Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

13-09-2018 11:00am

nullzero wrote: »

She's getting her 15 minutes here plus a big payout from Sky.
"this footage was shot only HOURS before she was ALLEGEDLY raped by HARVEY WEINSTEIN".

Weinstein is a creep and deserves the exposure he's getting but this story is just such nonsense. Yet again we have a narcissistic woman looking for her pay out from a scandal diluting the suffering of women who have really suffered at the hands of abusive people.

Did you watch the video?

13-09-2018 11:02am

Senature wrote: »

Where is this bit in the video? I definitely missed it.

In fairness, her response to him asking if he can flirt is a flirt itself.

seamus · 13-09-2018 11:15am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Am I allowed to flirt with you ?"

Sorry but you reply to that with - girlish giggle, coquettish flick of the hair, "Ummm we'll see, a little bit." - and you're up for it.

When did women stop having balls to say "no thanks" ???

What pathetic Victorian level vapours hsving victims are we becoming ????

This is an incredibly naive point of view, are you capable of empathy at all?

If you seriously thought that any women who wasn't "up for it" would have just said, "No, this meeting is over, goodbye Mr. Weinstein", then you are incredibly sheltered.

It's clear she's really uncomfortable, but is trying to keep it going, trying to keep it on track. If you want to torpedo a business meeting, you get annoyed, you get personal, you storm out.

If it to be successful, you have to bounce off the customer, adapt to their demeanour. This means that if they're stuffy and formal, you are stuffy and formal. If they are friendly and informal, so are you. "Can I flirt with you?", OK, it's a bit out there, but what harm a little flirting if he'll sign the contract, right?

To interpret this as sexual interest or compliance is a mistake. It's a game. Business, not personal. Weinstein is/was perfectly aware that he is in the position of power, and he's pushing it the whole time. He's testing the waters, seeing how far he can push it. She is clearly uncomfortable and trying to just get through this meeting with the creepy man, secure a good deal for her company and GTFO.

Should she have told him to fnck off? Of course. Is it understandable that she wouldn't? Of course; that would be her career over, prospect lost, company blacklisted, fired.
Just because someone is willing to tolerate a little creepiness to secure a business deal, doesn't make them a willing participant. That in fact reflects even worse on the creep, because they know full well they're only getting away with it as they're in a position of power.

Assetbacked · 13-09-2018 12:02pm

"I just fell on top of him and suddenly he was inside me but that wasn't what I indicated by falling on him."

PlaneSpeeking · 13-09-2018 12:26pm

Senature wrote: »

I don't need to watch it again, you are claiming she flirts outrageously with him, what did she do that would accurately be described as such?

I claimed nothing of the sort.

Blinkers off, now.

PlaneSpeeking · 13-09-2018 12:27pm

seamus wrote: »

This is an incredibly naive point of view, are you capable of empathy at all?

If you seriously thought that any women who wasn't "up for it" would have just said, "No, this meeting is over, goodbye Mr. Weinstein", then you are incredibly sheltered.

It's clear she's really uncomfortable, but is trying to keep it going, trying to keep it on track. If you want to torpedo a business meeting, you get annoyed, you get personal, you storm out.

If it to be successful, you have to bounce off the customer, adapt to their demeanour. This means that if they're stuffy and formal, you are stuffy and formal. If they are friendly and informal, so are you. "Can I flirt with you?", OK, it's a bit out there, but what harm a little flirting if he'll sign the contract, right?

To interpret this as sexual interest or compliance is a mistake. It's a game. Business, not personal. Weinstein is/was perfectly aware that he is in the position of power, and he's pushing it the whole time. He's testing the waters, seeing how far he can push it. She is clearly uncomfortable and trying to just get through this meeting with the creepy man, secure a good deal for her company and GTFO.

Should she have told him to fnck off? Of course. Is it understandable that she wouldn't? Of course; that would be her career over, prospect lost, company blacklisted, fired.
Just because someone is willing to tolerate a little creepiness to secure a business deal, doesn't make them a willing participant. That in fact reflects even worse on the creep, because they know full well they're only getting away with it as they're in a position of power.

Hi Rose.

Outlaw Pete · 13-09-2018 12:27pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is your point that abuse by a person in a position of power leads victims to behave differently than how you’d think?

What an odd question.

