Harvey Weinstein

[MC Prussian]

There's a name for people who prey on the underaged (mostly in order to have sex with them).

 

They're called paedophiles.

 

Despicable human beings.

Btw, the label does not only apply to men. Just trying to widen the spectrum here a bit.

 

There's a lot more going on with child porn rings than one may imagine. They're internationally connected.

Just recently, German authorities uncovered a darknet group called "Elysium", consisting of roughly 87'000 people who were exchanging pictures and videos with children involved in sexual acts or "swapping" kids for sexual abuse amongst members.

 

 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

There's a name for people who prey on the underaged (mostly in order to have sex with them).

 

They're called paedophiles.

 

Despicable human beings.

Btw, the label does not only apply to men. Just trying to widen the spectrum here a bit.

 

There's a lot more going on with child porn rings than one may imagine. They're internationally connected.

Just recently, German authorities uncovered a darknet group called "Elysium", consisting of roughly 87'000 people who were exchanging pictures and videos with children involved in sexual acts or "swapping" kids for sexual abuse amongst members.

 

 

I know I should just leave this but...

 

If this is in relation to Polanski, why do you bring up child porn rings and sickos swapping kids for sexual abuse? There is nothing to suggest he has been involved in anything like this. He was sent for a psychiatric evaluation as part of the the trial and it came back to state he wasn't:

Quote

Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she "wasn't unresponsive", and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.^[25] The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing." The officers quoted two psychiatrists' denial of Roman being "a pedophile" or "sexual deviate".^[26]

 

What that actually means I don't know, I don't know how physically mature a 13 year old needs to be for it not be "paedophilia" but this serves, to those that want to justify it, as evidence he is not attracted towards prepubescents and so not a paedophile. More that it was a one off incident with an underage girl. This doesn't excuse it or defend it, he should be punished for it. The issue is to make the link between that paedo rings is just incorrect. This is the issue that comes up with the classification of these crimes. Now supposing no drink or drugs were involved and she was willing (she says she wasn't and I have no reason not to believe her). Then the association and classification of one serious crime is the same as that of worse crimes such as violent rape and serial paedophilia.

 

This is the point that Tarantino tries to make, that in believing that she was willing it puts RP in a much lower bracket of criminal, someone whose crimes he could overlook and still work with, which he couldn't for a violent rapist or more extreme paedophile.

 

It is like saying you would appear on John Peel's radio show, but you wouldn't collaborate with Gary Glitter or Ian Watkins.

 

Anyway, I'll try and make it the last I'll say on this matter, other than to say Polanski has lead one fvcked up life, caught up in the holocaust as a child, married to Sharon Tate who was 8 months pregnant with his kid when murdered, at his home, by Charles Manson. That is going to mess you up. Doesn't justify any other crimes, he still shouldn't have had sex with a 13 year old.

 

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

I know I should just leave this but...

 

If this is in relation to Polanski, why do you bring up child porn rings and sickos swapping kids for sexual abuse? There is nothing to suggest he has been involved in anything like this. He was sent for a psychiatric evaluation as part of the the trial and it came back to state he wasn't:

What that actually means I don't know, I don't know how physically mature a 13 year old needs to be for it not be "paedophilia" but this serves, to those that want to justify it, as evidence he is not attracted towards prepubescents and so not a paedophile. More that it was a one off incident with an underage girl. This doesn't excuse it or defend it, he should be punished for it. The issue is to make the link between that paedo rings is just incorrect. This is the issue that comes up with the classification of these crimes. Now supposing no drink or drugs were involved and she was willing (she says she wasn't and I have no reason not to believe her). Then the association and classification of one serious crime is the same as that of worse crimes such as violent rape and serial paedophilia.

 

This is the point that Tarantino tries to make, that in believing that she was willing it puts RP in a much lower bracket of criminal, someone whose crimes he could overlook and still work with, which he couldn't for a violent rapist or more extreme paedophile.

 

It is like saying you would appear on John Peel's radio show, but you wouldn't collaborate with Gary Glitter or Ian Watkins.

