Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/10/26 20:59:17
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
d-usa wrote: I am completely honest when I say that I wouldn’t have considered that sexual assault, and just accepted it as a “dirty old man” kind of thing. I’m not going to pretend that I have screamed “sexual predator” every time I saw an old grandpa get handsy.
Flip places with the actress. Imagine an old, crusty woman squeezed your behind and made a really dumb joke. You might feel a bit gross after.
Not nearly the same situation, but a much older female co-worker of mine made an innocent but sorta-inappropriate-for-the-workplace joke about wanting to see me dress up as a UPS driver for Halloween because she thought I'd look good in the brown shorts. I laughed at the time, and later told my wife about it and she laughed too. But we also agreed it was a inappropriate, and kinda icky because now I'd be imagining her checking out my sweet, sweet legs ( ) all day at work.
It just goes to show that one person's joke is another persons ick moment.
And probably as a general rule if you are 3x a person's age don't make the first move, sexually. Man or woman, you are a gross old person that only fetishists want to sleep with.
d-usa wrote: But then, maybe my kind of thinking is exactly the problem here and part of the reason we all need to look inward to see what kind of things we have accepted as normal.
Well said and exalted.
I don't know if the Anthony Bourdain Slate interview was posted in this thread yet (I've been lurking but may have missed a page or two) but he has some interesting reflections on his own (potential) culpability in normalizing bad behaviors during his time as a chef.
avantgarde wrote: So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
Regardless this situation like every other could have easily been avoided with some damn common sense. Here is a very simple metric for if you should get out your dick:
Is someone asking you to do so in way that seems sincere? * If they are it is probably OK to take out your dick.
* If they aren't, leave your dick in your pants.
It's seriously not complicated. Nobody ever got in trouble or hurt somebody by keeping one-eyed willy in his house.
This seems like the male equivalent of using aspirin as contraceptive.
Where is the need for the woman to exhibit common sense?
Chongara wrote: In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.
That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.
To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.
Which brings me back to my original question, what about the woman's actions in the Ansari case? Is he really a "creeper" in this situation or was he a person trying to clumsily get laid? Everything I have read about the encounter places the situation in the "bad date" category and nowhere near harassment or inappropriate actions taken on Ansari's part. But headlines about Aziz Ansari's "harassment" flood the internet over the weekend, made the rounds on morning talk shows and now randoms on a miniature gaming board are calling him a "creeper" based on a one-sided, anonymous account. And this is okay in your opinion? All of that character assassination based on one person's account over a date? Why? Because Ansari has a penis and wants to orgasm? Seems pretty Puritanical to me.
And again, what about "Grace's" agency in the situation? She wasn't helpless. She wasn't drugged. She was in no way prevented from interrupting the events that transpired in his apartment. She consented to receiving and providing oral sex and when pushed for more by Ansari, "Grace" declined, and was sent home in an Uber. What part of that encounter is creepy, or makes Ansari a creeper worthy of public shame and potential financial hardship? It sounds like a misfiring date, a scenario that happens on the weekly around the world between singles. Lumping Ansari in with C.K., or Cosby or Spacey does a disservice to the victims of those actual harassers, and gets us no closer to finding a proper way forward in dealing with the actual problem of sexual harassment.
Chongara wrote: However there is nothing wrong with folks hearing a story, finding it credible and informing their behavior based on that.
Sure there is, especially if there are real world consequences attached to people believing a false story. A story isn't fact, necessarily. There is a lot of bs and misinformation floating around and often people are unwilling or unable to vet credible sources. Coupled with any retractions to false stories being lost in the ever changing news cycle and "folks hearing a story" can lead to some pretty fethed up consequences for those caught up in nonsense.
This quote from the Atlantic sums up the Ansari situation best in my opinion:
The Atlantic wrote:But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky. Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful, and last night they destroyed a man who didn’t deserve it.
2018/01/16 19:26:49
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
AdeptSister wrote: So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?
Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.
AdeptSister wrote: As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.
I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.
Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.
Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?
2018/01/16 19:50:57
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
AdeptSister wrote: If you read her original statement on Babe.net, she told him she was uncomfortable and asked him to stop pressuring her multiple times. He said they would just "chill," wait a few moments, and then start pressuring her again.
The reason why people are upset about his behavior is because he wrote a book about dating that basically said not to do crap like that and respect what the woman says.
It doesn't help that articles are ignoring the verbal communication that she said multiple times. She told him “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” He acknowledged her statement, stopped for a little while, then started right back up again.
To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.
He's admitting to getting his dick out. Framing and appropriateness are subjective, a matter left to the individual. At the end of the day we wouldn't be having this conservation if he'd left it in his pants until asked to otherwise. There would be nothing to interpret, nothing to frame.
Seriously this isn't complicated. Dicks stay in pants, nobody gets in trouble, nobody gets upset. Leaving your pants on is not difficult I manage it all the time and I'm sure you do too.
Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 19:51:35
2018/01/16 20:01:05
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!
