Louis CK & Other Hollywood/Celebrity Types Sexual Misconduct

[Ben E Lou]

Music Mogul Russell Simmons Is Accused of Rape by 3 Women - The New York Times

[JPhillips]

Of all of them, Simmons may be the worst. He's a really dangerous guy.

[PilotMan]

I really hope more and more come forward. Shit has been going on far too long.

[DanGarion]

Miguel Sano Betsy on Twitter: "This is not easy for me to share, but I feel I need to share it. This is my story. #metoo https://t.co/PM6g6YuABf" is now on the clock.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Miguel Sano Betsy on Twitter: "This is not easy for me to share, but I feel I need to share it. This is my story. #metoo https://t.co/PM6g6YuABf" is now on the clock.

Looks like she has protected her tweets now.

[Toddzilla]

i can't imagine all the abuse she's getting from the mouth breathers

[Suicane75]

What does the police report say?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

What does the police report say?

Same thing the fox says

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Butter

You're a hapless rube.

I <3 this insult as much as 'feckless cur'

[GrantDawg]

I'm going to post a wall text here with random thoughts on the situation. I expect that no one will actually read it, but I hope some do and pick it apart or add their own thoughts. Mostly, I want to see if I am way off base, or if anyone can see what I am thinking here.

I think in most ways this "purge" is a very good thing. It has been needed, and long over-due. This systematic abuse of woman has always existed in the work place, and has survived especially strong in the entertainment industry. The fact is, this will probably never completely go way. Some men (and in some cases women) will probably always use their positions of power or prestige to create a hunting field to prey on people below them for their sexual appetites. Men of power especially often have a high sense of entitlement. Adding control over someones career in the mix, then you have the recipe for abuse. With the revelations and the consequence of such, it might make some of those men pause. It will also make it much harder for such men to get away with as they have in the past.

Some of these revelations have been big shocks (Garrison Keillor, really?). Some just shouldn't have been. I was surprised by Matt Lauer initially. Mostly how rapid it came down. Yet, once I thought about it, it really wasn't shocking. The rumors of his affairs had been pretty much out there for years. To the point just a few years ago his wife filed for divorce, and it was the very open secret (or in other words, not a secret) that his sleeping with co-workers was the cause. He had ran off a co-worker that he had been in an affair with, and he had stalled the career of a few others that had not been receptive to him. All was public rumored at the time, but NBC had protected him from being officially outed numerous times.

Of course, Weinstien was the same, if not worse. Not only rumors, but open "jokes" about his abuse of power has been common for years. Allegations had been even public record in the past, but his power and influence had kept any from becoming dangerous to his position. The same can be said to a lesser extent of Louis CK. When the dominoes started falling after Weinstien, it was actually my first thought "how long till Louis CK gets caught up in this?" His masturbating in front of female comedians again had been openly known. This movement allowed that to be exposed more than just a few jokes. The consequences should help to stop these thing from, if not ever occurring, then to not become serial or systematic as often.

My fear, though, is the consequences of all this can be quite dangerous. So far, most of these allegations have had a good bit of supporting evidence. Multiple accusers describing the same things occurring at different times with friends and colleagues confirming being told about them at the time it occurred. That makes for about as strong of evidence for this type of crime as you generally get (short of video or audio evidence). The nature of the misdeeds being "he said/she said" type actions also makes this current "witch-hunt" feel to these last couple of months troubling.

The "Me, Too" movement has been a driving force to expose much of the downfall of these systematic abusers. It has been a very good motivator to get these women (and men) to openly reveal what has happened to them in the past, and stop the cycle of abuse. What worries me, though, is the idea behind this movement is that we should never question the statement of the alleged abuser. Since this has all been trialed in the court of public opinion, the lack of ability to even question the accuser is very dangerous. I understand the motivation behind it. It is easier for a woman to come forward if there is no fear of being shouted down as a liar or "slut-shamed" for somehow "asking for it". I don't think I am calling for that to occur, and a suppression of that kind of destroying a witness is a very good thing. When the evidence is "he said/she said" the inability to even question the statement of the accuser means an "guilty till proven innocent" situation, and basically one allegation totally destroying a persons career.

Another open secret that exists, especially in entertainment, is the "casting couch". Sometimes it is the casting director or agent offering the quid-pro-qou of "sleep with me, and I'll get you this role". Other times, though, it is the other way around. People do often offer sex to get ahead. I remember one time when I was young and working in a pizza restaurant. My friend was a general manager, and the store had a opening at manager. One girl wanted that job so bad, that she pulled my friend in the office, removed her coat with nothing underneath and said "I want to be manager". If someone would do that for a crappy job at a pizza restaurant, imagine what people would do to fulfill their life's dream of becoming a star. Now how easy would it be to turn that around and say "I was abused" if they want vengeance on the person that rejected them, or even did have sex with them but didn't fulfill their ambition?

I don't have the answer to all this. I don't know if their is one. What say you? I'm sure most of you are smarter than me. What is your answer?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm going to post a wall text here with random thoughts on the situation. I expect that no one will actually read it, but I hope some do and pick it apart or add their own thoughts. Mostly, I want to see if I am way off base, or if anyone can see what I am thinking here.

I think in most ways this "purge" is a very good thing. It has been needed, and long over-due. This systematic abuse of woman has always existed in the work place, and has survived especially strong in the entertainment industry. The fact is, this will probably never completely go way. Some men (and in some cases women) will probably always use their positions of power or prestige to create a hunting field to prey on people below them for their sexual appetites. Men of power especially often have a high sense of entitlement. Adding control over someones career in the mix, then you have the recipe for abuse. With the revelations and the consequence of such, it might make some of those men pause. It will also make it much harder for such men to get away with as they have in the past.

