[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 58863)
File  []
>> No. 58863 Ambulancelad
26th October 2017
Thursday 7:42 am
58863 spacer
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?
Expand all images.
>> No. 58864 Crabkiller
26th October 2017
Thursday 3:57 pm
58864 spacer

> What about all the a Listers? Is the actual reason they're a Listers because they willingly let him shag them?

it's because they were pretty enough that he just wanted to bum them, not piss up their arses afterwards
>> No. 58865 Ambulancelad
26th October 2017
Thursday 5:05 pm
58865 spacer
Did you really have to post this ugly cunts face in the op. He's a cunt. You're a cunt an all. Fucking boring mate.

Fuck you.
>> No. 58866 Billbob
26th October 2017
Thursday 5:12 pm
58866 spacer
Would you have preferred George Bush's cheeky face whilst he squeezes someone's arse from his wheelchair?
>> No. 58867 Crabkiller
26th October 2017
Thursday 5:21 pm
58867 spacer

Probably yeah to be honest, at least sounds amusing. Just sick of seeing this twats ugly mug everywhere.
>> No. 58868 Ambulancelad
26th October 2017
Thursday 5:35 pm
58868 spacer

Oh it is amusing, lad. It is so amusing.

>Confined to a wheelchair, as Bush has been for about the past five years, “his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures”, McGrath said.

>“To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke – and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner. Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate,” McGrath wrote. “To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely.”

>Meanwhile a second woman, actor Jordana Grolnick, told Deadspin a similar story.

>Following a performance of The Hunchback of Notre Dame that Bush had attended in Maine, “We all circled around him and [former first lady] Barbara for a photo, and I was right next to him,” she told the website. “He reached his right hand around to my behind, and as we smiled for the photo he asked the group, ‘Do you want to know who my favorite magician is?’ As I felt his hand dig into my flesh, he said, ‘David Cop-a-Feel!’” Grolnick said others in the room “laughed politely and out of discomfort”, while Barbara Bush “said something along the lines of, ‘He’s going to get himself put into jail!’ to which we laughed harder”.
>> No. 58869 Billbob
26th October 2017
Thursday 5:47 pm
58869 spacer
What ever happened to all those women who claimed Donald Trump molested them anyway?
>> No. 58870 YubYub
26th October 2017
Thursday 6:00 pm
58870 spacer
It's all a joke. It has always been a joke.
>> No. 58871 Samefag
26th October 2017
Thursday 6:55 pm
58871 spacer
Make up by Hilary, like his links to Russia.
>> No. 58873 Paedofag
27th October 2017
Friday 7:31 am
58873 spacer
Female staff at Westminster are naming and shaming sex pest MPs on a secret WhatsApp group, it has been revealed.

Cabinet members are believed to be among a list of politicians branded 'not safe' in taxis and lifts or 'very handsy' by aides and researchers. A source claimed the scandal could see MPs and other parliamentary personnel outed by the weekend and that resignations are 'anticipated' as a result.

While the 'usual suspects' are said to be well-known by those in Westminster, the list was recently drawn up to bring new recruits up to scratch on 'younger names'.

A member of the group told The Sun: 'The usual old suspects are there but there have been some surprising younger names crop up.”

Another told the paper women working in parliament actively protected each other from overly-keen politicians. They said: 'For years we have all looked out for each other. It’s like, "So-and-so is hiring, but it can’t be a woman for him".'

Some of the more incredible allegations include stories of MPs enjoying sex sessions with staff inside parliamentary offices. Other bosses in Westminster allegedly called female staff members ‘sugar tits’ and asked for affairs.

It is also claimed that a Labour MP referred to as the 'disco king' groped a woman during a trip abroad while a Tory grandee was banned from hiring 'leggy' women.


I'm starting to feel like everyone but me is a sex pest.
>> No. 58874 Anonymous
27th October 2017
Friday 2:12 pm
58874 spacer

Could you make a proper thread. I like Comic Sans and all caps as much as the text lad but this isn't the right board for this.
>> No. 58875 Are Moaty
27th October 2017
Friday 2:17 pm
58875 spacer
>> No. 58880 Auntiefucker
29th October 2017
Sunday 9:49 am
58880 spacer
>The Conservative MP Mark Garnier has admitted asking a former assistant to buy sex toys. He did not deny the accusations about events in 2010, made by his former assistant Caroline Edmondson, to the Mail on Sunday.