Aspirin has no functionality whatsoever as a contraceptive. It literally does nothing. In contrast not taking your dong out is remarkably effective at keeping people from thinking you got your dong out at the wrong time. I'm not suggesting some crack pot methodology with no basis in reality, I'm just describing not doing the thing at the center of thise very issue.
Swing and a miss.
The phrase I am making a play on regards the idea that the best form of contraceptive for women was to keep an aspirin tightly held in place between their legs. I.e. if you don't want to have consequences of sex, don't have sex. It is a stupid argument best left in the past. You've seemed to revive it with your "don't take your dick out" argument.
2018/01/16 22:07:22
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
AdeptSister wrote: So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?
Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.
AdeptSister wrote: As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.
I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.
Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.
Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?
First, you mentioned and are focused on the non- verbal cues. I have been focused on the verbal ones, which have been noted in the my posts and her original post.
Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?"
AdeptSister wrote: Second, your points seem to be arguing that her not violently reacting or her fruitlessly trying to recover the night, is somehow the equivalent of his behavior to decide to continue to pressure her. Her part in this is that she thought/hoped that he would stop. He finally did but it was after she felt victimized.
So he did honor her verbal cues? Not after sticking his penis in her? But before? So, where was the assault?
AdeptSister wrote: She will have to deal with that for the rest of her life. If you don't think that is so bad, so be it. Making a choice to go on a date is not an invitation to be coerced into sexual activity. You seem to think so.
Here is where this gak always devolves. You are making assumptions about my position on sexual assault which are so far from the truth that they are laughable. Stop it. Stop it right fething now. I. Do. Not. Think. That. Accepting. An. Invitation. To. A. Date. Is. Grounds. For. Coercered. Sexual. Activity. Full stop. Do not put words in my mouth. Do not make assumptions about this crap, and don't levy your bs accusations against me. Okay?
On point, based on her account I do not see a person who was victimized. I see a person who regretted how a date went and is using that regret as a weapon. She agreed to a date with Ansari. She drank wine with Ansari. She returned to Ansari's apartment for mutual oral sex, and when she didn't want to have penetrative sex she was ushered home in an Uber. Remind me where the coercion took place? Oh, it was Ansari asking repeatedly to have penetrative sex? So what? That is when "Grace" puts on her big girl pants and says "no" and leaves. Which she did. That is called a gakky date, not assault.
AdeptSister wrote: She has the right to make an accusation. If you do not believe her accusation, that is fine. But you seem to arguing that she shouldn't have made a public statement because you don't think Aziz's behavior was bad enough to warrant it. But the circumstances is that some of his "appeal" is that he was supposed to be a "good dude." People are allowed to challenge that.
Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.
You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
2018/01/17 00:22:10
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?
I've done no such divvying of responsibility and haven't spoken one way or another about her behavior, experience or responsibility at all. Certainly far from any extent that one could fairly call it "infantilizing".
From my perspective you were divvying out responsibility when you stated things like:
Last I checked nobody is being hanged and no body official or otherwise is sanctioning specific punishments. People are telling stories and folks are deciding for themselves how credible those stories seem and then deciding to what extent they do or don't want to change their interactions and opinions of people based on that. In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.
That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.
So, you incorrectly stated that he confirmed her story (he didn't), and you labeled him a "creeper" based on an anonymous account of the night. How are you not placing all of the responsibility on his shoulders and ignoring her participation?
Chongara wrote: Her role in the matter and whatever mistakes she may or may not have made aren't the subject of my posts even tangentially. I'm speaking specifically to a handful of simple facts:
He got his dick out.
He was not asked to get his dick out.
He was forward about getting her to do stuff with his dick.
gak hit the fan as a direct result of that behavior.
Ah yes. Still incorrect, though. She had oral sex with him. Willingly. So the dick is, ah, out of the bag already, so to speak. What now? Again, he didn't whip his dick out surprise style like Louis C.K., he was trying to move the activities from oral sex to penetrative sex, so your whole "keep your dick in your pants" comes off as a bit Puritanical, and a bit misguided in this instance.
Chongara wrote: That one should wait for an invitation before trying to get other people to interact with one's junk. Even if her handling of the situation was the most asinine possible, and the reaction the most overblown possible it has no bearing on that fact.
From Ansari's perspective it seems that invitation was granted. Which is why this whole incident seems like a date gone bad, not sexual harassment, or assault, or rape, or whatever.
Okay Mario, I don't know if you are misreading my posts but let's break this down.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.
You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
"cause"… like the situation around reporting sexual harassment and assault was so much better before and now it's all getting worse.
What? Honestly, what?
Mario wrote: A bad date is, if starts to rain and you have to change plans or something like that. The Ansari situation is about him pushing for more even after she decided that she doesn't want to. Not all situations are just about one person forcefully raping somebody. And look at that, we are actually talking about a more grey area-ish situation where things get more complicated like, for example, how women often don't dare to say no just to get it over with and/or because they feel like otherwise the situation could escalate and get even worse (like getting attacked, or this example).
