Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

Theboinkmaster

Brief_Lives wrote: »

Another horrible story...

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41760069

how much drugs, was this guy on...


Norwegian actress and model Natassia Malthe has accused Harvey Weinstein of raping her in a London hotel room after the 2008 Bafta awards ceremony.
She told a press conference in New York she met Weinstein at an after party and felt pressured into telling him she was staying at the Sanderson Hotel.
Malthe alleges Weinstein banged on her door, she let him in and he raped her.
Weinstein has previously issued a statement saying he denies all allegations of non-consensual sex.

Why did she not to go the police :eek:

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Val Kilmer is known for being a difficult dick, he once put a cigarette out on a camera mans face on the film The Island of Doctor Moreau but the story being reported is a nothing story. It's an actor getting carried away in the moment, happens all the time. I doubt there was any malice or other motive to it other than Kilmer getting into character and trying to make it look real.

I think a closed fist punch to the face that knocks someone to the ground is beyond getting carried away. No one should have to put up with that for an audition.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote:

I think a closed fist punch to the face that knocks someone to the ground is beyond getting carried away. No one should have to put up with that for an audition.

No one is saying that they should, just that it is in no way comparable to what Weinstein did. The casting director states that all were warned that it would be psychical a d also that Kilmer didn't punch her. Honestly the while thing comes across like someone trying to make a quick buck.

There is a massively worrying trend now that every person accused of inappropriate behaviour is presumed to be guilty.

There does seem to be a witch hunt potential here

HandsomeBob

People are certainly getting braver anyway, whether that's good or bad is up for debate.

All I know is that it's hard not to respect and admire the people who are risking breaking a non disclosure agreement to speak out.

I'm sure there are some trying to rewrite history because they regretted a decision they made, but in the case of Weinstein at least the sheer amount of detailed accusations condemn him without a doubt.

Sad Professor

Another Ronan Farrow piece, probably the most disturbing one yet, detailing Weinstein’s rape of Annabella Sciorra and harassment of Daryl Hannah. It seems Weinstein or someone working for him was trying to silence people earlier in the year. It also talks about how he offered book deals to gossip journalists for smearing people.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/weighing-the-costs-of-speaking-out-about-harvey-weinstein

brooke 2

Sad Professor wrote: »

Another Ronan Farrow piece, probably the most disturbing one yet, detailing Weinstein’s rape of Annabella Sciorra and harassment of Daryl Hannah. It seems Weinstein or someone working for him was trying to silence people earlier in the year. It also talks about how he offered book deals to gossip journalists for smearing people.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/weighing-the-costs-of-speaking-out-about-harvey-weinstein

What a vile monster. Cannot understand why he is not yet arrested. Or, sadly, perhaps I can!

brooke 2

brooke 2 wrote: »

What a vile monster. Cannot understand why he is not yet arrested. Or, sadly, perhaps I can!

Its amazing what money and power can do. Bill Clinton has paid off 6 different woman, and the accounts of the rapes are even more brutal then that story above. I watched an interview with one lady last week, and it was harrowing to say the least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHh73fkDUIs

Sad Professor

brooke 2 wrote: »

What a vile monster. Cannot understand why he is not yet arrested. Or, sadly, perhaps I can!

They are still just accusations, which people have decided to take to the press rather than the police.

ps3lover

Sad Professor wrote: »

They are still just accusations, which people have decided to take to the press rather than the police.

Statuettes of limitations are probably up. Also some people tried and just got paid off or threatened.
Corey Feldman stated he went to the police a long time ago about people who where abusing him and Haim and nothing was done about it, it was basically ignored.


http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/11/secret-police-tape-corey-feldman-first-detailed-rape-in-1993-cops-did-zero-to-catch-sexual-predator/

Rjd2

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/anthony-rapp-kevin-spacey-made-sexual-advance-when-i-was-14?utm_term=.sevN0VpWV#.itydoAnYA

Spacey in the firing line now. His name popping up won't shock anyone, plenty of rumours about him for many years now.

