Harvey Weinstein scandal

[RavenSky]

You clearly need help with reading comprehension.

waaaaaaa.... he's being mean to me!!!! I demand an apology right now!!!! /DrZoidberg impression

Just for added clarity I added a note with the other type of sexual harassment. You're only talking about the part in the note. Not what I was actually talking about.

I quoted what I was talking about, and your claims about what is or is not 'sexual harassment' are incorrect.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

To be clear, sexual harassment does NOT need to be "repeated sexual contact with someone after they've made it clear that it's unwanted."

It is sexual harassment THE VERY FIRST TIME someone makes "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature". It becomes ILLEGAL - i.e. prosecutable and the harasser can go to jail - when the sexual harassment is "so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision".

It's too narrow. Sexual harassment is a wider concept. It doesn't only have to be a boss and employees, or even two employees at the same level. Sexual harassment can take place anywhere between any people. What makes it sexual harassment is the acts performed, not only who it is.

The bit you quoted is only about sexual harassment in the work place. I'm not talking about that, because it's not interesting. It's very clear cut. I'm talking about the kind of stuff that Louis CK was accused of.

The definition I quoted is not ONLY about workplace sexual harassment. Read it again. Oh, and you need your *advice* more than I do

You clearly need help with reading comprehension.

Whipping one's dick out to masterbate in front of a woman without first obtaining her unambiguous, affirmative consent IS sexual harassment. These guys don't get to play the "whoops, I won't do it again" card, sorry.

This is just a string of loaded and vague words. "unambiguous" is ambiguous. Affirmative consent sounds good, but WTF does it mean in practice?

You're just playing word games. I find your strategy to discuss this truly disgusting. I get the feeling you just want to vent rage and actively trying to avoid clear communication about sex. If the goal of #metoo is to help prevent future occurrences of sexual harassment, they and you, are not doing a good job of it. If all this is is a witch hunt not intended to solve anything, congratulations, it's what you got.

Trying to shut down this discussion by using personal attacks against me and against Jon is interesting... and by "interesting" I mean "disgusting" (to use your favorite word).

Pretending that "unambiguous and affirmative consent" are obvious terms, aren't helping. I haven't heard anybody in this thread agree with me that there's a grey area between ok, and not ok. Until we agree on that we're not discussing reality.

If not one single person agrees with your position in this thread, perhaps it is your position that is not based in reality.

And you still owe me an apology.

right back atcha!

And for the record, any further personal attacks from you will ignored.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're just playing word games. I find your strategy to discuss this truly disgusting. I get the feeling you just want to vent rage and actively trying to avoid clear communication about sex. If the goal of #metoo is to help prevent future occurrences of sexual harassment, they and you, are not doing a good job of it. If all this is is a witch hunt not intended to solve anything, congratulations, it's what you got.

Trying to shut down this discussion by using personal attacks against me and against Jon is interesting... and by "interesting" I mean "disgusting" (to use your favorite word).

Is it uncomfortable when somebody spells out what you are doing to you? If you want to have a civil discussion, then just stop being a dick? It's not hard.

If not one single person agrees with your position in this thread, perhaps it is your position that is not based in reality.

Sure. Its a posdibility. But my position is harder. Joining a mob screaming for blood is easy. I suspect there's a few here who are so blinded by rage they've failed to analyse what they're actually saying. Because it's low on substance.

And you still owe me an apology.

right back atcha!

And for the record, any further personal attacks from you will ignored.

Quit playing the victim card. You fucked up. How about taking responsibility.

It's interesting how you're so quick to strongly condemn the faults of others. But when you're the one who has committed the transgression you refuse to take responsibility.

 

[RavenSky]

<snipped all the off topic personal attacks>

Did you have anything to say on the topic?

 

[DrZoidberg]

<snipped all the off topic personal attacks>

Did you have anything to say on the topic?