A bad date is also when things are going well and something uncomfortable or awkward immediately changes the mood of the date. Just as you say not all situations are about forcefully raping somebody, not all of these situations can equally be chalked up to victimization on the part of the person claiming victimhood. Based on the evidence shown in "Grace's" account she had the wherewithal to extricate herself from the situation once it crossed a line for her. That Ansari didn't escalate things to violence, or use chemicals/drugs to incapacitate her, and instead called her a ride home and ended the evening amicably (from his perspective) is indicative to me that "Grace" was not a victim in the sense that we discuss victims of sexual assault in this thread. She may have had regrets about how the evening went, she may have been disappointed in her date's behavior, but that behavior does not indicate sexual misconduct to me. Ansari might be pushy, he might be clumsy in romance, but I see nothing that indicates wrong doing.
Mario wrote: People were even defending Trump's “When you’re a star, they let you do it” comments as if the women wanted it instead of seeing it as what it is: Sexual assault by a person who abused his position of power and influence over other people. Power dynamics are more complicated than just things like that or the Weinstein example. It goes all the way to a waitress not making a fuss when she get harassed/touched because doing so might lead to her losing their job. Should we just ignore that type of behaviour because power asymmetry makes it harder to say something? That's why the #MeToo movement exists so more people find the courage to tell their stories and so that we as society change and make it better for everyone instead of just passively accepting that something bad is happening but ignoring it as long as it's not affecting us.
Awesome soap box, but you are preaching to the choir here. And that is why I find issue with "Grace" and her claim of victimization. She was not victimized by Ansari, at least not in any meaningful way that compares with the victims who have shared their stories with #MeToo. Conflating "Grace's" encounter with Ansari with sexual harassment does a disservice to the entire #MeToo movement. If everything is harassment then nothing is harassment. "Grace" is making the case that by Ansari being too eager for sex he victimized her. That is a slap in the face of real victims who endured worse. "Grace" may have regretted her encounter with Ansari for a lot of reasons, but I don't buy for one second that she was a victim of anything other than a disappointing evening with a guy.
Mario wrote: Is it really only then harassment/assault when you feel like it? Or is it harassment/assault when the victim thinks it was (and this is not about the legal definition, which is a hurdle that's needed in front of a judge)? If a person feels violated then most probably they were violated and you handwringing about the credibility of accusations doesn't change that it was a gakky situation for that person.
"Grace" had a disappointing night. She is entitled to her perspective and feelings on the encounter with Ansari, but her feelings shouldn't be enough to warrant the public lambasting of Ansari. Her feelings shouldn't be enough to tarnish someone's reputation, sabotage a person's livelihood, and they most certainly shouldn't be given equal treatment and consideration as accusations of harassment, assault and rape made by others in the #MeToo movement.
That people are already judging Ansari as a sexual harasser based on one woman's questionable account of an evening is troubling, and goes back to the point made earlier that these accusations are not insignificant. They can destroy a person's life. If that is merited, like in the cases of Weinstein, Cosby and others where there is ample evidence to back up accusation after accusation, then of course the outcome is appropriate and justified. In this Ansari situation people have their pitchforks out and it is all based on the anonymous postings of a woman who really doesn't seem to have been victimized at all, and instead found herself with a celebrity who only seemed interested in having sex with her. When that didn't happen she went home. Unless more is revealed, then I am afraid I just don't see "Grace's" story as being anything other than regret over a bad hookup.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since you won't respond to my points this is the last time I am responding to yours.
AdeptSister wrote: But what I don't understand is that based on your understanding of the date, how it can both be a groundless accusation and something that is no big deal. If what he did was no big deal, then why is bad that she told the public?
If you can't understand why accusing a male celebrity of sexual misconduct in January of 2018 over a benign romantic encounter is problematic, then I can't help you. I already answered this question of yours earlier, but again, you aren't responding to my posts so I don't think you are arguing in good faith or even reading what I am writing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/17 00:26:46
2018/02/23 18:51:38
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
kronk wrote: I haven’t seen the word “taint” used in a long time. Good on Brendon for speaking out, even if it is 15 years later.
I can't imagine how disruptive to his career speaking out in 2003 would have been. Especially being victimized by another man which probably would have led to all manner of Richard Gere-level of homophobic jokes and stigma.
kronk wrote: I liked his guest character on Scrubs (that one doctor’s brother).
One of the best character arcs of that show in my opinion. That last episode is emotionally devastating but so damn good.
2018/08/20 19:04:33
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
I wonder if Argento's infidelity was the ignition to Bourdain's suicide.
That is a rumor floating around, but supposedly Bourdain knew of the incident and was assisting Argento with legal representation. Argento also claimed she and Bourdain had an open relationship since she was seen photographed with a man the day of Bourdain's death, so who knows what everyone involved in that relationship knew or didn't know. Really none of that matters in my opinion. The issue is a child was molested by an adult, and that adult paid the child off to avoid legal issues.