 

Anyway, I'll try and make it the last I'll say on this matter, other than to say Polanski has lead one fvcked up life, caught up in the holocaust as a child, married to Sharon Tate who was 8 months pregnant with his kid when murdered, at his home, by Charles Manson. That is going to mess you up. Doesn't justify any other crimes, he still shouldn't have had sex with a 13 year old.

 

I wasn't referring to Polanski or Tarantino in particular when I mentioned the recent child porn ring scandal, just trying to

a) shed a light on how "common" it is (unfortunately)

b) direct the attention to female abusers also

 

I have no doubt that many people are complicit in Hollywood when it comes to these practices and that what we're hearing right now is just the tip of the iceberg (see what Corey Feldman has been saying on the issue for years, long before #metoo came along). If people were hurt or abused, they ought to seek justice by taking legal action.

Still leaves a bit of a sour aftertaste when you consider the victims could've said NO instead or force their way out of the situation (I know, not always applicable in all situations, but still...) and none of this would've probably happened. Why does choice never come into play at the other end of the scale?

 

Sexual abuse and abuse of power needs to stop. Yet we also need to take a look at the other side and ask ourselves why (mostly) women are so savvy for a career in film (or media) that they'd practically do anything to get there? Reeks of egomania or a case of short circuits also.

How about focusing on #pullout?

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I wasn't referring to Polanski or Tarantino in particular when I mentioned the recent child porn ring scandal, just trying to

a) shed a light on how "common" it is (unfortunately)

b) direct the attention to female abusers also

 

I have no doubt that many people are complicit in Hollywood when it comes to these practices and that what we're hearing right now is just the tip of the iceberg (see what Corey Feldman has been saying on the issue for years, long before #metoo came along). If people were hurt or abused, they ought to seek justice by taking legal action.

Still leaves a bit of a sour aftertaste when you consider the victims could've said NO instead or force their way out of the situation (I know, not always applicable in all situations, but still...) and none of this would've probably happened. Why does choice never come into play at the other end of the scale?

 

Sexual abuse and abuse of power needs to stop. Yet we also need to take a look at the other side and ask ourselves why (mostly) women are so savvy for a career in film (or media) that they'd practically do anything to get there? Reeks of egomania or a case of short circuits also.

How about focusing on #pullout?

It is shocking what you posted about elysium, 87,000 is a lot of people.

 

I don't agree about the victims doing more to stop it, it is never that easy, even those that did fight back haven't had their stories told until now. I think that in situations like that you will have a period of fight/struggle but if you don't fight them off/escape quickly you go into damage limitation mode, just stop struggling and hope it ends quickly. Like being in a fight against a bigger stronger opponent, you can try and fight back, but if you get knocked down you are probably better off going fetal, protect your head and hope he/they get bored quickly. For women in Hollywood they probably think they can handle it, they expect it as it is so ingrained in the culture, but think that they will not be so naive to put themselves in that position, or even try and exploit it themselves. They often can't or don't and end up as victims because so many powerful men have been exploiting women in the industry with impunity for decades.

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

It is shocking what you posted about elysium, 87,000 is a lot of people.

 

I don't agree about the victims doing more to stop it, it is never that easy, even those that did fight back haven't had their stories told until now. I think that in situations like that you will have a period of fight/struggle but if you don't fight them off/escape quickly you go into damage limitation mode, just stop struggling and hope it ends quickly. Like being in a fight against a bigger stronger opponent, you can try and fight back, but if you get knocked down you are probably better off going fetal, protect your head and hope he/they get bored quickly. For women in Hollywood they probably think they can handle it, they expect it as it is so ingrained in the culture, but think that they will not be so naive to put themselves in that position, or even try and exploit it themselves. They often can't or don't and end up as victims because so many powerful men have been exploiting women in the industry with impunity for decades.

In the end, one could say it also is/was a reflection of times past. Physical and sexual abuse in Hollywood or the film industry in general was surely more accepted/tolerated in the past and it's a "tradition" that has sadly lasted for way too long (see "Casting Couch").

