The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Seriati on October 11, 2017, 01:57:22 PM

Title: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on October 11, 2017, 01:57:22 PM
What do you guys make of this whole mess with Weinstein?  I'm kind of appalled by the number of people who've stated some version of the idea that they "heard" of it, but hadn't seen it, and they "wish" they'd done something.  The part of it that really appalls me is that I'd be willing to bet they've "heard" stuff about other people than Weinstein and they have an opportunity to do something about it now.  If they want to do something, how about bringing those rumors to the proper authorities and making a clean sweep of the casting couch culture.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on October 11, 2017, 02:24:55 PM
I am passingly acquainted with some people who walk in those circles, and what I hear is that more or less everyone knew what was going on and that it was hushed up all around. No one would come forward, he held people's entire careers in his hands, danced with the likes of the Clintons and Obamas, made or broke productions (films, plays, etc), and was someone you Could Not Cross. Now McGowan and Judd are leading the charge to burn the bridges and it's all coming out. They are naming names. I can't confirm first-hand obviously, and what I hear is probably third hand (e.g. someone I know heard it happened to someone they know) so I'm keeping that in mind as I read about this. This subject is making me very sad. I know this goes on all the time, and that it's especially bad both in Hollywood and on Broadway. But it's another thing to hear people talk about it point blank and to watch celebrities flaming each other on Twitter about those who not only knew but covered for Weinstein. CNN even featured a piece flaming the Clintons for failing to comment on the situation, which I found interesting in its own right. When you have the Obamas calling him a 'wonderful human being'  and 'a good friend' it just can't come out looking like roses once this kind of thing comes out. The only recourse is for people who knew him to either denounce him instantly, jumping on the bandwagon, or else to scramble and plead ignorance. From what I hear that's not going to be a very believable position to take since it was basically common knowledge in certain circles.

I don't hold with the kind of rhetoric sometimes levied around 'rape culture' as it applies to society at large, but certain niche areas of society, including Hollywood, most certainly are a literal rape culture. Even though I knew of this kind of thing before (not in regards to him in particular) hearing about it now makes me hesitant to even enter a cinema for fear I'll be supporting the product of someone like this. I won't take it that far, but I'll feel it when I do go, no question. There are more like him out there for sure. This kind of thing isn't just exclusive to the UK.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on October 11, 2017, 05:02:32 PM
Just rejecting him was allegedly enough to limit a person's opportunity. Actually outing him would have been even more risky. We probably know people on this spectrum. Maybe not guys trying to lure an assistant into a bathtub on their second day, but certainly inappropriate behavior.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DJQuag on October 11, 2017, 05:50:37 PM
These types of things are hard to police. Rape alone, despite the seriousness, can often not be investigated properly due to police biases and the he said/she said dynamic. But the sexual harassment? Most workplaces have rules against superiors being in relationships with those working under them, but it's hard to bring those workplace rules into force against the boss.

It reminds me of when I was younger. I have a disease and sometimes I'm sick. But when you're working hourly with no contract or salary guarantee you end up going into work anyway despite it impacting majorly on your health. Because if you get a reputation for being unreliable you end up suffering.

I always suspected and acted on this, but when I entered management myself it was confirmed. When employees pissed managers off enough the unofficial policy wasn't to fire them. You had to adhere to laws and fill out paperwork for thst.  The policy was to give them four hours a week until they got the message.

It sucks for the actresses but it's a Cosby situation. With that many people accusing, we can be reasonably sure he did what they said, but he won't be punished because it will never hold up in a court of law.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 12, 2017, 09:43:36 AM
This is interesting on a number of levels. It was a well known “open secret” for decades. So who’d Harvey finally alienate that allowed the story to come out? He’d successfully spiked it several times over the years as well as other stories about him. So what broke the power base? Who was sufficiently powerful that risking going after Harvey was the better choice? Not for nothing, Malia Obama was working at Weinstein’s company earlier this year ...

Remember all those people so worked up over Trumps’s “grab them by the pussy” comment? How many of them covered for Harvey or kept silent? Same for all those girls in the pink pussy hats. And same for all those targeting Roger Ailes.

What about Donna Karan’s defense of Harvey’s actions around the way women present themselves? I saw a photo of Rose McGowan (who is blowing up Twitter and other celebrities) wearing almost literally nothing, and I mean just short of nothing, Rose is kind of known for going around almost  naked.  Does Donna Karan have a point here that this invites a certain type of behavior? Nothing justifies assaulting another person but if you’re dressing in a way that is overtly and aggressively sexual, does it help create the environment for unsavory behavior?

Along those lines, going up to some dude’s hotel room, what’s the message there? I’ve traveled a lot for business and never once have I invited a woman to my room to “discuss work”. If your wife or girlfriend went to a guy’s hotel room and spent an hour or two there, would you be cool with that?

What about all of Harvey’s assistants? They knew, some even helped stage the scene and lure actresses into it. Aren’t they complicit and should be treated just like Harvey? If there are criminal acts, and it seems there were, shouldn’t these assistants be held criminally responsible as well?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: rightleft22 on October 12, 2017, 10:10:24 AM
Not sure if Hollywood is reality. How many powerful people (man and woman) are hit on and flattered in a day. How would you navigate such waters?   Like Trump said, “when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy". It all part of the game and the game is not going to change.

Should there be protests about shows like the bachelor or bachelorette? How consenting is all that ‘action’? What message do shows like that send.
We can all pretend to be outraged but are we surprised. You get away with *censored* like grabbing pussy until you don’t and then you pay… or you don’t….
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on October 12, 2017, 12:04:55 PM
Quote
Remember all those people so worked up over Trumps’s “grab them by the pussy” comment? How many of them covered for Harvey or kept silent? Same for all those girls in the pink pussy hats. And same for all those targeting Roger Ailes.

I'm pretty sure, out of the millions of people who were disgusted by Trump's and Ailes' behavior, only a couple of handful actually knew about Weinstein’s behavior and "covered for Harvey or kept silent."  And a majority of those who did faced the choice of being blackballed in their career if they made a public fuss.

It's the problem of power.  Powerful people can prevent you from reaching your goal, or can even destroy your life, if you upset them.  So you have to treat them with deference.  And some use this deference to get away with things most people couldn't, up to and including criminal behavior.

It's a tough problem.  Millions knew nothing of Weinstein’s behavior.  Most just heard rumors, just like we hear rumors that Obama is secretly a Muslim and homosexual, and Trump is secretly strupping his daughter.  Most such rumors are false news.  But every once in a while, such a rumor is shown to be true, especially if there was a blue dress involved. ;)

Those who know for a fact that such things are true face a dilemma.  If they speak out, they will be immediately attacked.  People will say they are accusing the person because they are jealous of the person's success, or want to blackmail him, or are crazy, or any number of things.  Just look at what people said about those who accused Trump of inappropriate behavior.  You think Weinstein would have done any less, if not more?

And if they were in the entertainment business, he would have used his considerable influence to ruin them.  Unless, of course, they took a deal...

Weinstein's actions were reprehensible, and, assuming the allegations are true, he richly deserves the punishment he is getting.  Just as Ailes and O'Reilly richly deserve the punishments they got, assuming the allegations against them are true, too.  Such behaviors should not be tolerated by anyone.  But it won't be easy, especially for the few who actually know of such behaviors.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on October 12, 2017, 12:20:39 PM
Quote
Does Donna Karan have a point here that this invites a certain type of behavior? Nothing justifies assaulting another person but if you’re dressing in a way that is overtly and aggressively sexual, does it help create the environment for unsavory behavior?

I know.  I mean, with women showing their ankles and faces all the time, what do you expect? ;)

Which means, of course, hell no, Donna has no good point.  Men decide what is "overtly and aggressively sexual," and that definition changes depending on the society and the particular person.  Which means that any outfit short of burqa can (and will) be seen as "overtly and aggressively sexual" by somebody.  (And I bet there are some men who think burqas are tremendously sexy... :D )

Since a walking around topless or stark naked does not justify someone assaulting her, it really doesn't matter.  Unsavory behavior is the assaulter's responsibility alone.  It comes from his (and maybe sometimes her) mind-set alone.  Nothing another person does justifies the behavior.  It is the assaulter's lack of self-control, or egotism, or desperation, or psychosis, that causes the behavior.  Not the way a woman does or does not dress.

You'd think people would have figured that out by now...  >:(
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on October 12, 2017, 12:22:16 PM
Seems to me Ailes got a lot of the same treatment as Weinstein. Covered up for years, private settlement hush money, retribution against accusers.

Now, they're different in the degree of graphic detail available to the public, I'd grant you that. But as far as people knowing they were doing something wrong and covering it up? Same difference.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 12, 2017, 01:59:30 PM
Seems to me Ailes got a lot of the same treatment as Weinstein. Covered up for years, private settlement hush money, retribution against accusers.

Now, they're different in the degree of graphic detail available to the public, I'd grant you that. But as far as people knowing they were doing something wrong and covering it up? Same difference.
I'm not talking about Ailes and Weinstein, I'm talking about the people that condemned Ailes while still holding cover for Weinstein. The reality is, Weinstein could come back from this once he completes rehab (whatever rehab is in this context). I have a hard time with the outrage for Ailes while more than a few had to have been simultaneously covering for Weinstein.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 12, 2017, 02:10:19 PM
Quote
Does Donna Karan have a point here that this invites a certain type of behavior? Nothing justifies assaulting another person but if you’re dressing in a way that is overtly and aggressively sexual, does it help create the environment for unsavory behavior?

I know.  I mean, with women showing their ankles and faces all the time, what do you expect? ;)

Which means, of course, hell no, Donna has no good point.  Men decide what is "overtly and aggressively sexual," and that definition changes depending on the society and the particular person.  Which means that any outfit short of burqa can (and will) be seen as "overtly and aggressively sexual" by somebody.  (And I bet there are some men who think burqas are tremendously sexy... :D )

Since a walking around topless or stark naked does not justify someone assaulting her, it really doesn't matter.  Unsavory behavior is the assaulter's responsibility alone.  It comes from his (and maybe sometimes her) mind-set alone.  Nothing another person does justifies the behavior.  It is the assaulter's lack of self-control, or egotism, or desperation, or psychosis, that causes the behavior.  Not the way a woman does or does not dress.

You'd think people would have figured that out by now...  >:(
Well, I think building a strawman to attack is something people should have figured out by now too but there it is. I get that you need to SJW this thing but, come on, you sound just like Joss Whedon.

If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look. It's absurd that she could be offended when men comply with her tacit request to look at her in a sexual way. As I said, this does not excuse a sexual assault or unwanted touching but it does send a message about sex and availability and anyone with two brain cells to rub together and not pushing some faux feminist agenda knows this. That doesn't mean burqa's for women, such a stupid strawman, everyone knows what I mean - dressing professionally and/or within the bounds of good taste, and if you don't understand what that means then you've really got a stunted fashion sense.

I think DK has a point there, it's getting lost in a type of defense of Harvey (although she says she wasn't defending him, just pointing out something). If you dress provocatively, you should expect a specific type of attention, that's why you dress that way after all. If that type of attention is unwanted, maybe dress more conservatively. Why is that an unreasonable idea?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on October 12, 2017, 02:58:55 PM
Quote
If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look. It's absurd that she could be offended when men comply with her tacit request to look at her in a sexual way.

"Tacit request" according to whom?  Who decided it was a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way?"

I had a girlfriend once who protested the Miss California pageant by baring her breasts during the march.  Do you think she was making a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way," or to protest having men constantly look at her "in a sexual way?"  (It was the latter, BTW. :) )

So who decided her showing breasts meant she wanted people to look at her in a sexual way?

Men will always look at women "in a sexual way," regardless of what they wear.  But some men like to think that certain clothing and styles means that the woman wants him to look that way at her.  Many times this is true--IF the woman knows the man and wants to turn that particular man on.  But men in general?  Only if she can make some money on the deal...

But there are men who use this "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way" as an excuse to think some stranger wants him in a sexual way.  And looking (aka leering--just looking won't elicit a response) is just the first step.  Whistling, gesturing, provocative language, groping--these are next steps when men think there is a "tacit request."  And there are always men willing to take the next step...

There are times and places where certain dress is not appropriate.  You shouldn't go to church in a swimsuit regardless of your sex. :) But one should never generally conclusion that a woman who dressed "that way" (whatever way that is--depends on the society) is making a "tacit request."  In fact, it is best to assume she is not.

Because it is normally not for any given man, no matter what Harvey might assume. :)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on October 12, 2017, 03:04:01 PM
I'm not talking about Ailes and Weinstein, I'm talking about the people that condemned Ailes while still holding cover for Weinstein. The reality is, Weinstein could come back from this once he completes rehab (whatever rehab is in this context). I have a hard time with the outrage for Ailes while more than a few had to have been simultaneously covering for Weinstein.

So there aren't people wailing about Weinstein who shrugged at or defended Ailes?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2017, 03:15:41 PM
Quote
If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look.
Not to mention we are talking about an industry that stops just short (some times) of mandating their lack of dress and overtly sexual portrayal.  Even if it wasn't a woman's choice to dress this way, they may very well be impeding their opportunities if they do not dress (or undress) provocatively. 

The phrase is not "modesty sells" after all.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2017, 03:37:08 PM
The issue of whether on some level 'women are asking for it' by how they dress is immaterial to this conversation. Whether or not it's even true isn't germane because we're talking about encounters in a private setting, not in public. It's moot to discuss what 'men want' when discussing what Weinstein in the particular may have wanted or assumed. He's not just 'some man', but was specifically a man in power in Hollywood and that context is more relevant than what some arbitrary man might or might not assume from how a woman dresses.

The real question to ask isn't whether women want attention, but whether some of these women might have wanted it. For each woman Weinstein solicited without suggestive input from her there was probably another woman voluntarily offering to prostitute herself (for all intents and purposes) to get ahead. 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. Many no doubt wouldn't. The trouble is, in industries like film and fashion that at their very basis are in the business of pimping out women, they will attract women who will literally think in those terms. I'm mentioning this because for all the culpability Weinstein and those like him have (which is 100% culpability, just to be clear), there's also an environment where women are already demeaned in other ways and are often willing to demean themselves to get the work that's in ultra-low supply with a glut of competition. It makes the entire environment toxic to good mental health and good values, and in turn this could lead a scumbag like Weinstein to even fool himself into thinking they wanted it anyhow. The sad thing is some of them may have, while many others were basically raped, and in his mind it was probably all the same.

It's nice to bring down the hammer on guys like this, but that's not the whole problem. It's not just individual scumbags but the entire industry that breeds bad behavior. I've heard various celebrities talking about the portrayal and handing of women in the industry and it doesn't look good. When you have an environment when a 30 year old woman is told she's too old to be playing romantic leads - often opposite 60-70 year old men - it's not just about guys like Weinstein any more. I've read interviews with people like John Cusack who say that what's happening is bordering on kiddie porn in terms of how young they're reaching for female talent, whilst brushing away anyone who doesn't look like a teenager. This isn't exactly going to lead to a clean environment in the first place, and even if outright predators like Weinstein are hunted down there is still so much room for predatory behavior to flourish in and around all this.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2017, 03:54:10 PM
I think the most positive thing coming of this is the calling out of people who facilitate this behavior or remained silent.  The court of public opinion is an equal force to that held by those who would abuse their power.  When caught between a rock and a hard place, the odds tip in favor of taking a chance at angering a horrible human being or suffering damage regardless.  Better to sacrifice the monsters and improve the industry in the process.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2017, 04:04:50 PM
I think the most positive thing coming of this is the calling out of people who facilitate this behavior or remained silent.  The court of public opinion is an equal force to that held by those who would abuse their power.  When caught between a rock and a hard place, the odds tip in favor of taking a chance at angering a horrible human being or suffering damage regardless.  Better to sacrifice the monsters and improve the industry in the process.

It's not that easy a calculus. Imagine devoting your whole life to a particular career where you train for it for years and even feel like it's the only thing you can do because of the kind of person you are. And now imagine that you know that there's a 99% chance you'll fail and be forced to quit but you're willing to take that chance and make it work. And if it doesn't work, you have no college degree and no formal training to do anything else. You might well have to go do some minimum wage job or perhaps go back to school - if you can even afford to. And now consider that for some people there comes a moment where you do one disgusting thing it will open all the doors and your slim 1% chance at being able to work in your chosen field turns more into a near-certainty. It can be the difference between having the life you wanted versus having to give up everything and admit it was all for nothing. Given this context it seems clear to me how easy it would be for someone to just bite the bullet, do the thing, and then finally get the break the vast majority never get. And worse than that, you'd know that if you refuse someone else will come right along to do the thing you wouldn't and will get that opportunity instead. You won't feel like you made the world better, you'll know you just made room for someone else to get the opportunity instead as you sheepishly go off and never get work.

Because this is exactly the scenario that exists it's all the more important to somehow stamp out predatory behavior. This isn't like other industries. A person's entire future can hinge on being given one honest chance; sometimes there is no second chance. And when an actress sees what might be that one chance, and it comes with strings attached, that's a huge temptation, adding to the fact of perhaps also being afraid to refuse.

What you say might sound rational to someone who does a normal job. For people in that industry the calculus is all kinds of messed up. No one goes to medical school assuming that even if they pass they'll probably never work as a doctor anyhow. The opposite is true in Hollywood. They go to classes, train hard for years, and still know it's a long shot. Crazy business.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on October 12, 2017, 04:15:46 PM
Times are changing.  One outraged would be actress making an impassioned account of their encounter and how they walked away refusing the advances of X powerful person, could embolden others to come forward and at the same time make them "internet famous." 

The catch is only takes a couple of false accusations and slander and the "bad ol' days" are granted cover again.  The "power" in the industry is (from the outside at least) as decentralized as it's ever been.  Unless others in power fear (unjust) accusations against themselves in turn, I think it's harder for one power player to shut all the doors on an aspiring actor.  Still possible to "miss your chance" but I've never been a starving artist wondering what kinda job I'll have to take to pay the rent in a town I know I can't afford to be in, but MUST live in to find opportunity in my chosen field.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2017, 05:41:39 PM
I had a girlfriend once who protested the Miss California pageant by baring her breasts during the march.  Do you think she was making a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way," or to protest having men constantly look at her "in a sexual way?"  (It was the latter, BTW. :) )

That's a horrible example.  She was clearly relying on the nudity in order to bring attention to her cause.  That's in the nature of an explicit request to look at her in a sexual way, even if it's for the purpose of shaming the viewer.

Quote
So who decided her showing breasts meant she wanted people to look at her in a sexual way?

In that case your girlfriend did.  In other cases, the woman might have or might not have, or the circumstances may have.  Do you think that actresses going nude in a movie don't want to be looked at in a sexual way?  Seems like an odd and unlikely position.

In this case though the point is actually explicitly not relevant.  Whether a particular woman in fact decided to seduce him and tried to be perceived as sexual, which given the benefits is certainly possible, he made a decision to treat all women as sexual objects regardless of what they really wanted and to use his power over them to make that a reality.  His bad acts overrule any possibility that any particular unwilling woman was somehow "complicit" in the event because nothing they did was really relevant to how he treated them.

Quote
Only if she can make some money on the deal...

Which by the way, is expressly the case in a casting couch culture.  Access to a very limited resource by the producers.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2017, 05:45:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on October 12, 2017, 06:55:02 PM
If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look.

So she can't simply be hot in the literal sense, and ever desire to remove even that final layer in an attempt to cool off without it automatically becoming a sexual act in your book? This is an embodiment of "Rape Culture" that I actually would agree with.

Quote
It's absurd that she could be offended when men comply with her tacit request to look at her in a sexual way.

Now this aspect of your complaint is a little more complicated. Circumstances and context matter, and given present day social context re:"Rape culture" any woman who goes about topless in a reasonably public venue where such activity isn't normal, should expect to get ogled, because that particular kind of "presentation" in that particular context is highly unusual. There are women who are aware of this, and in venues where it is legal, there are some minor efforts to try to "normalize" it for people, for both good and ill intent which can vary wildly by individual.

Quote
As I said, this does not excuse a sexual assault or unwanted touching but it does send a message about sex and availability and anyone with two brain cells to rub together and not pushing some faux feminist agenda knows this. That doesn't mean burqa's for women, such a stupid strawman, everyone knows what I mean - dressing professionally and/or within the bounds of good taste, and if you don't understand what that means then you've really got a stunted fashion sense.

What is "Sexual" is highly context sensitive, and mostly cultural in nature. Ankles and calves, or heaven forbid knees, were considered "highly sexual" when came to women in New York City as recently as the start of the 20th Century. Look at the wiki page for the Flatiron Building in New York for further detail if you need it.

Quote
I think DK has a point there, it's getting lost in a type of defense of Harvey (although she says she wasn't defending him, just pointing out something). If you dress provocatively, you should expect a specific type of attention, that's why you dress that way after all. If that type of attention is unwanted, maybe dress more conservatively. Why is that an unreasonable idea?

"Provocatively" for whom under what context? "Conservatively" for whom under what context? A "conservatively dressed" (typical, non-LDS) woman in Phoenix, AZ who travels up to SLC during a 100 degree heatwave that then proceeds to wear what they'd wear in Phoenix in that weather while in SLC would be rather scandalously dressed by comparison(but much more comfortable). However, by your measure, they're "dressing for attention" rather than "dressing for personal comfort."

Which cycles back to the "Rape Culture" thing that even I will agree with, people should be able to dress comfortably for the environments they find themselves in(within local legal restrictions), and not feel compelled to dress in "an uncomfortable manner" in order to "feel safe" where ever they may be. And if you're going for a society that allows for secular freedom of expression and true gender equality, that also means you don't distinguish between genders. If you feel that women must cover their nipples, you should make sure the men are required to as well.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2017, 07:23:59 PM
So she can't simply be hot in the literal sense, and ever desire to remove even that final layer in an attempt to cool off without it automatically becoming a sexual act in your book? This is an embodiment of "Rape Culture" that I actually would agree with.

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.

Are you really implying some kind of moral thought police that goes contrary to instinct is an entitlement of a woman?

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

Quote
What is "Sexual" is highly context sensitive, and mostly cultural in nature. Ankles and calves, or heaven forbid knees, were considered "highly sexual" when came to women in New York City as recently as the start of the 20th Century. Look at the wiki page for the Flatiron Building in New York for further detail if you need it.

There is nothing wrong with a culture having mores, or for members of that culture to live up to them.  What's wrong is trying to force another to comply with your mores. 

Quote
"Provocatively" for whom under what context?

For the context and culture in which the act is committed?  We're not talking pure abstracts where we have to have a curtain separating the dress and the situation.  We're talking about specific choices in specific social contexts.  We can figure out what's work appropriate without condemning social dress after hours.

Quote
However, by your measure, they're "dressing for attention" rather than "dressing for personal comfort."

Would you find it difficult to label a man who decided to wear just a tube sock?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on October 12, 2017, 08:27:34 PM
It's not the thought, it is the behaviour. If someone seems attractive to you, it is not unreasonable to approach that person under normal circumstance. If there is a position of power, like in a working environment, I would say there is no appropriate approach. Once approached, a simple no should easily be the end of the discussion. Signal misread, my bad, take care, goodbye.

Part of the problem for women, as they tell it to me, is that virtually anything - or indeed nothing - will activate such behaviour in sufficient numbers of men as to be really annoying at the least, and dangerous at most. A little restraint would go a long way.

With regard to all the questions about shirtless men, I don't believe in a double standard, but let's face it some dude on muscle beach doesn't really have to have the same concerns as a woman alone in a room with some creep.

Should every ballet dancer, male or female, expect to be groped since they are dressing overtly sexual?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on October 12, 2017, 09:22:09 PM
Groped is moving the bar.  Everyone should be entitled to be free from physical advances, or generally from other people acting entitled towards them.  That's a far cry from the idea that they should be free from other people's internal feelings, and reasonable reactions.  No ballet dancer should be groped, but they all should expect that people will look at their bodies.  Heck they deliberately wear outfits designed to let you see their muscle flow, because that is part of the art they are performing.

I think too, you've inadvertently hit on a problem.  You say you don't believe in a double standard, and then you immediately set out a double standard.  This area is rife with double standards.  Identical conduct in a man and a woman, causing a reaction in a person of the opposite sex is frequently seen as being morally wrong for the man - in both cases - and often without any rationale reason. 

It's irrational to believe that a woman can wear anything she chooses and men have no right to react no matter what, but to believe a man is harassing every women he meets if he chooses to wear certain clothes.  You're welcome, of course, to drop back to social conventions or even to recognizing "reality" to explain away the difference, but the instant you do you are validating the idea that societies views should have some form of weight, you're just concluding that its the mores that agree with you that are right. 

Edited - Just one other thought on that.  It's not all men.  There are outfits that a man wears that a woman will deem harassing and confront him about, where if he tells her he's gay, she'll not only be embarrassed she'll apologize to him.  How odd is that result?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: JoshCrow on October 12, 2017, 09:48:06 PM
It's not that easy a calculus. Imagine devoting your whole life to a particular career where you train for it for years and even feel like it's the only thing you can do because of the kind of person you are. And now imagine that you know that there's a 99% chance you'll fail and be forced to quit but you're willing to take that chance and make it work. And if it doesn't work, you have no college degree and no formal training to do anything else. You might well have to go do some minimum wage job or perhaps go back to school - if you can even afford to. And now consider that for some people there comes a moment where you do one disgusting thing it will open all the doors and your slim 1% chance at being able to work in your chosen field turns more into a near-certainty. It can be the difference between having the life you wanted versus having to give up everything and admit it was all for nothing. Given this context it seems clear to me how easy it would be for someone to just bite the bullet, do the thing, and then finally get the break the vast majority never get. And worse than that, you'd know that if you refuse someone else will come right along to do the thing you wouldn't and will get that opportunity instead. You won't feel like you made the world better, you'll know you just made room for someone else to get the opportunity instead as you sheepishly go off and never get work.

Except that argument ignores the seemingly large number of "made-it" A-list celebrities who decided even from their position of public fame to say nothing about what happened in their past. You don't think Gwyneth Paltrow could have dropped a bombshell on Weinstein (even just in the press) and possibly put a stop to his activities? Wouldn't it be 'worth it' at some point to possibly prevent other women from going through the same horror, even if it meant you might not have as many gigs? Even merely alerting women to the predator in their mists would have been a public service, and yet none of these women had the stones to be the first.

99% of my anger is directed at Weinstein, but I'm reserving 1% for the lack of ethics involved in not calling this guy out as loudly as possible, particularly with an A-list career firmly in place, and especially in the last ten years or so when it's become quite easy to rally instant support for such a cause.

Their silence, including those who took hush money, is part of enabling this monstrous abuse.

edited to add: look what I found just now: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/amazon-studios-roy-price-harvey-weinstein/index.html

Look how easy it is. This guy was pretty powerful and now he's toast. The cultural needle has moved - it's open season on these bozos. Silence is the foolish option at this point - smart money says you press 'record' on your phone for any private meeting with the opposite sex.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on October 13, 2017, 12:19:39 AM
So she can't simply be hot in the literal sense, and ever desire to remove even that final layer in an attempt to cool off without it automatically becoming a sexual act in your book? This is an embodiment of "Rape Culture" that I actually would agree with.

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.

The people in the "I can't help myself" camp are the "rape culture" side on this. 

Quote
Are you really implying some kind of moral thought police that goes contrary to instinct is an entitlement of a woman?

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 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? 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.

This also ignores aboriginal tribes that were (historically) documented as going either outright nude, or topless for everyone prior to "good Christian Missionaries" coming along and teaching them the importance of modesty and buying textile goods(from their respective homelands).

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.

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.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with a culture having mores, or for members of that culture to live up to them.  What's wrong is trying to force another to comply with your mores.

Not going to disagree, but that's where the problem comes into play with the "public space" as it becomes a question of who gets to define the baseline? As it stands, in much of the country, the woman who wants to go topless on a hot day cannot do so without potentially getting placed on a sex offender registry. 

Quote
For the context and culture in which the act is committed?  We're not talking pure abstracts where we have to have a curtain separating the dress and the situation.  We're talking about specific choices in specific social contexts.  We can figure out what's work appropriate without condemning social dress after hours.

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

Quote
Would you find it difficult to label a man who decided to wear just a tube sock?

Should he be difficult to categorize? Would you rather he wear some kind of gourd?   ;)

Obviously in that case he's placing emphasis on his penis, so it is sexual in nature.