Regarding Argento, I think it is pretty rich that Rose McGowan is urging people to "be gentle" while this is investigated. This is a disgusting situation, and it looks like Argento was grooming this poor kid since he was 7 (when they shot a movie together and she played his mother). Why gentleness needs to be applied here, in this specific case, is puzzling to me. McGowan's own bias towards Argento as an ally and fellow woman seems the obvious reason for such empathy. It is hard to imagine McGowan offering the same sort of compassion if it was a male accused. I am sure saying that paints me as a rabid MRA ( ), but thankfully the double standard is glaring and even women are pointing it out on McGowan's Twitter feed.
Maybe McGowan can clarify or walk back her "be gentle" statement. Otherwise it shines a massive spot light on the hypocrisy of the #MeToo movement's biggest spokespeople - McGowan and Argento.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 21:06:06
2018/08/21 19:14:49
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
cuda1179 wrote: Looks like Rose McGowan isn't the only hypocrite in the MeToo movement.
The New York Times reported that New York University had conducted an 11-month investigation into a sexual harassment complaint by a male graduate student against Avital Ronell, a female professor of German and Comparative Literature. The university concluded that Ronell was responsible, and a group of influential academics signed off on a letter to NYU in Ronell’s defense; one of the most powerful feminist scholars on earth, Judith Butler, was one of them.
That is extremely disappointing. I just read their letter and, wow, just yuck.
This paragraph is particularly troubling, because in essence it is arguing that a person's contributions to their field should be considered when applying the law? That just doesn't make any sense. That is like arguing that Weinstein produced some great movies, furthered the arts and so who cares about rape? What the flying feth?
We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation. If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed. The ensuing loss for the humanities, for New York University, and for intellectual life during these times would be no less than enormous and would rightly invite widespread and intense public scrutiny. We ask that you approach this material with a clear understanding of the long history of her thoughtful and successive mentorship, the singular brilliance of this intellectual, the international reputation she has rightly earned as a stellar scholar in her field, her enduring commitments to the university, and the illuminated world she has brought to your campus where colleagues and students thrive in her company and under her guidance. She deserves a fair hearing, one that expresses respect, dignity, and human solicitude in addition to our enduring admiration.
It does play nicely into what Tarana Burke, the original founder of the MeToo movement, had to say about the Argento situation*:
I’ve said repeatedly that the #metooMVMT is for all of us, including these brave young men who are now coming forward. It will continue to be jarring when we hear the names of some of our faves connected to sexual violence unless we shift from talking about individuals and begin to talk about power. Sexual violence is about power and privilege. That doesn’t change if the perpetrator is your favorite actress, activist or professor of any gender. And we won’t shift the culture unless we get serious about shifting these false narratives..
What Butler and company are doing is siding with power and, like I said, yuck.
However, the only way to demonstrate that MeToo is for everyone and not just women is to publicly deal with these hypocrites and bounce them from positions of influence and power.
cuda1179 wrote: Now, none of this should take away from the fact that she herself is a victim. Perpetrators can be victims too. Separate crimes that should be judged separately.
Agreed. This doesn't take away from her victimization at the hands of Weinstein.
cuda1179 wrote: I also don't think we should be getting out the pitchforks quite yet either. She deserves her due process.
Last I read she wasn't under investigation by police. There is photographic evidence of her and the boy both topless in bed. She settled with him out of court last year to obtain those photographs and shut him up. She got away with statutory rape it seems. What due process is she afforded at this point?
2018/08/22 19:36:25
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
cuda1179 wrote: Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.
In other news, leaked emails and texts from Argento show that she has admitted to a friend that sex did occur when he was underage.
Just read that that Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is investigating, so let's see where this goes!
2018/08/26 16:55:21
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Thanks for posting that. Butler's apology is excellent (not surprising given her ability with language) and reassuring. I was disappointed seeing her as a signatory of that letter because it seemed inconsistent to positions she has taken in the past, so her clarification is definitely helpful.
2018/08/28 19:30:06
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
LordofHats wrote: To be fair he gave a better effort at saying he was sorry than most. I’m all for punishing the guilty and public shunning to enforce social change but those shouldn’t be life sentences. Certainly I think reparations should be made to victims but I don’t expect the guy to hide in a corner wallowing in shame for the rest and of his life. Shunning abusers forever is one sure way to ensure perpetual division without any form of reconciliation and down that road human decency doesn’t fair any better than it does in an environment of cover ups and hush money.
Don’t do it again and don’t be an ass about being called out on it and let forgiveness reign and all that so long as he’s actually sorry. Forgiveness is a great virtue and all but it doesn’t demand stupidity toward repeat offenders.
