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

[Ms Blue Jay]

20 women!  It's almost like women have to unionize together and all make the report at the exact same time to get any action done against predators.  

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Hiyo]

Yeah but then they’d be accused of literally conspiring to take down that poor innocent man because womenz iz crayzee or something.

[ifionlyknew]

15 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

20 women!  It's almost like women have to unionize together and all make the report at the exact same time to get any action done against predators.  

 

12 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

Yeah but then they’d be accused of literally conspiring to take down that poor innocent man because womenz iz crayzee or something.

They would say the women's stories are too similar. That they rehearsed their accusations. Ignoring the fact most predators follow a pattern with their abuse.   How many women told the same story about Weinstein?  Or Matt Lauer.  Men stick with what they think works for them.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I don't know about that.  Harvey Weinstein is in jail.  Patterns are how you find predators, not dismiss accusations of them. (I assume that's what detectives' jobs boil down to.)  Not sure why you're speaking as if the accusations about Weinstein and Lauer were dismissed.  Just the opposite, now, which kind of proves my point.  Weinstein is a convicted sex offender and Matt Lauer was terminated by NBC.  Bill Cosby is in prison too.  

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Hiyo]

Not sure why you are speaking as if we ever said the accusations against either men were dropped because of that. Just that that is one form of blowback that people who accuse predators might also receive from other people (men usually, but also fans of the accused as well).

[ifionlyknew]

49 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

 Not sure why you're speaking as if the accusations about Weinstein and Lauer were dismissed. 

My point was defenders of predators when there are more than one accuser often use the defense that all the accusers are telling the same story. I heard that said about Cosby's accusers.  People who don't want to believe a man is a sexual predator try to justify their faith in that predator in many different ways. How many times have we heard women defend a man by saying "He never assaulted me"?

Edited May 3, 2021 by ifionlyknew

[WinnieWinkle]

15 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

How many times have we heard women defend a man by saying "He never assaulted me"?

I remember when the accusations about Cosby finally started being taken seriously that Phylicia Rashad said he never behaved badly around her and she couldn't believe the stories were true.  I had a lot of sympathy for that because I find it very credible that harassers pick and choose there victims and also pick and choose how they behave around others.  They can have a lot of charm and personal magnetism.  It's a mistake to assume any man who preys on women is a cartoonish villian twirling a mustache as he cackles with fiendish glee!  That said, my sympathy dwindles and dies when someone continues to insist that accused person MUST be innocent despite ample evidence to the contrary, and especially after a guilty verdict.  

[Annber03]

Agreed. Anyone who watches true crime shows, how often have we all seen the stories where family and friends are struggling to come to terms with the fact someone they loved and knew and trusted could do something so horrible? That would be very tough, indeed, so it's not surprising that'd be the case here, too. Some people are able to work through those feelings quickly and acknowledge the facts, others...sadly, it takes a while, and then some may never allow themselves to accept the truth, for one reason or another. 

Of course, it also depends on how close one's relationship with the accused is, too, as to whether or not they're willing to defend them so strongly. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

OK I guess I assumed anyone with a brain would say "Pattern?  Serial rapist" but I guess you guys are seeing a lot of brainless reactions I haven't.  Imagine seeing 3 people having been killed the same way and a detective saying "These people faked it."  That's how silly it would be, in my eyes, to dismiss a pattern of serial assault.  

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

19 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

That said, my sympathy dwindles and dies when someone continues to insist that accused person MUST be innocent despite ample evidence to the contrary, and especially after a guilty verdict.  

Right and in the case of Michael Weatherly it's, it's on tape but I'm totally fine with his behaviour and I support him anyway.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Jaded]

9 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

OK I guess I assumed anyone with a brain would say "Pattern?  Serial rapist" but I guess you guys are seeing a lot of brainless reactions I haven't.  Imagine seeing 3 people killed the same way and a detective saying "These people faked it."  That's how silly it would be, in my eyes, to dismiss a pattern of serial assault.  

That implies that there would be witnesses to the murders. In regards to survivors of assault, harassment and whatnot pattern gets overlooked more times than not because it's easier to victim blame hoping they go away so nothing will have to be done to the perpetrators. 

[WinnieWinkle]

7 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Right and in the case of Michael Weatherly it's, it's on tape but I'm totally fine with his behaviour and I support him anyway.

