Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein - Part 3

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]536109[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]535073[/split]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think you're kind of dodging Erz's question. Just to give you an example of what he's talking about, one time my girlfriend was at a wedding that I was not invited to. She got drunk, and when my girlfriend gets drunk one thing she does is crave sex. This rarely happens because she doesn't drink very much but she did on this very occasion. So the whole time for the rest of night she was being very touchy-feely and trying to initiate something with me for hours. In this example, he is saying that I should not be held accountable if something happens. This is of course assuming she doesn't wake up in the morning regretting the decision or anything like that. But the example provided stated this. I think this scenario is what Erz wants you to address. Not the hypothetical regret next morning provided. Simply put, should this be considered rape?

For the record, I did not end up doing anything with her that night, but that was because she went to sleep about 20 minutes after we got home. Had she not fell asleep, I am sure she would have kept trying to get me to succumb. I am not passing judgement on your opinion, either. I just want to get a better understanding of your definition.

In this scenario, I believe you leave it in the hands of the other person to decide how they feel the next morning. I personally wouldn't do it at all. But if you decide to have sex with someone else who you know has been drinking and in this case we agree at least legally drunk, then there is a case to be made if they feel so the next day or even further down the road.

There is a lot of measuring how drunk someone else here is, and how that effects them. And I think that is why cases are starting to more and more not make allowances for simple interpretations imo. Or even using the idea you yourself were drunk as a defense. And no, I do not think someone being someone's significant other changes what is expected of them.

 

[harlequinade]

Lol of course he won't

Well Colbert just grilled Franco, man.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Serious question. How do you know if you are lucid if you are drunk, even slightly? How do you know your partner is?

I'd know if I was lucid because I'd be able to express myself clearly and thoughtfully and also if I could identify something as harmful and still have the forethought to avoid that harmful thing. Likewise, if my partner is able to hold any kind of in-depth conversation and make her thoughts known to me in a clear way then I can tell that she's lucid enough to make her own choices.

Communication is the thing, and if both parties are able to communicate what they want in a coherent way then they're fit to make decisions.

 

[Mysteryman]

Well Colbert just grilled Franco, man.

Good for him.

 

[Donner]

Okay, the drunk thing. When it comes to spouses and SOs, I think it's just a fun time between two people who are together. I've had plenty of drunk sex with my husband and I doubt there are too many instances of wives or girlfriends accusing their partners of rape after a night of drinking and sex. The law might state that it's not "consensual" but I think, for the most part, we can ignore it in these cases.

Now for drunk at a bar or frat party, you can get into very dangerous territory when you pick up a drunk chick (or a drunk guy). I've never had a one night stand or hooked up with someone I wasn't dating when I was drunk and I'm quite relieved it never happened. Some may enjoy it, some may regret it. But I think it's in everyone's best interest to steer clear of drunken hookups. And drunk being too intoxicated to speak properly. If she's slurring or tripping, just don't.

 

[Lencho01]

Franco with Colbert...

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/950964240042659841

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/950965761635508224

 

[harlequinade]

https://imgur.com/a/VrlRw

His accuser is imho totally discredited

 

[chamber-music]

On the Douglas issue.

Micheal Douglas was treated for sex addiction years ago. My guess is Douglas was probably pleasuring himself in his office and she walked in and saw him. Douglas let her go because his production company wasn't doing well, she couldn't get rehired and she believed the reason is because Douglas blackballed her from the industry.

 

[ludovica]

https://imgur.com/a/VrlRw

His accuser is imho totally discredited

Not sure if you're serious.

Neither if those tweets are in jest or serious.

 

[Spider-Fan]

In this scenario, I believe you leave it in the hands of the other person to decide how they feel the next morning. I personally wouldn't do it at all. But if you decide to have sex with someone else who you know has been drinking and in this case we agree at least legally drunk, then there is a case to be made if they feel so the next day or even further down the road.

