Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

[Dimity]

4 hours ago, Shrek said:

I was always told the exact opposite because you don't need to try remember what you said last time but even then there would be small inconsistencies after such a long time

I think it's certainly true that a liar needs to have a good memory in order to keep their lies straight.  Someone not remembering things in exact detail shouldn't be a red flag.  On the other hand someone accusing another person of something that may land them in jail does need, IMO, to be, at the very least, telling a story that hangs together.

[Makai]

13 hours ago, Shrek said:

I was always told the exact opposite because you don't need to try remember what you said last time but even then there would be small inconsistencies after such a long time. 

It’s not really an either/or thing. There are multiple red flags for lying. A extremely consistent story with no variation is a sign of a potential lie because spontaneous memory recall isn’t uniform when repeated. In other cases the inability to repeat details or to quickly fill in new information can also be a red flag.

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned in this case, is that alcohol (potentially spiked based on her account) was involved which can explain many inconsistencies. 

Edited December 23, 2024 by Makai

[Kel Varnsen]

 

That reminds me of the one season and done Kings. The Crown Prince's Secret Service equivalent  would film the checking of ID and look for signs of intoxication before women could join the royal party group. Does the rockstar class depend upon venue security to do the initial screening, it seems so. The other possibilities that the star is targeting the underage specifically to treat his party guest with is the next level.

That is what I keep thinking of. This isn't the 70's anymore where a rock star can have an ongoing relationship with a 14 year old and no one will care. If a famous person wants to hook up with people at parties or after shows who cares. But it seems like having an insane level of due diligence to make sure your partner is a legal adult and that they are giving their consent seems like a no brainer.

[Ohiopirate02]

13 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

That is what I keep thinking of. This isn't the 70's anymore where a rock star can have an ongoing relationship with a 14 year old and no one will care. If a famous person wants to hook up with people at parties or after shows who cares. But it seems like having an insane level of due diligence to make sure your partner is a legal adult and that they are giving their consent seems like a no brainer.

It's because they want inexperienced sexual partners which means young. The term I have seen bamdied about online is "low body count" to refer to the kind of female sexual partner they want. As opposed to a "high body count" woman. 

[Raja]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

It's because they want inexperienced sexual partners which means young. The term I have seen bamdied about online is "low body count" to refer to the kind of female sexual partner they want. As opposed to a "high body count" woman. 

I wouldn't think that would be true of the backstage groupies. Now at the Diddy parties it may be part of the scene 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

I wouldn't think that would be true of the backstage groupies.

Why?  If men don't require anything close to an equally experienced partner in order to get their rocks off, and benefit from a partner's lack of experience in failing to help her get her own rocks off, what's the disincentive for this specific type of purely physical sex?

(To be clear, I'm talking even about situations where the sex is truly consensual, not where "low body count" comes via a girl, and none of this sexist shit even applies.)

As for Blake Lively's allegations, I don't know how much longer this will be valid, as I came across it elsewhere, but here's a gift link to the NY Times article (by Meghan Twohey and others of the Weinstein reportage) detailing the misconduct and subsequent smear campaign for reporting it.  This is one of the industry's more blatant cases, yet there's still the usual shit being thrown at her for defending herself.

[Raja]

1 minute ago, Bastet said:

Why?  If men don't require anything close to an equally experienced partner in order to get their rocks off, and benefit from a partner's lack of experience in failing to help her get her own rocks off, what's the disincentive for this specific type of purely physical sex?

(To be clear, I'm talking even about situations where the sex is truly consensual, not where "low body count" comes via a girl, and none of this sexist shit even applies.)

As for Blake Lively's allegations, I don't know how much longer this will be valid, as I came across it elsewhere, but here's a gift link to the NY Times article (by Meghan Twohey and others of the Weinstein reportage) detailing the misconduct and subsequent smear campaign for reporting it.  This is one of the industry's more blatant cases, yet there's still the usual shit being thrown at her for defending herself.

The assumption being that those trying to get backstage know the deal and hopefully inexperienced girls aren't seeing a one and done with the star as their first.

