Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Downfall of Harvey Weinstein?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    WTF is Italy's problem?

    http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninth...vey-weinstein/

    Comment


      It is a profoundly misogynistic society, in which the right wing media is largely owned (and entirely inspired) by a serial sexual predator

      Comment


        Oddio!

        Comment


          Che pale. That was really fucking depressing. All those macho misogynist wanks, so many taking their Fiat 500 on a late night drive to get f’d in the a by travesti hookers. A conflicted bunch.

          Comment


            Jim Jefferies nails it.
            Not sure why this is the best version I could find.
            The end is the best. He admits his own ignorance and culpability.
            https://youtu.be/g9X9Y2d1h7E

            Comment


              Well, the Weinstein fall-out maybe be far-reaching. Encouraged by the #metoo campaign, former ANC MP and singer Jennifer Ferguson has accused South Africa's football bigwig and struggle stalwart Danny Jordaan of having raped her in 1993. Apparently another woman has said she was raped but refuses to be named.

              Comment


                Originally posted by delicatemoth View Post
                It is well-known now that DSK likes/liked his sex rough, very rough. He was a frequent visitor to kinky Parisian sex clubs and an adept of sado-masochist parties (where prostitutes and dominatrixes were hired for the occasion, that became public knowledge after the Sofitel case)

                You appear to be conflating BDSM tastes/practices with sexual assault, which is bang out of order.
                No I’m not of course, link it with the rest of my post (and with DSK’s past in this area – he has form… –, with his victims’ testimonies etc.), it means little if taken in isolation.

                It’s what TAB says really: it's not that he's into rough sex, therefore he's a rapist, more he's a rapist that we know is into rough sex. Consent is the difference between a couple of enthusiastic partners having a vigorous evening in, and serious aggravated sexual assault. And DSK seems to have had real issues with that concept.

                It was meant as extra profiling info to help figure out who DSK is, what his sexual "background" is etc. and nothing else, I was certainly not passing a moral judgement on whatever sexual proclivities people may have, which I thought would have been clear enough given the context but there you are, maybe I wasn’t after all.

                Violence is part of DSK’s persona, it’s inherent to his sexual DNA and this characteristic has overspilled, with dreadful consequences, into (anal) sex for instance that he imposed on women against their will (= rape, obvs). DSK has blurred the lines between sexual fantasies and reality, the very fantasies that he felt he could turn into a violent, unconsented reality because of his power and wealth.

                You have to look at the whole DSK jigsaw here, read up about him (the more detailed material is in French though), he is a dangerous pervert who would have been sent to the slammer long ago were he not DSK and had pots of money to defend himself + high up contacts to nix rumours/stories or stifle potential scandals.

                But I take your point, as he is obviously more familiar to French readers, exemplying further helps understand how dangerous and perverted this man is, as were his many enablers. In the "Procès du Carlton" (the Carlton Hotel trial, 2015) for instance, he was accused by some prostitutes of having sodomised them (physically aided and abetted by his minions) without their consent:

                https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-pimping-trial

                Another prostitute, Jade, who was also sexually abused as a child, described the atmosphere at one Paris hotel orgy. She said of Strauss-Kahn: “No one asked me my name, there was just a hand on my head to fellate him.” She later broke down in tears as she told the court how on a different occasion Strauss-Kahn had also subjected her to anal penetration against her wishes. “I didn’t have time to say no,” she said.


                This is even more explicit (from the Nouvel Obs, http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/justi...nt-dire.html):

                J’étais sur le ventre allongée sur le lit et lui était sur moi. Pendant notre rapport, j’ai senti que DSK tentait de me sodomiser. Je lui ai alors dit de ne pas continuer car je ne pratiquais pas la sodomie. E. est même intervenue en disant d’arrêter car je ne faisais pas ça, en plus il n’avait pas de produit lubrifiant. C’est alors que David Roquet est allé dans la salle de bain prendre un pot de crème hydratante […]. Je n’en revenais pas, David Roquet a donné ce pot de crème à DSK, puis David Roquet m’a tenue sur le lit pour que la sodomie puisse se réaliser alors que je ne voulais pas. Le rapport sexuel avec DSK s’est terminé par cette sodomie qui pour moi était violente."

                Comment


                  Meanwhile, the Cinémathèque Française in Paris has put together a Roman Polanski retrospective starting next Monday, that's amid fresh rape allegations from three women… (the 3 links below) It may not go ahead or could be boycotted as it has sparked an outcry in France.