You've yet to meet any of my arguments. You're the one who stays on the irrelevant off topic rants, not me,

 

[TSwizzle]

<snipped all the off topic personal attacks>

Did you have anything to say on the topic?

You've yet to meet any of my arguments. You're the one who stays on the irrelevant off topic rants, not me,

Actually it's you that derails things. I'm sure you must know this. This discussion is about sexual harassment in the workplace, not many people are interested in your threesome fantasy.

 

[RavenSky]

Did you have anything to say on the topic?

You've yet to meet any of my arguments. You're the one who stays on the irrelevant off topic rants, not me,

Dude, you have not yet actually presented any sort of an argument.

You have only presented your own opinion over and over using an incorrect definition of sexual harassment. I have presented you with a factual sourced definition/explanation of "sexual harassment" which you have rejected with the false claim that it "only" applied to the workplace. You have failed to present any sort of factual sourced counter-definition/explanation of "sexual harassment" (your uninformed opinion doesn't count).

In the meantime, several of us have stated why we disagree with your overall opinion on the topic, and all you have done is repeated the same opinion without expanding on it, while personally attacking us and whinging like a two-year-old.

When you decide to post like an adult, I will decide then whether I feel like responding. In the meantime, enjoy your wallow.

 

[RavenSky]

The full text of the U.K. Equality Act 2010, 2010 c. 15 Part 2 Chapter 2, Other prohibited conduct, Section 26:

Harassment
(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(2)A also harasses B if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
(3)A also harasses B if—
(a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and
(c)because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.
(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5)The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Note: here again there is NO indication the sexual harassment only happens/applies in the workplace, and again there is NO requirement of repeated behavior for it to be sexual harassment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Did you have anything to say on the topic?

You've yet to meet any of my arguments. You're the one who stays on the irrelevant off topic rants, not me,

Dude, you have not yet actually presented any sort of an argument.

You have only presented your own opinion over and over using an incorrect definition of sexual harassment. I have presented you with a factual sourced definition/explanation of "sexual harassment" which you have rejected with the false claim that it "only" applied to the workplace. You have failed to present any sort of factual sourced counter-definition/explanation of "sexual harassment" (your uninformed opinion doesn't count).

In the meantime, several of us have stated why we disagree with your overall opinion on the topic, and all you have done is repeated the same opinion without expanding on it, while personally attacking us and whinging like a two-year-old.

When you decide to post like an adult, I will decide then whether I feel like responding. In the meantime, enjoy your wallow.

I'm not interested in discussing a fantasy of human sexuality and flirting. I'm only interested in discussing how people actually do it. It doesn't matter how much you insist, it's false. I worked in clubs and bars in over ten years l. That makes me an expert in how it's actually done.

That official definition isn't good enough. We don't state sexual advances clearly. We only hint at them. Pervs and gays are the only groups who are good at giving a laundry list of what they're into. And clearly reject or affirm. Straights suck at it. And just keep guessing and taking chances.

Anyway I tried. You can stay in fantasy land. I somehow don't think that's an adult discussion on this topic. Which is doubly worrying since #metoo is partly a witch hunt. It matters what regular people think. Since we're the mob.

And you still owe an apology. I won't forget it. I tried keeping a civil tone. You didn't. You've handled yourself very badly in this thread IMHO

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can add to it, that one of the main complaints I've heard of women regarding men is that they were too obvious. Women seem to like it when men are ambiguous in their intent. And put off when they are too obvious. It comes across as desperate. Not sexy. Likewise men find it a turn off when women are too obvious in what they want. I find the idea that this isn't universally understood bizarre. Grasping this factor is important if you want to have a successful, active and rewarding sex life.

If a person invites somebody to their room, that's about as a clear an indicator that the other person is ever going to get.

Here's an excellent talk by a sexologist on how to keep the sex life alive in a long term relationship. It's applicable to this discussions. One of the major components to good sex is keeping it mysterious and make it feel a little dangerous/edgy. Well... if you can't even do that when you're flirting you won't get into a rewarding long term relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0RUmGTCYY

 

[barbos]

Who knew Dustin Hoffman was such a dirtbag?

