Sexual Harassment/Assault Scandals

[darkcurry]

That isn't necessarily true at all. In fact, it's pretty much the definition of victim blaming. At best, it depends on your definition of innocent. The victim of a wrong doesn't need to be blameless to hold the perpetrator accountable.

You're making a bit of a straw man argument. If a woman is perfectly willing to trade sex for work, of course it's wrong (even criminal) of her to cry rape after the fact. I'm not arguing this. (But even in that case, the man in power is arguably abusing his power--though he isn't guilty of rape.)

However, in cases where women consent to sex for other reasons (compulsion, fear of retribution, etc.), the man in power may easily be guilty of a crime. Consent must be freely and soberly given to be valid. (I mean soberly in the sense that one must know what they're consenting to and do so without undue influence, not that one can never give consent if using drugs or alcohol)

This is why power must must be wielded so carefully. Having power increases responsibility, not entitlement. Just ask Spider-Man lol

If women are piling onto this movement to be trendy or relevant, that's on them. And it's beyond wrong, and they deserve to be exposed and prosecuted where appropriate. But that doesn't mean some, or even most, of the movement's targets aren't legitimate.

It's true that people in all sides of any issue can be awful. Every movement is flawed on this level to some degree, because people are people. Yes, that includes Black Lives Matter, the civil rights movement, and the women's suffrage movement.

I have to disagree because I wasn't victim blaming in the least. I would never do something like that. If you are IN on it like in these cases of exchanging sex for fame, riches, ect consensually then you are apart of the either crime or you voluntarily slept with them to get what YOU want just like they got what THEY want.

And they are most CERTAINLY not victims if they bring it up that they are willing to do this or that for a role, ect.

 

[The Dark King]

It’s perfectly fine. I have posted a number of articles on the history of white supremacy in feminism, black matriarchy, current white supremacy within feminism and more (many written by black women and women of color). Others have posted articles on the eraser of black men and fathers from the blm movement. While others, myself included, have posted articles and studies about the number of black male child abuse victims and high childhood suicide rates for black male youths in respect to abusive black mothers.

I could go on and on, but the reality is that you may be a bit late to the party and would have to venture through multiple threads. I appreciate the manner in which you asked your questions. And if you really want to understand, a few google searches on the topics I recently expressed in the previous paragraph, may help. Enjoy your evening.

P.S. I will leave you with one final statement. I only hold black women, blm, and feminism as accountable as they wish to hold men and black men in general. Applying their same theories on predatory behavior, as well as many others often shows a very visible double standard.

Damn you absolutely killed it. I have nothing to add just want to be educated on the BLM 12 guiding principles that leave black men out and not front and center. I always found it weird the narrative push to praise black women but not black men especially when it comes to police shootings which we are the disproportionate victims of. Its like men taking over the sexual assault narrative on behalf of women doesn't make sense. I encountered something similar today when I read about company that wanted to publish 100 black male written novels since black men are greatly under represented in literature. Not too long before a bunch of women were complaining that it didn't include black women. Black women authors outpace us by something like four to one not to mention so much of our cultural narrative is squarely about black girl magic, its like people in general are fighting hard to do the Thanos snap and erase everyone they don't like or identify with.

 

[The Dark King]

I have to disagree because I wasn't victim blaming in the least. I would never do something like that. If you are IN on it like in these cases of exchanging sex for fame, riches, ect consensually then you are apart of the either crime or you voluntarily slept with them to get what YOU want just like they got what THEY want.

And they are most CERTAINLY not victims if they bring it up that they are willing to do this or that for a role, ect.

I honestly don't get why this is so hard for people. It's easy to see a creepy guy propositioning women for sex but its unbelievable that someone would trade sex for the opportunity to make millions. What do they sex workers are doing out there? Just for far less. Most people don't see sex as sacred and a couple of encounters to set your career in the land of make believe where merit isn't as important as who likes you doesn't seem impossible that most women would do that. They see their competition thousands of beautiful women who can do what you do and unless you have a shit ton of connections (not even then) how do you compete? Honestly I would love for someone to break that down.

 

[qaz1]

It’s perfectly fine. I have posted a number of articles on the history of white supremacy in feminism, black matriarchy, current white supremacy within feminism and more (many written by black women and women of color). Others have posted articles on the eraser of black men and fathers from the blm movement. While others, myself included, have posted articles and studies about the number of black male child abuse victims and high childhood suicide rates for black male youths in respect to abusive black mothers.