My point was, clearly, that she, Melissa, was given opportunities by Harvey to reject his advances but she didn't take them. He tells her he will not flirt with her if she doesn't want him too and also asks her if what he is doing (putting his hand up her skirt) is okay. Like I said, I get that he is in a powerful position here and that she would understandably feel intimidated by him and that were she to reject his advances that it would be bound to negatively impact on her chances of achieving her goal of getting Harvey to do business with her (and her company).

However, while I fully accept that Harvey is a slezebag who should not be using business meetings (and the leverage that the power to say Yes affords him) to try and get women into bed, I do also feel that the other party has a certain amount of responsibility for his behaviour if they actively encourage it, which I feel Melissa did.

Pelvis wrote: »

It's a well known fact that if you flirt with a woman before 12pm, you can have sex with her that evening without her permission, and it's not rape.

What the actual fuck is your point here? Let's say she was agreed to go for a drink with him as part of a date, is she obliged to have sex with him?

Honest to ****in' christ.

Eh, relax there, chief, nobody suggested anything close to what you're implying.

Read what I said:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.... yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.

You see, you're sure a rape took place but I see no evidence of that, which begs the question, why are you so sure? Cause she said he did?

You see this is why I asked questions in my post, like if she had any other dealings with him, did she report it etc. As I'm trying to ascertain what went on and if there is evidence for it. But you're headlong into it as if there is no question he raped this woman. Which would be fine if you had some basis for that contention but I don't see how you could.

Pelvis · 13-09-2018 12:33pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You see, you're sure a rape took place but I see no evidence of that, which begs the question, why are you so sure? Cause she said he did?

I have no idea what did or didn't take place. I just know that the video you posted is irrelevant either way. What evidence are you looking for exactly?

Outlaw Pete · 13-09-2018 1:15pm

Pelvis wrote: »

I have no idea what did or didn't take place.

You say now that you have "no idea" what went on in that room, but in your initial post you were sure a rape was committed given that you suggested I had implied that a green light to flirt excused a later rape, and again, I did nothing of the sort.

I just know that the video you posted is irrelevant either way.

It's not irrelevant and you can be sure that if it went to trial no judge would feel it was irrelevant either. And before you come back with another strawman: No, agreeing to go for a drink, even a social one, does not excuse rape or any non-consensual sex act but that doesn't make her response in the video to the offer of the drink irrelevant, as it gives their meeting context, particularly as she had just consented to allowing that man to put his hand up her skirt.

What evidence are you looking for exactly?

Anything that would swing the probabilities of either his guilt or innocence. Seems weird to me that many people are not interested in such things.

nullzero · 13-09-2018 1:17pm

seamus wrote: »

This is an incredibly naive point of view, are you capable of empathy at all?

If you seriously thought that any women who wasn't "up for it" would have just said, "No, this meeting is over, goodbye Mr. Weinstein", then you are incredibly sheltered.

It's clear she's really uncomfortable, but is trying to keep it going, trying to keep it on track. If you want to torpedo a business meeting, you get annoyed, you get personal, you storm out.

If it to be successful, you have to bounce off the customer, adapt to their demeanour. This means that if they're stuffy and formal, you are stuffy and formal. If they are friendly and informal, so are you. "Can I flirt with you?", OK, it's a bit out there, but what harm a little flirting if he'll sign the contract, right?

To interpret this as sexual interest or compliance is a mistake. It's a game. Business, not personal. Weinstein is/was perfectly aware that he is in the position of power, and he's pushing it the whole time. He's testing the waters, seeing how far he can push it. She is clearly uncomfortable and trying to just get through this meeting with the creepy man, secure a good deal for her company and GTFO.

Should she have told him to fnck off? Of course. Is it understandable that she wouldn't? Of course; that would be her career over, prospect lost, company blacklisted, fired.
Just because someone is willing to tolerate a little creepiness to secure a business deal, doesn't make them a willing participant. That in fact reflects even worse on the creep, because they know full well they're only getting away with it as they're in a position of power.

Empathy is in cases like this being exploited.
She claims to have been instantly made to feel uncomfortable by him and still agrees to meet with him at his hotel AND agrees to go to his room. Without excusing his actions, she had plenty of opportunities to make her excuses and leave and avoid the situation. Does selling her product to a man who clearly is only feigning interest in it to lure her to take advantage of her really over rule her need to take responsibility for her own safety?
From her own testimony she felt ill at ease in his company and still chose to spend time with him repeatedly ignoring numerous red flags.
He is responsible for his actions which are vile, but she is equally responsible for her actions in not heeding her better judgement.
We seem to have reached a stage where a woman can cry rape and victim Hood in any situation and her rational can never be questioned. For the record I don't believe she was "asking for it", but she made a conscious decision to put herself in harms way against her own judgement which is the crux of the argument.