But if you're going down that route, than I think you'd find that after the initial "shock factor" wears off, in a "topless woman" vs "woman in a string bikini" contest for male attention, the bikini wearer is going to get, and maintain more attention in the long run. Human nature is to be more curious about the things we cannot see than we are about things things we've "already seen." But first you have to overcome the shock of seeing things you're not used to seeing. Which goes back to efforts to "normalize" the sight of the female breast in total.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on October 13, 2017, 01:02:01 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. Even in that scenario alone there are people who would sleep with someone to get an edge. And then there's the worse case, where the part will go to whoever will go to the casting couch, in which case the bad choice is requisite. The scenario where an actress in the position we're discussing (is up for a role but doesn't have the star power to dictate her own terms) won't almost ever include the scenario where she knows she'll have the part in advance. It's always either a crapshoot or else she pulls some string to get an edge, whether that's consenting to something sexual, speaking to someone of influence, etc.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on October 13, 2017, 01:17:22 AM
Except that argument ignores the seemingly large number of "made-it" A-list celebrities who decided even from their position of public fame to say nothing about what happened in their past. You don't think Gwyneth Paltrow could have dropped a bombshell on Weinstein (even just in the press) and possibly put a stop to his activities? Wouldn't it be 'worth it' at some point to possibly prevent other women from going through the same horror, even if it meant you might not have as many gigs? Even merely alerting women to the predator in their mists would have been a public service, and yet none of these women had the stones to be the first.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying you can't use the same kind of rationale you'd expect in any other kind of workplace. I never said that it's impossible for actors to come forward, only that the blocks to doing so are much stronger than it may appear at first glance. What I didn't go into (because I don't know enough to do so) is the minutiae of exactly what ways Weinstein could threaten even famous actors. 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. So in terms of what levels Weinstein could pull - I don't know. Were there threats on career that were backed up by the real goods? Maybe. Personal threats? Who knows. While I do think that cowardice could probably explain a lot of the people not coming forward, it's probably not the whole story. Hollywood is also sometimes referred to as a surprisingly small place, where everyone knows everyone, and the atmosphere of not angering people goes beyond merely being nice at parties. I'm not sure it's so simple as an actor 'going somewhere else' if someone like Weinstein says you'll never work in this town again. To what extent that kind of threat is legitimate is unknown to me.

Quote
99% of my anger is directed at Weinstein, but I'm reserving 1% for the lack of ethics involved in not calling this guy out as loudly as possible, particularly with an A-list career firmly in place, and especially in the last ten years or so when it's become quite easy to rally instant support for such a cause.

Their silence, including those who took hush money, is part of enabling this monstrous abuse.

edited to add: look what I found just now: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/amazon-studios-roy-price-harvey-weinstein/index.html

Look how easy it is. This guy was pretty powerful and now he's toast. The cultural needle has moved - it's open season on these bozos. Silence is the foolish option at this point - smart money says you press 'record' on your phone for any private meeting with the opposite sex.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this. I think they should have come forward. But since they didn't we have counterfactual evidence of how 'easy' it must have been to do so. Either they're all so cowardly that it beggars belief, or else there was just enough real pressure to prevent it. Odds are it's the latter, and my main point was that it's not so easy to just bash them for keeping it quiet. We don't know what was going on there. I disapprove, but at the same time know there are things I don't know. You're right that things are changing, and the timing of his outing is no accident. It's changes more or less at such a time that this would happen now, and it did. Five years ago America wasn't where it is now. It's time, and it happened. So good for that.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on October 13, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
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 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? 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.

I think you're going too far with this one. It's not rocket science, people dress to achieve an effect, even if that effect it merely to look good to oneself. It would be idle to deny that many women dress to please. Whom they may be trying to please is another matter. You can talk cultural context all you want, but within a given culture some things are seen as titillating while others, not as much. People who are from there know which is which, more or less. I mentioned above that some actresses probably presented the casting couch idea to powerful men of their own accord to get ahead, while in other cases the men probably solicited them and didn't care what the women wanted. But of those women who went after the directors, you don't think they dressed in such a way as to attract attention? They know what to do to get looked at in the right spots. And this goes towards the shibboleth that some people (for example WS above) try to claim, which is that what a person wears shouldn't be anyone else's business. That's BS because they are dressing in many cases in order to have an effect on others. If they really didn't care then presumably they'd wear a $1 sack that kept them warm and no more. And moreover, when a woman dresses to look good (or a man, for that matter) they most certainly do want attention. In Europe people aren't shy about admitting this kind of thing and they'd be quite put off if they didn't get the attention. In America there is a prudish mentality where all of this has to be kept on the hush-hush, so people dress to please but insist they're 'just dressing for themselves.' No doubt this is true on occasion but untrue more often than that. What Americans probably really mean is they want attention, but not the wrong kind. Basically that means they want to be noticed by other women and by good looking men, and totally ignored by creeps or anyone they're not interested in. Obviously what I'm saying isn't applicable in all cases, but it's the dirty truth that's right there in the open most of the time. Speak to women who trust you and they'll basically just admit it point blank: They *love* getting attention from the right guys, and can't stand getting undesired attention from ugly/old/creepy/weird guys. So I don't buy any of this 'what they show shouldn't be taken as sexual by others' stuff. That's not rape culture, it's reality. Rape culture is when men feel entitled to something as a result of it.

Your analogy about whether seeing a hot woman makes you fly into rape mood misses the point. It's about whether it gives you the impression the woman 'wants something' or not. In the case of casual walking down the street, one might correctly surmise that what she wants is to be looked at, possibly even flirted with (by the right people). It doesn't mean they want aggressive contact, sex, catcalls, or disrespectful behavior. But change the scenario and it's a woman going into a private meeting with a casting director and she's dressed to kill, he might just get the idea she's got her mind set on something other than auditioning. And I mean by this that he might rightly be coming to that conclusion. I suspect that powerful men receive propositions all the time and have to force themselves to say no if they believe it's immoral to accept. My point is that this reality muddies the waters when discussing this issue, because as much as scumbags like Weinstein might prey on women, the culture is messed up enough that a casting director or producer might get the feeling all the time that 'they want it' without themselves having malicious intentions. It enables a Weinstein to rationalize to himself that they probably wanted it anyhow. Not saying he's right, or that this justifies it in any way, but it sets the scene for this being normalized to some extent even without having to insert scumbags into the equation. It makes it all the easier for scumbags to get away with it, is basically my point, and it's enabled by the Hollywood culture which is already sick to an extent.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on October 13, 2017, 04:53:42 AM
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 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? 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.

I think you're going too far with this one. It's not rocket science, people dress to achieve an effect, even if that effect it merely to look good to oneself. It would be idle to deny that many women dress to please. Whom they may be trying to please is another matter. You can talk cultural context all you want, but within a given culture some things are seen as titillating while others, not as much. People who are from there know which is which, more or less.

This fails my bullsh-- test on the first pass because I know it doesn't apply to me the vast majority of the time. While I may be male, and as such women remain "mysterious creatures" in many respects, I reject claims that assert they're that different. In most cases, I'm not dressing to please anybody, I'm dressing to conform to social expectations of how I should be presenting myself. You know, so I don't get fired, thrown in jail, or otherwise ostracized(such as: "looking like a slob or homeless person") from society for failing to toe some collectively agreed to line that we all are only vaguely aware of to at least some extent.

Quote
I mentioned above that some actresses probably presented the casting couch idea to powerful men of their own accord to get ahead, while in other cases the men probably solicited them and didn't care what the women wanted. But of those women who went after the directors, you don't think they dressed in such a way as to attract attention? They know what to do to get looked at in the right spots.

Well, there us a reason they say prostitution is the oldest profession. If they cannot get it on merit alone, prostituting themselves may get them over the line. I didn't bother addressing that particular item because I'm somewhat agreed with you on that one in regards to Weinstein and Hollywood. "The Casting couch prostitute" as I'd call it is basically a trope that's been widely known about for decades, even if "nobody knew" who all the people were who pursued things in that way. As such Weinstein may have initially been "honeytrapped" by an aspiring actress and gone downhill from there, or actresses may have otherwise "misread" cues from Weinstein that he may or may not have been intentionally giving which result in their "feeling compelled" to prostitute themselves in exchange for getting a particular part. Sometimes in part because they were afraid that if they didn't, someone else would.

Fast forward a couple decades later and current political narratives, and suddenly those women can present themselves as "rape victims" because they "felt compelled to put out" when it very well and quite possibly was them having engaged in sexual politics by way of self-prostitution. So Weinstein's would be that he accepted their offers.
 
Quote
And this goes towards the shibboleth that some people (for example WS above) try to claim, which is that what a person wears shouldn't be anyone else's business. That's BS because they are dressing in many cases in order to have an effect on others. If they really didn't care then presumably they'd wear a $1 sack that kept them warm and no more. And moreover, when a woman dresses to look good (or a man, for that matter) they most certainly do want attention.

See previous comments earlier about why people dress how they do. Of course, dressing specifically for a work environment, or more specifically a NEW POTENTIAL workplace, the dress standards increase considerably as you want to make "a good first impression." So you dress well, as try to dress to impress, at least within whatever dress code parameters they specify. Which for a Hollywood casting call can run the full range. A female actress "dressed to kill" may have a hard time being cast for playing the role of tom-boyish girl-next-door type character for example, unless there is potentially a scene where that kind of attire may occur, and even then...

Besides, from some of very brief/limited clips of casting calls I've seen for more than a few movie/tv projects, most Hollywood casting calls are done in street clothes.

Quote
In Europe people aren't shy about admitting this kind of thing and they'd be quite put off if they didn't get the attention. In America there is a prudish mentality where all of this has to be kept on the hush-hush, so people dress to please but insist they're 'just dressing for themselves.' No doubt this is true on occasion but untrue more often than that. What Americans probably really mean is they want attention, but not the wrong kind.

Funny you should mention that, because this actually ties back to that "Rape Culture" thing, as you see, there is pretty strong correlation between reported/estimated incidence rates for rape and how restrictive a particular area/culture is in regards how exposed they allow their women to be. Surprisingly, it seems the areas that allow near total female nudity in public venues also seem to have the lowest incidence rates for rape, while as dress codes become increasingly restrictive, the incidence rate increases considerably. With highest rates believed to be in the middle east, you know, in the countries where women wear burkhas because men couldn't control themselves if women were to show any skin.

Quote
Basically that means they want to be noticed by other women and by good looking men, and totally ignored by creeps or anyone they're not interested in. Obviously what I'm saying isn't applicable in all cases, but it's the dirty truth that's right there in the open most of the time. Speak to women who trust you and they'll basically just admit it point blank: They *love* getting attention from the right guys, and can't stand getting undesired attention from ugly/old/creepy/weird guys. So I don't buy any of this 'what they show shouldn't be taken as sexual by others' stuff. That's not rape culture, it's reality. Rape culture is when men feel entitled to something as a result of it.

This is highly subjective, but at the same time runs on a simple scale. The problem with the "creepy/weird guys" (who can often be ugly/old guys too)when it comes to women isn't so much that they find these unattractive(although that's probably true). It is that "those people" make them feel unsafe. Which cycles us right back to that "rape culture" refrain where women(and men) in particular are constantly taught that "Good girl's don't ____" so if you're female and doing _____, then you're "not a good/nice girl" and thus "you're asking for it." Because men "can't help themselves" and it is up to woman to dress in such a manner as to ensure they don't somehow compel that helpless male into raping them. (/end moment of sarcasm)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 13, 2017, 09:06:35 AM
Quote
Speak to women who trust you and they'll basically just admit it point blank: They *love* getting attention from the right guys, and can't stand getting undesired attention from ugly/old/creepy/weird guys. So I don't buy any of this 'what they show shouldn't be taken as sexual by others' stuff. That's not rape culture, it's reality. Rape culture is when men feel entitled to something as a result of it.

Your analogy about whether seeing a hot woman makes you fly into rape mood misses the point. It's about whether it gives you the impression the woman 'wants something' or not. In the case of casual walking down the street, one might correctly surmise that what she wants is to be looked at, possibly even flirted with (by the right people). It doesn't mean they want aggressive contact, sex, catcalls, or disrespectful behavior. But change the scenario and it's a woman going into a private meeting with a casting director and she's dressed to kill, he might just get the idea she's got her mind set on something other than auditioning. And I mean by this that he might rightly be coming to that conclusion. I suspect that powerful men receive propositions all the time and have to force themselves to say no if they believe it's immoral to accept. My point is that this reality muddies the waters when discussing this issue, because as much as scumbags like Weinstein might prey on women, the culture is messed up enough that a casting director or producer might get the feeling all the time that 'they want it' without themselves having malicious intentions. It enables a Weinstein to rationalize to himself that they probably wanted it anyhow. Not saying he's right, or that this justifies it in any way, but it sets the scene for this being normalized to some extent even without having to insert scumbags into the equation. It makes it all the easier for scumbags to get away with it, is basically my point, and it's enabled by the Hollywood culture which is already sick to an extent.
QFT.  I think that’s what Donna Karan was driving at and it’s a valid point.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 13, 2017, 09:27:29 AM
Harvey has made a statement.

Quote
Harvey Weinstein, in his first public response since multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct, said "we all make mistakes."

"Guys, I'm not doing OK, but I'm trying," Weinstein told reporters on Wednesday as he entered an SUV parked outside his daughter's Los Angeles home.

"I got to get help," the former film executive said.

"A second chance, I hope," Weinstein, 65, added.

Will he get that sevond chance?

Quote
"Mr. Weinstein obviously can't speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual," a statement from his representative to The New Yorker magazine said. "Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance."

Maybe he will. That it’s even a possibility to talk about tells us Harvey just might return.

Quote
The Hollywood mogul and mega-Democratic fundraiser was booted from The Weinstein Company, the film studio he co-founded, on Sunday after a bombshell report from The New York ...

I’m guessing he has a pretty good shot at a second chance.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on October 13, 2017, 09:34:02 AM
Bout as much chance as Cosby.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 13, 2017, 09:56:23 AM
Cosby was already out of the game. Cosby was finally taken down because he was no longer connected and his reach into Hollywood essentially gone. That’s not the case with Harvey.

Harvey is still at the height of his power, even now people will have to do some calculus before crossing him. Harvey is very well connected politically, working with all the power brokers from the Democratic party for 30 years. That’s the party that runs California, and Harvey gives them tons of money. He’s also connected to the party’s national  ruling elite as well, Obama, Clinton, etc. Harvey still has a lot of game he can play, a lot of influence and money he can bring to bear. I wouldn’t compare hom to Cosby at this point.

Given all that, what finally brought Harvey down? He did something to someone, or hinted at doing it,  that finally broke the wall of silence. Harvey was able to completely kill these stories for years, suddenly he wasn’t despite still being in his position of power. Who did he get on the wrong side of? My guess, Michelle Obama.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on October 13, 2017, 10:18:20 AM
That was to say, "no chance at all".  He will now be a silent (or more so) money man in the background.  He may wield some influence, but will never reclaim his previous position.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 13, 2017, 10:55:55 AM
Bill Clinton was everything Harvey is, he was the same open secret, same serial abuser of women, everything. He overcame it to become president. Harvey is at least as connected and influential as Bill was when Bill got his second chance with a presidential nomination, perhaps even more so as Harvey's not in the backwoods of Arkansas.

I would not count Harvey out yet. He's on the ropes for sure but there's still a lot of time left on the clock and he's apparently a guy that knows how to use his power to influence things, especially in the media. Plus, he has access to all the image creation ability of Hollywood. This guy could come back.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on October 13, 2017, 11:34:59 AM
I'm glad HW has the support of those who want to see democrats lose their grip on the moral high ground.  I'm sure that heartens him and at least he can find a place among the ranks of Republicans if he repents.  (and throws his financial weight their direction)   :P
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on October 13, 2017, 01:03:40 PM
I had a girlfriend once who protested the Miss California pageant by baring her breasts during the march.  Do you think she was making a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way," or to protest having men constantly look at her "in a sexual way?"  (It was the latter, BTW. :) )

That's a horrible example.  She was clearly relying on the nudity in order to bring attention to her cause.  That's in the nature of an explicit request to look at her in a sexual way, even if it's for the purpose of shaming the viewer.

Quote
So who decided her showing breasts meant she wanted people to look at her in a sexual way?

In that case your girlfriend did.  In other cases, the woman might have or might not have, or the circumstances may have.  Do you think that actresses going nude in a movie don't want to be looked at in a sexual way?  Seems like an odd and unlikely position.

In this case though the point is actually explicitly not relevant.  Whether a particular woman in fact decided to seduce him and tried to be perceived as sexual, which given the benefits is certainly possible, he made a decision to treat all women as sexual objects regardless of what they really wanted and to use his power over them to make that a reality.  His bad acts overrule any possibility that any particular unwilling woman was somehow "complicit" in the event because nothing they did was really relevant to how he treated them.

Quote
Only if she can make some money on the deal...

Which by the way, is expressly the case in a casting couch culture.  Access to a very limited resource by the producers.

Have you ever been to a nudist colony, Seriati?  Or a nude beach?  Do you think all those people--including the fat ones--want others to look at them in a sexual way?

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.

What you are missing is the difference between intention and effect.  Yes, many men would look at her in a "sexual way."  They have learned that seeing breasts is supposed to be a turn-on, just as others have learned that hair or ankles are supposed to be a turn-on.  So, yes, she knew that men would look at her in a "sexual way."

But there was no other way to make her point without bearing her breast (pun intended :) ).  She was not out there to titillate men.  She was out there to make a point about women being treated as merely sexual objects.

It's the word "request" that I object to.  She was not "inviting" men to lust after her.  Nudists are not "inviting" others to lust after them.  Actresses performing dramatic scenes in the nude are not trying to titillate the audience.  (The directors is another story. :) )  And women who dress "sexy" are not necessarily "requesting," "inviting" or "wanting" men to lust after them.  It will happen; we are, after all, a lusty species.  And at times women do want to be looked upon as being sexy.  But it is not always the express intent.  And when people assume that is always the "tacit request" is when they presume that it is directed at them specifically, which leads to the problems like Harvey.

Men will lust, but lust is not license to act upon that lust.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on October 13, 2017, 02:22:01 PM
Men will lust, but lust is not license to act upon that lust.

Your points are in general reasonable here, but this is where you get into trouble. This is the kind of phrase whose doublespeak connotations get so distorted in feminist arguments. First of all, what do you mean by license? Do you mean the right to act as one sees fit? Well actually people do have license to act as they see fit, based on any criteria they choose, including lust. They don't have to be granted license to act upon their impulses. But the substantive meaning here is that men are not necessarily being invited to act upon it at all times, which is true. But it's not the case that people may only interact with other people by invitation only. If that were true most social interaction would vanish; it's an absurd case when taken literally. So we can specify: women don't necessarily want excessive attention or interaction on a constant basis. That much is a gimme. So one must be respectful and...well, decent.

But the less savory part of the doublespeak connotation of "license to act upon that lust" is basically the rape connotation, which is to say a man doesn't have the right to expect any particular response from the lady, or to feel justified in rejecting a simple "no" from her. But the equivocation happens when "license to act upon" is used to both mean 'rapist' and 'giving attention to.' I think it's a bit of the motte and bailey here, where when pressed the issue will be reduced to being respectful, but when making the initial case the tone makes the men in question sound effectively like rapists. It is fundamentally *not* the case that initiating an interaction with someone, even when it's not solicited, is in any way reprehensible, so long as care is taken to monitor the response and respect it. Yes, it can be annoying to be an attractive lady who gets attention all day long. I don't live through that but I think I can imagine what it would be like - really awesome some of the time, and exasperating most of the time. But that's just a case of reality having difficulties; one need not infer malfeasance when noting that being a bombshell can be rough some of the time.

You're basically not going to get disagreement from most people that lusting isn't license to 'have something' from the object of one's desire. But the problem as I see it is with the intent to imply guilt on those who are affected by a woman's attractiveness and want to act on it, even if just to strike up conversation. Once you read a feminist blog about how trying to open a door for a woman makes you a chauvinist pig you can see that the idea isn't about taking no for an answer, but goes much farther and is about treating the femininity of a woman as being something that shouldn't even be a feature in how men interact with them. And of course we realize that such an idea is both ridiculous on the face of it, and isn't even a good goal, putting aside the fact of its implausibility. A person's attractiveness is a factor, it should be a factor in the sense of it existing and knowing it has an effect, and more to the point, steps taken to enhance attractiveness are all a part of the way in which it matters is implemented.

'Should' bearing a breast have a sexual connotation? That is actually a very dense topic and would require an extremely in-depth metaphysics to address. But it does have a connotation in America and shaming people who see it that way isn't going to help anyone learn anything.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on October 13, 2017, 05:15:13 PM
Since I agree with just about everything you say there, Ferning, I would only say in my defense that you're reading too much into my phrase. :)

It may be because others have used the phrase before me, with those connotations, but I am unfamiliar with those writings and plead ignorance.

One thing I would quibble about, though:

Quote
'Should' bearing a breast have a sexual connotation? That is actually a very dense topic and would require an extremely in-depth metaphysics to address. But it does have a connotation in America and shaming people who see it that way isn't going to help anyone learn anything.

I don't think I'm so much shaming them as challenging their assumptions.  Yes, it has the connotation.  Yes, it will induce a reaction in most men.  But that is where it should end.  Those who believe it means more need to be very specific, especially when justifying actions.  Because that is an easy way to justify inappropriate behavior.

I don't mean to shame anyone.  But people can be easily offended when their implicit assumptions are challenged.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 13, 2017, 05:29:27 PM
I'm glad HW has the support of those who want to see democrats lose their grip on the moral high ground.  I'm sure that heartens him and at least he can find a place among the ranks of Republicans if he repents.  (and throws his financial weight their direction)   :P
Not sure why you're lashing out but there is this to my point:
Quote
After he spoke out so forcefully on both health care and gun control over the past month, many late-night viewers might have expected Jimmy Kimmel do the same about the sexual harassment and assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein....
"First of all, the Harvey Weinstein thing, people like this false equivalence of that's somehow equivalent to what happened in Las Vegas," Kimmel added, arguing that the alleged assault of dozens of women does not deserve the same reaction as the killing of nearly 60 people. He said that Weinstein is "not a friend of mine," adding, “I'm not in the movie business.” As a once and future Oscar host who is friends with many of the movie stars in Weinstein's orbit, that claim is a hard one to buy.
Yeah.  Kimmel is all over the current issues but this one ... no way.  He won't touch it. Why? Because Harvey's not dead yet, he could come back and I'm betting Harvey will remember anyone that crossed him.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 13, 2017, 05:45:31 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on October 13, 2017, 06:38:50 PM
Men will lust, but lust is not license to act upon that lust.

Your points are in general reasonable here, but this is where you get into trouble. This is the kind of phrase whose doublespeak connotations get so distorted in feminist arguments. First of all, what do you mean by license? Do you mean the right to act as one sees fit? Well actually people do have license to act as they see fit, based on any criteria they choose, including lust. They don't have to be granted license to act upon their impulses. But the substantive meaning here is that men are not necessarily being invited to act upon it at all times, which is true. But it's not the case that people may only interact with other people by invitation only. If that were true most social interaction would vanish; it's an absurd case when taken literally. So we can specify: women don't necessarily want excessive attention or interaction on a constant basis. That much is a gimme. So one must be respectful and...well, decent. But the less savory part of the doublespeak connotation of "license to act upon that lust" is basically the rape connotation, which is to say a man doesn't have the right to expect any particular response from the lady, or to feel justified in rejecting a simple "no" from her. But the equivocation happens when "license to act upon" is used to both mean 'rapist' and 'giving attention to.' I think it's a bit of the motte and bailey here, where when pressed the issue will be reduced to being respectful, but when making the initial case the tone makes the men in question sound effectively like rapists.

To be clear on my comments, when I'm specifying "rape" I do mean rape in the traditional sense, not the new doublespeak ultrafeminist definition they're trying to propagate.  It is a very safe bet that Wayward is not playing "definition games" with how people understand words to work either. That you are attributing "PC doublespeak" definitions to what we're saying is a failing on your part. That I'm being considered as someone using such definitions is also a major failing, given I've actively spoken against those "redefinition games" being played in the past. I will not disagree with you that there are other groups out there which ARE playing games with definitions, and this topic happens to be one of them that they've attempted to hijack with various degrees of success, but that doesn't mean that everyone who mentions "rape culture" has bought into some extreme form of man hating feminism.

I do think it is very possible that some of Weinstein's alleged "rapes" fall under this new definition criteria, but I think it is likely deliberate coercion was applied on more than one occasion.

Quote
It is fundamentally *not* the case that initiating an interaction with someone, even when it's not solicited, is in any way reprehensible, so long as care is taken to monitor the response and respect it. Yes, it can be annoying to be an attractive lady who gets attention all day long. I don't live through that but I think I can imagine what it would be like - really awesome some of the time, and exasperating most of the time. But that's just a case of reality having difficulties; one need not infer malfeasance when noting that being a bombshell can be rough some of the time.

And I will agree with the above, however, I draw the line at someone trying to use what a woman is wearing as justification for honor killings, or rapes. I don't care if they're Muslim, or good ole southern baptist country boys. "Just look at what she was wearing, she was clearly asking for it!" is NOT a justification for physically assaulting another human being, doubly so in a sexual context. I'll even go further and say there are "social lines" that should never be crossed on the psychological side even before anything physical happens--and this is coming from someone who thinks "anti-stalker" laws are poorly targeted in that they create legal events where you can have victims without an actual "stalker" being present.

Quote
You're basically not going to get disagreement from most people that lusting isn't license to 'have something' from the object of one's desire. But the problem as I see it is with the intent to imply guilt on those who are affected by a woman's attractiveness and want to act on it, even if just to strike up conversation.

Wanting to "act on the attractiveness" of someone is all well and good, it's when things progress towards sexual assault and/or refusing to take "no" or "not interested" for an answer while constantly invading their personal space.

Quote
Once you read a feminist blog about how trying to open a door for a woman makes you a chauvinist pig you can see that the idea isn't about taking no for an answer, but goes much farther and is about treating the femininity of a woman as being something that shouldn't even be a feature in how men interact with them. And of course we realize that such an idea is both ridiculous on the face of it, and isn't even a good goal, putting aside the fact of its implausibility. A person's attractiveness is a factor, it should be a factor in the sense of it existing and knowing it has an effect, and more to the point, steps taken to enhance attractiveness are all a part of the way in which it matters is implemented.

There is more than one side to every story, you're looking at the ultra-feminist justifications on this topic and ignoring the more rational reasons for why some of these "platforms for action" exist. Which goes back to many valid causes being hijacked by people pursuing other more nefarious aims. Like all those NAACP types who have no actual interest in helping the people they claim to advocate for, because that would put them out of a rather cushy job.

Quote
'Should' bearing a breast have a sexual connotation? That is actually a very dense topic and would require an extremely in-depth metaphysics to address. But it does have a connotation in America and shaming people who see it that way isn't going to help anyone learn anything.

Who said anything about shaming people who react that way? Oh right, the ultra-feminists. Outside of the ultra-fem side of things, the normal approach is education and normalization, rather than militant social shaming on the matter.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on October 13, 2017, 06:59:51 PM
Someone in Weinstein’s position should never be flirting with or even responding to advances made by women auditioning. A hiring manager beginning a sexual relationship during the hiring process is always unethical and almost certainly abusive. So it doesn’t matter if the woman walked into his office dressed to kill or in sweats there is no circumstance where someone with that much power and influence over another should allow a sexual relationship to begin.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on October 13, 2017, 07:13:25 PM
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.

And you're taking the wrong lessons from the wrong material. Context matters here. The strip clubs also tend to adhere to another practice, shortly after the clothes have come off, the show is over, and it is time for someone else to come out to do "a sexy dance" for the customer.

Burlesque Show performers in the day also were well aware of this. As it is all about the tease, for which you need movement to enable the "naughty bits" to constantly move in and out sight, but preferably keeping them out of sight so they remain focused on the performer seeking to see "the forbidden parts" because once that body part is brought into full view, it's ability to hold the interest of the audience starts waning after a couple minutes.

Even for the bars that go further and have topless waitresses, context plays into things a bit(and actually may play into "they like the atmosphere") as even there, it would be highly unusual to my understanding for the waitress to spend much time actually at your table, or just "hanging out" lingering in your general vicinity. So you're getting an ongoing series of brief exposures of "forbidden" body parts that you've been conditioned to associate with sexual activities.

Going by what many nudists seem to claim, the "acclimatization period" for someone to get over either being naked in the company of others, or being around naked people runs about 15 minutes in a non-sexual social setting(as mind boggling as you might consider such an idea). After that magic window has been passed, it becomes something you start to "cease to register" on a conscious level. But it should also be noted, that 15 minute claim only exists in the context of an in-person interaction. So looking at a picture of a naked woman for 15 minutes isn't likely to work out to the same result.

