- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 394 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
58 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 58863
How come it's always minor actresses who claim Weinstein raped them? Like "the actress who appeared in Big Momma's House 2" claiming he forced himself on her after the baftas.
What about all the a Listers? Is the actual reason they're a Listers because they willingly let him shag them?
|>>|| No. 58939
Michael Fabricant is on first dates on channel four right now.
He seems like he could definitely be a sex pest.
|>>|| No. 58940
He's on the version of the list I saw, for being inappropriate towards a male journalist if I remember correctly. I think he's come out and denied it though.
|>>|| No. 58945
He didn't flat-out deny it though. He said that the accusation was so incredibly vague that he really didn't know if there was any truth behind it or not. And I think that's perfectly fine for him to say, I think it's actually quite bizarre that that a list of random accusations that appeared out of thin air from unknown sources could be considered newsworthy.
|>>|| No. 58949
Looks like he's a character from the League of Gentleman played by Mark Gatiss
|>>|| No. 58968
I'm excluding the phone call example as he didn't get consent for that, that one and therefore calling that sexual harassment is entirely appropriate.
I read throgh his confession and it seems somewhat odd to me. Is the issue here that his tastes are unorthodox if he had asked to fuck these women would they have been so shocked when he actually did it?
He talks about the power he held making the consent invalid but what power?
I'm not sure this is news other than that Lewis is a bit of a freak.
|>>|| No. 58969
>HE TALKS ABOUT THE POWER HE HELD MAKING THE CONSENT INVALID BUT WHAT POWER?
The power he held in his line of work. All these women were comedians, and CK is a huge legend in that scene. He was king of the New York circuit even before he was on the telly, and after that he was a producer on multiple sitcoms and working on films and the rest in LA.
He very certainly had the power to blacklist these people, or give them their big break. The power he had is comparable to Weinsteins, just for stand ups instead of Hollywood actresses.
|>>|| No. 58970
What's the world coming to when a bloke can't just have a wank without being called a pervert?
|>>|| No. 58972
I'm reminded of that 'consent is as simple as tea' bollocks. I'd like to see them try spin Louis C.K. to that logic.
"Don’t drink tea whilst you are on the phone to someone unless you have both agreed you can drink tea."
"You are invited round tea is never expressly offered, but you expect it might be, and you are ready and willing to drink it if it is, then they ask if you mind if they have some tea, and you say of course not, so they make tea only for themselves and drink it in front of you. After ten minutes you finally decide you are not comfortable watching them drink tea. They stop drinking tea."
dickish it may be to not make tea for your guests, but the kettle is there and they are perfectly capable of making a cup for themselves.
|>>|| No. 58973
The problem I have is that years ago, before he was ever named, the incident of the two girls in the hotel room was reported as a blind item.
They were described as, when he asked if he could have a wank, giving him a "facetious thumbs up".
That's hugely problematic, as how the fuck do you expect him to know it was facetious? I think we're far too conceptual with consent, and really what we need is to just make sure people know they can't abuse their power like this. If these women truly felt compelled to let him do this because they feared the power he had over their career, then that's a huge problem and I'm not sure how to address it.
|>>|| No. 58976
You say that but how far are we really? Just to be safe, I'm going to have a solicitor draw me up some consent forms.
|>>|| No. 58977
There have been rumours for years about CK's wanky antics. I don't think he's done anything illegal, but I think that most of us can agree that wanking at women half your age is a bit dubious.
|>>|| No. 58978
>wanking at women half your age is a bit dubious.
Quite right everyone knows the rule is half your age plus 7.
|>>|| No. 58979
If you establish you do that and you forget them or run out before sex, or do something spontaneous sometime you'll make it look like it was rape.
|>>|| No. 58980
Remember to continually ask "Do you consent to this?" during the act. If you don't get an immediate answer in the affirmative, leave immediately and hand yourself in to the police.
|>>|| No. 58981
There is nothing wrong with the legal definitions of consent, but there is a subset of feminists who play obnoxiously naive when anyone talks about the idea that people in the real world don't always spell things out. As if they've never seen people communicate that they want each other through body language and subtext.
Where of course the reverse is true here, consent was expressly given but the intend subtext was 'no it isn't' here which illustrates how fucking stupid the argument has been all along.
|>>|| No. 58982
There's nothing wrong with men being encouraged to think more carefully about the ethics of their sexual behaviour. I think the problem comes when certain feminists treat any unwanted approach or regrettable experience as evidence of "declining salmon populations".
The phrase "don't tell women how to dress, tell men not to rape" frustrates me immensely. Rape is a criminal offence that carries a life sentence - I don't think we could be any clearer that rape is a bad thing that you shouldn't do. Signs in car parks warn you to lock your doors and hide your valuables, but that doesn't mean we've got a "theft culture" or that we're victim-shaming people who get their sat navs nicked. A lot of feminist rhetoric seems to be militantly opposed to addressing the complexities of consent, which does a disservice to everyone.
|>>|| No. 58990
You hear a lot that "consent is simple" and there's an analogy where if you train a dog not to eat something because you've told it not to, then it won't. And obviously if a dog can do it why can't men?
But to jump on that analogy, what happens if you facetiously allow a dog to eat the food? Or if you're drunk and feed it, then wake up the next morning and realise you shouldn't have given him that steak?
the major issue is if you even try to suggest there may be grey lines, you're branded as a disgusting rapist.
|>>|| No. 58994
I was thinking about this. I think it is because it comes from a branch of philosophy that handles how things 'ought' to be rather than how they actually are. It is dictatorial and utopian rather than observational. So pragmatic solutions are critqued by it like mandates of world view that promote the agendas they seek to mitigate rather than what they are, the worst possible choice apart from every other method that has ever been tried.
|>>|| No. 58996
Maybe it's just knowing he's a giganto-perv, but Weintien's mug is properly off putting. I'll be glad when this thread's done one.
