Or a wife?

Junkhead said:

---

I hope you don't have any daughters.

---

I got a wife who was assaulted before we met, and it's because of that that she agrees with me. We've taught our daughters to immediately report any assault in order to convict the A-hole and to rescue any would be future victims.

The last thing we'd have them do it take a part in his movie and cash his checks.

aTmAg said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

I hope you don't have any daughters.

---

I got a wife who was assaulted before we met, and it's because of that that she agrees with me. We've taught our daughters to immediately report any assault in order to convict the A-hole and to rescue any would be future victims.

The last thing we'd have them do it take a part in his movie and cash his checks.

---

I'm glad you've taught your daughters that way but that doesn't mean all parents have done the same.

Maybe we should scuttle this thread. Nothing good will come out of it on this board.

Very sensitive topic.

Junkhead said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

I hope you don't have any daughters.

---

I got a wife who was assaulted before we met, and it's because of that that she agrees with me. We've taught our daughters to immediately report any assault in order to convict the A-hole and to rescue any would be future victims.

The last thing we'd have them do it take a part in his movie and cash his checks.

---

I'm glad you've taught your daughters that way but that doesn't mean all parents have done the same.

---

That's a nice sentiment. I wish you would have afforded him the same respect and courtesy before accusing him of not caring about his daughter.

JCA1 said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

I hope you don't have any daughters.

---

I got a wife who was assaulted before we met, and it's because of that that she agrees with me. We've taught our daughters to immediately report any assault in order to convict the A-hole and to rescue any would be future victims.

The last thing we'd have them do it take a part in his movie and cash his checks.

---

I'm glad you've taught your daughters that way but that doesn't mean all parents have done the same.

---

That's a nice sentiment. I wish you would have afforded him the same respect and courtesy before accusing him of not caring about his daughter.

---

I never said he didn't care about his daughter.

third coast.. said:

---

Completely disagree. If you just shelve all things that could be deemed sensitive then how can you face the harsh realities of the world. That is the exact reason an entire generation needs safe spaces and labels everything as hate speech.

---

It really has nothing to do with Entertainment.

Weinstein was a corp boss that behaved very, very, badly. It's a cultural, political, legal, discussion. All it will do on this board is cause people that like to talk entertainment to tear in to each other.

Just my opinion.

You literally said "I hope you don't have any daughters"

come on

You said "I hope you don't have any daughters." The implication was clear and it wasn't your newfound "respect other people's views."

Weinstein is, by all accounts, a horrible, terrible person who may well deserve to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have a strong opinion.

However, where we, as a society, draw the line for where coercion becomes felony rape is a legitimate public policy debate where people of good faith may differ. We should be able to have this conversation without insults such as the one you made.

Urban Ag said:

---

You literally said "I hope you don't have any daughters"

come on

---

And? I never said "you don't care about your daughter" which is what you accused me of.

Junkhead said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

You literally said "I hope you don't have any daughters"

come on

---

And? I never said "you don't care about your daughter" which is what you accused me of.

---

Whatever. You're not worth debating.

Urban Ag said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

You literally said "I hope you don't have any daughters"

come on

---

And? I never said "you don't care about your daughter" which is what you accused me of.

---

Whatever. You're not worth debating.

---

Get your ****ing facts straight next time before you falsely accuse someone.

Junkhead said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

You literally said "I hope you don't have any daughters"

come on

---

And? I never said "you don't care about your daughter" which is what you accused me of.

---

So you meant, "because you disagree with me on when coercion crosses the line to rape, I hope you never experience the joy and love of a daughter." You consider this better?

Once again that's not what I said. Quit projecting your **** on me.

Then what did you mean? I'm not the only one reading it that way. Edit- and why even bring his personal life into it?

I don't have any children but for someone to say, "if they didn't report it, and stayed around to benefit, it means it can't be viewed as coercion / fear of repercussion / sexual harassment / or even rape"?

Do you then think that the Michael Jackson accusers weren't the victim of terrible things just because one of them continued on to a successful dance career because of what MJ opened the door for?