[Dimity]

You Fell For an Alleged Smear Campaign Against Blake Lively. Now What?

Quote

As she watched the tide turn online against Blake Lively in the It Ends With Us drama last summer, Justin Baldoni’s newly-hired publicist mused to a colleague their team had a reliable weapon on their side: misogyny.

“Socials are really, really ramping up in his favour,” Melissa Nathan said of Baldoni, according to emails obtained by Lively in a lawsuit and shared with The New York Times. “[Lively] must be furious. It’s actually sad because it just shows you have people [who] really want to hate on women.”

 

Edited December 24, 2024 by Dimity

[andromeda331]

21 hours ago, Raja said:

The assumption being that those trying to get backstage know the deal and hopefully inexperienced girls aren't seeing a one and done with the star as their first.

Do they really think under age girls know the "deal"? 

[Raja]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

Do they really think under age girls know the "deal"? 

Yes stories of the back stage shenanigans and groupie memoirs needing to first satisfy the entourage are not new and they are not hidden. 

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Yes stories of the back stage shenanigans and groupie memoirs needing to first satisfy the entourage are not new and they are not hidden. 

And the laws stating that knowingly having sexual encounters with someone underage who cannot legally give consent due to not being considered an adult in the eyes of the law are also 'not hidden'- and it's entirely the responsibility of the technical adults to protect any minors discovered in their vicinity from anything criminal from happening until the minors can transported to a safe place!

 

[Danielg342]

On 12/23/2024 at 8:35 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

This isn't the 70's anymore where a rock star can have an ongoing relationship with a 14 year old and no one will care. If a famous person wants to hook up with people at parties or after shows who cares. But it seems like having an insane level of due diligence to make sure your partner is a legal adult and that they are giving their consent seems like a no brainer.

I'm not sure that, in the '70s, "no one cared"- it was more like underage relationships were easier to hide and that people were less sensitive towards them because we didn't yet understand the true impacts those relationships would have on those involved.

Heck, I'm sure even today people like Diddy, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Jeff Epstein, et all believed they were "above the law" because they wielded so much power and influence. They weren't the first and, sadly, they won't be the last.

The only real difference between today and the '60s and '70s (and before) is that today we have better avenues for survivors to come forward (with social media) and we have a better understanding of the physiological and psychological damages that these kinds of relationships bring.

As far as Diddy was concerned, running unregulated parties meant he had a lot of leeway. I'm sure many girls got in who were under 18 but looked older, or Diddy and/or others running the party thought they were too good looking to care that they were not 18.

"You say you're 18? Come on in, then!"

There probably were controls- or there were supposed to be controls- that would nominally prevent underage people from getting into Diddy's parties, but I'm sure a well-placed bribe, a real convincing act or just simply Diddy making a decision meant there likely were plenty of exceptions.

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Do they really think under age girls know the "deal"? 

Yeah...not that it excuses anything that happens to them, but I could see a lot of underage girls as being very naïve. I knew a girl in high school who really, honestly, believed she was going to marry Nick Carter (I still think she does). I'm sure there are other 14-year-old and 15-year-old girls that dream of falling in love or merely having sex with Harry Styles or Ed Sheeran. The girl at the centre of the Jay-Z allegations likely thought, "wouldn't it be so cool to get into one of Puffy's parties?" and she talked the doorman into letting her in.

What happens in these situations is that, once they're actually experiencing their "dream" situation, they either realize the situation wasn't the dream they thought it would be or they get so caught up in the moment that they may not realize until years later that they've been taken advantage of. There may be a tiny few that really do have a great experience, but they're probably not going to make allegations years later.

[Browncoat]

I would bet there are more 13-year-olds who don't "know the deal" than there are who do.  Being invited backstage at a concert or to a celebrity party wouldn't have meant "sex" to me when I was 13, or to any of my fellow 13-year-olds.  (One of my friends at the time was so uninformed that she did not believe/understand that rape could result in pregnancy.  I'm not sure what she thought rape was, tbh.)  We would have just been excited to meet our favorite celebrities!  

6 hours ago, Raja said:

Yes stories of the back stage shenanigans and groupie memoirs needing to first satisfy the entourage are not new and they are not hidden. 