Don't bump it then, knob head.
|>>|| No. 59037
You know that God is a sexaul predator, right? Mary was a teenager and Jesus was a rape baby.
|>>|| No. 59041
From the Talmud:
>“FUCK THE GOYIM, FUCK THEM FULL FORCE IN THE ARSE AND MOUTH.” (I think I'm quoting this correctly).
So really, when you think about it, it's the result of an institutionalised declining salmon populations in the Jewish community as they have a mandate from God for their actions and therefore, isn't their fault. These men are ALSO victims.
|>>|| No. 59049
I'm just not sure the way to change that is by inseminating potted plants.
|>>|| No. 59790
Uma Thurman is the latest one out of the woodwork. Weinstein allegedly tried forcing himself on her in 1994 and the event was so traumatic she appeared in four further miramax films, including kill Bill, and was seen cosying up to him as recently as 2016.
|>>|| No. 59791
It's alright mate, women aren't out to get you. Maybe one day one will actually let you touch her.
|>>|| No. 59792
The biggest bunch of victim blamers tend to be other women.
Don't you think it's a bit funny to keep schtum for financial gain and then go out in public about it when that option suddenly becomes the best career option to take? I've been sexually abused and I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with the abuser if I had anything to do with it, particularly starring in things they are funding where you'll be forced to have close contact with them.
|>>|| No. 59794
But you don't have anything to do with it, as a number of people in Hollywood have found to their cost. If rumours start circulating saying you're difficult to work with, then unless you're sufficiently bankable your career is dead. That's before considering whether someone is tied into a multi-picture deal. They could sue to get out of it, but whether they win or not it makes them look difficult.
|>>|| No. 59801
it seems to be that the problem is people are getting the concepts of "unwelcome and awkward sexual advance" mixed up with "forced non-consensual sexual contact".
i can understand that it's a very fine line, and i'm only being slightly sarcastic when i say that, but trying to ply women with drugs/booze/status/money because you're too ugly and unlikeable to pull them "properly" isn't the same thing as being a hyper-rapist turbo-carpet-bagger.
|>>|| No. 59802
Ah, the "it's not really rape" or "it wasn't that bad" defence. Lovely stuff mate.
|>>|| No. 59803
The phrase "sexual misconduct" is being bandied around a great deal these days and I think it's very dangerous. We have good legal and common-sense definitions of "assault" and "harassment". There might be some grey areas, but we understand the meaning of those words. "Sexual misconduct" is something else entirely, something that has no meaning in law and no commonly-understood definition, something that carries some rather puritanical connotations.
I'm absolutely fine with people talking about "sexual misconduct" as a means of exploring where the boundaries of acceptable behaviour should lie. I'm fine with someone using it to describe an experience that made them uncomfortable. I'm not fine with people trying to blur the lines between a sex crime and distasteful behaviour. I'm not fine with trial-by-media based on vague, anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations.
|>>|| No. 59804
prescisely. it all just seems awfully regressive when you look back at the sexual liberation we've undergone since the 60s.
we have to wonder if the message we are sending to younger generations is really about personal rights and freedoms, or if really it's telling them that men should be ashamed of their urges and women should perceive sex as a threat.
i don't think it's healthy no matter how good the intentions behind it are.
|>>|| No. 59834
The current Oxfam story is a really clear example of this. There have been lots of stories about a "sexual misconduct scandal", but the only concrete allegations are that some Oxfam aid workers in Haiti and Chad paid for sex with prostitutes. It's a bit seedy, it's not in keeping with the image Oxfam would like to maintain, but it's not illegal under British law and there's no evidence that anything was non-consensual. A lot of the reports on the story don't actually say what the allegations are, allowing the reader to infer whatever kind of outrage they might imagine. Un-named sources are speculating that these prostitutes might have been underage. I think that a lot of journalists are quite deliberately using the term "misconduct" in an effort to smear Oxfam with innuendo. It's a clear effort to skirt the limits of libel.
|>>|| No. 59835
I saw them discussing this on The Wright Show (not by choice) and I noticed they were heavily leaning on "some Haitian sex workers are underage". Not even that the ones involved in the Oxfam thing were, just that underage sex workers exist so therefore dot dot dot. It's fucking irresponsible and I have no idea how they manage to stay on the right side of the law with this stuff.
If I made a tweet right now that said "some females are underage and Matthew Wright has sex with females. Paedophile?" I'd full expect to be answering for it in court.
|>>|| No. 59837
"Sexual assault" means something illegal, whereas "misconduct" can just mean something that HR should have dealt with. That's the fun part about libel - when defending yourself you get to decide what meaning to ascribe to the words, and the other side has to prove you meant something else.
|>>|| No. 59838
Well if I said it about a brown bloke it'd be hate speech, that's a guaranteed arrest.
|>>|| No. 59839
To be fair, it was Oxfam's own report into the matter which stated “It cannot be ruled out that any of the prostitutes were under-aged.”
My other half does a fair bit of charity work and there's been at least three instances of people misappropriating funds and one instance of someone being caught on CCTV going through the coat pockets and bags of the service users. Every single time it was hushed up and no further action was taken because the charity didn't want the negative publicity that would have gone with it.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]