Kivaro · 13-09-2018 2:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

She gives him permission to flirt with her, then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him. She doesn't reject his advances when he strokes her arm, the agrees to go to drinks with him.

The only victim here is the viewer, somebody is trying to dupe us.

I wonder if we both saw the same video. She did not flirt outrageously with him and for you to say that shows us your biased mindset (and those who agree with you) in discussing the topic.

It was their first time meeting and the setting is a professional business environment. The first thing that Weinstein says (twice) to his staff outside is not to disturb them, and then you can clearly hear him locking the door.
This is not a standard procedure for a business meeting; especially with just 2 people.

The way he rubbed her arms and moved his hands up her legs to the point where she said it was too high is also a non-standard procedure in a business meeting. Besides a handshake, there should be no other physical contact.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Try watching it without the feminist blinkers - it's there.

I'm far from a feminist, but I find that if you replace the woman in the video with your sister, daughter, girlfriend etc., then one would have a different perspective.

If this was a once-off claim by a woman against Weinstein, then the viewer may have a different slant on the video. But the sexual harassment that we witnessed in this video is the modus operandi of a predator who has multiple similar claims by many other women.

mickrock · 13-09-2018 2:46pm

Kivaro wrote: »

The video was disturbing because it showed the grooming/manipulation process at work by a man with a lot of experience with it.

The video shows a woman using her sexuality to clinch a business deal. At no point does she spurn his advances and she flirts back at him.

Her releasing this video will have the opposite effect to what she intended. It won't help her case and will probably badly harm it.

take everything · 13-09-2018 3:00pm

Watched that video and feel terrible for her.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why she met him again.

She's a grown woman.
This isn't a child being groomed by an adult. This is a grown woman.

I get that she may have feared for her safety on the first encounter (but even that's a stretch. It's not inconceivable that she could have screamed/managed to leave the room when he touched her. I mean then he'd be a Hollywood producer trying to get a way with murder which she must have factored in. But she doesn't look that panicked anyway tbh.)

But meeting him again. That's just bonkers. Proper LaLa land morality that one.

irishproduce · 13-09-2018 3:06pm

nullzero wrote: »

Empathy is in cases like this being exploited.
She claims to have been instantly made to feel uncomfortable by him and still agrees to meet with him at his hotel AND agrees to go to his room. Without excusing his actions, she had plenty of opportunities to make her excuses and leave and avoid the situation. Does selling her product to a man who clearly is only feigning interest in it to lure her to take advantage of her really over rule her need to take responsibility for her own safety?
From her own testimony she felt ill at ease in his company and still chose to spend time with him repeatedly ignoring numerous red flags.
He is responsible for his actions which are vile, but she is equally responsible for her actions in not heeding her better judgement.
We seem to have reached a stage where a woman can cry rape and victim Hood in any situation and her rational can never be questioned. For the record I don't believe she was "asking for it", but she made a conscious decision to put herself in harms way against her own judgement which is the crux of the argument.

I don't know if anyone told you but you are not allowed to say that.

nullzero · 13-09-2018 3:06pm

take everything wrote: »

Watched that video and feel terrible for her.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why she met him again.

She's a grown woman.
This isn't a child being groomed by an adult. This is a grown woman.

I get that she may have feared for her safety on the first encounter (but even that's a stretch. It's not inconceivable that she could have screamed/managed to leave the room when he touched her. I mean then he'd be a Hollywood producer trying to get a way with murder which she must have factored in. But she doesn't look that panicked anyway tbh.)

But meeting him again. That's just bonkers. Proper LaLa land morality that one.

That's where the claims she's making fall foul of logic.
The people here clambering behind her are repeatedly failing to grasp this issue.

nullzero · 13-09-2018 3:08pm

irishproduce wrote: »

I don't know if anyone told you but you are not allowed to say that.

That's the modern world in a nutshell, close down discussion, the "right on" dogmatic principle in action.

take everything · 13-09-2018 3:12pm

nullzero wrote: »

That's where the claims she's making fall foul of logic.
The people here clambering behind her are repeatedly failing to grasp this issue.

The thing is I am not against this woman. And I'm sure most of the posters here aren't either.
Just this putting her in the same box as say a child being abused or a woman in an abusive controlling relationship is desperately misguided.