They are not necessarily hidden, but may not be widely read among the pre-teen set, either.  How many memoirs did you (general you) read when you were 12 or 13?  

However, regardless of whether or not the 13-year-old "knew the deal," the so-called adults in the room should know better. They are responsible for any assault.

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Browncoat said:

the so-called adults in the room should know better. They are responsible for any assault.

This.   A thousand times THIS.

The 13 year old should "know the deal" is victim blaming.   Right up there with " what was she wearing."   Hey you try to get into one of Diddy's parties, well you shouldn't be surprised at what happened to you.   Yes, yes,   you should.   Because no one of ANY age should be forced to have sex without their knowing consent.

[Dimity]

2 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Being invited backstage at a concert or to a celebrity party wouldn't have meant "sex" to me when I was 13, or to any of my fellow 13-year-olds.

When I was 13 I was still in the getting crushes on celebrities stage where I had pin ups on my wall and dreamed of meeting one of them.  Meeting.  Not having sex.  I know this isn't true for every 13 year old but I am going to say it's more true for most than these 'men' would like to believe. 

On 12/23/2024 at 8:35 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

This isn't the 70's anymore where a rock star can have an ongoing relationship with a 14 year old and no one will care.

Not the 70s but I don't know how many people even really batted an eye at the way Elvis courted (for lack of a better word) teenage Priscilla.  I do know people were shocked when Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 yr old but it didn't exactly ruin his career.

[Danielg342]

12 hours ago, Dimity said:

Not having sex.

Maybe it's just me (in more ways than one), but I did dream of having sex with my favourite celebrities when I was 13 (I still do...). I think the difference between then and now is that, at 13, I would dream of an idealized version of love and sex and not really understand the realities. It's the perfect opportunity for a predator because a predator would be able to talk a naive youngster out of their insecurities and into having sex they don't want because the youngster is dealing with feelings and emotions in the moment they still don't yet understand or grasp and likely won't until they're older.

[SVNBob]

On 12/25/2024 at 10:54 AM, Dimity said:

I do know people were shocked when Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 yr old but it didn't exactly ruin his career.

Was the shock at the time more about her age, or the fact that she was his cousin (first cousin once removed)?  Or a combination of both?

(Another complication is that he lied to the press about her age; claiming she was 15.)

 

[Zella]

37 minutes ago, SVNBob said:

Was the shock at the time more about her age, or the fact that she was his cousin (first cousin once removed)?  Or a combination of both?

(Another complication is that he lied to the press about her age; claiming she was 15.)

 

From what I have read, it was outrage at both.* Also he married her months before his divorce for his previous marriage was finalized, and the whole bigamy thing on top of marrying his much younger cousin was also not well-received. 

This talks a little more about how the story broke. 

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jerry-lee-lewis-drops-a-bombshell-in-london 

*Anecdotally, when my older relatives who were alive when the scandal broke randomly come across any mention of Jerry Lee Lewis, they still to this day scornfully mention "He married his thirteen-year-old cousin!" 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Zella

[tearknee]

Jerry Lewis wasn't much better.

[Makai]

On 12/24/2024 at 9:44 AM, Dimity said:

You Fell For an Alleged Smear Campaign Against Blake Lively. Now What?

 

So, the guy who decided to adapt a book repeatedly criticized for glorifying abuse ends up being an abusive asshole.

 

And of course it’s another guy who framed himself as an ally to women.

[Spartan Girl]

30 minutes ago, Makai said:

So, the guy who decided to adapt a book repeatedly criticized for glorifying abuse ends up being an abusive asshole.

 

And of course it’s another guy who framed himself as an ally to women.

[Dimity]

Zachery Ty Bryan Arrested For Domestic Violence - Again

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Dimity said:

Zachery Ty Bryan Arrested For Domestic Violence - Again

His third.  He got a whopping seven days time served sentence for the last one. 

[Jaded]

Should have posted these here first and forgot.