C.K.'s apology and ownership of his wrong doing seemed earnest to me. From memory of his apology he admitted outright what he did, and acknowledged that he was blind to the power structure he was abusing. I don't know what more can be done in the apology department. He lost his show, a movie that was about to premier was cancelled and he hasn't performed in almost a year, so he has paid a literal price for his actions too. I very much doubt his career will return to the heights it reached prior to his admission-especially since he passed off as rumors his bizarre antics for years-I'd understand people having difficulty reconciling that aspect of the story with his apology and moving forward. Still, I think he has enough of a fan base willing to forgive him and, if he can fly right, will embrace his new work.
2018/08/28 22:07:04
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Mario wrote: From the article about C.K.'s return: The performance was unannounced.
That's, maybe, not the best was to re-start his career when "unannounced performances" (of a different type) were what got him into trouble in the first place :/
Dat sick burn doh.
Take that act on stage Mario
But then the audience gave him an ovation after, so I guess you could say they liked how he finished. They were shocked that he came at all, but still rose to the occasion to applaud his efforts. Okay, I think I am done with dick jokes.
So, the Argento story takes another turn. It looks like McGowan's current partner, model Rain Dove, is the one who gave police Argento's texts.
Asia Argento, an outspoken advocate of the #MeToo movement and a Harvey Weinstein accuser, recently denied that she sexually assaulted former co-star Jimmy Bennett when he was 17 years old and she was 37. However, shortly after her denial, text messages that were reportedly Argento’s were leaked to TMZ, which seem to support Bennett’s accusations against the actress.
On Monday, actress and fellow proponent of #MeToo, Rose McGowan, released a statement that named model and activist Rain Dove as the person who brought the incriminating text messages between Argento and Dove to the police.
Dove is a 28-year-old model, actor, and activist. Recently, Dove appeared in Refinery29’s produced web series on Facebook, Strangers.
In her statement, McGowan says that she introduced Argento to Dove — the “being [she’s] been dating” — after the death of Argento’s boyfriend Anthony Bourdain. Together, McGowan, Dove, and Argento visited Berlin, where Argento “mentioned that she was being extorted for a large sum of
money every month by someone who was blackmailing [Argento and Bourdain] with a provocative image.” Neither McGowan nor Dove knew at the time that the person was now 22-year-old Bennett.
Dove, who goes by the “they” pronoun, continued to text with Argento after their meeting, according to McGowan. “They said that they had been texting with Asia and that Asia had revealed that she had indeed slept with Jimmy Bennett. Rain also shared that Asia had stated that she’d been
receiving unsolicited nudes of Jimmy since he had been 12,” McGowan states.
Dove informed McGowan that they wanted to take the text messages to the police. “An hour after our conversation was finished, Rain Dove confirmed that they had turned over the texts and were in conversation with officers. Almost 48 hours later, the texts were in the press.”
On Wednesday, Dove wrote a tweet seemingly aimed at Argento, stating, “Friend, family, acquaintance it doesn’t matter when it comes to justice — you do not get special treatment.”
+1 Awesomeness to Rain Dove for that final statement!
2018/08/30 17:35:04
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
8 months seems kinda light in my opinion. Though, I'd imagine his attorney fees are crippling at this point and he has had almost four years of legal battles so that is something, I guess. Still, if my privacy was violated in the way he violated others I'd want more than a slap on the wrist for the perpetrator.
2018/09/01 15:42:52
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Gerard Depardieu has been accused of sexual assault and rape by a 22-year-old actress, who filed a complaint on Monday, according to French news channel BFM.
The unnamed actress is accusing Depardieu of having assaulted and raped her at his Paris home on two occasions, on Aug. 6 and Aug. 13. The young woman was studying at a school where Depardieu is teaching, according to BFM. The pair was meeting at Depardieu’s home to rehearse for a play.
A preliminary investigation has been launched.
Depardieu’s lawyer, Hervé Témime, told BFM that his client strongly denied the allegations. “Gerard Depardieu is shaken by this complaint … and is absolutely contesting any assault, rape, or any criminal act,” Témime said.
Depardieu is the second major French film industry figure to be accused of sexual assault, following prominent French director Luc Besson, who is still being investigated for allegedly raping Dutch/Belgian actress Sand Van Roy.
Depardieu stars in Netflix’s French series “Marseille.” He earned an Oscar nomination for his role in the 1990 film “Cyrano de Bergerac.” The actor also earned accolades for Bernardo Bertolucci’s “1900,” Francis Veber’s “La Chèvre,” François Truffaut’s “The Last Metro,” Peter Weir’s “Green Card,” and the mini-series “The Count of Monte Cristo.”
Although he’s considered an iconic actor in France, he’s often made headlines for spurring controversies. Back in 2013, he became a local pariah after relocating to Belgium to pay less taxes. He’s also been criticized due to his friendship with President
Vladimir Putin, who offered him a Russian passport.
2018/09/05 21:42:20
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Some disappointing news regarding Kevin Spacey and Steven Seagal, Los Angeles DA determined that the statue of limitations were up for their respective 1992 and 1993 assault accusations, so no charges filed. That has to be a further punch in the stomach for those accusing Spacey and Seagal. I am sure there are good reasons for crimes having a limit on when they can be prosecuted, but I don't think sexual assault should fall under that protected class of crimes.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has declined to file sexual assaultcharges against Kevin Spacey, Anthony Anderson and Steven Seagal.