And who knew he was so bald?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-dustin-hoffman-accuser-claims-harassment-physical-violation-broadway-guest-column-1062349

View attachment 13514

One night in Chicago, I felt his hand up under my slip on the inside of my thighs. I was completely surprised and tried to bat him away while watching the stage for my cues. After the show he was busy with the producer and director so I had no access to him to address it. It then happened almost every show. Six to eight shows a week. I couldn’t speak to him in the moment because I was on a live mic. He kept it up and got more and more aggressive. One night he actually started to stick his fingers inside me. Night after night I went home and cried. I withdrew and got depressed and did not have any good interpersonal relationships with the cast. How could the same man who fought to get me the job, who complimented my work, who essentially launched my career, who gave me the benefit of his wisdom as an actor, how could he also be this sexual power abuser? Was I doing something? Was it my fault?

There's a part of me that just wants to see Hollywood taken down. Its always been a bit tiresome and annoying to me to see these sanctimonious hypocritical pricks and cunts getting up on their soapboxes on Oscar night preaching about their pet human rights causes (immigrants, women's rights, LGBT rights, etc). Now many have been busted committing some pretty awful stuff themselves. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and all that stuff.

Explain to me how this could go on week after week without her telling him it isnt ok?

Stockholm syndrome

 

[Underseer]

Who knew Dustin Hoffman was such a dirtbag?

And who knew he was so bald?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-dustin-hoffman-accuser-claims-harassment-physical-violation-broadway-guest-column-1062349

View attachment 13514

One night in Chicago, I felt his hand up under my slip on the inside of my thighs. I was completely surprised and tried to bat him away while watching the stage for my cues. After the show he was busy with the producer and director so I had no access to him to address it. It then happened almost every show. Six to eight shows a week. I couldn’t speak to him in the moment because I was on a live mic. He kept it up and got more and more aggressive. One night he actually started to stick his fingers inside me. Night after night I went home and cried. I withdrew and got depressed and did not have any good interpersonal relationships with the cast. How could the same man who fought to get me the job, who complimented my work, who essentially launched my career, who gave me the benefit of his wisdom as an actor, how could he also be this sexual power abuser? Was I doing something? Was it my fault?

There's a part of me that just wants to see Hollywood taken down. Its always been a bit tiresome and annoying to me to see these sanctimonious hypocritical pricks and cunts getting up on their soapboxes on Oscar night preaching about their pet human rights causes (immigrants, women's rights, LGBT rights, etc). Now many have been busted committing some pretty awful stuff themselves. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and all that stuff.

Sorry, but I don't see how this "Me too" phenomenon is affecting Hollywood any more than any other segment of society, and I definitely don't see how Hollywood is somehow more sanctimonious than any Christian, Muslim, Republican, politician, etc.

 

[RavenSky]

Sorry, but I don't see how this "Me too" phenomenon is affecting Hollywood any more than any other segment of society, and I definitely don't see how Hollywood is somehow more sanctimonious than any Christian, Muslim, Republican, politician, etc.

To the degree that the rich and famous (be that "Hollywood" or people like Trump) have gotten away with this type of shit more so than the average Joe, I think we are seeing a bit of a "take down" of the power people - which is great, imo.

But the reality is that this sort of sexual harassment happens in every segment of society, from the construction worker cat calls to the jackass customer who pulled a Trump on me when I was in my 20's. It isn't even a matter of hypocrisy, imo... this behavior was just so ubiquitous that even the victims and the majority of people who have never engaged in it tended to keep quiet about it - never reporting it or speaking up about it.

It is my hope that with the publicity of the "rich and famous" now suffering consequences for their casual sexual harassment, there will be a paradigm shift all the way through our society.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can add to it, that one of the main complaints I've heard of women regarding men is that they were too obvious. Women seem to like it when men are ambiguous in their intent. And put off when they are too obvious. It comes across as desperate. Not sexy. Likewise men find it a turn off when women are too obvious in what they want. I find the idea that this isn't universally understood bizarre. Grasping this factor is important if you want to have a successful, active and rewarding sex life.

