: October 24, 2017, 12:41:17 PM »
Fenring,

If you were to reread his comments - I'm pretty sure he has said if he had seen such behavior he would have done something about it - such as if he saw Weinstein grope etc a woman at a party he would have done something, and he has said that if in fact something such as that had happened at a party and he failed to see it he is apologizing for his lack of vigilance.

Quote
He may have known some things, and maybe not, but either way he played his part in protecting sexual abuse.

How so? The one action we know of was to state that he had a professional relationship with Lombardo, that story ran and Lombardo was fired.  It did nothing to protect Weinstein.  What protected Weinstein in that instance appears to be that Waxman hadn't found an on the record source for allegations against Weinstein and thus the part of the story that would have included Weinstein was cut.

Waxman was essentially alleging that Lombardo was being paid 400k a year to exclusively be a pimp, but it was a false allegation - he really was doing legitimate film business, even if he was also procuring models.

Quote
I find it galling that he hasn't said something to the effect of "I never intended any harm and tried to be honest, but now that I know that my actions were protecting a sexual predator I just feel awful about it. I'm very sorry I had anything to do with that, even though I wasn't aware of it at the time."

There is no evidence that his actions were in fact doing that.  So you think he should apologize for something he never did.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 12:45:49 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #88 on: October 24, 2017, 01:10:26 PM »
There is no evidence that his actions were in fact doing that.  So you think he should apologize for something he never did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your argument is based on the premise that Lombardo was actually not materially contributing to sexual predation, and that therefore the article was spurious? Note I'm not asking if there was any incorrect information in it at all, but rather if you take the entire thing to be a smear job. I'd understand your position if Lombardo was really just an honest businessman getting smeared for doing business with Weinstein, and that standing up for him was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. In that case I'd have to agree with you, that Weinstein's involvement in getting Damon to speak to Waxman would have no pertinence to the fact that Lombardo himself really was clean of involvement and didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud. Is that your position? Because your point now seems to have moved on from 'Damon didn't know anything' to 'he didn't do anything, even without knowing it.' Well it seems to me that he either (a) did abet sex abusers, with or without knowing it, or (b) didn't do so, because Lombardo, at any rate, wasn't a sex abuser. (b) seems to me a bit of a reach but all I know is what I've read so I can't claim to be an authority on Lombardo. (a) seems more likely, which to me ought to mean the horrible realization of complicity in a very bad thing. That doesn't mean fault, but it would feel pretty bad, I can imagine.

Here's a quote from Waxman herself about Damon's call to her:

Quote
Four women have stepped forward to corroborate my New York Times reporting on Harvey Weinstein from 2004 that the former head of Miramax Italy, Fabrizio Lombardo, acted as a procurer of women rather than a film executive.

Actress-director Asia Argento — who alleged in the explosive New Yorker piece published on Tuesday that she was orally raped by Weinstein during a 1997 encounter outside Cannes, France — tweeted on Tuesday night that Lombardo brought her to the mogul’s room in 1997.

[...]

One other thing: Matt Damon gave an interview on Tuesday in which he explained the call he made to me at Weinstein’s behest about Lombardo.

The actor and I do not disagree on this. It was a brief call and I did not tell him what my story was about, since it did not concern him. My point was that Harvey Weinstein was using any tool he could — including getting his celebrity friends to vouch for Lombardo — to get me to back off the story.

It did not work and Matt Damon is not responsible in any way for how the story turned out. So let’s just leave him alone, please.

So while the article about Lombardo did get written, the part about Weinstein was indeed gutted. We can't say for sure sure, and as you indicate maybe it was lack of a credible source. All we know is that Weinstein pushed the NYT to cut the article, and sent a few celebrities to vouch for Lombardo, but that doesn't address the fact that Waxman had intended Weinstein to be a focus of the article too, which Weinstein surely knew even if he didn't tell that part to Damon. That part of it did get gutted, however it leaves the fact that Damon was really sent in to protect both Lombardo and Weinstein, even though Damon was, at the time, only aware of being sent in to vouch for Lombardo. It seems to me a stretch to say that it's something he "never did." Making a call designed to protect sexual predators is something Damon did (assuming Weinstein and Lombardo were such), the only detail is that Damon wasn't the designer, just the agent.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #89 on: October 24, 2017, 02:09:50 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your argument is based on the premise that Lombardo was actually not materially contributing to sexual predation, and that therefore the article was spurious?

