Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rape, sexual assault and harassment in the entertainment industry

Well... as personal testimony seems to be all you're able to present, I know who weinstein is, and have done since the 1990s, despite having only a very vague idea who a number of his very famous victims are.
 
It also wasn't considered much of a story because few outside the showbiz world had ever heard of Weinstein.

Even if it wasn't Weinstein for a community that spends a lot of its time lecturing others on the environment, sexism, racism and politics that have an extraordinary capacity to forget, forgive and ignore astonishing behaviour from within. Polanski's career hasn't dropped a beat, convicted domestic abusers, rapistS, fraudsters are all welcomed back once they've done some form of rehab.
 
I'm not sure the notion that some women weren't abused because they were 'strong' is very helpful. Yes, he might possibly have made such calculations, we don't know, but I don't think we should. I might be genuinely misreading your post, so I'm not steaming in, just asking what you meant?


As it's you Wilf, I'll answer this.

Predators depend on their ability to psychologically (or physically) intimidate and coerce their victims.

Many people - women in the case of Weinstein - give off a vibe that predators pick up on. A vibe that says 'Don't fuck with me' or even 'don't waste my time'. Recognising this vibe - and steering clear of people who give it off - contributes massively to their (the predator's) longevity.

Same goes for muggers or wannabe bullies in a pub. Pick on the wrong 'victim' and you are fucked.

As far as I have read, Weinstein had no form for molesting random strangers. His prey were attractive young women whom he had carefully manipulated into positions where he sensed they were particularly vulnerable. I'm sure there were literally thousands over the years who would either a) have not been exposed to that side of him at all or b) would have given him short shrift when he began the process of manipulation.

Therefore it is daft to think that Weinstein behaved the same with all young women actors.
 
Rose Macgowan has had her twitter account suspended for telling sleazeball Affleck to fuck off: Rose McGowan suspended from Twitter after Ben Affleck tweets
On Wednesday, Affleck apologised to actor Hilarie Burton for groping her during an appearance on MTV’s Total Request Live in 2003. He had earlier published a statement condemning Weinstein for alleged acts of sexual harassment, prompting the Twitter responses from McGowan, who claimed Affleck was aware of the mogul’s behaviour.
I do wish they'd call things what they are. Affleck sexually assaulted her, he didn't 'grope' her. I can sort of understand the guardian/media more generally being a bit twitchy about legal issues, but in this case he's actually admit to doing what was alleged, so minimal chance of being sued.
 
I do wish they'd call things what they are. Affleck sexually assaulted her, he didn't 'grope' her. I can sort of understand the guardian/media more generally being a bit twitchy about legal issues, but in this case he's actually admit to doing what was alleged, so minimal chance of being sued.
Likewise with the title of this thread as raised earlier by spanglechick. Orang Utan, any chance of amending it?
 
Likewise with the title of this thread as raised earlier by spanglechick. Orang Utan, any chance of amending it?
OU - any chance of changing the title. He's been sacked because of a number of allegations of sexual assault and rape. "Sleazing" is a bit of a trivial way to put it. Make it sound like he was a bit of a trouser-stroking slimeball.
Sorry, didn't see this - I thought sleazing was quite accurate - I don't see it as trivial - it means 'behave in an immoral, corrupt, or sordid way', which is certainly the case and it covers all of his behaviour, including rape.
Happy to change it though - what to, though? Can't really say sexual assault as he wasn't fired for that. I guess I don't have to say he was fired now though as the story has become much bigger than just that.
 
As it's you Wilf, I'll answer this..
:)

Predators depend on their ability to psychologically (or physically) intimidate and coerce their victims.

Many people - women in the case of Weinstein - give off a vibe that predators pick up on. A vibe that says 'Don't fuck with me' or even 'don't waste my time'. Recognising this vibe - and steering clear of people who give it off - contributes massively to their (the predator's) longevity.

Same goes for muggers or wannabe bullies in a pub. Pick on the wrong 'victim' and you are fucked.

As far as I have read, Weinstein had no form for molesting random strangers. His prey were attractive young women whom he had carefully manipulated into positions where he sensed they were particularly vulnerable. I'm sure there were literally thousands over the years who would either a) have not been exposed to that side of him at all or b) would have given him short shrift when he began the process of manipulation.

Therefore it is daft to think that Weinstein behaved the same with all young women actors
Cheers. I do get that, honest - and I get that was in his mind too. Whether it be him or Cosby or any other powerful rapist, they've got all the cards that allow them to manipulate a situation and reduce the chances of being complained about, nevermind prosecuted. I'm sure that was his thinking to the point where it was second nature, something he almost didn't have to think about at all. And the truly depressing thing is that scum like him can do this for decades without the industry/us/society cracking the whole thing open. It's just the other side of the equation that worries me. All sorts of women (and men) have been the victims of predators, 'strong' and 'vulnerable'. You hear people say things like 'I thought I was a strong person, I didn't think it would happen to me'. I've no beef with you on this and I think it's entirely right to highlight the vulnerable situation these women were in, but less so to have at least an unintended implication that had they been 'stronger' he wouldn't have gone for them. I'm struggling to put this into words but it's the possibility it feeds into a narrative for the victims of 'I should have fought him off, I should have been stronger'.
 