Some of these revelations have been big shocks (Garrison Keillor, really?). Some just shouldn't have been. I was surprised by Matt Lauer initially. Mostly how rapid it came down. Yet, once I thought about it, it really wasn't shocking. The rumors of his affairs had been pretty much out there for years. To the point just a few years ago his wife filed for divorce, and it was the very open secret (or in other words, not a secret) that his sleeping with co-workers was the cause. He had ran off a co-worker that he had been in an affair with, and he had stalled the career of a few others that had not been receptive to him. All was public rumored at the time, but NBC had protected him from being officially outed numerous times.

Of course, Weinstien was the same, if not worse. Not only rumors, but open "jokes" about his abuse of power has been common for years. Allegations had been even public record in the past, but his power and influence had kept any from becoming dangerous to his position. The same can be said to a lesser extent of Louis CK. When the dominoes started falling after Weinstien, it was actually my first thought "how long till Louis CK gets caught up in this?" His masturbating in front of female comedians again had been openly known. This movement allowed that to be exposed more than just a few jokes. The consequences should help to stop these thing from, if not ever occurring, then to not become serial or systematic as often.

My fear, though, is the consequences of all this can be quite dangerous. So far, most of these allegations have had a good bit of supporting evidence. Multiple accusers describing the same things occurring at different times with friends and colleagues confirming being told about them at the time it occurred. That makes for about as strong of evidence for this type of crime as you generally get (short of video or audio evidence). The nature of the misdeeds being "he said/she said" type actions also makes this current "witch-hunt" feel to these last couple of months troubling.

The "Me, Too" movement has been a driving force to expose much of the downfall of these systematic abusers. It has been a very good motivator to get these women (and men) to openly reveal what has happened to them in the past, and stop the cycle of abuse. What worries me, though, is the idea behind this movement is that we should never question the statement of the alleged abuser. Since this has all been trialed in the court of public opinion, the lack of ability to even question the accuser is very dangerous. I understand the motivation behind it. It is easier for a woman to come forward if there is no fear of being shouted down as a liar or "slut-shamed" for somehow "asking for it". I don't think I am calling for that to occur, and a suppression of that kind of destroying a witness is a very good thing. When the evidence is "he said/she said" the inability to even question the statement of the accuser means an "guilty till proven innocent" situation, and basically one allegation totally destroying a persons career.

Another open secret that exists, especially in entertainment, is the "casting couch". Sometimes it is the casting director or agent offering the quid-pro-qou of "sleep with me, and I'll get you this role". Other times, though, it is the other way around. People do often offer sex to get ahead. I remember one time when I was young and working in a pizza restaurant. My friend was a general manager, and the store had a opening at manager. One girl wanted that job so bad, that she pulled my friend in the office, removed her coat with nothing underneath and said "I want to be manager". If someone would do that for a crappy job at a pizza restaurant, imagine what people would do to fulfill their life's dream of becoming a star. Now how easy would it be to turn that around and say "I was abused" if they want vengeance on the person that rejected them, or even did have sex with them but didn't fulfill their ambition?

I don't have the answer to all this. I don't know if their is one. What say you? I'm sure most of you are smarter than me. What is your answer?

I can’t speak for the #MeToo movement but in talking to female family and friends the problem is that we rarely ever question the accused or the accused’s statement. It is the presumption innocence that IS given to the accused while implicitly (or explicitly) casting guilty eyes towards the accuser. Until very recently, the way the “he said/ she said” scenario has worked is she accuses, we question her statement and her life choices, he says he did not do what he has been accused of, we all move on. If the accuser is unlucky, we accuse them of having evil intentions, post coital regrets etc. It’s only when it becomes he said/ she said/ and another she said/ and another she said… that we even consider questioning the accused. I don’t want a world where one allegation equals a destruction of a person’s career.

What I would like to see is one allegation lead to an investigation and consequences be brought down as required be it on the guilty accused or the false accuser. One question I have asked myself throughout all of this. Is it possible to stop the next Harvey Weinstein at one victim or do we need 10, 20, 50, victims before that person is stopped?

Side question: Have we had a man come out and accuse a powerful woman of sexual misconduct/ sexual assault yet? I am pretty sure the answer is no, but I may have missed one.

[Scoobz0202]

Mariah Carey, I think?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

What I would like to see is one allegation lead to an investigation and consequences be brought down as required be it on the guilty accused or the false accuser. One question I have asked myself throughout all of this. Is it possible to stop the next Harvey Weinstein at one victim or do we need 10, 20, 50, victims before that person is stopped?

It is a good question, and not easily answered. I agree that in the past, many times the accused got away with things and often the accuser was totally destroyed. No question, making it easier for victims to come forward without the fear of being attacked is better, and should be the goal. We are still not anywhere near that. These accusers are being celebrated for the strength of coming forward, and that has encouraged others that have been silent to speak out. All very good.

They are still being attacked from some circles, though. I don't think in the end that this problem is going to be solved by taking it to the court of public opinion. Backlash is going to occur. Legitimate victims are going to be attacked and have their private lives exposed. Innocent people are going to be falsely accused and be destroyed.

Having more of this investigated behind close doors would be better, but still not totally safe. It would be better to have professionals investigate before allegations become public record, but then that has basically already been the case in many of these reports. People filed complaints, but where bought off before it became public. Some claims where investigated and went nowhere. Powerful people have powerful lawyers that can destroy the accusers claims.

I'm still not suggesting the answer, more pointing out worries. I'm pretty sure there will never be a perfect answer. Just hopefully some kind of balance.

[tarcone]

I agree with the keeping it private sentiment. I look at those Duke kids who got killed in the media when the accusations turned out to be false. A lot of guilty until proven innocent there.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where people want their 15 minutes. And both sides are getting crushed.