I could go on and on, but the reality is that you may be a bit late to the party and would have to venture through multiple threads. I appreciate the manner in which you asked your questions. And if you really want to understand, a few google searches on the topics I recently expressed in the previous paragraph, may help. Enjoy your evening.

P.S. I will leave you with one final statement. I only hold black women, blm, and feminism as accountable as they wish to hold men and black men in general. Applying their same theories on predatory behavior, as well as many others often shows a very visible double standard.

Awesome. I really will run a few searches and keep an open mind.

 

[qaz1]

I have to disagree because I wasn't victim blaming in the least. I would never do something like that. If you are IN on it like in these cases of exchanging sex for fame, riches, ect consensually then you are apart of the either crime or you voluntarily slept with them to get what YOU want just like they got what THEY want.

And they are most CERTAINLY not victims if they bring it up that they are willing to do this or that for a role, ect.

We agree on all of that. I thought I'd stated as much. Maybe I wasn't clear. If a woman is perfectly willing to trade sex for work in a particular instance, she has no grounds on which to claim assault after the fact.

 

[qaz1]

I honestly don't get why this is so hard for people. It's easy to see a creepy guy propositioning women for sex but its unbelievable that someone would trade sex for the opportunity to make millions. What do they sex workers are doing out there? Just for far less. Most people don't see sex as sacred and a couple of encounters to set your career in the land of make believe where merit isn't as important as who likes you doesn't seem impossible that most women would do that. They see their competition thousands of beautiful women who can do what you do and unless you have a shit ton of connections (not even then) how do you compete? Honestly I would love for someone to break that down.

I don't think any of that is hard for people to believe. I believe they're pointing out the cases where women *weren't* okay with making such a deal, but rather felt otherwise (unethically, possibly illegally) compelled. As I've stated, if both parties know what's up and agree to everything, there's no sexual assault.

 

[The Dark King]

I don't think any of that is hard for people to believe. I believe they're pointing out the cases where women *weren't* okay with making such a deal, but rather felt otherwise (unethically, possibly illegally) compelled. As I've stated, if both parties know what's up and agree to everything, there's no sexual assault.

But how do you determine what's true and what's not in that situation? Like I said before these women were the worst people to put at the forefront because whether its true or not its gonna look like a bunch of rich women mad they aren't even richer or relevant anymore. I think another reason you don't see as many men speaking up ( there are a shit ton of powerful gay men in Hollywood) is because I think most men get the transactional nature of the whole thing.

 

[meowkittenmeow]

Damn you absolutely killed it. I have nothing to add just want to be educated on the BLM 12 guiding principles that leave black men out and not front and center. I always found it weird the narrative push to praise black women but not black men especially when it comes to police shootings which we are the disproportionate victims of. Its like men taking over the sexual assault narrative on behalf of women doesn't make sense. I encountered something similar today when I read about company that wanted to publish 100 black male written novels since black men are greatly under represented in literature. Not too long before a bunch of women were complaining that it didn't include black women. Black women authors outpace us by something like four to one not to mention so much of our cultural narrative is squarely about black girl magic, its like people in general are fighting hard to do the Thanos snap and erase everyone they don't like or identify with.

I think that is why it is important to continue a dialogue and to continue to educate ourselves on such things. You can actually google the grassroots website that posted the "every 28 hours an unarmed black person is killed by a police officer or vigilante". You can go by the numbers because they post the names. We speak for over 96% of those names. So, it really is that blm and black feminists are guilty of the same "Erasure" that they confront everyone else about. It's sad, but interesting how although they have issues with each other (white feminism and black feminism/blm) they find a common ground in removing our (black males) voices.

 

[The Dark King]

I think that is why it is important to continue a dialogue and to continue to educate ourselves on such things. You can actually google the grassroots website that posted the "every 28 hours an unarmed black person is killed by a police officer or vigilante". You can go by the numbers because they post the names. We speak for over 96% of those names. So, it really is that blm and black feminists are guilty of the same "Erasure" that they confront everyone else about. It's sad, but interesting how although they have issues with each other (white feminism and black feminism/blm) they find a common ground in removing our (black males) voices.