Zemira said:

---

I can't remember who but on the radio this morning I heard an actress refused him. I forget what movie it was, but because she refused him he had a scene added to the movie. It was a lesbian sex scene that embarrassed her tremendously as she didn't want to do that at all. Yet he got away with punishing her with the scene because he wasn't forcing her.

It sounded incredibly ****ed up. I agree that he seems to be a sociopath.

---

Salma Hayek in Frida

I remember her describing what happened in an interview, it was absolutely gut-wrenching.

dave94 said:

---

I don't have any children but for someone to say, "if they didn't report it, and stayed around to benefit, it means it can't be viewed as coercion / fear of repercussion / sexual harassment / or even rape"?

Do you then think that the Michael Jackson accusers weren't the victim of terrible things just because one of them continued on to a successful dance career because of what MJ opened the door for?

---

Bam. Not to mention kept quiet until adulthood.

Junkhead said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

I hope you don't have any daughters.

---

I got a wife who was assaulted before we met, and it's because of that that she agrees with me. We've taught our daughters to immediately report any assault in order to convict the A-hole and to rescue any would be future victims.

The last thing we'd have them do it take a part in his movie and cash his checks.

---

I'm glad you've taught your daughters that way but that doesn't mean all parents have done the same.

---

It's one thing if the victims were children, but these Weinstein accusers are (and were) adults. They know full well that the consequence of not reporting rape is that more victims will follow in the future. They don't need to be taught that by their parents. Yet, as far as I know, none of them reported rape at the time.

Instead, they continued to act in his movies and cash his checks. From what I can tell, he was an ugly fat ass who used his star making ability to sleep with women that he'd have no chance with otherwise. And that many of these women held their nose (closed their eyes) and took the deal.

Unless there is better evidence out there, I see nothing to convict.

Did you see the MJ doc on HBO?

One of the accusers was a dancer who was literally employed by an MJ show well into adulthood. He was still "cashing his checks".

Thoughts on that?

dave94 said:

---

I don't have any children but for someone to say, "if they didn't report it, and stayed around to benefit, it means it can't be viewed as coercion / fear of repercussion / sexual harassment / or even rape"?

Do you then think that the Michael Jackson accusers weren't the victim of terrible things just because one of them continued on to a successful dance career because of what MJ opened the door for?

---

I'm not familiar with what you are talking about with Michael Jackson other than the rumors about molesting children.

I'm not talking about children. I don't blame them for not reporting, since they typically don't know better. Parents should start talking to their children about it at a young age just like they tell them about "strange danger".

But adults are adults and should treated as such. We should not be thinking of women as naive children that don't know better.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Did you see the MJ doc on HBO?

One of the accusers was a dancer who was literally employed by an MJ show well into adulthood. He was still "cashing his checks".

Thoughts on that?

---

I did not see that.

If the dancer was a child then I wouldn't blame him as kid for anything. At some point if he grows up, he should understand what's going on (unless he was locked in MJ's underground dungeon, was mentally challenged/traumatized, or something like that).

Sorta like the Larry Nassar gymnastics thing. When the gymnasts were young they didn't understand that what was going on (the parents and other adults should have had a freaking clue sooner, however). But as they grew up, they started speaking out because they understood better. I applaud them for that.

I wish parents would talk to their kids about it sooner so they can know how to react.

ac04 said:

---

is there anything aTmAg is not an expert on? truly amazing

---

There is no expertise in anything I am saying. It's just my opinion plus common sense.

I get that you are a man. So you don't realize how some men can be incredibly scary and forceful about things, especially sex or sexual assault. Realistically I get what you are saying. Victims of assault and rape should report their crimes. They often don't.

A lot of women in this day and age know they won't be believed without hard evidence. So most men would say go to the hospital and have a rape kit done and report it to police. I don't know if you have any idea what it could possibly feel like to be sexually assaulted. Then you basically loose your dignity while you are examined in a hospital. I have never had it happen, but a friend did. It was the hardest thing to watch it happening and not being able to comfort her till the end. It's invasive and really humiliating or at least I thought so. The next thing is getting the police to actually test the kit. There is a million plus backlog of untested rape kits in the US. Then they have to relive and repeat the awful story several times to report the crime.

