he likes boys allegedly
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/kevin-spacey-anthony-rapp-sexual-advances-14-teenager
They better not cancel house of cards
sharewe will see how bad it gets for him.
shareHouse of Cards is over after sixth season
https://decider.com/2017/10/30/netflix-announces-house-of-cards-will-end-after-sixth-season/?_ga=2.4459504.2147382221.1509338548-1744016199.1489287649
Damn!! Wtf 😩
shareSpacey confirms he is gay
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kevin-spacey-gay-article-1.3598122
What?! This sucks. I cannot believe that Kevin Spacey was a pervert this whole time. Not the gay part, the sexual stuff with the minor.
shareThis makes one wonder what skeletons you have rattling in your closet that you have an obsessive need to post this type of salacious content on here on an almost daily basis. Maybe you should have become a paparazzi or a tabloid so-called journalist. In effect, you're the site's equivalent of the neighborhood gossip!
sharewho asked you ??
shareYou opened the door.
shareGo on the Weinstein thread plenty of people commenting besides me. I don't make the news.
shareWhile we're at it, who are you to suggest that Hombre isn't a cinematic classic just because you personally didn't like the ending ? Just more of your arrogance !
shareI gave it a 7.5/10 which is about the same as imdb (7.4/10) ?? Whether it is a classic or not is open to debate. That's the point of this site to give opinions on movies and TV shows and to keep up with the latest news even if it negative. You seem to want to attack me and I know why. GUNS
Just more presumptuous, arrogant judgement passing in order to deflect from the actual issue. I've never owned a gun.
You just can't handle getting called out on your sanctimonious hypocrisy !
I gave my opinion on guns after the Vegas shooting and you attacked me for it. Now I give my opinion on a movie and you attack me for that. You also accuse me of being some kind of perv for reporting breaking news on a well known actor. No one else on here does that.
Therefore I have taken action:
1) you are now on ignore
2) you have been reported for rules violation
good luck and good bye
Re the Vegas shooting, you didn't just give your opinion, you presumed to know my exact stance on the gun issue and attempted to put me on a completely unnecessary and undeserving guilt-trip as if I were somehow complicit.
I've accused you of arrogance and hypocrisy. The "perv " word is yours and it's a perfect example of how you distort an issue. Funny how my opinions are perceived as attack and yours are harmless. You must be really thin-skinned but then what should one expect from someone who creates an entire whiny thread about a sore arm from a flu shot ?
Rot row!
Will we have a second Hollyweird Liberal Scumbag Predator bite the dust?
Tune in again next week: Same Perv Time! Save Perv Channel!
😎
Nothing new, there've been stories about him and Bryan Singer for years.
I do have to wonder what a 14-year old was doing at a Broadway party with adults, alcohol and who knows what.
I hate people who prey on minors. really am going to have a problem watching his performances now because I respected him.
shareI always found him to be pretty creepy, but I love The Usual Suspects and Se7en. The ongoing rumors made this news not as shocking, but it does raise the creep factor.
share
Now Spacey can have a big Pervert Party with Weinstein, Ruebens, Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods and the rest of the Sex Perverts on the Left.
😎
So every time you read a story about a pervert right winger you just discard it in an effort to preserve your preconceived opinions?
Tiger Woods was banging consenting adult women who just happened to be porn stars.
share[deleted]
Funny that, isn't it?
share[deleted]
You don't think there's a difference between a child and an adult? I certainly think so. It really isn't that surprising people view this differently. And people have been asking everywhere what he was doing at that party in the first place, and rightly so, although they're certainly not blaming him.
shareWhether an adult or a child, there is a lot of shame and self-blame involved in speaking out about sexual abuse. Not to mention the predictable vitriol and cynical remarks aimed at those who do being a strong preventative.
As to why he was at the party, from the linked story in the OP:
"The alleged incident occurred at the end of a party Spacey was hosting, Rapp says, after he had met Rapp at a theater event and later invited the teen and a friend out clubbing. Rapp, an Illinois transplant who took a semester off school and moved to New York with his mother to appear on Broadway, says he managed to evade Spacey’s advances."
There's also a difference between a child and an adult who took money to stay quiet.
I know the reason he was at the party, what I meant is, why the hell is a 14-year old going to clubs and parties with adults and alcohol? Where were his parents or guardians? It's a legitimate question people are asking about responsibility.