Armie Hammer likens scandal to kink-shaming, talks deluge of bad press and living in a 'tiny-ass apartment'

Armie Hammer Says His Acting Career Has Picked Up So Much He’s ‘Turning Jobs Down’

Edited January 4 by Jaded

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Bastet said:

His third.  He got a whopping seven days time served sentence for the last one. 

Maybe the courts should sentence him longer? Instead of continuing to let him off the hook. Somehow all he's learning is he can hit someone and not go to jail for it. Who would have thought.

[Bastet]

On 1/3/2025 at 8:05 PM, andromeda331 said:

Maybe the courts should sentence him longer? Instead of continuing to let him off the hook. Somehow all he's learning is he can hit someone and not go to jail for it. Who would have thought.

He's scattered some DUI arrests amidst the DV arrests, too, so hopefully he's still on probation from the last DUI because, sadly, a probation violation will get more attention from the DA than his repeated attacks on his partner do alone.

[BetterButter]

Multiple women add detail to Neil Gaiman sexual assault allegations

Quote

Allegations against Gaiman first emerged in July 2024.

 

[DearEvette]

3 hours ago, BetterButter said:

Multiple women add detail to Neil Gaiman sexual assault allegations

 

Yeah, the Vulture article the AV Club is referencing is really something.  I read it this morning. Dense, with a lot of information. 

Outside of the shocking stuff, i.e. the young son being in the room when he is messing with some of these women, what struck me is how predatory he just came off.

At least two of women quoted in the article were in real personal distress -- no money, no resources, imminent loss of homes -- etc. that directly related to their relationship with Gaiman and his wife.  He just comes off as incredibly manipulative.

Amanda Palmer doesn't come off well either. I got the feeling she allowed 'friends' to speak for her  (there are some things in that article that could only have come from her or Neil) to make herself sound sympathetic but she feels complicit to me. 

Honestly they sound like they were  having some sort of twisted power struggle and some of these women got caught up in it.

I have never been a fan of either of theirs .... him because I just never gelled with his books even thought I like fantasy and hers because she always felt like she was trying too hard to be edgy.  I never actively disliked them or anything, but just wasn't a follower or a fan so I largely ignored them both.  But this just makes them both just seem so gross.

[EtheltoTillie]

I started reading it this morning.  Hard to take. 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

Yeah, the Vulture article the AV Club is referencing is really something.

Indeed, and I'm not even finished.

Here's that source material.

[Zella]

6 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I have never been a fan of either of theirs .... him because I just never gelled with his books even thought I like fantasy and hers because she always felt like she was trying too hard to be edgy.  I never actively disliked them or anything, but just wasn't a follower or a fan so I largely ignored them both.  But this just makes them both just seem so gross.

I never really had an opinion on him either. His quotes about a lot of topics were inescapable online and I liked the one book of his I read well enough, but I just never paid him much attention one way or the other.

Though, I will say, I was super weirded out when he suddenly left his family in New Zealand during the COVID lockdowns. I saw a lot of people throwing his wife under the bus for that--and truthfully I'd never heard of her before then and stuff I read about her at the time did seem unpleasant--but I still felt like that didn't reflect well on him.

But I would never have extrapolated these allegations from that. I read some of the details today and really wish I hadn't. They were nauseating. Since this first came out last summer, I have read stuff that said women were warning each other about him on the fantasy writing circuit for the past 25 years. 

[Trini]

'Neil Gaiman Responds to Sexual Assault Allegations'

[Spartan Girl]

Justin Baldoni is suing Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively claiming they smeared him

I am so tired of abusive men and their fragile little egos playing the victim. And the fact that he dragged Taylor Swift into this will probably come back to bite him in the ass big time. 

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Justin Baldoni is suing Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively claiming they smeared him

I am so tired of abusive men and their fragile little egos playing the victim. And the fact that he dragged Taylor Swift into this will probably come back to bite him in the ass big time. 

I know lawyers are supposed to vigorously defend their clients, but there's something off-putting in the language used in that statement. It makes me think that Justin cannot win without publicly smearing Blake. If you're version is the correct version, then you do not need a thesaurus to come up with multiple ways to say the other party is a liar.

