Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

RabbleRouser2k

Venom wrote: »

Melanie Martinez gets added to the ongoing list, with accusations of rape by former friend Timothy Heller.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8061580/the-voice-melanie-martinez-denies-rape-allegations-timothy-heller

Her response there is seriously creepy-'she never said no...'

Well, maybe she didn't, but did she say yes?

Outlaw Pete

John Oliver confronted Hoffman at a Q&A.

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

Outlaw Pete

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Her response there is seriously creepy-'she never said no...'

Well, maybe she didn't, but did she say yes?

Completely disagree.

Lots of people have consensual sex where consent is not verbally given. If this Timothy chick wasn't happy with what Melanie was doing.... then she should've got out of the bed. At the end of the day she let her do what she did and letting someone do something is consenting, even when persuasion is involved.

Only exceptions would be where someone is not in a fit state to consent (either due to intoxication or other impairment such as a mental or physical disability) or where they felt there would be violent consequences to not complying.

For me this is another case where this girl should have gone to the Police when it happened.

Also, given this happened recently enough, there was and is nothing stopping her doing so now.

allym

She had told her repeatedly in the days preceding the event that she did not want to have sex with her. She had been very clear that she was not interested yet this girl went ahead and did it anyway. That’s not consent. An absence of no does not mean yes. And plenty of people feel confused/shocked/frozen when these things happen so not moving away does not mean consent either.

I know people say this a lot and it’s true that not all consent is verbal. But it’s pretty obvious when you’re with someone if they’re consenting to it. This girl apparently lying still and not responding while this other girl had sex with her is not consenting and I think that should be pretty clear.

Outlaw Pete

allym wrote: »

She had told her repeatedly in the days preceding the event that she did not want to have sex with her. She had been very clear that she was not interested yet this girl went ahead and did it anyway. That’s not consent.

Saying you don't want sex at a later point in time, does not mean that should sex occur at a later point in time, then it's rape. Consent happens in the moment.

An absence of no does not mean yes.

In and of it self, no..... but if there are other mitigating factors, then it's relevant.

And plenty of people feel confused/shocked/frozen when these things happen so not moving away does not mean consent either.

So what? You can't cite that as evidence of a rape having taken place. Plenty of people go quiet when consenting also. That's the nature of sex, we all respond differently.

I know people say this a lot and it’s true that not all consent is verbal. But it’s pretty obvious when you’re with someone if they’re consenting to it.

Evidently, it's not always clear, as the recent Rosemary McCabe blogged account of her suggesting she had been raped way back when was a testament to. She even said it herself that she felt the guy thought she had consented.

This girl apparently lying still and not responding while this other girl had sex with her is not consenting and I think that should be pretty clear.

She is conveying consent by not getting the fcuk out of that bed, that's the point. Lying still is not refusing consent (unless she's asleep, or drugged). If I am in a bed with a mate and he starts sucking me off, then I am absolutely conveying consent by remaining in that bed, even if I am saying 'No, don't stop'. I am not a paraplegic and neither is this girl.

allym

Fair enough that’s your opinion but I disagree.

None of us were there and can say one way or another what happened in this situation. But in general, someone not fighting someone off doesn’t mean they’re consenting. When something like this happens your body goes into the “fight/freeze/flee” response and often people have no control over the way their body reacts.

I just think that you can’t discount someone’s account of being raped because they didn’t move away or fight the person off when it’s very clearly documented that plenty of rape victims “freeze” and are completely unable to do so.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Saying you don't want sex at a later point in time, does not mean that should sex occur at a later point in time, then it's rape. Consent happens in the moment.



In and of it self, no..... but if there are other mitigating factors, then it's relevant.



So what? You can't cite that as evidence of a rape having taken place. Plenty of people go quiet when consenting also. That's the nature of sex, we all respond differently.



Evidently, it's not always clear, as the recent Rosemary McCabe blogged account of her suggesting she had been raped way back when was a testament to. She even said it herself that she felt the guy thought she had consented.



She is conveying consent by not getting the fcuk out of that bed, that's the point. Lying still is not refusing consent (unless she's asleep, or drugged). If I am in a bed with a mate and he starts sucking me off, then I am absolutely conveying consent by remaining in that bed, even if I am saying 'No, don't stop'. I am not a paraplegic and neither is this girl.