The DA's office released formal declinations in each of the sex abuse cases against the three actors.
Spacey had been accused of assaulting a man in West Hollywood in 1992. According to the declination, the statue of limitations has expired. The district attorney's office added that the case did not involve an underage victim.
The Oscar-winning actor still faces multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, including from at least 20 people at London's Old Vic Theatre, who reported being the subject of Spacey's inappropriate behavior over a time period of 18 years.
Actor Anthony Rapp, 46, told BuzzFeed last October that when he was a teenager, Spacey, then in his 20s, made a sexual advance toward him. Spacey, 59, stated that he did not remember the alleged incident, but apologized for what "would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior."
He later sought "evaluation and treatment," according to a statement at the time from his spokesperson.
In the case of Seagal, the allegation of assault is from 1993, when the victim was 18 years old. The declination states that the statute of limitations expired in 1999.
The action star was accused earlier this year by two women of sexual assault and rape. One of them, Regina Simons, said Seagal raped her at his home when she was in her late teens. She said he invited her to a wrap party for the 1994 film "On Deadly Ground," but that when she showed up no one else was there.
Seagal's attorney Anthony Falangetti denied the accusations on behalf of his client in a statement to ABC News.
"Mr. Seagal denies all accusations and continues to stand his ground that he has not engaged in any such misconduct. The allegations that have been made against Mr. Seagal are false and have no substantive material support," he said in the statement.
"The accounts of both women are completely fictitious and totally made up," the statement continued. "The allegations are a disservice to women who are victimized because of real predators in the film industry."
From the same article, Anthony Anderson, star of the TV show Black-ish, also had charges dropped:
As for Anderson, the woman who accused him of assault declined to be interviewed by investigators, the declination stated.
Earlier this summer, the "Black-ish" star was under investigation after the woman filed a complaint with the LAPD's Hollywood Division, claiming Anderson assaulted her more than a year ago.
Anderson disputed the claim.
I am curious why the accuser in Anderson's case didn't consent to be interviewed by investigators. Not great optics there.
2018/09/06 18:46:43
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Bran Dawri wrote: Also, was anyone else kinda pissed-off that the most prominent headline about Aretha Franklin's funeral service was that Ariana Grande's dress was supposedly too short rather than about the... bishop(?) groping her?
Yes! Thank you for bringing that up, because that should have been the leading headline from Franklin's service. The still shots pretty clearly show him grabbing her. Hell you can see her gaze land on his hand as he is doing it. Disgusting.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
2018/09/06 19:35:04
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
We were not aware of his background during the casting process due to legal limitations that impede studios from running background checks on actors.
Wut?!
I ran a background check on the dog sitter I hired for a weekend. Transaction came out to less than $150 and studios aren't able to do background checks on actors signed on to multi-million dollar projects? I am simply amazed if this is true.
2018/09/06 20:44:24
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Overread wrote: To be fair most jobs don't run a background check on the average person. The only ones that generally do insist upon it are those who would be working with vulnerable adults or children. If the acting role didn't require it chances are the studios just didn't see a need to run a background check.
Irrelevant, the quoted studio rep said that legally studios can't perform background checks on actors. That is the big WTF issue I had. The statement is ambiguous, but it makes me wonder if actors are a protected group while other trades on a set might be eligible for background checks. Can the crew be given background checks?
Overread wrote: Most employers won't spend out for a background check or a CRB (police) check if its not required. Even multimillion £/$ films won't just throw money in any old direction; if they can make a saving they will.
Background checks aren't that expensive to run. Let's say a studio just wanted to run them on the leads, that would be akin to a rounding error on a major movie's budget. If they did the entire cast and crew it still wouldn't amount to much more than is spent on on a day or two of craft services. And how much do re-shoots costs? Studios are all about legally protecting their asses and their investments. If they can't legally run background checks that is odd and I'd like to know more, because other business can and do run background checks all the time.
[Striegel was] caught up in a bad situation versus something lecherous.”
Plead guilty to trying to lure a 14yr old girl into sex. Maybe there is a more in depth story behind the whole thing, but thats like textbook "lecherous".
Yeah...
I guess it is nice having loyal friends like that, but Blacks' statement is pants on the head stupid. Wonder if he thinks the girl lured his friend into that "bad situation".
2018/09/06 21:10:24
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Overread wrote: It's still a cost that has to be justified. Sure it might be a rounding error; most of the individual costs are going to be small; its when they all add up that you get to big numbers.
How much does deleting a 3-page scene and re-shooting/re-editing cost a studio? The costs of a background check is negligible compared to the savings it can provide when a problem is preemptively found.
Overread wrote: Also what about the law on privacy? It might be that background checks are not simply allowed to be done by any employer without justification or only in certain lines of work.
