Only a tiny % of the population outside the showbiz word is familiar with big name producers, no matter how big name they are.you =/= everybody 'outside the showbiz world'
It also wasn't considered much of a story because few outside the showbiz world had ever heard of Weinstein.
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?
Rose Macgowan has had her twitter account suspended for telling sleazeball Affleck to fuck off: Rose McGowan suspended from Twitter after Ben Affleck tweets
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.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.
Likewise with the title of this thread as raised earlier by spanglechick. Orang Utan, any chance of amending it?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?
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.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.
As it's you Wilf, I'll answer this..
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'.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
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'.
'HW accused of numerous sexual assaults' or something.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.
change it to what?
glad you've recognised the issue with the title, disappointed it's taken so long
"Harvey Weinstein faces numerous accusations of rape and sexual assault" should cover itchange it to what?
done"Harvey Weinstein faces numerous accusations of rape and sexual assault" should cover it
thank you!done
you should probably stick to harassing orang on the less serious threads.glad you've recognised the issue with the title, disappointed it's taken so long
you should probably read post 3 of this one, where i first raised the issue.you should probably stick to harassing orang on the less serious threads.
the other two posts about the title were made in good faith, whereas yours wasn'tyou should probably read post 3 of this one, where i first raised the issue.
this is a particularly weak claim as the subsequent two posts made the same point i did. my post was made 'in good faith' rather than looking for a scrap.the other two posts about the title were made in good faith, whereas yours wasn't
haha, you tell yourself that. i see you.this is a particularly weak claim as the subsequent two posts made the same point i did. my post was made 'in good faith' rather than looking for a scrap.
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.
yeh yeh. if it had been 'in bad faith' and i'd been after a scrap, believe you me you'd have known it. glad you've recognised your error anyway.haha, you tell yourself that. i see you.
His daughter reportedly called 911 .. concerned for hia mental state.