I dont think there is an answer. in the case of a he said/she said, it is tough sledding. The accuser has the fear of not being believed and figuratively killed in their life, while the accused has the same thing.

I guess you should keep yourself out of situations where bad things can happen. I use the example of my 16 year old daughter getting invited to a party tonight. It is a HS party where no one can leave. Sounds like an accident waiting to happen. She doesnt drink, but we all know how drunk HS boys can act. She isnt allowed to go. And, honestly, I dont think she wants to. There was no fight about, she made alternative plans to hang out with a friend whose parents wont let her go either.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It is a good question, and not easily answered. I agree that in the past, many times the accused got away with things and often the accuser was totally destroyed. No question, making it easier for victims to come forward without the fear of being attacked is better, and should be the goal. We are still not anywhere near that. These accusers are being celebrated for the strength of coming forward, and that has encouraged others that have been silent to speak out. All very good.

They are still being attacked from some circles, though. I don't think in the end that this problem is going to be solved by taking it to the court of public opinion. Backlash is going to occur. Legitimate victims are going to be attacked and have their private lives exposed. Innocent people are going to be falsely accused and be destroyed.

Having more of this investigated behind close doors would be better, but still not totally safe. It would be better to have professionals investigate before allegations become public record, but then that has basically already been the case in many of these reports. People filed complaints, but where bought off before it became public. Some claims where investigated and went nowhere. Powerful people have powerful lawyers that can destroy the accusers claims.

I'm still not suggesting the answer, more pointing out worries. I'm pretty sure there will never be a perfect answer. Just hopefully some kind of balance.

I am not accusing you of this, but so much of the debate has seemed to immediately run to protecting those that MIGHT be falsely accused in the future while ignoring the legitimate victims of the present and those that will be legitimately victimized in the future. I don't feel like we care that much about the falsely accused in other areas of misconduct and other crimes in our society. Now we should care more about the falsely accused in all areas but we don't. That difference does lead me to ask why.

To be clear. No one should have to go through the horror of being falsely accused of any misconduct or crime especially of this nature given the stigma attached. I am sure we all would love to put things in place where such a thing does not happen. If it does happen, I would want the person who is making the false accusation to get the harshest punishment possible. I would like to think we also want to put things in place where the victims of misconduct and assault can go to the authorities and actually have their claims be taken seriously while not being attacked and having the stigma attached. Until those things happen, I am not sure what victims are supposed to do outside of going to the public to get some "justice". Again, I admittedly go to the extreme of the Weinstein case. It was an "open secret" for two decades. The victims were only taken seriously when it was brought out in the public and people began to hear the same story over and over. The court of public opinion is the only place where Weinstein has been held to account. At this point that IS the only non-violent way these things are taken seriously.

I agree with your call for balance. Unfortunately we are aiming for balance on the scales of injustice. If we have to accept that "Legitimate victims are going to be attacked and have their private lives exposed." and "Powerful people have powerful lawyers that can destroy the accusers claims." even in cases when there is legitimate misconduct, assault and abuse, the only thing we have to balance that on the scale of injustice is accepting that "Innocent people are going to be falsely accused and be destroyed." I don't know if we can begin combat the latter without dealing with the former two. I do think that when we do, we will be much closer to a balance of justice we are supposedly looking for.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I am not accusing you of this, but so much of the debate has seemed to immediately run to protecting those that MIGHT be falsely accused in the future while ignoring the legitimate victims of the present and those that will be legitimately victimized in the future. I don't feel like we care that much about the falsely accused in other areas of misconduct and other crimes in our society. Now we should care more about the falsely accused in all areas but we don't. That difference does lead me to ask why.

I appreciate that you are not accusing me of this, because it is far from my motivation. Actually, I just wanted a discussion. I wanted to broach a subject that recently seems to be carefully avoided, because it can easily sound like you are defending the accused and attacking the accuser. I hope that what I wrote made it clear that I am in no way trying to silence victims. I am just openly wondering if there is a way that we can protect both sides from have their life destroyed unfairly.

As for "we don't care about the falsely accused in other crimes," you are talking to the wrong person about that. I do care. It is just that these kind of crimes tend to get way more attention (sex sells copy). People can be accused in other crimes and survive with their lives mostly intact if found innocent. But any high-press coverage type crimes makes that much harder. On top of that, what we have going right now is "trial by mob." Keep in mind, no one has been convicted of anything in this yet by an actual court.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I agree with the keeping it private sentiment. I look at those Duke kids who got killed in the media when the accusations turned out to be false. A lot of guilty until proven innocent there.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where people want their 15 minutes. And both sides are getting crushed.

I dont think there is an answer. in the case of a he said/she said, it is tough sledding. The accuser has the fear of not being believed and figuratively killed in their life, while the accused has the same thing.

I guess you should keep yourself out of situations where bad things can happen. I use the example of my 16 year old daughter getting invited to a party tonight. It is a HS party where no one can leave. Sounds like an accident waiting to happen. She doesnt drink, but we all know how drunk HS boys can act. She isnt allowed to go. And, honestly, I dont think she wants to. There was no fight about, she made alternative plans to hang out with a friend whose parents wont let her go either.

Yeah, the Duke thing is a prime example of what I am talking about. On the flip side, the Penn State scandal is the prime example of the other side. In one the boys were convicted by the mob. The other, the system totally failed to protect, and the fear of the humiliation kept the abused silent for decades. I think what is happening now is a good thing. We need to encourage victims of abuse to come forward and protect them. Let's face it, there are way more legit acts of abuse that are never reported or silenced if they are reported, than false accusations. Maybe the answer is we do need this time of "trial by mob" to swing the balance of more attackers being shamed and convicted.