[Affogato]

20 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I know lawyers are supposed to vigorously defend their clients, but there's something off-putting in the language used in that statement. It makes me think that Justin cannot win without publicly smearing Blake. If you're version is the correct version, then you do not need a thesaurus to come up with multiple ways to say the other party is a liar.

It is the time of the glorification of sexually inappropriate men, so he may feel the word salad is all he needs. 

Edited Friday at 06:00 PM by Affogato

[Ohiopirate02]

58 minutes ago, Affogato said:

It is the time of the glorification of sexually inappropriate men, so he may feel the word salad is all he needs. 

I suspect Justin and his team are planning on a jury trial and the word salad is a way to prime the potential jury pool into hating Blake. Blake is an imperfect victim and it did not take much to get the online public to hate her back in August. Why not craft a statement where each major publication can pick and choose which version of "she's a liar" they want to run with? Just as long as the news outlets are running the story. Tik-Tok has run with the story with users digging up old footage to trash Blake for things she said and did when she was on Gossip Girl. It really takes but a nudge for the internet to hate on one specific woman. I do have to wonder if they will continue this strategy with the Tik-Tok ban set to actually happen and people fleeing both Meta and Twitter in droves.

[Danielg342]

On 1/13/2025 at 3:59 PM, DearEvette said:

Amanda Palmer doesn't come off well either. I got the feeling she allowed 'friends' to speak for her  (there are some things in that article that could only have come from her or Neil) to make herself sound sympathetic but she feels complicit to me. 

Take it for what it's worth but Amanda Palmer on her Instagram page posted that because the divorce process is still going, she can't comment publicly at this time. I wonder if she was trying to get ahead of the Vulture piece.

Edited Saturday at 08:52 AM by Danielg342

[merylinkid]

15 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Take it for what it's worth but Amanda Palmer on her Instagram page posted that because the divorce process is still going, she can't comment publicly at this time. I wonder if she was trying to get ahead of the Vulture piece.

Sorry I only read part of the Vulture piece (I don't need to make myself sick to know Gaiman is a terrible person), but Amanda Palmer is exploitative too.   She had that one woman working for her for free.   Because she knew the woman was so star struck she would do it.

Over in the I'm So Disappointed in You thread there is a discussion of scammers.   Predators test your boundaries.   When you give a little, they push harder.   So both Palmer and Gaiman are predators, just in different ways.

[Makai]

On 1/16/2025 at 1:36 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I know lawyers are supposed to vigorously defend their clients, but there's something off-putting in the language used in that statement. It makes me think that Justin cannot win without publicly smearing Blake. If you're version is the correct version, then you do not need a thesaurus to come up with multiple ways to say the other party is a liar.

I’m honestly a little surprised at how aggressive he and his team has been in his defense. This is the type of case he should try to quietly settle rather than trying to take a page from Johnny Depp’s playbook. It just makes me think that he is leading with his ego and feels the need to go scorched earth on anyone who dared to challenge him. In my experience, people who react like that are a nightmare to deal with in day-to-day life. 

23 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Tik-Tok has run with the story with users digging up old footage to trash Blake for things she said and did when she was on Gossip Girl. It really takes but a nudge for the internet to hate on one specific woman. 

Ughhh. I fucking hate cases like this because way too many people on social media only see cases in black and white. Blake is legitimately problematic in her own right AND what was done/is still being done to her is awful. Nothing will ever truly change until the public (and the media) stops holding women to impossible standards. 

23 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I do have to wonder if they will continue this strategy with the Tik-Tok ban set to actually happen and people fleeing both Meta and Twitter in droves.

I doubt that it will change anything. Echo chambers are still going to echo whenever users end up once TikTok is gone. 

[Danielg342]

7 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Sorry I only read part of the Vulture piece (I don't need to make myself sick to know Gaiman is a terrible person), but Amanda Palmer is exploitative too.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just posting what I found. I still think there will be a lot of details that will still emerge and, whatever you think of Amanda Palmer, her reason for silence on this matter is still reasonable.

[katie9918]

Sounds to me like both Lively and Baldoni are assholes, he exposed her first and now she’s exposing him.