It suits the agenda

 

[qaz1]

But how do you determine what's true and what's not in that situation? Like I said before these women were the worst people to put at the forefront because whether its true or not its gonna look like a bunch of rich women mad they aren't even richer or relevant anymore. I think another reason you don't see as many men speaking up ( there are a shit ton of powerful gay men in Hollywood) is because I think most men get the transactional nature of the whole thing.

You determine what is and what's not true by taking each situation individually and not prejudging either way.

And if a bunch of rich, formerly-relevant women are legitimately wronged, they have a right to speak up. If people can't see past the outer package, that's their issue. After all, there are those who say that multimillionaire black athletes should just shut up and play ball because they're just gonna look ungrateful.

 

[The Dark King]

Speak up to what though? Like I said Hollywood is the wrong venue for this discussion because the very nature of what it is makes everyone do something similar. If we are going to have this discussion about work place abuse maybe we should focus on women in retail or food service or some other industry where they are truly vulnerable instead of making it all about wealthy women with a grudge. Like I said the entire industry is transactional and 99.99999 percent of people will do things with a gross older guy for potential millions. We pay soldiers less than 30k to kill and you think people won't have sex for millions?

 

[qaz1]

Speak up to what though? Like I said Hollywood is the wrong venue for this discussion because the very nature of what it is makes everyone do something similar. If we are going to have this discussion about work place abuse maybe we should focus on women in retail or food service or some other industry where they are truly vulnerable instead of making it all about wealthy women with a grudge. Like I said the entire industry is transactional and 99.99999 percent of people will do things with a gross older guy for potential millions. We pay soldiers less than 30k to kill and you think people won't have sex for millions?

Wow, it's not often that I find someone more cynical than I lol. I think we're at an impasse.

My point is that *nobody*, rich or poor, actress or waitress, deserves to be mistreated. If you're into having sex in exchange for a movie role, that's your choice and you get to live with it. But not every aspiring actress is or was into that.

Maybe #metoo is overly focused on Hollywood, but people in Hollywood still have the right to be taken seriously when legitimately wronged.

 

[meowkittenmeow]

I see where the problem is. TDK is looking at it from a common career/job vs. the entertainment industry. For example, when applying for a job, you shouldn’t be propositioned for sex during an interview. The entertainment industry works differently. Because you are not hired until the contract is in place, you aren’t an employee or even a potential employee. So, when it comes to casting, the actor hears about a part and gets an agent to talk to someone. If your agent is even remotely competent, they will inform you how each individual entertainment exec works before you agree for an interview. So, the process is very different with many nuances.

So, with that being said, they offer sex in exchange for a potential million dollar payout over time, to include additional endorsements and maybe a future husband/wife with better finances and more influence to further your career along.

So, is this exec using his or her power to get laid? Yes. But, you aren’t hired yet. If the person agrees are they using their sexuality as a power? Yes. If the person disagrees, are they using their power to not give consent? Yes.

So, from his point of view, you have the option of consent and no one is forcing you. It is simply quid pro quo. Where it gets bad is when the experience traumatizes someone. It can put someone off of the industry. I agree. TDK, is simply explaining that there is a huge difference between an actor trying to get a million dollar break and a potential employee, just trying to cover rent. Their methods of gaining employment are drastically different. Their potential outcomes are drastically different. And a million dollar payout over time is not the common persona’s experience.

Looking into the issue of abuse of power only gives the public the idea that you could have said no, but you chose the money. Many people would. A person working in retail doesn’t have the option either way. And when it comes down to Hollywood, it becomes a he said she said. Because as I mentioned before, any competent agent or fellow struggling actor hears the rumors and lets you know beforehand. Hell, even back in 2014 or something, the family guy creator made a joke about Weinstein and having to pretend he is attractive to get an Oscar nom.

I could go on and on, but TDK is simply stating that in some cases there is an abuse in power and in other cases, they Agreed and had a solid 15 minutes of fame. The focus should be on everyday men and women who are coherced into sex, not just by an abuse of power, but with the deal of “do this or starve”.

You are both in agreement, you just feel the focus should be directed to those most affected. And upon factoring in the work environments between the vastly different professions, one is at least aware of the possibility while the other is blindsided.

In other words, the rich, famous, and privileged should not be the voice of the oppressed, poor, and broken. (Bill Gates being the voice for all men suffering in the U.S.)