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/m...ccusation.html

                  https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...pe-claim-robin

                  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8013551.html


                  Last January Polanski was asked to preside over the César Awards ceremony (France’s answer to the Oscars), he accepted then pulled out amid protests and general condemnation.

                  https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...esars-ceremony

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/w...ar-awards.html

                  Which makes all the more unbelievable that the Cinémathèque has decided to go ahead with what amounts to a cinematographic tribute to this sexual offender ("This retrospective has been planned for over a year" is the only response so far from the organisers who seem to have gone to ground over this).

                  Comment


                    For over a year? Well that changes everything. A year ago everybody in the whole wide world had forgotten about Polanski being a statutory rapist on the run from the law.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by G-Man View Post
                      For over a year? Well that changes everything. A year ago everybody in the whole wide world had forgotten about Polanski being a statutory rapist on the run from the law.
                      Why do people still work for him, Woody Allen et al? How can they still get their films made and financed? I'm at a loss to explain this.

                      Comment


                        Woody Allen is a bit of a special case. It's a single accusation that (from what I've read) has flaws, as does the accuser. Plus it's been looked into by authorities and was (iirc) found not to have merit. Whether that's legal merit or simply 'truth' is, of course, another matter. Polanski and Weinstein and now Toback would all seem to fall into the 'overwhelmingly compelling evidence' category.

                        Comment


                          Now let's talk about Mel Gibson...

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by WOM View Post
                            It's a single accusation that (from what I've read) has flaws, as does the accuser
                            Whoa, whoa, whoa, you what?!? There are reasons to be suspicious of Mia Farrow's behaviour and motivations around this, which might undermine the claim, but not Dylan's. She may be mislead, but she isn't lying.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Janik View Post
                              Whoa, whoa, whoa, you what?!? There are reasons to be suspicious of Mia Farrow's behaviour and motivations around this, which might undermine the claim, but not Dylan's. She may be mislead, but she isn't lying.
                              How do you know either of those things?

                              Comment


                                I know we shouldn't consider it as evidence - and it's not illegal - but the fact that Allen is married to his own step-daughter is the kind of thing that me very uncomfortable and raises some red flags for me.

                                Comment


                                  Allen, of course, is not married to his own step-daughter.

                                  (Perhaps a small distinction, but one that should be pointed out.)

                                  Comment


                                    Fair enough - married to his ex-wife's adopted daughter, whom he would have been acting as father figure to during that marriage. However you paint it, it reflects pretty badly on Allen's relationship with Farrow's kids.

                                    Comment


                                      How are we defining step daughter here? I'd say she's his step daughter

                                      Comment


                                        It certainly reflects on a deeply flawed family dynamic. And this, by most accounts, extends to Mia as well.

                                        But none of it means that Allen molested his daughter, nor does it mean he didn't. But it isn't worthless that this was extensively investigated by authorities and found to be so deeply flawed that they wouldn't / couldn't pursue it.

                                        Comment


                                          Well, the Connecticut criminal investigation ended with this

                                          A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had "probable cause" to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance.
                                          To be fair, the New York social service investigation ended this way

                                          The state Department of Social Services informed Mr. Allen in a letter dated Oct. 7 that it had closed the 14-month-old investigation. "No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated," the letter said. "This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded."
                                          It's also worth noting that Dylan's current position is not that of a "single accusation", but rather the culmination of a long pattern of highly problematic behaviour

                                          For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

                                          Comment


                                            Sorry. I meant to say 'single accuser'.

                                            Comment


                                              Another fucking scumbag, Mark Halperin. I bought one of this fucker's books: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...ations-apology

                                              MSNBC has dropped him but it needs to make a louder condemnation IMHO, especially if it wants to keep its progressive credentials.

                                              Comment


                                                Those noble anti-apartheid soldiers... The guy mentioned at the end, who has a "right to protect" the ANC is generally regarded to be one of the more principled and respectable ANC politicians. No surprise to read that Zuma was an uncompromising ladies' man, as the euphemism used to put it to bypass libel laws.

                                                Comment


                                                  Hyper-masculine cultures like the military or paramilitaries are always liable to be rife with abuse, which is not to excuse the ANC, which is surely only eulogized by people who are clueless as to the history of necklace executions (favoured by Winnie Mandela) etc.

                                                  Comment


                                                    I shan't bother recapping today's fall of Kevin Spacey, no doubt inspired by the ongoing Weinstein landslide; only to add that House of Cards has now been cancelled as a result.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X