She is nowhere near like them. She has agency. She's a woman with some power. Agency not to meet this piece of **** again.

And report him.
It should be plain to anyone reasonable that ****ed up Hollywood dynamics say nothing to the ordinary abused person on the street

13-09-2018 3:17pm

mickrock wrote: »

The video shows a woman using her sexuality to clinch a business deal. At no point does she spurn his advances and she flirts back at him.

Her releasing this video will have the opposite effect to what she intended. It won't help her case and will probably badly harm it.

This is warped. He is hitting on her, not the other way around.

Kivaro · 13-09-2018 3:22pm

take everything wrote: »

Watched that video and feel terrible for her.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why she met him again.

She's a grown woman.
This isn't a child being groomed by an adult. This is a grown woman.

I get that she may have feared for her safety on the first encounter (but even that's a stretch. It's not inconceivable that she could have screamed/managed to leave the room when he touched her. I mean then he'd be a Hollywood producer trying to get a way with murder which she must have factored in. But she doesn't look that panicked anyway tbh.)

But meeting him again. That's just bonkers. Proper LaLa land morality that one.

Totally agree with you.
After the initial encounter, she should have avoided him like the plague; irrespective of the hopes of closing a business deal.
Other women had similar first meetings with him and never showed up for any subsequent meetings because they got a feel for the man. Unfortunately, some others did show up.

You can flirt with another human being in various encounters in life using words but when it progresses to the type of physical contact that we saw in the video; that's not flirting. I did not see her reciprocate by rubbing his bare arms or trying to move her hand up his thigh to his crotch area. In any business or social environment in the western world, what Weinstein did in the video was sexual harassment.

Senature · 13-09-2018 4:47pm

This thread has gone from being interesting and informative to total scumminess in just a couple of pages. To all those who are blaming this woman for being groped at a business meeting, I hope to f*ck I never work with any of you. Just in case I flick my hair out of my face and maybe smile at you and you then decide that means I want you to feel me up repeatedly despite me never touching you. The very start of the meeting, before they greet each other, he locks the door and then instead of shaking her hand he hugs her and runs his hands up and down her back. She did nothing to initiate any of this or encourage it, and is now on the back foot for the whole rest of the meeting as she feels weird and uncomfortable. At the time she also presumeably had no idea that he had a history of inappropriate sexual advances towards women, something which every commentator here is now aware of as they cast their judgments on her.
For even putting forward a question about a previous poster's comment I have been labelled a feminist and am apparently wearing blinkers. So unless I agree with the notion that she led him on my opinion is obviously misguided, misinformed, man hating or whatever else has been decided. The video does not at all prove he raped her, but I think it does prove sexual harrassment at that meeting. Feeling concerned because occasionally people make false allegations which can have a horrific effect on those accused is valid and worth discussing and finding better solutions for how cases are dealt with generally. Treating and discussing everyone who makes an allegation with such hatred and resentment is horrible and totally needless.

Silentcorner · 13-09-2018 4:57pm

Senature wrote: »

This thread has gone from being interesting and informative to total scumminess in just a couple of pages. To all those who are blaming this woman for being groped at a business meeting, I hope to f*ck I never work with any of you. Just in case I flick my hair out of my face and maybe smile at you and you then decide that means I want you to feel me up repeatedly despite me never touching you. The very start of the meeting, before they greet each other, he locks the door and then instead of shaking her hand he hugs her and runs his hands up and down her back. She did nothing to initiate any of this or encourage it, and is now on the back foot for the whole rest of the meeting as she feels weird and uncomfortable. At the time she also presumeably had no idea that he had a history of inappropriate sexual advances towards women, something which every commentator here is now aware of as they cast their judgments on her.
For even putting forward a question about a previous poster's comment I have been labelled a feminist and am apparently wearing blinkers. So unless I agree with the notion that she led him on my opinion is obviously misguided, misinformed, man hating or whatever else has been decided. The video does not at all prove he raped her, but I think it does prove sexual harrassment at that meeting. Feeling concerned because occasionally people make false allegations which can have a horrific effect on those accused is valid and worth discussing and finding better solutions for how cases are dealt with generally. Treating and discussing everyone who makes an allegation with such hatred and resentment is horrible and totally needless.

I'm no feminist, not that that matters, Weinsteins behaviour was deplorable, in the face of that the woman didn't grasp how deplorable he could go....if I worked with a person who was capable of behaving in that manner I would be gravely concerned.