 

[qaz1]

I see where the problem is. TDK is looking at it from a common career/job vs. the entertainment industry. For example, when applying for a job, you shouldn’t be propositioned for sex during an interview. The entertainment industry works differently. Because you are not hired until the contract is in place, you aren’t an employee or even a potential employee. So, when it comes to casting, the actor hears about a part and gets an agent to talk to someone. If your agent is even remotely competent, they will inform you how each individual entertainment exec works before you agree for an interview. So, the process is very different with many nuances.

So, with that being said, they offer sex in exchange for a potential million dollar payout over time, to include additional endorsements and maybe a future husband/wife with better finances and more influence to further your career along.

So, is this exec using his or her power to get laid? Yes. But, you aren’t hired yet. If the person agrees are they using their sexuality as a power? Yes. If the person disagrees, are they using their power to not give consent? Yes.

So, from his point of view, you have the option of consent and no one is forcing you. It is simply quid pro quo. Where it gets bad is when the experience traumatizes someone. It can put someone off of the industry. I agree. TDK, is simply explaining that there is a huge difference between an actor trying to get a million dollar break and a potential employee, just trying to cover rent. Their methods of gaining employment are drastically different. Their potential outcomes are drastically different. And a million dollar payout over time is not the common persona’s experience.

Looking into the issue of abuse of power only gives the public the idea that you could have said no, but you chose the money. Many people would. A person working in retail doesn’t have the option either way. And when it comes down to Hollywood, it becomes a he said she said. Because as I mentioned before, any competent agent or fellow struggling actor hears the rumors and lets you know beforehand. Hell, even back in 2014 or something, the family guy creator made a joke about Weinstein and having to pretend he is attractive to get an Oscar nom.

I could go on and on, but TDK is simply stating that in some cases there is an abuse in power and in other cases, they Agreed and had a solid 15 minutes of fame. The focus should be on everyday men and women who are coherced into sex, not just by an abuse of power, but with the deal of “do this or starve”.

You are both in agreement, you just feel the focus should be directed to those most affected. And upon factoring in the work environments between the vastly different professions, one is at least aware of the possibility while the other is blindsided.

In other words, the rich, famous, and privileged should not be the voice of the oppressed, poor, and broken. (Bill Gates being the voice for all men suffering in the U.S.)

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. As usual, I think we're more agreeing than disagreeing.

However, I'll point out that the problem with the privileged not speaking for the commoners is that it's hard to be heard when you're not one of the privileged. I'm betting we all agree on that too lol

 

[The Dark King]

I see where the problem is. TDK is looking at it from a common career/job vs. the entertainment industry. For example, when applying for a job, you shouldn’t be propositioned for sex during an interview. The entertainment industry works differently. Because you are not hired until the contract is in place, you aren’t an employee or even a potential employee. So, when it comes to casting, the actor hears about a part and gets an agent to talk to someone. If your agent is even remotely competent, they will inform you how each individual entertainment exec works before you agree for an interview. So, the process is very different with many nuances.

So, with that being said, they offer sex in exchange for a potential million dollar payout over time, to include additional endorsements and maybe a future husband/wife with better finances and more influence to further your career along.

So, is this exec using his or her power to get laid? Yes. But, you aren’t hired yet. If the person agrees are they using their sexuality as a power? Yes. If the person disagrees, are they using their power to not give consent? Yes.

So, from his point of view, you have the option of consent and no one is forcing you. It is simply quid pro quo. Where it gets bad is when the experience traumatizes someone. It can put someone off of the industry. I agree. TDK, is simply explaining that there is a huge difference between an actor trying to get a million dollar break and a potential employee, just trying to cover rent. Their methods of gaining employment are drastically different. Their potential outcomes are drastically different. And a million dollar payout over time is not the common persona’s experience.

Looking into the issue of abuse of power only gives the public the idea that you could have said no, but you chose the money. Many people would. A person working in retail doesn’t have the option either way. And when it comes down to Hollywood, it becomes a he said she said. Because as I mentioned before, any competent agent or fellow struggling actor hears the rumors and lets you know beforehand. Hell, even back in 2014 or something, the family guy creator made a joke about Weinstein and having to pretend he is attractive to get an Oscar nom.

I could go on and on, but TDK is simply stating that in some cases there is an abuse in power and in other cases, they Agreed and had a solid 15 minutes of fame. The focus should be on everyday men and women who are coherced into sex, not just by an abuse of power, but with the deal of “do this or starve”.

