Posted on 10/14/2017 10:44:50 AM PDT by tjd1454
It has been scarcely a week since the tsunami hit. On October 6 The New York Times decided it could not afford to be behind the curve as the biggest scandal ever to hit Tinsel town unfolded with all its unseemly tawdriness. The sea change came after decades of coverup and turning a blind eye as one of the most powerful figures in Hollywood roamed like some hulking, unshaven, brute beast, pathologically preying at will upon young starlets....
(Mentions FR) Ironically, some of Weinstein’s few remaining supporters were to be found online on conservative discussion boards, where they blamed the victim—such as the poster on a Free Republic discussion thread, who, in an attempt to deflect blame away from Weinstein, retorted: “And what about the whores who serviced him?” Others referred to her as “slut” (fortunately, this was very much a minority opinion on that stellar conservative site)... (Article continues)
“It is fair to say that the women who willingly play that game, either by inviting it or willingly going along do ruin it for the women who will not play that game.”
Completely true. And some of those who ‘played’ go on to cry foul later, which REALLY muddies the water for any actual victims.
It's called "Crying To Teacher" and only little girls and nancy boys do it.
I think you misunderstood the obvious sarcasm. Arbuckle was innocent, Weinstein not so much.
Fatty had two trials and a mistrial.
The first was 10-2 acquit.
The second was 10-2 convict.
The third was not guilty.
Count me among those believing this 300-pound man
ruptured the girl’s bladder while attempting to rape her.
oh sorry, yup, missed the sarcasm.... whoops!
I think that, perhaps, the right word there is not "willing", but "pressured".
And someone who is pressured into doing something is not playing on a level playing field. Then add in the probability that the person was surprised by events (a sneak attack, if you will). So, yeah, that person really was being victimized.
But I didn’t say ‘pressured.’
I said ‘willing’ and that’s a
difference between victim and non-victim.
Oh B’s. Pointing out that many of the women were happy to service Harv in return for a break is not “blaming the victim”. It’s fact. Save the phone outrage.
morally reprehensible. the person that said that is a misogynistic bastard. it’s just morally vile.
Of course.
But what about the whores who serviced him?
I never wrote a truer sentence.
I guess you’re right.
There are no whores, only Godly women of great virtue.
Never a whore to be seen anywhere.
> But I didn’t say ‘pressured.’ I said ‘willing’ and that’s a difference between victim and non-victim. <
I have no quarrel with you there. But we don’t know the actual personalities of the women involved. Were they mostly career prostitutes, willing to trade sex for movie roles? Or were they mostly decent, honorable people, people with standards?
We just don’t know. So I will apply the “average woman” concept here. Would the average woman meeting with a potential boss in this day and age (post-1990) expect to have to trade sex for a job?
I really don’t think today’s average woman would expect to have to do that. That makes them victims, not participants.
You’re completely entitled to that inconsequential opinion.
And this is why posting on FR is like taking one’s clothes off in Grand Central Station except only for a hat that says “I am a Freeper!”
Huh?
Well, we know mcgowan’s price: $100,000. Pretty cheap by showbiz standards.
You know that "Pizzagate" crap is totally fake and that only boneheads believe it, right?
Because that "Pizzagate" crap is totally fake and only boneheads believe it.
Don't be a bonehead.
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.