>“I’m not going to be dishonest,” he said. He insisted that referring to Edmondson as “sugar tits”, as she says he did, was a reference to the popular BBC comedy Gavin and Stacey, saying: “It absolutely does not constitute harassment.”

>According to the report, Garnier gave Edmondson money to buy a sex toy for his wife and another for a woman working in his Wyre Valley constituency office, and stood outside the shop while she bought them.


It's turning into a witch-hunt. Can't even call women sugar tits anymore.
>> No. 58881 Are Moaty
29th October 2017
Sunday 10:22 am
58881 spacer

>Other bosses in Westminster allegedly called female staff members ‘sugar tits’ and asked for affairs.

I swear to God right, the way my colleagues greet each other in a morning is with language that would get these people sacked and nationally shamed. All the lasses in our place do it too, we have equal opportunity inappropriate behaviour. One of the lasses introduces me to newbies by telling them I've got a massive knob (she's never even seen it). We've had affairs go on left right and centre. It's surreal when I think about it.

But somehow I'm still convinced that our way is better than all these fucking puritan wankers who can't admit humans fuck or think about fucking or make references to sex in speech. The world's fucking lost its marbles I'm telling you.

And anyway the weinstein thing is a load of shit. They were all happy to suck him off for a big movie break because they are shallow cunts. If anything it's upcoming male actors who should be pissed off because they don't have that option, they have to get their parts by having actual talent.
>> No. 58882 Searchfag
29th October 2017
Sunday 10:45 am
58882 spacer


Oh you sweet sweet naive summer child.
>> No. 58883 Moralfag
29th October 2017
Sunday 11:34 am
58883 spacer

Oh so blokes can suck dick in exchange for vast wealth and fame? You don't hear them complaining about it all I'm saying.

Someone was talking about a uni professor who offered a student a guaranteed pass for sexual favours. I mean let's be honest would you rather do four years of hard graft or suck one dick.
>> No. 58884 Auntiefucker
29th October 2017
Sunday 11:47 am
58884 spacer
>> No. 58885 Auntiefucker
29th October 2017
Sunday 9:00 pm
58885 spacer


Because men are traditionally open about being sexually assaulted
>> No. 58886 Moralfag
29th October 2017
Sunday 9:03 pm
58886 spacer


>> No. 58887 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 9:26 pm
58887 spacer
>Mrs May has scrambled to get on the front foot and take action as fresh details of the sexual harassment scandal rocking Westminster emerged. But she has been dragged into the saga after it was reported she gets weekly sleaze updates on her MPs - but lets ministers accused of wrongdoing serve in her Cabinet.

>The PM is said to be given a regular 'ins and outs' chats which covers which politicians are having affairs, sleeping with prostitutes and taking drugs. But sources claim party whips treat the allegations as a 'bit of a laugh' and have failed to report them to police.


Didn't she also undermine the paedo investigation?
>> No. 58888 Anonymous
30th October 2017
Monday 7:49 am
58888 spacer

Tories' dirty dossier REVEALED: Spreadsheet with allegations against THIRTY-SIX sitting Conservative MPs surfaces in Westminster

>> No. 58889 Are Moaty
30th October 2017
Monday 7:52 am
58889 spacer


>> No. 58890 R4GE
30th October 2017
Monday 9:26 am
58890 spacer
Has the definition of "revealed" changed while I was asleep?
>> No. 58891 Paedofag
30th October 2017
Monday 10:04 am
58891 spacer
Is it odd that I'm more interested in finding out which ones are "perpetually intoxicated" than which are the dirty pervs?
>> No. 58892 Paedofag
30th October 2017
Monday 10:54 am
58892 spacer


The whole crooked system's about to fall down.
>> No. 58894 YubYub
30th October 2017
Monday 12:57 pm
58894 spacer
The Mail is pretty lax with the definition of words, in particular misuse of "hilarious".
>> No. 58899 Crabkiller
31st October 2017
Tuesday 4:06 am
58899 spacer


>> No. 58900 Are Moaty
31st October 2017
Tuesday 6:47 am
58900 spacer

I want to know who likes shagging men wearing women's perfume and the star of the pissing video.
>> No. 58901 Auntiefucker
31st October 2017
Tuesday 3:11 pm
58901 spacer
So have we come up with a catchy name for this whole scandal? Stalkergeddon? Phwoartergate? I feel like it won't have the gravitas it deserves without one.
>> No. 58902 Crabkiller
31st October 2017
Tuesday 4:54 pm
58902 spacer
I really can't be arsed with another election right now. Can't we just have them replaced with those aliens from Body Snatchers?