As to your last comment, yes it seems reasonable to suggest that people should protect themselves. You have to be careful in this current even making that suggestion, or you will be accused of "blaming the victim." Honestly, in most cases it was not that the victim put themselves in a dangerous position. A seemingly innocent situation can turn into something horribly wrong. Other times, you can hear these stories and think "what did he/she think was going to happen?" Even then, though, it is not the victims fault. Maybe it was bad judgement to go back to the hotel room with this person, but that does not give a green flag for assault.

Again, I'm not giving answers because I have none.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I appreciate that you are not accusing me of this, because it is far from my motivation. Actually, I just wanted a discussion. I wanted to broach a subject that recently seems to be carefully avoided, because it can easily sound like you are defending the accused and attacking the accuser. I hope that what I wrote made it clear that I am in no way trying to silence victims. I am just openly wondering if there is a way that we can protect both sides from have their life destroyed unfairly.

As for "we don't care about the falsely accused in other crimes," you are talking to the wrong person about that. I do care. It is just that these kind of crimes tend to get way more attention (sex sells copy). People can be accused in other crimes and survive with their lives mostly intact if found innocent. But any high-press coverage type crimes makes that much harder. On top of that, what we have going right now is "trial by mob." Keep in mind, no one has been convicted of anything in this yet by an actual court.

My use of "we" is done in a royal sense as opposed to anything personal. I appreciate the discussion as I think that there are several different ones to be had within this realm.

Maybe it would be better to define what the sides should be and what they are IMO. I think that people who suffer misconduct/assault and those who are false accused of perpetuating misconduct/assault are both victims. To me, those two groups should be aligned on one side (Side A) against those who actually abuse and those who falsely accuse (Side B). If the members of Side A are pitted against one another, it sets up more of what we have now. Legitimate victims of misconduct/assault loosely aligning with those that falsely accuse on one side. Legitimate victims of false accusations loosely aligning with the perpetrators of abuse on the other. Not to dump any more volatility into this but it reminds me of people joining prison gangs based on race in order to feel protected despite having no issues whatsoever with the other races. That was part of the reason for my question about women abusing men. The current setup makes this it a men vs women issue. My setup does not. Here is the problem. There is much more risk for the individual groups in Side A to align compared to the groups in Side B. Who takes the first step? I have no answers.

Regarding the "caring", first again Royal "we" is at play here. Second, I present to you...history. Moving forward "we" may do better. However, I feel like history has provided enough evidence that society has done a better job protecting the accused (including those that are falsely accused) than protecting the accuser (including those that false accuse) when it comes to sexual misconduct and sexual crimes. That is not to discount the very real effects of false accusations on the falsely accused.

One question about about the "protect yourself" discussion. What are the other options besides avoidance does a potential victim get to use to protect themselves. Why don't we suggest all potential victims avoid all potential situations where they can be violated? This is what I mean by being more concerned with the accused than we are with the accuser. The push in our country is that potential victims should not HAVE to avoid their potential attackers. They have a right to be protect themselves not just from an attack. They have the right to protect themselves from a potential attack. The push has been for the laws to protect the potential victims' right to self defense. Why is society still telling victims and potential victims in this area to avoid a potential attacker at all costs?

[tarcone]

I dont think avoidance is the best thing to do. You cant stay at home and live a very happy, healthy life, BUT dont go to a meeting by yourself with a sketchy character. Why cant you bring a friend? Avoid getting hammered at a party. I tell my girls never leave your drink unattended and if you do, get a new one. Things of this nature are for self preservation and are not avoiding.

Avoidance isnt necessarily what I am saying. But being proactive in your everyday life is important.

There are some scary, crazy people out there. Getting caught alone when your defenseless is not the smartest thing to do.

But if you do get caught in this situation, I am very much in favor of helping the victim. But there needs to be a private investigation to make sure the falsely accused are not ruined. And the false accusers are not glorified.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Regarding the "caring", first again Royal "we" is at play here. Second, I present to you...history. Moving forward "we" may do better. However, I feel like history has provided enough evidence that society has done a better job protecting the accused (including those that are falsely accused) than protecting the accuser (including those that false accuse) when it comes to sexual misconduct and sexual crimes. That is not to discount the very real effects of false accusations on the falsely accused.

No doubt. Really it may be that it is time that we just admit there always will be an injustice one or another. In the end it may be better that we protect the much larger group (victims of assault) versus the much smaller subset (the falsely accused). In the end, yes they are both victims. The falsely accused have to be a fraction of the number of actual victims. In the ideal, we would protect both, but there never will be an ideal. Protecting the accused may save the falsely accused, but at the price of a large number of victims.

And as aside, I have been trying to be somewhat PC in the way I way I have been referring to this, but the fact is this is a men vs. women issue. The number of women guilty of this is probably such a small number that it could literally be a rounding error. Men victimize women by huge factor more than women to men. Heck, men victimize men probably by a higher rate than women victimize men. Of course, power has a large influence on this, and women are gaining more power to allow an increase of women predators, but is doubtful that their numbers will ever be anywhere close to the number of male predators.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

One question about about the "protect yourself" discussion. What are the other options besides avoidance does a potential victim get to use to protect themselves. Why don't we suggest all potential victims avoid all potential situations where they can be violated? This is what I mean by being more concerned with the accused than we are with the accuser. The push in our country is that potential victims should not HAVE to avoid their potential attackers. They have a right to be protect themselves not just from an attack. They have the right to protect themselves from a potential attack. The push has been for the laws to protect the potential victims' right to self defense. Why is society still telling victims and potential victims in this area to avoid a potential attacker at all costs?