I'm saying Lombardo was also a legitimate movie business figure.  Her piece initially implied that he was essentially exclusively a 400k$ a year pimp.  The truth is that it sounds like the pimping aspects were essentially a side thing that he occasionally organized. 

Quote
Note I'm not asking if there was any incorrect information in it at all, but rather if you take the entire thing to be a smear job.

She doesn't seem to have done adequate research - but she was a beginning reporter.  She had only talked with detractors that supported the angle she was pursing.  The facts were that Lombardo did do legitimate film business for Miramax and she was ignoring that - so to that extent it was either a smear job or incompetence of a beginner reporter.

Quote
I'd understand your position if Lombardo was really just an honest businessman getting smeared for doing business with Weinstein, and that standing up for him was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. In that case I'd have to agree with you, that Weinstein's involvement in getting Damon to speak to Waxman would have no pertinence to the fact that Lombardo himself really was clean of involvement and didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud.

As far as Damon knew - Lombardo was just a legitimate business man - one he had a professional relationship no different than others he had had.  Neither Waxman nor Weinstein had informed Damon that the piece involved allegations of pimping.  He was asked to provide reference that he had done professional work with the man.  Regardless of Lombardo's pimping activity - the truth was that he did legitimate Miramax business and thus an honest account required that.

The truth sometimes weakens a 'good story' - entertainment and our desire for outrage shouldn't trump the truth.

Quote
Is that your position? Because your point now seems to have moved on from 'Damon didn't know anything' to 'he didn't do anything, even without knowing it.' Well it seems to me that he either (a) did abet sex abusers, with or without knowing it, or (b) didn't do so, because Lombardo, at any rate, wasn't a sex abuser. (b) seems to me a bit of a reach but all I know is what I've read so I can't claim to be an authority on Lombardo. (a) seems more likely, which to me ought to mean the horrible realization of complicity in a very bad thing. That doesn't mean fault, but it would feel pretty bad, I can imagine.

Lombardo seemed to act as a pimp in addition to his duties as an film production executive.  The story that was going to be ran incorrectly alleged that Lombardo didn't do any legitimate film production duties - Damon and Crowe both corrected that false allegation.

It did make the story less interesting but Damon's actions didn't protect Weinstein from a truthful allegation.

Let us do a hypothetical for a second.  You have a friend who is accused of having done something - say stole a wallet - on Tuesday at 6 pm.  You honestly state - I was with them on Tuesday at 6 pm, and we were on the other side of the city, so he couldn't have done that.  If the person has stolen wallets in the past - the current allegation is still false and your statement is still true.  So even if they are a wallet thief - your honestly stating that they weren't involved in this particular wallet theft is not 'protecting a thief', even if, had you failed to speak up, this false allegation might help bring to light legitimate claims about his past actual wallet thefts.

Quote
Here's a quote from Waxman herself about Damon's call to her:

Quote
Four women have stepped forward to corroborate my New York Times reporting on Harvey Weinstein from 2004 that the former head of Miramax Italy, Fabrizio Lombardo, acted as a procurer of women rather than a film executive.

Actress-director Asia Argento — who alleged in the explosive New Yorker piece published on Tuesday that she was orally raped by Weinstein during a 1997 encounter outside Cannes, France — tweeted on Tuesday night that Lombardo brought her to the mogul’s room in 1997.

[...]

One other thing: Matt Damon gave an interview on Tuesday in which he explained the call he made to me at Weinstein’s behest about Lombardo.

The actor and I do not disagree on this. It was a brief call and I did not tell him what my story was about, since it did not concern him. My point was that Harvey Weinstein was using any tool he could — including getting his celebrity friends to vouch for Lombardo — to get me to back off the story.

It did not work and Matt Damon is not responsible in any way for how the story turned out. So let’s just leave him alone, please.

Yep.

Quote
So while the article about Lombardo did get written, the part about Weinstein was indeed gutted. We can't say for sure sure, and as you indicate maybe it was lack of a credible source.

She has said herself that she had no on the record source.  She was a beginning reporter - so probably didn't realize that papers aren't going to publish such a serious allegation without on the record sources - it is just to big a liability.