You are both in agreement, you just feel the focus should be directed to those most affected. And upon factoring in the work environments between the vastly different professions, one is at least aware of the possibility while the other is blindsided.

In other words, the rich, famous, and privileged should not be the voice of the oppressed, poor, and broken. (Bill Gates being the voice for all men suffering in the U.S.)

So well said, you conveyed my thoughts exactly.
Of course no one wants to see anyone get abused or forced into a bad situation but then almost everything is retroactive and the lines are weirdly blurred. What I notice a lot is dudes (and some women) getting their significant others rolls on their shows. Now this can easily be seen as a man abusing his power and putting someone else in position not to consent. How can the person feel comfortable leaving the relationship if their job is attached to the person they are dating. What if said actress comes out later saying I wanted to leave but he made me feel like if I did I'd lose my job. This shit just gets way too complicated and that just takes away attention from clear cases where some asshole is trading shifts at a diner for sexual favors or something of that nature. Hollywood is too incestuous and far too transactional, it's like a drug dealer complaining about police brutality, the relationship leaves too much to be questioned.

 

[The Dark King]

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. As usual, I think we're more agreeing than disagreeing.

However, I'll point out that the problem with the privileged not speaking for the commoners is that it's hard to be heard when you're not one of the privileged. I'm betting we all agree on that too lol

Completely but after the topic is brought to the forefront it doesn't need to stay on the privileged. I just wonder what's being fixed here. Rich women have the resources and support to fight. If Maria at the strawberry farm in Texas complains about her manager being inappropriate she loses shifts while they "investigate" and eventually let her go because they can't have a hostile work environment. I guess it was good for women to vent but I wonder what good it does for the effected and voiceless.

 

[meowkittenmeow]

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. As usual, I think we're more agreeing than disagreeing.

However, I'll point out that the problem with the privileged not speaking for the commoners is that it's hard to be heard when you're not one of the privileged. I'm betting we all agree on that too lol

LOL, yeah, sorry about that. If my replies aren't lengthy, I give room for misinterpretation and then someone gets offended. But, I'll try to stick to short stories instead of novels.

 

[meowkittenmeow]

So well said, you conveyed my thoughts exactly.
Of course no one wants to see anyone get abused or forced into a bad situation but then almost everything is retroactive and the lines are weirdly blurred. What I notice a lot is dudes (and some women) getting their significant others rolls on their shows. Now this can easily be seen as a man abusing his power and putting someone else in position not to consent. How can the person feel comfortable leaving the relationship if their job is attached to the person they are dating. What if said actress comes out later saying I wanted to leave but he made me feel like if I did I'd lose my job. This shit just gets way too complicated and that just takes away attention from clear cases where some asshole is trading shifts at a diner for sexual favors or something of that nature. Hollywood is too incestuous and far too transactional, it's like a drug dealer complaining about police brutality, the relationship leaves too much to be questioned.

Solid points. The entertainment industry doesn't have a code of conduct or any set of rules that prohibit much of anything. From sex to drugs to whatever. It is high end prostitution in many cases, and knowing that makes things difficult to fully comprehend.

It reminds me of the legalization of prostitution. Because on one hand you can tax it, and protect sex workers. On the other hand, equal opportunity meets consent and it becomes a huge headache of what ifs.

 

[qaz1]

So well said, you conveyed my thoughts exactly.
Of course no one wants to see anyone get abused or forced into a bad situation but then almost everything is retroactive and the lines are weirdly blurred. What I notice a lot is dudes (and some women) getting their significant others rolls on their shows. Now this can easily be seen as a man abusing his power and putting someone else in position not to consent. How can the person feel comfortable leaving the relationship if their job is attached to the person they are dating. What if said actress comes out later saying I wanted to leave but he made me feel like if I did I'd lose my job. This shit just gets way too complicated and that just takes away attention from clear cases where some asshole is trading shifts at a diner for sexual favors or something of that nature. Hollywood is too incestuous and far too transactional, it's like a drug dealer complaining about police brutality, the relationship leaves too much to be questioned.

You make many good points. No easy answers unfortunately

 

[qaz1]

LOL, yeah, sorry about that. If my replies aren't lengthy, I give room for misinterpretation and then someone gets offended. But, I'll try to stick to short stories instead of novels.

Lol I wasn't complaining. Besides, I can definitely be long-winded myself (this post isn't a good example of that lol)