A different perspective on Harvey Weinstein

Can't wait for your post on Roman Polanski.

@tumblingdice, I take it that you disagree. I'm not defending rape, okay? Just to be clear. I'm just saying that maybe these accusers have a different view about what constitutes rape than you or I might have. How else can you explain their behavior? If someone rapes you, you go to the police. You stop seeing them in private. Period. Otherwise you're making it look consensual. To first talk about it now, in public, with no evidence, with their careers fading and their best years behind them, that just seems libelous. If this is really true, he belonged in jail a decade ago.

I'm William Jefferson Clinton and I endorse this post.

Burl,

I don't give a flying f%$# what the women allowed or what he got away with. I would bet most of us here touched a woman inappropriately at some time, but we backed off! Who hasn't been in a romantic situation and decide to cop one. What happens next decides if one is a normal male or rather a perv.

What really gets me is the hollywood reaction. Oh my, who would have known? What a bunch of BS and complete hypocrisy! Typical of hollywood and often the left. They know, but choose to ignore or deflect.

Ok, guys, let me put it a different way:

Harvey Weinstein says "Let me touch you inappropriately and I'll put you in my movies and you'll make money." Girl says "No, I'm just here to act." Harvey Weinstein persists and makes her more offers, sometimes with a visible hardon.

Compare that to the following:

PL in a strip club says "Let me touch you inappropriately and I will pay you money." Girl says "No, I'm just here to dance." PL persists and makes her more offers, sometimes with a visible hardon.

What's the difference exactly?

"Can't wait for your post on Roman Polanski."

...and Bill Cosby, after that.

And I bet he gets hot and heavy over Anthony Weiner.

I am with Harvey on this one. The girls who lack talent are pissed off at him. But Meryl Streep? Well, she may not approve of what he did to other girls, but he never did enough of it to her that she ever felt she had to make an accusation. Harvey did what every single corporate male executive ever did throughout the 1950s and before. Maybe he's just a throwback, maybe he did a bad job of covering up, or maybe he's just normal but because the snowball got rolling now everyone is piling on.

I'd be as sexist if I could get away with it, hell yeah. I often fantasize about running a medium-sized law firm and hiring summer interns ... going through all the straight-A girlies from local medium-tier undergraduate programs, and winnowing them out entirely on the basis of looks. Job description: "must be personable, professional, convivial, able to interact with clients in a productive and helpful manner, must be willing to take on a variety of different tasks and supervisors ..."

I think the bottom line is, if you have above-average intelligence you can probably handle a medium-sized role in a typical Hollywood average-to-poor-movie script, so the only thing that distinguishes one would-be starlet from another is her appearance. And if any girl will do for the role, and you have six who are hot enough for the camera (especially after wardrobe and make-up get hold of 'em), what the hell else are you going to do to distinguish among them? Notice that literally ZERO major role castings were EVER decided by Weinstein through the casting-couch sexism sex-abuse whatever-it-is thing. The roles which the real dramas depended upon, were cast by means of the real test for the role, that is, whether or not the girl was actually a highly talented actress. Streep passed that test. It's just all the other idiot roles, the walk-ons and best-friend-for-one-scene roles which Pam Anderson would want and would fight tooth-and-manicured-nail to prevent Anna Nicole Smith from getting.

Hot women will often use their sexuality when it's convenient for them and they can gain something from it - the women could have chosen not to put up with his advances but it seems many decided fame and fortune was more important.

Having said this it should not be allowed for someone to act as Weinstein did for someone trying to get employment.

burl ho... good points man.

^^^I hope you never bred.

yeah i did. four children. of which are three daughters. all very prudish to various degrees. and all my kids and old friends DONT approve of my liking the ladies.

There’s a spectrum on Weinstein’s actions over the last 20 years of A consensual sex with women seeking a job B Non consensual acts, such as blocking the doorway while he masturbated in front of a surprised female C Rape

I have no problem with A ( though he could be sued and shamed for it ). However, B and C are both illegal and creepy.

maybe 'liking' should be 'licking.'

Book Guy, Papi_Chulo, justme62, and mark94 seem to have a reasonable perspective on this issue. But it seems like everyone else just doesn't want to keep an open mind and be objective.