I am guessing it comes down to "my career before all" for anyone who would continue to support him.  Pretty sad,

[Ms Blue Jay]

8 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I am guessing it comes down to "my career before all" for anyone who would continue to support him.  Pretty sad,

He implied to Eliza Dushku that he's best friends with whoever runs CBS now..... (basically as a threat) so yeah.

9 minutes ago, Jaded said:

That implies that there would be witnesses to the murders. In regards to survivors of assault, harassment and whatnot pattern gets overlooked more times than not because it's easier to victim blame hoping they go away so nothing will have to be done to the perpetrators. 

Sorry, I meant discovering bodies having been killed the same way - not watching murders happen live.

[Mabinogia]

35 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

It's a mistake to assume any man who preys on women is a cartoonish villian twirling a mustache as he cackles with fiendish glee! 

Or that they abuse every woman they meet. They are predators who select their prey carefully. Cosby wasn't going to go after a strong female he works with every day almost equally (he was the star, but she was close behind, not some bit player or newbie). 

I always hate "he never did it to me so he's clearly innocent." That's just a horrible way of saying you don't really care about other people so long as he didn't hurt you. 

Every time I see the commercial for the new season of Bull I want to throw something at my TV, but I realize it's not my TVs fault so I just give his big puffy face the finger instead. I hope my TV doesn't think I'm giving it the finger. 🤔

[catlover79]

46 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Agreed. Anyone who watches true crime shows, how often have we all seen the stories where family and friends are struggling to come to terms with the fact someone they loved and knew and trusted could do something so horrible? That would be very tough, indeed, so it's not surprising that'd be the case here, too. Some people are able to work through those feelings quickly and acknowledge the facts, others...sadly, it takes a while, and then some may never allow themselves to accept the truth, for one reason or another. 

Of course, it also depends on how close one's relationship with the accused is, too, as to whether or not they're willing to defend them so strongly. 

 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

OK I guess I assumed anyone with a brain would say "Pattern?  Serial rapist" but I guess you guys are seeing a lot of brainless reactions I haven't.  Imagine seeing 3 people having been killed the same way and a detective saying "These people faked it."  That's how silly it would be, in my eyes, to dismiss a pattern of serial assault.  

People being killed is very clear cut bad thing but many don’t see sexual harassment and abuse as a clear cut thing even when there is a pattern. Particularly when there are woman who will argue that victims are being too sensitive or uptight or can’t take a joke. To often there is a mindset that prioritizes the comfort of the majority at the expense of the minority. Things are evaluated based on if you would be offended, upset or scared and not if someone else was actually offended, upset or scared. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Yup, I know all of this, from life experience, as I am a woman.  I was just saying that things seem to actually happen when a lot of women, i.e. 20 or more, band together and make the same report about the same man at the same time. I didn't think that opinion, shown to have a positive result in several high profile cases in real life, would be so controversial.

For me, I just need one woman to report, as I take victim statements seriously.  But for cases to become high profile and taken seriously in the media, and have enormous high profile news publications running them, and maybe even real life legal and career implications, it seems like the burden of proof is outlandish.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Mabinogia]

46 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

But for cases to become high profile and taken seriously in the media, and have enormous high profile news publications running them, and maybe even real life legal and career implications, it seems like the burden of proof is outlandish.

Unfortunately true. If one woman speaks out the media dismisses her as "overly sensitive" or she "misunderstood" the situation or she's trying to get back at him or trying to get publicity. If a couple women speak out, the media wonder if one is just piggybacking on the other for press. It is very sad but it usually takes dozens of women to come out and speak against one man to actually make a difference. 

What's really sad is that the first woman to speak out has to face so much scrutiny and judgement because there is no guarantee anyone will believe her, unlike most other crimes where no one is likely to question what the victim did to get themselves victimized or what they did to entice the perp to attack them or worse, told they are overreacting and it was just a bit of fun.

[katie9918]

I’m really starting to wonder about the culture around RTD’s Doctor Who era with every bit of information coming out about different individuals involved.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, katie9918 said:

I’m really starting to wonder about the culture around RTD’s Doctor Who era with every bit of information coming out about different individuals involved.

Looking back it’s really not all that surprising to me. I’m just irritated with myself that a brushed aside the things that raised red flags. Things like the relationship between the naive 19 year old Rose and the 900 year old Time Lord. Or the way Martha was treated throughout. Or the agency stealing ending the Donna was given. Or the line in this song making a joke of Barrowman exposing himself. 