If a person invites somebody to their room, that's about as a clear an indicator that the other person is ever going to get.

Here's an excellent talk by a sexologist on how to keep the sex life alive in a long term relationship. It's applicable to this discussions. One of the major components to good sex is keeping it mysterious and make it feel a little dangerous/edgy. Well... if you can't even do that when you're flirting you won't get into a rewarding long term relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0RUmGTCYY

Dr Z, I am really not sure how much the issue of keeping sex alive in a relationship has to do with the OP, even if I do accept and largely agree with what you are trying to explore in principle, the idea that the what constitutes 'sexual harassment' is both difficult to pin down in many cases and also subject to and informed by complex biological, interpersonal and social factors, and context.

I'm half inclined to say that a separate thread might be a good idea, partly because sex is one of my very favourite general topics, but if we are clear that we are deviating at a slight tangent at least somewhat (given that the OP is about Harvey Weinstein in particular), then we could discuss it here, albeit it may come across to many as if sexual harassment generally is being excused, which I don't think is your angle.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can add to it, that one of the main complaints I've heard of women regarding men is that they were too obvious. Women seem to like it when men are ambiguous in their intent. And put off when they are too obvious. It comes across as desperate. Not sexy. Likewise men find it a turn off when women are too obvious in what they want. I find the idea that this isn't universally understood bizarre. Grasping this factor is important if you want to have a successful, active and rewarding sex life.

If a person invites somebody to their room, that's about as a clear an indicator that the other person is ever going to get.

Here's an excellent talk by a sexologist on how to keep the sex life alive in a long term relationship. It's applicable to this discussions. One of the major components to good sex is keeping it mysterious and make it feel a little dangerous/edgy. Well... if you can't even do that when you're flirting you won't get into a rewarding long term relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0RUmGTCYY

Dr Z, I am really not sure how much the issue of keeping sex alive in a relationship has to do with the OP, even if I do accept and largely agree with what you are trying to explore in principle, the idea that the what constitutes 'sexual harassment' is both difficult to pin down in many cases and also subject to and informed by complex biological, interpersonal and social factors, and context.

I'm half inclined to say that a separate thread might be a good idea, partly because sex is one of my very favourite general topics, but if we are clear that we are deviating at a slight tangent at least somewhat (given that the OP is about Harvey Weinstein in particular), then we could discuss it here, albeit it may come across to many as if sexual harassment generally is being excused, which I don't think is your angle.

I think it is the same topic. It's relevant because actual healthy human sexuality is relevant in a discussion about sexuality gone wrong. I seem to be alone in this thread with acknowledging that it's not always obvious. And there's plenty of room for people to make mistakes. Pretending like it's always obvious when there's consent is being disingenuous.

But people here don't seem to care. They just seem to want to be on the witch hunt. I thought that a free thought and rationalist forum could do better than this and just be honest? But perhaps I'm wrong and this isn't the forum for me?

Not to mention that those who have argued against me in this thread have mostly been really dishonest and haven't made an effort to meet my arguments. They mischaracterise what I'm saying and pretend that I'm defending cases that I'm not. It's interesting to explore the border between acceptable behavior and perhaps acceptable behavior. It's relevant to this topic. I also seem to be the only one acknowledging that there's a grey area between what's clearly acceptable and what isn't. Why is it so scary even talking about it honestly? I honestly don't get it? Why not have a civil conversation about this?

 

[Jon Osterman]

Well, one can certainly have sexual harassment and/or rape in a long terms relationship, including marriage. It is also important to obtain consent there too. No-one should have to tolerate unwelcome sexual touching or flirting, irrespective of their relationship status.