 

Still, it takes two to tango. Would I want to work with people in power who are abusers? Not really. Do I think the victims or people who have come out now are (in part) responsible for their own actions? I surely do. Opposites attract so to speak.

It reminds me of the singing dentist scene in "Little Shop of Horrors":

 

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

In the end, one could say it also is/was a reflection of times past. Physical and sexual abuse in Hollywood or the film industry in general was surely more accepted/tolerated in the past and it's a "tradition" that has sadly lasted for way too long (see "Casting Couch").

 

Still, it takes two to tango. Would I want to work with people in power who are abusers? Not really. Do I think the victims or people who have come out now are (in part) responsible for their own actions? I surely do. Opposites attract so to speak.

It reminds me of the singing dentist scene in "Little Shop of Horrors":

 

Have to disagree on that last part, victims are not responsible for the actions of their attacker. Naive, stupid, reckless maybe, but not responsible.

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Have to disagree on that last part, victims are not responsible for the actions of their attacker. Naive, stupid, reckless maybe, but not responsible.

I didn't say they are responsible for the actions of their attacker, they can't possibly be. I mean responsibility for their own actions.

[leicsmac]

Yeah, what do we say we back away from the victim blaming and stop giving those with power an out for their actions, huh?

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, what do we say we back away from the victim blaming and stop giving those with power an out for their actions, huh?

Nobody wants to deny the victims their right to appeal for justice - I simply want more context, the full picture.

The men in question were/are surely slimy and despicable, yet I don't see why the victims appear to be exempt from criticism.

It's all too one-sided for my liking.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Nobody wants to deny the victims their right to appeal for justice - I simply want more context, the full picture.

The men in question were/are surely slimy and despicable, yet I don't see why the victims appear to be exempt from criticism.

It's all too one-sided for my liking.

Because the perps have every single iota of the power, the victims have none. 

 

All the victims can do is abandon any hope of getting involved in the media industry and get a $3/hr waitressing job. The perps can just call in the next girl.

 

The freedom of choice in this situation is entirely illusory, and that's why perhaps they shouldn't be blamed for it. 

[MC Prussian]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Because the perps have every single iota of the power, the victims have none. 

 

All the victims can do is abandon any hope of getting involved in the media industry and get a $3/hr waitressing job. The perps can just call in the next girl.

 

The freedom of choice in this situation is entirely illusory, and that's why perhaps they shouldn't be blamed for it. 

It isn't an illusion, though.

Who says the victims won't find any other appropriate job in the (near) future? There's plenty of respectable people in the industry still.

Who says calling out the perverts won't help "drying the swamp"?

We're now standing at the beginning of what could be a new, better era. A starting point for a healthy debate surrounding abuse of power and the relationship between men and women.

What the future brings, that nobody can tell. My hope is things will change for the better, but for that both sexes need to take a better look in the mirror.

 

I call for action on a legal level. That should be the next phase of the debate, after a more critical assertion of the victims's role in the whole affair.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

It isn't an illusion, though.

Who says the victims won't find any other appropriate job in the (near) future? There's plenty of respectable people in the industry still.

Who says calling out the perverts won't help "drying the swamp"?

We're now standing at the beginning of what could be a new, better era. A starting point for a healthy debate surrounding abuse of power and the relationship between men and women.

What the future brings, that nobody can tell. My hope is things will change for the better, but for that both sexes need to take a better look in the mirror.

 

I call for action on a legal level. That should be the next phase of the debate, after a more critical assertion of the victims's role in the whole affair.

When the victims have no choice but to abandon the industry, how is that anything but an illusory choice?

 

I'm sure there are some decent people in the industry still, but right now it seems like the highest echelons are frankly teeming with folks who are very happy indeed to abuse their power, and the only way to make a mark in that industry is to be complicit in that or to accept it.

 

Definitely agree that calling this out may well help draining the swamp, as you put it, and I hope that it does - it's long past time. However, I'm still not getting your angle that the victims have anywhere near the amount of power (and therefore responsibility) than the blokes doing the nasty do...I think the power gap between the two is being seriously underestimated here.