Quote
All we know is that Weinstein pushed the NYT to cut the article, and sent a few celebrities to vouch for Lombardo, but that doesn't address the fact that Waxman had intended Weinstein to be a focus of the article too, which Weinstein surely knew even if he didn't tell that part to Damon.

Actually Weinstein was not going to be the focus of the article.  She didn't have enough information for that.  He was going to get mentioned as a possible client.  While four women have come forward now - she didn't have that information then.

Quote
That part of it did get gutted, however it leaves the fact that Damon was really sent in to protect both Lombardo and Weinstein, even though Damon was, at the time, only aware of being sent in to vouch for Lombardo. It seems to me a stretch to say that it's something he "never did." Making a call designed to protect sexual predators is something Damon did (assuming Weinstein and Lombardo were such), the only detail is that Damon wasn't the designer, just the agent.

To me, correcting a false allegation isn't "protection" even if the false allegation would have harmed someone who has engaged in bad behavior and even if the false allegation might have helped bring to light their bad behavior.  To me, someone telling the truth should never be seen as a reason to think they did something wrong.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #90 on: October 24, 2017, 02:11:08 PM »
Quote
As to Gwyneth Paltrow - the incident was nearly 20 years ago. If you heard second hand your boss had been an ass to a friends girlfriend who was a coworker and friend, and it was something they hadn't told you personally - what exactly would you do at that time? 

Me personally? First, I would assume by default that it is more true than false. And "being an ass" doesn't start to cover it. This is textbook sexual harassment. If you're the boss, you don't get to ask people who are dependent on you for a job to come into your bedroom - at least morally, not sure about legality in the time and place.

I might not confront the person. I would probably watch out and try to verify that such activity was or was not happening, and try to find a way that I can manage to hold the person responsible without the other person involved. I might try to find a new boss. I would warn anyone who was thinking about working with said boss. I definitely wouldn't give my boss a glowing recommendation.

I might not cut ties with the person, and I might not be above using them for their connections. I might even still do them favors. I'm not trying to demonize Damon, just saying he and all of us can do better.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #91 on: October 24, 2017, 02:40:34 PM »
Quote
As to Gwyneth Paltrow - the incident was nearly 20 years ago. If you heard second hand your boss had been an ass to a friends girlfriend who was a coworker and friend, and it was something they hadn't told you personally - what exactly would you do at that time? 

Me personally? First, I would assume by default that it is more true than false.

I would certainly believe it had happened to her (assuming she hadn't shown to be a psychopath).

Quote
And "being an ass" doesn't start to cover it. This is textbook sexual harassment.

I don't think a detailed account of what happened was provided to Damon. I'd expect that it wouldn't go beyond much detail besides "that effing as*hole Weinstein came onto Gwen a couple of years ago". I don't know about you, but I probably wouldn't recount the past details of the sexual harassment that happened to a girlfriend or wife to a friend.

Quote
If you're the boss, you don't get to ask people who are dependent on you for a job to come into your bedroom - at least morally, not sure about legality in the time and place.

Fully agreed.  Legally, I too am uncertain what the laws would have been then.

Quote
I might not confront the person. I would probably watch out and try to verify that such activity was or was not happening, and try to find a way that I can manage to hold the person responsible without the other person involved. I might try to find a new boss.

Agreed. From all accounts though - this only happened behind closed doors.  So there would be nothing to see.  For Hollywood - Weinstein wouldn't really be his boss, though they likely had a contract that gave Miramax right of first refusal for future projects.

Quote
I would warn anyone who was thinking about working with said boss. I definitely wouldn't give my boss a glowing recommendation.

How would you go about warning them.  Anything but extreme vagaries risks a slander lawsuit.  You also risk a tortious interference lawsuit.  Aside from the legal risks, there is also the likelihood that your spreading rumors will make it back to the person.  Also you either have to use the example of your friends girlfriend (again violating their trust) or be extremely vague.

Quote
I might not cut ties with the person, and I might not be above using them for their connections. I might even still do them favors. I'm not trying to demonize Damon, just saying he and all of us can do better.