Wilf

Here's an a example from my own experience.

Aged 16/17 my Parish Priest (who was a good friend of my family and a really well respected across all age groups in our community) was getting a bit suggestive and touchy feely towards me.

I fronted him and told him that while I had no problem at all with him being a) horny (as I thought celibacy was a silly idea) and b) gay (each to their own and all that) I simply was not either gay, curious or in anyway up for any sexual shenanigans.

I never felt intimidated. At all. He backed off - with dignity intact - and that was the end of it. I remained friendly with him as did my family. I did not feel the need to discuss it with anyone save giving a wee word of advice to my younger cousin and his mate to mind themselves around him when he had drink onboard. Cousin's mate was less than impressed at my 'slandering' the Priest's impeccable standing.

I made the assumption that other young lads he approached, flirted with etc would have had a similar (non-threatening) experience if and when he decided to make a play.

Years later it turned out that I was horribly wrong about that and that he was (or developed into) a serious, serial, sexual predator who used all kinds of manipulation (emotional, psychological and physical) to abuse a number of vulnerable young lads. At first I comforted myself with the thought that, ah well, he had simply gotten more brazen and abusive as he descended into his alcoholism, but then a mate told me he had grabbed him by the cock (out of nowhere) in the toilets of an Irish Club during a lock-in/after-time a year before my incident.

Many more years later I witnessed a prominent nightclub owner (well the man-child son of a retired one anyway) behave over a long period of time like a suave, sophisticated, debonair, unfailingly polite, socialite turn into a complete sex-pest around underage girls. I was quite taken aback til one of his bouncers told me he had serious form for it. And yet there would have been hundreds of young women who would truthfully swear that he had never been anything less than a complete gent around them.
 
Last edited:
I'm struggling to put this into words but it's the possibility it feeds into a narrative for the victims of 'I should have fought him off, I should have been stronger'.

I hear you.

A couple of years ago, I helped a friend through a crisis which eventually erupted 20 years after the event.

He was in his early 20's when it happened. A wild, troubled, fight anyone/anywhere at the drop of a hat type of fella who 99% of people definitely would not fuck with.

That did not stop some skinny little rat and so-called friend from spiking his drink and raping him. From the physical effects he described (wide awake but unable to even move) I'm guessing Rohypnol or something similar.

Next morning my friend - who could have battered the slimy cunt with both hands tied behind his back - consumed with shame and guilt that he had not 'fought him off' simply got up, packed a bag and left the flat they shared and left town. For good.

His abuser had (correctly) calculated that despite his physical prowess, my friend was psychologically vulnerable. Probably not the first, or the last, time he had done it either.

That's the thing about predators. They are almost feral in their ability to sniff out vulnerability.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, didn't see this - I thought sleazing was quite accurate - I don't see it as trivial - it means 'behave in an immoral, corrupt, or sordid way', which is certainly the case and it covers all of his behaviour, including rape.
Happy to change it though - what to, though? Can't really say sexual assault as he wasn't fired for that. I guess I don't have to say he was fired now though as the story has become much bigger than just that.
'HW accused of numerous sexual assaults' or something.

To me, 'sleazing' is more saying inappropriate things/uninvited hand on leg type stuff so shit but way less serious than what he's being accused of.
 
I hear you.

A couple of years ago, I helped a friend through a crisis which eventually erupted 20 years after the event.

He was in his early 20's when it happened. A wild, troubled, fight anyone/anywhere at the drop of a hat type of fella who 99% of people definitely would not fuck with.

That did not stop some skinny little rat and so-called friend from spiking his drink and raping him. From the physical effects he described (wide awake but unable to even move) I'm guessing Rohypnol or something similar.

Next morning my friend - who could have battered the slimy cunt with both hands tied behind his back - consumed with shame and guilt that he had not 'fought him off' simply got up, packed a bag and left the flat they shared and left town. For good.

His abuser had (correctly) calculated that despite his physical prowess, my friend was psychologically vulnerable. Probably not the first, or the last, time he had done it either.

That's the thing about predators. They are almost feral in their ability to sniff out vulnerability.


This made me cry.... :(:(
 
i thought he was in Northern Cyprus, chosen for its revolutionary rehab facilities/lack of extradition treaties (delete as appropriate)?
 
Back
Top Bottom