 

While I also agree that legal action is the best way to get this done, given how sexual abuse cases often come down to word vs word and who can afford the best lawyers I'm not sure how much faith I have in the legal system to get this cleaned up. But then I don't see any reasonable alternative, either.

[MC Prussian]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

When the victims have no choice but to abandon the industry, how is that anything but an illusory choice?

 

I'm sure there are some decent people in the industry still, but right now it seems like the highest echelons are frankly teeming with folks who are very happy indeed to abuse their power, and the only way to make a mark in that industry is to be complicit in that or to accept it.

 

Definitely agree that calling this out may well help draining the swamp, as you put it, and I hope that it does - it's long past time. However, I'm still not getting your angle that the victims have anywhere near the amount of power (and therefore responsibility) than the blokes doing the nasty do...I think the power gap between the two is being seriously underestimated here.

 

While I also agree that legal action is the best way to get this done, given how sexual abuse cases often come down to word vs word and who can afford the best lawyers I'm not sure how much faith I have in the legal system to get this cleaned up. But then I don't see any reasonable alternative, either.

If you can make money out of a story, the victims will get the legal representation and compensation they want and/or deserve. It's the US, after all.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

If you can make money out of a story, the victims will get the legal representation and compensation they want and/or deserve. It's the US, after all.

While that's right in principle I don't think it holds water nearly as many times as it should in practice. History is full of victims either not being believed or simply being out-lawyered in court by powerful guys with deeper pockets than they - even if they have a story to sell and therefore some money, the ones they're up against have more.

[Captain...]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

While that's right in principle I don't think it holds water nearly as many times as it should in practice. History is full of victims either not being believed or simply being out-lawyered in court by powerful guys with deeper pockets than they - even if they have a story to sell and therefore some money, the ones they're up against have more.

Exactly, if you take Polanski's case again:

Quote

On 10 March 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, became embroiled in a sexual assault case involving 13-year-old Samantha Jane Gailey^[10] (now Samantha Geimer).^[11] A grand jury charged Polanski with five charges:

1. rape by use of drugs
2. perversion
3. sodomy
4. lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen
5. furnishing a controlled substance to a minor^[9]

 

But he ended up on a plea bargain dismissing all of them for a charge of unlawful sex with a minor, which he pleaded guilty to on the understanding that he would be let out on probation. It is only because he thought that the judge would sentence him to jail and deport him that he did a runner. That is a clear example of where someone with money and influence can lawyer up and basically get away with it with his reputation more or less in tact (assuming the victim's testimony to be true).

 

This is probably a rare case where they even got charged with anything, but shows what happened when the law tries people of power and influence, and why many victims just don't see the point as it is their word against someone rich and powerful.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I think you'll find it's peadophile, folks

[MC Prussian]

17 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Exactly, if you take Polanski's case again:

But he ended up on a plea bargain dismissing all of them for a charge of unlawful sex with a minor, which he pleaded guilty to on the understanding that he would be let out on probation. It is only because he thought that the judge would sentence him to jail and deport him that he did a runner. That is a clear example of where someone with money and influence can lawyer up and basically get away with it with his reputation more or less in tact (assuming the victim's testimony to be true).

 

This is probably a rare case where they even got charged with anything, but shows what happened when the law tries people of power and influence, and why many victims just don't see the point as it is their word against someone rich and powerful.

That was in 1977, though.

 

The law and the public perception of sex offenders has changed by now. There will be some additional pressure by the media and the public to set things straight, especially given the number of incidents involving high-profile protagonists this time around.

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

That was in 1977, though.

 

The law and the public perception of sex offenders has changed by now. There will be some additional pressure by the media and the public to set things straight, especially given the number of incidents involving high-profile protagonists this time around.

It is changing slowly, but it is just an indication of what the attitudes were like and where this feeling of nothing will get done came from. It is why your Weinsteins and Spacey's got waway with it for so long. Fortunately now things are changing, but I bet there is still a lot more unreported than reported.