☢️
Not sure what else I and most other people can do. Maybe he should've gone to the authorities instead of the media.
share☢️
Well, you can't really throw it into the public arena and then say" end of discussion".
He said what Spacey did, what more is there to discuss? We have no way of knowing what really happened, so it's pointless and not our business to publicly condemn him. It's not what I believe, but what if Spacey were innocent? I don't know either of these people. It's up to Rapp to do something about it legally.
As for the gay thing, it's Spacey himself who put that into the mix and he obviously only did that as a distraction. But as far as I can tell, the public is seeing through that and mostly discussing the abuse.
Ofcourse it matters how it happened. Aren't these situations we want to avoid?
☢️
Perhaps it's easier said than done, but using this story as an example not to go clubbing or let your kids go clubbing with adults seems like a good thing.
share☢️
shareYou're right about that and I certainly agree with teaching our children to speak up and not be ashamed.
share"Problem is most of these happen with somebody you know and trust or
a member of the family. You can't keep your children locked up."
Exactly. In this instance, and in some others, celebrity plays a part. We tend to think someone known and in the limelight wouldn't do such things. Trust can be misplaced even with relatives who are predators, but aren't known to be predators.
What do you think their chances would have been if they'd gone to a DA with no evidence, up against and powerful and wealthy well-known figure and having every detail of their lives exposed, not to mention being threatened and dragged through the press? I'd be willing to bet all of them would have more than happy to not have had it happened than any money.
They were at a theatre event. Big-name actor asks a couple of kids (also working in the theatre) if they want to go out clubbing with him, and then to a party at his house. It would have been thrilling to the kids. No idea where his mother was, or if she even knew about it, but even if she did, she wouldn't necessarily have known afterwards they were going to a party with adults and alcohol.
So instead they take the money they don't really want and years later go to the media with no evidence? Why are you so certain those are the real reasons? There are no other possibilities in an industry that's known for "the casting couch"? And why is it so important that I MUST believe them and can't ask any questions, Cat? I live on the other side of the world and have no interaction with someone like Weinstein. Isn't it more important that the authorities believe them? If the intention is to warn other women, then it's up to them to take the warning seriously or not. You can't get offended if they don't, it's their own responsibility. But if they're looking for public condemnation as a way of revenge, then it's good to be sceptical since I know none of these people personally.
I'm not asking why he wanted to go, I'm asking how it's possible that he went clubbing with adults and to the residence of one them with or without his mother's permission. It's a question that does matter. No way would I have been able to do that.
Of course it's more important that authorities believe them. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that without clear evidence, which is usually the case in sexual abuse and rape cases, there isn't any, authorities can't do anything? Even if the victim went to authorities and the hospital, and had a rape kit done in the instances of rape, the victim still has to prove it wasn't consensual?
Law suits are often settled, which means the victim is offered money. If they aren't able to get a prosecution, being paid a sum is better than nothing. At least it would cost the abuser SOMETHING. Isn't that obvious? Why go to the media years later? Because the money DIDN'T solve the problem; it was only better than nothing. So someone steps forward and says they experienced something similar at the hands of the same abuser, and the victim realises she or he wasn't the only one. There's power in numbers. The second (or 80th) victim is far more likely to be believed.
You call it revenge, I call it justice.
Who knows? He may have called his mother and asked if he could go out with his friend and Kevin Spacey after the theatre event, and she said yes because it was Kevin Spacey, a well known and well regarded actor.
Where do you get the nonsense that I don't understand the authorities can't do anything without clear evidence? I didn't say anything like it. But there's a problem with assuming those are their reasons and insisting we MUST believe them.
-Most didn't go to the authorities at all.
-They do go to the public with no evidence and then expect the accused perpetrator to be judged without questioning.
-It's only important the authorities believe them and not strangers on the other side of the world. It's actually pretty pointless to only share it with the media years after the fact.
It doesn't matter at all whether I believe it or not, so why insist that I should?
You come up with all kinds of explanations why they'd take money or come forward years later, but YOU don't know, so you shouldn't speak for them that at all. There's nothing obvious about it. I would like to hear it from them, though. You can't throw it in public and not expect the question anything.
