Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Drogo

Hollywood's Dirty Little (Open) Secrets: Harvey Weinstein and Others Like Him

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I just found it on Netflix. I’ll check it out and find the thread for it.

I have claimed that the sexual abuse of children is not really abhored in this country the way many pretend.  It’s paid lip service, but, not really taken seriously.  Many think I’m overreacting, but, I am confident I am correct:(  I wish I wasn’t.   

Sadly, I agree. I think most people are horrified by the idea of it, but when confronted with the reality of it is a different story, especially if it involves relatives or close friends. Speaking of (and Netflix documentaries), did you ever watch Abducted in Plain Sight? I still don't have words for the bullshit that went down in that story.  

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

17 minutes ago, Zella said:

Sadly, I agree. I think most people are horrified by the idea of it, but when confronted with the reality of it is a different story, especially if it involves relatives or close friends. Speaking of (and Netflix documentaries), did you ever watch Abducted in Plain Sight? I still don't have words for the bullshit that went down in that story.  

I absolutely agree with you.     Victim blaming is alive and well, and ignoring abuse is very common.     I actually know people who had parents that were molested by relatives.   Then the parent allowed the same person access to their child, and when that child was molested, called them liars.    

  • Like 2
  • Sad 16

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I absolutely agree with you.     Victim blaming is alive and well, and ignoring abuse is very common.     I actually know people who had parents that were molested by relatives.   Then the parent allowed the same person access to their child, and when that child was molested, called them liars.    

My mother did that to me with her husband. (not calling that fuckhead a stepfather.)

Edited by Zella
  • Sad 23

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's important to keep in mind that there ARE folks who care  AND that if abuse was truly something that was meant to be ignored or belittled, then there wouldn't be ANY response besides a cynical 'everyone does it' one rather than outrage over hearing that happen.

I'm convinced that more folks know right from wrong than  otherwise- even if there are those who make no attempts to help known victims but opt to blame them so their own immediate comfort  and security aren't the least bit inconvenienced.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that if enough people REALLY detested the sexual abuse of children, it wouldn’t be tolerated so well.  I think the stories we see about Jackson, Kelly, Epstein, Nasser, are the tip of it. It’s condoned at all levels of society. I’m not sure what it’ll take to change it. 

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Sadly, I agree. I think most people are horrified by the idea of it, but when confronted with the reality of it is a different story, especially if it involves relatives or close friends. Speaking of (and Netflix documentaries), did you ever watch Abducted in Plain Sight? I still don't have words for the bullshit that went down in that story.  

I think many SAY they are horrified....but...if they really were, our children wouldn’t be suffering so much.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I believe that if enough people REALLY detested the sexual abuse of children, it wouldn’t be tolerated so well.  I think the stories we see about Jackson, Kelly, Epstein, Nasser, are the tip of it. It’s condoned at all levels of society. I’m not sure what it’ll take to change it. 

I think many SAY they are horrified....but...if they really were, our children wouldn’t be suffering so much.

I think most people are genuinely horrified by it. But that just doesn't always translate to action when confronted with it themselves. I think as with most things, the theory of what they would do in a situation, for many people, doesn't always work out when they are in that situation because of denial. 

In fact, in the Surviving R. Kelly series, one of the things that come up is the parents of one of his victims directly said they'd heard the stories about R. Kelly, but they thought it would be different with their daughter because they laid down a lot of rules about how she was never going to be around him without one of them and they thought they just had a business relationship with him rather than a personal one. Next thing they know, she's living with him and won't talk to them. I really don't think they were bad parents. But that initial instinct of "But that won't happen to us--we're different" I think is a very pervasive one and is one that a savvy predator uses to their advantage.

  • Like 12
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

There also may be a feeling of helplessness when you find out about these kind of things after the fact.  A lot of people are confronted with people in their lives suffering these crimes years after they happen, and by people that are outside of their reach.  It adds a sense of... unreality to the situation.  It's there, but slightly beyond anything that you can tangibly deal with.  It's not that everyone ignores it, it's just not something that everyone can really deal with.

Most people know someone who was assaulted in some way, we just don't know about it.  If you do, you don't talk about it, especially older people (in my experience).  It's simmering background awfulness that should be screamed about, but it's very difficult for survivors and their loved ones to do that sometimes, so it gets pushed further and further to the side.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Some people cannot acknowledge that happened to them. They deny it, pretend it didn't happen, or blame themselves for it, so they can't let themselves acknowledge that the perpetrator is a risk to other children. If they did that, their denial shield would be shattered.

