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

[Makai]

45 minutes ago, Affogato said:

I assume she has agency

Given the current and past allegations, I’m not making the same assumption. Abusive men aren’t big on consent and agency.  

Edited October 13 by Makai

[Affogato]

2 hours ago, Shrek said:

Well I guess that makes it okay by you then, whatever "had agency" is supposed to mean.

I assume he doesn’t actually ‘dress his wife.’ Who takes a lot of ownership of everything she does.if she dresses like she dresses to please him, why would that mean he was a sexual criminal anyway? 

in addition I would hope we would get past slut shaming and, in this case, slut shaming by proxy. 
 

 

[Affogato]

2 hours ago, Makai said:

Given the current and past allegations, I’m not making the same assumption. Abusive men aren’t big on consent and agency.  

Then insult him, not her?  Look I don’t pay that much attention to that family unit, never have, not thinking about it now. If I did I would say that the way she chooses to dress is one of the qualities he valued and encouraged. If she gained weight or shlumphed out, that is where you would get the consent business and he would probably punish her. But likely not an issue unless it displeased him. 

Edited October 13 by Affogato

[Shrek]

35 minutes ago, Affogato said:

I assume he doesn’t actually ‘dress his wife.’ Who takes a lot of ownership of everything she does.if she dresses like she dresses to please him, why would that mean he was a sexual criminal anyway? 

in addition I would hope we would get past slut shaming and, in this case, slut shaming by proxy. 
 

 

He has form of trying to dress his wife according to Kim K so I'm going with him being a not nice person, you carry on making him out to be some sort of saint though. 

And insulting me isn't going to make you look smart the way you seem to think it does. Nobody is slut shaming anyone because nobody mentioned anyone being a slut, except you.

 

[Crashcourse]

3 hours ago, Shrek said:

Well I guess that makes it okay by you then, whatever "had agency" is supposed to mean.

Not saying it's true because I certainly don't know, but she always looks to me like she's being held hostage.

[Makai]

4 hours ago, Shrek said:

He has form of trying to dress his wife according to Kim K so I'm going with him being a not nice person

His ex, Julia Fox, has just come out and confirmed he did the same thing to her. 

Then there’s this, A history of Kanye West dressing the women he dates: Kim K to Bianca Censori

 

Edited October 13 by Makai

[praeceptrix]

There's a petition to stop Chris Brown from performing in South Africa, due to his history of violence against women.

[Zella]

3 hours ago, Makai said:

His ex, Julia Fox, has just come out and confirmed he did the same thing to her. 

Than there’s this, A history of Kanye West dressing the women he dates: Kim K to Bianca Censori

 

Yeah I was going to say he has an established history of controlling the clothing of the women in his life, so I don't think it is denying Censori agency to think it is happening to her as well. 

[SunnyBeBe]

31 minutes ago, praeceptrix said:

There's a petition to stop Chris Brown from performing in South Africa, due to his history of violence against women.

His actions have been condoned or ignored for years.  I’ve probably posted about it here for years.  For some reason, it’s like he’s teflon.  

[Makai]

10 hours ago, Affogato said:

If she gained weight or shlumphed out, that is where you would get the consent business and he would probably punish her. But likely not an issue unless it displeased him. 

That’s not really what consent is, but if I truly believe that a man is going to punish his partner if she “gained weight or shlumphed out” (or for anything) I’m not going to ascribe much rationally to him or his thought process. One of the earliest warning signs of an abusive relationship is controlling behavior over minor things. 

Edited October 14 by Makai

[Soapy Goddess]

Kanye is a Diddy wannabe with slightly more personal issues iykwim.

[Danielg342]

I don't know how many have been following the saga of Artem Chigvintsev and Nikki Garcia (FKA Nikki Bella) but their story has taken a new twist:

Artem Chigvintsev Scores Legal Wins in Nikki Garcia (Bella) Divorce Case (tmz.com)

In August, Artem was arrested for domestic violence. The two filed for divorce. Nikki filed a restraining order. Artem fired back and said Nikki was really the abuser. Nikki wanted full custody of their only kid, four year old Matteo, along with Artem getting supervised visitation rights.

Today, a judge quashed the restraining order, ordered joint custody and said Artem does not need supervision when he sees Matteo. The divorce trial is set for December.

[peachmangosteen]

I haven't been following this situation so I don't know the details but it's pretty common for abusers to claim it was actually the victim that was the abuser. 

Edited October 17 by peachmangosteen

[Vermicious Knid]

The Diddy case possibly gets worse; one lawsuit alleges the infamous baby oil was laced with Rohypnol.