 

[Lady Whistleup]

One thing that is sad about the "first" to come out with a story is that the person is ostracized and out of the business before her story is ultimately verified.

This happened with Placido Domingo. There was a well-known mezzo who wrote a blog post that called out Domingo without actually naming him. She was called names online and she got disinvited to engagements. She's now out of the business and teaches voice. This was before other stories of Domingo came out. 

It's really awful.

[Zella]

When people use the "but it never happened to me, so he couldn't be a rapist," I always think of Ted Bundy being super caring and sweet to his chubby blonde thirty-ish covolunteer Ann Rule while he was raping and  murdering thin brunette twenty-somethings in his spare time. As Rule herself pointed out, she wasn't his "type," so of course he wasn't going to do anything to her. Didn't mean he didn't do anything to those other women. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Zella

[Hiyo]

Quote

OK I guess I assumed anyone with a brain would say "Pattern?  Serial rapist" but I guess you guys are seeing a lot of brainless reactions I haven't.

People like that exist, like it or not. They will keep denying and making up excuses even if there are dozens of victims coming forward.

Quote

When people use the "but it never happened to me, so he couldn't be a rapist,"

Or "He was so nice to me, I just can't see him doing whatever it is they said he did".

[possibilities]

If criminals were criming all the time every day against everyone they meet, they'd be caught really fast. You can only assault so many people in a day.

[merylinkid]

Sexual predators/abusers don't start out assaulting and abusing immediately.   If they did, no one would be around them.   They use charm to gain trust, THEN start in.   Unfortunately far too many people only see the charming side (because they aren't people the predator/abuser wants), so they can't believe that nice man would do such a thing.   Predators/abusers KNOW this btw, and use it to their advantage.     They always have "character" witnesses who can claim they are just too good of a person to do such a thing.  

Which is why sadly it takes multiple women coming forward before people start going "hmmm, something is up."   Because the people they haven't assaulted ALWAYS outnumbers the victims.   

[catlover79]

7 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Sexual predators/abusers don't start out assaulting and abusing immediately.   If they did, no one would be around them.   They use charm to gain trust, THEN start in.   Unfortunately far too many people only see the charming side (because they aren't people the predator/abuser wants), so they can't believe that nice man would do such a thing.   Predators/abusers KNOW this btw, and use it to their advantage.     They always have "character" witnesses who can claim they are just too good of a person to do such a thing.  

Which is why sadly it takes multiple women coming forward before people start going "hmmm, something is up."   Because the people they haven't assaulted ALWAYS outnumbers the victims.   

Yes, a thousand times, yes. They know how to charm, coerce and twist everything you say/do to their advantage.

[andromeda331]

On 5/3/2021 at 5:10 PM, Mabinogia said:

Unfortunately true. If one woman speaks out the media dismisses her as "overly sensitive" or she "misunderstood" the situation or she's trying to get back at him or trying to get publicity. If a couple women speak out, the media wonder if one is just piggybacking on the other for press. It is very sad but it usually takes dozens of women to come out and speak against one man to actually make a difference. 

What's really sad is that the first woman to speak out has to face so much scrutiny and judgement because there is no guarantee anyone will believe her, unlike most other crimes where no one is likely to question what the victim did to get themselves victimized or what they did to entice the perp to attack them or worse, told they are overreacting and it was just a bit of fun.

It really is and it happens every single time a woman has to speak out. As we've learned from Weinstein which most women probably already knew but hammered in. It really does not matter who you are. It doesn't matter if your a famous actress or a normal woman. It doesn't matter if your a famous gymnast or a regular teen in a gym. The reaction for speaking out is exactly the same. The police, the district attorney, and the public will all have the same response. You won't be believed. Not until dozens more come forward and say they were assaulted too. In Weinstein and Nassar cases it was only when articles came out and how many did anything happen. Up until those points many women had accuses Weinstein but the police chose not pursure or the DA dropped charges. It didn't matter how many of them came forward. They result was the same. It didn't matter how many girls accused Nassar the result was the same. The press and public do the same thing. They attack her. Question everything in her story and don't believe her. The usual "what was she wearing",  "why was she there?" "She kissed him." "She went to his apartment" "She danced with him" She didn't dance with him. She misunderstood. The endless questions all about her and what she did and what she has to "gain" from coming forward. Right because its every woman's dream of having what happens when a rape victim comes forward happen to her.