Public condemnation without any evidence is justice? Scary.
If that's what the mother did, that's very irresponsible of her. But only Rapp can tell us, not you.
This is what you said:
"Isn't it more important that the authorities believe them? If the intention is to warn other women, then it's up to them to take the warning seriously or not. You can't get offended if they don't, it's their own responsibility. But if they're looking for public condemnation as a way of revenge, then it's good to be sceptical since I know none of these people personally."
Whether the authorities believe them doesn't matter in the end -- although it'd *certainly* be helpful to the victims to be believed -- if their hands are tied to prosecute. I imagine the first intention would be to make an abuser be responsible for his or her actions. They would have no way of knowing what happened to them would happen to someone else in the future, unless they had knowledge he'd done this to others before them.
I never insisted you should believe them.
I'm not speaking for them, I don't know them any more than you do. I'm speaking purely from knowledge of basic psychology, specifically the psychology of victims of sexual abuse, and how the court system works in such cases.
I'd think it'd be very obvious that if you know you've been wronged, but don't have a case that has even a chance of winning and the perpetrator being brought to legal justice, accepting money as some sort of reparation for the damage done would be better than nothing.
"Public condemnation without any evidence is justice? Scary."
That isn't what I said. What you said was "But if they're looking for public condemnation as a way of revenge." You see what they're looking for as revenge, I see it as looking for justice.
Whether the authorities believe them is most important, because that's the way to hold the perpetrator responsible, not through the media.
You and Dazed are saying these women should be treated as victims and that we shouldn't question them.
But you don't know for certain if they've been wronged, so it's not obvious at all.
I said IF it's revenge, I don't automatically assume it is. And no, public condemnation is not justice, we have the courts for that.
Of course authorities believing them is most important. But they don't always believe, and then what are victims supposed to do? Or they do believe the victims, but simply don't have enough evidence to prosecute. It's even worse when they know the perp is very wealthy and will certainly bring to bear a formidable legal team.
Now that this is out, through the media, people *do* know and know to avoid these people, or certainly to not put themselves, or their children, in danger. How is this different, information-wise, than being told privately "avoid being alone with Weinstein if you're a woman"? Or hearing rumours about him?
Dazed and I are saying that all victims should be treated the same way, regardless of gender, and that way should not involve shaming or blaming.
If they weren't wronged, again, why would Weinstein have paid them a penny? Combine that with the admissions he has made, and that now the count's up to 80 …
Okay, IF it's revenge. Then revenge for what? For being wronged? If not that, then what? Again, the courts often do not provide justice, particularly in the cases of sexual abuse.
The difference is that now the whole world knows and there's pressure to publically condemn and punish him. Just imagine for a moment this guy is innocent. Going public is extremely damaging to his business and private life. It's not that I mind the warning, but it's fair to ask questions if you consider the consequences.
And I'm saying that in both cases people are asking questions, but just different ones because the guy was a minor.
He might've paid women so they wouldn't publically claim he assaulted them and ruin his reputation. It's no evidence they were all actually assaulted.
Revenge for sexual assault. Although it might be understandable, it is in no way justice.
So now the whole world would also know to avoid being alone with him, if they're a woman. You question the women involved for not stepping forward earlier so the same result would happen, and accepting money for the same reason. What if he were innocent of the rumours? What if actors avoided being alone with him for business meetings because of the rumours and therefore he lost the opportunity to cast those actors because they were exercising caution?
Asking questions is fine, as long as they don't involve blame and shame. And, it should go without saying, we're not going to get any answers here on this board. The guy was a minor, yes, but I don't see anyone questioning that anything did actually happen as they are in the Weinstein case. Because, again, if nothing did happen, it doesn't matter that he was a minor.
I've already addressed the part about Weinstein paying them.
If there was no assault, there's no reason for revenge. Again, I see it as seeking justice, not revenge -- the only justice they may ever have. Which isn't the same thing as legal justice. Not all justice IS legal.
The rest of the world has nothing to do with Weinstein. But if these women are coming forwards as a warning, then it's only fair questions are asked. It's got nothing to do with shaming or blaming.
I dont think anyone is doubting anything happened between Weinstein and these women, they're wondering if it was consensual. Perhaps the encounter between Rapp and Spacey was also consensual, but that hardly matters if Spacey was in the wrong for coming on to a minor.