[SunnyBeBe]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:52 PM, Danielg342 said:

I don't know how many have been following the saga of Artem Chigvintsev and Nikki Garcia (FKA Nikki Bella) but their story has taken a new twist:

Artem Chigvintsev Scores Legal Wins in Nikki Garcia (Bella) Divorce Case (tmz.com)

In August, Artem was arrested for domestic violence. The two filed for divorce. Nikki filed a restraining order. Artem fired back and said Nikki was really the abuser. Nikki wanted full custody of their only kid, four year old Matteo, along with Artem getting supervised visitation rights.

Today, a judge quashed the restraining order, ordered joint custody and said Artem does not need supervision when he sees Matteo. The divorce trial is set for December.

I was first introduced to her and her family during their realty show while she was dating, then engaged to John Cena.  

[SunnyBeBe]

For those interested in the Chris Brown matter, a special on him airs Oct 27 on ID Discovery and HBO.
 

 https://people.com/chris-brown-documentary-investigating-pattern-of-abuse-trailer-8721245

[merylinkid]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:52 PM, Danielg342 said:

Today, a judge quashed the restraining order, ordered joint custody and said Artem does not need supervision when he sees Matteo. The divorce trial is set for December.

Oh god, let me count the ways this is bad.   First, if there are allegations of abuse, and someone got a restraining order, joint custody is a bad bad bad idea.   The abuser then just uses the kid as another form of control over the other parent.   Brought back late, picked up late just to keep the other parent waiting, but if the other parent needs a little grace is told they just won't get the kid at all then.   Refusal to follow the order while filing contempt if the other parent deviates in the slightest.   

Not supervised visits can also go bad.   I am just shuddering wondering if if we are going see this is the news because something went terribly wrong.

[Blergh]

Obviously since I've never met either Mr. Chingvinstev or Miss Garcia, I have no idea what 'really' went on in their abode re themselves and/or their offspring.
 

However, the ONLY possible positive MO for the judge to have quashed the restraining order and ordered joint custody may have been that the judge had carefully considered both sets of claims  and had found evidence that Mr. Chinginstev  had NOT been abusive in spite of Miss Garcia's claims.

I stress that I don't know what went on in their abode nor do I have inside track into that judge's reasoning. However, strictly for the child's sake, I hope that somehow joint custory  will be a more positive outcome than before.

All the above said, if there is evidence that that judge either was totally incompetent re considering both sides and/or had a bias against Miss Garcia, then I would agree that  those two rulings were  horrific and  would need to be overturned.

[Quof]

13 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The "abuser"

No one has been proven to be an abuser. That's the point.  Restraining orders are granted on the basis of allegations, not proof.  

[Makai]

The linked TMZ article reads like spin by Artem’s people and it glosses over some details. Last month, Artem called the police and said Nikki threw shoes at him. He then called back and told them not to send anyone. The police showed up and charged him with domestic violence, a charge which requires a visible injury. The prosecutor decided to drop the charges because it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. TMZ has photos of his injuries but, as far as I can tell, no photos of her injury have been released. 

I have no clue who the primary aggressor was, but the sequence of known events reminds me a lot of the Jonathon Majors case. DV cases are messy and their son was there when all of this happened. 

Edited October 19 by Makai

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Quof said:

No one has been proven to be an abuser. That's the point.  Restraining orders are granted on the basis of allegations, not proof.  

Not necessarily.  In my state you can get a temporary order on allegations, but the final one requires an evidentiary hearing with proof by a preponderance of the evidence 

[Quof]

And in this instance, it was a TRO.

[BetterButter]

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs named in 7 new lawsuits; other celebrities allegedly involved

Quote

Seven new civil lawsuits have been filed against Sean “Diddy” Combs, including two from accusers who say they were minors at the time they were allegedly drugged and assaulted by the music producer.

 

[Palimelon]

Former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries arrested on sex trafficking charges.

[proserpina65]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:01 AM, peachmangosteen said:

I haven't been following this situation so I don't know the details but it's pretty common for abusers to claim it was actually the victim that was the abuser. 

It's also perfectly possible that she is the abuser.  That's not nearly as common but it happens more often than people think.  Obviously I can't say what the truth is in this case because I don't know either of them.

 

On 10/19/2024 at 2:48 PM, merylinkid said:

Not necessarily.  In my state you can get a temporary order on allegations, but the final one requires an evidentiary hearing with proof by a preponderance of the evidence 

That's the case in my state.  You need an evidentiary hearing for a final protective order and if the moving party can't provide enough evidence to convince a judge, the case is dismissed.  That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an abusive situation but that sufficient evidence was not presented at the hearing.