The scary answer is so many people men and women do no care. It doesn't matter how old or how young. They do not care. It doesn't matter if he's a famous director, actor, doctor, or normal guy or high school football player. They don't care. If they did so many victims wouldn't get attacked for daring to report a crime that happen to them. If they did so many police officers wouldn't blow it off or DAs nor would judges and juries let their attacker off. So many bend over backwards for the attacker. It happens time and again. Look at how many women had to come forward before Weinstein was believed or how many came forward to accuse Nassar. Both have different amounts before finally believed. So what is the magic number? 87? 156? Why isn't one enough? One should be enough to it seriously. But its not. Two isn't enough. Nor three or four. Its insane.   

Edited May 5, 2021 by andromeda331

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

The scary answer is so many people men and women do no care. It doesn't matter how old or how young. They do not care. It doesn't matter if he's a famous director, actor, doctor, or normal guy or high school football player. They don't care. If they did so many victims wouldn't get attacked for daring to report a crime that happen to them. If they did so many police officers wouldn't blow it off or DAs nor would judges and juries let their attacker off. So many bend over backwards for the attacker. It happens time and again. Look at how many women had to come forward before Weinstein was believed or how many came forward to accuse Nassar. Both have different amounts before finally believed. So what is the magic number? 87? 156? Why isn't one enough? One should be enough to it seriously. But its not. Two isn't enough. Nor three or four. Its insane.   

The trouble is, when you get cases of a dozen or more women coming out at the same time, there are people who use that coordination as "proof" of a conspiracy to take down the famous man.

In the case of Noel Clarke, twenty accusations came to light at once, but I don't know whether the women all made their accusations at the same time, or whether police had been investigating for a while and amassing these accusations. Either way, for the reasons you've outlined, multiple women coordinating their accusations should be considered a path for them to actually be believed, rather than to be accused of conspiring.

In the case of Nassar, in particular, it is mindboggling to me that it took so many accusations for him to be caught. These were children. Young girls he was given authority over, and a single one saying 'he did this to me' should have been a fucking red alert for every parent who had a child involved in US gymnastics.

I heard a story the other day (on the wonderful Crime in Sports podcast) about Ronda Rousey's mother refusing to let her daughter go on a judo tour to another country when she was about fifteen because, when she asked the organisers who the coaches would be, they couldn't even tell her. They hadn't made up their minds yet who they were going to entrust the care of a group of teenage girls to. 

Just step outside the competitive sports bubble for a second, and ask yourself if you would ever let your child go on any kind of trip with adults who you don't know. Even with adults you do know. But just because it's for sport, it's fine? Crazy.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

In the case of Nassar, in particular, it is mindboggling to me that it took so many accusations for him to be caught. These were children. Young girls he was given authority over, and a single one saying 'he did this to me' should have been a fucking red alert for every parent who had a child involved in US gymnastics.

In that case it took so many accusations because officials didn’t allow them to become public so they could raise red flags. Many of the coaches didn’t even know about the accusations and US Gymnastics system was set to up to isolate the girls from the parents during training. It was really only two victims speaking to the press that caused the flood gates to open. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Guest

[catlover79]

Speaking of another predator who got a lucky break from a judge...sickening!!! 😡😡😡😡😡

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/entertainment/josh-duggar-child-pornography-case-trial-bail-home-confinement-000211966.html

[JustHereForFood]

On 5/4/2021 at 1:30 PM, merylinkid said:

Sexual predators/abusers don't start out assaulting and abusing immediately.   If they did, no one would be around them.   They use charm to gain trust, THEN start in.   Unfortunately far too many people only see the charming side (because they aren't people the predator/abuser wants), so they can't believe that nice man would do such a thing.   Predators/abusers KNOW this btw, and use it to their advantage.     They always have "character" witnesses who can claim they are just too good of a person to do such a thing.  

Which is why sadly it takes multiple women coming forward before people start going "hmmm, something is up."   Because the people they haven't assaulted ALWAYS outnumbers the victims.   

Exactly. And, sadly, they also often know how to choose their victims and target those that have either already been victims before, or have the type of personality that makes them want to avoid any conflict at all cost, or those that are in a position where they can't afford any problems due to financial insecurity, potential loss of job, etc. These predators are ultimately cowards and would not dare to target someone that is in a position of power, unless they are also very stupid. 

