what is up with all these hollywood pedos?

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't think MJ was a pedophile. Just a really weird guy.

I honestly don't care. I still watch Roman Polansky movies too. And good luck having nothing to do with anything Harvey Weinstein has been involved with (and where is all the outrage about him? Seems everyone forgot about that, lol. Same with Trump). I personally don't see the point in boycotting in this way. It does nothing but deprive me of art that I enjoy. I really don't feel like I have a part in antisemitism just because I watch a Mel Gibson movie, lol. I guess it's an individual thing. I have no problem separating the film from the artist's real life. It doesn't even cross my mind.... and I don't really care if it "should". It just doesn't.

People haven't forgotten. There's nothing more to be said until more information is forthcoming. 

I think there is a whole lot to be said about Trump and the fact that he still got into office and remains there. Weinstein? I think there is more to be said there... what about his body of work? How is it going to handled??

Were you this indignant and persistent about the all time greatest work place sexual harassment blow job in the history of humankind?

So save it.  Your caring more about the show than the victims is all we need to know.  It's one thing to not try to weed through every endeavor to find out who's involved in what. It's quite another to say - to hell with it - show me my show - the rest be damned! Oh, and what about Trump?

JC29856

Anyone have the current number of those that accuse Spacey of allegedly sexually harassing them?

CNN has published a report detailing how the actor allegedly sexually harassed eight members of the House of Cards crew, one employee claiming they were assaulted by Spacey.

tempo_n_groove

JC29856 said:

Anyone have the current number of those that accuse Spacey of allegedly sexually harassing them?

CNN has published a report detailing how the actor allegedly sexually harassed eight members of the House of Cards crew, one employee claiming they were assaulted by Spacey.

Spacey is "seeking treatment" now...

Feldman is to name his abusers.

Should make for an interesting upcoming week.

JC29856

tempo_n_groove said:

JC29856 said:

Anyone have the current number of those that accuse Spacey of allegedly sexually harassing them?

CNN has published a report detailing how the actor allegedly sexually harassed eight members of the House of Cards crew, one employee claiming they were assaulted by Spacey.

Spacey is "seeking treatment" now...

Feldman is to name his abusers.

Should make for an interesting upcoming week.

in a week Spacey would be cured and Feldman, well Feldman, who knows what will happen to him

tempo_n_groove

John Grissom is one of Feldmans abusers.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/corey-feldman-sexual-abuser-jon-grissom-1202606278/

Spacey seeks treatment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/arts/kevin-spacey-treatment-old-vic.html

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't think MJ was a pedophile. Just a really weird guy.

I honestly don't care. I still watch Roman Polansky movies too. And good luck having nothing to do with anything Harvey Weinstein has been involved with (and where is all the outrage about him? Seems everyone forgot about that, lol. Same with Trump). I personally don't see the point in boycotting in this way. It does nothing but deprive me of art that I enjoy. I really don't feel like I have a part in antisemitism just because I watch a Mel Gibson movie, lol. I guess it's an individual thing. I have no problem separating the film from the artist's real life. It doesn't even cross my mind.... and I don't really care if it "should". It just doesn't.

People haven't forgotten. There's nothing more to be said until more information is forthcoming. 

I think there is a whole lot to be said about Trump and the fact that he still got into office and remains there. Weinstein? I think there is more to be said there... what about his body of work? How is it going to handled??

Were you this indignant and persistent about the all time greatest work place sexual harassment blow job in the history of humankind?

So save it.  Your caring more about the show than the victims is all we need to know.  It's one thing to not try to weed through every endeavor to find out who's involved in what. It's quite another to say - to hell with it - show me my show - the rest be damned! Oh, and what about Trump?

Was I this indignant about what? The Clinton thing?? Why would I be? That was consensual, not sexual harassment. I guess you equating that to actual sexual harassment or assault is all we need to know about where you're coming from. For me, I couldn't give a flying fuck if Lewinsky willingly blew Clinton in the Oval Office. All I cared about was that he lied under oath.

I don't care more about the show than the victims at all. Just because I said something it doesn't mean it's the only thing I care about. Duh. Sorry you are too narrow or single minded to understand that someone's focus can be on many different things at the same time. I am indeed interested in, among other things, all the little details that all of this entails when it comes to the industry, how we draw lines between what's okay and what's not, and who's going to be destroyed for their actions and who's not, whose work will be boycotted and whose won't. I have an inquiring mind and am interested in all of this. And that doesn't negate my feelings for the victims at all, especially since I have been a victim myself many times. Perhaps that fact makes me feel like I don't need to constantly go on about them in this forum. I already completely understand the victims' viewpoints. I've been one of them. I take it for granted that we all care most about the victims. That you go ahead and assume someone doesn't just because they don't go on about it tells me that you're not even willing to explore this subject in any constructive way.