Quote
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.

I'd agree about the online Porn, pictures and video exist in their own world, probably in large part because it is very easy for us to not register what we're looking at "as people" but instead regard them as things. Which is very detrimental, even the strip clubs fall into this general trap as the general presentation lends towards presenting the stripper as an object rather than a person. When you're placed in the context of that person being directly across from you and interacting with them that tends to rip down the ability to treat them as objects, barring you're having some kind of significant underlying psychiatric condition.

You might also want to bother to do some research into "body acceptance" of which "rape culture" is kind of an off-shot of(via "body freedom"), and actually ties back to nudism/naturism as well. It has actually had very positive impacts for the women who have seriously pursued it, as it is hard to become comfortable with your body if you spend all your time hiding from it. But that's a far cry from going the 4-chan route of encouraging women to get naked and post pics online and start posting live webcam feeds of them going about their routine sans clothing.

Quote
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.

There are many (non-gender confused) Men who have bigger boobs than many women. The man can legally go topless in public, while the woman cannot. It isn't even a claim that women have them and men don't. And legally speaking, it isn't even "The Breast" that is legally restricted from public view(as men have them too), a woman could slap on a pair of pasties to cover only their nipples and be legal in almost every state in the Union. Of course, they probably would be harassed by police in many cities for doing so, but no citations regarding the exposed boobs specifically would stand in court. The only part of "The breast" that is legally restricted from public view in much of the country is the female nipple. Because heaven forbid someone should ever see a nipple! Oh wait, they can see all the male nipples they can handle, so long as men are willing to go shirtless, it is only the female ones that are "a problem."

Anatomically speaking, would anyone care to explain to the class what is so "disturbingly different" about the female nipple that it somehow poses a public health and safety hazard sufficient to require special handling under the law? I'm a bit hazy on my biology class, but as i recall, male lactation is possible among humans too, although it would typically need to be artificially induced due to hormones. So it isn't even a thing where you can claim "only women can do ___ with their nipples."
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on October 13, 2017, 07:23:41 PM
Someone in Weinstein’s position should never be flirting with or even responding to advances made by women auditioning. A hiring manager beginning a sexual relationship during the hiring process is always unethical and almost certainly abusive. So it doesn’t matter if the woman walked into his office dressed to kill or in sweats there is no circumstance where someone with that much power and influence over another should allow a sexual relationship to begin.

He's 65 years old, he's from a different era. It doesn't excuse what he did, and he damn well should have "known better" by the 1990's at the least.

Due to his age come back or not is probably rather moot, he's rich, he's retirement age. So long as he manages his money well, and doesn't get sued into the ground, he'll likely live very comfortably for the rest of his life regardless.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 14, 2017, 10:02:17 AM
Someone in Weinstein’s position should never be flirting with or even responding to advances made by women auditioning. A hiring manager beginning a sexual relationship during the hiring process is always unethical and almost certainly abusive. So it doesn’t matter if the woman walked into his office dressed to kill or in sweats there is no circumstance where someone with that much power and influence over another should allow a sexual relationship to begin.
Not even presidents?

I agree with you but you and I are apparently disagree with the Hollywood glitterati and American ruling elite. It’s good to be the king.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 14, 2017, 11:29:34 AM
Weinstein’s opening for his statement has been rolling in my mind and my last comment finally kicked it loose.
Quote
I came of age in the 60's and 70's, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.

People have commented on that, largely agreed it was a different time and place where women were treated poorly. But times changed and Harvey didn’t. That’s the meme. Well, I’m calling bull*censored*.

In the 1990’s, the ruling elite, the mainstream media, and Hollywood told us in no uncertain terms that behavior like Harvey’s was acceptable. In fact, they would even tear down his accusers and humiliate them. We learned that from Harvey’s buddies, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill was everything Harvey was, serial abuse, rape, payoffs, lives destroyed. In both cases, it was an open secret. As Bill got the free pass and Hollywood, the very community Harvey lived in, circled the wagons to defend Bill, it gave Harvey the green light to engage in this behavior. The message was clear, powerful men can do this, it’s acceptable to ruin anyone that accuses powerful men of abusing women. The legacy of Bill Clinton is Harvey Weinstein.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on October 14, 2017, 06:36:19 PM
The motion picture academy has expelled Harvey. Part of the statement:
Quote
We do so not simply to separate ourselves from someone who does not merit the respect of his colleagues but also to send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over.

Think about that. “The era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior”. Corey Haim and a few others have been openly talking about this era for years and nothing. And anyone pretending they didn’t know Harvey was doing this is nothing short of lying. The acknowledgment that this institutionalized predation exists, and was such a well known thing, is astounding. Next time the Hollywood elite deigns to lecture you about how you live your life, remember this and how utterly morally bankrupt and contemptible these people truly are.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on October 16, 2017, 11:18:45 AM
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?

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. 

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? 

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?

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. 

Quote
Quote
Are you really implying some kind of moral thought police that goes contrary to instinct is an entitlement of a woman?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote
Not going to disagree, but that's where the problem comes into play with the "public space" as it becomes a question of who gets to define the baseline? As it stands, in much of the country, the woman who wants to go topless on a hot day cannot do so without potentially getting placed on a sex offender registry.

I agree that's the wrong standard.  Of course I have less hang ups about nudity than most.

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.

Quote
Quote
Would you find it difficult to label a man who decided to wear just a tube sock?

Should he be difficult to categorize? Would you rather he wear some kind of gourd?   ;)

Obviously in that case he's placing emphasis on his penis, so it is sexual in nature.

That standard clearly does not work in the female activist example, they too often place emphasis on their breasts.   
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: rightleft22 on October 16, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
as long as she didn't expose her breasts to the flag - no problem
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: rightleft22 on October 17, 2017, 02:48:28 PM
Nothing is going to change
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake 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?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son 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."
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake 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.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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 (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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch 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 (https://ebjohnson.house.gov/). (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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on October 20, 2017, 05:55:25 PM
First thing, Eddie Bernice Johnson is a woman (https://ebjohnson.house.gov/). (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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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/


Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD 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
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake 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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41731568/matt-damon-and-george-clooney-call-hollywood-producer-harvey-weinstein-a-bully)

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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: rightleft22 on October 24, 2017, 10:13:54 AM
The industry knew the individuals, and society in general, just didn’t want to know.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake 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".
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch 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 (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/) and the overall greater war on masculinity (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/12/kachel-america-emasculated-war-manhood/): 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 (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/article/OP/20110305/NEWS/303059998) but it’s getting lost as masculinity is attacked becomes a societal evil.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. 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...
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2017, 03:05:54 PM
How does the interaction of influence of politics impact the credibility of claims (Roy Moore). It seems like to me it is pretty clear that he used to date teenagers while he was in his 30's*. So is everyone running out to beat him into a coma or heading out to vote for him?

*The age of consent at the time in Alabama was 16 so only one of the claims would have been criminal in the state at the time. But it is still inappropriate even if it wasn't illegal.

Luther Strange write in campaign time? This certainly makes for a closer Alabama senate race than expected.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 13, 2017, 03:30:07 PM
What I've been asking myself lately is whether I should begin to wholesale refuse to watch films or TV starring people who have perpetuated a culture of sexual assault or rape in Hollywood. Take Kevin Spacey for instance. Can one realistically watch House of Cards any more and not think of what he did? I'm not quite sure how to proceed on this, especially since an ensemble show can include one bad seed but otherwise have a cast of good people. In the case of House of Cards it's more blatantly the Kevin Spacey show so that one is more clear-cut. I, for one, have always found it difficult to watch Woody Allen films for this reason; his creepiness seeps into everything he writes and I always found it strange that people didn't seem to mind. For pieces that whose content is divorced from what the artist has personally done there's more facility to forget what the person has done and enjoy the character, but I don't know if that's even a desirable goal.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2017, 05:09:05 PM
Or use Uber. Or not eat Subway. Or <insert most companies here>. Or Hobby Lobby. Or use a Keurig? :)

I don't think a boycott of art or products is particularly effective statement. It doesn't really punish the actor/producer/etc very much, and there's a lot of potential collateral damage. I understand why Netflix killed production, but it left a lot of people scrambling for jobs.

I'm guessing Shakespeare probably groped a few teens in his day, but I'm still going to watch performances of Hamlet and Macbeth.

Voting/Donating to a politician is much more highly targeted. Particularly given the impact they can potentially have on society. It might affect a couple of political operatives, but most of those people just bounce to a new gig.

As to the personal taste of it, I guess that's up to the individual. If you find recent news events upsetting enough that you are unable to suspend disbelief or immerse yourself in the show, I guess you pretty much have no point in watching it.

Now what will really be interesting is if we see a CGI Kevin Spacey getting beaten to death in a coda to the show. Then you've really got a conundrum - see him get his virtual comeuppance (perhaps at the hands of a white house page?), but know that you might be directing revenue to the guys that likely knew all about his behavior.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 13, 2017, 05:24:24 PM
How does the interaction of influence of politics impact the credibility of claims (Roy Moore). It seems like to me it is pretty clear that he used to date teenagers while he was in his 30's*. So is everyone running out to beat him into a coma or heading out to vote for him?

*The age of consent at the time in Alabama was 16 so only one of the claims would have been criminal in the state at the time. But it is still inappropriate even if it wasn't illegal.

Luther Strange write in campaign time? This certainly makes for a closer Alabama senate race than expected.

This is a strange and potentially alarming development in the political system. You say it's clear to you but Moore strongly denies it all in no uncertain terms. He is going to sue to the Washington Post (a very strong liberal bias there) which published these accusations just a day (maybe 2?) after endorsing Moore's opponent.  The deep state opposes Moore and both the GOP and Democrats ran candidates against Moore. The accusations allege events that occurred in the 1970's and early 80's, 35-40 years ago. There are, as far as I know right now, no recent accusations which is a stark contrast to Weinstein and all the others that have come out lately. All this dropping at a time calculated to deliver maximum impact, quite the coincidental timing. There is not any proof to support these allegations, not yet. It's he said/she said. The political elite hammering Moore supports Menendez, even testifying on his behalf and Menendez did a lot worse (underage prostitution along with all the other corruption). It's not like Moore was unheard of all the decades yet never an accusation until now (is that right? I don't follow AL politics). Until today, all of the accusations were consensual, nobody was forced to do anything they didn't want to do (contrasting to politicians like Bill Clinton, a serial rapist). Now, in another perfect timing that had to be calculated, we get someone that says Moore attempted to assault her in 1979.

Given all this, I've no idea what to think about these accusations. There is an overwhelmingly strong appearance of fake news and political hit job. Given Moore's unqualified denial and aggressive defense (again contrasting other accused), I'm inclined to say we should wait for proof of the accusation before making decisions based on them. I know, why wait for even a shred of proof, that's crazy talk in the modern political arena - it's the seriousness of the charge that counts!  In today's climate, getting these kinds of accusers to come out at the perfect time with unproven and largely unprovable accusations is becoming SOP. I don't think that's a good thing.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2017, 05:36:15 PM
Quote
why wait for even a shred of proof
Do you mean a shred of evidence?  If so, that's just what the WAPO provided - statements from the 4 witnesses and corroborating evidence from roughly 25 other people.

Or were you asking for other corroborating evidence not already included in the evidence  provided by the 30 people referenced in the article?

My own position is that, in the Facebook age, there is too often a rush to condemn and shame.  That being said, disregarding the WAPO article and characterizing it as not being "even a shred of proof" is just silly.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 13, 2017, 05:47:01 PM
TheDrake,

I'm not really suggesting a boycott, more like "should I be celebrating someone who does these things." It's not like business or even other art in that it's not just that we're witnessing something the person created, some object d'art that isn't identical with their own person. When it comes to acting and performance art what you are celebrating is the physical and mental presence of that person, not some facsimile or distanced product they contribute to. The guy in House of Cards is literally the mind and person who committed various acts. By smiling at his performance you're smiling at the man behind the performance, because that man is the entire source of the performance, not a placeholder for it. That is the entire reason that there is celebrity in the first place: those specific human beings have something about them that lets them bring life to the work, and that 'something' is the combination of all their life experiences and knowledge. The one directly fuels and supports the other. In a very strict sense I could argue that sexual assault is part of the material producing the work you see on screen, and just as I don't want to (for instance) eat meat created by torturing animals likewise I don't want to consume art created by acts of dehumanization. The analogy surely isn't direct but in any case I don't see how you can divorce the man from the work when the man IS the work.

My question on the subject is more a personal musing than a rallying cry for a boycott. It comes down to "should I really be admiring someone like this?" At the end of the day I can't help but admire great work, and although there's nothing wrong with separating what one admires about a person versus what one doesn't without shoving everything under a simplistic category, at the same time there seems to me an ick factor that I wonder if I can shake. In Woody Allen films the ick factor is so thick it's not just something to shake but tends to be the actual substance of the film, so that's a no-brainer, I avoid those. For other works I guess it would be easier to dissociate the work from the actor, but I'm still not sure whether I want to.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: NobleHunter on November 13, 2017, 06:08:36 PM
This is a strange and potentially alarming development in the political system. You say it's clear to you but Moore strongly denies it all in no uncertain terms. He is going to sue to the Washington Post (a very strong liberal bias there) which published these accusations just a day (maybe 2?) after endorsing Moore's opponent.  The deep state opposes Moore and both the GOP and Democrats ran candidates against Moore. The accusations allege events that occurred in the 1970's and early 80's, 35-40 years ago. There are, as far as I know right now, no recent accusations which is a stark contrast to Weinstein and all the others that have come out lately. All this dropping at a time calculated to deliver maximum impact, quite the coincidental timing. There is not any proof to support these allegations, not yet. It's he said/she said. The political elite hammering Moore supports Menendez, even testifying on his behalf and Menendez did a lot worse (underage prostitution along with all the other corruption). It's not like Moore was unheard of all the decades yet never an accusation until now (is that right? I don't follow AL politics). Until today, all of the accusations were consensual, nobody was forced to do anything they didn't want to do (contrasting to politicians like Bill Clinton, a serial rapist). Now, in another perfect timing that had to be calculated, we get someone that says Moore attempted to assault her in 1979.

Given all this, I've no idea what to think about these accusations. There is an overwhelmingly strong appearance of fake news and political hit job. Given Moore's unqualified denial and aggressive defense (again contrasting other accused), I'm inclined to say we should wait for proof of the accusation before making decisions based on them. I know, why wait for even a shred of proof, that's crazy talk in the modern political arena - it's the seriousness of the charge that counts!  In today's climate, getting these kinds of accusers to come out at the perfect time with unproven and largely unprovable accusations is becoming SOP. I don't think that's a good thing.
What you're missing regarding the timing is there's no reason to have believed before now that the accusations would do anything. Hell, even after a string of high-profile accusations being taken seriously, the accusations aren't doing much. But that people are dismissing the accusations because the victims waited too long are part of the reason why the victims didn't come forward sooner.

The simplest explanation is that they came forward now because they thought they might be believed and taken seriously. Unfortunately, large numbers of republicans apparently have more problems with democrats than with people who sexually assault 14-year-old girls. You know, the ones that say even if the accusations are true, they still believe Moore should be in the Senate.

This is almost literally live boy/dead girl in action.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2017, 06:20:38 PM
I'm with you, fen, thanks for the explanation.

With regard to Ol Roy, and the timing of the information. WaPo almost certainly devoted their resources to their investigation because of the timing. He was newsworthy for a while, and warranted the effort. Accusers would be more likely to accuse him at this time for a few reasons. First, Weinstein et al has put encouragement at being believed at an all time high (not withstanding Moore supporters). Second, WaPo and others might use his potential Senate win to convince them now is the time to come forward.

I can't imagine that the diligence demonstrated by WaPo so far leaves this story in a position where nothing at all happened. Most of the facts can be pretty easy to check, at least circumstantially. Did he give underage girls rides in his car? These don't make him guilty of everything, but its not exactly nothing.

I would also challenge anyone defending Moore or skeptical of his accusers to ask themselves "If I just heard this information about Doug Jones, how would I be reacting?" Would the same people (Breitbart) be saying the same things? Or would Breitbart headlines lead with "Democrat revealed as serial offender"?

If this was "one person came forward, and then we had several on deep background", I might see your point Crunch. But what is your conspiracy alternative? WaPo hunted down several people who knew Moore at the time they were teengers. They convince these women to accuse Moore, though he had never done them any wrong. Is that it?

Some times things just break. Cosby wasn't politically motivated, as far as I know. Nor was Weinstein. But they broke similarly and attracted more accusers. By the way, Weinstein was deeply connected to the librul establishment, but I note it was the infamously liberal NYT that broke his story.

The question I have is - why be more willing to believe in an outlandish conspiracy than in the idea that people finally came forward, possibly people who took a lot of convincing and who wanted the strength in numbers of having others come forward with them to be believed, at a time when that accusation could prevent an alleged pedophile from taking up a position in the US government?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2017, 06:27:28 PM
And then there's this:

Quote
Theresa Jones used to work as a deputy district attorney in the same courthouse as Moore, and she told CNN on Saturday that "everyone we knew thought it was weird" that Moore dated girls significantly younger than he was.
"We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall, but you really wouldn't say anything to someone like that," she added.

Now, the strongest thing in his defense would be the lack of any accusers from anyone more recent. After all, most of our understanding of such predatory behavior is that you don't normally grow out of it.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2017, 06:32:41 PM
Quote
The simplest explanation is that they came forward now because they thought they might be believed and taken seriously
From what I've read, this is backwards: according to the WaPo, Moore's background was being delved into specifically because he had become the Republican candidate.  During the investigation, a number of people made statements suggesting there was something potentially newsworthy to be investigated.  After further investigation, 4 women were identified as having had relationships with the then 30-odd year old Moore while they were in their teens.  The WaPo was then eventually able to convince these women to speak on the record. Also from what I've read, they needed to be convinced to go on the record.

Stating that these women "came forward", if the WaPo is to be believed, is not accurate.  Which is actually important, because there are different motivations that could be inferred in the two different narratives.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 13, 2017, 06:37:26 PM
Quote
why wait for even a shred of proof
Do you mean a shred of evidence?  If so, that's just what the WAPO provided - statements from the 4 witnesses and corroborating evidence from roughly 25 other people.

Or were you asking for other corroborating evidence not already included in the evidence  provided by the 30 people referenced in the article?

My own position is that, in the Facebook age, there is too often a rush to condemn and shame.  That being said, disregarding the WAPO article and characterizing it as not being "even a shred of proof" is just silly.

Yeah, just like Rolling Stone did.  Or how they did all that in the Duke lacrosse case. Get the idea? It’s all accusations and hearsay as far as I’ve seen, and all that from about 4 decades ago. Just because it fits your agenda doesn’t mean there’s proof. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’m just saying the accusations alone are not proof nor are they sufficient to condemn the guy. To pretend they are is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2017, 06:43:57 PM
Assuming you are using "proof" and "evidence" as synonyms, your statement still makes no sense.  Maybe you disbelieve the evidence, as is your prerogative, but your disbelief does not somehow make the evidence disappear.  Like it or not, there are at least 30 "shreds" of evidence; whether you accept their veracity is another question.

Now, if you meant "proof" to mean, "proven" then using the term "not a shred of" is also silly - something is either proven, or not; one doesn't say there isn't a shred of "proveness"

At any rate, I don't see anyone here claiming that his alleged actions have been proven.  But speculating on the evidence and what it means does not somehow equate to having proved his guilt, nor even to "condemning the guy".
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2017, 08:44:35 PM
And then there's this:

Quote
Theresa Jones used to work as a deputy district attorney in the same courthouse as Moore, and she told CNN on Saturday that "everyone we knew thought it was weird" that Moore dated girls significantly younger than he was.
"We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall, but you really wouldn't say anything to someone like that," she added.

Now, the strongest thing in his defense would be the lack of any accusers from anyone more recent. After all, most of our understanding of such predatory behavior is that you don't normally grow out of it.

Possibly, possibly not. Most of the women he has been exposed as dating would likely have been "sexually" mature (16-18) but not yet adults. Also all of the encounters (expect for the most recent) seem not to have been coerced. That puts him as kind of an edge case for a true predator vs extreme creep. In the 80's he married his wife (he was in his 40's she was 23 at the time of their marriage). So this could of been a phase of super creep he did eventually grow out of. It also may put him mark him as a type of sociopath who engages in the risky behavior on how likely he feels he is to be caught in the act. In his early 30's he felt like he could get away with high school girls maybe in his late 30's he moved on to college girls. Then his marriage in his 40's to a 22 year old finally settled him down. We'll see if more allegations surface in the coming days.

Either way there is sufficient evidence for me to believe his accusers, he didn't even deny having some kind of relationship with several of the 16-18 year old girls.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2017, 08:55:58 PM
Yeah, just like Rolling Stone did.  Or how they did all that in the Duke lacrosse case. Get the idea? It’s all accusations and hearsay as far as I’ve seen, and all that from about 4 decades ago. Just because it fits your agenda doesn’t mean there’s proof. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’m just saying the accusations alone are not proof nor are they sufficient to condemn the guy. To pretend they are is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Rolling Stone was a single anonymous source. The Duke lacrosse case had enough credibility (initially) that charges were filed. It's tough for the media to get it right when the DA is lying about the amount of evidence he has. Neither story had the multiple claims and corroborating statements the WaPo story on Moore had. The closest level of proof I can think of is the evidence against Clinton being a serial philanderer and harasser, which you seem to have no trouble accepting.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2017, 11:36:07 PM
Quote
She claimed Mr Moore, a 30-year-old deputy district attorney at the time, offered to sign her high school yearbook and wrote: "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas."
He signed it "Love, Roy Moore, DA", according to a copy of the yearbook page provided to reporters by her attorney, Gloria Allred.

Is it evidence of a heinous crime? No. Is it more than a little creepy? Yes. The only people signing my yearbook were peers and teachers.

When coupled with the statement from the high school kid that he came on to her aggressively (at best) is it enough to be concerned? I'd say so.

If this same evidence had come out about his Democratic challenger, would any Moore supporters hesitate to vilify him? Doubt it, given the number of people who swallowed Pizza gate with far less evidence.

Will the yearbook get challenged as a careful forgery? Probably.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2017, 11:39:07 PM
Moore's reply:

Quote
Roy Moore moments ago called Beverly Young Nelson's accusation that he assaulted her when she was 16 “absolutely false," saying, "I don’t even know the woman."

If the yearbook exists, that's not a good sign of either his credibility
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2017, 02:36:13 PM
Quote
On Tuesday, a House committee held a hearing to examine the chamber's sexual harassment policies, and the Senate last week passed a resolution making sexual harassment training mandatory for senators, staff and interns -- two clear acknowledgments of the need for reform.

Huh? Seriously this is just happening now? I can't remember the last time I had a job where such training wasn't mandatory.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 14, 2017, 04:59:23 PM
Yeah, just like Rolling Stone did.  Or how they did all that in the Duke lacrosse case. Get the idea? It’s all accusations and hearsay as far as I’ve seen, and all that from about 4 decades ago. Just because it fits your agenda doesn’t mean there’s proof. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’m just saying the accusations alone are not proof nor are they sufficient to condemn the guy. To pretend they are is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Rolling Stone was a single anonymous source. The Duke lacrosse case had enough credibility (initially) that charges were filed. It's tough for the media to get it right when the DA is lying about the amount of evidence he has. Neither story had the multiple claims and corroborating statements the WaPo story on Moore had. The closest level of proof I can think of is the evidence against Clinton being a serial philanderer and harasser, which you seem to have no trouble accepting.

Those were two examples, we could easily find others with a google search. Rationalizing away these two examples is fairly weak justification for Moore’s accusations. I find Clinton’s case believable because he continued to do it, even while president. Clinton established the pattern (one of those open secrets) and was a predator his entire life and, at least in Lewinsky’s case, it’s been proven.

WaPo is a liberal “news” outlet that endorsed Moore’s opponent the day before this story ran. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’ve no idea. I’m saying accusations from 40 years ago, from this outlet, at this oerfect timing, is too suspicious to simply assume Moore’s guilt.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2017, 04:55:33 PM

WaPo is a liberal “news” outlet that endorsed Moore’s opponent the day before this story ran. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’ve no idea. I’m saying accusations from 40 years ago, from this outlet, at this oerfect timing, is too suspicious to simply assume Moore’s guilt.

I find it very unlikely the Washington post found 4 women Moore knew as teenagers who were willing to lie. Also the fifth woman who came forward had her yearbook that was signed by Moore. With the recent confirmed allegations against Weinstein et. al the timing isn’t all that suspicious. Women feel empowered to speak and running for senate puts him in the spotlight.

To further support the stories it has been reported that during the time in question Moore was blackballed from the local mall for aggressively flirting with young women. The stories are credible, even republican leaders have said so.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 15, 2017, 06:18:54 PM

WaPo is a liberal “news” outlet that endorsed Moore’s opponent the day before this story ran. I’m not saying Moore is innocent, I’ve no idea. I’m saying accusations from 40 years ago, from this outlet, at this oerfect timing, is too suspicious to simply assume Moore’s guilt.

I find it very unlikely the Washington post found 4 women Moore knew as teenagers who were willing to lie. Also the fifth woman who came forward had her yearbook that was signed by Moore. With the recent confirmed allegations against Weinstein et. al the timing isn’t all that suspicious. Women feel empowered to speak and running for senate puts him in the spotlight.

To further support the stories it has been reported that during the time in question Moore was blackballed from the local mall for aggressively flirting with young women. The stories are credible, even republican leaders have said so.

OK, so the allegations are credible. What are they exactly? For all but one, nothing illegal happened. In fact, Joe Biden has been doing a lot worse and doing it on camera for years (https://twitter.com/RAMRANTS/status/930066633661464576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Face.mu.nu%2F). When it comes to creepy behavior with underage kids and women, Biden is out there (watch Sessions slap Biden's hand away from his kid). No problem for anyone on that, certainly not on this forum or in the media. Why are you accepting of Biden's extreme creepery with very young kids and Moore is so horrifying? As for the yearbook, I've signed yearbooks for my kid's friends (several spent time at our house as we had a pool). That's been a few years, if you asked my I'd say I don't know them as I don't recall their names or even what they looked like. In another 20 years, I probably won't recall even signing those things. None of this is proof of anything. It's just not.

The women alleging assault is a problem. Moore needs to address this and I'm guessing he will. Again, this happened 40 years ago. What are we supposed to do with that? You've taken the position of guilty until proven innocent and proving innocence from 40 years ago is damn near impossible. It's not like Biden where we have him on film doing it or Clinton admitting it. All we have a accusations and rumor that are hotly denied. If that's enough to end careers, well, then everyone and anyone is guilty and all we're lacking is the accusation - and I'm sure we can find one for everyone.

Moore's opponents in the primary put a lot of effort into trying to source and substantiate these allegations. They found nothing. Moore has been a contentious figure in AL for decades with multiple heated election cycles, nobody could find anything. Yet, miraculously, at a point when it hurts the most to his senate campaign, WaPo, staunchly and openly supporting Moore's opponent, finds it and publishes it.

Moore may be a creeper, maybe even assaulting someone, but are we really going to make the accusation itself the proof? If we are, why are some not subject to this and others are?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: kidv on November 16, 2017, 01:19:45 AM


OK, so the allegations are credible. What are they exactly? For all but one, nothing illegal happened. In fact, Joe Biden has been doing a lot worse and doing it on camera for years (https://twitter.com/RAMRANTS/status/930066633661464576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Face.mu.nu%2F).


"She remembers that Moore kissed her, that he took off her pants and shirt, and that he touched her through her bra and underpants. She says that he guided her hand to his underwear and that she yanked her hand back.

"I wasn't ready for that - I had never put my hand on a man's penis, much less an erect one," Corfman says.

She remembers thinking, "I don't want to do this" and "I need to get out of here." She says that she got dressed and asked Moore to take her home, and that he did.

The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.


The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_accused_of_sexual_mi.html (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_accused_of_sexual_mi.html) al.com quoting the Washington Post

Declaring that Biden has been doing much worse than this on video seems to interfere with a rational discussion of the creepiness of Roy Moore.  And it drives back at the stupidity of elevating party over morality.

Being that this is a thread on Weinstein where the discussion has turned to Roy Moore, it seems a critical mass has developed where (society?) has determined that harassment / sexual powerplays have got to be declared unacceptable and simply stopped, and a ball is rolling.  So maybe that will lead to a discussion of Joe Biden, and society will hear if he's ever taken private action against someone, or he acts creepy in photoshoots.