And if you are terrified? You give consent. It is opt in. Not an opt out. Sure it isn't always verbal but there should be indication.

JP Liz V1

The silence breakers make cover of Time as person(s) of the year

TBH I would've loved to have seen Terry Crews included there.

allym

[Deleted User] wrote: »

TBH I would've loved to have seen Terry Crews included there.

He is. There’s way more people included in the piece than they put on the cover

Edit: full piece is here http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/?xid=homepage

PeterParker957

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The silence breakers make cover of Time as person(s) of the year

I'm assuming "due process" and "evidence" came fourth and fifth ????

Christy42

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'm assuming "due process" and "evidence" came fourth and fifth ????

Taylor had her case in a court of law.

Most of the accusations had the perps confessing. Are confessions not enough these days? Please what is the standard of proof where you would have us go through a trail after the accused has plead guilty (under no duress it must be said)?

PeterParker957

Christy42 wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'm assuming "due process" and "evidence" came fourth and fifth ????

Taylor had her case in a court of law.

Most of the accusations had the perps confessing. Are confessions not enough these days? Please what is the standard of proof where you would have us go through a trail after the accused has plead guilty (under no duress it must be said)?

smfh

Christy42

PeterParker957 wrote: »

smfh

Incredible argument right there. You want to ignore what went on then feel free.

Don't expect the world to follow you though.

HandsomeBob

Was perplexed at Swift being on the cover but then I remembered her case involving the $1 Dollar. I do recall smiling and saying to myself fair play to her.

Outlaw Pete

allym wrote: »

Fair enough that’s your opinion but I disagree.

None of us were there and can say one way or another what happened in this situation. But in general, someone not fighting someone off doesn’t mean they’re consenting. When something like this happens your body goes into the “fight/freeze/flee” response and often people have no control over the way their body reacts.

I just think that you can’t discount someone’s account of being raped because they didn’t move away or fight the person off when it’s very clearly documented that plenty of rape victims “freeze” and are completely unable to do so.

Yes, for a brief time and generally in very serious sexual assaults where there is an element of fear for one's safety.

Christy42 wrote: »

And if you are terrified?

I already cited that as an exception:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Only exceptions would be where someone is not in a fit state to consent (either due to intoxication or other impairment such as a mental or physical disability) or where they felt there would be violent consequences to not complying.

.....but it doesn't apply here as there is no reason for her to have been terrified, she was someone she knew and who is physically smaller than her also.

This girl used a dildo on Melanie for quite a long period of time and despite this she at no stage attempted to push her off or leave the bed let alone the room. Quite frankly, it's an insult to genuine victims of sexual assaults to categorize this as one.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, for a brief time and generally in very serious sexual assaults where there is an element of fear for one's safety.



I already cited that as an exception:



.....but it doesn't apply here

Prove it. No knowing someone does not always make it not scary. Nor does being bigger.

Quite frankly the reason for it is irrelevant. I repeat consent is required. Not the lack of a fight or argument. That is how it works. Does not always have to be verbal but it needs to be there.

allym

Having someone violate your body is terrifying and would make someone fearful of their safety regardless of whether there was an actual threat of violence or not. Sexual assault is not being dragged down an alley at knife point.

You cannot say how someone reacts dictates whether it was a sexual assault or not. You’ve no idea how you, or anyone else, would react in that situation.

If you don’t believe her account then fair enough, that’s your opinion. But to base it solely on the fact that she didn’t react as you would expect someone to is unfair. Again, none of us know how we would react and it’s foolish to think otherwise.

Edit: actually the victim knowing the perpetrator often makes it worse in terms of processing what’s happening. There’s an element of the brain going “but this is my friend/boyfriend/husband/girlfriend/wife/whoever... they can’t be doing this”. Which makes it harder for people to respond at all

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

John Oliver confronted Hoffman at a Q&A.

John Oliver is a narcissistic self serving prick going with whatever flow suits. Oft funny and occasionally relevant, yes, but a narcissistic self serving prick going with whatever flow suits throughout.

retro:electro

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The silence breakers make cover of Time as person(s) of the year

Ronan Farrow should be on there too, imo.

