advertisement


Harvey Weinstein

Joe Hutch said:
'And when I use a word, said Humpty-Dumpty, it means what I choose it to mean.' Rape in legal terms does not necessarily involve violence. Having sex with someone without their consent is rape; this would include when they were incapable of giving consent because they were drunk or drugged. In days gone by it would be termed 'taking advantage' of someone.
Click to expand...
to.

Indeed. But I don't think Weinstein did this. He did not need
 
maxflinn said:
If a woman finds herself in a one-on-one situation with a sexual predator who's angling for sexual favours in return for career advancement would she not perhaps fear physical violence were she to not consent, and thus consent only because it might save her from physical violence?

If so, in such circumstances, would you consider this rape?
Click to expand...

Why the gender specificity?
 
Seanm said:
What are these avenues?
Click to expand...

Like you have to ask?

Facebook. Any form of Social Media. The police. Friends. Employers. You name it. All of these avenues are open and have been for some time.

Now it might impact said person from a financial POV agreed. That's not to say that society frowns upon people making allegations anymore.
 
merlin said:
Like you have to ask?

Facebook. Any form of Social Media. The police. Friends. Employers. You name it. All of these avenues are open and have been for some time.

Now it might impact said person from a financial POV agreed. That's not to say that society frowns upon people making allegations anymore.
Click to expand...

Right. They've all been a big help so far.

Abuse flourishes where avenues of redress are limited. The scandals that have broken so far have all been in informal economies dominated by patronage and with limited unionisation.
 
PaulMB said:
All very hypothetical. Obviously the overt threat of physical violence would imply rape.
Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

But you are making up a scenario that did not take place. Indeed, why should it when he could get what he wanted by making or breaking careers?
Click to expand...
But how do we know it did not take place?

Is it not at least a possibility that in a one-on-one situation a woman being asked by a man for sexual favours in return for career favours would be worried that such a man might be prone to violence if she refused, and so would accept not for the favours implied but because of the fear of violence she felt at the time?
 
merlin said:
Why the gender specificity?
Click to expand...
Males are virtually always stronger than females and females are much more vulnerable, and the attempted soliciting of sexual favours by a man from a woman is vastly more common and, in the rare occasion when the tables are turned the man being solicited is far, far less likely to feel there is an immediate threat of violence should he refuse.
 
Seanm said:
Right. They've all been a big help so far.

Abuse flourishes where avenues of redress are limited. The scandals that have broken so far have all been in informal economies dominated by patronage and with limited unionisation.
Click to expand...

I'd say they been an enormous help and that the incidences of such behaviour is lower than in the past. The data I posted earlier in the thread indicated this.

"Scandals" break because they sell newspapers IMO.
 
maxflinn said:
Males are virtually always stronger than females and females are much more vulnerable, and the attempted soliciting of sexual favours by a man from a woman is vastly more common and, in the rare occasion when the tables are turned the man being solicited is far, far less likely to feel there is an immediate threat of violence should he refuse.
Click to expand...

20% of all allegations come from men. Males also experience same sex harassment. There is more than one form of violence. You choose to ignore all these factors by focussing purely on women. Hence my questioning you.

Anyway, I'm as guilty as you lot of devoting too much time to this tittle tattle. You think if I posted something really non PC and reminiscent of social attitudes of thirty to forty years ago I would get either A) verbally abused or B) banned from PFM for my attitudes?
 
merlin said:
20% of all allegations come from men. Males also experience same sex harassment. There is more than one form of violence. You choose to ignore all these factors by focussing purely on women. Hence my questioning you.
Click to expand...

I was focusing on women as the victim in the context of the Weinstein allegations. The threat of violence either implied or perceived being a factor I was examining in this context.

I dont deny that sexual harassment is practised by women on men too, and that there are other factors other than the threat of violence that can be distressing.
 
"I don't even know if we're allowed to look at women anymore" exclaimed man currently facing seven charges of sexual assault.
 
Have to police got a confession as yet?

Any evidence whatsoever that these events took place?

Whilst I have no doubt that the fat man is a disgusting individual, since when have we allowed newspapers and media outlets to effectively presume someone's guilt even before they have been charged with anything by law enforcement?
 
merlin said:
Have to police got a confession as yet?

Any evidence whatsoever that these events took place?

Whilst I have no doubt that the fat man is a disgusting individual, since when have we allowed newspapers and media outlets to effectively presume someone's guilt even before they have been charged with anything by law enforcement?
Click to expand...
Merlin won't see this because he is ignoring me, but people saying things is evidence. How cogent that evidence is depends on where it is being tested. In a Civil Court, in the UK, it is on the balance of probabilites, in a Criminal Court, it must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Given that Merlin has expressed some outrageously misogynist comments in the past, I am not surprised that he blames the alleged victims who are, surprise, women.
 
I'm sure it does Steve. It's media. It's in the business of selling. A & B list celebs in sex scandal. What's not to like?

To me it's tittle tattle.
 
Steve Catterall said:
Seems like Time disagrees with you on the significance of this Merlin - http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/
Click to expand...

That is extremely good news.

person-of-year-2017-time-magazine-cover1.jpg
 
The Groper in Chief was yearning for it. I think he knew he wasn't getting the deal and started spinning against them. A tiny hand groping in the dark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top