There might also be a social aspect in that many people would feel it an invasion of their private life beyond the reasonable requirements to employ them for that line of work etc... At the end of the day its acting on a film set (or any one of a number of other film jobs) not the secret service or the police.
Privacy laws may be at play here, but I don't know and you don't know so its all speculation.
As for your second point I think the answer is "so, what?"
Background checks aren't only used for sensitive jobs. I've had to take them for most of the positions I've had, including an accounting position. I think you are underestimating how prolific background checks are in the hiring process. Maybe this is just a US thing, but where is Hollywood? The US. So again, why are studios not legally allowed to run these checks?
Is that studio rep lying? Maybe.
This company seems to provide background checks for the entertainment industry.
However, actors aren't listed as one of the groups they provide services for (bold emphasis mine):
Corra Group provides comprehensive background screening solutions to the Entertainment Industry. Production Companies and Film Studios use Corra Group to screen their in-house employees, temporary workers, outside vendors, as well as reality TV candidates and other talent. The entertainment industry not only faces lawsuits for negligent hiring, but also risks substantial loss to revenue and reputation should a production become derailed due to anti-social acts committed by cast or crew. Screening in the entertainment industry is no longer option; it is now necessary to provide the most comprehensive screening available to protection against liability.
"other talent" could mean actors, but I'd think that would be more prominent in the list if it were referring to on-screen leads and such.
Their pitch muddies the waters further as it seems they do checks on talent. Bold emphasis mine.
Every year, production companies spend millions of dollars developing shows for film and television. Those projects can be heavily funded by advertisers and major networks, all who have a reputation to protect. Ill-informed casting decisions and highly-publicized scandals can threaten everything you’ve worked so hard for. At the very least, a dangerous or dishonest contestant can produce a hectic PR scramble, dismissal of contestants and a rush to find last-minute replacements. Worst case: violence, lawsuits and the loss of major revenue.
Many of these situations can be prevented with comprehensive and thorough background checks. We are a leader in this industry and have worked with networks and production companies on hundreds of shows. Prior to starting Collective Intelligence our owner worked in the industry for a decade, so we understand production needs from your point of view: budgeting, casting, coordinating, filming and meeting deadlines. Save the drama for the show and let us help you make the most successful talent and crew choices.
Bottom line (if you are still reading), a background check is money well spent. If there is a legal reason why studios can't perform them on actors I'd like to know what that reason is. Google isn't returning much but now I have a new bone to gnaw on for a while. I'll post any relevant information I can find.
2018/09/06 21:21:06
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Overread wrote: I have to say that for hiring someone like a dog-sitter most in the UK - that I'm aware of - would not think about doing a background check as such beyond googling their name and asking around for someone reliable and with a good reputation. Ergo we'd likely not pay a company to do it.
Even if you are leaving that person with a key and access to your house while you are away? Can I dog sit for you? I promise not to steal everything...
2018/09/06 23:47:53
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
For #MeToo to amount to a social-reform movement that thrives far into the future, it would, perhaps, need to evolve into something new. The revelation of Harvey Weinstein’s behavior began a thunk, thunk, thunk of prominent downfalls, but celebrity scandals do not a transformative movement make. If #MeToo were ever to enter a new era of its own—one that moved public focus away from Hollywood and to everyday workplaces, for example—how would the world know? Would there be some revelation that creates a clear dividing line? Some op-ed that cuts through the chatter? A vote?
Or would change come thanks to an actor announcing “Phase Two” of the #MeToo movement as a possible shield when another actor has accused them of statutory rape?
This is the strange question now presented by Asia Argento. One of the first public accusers of Harvey Weinstein, the performer found herself becoming the accused in August when The New York Times reported she’d secretly reached a payoff agreement with the former child actor Jimmy Bennett. He had said that in 2013, when he was 17 and she was 37, she pushed sex on him in a California hotel room. Argento replied to the Times story by publicly denying Bennett’s claims, and on Wednesday, her lawyer Mark Jay Heller put out a statement that tries to flip the narrative, accusing Bennett of “sexually attacking” Argento in that hotel room. But it does not only do that.
“ASIA ARGENTO LAUNCHES ‘PHASE TWO’ OF THE #METOO MOVEMENT,” begins Heller’s statement. It defines the second phase as one in which “all victims, whether or not they have led a blemish-less life, should have the courage to come forward and not be afraid that the abuse that they are complaining of will be colored by any negative dynamics in their history.” Which is to say that someone who has what Heller calls a “gray area” in their past like Argento does—that “gray area” being the question of whether she took advantage of the teen who once played her son in a movie—should still be able to speak out about abuse they’ve endured. It’s sort of a reversal of the Bible’s “let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone.”
Isn’t that redundant, though? All along, #MeToo has insisted that the possible imperfections of an accuser should not keep them silent. When news of Bennett’s allegations became public, for example, a lot of folks in the movement responded by pointing out that they didn’t invalidate Argento’s own tales of having endured abuse. “Many perpetrators of sexual violence are themselves victims of it,” my colleague Hannah Giorgis wrote, echoing those responses. “This neither absolves Argento of her alleged crimes nor renders her own story of victimization void.”