Well again, I'm talking about revenge in the case of actual sexual assault. And yes, seeking "justice" by going to the media is revenge. Is it also justice if the guy is innocent? No, justice should be delivered in court.
Okay, so earlier in the thread you said "It may very well be[/b] that something consensual happened between some of these women and they used that against him."
Here, about Rapp and Spacey, you say "[b]Perhaps the encounter between Rapp and Spacey was also consensual."
I apologise if I'm mistaken, but weren't you one of the posters questioning why Weinstein's victims didn't speak up at the time and waited so many years? If so, why haven't you questioned the same about Rapp?
I like you, Stratego (especially your hilarious exchanges with Dewey, and don't forget those barrels of good whiskey I sent you!). I just don't think you're seeing your bias.
I don't agree seeking justice by going to the media is revenge. As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
In maybe two posts on the Harvey Weinstein board I questioned adult women like Rose McGowan who were supposedly sexually assaulted and then accepted money in return for their silence even after learning there were other victims in. And who then went on to condemn men like Ben Affleck for not speaking up. I don't think this happened to Rapp, but we don't know a lot of details yet.
Bias against what, Cat? Women? Adults? I don't think so. I don't believe these cases are exactly the same. I have no idea if Rapp was actually sexually assaulted and I do wonder why he didn't reveal Spacey's name in 2001. And in my very first post on the matter I asked what a 14-year old was doing at a party with adults and alcohol. But it does seem Spacey invited a minor to go clubbing and to a party at his house, which I already find reprehensible. The fact that he believes it's possible he assaulted him says more than enough, in my opinion.
Revenge or not, it's not the way to seek justice.
I didn't see your reply before now.
"In maybe two posts on the Harvey Weinstein board I questioned adult women like Rose McGowan who were supposedly sexually assaulted and then accepted money in return for their silence even after learning there were other victims in."
Adult or minor, it makes no difference if those who were legitimately assaulted accepted money -- or didn't. Where do you get they learned there were other victims before accepting any money as settlements?
Bias against women, and perhaps adults as well. In the instance of Spacey, you didn't question his accuser, only his parents. In the instance of Weinstein, you did question his accusers, without any understanding or knowledge of why some of them accepted monetary settlements. Without any understanding or acknowledgement that any of his victims would be swimming upstream to prove in a court of law that his actions/crimes weren't consensual, which is all too often the case, allowing these predators to hide behind it, knowing full well this is the case.
I don't wonder that Rapp didn't name Spacey in 2001. It'd have been professional suicide, but this is the first time you've made any such question about Rapp, whereas your questions about Weinstein's victims were immediate.
Neither of us were there. Neither of us know for absolute fact that these events happened or didn't. Neither of us know for absolute fact that any of a multitude of events happened. If we relied on our being present and witnessing events as proof, we wouldn't believe 99.9999% of events that have happened.
Spacey has not said he believes it's possible this happened, only IF it did, then etc. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with a fellow actor to invite another out clubbing -- even if that fellow actor is underage, provided the club isn't 18+ -- or to a party afterwards, be that with or without adults and alcohol. There have been and are plenty of parties with normal adults where alcohol (cont'd)
Biased against women and adults, while I'm an adult woman myself who has experienced sexual harrasment? I'm not going to continue a discussion if you're going to make such childish and ridiculous accusations. You sound way too sensitive and paranoid about this issue.
And don't answer any questions on their behalf. You don't know. I can also come up with different explanations, but I still don't know either.
I'll just leave you with this. For me there is a difference between one 14-year old child who stays quiet about a adult male trying to make out with him and multiple women taking money to stay quiet about being sexually assaulted. Spacey acknowledged the possibility it could've happened, while Weinstein only said it was all con sensual. Different questions about responsibility are going to be asked.
"Biased against women and adults, while I'm an adult woman myself who has experienced sexual harrasment?"
Exactly so, which is what makes it all the less understandable. You can dismiss this as being childish, ridiculous, sensitive and paranoid if you wish, but your bias is clear, for the reasons I outlined. (As has Dazed, I'll point out.)