Goat the dote

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/anthony-rapp-kevin-spacey-made-sexual-advance-when-i-was-14?utm_term=.sevN0VpWV#.itydoAnYA

Spacey in the firing line now. His name popping up won't shock anyone, plenty of rumours about him for many years now.

And he’s now come out as a gay man

Agent Coulson

You would have to ask where were 14 year old's Anthony Rapp's parents/guardians when he was at a after party in Spacey's apartment.

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

You would have to ask where were 14 year old's Anthony Rapp's parents/guardians when he was at a after party in Spacey's apartment.

Sounds very like what George Hook alluded to... Careful now, down with that sort of thing.

Rabble rabble

pixelburp

Agent Coulson wrote: »

You would have to ask where were 14 year old's Anthony Rapp's parents/guardians when he was at a after party in Spacey's apartment.

That kind of parenting though has been around since day 1 of Hollywood, be it Judy garland on her cocktail of drugs, or Drew Barrymore drunk at after parties aged 9. Heck, they only changed the laws around how and when children could work on sets after a couple of kids died while filming the Twilight Zone movie in the 70/80s IIRC; Hollywood has a shockingly long history of neglect when it comes to children so it doesn't surprise that a teenager would end up at an afterparty.

Spacey suddenly coming out as gay feels like a very calculated, cynical move to shift the conversation though; I've read rumours about him before that he has aggressively pursued colleagues, or even random folks in public. Don't have links but it was another open secret he'd go on the prowl for any pretty young thing he liked the look of.

S.M.B.

Agent Coulson wrote: »

You would have to ask where were 14 year old's Anthony Rapp's parents/guardians when he was at a after party in Spacey's apartment.

You would, but more importantly you'd also have to ask what the f**k Spacey is doing pinning a 14 year old to the bed regardless of what the young lads parents were at.

silverharp

all knowing Seth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVIU7iEVl58

Sad Professor

The trades are implying that Netflix have decided to cancel House of Cards on back of these Spacey allegations. Deadline include a statement from Netflix saying they are "deeply troubled" but no direct quote indicating this is the reason for the cancellation. It seems the show was due to end anyway, so it's hard to know what it's going on here.

http://deadline.com/2017/10/house-of-cards-canceled-kevin-spacey-scandal-netflix-season-six-1202197604/

Agent Coulson

Spacey is due to do more work for Netflix a film and another series I think It will be interesting to see if they get canned as well.

Sad Professor

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Spacey is due to do more work for Netflix a film and another series I think It will be interesting to see if they get canned as well.

Yeah, Gore. Deadline claims there's now a question mark hanging over it.

Cancelling a show and putting thousands of people out of a job because of allegations (of sexual assault? advances? attempted pedophilia?) made against your lead for something that happened 30 year ago seems absurd to me. But it goes to show how frightened the studios are of this stuff.

Agent Coulson

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, Gore. Deadline claims there's now a question mark hanging over it.

Cancelling a show and putting thousands of people out of a job because of allegations (of sexual assault? advances? attempted pedophilia?) made against your lead for something that happened 30 year ago seems absurd to me. But it goes to show how frightened the studios are of this stuff.

House of Cards is the show that Netflix built its globe domination on they also need to be seen to do the right thing right now the right PR is just as important as anything else right now as cynical as it is.

pixelburp

Could House of Cards continue without Spacey though? While he's kinda integral, and I gave up after season 2 but from what i understand its race seems a little run at this stage; maybe the focus could shift from Frank if Netflix were determined to drop him.

Rjd2

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, Gore. Deadline claims there's now a question mark hanging over it.

Cancelling a show and putting thousands of people out of a job because of allegations (of sexual assault? advances? attempted pedophilia?) made against your lead for something that happened 30 year ago seems absurd to me. But it goes to show how frightened the studios are of this stuff.

Been plenty of rumours about Spacey for a while now, so think they are fearful of another Weinstein saga with more people accusing him of stuff over next few months, can't blame them tbh.