I fully agree. Personally before thinking about it, I'm sure my thoughts were "well surely I would have done something" - because I know myself to be a good person and I always try to act against injustice.  On reflection though, I realized that it is an extremely complex situation that doesn't afford itself easy and obvious answers.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 02:48:33 PM by LetterRip »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #92 on: November 03, 2017, 06:36:20 PM »
Okay, this thing is really starting to snowball. It's fascinating to watch it gain momentum. I really though Weinstein was just going to get firewalled from the rest of the entertainment industry, but the firebreaks are failing. The more people get called out on their behaviour, ranging from illegal to just boorish, the more people are being encouraged. It's like a herd mentality - they can't retaliate against ALL of us, can they?

I also think a lot of people are encouraged by the meaningful and immediate repercussions that probably feel like justice to them. People are losing their jobs. Instantly, not getting away with an apology and some time off for "therapy".

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #93 on: November 03, 2017, 06:49:40 PM »
TheDrake, I agree, this is a good thing to clean up how women have been treated for decades.  My fear now is that with so many participating we're going to start seeing non-credible accusers pop up, which can quickly taint the entire process.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #94 on: November 04, 2017, 12:54:31 PM »
Quote
I might not cut ties with the person, and I might not be above using them for their connections. I might even still do them favors. I'm not trying to demonize Damon, just saying he and all of us can do better.

I fully agree. Personally before thinking about it, I'm sure my thoughts were "well surely I would have done something" - because I know myself to be a good person and I always try to act against injustice.  On reflection though, I realized that it is an extremely complex situation that doesn't afford itself easy and obvious answers.

I see where you’re coming from as this is the outcome of the war on boys and the overall greater war on masculinity: men that don’t know how to be men.

I cannot imagine Weinstein inappropriately touching or sexually assaulting a woman I care about (mother, sister, wife, daughter) and my response being anything other than beating him into a coma. That is not even remotely an exaggeration. I have a few friends in my close circle that if this happened to any of the women they care about, it would be a race among all of us to get there and land the first blow on Harvey. I *censored* you not. The other men around my wife know me and are very tuned in to the unqualified reality of the fallout from inappropriate behavior should they engage in it. My wife is well aware and appreciative of this as she navigates an office full of men with confidence and no fear of being behind a closed door with them. It’s not being a jerk or even discourteous, it’s just being a man and being known as one.

If one of these women in my life came to me and told me he’d done this to them and I responded I’d have to think about what to do, that it was complex without any easy answer, but I need to act in a way I can still be buddies with Harvey and take advantage of his influence...well, that’s no better than pimping them out and, in a perfect world,  the shame a man should feel for such a response should be damn near fatal. It’s disgraceful that so many women have so few men in their lives that care enough about them and are man enough to defend them from these predators.

Protecting women is a core responsibility of being a man but it’s getting lost as masculinity is attacked becomes a societal evil.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #95 on: November 04, 2017, 06:13:37 PM »
Crunch,

Quote
I see where you’re coming from as this is the outcome of the war on boys and the overall greater war on masculinity: men that don’t know how to be men.

Given the views you've expressed on this forum suggest you are a late geriatric, I understand your need to puff yourself up by insulting others.  Remembering your 'former glory' and imagining yourself a hero and others as weak, I'm sure helps you in your late years.

Quote
I cannot imagine Weinstein inappropriately touching or sexually assaulting a woman I care about (mother, sister, wife, daughter) and my response being anything other than beating him into a coma.

And I'm sure you would enjoy prison, and perhaps even life in prison (beat someone to a coma and there is a good chance they die).  It isn't clear to me if you are stupid enough to actually do this (possible) or if you are the macho fantasy type (likely).

Regardless, Gwen was none of those things to Damon, she was the girlfriend of his best friend.  Also what he was told, is likely not sufficient knowledge to draw the conclusion she was sexually assaulted.  What we can surmise is that he knew that Weinstein had done something inappropriate and that Gwen had handled it and didn't want to talk about it.

Quote
If one of these women in my life came to me and told me he’d done this to them and I responded I’d have to think about what to do

That isn't the scenario under discussion.  Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension.  None of them were relations, it was a friends girlfriend.  She didn't tell him, she told her husband.  She didn't want anyone to do anything about it, she had handled it.  What he had been told was not the details that we know now - but a less specific and less damning details.