Now if it isn't an actual rape getting hard evidence is incredibly difficult. Unless you can record the person and catch them in the act or have witnesses is extremely hard to prove.

That said I'm not excusing these women for not reporting this happening to him, but you will note when they felt safe they did come forward.

The verbal and mental abuse at the hands of an abuser is just as tough as sexual, and it sounds like he did all 3.

So please get off your high horse about how they should have reported the assault immediately, especially the person they were accusing who was a bigwig in Hollywood. The real world doesn't work that way.

This isn't like Kavenough where he's got all these false accusations with zero proof and zero witnesses that they were together when something happened.

These women should have left at the first sign something was wrong and reported it happening to them, but I am fairly sure he mentally intimidated them and used his Hollywood influence to crush any hope of them telling anyone that would believe them.

You would hope that your daughters would be strong enough to report if something happened to them. The reality though is it takes a seriously strong woman to report something like this and not be a victim.

Zemira said:

---

I get that you are a man. So you don't realize how some men can be incredibly scary and forceful about things, especially sex or sexual assault. Realistically I get what you are saying. Victims of assault and rape should report their crimes. They often don't.

A lot of women in this day and age know they won't be believed without hard evidence. So most men would say go to the hospital and have a rape kit done and report it to police. I don't know if you have any idea what it could possibly feel like to be sexually assaulted. Then you basically loose your dignity while you are examined in a hospital. I have never had it happen, but a friend did. It was the hardest thing to watch it happening and not being able to comfort her till the end. It's invasive and really humiliating or at least I thought so. The next thing is getting the police to actually test the kit. There is a million plus backlog of untested rape kits in the US. Then they have to relive and repeat the awful story several times to report the crime.

Now if it isn't an actual rape getting hard evidence is incredibly difficult. Unless you can record the person and catch them in the act or have witnesses is extremely hard to prove.

That said I'm not excusing these women for not reporting this happening to him, but you will note when they felt safe they did come forward.

The verbal and mental abuse at the hands of an abuser is just as tough as sexual, and it sounds like he did all 3.

So please get off your high horse about how they should have reported the assault immediately, especially the person they were accusing who was a bigwig in Hollywood. The real world doesn't work that way.

This isn't like Kavenough where he's got all these false accusations with zero proof and zero witnesses that they were together when something happened.

These women should have left at the first sign something was wrong and reported it happening to them, but I am fairly sure he mentally intimidated them and used his Hollywood influence to crush any hope of them telling anyone that would believe them.

You would hope that your daughters would be strong enough to report if something happened to them. The reality though is it takes a seriously strong woman to report something like this and not be a victim.

---

mic drop

Zemira said:

---

I get that you are a man. So you don't realize how some men can be incredibly scary and forceful about things, especially sex or sexual assault. Realistically I get what you are saying. Victims of assault and rape should report their crimes. They often don't.

A lot of women in this day and age know they won't be believed without hard evidence. So most men would say go to the hospital and have a rape kit done and report it to police. I don't know if you have any idea what it could possibly feel like to be sexually assaulted. Then you basically loose your dignity while you are examined in a hospital. I have never had it happen, but a friend did. It was the hardest thing to watch it happening and not being able to comfort her till the end. It's invasive and really humiliating or at least I thought so. The next thing is getting the police to actually test the kit. There is a million plus backlog of untested rape kits in the US. Then they have to relive and repeat the awful story several times to report the crime.

Now if it isn't an actual rape getting hard evidence is incredibly difficult. Unless you can record the person and catch them in the act or have witnesses is extremely hard to prove.

That said I'm not excusing these women for not reporting this happening to him, but you will note when they felt safe they did come forward.

The verbal and mental abuse at the hands of an abuser is just as tough as sexual, and it sounds like he did all 3.

So please get off your high horse about how they should have reported the assault immediately, especially the person they were accusing who was a bigwig in Hollywood. The real world doesn't work that way.

This isn't like Kavenough where he's got all these false accusations with zero proof and zero witnesses that they were together when something happened.