I think popular fiction, movies and TV share a lot of the blame in generating a culture where consent is assumed. We are conditioned to find sexual advances normal even when explicit consent has not been obtained. James Bond just assumes the girl is interested in him.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, one can certainly have sexual harassment and/or rape in a long terms relationship, including marriage. It is also important to obtain consent there too. No-one should have to tolerate unwelcome sexual touching or flirting, irrespective of their relationship status.

True.

I think popular fiction, movies and TV share a lot of the blame in generating a culture where consent is assumed. We are conditioned to find sexual advances normal even when explicit consent has not been obtained. James Bond just assumes the girl is interested in him.

Even more indeed.

And nowadays, so they say, nearly every boy and many girls, get some of their ideas about how to approach girls and about what girls want, from porn.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why not have a civil conversation about this?

Well I haven't been following the thread too closely, so I can't say what might have triggered incivility and unfair accusations. All I can say is I think you have a general point.

I myself don't really know where the line is between harassment and non-harassment, but in practical terms I'd say one reasonable place is at the point someone says the actions are unwelcome, if they do. There might of course be reasons they don't, so it could still be deemed harassment, I suppose.

 

[ruby sparks]

If a person invites somebody to their room, that's about as a clear an indicator that the other person is ever going to get.

It's definitely possible you were misconstrued here. Even if you've invited someone into your room, even if it's a bedroom, they can still harass you (and worse), obviously.

 

[Jon Osterman]

I myself don't really know where the line is between harassment and non-harassment, but in practical terms I'd say one reasonable place is at the point someone says the actions are unwelcome, if they do. There might of course be reasons they don't, so it could still be deemed harassment, I suppose.

I suspect that in the large majority of sexual harassments, the victim never vocalises their lack of consent or discomfort. Indeed, many of the instances coming to light recently have been situations where the victim felt they could not vocalise this for fear of unwelcome consequences to career or even wellbeing.

This is why it is essential to gain active consent, and even more essential to not engage in sexual activities with anyone who may have a reason to not vocalise the withholding of consent (for example, an employee or subordinate or anyone over whom you have power).

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well, one can certainly have sexual harassment and/or rape in a long terms relationship, including marriage. It is also important to obtain consent there too. No-one should have to tolerate unwelcome sexual touching or flirting, irrespective of their relationship status.

Agreed. But how is this in any way relevant to what I said? Please, can you stop virtue signalling? You seem desperate to position yourself as a good guy by saying all the obvious stuff. You don't need to. I'm sure you're a great guy. As most people are. But the obvious stuff is obvious to everyone. So let's not discuss that? How about if we talk about the stuff around the edges? You know.... where things go bad? Good guys ending up doing bad stuff is a more interesting discussion than talking about evil people doing evil. Don't you agree? I have zero interest in discussing exactly how much like Hitler Weinstein is.

I think popular fiction, movies and TV share a lot of the blame in generating a culture where consent is assumed. We are conditioned to find sexual advances normal even when explicit consent has not been obtained. James Bond just assumes the girl is interested in him.

I don't think it has to do with conditioning. I think it's just shame. Shame of being rejected. We have a culture (as in human culture) where we expect ambiguous advances, just so when we are rejected it won't hurt as much, and we can deny having made the move. I think this is about as deep down and core (to what it means to be human), as we can get. We're a social species. Insecurity and shame will always be a major obstacle to us. I think that's the elephant in the room. So we're faced with a situation where signals, wishes and consents going in both directions will be ambiguous and vague. We're not going to solve that. So we need to accept that and work around it. If we do want to solve it. If all this is is a witch hunt... by all means... continue as you are. But count me out.

I don't think it's unsolvable. But it does require a mature and adult conversation around it. We haven't been able to do so in this thread.

I posted this talk earlier in this thread. It's by the social psychologist Carol Tavris. It's an excellent talk on exactly this. All her books and videos are fantastic btw, on a variety of topics. She's a genius. And funny. Anyhoo... she spells it out way better than I could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMi0UtvTIc