[ifionlyknew]

12 hours ago, catlover79 said:

Speaking of another predator who got a lucky break from a judge...sickening!!! 😡😡😡😡😡

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/entertainment/josh-duggar-child-pornography-case-trial-bail-home-confinement-000211966.html

I read this earlier and I was struck by how the writer kept referring to him by his first name.  He should have been referred to as Duggar.  Or the accused.  

He is allowed to have unlimited visitation with his kids as long as Anna is there.  Don't think that makes the kids any safer. The article also said there was some sort of alert on a computer that would have notified Anna the user was looking at porn.  He disabled it but the fact it was on there meant Anna must have known at some point.  This whole thing is just so disturbing.  

[Kromm]

Re: the judge ruling.

Is this some Arkansas fundamentalist crap where they all look out for each other or some crap like that? 

The software being called "Covenant Eyes" is somehow simultaneously hilarious and really annoying. 

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Re: the judge ruling.

Is this some Arkansas fundamentalist crap where they all look out for each other or some crap like that? 

The software being called "Covenant Eyes" is somehow simultaneously hilarious and really annoying. 

These are federal charges so the judge is following federal guidelines.  Josh was able to find a third party custodian who is willing to house Josh until his trial and babysit him.  Or I should say that Jim Bob was able to find someone to babysit Josh.  

As much as we all want Josh locked up, there is no indication that the judge is sympathetic to Josh and his religious beliefs.  She was doing her job, and Josh does have a long list of restrictions.  

[ifionlyknew]

4 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

As much as we all want Josh locked up, there is no indication that the judge is sympathetic to Josh and his religious beliefs.  She was doing her job, and Josh does have a long list of restrictions.  

And she did comment on the charges and evidence. She is not a fan of him.

[WinnieWinkle]

1 hour ago, ifionlyknew said:

I read this earlier and I was struck by how the writer kept referring to him by his first name.  He should have been referred to as Duggar.  Or the accused.

Given the charges etc this is a minor thing to be irritated by but I too was irritated by it.  Most of the time they even refer to very young children by their last name in news stories - I have been told this is standard and me thinking it's STUPID doesn't change that - and then in a story about a child predator he is consistently refered to by his first name?  I wondered if it was because the Duggars are so well known, and there are so many of them, that they felt they needed to make it clear which Duggar they were talking about.  If so and they wanted readers to be sure who they were talking about I have a few suggestions...

[ifionlyknew]

2 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I wondered if it was because the Duggars are so well known, and there are so many of them, that they felt they needed to make it clear which Duggar they were talking about

I thought about that but it still bugged me.  

I read another story earlier about yet another predator.  This one was a doctor who looked up women's skirts on the subway.  His attorney  had repeatedly referred to him as a young kid. He was in his 40s. 

[Popples]

3 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I read another story earlier about yet another predator.  This one was a doctor who looked up women's skirts on the subway.  His attorney  had repeatedly referred to him as a young kid. He was in his 40s.

I despise this so much. Grown men can be "boys" up until their 40s so they don't have to be held accountable or responsible for their actions and it's disgusting. Then there is the reverse where I was watching a video talking about R. Kelly and the infamous "Pee Tape" and the person referred to his victim as an "underage woman." NO. She was a girl.

[kathe5133]

When I lived in NYC during the early 80's I had a couple of methods of dealing with Subway pervs.  I always carried a safety pin in my pocket.  On a crowded subway there would be "leaners" who would get their jollies "leaning" against the woman as the train lurched.  I would open the safety pin and hold it over the area they were leaning on.  They moved quick!  One time, as I stood, the guy sitting in front of me would turn the page of his newspaper and brush my crotch area.  Ok, the train's crowded.  I shifted a bit, as did he, and brushed it again.  NYC Subways were always packed to capacity and I really couldn't get out of his way without getting off the train, and I was late for work and didn't want to.  So, he brushed, I moved, he brushed again, and so on.  When my stop came, I placed my high heeled foot over his instep and put my full and considerable weight on it.  He screamed in pain!  Most likely didn't cure him of his habit, but I'm sure he was limping for a few days!