Anyway, I already addressed Bill Clinton in the first post. Clinton was a government official and therefore he had a great deal of legal power (which Weinstein doesn't have; being rich and famous is not the same thing as being in charge of the government). Bill Clinton was also accused right away by women who went through appropriate legal channels, but he and his wife used their government power to squelch the charges. He belonged in jail for his actions in Arkansas, long before 1992.

Roman Polanski was similarly accused right away by someone who also went through appropriate legal channels. He belonged in jail at the time, but he fled the country. Decades later, his accuser has said that she no longer wants him to be locked up. That's good enough for me: if I were in charge, I would drop the charges now.

Anthony Weiner is an asshole but he didn't really hurt anyone. He knowingly talked sexually to a minor online. He deserves a fine and maybe 6 months of house arrest, not prison followed by life on a sex registry. After all, not liking someone is not enough to want them jailed.

I don't know enough about the Cosby scandal. I'm not sure if any of the accusers ever went immediately to the police, but if they did, and they had evidence, then he did belong in jail. Even if they didn't, I believe them because so many women have independently accused Cosby of nearly identical rapes. It might not be enough to convict him, but I believe them.

Compare this to the Weinstein scandal. Only two women have accused Weinstein of rape, belatedly. Everyone else is only alleging gross behavior, exposing himself, and threatening their careers. I'm not saying he deserves a Citizen Of The Year award. But he ain't Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby.

My view is no means no. If I'm told no, I'm done. It's not worth it. No woman and I mean no woman is worth the hassle.

I'd rather jerk off for the rest of my life than force or coerce myself on any woman.

BHO: All of the accusations so far include non consensual acts, whether it’s coming out of a bathroom nude and hard on, groping, or blocking them from leaving while he masturbated. All these are criminal acts. Also, you may regret saying he “only” raped 2 women. At least one actress, Kate Beckinsale, said this happened when she was underage.

oh that's news to me mark94 ... well, this new information modifies somewhat my analysis ...

Give us some perspective on Woody Allen while you’re at it

He must have issues - with all the $$$ he has he could've been banging model-quality $1000/hr escorts.

And his wife bailed ASAP - I assume she wants to get her $$$ b/f the lawsuits start.

@Papi he must be a real head case, with all of the beautiful willing women out there available to a guy with that kind of money and influence there has to be a screw loose somewhere to involve himself and run such crazy low percentage risks.

What was the first perspective on Steve Harvey???

@mark94, good points but...

A) Kate Beckinsale isn't claiming she was raped, only that Harvey Weinstein came on to her when she was 17. She said no, claimed she had to go to school as an excuse, and avoided him thereafter. Still bad, but it isn't rape. And she didn't say anything to any authorities at the time.

B) Yes, it's not consensual. I know. Every sexual act is a non-consensual act until you know otherwise. Until a person says "yes," you have to assume it's a "no." But that doesn't mean you can't try. Otherwise all human sexual activity would grind to a halt. (Which seems to be what campus administrators and California State legislators want, but I digress.) And besides, how many PLs here have ever repeatedly pestered a stripper for extras? I know I have. Sometimes for a very long time before they finally agree. Isn't that the same thing?

1. I agree that blocking someone from leaving a room while you jerk off is a crime (or should be). And if that's what he did, they should have called the cops. But they didn't because they valued their careers more than "justice" and more than preventing him from doing this to others in the future. They wanted the money and the fame.

(BTW, I agree that he's nuts. Something is really wrong with him. But I'll still defend him.)

As Chris Rock once said - "hey if my dad would've not sexually harassed my mom I wouldn't be here"

:)

@Papi_Chulo, exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself :)

@mark94, I also should have said:

D) Remember, these are only alleged rapes. A dozen women have come out and accused him of gross and lewd behavior, of unwanted sexual advances, and of threatening their careers if they didn't comply. And then along come these other two women claiming actual rape. Bear in mind that this is a decade-plus after the fact, that they have no physical evidence, that their careers are clearly on the wane now, etc.

I don't know much about Asia Argento. But I do know that Rose McGowan is a strange person, to say the least. I just checked out her Wikipedia page, and it's pretty much all there in black and white. Some things I already knew. Other things were news to me. But she doesn't exactly have a shit-ton of credibility. So is it so far fetched to believe that maybe she just exaggerated Harvey Weinstein's disgusting behavior? Is it so far fetched to believe that he merely sexually harrassed her, and now she wants revenge by claiming it was actual rape?