RabbleRouser2k

The photoshop on that cover...jeebus. They've moved the eyes of the women so badly, they've all been Sloth'd. (Wonky eye'd).

Also, look how tall Ashley Judd has been made on that cover-she's shorter than Taylor Swift, but Swift looks tiny. Wth? And why isn't Rose McGowan on the cover, is it cos of the drugs charge? Then where's Annabella Sciorra, or Asia Argento? This is a flawed cover.

John Travolta's movie has been sold by the studio-allegedly based on Travolta's 'indiscretions'-so seems Lionsgate is prepping themselves.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5152637/Travolta-blasts-sexual-assault-rumors-Gotti-release.html

Kingp35

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The photoshop on that cover...jeebus. They've moved the eyes of the women so badly, they've all been Sloth'd. (Wonky eye'd).

Also, look how tall Ashley Judd has been made on that cover-she's shorter than Taylor Swift, but Swift looks tiny. Wth? And why isn't Rose McGowan on the cover, is it cos of the drugs charge? Then where's Annabella Sciorra, or Asia Argento? This is a flawed cover.
[/URL]

Unfortunately despite the seriousness of the topic, the incredibly bad photoshop was the first thing I noticed. It's awful.

RabbleRouser2k

Kingp35 wrote: »

Unfortunately despite the seriousness of the topic, the incredibly bad photoshop was the first thing I noticed. It's awful.

There's already controversy about including Swift-based on really, really lack lustre claims she's a neo-nazi.

Cos her legal team tried to block some negative article written about her (the ties are there because she won't come out and denounce Neo Naziism...as if she has to-that's like saying 'Murder is bad, m'kay?').

The photoshop-is it me, or is the use of it getting even more unprofessional? It's comical now.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Wibbs wrote: »

John Oliver is a narcissistic self serving prick going with whatever flow suits. Oft funny and occasionally relevant, yes, but a narcissistic self serving prick going with whatever flow suits throughout.

It troubles me that Oliver has already decided that Dustin Hoffman is guilty, and isn't allowing for the possibility that some, some accusers have been known to tell fibs every now and then.
Each case should be dealt with strictly going by facts; not feelings, rumours, or gut instincts.

anna080 wrote: »

Ronan Farrow should be on there too, imo.

Above all else, it should have had Corey Haim and Corey Feldman.
They were telling us for years and nobody wanted to know.

HandsomeBob

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Above all else, it should have had Corey Haim and Corey Feldman.
They were telling us for years and nobody wanted to know.

Think we're all guilty on that one. The media presented the two Coreys as two washed up druggies holding onto fame desperately by making such claims, and the public accepted that depiction without question.

It disturbs me that the same people that would have buried such stories are the same ones lapping it up to sell their wares now. That is why we as a society have a duty to always question the media, regardless of how altruistic they may come across as.

Crea

JK Rowling tweeting that she is considering stopping Johnny Depp from playing Grindlewald in the next movie due to the domestic assault allegations.

Crea

JK Rowling tweeting that she is considering stopping Johnny Depp from playing Grindlewald in the next movie due to the domestic assault allegations.

A_Sober_Paddy

Crea wrote: »

JK Rowling tweeting that she is considering stopping Johnny Depp from playing Grindlewald in the next movie due to the domestic assault allegations.

It's an allegation, and he could be losing a gig.

If sex's were reversed we'd be hearing that's it's sexist this sexist that, they are only allegations/ rumours with no foundation.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty

RabbleRouser2k

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

It's an allegation, and he could be losing a gig.

If sex's were reversed we'd be hearing that's it's sexist this sexist that, they are only allegations/ rumours with no foundation.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty

She's said the opposite-that she understands if fans boycott cos of Depp. The twitterati are going mental. But Rowling is a survivor of domestic abuse, the way they are responding to this is juvenile.

Venom

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

She's said the opposite-that she understands if fans boycott cos of Depp. The twitterati are going mental. But Rowling is a survivor of domestic abuse, the way they are responding to this is juvenile.

Rowling has a history of jumping the gun and tweeting false information without bothering to check if her facts are correct.