These women should have left at the first sign something was wrong and reported it happening to them, but I am fairly sure he mentally intimidated them and used his Hollywood influence to crush any hope of them telling anyone that would believe them.

You would hope that your daughters would be strong enough to report if something happened to them. The reality though is it takes a seriously strong woman to report something like this and not be a victim.

---

I am doubting that these women were assaulted at all. They were pressured into it at the risk of their careers (which is slimy enough as it is), but not physically held down and raped. That's my point.

The casting couch has been a thing in Hollywood for ever. Not just with Weinstein. Hell, Weinstein paid off accusers for DECADES. So many of these women TOOK MONEY in exchange for their silence. That is not somebody who is scared to speak out due to mental trauma.

15 years ago, Courtney Love said in an interview "If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a private party in the Four Seasons, don't go." (and it looks like her career tanked so I believe she told him to F-off). In the 90s Gwyeneth Paltrow said on David Letterman that Weintstein "will coerce you to do a thing or two." Then, after he was outed, she talked about the disgusting things he did in an interview. Yet she praised him to the hilt in her Oscar speech prior. There are plenty other examples. Despite all of this, women kept going and praising him publicly afterwards.

The more I read about it now, the more I'm convinced that many of these women knew exactly what they were doing. That it was slimy on both sides. That the actresses who did it hated that part of it, but they liked the Oscar lobbying and other aspects of stardom that he provided (which is what they praised him for). Now that it's all out in the open, everybody, including many of these actresses, are scrambling to protect their careers and reputation. None of the women are going to admit, "oh yeah I did X, Y, and Z willingly". They will claim that they turned him down or that he forced them. Likewise he will claim that it was all consensual. So it's a he-said/she-said.

The most compelling testimony I've seen (which is non-witness based) was that recorded audio. In it, she never says, "get off of me" or anything like that. He begs her over and over to do something and she says no and leaves. There have been many women over decades. If anybody else had audio, I'd think they would have released it by now. (Maybe they will in the trial.. we will see). But if this is all they got, they don't got enough to make a case for assault. It will take an OJ jury to convict him.

Again, I'm all ears for any real evidence other than "you just don't understand sexual assault" (despite being married to somebody who was assaulted).

I admit some of these cases may lean more towards sexual harassment than assault. Pressuring a woman into sex or making sexual advances because you hold her career in yours hands is disgusting and disturbing. Just because some of these might be more harassment in nature than a pure assault does not mean any of this is okay!!!

Zemira said:

---

I admit some of these cases may lean more towards sexual harassment than assault. Pressuring a woman into sex or making sexual advances because you hold her career in yours hands is disgusting and disturbing. Just because some of these might be more harassment in nature than a pure assault does not mean any of this is okay!!!

---

None of this is okay. Don't get me wrong. I just don't see any credible evidence that anything was criminal.

I've had aTmAg blocked for quite some time now, but had to see what he was saying that was causing all these responses, and all I can say is holy sh*t. This dude somehow still never ceases to amaze me with his righteous stubbornness. But thank you, Zemira, for writing such a rationale, level-headed, reality-based response. Especially when it comes to such a sensitive subject matter. I can tell you from experience, though, no matter how sane your point, aTmAg will argue with you for all of eternity, never wavering from his limited, utterly uninformed point-of-view. There is zero point in responding to him because he doesn't listen, he doesn't evolve, he gives no ground, and he shows no empathy - ever - for any rationale other than his own. He is right in all things, no matter the subject. It is truly bizarre, and truly insane.

TCTTS said:

---

I've had aTmAg blocked for quite some time now, but had to see what he was saying that was causing all these responses, and all I can say is holy sh*t. This dude somehow still never ceases to amaze me with his righteous stubbornness. But thank you, Zemira, for writing such a rationale, level-headed, reality-based response. Especially when it comes to such a sensitive subject matter. I can tell you from experience, though, no matter how sane your point, aTmAg will argue with you for all of eternity, never wavering from his limited, utterly uninformed point-of-view. There is zero point in responding to him because he doesn't listen, he doesn't evolve, he gives no ground, and he shows no empathy - ever - for any rationale other than his own. He is right in all things, no matter the subject. It is truly bizarre, and truly insane.