Extremes are the problem here. No one is going to protect themselves from all potential situations. The idea, though, that we will ever get to a situation that people (and here women, but really this could be said of a lot of potential crimes) will not need to protect themselves from possible crimes is pretty pie-in-the-sky. There are riskier actions than others. I travel for work into a huge number of high crime areas. It would be silly for me not to try to be aware of my surroundings. Should I have to? No. Should I? Hell yes. If I am a victim of a crime, I could look back and say "I should have...". That still doesn't make me at fault some how. The criminal is always the guilty party, even if I leave my car unlocked, or go into a sketchy alley. Some kind of common sense is needed.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont think avoidance is the best thing to do. You cant stay at home and live a very happy, healthy life, BUT dont go to a meeting by yourself with a sketchy character. Why cant you bring a friend? Avoid getting hammered at a party. I tell my girls never leave your drink unattended and if you do, get a new one. Things of this nature are for self preservation and are not avoiding.

Avoidance isnt necessarily what I am saying. But being proactive in your everyday life is important.

There are some scary, crazy people out there. Getting caught alone when your defenseless is not the smartest thing to do.

But if you do get caught in this situation, I am very much in favor of helping the victim. But there needs to be a private investigation to make sure the falsely accused are not ruined. And the false accusers are not glorified.

I was talking more in keeping with the spirit of the thread. For example, you have to meet a sketchy character like Harvey Weinstein for employment.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No doubt. Really it may be that it is time that we just admit there always will be an injustice one or another. In the end it may be better that we protect the much larger group (victims of assault) versus the much smaller subset (the falsely accused). In the end, yes they are both victims. The falsely accused have to be a fraction of the number of actual victims. In the ideal, we would protect both, but there never will be an ideal. Protecting the accused may save the falsely accused, but at the price of a large number of victims.

I would like to think that protecting the victims would weed out the false accusers but I don't know that to be true.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And as aside, I have been trying to be somewhat PC in the way I way I have been referring to this, but the fact is this is a men vs. women issue. The number of women guilty of this is probably such a small number that it could literally be a rounding error. Men victimize women by huge factor more than women to men. Heck, men victimize men probably by a higher rate than women victimize men. Of course, power has a large influence on this, and women are gaining more power to allow an increase of women predators, but is doubtful that their numbers will ever be anywhere close to the number of male predators.

Define the issue. If the issue is sexual misconduct and sexual crimes, I don't think that is as simple as men vs women. I feel pretty comfortable saying that most men who are falsely accused are not for those things.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Extremes are the problem here. No one is going to protect themselves from all potential situations. The idea, though, that we will ever get to a situation that people (and here women, but really this could be said of a lot of potential crimes) will not need to protect themselves from possible crimes is pretty pie-in-the-sky. There are riskier actions than others. I travel for work into a huge number of high crime areas. It would be silly for me not to try to be aware of my surroundings. Should I have to? No. Should I? Hell yes. If I am a victim of a crime, I could look back and say "I should have...". That still doesn't make me at fault some how. The criminal is always the guilty party, even if I leave my car unlocked, or go into a sketchy alley. Some kind of common sense is needed.

As I mentioned before I am talking about more about workplace situations as opposed to out on the streets. So I pose the same rhetorical response that I posed to tarcone. You are meeting with Harvey Weinstein for your employment in his office. He does what he does. What is the proactive measure for that? What about the proactive measures for the button under Matt Lauer's desk I don't know have an answer for that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I would like to think that protecting the victims would weed out the false accusers but I don't know that to be true.

Yeah, don't see how.

Define the issue. If the issue is sexual misconduct and sexual crimes, I don't think that is as simple as men vs women. I feel pretty comfortable saying that most men who are falsely accused are not for those things.

Who said anything about anybody being "for" sexual misconduct? I'm saying what we are mainly talking about is assaults on women from men.

As I mentioned before I am talking about more about workplace situations as opposed to out on the streets. So I pose the same rhetorical response that I posed to tarcone. You are meeting with Harvey Weinstein for your employment in his office. He does what he does. What is the proactive measure for that? What about the proactive measures for the button under Matt Lauer's desk I don't know have an answer for that.

I was using an analogy. The two situations you describe would be situations that I would agree be almost impossible to defend yourself from. But going alone to Weinstien's hotel room is something you can "not do" (and where most of his conduct occurred). Lauer's desk would be something difficult to forsee, but going to his hotel at the Olympics drunk is again something you could prevent. I'm not sure where you going with this, because I believe I clearly stated you cannot possible defend yourself from every situation, but there are some situations that you can.

[miami_fan]

Given the power dynamic I don't know if there is a difference between his office and his hotel room.

[CrimsonFox]

Holy crap! Missed this one.

Danny Masterson from That 70s Show.

Accused of rape and kicked off The Ranch by Netflix

Netflix Ousts Actor Danny Masterson Amid Rape Allegations | HuffPost

[GrantDawg]

French celebrities to men's rescue: Catherine Deneuve, French Artists Defend Men’s Right To Hit On Women | Deadline

[NobodyHere]

Five women accuse actor James Franco of inappropriate or sexually exploitative behavior

James Franco has responded by saying, "I did not hit her, it's not true! It's bullshit! I did not hit her! I did not!"

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Five women accuse actor James Franco of inappropriate or sexually exploitative behavior

James Franco has responded by saying, "I did not hit her, it's not true! It's bullshit! I did not hit her! I did not!"

These women are tearing him apart?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Five women accuse actor James Franco of inappropriate or sexually exploitative behavior

James Franco has responded by saying, "I did not hit her, it's not true! It's bullshit! I did not hit her! I did not!"