He walked into that room with one thing on his mind, she was getting it whether she liked it or not....he is a scumbag!

13-09-2018 5:10pm

Senature wrote: »

Where is this bit in the video? I definitely missed it.

If you want something specific, 1:40 when they are talking about Marilyn Monroe.

She turns her body directly to face him (an open and comfortable body language) and is very flirtatious in the following moments, making direct eye contact while smiling suggestively and putting her face extremely close to his.

Weinstein actually withdraws and says I want to have a serious conversation here, she continues to lean forward further into his personal space while smiling and looking him directly in the eye. She says 'we can do both' (both meaning they can flirt and talk seriously)

Outlaw Pete · 13-09-2018 5:17pm

Here's the video for those who haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC4eog5cY9Q

seamus · 13-09-2018 5:24pm

nullzero wrote: »

Empathy is in cases like this being exploited.
She claims to have been instantly made to feel uncomfortable by him and still agrees to meet with him at his hotel AND agrees to go to his room.

To be fair, she does explain that felt relatively safe that he was proposing a follow-up early dinner meeting to close the deal that they had just been discussing.

Being the hotel he's staying in is kind of irrelevant; she's expecting to meet him in a public place, but one that's convenient to him, so no biggie.

When she arrived, he told her to follow him. Probably set off some alarm bells in her head, but she gives the impression that he never said, "Let's go up to my room", but rather that he was coy about why and where he was leading her to until they got up there.

Naive from her perspective, perhaps. But understandable.

She doesn't give any indication in her words that she knew he was bringing her back for sex, and definitely from the video he doesn't imply that at all when he's asking to meet her at the restaurant later.

So it wouldn't be correct to say that she met him again and knew what he was planning. If anything, the indication is that she was expecting a more public setting for the next meeting, so felt happier with that.

nullzero · 13-09-2018 5:27pm

Senature wrote: »

This thread has gone from being interesting and informative to total scumminess in just a couple of pages. To all those who are blaming this woman for being groped at a business meeting, I hope to f*ck I never work with any of you. Just in case I flick my hair out of my face and maybe smile at you and you then decide that means I want you to feel me up repeatedly despite me never touching you. The very start of the meeting, before they greet each other, he locks the door and then instead of shaking her hand he hugs her and runs his hands up and down her back. She did nothing to initiate any of this or encourage it, and is now on the back foot for the whole rest of the meeting as she feels weird and uncomfortable. At the time she also presumeably had no idea that he had a history of inappropriate sexual advances towards women, something which every commentator here is now aware of as they cast their judgments on her.
For even putting forward a question about a previous poster's comment I have been labelled a feminist and am apparently wearing blinkers. So unless I agree with the notion that she led him on my opinion is obviously misguided, misinformed, man hating or whatever else has been decided. The video does not at all prove he raped her, but I think it does prove sexual harrassment at that meeting. Feeling concerned because occasionally people make false allegations which can have a horrific effect on those accused is valid and worth discussing and finding better solutions for how cases are dealt with generally. Treating and discussing everyone who makes an allegation with such hatred and resentment is horrible and totally needless.

There's no "hatred and resentment" being implied here.
You need to get off of your soap box and stop misrepresenting others peoples opinions.

The fact is that in this case the woman in question had ample time and opportunities to not be in a situation where he could take advantage of her.
Like it or not, she wasn't immediately raped and she could exercise her own agency to not be around him later in the day when she allegedly was raped.
Do you not understand the logic?
While I'm replying to you, I think you know that most men aren't rapists even though you implied you could be raped for simply flicking your hair at somebody, leave the victim act please and attempt to construct a logical argument.

nullzero · 13-09-2018 5:39pm

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, she does explain that felt relatively safe that he was proposing a follow-up early dinner meeting to close the deal that they had just been discussing.

Being the hotel he's staying in is kind of irrelevant; she's expecting to meet him in a public place, but one that's convenient to him, so no biggie.

When she arrived, he told her to follow him. Probably set off some alarm bells in her head, but she gives the impression that he never said, "Let's go up to my room", but rather that he was coy about why and where he was leading her to until they got up there.

Naive from her perspective, perhaps. But understandable.

She doesn't give any indication in her words that she knew he was bringing her back for sex, and definitely from the video he doesn't imply that at all when he's asking to meet her at the restaurant later.