---

When a guy is right, he's right. What can I say?

(BTW, your industry is full of slime balls)

I think all you're trying to say is that you would have a hard time convicting someone based purely on witness testimony. Which is fine. Lawyer's ask potential jurors if they're capable of that all the time. But his trial isn't going to be a bunch of B List actresses taking the stand to talk about how he gave them parts in his movies for massages.

It's going to be 2 women with specific accusations against him, one from 2013 and one from 2006. The other testimony will be from a select group of other women, to talk about previous encounters with Weinstein. These women don't have anything to gain by testifying, he is not charged with crimes related to them. They are purely selected to bolster the prosecutions case.

Also, I think there is probably something worth discussing about sexual assault through coercion, "If you don't do ___ I can have you fired." and stuff along those lines. That makes "consent" super sketchy, and I would love to have someone with more knowledge of crim law to chime in about that.

All I'm saying is this. If it was me on a jury, and the prosecution presented everything about Weinstein that they were allowed to, the witnesses provide credible stories, and they can show that the sexual acts were forced or coerced... I don't see how it would be that big of a leap to convict.

There is nothing wrong with saying you have a hard time convicting purely on witness testimony. I normally do too. And I'm not saying #BelieveAllWomen or whatever either. I think it's great what you've taught your daughters, and I'm sure these women wish their fathers had too. Just thought I'd clear up what's actually going on in the court case (to the best of my abilities anyway), and I think everybody on this thread can agree Weinstein is super creepy and we're all perfectly fine if the court room floor opens up and his chair and walker falls straight to Hell.

PDWT_12 said:

---

I think all you're trying to say is that you would have a hard time convicting someone based purely on witness testimony. Which is fine. Lawyer's ask potential jurors if they're capable of that all the time. But his trial isn't going to be a bunch of B List actresses taking the stand to talk about how he gave them parts in his movies for massages.

It's going to be 2 women with specific accusations against him, one from 2013 and one from 2006. The other testimony will be from a select group of other women, to talk about previous encounters with Weinstein. These women don't have anything to gain by testifying, he is not charged with crimes related to them. They are purely selected to bolster the prosecutions case.

Also, I think there is probably something worth discussing about sexual assault through coercion, "If you don't do ___ I can have you fired." and stuff along those lines. That makes "consent" super sketchy, and I would love to have someone with more knowledge of crim law to chime in about that.

All I'm saying is this. If it was me on a jury, and the prosecution presented everything about Weinstein that they were allowed to, the witnesses provide credible stories, and they can show that the sexual acts were forced or coerced... I don't see how it would be that big of a leap to convict.

There is nothing wrong with saying you have a hard time convicting purely on witness testimony. I normally do too. And I'm not saying #BelieveAllWomen or whatever either. I think it's great what you've taught your daughters, and I'm sure these women wish their fathers had too. Just thought I'd clear up what's actually going on in the court case (to the best of my abilities anyway), and I think everybody on this thread can agree Weinstein is super creepy and we're all perfectly fine if the court room floor opens up and his chair and walker falls straight to Hell.

---

I have no reason to defend Weinstein. The guy is a slimeball in every sense of the word. Hell, he was a huge democrat donor, so that would give me another reason to root against the guy.

I'm no criminal lawyer either, but I would think that the line would drawn on threatening or conducting violence in order to make somebody do something. For example, if I use a knife to make you wash my car, that should be against the law every bit as much as if I use the same knife to make you give me a massage (yuk). But if I tell you, I will not give you this $1M job unless you wash my car, should that be against the law? I think the answer would clearly be no. Not sure why changing the car wash to some sort of Weinstein act would make it different. After all, where do you draw the line? Would holding his hand count? What about a peck on the cheek? Where would the line be drawn from there all the way to the whole enchilada? I don't think a law could reasonably be defined in such a way.

Regarding the 2006 and 2013, do you know what they plan on testifying about?