As for my "oh, what about Trump" thing... That is extremely relevant not because I just want to change the subject (I don't at all). I think it's relevant because it informs how society at large deals with these issues in general, and also how people behave as a mob. What they choose to ignore and excuse and what they choose to freak out about is incredible important IMO, while trying to work out where this issue is going in the bigger sense.

HughFreakingDillon

I simply can't grasp why people keep bringing up Bill/Monica in the same context as sexual misconduct/harassment/assault. As PJ Soul stated, as has been stated ad nauseum here, that was consensual. Gross? yes, but still consensual. it's not even in the same universe. But since he was a democrat, they need SOMETHING. the only thing he did wrong in that instance was lying about it under oath. but the act itself was not criminal in any way,shape, or form. 

the speculation of how he treated other women, on the other hand..........

jeffbr

The most troubling part about Bill and Monica for me is that while Monica may have been a "consenting adult", the relationship would be considered inappropriate (regardless of Bill's marital status) simply due to Bill being in a position of authority over her. Most schools/universities and businesses prohibit any sort of romantic or sexual relationship between someone in power or authority, and their subordinate, or teacher & student. There is a conflict of interest, and it is also difficult to determine whether consent is truly consent, or if the "consenting" party is simply bowing to the will of the person with authority over them. So I don't consider Bill & Monica a typical case of consensual cigars and pearl necklaces.

PJ_Soul

jeffbr said:

The most troubling part about Bill and Monica for me is that while Monica may have been a "consenting adult", the relationship would be considered inappropriate (regardless of Bill's marital status) simply due to Bill being in a position of authority over her. Most schools/universities and businesses prohibit any sort of romantic or sexual relationship between someone in power or authority, and their subordinate, or teacher & student. There is a conflict of interest, and it is also difficult to determine whether consent is truly consent, or if the "consenting" party is simply bowing to the will of the person with authority over them. So I don't consider Bill & Monica a typical case of consensual cigars and pearl necklaces.

I understand what you're saying, but the thing is, it overlooks the fact that sometimes the subordinate is the one taking advantage of the relationship when it's consensual just as much as the person in authority is (and is some cases even more), and I think that is the case with Clinton/Lewinsky. Sure, maybe Clinton could get some tail because of his position of power... but do not assume there aren't plenty of people, women especially, who are very happy and willing to use sex to try and climb the ladder or to just sort of "get in there" politically (not to mention all the people who are (also) simply horny, get off on inappropriate sexual relationships and/or risky sexual behaviour, and/or get off on being with powerful people). I personally feel like there is no reason to assume that the subordinate is AUTOMATICALLY a victim in all cases, and no reason to think that is the case in this particular case. I think that is kind of naive, and also kind of enforces a false victim mentality, which undercuts real victims.

jeffbr

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

The most troubling part about Bill and Monica for me is that while Monica may have been a "consenting adult", the relationship would be considered inappropriate (regardless of Bill's marital status) simply due to Bill being in a position of authority over her. Most schools/universities and businesses prohibit any sort of romantic or sexual relationship between someone in power or authority, and their subordinate, or teacher & student. There is a conflict of interest, and it is also difficult to determine whether consent is truly consent, or if the "consenting" party is simply bowing to the will of the person with authority over them. So I don't consider Bill & Monica a typical case of consensual cigars and pearl necklaces.

I understand what you're saying, but the thing is, it overlooks the fact that sometimes the subordinate is the one taking advantage of the relationship when it's consensual just as much as the person in authority is, and I think that is the case with Clinton/Lewinsky. Sure, maybe Clinton could get some tail because of his position of power... but do not assume there aren't plenty of people, women especially, who are very happy and willing to use sex to try and climb the ladder or to just sort of "get in there" politically (not to mention all the people who are (also) simply horny, get off on inappropriate sexual relationships and/or risky sexual behaviour, and/or get off on being with powerful people). I personally feel like there is no reason to assume that the subordinate is AUTOMATICALLY a victim in all cases, and no reason to think that is the case in this particular case. I think that is kind of naive, and also kind of enforces a false victim mentality, which undercuts real victims.

Oh, I understand what you're saying as well. And Monica could absolutely have been the instigator and aggressor and was drawn to Bill's power. In business you hear of people "sleeping their way to the top" sometimes, and there are certainly opportunists who would do that. I just think that with Clinton being the most powerful man in the world at the time, he should probably have been a bit more cautious about banging the help. I don't consider Bill to be some sort of sexual predator. I just consider his relationship with Monica to be highly inappropriate - and not in a prudish, moralistic way. It was inappropriate due to the nature of their relationship outside of whatever sexy time they were having. Which is why I said that I don't consider Bill & Monica to be a typical, consensual relationship. 

PJ_Soul

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

The most troubling part about Bill and Monica for me is that while Monica may have been a "consenting adult", the relationship would be considered inappropriate (regardless of Bill's marital status) simply due to Bill being in a position of authority over her. Most schools/universities and businesses prohibit any sort of romantic or sexual relationship between someone in power or authority, and their subordinate, or teacher & student. There is a conflict of interest, and it is also difficult to determine whether consent is truly consent, or if the "consenting" party is simply bowing to the will of the person with authority over them. So I don't consider Bill & Monica a typical case of consensual cigars and pearl necklaces.