Again, I'm not answering any questions on anyone's behalf. I've said this to you when you accused me of it before. I don't know these people any more than you do. I do, however, understand that victims of sexual assault rarely get legal justice, by virtue of the nature of the crime, and it's only natural they'd want some kind of justice, be that in monetary compensation (if that's all that would be available to them -- costing their abuser $), or in being publicly revealed for what they are.
The responsibility lies with the abuser, no one else, be their victim a 14-year-old boy, a 14-year-old girl, an adult man or woman.
Let me be less vague about this than Kevin Spacey. I have NO bias against women or adults. It never happened and it only exists in YOUR mind, which was already made up after reading only 3 posts on the subject. Therefore I apologize for nothing.
shareYou can say that all you like, but it's evident that isn't the case, by your own words. My mind was made up about nothing. I even asked you specifically if you'd said what you'd said, because I wasn't certain if it were you or someone else who'd said it, so I asked for clarification, which you gave.
I didn't ask you for an apology, any more than I ever said -- which you insist on repeating, and I've repeatedly denied -- that I'm speaking for anyone.
You only read 3 posts, you don't know shit about any supposed bias. You making all kinds of assumptions about me after I wrote only one post about Rapp shows your own bias against people who don't think exactly like you.
If you don't speak for anyone, then stop explaining their actions. Maybe this, maybe that. You simply don't know!
I have no idea how many posts you made or exactly what they said. Which is why I *asked you* if you'd said what I thought I'd recalled you saying, and you answered in the affirmative, confirming what I'd recalled.
I'm not making "all kinds of assumptions about you," any more than I was "speaking for" anyone, which you continue to repeat despite not having any proof for it. You've written what you've written, your bias is there for anyone to see, unless you edit it out.
I don't know what happened anymore than you do, as neither of us were there. Neither of us were there for most world events either, and yet we draw conclusions, hopefully based on common sense and what solid information we have available to us.
Again I go back to your saying "It *may very well be* that something consensual happened between some of these women and they used that against him" about the 80 women who've stepped forward to give their accounts of what happened with Weinstein, his admittal of some, and his immediately going away for a week to get deep therapy (for what, if nothing was wrong with his behaviour?). Contrasted with "*Perhaps* the encounter between Rapp and Spacey was also consensual."
"Very well may be" versus "perhaps," adding to that your condemnation of anyone (in this case Weinstein's victims) who accepted a monetary settlement, despite having equal reason to believe (or disbelieve) the victims in either instances.
I'm sure you're the only one who sees that bias. I just told my sister, we had a good laugh. Thanks!
shareYou're wrong. Dazed sees the same and has said so.
shareDazed did no such thing. What we mostly disagreed on is whether going to the media and automatically believing them is the right thing to do. She said nothing about me supposedly being biased against women or adults. Don't make things up, Debbie.
shareDazed's objection, on this thread and one or two others, was that (alleged) women victims were being treated differently than (alleged) male victims.
Don't be disingenuous, Dexxie ;)
I don't think Dazed made any assumptions about people's reasoning. She never personally accused me of any bias and I explained to her why I don't view the cases entirely the same.
You know very well your wifey is called Bexxy and I'm absolutely not her, you cheater!
Actually, she did take issue with people's reasoning. I don't know how you could have missed that.
FINE, BEXXY THEN, AND SHE'S NOT MY WIFE; I DIVORCED HER YEARS AGO!
She claimed there is a double standard, but did not make assumptions about people's reasons. She certainly did not accuse me of being biased against women or
adults.
It's probably best not to speak for Dazed either. And let's also not generalize. The reason I see these cases differently has nothing to do with gender and only partly with age.
DON'T MAKE ME COME AFTER YOU, DEXXIE!!!1
shareYo, Debs, if you gonna get me banned from Moviechat as well, I'm going to get my boys and kick your ass Lara Croft style. Awright?
shareOh sure, sure. You and your "gang" of stuffed nerdy vampire dolls are going to beat me up. I'm quaking in me boots, I am!
You have no idea what you're up against, girly!
I'm taller and hotter and blonder than you are!
http://angora.cat/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/tumblr_l0b522Gtmg1qawsa5o1_1280.jpg
RAWR!!!
[deleted]
Whaddaya gonna do, Meryl? Terrorize me with horrible accents???
Need I remind you of my own harem army of eunuchs made up of the likes of dewey, Shogie, db, arcane and croft? You don't know who you're messing with!!!
hey dumbass...keep my name out of your mouth!