So it wouldn't be correct to say that she met him again and knew what he was planning. If anything, the indication is that she was expecting a more public setting for the next meeting, so felt happier with that.

She stated she was uncomfortable around him why put herself in the position to be around him in a building where he has a bedroom at his disposal?
I understand your point but in meeting him later she contradicted her stated feelings about him making her feel uncomfortable.

fergiesfolly · 13-09-2018 6:11pm

Why didn't she show the video to her employer after the meeting?
Ask for guidance or advice?
I can't imagine any decent employer letting her continue contact with him.
And if she did inform them and they asked her to go anyway, would you not question your loyalty to such a company.
And while I find Weinstein and his actions deplorable and have sympathy for this woman, surely you put your personal safety and self respect above everything else?

goat2 · 13-09-2018 6:16pm

I saw this recording today, he was only interested in one thing, and it was not the amount of likes he would get on his advert, He wanted her to like him only, he sounded like a sleaze bag, no interest in her sales pitch at all, but going to meet him at some lobby later would have been a huge error for her, I am glad someone had it recorded, so we could see how he operated around young ladies when he got them on their own

goat2 · 13-09-2018 6:19pm

Senature I agree with you
The very start of the meeting, before they greet each other, he locks the door and then instead of shaking her hand he hugs her and runs his hands up and down her back. She did nothing to initiate any of this or encourage it, and is now on the back foot for the whole rest of the meeting as she feels weird and uncomfortable. At the time she also presumeably had no idea that he had a history of inappropriate sexual advances towards women, something which every commentator here is now aware of as they cast their judgments on her.)
He also removed others from the room,

PistolsAtDawn · 13-09-2018 6:23pm

I identify as turnip

Malayalam · 13-09-2018 6:26pm

Pfft, I feel like there is gaslighting going on by the people in here saying this woman was a helpless victim in this situation. I watched the video - having read the remarks - and was fully expecting to see a woman being compromised by Weinstein, being put in an awkward situation. And then that is simply not at all what I saw. Fexake, at points she is practically mewling into his face. Harvey Weinstein is a disgusting person, but she is hovering close to entrapment there. Anyways, :rolleyes: Melissa Data Is So Hot Thompson. Whatever.

goat2 · 13-09-2018 6:32pm

Malayalam wrote: »

Pfft, I feel like there is gaslighting going on by the people in here saying this woman was a helpless victim in this situation. I watched the video - having read the remarks - and was fully expecting to see a woman being compromised by Weinstein, being put in an awkward situation. And then that is simply not at all what I saw. Fexake, at points she is practically mewling into his face. Harvey Weinstein is a disgusting person, but she is hovering close to entrapment there. Anyways, :rolleyes: Melissa Data Is So Hot Thompson. Whatever.

He was a pure sleaze in the office with her, he locked the door, and emptied the room,
But
The idea of meeting up with him again, that is what boggle me, she should have reported what had happened in the office right away, she had the recording, that is all she needed.
It shows she was not afraid of him when she met up with him later, she must have trusted him,
If that were me in her situation.
I would not have gone back later

Outlaw Pete · 13-09-2018 6:35pm

Senature wrote: »

I hope to f*ck I never work with any of you. Just in case I flick my hair out of my face and maybe smile at you and you then decide that means I want you to feel me up repeatedly despite me never touching you.

Nothing any user has said would suggest that they feel that you (or any woman) merely flicking their hair out of their face (or just smiling at a someone) in a business meeting would justify that person then proceeding to grope them. So why are you saying this exactly?

..and then instead of shaking her hand he hugs her and runs his hands up and down her back. She did nothing to initiate any of this or encourage it, and is now on the back foot for the whole rest of the meeting as she feels weird and uncomfortable

Yup, which is why most people are saying he's a sleazy git and should be held accountable for unprofessional behaviour.

The video does not at all prove he raped her, but I think it does prove sexual harrassment at that meeting.

Absolutely and had she got up when he put his hand up her skirt and ended the meeting, she would have had a very good case for sexual harassment. The man is a creep and a total sleazebag, and again, I hope he faces consequences for the behavior which we know he is guilty of.............

However, she didn't get up and end the meeting, nor even say something like "No Harvey, let's just keep it professional if that's okay". No, instead she responded "A little bit" when asked could he touch her more and was clearly okay with him having his hand up her skirt too, all be it a little higher than she was okay with. There was flirtatious touching from her also when she leaned in and pushed him saying "Data's hot, right". Again, none of this excuses his intial behaviour, but you can't say someone okaying another person touching them in a sexual way is not encouraging that behavior. That's ridiculous.