I understand what you're saying, but the thing is, it overlooks the fact that sometimes the subordinate is the one taking advantage of the relationship when it's consensual just as much as the person in authority is, and I think that is the case with Clinton/Lewinsky. Sure, maybe Clinton could get some tail because of his position of power... but do not assume there aren't plenty of people, women especially, who are very happy and willing to use sex to try and climb the ladder or to just sort of "get in there" politically (not to mention all the people who are (also) simply horny, get off on inappropriate sexual relationships and/or risky sexual behaviour, and/or get off on being with powerful people). I personally feel like there is no reason to assume that the subordinate is AUTOMATICALLY a victim in all cases, and no reason to think that is the case in this particular case. I think that is kind of naive, and also kind of enforces a false victim mentality, which undercuts real victims.

Oh, I understand what you're saying as well. And Monica could absolutely have been the instigator and aggressor and was drawn to Bill's power. In business you hear of people "sleeping their way to the top" sometimes, and there are certainly opportunists who would do that. I just think that with Clinton being the most powerful man in the world at the time, he should probably have been a bit more cautious about banging the help. I don't consider Bill to be some sort of sexual predator. I just consider his relationship with Monica to be highly inappropriate - and not in a prudish, moralistic way. It was inappropriate due to the nature of their relationship outside of whatever sexy time they were having. Which is why I said that I don't consider Bill & Monica to be a typical, consensual relationship. 

Lol, yeah, well I think people who cheat on their spouses are scumbags in any case, and yes, it was of course extremely careless and icky for him to be doing that in the White House. I just don't feel like there is a victim in that case. I also think that it's a private matter. I mean, I'd LOVE for world leaders to actually be good people.... I also know that 98% of them are NOT good people. It is a sad, depressing fact of life now. That's why I almost never trust any politicians. With few exceptions, all politicians in my mind are acceptable only in a relative sense. Like, that scumbag isn't as big a scumbag as that other one. I wish VERY VERY MUCH that this wasn't the case. But government has systemically ensured that only scumbags can get to the top (98% of the time). Given that, I simply don't think there is much point is getting all indignant about a President or any other politician cheating on his wife or running around banging others consensually, assuming it's not actually affecting their leadership or their decisions. I figure that stuff is the least of our worries when it comes to these people. I have known a LOT of people who have cheated and a LOT of people who have engaged in inappropriate sexual activity. If we decide to weed everyone who has done that stuff out of government we wouldn't really have any government at all. Now, when that kind of shit actually gets in the way of governing/policy/law or causes conflicts of interest, then we have a problem, and that is when it became a problem with Clinton as far as I'm concerned, when he lied under oath. We cannot tolerate a federal leader who will lie under oath (though America certainly did and continues to do so). I would MUCH prefer to focus on leaders who are sexual predators over those who are just horny jackasses.

Jason P

So it turns out it was Charlie Sheen who raped Corey Haim ...

PJ_Soul

Jason P said:

So it turns out it was Charlie Sheen who raped Corey Haim ...

Really?

dankind

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

So it turns out it was Charlie Sheen who raped Corey Haim ...

Really?

According to the National Enquirer.

PJ_Soul

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

So it turns out it was Charlie Sheen who raped Corey Haim ...

Really?

According to the National Enquirer.

Oh. So not really, lol.

RiotZact

jeffbr said:

The most troubling part about Bill and Monica for me is that while Monica may have been a "consenting adult", the relationship would be considered inappropriate (regardless of Bill's marital status) simply due to Bill being in a position of authority over her. Most schools/universities and businesses prohibit any sort of romantic or sexual relationship between someone in power or authority, and their subordinate, or teacher & student. There is a conflict of interest, and it is also difficult to determine whether consent is truly consent, or if the "consenting" party is simply bowing to the will of the person with authority over them. So I don't consider Bill & Monica a typical case of consensual cigars and pearl necklaces.

Wait a second, can you prove that there was no pearl necklace?

kce8

Jason P said:

So it turns out it was Charlie Sheen who raped Corey Haim ...

Oh wow... but why doesn't that sound surprising? 
Damn...

PJ_Soul

kce8 said:

Jason P said:

So it turns out it was Charlie Sheen who raped Corey Haim ...

Oh wow... but why doesn't that sound surprising? 
Damn...

There is absolutely no evidence of this being true FYI. The supposed victim is dead. I don't think this random accusation thrown out by some random dude who wasn't even there can hold any water. I mean, it could be true... but are people ready to condemn people of rape on the basis of some dude saying a dead guy once said something to him about an assault that happened 30+ years ago? If so, totally innocent people should be freaking out.

JimmyV

EDIT:

I started a new thread because my comment didn't really fit here.

JimmyV

.