Not surprised at all by this. Always thought dude was a smug douchebag, and his face is more punchable than Ted Cruz's.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Not surprised at all by this. Always thought dude was a smug douchebag, and his face is more punchable than Ted Cruz's.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

French celebrities to men's rescue: Catherine Deneuve, French Artists Defend Men’s Right To Hit On Women | Deadline

I love the sensibility of the statements made in that article. Really shines a light on the differences in how sex and sexuality are viewed between the French and Americans, and makes a man wish we could adopt that way of thinking here. Without discounting the validity of rape and predatory behavior, the aggressiveness and hate filled mindset of the more extreme proponents of "feminism" is made apparent.

In a country as extreme as America is getting, a reasonable and well made point is refreshing I guess.

[RainMaker]

I'm all for calling out predators but the piece on Aziz Ansari is not even close to sexual assault. That's just ridiculous.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed. Not even that but it's gift to people who were waiting to sink the #MeToo movement - because it's so ridiculous an example.

[thesloppy]

I'm not exactly crying over the Ansari story, because it sounds like he was at best a remarkably shitty date (what's with sticking his fingers down her throat multiple times?), he wasn't accused of assault, since every little detail was revealed we can all make our own judgments, and he hasn't actually lost any work at this point.

Likewise I can empathize with the complaint that this woman was not very pro-active about expressing her thoughts & feelings, and he shouldn't have to be a mind reader, but he wouldn't have to be a mind reader if he'd simply verbalized his own intentions at any point. We've probably all been on some version of an awkward date like this, where one party is more interested than the other, but not confident enough to put it into words, and it turns into some ridiculous non-verbal ballet of confused overtures....but I also never crossed a few of those lines that Ansari did (undressing immediately, sticking fingers down the throat, pointing at my penis and expecting a blow job)

He seems genuinely contrite and confused, and it may change (for the positive) how he treats dates/women in the future. I'm not sure there's a chance of that happening (or at least not as much of a chance) if this laundry isn't aired in public, and if the worst he takes is a public drubbing for an entirely accurate account of his own shitty behavior, than I'm totally OK with that.

....and yet with all that said, I sure wouldn't want this example to become the new standard for reporting or judging sexual misconduct, and I don't think Aziz should suffer anything more than facing his own shitty behavior.

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm all for calling out predators but the piece on Aziz Ansari is not even close to sexual assault. That's just ridiculous.

I don't think anyone's saying it's sexual assault or to charge him of anything. It is creepy behavior that is more newsworthy for coming from someone whose schtick is very much "woke male feminist" (he literally wrote a book about how to date in the 21st century) in the same way it would be more newsworthy to see a married, anti-gay politician using Grindr.

[muns]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

....and yet with all that said, I sure wouldn't want this example to become the new standard for reporting or judging sexual misconduct, and I don't think Aziz should suffer anything more than facing his own shitty behavior.

But for young people (just coming out of college) it sure is. They have been taught different rules because Obama and Biden made sexual assault a political animal.

Now you have this then 22 year old (I'm making an assumption she went to NYU as her and Aziz talked about NYU on their date), being taught by NYU what sexual assault is in college, but that's not what sexual assault is out in the real world.

So she has in her mind what she has been taught, and knows if this occurred on NYU's campus Aziz would go down for assault.

I'm making another assumption she came out thinking it would help and she could contribute to the movement (or she just wants her little piece of fame) but the reality is it doesn't. In the real world you have to be able to speak up for yourself in those situations, and the guy doesn't have to do it for you.

In college, the guy has to do it for you, otherwise, the game is over.

The rules are different and my guess is you are going to start to see more of this crap happening now that these college students are joining the real world.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

pointing at my penis and expecting a blow job

OTOH, that move did work...

[molson]

Assuming everything in the article is true (and who the hell knows), Aziz falls comfortably somewhere between considerate human behavior and Harvey Weinstein.

Stories like and the reaction to them really make you wonder if this is the norm. I've probably underestimated exactly how much shit women put up with they're dating.

As a man, if your general primary goal is to get laid, you're aggressive as possible in obtaining that, and nothing is going to stop your attempts except a firm verbal denial, you will probably stay on the right side of the law. But you're not a good person and you certainly don't respect women.

I wonder, how much is this the norm, and how much is a symptom of celebrity. Harvey Weinstein even said on the audio recording where he was trying to rape that model - he's used to getting what he wants. I wonder if a celebrity like Ansari, (or just other good looking young guys who get laid a lot), are just so used to getting what they want sexually that they really don't pick up on cues, or, they have just a line in their head and until they hear that from the woman, it's full speed ahead.

The Ansari thing sounds like a step beyond mere not recognizing cues though. Putting your fingers down a woman's throat and then immediately groping her sounds like a deliberate technique - surprise a woman with something strange and physical jarring, and then immediately grope her, and there's a few seconds before she really grasps what you're doing, so she's less likely to resist. Also, pulling a woman's hand towards your dick after she pulls it away several times? Escalating the sexual contact after she verbalizes that she wants to take things more slowly? He's a creep.

But the defenses of the behavior I'm reading make wonder, maybe this is the norm. Maybe this is truly what is expected from men and this is morally OK at this point in time, in this country, in 2017. If so, I wonder if we've kind of regressed over the last 20 years. I remember my college orientation stuff 20 years ago. The lesson wasn't "no means no," because, no shit, everyone knows that. The lesson was more about respecting other people, and erring on the side of sexual constraint until the consent is actually clear. In my own mind, I was so terrified of hearing that firm "no", because that meant I already went too far. And something's been really lost in the courtship process if this really is the norm now. It is possible to hit on a woman, to her her know your feelings and intentions, without groping them, sticking your fingers down their throat, or pulling their hand towards your dick.

If things are going well in the conversation portion of the evening, a little non-sexual physical contact can go a long way to letting you know what the other person is really up for. When you just immediately go to groping and sexual touching, it's true, some less-than-confident women are going to be overwhelmed and aren't going to verbally or physically resist. But if that's the goal, and all you care about is not committing rape, I guess you're good to go and I guess that's why lack of confidence actually becomes a desirable trait in a woman.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

Assuming everything in the article is true (and who the hell knows), Aziz falls comfortably somewhere between considerate human behavior and Harvey Weinstein.