This was a 28-year-old woman. If she was uncomfortable with being touched then she should have said so or conveyed it in some manner. As said, Harvey gave her many opportunities to do just that. You're acting like this woman has no agency. Also, if she was genuinely weirded out by him locking the hotel room door and with him the putting his hand up her skirt, then why go into another hotel room with him a few hours later when asked there "for a drink"? It just doesn't add up.

If he raped her, I hope he does time for it, but like with most of the women alleging Weinstein raped them, there does seem to be a lot of contradictory behavior going on that is far from consistent with them having been raped.

Loves_lorries · 13-09-2018 6:38pm

Everytime I see weinstein, I'm reminded of arnie in predator when the alien removes his helmet.

One ugly *****

nullzero · 13-09-2018 6:41pm

Loves_lorries wrote: »

Everytime I see weinstein, I'm reminded of arnie in predator when the alien removes his helmet.

One ugly *****

I'm always waiting for him to make reference to his jagon.

Malayalam · 13-09-2018 6:46pm

goat2 wrote: »

He was a pure sleaze in the office with her, he locked the door, and emptied the room,
But
The idea of meeting up with him again, that is what boggle me, she should have reported what had happened in the office right away, she had the recording, that is all she needed.
It shows she was not afraid of him when she met up with him later, she must have trusted him,
If that were me in her situation.
I would not have gone back later

Dunno. I watched it again to make sure I had not misapprehended what I was seeing. Remember she was the only one of the two who knew they were being filmed - she even shifted the camera when they moved location. All her words in the ''narration'' where she is framing what is going on are very carefully chosen to have impact. I see entrapment. Don't know what the time lapse between the meeting and her narrative to Sky news is - but it's all so rehearsed. Weinstein raped women, no doubt about it. He probably raped this woman too. In this filmed meeting she flirted with him, on purpose. She was using her attractiveness to sell something, whatever it was. This was not a nervous woman. Just my reading of it.

nullzero · 13-09-2018 6:51pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing any user has said would suggest that they feel that you (or any woman) merely flicking their hair out of their face (or just smiling at a someone) in a business meeting would justify that person then proceeding to grope them. So why are you saying this exactly?

It's a hotel. Who doesn't lock their hotel room door.

Yup, which is why most people are saying he's a sleazy git and should be held accountable for unprofessional behaviour.

Absolutely and had she got up when he put his hand up her skirt and ended the meeting, she would have had a very good case for sexual harassment. The man is a creep and a total sleazebag, and again, I hope he faces consequences for the behavior which we know he is guilty of.............

However, she didn't get up and end the meeting, nor even say something like "No Harvey, let's just keep it professional if that's okay". No, instead she responded "A little bit" when asked could he touch her more and was clearly okay with him having his hand up her skirt too, all be it a little higher than she was okay with. There was flirtatious touching from her also when she leaned in and pushed him saying "Data's hot, right". Again, none of this excuses his intial behaviour, but you can't say someone okaying another person touching them in a sexual way is not encouraging that behavior. That's ridiculous.

This was a 28-year-old woman. If she was uncomfortable with being touched then she should have said so or conveyed it in some manner. As said, Harvey gave her many opportunities to do just that. You're acting like this woman has no agency. Also, if she was genuinely weirded out by him locking the hotel room door and with him the putting his hand up her skirt, then why go into another hotel room with him a few hours later when asked there "for a drink"? It just doesn't add up.

If he raped her, I hope he does time for it, but like with most of the women alleging Weinstein raped them, there does seem to be a lot of contradictory behavior going on that is far from consistent with them having been raped.

This highlights the cognitive dissonance of this woman. The majority of people here seem to think women are incapable of telling a man to stop in a situation like this. Poor vulnerable women who can't assert themselves when men ask if its OK to grope them, this case stinks of a book deal and after dinner speeches about surviving this ordeal. She should have told him to fvck off and ended the meeting, and why after seven years is she bringing this to public attention? Why not straight away? She could have initiated the action against this man and saved countless women from him.

goat2 · 13-09-2018 6:55pm

She should have left the room, the second he locked the door,

It is very peculiar that someone locks doors just to have a meeting,

ricero · 13-09-2018 7:18pm

She looks much better with longer hair.

sexmag · 13-09-2018 8:09pm

In this particular case it reeks of her knowing what he was like and lead him on to catch the whole thing on film, she let's him act like the sleze his is and plays off it knowing it's recorded so she can use it later.