Let's be fair here, if he did that it's because he's a paedophile and NOT because he's gay.

That was a horrid attempt at deflection

__..__

I think what we have here now is calculated media responses since the accusations are all at the moment just accusations. It's trial by media.
I for one will be waiting for accusations to be proven before believing them from or about anyone. You can't have a situation where an accusation combined with Twitter ruin someone's life.

Frank O. Pinion

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's be fair here, if he did that it's because he's a paedophile and NOT because he's gay.

If the child was 14, it means he's a hebephile, not a paedophile.

Penn

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

If the child was 14, it means he's a hebephile, not a paedophile.

A distinction never really worth making.

Frank O. Pinion

Penn wrote: »

A distinction never really worth making.

There's a difference between a drunken 20-something year old, trying something with a 14 year old, and a 50 year old molesting a 5 year old. When dealing with the evolution of humans, history of sociology, psychology, and many other categories, it is a very important distinction to make.

Frank O. Pinion

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

There's a difference between a drunken 20-something year old, trying something with a 14 year old, and a 50 year old molesting a 5 year old. When dealing with the evolution of humans, history of sociology, psychology, and many other categories, it is a very important distinction to make.

The semantics aside... The point was that by stating that he is gay, as if that's the reason, is horrible.
And it's still illegal to attempt sex with a minor so the wording is not the issue. The common use of paedophile is for adults targeting minors, which is the phrase I and everyone would accept in the instance.

This is all going on what's being reported, no one has been charged or convicted of course

Sad Professor

The meaning of words matter. As per his own account, Rapp was old enough to be at an adult party on his own and to be aware or have some growing awareness of his own sexual orientation, so he wasn't exactly a child. The question, which nobody is asking, is whether Spacey knew he was 14. Assuming that in his drunken state he cared.

It's interesting that Rapp holds back from outright incriminating Spacey, which has left the media scrambling over what to call this. "sexual advances"? "attempted assault"? "sexual misconduct toward a minor"? I assume he was encouraged to come forward with this on the basis of other stories about Spacey, of which there are many, but it seems like we've going from one extreme to another. From victims of rape, assault and repeated harassment being encouraged to stay quiet to people who had disturbing but once-off encounters of a potentially ambiguous nature being encouraged to speak out because of other rumours about that person.

Agent Coulson

Deleted User wrote: »

The semantics aside... The point was that by stating that he is gay, as if that's the reason, is horrible.
And it's still illegal to attempt sex with a minor so the wording is not the issue. The common use of paedophile is for adults targeting minors, which is the phrase I and everyone would accept in the instance.

This is all going on what's being reported, no one has been charged or convicted of course

So a 19 year old adult targeting a 17 year old minor is a paedophile in your eyes?

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So a 19 year old adult targeting a 17 year old minor is a paedophile in your eyes?

17 is age of consent and the Americans actually have it right in their laws on age gaps at that age but a 25 year old targeting an early teen? Yes

And he was a child (14 is no was at all an adult)


But THE POINT was, why is Spacey stating "I'm gay" now? Gay men don't attempt anything with14 year olds.

Just that nothing elsr. I'm not going to state that he did anything other than again create a link between being gay and being unsafe around kids (a falsehood which had thankfully been dismissed in the main)

Penn

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So a 19 year old adult targeting a 17 year old minor is a paedophile in your eyes?

Degree matters. Yes, the age of consent is a catch-all to protect people and ensure they're mature enough to truly consent and in some cases someone near the age of consent with someone only slightly older isn't as egregious as a 50 year old with a 5 year old. However, in this instance we're talking about a mid-20's guy and a 14 year old boy, not near the age of consent and no indication that Spacey knew Rapp was gay himself. It seems he tried to assault someone still well under the age of consent.

If the victim is closer to the age of trying to distinguish whether the attacker would be a hebephile or a paedophile than to the age of consent, it's not really worth trying to distinguish whether the attacker would be a hebephile or a paedophile. Either would suffice by common usage of the words rather than specific definitions.