Stories like and the reaction to them really make you wonder if this is the norm. I've probably underestimated exactly how much shit women put up with they're dating.

As a man, if your general primary goal is to get laid, you're aggressive as possible in obtaining that, and nothing is going to stop your attempts except a firm verbal denial, you will probably stay on the right side of the law. But you're not a good person and you certainly don't respect women.

I wonder, how much is this the norm, and how much is a symptom of celebrity. Harvey Weinstein even said on the audio recording where he was trying to rape that model - he's used to getting what he wants. I wonder if a celebrity like Ansari, (or just other good looking young guys who get laid a lot), are just so used to getting what they want sexually that they really don't pick up on cues, or, they have just a line in their head and until they hear that from the woman, it's full speed ahead.

The Ansari thing sounds like a step beyond mere not recognizing cues though. Putting your fingers down a woman's throat and then immediately groping her sounds like a deliberate technique - surprise a woman with something strange and physical jarring, and then immediately grope her, and there's a few seconds before she really grasps what you're doing, so she's less likely to resist. Also, pulling a woman's hand towards your dick after she pulls it away several times? Escalating the sexual contact after she verbalizes that she wants to take things more slowly? He's a creep.

But the defenses of the behavior I'm reading make wonder, maybe this is the norm. Maybe this is truly what is expected from men and this is morally OK at this point in time, in this country, in 2017. If so, I wonder if we've kind of regressed over the last 20 years. I remember my college orientation stuff 20 years ago. The lesson wasn't "no means no," because, no shit, everyone knows that. The lesson was more about respecting other people, and erring on the side of sexual constraint until the consent is actually clear. In my own mind, I was so terrified of hearing that firm "no", because that meant I already went too far. And something's been really lost in the courtship process if this really is the norm now. It is possible to hit a woman, to her her know your feelings and intentions, without groping them, sticking your fingers down their throat, or pulling their hand towards your dick.

If things are going well in the conversation portion of the evening, a little non-sexual physical contact can go a long way to letting you know what the other person is really up for. When you just immediately go to groping and sexual touching, it's true, some less-than-confident women are going to be overwhelmed and aren't going to verbally or physically resist. But if that's the goal, and all you care about is not committing rape, I guess you're good to go and I guess that's why lack of confidence actually becomes a desirable trait in a woman.

Well put. I've always wondered how much the current online culture has desensitized people to "normal" human conduct in the presence of others. I feel like face to face social skills will be on the decline with the next generation as people are more comfortable with texting, snapchat and facebook. I don't think it will be surprising if many girls end up being very uncomfortable when face-to-face with guys on dates, as well as many guys will lack the social skills to discern how the girl is feeling. I'm not sure what the answer is, but lack of consistent face-to-face interaction as people grow up certainly doesn't help this situation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

I don't think anyone's saying it's sexual assault or to charge him of anything. It is creepy behavior that is more newsworthy for coming from someone whose schtick is very much "woke male feminist" (he literally wrote a book about how to date in the 21st century) in the same way it would be more newsworthy to see a married, anti-gay politician using Grindr.

The woman literally calls it sexual assault.

[miami_fan]

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The woman literally calls it sexual assault.

I guess I should have specified in an actual court of law rather than the court of public opinion. As someone else mentioned, nobody's trying to say what he did is as egregious as what Weinstein did. The vast majority of the piece is just her explaining what happened and the only mention of sexual assault is:

Grace says her friends helped her grapple with the aftermath of her night with Ansari. “It took a really long time for me to validate this as sexual assault,” she told us. “I was debating if this was an awkward sexual experience or sexual assault. And that’s why I confronted so many of my friends and listened to what they had to say, because I wanted validation that it was actually bad.”

which indicates that it was very borderline to her and not something that should result in Ansari being kicked out of Hollywood or whatever. Obviously it is basically he said/she said and would never result in a conviction of anything, but that's kind of the point.

This is a guy whose stand-up schtick is basically "I thought I was being saucy because I messaged 'heyy' instead of 'hey' on a dating app but it turns out there are guys who send girls unsolicited pictures of their genitals!" Within that context, he comes off in the story as someone who is acutely aware of what the standard for "real world sexual assault" is and exploits that by repeatedly walking right up to that line with no concern about how his date actually responds to his repeated overtures. So that does seem newsworthy due to being in stark contrast to his "woke male feminist" persona.

On top of that, even if the consensus is that it was just a "shitty date" and not "real world sexual assault," it's probably a conversation worth having that when I try to think of what I'd consider a shitty date, I think of the conversation being dull or the girl not being as attractive as she seemed in pictures. Getting groped against my will or worse is not even on the radar.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

I guess I should have specified in an actual court of law rather than the court of public opinion. As someone else mentioned, nobody's trying to say what he did is as egregious as what Weinstein did. The vast majority of the piece is just her explaining what happened and the only mention of sexual assault is:

which indicates that it was very borderline to her and not something that should result in Ansari being kicked out of Hollywood or whatever. Obviously it is basically he said/she said and would never result in a conviction of anything, but that's kind of the point.

This is a guy whose stand-up schtick is basically "I thought I was being saucy because I messaged 'heyy' instead of 'hey' on a dating app but it turns out there are guys who send girls unsolicited pictures of their genitals!" Within that context, he comes off in the story as someone who is acutely aware of what the standard for "real world sexual assault" is and exploits that by repeatedly walking right up to that line with no concern about how his date actually responds to his repeated overtures. So that does seem newsworthy due to being in stark contrast to his "woke male feminist" persona.