With R.Kelly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, it's that society begins sexualizing girls around age 12. So if she's got breasts and dresses sexy, she must have the emotional maturity and understanding to willingly engage in sex acts. Disgusting thinking, right? But how often do we hear, "but she looked like she was 18!" Even though, you know, she behaved like she was 12, a more "mature" appearance is an excuse. 

And even now 15 year old Millie Bobbie Brown was showing cleavage, likely created with boob tape and a little airbrushing. 

36469030-3bcd-11ea-bfbf-6b834623561c

I'm not saying women shouldn't dress how they want to dress. Of course they should. But when magazines, television, red carpets, actively sexualize young women, it's not surprising that people aren't outraged when young women of the same age are sexually abused. "Dude, she looks at least 24, and that means I can jack off to her, right?" No, dude, NO. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 8

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I believe that if enough people REALLY detested the sexual abuse of children, it wouldn’t be tolerated so well.  I think the stories we see about Jackson, Kelly, Epstein, Nasser, are the tip of it. It’s condoned at all levels of society. I’m not sure what it’ll take to change it. 

I think many SAY they are horrified....but...if they really were, our children wouldn’t be suffering so much.

I think it’s because most people are genuinely horrified is why they bury their heads in the sand. We don’t want to believe that those we care for a capable of doing something that abhorrent. Acknowledging it forces people to face all kinds of uncomfortable facts about the reality of abuse. It’s easier to see as something removed and foreign.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

(In my opinion) You can also blame Millie's parents for even putting her into acting AS A CHILD.  Who puts their child to work?  Nobody should be doing that.  If you want to make money as an adult YOU go and work, don't make your children work to pay your bills.  

On 5/19/2020 at 11:04 PM, catlover79 said:

I watched all of Season 1 of The Morning Show.  It was fascinating and it's "fictional" but Steve Carell's character is closely based on Matt.  

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/21/2020 at 11:56 AM, Pink ranger said:

The outrage was over a conflation of people thinking that Lauer independently commissioned   the button like a bond villain  and how he allegedly used it.

Say a husband kills his wife " in a crime of passion"  with their kitchen knife in fight vs hiring a hitman to do the deed. Yes, both are very bad but the second behaviour has an additional layer of premeditation instead of convenience.

It always strikes me as really weird when people think "crimes of passion" should be looked at as any less bad than premeditated.  Guess what, husbands killing their wives is always bad.  Don't fall for the arbitrary myth that a passionate killing is somehow better than a so-called cold killing.  That plays into stereotypes that women are hot-headed temptresses that provoke great, upstanding men into killing them when they wouldn't normally, therefore deserving what comes to them.  Bullshit!  Don't kill people!  In passion or not in passion!

Take some time to look into the provocation defence and see that it's mostly used for husbands who kill their wives. It's not something to respect.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

 That plays into stereotypes that women are hot-headed temptresses that provoke great, upstanding men into killing them when they wouldn't normally, therefore deserving what comes to them.

I never said or implied anything like that. The provocation defence is also used when domestic abuse victims ( usually women) kill their abuser in self defence.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I believe that if enough people REALLY detested the sexual abuse of children, it wouldn’t be tolerated so well.  I think the stories we see about Jackson, Kelly, Epstein, Nasser, are the tip of it. It’s condoned at all levels of society. I’m not sure what it’ll take to change it. 

I think many SAY they are horrified....but...if they really were, our children wouldn’t be suffering so much.

I think for the most part this is the case as much as I want to say it isn't. Looking from Jackson, Kelly, Epstein, and Nasser. There were so many people who did know and did not They did not do anything to stop it. They did however do everything they could to protect the abuser. They were able to get cases dropped by DAs or cops to stop investigating. R. Kelly had a tape of him and was found not guilty. Epstein also had a huge amount of charges against him only to get that ridiculously stupid deal in Florida, and all the while he was breaking his probation which everyone knew about. Nassar was just a freaking doctor, what about him was so great they had to protect him. They could have fired his ass years ago, turned him in and found another doctor. Its not as if USA gymnasts would have a hard time finding a new doctor. Each one could have been stopped so much sooner. Nope.  Why would so many people do that? Because they simply do not care. Sex crimes whether its adult women or children get the exact same response. Nothing. Nothing happens. If not for the Metoo movement that got started, nothing would have happened. Epstein and Nassar never would have been convicted and Kelly wouldn't be facing charges. Jackson of course died way before that but still treated like God's gift to music instead of a child rapist. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 10

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Why wouldn't they just use self defence?