No need to worry about a global takeover, small agricultural farms will never survive in this economy.

All of these things are believable behaviour from a Conservative MP, they're famous for it, aside from the one weirdo who is dating a researcher. It's a little inappropriate in the workplace but I don't know how he managed to make the list.
>> No. 58903 Anonymous
31st October 2017
Tuesday 5:19 pm
58903 spacer
Second on the list is definitely ARE JACOB.
>> No. 58904 Ambulancelad
31st October 2017
Tuesday 6:22 pm
58904 spacer
Ugh, brilliant, I just imagined that thing having sex. I've already started cooking dinner too, it'll just have to go in the bin.
>> No. 58905 Auntiefucker
31st October 2017
Tuesday 6:44 pm
58905 spacer
> aside from the one weirdo who is dating a researcher. It's a little inappropriate in the workplace but I don't know how he managed to make the list.

His inclusion on that list reminds me of what this list ultimately is, gossip. I can't think of any good or moral reason why that is anyone's business.
>> No. 58906 Auntiefucker
31st October 2017
Tuesday 6:50 pm
58906 spacer
How did you think his band of Minimoggs came into being?
>> No. 58907 Paedofag
31st October 2017
Tuesday 6:58 pm
58907 spacer

I assumed he bought them from the Child Catcher like most Tory MPs.
>> No. 58910 Billbob
31st October 2017
Tuesday 6:59 pm
58910 spacer
The list has been leaked online. You can find an imgur link in the sticky thread on the top of the ukpolitics subreddit, which has victims' names removed (but not the accused).

It's been described by a political journalist on Twitter as a 'mish-mash of real and fake', apparently with some glaring omissions.

Plenty of nobodies on there, but some fun ones too. Not posting it here for obvious reasons.
>> No. 58911 Searchfag
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:17 pm
58911 spacer
Oh well!
>> No. 58912 YubYub
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:26 pm
58912 spacer

Let's not post the names lads.
>> No. 58913 Auntiefucker
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:29 pm
58913 spacer

>Not posting it here for obvious reasons.

Like what, shit chatter?
>> No. 58914 R4GE
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:31 pm
58914 spacer
Hang on, what the fuck. Why did the mods puss out?
>> No. 58915 Searchfag
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:33 pm
58915 spacer

M O D S = N O N C E (s)
>> No. 58916 Paedofag
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:35 pm
58916 spacer

>> No. 58917 Crabkiller
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:38 pm
58917 spacer
Post the fucking names; absolute state of these mods.
>> No. 58918 Paedofag
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:49 pm
58918 spacer

Sup' Reddit, this is might be a little confusing for you but this is a post in iq with no claim of authenticity and a disclaimer on the landing page that nothing here is to be taken seriously.
>> No. 58919 Paedofag
31st October 2017
Tuesday 7:57 pm
58919 spacer
That's not how it works. Enjoy your bum-blasting, m7.
>> No. 58920 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 9:37 am
58920 spacer


>> No. 58921 Anonymous
1st November 2017
Wednesday 9:44 am
58921 spacer
I am Michael Fabricant and purple will be hearing from my lawyers, because I have nothing better to do than go after piddling little sites like this while it is posted on much bigger fish all over the rest of the Internet.
>> No. 58922 YubYub
1st November 2017
Wednesday 10:41 am
58922 spacer

>4 Publication on matter of public interest
>(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that—
>(a)the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
>(b)the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.
>> No. 58923 Auntiefucker
1st November 2017
Wednesday 11:17 am
58923 spacer
It's not a matter of public interest. R v Ponting, innit.
>> No. 58924 Searchfag
1st November 2017
Wednesday 11:45 am
58924 spacer

So you think this is document is covered by the official secrets act do you?