Anyway, the other 3 women who were under 18 allege that he gave them alcohol, which is also a crime even though their relationship didn't progress past kissing.

Now more women (with signed yearbooks) have emerged who allege more unwanted sexual activity.

So I guess it would still be one thing if Roy Moore acknowledged that while he was in his 30s he tried to date and kiss many girls in high school, but it was legal so that was ok.  And a couple 14 year olds slipped through the cracks.  But he's denying that that it was a common thing for him to pursue 16 and 17 year olds, and doing a pretty poor job of it, so it makes the 30+ people who all corroborate that that was his "thing" sound a lot more credible.

So we come down to, do we want to defend the guy who dated 16 year olds when he was 32 as a potential senator, self-declared moral arbiter?  Or defend him as a beacon of truth and righteousness, where he's uniquely positioned himself as a higher moral and legal authority than any of the courts in the land?


He ends up looking like a perfect example of hypocrisy, and christian ideals deserve a better self-proclaimed representative.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 16, 2017, 09:13:23 AM
Quote
So we come down to, do we want to defend the guy who dated 16 year olds when he was 32 as a potential senator, self-declared moral arbiter?  Or defend him as a beacon of truth and righteousness, where he's uniquely positioned himself as a higher moral and legal authority than any of the courts in the land?
That’s a false dilemma, and a pretty badly done one at that.

People are hung up on the yearbook. It seems pretty bad but Moore denies it in no uncertain terms and yet there’s his signature.  Or is it?

Beverly Nelson has that yearbook.  She says after the assault she never had any further contact with Moore. That’s not true. When Nelson got divorced in 1999, Moore was the presiding judge. 

The signature in the yearbook has the initials “D.A.” after Moore’s name. Moore was not the district attorney in 1977. However, Moore's assistant in the late 90s had the initials 'D.A.' and would sign his initials alongside legal documents he would stamp with Moore's signature. 

Moore’s team has demanded that the yearbook be released for handwriting and ink analysis so they can prove it’s a forgery. Nelson’s attorney, Gloria Allred, refused until senate hearings can be convened - you know, after the election.

So we have Nelson caught in a lie, a very reasonable explanation of how it actually could be a forged signature, and the accuser refusing to allow examination of the evidence until it’s too late. Like I’ve said, Moore may be all they say he is but gven all this I just can’t jump on the bandwagon with you and blindly condemn the guy either.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: kidv on November 16, 2017, 10:52:31 AM
Quote
So we come down to, do we want to defend the guy who dated 16 year olds when he was 32 as a potential senator, self-declared moral arbiter?  Or defend him as a beacon of truth and righteousness, where he's uniquely positioned himself as a higher moral and legal authority than any of the courts in the land?
That’s a false dilemma, and a pretty badly done one at that.

 . . .

So we have Nelson caught in a lie, a very reasonable explanation of how it actually could be a forged signature, and the accuser refusing to allow examination of the evidence until it’s too late. Like I’ve said, Moore may be all they say he is but gven all this I just can’t jump on the bandwagon with you and blindly condemn the guy either.


I'm not trying to jump forward to Nelson and the additional people that are coming out now.   I'd hold them as additional tranches of complaints that are of a different character than the original 5 reported by the Washington Post.

The first 5 all align with what Moore has himself acknowledged, asking out and dating (14)-17 year olds as a 30 - 32 year old man.  This is corroborated by 30 people, including the girls' friends and relations and Moore's coworkers.  He politely dated all of them doing what they wanted, stopping when they said no, and taking them to restaurants and buying them alcohol.  He kissed them and they declined to have a further relationship.  Corfman happened to be 14.  She seems to be wilder than the others, and specifically snuck out to be with Moore, meeting him at his car on a street corner.  She went to his house.  It's interesting that she doesn't allege he raped her or even saw her naked, but that he took both of them down to their underwear.  He put her hand on his erect penis over his underwear, and she said stop, and he stopped.  She said take me home and he took her home.  So even this aligns with Moore overall and the other stories, that one time (or more) he happened to try to get a 14 year old, where he was usually dating or asking out 16 or 17 year olds.   Corfman told her mom about this, told her friends about this, and her mom was on the court docket on a day when Corfman was 14 years old and Moore was in the courthouse as a 32 year old ADA.

That group is consistent, it doesn't go overboard, it's supported by 30 people, and by Moore himself.  So that group includes several non-illegal but creepy "dating minors above the age of consent but less than 18," a couple cases of illegal contributing to the delinquency of minors by buying them booze, and one bad case of 2nd degree sexual assault (a misdemeanor) and a felony because he brought her to his house to touch her and his private parts, because he happened to chance upon a 14 year old. He respected the girl's wishes and seemed very polite, but it's statutory.  This is the risk you run when date 16 year olds.

That's the dichotomy I raise - do you want to support that guy? Yes, he is the unique case of setting his own judgment on religious matters above all the courts of the land.  So, no, it's reasonable for Mitch McConnell (and me) to say I believe the girls.  And I would say that I don't want that sort of "religious guy," who makes a pattern of dating 16 year olds in his 30's while politely plying the girls with alcohol and polite requests for semi clothed sexual events, to be held up as an example of the perfect Christian.  And in the current age of Weinstein, what the Republican party doesn't want to hold up as their representative.

--

At this exact moment in time, I think it's fair to wonder about the new sets of allegations, because they're of a different character, direct sexual assault and nonconsensual activity which seems a whole new level of bad.  I'm not even talking about that, just who Moore seems to acknowledge about himself, which fits right down the line of those first five.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 16, 2017, 11:37:42 AM
That's the dichotomy I raise - do you want to support that guy?
I don't know because Moore didn't break any laws that we have proof of anywhere. Just accusations. If accusations are enough for you, if "everyone says (http://=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumeveryone says)" is the standard you're going with, then you got you guy and you've taken him down.

Frankly, it's bizarre that you bemoan the hypocrisy of Moore while giving Biden a free pass as he visibly gropes little girls - and you're far from alone in that. The ideological litmus test being applied to these types of accusations and "convictions" is a problem. If all we need is a few people to make accusations and that's all the proof we need we might as well drop the court system and embrace anarchy.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2017, 12:06:43 PM
That's the dichotomy I raise - do you want to support that guy?
I don't know because Moore didn't break any laws that we have proof of anywhere. Just accusations. If accusations are enough for you, if "everyone says (http://=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumeveryone says)" is the standard you're going with, then you got you guy and you've taken him down.

It seems to me you're conflating two completely separate matters, one of which is whether to discourage supporting the man as a politician and a role model, and the other of which is to try to prosecute someone like this. One doesn't need to have any desire to do the latter to suggest doing the former. A person can be creepy without being a criminal, and it's enough to suggest someone is creepy to want to keep them out of the public sphere.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 16, 2017, 12:44:27 PM
Ok, then Al Franken must be immediately expelled (http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/) from the Senate. There is also a photo of Franken groping a sleeping woman, she is horrified.  It’s not only creepy but it’s criminal. What does everyone think, will the senate leadership call for immediately invalidating Franken’s election and refuse to seat him as they say they’ll do with Moore? After all, he’s crossed the line where we “want to keep them out of the public sphere”.

Come on, there’s multiple accusations and photographic evidence. Or is Franken like Biden, free to grope and assault?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 16, 2017, 12:50:02 PM
What do you mean about invalidating the election?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on November 16, 2017, 01:04:24 PM
Could you clarify one thing, Crunch?  Are you calling for the punishment of all creepy guys like Moore, Biden and Franken?  Or are you saying we should ignore all such creepiness from guys like Moore, Biden and Franken, and such behavior should be considered acceptable?

That's the problem with the "Whatabout" defense--it's hard to know if someone is defending the actions or just trying to widen the circle of those who should be subject to censure. :(
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on November 16, 2017, 01:08:15 PM
BTW, Al Franken is asking for a Senate investigation (https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) on the matter.

Do you think Roy Moore will do so, too, if he is elected? ;)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2017, 01:10:08 PM
Quote
I don't know because Moore didn't break any laws that we have proof of anywhere. Just accusations. If accusations are enough for you, if "everyone says" is the standard you're going with, then you got you guy and you've taken him down.

Is "not breaking the law" the only standard really? I hold leaders and would-be leaders to a much higher standard than just managing to stay within the law. And so do most people. Consensual legal relations with a 16 year old when you're in your 30s is super creepy, and I'm probably not going to go to your fundraiser and clap for your speech.

Being under a cloud of suspicion would be sufficient for me to not hire somebody, as an example. Someone accused of embezzling who got acquitted might become my accountant, but not without a whole lot of reasons why I shouldn't go elsewhere. These things don't normally crop up out of nowhere.

Now, if he were my "dream candidate" like he is to some people, am I going to have a different view? If I'm honest, yes I might still vote for him. I'm still not going to pretend that nothing is going on, its all fabrications that should be ignored, and that its just the usual people out to get him. Even if people were out to get him, there are reasons why they picked him and not one of hundreds of other equally reviled politicians. That's enough to give me pause. The fact that he may not have been vetted deeply enough by his party is another concern.


Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2017, 01:17:35 PM
Quote
Ok, then Al Franken must be immediately expelled from the Senate. There is also a photo of Franken groping a sleeping woman, she is horrified.  It’s not only creepy but it’s criminal.

As for the photo, do you actually think it is possible to assault someone through a flak jacket? It is designed to stop bullets and fragments. Inappropriate, yes. Childish, yes. Worthy of scorn, yes. Criminal? Not seeing it.

The other incident she describes is serious, and yes I would expect he should be called to account for it just as much as Louis CK. Falls into this category of, "ha, I bullied you into giving consent", which might be a get out of jail free card, but is certainly unacceptable behaviour.

I'll join hands and support the ostracism of both these men, if you feel like a kumbaya moment.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2017, 01:24:52 PM
Crunch,

regarding the 'groping' by Al Franken - his is pantoming it for a cameraman doing a stupid and crude joke, not actually groping her.  Legally he did nothing inappropriate.  He has juvenile taste in humor.

Regarding the kiss - I personally feel he did something wrong, but lawfully it is more murky.  It was written into the skit script, she consented to practice the skit.  So legally (for purposes of criminal liability of misdemeanor battery) he probably is in the clear (well is fully in the clear, but I mean if it had been pursued within the statute of limitations). Morally he took advantage.  Civilly, again beyond the statute of limitations, but if it had been pursued at the time - she might have won a civil case.  Also it wouldn't fall under sexual harrassment either - he had no authority over her, and she had no reasonable anticipation that he would use it to influence her career.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2017, 01:54:41 PM
I doubt we've heard the end of Franken stories. You're talking about a childish stand-up comic who probably had pretty loose boundaries as to what he thought was appropriate at that time. Of course, people digging this stuff up also have political motivations, but that really doesn't change what happened any more than it does in other cases.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 16, 2017, 02:15:56 PM
What do you mean about invalidating the election?
The GOP leadership says they will not seat Moore if he's elected, essentially invalidating if Moore won.

Could you clarify one thing, Crunch?  Are you calling for the punishment of all creepy guys like Moore, Biden and Franken?  Or are you saying we should ignore all such creepiness from guys like Moore, Biden and Franken, and such behavior should be considered acceptable?
I'm pointing out the double standard based on political ideology and affiliation.

BTW, Al Franken is asking for a Senate investigation (https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) on the matter.

Do you think Roy Moore will do so, too, if he is elected? ;)
If Moore is elected, the GOP says they will not seat him. Why do you think it's reasonable for a investigation into Franken, where photographic evidence proves his guilt beyond a shadow of doubt and Franken admits it but Moore does not get anything approaching a similar benefit? All about the D after the name ain't it?

Crunch,

regarding the 'groping' by Al Franken - his is pantoming it for a cameraman doing a stupid and crude joke, not actually groping her.  Legally he did nothing inappropriate.  He has juvenile taste in humor.
Oh, there it is.  It's just a joke! That's all. Everybody find humor in sexually assaulting unconscious women! That's pretty disgusting.

Regarding the kiss - I personally feel he did something wrong, but lawfully it is more murky.  It was written into the skit script, she consented to practice the skit.  So legally (for purposes of criminal liability of misdemeanor battery) he probably is in the clear (well is fully in the clear, but I mean if it had been pursued within the statute of limitations). Morally he took advantage.  Civilly, again beyond the statute of limitations, but if it had been pursued at the time - she might have won a civil case.  Also it wouldn't fall under sexual harrassment either - he had no authority over her, and she had no reasonable anticipation that he would use it to influence her career.
So see, if you write it out as a comedu skit before hand, why, you can do anything you want to women! Great defense there. Just great.

You know, my point about Moore is that we should be able to review the evidence and not simply convict him based on accusations alone. Your defense of Franken, when there is no doubt whatsoever, is it's perfectly fine to grope women if you call it a joke or write it up first. That some pretty serious bull*censored* there. You should be ashamed.



Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 16, 2017, 02:17:31 PM
I doubt we've heard the end of Franken stories. You're talking about a childish stand-up comic who probably had pretty loose boundaries as to what he thought was appropriate at that time. Of course, people digging this stuff up also have political motivations, but that really doesn't change what happened any more than it does in other cases.
Others are already coming out of the woodwork, like you said Franken is ripe for this. When you see the justification for it from Wayward Son and others, it really demonstrated my point about this being a witch hunt targeting Moore and not about protecting women.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2017, 02:37:07 PM
There's also a difference between being an idiot on a few occasions and doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do, versus being someone with a pattern of actively wanting the inappropriate thing and seeking it out whenever possible. It's not creepy to have an inappropriate - even sexist - sense of humor, even though it may be worthy of criticism. Comparing that to a history of serial relations with borderline underage people is really silly.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2017, 02:48:16 PM
Quote
doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do.

You mean, like "grab em by the pussy"?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 16, 2017, 02:53:58 PM
Quote
The GOP leadership says they will not seat Moore if he's elected, essentially invalidating if Moore won.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume this is because it’s too late to change the ballot.  Otherwise they’d just be replacing him or running another candidate to oppose him (other than the Democrat on the ticket).  I was questioning why you felt there was any need to bring this up as a comparison that some other sitting elected official would have their win invalidated.  It’s not the charge that they’re citing as grounds, it’s the locked in ballot; yes?

Quote
I'm pointing out the double standard based on political ideology and affiliation.
You're suggesting one exists, not pointing it out.  FYI

That said...  I feel there IS a double standard.  The left (or really just people in general) delight in seeing hypocrites brought low.  The right just happen to be more likely to make morality a cornerstone of their campaigns and public persona.  So yes, their moral failings get a disproportionate response.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2017, 03:07:36 PM
Crunch,

Quote
Oh, there it is.  It's just a joke! That's all. Everybody find humor in sexually assaulting unconscious women! That's pretty disgusting.

it was 'just a joke'.   On the level of drawing dicks on peoples faces while they are sleeping.  Pretending to grope boobs as an attempt at humor wasn't that uncommon ten years ago when the incident happened.  'Pranks' regarding unwanted sexual behavior (quick google search shows a sleeping guy with a bananna being held looking like oral sex) were common.

I've never found such behavior funny, but large swaths of the population used to find such things hilarious.  See the film 'Superbad' that gives an idea of how popular and viewed as funny the 'draw dicks on face' thing was in 2007, the year after the above incident occurred.

Quote
So see, if you write it out as a comedu skit before hand, why, you can do anything you want to women!

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.  Consent to a kiss as part of a skit, is consent to kissing. even if you didn't really want to kiss the person.  I wasn't defending his behavior, I was pointing out that legally she likely consented.

Quote
You know, my point about Moore is that we should be able to review the evidence and not simply convict him based on accusations alone.

We have an enormous amount of evidence, we also have evidence that Moore lied multiple times.

Quote
Your defense of Franken, when there is no doubt whatsoever, is it's perfectly fine to grope women if you call it a joke or write it up first. That some pretty serious bull*censored* there. You should be ashamed.

You must have the reading comprehension abilities of a two year old.  There was no groping, there was a pantomime of a groping.  Just as shadow puppets of a groping isn't a groping.  Only groping is groping.  I can feel his behavior is wrong and inappropriate and should be subject to censorship and something he owes an apology for and should never have done, and yet also acknowledge that he has done nothing illegal.  I think that Franken was a boorish *censored*, just not a criminally boorish *censored*.

If Moore's behavior are accurately described, then he is a pedophile attempted rapist, and engaged in criminal sexual assault and battery of minors.

The fact that you think these are in even remotely the same ballpark is somewhat scary implication about your morality.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2017, 03:27:07 PM
Quote
doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do.

You mean, like "grab em by the pussy"?

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. As an aside, I'm 99% sure people are taking this particular quote far out of context.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 16, 2017, 03:27:51 PM
Quote
doing stupid things for humor that were really wrong to do.

You mean, like "grab em by the pussy"?

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. As an aside, I'm 99% sure people are taking this particular quote far out of context.
That's the first time I've heard an "out of context" explanation on that one...  Or did you mean the first quote, not the trump quote?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2017, 03:30:32 PM
I was arguing that if one gives Franken a free pass for pantomiming the groping of an unconscious woman, you should almost certainly give Trump a free pass on his crude statement about groping women.

Personally, I hold them both to answer for it.


Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2017, 03:53:51 PM
I was arguing that if one gives Franken a free pass for pantomiming the groping of an unconscious woman, you should almost certainly give Trump a free pass on his crude statement about groping women.

Personally, I hold them both to answer for it.

What I meant was that comparing someone who has repeatedly done creepy things (and wants to do them again, presumably) versus someone with bad taste in humor but no inherent desire to do bad things to women is ridiculous. It doesn't mean that either party is absolved of everything, but there are levels. If you want to compare Trump's comment with Franken's joke then go ahead; I have no position on how each should be treated, but I'm sure that neither is in the same category as repeatedly going after high school students.

To D.W., I was referring to Trump's remark, actually. I believe he intended it not to mean that this is how he treats women or wants to, but was rather pointing out how preposterous it is that as a powerful celebrity one could do such things and get away with it (or at least could have at the time). That doesn't mean Trump wouldn't do it; I have no idea. But I'm pretty sure the comment was a sort of ironic boasting rather than a statement of intent or admittance of what he'd done. So it's neither an action, nor even a joke, but strictly speaking an observation (albeit a piggish one).
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2017, 04:09:25 PM
Quote
An aide for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tells CNN that Gillibrand plans to give back all the money she’s ever received from Franken’s PAC — which they say totals $12,500 — to the group Protect our Defenders.

It’s a group that combats rape and sexual assault in the military.

What a great choice! And it is encouraging to see a politician actually give up money for principle within their own party. Or at least the appearance of principle.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2017, 06:41:30 PM
Haha, onion!

Quote
In response to radio personality Leeann Tweeden’s allegations of being inappropriately groped by Al Franken during a 2006 U.S.O. tour, Democratic Party leaders issued calls Thursday for a convincing amount of condemnation for the Minnesota senator. “I urge my fellow Democrats to renounce Senator Franken’s unacceptable behavior in the absolute most plausible way,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, adding that he hadn’t ruled out taking steps to eventually look into the matter. “It’s imperative that we unequivocally go through the motions of rejecting any and all forms of sexual misconduct, and I’m confident that all Democrats will join me in denouncing the senator’s actions in the strongest believable terms.” Schumer also said that party leaders would remain steadfast in their lip service even if additional Democrats were accused of sexual assault.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on November 17, 2017, 12:34:45 PM
Quote
She says after the assault she never had any further contact with Moore. That’s not true. When Nelson got divorced in 1999, Moore was the presiding judge.

Turns out that is fake news.

Per Think Progress (https://thinkprogress.org/roy-moore-beverly-nelson-divorce-2aeaeeb17ce9/), when Beverly Nelson filed for divorce in 1999, Roy Moore was supposed to be her judge for the hearing.  But the hearing never took place.  A month before the hearing, she filed a motion to delay the hearing in order to attempt to reconcile with her then-husband, and a month after that filed a motion to dismiss the case.  She did not divorce her husband until five years later, when another judge presided over the case.

The only thing Judge Moore did was sign the dismissal decree, and he admits that a clerk did that for him.

So Beverly Nelson had no opportunity to meet with Judge Moore.  In fact, Judge Moore probably did not even know that it was the same Beverly Nelson he had previously met. 

She did not lie.  Rather, Moore's lawyers misconstrued the facts in an attempt to discredit her.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 17, 2017, 02:33:34 PM
Can everyone please stop using the term "fake news"?  It has come to mean everything from "things that make me uncomfortable" to "accurate reporting of things that my team lied about" to "accurate reports of what people said" said, to, well, pure propaganda and lies.

In this case, why not just say Moore's lawyer misrepresented the facts, possibly on purpose (there is a term for that, actually).

The term annoys me almost as much as the usage of the verb "to ask" as a noun. (nouning the verb, now?)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 18, 2017, 12:30:28 PM
The difference between calling it fake news and a lie is the distribution method. If the lawyer said that 20 years ago, some people might read about it in the papers, but more likely the paper would do their investigation on the quote - a bare minimum of context to add to the quote.

Fake news is when somebody sees his statement, blurts A-hA! and tweets it out until it has reached 5 million mouth breathing simians who simply took the lawyers word on its face and conjured up images of the conniving false accuser. Then went to Breitbart and misspelled a bunch of sexist epithets.

Are there legitimate concerns to have about proof and evidence, sure, but that ain't part of it.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on November 21, 2017, 01:28:56 AM
There is now a more serious allegation against Franken.  He allegedly put his hand on a woman's ass during a photo at a state fair.

Apparently Minnesota law doesn't view this as a crime (it specifically excludes 'touching of the covered ass' under Minnesota sexual assault and battery law, nor is it covered under their other assault and battery statutes).

Quote
Then, as her husband held up her phone and got ready to snap a photo of the two of them, Franken "pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear," Menz said. "It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 21, 2017, 09:30:36 AM
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 21, 2017, 09:37:10 AM
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.

Agreed, I hope Franken seriously considers resigning, although initial reports are that he is planning on staying on. This has gotten lots of publicity I wonder if more women will come forward, he certainly has a long enough history in show business and politics that if he is like Charlie Rose, Roy Moore, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump there will be more reports of women coming forward in the days ahead.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 21, 2017, 09:41:21 AM
In the grand scheme I think his resigning would be silly. His moves are indicative of a comedian with typical gaps in judgement on occasion. Anyone who voted for him knew he was a comedian before a politician. He isn't a predator or a rapist, nor anything other than a 'sex offender' by an extremely stringent standard. Basically he's just a dumbass on occasion, would makes him a perfect fit for senator.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 21, 2017, 12:09:14 PM
If Trump grabbed an ass at a photo op, would you be as forgiving, Fenring? Jeff Sessions? Mike Pence? For that matter, Barack Obama? Jesse Ventura? I don't see why Franken should get any more pass.

The grab was worse only because he did it as a Senator, which now gives the ethics committee a leg to stand on. My guess, he is censured but retains his seat.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 21, 2017, 12:30:00 PM
Basically, being a jackass isn't the same as being a sexual predator, and yes, intent matters. I think many people in politics probably do dumb things that are "illegal" but when we're talking about being ostracized for unacceptable behavior this strikes me as reaching. "Aha! He's a sex offender too! Get rid of him!" It's one thing to uncover a pedophile ring or to expose systemic sexual abuse by people in power. It's quite another to point out that someone like Franken can be disrespectful at times. Grabbing a butt? Not cool, and if the person he touched wants to sue him civilly for emotional suffering I say have at it. It's happened to me, even made me angry, but heck I'd never accept that someone should have their career and life ruined over it. And it'd also be another thing if the senatorial position was relevant to the act, for instance if he made his secretary let him do that in order for her to have her job. But that's not what his deal is, he's just trying to be funny in an inappropriate way. Whoever is in the position to manage his career or office should yell at him and tell him to stop, and I think that's enough.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on November 21, 2017, 02:10:21 PM
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.

It was consensual.  It was just not fully thought through consent.  They were to rehearse a kiss as part of a skit, he kissed her.  There should have been more and better communication, since clearly it wasn't what she thought she should expect.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 22, 2017, 11:37:29 PM
It seems to me you're conflating two completely separate matters, one of which is whether to discourage supporting the man as a politician and a role model, and the other of which is to try to prosecute someone like this. One doesn't need to have any desire to do the latter to suggest doing the former. A person can be creepy without being a criminal, and it's enough to suggest someone is creepy to want to keep them out of the public sphere.

The problem is, that absent an option to take Moore off the ballot, our system doesn't give voters any real recourse.  The choice the voters in the heavily conservative and heavily republican district have is to vote for a poor role model that shouldn't be on the ticket or to vote to empower a person who will deliberately misrepresent them and undermine their political goals for his term of office.  It's not even close either, putting the Democrat into a Senate that is 52/48 and making it 51/49 pretty much ensures that none of their political goals will be achieved.  Has nothing to do with Moore himself.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 23, 2017, 07:42:58 AM
It seems to me you're conflating two completely separate matters, one of which is whether to discourage supporting the man as a politician and a role model, and the other of which is to try to prosecute someone like this. One doesn't need to have any desire to do the latter to suggest doing the former. A person can be creepy without being a criminal, and it's enough to suggest someone is creepy to want to keep them out of the public sphere.

The problem is, that absent an option to take Moore off the ballot, our system doesn't give voters any real recourse.  The choice the voters in the heavily conservative and heavily republican district have is to vote for a poor role model that shouldn't be on the ticket or to vote to empower a person who will deliberately misrepresent them and undermine their political goals for his term of office.  It's not even close either, putting the Democrat into a Senate that is 52/48 and making it 51/49 pretty much ensures that none of their political goals will be achieved.  Has nothing to do with Moore himself.

They could write in Strange or Sessions. If the republican party gave a **** about decency one of these men would be out there organizing a write in campaign. Then the voters would have a choice.

Are you seriously arguing if the choice is sending a pedophile to the Senate or a Democrat that people are justified in sending the pedophile?

That really seems to be a damaging example to set for the country, there has to be some minimum standard for serving in elected office and if we can't agree to exclude pedophiles is there any line that shouldn't be crossed?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: jasonr on November 23, 2017, 12:33:38 PM
I don't think there is any evidence that he's a pedophile.

But regardless, it's naive to expect people to slit their own political throats in such a polarized environment. In the same situation, Democrat voters wouldn't be any different.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on November 23, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
I don't think there is any evidence that he's a pedophile.

He pursued a woman who was 14, and engaged in behaviour that meets the definition of sexual molestation with her, and hung out at the mall trying to pick up high school students while he was older than 30.  He hasn't pursued prepubescent girls that we know of.

So he meets the popular usage of the word pedophile, but not the DSM diagnostic criteria for a pedophile.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 23, 2017, 04:45:55 PM
So he meets the popular usage of the word pedophile, but not the DSM diagnostic criteria for a pedophile.

The popular usage is stupid and dangerous. Conflating people who lust after babies and children with those who enjoy younger women only perpetuates dishonest notions of what 'real people' actually want. It's not abnormal to lust after young women, and some of them look older than their age. The ethics of doing so is a completely different matter, because not everything that's 'natural and normal' should be endorsed or accepted. There is nothing deviant about being attracted to 16 year olds, even though there's something wrong in pursuing them. Calling such a person a pedophile when his real problem is a lack of maturity and boundaries is just mangling the language and trying to make people into boogeymen. The word is totally loaded and its use is intentionally designed to villify anyone so labelled.

It's enough to suggest this isn't a good guy, and that he has problems, without also having to paint him as a monster.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 24, 2017, 12:46:12 PM
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 24, 2017, 02:17:54 PM
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

That's a marginal improvement, but still along the same lines of villification. Why can't it be enough to say of the guy "Ugh, he's a creep" without having to call him an attempted rapist? It's fairly clear that someone aiming for 16-17 year olds who occasionally fouls up and ends up pursuing a 15 year old isn't "attempting rape", even though he must know he runs the risk of crossing the law on occasion and apparently doesn't care. Why must everything be overkill when, in the case of the actually nefarious people out there, we barely even see underkill? When I see public outrage as some of the serious wrongs that are systemically perpetuated I'll take more seriously calls for pitchforks against ethically challenged people like Moore.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: NobleHunter on November 24, 2017, 02:24:48 PM
Going after Moore is part of correcting systematic wrongs. The whole point of the cascade of accusations is dismantling the system of privilege that let people get away with sexual assault and rape. Giving Moore a pass because "he's a creep" is the same line of thinking that let Weinstein and Spacey get away with their assaults for so long.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 24, 2017, 02:30:58 PM
Going after Moore is part of correcting systematic wrongs. The whole point of the cascade of accusations is dismantling the system of privilege that let people get away with sexual assault and rape. Giving Moore a pass because "he's a creep" is the same line of thinking that let Weinstein and Spacey get away with their assaults for so long.