On top of that, even if the consensus is that it was just a "shitty date" and not "real world sexual assault," it's probably a conversation worth having that when I try to think of what I'd consider a shitty date, I think of the conversation being dull or the girl not being as attractive as she seemed in pictures. Getting groped against my will or worse is not even on the radar.

It wasn't borderline at all. It is in no way a sexual assault. Maybe Aziz is a pervert or sleazy. Maybe he's just really bad at sex. Maybe it goes against what he says in his stand-up specials and you should stop watching them.

That has nothing to do with sexual assault or the current #MeToo movement. There was no sexual assault that took place. No power dynamic he held over her career. It was just a bad date by two incompatible people.

If you want to turn this into a "conversation", the lesson should be that you are free to leave someone's apartment if you don't like how they are acting toward you. You are free to say "this date sucks" and call an Uber. Heck, even taking the more puritanical view of "a date shouldn't make a move on the first date" is fine. But this is just a sad way to latch on to an actual movement removing actual predators from society.

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you want to turn this into a "conversation", the lesson should be that you are free to leave someone's apartment if you don't like how they are acting toward you.

If you're unaware there's a nonzero chance a man may become angry and violent towards a woman who flat-out refuses to have sex with him, I don't know what planet you've been living on.

But this is just a sad way to latch on to an actual movement removing actual predators from society.

Yes, I agree it is sad for someone who is quite sleazy behind closed doors to be front and center at the Golden Globes wearing all black and a "time's up" pin.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It wasn't borderline at all. It is in no way a sexual assault. Maybe Aziz is a pervert or sleazy. Maybe he's just really bad at sex. Maybe it goes against what he says in his stand-up specials and you should stop watching them.

That has nothing to do with sexual assault or the current #MeToo movement. There was no sexual assault that took place. No power dynamic he held over her career. It was just a bad date by two incompatible people.

If you want to turn this into a "conversation", the lesson should be that you are free to leave someone's apartment if you don't like how they are acting toward you. You are free to say "this date sucks" and call an Uber. Heck, even taking the more puritanical view of "a date shouldn't make a move on the first date" is fine. But this is just a sad way to latch on to an actual movement removing actual predators from society.

While I don't ENTIRELY disagree with your assertion that this incident shouldn't be held up in public as a standard for sexual assault, I gotta say that I recoil at your repeated suggestions that this is typical or acceptable first/any date behavior.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

If you're unaware there's a nonzero chance a man may become angry and violent towards a woman who flat-out refuses to have sex with him, I don't know what planet you've been living on.

Women are not as weak as you think they are. They are capable of leaving a date when they no longer are enjoying themselves.

As for your "do whatever a man says because he may get violent even though he has shown no signs of being violent" approach, I would not recommend teaching it to women today.

Originally Posted by nol

Yes, I agree it is sad for someone who is quite sleazy behind closed doors to be front and center at the Golden Globes wearing all black and a "time's up" pin.

The Times Up movement is for sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. Being a sleazeball on a date with someone you don't work with does not fall in that category.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Times Up movement is for sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. Being a sleazeball on a date with someone you don't work with does not fall in that category.

You can't possibly think that's a distinction that matters in this case? Technically you are right, but come on.

[GrantDawg]

I haven't seen the woman, but I have seen Aziz. I bet she could take him.

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Women are not as weak as you think they are. They are capable of leaving a date when they no longer are enjoying themselves.

Not always. It’s quite common for a woman to acquiesce to a man she feels may become violent and then end up feeling shitty afterwards. Aziz handled himself better than the average guy in these circumstances by virtue of being a multimillionaire actor/comedian who can easily move onto the next girl; in most cases making it home from the actual date is just the tip of the iceberg. The average guy who thinks he’s going to get laid but doesn’t is going to continue to ask the girl out. If she turns him down he’s likely to harass her and call her a slut if he thinks she’s going out with another guy.

As for your "do whatever a man says because he may get violent even though he has shown no signs of being violent" approach, I would not recommend teaching it to women today.

You are showing your bias by seeing an account of a guy following a woman around his apartment for 30 minutes whenever she tries to get some space for herself, repeatedly grabbing her hand and putting it on his dick, sticking his fingers down her throat and so on and characterizing it as “no signs of being violent.” This is a country that regularly justifies shooting people to death over much less threatening gestures than that.

The Times Up movement is for sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. Being a sleazeball on a date with someone you don't work with does not fall in that category.

So if you go on a date with someone, get her to come back to your apartment, and kiss her, pretty much everything after that is fair game in other words. We live in a country where spousal rape was still legal in some places as recently as the 90s, and this attitude seems to be a vestige of that. “She’s free to leave the date” versus “She’s free to get a divorce.”

It's quite possible that women would like to be free from harrassment and assault in the workplace AND they'd appreciate if, in their personal lives, being constantly badgered into sex was not the norm even from 'nice guys' they're interested in dating. That's probably something where one would have to consult with actual women rather than Aziz Ansari or some random guy on a football message board to be positive though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

You are showing your bias by seeing an account of a guy following a woman around his apartment for 30 minutes whenever she tries to get some space for herself, repeatedly grabbing her hand and putting it on his dick, sticking his fingers down her throat and so on and characterizing it as “no signs of being violent.” This is a country that regularly justifies shooting people to death over much less threatening gestures than that.

You can get a lot of space by leaving the apartment. Just walking to the door and exiting to get away from this "violent" person.

Originally Posted by nol

So if you go on a date with someone, get her to come back to your apartment, and kiss her, pretty much everything after that is fair game in other words. We live in a country where spousal rape was still legal in some places as recently as the 90s, and this attitude seems to be a vestige of that. “She’s free to leave the date” versus “She’s free to get a divorce.”

Not at all.