Also, and this is quite crutial, Ponting was acquitted.
>> No. 58925 Crabkiller
1st November 2017
Wednesday 11:51 am
58925 spacer
Bonfire night's not until Sunday so you can put the straw man away, m7.
>> No. 58926 R4GE
1st November 2017
Wednesday 12:01 pm
58926 spacer

What's the Strawman here? Ponting was an official Secrets Act case, you can't apply the same rule to an office memo about who is banging who because oddly enough the rules for violating the official secrets act are stricter.
>> No. 58927 YubYub
1st November 2017
Wednesday 12:09 pm
58927 spacer
>What's the Strawman here?
That the Official Secrets Act or the acquittal were relevant. The judge made a finding on a point of law. The jury ignoring it doesn't invalidate it because the jury doesn't decide the law.

Now fuck off shitposting in /iq/, this place is for serious business only, like who that one who bums blokes wearing perfume is.
>> No. 58928 Moralfag
1st November 2017
Wednesday 12:16 pm
58928 spacer

You'd be surprised mate. Smaller sites than this have received C&D's.
>> No. 58929 YubYub
1st November 2017
Wednesday 12:19 pm
58929 spacer

That's all fine and dandy, but these days you have to pay the costs even if your defence succeeds, and as we all know are purps would rather spend that money on the expensive yacht and pad in the Caymans that he definitely didn't have, honest guv.
>> No. 58930 Searchfag
1st November 2017
Wednesday 1:50 pm
58930 spacer
>>58920 here
I'm sorry if I gave mods/purpz hastle by posting this.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 58932 Samefag ## Mod ##
1st November 2017
Wednesday 3:18 pm
58932 spacer
>> No. 58933 Billbob
1st November 2017
Wednesday 5:17 pm
58933 spacer
I like that Theresa was giving the statement condemning harassment with Amber Rudd sat next to her. There's something quite funny about that, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
>> No. 58934 Auntiefucker
1st November 2017
Wednesday 5:47 pm
58934 spacer

Hi Michael.
>> No. 58935 Samefag
1st November 2017
Wednesday 6:21 pm
58935 spacer
Who does he remind me of?
>> No. 58936 Are Moaty
1st November 2017
Wednesday 6:33 pm
58936 spacer

Chris Lilley?
>> No. 58937 Paedofag
1st November 2017
Wednesday 6:55 pm
58937 spacer
>> No. 58938 Samefag
2nd November 2017
Thursday 8:54 pm
58938 spacer

Don't *spit* the *many colours*. It is *frumple*.
>> No. 58939 Billbob
2nd November 2017
Thursday 9:11 pm
58939 spacer
Michael Fabricant is on first dates on channel four right now.

He seems like he could definitely be a sex pest.
>> No. 58940 R4GE
2nd November 2017
Thursday 10:09 pm
58940 spacer
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 Ambulancelad
3rd November 2017
Friday 5:18 pm
58945 spacer
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 R4GE
5th November 2017
Sunday 9:10 am
58949 spacer
Looks like he's a character from the League of Gentleman played by Mark Gatiss
>> No. 58965 Paedofag
10th November 2017
Friday 6:23 pm
58965 spacer
>Harvey Weinstein could face a civil compensation claim in the UK from a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by the Hollywood producer in Britain and the US.


So it's all about compo, then.
>> No. 58966 Anonymous
11th November 2017
Saturday 8:47 am
58966 spacer

Hiding in plain sight.
>> No. 58967 Samefag
11th November 2017
Saturday 11:32 am
58967 spacer
What a wanker.
>> No. 58968 Auntiefucker
11th November 2017
Saturday 3:28 pm
58968 spacer

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 Searchfag
11th November 2017
Saturday 5:59 pm
58969 spacer


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 Moralfag
11th November 2017
Saturday 6:26 pm
58970 spacer
What's the world coming to when a bloke can't just have a wank without being called a pervert?
>> No. 58971 Billbob
11th November 2017
Saturday 7:20 pm
58971 spacer
It sounded like he was trying to rationalise being a sexual predator.
>> No. 58972 Anonymous
11th November 2017
Saturday 8:27 pm
58972 spacer
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 Ambulancelad
12th November 2017
Sunday 9:24 am
58973 spacer