Agent Coulson

Deleted User wrote: »

17 is age of consent and the Americans actually have it right in their laws on age gaps at that age but a 25 year old targeting an early teen? Yes

And he was a child (14 is no was at all an adult)

Age of consent varies from State to State in America actually.

The common use of paedophile is for adults targeting minors, which is the phrase I and everyone would accept in the instance.

17 years old's are minors are they not?

19 years old's are adults are they not?

So is the 19 year old targets a 17 year old they are a paedophile in your eyes as you stated?

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Age of consent varies from State to State in America actually.




17 years old's are minors are they not?

19 years old's are adults are they not?

So is the 19 year old targets a 17 year old they are a paedophile in your eyes as you stated?

Refer to Penn's answer because I'm ****ing shocked that you're having the age of consent argument to defend potential act between 25 Year old and 14

Also completed ignoring the original point I mad e regarding his linking of being gay to liking kids

Agent Coulson

Deleted User wrote: »

Refer to Penn's answer because I'm ****ing shocked that you're having the age of consent argument to defend potential act between 25 Year old and 14

Also completed ignoring the original point I mad e regarding his linking of being gay to liking kids

I'm not having an age of consent argument with you I'm having your swiping statements argument with you.


No one is defending the assault you are calling Spacey a paedophile with your statement that is what I questioned you on!

Words matter and the meaning of those words matter along with the context in which you use them matter even more!

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I'm not having an age of consent argument with you I'm having your swiping statements argument with you.


No one is defending the assault you are calling Spacey a paedophile with your statement that is what I questioned you on!

Words matter and the meaning of those words matter along with the context in which you use them matter even more!

What do you call a mid 20s adult attempting sexual contact with a 14 year old child?

Agent Coulson

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you call a mid 20s adult attempting sexual contact with a 14 year old child?

A sick fcuk.



Is he a paedophile as you stated no he isn't.

He is a depraved sick man who deserves to be jailed for the assault but the statute of limitations for sexual assault is up and he can't even be arrested in this case.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

The meaning of words matter. As per his own account, Rapp was old enough to be at an adult party on his own and to be aware or have some growing awareness of his own sexual orientation, so he wasn't exactly a child. The question, which nobody is asking, is whether Spacey knew he was 14. Assuming that in his drunken state he cared.

It's interesting that Rapp holds back from outright incriminating Spacey, which has left the media scrambling over what to call this. "sexual advances"? "attempted assault"? "sexual misconduct toward a minor"? I assume he was encouraged to come forward with this on the basis of other stories about Spacey, of which there are many, but it seems like we've going from one extreme to another. From victims of rape, assault and repeated harassment being encouraged to stay quiet to people who had disturbing but once-off encounters of a potentially ambiguous nature being encouraged to speak out because of other rumours about that person.

That's an interesting point actually - maybe he didn't know.

Though there were rumours of his having a younger taste doing the rounds for a long time.

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

A sick fcuk.



Is he a paedophile as you stated no he isn't.

He is a depraved sick man who deserves to be jailed for the assault but the statute of limitations for sexual assault is up and he can't even be arrested in this case.

And what would society at large refer to him as? I used the commonly used term for a person such as that. (I also would not class a 14 year old boy as post pubescent)

Now again, is that all you wish to comment on or the actual point of my comment regarding the assertion that a possible attraction to a boy was a result of being gay?

Agent Coulson

Deleted User wrote: »

And what would society at large refer to him as? I used the commonly used term for a person such as that. (I also would not class a 14 year old boy as post pubescent)

Now again, is that all you wish to comment on or the actual point of my comment regarding the assertion that a possible attraction to a boy was a result of being gay?

Again you are changing the question and refusing to answer your sweeping statement which is what I pulled you on the dangerous context and misuse of your words and statements.

The common use of paedophile is for adults targeting minors, which is the phrase I and everyone would accept in the instance.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

Now again, is that all you wish to comment on or the actual point of my comment regarding the assertion that a possible attraction to a boy was a result of being gay?