I never said give him a pass. I suggested not calling him a pedophile when in fact he's just an a**hole who takes advantage of young women. That should still be criticized and brought to light.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on November 24, 2017, 04:50:40 PM
Fenring, he is well beyond a 'creep' and 'a**hole' - he is an accused child molestor.  He wasn't 'taking advantage of young women' but of children.  14 years old is a child.  He wasn't looking for young women at the local college; he was looking for grade schoolers at the local mall.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 24, 2017, 05:28:22 PM
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

That's a marginal improvement, but still along the same lines of villification. Why can't it be enough to say of the guy "Ugh, he's a creep" without having to call him an attempted rapist? It's fairly clear that someone aiming for 16-17 year olds who occasionally fouls up and ends up pursuing a 15 year old isn't "attempting rape", even though he must know he runs the risk of crossing the law on occasion and apparently doesn't care. Why must everything be overkill when, in the case of the actually nefarious people out there, we barely even see underkill? When I see public outrage as some of the serious wrongs that are systemically perpetuated I'll take more seriously calls for pitchforks against ethically challenged people like Moore.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 24, 2017, 11:47:28 PM
Fenring, he is well beyond a 'creep' and 'a**hole' - he is an accused child molestor.  He wasn't 'taking advantage of young women' but of children.  14 years old is a child.  He wasn't looking for young women at the local college; he was looking for grade schoolers at the local mall.

We're splitting hairs about what exactly to call such a person. The point is that we should probably assume any 14 year olds that got into the mix were girls he probably thought were 16 (not much of a saving grace) because they looked mature for their age. Or maybe that's not the case and he secretly wanted the 'young ones' too, I have no idea. But what I've read made it sound like he was aiming for the 16-17 range and on a few occasions fouled up and got someone younger than expected. That's exactly why even attempting to do this kind of thing is irresponsible and potentially illegal, because sometimes even if you're trying to stay within the legal limit you can't tell the real age and they can even have fake ID's. So best not to even try, putting aside how creepy and wrong it is. But again I think it's wrong-headed to insist on calling them 'children' when they most likely looked like physically mature women, just to make it sound scarier. The whole point I'm making is there's a difference between someone attracted to a physically developed woman who's on the young end of the spectrum versus someone who's attracted to people who specifically do not look like they're sexually mature. Both pedophilia and pederasty properly refer to the latter, where the lack of physical development is exactly what the person wants, and *that* is the area where extreme concern is certainly warranted. There is nothing unnatural or wrong about being attracted to physically developed people, but again the issue of ethics then comes into play where going after the very minimum legal age within that probably means there are psychological issues at play that need addressing. I hate the idea of it, I don't approve, and yet I can recognize that at a base level there's nothing deviant going on with someone who finds that attractive. It's not pedophilia.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.

What you said was that he was an "attempted statutory rapist." My point is that he was attempting to get with those girls, and that it would have been statutory rape, but that he was not (to our knowledge) attempting to commit statutory rape. In other words, he didn't say to himself "this girl is underage, it's illegal, let's do this." At least, not as far as I read. He probably didn't put much attention at all into whether the girl happened to be a year too young, which is certainly negligent but it doesn't necessarily mean he was desirous of committing rape. I make this specification because as of now I think the word rape is thrown around so much that at times it might be good to reflect on its precise meaning. As an analogy, if someone simply doesn't care if they hit someone with a bat or not and they swing it around haphazardly, and they do hit someone who dies, the swinging wouldn't have been attempted murder, it would have criminal negligence.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 25, 2017, 06:58:29 AM
Quote
We're splitting hairs about what exactly to call such a person. The point is that we should probably assume any 14 year olds that got into the mix were girls he probably thought were 16
Why should we assume that? The man was targeting minors at the mall, among other places.  He was also at the time an ADA, responsible for prosecuting people who were accused of breaking the law.  More than anybody else in society, and assuming he was not actively pursuing her because she was 14, he would have been aware of the likelihood of some of his conquests being below the age of consent. 

It would be more fair to assume he targeted her because of her age, or that he simply did not care that she was below the age of consent, given that he knew very well the risks, was not ignorant of the law, and was at least nominally intelligent given his position as an ADA at the time.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: jasonr on November 25, 2017, 09:03:33 AM
I'm with you Fenring in terms of misuse of the "P" word. But as someone who just interviewed a few 14/15 year olds recently for babysitting jobs let me say that I find it hard to fathom the idea of pursuing one in that way at my age and being anything but deviant. Not saying it is impossible to be fooled in certain cases but wow - if he was even swimming in that pool...
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 25, 2017, 10:36:20 AM
I'm with you Fenring in terms of misuse of the "P" word. But as someone who just interviewed a few 14/15 year olds recently for babysitting jobs let me say that I find it hard to fathom the idea of pursuing one in that way at my age and being anything but deviant. Not saying it is impossible to be fooled in certain cases but wow - if he was even swimming in that pool...

Having worked in a summer camp for over 10 years, yes, there's generally a significant difference between what a 14 year old and a 16 year old look like. I can't make any positive claims about what Moore really wanted. I'm just saying that if we're to interpret what we've read charitably then perhaps he wasn't intentionally going after 14 year olds but ended up with the odd girl who looked a couple of years older than her age. I'm talking about the look of the person, not the age of the person, when I suggest that being attracted to someone with the physique of a 16-17 year old shouldn't be called deviant. Acting on it is, though, and should be censured in some way, but in a way other than slapping the monicker "sex offender" on someone. The matter changes if he does, indeed, end up with someone underage, and so "sex offender" would apply. But I want to reiterate that doesn't mean he's in the same category as people who abuse babies.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 25, 2017, 10:59:33 AM
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

That's a marginal improvement, but still along the same lines of villification. Why can't it be enough to say of the guy "Ugh, he's a creep" without having to call him an attempted rapist? It's fairly clear that someone aiming for 16-17 year olds who occasionally fouls up and ends up pursuing a 15 year old isn't "attempting rape", even though he must know he runs the risk of crossing the law on occasion and apparently doesn't care. Why must everything be overkill when, in the case of the actually nefarious people out there, we barely even see underkill? When I see public outrage as some of the serious wrongs that are systemically perpetuated I'll take more seriously calls for pitchforks against ethically challenged people like Moore.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.

With how many of these laws came into being in the first place, and how widely variable, arbitrary and often capricious those "lines" often were, and still remain. I'm leery of "open fire"/"fire at will" practices regarding flinging around "pedophile"/"statutory rapist" labels without due consideration of what people are actually saying. I'm more concerned about the DSM definition of pedophile than the legal one, and let us not even get into the matter of how a 16 year old can legally be labelled as a pedophile for sexually pursuing a 14 year old.

There is a massive social disconnect between the social/legal views(legal views often being a consequence of social views) regarding sexuality and adolescents and the psychological side of it all. The physiological side is relevant as well, but at present I think it is fairly safe to say no government on the planet has addressed the issue either rationally, impartially, or in anything resembling a healthy manner even if they cite "health reasons" as the basis for certain policies, because other related policies have no such basis. (Or that the "health basis" for the policy may be based on feedback of a more dubious nature than they care to admit. Anecdotal evidence from "people on the front lines" isn't always the best place to start--when their line of work focuses on the "unhealthy outcomes" their personal data set is going to be rather skewed, and oblivious to the healthier outcomes.)

That said, a guy in his late 20's pursuing people in their mid-teens is pretty creepy, and it does leave one to wonder about a number of things regarding any person who goes about doing so. Of course, that said, a number of years back I've been party to "young adult" gatherings where the grouping was 18 to 30 years old, and being there as the 30 year old. So I know full well the disconnects that are present between a 29/30 YO and even an 18 or 19 year old, never mind younger. They're in almost completely different worlds, but knowing my own family history, I have to be mindful of not speaking ill of a set of grandparents where, IIRC, a ~29YO widower with 2 kids married this girl fresh out of high school(my grandmother) during the Great Depression(where they remained married until his death from cancer after their 50th wedding anniversary). Never mind other examples that can be found looking further in my own family tree, on all sides of it.

Obviously, there is a social component that exists alongside the psychology part and outside of the biology sphere of things. Whether or not we find something personally creepy is immaterial to what should be the primary consideration in play: Was/Is it pursued in a "healthy" manner? No doubts exist about how relationships where there is a clear "senior" in the relationship are open to abuse(and by definition are "unhealthy" once abuse happens), but that doesn't mean every such relationship is abusive/unhealthy.

People need to be very mindful that at least where this topic is concerned, there is definite concern about "Slippery Slope" running in both directions on this matter in particular. Where it just happens that the prevailing direction in recent decades has been towards more restrictions, not less. Even if specific acts(such as those in regards to (male) homosexuality) have become permissible in the interim.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 25, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
While I'd like to think the voters would refuse to vote for him, the "just write-in another candidate" is asking a lot.  In all seriousness can you envision a write-in winning here?  If I were a Republican, which thankfully I'm not as they seem to have these types of problems disproportionately,  ;D  I'd probably vote for him, trusting that he'd quickly be tossed out on his ass and replaced procedurally by another Republican at the first possible opportunity. 

The likely hood of that happening would probably not be scrutinized very hard as long as I had a rational to NOT vote Democrat for the reasons Seriati mentioned.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 25, 2017, 11:26:07 AM
I'm talking about the look of the person, not the age of the person, when I suggest that being attracted to someone with the physique of a 16-17 year old shouldn't be called deviant. Acting on it is, though, and should be censured in some way, but in a way other than slapping the monicker "sex offender" on someone. The matter changes if he does, indeed, end up with someone underage, and so "sex offender" would apply. But I want to reiterate that doesn't mean he's in the same category as people who abuse babies.

So what about the reverse case? When a woman in late 20's can present the appearance of somebody around the age of 16 or 17? (Or the matter that Hollywood loves to employ those types for many of their "teen" movies)

Do we need to start stigmatizing any adults who would dare pursue a woman who appears to be "barely legal" or even slightly under? Actually scratch that, it's already happening in some countries, where people are finding themselves on sex offender registries for having naughty pictures of their 20-something SO and having a judge declare "she looks underage."

You're also ignoring thousands upon thousands of years of natural processes in play here. Even from a physiology standpoint, most 16/17 YO's have just entered the stage where they're physically capable of carrying children to term without significant risks of harm to themselves. From a biology stand point, that is Grade A Prime territory right there. So if we're going by "What's natural" than from the perspective of most of the rest of the rest of the animal kingdom, every male member of the human race that isn't already paired off(or building a harem) would be nuts NOT to pursue them. But now we're talking about biology vs psychology vs society and social norms.

What is natural is for males to be interested, and to at least consider pursuit for the purpose of mating.

What is "normal" in society today is another matter. And on this front, it is perhaps even arguably unhealthy as well, because the current narrative is that anybody over ___ years of age who finds persons under (21/18/17/16/15/14) years of age, but evidently at of very near to sexual maturity as being sexually appealing are sick in the head. Talk about giving people anxieties for no discernible reason? Taking a natural reaction and turning into one of the worst things a person could conceivably do certainly ranks up there.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 25, 2017, 11:43:10 AM
Good points.  Dads and moms out there, invest in burka now!  Protect your daughters from men acting naturally.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DJQuag on November 25, 2017, 12:02:11 PM
Fenring, he is well beyond a 'creep' and 'a**hole' - he is an accused child molestor.  He wasn't 'taking advantage of young women' but of children.  14 years old is a child.  He wasn't looking for young women at the local college; he was looking for grade schoolers at the local mall.

We're splitting hairs about what exactly to call such a person. The point is that we should probably assume any 14 year olds that got into the mix were girls he probably thought were 16 (not much of a saving grace) because they looked mature for their age. Or maybe that's not the case and he secretly wanted the 'young ones' too, I have no idea. But what I've read made it sound like he was aiming for the 16-17 range and on a few occasions fouled up and got someone younger than expected. That's exactly why even attempting to do this kind of thing is irresponsible and potentially illegal, because sometimes even if you're trying to stay within the legal limit you can't tell the real age and they can even have fake ID's. So best not to even try, putting aside how creepy and wrong it is. But again I think it's wrong-headed to insist on calling them 'children' when they most likely looked like physically mature women, just to make it sound scarier. The whole point I'm making is there's a difference between someone attracted to a physically developed woman who's on the young end of the spectrum versus someone who's attracted to people who specifically do not look like they're sexually mature. Both pedophilia and pederasty properly refer to the latter, where the lack of physical development is exactly what the person wants, and *that* is the area where extreme concern is certainly warranted. There is nothing unnatural or wrong about being attracted to physically developed people, but again the issue of ethics then comes into play where going after the very minimum legal age within that probably means there are psychological issues at play that need addressing. I hate the idea of it, I don't approve, and yet I can recognize that at a base level there's nothing deviant going on with someone who finds that attractive. It's not pedophilia.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.

What you said was that he was an "attempted statutory rapist." My point is that he was attempting to get with those girls, and that it would have been statutory rape, but that he was not (to our knowledge) attempting to commit statutory rape. In other words, he didn't say to himself "this girl is underage, it's illegal, let's do this." At least, not as far as I read. He probably didn't put much attention at all into whether the girl happened to be a year too young, which is certainly negligent but it doesn't necessarily mean he was desirous of committing rape. I make this specification because as of now I think the word rape is thrown around so much that at times it might be good to reflect on its precise meaning. As an analogy, if someone simply doesn't care if they hit someone with a bat or not and they swing it around haphazardly, and they do hit someone who dies, the swinging wouldn't have been attempted murder, it would have criminal negligence.

The word pedopile has become a political term. The definition of it makes people think Roy Moore was trying to bang eight year olds.

Except he wasn't. We all accept that the mind doesn't always match up to the body. And that's why the onus is on the elder  to shut that crap down. It's why we have a crime of statutory rape.

Statutory rape is serious, and in the case of the 14 year old he attempted it. I agree. For those flinging around deprecations, though, I'll point out that he could have been in a state where the age is 18, and all four accusations would have looked much worse. Where is the line drawn? And why?

How is it logical to label someone trying to have sex with a person with developed breasts and hips and all the rest, the same as someone who wants to have sex with children?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 25, 2017, 01:22:51 PM
Statutory rape is serious, and in the case of the 14 year old he attempted it. I agree. For those flinging around deprecations, though, I'll point out that he could have been in a state where the age is 18, and all four accusations would have looked much worse. Where is the line drawn? And why?

The one compelling case in regards to statutory rape I will agree with is the medical case regarding patient outcomes vs age in regards to child birth, where the "risk of complications" for mother and/or child basically start's hitting greatly diminishing returns in the early twenties. That said, there are plenty of 16 YO's out there right now that are medically capable of carrying a child to term with minimal risks to themselves or the child, while there are some 20 year olds who would be best advised to give their body "A little bit longer" to finish that last little bit of development. Except that opens up all kinds of different cans of worms. If the law exists to minimize danger to the mother, then the law either needs to have the age hiked up into the early 20's, or be altered on a "case by case basis" which opens up things up to extremes on the other end.

Quote
How is it logical to label someone trying to have sex with a person with developed breasts and hips and all the rest, the same as someone who wants to have sex with children?

Because we now live in a society where physical development and/or physical state of being is irrelevant, and psychological state(development) only matters when it is convenient. Further, socially we're now reaching the point where we actually do have 25 year-olds with perfectly functional IQ's that aren't functionally much different from their 16 to 18 year old counterparts. In fact, if you find the right people, they'll even happily move the goal posts on you and tell you that a 24 year old "is a child" and should be protected as such. So for them it doesn't matter if she looked 18, 24, or 28. They're still children in their book. Physical development doesn't matter.

"Moral Majority" types who like to pretend sex doesn't exist before marriage also help in this regard, as they somehow think that raising the legal age of consent will somehow protect the "virtue" of their fully grown children.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 25, 2017, 01:37:12 PM
Good points.  Dads and moms out there, invest in burka now!  Protect your daughters from men acting naturally.

Of course, I also have to laugh at this one from my LDS background, as after all "The Natural Man is an enemy of god." Which at least by personal interpretation means the guy who decides to behave like a hypersexual poodle isn't excused from doing so simply because "it's natural" to be that way. We're beings of reason, not instinct, we should comport ourselves accordingly.

My bigger issue here is the crowd who have confused "socially abnormal"/"socially abhorrent" with "unnatural" in particularly as it regards to adolescents in particular. Where many of the issues involved are perfectly natural in nature, they're just not necessarily conducive to maintaining a well ordered and functional society.

Denying such things by declaring they are "not natural" however, comes with its own set of perils because it actually IS.
Denying it as such simply sets people up for failure and even bigger problems growing from there when they "cannot control" those natural impulses. (And this actually sounds a lot like boilerplate in regards to homosexuality and people telling them that being homosexual is "unnatural")
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 25, 2017, 03:47:18 PM
 :o
Thanks TheDeamon
I think you helped me reach an all time record here for self editing and deleting comments before posting them.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 25, 2017, 10:10:11 PM
:o
Thanks TheDeamon
I think you helped me reach an all time record here for self editing and deleting comments before posting them.

It's a very complicated issue, and anyone who starts trying to unravel it best be prepared to encounter all kinds of unpleasant stuff from all sides. There is no "delicate" way to speak on it, which us why most people prefer to talk around it and move on. Lest they step into something that'll end up following them for a very long time.

Honestly, there is no "clean solution" for it either, ultimately it comes down to deciding where you want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand, knowing full well you're taking a position that either "goes against nature," or goes against where most people would prefer society to be, if not both. However self-deluded someone's particular "vision" may be.

Obviously the "natural answer" doesn't work in today's preferred social context, particularly in relation to behaviors observed in pack/herd dynamics among mammals. There are some that come into the general neighborhood, but they're still very different from how most human societies have structured themselves. The mammal tendency towards "Alpha...and everyone else" in particular is a non-starter for the vast majority of people, never mind what animals will do to each other in the sex department, they don't distinguish on age. If a female is "in season" it's on, physically mature or not.

Which cycles us both to Weinstein ("Alpha..and everyone else") and Moore, who was playing awfully close to the "if she's 'in season' it's on" line. Neither "natural extreme" is or should be considered acceptable behavior on the social side. But people do need to keep it in the back of their mind that acceptable or not, there is a natural/evolutionary impulse behind that, and it needs to be addressed, putting your head in the sand and ignoring it won't make it go away no matter how much you try.

Of course, also related to Moore's activities as a 30YO with teens. What about the 60 year olds with college coeds? Or the 40-somethings with an early/mid 20's "trophy wife" thing going on?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 26, 2017, 12:03:39 AM
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

:)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 27, 2017, 07:50:53 AM
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

The issue here is the only true "ick" factor on Moore is the (now) underage girls. Beyond that, from what I'm seeing, the moment you remove the "under 18" from the equation, there would be nothing worth reporting. Further, from what I've seen on this forum, if his date had been over 18, it would have put him on the "OK" side of the column for most people. Now what it says about his former preference for playing in the shallow end of the dating pool is another matter.

Weinstein on the other hand. You have threats, bribery, and all kinds of other not so pleasant factors in play which nobody is going to be able to spin positively.

What Moore did wasn't good, but it isn't even in the same league as what Weinstein was getting up to. Further to Moore's credit, nobody has fronted any evidence that he has continued doing so over the intervening decades. Weinstein on the other hand? He was still going at it as recently as a few years ago.

Yeah, they're both fruity enough to bake a fruitcake, and both of their issues revolve around sex, but they're still apples and oranges all the same.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 27, 2017, 10:57:38 AM
They may be apples and oranges, but what Moore did (if we are to believe the evidence provided by the then 14 year old and the people corroborating her story) was straight up criminal, and he was and still is on officer of the court.

I'm not saying what Weinstein is accused of is not worse, but minimizing what Moore is accused of by comparing his actions to those Weinstein has been accused of is what-about-ism of the worst kind.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 27, 2017, 01:02:26 PM
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

:)
Personally, I’m not a fan of witch hunts where accusations are the only proof needed.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 27, 2017, 01:29:29 PM
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

:)
Personally, I’m not a fan of witch hunts where accusations are the only proof needed.

Neither am I, but the level of evidence* available publicly shows a high probability that the vast majority of these claims are true. There isn't enough to convict him in a court of law but there is way more than enough that I would never leave a teenage girl alone in a room with him.

*Multiple independent claims, supporting statements from people they have told about this years ago, Moore being banned from the local mall for aggressively flirting with teenage girls, and the yearbook signature. If one woman had come forward with a claim that he had dated her or hit on here when she was 16 there would be reason to doubt the claim but the preponderance of evidence at this point is that 30-something Roy Moore aggressively pursued relationships with teenage girls.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: NobleHunter on November 27, 2017, 01:39:00 PM
Not to mention Moore's inability to have a day in court to prove or refute these accusations is a natural result of creating an environment where victims are afraid or unwilling to make timely accusations. All there we get are accusations because the system is designed to prevent actual proof.

You want justice for the accused? The first step is getting justice for the victims.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 27, 2017, 01:48:47 PM
Well, in that case .... BURN THE WITCH!!!

Oh, wait.  Let’s be clear on that. Conyers, Franken, Clinton, et al are not to be persecuted. They’re good sexual assaulters, up to and including serial rape.

BURN THE REPUBLICAN WITCH!!!

That’s better.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 27, 2017, 01:49:37 PM
I'm defiantly in the camp of innocent until proven guilty from a legal stand point.  Someone being asked (or forced) to resign from public office or removed from a position by share holders is different. 

When this issue first started to gain momentum, a derailment by one or more high profile (provably) false accusations seemed all but inevitable. 

I think one of the first fixes is to somehow (no good ideas to offer) break the system where people settle allegations out of court for pay outs.  The problem is this can be unfair to either or both parties. 

From an "I'm innocent!" standpoint, this system makes anyone with power and money susceptible to false allegations.  Paying to have an extortionist go away with legal assurances it's a settled matter can be attractive compared to a long battle both in public and in the courts.   

From a "I'll pay you to keep this quiet." standpoint, this system allows the rich and powerful to threaten further humiliation or a large amount of money to someone they harassed, coerced or assaulted. 

In either case, while either option does have something to offer to the victim, society loses.  Either extortionists or sexual predators are getting away with something. 

But that doesn't address similar cases where wealth doesn't play as much a factor if any I suppose. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 27, 2017, 02:02:01 PM
Nah, you can burn them all Crunch.
Though I'm not sure what more needs done with Clinton.  That investigation kinda already happened right?   I honestly don't know about Franken.  He's copped to some behavior I find unacceptable but not criminal.  Should he resign?  I don't know.  I'd lean towards yes but it's a soft yes.  But this is owing more towards valuing a zero tolerance stance on this issue higher than what he offers the party.  (but he's not MY representative)  Can't say I know anything about Conyers.  Just heard this one mentioned this morning.

What he did in and of itself seems to not amount to an automatic "give him the boot" but politics is optics.  IMO it says a lot about the current state of things that Democrats seriously consider drawing the line at very different points while Republicans refuse to acknowledged there even is a line.  Well, that's not true.  They know it's there because they use it to deflect attention away from them.

They know an allergy to hypocrisy is a common trait among Democratic voters.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 27, 2017, 02:06:05 PM
So then, since Clinton was never proven guilty from a legal standpoint, we should ignore everything known about his activities?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 27, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
We didn't ignore them.  It was kinda a big deal.  Or did I imagine all that?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 27, 2017, 02:20:12 PM
Oh, wait.  Let’s be clear on that. Conyers, Franken, Clinton, et al are not to be persecuted. They’re good sexual assaulters, up to and including serial rape.

Fraken to this point has the least egregious allegations against him. None of the women where in his employ or positions otherwise subordinate to him. They also only involve single instances of groping. I still think the allegations against him are approaching the point where he should resign. The accusation against Conyers is much more serious, a women in his employ who was paid out a settlement. Also his current and former female staffers haven't been nearly as supportive of him as they were of Franken. If another settlement is uncovered and/or more former staffers come forward to give more evidence of the account I will also be calling for his resignation or expulsion from the congress. Let's face it all of these allegations contain very different behaviors, power dynamics, and levels of evidence. But hey, lets boot them all out; and we may want to include Trump, "grab 'em by the *****", in our purge of sexual harassers/assaulters from positions of public leadership.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 27, 2017, 02:28:57 PM
DW, your statement seems to imply we should have ignored complaints against Clinton.

"I'm defiantly in the camp of innocent until proven guilty from a legal stand point"

Clinton was never proven guilty of anything from a legal standpoint, so I'm assuming you are defiantly in support of him also for his unfounded allegations.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 27, 2017, 02:42:17 PM
Quote
so I'm assuming you are defiantly in support of him also for his unfounded allegations.
What are you asking specifically?  Seriously, I'm not trying to be all wishy-washy on this.  Do I think he's a misogynist?  Yep.  An awful husband?  Assuming they didn't have an "open but don't be an idiot about it" political partnership; absolutely.  Do I think he did anything criminal?  Not really no. 

Does that answer the question?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 27, 2017, 03:06:06 PM
DW, I straight up misread your statement. You were differentiating legal standards from other standards, I had it wrong.

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 27, 2017, 05:38:48 PM
They could write in Strange or Sessions. If the republican party gave a **** about decency one of these men would be out there organizing a write in campaign. Then the voters would have a choice.

That's not a real recourse.  The same could have been done in the Presidential election, could it have not?  Yet all that would have been doing was helping the person you thought was worse to win, by splitting your vote.

Quote
Are you seriously arguing if the choice is sending a pedophile to the Senate or a Democrat that people are justified in sending the pedophile?

Well no, but there's no reasonable interpretation of Moore as a Pedophile.  Why not make up another claim about him?  Why not accuse him of giving aids to orphans?  Or selling minorities to cannibals?  Do you have any reason to believe he's attracted to pre-pubescent children?

Quote
That really seems to be a damaging example to set for the country, there has to be some minimum standard for serving in elected office and if we can't agree to exclude pedophiles is there any line that shouldn't be crossed?

Well, an example of a line that shouldn't be crossed is calling someone a pedophile without evidence.

But to the main point, which was my point, there doesn't appear to be any recourse for the voters, when a candidate refuses to back out despite being unsuitable.  I hate to bring it up, again, but there weren't calls to have a write in for Hillary Clinton when her severe issues with handling of national security came to light, nor when she potentially was (and should have been) going to be indicted on felony charges. 

There's definitely some line in the sand that gets crossed.  Weiner was forgiven for his first indiscretions, even ran for office again, but couldn't stop trading naked texts with underage girls.  Spitzer, with his prostitute had his carreer tanked pretty quickly. 

Moore though is creepy.  It sound's like only one of the acts was potentially illegal, and that was apparently voluntary until he took it too far and was asked to stop.  Should that have happened?  No.  Should he be held to account?  Yep, this is one of those cases where having a statute of limitations prevents justice.

But calling someone a pedophile for being attracted to 14 and 16 year olds?  Nonsense, in a country where 14 and 16 year old models are on the covers of magazines every year.  Fact is, people in that age range are attractive, and the "liberal bastions" of Hollywood and the entertainment industry exploit that every single day.  If Roy Moore is creepy, aren't all of us for watching those shows and looking at those magazines? 

It's not just about attraction here, it's about believing, correctly, that there's something fundamentally flawed about an adult that finds someone much younger than themselves to be romantically (not physically attractive) or finding it exploitive to date that far out of the age range.  If that's the case, why is it okay to date an 18 year old?  Or a 21 year old, or even a 35 year old when you're 25 years older than them?  Should all may-december romances be made illegal?  Hefner was creepy to most of America when he was in his 70s, but was that true when he was in his 50s?  It certainly wasn't when he was in his late 30s and 40s.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 27, 2017, 06:52:42 PM
Quote
But calling someone a pedophile for being attracted to 14 and 16 year olds?  Nonsense, in a country where 14 and 16 year old models are on the covers of magazines every year.  Fact is, people in that age range are attractive, and the "liberal bastions" of Hollywood and the entertainment industry exploit that every single day.  If Roy Moore is creepy, aren't all of us for watching those shows and looking at those magazines?
  Not to single you out here, but I've seen this argument a few times and it freaks me out.  I can't argue that kids this age aren't sexualized by the fashion industry and its satellite industries... but it just makes me want to shout out "You ARE creepy if you find it arousing."
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 27, 2017, 07:56:47 PM
You are certainly creepy if your response to seeing a fashion magazine is to start trolling a mall.