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. 58975 Billbob
12th November 2017
Sunday 10:03 am
58975 spacer
>> No. 58976 Anonymous
12th November 2017
Sunday 10:41 am
58976 spacer

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 Samefag
12th November 2017
Sunday 10:46 am
58977 spacer

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 Auntiefucker
12th November 2017
Sunday 5:04 pm
58978 spacer
>wanking at women half your age is a bit dubious.
Quite right everyone knows the rule is half your age plus 7.
>> No. 58979 Are Moaty
12th November 2017
Sunday 5:07 pm
58979 spacer

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 Are Moaty
12th November 2017
Sunday 5:15 pm
58980 spacer

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 Moralfag
12th November 2017
Sunday 5:17 pm
58981 spacer

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 Samefag
12th November 2017
Sunday 5:48 pm
58982 spacer

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 Paedofag
12th November 2017
Sunday 6:19 pm
58990 spacer

Exactly this.

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 YubYub
12th November 2017
Sunday 7:29 pm
58994 spacer

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 Moralfag
12th November 2017
Sunday 7:39 pm
58996 spacer
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. 58997 Ambulancelad
12th November 2017
Sunday 7:58 pm
58997 spacer
You can hide threads, lad.
>> No. 58998 Searchfag
12th November 2017
Sunday 10:03 pm
58998 spacer

Yeah, but I might miss an informative and education post. Maybe.
>> No. 59026 Ambulancelad
19th November 2017
Sunday 7:26 am
59026 spacer
>Songs of Praise host Aled Jones is axed by the BBC amid allegations of sexual harassment as 'Walking in the Air' singer apologises for 'juvenile behaviour'


Is nothing sacred?
>> No. 59033 Are Moaty
19th November 2017
Sunday 3:29 pm
59033 spacer
He fucking mings though.
>> No. 59037 Crabkiller
19th November 2017
Sunday 4:48 pm
59037 spacer
You know that God is a sexaul predator, right? Mary was a teenager and Jesus was a rape baby.
>> No. 59041 Crabkiller
20th November 2017
Monday 1:50 am
59041 spacer
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 Auntiefucker
20th November 2017
Monday 4:55 pm
59049 spacer

I'm just not sure the way to change that is by inseminating potted plants.
>> No. 59790 Anonymous
3rd February 2018
Saturday 8:50 pm
59790 spacer
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 Paedofag
3rd February 2018
Saturday 9:01 pm
59791 spacer

It's alright mate, women aren't out to get you. Maybe one day one will actually let you touch her.
>> No. 59792 Samefag
3rd February 2018
Saturday 9:15 pm
59792 spacer
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. 59793 Searchfag
3rd February 2018
Saturday 9:19 pm
59793 spacer
Maybe but it seems to be the case that this is what's happened.
>> No. 59794 Moralfag
3rd February 2018
Saturday 9:50 pm
59794 spacer
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 Billbob
5th February 2018
Monday 9:37 pm
59801 spacer
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 Ambulancelad
5th February 2018
Monday 10:42 pm
59802 spacer
Ah, the "it's not really rape" or "it wasn't that bad" defence. Lovely stuff mate.
>> No. 59803 R4GE
5th February 2018
Monday 10:52 pm
59803 spacer

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 Anonymous
5th February 2018
Monday 11:15 pm
59804 spacer

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 YubYub
12th February 2018
Monday 6:44 pm
59834 spacer

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 YubYub
12th February 2018
Monday 7:40 pm
59835 spacer

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. 59836 Anonymous
12th February 2018
Monday 8:33 pm
59836 spacer
As if 0.1% of instances of libel online are ever actioned.
>> No. 59837 R4GE
12th February 2018
Monday 9:02 pm
59837 spacer
"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 Billbob
12th February 2018
Monday 9:21 pm
59838 spacer

Well if I said it about a brown bloke it'd be hate speech, that's a guaranteed arrest.
>> No. 59839 Anonymous
12th February 2018
Monday 10:15 pm
59839 spacer
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 ]

Delete Post []