Spacey made no such assertion. You are making this assertion based on your assumption that being a paedophile and being attracted to anyone below the legal age of consent are the same thing.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

And what would society at large refer to him as?

A pedo... obviously & rightly so.

Speaking of, when is Bryan Singer being taken down?

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

Spacey made no such assertion. You are making this assertion based on your assumption that being a paedophile and being attracted to anyone below the legal age of consent are the same thing.

To be fair, Spacey made a serious error of judgement in linking his apology to his coming out publicly. As many LGBT activists and groups have pointed out over the last 24 hours, linking homosexuality and the harassment / abuse of minors is an age-old homophobic falsehood, still unfortunately rolled out by bigots. While undoubtedly a mere misjudgement, Spacey's statement does link the apology and his coming out together by simply bringing the two things together in one short block of text. It is, above all, a poorly worded apology - and honestly I think the initial allegation would not have been amplified or covered to the same extreme had that fumble not been made.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair, Spacey made a serious error of judgement in linking his apology to his coming out publicly. As many LGBT activists and groups have pointed out over the last 24 hours, linking homosexuality and the harassment / abuse of minors is an age-old homophobic falsehood, still unfortunately rolled out by bigots. While undoubtedly a mere misjudgement, Spacey's statement does link the apology and his coming out together by simply bringing the two things together in one short block of text. It is, above all, a poorly worded apology - and honestly I think the initial allegation would not have been amplified or covered to the same extreme had that fumble not been made.

Thank you!!
Christ but this place can be difficult at times

Snickers Man

Agent Coulson wrote: »

He is a depraved sick man who deserves to be jailed for the assault but the statute of limitations for sexual assault is up and he can't even be arrested in this case.

Does the fact that he backed off, as the alleged victim maintains, despite being so pissed that he can't remember, as the alleged perpetrator maintains, not count for anything?

Is this not a case of "No meaning No" being respected?

There's the separate issue of what a 14 year old was doing in the presence of a load of pissed up actors which queers the pitch somewhat. So to speak.

That's not victim blaming. But surely somebody else (adult) should have had some duty of care to the 14 year old to prevent this situation arising.

Agent Coulson

Snickers Man wrote: »

Does the fact that he backed off, as the alleged victim maintains, despite being so pissed that he can't remember, as the alleged perpetrator maintains, not count for anything?

Is this not a case of "No meaning No" being respected?

There's the separate issue of what a 14 year old was doing in the presence of a load of pissed up actors which queers the pitch somewhat. So to speak.

That's not victim blaming. But surely somebody else (adult) should have had some duty of care to the 14 year old to prevent this situation arising.

Yes he backed off as Rapp said but Rapp still felt it was an unwanted sexual advance and it affected him for the last 30 years of his life.

Does being so pissed excuse the unwanted sexual advance even if Spacey say he can't remember it and backed off when asked?


If Spacey had come out yesterday and said he was an alcoholic instead of being gay and has issues remembering things he does when drinking would that change anything and peoples views on him?


I agree I had asked the the question earlier in the thread where were the parents/guardians of 14 year old Rapp they need to answer some questions on the whole thing as well.

Tony EH

This whole Spacey thing reeks of a bit of a stitch up TBH.

I don't know the full details of the case here, but it sounds like Spacey tried it on with someone at a party, who he probably didn't know the real age of and backed off when he was told no.

There sounds like there's nothing more to this story, except the for the fuel that it gives the media now that the Weinstein thing has given them licence to accuse everyone of something, no matter what it was they were supposed to have done decades ago.

There's a media frenzy at play here and it's almost a sickening as Weinstein himself.

__..__

Just wondering one thing now because I thought it was different before Twitter.

Is everybody guilty now the minute someone points the finger or is there any presumption of innocence until proven guilty anymore?

It's so brave to throw out claims of abuse that are completely impossible to confirm or deny. Especially when they are decades old. What a hero.