Im just watching the girly fights here you nut...push your luck you plumper and youll see!
I kennot comments on zis thread anymores becauze eet has gotten TOOO SKEENY! (Take ZAT, you wench, you. Not onalee vill I beat you ups weeth my terribles accents, I vill slashes you veeth my teeny razor-sharp claws!! VICTORIES, SHE IS MINE!!!!)
shareWe'll have
to take it someplace else anyway. I promised the boys a mud wrestling fight!
Be that beer, wine, or cocktails, are served (family BBQs, as but one example) are served, and no parent or child, or adult, should expect sexual assault as a result. In normal situations, clearly that doesn't happen.
If the legal system fails, as it so often does in these cases, what is a victim supposed to do? Suck it up and allow the predator to carry on? This is why victims turn to the media for justice, albeit not legal justice. The legal system failed them, as is so often the case in sexual assaults/harassment/rape. Is it ideal that they felt they had to turn to the media for justice because the legal system failed them? Of course not!
BTW, one of my points was that about the women who have alleged abuse, you said "It may very well be that something consensual happened," yet about Rapp re: Spacey you said "Perhaps it [the abuse] happened."
In one instance you think it "may very well be it was consensual," in the other you think give the benefit of the doubt and think "perhaps it happened."
That's my point, and I believe it was also Dazed's point, although she's more than capable of speaking for herself, so I leave that to her, if she wishes.
[deleted]
I didn't say there was a difference in sexual asssault, just that different questions are asked about responsibility. Especially if money is accepted in return for silence.
"My opinion is really that we treat all victims of sexual assault with the same kindness,care and acknowledge their bravery,it shouldn't matter about their age,gender or sexual orientation."
If we are certain they are in fact victims. We don't know these people, we don't know what happened. I think it's dangerous to just accept they're victims just because they say so. But in this particular case, we at least know he was a victim in the sense that he was a minor.
But like I said to Cat, it's not important at all what WE think of the assault. We don't know them. All that should matter is if the authorities or their friend and families believe them. If I get sexually assaulted, I don't write a letter to the paper either. You can't throw it out there and demand that people don't question you at all. That's such a strange thought.
"But in this particular case, we at least know he was a victim in the sense that he was a minor."
How do you know he's a victim, any more than the women are? The fact that he's a minor means nothing if what he said happened, didn't happen. Why aren't you questioning him? That was Dazed's point. And instead of questioning the perpetrators, which is where the responsibility really lies, you're asking about the responsibility of the victims and in this case the victim's parents.
Because even if it was consensual he was a minor and Spacey pretty much acknowledges it could've happened. Who says I'm not questioning him at all? I actually didn't question anyone in this thread. You make a lot of assumptions about me. I do wonder why he's coming forward now in the media. But he didn't take any money and there's a difference between a child staying quiet an adult staying quiet while they know the reputation of the perpetrator. It's only logical different questions are being asked.
Why are you saying "instead"? I see people mostly calling out Spacey and Weinstein and asking other questions in addition. For me personally, it's useless to keep on repeating how disgusting they are. I'd like to know the circumstances, so I can avoid such situations.
But if it didn't happen, and Spacey only says IF it did then [etc.], not that it did, whether or not he was a minor is a moot point. Yet for some some reason in this instance you're saying at least we know he was a victim. I assume you're not questioning him because you haven't expressed it, yet have expressed questioning of Weinstein's victims, and are saying we know he was a victim because he was a minor.
You think that taking money automatically puts someone in question. I don't. I also don't assume everyone involved knew Weinstein or Cosby's reputations.
I'm seeing more people questioning the motives of victims than I am calling them out and putting the responsibility on them. Although I do get what you're saying about it being useless to repeatedly say they're disgusting, and so on.
If nothing happened, Spacey would've denied it. But if you're saying that that's not enough to conclude SOMETHING happened, then why are you insisting I must treat those women as victims without questioning? In most cases Weinstein acknowledges nothing.
You're wrong, I didn't question the women and not the guy. All I said was that different questions are asked because he was a minor at the time.
Taking money in return for silence raises questions. You apparently believe it can't be questioned because you automatically believe them when they claim they're victims. I simply can not do that.