Hey, do you come to Orange Julius often? Let me buy you a smoothie.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 27, 2017, 08:37:14 PM
And the war on media makes an appearance.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/27/washington_post_sniffs_out_fake_roy_moore_allegation_by_james_o_keefe_project.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_top (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/27/washington_post_sniffs_out_fake_roy_moore_allegation_by_james_o_keefe_project.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_top)

And ya I get it's not exactly a non-partisan source.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 28, 2017, 09:14:16 AM
It still astonishes me that anybody puts credibility in O'Keefe's garbage.

They really should have tried this with CNN, it probably would have gone on the air within 4 hours.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 28, 2017, 09:51:43 AM
Quote
But calling someone a pedophile for being attracted to 14 and 16 year olds?  Nonsense, in a country where 14 and 16 year old models are on the covers of magazines every year.  Fact is, people in that age range are attractive, and the "liberal bastions" of Hollywood and the entertainment industry exploit that every single day.  If Roy Moore is creepy, aren't all of us for watching those shows and looking at those magazines?
  Not to single you out here, but I've seen this argument a few times and it freaks me out.  I can't argue that kids this age aren't sexualized by the fashion industry and its satellite industries... but it just makes me want to shout out "You ARE creepy if you find it arousing."

It's not creepy to find humans of the sex that you are attracted to, who have gone through puberty to be attractive.  Puberty is a biological process, not a chronological one, though the two are generally linked.  Why do you believe that humans, out of sexual animals should operate on a different basis of attraction than biology would dictate?

Actions, not attractions, are what is the issue.  There are still states, including, for example, very blue suburb of NYC, Connecticut, where the age of consent is 16. Many places in the world people are married at that age.  It's not inherently creepy, it's creepy in context.  In our culture, we keep young adults in a childlike state (with no real responsibility) for a really long time and that impedes their emotional growth.  If you were really serious on this issue, you'd be less fixed on an arbitrary age of consent, and look for some kind of subjective determination of readiness.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 28, 2017, 09:56:30 AM
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

Actually those are not terribly accurate either.  How is stopping when asked to stop "attempted statutory rape" (by the way, there's no such thing, statutory rape is by definition sex that would have been consensual, but for the inability of one of those involved to consent by law).  Per the accounts, the conduct was initially voluntary, so it's a tougher sale on the sex assault - the claim would be that one action in a string was too far, but would be undercut by the stopping when asked portion - not impossible to make the case, but not a clear winner.  You'd have have much better odds on the sexual crimes related to the victim being a minor.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 28, 2017, 10:00:09 AM
Quote
Why do you believe that humans, out of sexual animals should operate on a different basis of attraction than biology would dictate?
No clue.  Little bit of private school?  Growing up with a sister?  My age?  I just do.  Maybe it relates to the same logic that makes me scoff at vegetarianism for all but health reasons?  I think we are better than other animals.  I believe that our society and ability to reason the way we do makes us better.  I find any argument that excuses antisocial behavior of "we're just following our biology" as repellent. (and yes, I see the trap here) ;)

That's just part of who I am.  And that person finds the idea of any adult trying to have sex with someone under 18 not only creepy, but enraging.  I suppose it's fair to say in those cases I do believe people can be "just like any other animal" in that for the sake of society they should be delt with.

But you are right, it's actions, not attractions, that are at issue. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 28, 2017, 10:03:36 AM
I'm with you Fenring in terms of misuse of the "P" word. But as someone who just interviewed a few 14/15 year olds recently for babysitting jobs let me say that I find it hard to fathom the idea of pursuing one in that way at my age and being anything but deviant. Not saying it is impossible to be fooled in certain cases but wow - if he was even swimming in that pool...

My daughter's friends are even younger than that and they range the gambit from little children no one could mistake for an adult, to ones that have reached full adult height and development.  In context it's obvious, but I'm not so sure it would be as obvious as you think to pick out some  14/15 year olds at the mall with their older cousins.  Again, I'd point to the entertainment industries use of young models, with barely anyone knowing how old they are.  Did you ever watch That '70s Show?  Mila Kunis was 14 when filming started and lied to the casting directors, pretty much wasn't 18 until the 3 or 4th season.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 28, 2017, 10:08:40 AM
Quote
Why do you believe that humans, out of sexual animals should operate on a different basis of attraction than biology would dictate?
No clue.  Little bit of private school?  Growing up with a sister?  My age?  I just do.  Maybe it relates to the same logic that makes me scoff at vegetarianism for all but health reasons?  I think we are better than other animals.  I believe that our society and ability to reason the way we do makes us better.  I find any argument that excuses antisocial behavior of "we're just following our biology" as repellent. (and yes, I see the trap here) ;)

I didn't excuse any behavior.  I pointed out that attraction IS NOT BEHAVIOR.

Do you deny that human's have a flight or fight reflex?  It doesn't mean that someone can't be brave when their body is demanding they flee, or calm themselves when their body is flooded with adrenelin.  Quit conflating biology with thought.

Quote
That's just part of who I am.  And that person finds the idea of any adult trying to have sex with someone under 18 not only creepy, but enraging.

Which is why we have laws on the topic.  Though you should probably get on that, since many places in the country don't have a 18 break line if that's your concern, not to mention there are plenty of international places that deliberately marry and have sex below that line for your attention and rage.

Quote
I suppose it's fair to say in those cases I do believe people can be "just like any other animal" in that for the sake of society they should be delt with.

But you are right, it's actions, not attractions, that are at issue.

Lol, the rage you apparently feel, is calling into some question my point that biology and actions are not the same.  I'd suggest considering that there's nothing magic about 18, we could easily make a reasonable case for 21, or 25 or even 30 or a 7 year rule or any number of other rules that would be protective.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 28, 2017, 10:11:19 AM
I think many would agree that looking to Hollywood for examples of how monetizing youth sexuality can "just happen" is like looking to the seasonal farming industry for examples of how illegal immigrant hiring can "just happen" without fault of those doing the employing. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 28, 2017, 10:20:26 AM
We're just talking past each other.  I'm giving my opinion that I find someone getting turned on by someone that young messed up.  That's a personal opinion and reaction. 

From a societal stand point, I'm only concerned with those acting on it.  From a legal stand point I'm only concerned with those breaking the law and with laws where I believe the age is too low.  But here's the thing, I don't vote in those places.

Quote
there's nothing magic about 18, we could easily make a reasonable case for 21, or 25 or even 30 or a 7 year rule or any number of other rules that would be protective.
Agreed.  In fact I'd lean towards 21 myself, but having actually been a teenager at one point, it just exacerbates this country's denial problem with sex.  The biggest problem with these lines in the sand are two people of roughly the same age when one crosses the line before the other.  But we were talking about someone twice the age AND dancing the line of consent. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 28, 2017, 10:25:23 AM
We're just talking past each other.  I'm giving my opinion that I find someone getting turned on by someone that young messed up.  That's a personal opinion and reaction.

D.W., my problem with that is when you say your "personal opinion" that someone reacting to biology is "messed up" I hear that the same way I hear one of those crazy old conservative's saying that it's their personal opinion that homosexuality is messed up.  Biology is what it is, and it's nothing to be embarrassed about or to try and shame others about.

Taking advantage of young people is a problem because their brains aren't fully formed and their emotional maturity is not all there, not because physically they are not ready for it and attractive.  My point is they make great models and bad relationship partners, and there's nothing wrong with recognizing they are attractive but not ready for an adult relationship.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 28, 2017, 10:29:55 AM
Quote
I hear that the same way I hear one of those crazy old conservative's saying that it's their personal opinion that homosexuality is messed up
This would be that trap I mentioned I saw in my own writing...

Quote
Taking advantage of young people is a problem because their brains aren't fully formed and their emotional maturity is not all there, not because physically they are not ready for it and attractive.
Agreed (mostly).  And that reasoning is WHY it bothers me so much. 

Listen, I'm not arguing we don't experience instincts.  Mine as far as this topic goes probably leans towards the sexist caveman protector of women.  I'm not arguing you are wrong exactly.  Probably more accurate to state that I believe we should express even more outrage because you aren't wrong.  That it is society's job to force urges, such as trying to pick up under age girls, into submission.

And for whatever reason, it makes me reject things like "they are attractive" stated as fact rather than preference.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on November 28, 2017, 10:55:01 AM
From a political candidate point of view, doesn't the fact that a man with a law degree with political aspirations decided to troll a mall and attempt to pick up 16 year olds (regardless of the age of consent) show a significant lapse in judgement and/or self-control at a minimum?

It doesn't take an enraged self-righteousness to say, "hey, that was a really bad decision, Roy".
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 28, 2017, 11:33:00 AM
There's some truth to that, there's also some truth to the idea that it happened a really long time ago, and you're talking about someone with an extensive public record to evaluate.  There's plenty of reasons to dislike Moore in his public record, including a solid record of disrespecting valid federal orders.  I don't see this being pursued because there is some mysterious risk of fatally flawed judgement stemming from actions from 30 years ago that has not shown itself in the public record over that time.  It's being pursued because it's sensational and it's a win-win politically for the left, either they get a seat in the Senate they have no business having or they get to claim the Republican party as a national matter, and every Republican in the country supports the assault of under age women.   

If the media was balanced in how they approached the situation it would help, but they are partisan and will drive this right over the cliff and keep us at each others throats, rather than acknowledge that Moore is not representative of the national party and doesn't have its support (in fact they've been openly hostile to him).  Doesn't change the fact that the voters have to choose between undermining their own beliefs and goals at the federal level and putting him in office.  Talk about disenfranchisement, where are all those who usually are up in arms on that point, too nuanced here?   Or just not important because it's politically beneficial.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 28, 2017, 11:53:40 AM
All that makes sense to me Seriati.  Were I in their shoes, I'd probably vote for him with the full expectation a recall would be in the works almost instantly.  I'm pretty cynical when it comes to write-in candidates having a shot.  Is this being leveraged by the Democrats for political gains where they don't really have a shot without this scandal?  Yep.  I'd find it hard to vote for someone who would work against my political beliefs just because I felt the alternative was human garbage. 

That's how we got Trump after all.  Though, I expect it will be easier for these people to undo this choice after the threat of a Democrat upset is out of the way.  What I don't get however is the denial and defense of the man.  Just own up to not being willing to grant power to the minority political position and ask for time to sort out the mess yourselves. 

It's possible to be partisan and reasonable/moral.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 28, 2017, 09:57:17 PM
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

Actually those are not terribly accurate either.  How is stopping when asked to stop "attempted statutory rape" (by the way, there's no such thing, statutory rape is by definition sex that would have been consensual, but for the inability of one of those involved to consent by law).  Per the accounts, the conduct was initially voluntary, so it's a tougher sale on the sex assault - the claim would be that one action in a string was too far, but would be undercut by the stopping when asked portion - not impossible to make the case, but not a clear winner.  You'd have have much better odds on the sexual crimes related to the victim being a minor.

Statutory rape is exactly accurate.
From wikipedia
Quote
In some common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behavior).[1][2]

So if Roy Moore at age 30 something had sex with a 14 year old that would have been statutory rape. The fact that he isn't a complete monster and stopped when asked means he simply attempted to commit statutory rape. Therefore attempted statutory rapist is an entirely accurate and reasonable thing to call him.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 28, 2017, 10:09:18 PM
They could write in Strange or Sessions. If the republican party gave a **** about decency one of these men would be out there organizing a write in campaign. Then the voters would have a choice.

That's not a real recourse.  The same could have been done in the Presidential election, could it have not?  Yet all that would have been doing was helping the person you thought was worse to win, by splitting your vote.

Murkowski won a write in in Alaska in when a hard core right-winger beat her in the primary. The vote did split three ways but she got the biggest piece of the pie. All you need for a write in here to get a ton of support is someone with a modicum of name recognition and a little bit of momentum. There are enough R's in Alabama that  a Republican that didn't spend their 30's aggressively chasing high school girls could win the election even if Moore kept 10-15% of voters.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 28, 2017, 11:34:14 PM
The fact that he isn't a complete monster and stopped when asked means he simply attempted to commit statutory rape. Therefore attempted statutory rapist is an entirely accurate and reasonable thing to call him.

You're repeating your grammatical mistake. The fact that he attempted to engage in sex, which would then have turned out to be statutory rape, does not mean he was attempting to commit statutory rape. You'd have to demonstrate that he knew her age with certainty and proceeded anyhow for your statement to be more or less accurate. And I don't even know if there's such a thing as 'attempting' what is otherwise an arbitrary a legal definition. Rape is when someone is resisting or can't consent; statutory rape is when the law determines that there was a restriction barring the interaction regardless of consent. You can't 'attempt something that the law deems to be restricted.' You attempt sex, and the law says it's counted as rape, but you're not attempting rape. In fact, I don't even know if it makes sense to even speak of attempting rape, other than the case of the stranger jumping out of the bushes, in which case it's an attempted assault/rape (where 'failure' consists of being beaten or scared off). When engaging in seemingly consensual activity there is no 'attempt' at rape, you're either raping someone (meaning you succeeded) or you're attempting sex (in which case we assume you failed and there was no rape, intended or otherwise). If it seems like I'm being pedantic I'm pushing this point because calling someone attempting to sleep with someone who happened to have been underage as attempted rape is just a way of making the scenario sound as aggressive and violent as possible. You may as well go further and say it was attempted pedophilia, right?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on November 29, 2017, 07:47:51 AM
He attempted to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Having sex with a 14 year old would have been statutory rape. Therefore he attempted to commit statutory rape. Statutory rape is a general term for sex without legal consent. Since a 14 year old was below the age of legal consent in Alabama, that would automatically qualify by the definition. I never used the word rape, only the more specific phrase statutory rape, which is the crime the crime he would have been guilty of had his attempts at sex been successful.

You can claim it wasn't his goal to be with an underage girl but he was certainly indifferent to the fact that he may end up with someone underage. If a frat guy mixes some benadryl with a girl's drink in order to make her pass out so he can have sex with her, he is attempting to rape her, even if her friend notices her acting weird and takes her home before the frat guy can isolate the girl and rape her. He still attempted to commit the crime, just like Roy Moore found a 14 year old girl, picked her up, took her to his house, undressed her, and attempted to get her to have "consensual" sexual relations with him. The fact that he stopped when she said no, doesn't mean he didn't attempt the act (and the act he was attempting is called statutory rape).
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 29, 2017, 10:14:05 AM
He attempted to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Having sex with a 14 year old would have been statutory rape. Therefore he attempted to commit statutory rape. Statutory rape is a general term for sex without legal consent. Since a 14 year old was below the age of legal consent in Alabama, that would automatically qualify by the definition. I never used the word rape, only the more specific phrase statutory rape, which is the crime the crime he would have been guilty of had his attempts at sex been successful.

Moore is accused of  attempted to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Moore denies this in the strongest terms possible. There is no other evidence beyond that.  You know, I don't know if Moore did this or not. All I know is there is an accusation and a denial. That's it.

How about someone accuses you of this? Would you be guilty? Are accusations against you proof?

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 29, 2017, 10:21:29 AM
Yossarian, call it what it is.  If you want to call it "attempted statutory rape" then go out and find a legal code that supports you.  By definition statutory rape is an artifact of a legal code, you don't get to expand it when the actions you are complaining about have other defined names under those legal codes. 

In order for what you are saying to even make sense you'd have to be able to prove that he tried to sleep with because she was underage.  Your argument makes as much sense as charging someone with "attempted speeding" where they really wanted to go faster but their vehicle was incapable of exceeding the speed limit (you could charge them, however, with reckless driving if the facts warranted it).
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 29, 2017, 10:25:08 AM
In the meantime, let's explore the latest contender for a best picture award, "Call Me By Your Name":
Quote
It's the summer of 1983, and precocious 17-year-old Elio Perlman is spending the days with his family at their 17th-century villa in Lombardy, Italy. He soon meets Oliver, a handsome doctoral student who's working as an intern for Elio's father. Amid the sun-drenched splendor of their surroundings, Elio and Oliver discover the heady beauty of awakening desire over the course of a summer that will alter their lives forever.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes, critics are gushing over it. Hollywood just loves this story of a 24 year old man having sex with an underage boy. Check out a scene from it:
Quote
Another time, Elio masturbates into a peach that he has split open, and after Oliver performs oral sex on him, he takes a bite of the peach in front of an embarrassed Elio.

How about some reviews,
Variety:
Quote
Even as he beguiles us with mystery, Guadagnino recreates Elio’s life-changing summer with such intensity that we might as well be experiencing it first-hand.
Slate:
Quote
At the end of a long bleak autumn that barely bothered to arrive—the leaves where I live merely withered, turned brown at the edges, and fell off the trees as if giving up—Luca Guadagnino’s Call Me By Your Name arrives like the gift of a jar of summer fruit preserved lovingly by hand.

You get the idea.

So Moore, accused of trying to have a sexual relationship with underage girls and we are supposed to be horrified, the man is to be pilloried and never allowed to show his face again and driven from office. But, a movie about a homosexual relationship with an underage boy ... well, that's just beautiful and it's Oscar material!

 :o


Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 29, 2017, 10:53:03 AM
A good comparison Crunch.  I think the response is to be horrified by both.  But that's just me. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 29, 2017, 11:05:04 AM
I don't know about the comparison but the mixed message is what I keyed on. Sex with minors is so bad that even being accused of attempting it is a career destroyer, no proof needed. But then, a movie comes out glorifying it and it's the best thing ever! So what is it, adults having sex with underage kids good or bad? Clearly, it depends ....
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 29, 2017, 11:33:13 AM
Without even getting into the age differences in the two scenarios, the most important aspect for me is that Moore, a lawyer responsible for prosecuting people at the time, is alleged to have had illegal physical contact with a person under the age of consent.  If true, Moore broke the law, was not unaware that he was likely doing so, and was responsible at the time for prosecuting other people accused of the same or similar crimes.

Whereas in the movie's description, there is not even a suggestion of a crime having been committed.



Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 29, 2017, 11:51:49 AM
Donald, although I know that Americans in particular tend to have an allergy to hypocrisy, I don't think the relevance of the accusations against Moore should hinge on the fact that he was a lawyer. Does anyone really believe that lawyers have taken on that job because they're morally superior to other people? If not, the criminality of a lawyer shouldn't really be considered as worse than for someone else just because they're a lawyer. Now, if their criminality is specifically in how they practice that's different because it would go into corruption, but as it stands it just means that someone who happened to be a lawyer also happened to be messed up. I'm sure there are lawyers who are drug addicts too, which makes them criminals, but I don't think anyone would argue that 'as lawyers they should have known better.' The knowledge of the law isn't going to be relevant in cases like statutory rape and drug abuse, because the general population is just as savvy as a lawyer as to the illegality there, although perhaps not to the nuts and bolts of how such things are prosecuted. If we really wanted to be cynical we might even argue that superior knowledge of such things would increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood that a person in a position of power would try to get away with it. Rather than acting as a deterrent, their special knowledge would give them an edge in knowing to what extent they could probably get away with it.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 29, 2017, 12:31:13 PM
Fenring - actually, someone in this long string of posts actually argued that Moore probably didn't know the 14 year old was underage.  I'm not sure where that information was gleaned, but given that Moore was a prosecutor, yes, if he acted as alleged, he was almost certainly more aware than your average Joe of the risks of wooing teenagers close to the age of consent.

This has little or nothing to do with hypocrisy (at least, that is not what my point was meant to be.) Yes, Moore, if he acted as alleged, would be a hypocritical bible thumper of the worst kind - preying on young (and in at least one case, underage) girls in his 30s, while riding Christian dog-whistle politics later in his career.  But that isn't relevant to my argument concerning the whataboutism inherent in the Crunch's latest distraction,  which is basically the left shouldn't complain about alleged criminal activity by Moore, because a movie concerning a relationship between a 24-year-old and a 17-year-old got really good reviews. Oh and they were gay (OMGROFLMAOBBQ!!!)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on November 29, 2017, 02:08:19 PM
I don't know about the comparison but the mixed message is what I keyed on. Sex with minors is so bad that even being accused of attempting it is a career destroyer, no proof needed. But then, a movie comes out glorifying it and it's the best thing ever! So what is it, adults having sex with underage kids good or bad? Clearly, it depends ....

Apples and oranges, Crunch.

Movies have been depicting bad behavior since the beginning, and not always unsympathetically.  Remember The Public Enemy?  Ever seen The Blue LagoonAn Affair to RememberReservoir Dogs? (I still want that 10 minutes of my life back from watching the torture scene*!  >:( )  How about The Human Catapillar?  Do you think that anyone was glorifying the idea that people should be surgically attached front to back? :P  American Psycho?  How about any of the Saw movies? :P

Movies depict fictional events, and are understood as such.  People who are killed in movies don't really die.  People don't have real sex in movies (except for that certain class of movies which shall remain unnamed ;) ).  We are assured that no animals were hurt in the making of films.  So there is a difference between seeing a sympathetic depiction of an unreal event verses an actual, real event.

And I'm sure Call Me By Your Name wasn't glorified just because it depicted sex by a man with an under-age boy.  I would think that it wasn't even the main reason, since there were probably a few others previously released movies that we don't even remember and/or were not praised at the time.

You also seem to be conflating Hollywood with Liberals in general (or perhaps anyone who is criticizing Roy Moore for this scandal).  What makes you think everyone who hates what Roy Moore is accused of doing love this movie?  What makes you think that those who love the movie should accept Moore's purported behavior? And what makes you think those who love the movie are the only ones who are criticizing Roy Moore?
 
While I understand your distaste for hypocrites, these are not the same thing.  Movies are unreal entertainment; Moore apparently affected the lives of real people.  The two are not the same.

And while I enjoy Kill Bill, I do not vouchsafe people killing each other, regardless of how colorfully and well-choreographed they did it. ;)

*Actually, the scene only lasted about 3 minutes, but it felt like 10 at the time, so I want a full 10 back!
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 29, 2017, 03:48:15 PM
And now we're at a guy named Garrison Keillor. I had no idea who he was although I have heard about "Prairie Home Companion" but never listened to it. He's out of a job after being accused of inappropriate behavior.
Quote
In a statement to the Minneapolis Star Tribune Keillor wrote: "I put my hand on a woman's bare back. I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called."
If that's all that happened, it's pretty surreal that anyone would get fired. I can totally see how it happened, that it could have been a complete accident. Apologies made and accepted. But, here it is, the accusation is the conviction and Keillor has his career and reputation ruined. Is Keillor lying? Maybe, I don't know. But I do know what's out there so far isn't enough to fire the guy. Maybe more will come out.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 29, 2017, 03:53:13 PM
Movies depict fictional events, and are understood as such.
That is a fair point and I understand what you mean. So a film with a graphic/realistic gang rape and murder scene of a 4 year old would be totally cool? Yeah, just fictional but I'm pretty sure there are very, very few that would not draw the line and say this went over it - and those that did say it was alright I'm pretty sure none of us would want to sit next to. So there's a line somewhere here and apparently sex with underage kids is not it.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 29, 2017, 04:00:34 PM
I'm trying to figure out if Crunch really doesn't see the difference between a 24 year old having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, in a jurisdiction where that is completely legal, and a 32 year old having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, where such activity is considered criminal. 

I actually remember a girl in my group of friends having a relationship with a 'boy' 9 years her senior when she was 18.  We thought it was weird, but mostly because we all thought he was a bit of a jerk. 

But a 32 year old getting it on with someone below the age of consent? You really can't see the difference?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 29, 2017, 04:20:55 PM
I'm trying to figure out if Crunch really doesn't see the difference between a 24 year old having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, in a jurisdiction where that is completely legal, and a 32 year old having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, where such activity is considered criminal.

I suspect he does see a difference, it was an analogy that was directly responsive to the posts on this topic claiming that him targeting legal 16-18 year old girls wasn't okay.  Seems a flimsy defense to try and claim legality makes the first situation fundamentally different on this thread.

In any event, I'm also struck by the extreme modern bias on this thread.  Age of consent in rural communities 30-40 years ago was not anywhere near the issue that it is today and the look-back really doesn't do justice to the real time issue.  I mean heck Roman Polanski is still at large and still a Hollywood darling. 

I haven't looked at the specific details on Moore in a while, but at least the initial reports I read indicated that he was dating these girls with their parents permission (accept apparently for the 14 year old who snuck out).  There was no indication that he pressured or forced anyone, or did I miss something?

Quote
I actually remember a girl in my group of friends having a relationship with a 'boy' 9 years her senior when she was 18.  We thought it was weird, but mostly because we all thought he was a bit of a jerk.

And I have several friends who married men 20 years their senior, it was creepy but still their choice.

Quote
But a 32 year old getting it on with someone below the age of consent? You really can't see the difference?

Do you have additional information?  Last I checked he didn't "get it on." 

There's a ton of hypocrisy here.  Just like the hypocrisy in the same news media figures who were outraged at Trump's abusive comments on women being caught out for actual abuse of women.  We don't have a culture where people are sorry for their actions, only one where they are sorry they got caught.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on November 29, 2017, 04:26:40 PM
I'm trying to figure out if Crunch really doesn't see the difference between a 24 year old having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old, in a jurisdiction where that is completely legal, and a 32 year old having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, where such activity is considered criminal. 
I do. Can you really not see the difference between an accusation and proof?


I actually remember a girl in my group of friends having a relationship with a 'boy' 9 years her senior when she was 18.  We thought it was weird, but mostly because we all thought he was a bit of a jerk. 

But a 32 year old getting it on with someone below the age of consent? You really can't see the difference?
Only one of Moore's accusers was below the age of consent IIRC (do I have that right?). There is no proof of this accusation and he strongly denies it.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 29, 2017, 04:30:11 PM
Allegedly "getting it on" doesn't necessitate alleged penetration, you know.  It could mean lots of kissing, right up to full on coitus. But in context, it simply means getting mostly naked with and fondling a 14 year old.  It's not that hard to understand, really.

And no, there is no hypocrisy in pointing out that alleged criminal activity is completely different from legal activity between two young people, even if a 7 year age difference makes you uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 29, 2017, 04:52:37 PM
Quote
We don't have a culture where people are sorry for their actions, only one where they are sorry they got caught.
This is the heart of the matter.  We are also at a point where “getting caught” is more likely than not.  And when that accusation or evidence gets out, it spreads at a speed and with a range like never before. 
Quote
There's a ton of hypocrisy here.  Just like the hypocrisy in the same news media figures who were outraged at Trump's abusive comments on women being caught out for actual abuse of women. 
Another important point.  Or two rather.  The allergy to hypocrisy is growing (to get in a likely partisan jab here), at least on the left.  So it doesn’t shock me that there is some house cleaning going on.  Err on the side of the accuser.  And Seriati is correct to bring Trump into this and the outrage around him.  A lot of this is indeed because of him. 

Here’s this man being flagrantly degrading to women, and brushing off accusations by women with pretty much zero repercussions.  But going after him while knowingly excusing equal or similar behavior by those partisans would place in “the other camp” poses a problem.  So the only way to maintain the moral high ground, when someone is wallowing in the mud without repercussions, is to set a new standard. 

I expect we’re going to see more false allegations soon though and I don’t think we can count on all news reporting or company management reviews to be as careful about getting caught up in them.  Curious to see how things progress after the first one or two big names turn up to be innocent victims of “fake news”; or rather, by plots perpetrated by those attempting to discredit the avenues by which the public stays informed.

I’m glad that this topic is receiving such attention.  I’m glad to see heads roll and look forward to what lasting changes may occur in the work place if it does continue.  But it IS politics.  So I’m trying not to look a gift horse in the mouth. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on November 29, 2017, 04:57:12 PM
Quote
I do. Can you really not see the difference between an accusation and proof?
Apparently, you cannot, since you brought up the movie as if it were pertinent.  As for me not seeing the difference between allegations and "proof" (I assume you mean something proven in a court of law) it sounds like you haven't actually read what I wrote, where I have consistently distinguished between what has been alleged and what are facts.
Quote
Only one of Moore's accusers was below the age of consent IIRC (do I have that right?). There is no proof of this accusation and he strongly denies it.
Again you use the word "proof" - it is not clear whether you misunderstand the concept, or whether you are unaware of the evidence of Moore's actions presented to date.  There are now at least 3 other people who have corroborated Corfman's claims (not other claims related to the other women). There is clearly a non-zero amount of evidence of her accusation.  Is it proven?  In what context?  There has been, and won't be, a criminal trial, as the statute of limitations is long past.  Whether you consider it proven depends on whether you find the evidence compelling enough to make that determination.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on November 29, 2017, 06:16:44 PM
Movies depict fictional events, and are understood as such.
That is a fair point and I understand what you mean. So a film with a graphic/realistic gang rape and murder scene of a 4 year old would be totally cool? Yeah, just fictional but I'm pretty sure there are very, very few that would not draw the line and say this went over it - and those that did say it was alright I'm pretty sure none of us would want to sit next to. So there's a line somewhere here and apparently sex with underage kids is not it.