Self defense is complicated. For example in California is requires the person be in imminent danger and that they did not use excessive force. Many DV cases do not qualify. 

Also despite the name the provocation defense is generally used as a mitigating factor rather than a whole defense. It is used to argue that the person should be convicted on a lesser charge while self defense is used to argue that they shouldn’t be convicted of anything. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Pink ranger said:


https://www.wlv.ac.uk/media/departments/faculty-of-social-sciences/documents/wolverhampton-law-journal/edition-3/(2019)-3-WLJ-21.pdf
 

If a batted women retaliates, and kills her partner, then the provocation defence can apply. It’s not self defence in the classic legal sense where she is reacting to an imminent threat but obviously she does it to remove the dangerous situation she is in. 

What I learned through four years of Criminology is that this might be its intended use but in practice it ends up hurting women more than helping them.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/provocation-defence-domestic-violence-1.5100281

  • Useful 9

Share this post


Link to post

That article states that the practice that  unintentionally hurt battered  women was a change  to the definition of provocation that meant that the man had to be physically violent with her for the defence to count, psychological bullying could no longer be a justified reason to kill.
 

The article It wasn’t an attack on the value of the provocation defence for battered  women, but actually a defence of it. The new definition didn’t go far enough to protect them.
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post

I wanted to post this link about Epstein, in case anyone watches the new documentary and wants to discuss.  It's very difficult to locate on this site. 

For me, it was all pretty new.  Still a lot of questions though, about his source of funds, enablers and co-conspirators.  

  • Like 1
  • Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post

So, Matt Lauer wants to give a tv interview to give his side of the story?

I say let Ann Curry grill him! She has inside knowledge on most of Lauers Today show tenure but  has all the reason to go hard on him

She was brave enough to report him on behalf of her less powerful colleagues and it probably contributed to her losing her job.

I would enjoy it immensely to watch her take Matt to task.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

But these days anybody with smart phone can self tape their own story, publish it on social media and have infinite public access. 
 

If lauer is going to peddle his bull I would rather      a skilled adjudicator be there to fact check and cross examine him.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Pink ranger said:

So, Matt Lauer wants to give a tv interview to give his side of the story?

So The Morning Show just went from being clearly inspired by Lauer to predicting his moves.  Seems appropriate. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 6
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

A self-published youtube video is a much smaller platform than a nationally televised interview. And yeah, I'm sure he would Prince Andrew that up and look like a total idiot, but I don't want him to have a national platform. I want him to have to struggle to be heard. Wouldn't that be a nice change? 

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

16 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I'm sure he would Prince Andrew that up and look like a total idiot,

That's where I went.   Did he learn NOTHING from the Prince Andrew interview?   Of course if these guys had an OUNCE of self-awareness and/or introspection they wouldn't have done the things they did in the first place.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

He probably thinks that with his on camera experience, he can talk his way through anything.  I'm sure he's talked his way around this issue in the past, in various contexts.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

From that article...

Quote

“We’re under siege right now,” says Sonnier. “Everyone involved has their own personal vendettas against us. They have a history of harassing us and having problems with us. It feels like a targeted hit, and it feels like an attack. I think people have real issues with us. They have issues with our success, with the amount of movies we’ve made and in a short time built this company to be something very special. It feels partisan.”

*Rolls eyes* 

Quote

(Williamson told The Daily Beast, “If this is the way people wanna go and get popular or get famous or get noticed, this is going to be tough for every male actor or director in the business. I’m sorry she feels that anything happened that was inappropriate, but it certainly didn’t come from me.”)

Ah, here we go, the "it'll be tough on men" comment.

An awful lot of people making accusations and commenting on how uncomfortable they feel (and there's an audio recording, too!) for this to just be some "misunderstanding" or a "partisan" attack, but okay, people, whatever you say. What a mess. I hope the investigations into this company continue, 'cause it definitely sounds like there's a whole lotta house clearing they need to do. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BetterButter said:

This man is disgusting and needs to be brought to justice.

