Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

_Dara_ wrote: »

It's a weird one. I tend to believe what he says though for the reason that the police only cautioned him which tells me that he didn't do much. If he had in any way looked at child porn, he would have been charged, famous or not.

It wasn't just a simple caution though, he was placed on the sex offenders register for five years. The police were also fully ready to prosecute had he not accepted the terms they offered him. He has since claimed that he chose not to go to court as he felt some 12-year-old could perhaps have given evidence and said that she had sex with him and how could he prove her wrong.

Personally, I think he is full of shit. He would have us believe that he clicked on a 'Click Here For Child Porn' banner to prove that British banks were profiting from Child Porn (and then forwarding the money on to the owners of these sites) but that's an absurd thing to expect people to swallow and I'm not sure why they have, as it was well known throughout the 90's that many people in the UK had accessed CP sites and paid with their credit cards. Indeed, that is how Interpol tracked them down, so why, pray tell, would we need Pete Townshend to make that apparent?

It's farcical, as had he phoned whichever section of Scotland Yard that deals with this stuff, and told them his plan, they would have laughed at him and said don't bother, we already know, have you not been reading the papers of the last decade.

eviltimeban wrote: »

The Gilbert / Stone thing seems a bit suspicious, in terms of Stone explaining the situation. It doesn't look like an exploitative situation.

Aye and more bizarre when you consider what she's will to overlook with regards to Polanski.




I wish she'd tripped running down that hill now.

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Gabriel Byrne speaks out about spacey on usual suspects filiming.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1ebc779e-d7ad-11e7-945f-b625fa742a9e

How did Spacey get away so long not named and shamed ;:rolleyes:

Danny Masterson has been fired from Netflix sitcom The Ranch

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/news/a844666/danny-masterson-fired-netflix-the-ranch-rape-allegations/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/danny-masterson-netflix-executive-rape-allegations_us_5a24b480e4b03c44072e6b97?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

Rather disturbing how netflix brushed off the Masterson allegations-simply because they didn't 'believe them'-until one victim confronted a Netflix producer.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

Christy42 wrote: »

Does not always have to be verbal but it needs to be there.

It was there....... remaining in that bed after Melaine began to have oral sex with her was conveying consent.

allym wrote: »

Sexual assault is not being dragged down an alley at knife point.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.

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.

The only one being foolish here is you. This whole nonsense about believing victims just because they say they were a victim is ridiculous, not to mention dangerous. How about we take each accusation on it's own merits before giving our opinions (not that we should be doing so without a trial having first taken place, mind... but here we unfortunately find ourselves).

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

I'm sure it is hard to tell a friend to stop but awkward sex =/= rape.

Timothy (by her own admission) was harassed for hours by Melanie the night before for sex. She said she was trying to sleep and Melanie wouldn't leave her alone. The next night, despite that, she began playing sex games with her and got back into her bed. She allowed Melanie to touch her knowing that she was sexually attracted to her and even let her touch her breasts. Melanie then went down on her and later used a sex toy on her. Again, Timothy is not a paraplegic and so there is no reason why she could not have just pushed her off her and left the room, let alone why she would freeze in that moment and to remain so for an hour or more.

To cut your inevitable strawman argument(s) off at the pass: No I do not think that just because you get in someone's bed that they then have a right to rape you and I absolutely see how someone could genuinely freeze when the person they are in bed with begins sexually assaulting them......... BUT there would need to be a whole different set of circumstances in place for me (or anyone with so much as an ounce of common sense) to accept that could have been what occurred here.

Someone simply does not freeze when someone touches them that moments before they were happy enough to play sex games with and allow them to fondle their boobs. There was no element of shock here. She knew Melanie was into her and wanted to have sex with her and so if you want to put that down to just being my opinion, knock yourself out, but as far as I am concerned my opinion is based on logical reasoning and yours the latest right-on nonsense about how we should believe all accusations because.................................. well, I'm still waiting for a good reason for why we should be doing that.

In that situation who lies there and doesn't say stop?
Who cant say no, dont do that?
She could have got up and left. The excuse of wanting to go to sleep, that her friend had worn her down is, imo, nonsense.

Never heard of either of these two before. Is there a sense of jumping on the bandwagon with some of them?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It was there....... remaining in that bed after Melaine began to have oral sex with her was conveying consent.



Yeah, I'm aware of that.



The only one being foolish here is you. This whole nonsense about believing victims just because they say they were a victim is ridiculous, not to mention dangerous. How about we take each accusation on it's own merits before giving our opinions (not that we should be doing so without a trial having first taken place, mind... but here we unfortunately find ourselves).



I'm sure it is hard to tell a friend to stop but awkward sex =/= rape.

Timothy (by her own admission) was harassed for hours by Melanie the night before for sex. She said she was trying to sleep and Melanie wouldn't leave her alone. The next night, despite that, she began playing sex games with her and got back into her bed. She allowed Melanie to touch her knowing that she was sexually attracted to her and even let her touch her breasts. Melanie then went down on her and later used a sex toy on her. Again, Timothy is not a paraplegic and so there is no reason why she could not have just pushed her off her and left the room, let alone why she would freeze in that moment and to remain so for an hour or more.

To cut your inevitable strawman argument(s) off at the pass: No I do not think that just because you get in someone's bed that they then have a right to rape you and I absolutely see how someone could genuinely freeze when the person they are in bed with begins sexually assaulting them......... BUT there would need to be a whole different set of circumstances in place for me (or anyone with so much as an ounce of common sense) to accept that could have been what occurred here.

Someone simply does not freeze when someone touches them that moments before they were happy enough to play sex games with and allow them to fondle their boobs. There was no element of shock here. She knew Melanie was into her and wanted to have sex with her and so if you want to put that down to just being my opinion, knock yourself out, but as far as I am concerned my opinion is based on logical reasoning and yours the latest right-on nonsense about how we should believe all accusations because.................................. well, I'm still waiting for a good reason for why we should be doing that.

Nope. Not consent. Look at it the other way. Melanie knew she had been refused sex at several points. You would think she would have looked for something more solid than lying still for consent at that point.

I have said consent needs to be actively given. Doing nothing is not giving consent I don't know how many times that needs to be repeated.

Not backing what the men have done but here is an example where people find it funny that a woman gropes a guys privates and they all laugh about it saying it is different even though they guy ended up blocking the girl from social media