On 10/19/2024 at 11:59 AM, merylinkid said:

First, if there are allegations of abuse, and someone got a restraining order,

No one is this case got a final restraining order, only a temporary one.  The existence of a temporary restraining order simply means a party filed for one, not that any abuse was proven.

Again, I have no knowledge of the circumstances involving Mr. Chingvinstev and Miss Garcia.  I'm talking in generalities based on my experience in the court system in my state.  We see a lot of temporary restraining and/or protective orders from district court where they originate in my state.  Some are made into final orders and some are dismissed based on the evidence presented at a hearing in circuit court.

 

[BetterButter]

Vince and Linda McMahon Named in New ‘Ring Boy’ Sex Abuse Lawsuit Against WWE

Quote

WWE founders “knew or should have known” about an employee who allegedly assaulted teenage employees in the 1980s, according to five new John Does who have come forward

 

[Jaded]

Roman Polanski settles underage rape case that was headed to trial in 2025

[andromeda331]

On 10/23/2024 at 9:18 PM, Jaded said:

Roman Polanski settles underage rape case that was headed to trial in 2025

He should be in jail. I love the article made sound like he's "suffering" because he's had to live in France sometimes goes to Switzerland. Oh, poor child rapist, forced to live in France getting away with raping underaged girls is so terrible. 

[methodwriter85]

Not surprised at all. The dude always gave me the ick.

[Danielg342]

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

He should be in jail. I love the article made sound like he's "suffering" because he's had to live in France sometimes goes to Switzerland. Oh, poor child rapist, forced to live in France getting away with raping underaged girls is so terrible. 

Not that I am excusing Roman Polanski's behaviour, but I would imagine he's very depressed and has been for the past 60 or so years of his life. He described his marriage to Sharon Tate as the happiest years of his life, and he probably agonizes how he was away from her and couldn't protect her- or, perhaps, die with her at the hands of Charlie Manson's cronies.

Further, the 1960s and 1970s were the time when Polanski's career took off, meaning you have a man who's depressed suddenly having to deal with the immense trappings of fame. That's a disaster waiting to happen, and it's no surprise that it did. When you factor in the fact that depression supports in the '60s and '70s are likely not what they are today and that Polanski likely grew up with the "boys don't cry mentality" and you have the perfect storm for all kinds of terrible things.

Even further, Polanski didn't remarry until 1989. There are likely plenty more skeletons in his closet that we do not know about.

I reiterate, there is no excusing what Polanski did. He may have been very depressed and found fame difficult to cope with, but he chose to manifest his depression by engaging with underage women and he did not have to do that. Millions of men from the same period have gone through similar struggles that he did and they didn't become rapists.

I'm certainly not making any apologies for Polanski's many transgressions- the ones we know and don't know about.

Still, I think when you examine Polanski's story, it's important to remember the context. He's like the Hollywood archetype villain in a way- you still don't like him, you still want to see him go down, but you can at least understand where he's coming from and why he's been so vile in the first place.

So...yeah, I'd say Roman Polanski truly is suffering. It's just that he chose to respond to that suffering in all the wrong ways.

[bluegirl147]

On 10/23/2024 at 11:18 PM, Jaded said:

Roman Polanski settles underage rape case that was headed to trial in 2025

If he wins another award will Hollywood A listers give him a standing ovation the way they did when he won an Oscar?

8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

He should be in jail.

He had this to say in 1979:

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But ... fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

Doesn't seem like he ever had any remorse.  Thought he was the victim.

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

If he wins another award will Hollywood A listers give him a standing ovation the way they did when he won an Oscar?

He had this to say in 1979:

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But ... fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

Doesn't seem like he ever had any remorse.  Thought he was the victim.

To Roman Polanski:

Everyone assuredly does not want to fuck young girls (or boys). 

Don't. You. Dare. Project.

[Mindthinkr]

I sat next to Roman Polanski and a lady in a restaurant in Brazil. I’m happy to report she was age appropriate. Then again when they left the table she left something on the table. It looked like a script so it may have been business not pleasure. 

[Zella]

5 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

He described his marriage to Sharon Tate as the happiest years of his life,

And yet he was incredibly cruel to her during their marriage. 

His childhood was undeniably fucked up, and he probably does have psychological issues from that. But that's also not an excuse. Millions of other people also have fucked-up childhoods and don't rape children. 

 

Edited October 25 by Zella

[Spartan Girl]

39 minutes ago, Zella said:

And yet he was incredibly cruel to her during their marriage. 