 

[Luckylyn]

The John Barrowman situation makes me understand why people can have blindspots in this situation because I find I am such a fan that I struggle to think badly of him.  I have enjoyed him so much over the years and hear all these lovely stories of him being wonderful with fans.   When stories about Micheal Weatherly’s behavior on set including taking down his pants happened it didn’t even occur to me to compare that to John Barrowman flashing people on the set of Doctor Who and Torchwood.  It’s an old commonly known story that been told as jokes for years by members of the cast and even is mentioned in a parody song.  Now I can look back and see this was problematic. Freema Agyeman’s story off being startled to see Barrowman walk around set with his penis out and how everyone behaved matter of fact like it was a normal part of the day was interesting.  She didn’t see it as funny.  Did the whole group really think it was hilarious or did they feel they had to act okay with it? Does it matter that he hasn’t repeated this behavior in several years and apologized years ago?  If people felt harmed but didn’t feel comfortable speaking up an apology doesn’t fix that.  Still can people change and be redeemable.  But harm done even if unintentional is still harm.  Barrowman isn’t the only issue but the people in charge on set that allowed it also need to be discussed.  

 I am really curious how Barrowman responses.  I follow him on Facebook.  He normally posts daily but he’s gone silent.  He hasn’t posted in several days.   I don’t know if he’s just sitting quietly hoping the controversy will pass or if a statement is coming.

This video captures my mixed up feelings about Barrowman and also references the Noel Clarke allegations.

 

[merylinkid]

You are allowed to have mixed feelings.   Because people are complex.   Both the predator and the victim.   Someone doesn't need to be a saint to be victim and someone doesn't need to be Satan to be a predator.   Which is why processing it can be difficult.   And that's OKAY.   

What's not okay is trained professionals only looking at the good in the accused and the bad in the victim and deciding based on that.   But the rest of us can be confused and even a little hurt when it turns out someone whose work we LOVED falls into the predator category.

I don't know about Barrowman, but if he apologized and seems to have stop, he gets a chance at redemption from me.   We HAVE to give people a chance otherwise they will never change.   But that doesn't mean endless chances to screw up.   It means the person genuinely growing and learning.    As for the people running the set, they hold a lot of the blame -- why didn't anyone tell him to put that thing away?    It took someone coming in fresh to go "wait, hey, no that's not okay, that's not normal."

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, Luckylyn said:

It’s an old commonly known story that been told as jokes for years by members of the cast and even is mentioned in a parody song.  Now I can look back and see this was problematic. Freema Agyeman’s story off being startled to see Barrowman walk around set with his penis out and how everyone behaved matter of fact like it was a normal part of the day was interesting.  She didn’t see it as funny.  Did the whole group really think it was hilarious or did they feel they had to act okay with it? Does it matter that he hasn’t repeated this behavior in several years and apologized years ago?  If people felt harmed but didn’t feel comfortable speaking up an apology doesn’t fix that.  Still can people change and be redeemable.  But harm done even if unintentional is still harm.  Barrowman isn’t the only issue but the people in charge on set that allowed it also need to be discussed.  

I don't know the circumstances of Barrowman exposing himself, but one thing that makes it less problematic for me is that it seems like he made no attempt to isolate and take advantage of other people on the set, like Louis C.K. did. He wasn't actively preying on anyone or subjecting them to trauma to satisfy himself. At least, that doesn't appear to be the case.

But he was still exposing himself to people who hadn't given permission for him to do so. Freema Agyeman was a young, fairly inexperienced actor when she was on Doctor Who and Torchwood and the power disparity between her and Barrowman is definitely problematic. Even more so when the culture on set was apparently permissive and accepting of what he was doing. How could she ever have spoken out without ending up as the prudish killjoy, targeting Peter Pan Barrowman and his carefree abandon?

Barrowman learning and apologising is sufficient for me, though. It's puerile, childish behaviour from a man who has clearly always craved being the centre of attention (and again I say this as someone who likes Barrowman) but it doesn't seem to have been about exerting sexual power over another person. 

Meanwhile, Clarke has been accused of harassing someone on the set of Doctor Who:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/07/noel-clarke-accused-of-sexual-harassment-on-doctor-who-set

Quote

‘I like girls with long hair – it gives me something to hold on to’

Joanne Hayes was a costume assistant on series 1 of the revived Doctor Who, shot in 2004. She alleges that Clarke sexually harassed her in his trailer in August 2004 after she assisted him with his costume.

After a brief work-related conversation, she said, Clarke told her that he “liked girls with long hair, as it gave him something to hold on to when doing them from behind”. Hayes, who had very long hair that came to her mid-back, said she made to leave the trailer because she felt uncomfortable.

At this point, she alleges, Clarke repeated the comment, sucked his teeth, exhaled heavily, and laughed. Clarke’s lawyers said he strongly denies the allegation and said the incident described did not take place.