You don't know Spacey would have denied it if nothing happened. My only point is the same as Dazed's. You agree in some cases Weinstein acknowledges something happened. He didn't even say, as Spacey did, IF something happened. Yet are more willing to believe something did happen in this case, than in the Weinstein case.
I didn't say it can't be questioned. But if nothing happened, why on earth would such a powerful person pay them? To be silent about what??
Excuse me, where did I say I don't believe something happened in Weinstein's cases? This discussion wasn't even about the details of the case, but the differences in questions asked. Based on his own statements, it's safe to assume things did happen, consensual or not. But the difference is that most victims were not below the age of consent.
Weinstein would pay to stop anyone from publicly accussing him of sexual assault and ruining his reputation, whether something actually happened or not.
In another post you said to me I didn't know they were victims. If nothing happened and therefore they were not victims, and no reason for them to be silent, it makes no sense he'd pay them anything.
Whether they were below the age of consent doesn't matter. Sexual assault is sexual assault.
Really? A single person with no power and no wealth (at the time) would be any kind of a threat to him?
Like I said, a guy like him wouldn't want women to come out and say he sexually assaulted them. It may very well be that something consensual happened between some of these women and they used that against him.
We don't know if there was sexual assault. Not even in Rapp's case. We do know he was below the age of consent, so it would be unlawful even if it was consensual.
A single person? I thought there were several. But one single person could go to the tabloids and put a seed of doubt in people's minds. Someone having no power is no evidence of sexual assault, it wouldn't hold up in court.
NO ONE would want anyone to come out and accuse them of sexual assault, or any other crime or misbehavior, whether it's true or not. But the chances of a nobody, without any power or evidence, being able to do harm to someone as wealthy and powerful as Weinstein is laughable. The press protected him, same as they protected Cosby. Even the tabloids.
Yes, there are now 80. More than several. I'm talking about at the time, with each individual.
It's not laughable at all. Look at what a "nobody" did to Polanski. There have been many nobodies who came forward accusing powerful people of sexual assault, some careers were ruined and some were not. It's certainly no far-fetched to think someone would want to pay off the accusers to stay quiet. But if a nobody like Rose McGowan who doesn't have any clear evidence wouldn't have been able tot do harm to someone powerful like Weinstein, then why did he pay her off in the first place? Let her go to the tabloids, it won't make a difference anyway, right?
If there are multiple accusers, they're more likely to be believed, no? It doesn't seem that strange for Weinstein to pay them off then.
If nothing happened, Spacey would've denied it.
Sorry, but you can't know he'd have denied it if nothing happened, Texas. As it is, he's saying IF he did it, he was too drunk to remember it.
share[deleted]
I think people are mostly questioning Rose McGowan who has been very vocal in condemning others who knew about Weinstein's behavior while taking money to stay quiet herself.
People are afraid to report sexual assault because people on the other side of the world might not believe them? Most sexual assault cases won't go public. The only thing that matters is the opinion of the authorities and those directly involved.
Automatically believing these women is not the way to encourage other women to report sexual assault. Asking questions is a good thing, because that will also happen in court.
Rapp is a victim in the sense that he was a minor, I have no idea if he's a victim when it comes to consent.
Writing a letter doesn't get anyone convicted, I should go to the authorities.
"Rapp is a victim in the sense that he was a minor, I have no idea if he's a victim when it comes to consent."
But again you're believing him that something actually did happen, or the fact that he's a minor means nothing.
About Weinstein's victims you say: "Weinstein would pay to stop anyone from publicly accussing him of sexual assault and ruining his reputation, whether something actually happened or not."
I believe something happened, consensual or not, based on Spacey's statement. He doesn't deny the incident and he doesn't deny inviting a 14-year old to his house.
You asked me why Weinstein would pay if nothing happened. I gave you an answer. It says nothing about whether I believe something happened, consensual or not. Like I said already, I do believe things happened.
No, he doesn't deny it, nor does he affirm anything happened, consensual or not.
We're going to have to agree to disagree that Weinstein would pay if nothing happened, and I've already outlined why I think so.
Weinstein doesn't deny or affirm anything either, so we should not automatically believe these women, right? At least he doesn't say he may have assaulted someone in a drunken stupor even though he doesn't remember it.