Anyway, call me old fashioned, but if I were actually raped, I would go to the cops immediately, while I still have physical evidence and I would have the fucker locked up. I wouldn't wait years. And I wouldn't complain to Amazon.com. Who does that?

This lawyer stuff is kind of fun. I should have gone to law school. The defense rests.

Sexual harassment is much different than flirting. It is harassment because it is unreciprocated and unwanted, and when the harasser has much more power in terms of position or money or physical strength, it is nasty and creepy and disgusting. Imagine yourself as a young man of 17 or 18 or 20, and a gross homosexual producer acts toward you as Weinstein acted toward unnumbered young women. Would you be fine with it?

But I'll let a woman speak on the issue:

youtube.com

I'm guessing you don't work in HR

@jackslash,

That's an amusing video. If you want me to be honest, here's some honesty for you: If it were me in the scenario you described, I would be perfectly fine with a little sexual harrassment, a little unwanted advances, a little inappropriate touching, and a little bit of the creep exposing himself. He's going to make me rich and famous, right? That's the trade-off, I guess. If I have to watch some freak jerk it into a potted plant or in a shower stall in exchange for being the next Ryan Gosling, or whatever, well, so be it.

But if he actually raped me or tried to rape me? That would be different. I would sue his ass and go to the police that very day. No question about it.

Please allow me to unload for a few minutes. I am pissed.

I don’t know whether Weinstein or Cosby did the stuff they are accused of or not. I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the facts. I wasn’t there. But, I know the truth of the old adage, where there’s smoke there’s fire, and, man the smoke is thick in these cases.

But, what really grates on me are the sanctimonious shits that are coming out of Hollywood, the feminists and the media, particularly Hollywood. I saw today that Weinstein is kicked out of their big organization MPAS. Not compatible with the ethics of their organization or some such crap. Since when are they guardians of Hollywood morality? Probably half the clowns that voted him out have done the same things.

And the radical feminists, who think every heterosexual male is a rapist who hasn’t yet been caught.

Give me a break! Give the man his day in court and deal with what comes out of that. In the meantime I say to Hollywood, radical feminists and the media, shut up!

Thank you for the opportunity to vent. Tuscl

An actress today said this is proof of “ toxic masculinity”. Another said Trump is worse than Weinstein.

You see, the collective guilt lies with all males, especially those with traditional values. When Weinstein was forcing a woman to watch him masturbate, it was Donald Trump’s fault.

"Can't wait for your post on Roman Polanski."

"I'm William Jefferson Clinton and I endorse this post."

Haha, great posts TD! :D

Burl,

You should be a hollywood star as much as you cover for that slime!

@Array, I agree with everything in your post. Well put. There's a lot of scum in Hollywood. And these people knew exactly what Harvey Weinstein was like in private. They acted like everything was perfectly fine... until it makes the evening news. At which point he gets thrown under the bus and the ass covering begins.

@Clubber, yeah, where's my studio deal? LOL. Listen, I'm not covering for him. I'm just saying two things:

A) it's weird that some people would choose to wait a long time to accuse someone of a serious crime, knowing that it probably can't be proven anymore at that point,

and B) if you think about it, much of his non-rape behavior isn't really all that different from a horny guy in a strip club, offering money in exchange for extras. Quid pro quo. Quid pro pussy. That's all I'm saying. I don't like this guy any more than you do.

I wonder if we'll see @Burlington as @SJG's defense attorney in court one day:

"Hey, all these women looking to join a 'church' know it's really a cult and you have to pay homage to the leader. Let's not kid ourselves."

@Dougster, that's pretty funny :) If I didn't detest lawyers so much I would have probably become a lawyer.

So far, we’ve heard from 5 women claiming rape and about 25 claiming non consensual acts ( masturbation, etc ).

The big question is about high profile actresses who have remained silent because they’ve been servicing Harvey in exchange for their career. Several big names are rumored. Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Lawrence, and Meryl Streep among the names.