His childhood was undeniably fucked up, and he probably does have psychological issues from that. But that's also not an excuse. Millions of other people also have fucked-up childhoods and don't rape children. 

 

Trauma and grief are not a free pass to be a terrible person. I don't know why that's so hard for some people to understand.

I don't know if Polanski would have turn out differently if his parents had survived the Holocaust and Sharon Tate wasn't murdered, but I officially do not care. I despise people that play the victim to justify being assholes. He could have at the very least taken accountability for what he had done and accepted the consequences. Instead, he ran away to France and settled out of court, proving that he is no better than the monsters that murdered his parents and Sharon. It is galling that the man that directed Rosemary's Baby and Tess of the D'Ubervilles and doesn't have a shred of self-awareness about the damage rape can do to anyone, let alone a thirteen-year-old child.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

He could have at the very least taken accountability for what he had done and accepted the consequences.

There are conflicting reports what those consequences were going to be. In a book about the making of Chinatown (which Polanski directed) the author says the judge was going to give him a sentence to time served after having spent 90 days in an institution for a psych evaluation. Other sources say the judge was going to disregard the agreed upon plea bargain and sentence him to 50 years.   Whatever  his sentence was going to be he clearly thought he shouldn't have to serve any of it.

13 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Trauma and grief are not a free pass to be a terrible person. I don't know why that's so hard for some people to understand

One of things that really bothers me about Polanski is some people act like just because he is a talented director his crimes should be forgiven.  See also Woody Allen.

[Ohiopirate02]

16 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

One of things that really bothers me about Polanski is some people act like just because he is a talented director his crimes should be forgiven.  See also Woody Allen.

This is probably better suited for the Unpopular Opinions about Movies thread, but Woody Allen was/is/always will be overrated. 

[Danielg342]

12 hours ago, Zella said:

His childhood was undeniably fucked up, and he probably does have psychological issues from that. But that's also not an excuse. Millions of other people also have fucked-up childhoods and don't rape children. 

I would agree. To be clear, I'm not using his trauma as any kind of excuse for his behaviour. I just think of it as a matter of interest, because we wonder what makes a monster. In Polanski's case, it's likely his childhood trauma fed the vileness he succumbed to.

11 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

There are conflicting reports what those consequences were going to be. In a book about the making of Chinatown (which Polanski directed) the author says the judge was going to give him a sentence to time served after having spent 90 days in an institution for a psych evaluation. Other sources say the judge was going to disregard the agreed upon plea bargain and sentence him to 50 years. 

What I understand is that Polanski's lawyer assured him that the judge was going to sentence Polanski to the terms agreed to in the plea bargain- a psych evaluation and time served- but then the judge, Laurence J. Rittenbrand (who died in 1993 at the age of 88), changed his mind at the last second.

So Polanski fled, not wanting to serve the prison sentence.

Now, I don't know if Polanski had the option to fight the sentence or not, but I find it understandable that Polanski may have felt betrayed by Rittenbrand. For what it's worth, the victim in that case, Samantha Geimer (nee Gailey) has stated she feels that Polanski suffered enough from the case and that Rittenbrand did more harm than good with his actions.

Make of that what you will.

[andromeda331]

12 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

One of things that really bothers me about Polanski is some people act like just because he is a talented director his crimes should be forgiven.  See also Woody Allen.

It's the same with Michael Jackson, Woody Allen and others. Because they are so talented it doesn't matter what they did. It's bullshit. Being talented isn't an excuse to get away with anything. I don't understand it and I never will. Yes, Polanski had a horrifying childhood, but so many millions during the Holocaust, they didn't grow up to rape girls. Michael Jackson was beaten by his father, so many are beaten by their father, they don't grow up and rape boys.  As for Woody Allen, a rich white celebrity man doesn't lose custody of his kid(s) unless they have something really big on him. There's no excuse for raping children or anyone. 

[Danielg342]

My high school did a production of Woody Allen's God in 1997 that I was a part of. My teachers concluded that even though Allen wasn't a great person he had an undeniable talent for comedy. That's my view too- God (which my school watered down) is one of the funniest things I've ever read. It doesn't excuse what Allen has done, though, not in the least.

As for Michael Jackson… I know my perspective might not align with many others, but I genuinely believe he was more misunderstood and naïve than criminal. Despite multiple investigations that ultimately cleared him, there’s no actual evidence that he was anything more than an overgrown child at heart. I think he believed that what he did with the children he befriended was just friendly and innocent, something any child would experience with any close friend.

That said, Jackson should have known better about certain behaviors, like offering alcohol or sharing a bed with kids. His eccentricity, pomposity, and flamboyance also didn’t do him any favors in the public eye.