[deleted]
"One of the criticisms levelled at the women who allege they were assaulted by Weinstein was that reporting him could have prevented him from assaulting others.This could easily be levelled at Rapp too,but I haven't seen that happen either."
I noticed that as well.
It was called a settlement, I don't know the nature of it, but it does seem their lawyers were involved.
The authorities are not the same as the public, you can't expect strangers to automatically believe you. And when you report sexual assault you'll also have to answer some tough questions. There's no way to avoid that.
Wow, I think it's truly dangerous to automatically believe these women. What if they're lying? I don't think it's right that innocent people should suffer, just because someoneone out there might have fear of disbelief. These are private matters anyway, it's really none of our business. But if you want to teach women not to be afraid to come forward, then set an example by reporting your own sexual assault.
I see lots of people questioning why Rapp didn't come forward with Spacey's name until now. The difference is, though, that he was a child when it happened and that there haven't been other allegations yet. Seeing how large-scale Weinstein is, it's surprising no woman came forward, especially someone like Rose McGowan who condemns Ben Affleck for not coming forward. Rapp also gave the circumstances of meeting Spacey, who does not deny interacting with the boy at the age of 14.
If no other recourse is available, then I'm afraid that's the harsh reality one has to accept. Once again I'd ask to consider what if the accused is innocent? The public is not the one who should condemn him.
In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins.
It certainly doesn't teach us that instead of going to the authoritities you should look for public condemnation through the media without any evidence.
I don't know where you've been hanging around, but yesterday I saw people accuse him of promoting Star Trek by coming forward. I've seen more people asking these questions today, especially since he already mentioned the incident in 2001. What does it matter that people didn't ask him immediately? It also depends on the person, people have been asking Rose tougher questions than Kate Beckinsale, for example.
If the victim doesn't want to be condemned by the public (which I don't think is the same as asking legitimate questions), then they should't take it to the public.
Where did I say "instead of"?
I didn't see that yesterday, and I'm glad I didn't.
How about the public making the effort to not condemn? Which isn't the same thing as not forming informed personal decisions. If you don't want (alleged) perpetrators condemned by the public, on the chance that they might be innocent (because they might), why is it more okay to condemn victims when they speak out publicly?
I don't think the media is the right place to look for condemnation anyway. But the people coming forward ask us to condemn those they accuse. So why can't they be condemned as well? And as I said, asking legitimate questions is not condemning anyone. But if Rose McGowan attacks Ben Affleck for not speaking up, it's not unfair to call her out for accepting money in return for her silence all these years.
share"I don't,but I'm inclined to believe that the sheer number of women telling the same story,I mean the exact same story,down to the sad disgusting details,means that the man is very probably guilty."
Ironically, in the Cosby case, the similarity of the stories was used against them, being accused of copying one another. I'm surprised I haven't (yet) seen this in the Weinstein case.
[deleted]
The main accusation was that they were bandwagon-jumping because they were gold diggers. That may have been the case with one or two. I remember listening to one and thinking "She's lying." But that wasn't the case with the majority.
What bothered me the most was there was so much blaming, shaming, questioning, loud accusations of lying, and some truly horrific vitriol aimed at them, without cause.
[deleted]
I know. It makes me angry, because it detracts from and causes disbelief towards those who really WERE victimised, and makes their uphill battle even harder than it is!
share[deleted]
I did. It was very moving. I too think there was a real physical threat to them, in addition to psychological and professional threats to their livelihoods.
"I'm bewildered as to the lack of sympathy."
You and me both! I'm glad to see that's not the case with Rapp, just wish it were extended to all victims.
[deleted]
I can't either, although like you I'm glad they're not. Too bad this behaviour isn't extended to the women victims as well. It'd make it a lot easier for them to speak up.
shareNothing to question when Kevin Spacey admitted doing it and apologized already.
shareNot quite. He said he doesn't remember the incident, but IF he did it, then he's very sorry. But that was after the fact. People weren't questioning him, and casting aspersions on him, the way they were with either Weinstein or Cosby's victims.
Weinstein has also done some admitting.
[deleted]
who's next ??
http://nypost.com/2017/10/30/kevin-spacey-is-another-everyone-knew-who-else-does-hollywood-know-about/
<< who's next ?? >>
(Everyone on board looks at each other furtively ... )
.