It’s hard to avoid a suspicion of another motive, then, to Argento acting as though she’s the first champion of this point of view. The statement offers the supposedly expanded scope of “Phase Two” even to Bennett, who, “interestingly enough,” Argento thinks has a right to speak out against her despite his “troubled history.” The statement spends an inordinate amount of space describing that history, listing “his stalled acting career,” “a lawsuit against his own parents,” “a history of drug use,” and police investigations of allegations of misconduct with minors. It’s unclear whether the public is to disregard such “troubled pasts” in “Phase Two,” or whether “Phase Two” just means paying more attention to this particular accuser’s troubles.
Heller’s statement calls the Argento-Bennett situation a “crazy tangled web of sexual interactions,” but there’s no disputing a $380,000 deal was made with Bennett in 2017, of which $250,000 has been paid. Argento claims that this agreement was reached because her late partner Anthony Bourdain simply wanted to end Bennett’s extortion efforts against Argento, even though she says Bennett was the one who had assaulted her. She now says she will not pay out the rest of the settlement. Bennett’s story is that the deal was, as stated in the documents that the Times obtained a copy of, recognition that Argento had behaved inappropriately with him.
What is the wider world supposed to do with these competing stories? Heller’s statement excoriates the media for trying situations such as these in the “Court of Public Opinion,” which enables “fake news.” But it also expresses hope that “in the Court of Public Opinion it will ultimately be determined that Asia never initiated an inappropriate sexual contact with a minor, but rather she was attacked by Bennett and might even be suffering the fallback of a smear campaign by those already accused who may have a vested interest in their accusers being denied credibility.”
But Argento is not simply litigating her innocence. She’s reasserting her status as a shaper of the #MeToo movement—though in somewhat breathtakingly blinkered fashion. Heller’s statement gives her credit for kicking off “phase one” of the movement by accusing Weinstein. But really the term “me too” as used to reckon with sexual misconduct was coined in 2006 by the activist Tarana Burke, one of the many non-celebrities and/or women of color whose stories have been overshadowed by white stars in the past year. Thus the entire post-Weinstein wave has been, if anything, Phase Two. Someone who’s been involved as prominently as Argento has been should be sensitive to the implications of her erasing figures like Burke.
Movements aiming to shift both culture and policy often excel when they are broad-based and strive toward a sense of leaderlessness. Black Lives Matter, for example, works as a horizontal coalition (its adherents prefer the term “leaderful” to “leaderless”). When individuals are crowned as pivotal, it can draw needed attention away from others, and it can expose the movement to easier attack. And when mass and multifront change is being asked for, mass and multifront action is required.
Argento’s statement about “Phase Two” attempts to stake out her ongoing prominence in the movement. In doing so, it worsens the problem of over-centering celebrities all along. “Watch carefully who are called ‘leaders’ of the movement,” Burke tweeted earlier this year. The activist had been frequently recognized as a “founder” of #MeToo, but felt that the concrete nature of her contributions had been ignored. “It’s as if 25+ years of on the ground movement building work is not enough,” she wrote. “Or maybe spending most of that time being invested in the lives of Black and brown Girls isn’t enough.”
Now, in response to the allegations against Argento, Burke has further helped clarify how the movement might evolve. “It will continue to be jarring when we hear the names of some of our faves connected to sexual violence unless we shift from talking about individuals and begin to talk about power,” she tweeted. “Sexual violence is about power and privilege.”
Shift from talking about individuals: It’s a counterintuitive recommendation when #MeToo has been telling women and men that their stories deserve to be heard. Burke is not saying otherwise. But before Weinstein’s fall, she and others were laboring for wide social and policy changes so as to help people, unfamous and otherwise, stop abuse. If there really is to be a next phase of #MeToo, perhaps it will resemble a return to that state of affairs. Or rather, it will reveal that such fundamental work has never stopped, even if Argento would appear to want to keep controlling the discussion.
TL: DR - Argento is claiming the 17-year old boy accusing her of sexual assault actually assaulted her, and she is initiating a "Phase 2" of #MeToo that appears to call for not nullifying a victim's story even if they themselves have questionable pasts. As the article points out no one was really doing that, so what is the point of this "Phase 2"?
Argento is officially blaming the victim and trying to shield herself from criticism because she too was victimized. Classy lady!
2018/09/25 19:28:08
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
At his age it isn't going to be any kind of a cake walk. There is a real chance he could die in prison.
I won't lose any sleep over a serial rapist dying in prison. 3-10 years seems way too light for someone who spent over 40 years pulling this gak, but I guess this is sentencing for a single case.
Hope the prison commissary Cosby frequents stocks the Jello Pudding deep.
) all day at work.
), but thankfully the double standard is glaring and even women are pointing it out on McGowan's Twitter feed.