[MC Prussian]

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

It is changing slowly, but it is just an indication of what the attitudes were like and where this feeling of nothing will get done came from. It is why your Weinsteins and Spacey's got waway with it for so long. Fortunately now things are changing, but I bet there is still a lot more unreported than reported.

Exactly.

 

What I'd like to point out is that the media are playing their part right now, as we speak. The whole coverage and investigative journalism, all the energy invested is a bit too sensationalist. I think the media put too big an emphasis on this matter alone, when they should focus on political/religious/economic issues. It all resembles some sort of pre-trial.

 

Despite the allegations, they remain innocent until proven guilty (by court).

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-43226367

 

It's pretty clear the culture is rotten and has been for some time. It's good that some disinfectant is finally being applied.

[Jattdogg]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6077381/Asia-Argento-paid-380k-young-actor-accused-sexually-assault.html

 

So Asia accuses harvey of rape.....yet she had sex with a 17 year old boy and paid him off. As a 17 year old boy i probably would have banged her myself (horny teen) but the irony of this all...

[Finnegan]

3 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6077381/Asia-Argento-paid-380k-young-actor-accused-sexually-assault.html

 

So Asia accuses harvey of rape.....yet she had sex with a 17 year old boy and paid him off. As a 17 year old boy i probably would have banged her myself (horny teen) but the irony of this all...

 

It's not particularly uncommon for abuse victims to wind up having extremely complicated and damaged relationships with sex and sexuality or to go on to be abusive themselves. 

The whole mess is ****ing tragic and just further highlights how rotten a lot of the industry is. 

I don't doubt the defence have found this kid and leaned on him to leak the story, which doesn't make her behavior (if true) any better. I'm sure they hope to discredit her and whilst it might, its also just damming of Weinstein and his entire machine really. 

The whole scandal is enormously depressing all round. 

[the fox]

Sheesh. Talk about a messy situation. 

 

I think we all know how dirty Hollywood is. Some people are really twisted and the money and fame the industry brings opens an door to many possibilities. Unfortunately, that's how humans are. A bad apple is bound to appear. 

For me, anything under 20 years in prison for sexual abuse of a minor is a complete joke. Lock those pigs up! 

 

For grown women who get drugged and abused, I have nothing but sympathy. It must be life damaging and I find it hard to believe that most the victims will have a normal life, ever. As for the women who bounce back stronger, kudos to them you can find predators everywhere so every recovery story is a motivation to every abused female outthere. 

 

But for grown women who give their bodies away when they are at a clear state of mind, I find it hard to sympathise. You could've just walked away. They know the stipulations of the deal and after making a deal with the devil, you can't act blameless. 

Those animals ask for the women's body, and in return, they offer an opportunity or a role. You can't just reap the benefits and turn around and object to the act that you agreed to. Now granted, there was the pressure of missing their chances, but isn't that just adulthood?(a very unfortunate side of it sadly) You are your own man (or women), you make choices that you are responsible for. You can just walk away if you don't like it. 

Now, don't get me wrong, those abusers deserve to get punished and the industry needs an overhaul. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 20 August 2018 by the fox

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

On ‎08‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 11:12, MC Prussian said:

There's a name for people who prey on the underaged (mostly in order to have sex with them).

 

They're called paedophiles.

 

Despicable human beings.

Btw, the label does not only apply to men. Just trying to widen the spectrum here a bit.

 

There's a lot more going on with child porn rings than one may imagine. They're internationally connected.

Just recently, German authorities uncovered a darknet group called "Elysium", consisting of roughly 87'000 people who were exchanging pictures and videos with children involved in sexual acts or "swapping" kids for sexual abuse amongst members.

 

 

Paedophiles should be castrated. Seriously.

[MC Prussian]

So, one woman has come out some more and submitted a video of a meeting between her and Weinstein from 2011:

What do you make of it? Harvey Weinstein surely is a slimy ass, but how much of it did she bring onto herself?

 

Also note how comments for this video are disabled.