Still, I’m cautious about calling him a criminal. I see him as a person who was unusual, perhaps naïve, and certainly not entirely innocent in his actions, but I do believe he’s one of the few people who got a raw deal in life.

I know many will disagree, and while I’m open to different views, I think we’ll likely have to agree to disagree. This is where I stand, though.

[merylinkid]

On 10/25/2024 at 5:57 AM, Danielg342 said:

He described his marriage to Sharon Tate as the happiest years of his life, and he probably agonizes how he was away from her and couldn't protect her- or, perhaps, die with her at the hands of Charlie Manson's cronies.

Yeah he was devastated he hit on the flight attendant on the flight back home to LA to bury her.  

Remember we only have Polanski's word about how the marriage was because Sharon isn't here to tell her side of things.  

9 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I find it understandable that Polanski may have felt betrayed by Rittenbrand.

There was no "betrayal"  Judges are always free to disregard the terms of a plea agreement.   The defendant then has the choice to go ahead with the plea anyway or withdraw it and have a trial.   Polanski was just a spoiled child who thought he should be allowed to do whatever he wanted because he was so "brilliant" and "creative."   

 

[Danielg342]

34 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

There was no "betrayal"  Judges are always free to disregard the terms of a plea agreement.   The defendant then has the choice to go ahead with the plea anyway or withdraw it and have a trial.

I understand that part and I'm not personally agreeing with Polanski's decision to flee. However, my point was simply that I can understand why Polanski felt this was a betrayal, since judges rarely disregard plea deals.

Like Tate, since Judge Rittenbrand is also dead, all we have left are Polanski's words about the judge. I understand that there are conflicting reports about what Rittenbrand would have done- some say Rittenbrand might have figuratively thrown the book at Polanski while others think he may have still honoured the plea deal in spirit but tack-on a small amount of extra time so Rittenbrand could personally save face.

For sure, Polanski complicated his own legal issues by fleeing instead of reacting to what Rittenbrand would have done and I would agree that he should have faced what was coming instead of trying to duck it. That said, I at least understand why he felt he needed flee even if I don't agree with it.

[Dimity]

43 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

That said, I at least understand why he felt he needed flee even if I don't agree with it.

I loathe Polanski but I agree with you here.  If I had the money to flee a country vs staying behind to potentially face years in prison I know which choice I'd have made.

[Browncoat]

And that is why bail is often denied.

[Dimity]

12 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

And that is why bail is often denied.

And passports are taken if they are not in custody.

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

I loathe Polanski but I agree with you here.  If I had the money to flee a country vs staying behind to potentially face years in prison I know which choice I'd have made.

And this is the two tiered justice system we still have today.  How many men accused of rape of a 13 yr old girl would have been allowed to go get a psych evaluation? And then have that used as a timed serve sentence?  That was allegedly the plea bargain agreed to between the prosecutor and the defense.   The fact there now appears to be another victim before this crime doesn't surprise me at all.    They usually don't just stop at one.

[Soapy Goddess]

21 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I think he believed that what he did with the children he befriended was just friendly and innocent, something any child would experience with any close friend.

Agree...until he took it too far.

[Makai]

Since Michael Jackson has come up, it’s worth noting that the lawsuits brought by the two accusers featured in Leaving Neverland and are going to trial in the near future. 

Personally, I don’t believe that the previous trial or official investigations prove anything one way or the other. Michael’s level of fame and the nature of sexual assault trials (particularly in the pre-MeToo era) makes me feel nothing short of a confession would have gotten a conviction. 

[Dimity]

27 minutes ago, Makai said:

Michael’s level of fame and the nature of sexual assault trials (particularly in the pre-MeToo era) makes me feel nothing short of a confession would have gotten a conviction.

This is also relevant in discussion about the general reaction to Polanski - not the standing ovation of later years, but the basic shrug and a "well the girl was asking for it" attitude that was very prevalent back then.  Not saying everyone felt this way by any means but, hell, there was a famous case here in Canada not as long ago as you would like it to be where a judge set an accused child rapist free because he said the 5 year old was being provocative and well words to the effect of  what's a poor guy to do?  I wish I was making that up.

[methodwriter85]

3 hours ago, Makai said:

Personally, I don’t believe that the previous trial or official investigations prove anything one way or the other. Michael’s level of fame and the nature of sexual assault trials (particularly in the pre-MeToo era) makes me feel nothing short of a confession would have gotten a conviction. 

Didn't R. Kelly's first statutory rape trial have actual video evidence of him having sex with underaged girls and they still couldn't get a conviction out of it?