Quote
, that it was complex without any easy answer, but I need to act in a way I can still be buddies with Harvey and take advantage of his influence...well, that’s no better than pimping them out and, in a perfect world,  the shame a man should feel for such a response should be damn near fatal. It’s disgraceful that so many women have so few men in their lives that care enough about them and are man enough to defend them from these predators.

Clearly you didn't read or perhaps didn't comprehend what you read.  Next time reread one or two times, so you don't fall into the mistake of confusing your fantasy with reality.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #96 on: November 06, 2017, 11:43:03 AM »
Quote
I cannot imagine Weinstein inappropriately touching or sexually assaulting a woman I care about (mother, sister, wife, daughter) and my response being anything other than beating him into a coma. That is not even remotely an exaggeration. I have a few friends in my close circle that if this happened to any of the women they care about, it would be a race among all of us to get there and land the first blow on Harvey. I *censored* you not. The other men around my wife know me and are very tuned in to the unqualified reality of the fallout from inappropriate behavior should they engage in it. My wife is well aware and appreciative of this as she navigates an office full of men with confidence and no fear of being behind a closed door with them. It’s not being a jerk or even discourteous, it’s just being a man and being known as one.

So if your boss had assaulted a woman you care about, you would deck him without hesitation?

How about if it was the CEO of your company?

How about the mayor of your town?  The richest man in your town?

How about a policeman in your city?

Would you and all your buddies race to beat a cop into a coma?  How do you think that would turn out? ;)

That's the thing about Weinstein and company.  If you tried anything like that, assuming you got even close, they would destroy you.  You and the woman important to you that accused them.  You'd be in complete and utter financial ruin, in prison for the next few decades, and/or dead.  How would that woman you care for feel about that?

While these adolescent fantasies are fun--heck, I still dream about them myself :) --they ignore the actual price that you pay for them: virtual suicide, either financial, social, or actual.  It's a huge price for someone else's rude behavior.  Which, of course, is what these predators count on. :(

It's wonderful that your wife knows you have her back and will do anything to protect her.  But if something like this ever happens, don't think that your response will be an easy decision.  It may cost more than any of you are willing to pay.

And certainly don't think it should be an easy decision for anyone else, either.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #97 on: November 06, 2017, 04:03:47 PM »
Quote
I cannot imagine Weinstein inappropriately touching or sexually assaulting a woman I care about (mother, sister, wife, daughter) and my response being anything other than beating him into a coma.

And I'm sure you would enjoy prison, and perhaps even life in prison (beat someone to a coma and there is a good chance they die).  It isn't clear to me if you are stupid enough to actually do this (possible) or if you are the macho fantasy type (likely).

I suspect the bigger issue is that he lives in a different part of the country.  I've lived places where that exact self help would have been the socially acceptable thing to do, and the person getting the beat down wouldn't have dared trying to get the law involved (cause they would have gotten beat down a second time).  I've lived in places, where it'd play out exactly like you said, with prison time for the beat down and the assaulter walking free.

Crunch, though you should consider that if your daughter or sister or friend was serious about being actor, the way they'd solve for this problem is to never tell you it happened.  You may not care about the prison risk, but they'd care about their career, and for too long this was just the cost of being in the business and not being famous enough to be past it.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #98 on: November 06, 2017, 04:09:52 PM »
Quote
You may not care about the prison risk, but they'd care about their career, and for too long this was just the cost of being in the business and not being famous enough to be past it.
Or they'd care about the prison risk for you.  My sister likely saved me from such a possible outcome with her silence until long after such an incident.  Sad, but probably the case.  I'd like to think I'd act more rationally at my current age.  In addition, she's changed a lot since then and is not likely to need my help if it did...

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #99 on: November 06, 2017, 04:22:00 PM »
Anyhow we're not even talking about the kind of guy who you could walk up to and just tackle unless you were stalking him like an assassin and memorized his movements or whatever. Chances are he has security with him, and even if by some miracle you did catch up with him alone and give him a beatdown this is the sort of guy, I think, who would literally call up a hitman and have you eliminated for your trouble. This isn't some corner goon, he is a *major player* with billions behind him, and is effectively a mafia boss. You might as well brag about taking vengeance on Don Corleone for doing something you don't like. Oh you will, eh? You'd better bring some backup and then be ready to flee to Siciliy afterwards.