Once again you seem to be conflating fiction and reality.

I can see where a fictional depiction of sex with underage kids is acceptable, depending on the needs and quality of the story.

But I cannot see where actual sex with underage kids would be considered acceptable, no matter how many movies might depict it.

Again, apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on November 29, 2017, 06:34:47 PM
To be honest I don't think the comparison between imagery in film and what goes on in actual culture is entirely odious. People are informed at this point largely by film and TV, and to an extent the press. I don't really see the 'community' as raising people like used to be the case. When you see things popularized in film you can bet people will take that as a sort of lesson, and when social scenarios are normalized in film they can become accepted in society (and vice versa). One single film doesn't make a cultural trend, but I don't think praise of certain subject matter can be entirely divorced from the culture in which the praise occurs.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 30, 2017, 10:34:38 AM
Again, I'd point to the entertainment industries use of young models, with barely anyone knowing how old they are.  Did you ever watch That '70s Show?  Mila Kunis was 14 when filming started and lied to the casting directors, pretty much wasn't 18 until the 3 or 4th season.

Which isn't to mention the "Traditional" media hoopla over which female teen celebrity is turning 18 when they hit that magic number. Off-hand, I can name Britney Spears, The Olsen Twins(you know, from Full House), Mila Kunis("That 70's Show"), Miley Cyrus("Hanna Montana"), and Emma Watson("Hermione Granger")  as getting a lot of attention. I recall a number of actresses from Glee also getting a lot of press attention about "becoming legal."

True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

Actually those are not terribly accurate either.  How is stopping when asked to stop "attempted statutory rape" (by the way, there's no such thing, statutory rape is by definition sex that would have been consensual, but for the inability of one of those involved to consent by law).  Per the accounts, the conduct was initially voluntary, so it's a tougher sale on the sex assault - the claim would be that one action in a string was too far, but would be undercut by the stopping when asked portion - not impossible to make the case, but not a clear winner.  You'd have have much better odds on the sexual crimes related to the victim being a minor.

Statutory rape is exactly accurate.
From wikipedia
Quote
In some common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behavior).[1][2]

So if Roy Moore at age 30 something had sex with a 14 year old that would have been statutory rape. The fact that he isn't a complete monster and stopped when asked means he simply attempted to commit statutory rape. Therefore attempted statutory rapist is an entirely accurate and reasonable thing to call him.

Well, under current law in his state, according to:
https://www.ageofconsent.net/laws/alabama/enticing-child-to-enter-vehicle-house-etc-for-immoral-purposes

He'd qualify for "enticing child to enter vehicle, house, etc., for immoral purposes" as the definition for "child" is "under the age of consent."

Or more specifically:
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/1975/13A-6-69.htm

Quote
It shall be unlawful for any person with lascivious intent to entice, allure, persuade, or invite, or attempt to entice, allure, persuade, or invite, any child under 16 years of age to enter any vehicle, room, house, office, or other place for the purpose of proposing to such child the performance of an act of sexual intercourse or an act which constitutes the offense of sodomy or for the purpose of proposing the fondling or feeling of the sexual or genital parts of such child or the breast of such child, or for the purpose of committing an aggravated assault on such child, or for the purpose of proposing that such child fondle or feel the sexual or genital parts of such person.

Enacted in 1975, modified in 2005. It is classed as a "Class C Felony." Of course, the fun with such laws, as the Former FBI Director Comey liked to cite with certain laws regarding national security. "Intent matters" and a skilled lawyer, given what information is in the public domain, could make a compelling case that Moore had "no intention to fondle a person who was under age" even if some of the relevant laws themselves clearly state ignorance is no excuse. How successful they'd be arguing that is another matter. (This also ignores Moore's denials)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 30, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
In the meantime, let's explore the latest contender for a best picture award, "Call Me By Your Name":
Quote
It's the summer of 1983, and precocious 17-year-old Elio Perlman is spending the days with his family at their 17th-century villa in Lombardy, Italy. He soon meets Oliver, a handsome doctoral student who's working as an intern for Elio's father. Amid the sun-drenched splendor of their surroundings, Elio and Oliver discover the heady beauty of awakening desire over the course of a summer that will alter their lives forever.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes, critics are gushing over it. Hollywood just loves this story of a 24 year old man having sex with an underage boy.

Underage in what country? A 17YO isn't even underage in much of the United States. (They just have a Federal Law that prevents them from showing certain activities involving the under-18 crowd)

Italy's current age of consent is 14(* in most cases, if "a position of authority" is involved it is 16), they also have close in age exceptions, which looks like it could bring the age of consent to as low as 10 years old, but no lower.

Much of Europe has an age of consent at 14, some going as high as 16(including the UK). Only in the case of "authority figures" do they go up to 18 years old for consent.

A 17YO engaging in sexual activities in Italy is clearly legal today, never mind 30+ years ago, when they were possibly even more permissive. (For example, Spain has 16 as its consent age now, but in the 1990's it would have been 13)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 30, 2017, 11:04:28 AM
Once again you seem to be conflating fiction and reality.

I can see where a fictional depiction of sex with underage kids is acceptable, depending on the needs and quality of the story.

But I cannot see where actual sex with underage kids would be considered acceptable, no matter how many movies might depict it.

Again, apples and oranges.

Well, part of the problem here is we also need to establish the criteria by which a person is both "under age" and "a child" for the purposes of this discussion. This has already been brought up previously,  and at least for D.W. he seemed to be very clear in his setting the bar at 18(or possibly even older?), so that example would be a relevant example for him to address, whether or not it was relevant to you.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 30, 2017, 11:36:50 AM
I seem to be an outlier on this one.  Don't think me addressing it adds much to the conversation; but since you asked...  I don't have a clear cut answer that addresses the fact that teens are going to be sexually active before I feel they are mature (and often informed) enough to make good decisions. 

I would go so far as to say I don't have much of a problem with 17-20 year olds getting it on with each other on a moral level.  To me at least 21 is as good a place as any (and better than most) to draw a line as "adult".  After that, yer stuck with other "adults".

But D.W., you just said 17-20 is OK!  What happens when that 20 year old turns 21?  Well, the 17 year old is about to turn 18...  Which explains why I feel "18 (or possibly even older)" seems to work well enough.

But as others have pointed out, being turned on by under age (under 18) girls is a thing.  I suppose I should include boys as well to keep the conversation more broad.  Also, ages very from state to state and country to country as well, with many (most?) trending even younger.  So probably I'm probably not the best person to draw moral lines in the sand for the rest of society to follow.  At least not if you want the line to remain uncrossed...
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDeamon on November 30, 2017, 01:59:57 PM
I seem to be an outlier on this one.  Don't think me addressing it adds much to the conversation; but since you asked...  I don't have a clear cut answer that addresses the fact that teens are going to be sexually active before I feel they are mature (and often informed) enough to make good decisions.

It gets even more complicated when you actually look at the studies which involve adolescent sexuality as there are plenty of evidence suggesting positive outcomes when the adolescent is allowed to "explore their curiosity" with regards to sex and full fledged adults. Which is where people start to cringe(myself included). But this is where people also try to read more into that then they should. Operative parts: Where the adolescent is allowed to explore their curiosity on the subject(not to be confused with the adult being allowed to sate their own personal desires/interests). Of course that then ventures into other grey areas and issues with some of those studies(and requisite methodologies) being older than most would prefer to cite, and newer mandatory reporting requirements for clinicians and other health professionals, as well as current ethics board requirements due to social and legal pressures.  As well as the huge grey area of the adult being, well, the adult, and putting the proverbial brakes on when the adolescent goes somewhere they're not ready for either physically or mentally, if not both, and how you would even go about creating a ("clinical"/legal) criteria to judge by.

Which runs into the other end of the situation. On the physiological side, we have the whole "Everybody is different" and "everybody is 'ready' at different times" as well, which turns things into a subjective calculation. This present problems from a legal standpoint for numerous reasons, particularly when dealing with a prosecution scenario playing out months, if not years after the fact with specific regards to adolescents. As creating a subjective criteria that isn't a "bright line" then leaves things open to interpretation by the jury, and "He/She seemed mature for their age" becomes a viable legal escape route for any such statutory rapist, when the jury is looking at a 19YO accuser rather than the 15YO that was actually targeted.

Of course, I guess they other route is a government sanctioned means of testing/certifying people as "ready for sexual activity" either in full, or in part. While that might possibly work in some certain parts of the world, in general, and in the United States in particular, I don't see any outcome which doesn't end in total disaster with regards to such an undertaking. There are simply too many ways for it to be abused from too many sides.

Quote
I would go so far as to say I don't have much of a problem with 17-20 year olds getting it on with each other on a moral level.  To me at least 21 is as good a place as any (and better than most) to draw a line as "adult".  After that, yer stuck with other "adults".

From a strictly clinical perspective, I definitely see a strong clinical basis to ensure every teen is on some from of contraceptive, and potentially keeping it mandatory into their early 20's. As to trying to prevent them from having sex with each other, or anyone else, I think that's about on par with trying to get a dog to not bark. But the issue with that cycles back to religious freedom as the biggest issue in the room, with a number of others following not far behind.

Quote
But D.W., you just said 17-20 is OK!  What happens when that 20 year old turns 21?  Well, the 17 year old is about to turn 18...  Which explains why I feel "18 (or possibly even older)" seems to work well enough.

But as others have pointed out, being turned on by under age (under 18) girls is a thing.  I suppose I should include boys as well to keep the conversation more broad.  Also, ages very from state to state and country to country as well, with many (most?) trending even younger.  So probably I'm probably not the best person to draw moral lines in the sand for the rest of society to follow.  At least not if you want the line to remain uncrossed...

The long-term trend across the world is to increase the age for general consent, although a new trend is to also include "Romeo and Juliet" clauses into those same laws which sometimes allows for a minimum age that was lower than the law it replaced allowed for. The biggest bench mark seems to be that age of sexual consent seems to generally track with the end of compulsory education in many nations. Which goes back to age of consent trending towards a higher number, as the standard of living improves globally, so too does the global standard of education, with a resultant increase in the age of consent.

Of course, this also ignores a related potential wildcard in the form of juvenile "sexting" and how prevalent it evidently has become(with reported numbers ranging anywhere from 70 to 90+% having done so). Lawmakers aren't going to be able to continue to ignore it and leave it up to prosecutors to pursue or not at their discretion. What happens in regards to that is undoubtedly going to have ripples throughout media at large as well, since it will be very hard to craft a law for one without impacting the other, as that currently is the problem at present as a now decades old law targeting the Pronography industry has now, through the wonders of technology, turned most of our teens into flagrant violators of federal law.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on November 30, 2017, 03:04:08 PM
Quote
There's a ton of hypocrisy here.  Just like the hypocrisy in the same news media figures who were outraged at Trump's abusive comments on women being caught out for actual abuse of women. 
Another important point.  Or two rather.  The allergy to hypocrisy is growing (to get in a likely partisan jab here), at least on the left.

I think it's important to remember, that politically a charge of hypocrisy is an incredibly potent tool.  The right has been subject to hits on hypocrisy charges related to sex for decades because of its insistence on claiming it has a higher standard of morality.  This has lead to periodic feeding frenzies by the left when a politician on the right fails to live up to such a standard and is caught.  The moral hypocrisy claim is particularly damaging because of the way it impacts the candidate, its a toxic claim that attacks the support of a politician's base, rather than being targeted at swing or undecided voters.  It's an attack that had the power to oust a politician from a "safe" district.  It was also an easy attack to make, when the Dems were not capable of being attacked on the same basis (can't attack a person who doesn't claim a high moral code, didn't meet one).  Effectively sex attacks were completely one sided even though the behavior was not.

What makes this really interesting, is that the morality argument now applies to the left.  After spending a decade accusing Republicans of engaging in a war on women and espousing their own moral superiority to the other side, the weight of hypocritical failures to meet that standard now apply to the politicians on the left.  They have not yet discovered, though they will, that this is an attack that will be particularly damaging on their base voters, who will have to decide whether to vote their political interest or their own morality (look at Franken's next election for example, where a young women will have to decide if she really believes it's wrong to sexually harass in all circumstances if she continues to vote for Franken).

It's absolutely not surprising to me that there is a frequent refrain from the left to not treat this as a partisan matter.  It would be incredibly damaging to them to get caught defending sex abusers like they did with Clinton, and the only real hope is either to turn on them harshly (which they haven't been willing to do) or convince everyone to overlook their hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on November 30, 2017, 04:03:57 PM
Quote
Effectively sex attacks were completely one sided even though the behavior was not.
Mostly this criticism was related to LGBTQ issues as well as the whole sanctity of marriage arguments more often than not tied into religion.  Democrats, the far more secular of the two parties as well as more open to the LGBTQ community weren't vulnerable to this brand of hypocrisy. 

So being the party that delighted in exposing hypocrits now puts them in an interesting position.  You nailled it.  Both parties are equal offenders towards women they have influence over, or just believe they can bully or pay off to excuse their behavior.

 
Quote
It would be incredibly damaging to them to get caught defending sex abusers like they did with Clinton, and the only real hope is either to turn on them harshly (which they haven't been willing to do) or convince everyone to overlook their hypocrisy.
Side stepping the jab at Clinton, which I have mixed feelings about him being lumped into this same basket, we're going to see them turn on people.  The Democratic party is too invested in their brand as the enlightend open party defending people, not preying on exploiting or hating people who are different.  Pointing out hypocracy is who we are now.  There isn't any chance to convince people to overlook things.

That's not to say you won't hear a lot of "A is not the same thing as B!" arguments.  But, while that distinction may be important for where we draw the line of public opinion making someone unable to govern, we'll see a lot more of sacrificing people "for the greater good" when the line is blurry. 

I would point out that the "which they haven't been willing to do" is a bit out of context.  Nobody has been willing.  Not in corporate America, not in government, not in the military, not in the entertainment industry.  This (seems to be) a tectonic shift in women's rights / workplace equality.  We'll see who is and isn't willing to do anything about it moving forward.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on December 06, 2017, 12:32:50 PM
Now we got 10 Democrats openly calling for Franken to step down. I wonder if that would be happening if the Dems had a slight Senate majority to protect? It's easier to stand on principle when it costs you less.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on December 06, 2017, 01:19:21 PM
That depends on how competitive his seat is...  :(
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on December 06, 2017, 01:39:28 PM
Now we got 10 Democrats openly calling for Franken to step down. I wonder if that would be happening if the Dems had a slight Senate majority to protect? It's easier to stand on principle when it costs you less.

Minn also has a D governor so presumably his replacement would also be a D. So other than losing someone who can run as an incumbent they lose little by him leaving the Senate.

It's the same thing if Roy Moore is expelled from the Senate. His appointed replacement would be a republican. There is less for republicans to lose (senate power wise) by seating and then expelling him than for him to lose the election.
 
If they don't get rid of him there is also political risk in aligning themselves with a christian theocrat who frequently aggressively pursued young (sometimes underage) girls while he was in his 30's.

If Moore wins the election both parties will have the same opportunity to stand on principal in getting their member expelled and replaced by a member of the same party.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 06, 2017, 02:52:58 PM
Now we got 10 Democrats openly calling for Franken to step down. I wonder if that would be happening if the Dems had a slight Senate majority to protect? It's easier to stand on principle when it costs you less.

Minn also has a D governor so presumably his replacement would also be a D. So other than losing someone who can run as an incumbent they lose little by him leaving the Senate.

I disagree about little to lose. There is a significant difference between Franken and Moore - Moore denies it and all evidence is he said/she said that can probably never be proven. Franken has admitted it and there is photographic evidence of his assault. Huge difference. YUGE as some might say.

That being said, if Franken is forced out without any kind of procedure other than the howling masses calling for blood, we set the stage for the howling masses to go after everyone and anyone. The Senate ethics committee should investigate as well as law enforcement. If the senate ethics committee says Franken should go, then toss him. If law enforcement says he should be arrested and charged, do it (or not as the case may be). If Franken feels he should resign before this, fine. If not, that's fine too but he'll get dragged further and further through the mud - it's his call if he wants that or wants to subject his party and consituents to that. Franken is a mean spirited and nasty little clown, I won't feel bad when he gets tossed.  But I feel badly will if he gets tossed without due process just to appease the mob. It's unfair and it's a dangerous precedent to continue setting and it will cut both ways.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Fenring on December 06, 2017, 11:50:30 PM
I disagree about little to lose. There is a significant difference between Franken and Moore - Moore denies it and all evidence is he said/she said that can probably never be proven. Franken has admitted it and there is photographic evidence of his assault. Huge difference. YUGE as some might say.

Crunch you've gone off the rails on this one. What on earth are you talking about? You're comparing some chasing teenage tail and taking then to his house with an idiot who made a jokey pose for the camera? The fact that Franken admitted is is now a strike against him according to you? An "ah-hah!" situation? And just what 'assault' by Franken do you even mean? The photo of him pretending to grope someone? It's a ridiculous photo for him to have taken, but what is the "assault"? Are you trying to say it's criminal assault to use an optical illusion to make it look like you're groping someone? I'll admit it's gross and I don't like it, but if you think that stacks up against possible abuse of teenagers...oh man. Just come on.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 07, 2017, 12:31:27 PM
I disagree about little to lose. There is a significant difference between Franken and Moore - Moore denies it and all evidence is he said/she said that can probably never be proven. Franken has admitted it and there is photographic evidence of his assault. Huge difference. YUGE as some might say.

Crunch you've gone off the rails on this one. What on earth are you talking about? You're comparing some chasing teenage tail and taking then to his house with an idiot who made a jokey pose for the camera? The fact that Franken admitted is is now a strike against him according to you? An "ah-hah!" situation? And just what 'assault' by Franken do you even mean? The photo of him pretending to grope someone? It's a ridiculous photo for him to have taken, but what is the "assault"? Are you trying to say it's criminal assault to use an optical illusion to make it look like you're groping someone? I'll admit it's gross and I don't like it, but if you think that stacks up against possible abuse of teenagers...oh man. Just come on.

It's in your last line "possible abuse of teenagers". Keyword, possible.

And yes, admission is a strike against Franken - why wouldn't it be? :o Confessions of wrongdoing typically are.  Many women have come forward accusing Franken, he admits it's true. Consequently, I tend to believe it's true. Why shouldn't I? I don't think Franken would admit to it if it wasn't true, I feel pretty certain about that. Was he pretending to grope her in that photo? Many have tried to make the case. Had he just finished feeling her up though? Perhaps he was just getting started? The photo is an instant, the event recorded may have occurred before or after the photo. Let me ask you this, some dude take a photo of your sleeping daughter/wife/mother/sister like this, what is your assumption when she tells you how violated she feels (as Tweeden does) and what would you expect to happen? You're not gonna just dismiss it as "pretending are you"? Surely not.

Contrast that with Moore who denies it all, aggressively. Sure, he chased some "teenage tail" around 40 years ago but it was not illegal to do that. In fact, in the deep south in the 1970's a case could be made that it wasn't all that unusual - it was barely 19 years since Jerry Lee Lewis had married a 13 year old. Oh yeah, that's some creepy *censored*, no doubt about it and I'm not comfortable with it. But it wasn't criminal. The only criminal allegation is something that will never be proven, 40 years and faded memories make the he said/she said nearly worthless. If Moore admitted he assaulted the 14 year old, I'd believe him. But he hasn't.

Quick update: Franken just resigned. The howling mob took him down.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: NobleHunter on December 07, 2017, 12:54:56 PM
I guess the moral is: when accused of sexual assault is aggressively deny everything and slander your accusers.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on December 07, 2017, 12:56:12 PM
Quote
Contrast that with Moore who denies it all, aggressively. Sure, he chased some "teenage tail" around 40 years ago but it was not illegal to do that. In fact, in the deep south in the 1970's a case could be made that it wasn't all that unusual

Thing is, he denies a lot of the things that you've just stated were cool and fine. I could probably get past it better if he rolled out and said, "Oh yeah, that brings back some memories. I loved those young legal women, and I hung at the mall and high school football games all the time trying to get them to go out with me."

It's similar to when Clinton lied through his teeth to avoid the repercussions of his inadvisable, yet consensual relationship with Lewinsky. Is the act worse, or the lying about it? I know, I know - Moore isn't under oath. But politicians shouldn't require a legal proceeding to tell the truth.

I'm still not saying I would be cool with the idea of trolling malls and parks for 16 year olds, but at least it would be credible as opposed to the idea that at least a half dozen women are conspiring with the media to launch their fabricated story designed to bring Moore down - including the falsification of physical evidence that he knew girls he denied knowing.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 07, 2017, 02:51:55 PM
I guess the moral is: when accused of sexual assault is aggressively deny everything and slander your accusers.

With that context, let’s turn to Democratic strategist Michael Trujillo. He claims to have sources that tell him CNN and Washington Post are working on a story yhst will expose 20-30 congressional members for sexual harassment. When (if) this breaks, you’re saying none of them should deny it, they have no recourse, no defense against these accusations. The accusations alone will be proof and denying them is to slander the accusers.

How did you get this idea that accusations are proof?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: NobleHunter on December 07, 2017, 03:15:50 PM
There are ways to deny the accusations without slandering the accusers. If they wanted proof of their innocence, they should have promulgated a system intended to deny victims proof.

How did you get the idea that a victim's testimony isn't evidence?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on December 07, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
They can deny all they want, but even absent "proof" (like a photo? Isn't verbal testimony usually considered proof of many crimes?), if five or more people are making accusations, and they've been vetted by a group like WaPo who just demonstrated they do diligence by catching a faker, then I'm going to default to "probably true" and say that I'm putting the he said/they said focus on the accused - as far as my public opinion and support are concerned.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 07, 2017, 05:47:19 PM
There are ways to deny the accusations without slandering the accusers. If they wanted proof of their innocence, they should have promulgated a system intended to deny victims proof.

How did you get the idea that a victim's testimony isn't evidence?

How did you get the idea that the accused’ testimony is not equally valid evidence? This incredible idea you have that accusations are the ultimate proof is fatally flawed.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 07, 2017, 05:54:21 PM
They can deny all they want, but even absent "proof" (like a photo? Isn't verbal testimony usually considered proof of many crimes?), if five or more people are making accusations, and they've been vetted by a group like WaPo who just demonstrated they do diligence by catching a faker, then I'm going to default to "probably true" and say that I'm putting the he said/they said focus on the accused - as far as my public opinion and support are concerned.

Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Testimony from alleged victims carry weight, sure. From 40 year old memories? I think a reasonable lawyer could invalidate it - memories from 40 years ago are easy to poke holes in. Add in the clear political motivations involved in waiting for this precise moment, it’s not hard to invalidate the whole thing.

Look, Moore sounds like a creep, not denying that. I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.  I guess that makes me unique here. If insisting on due process is a bad thing, I don’t want to be good.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: scifibum on December 07, 2017, 06:49:50 PM
Quote
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Argument by incredulity works every time when it's the evil liberal  media.

Quote
I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The sentence in this case would be NOT getting elected.  You want voters to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  That's pretty stupid, and I'd wager you've taken the opposite position with regard to other races and candidates. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 08, 2017, 01:47:40 AM
I'm still wondering whatever happened to the woman who said she was raped by Trump when she was only 13 years old. Is she okay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-12-06.html#read_more

"One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.

Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren't "multiple accusers." There are two, and that's including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she's lying.

The other "accusers" claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s -- or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein.

That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore's date "accusers" say he did nothing more than kiss them. "

---------------------------------------------------------------

If the allegations about him sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl are true, then of course he shouldn't be in office, but if they are false then should he drop out anyway? By that standard Trump should have dropped out too since a woman accused him of full on raping her when she was only 13. Why did that story suddenly stop right after the election anyway? I'm sure it's just a coincidence but I don't want a man in office who is guilty of raping 13 year old girls so why hasn't the media gotten to the bottom of that?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 08, 2017, 08:46:27 AM
Quote
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Argument by incredulity works every time when it's the evil liberal  media.
I make the same argument about Infowars, Mother Jones, and Vox. As should you. Outlets with clear motives to engage in political activism are not the most reliable of sources of political analysis so some skepticism is warranted. That being said, believe whatever you want. Doesn’t make it true though.  ;)

Quote
I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The sentence in this case would be NOT getting elected.  You want voters to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  That's pretty stupid, and I'd wager you've taken the opposite position with regard to other races and candidates.
I’d prefer voters not be told accusations are equivalent to ironclad proof and everyone realize that mob rule is a bad thing. You think that’s stupid? I’m pretty sure that if you look at the history of mob actions you won’t find the great results you think there are. As for your wager, let’s see your proof, what do you base that imagined position on? And note, I took the same position on Franken as I have on Moore in regards to due process so you’re behind the 8 ball already.  ;)
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 08, 2017, 10:19:31 AM
Sure, he chased some "teenage tail" around 40 years ago but it was not illegal to do that. In fact, in the deep south in the 1970's a case could be made that it wasn't all that unusual - it was barely 19 years since Jerry Lee Lewis had married a 13 year old. Oh yeah, that's some creepy *censored*, no doubt about it and I'm not comfortable with it. But it wasn't criminal.

I was thinking about that and, actually, it happens in modem times as well. In 1993 at the age of 39, Jerry Seinfeld dated 17 year old high school senior Shoshanna Lonstein. People Magazine:
Quote
The story of Jerry and Shoshanna is probably best told in a People article titled “The Game of Love,” published in March of 1994, which is positioned from the perspective of the world having taught itself to accept their romance. “When Jerry Seinfeld fell for 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein, cynics snickered,” the subheadline reads. “No more.”
Jerry himself:
Quote
“I am not an idiot,” says the comic. “Shoshanna is a person, not an age. She is extremely bright. She’s funny, sharp, very alert. We just get along. You can hear the click.”
I don't recall anyone demanding Jerry's career be destroyed over this. It was a bit of tabloid fodder and that's about it.

More recently, in 2011 51 year old Doug Hutchison married Courtney Stodden - she was 16. Again, tabloid fodder and a few jokes but there was no howling mob demanding Hutchison be destroyed.

So after decades of this being nothing more than eyebrow raising and being nothing more than source for late night jokes as recently as 6 years ago, we're supposed be on board with the idea that Roy Moore doing it 40 years ago is a horror that must result in his political and personal destruction.

Why should anyone buy this as being a horror now? Sure, it has elements of perv to it, no doubt. But it's not illegal and, in fact, not at all unique either.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 08, 2017, 10:45:34 AM
"One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.

So I was beat to the Seinfeld reference  ;D

However, signed "in two different inks", signed unusually, and refusing to allow examination of it? And nobody is supposed to question this? Seriously? I don't know, maybe it is his signature but from what we know now there's absolutely no reason to accept it at face value and the Moore team have a reasonable demand it be checked out. So why stonewalling?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2017, 11:33:08 AM
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

You do realize they caught somebody trying to fake a story to show how evil they are, right?

Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 08, 2017, 11:58:25 AM
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

You do realize they caught somebody trying to fake a story to show how evil they are, right?
Catching a bad impersonator is not exactly proof of anything.

Now, google up Beverly Nelson and take a look at breaking news, literally minutes before this post! She is now admitting she altered the yearbook. 
Quote
One of the women who accused Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore of making advances on her when she was a teen and he a local prosecutor admitted Friday to forging part of the yearbook inscription she offered as proof.

Beverly Young Nelson told ABC News she wrote part of the disputed note in her high school yearbook that she and famed attorney Gloria Allred presented as proof the then-30-something Moore sought an inappropriate relationship with her in the late 1970s. Nelson still insisted that Moore wrote most of the message and signed the inscription, but said she made “notes” to it.

How confident are we in Nelson now?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on December 08, 2017, 01:26:48 PM
Crunch.

Breitbart has claimed forgery, she claimed she added notes regarding the date and location.  To my knowledge that claim she has made has been that he signed her yearbook and added an inscription.  So the "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Roy Moore".
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 08, 2017, 01:54:30 PM
Up until a few minutes ago, the claim was Moore wrote the whole thing. So you’re saying, “sure, she lied about that but the rest is 100% accurate!”. Pretty weak.  It very well may be what you say, but with Nelson having misrepresented at least part of it, shouldn’t she now comply with Moore’s request to allow the rest of it be validated? Havng been caught in a deception, the burden if proof is now fully on Nelson and Allred. They need to come clean.