There is a lot of measuring how drunk someone else here is, and how that effects them. And I think that is why cases are starting to more and more not make allowances for simple interpretations imo. Or even using the idea you yourself were drunk as a defense. And no, I do not think someone being someone's significant other changes what is expected of them.

I cannot agree in this scenario. It is one thing if you're using the situation for sex, but if the other person who is drunk is the one initiating the action hardcore, I think it would be wrong to consider this rape, at least as outlined in my scenario. I understand the law and why it is there, but in a grey area like my scenario, I think the law fails.

 

[baerrtt]

On the Douglas issue.

Micheal Douglas was treated for sex addiction years ago. My guess is Douglas was probably pleasuring himself in his office and she walked in and saw him. Douglas let her go because his production company wasn't doing well, she couldn't get rehired and she believed the reason is because Douglas blackballed her from the industry.

I remember the sex addiction story back in the day and I vaguely recall one of the tabloids alleging, along with tales of infidelity, that he was caught *********ing by someone who worked for him.

Personally I'm automatically believing the accusers because unfortunately all the names being dragged are guys who've been rumored to be major sleaze/*****ebags for years.

 

[harlequinade]

Not sure if you're serious.

Neither if those tweets are in jest or serious.

Hard to decipher your post. But someone tweeting they want to ruin someone's life etc. and admitting to lying doesn't have much credibility. This is the kind of a person who hurts the entire movement.

 

[jmc]

Yeah, that purposely wanting to ruin lives statement would be gobbled up by lawyers instantly.

 

[harlequinade]

Franco should sue. If he doesn't over something this damaging - last week of Oscar voting - and a target so easy - stupid enough not to delete these tweets - only then he will look guilty.

 

[MadVillainy]

Well Colbert just grilled Franco, man.

I stand corrected. Very surprised since all these late night shows have had many abusers or people willing to work with known abusers on their shows before and didn't ask a thing.

I wonder what Rogen will say. He's big on Twitter and calling out "injustice" and the like. Will he do it when it's his bff?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Okay, the drunk thing. When it comes to spouses and SOs, I think it's just a fun time between two people who are together. I've had plenty of drunk sex with my husband and I doubt there are too many instances of wives or girlfriends accusing their partners of rape after a night of drinking and sex. The law might state that it's not "consensual" but I think, for the most part, we can ignore it in these cases.

Now for drunk at a bar or frat party, you can get into very dangerous territory when you pick up a drunk chick (or a drunk guy). I've never had a one night stand or hooked up with someone I wasn't dating when I was drunk and I'm quite relieved it never happened. Some may enjoy it, some may regret it. But I think it's in everyone's best interest to steer clear of drunken hookups. And drunk being too intoxicated to speak properly. If she's slurring or tripping, just don't.

I agree with this. I never was one for bar hopping myself (heck, I don't really drink like ever...too many people I've known who have alcohol problems soured me on the prospect of being drunk). But, if you are that person and you put yourself out there like that, you're playing with fire. There is so much more to worry about that type of stuff now than there was even 10 years ago, so I would avoid this situation altogether.

 

[Reek]

Colbert didn't "grill" Franco. Let's speak in truth's. He gave him a chance to answer and I honestly think Franco did a great job. We'll see how this pans out but I believe Franco.

 

[ludovica]

Hard to decipher your post. But someone tweeting they want to ruin someone's life etc. and admitting to lying doesn't have much credibility. This is the kind of a person who hurts the entire movement.

I mean that not everything written on twitter can be taken seriously or literally.
That said, I lack the context of those tweets, but probably so do you.
Even then, one person could indeed be not totally fine in their head, a proven liar and even have a sketchy past, but nonetheless telling the truth in a specific instance.
I'm saying that twitter history is neither an indictment or an absolution and your proposed line of thinking could be quite dangerous: what if Weinstein turns up similar instances for every one of his accusers?
Improbable, but we already know he tried, using ex Mossad to find dirt on them.

To be clear, I have no opinion on the reliability of the allegations on Franco, neither should I. But seeing his history, certainly I can not easily dismiss them.