She waited years to release this,she wants a book deal or something id say.

I don't know if he raped her and hopefully a trial will find that out and the liar is put behind bars

mickrock · 13-09-2018 10:45pm

Loves_lorries wrote: »

Everytime I see weinstein, I'm reminded of arnie in predator when the alien removes his helmet.

One ugly *****

I wonder if the guy in the video had been young and handsome would some people's perceptions of the dynamics of what happened be somewhat different.

Senature · 13-09-2018 11:00pm

nullzero wrote: »

Senature wrote: »

...To all those who are blaming this woman for being groped at a business meeting, I hope to f*ck I never work with any of you. Just in case I flick my hair out of my face and maybe smile at you and you then decide that means I want you to feel me up repeatedly despite me never touching you... The video does not at all prove he raped her, but I think it does prove sexual harrassment at that meeting.

You need to get off of your soap box and stop misrepresenting others peoples opinions.....

I think you know that most men aren't rapists even though you implied you could be raped for simply flicking your hair at somebody, leave the victim act please and attempt to construct a logical argument.

Hilarious! What I said is above, your misrepresentation of what I said along with illogical argument is below...

No matter what I say I seem to be accused of saying or implying otherwise.

13-09-2018 11:38pm

nullzero wrote: »

This highlights the cognitive dissonance of this woman. The majority of people here seem to think women are incapable of telling a man to stop in a situation like this. Poor vulnerable women who can't assert themselves when men ask if its OK to grope them, this case stinks of a book deal and after dinner speeches about surviving this ordeal. She should have told him to fvck off and ended the meeting, and why after seven years is she bringing this to public attention? Why not straight away? She could have initiated the action against this man and saved countless women from him.

You're ignoring the fact that this guy can make or break your career. He had a crazy amount of power in that industry.

mcmoustache · 13-09-2018 11:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that this guy can make or break your career. He had a crazy amount of power in that industry.

And those who didn't go along with it or spoke out were blacklisted.

mickrock · 14-09-2018 12:12am

Senature wrote: »

The video does not at all prove he raped her, but I think it does prove sexual harrassment at that meeting.

Sexual harrassment involves unwanted sexual advances.

She had opportunities to reject his advances and make it clear that she wasn't interested, but she didn't.

Assetbacked · 14-09-2018 12:25am

mickrock wrote: »

I wonder if the guy in the video had been young and handsome would some people's perceptions of the dynamics of what happened be somewhat different.

This 100%.

Women absolutely deserve equality which involves acknowledging they have agency over their actions. And a lot of women know how to use sex to get ahead; it happens a lot. But, for example, James Franco was accused by a girl and stories emerged of him using his acting class to hire girls for movies however he would hook up with them. It’s the exact same thing except the guy is hot!

Until these “allegations” become convictions then it really is just pantomime, Hollywood garbage news.

Outlaw Pete · 14-09-2018 12:29am

Deleted User wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that this guy can make or break your career. He had a crazy amount of power in that industry.

mcmoustache wrote: »

And those who didn't go along with it or spoke out were blacklisted.

Melissa Thompson was not an actress, she worked for a company that specialized in marketing technology and that is what she is pitching. In fact at one point she starts talking about how it would be possible to sell clothes via the marketing tool she's demo'ing and he responds that he has no interest in that.

And so while, sure, it's understandable that a young actress may feel her career would be negatively affected by reporting Weinstein to the authorities, that should not have been the case with this woman, as while that deal would have been dead in the water for sure, it's unlikely he would have been able to have much effect, if any on her future career prospects.

mickrock · 14-09-2018 1:53am

Malayalam wrote: »

Weinstein raped women, no doubt about it. He probably raped this woman too.

It's her word against his.

We should let the legal system decide if he has committed any crimes. Until then he has a presumption of innocence.

nullzero · 14-09-2018 7:34am

Senature wrote: »

Hilarious! What I said is above, your misrepresentation of what I said along with illogical argument is below...

No matter what I say I seem to be accused of saying or implying otherwise.

This literally makes no sense whatsoever.

nullzero · 14-09-2018 10:49am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that this guy can make or break your career. He had a crazy amount of power in that industry.

Not in her industry as somebody already pointed out.

Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Comments