By the way, why admit this now? Nelson knew she was deceiving peole all along, why admit her deception today?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 10, 2017, 12:27:05 PM
Crunch.

Breitbart has claimed forgery, she claimed she added notes regarding the date and location.  To my knowledge that claim she has made has been that he signed her yearbook and added an inscription.  So the "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Roy Moore".

I’ve just seen a close up of this and you’re missing a significant part. The inscription is in black ink. The date and location is in blue ink and Nelson admitted she added that. You know what else is in that blue ink? The “Moore DA”. So someone named Roy did sign Nelson’s yearbook. However, Nelson added the surname Moore to it along with the “DA” (which is higly suspect and likely copied from the court documents she had). That is, in fact, forgery.  Did Roy Moore write this or did some other Roy?

Having clearly embellished this, are there other facets of Nelson’s story she embellished? It’s really hard to trust Nelson at this point.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on December 10, 2017, 04:56:35 PM
They aren't "different colored inks".  There is a photo that has really inconsistent lighting that the ink color looks different across the page, that is an illusion not actual color differences.  Shots with good lighting show the same color of ink for everything.

A hand writing expert has concluded that it is his signature.

Quote
A handwriting expert has concluded that the signature in then-16-year-old Beverly Young Nelson’s yearbook was, in fact, Roy Moore’s, attorney Gloria Allred said at a Friday press conference.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-signature-yearbook-handwriting-expert_us_5a2aeb19e4b0a290f0507d2b

You probably aren't aware that signature analysis it is quite easy to spot a traced or forged signature due to forgers have entirely wrong pressure points in the signature.  Even with photocopies it is almost impossible to fool experts.  For instance here is the result of an experiment with photocopies of forgeries, and 69 out of 72 experts were able to catch all of the forgeries.

Quote
Lindblom and Gregory Dawson of the Center of Forensic Sciences in Toronto sent photocopies of signatures—both genuine and forged—to 72 document examiners in Canada, the US, Australia and Britain. Each examiner looked for characteristics such as pen lifts, hesitation and tremor, without knowing whether or not the signature was genuine. All but three of the examiners accurately identified these and produced a list of suspect features that was almost the same as that produced by Lindblom and Dawson from the originals.

Lindblom says these results, reported in Science & Justice (vol 38, p 189), suggest that photocopies can provide stronger evidence than courts have assumed. “We have probably been too conservative,” he says. “In many instances, we can give as strong opinions as with the original.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921464-100-copies-of-forged-signatures-dont-fool-experts/
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 10, 2017, 06:20:12 PM
The hand writing  “expert” hired by Nelson and Alredd confirmed the entire thing as written by the same person. We now know that expert was very wrong - or maybe Nelson wrote the whole thing. Nelson and Alredd still refuse to allow anyone else to examine it. There’s no getting around that Nelson forged at least part of this.

Perhaps it’s just lighting that makes the ink colors change, sure, why not? Until independent experts are allowed to examine it, I’m not accepting this as proof of anything other than Nelson’s willingness to fake things to help cement her accusations - something she’s admitted to doing.

Accusations require proof. That proof should  be available for examination. I know I’m essentially alone here in that idea but, nevertheless, it’s a reasonable and intelligent standard. Only the intellectually dishonest insist otherwise.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: LetterRip on December 10, 2017, 08:06:51 PM
The hand writing  “expert” hired by Nelson and Alredd confirmed the entire thing as written by the same person.

What is your source for this?  I've never seen that claim made anywhere.

Quote
There’s no getting around that Nelson forged at least part of this.

Even Fox News edited their story to eliminate the claim of forgery.

Quote
Perhaps it’s just lighting that makes the ink colors change, sure, why not?

It isn't a 'perhaps' situation, you can see other pictures that show they are the same color.  You have to deliberately ignore the evidence to conclude they can be different colors.

Quote
Until independent experts are allowed to examine it, I’m not accepting this as proof of anything other than Nelson’s willingness to fake things to help cement her accusations - something she’s admitted to doing.

There is no evidence that she faked anything.

The yearbook has been offerred for examination if Roy Moore will testify about it under penalty of perjury.  He is willing to defame and slander his victims, in the hopes that people like you will believe his lies.

The yearbook thing is similar to his pattern with other young women,

Quote
What’s most damning is the handwriting on the card. It’s indistinguishable from the handwriting in the yearbook. Nelson and Gibson didn’t know one another, yet both have old documents bearing Moore’s signature, and the writing matches other samples. To believe that the yearbook inscription is forged, you have to postulate that a master forger somehow got access to both Nelson’s yearbook in Anniston, Alabama, and the scrapbook in Gibson’s attic in Delray Beach, Florida. And you can’t blame the Post, which revealed Gibson’s story but not Nelson’s. Only one person had access to both women: Roy Moore.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/roy_moore_s_story_is_unraveling.html

Quote
Accusations require proof.

There has been proof of the allegations.  And plenty of proof that Moore lied in his claims of 'never having known' these women.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 11, 2017, 08:22:00 AM
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed, another piece of the story falls apart; the banning from the mall.
Quote
Johnny Adams said he was employed by the Gadsden Mall for 26 years and the mall’s operations manager for 14 years, overseeing mall security.

“In my 26 years working at Gadsden Mall, I never heard anything about Roy Moore being banned from the mall or any other mention of issues concerning him,” Adams said.

“As the operations manager overseeing mall security, I would have been aware of something like that,” he said.

Yeah, you’d think the guy overseeing security would know about who got banned. There’s more:
Quote
Barnes Boyle, a former manager of the Gadsden Mall from 1981 to 1986, said he would have known if Moore was banned from the mall during his time there. “We did have written reports and things. To my knowledge, he was not banned from the mall.”

So nobody in charge of the mall heard anything about Roy Moore being banned from the mall. How’d it go so wrong?

Quote
Johnnie V. Sanders, Gadsden Mall employee from late 1970s to mid-2000s, said he was intimately knowledgeable about goings-on at the mall.

Sanders said there was a man banned from the mall for behavior similar to acts Moore is accused of doing.

Sanders says:
Quote
There was a prominent man of Etowah County, whom is now deceased that was banned for reasons such as the allegations against Judge Moore. However, due to respect for the family, I decline to reveal his name. Despite allegations against other patrons of the mall, I never heard of Roy Moore’s name come in conversation with any such misconduct against women or a supposed banning from the Gadsden Mall.

So someone prominent got banned, just not Moore. It’s easy to see how memories from 40 years ago conflated this with Moore as the narrative of accusations was spun.

So now we have a yearbook where at least some of it was forged (and the accuser admits to the forgery) and a key facet of the story built against Moore has been completely falsified. I’ll repeat, maybe Moore is a creepy perv but, with the accusations completely unraveling, maybe not.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on December 11, 2017, 09:08:46 AM
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on December 11, 2017, 10:17:41 AM
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/

They know there are no hard records. So what we have is one bunch of people saying he was, and another bunch of people saying he wasn't.

Among the people who say he was banned include Greg Legat who worked there and said he was.

Up to you who to believe, I suppose.

But I'm sure even if there were a picture of him being escorted from the building, we'd just hear people fall back on the argument that he had done nothing illegal and that it wasn't that unusual in Alabama to pick up teenagers in the mall.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on December 11, 2017, 10:24:00 AM
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
And this is why a trustworthy media is something we should encourage and protect.  When we can't even be sure if a person confessed to forging something, things have gone to hell.  Not conflicting reports about someone allegedly having forged all or part of the writing, or an accusation about who made the forgery...  But at question is whether or not someone admitted to doing so?  (weakening or entirely dismantling their own accusations in the process)  WTF?   >:(
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 11, 2017, 01:48:42 PM
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
Well, yes, it has.  It has nothing to do with Moore’s people, Beverly Nelson admitted it. To selectively ignore her admission, you might as well just make up anything else you want.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 11, 2017, 01:54:07 PM
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
And this is why a trustworthy media is something we should encourage and protect.  When we can't even be sure if a person confessed to forging something, things have gone to hell.  Not conflicting reports about someone allegedly having forged all or part of the writing, or an accusation about who made the forgery...  But at question is whether or not someone admitted to doing so?  (weakening or entirely dismantling their own accusations in the process)  WTF?   >:(
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News. There is no alleged anything about it. You can see it here,  (https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/12/08/roy-moore-accuser-beverly-nelson-admits-she-wrote-part-of-moores-yearbook-inscription/23301742/) she admits she altered at least part of it.

Not accepting her admission is essentially denial.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 11, 2017, 02:04:34 PM
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/

They know there are no hard records. So what we have is one bunch of people saying he was, and another bunch of people saying he wasn't.

Among the people who say he was banned include Greg Legat who worked there and said he was.

Up to you who to believe, I suppose.

But I'm sure even if there were a picture of him being escorted from the building, we'd just hear people fall back on the argument that he had done nothing illegal and that it wasn't that unusual in Alabama to pick up teenagers in the mall.

Is there a picture? No. There’s no use spinning hypotheticals, they’re no more proof than accusations.

Mall management immediately after that time frame and the head of security at the time of the event confirm Roy Moore was not banned. If anyone knows, why wouldn’t these guys? They would have been the people actually involved in the decision to ban someone and then enforce thst ban. Seems like they’d be pretty solid witnesses to all this.

Plus, we have a reasonable alternative from another witness that was there - some other prominent person was, in fact, banned for flirting with underage girls. It’s very possible Greg Legat’s 40 year old memories of that time are mixing that event with the reporting and accusations.

What’s the truth here? Damned if I know. Anyone that says they know, based on current understandings, is a fool or a partisan quack. It’s he said/she said with very authoritative people offering conflicting accounts. Can we send the mob after Moore on that?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on December 11, 2017, 02:15:05 PM
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on December 11, 2017, 02:33:12 PM
Quote
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News
Thanks Crunch.  I had heard or read that was the case but thought maybe it was muddier than that due to DonaldD's post.  Will try and watch the clip later. 
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: scifibum on December 11, 2017, 03:07:14 PM
Quote
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News
Thanks Crunch.  I had heard or read that was the case but thought maybe it was muddier than that due to DonaldD's post.  Will try and watch the clip later. 

I don't think you should thank Crunch just yet.  It's much muddier than "she admitted to forgery". 

She wrote an annotation with date and location under the part she claims Moore wrote. 

She has not admitted that she "forged" anything.  Admittedly it was dumb not to delineate the part she wrote and the part she claims Moore wrote from the get-go.  But look at what Crunch is doing here:

Quote
So now we have a yearbook where at least some of it was forged (and the accuser admits to the forgery) and a key facet of the story built against Moore has been completely falsified.

1) "Some of it was forged" is only true if she represented the part she wrote as something that Moore wrote.  Did she do that, or was that simply one possible assumption people could make when they saw the yearbook?  She should have been clearer (her attorney certainly should have anticipated this as well), but she never specifically claimed that Moore wrote the annotation that she has now clarified that she added. 

2) The annotation was not a "key facet" and which person wrote the annotation does not speak to whether her allegations against Moore are true.  The "completely falsified" claim is completely false.


Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on December 11, 2017, 03:20:05 PM
As I said, I'll try and watch it later when I get home.  But my understanding was as follows.

She claimed he wrote the whole thing.  (or at least didn't correct anyone when they assumed that?)
Time passes.
She admits that she wrote part of it.

"Forgery" may be a mischaracterization but it seems like (based on 2nd hand reporting I heard in passing) she mislead people.

Whether this was part of a false claim or used to provide weight to her true claim is another thing.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Wayward Son on December 11, 2017, 05:13:50 PM
As I said, I'll try and watch it later when I get home.  But my understanding was as follows.

She claimed he wrote the whole thing.  (or at least didn't correct anyone when they assumed that?)
Time passes.
She admits that she wrote part of it.

"Forgery" may be a mischaracterization but it seems like (based on 2nd hand reporting I heard in passing) she mislead people.

Whether this was part of a false claim or used to provide weight to her true claim is another thing.

I think it was more like, she claimed that Moore wrote in her yearbook.  She showed the page.

Time passes.

She clarifies that part of what was written on the page was something she wrote to clarify/remind her of exactly who it was that wrote it.

So she only "mislead" people if they assumed that every single letter in the area had been written by him.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: scifibum on December 11, 2017, 05:17:56 PM
I don't think anyone was misled in a way that matters.  Whether they believed the annotation was written by the same person as the inscription and signature wouldn't, in my opinion, sway their opinion on whether it would have been a creepy move in the first place.  I think the only people who think this admission looks good for Moore are the same people who didn't believe her in the first place.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: DonaldD on December 11, 2017, 05:26:59 PM
Actually, my understanding is that Nelson, when initially displaying the yearbook, read out the complete inscription (including the additional date and location pieces not written by Moore) and claimed the whole thing was written by Moore at the time.  It was only weeks later that she made the clarification that only the parts up to the signature had been written by Moore.

You can interpret that to mean any number of things, from an out and out lie concerning something written just a month ago, to a failure of memory relating to something written 40 years ago. How one interprets that action certainly goes to how convincing Nelson is believed to be (mind you, your initial impression of Nelson probably also factors into whether you attribute error or deceit to Nelson's mistake, so it's a bit of a vicious cycle.)

But none of that changes the existence of first part of the inscription, or the resemblance of the writing and signature to other samples of Moore's from that time period.

Here's an academic question - if it is a complete forgery, why didn't the forger use the same writing style for the date and location portion as for the substantive section of the note?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 11, 2017, 06:05:59 PM
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?
Should we be digging into motivations? We can’t really know them. We could go with Moore ruling against Nelson in her divorce for Nelson’s motivation to lie and hurt Moore. Do we want to?
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 11, 2017, 06:14:46 PM
Actually, my understanding is that Nelson, when initially displaying the yearbook, read out the complete inscription (including the additional date and location pieces not written by Moore) and claimed the whole thing was written by Moore at the time.  It was only weeks later that she made the clarification that only the parts up to the signature had been written by Moore.

You can interpret that to mean any number of things, from an out and out lie concerning something written just a month ago, to a failure of memory relating to something written 40 years ago. How one interprets that action certainly goes to how convincing Nelson is believed to be (mind you, your initial impression of Nelson probably also factors into whether you attribute error or deceit to Nelson's mistake, so it's a bit of a vicious cycle.)

But none of that changes the existence of first part of the inscription, or the resemblance of the writing and signature to other samples of Moore's from that time period.

Here's an academic question - if it is a complete forgery, why didn't the forger use the same writing style for the date and location portion as for the substantive section of the note?

It may well be Moore wrote the first part, until independent third parties examine it I assumed she was telling the truth about that. Now, she has a higher burden of proof - altering the text and hiding it while damage is done is suspect IMHO. I’d ask, when did she add this text? Was it in 1977 or 2017? Or in between?

She let us believe the entire thing was written by Moore for weeks, presumably because that made a better case against Moore. This is very damaging to the credibility of the rest of her story about the alleged assault - did she engage in any more deception? Damned if I know.  I just know we can’t accept her story without question any more.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: yossarian22c on December 11, 2017, 07:05:53 PM
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?
Should we be digging into motivations? We can’t really know them. We could go with Moore ruling against Nelson in her divorce for Nelson’s motivation to lie and hurt Moore. Do we want to?

Except Moore wasn’t the judge for her divorce. She never had a hearing with Moore because she and her husband stopped the divorce proceedings. She didn’t actually get divorced until 4 years later. Yet Moore would of had us believe otherwise and didn’t. This is very damaging to the credibility of the rest of his denial - is he engaging in more deception? I know I can’t accept his story without question.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 12, 2017, 08:35:18 AM
Nelson’s divorce case was before Judge Moore and he signed the order of dismissal, nullifying Nelson’s divorce filing. It’s not inconceivable she would harbor resentment for that (hell hath no fury, you know). Improbable? Maybe. But not inconceivable. That’s why getting into the motivations of all these people is useless. We can’t know and it’s likely a combination of reasons, some of which we may never know. We’ll just end up with “yeah but”, “except”, etc. Why bother?

Although, it’s that signed dismissal that apparently tripped up the forger by including the initials “DA”. Moore was not a DA in 1977 and in the 1990’s that was his assistant’s initials - she put her initials on there to let people know she’d stamped the signature for Moore (common practice). It’s easy to see how anyone forging this botched that detail and it’s a reasonable point for Moore to make. If Nelson altered the signature along with the other parts she altered, it could have happened. Not saying it did, just that it’s possible and the whole thing should not be taken on blind faith any more.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: TheDrake on December 12, 2017, 08:57:05 AM
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?
Should we be digging into motivations? We can’t really know them. We could go with Moore ruling against Nelson in her divorce for Nelson’s motivation to lie and hurt Moore. Do we want to?

See above on the hearing, which should be an easy google for anyone by now. But in general potential motivations of the women to not be believed, because they are either egged on by the librul media, or are against Roy Moore politically, or are trying to get cash, or have already received cash, or just want notoriety?

The primary way you discern subterfuge is by determining what someone has to gain by lying, is it not?

I see certain outlets, like Breitbart, denying any possible credibility for the women and then acting like this one statement from the mall manager closes the book on the whole thing.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on December 12, 2017, 09:56:16 AM
I have no reason to like Roy Moore.  I've already expressed my views on why the voters may have no choice but to elect him.

What confuses me about this yearbook issue, is the explanation of the initials "D.A." after his signature.  That literally has to be explained.  If he wasn't the D.A. and didn't personally sign that way at that time then I find it hard to believe he would have in this one single case.  I don't see why anyone should trust a hand writing analyst that is hired by the person making the claim, either get a neutral one or let Moore's analyst take a look.  Expert testimony that refuses allowing other experts to confirm or refute it, is absolutely worthless.

That said, it wouldn't particularly shock me if he did write it.  It's not addressed by name to the person in the yearbook, which also makes it seem less personal, kind of like something an aspiring politician may put in any yearbook that's in front of them.  But he did claim he didn't write it so he's got to be held to that standard.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on December 12, 2017, 10:07:58 AM
The part that strikes me as strange is how Moore's campaign has sold (is trying to sell?) the "Why did they wait till now?" line as a defense.  Like they are obvious to the whole #Metoo trend and all the news of people's careers crumbling due to harassment issues. 

Why now?  Because it looks like our society just might be prepared to deal with this now.  Also, better now before he's elected into this office.  The answer to the question is, "Because it may actually matter to people now."
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on December 12, 2017, 10:58:01 AM
Except I can't fully buy that D.W. Moore has been a controversial elected figure for years.  And he's been an arch religious conservative as well, the exact kind of person that would have been damaged by these kinds of claims in pre-"me too" era.  I get that there's an active increase in the amount of belief that people are getting now, but there's no doubt that there's a political motive at play here as well.  Moore's transgressions are no where near the level of some of the others we've heard, yet he's daily national news, the only reason for that is based on a 52 seat majority in the Senate and a chance to steal a seat that is overwhelming representing conservative Republicans.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on December 12, 2017, 11:14:32 AM
While I may disagree on if his (alleged) behavior is less concerning you are correct that it's also political.  I believe a lot of this "we need to punish serial harassers" sentiment is directed at Trump.  Whether Trump is guilty of it or not, there's a lot of people who believe he is.  And they believe he should have been forced to remove his bid for the presidency because of it.  Instead, he became our president. 

This raised the temperature of the pressure cooker a few more degrees.  To those who are convinced Trump is a serial harasser if not abuser of women, I think many feel that even if HE ends up untouchable, others are not. 

The more people who resign, the more people who will come forward with their stories of harassment / assault.  If you believe these allegations from women, they've already been victimized.  They are likely to be villainized as well in the press by the person who harassed them and that person's defenders.  If achieving some kind of change and justice is not seen as likely, most will continue to keep quiet.

If people are held to account, more scum will be taken out of circulation.

There will be people who attempt to ride this sentiment for political gain or revenge through false allegations.  Maybe Moore is the victim of this.  My default position is to believe the accusers.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Crunch on December 12, 2017, 11:42:22 AM
My default position is to believe the accusers.

I wonder if this is the right way to do it though. Certainly we've all been conditioned to accept the accusations of sexual assault as true but accusations alone are not proof. Many people are, in fact, falsely accused (Duke lacrosse team, the Rolling Stone article etc). False accusations are hard to track (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape).
Quote
However, in the United States, the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 reported that 8% of accusations for forcible rape had been through investigation determined to be false. Studies in other countries have reported their own rates at anywhere from 1.5% (Denmark) to 10% (Canada). Due to varying definitions of a "false accusation", the true percentage remains unknown.

The potential could be pretty bad for the accused:
Quote
In 1994, Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community in the Midwest United States (population 70,000) between 1978 and 1987. He states that unlike in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to "seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits". He further states each investigation "always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects" and "the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false".

The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period. The researchers verified, whenever possible, for all of the complainants who recanted their allegations, that their new account of the events matched the accused's version of events.

After reviewing the police files, Kanin categorized the false accusations into three broad motivations: alibis, revenge, and attention-seeking. These motivations were assigned prevalence of roughly 50%, 30%, and 20% respectively. This categorization was supported by the details of complainant recantations and other documentation of their cases.

Kanin also investigated the combined police records of two large Midwestern universities over a three-year period (1986–1988), and found that 50% of the reported forcible rapes were determined to be false accusations (32 of the total 64). No polygraphs were used, the investigations were the sole responsibility of a ranking female officer, and a rape charge was only counted as false under complainant recantation. In this sample, the motivations mentioned above were roughly evenly split between alibi and revenge, with only one case characterized as attention-seeking.

As many as half?!?! Hard to believe, and Kanin's work has some issues perhaps so I wouldn't rely on it solely. That being said, there are false accusations. Potentially a lot of of them, enough that I question the wisdom of simply accepting the accusation without any further proof and moving on to the punishment phase.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: Seriati on December 12, 2017, 12:07:00 PM
While I may disagree on if his (alleged) behavior is less concerning you are correct that it's also political.  I believe a lot of this "we need to punish serial harassers" sentiment is directed at Trump.  Whether Trump is guilty of it or not, there's a lot of people who believe he is.

I think its fairer to say, there are a lot of people who don't care if he's guilty or not so long as it can serve as a basis to remove him.  I'd be shocked, if the majority of those people were offered the opportunity to replace him - tomorrow - with Al Franken they wouldn't immediately agree, because its his politics they hate and want removed, this is just an convenient reason.

Quote
And they believe he should have been forced to remove his bid for the presidency because of it.  Instead, he became our president.

Well, we may not all agree, but I thought his opponent should have been charged with a felony and forced to remove her bid for the Presidency.  We were destined to get someone that a big chunk of people thought should have been disqualified.

Quote
The more people who resign, the more people who will come forward with their stories of harassment / assault.

What's interesting to me about this point, is you haven't connected the dots.  What harassment is Moore accused of?  By all accounts, the conduct he was accused of was dating, and virtually all of it was dating people it was legal to date.  Women he had no power over to mishandle, women in many cases that he had the permission of their parents to date.  I haven't looked at it closely, but isn't there only one claim of dating someone under age?  In that case, again it seems to have been voluntary, with him stopping when asked.

Is that remotely like the involuntary conduct that others have been accused of?  Can you imagine if Franken had been accused by women who he dated of having kissed them inappropriately?  Not saying it couldn't happen, but there's no way he'd be resigning if his conduct had occurred in the context of dating.

Quote
If you believe these allegations from women, they've already been victimized.

Here's the thing, I do believe the women.  I believe that they feel they have been victimized.  Just like I believed people talking about their experiences in the Black Lives Matters movement.  That doesn't mean that I agree that the "other person" involved victimized them.  Like it or not, there's a gap between how one person feels about another's conduct and how that person intends the conduct.

Honestly, what is the basis of an "accusers" claim that someone took them on a date 40 years ago?  Why should we agree retroactively that the voluntary and legal  conduct is now contemptible?

I think Crunch has been getting at this for a while, an accusation of how someone was made to feel can be completely true, and still not be something for which we believe the other person's conduct should be controlled.  It's the same idea where we have campus's suppressing some people's speech because it makes other people uncomfortable, the egregious violation of the suppressed persons rights isn't fully considered because of the emotional harm to the second person.  That's the not the right standard.

I think we all agree that men abusing their power over women for their own desires is wrong.  But we have to be careful not to draw the line of abuse solely by the eye of the victim.

Quote
They are likely to be villainized as well in the press by the person who harassed them and that person's defenders.  If achieving some kind of change and justice is not seen as likely, most will continue to keep quiet.

Maybe, but you know what else occurs?  When people read an account of conduct that is be decried they reevaluate their own past situations and reach new conclusions.  "I never knew that was wrong, hey that happened to me too, the jerk!"  Is that wrong or right?  Are they really remembering the actual context or are they mixing up the context based on a new interpretation of a stale event?

Quote
If people are held to account, more scum will be taken out of circulation.

Good, but confusing scum with other people is not okay.

Quote
There will be people who attempt to ride this sentiment for political gain or revenge through false allegations.  Maybe Moore is the victim of this.  My default position is to believe the accusers.

Then believe them, be sympathetic to them, but use your reason to evaluate their claims.  Treating Moore like Weinstein is insane.  Heck, the claims against Clinton are way more serious (including abuse of position and forcible conduct), even Franken's much lower conduct was claimed to be involuntary.
Title: Re: Weinstein mess
Post by: D.W. on December 12, 2017, 01:03:18 PM
Quote
Certainly we've all been conditioned to accept the accusations of sexual assault as true but accusations alone are not proof.
I never said it was proof.  I was a juror once on a trial of sexual assault.  While I (and I think most of the jurors) believed the accuser, there was enough doubt that a conviction seemed impossible.  To about half of us... 

How we think about people and how we treat them can be a lot different than what we feel the legal system should do.  The latest flurry of news on this issue is not about trials or convictions.

Quote
Well, we may not all agree, but I thought his opponent should have been charged with a felony and forced to remove her bid for the Presidency.
I think if the system was going to deal with Hillary, it had plenty of time to do so.  That this was even a thought experiment worth posing made her a terrible candidate IMO.  You don't need to convince me we were forced to chose between two *censored*ty options.  That one choice was bad and the other certifiably insane, I think we differ on though.  ;)


Quote
By all accounts, the conduct he was accused of was dating, and virtually all of it was dating people it was legal to date.
I think I've gone over my personal position on men dating women of this age significantly younger than them as reason enough for me to heap derision upon them.  If they cross a legal line as well, I want to see that enforced to the maximum allowable amount.

Quote
That doesn't mean that I agree that the "other person" involved victimized them.  Like it or not, there's a gap between how one person feels about another's conduct and how that person intends the conduct.
You’ve just hit on why this societal problem is so hard to address.  When two people can agree on the facts and one person feels victimized and the other is incapable of seeing what they did was wrong, we’ve got a problem.  Having your career taken away from you is a good way to correct that problem moving forward.  Setting an example for others.  Self interest can take the place of a lot of character deficits. 

Quote
I think we all agree that men abusing their power over women for their own desires is wrong.  But we have to be careful not to draw the line of abuse solely by the eye of the victim.
This gets into what is a reasonable standard of behavior.  That’s where we draw the line.  When we are talking about cases from years or decades back, I think it’s worth considering what that standard was at the time.  But most accusations are of a serious enough nature that if they are made public, people agree when that line is crossed.  It’s vanishingly rare that we are at risk of drawing the line differently than a victim making an allegation. 

Quote
Honestly, what is the basis of an "accusers" claim that someone took them on a date 40 years ago? 
This again shows my lack of research into Moore and his accusers.  Did he have sex with them or not?  Kissing?  Sexual touching?  The term “date” can range from “totally harmless interaction like speaking with them over dinner” to, “ya, we were *censored*ing over the course of many months.”  The spin on this topic makes me dizzy.
Quote
Then believe them, be sympathetic to them, but use your reason to evaluate their claims.  Treating Moore like Weinstein is insane. 
I don’t.  With Weinstein I was quite pleased seeing him forced out.  With Moore, I just thought that type of behavior was not appropriate for an elected official.  (read as, I hoped he wouldn’t win or would withdraw.)  The time that passed and the type of activity described (consensual yet mostly legal) I didn’t expect it to go anywhere in the courts.  Bill’s term was just as I was starting to take an interest in politics.  I paid attention to the impeachment proceedings but honestly didn’t pay much attention to the non-Lewinski allegations.  I guess my focus shifted after I got out of my 20s?  I’d probably judge Bill a lot differently today to be honest.  Then again, the fact that Hillary tolerated his disrespectful behavior is a character defect to me and no doubt influenced why I was never a supporter of hers.