Seriously? Not only was he being a creep, he couldn't even be an original creep.

[ifionlyknew]

2 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

 She didn’t see it as funny.  Did the whole group really think it was hilarious or did they feel they had to act okay with it?

This reminds me of a publicity event for the OJ Simpson miniseries when Cuba Gooding lifted up Sarah Paulson's skirt.  She laughed it off but I was horrified.  It was just a couple years later when he was accused multiple times of sexual abuse.

[BlairP]

I guess getting the peen out on set is fairly common?  Chris Pratt apparently did it to get the right reaction on film. Eyeroll. 
https://www.bustle.com/articles/86759-chris-pratts-naked-parks-recreation-prank-did-not-go-down-well-with-some-people

[Luckylyn]

18 minutes ago, BlairP said:

I guess getting the peen out on set is fairly common?  Chris Pratt apparently did it to get the right reaction on film. Eyeroll. 
https://www.bustle.com/articles/86759-chris-pratts-naked-parks-recreation-prank-did-not-go-down-well-with-some-people

I remember Pratt talking about it on Graham Norton. He mentioned getting a letter from the network making it clear he wasn’t allowed to do it again.  He seemed more amused than chastised by it.  At least the people in charge set a clear boundary.   People won’t do inappropriate things on set if the people in charge make it clear it’s not okay.   The people in power have to set the standard and enforce it.  But when people are permitted to do whatever they want without consequences from the boss it’s a recipe for a toxic environment.  

 

[Irlandesa]

Speaking of Barrowman, intent might matter in the long run of whether or not redemption is possible.  Actors are often asked to do full nudity or partial nudity.  For theater, they sometimes are fully naked on stage.  In filming, the things that cover their bits are teeny tiny.  Some actors never quite get comfortable with showing that much of their bodies but there are plenty of actors who do.  And when you're used to being naked around other people, I think it'd be pretty easy for personal boundaries to get loosened and lead to some poor decision making.

If he threw out his penis as a joke to see how people would react, it was a poor decision. And he should apologize even if most of the people on set took it as intended. Even if it was a joke, it can't get ignored like most bad jokes because it can feel violating. 

Also, letting that go sets a standard that can be abused by people who whose intent is more nefarious. 

[stonehaven]

For years I loathed Kevin Spacey because he always gave off a creepy vibe. Then the movie "Baby Driver" came out and I fell in love with that movie..felt free to loathe Spacey's character in it but felt it was a great movie...one I knew I wanted to see again and again. A few months later, the scandal broke wide open. To this day, I lament I can't watch that movie again. If it weren't for the creepy behavior in the movie, I might get past it..but alas...

[Vermicious Knid]

Maybe Barrowman did get the message because I don't recall any stories about him flashing people on the Arrow set.

[Mabinogia]

5 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

People won’t do inappropriate things on set if the people in charge make it clear it’s not okay.   The people in power have to set the standard and enforce it.  But when people are permitted to do whatever they want without consequences from the boss it’s a recipe for a toxic environment.  

This is the bottom line. It's different if someone is cornering someone when no one else is around, but these boys who are whipping their dicks out at a moments notice in full view of laughing colleagues are doing it because they can, and they are getting a positive reaction from it. 

There is a fine line. Pratt strikes me as a big kid who just thinks it's funny. It's not, but I don't think he means it in a sexual way. Barrowman is an overly sexualized person. I've seen him on some panel shows and that man has never met a sexual comment or innuendo he didn't like. He is basically walking sex. Now these were several years ago, close to his Doctor Who days, so maybe he's mellowed, and I don't think he means to make anyone uncomfortable and I can't fully blame him for not realizing it made Freema uncomfortable when everyone else around him thinks it's hilarious. 

I do not equate exposing oneself on set for laughs anywhere near making sexual comments or advances towards women, but I'm not overly upset by nudity in general. Now, if he's got a hard on and is waving it in women's faces...that's VERY different. But everyone's boundaries are different, which is what makes it all so tricky. Rule of thumb, it's best to keep it in your pants and find a different way to be amusing. 

[JustHereForFood]

8 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

This reminds me of a publicity event for the OJ Simpson miniseries when Cuba Gooding lifted up Sarah Paulson's skirt.  She laughed it off but I was horrified.  It was just a couple years later when he was accused multiple times of sexual abuse.

I think that people exposing themselves without permission from everyone around is not OK, but exposing someone else like this is far worse. I can't even imagine what I would do in such situation.