@mark94, just for the record, I believe all of the women whose stories I've heard so far, except for Rose McGowan and Asia Argento. Their stories just don't add up to me, plus Rose McGowan is a known whackjob. And McGowan did herself no favors by claiming that she didn't need evidence to accuse someone of rape. But, yes, I do believe everyone else so far. I still say there's no way that anyone gets a conviction in a courtroom. And I also say that the quid pro quo stuff may or may not have been legal, but many of these women got something valuable out of the "arrangement." And if Harvey Weinstein got to have sex with Jennifer Lawrence, as you said, then damn, he definitely got something valuable out of the deal, too! But who are the other three alleged rape victims, other than McGowan and Argento?

Lysette anthony, Lucia ( Evans ?), and an anonymous accuser in the New Yorker article makes 5.

Here’s where the legal situation gets interesting. Harvey’s employment contract imposed fines on him for specified sexual impropriety. That is a unique clause. It goes a long way to showing his Board was aware of his improper activity and tolerated it. That puts the Board, plus a long line of assistants who helped set the women up, at both criminal and civil risk. Which means there are a lot of people who could becomes witnesses to protect themselves.

@mark94, I just read their stories, and I believe them too. It'll be impossible to prove, but I believe them. And I'm rereading Asia Argento's account, and I guess it's not totally far fetched, either. I'm still skeptical about Rose McGowan. But let's be clear, quid pro quo is not the same as rape. A movie producer who has consensual sex or jerks off in front of an actress in exchange for help with her career doesn't sound so bad to me. A movie producer who rapes an actress, regardless of what he promises her, that's really bad shit.

You keep talking about consensual acts, but every one of the 30 women so far is talking about non consensual acts. In every case, Weinstein is accused of forcing women to either have sex or watch him expose himself to them. Why do you keep talking about quid pro quo as though that’s what these situations involve ? None of them do.

^^^ Because none of them complained about having to see HW naked until now. But they all enjoyed the success he brought to them. And they took smiling pictures with him on red carpets for years. Buy I'm not defending rape.

This is a totally ridiculous post and you idiots defending this misogynistic fuck bringing up everything under the sun is so far beyond the the pale it’s ludicrous and if you don’t know this, shame on you.

So, he forced himself on these 30 ( more likely hundreds) of women. They all knew if they spoke out, it would be the end of their career. So, they suffered in silence. Explain to me how this is a “ valuable arrangement “ for these women. I am not aware of anything positive that happpened for these 30 women after they were abused. Are you ?

Geez, no one is supposed to have fun anymore. :)

@mark94 said "Explain to me how this is a “ valuable arrangement “ for these women. I am not aware of anything positive that happpened for these 30 women after they were abused. Are you ?"

Yes, I am: they got to keep their jobs and their lucrative arrangements with the Weinstein company. HW exposed himself and masturbated in front of a few dozen or a few thousand women, sometimes cornering them and preventing them from leaving the room until he was done. Now let's say these women had complained to the cops immediately. Weinstein would probably have received a fine, a small civil settlement, a mandated stint in bullshit "rehab." And that's about it. But they didn't complain because the money and the fame were more important to them. That's quid pro quo. They knew they were getting something of value for remaining silent. And probably for letting him do it again.

Tell me, how would you feel if, decades from now, all of the strippers you've ever propositioned, groped, ejaculated on, etc., all began going to the press and to your family and friends, saying things like "It was horrible. Mark94 told me to put my hand here, put my mouth there, wanted to put his mouth here. I was traumatized"? It wouldn't seem fair, would it? You would have expected them to say something at the time of the occurrence, not a decade or more later. Plus, it happened at a strip club, so you thought there was an understanding that you were there to get your jollies off. Well, so did Harvey Weinstein. He thought he had reached an understanding with these actresses that if he did sexual things with them then they could advance their careers and that they would never tell on him. Otherwise, at least one of them should have said, straight to his ugly face, something like "Don't ever come near me again! And you can stick your movie roles up your fat ass! I'm telling the police!" But again, they didn't.