 

[harlequinade]

I mean that not everything written on twitter can be taken seriously or literally.
That said, I lack the context of those tweets, but probably so do you.
Even then, one person could indeed be not totally fine in their head, a proven liar and even have a sketchy past, but nonetheless telling the truth in a specific instance.
I'm saying that twitter history is neither an indictment or an absolution and your proposed line of thinking could be quite dangerous: what if Weinstein turns up similar instances for every one of his accusers?
Improbable, but we already know he tried, using ex Mossad to find dirt on them.

To be clear, I have no opinion on the reliability of the allegations on Franco, neither should I. But seeing his history, certainly I can not easily dismiss it.

So we should treat her tweet about Franco as a fact but her tweet where she admits lying for attention as a joke? Based on what?

Weinstein has multiple, credible accusers. Read some of this person's tweets. Does this sound like someone who is in Hollywood and ever had a relationship with Franco?

There is a big difference between being into 17+ girls and assaulting someone. This whole situation is frankly offensive to actual victims who have been through actual horrible things.

You could literally tweet Brad Pitt assaulted you 10 years ago and I can GUARANTEE some magazine would run with it. Just based on that tweet. Not even scrolling your feed to see what else is there.

 

[ludovica]

So we should treat her tweet about Franco as a fact but her tweet where she admits lying for attention as a joke? Based on what?

Weinstein has multiple, credible accusers. Read some of this person's tweets. Does this sound like someone who is in Hollywood and ever had a relationship with Franco?

There is a big difference between being into 17+ girls and assaulting someone.

I think we should neither believe or disbelieve her in this instance, give this episode some time to be cleared, Franco seems to not want to simply dismiss it.

I completely agree there's no doubt about Weinstein but let's not give a pass anyone when the accuser is lone. Not every sleaze bag is serial.

Again, I have no idea what is the truth and even agree that there is a big difference between creeping on a 17 year old and assault, just not the best of precedents.

 

[Teelie]

A comment like that seriously hurts her credibility. You can't be "accept her claim as true" in one post then "that doesn't mean she is a liar" in the second when you see her literally saying she is a liar who enjoys hurting people's reputations the next.

Whatever the true case is with her and Franco, I can't accept splitting hairs like that. If someone wants proof why some of these claims against men are doubted, that woman just gave them a loaded gun.

That said, most of the other claims I have seen aren't tinged with a disreputable person behind them who seems to be out for something other than honesty.

 

[ludovica]

A comment like that seriously hurts her credibility. You can't be "accept her claim as true" in one post then "that doesn't mean she is a liar" in the second when you see her literally saying she is a liar who enjoys hurting people's reputations the next.

Whatever the true case is with her and Franco, I can't accept splitting hairs like that. If someone wants proof why some of these claims against men are doubted, that woman just gave them a loaded gun.

That said, most of the other claims I have seen aren't tinged with a disreputable person behind them who seems to be out for something other than honesty.

Nowhere did I say we should believe it, only that the reasoning to disbelieve her categorically is flawed.
Again, the context of those tweets?
I concede it's reasonable to guess this person could be ill, seems even likely.
But we do not know. Yet.

 

[Erzengel]

No. What I am doing applying the law and asking if the law says there is a problem, why is there not a problem? Because's one's own judgment says it is okay?

Also who said anything about no alcohol?

You posted this:

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

If a SO is conscious and communicative then A & C don't apply. Then B would have to be proven is if the person is or isn't incapacitated because of alcohol. Incapacitated as in lacking sufficient understanding to make rational decisions or engage in responsible actions. And I think this is what's important, and not a black and white issue, what is irrational or irresponsible with engaging in intercourse with a long standing partner?

Because then why not just do everything then? If a couple is sleeping in the same bed after a sexual encounter, and one of them wakes up in the middle of the night for Round 2, and begins to initiate foreplay with their asleep partner, that's unprovoked touching without explicit consent regardless of what happened hours earlier which can be defined as sexual assault.