Ironically, Harvey Weinstein was “left-wing” in his politics -  produced movies that showed strong women, supported many, many left-wing causes, and many Hollywood women with knowledge and power did not support other woman who spoke out against Weinstein.

Partisanship has nothing to do with this. Sexual predators are prevalent across all kinds of industries and political platforms and I am so, so happy that many of these powerful abusers are having to pay for their horrible crimes.

I know you were posting a link to another article about this scum of a human being and it was the publication’s title/spin on the article.

They are disgusting predators but I don’t recall any articles with the title “Left-wing producer Harvey Weinstein”.

Most people are happy that any of these men (sometimes women) are brought to account and we get father when we remove politics from it because they are all low life’s

 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Ailianna said:

He probably thinks that with his on camera experience, he can talk his way through anything.  I'm sure he's talked his way around this issue in the past, in various contexts.

Once a narcissist, always a narcissist.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know if Paula Weinstein is related to Harvey and if so, how?

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Does anyone know if Paula Weinstein is related to Harvey and if so, how?

They are not related, she has even had a joke about it a speech or two.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

 .

US investigators and Prince Andrew's lawyers having a public spat over his testimony. They say he has refused to cooperate, his lawyers insist he's offered to help.

Too bad there's no eye-roll icon for this! Considering how much he's dragged his foot virtually every single step of the way up to this point, I believe investigators more than his lawyers! 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Even his camp admits that all they have said they will do is answer submitted questions in writing.  That is no way to do an investigation.  No proof, first of all, that he is even the one answering the questions.  No way to evaluate body language or tone of voice.  No way to catch him off guard and get an honest reaction or to ask follow up questions.  It's a joke of a "cooperation."  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Blergh said:

Too bad there's no eye-roll icon for this! Considering how much he's dragged his foot virtually every single step of the way up to this point, I believe investigators more than his lawyers! 

But is he sweating?

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, Ailianna said:

Even his camp admits that all they have said they will do is answer submitted questions in writing.  That is no way to do an investigation.  No proof, first of all, that he is even the one answering the questions.  No way to evaluate body language or tone of voice.  No way to catch him off guard and get an honest reaction or to ask follow up questions.  It's a joke of a "cooperation."  

True but the fact that it's not really "cooperation" is on both sides.  The investigators don't want to interview him as some neutral witness who could potentially shed light onto their investigation; they want to interview him because he's a suspect.  And Andrew knows he's a suspect which is why his lawyers likely wouldn't let him get into a room with them even if he were 100% innocent. 

His lack of cooperation doesn't make me think he's guilty.  The women speaking out against him is what makes me think he's guilty.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Even if they have no intention of charging him with anything, they still need that pressure to give him a reason to talk once he is in the room.  But I think you're right--his handers will never allow him to be in the room.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

His lack of cooperation doesn't make me think he's guilty.  The women speaking out against him is what makes me think he's guilty.

Both of those reasons make me think he's guilty. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/5/2020 at 3:18 PM, Dani said:

So The Morning Show just went from being clearly inspired by Lauer to predicting his moves.  Seems appropriate. 

You just know how much he is seething right now to not be an anchor. The last thing he needs is to be interviewed. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Chris D'Elia turns out to be a scummy dirtbag who chases underage girls? WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED?!?

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I enjoyed these two responses lol:

 

I wasn't sure I knew who Chris D'Elia was, but the article was loading in another tab when I saw this, and I was like, "Oh yeah, it must be the guy I'm thinking of."

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

I had no idea who Chris D'Elia is but when I saw a picture I was fairly sure I had seen him in something. A quick look at imdb, and yes, a few episodes of Whitney I watched for some reason back then. I wonder if she has anything of note to say. But I guess she doesn't fit the close-to-underage profile. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I had never heard of Chris D'Elia, but after a quick perusal of clips and quotes available online, I have to heartily second this quote posted upthread:  "who could've known Chris D'Elia was a creep other than anyone who's ever looked at him or heard him say things".  Yikes.

Masterson, I had definitely heard about, and all I can say to that one is: Finally!  I liked him so much as Justin on Cybill, but then I started hearing horrible things about his predatory behavior and have never watched him in anything else.

Edited by Bastet
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes hearing someone is accused of being a rapist or other such scumbag, it, comes as a surprise. You could never imagine them doing what they are said to have done. 

Masterson, on the other hand, it’s like “yeah, that tracks.” Guy just has the air of a creep about him.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size