But rape is a very different story. Again, I AM NOT DEFENDING RAPE! All I'm saying about the actual rape allegations is that they'll be impossible to prove, because it was so long ago. Seriously, don't you think at least someone should have said something to the cops at the time and pursued charges against him? I'm not saying I don't believe the accusers. Basically, I believe all of them except for Rose McGowan, who I think may have exaggerated. But I think all the others are telling the whole truth. All the gropes, all the rapes, all the exposing of genitals and masturbating, all of it. I think it's all true. And there's probably much more that we don't know yet. I mean Judi Dench? The man was into some different shit, I'll give him that. Seriously, those are my only points. I'm not saying that I don't know the difference between consensual and non-consensual. And I'm definitely not saying that rape is okay.

Okay, let’s try this scenario out. You are working in your office late at night, along with a woman who works for you. You walk into her office nude and begin masturbating. She has no idea what is happening. You block the door so she can’t leave. After you’ve ejaculated, you tell her to stay silent, or you will make sure that not only is she fired, but she will never find another job in her field. She knows that this is a genuine threat since everyone with power in her industry owes their job to you. That is EXACTLY what happened to one woman. It is similar to what happened to EVERY woman who has come forward. Then, years later, several women come forward and accuse Weinstein. His threat to blackball the women involved is no longer credible since the word is out. Freed from the threat, dozens of additional women come forward. Do you still say these women benefited from their encounter with Weinstein, simply because he let them keep working ?

@mark94, yes, even in that scenario, which some of the accusers are alleging, yes, it's Weinstein's company and he should be allowed to run it how he sees fit. And if he has friends who also own companies, then it should be up to them whether they want to hire or fire someone solely on his say-so. Does that make it right? No. Is this how I would treat women? Absolutely not! But it's still his company (or it was until he sold his stake in it, or whatever). The women had the right to go to the police, because some of this behavior isn't legal. But it's only treated as illegal if there's an accuser who wants to press charges. They also had the right to sue him. And some of them apparently did sue him.

But they needed to understand that suing him or having him arrested would mean losing a job. Or maybe being blackballed in the entire film industry forever. It is what it is. The world needs plenty of waitresses. Or doctors. Or engineers. Or even strippers. There are lots and lots of jobs that these women could have moved on to after outing Harvey Weinstein. But most of them chose to stay in Hollywood and remain silent because they liked being celebrities. What can I say? No one has a Constitutional right to a job. Not under our system. And I'm glad it works that way.

Let me try a different tactic, too. You're not a fan of Harvey Weinstein. And neither am I. I think we both probably disliked him long before this news broke, mostly because of his political beliefs and affiliations, which I'm assuming we both disagree with. Okay, fair enough so far. But you like Donald Trump. I personally don't. I don't trust Trump. I believe that he can transform back into a liberal Bloomberg-style New York City Democrat at any time, without warning. And yet I'm willing to defend both Trump and Weinstein, at least on process grounds. So how do you feel about the littany of sexual assault charges that have been leveled against Trump? Remember, most of Trump's accusers did not get lucrative jobs after allegedly being groped/assaulted. Most of them got nothing. At least when Weinstein molested someone, the victim usually got a job, or she got to keep her job. What are your thoughts?

Trump was caught on audio talking about grabbing pussy. He also dated, or slept with, lots of women when he was single. He also employs, or has employed, many women in executive positions over the years. To my knowledge, none of them has had anything negative to say about him. In fact, they’ve spoken highly of him even after they left his employment. I also have a recollection that some women came forward around the time of the election, made vague accusations, then disappeared after Trump denied the accusations. Trump is crude. He may have been a horn dog for much of his life. But, I’m not aware of anything approaching the sort of things Weinstein is accused of. Are you ? If so, fill me in.

@mark94 said "I’m not aware of anything approaching the sort of things Weinstein is accused of. Are you ?"

Oh, my goodness, yes. Endless accusations. Some of them disappeared after the campaign ended, but they definitely weren't vague at all. The following two lists are long, but not necessarily exhaustive:

en.m.wikipedia.org

And

thecut.com

Now, a few of these claims are just beyond stupid and don't even come close to meeting the definition of sexual assault. But most of them do. Some of these are serious charges, and, just like with Weinstein, I believe most of the claims against Trump, too. You could almost call Trump's behavior "Weinstein-like." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Weinstein knew each other and ran in the same political circles back before Trump started pretending to be a Republican. Oh, wait. Here you go:

goo.gl

To some degree I think we're seeing the same thing we saw with Cosby. Some honest accusations and then some semi/pure bullshit by women just trying to grab some attention and/or money.

