Posted on 10/09/2017 4:48:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
James O’Keefe - Project Veritas coming out tomorrow with video about major news media. Many were guessing NYT. Perhaps NYT realized they were “caught” by infiltrating reporters and wanted to get out front of it.
He doesn’t seriously believe therapy will help him, does he? Sexual pervs don’t ever change, or become rehabilitated (unless they have a literal come-to-Jesus moment).
Exceelent question, and the right one. Why now? He pissed off the wrng person, maybe Soros.
Maybe this is the storm Trump was talking about.
BINGO!
hang the rotten bastard and seize all of his assets
Keep in mind that those that ran Disney/Miramax had to know of this creep. Maybe they participate in this themselves.
As much as Weinstein’s behavior was despicable, one has to realize that it’s often a TWO-WAY STREET with pretty women trying to use their sexuality to curry favor with an older man who has power/influence.
I say the women who held their ground are innocent, but the ones who thought it might advance their career are as corrupt as Weinstein.
There should be no law against what the skanky women do nor against what skanky guys like Weinstein do. They are free to do what they want. On the other hand, a private company like Weinstein’s can fire him. That’s not censorship, but rather it’s the free market at work.
Consider how many unattractive women never get career advancement offers in exchange for sex. Now consider how many women have advanced their careers using their sexuality...
If they think his response would be to take down the whole system, I doubt that he will live the year.
We’ll see.
I already saw a discussion today on either MSNBC or CNN between two women about how he could re-enter. They said that he needs to become a champion of the something or other..the opposite of what he has been for decades. It was ridiculous. I guess re-entry to the elites worked for Robert Byrd so why not for HW?
Read post 51. Nothing to do with a two way street.
That’s a relief. i thought he was going to ask us to come watch him shower.
Reread Post #68 (my post you responded to).
I said nothing about the rape victims. Of course, that isn’t a two-way street and is wholly inexcusable.
Rather I was referring to the many more numerous cases of a sleazy man in power with pretty, opportunistic women who tolerated or even caved to his advances (not by force) at the time for personal gain. And now they’re claiming victim status.
Reading Comprehension 101 needed on your part.
No need to be rude. I agree with your post that these situations can sometimes be a two way street. However the man is accused of masturbating in the presence of women without proposition, much less consent, and out and out forcible penetration. Perhaps your issue is more an inability to focus on the pertinent issues, rather than reading comprehension.
No need to be rude on your part either.
Contrary to you opinion, I do not have an issue understanding the “pertinent issues” (rape, unsolicited masturbation). Those acts done by Weinstein are gross & unacceptable. And, of course rape is a crime.
Your issue is that you fail to comprehend the “pertinent issues” that I wrote (I wrote specifically about the non-rape cases where many many women use their sexuality — or hint thereof — as bait for their personal advancement. Apparently you think those are not so pertinent?
You should know very well that opportunistic sexuality has been used by women throughout history. And it IS a two-way street with men on the other end of the stick.
There are 3 rape allegations at the moment with Weinstein. And while those are horrible, you would have to agree that there are probably HUNDREDS of cases where women have “gone along” with his advances (excluding the alleged rapes) in spite of their repulsion - for personal advancement.
They are consenting adults as long as Weinstein didn’t use force on them. In those cases, their behavior is almost equally sleazy, but not against the law.
By debating me on this point, one might conclude that you are defending ALL women in their dealings with Weinstein — including those who were sexually opportunistic?
I have to wonder why anyone would bring up the topic of consensual sex for advancement in the workplace on a thread that’s about sexual harassment, unwanted touching, and out right felony sexual assault. Not trying to be rude, but I’m really just wondering what your motivation is here. Obviously, what you brought up goes on. So do hotdog eating contests. What does that have to do with the topic?
Fair enough, but it is ON TOPIC because the Left demonizes men so often in sexual harassment cases that are actually unfair to men.
Yes, in the case of Weinstain, he deserves all the wrath he gets for his rapes and aggressiveness. But my point is that the Weinstein “two-way street” incidences will be many because many women will come out of the woodwork with less egregious offenses of his, such as saying how sexy she looks.
Think of Clarence Thomas who was grilled for simply asking Anita Hill out and mentioning a few sexual things to her. He called it a high-tech lynching. Note that Anita Hill, in spite of Thomas’s modest advances, FOLLOWED him to another job appointment (to advance her career).
At least you conceded that it is a two-way street often. In those two-way street situations, it’s invariably the male that gets accused of sexual harassment by the honey pot. The media loves to excorcate men.
Unfortunately, this WineStain issue will turn into just that.
And it’ll put a further chill on male-female relations in our culture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.