I find Asia Argento and this newest British woman's claims to be slightly suspect. I also have trouble believing this guy is/was a serial rapist.

That said, where there's smoke there's usually fire. What we're being presented with is a picture of a guy who used his position to coerce women into sex and/or harass them and who likely got off on the power to some degree. It's not hard to picture that there were times he took it too far.

BHF: as you may recall, I support Trump’s policies. I’ve never supported him based on his personality or values. He’s crude and narcissistic. He’s also moving the country in the right direction.

Your links add more concern about who he is as a person. However, I’m still suspicious on the timing of these actions, popping up just before the election, then going away.

More just pressuring women into sex, using the power disparity which was built into the situation. Sometimes quid pro quo. A serious matter, but not always necessarily rape.

SJG

@mark94, I understand how you feel. You like his policies. But you're moving the goal posts, aren't you? First you asked me whether I was aware of serious allegations against Trump, but then when you're presented with them, you said that they don't matter.

As for the timing, I was wrong when I said in another post that the allegations had disappeared after the campaign. In fact, some of them are still suing him now. Yes, I'm sure some of them were politically motivated. But others are allegations that he himself admitted to long before 2016, like the thing about the Miss Teen beauty pagents. So who are you going to believe, Trump... or Trump?

Anyway, I feel the same way that you do: all I care about is policy and ideology. I don't care much about his personal private behavior. If he's doing something illegal, fine, prosecute him. If he's being a hypocrite, then someone should expose him. But that's not my concern and it's not what I think about when I vote. I care about free markets and free people. To the extent that Trump advances that agenda, I'm with him. So far it's been a mixed bag. Very mixed.

But still, you asked and I answered and then you said it was irrelevant. I'm amazed that you made it through the campaign season in a swing state without hearing about this stuff every day.

This woman has for a long time deeply irritated me. She is just total bullshit, and I hope the day will come when I no longer hear her name or see her face.

nytimes.com

SJG

I didn’t say it was irrelevant. It affects how I view him personally. I think less of him after reading the allegations, assuming some of them aren’t bogus.

So, what do you want to happen ? Impeachment ? That’s the only recourse until he leaves office.

Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached for sex. He was impeached for lying under oath.

He's an old fat ugly predator who used his position of power to intimidate women into doing things they didn't want to do. PERIOD. He deserves every bad thing that's happened to him now. There is no defense of his bullying tactics of coercion to get what he wanted.

@mark94 said "So, what do you want to happen ? Impeachment ?"

Nah. I would personally prefer Mike Pence. He would be much better for 'our' issues. But if Trump is impeached and Pence becomes president, then Pence would probably lose in 2020. But if he stays in office at least, Trump has a decent chance of winning reelection.

It works out pretty well, in a way. Pence makes policy and picks nominees while Trump keeps the idiots happy. Trump may be the only way for a Republican president to get elected unless and until we get a total voter realignment. A regular Republican like Pence would probably be dead in the water, at least for now. And the polls would be even worse following Trump's impeachment.

My view of Trump's presidency is almost identical to the Koch brothers' view of him: i.e., when he does something good, I'll support it. But I'm not sure if I can vote for him, because I don't want to have the stink of Trump on my hands.

There is a huge difference between a PL offering a dancer cash vs Weinstein offering movie roles in exchange for sexual favors. The truth is - when a PL makes the offer - the dancer can refuse without the PL taking any action to destroy her career. If these actresses refused Weinstein’s advances - it wasn’t just a lost movie role - they would not have a career after. I appreciate you putting this thread up - as I think you were looking to open an active dialogue without it being a bashing thread.

The two faced nature of Hollywood is very sad. It’s come to a great light in this scandal. Who knows what actually happened - at this time - as there are too many allegations - and little evidence.

lopaw,

You state "He's an old fat ugly predator who used his position of power to intimidate women..." True enough! But you then added, "...into doing things they didn't want to do. PERIOD."

What you should have said: He's an old fat ugly predator who used his position of power to try and intimidate women into doing things they didn't want to do, but many did anyway. PERIOD.