Model accuses Harvey Weinstein of "molesting" her

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Captainstabbin said:
PapayaTapper said:
Not really relevant. She likely just enjoyed the opportunity to humiliate him and the prosecution liked the fact that the details were likely to further repulse the jurors.

"He's hideous!" "Deformed!" "A monster!"

Old men often get large moles. That becomes "blackheads".

Ill take your word for that :icon_biggrin:
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
PapayaTapper said:
...
Whats at stake in this type of case is the very last remnants of "criminal justice" in America. Steadily we are nearing the point where being disliked by the wrong people is a punishable offense

For middle class whites down who can't afford to fight the system (and other groups) that ship sailed long ago so there's no longer a reason for them to give a shit about any of that.

I definitely agree with your last sentence though, except you forgot to use the (((correct punctuation))) around "wrong people". :banana:
 

griffinmill

Kingfisher
I'm sorry, but I believe precisely zero of any public accusations of assault or rape. I've been conditioned to treat them all with suspicion. None of these women ever seem to go to the police and for some reason send the perpetrator love notes after the crime. They always seem to follow the same pattern and are riddled with the same clichés ("I froze!").

Generous rapist, too. Giving Rose McGowan head in a jacuzzi. It seems oral sex was something he enjoyed doing to his "victims". I can't even begin to work out how it's possible to eat a woman out without her consent.

I'm simply unwilling to give any of these cases the benefit of the doubt because of the intoxicating elements of sympathy and attention that I believe are the primary motivations. Why would Amber Heard flat-out lie about Johnny Depp abusing her when the truth is its inversion? She sat down at her desk to write an op-ed for a national publication knowing that every word was a lie, and that she was actually the guilty partner. This is the kind of duplicity we are dealing with.

For a long time I remember hearing about Weinstein's violent and petty behaviour, and I felt angry that so many in Hollywood treated him like royalty. He's a horrible human being. But he was raping and molesting every actress he could get his hands on for thirty-five years without ever being caught? From young starlets to major A-list Hollywood stars? Really?

No, I'm not buying it.

As a logical nan I always look for the most likely scenario, and the most likely scenario for me is an ugly man leveraging his power to fuck girls, and those girls either going along with it at the time and later feeling icky about it, or rejecting his awkward advances but keeping quiet.

He tried to fuck Gwyneth Paltrow and Uma Thurman when he was alone with them. What stopped him from raping them? Why were they able to reject his advances without any negative consequences to their careers? There are many inconsistencies and holes in the theory of Weinstein as an unapologetic predator running amok. The truth is never what the media tell us.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
He might not be an "unapologetic predator running amok", but he is just short of that, a manipulative perv sex fiend serial molester. I don't think there is any doubt that several of his targets were outright raped and cowered into submission with a combination of carrot and stick. Remember, he wasn't just a harmless bumbling perv, he used black cube mosad agents to control and intimidate those targets trying to speak and journalists.

Weinstein is a scapegoat in the most classic definition, one person who is sacrificed to spare and wash off the rest of the guilty community, but this of course doen't mean that he wasn't guilty himself.

E. Michael Jones on Weinstein:

https://culturewars.com/videos/is-harvey-weinstein-a-scapegoat-messiah
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Whatever Pervey Weinstein gets is a mere fraction of what's coming to him. It baffles me why anyone gives a shit except because they also want to stick their dick in damaged (albeit pretty) women and don't like the idea of not being able to reliably boil the consequences of that down to legal/not-legal.

Again, everyone wants to freeze society at their preferred level of degeneracy.

In this case it's "after her father lost the authority to punish you for treating her like a cumrag but before she gained the authority to punish you herself for treating her like a cumrag."

That's a big ol' shrug from me. The 80's are over lads. Open season is finished. Get over it.
 
jcrew247 said:
The fact that Weinstein is fat helped because he could just jump on the woman like Annabella Sciorra and keep her pinned down because he was so heavy. Its plane and simple date rape if you are having trouble comprehending the idea that rape can occur between people that work together.

jcrew247 said:
Do you know what consensual sex is?
Because it sounds like you do not.
When Weinstein forces his way into Annabella Sciorra's apartment and then jumps on top of her and penetrates her that is not consensual.
You sound like you have never talked to a woman in your life because many women are too scared and fragile to report a rape or "date rape" to the police. Do you think that every rape that has ever happened has been reported to the police and prosecuted by the DA? There are plenty of rape cases that are not prosecuted due to lack of evidence, etc. It just means that even though the man physically forced himself on top of the woman it became a he said/she said case.

All you do is engage in straw man arguments. No one is saying rapes do not occur. To suggest griffinmill does not understand the difference between rape and consensual sex is just ad hominem nonsense on your part.

Weinstein being fat and Sciorra alleging rape is not enough to make any sane person believe that he raped her beyond reasonable doubt. You need a lot more than that, especially when a guilty verdict entails years of prison and lifetime stigma as a convicted rapist.

Griffinmill and I, along with others, are decrying the woeful “evidentiary” standards enabling Weinstein to be convicted in the first place.

In terms of paperwork to settle or avoid problems, Michael Jordan is said to have had lawyers hand out NDAs to women he was sleeping with before sex. By your logic, MJ would have had no reason to have girls sign these if he were “innocent”.

Settling suits before court and/or arranging NDAs avoids hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees, not to mention the long-term damage caused by even false accusations going public.

In addition, probably 15-25% of this forum’s members have fathers who agreed to an otherwise unfair divorce settlement to avoid exorbitant court and lawyers’ fees or prevent further opportunistic accusations from their ex-wives.

I spoke to a family lawyer recently who told me that if you took initial claims in the family court system as valid, something like 40% of fathers are supposedly abusing their kids or otherwise endangering their welfare.

Family law is different from the Weinstein case but I raise it as an illustration that settlements are an expression of practical reality, not an indication of guilt.
 

jcrew247

Kingfisher
david.garrett84 said:
jcrew247 said:
The fact that Weinstein is fat helped because he could just jump on the woman like Annabella Sciorra and keep her pinned down because he was so heavy. Its plane and simple date rape if you are having trouble comprehending the idea that rape can occur between people that work together.

jcrew247 said:
Do you know what consensual sex is?
Because it sounds like you do not.
When Weinstein forces his way into Annabella Sciorra's apartment and then jumps on top of her and penetrates her that is not consensual.
You sound like you have never talked to a woman in your life because many women are too scared and fragile to report a rape or "date rape" to the police. Do you think that every rape that has ever happened has been reported to the police and prosecuted by the DA? There are plenty of rape cases that are not prosecuted due to lack of evidence, etc. It just means that even though the man physically forced himself on top of the woman it became a he said/she said case.

All you do is engage in straw man arguments. No one is saying rapes do not occur. To suggest griffinmill does not understand the difference between rape and consensual sex is just ad hominem nonsense on your part.

Weinstein being fat and Sciorra alleging rape is not enough to make any sane person believe that he raped her beyond reasonable doubt. You need a lot more than that, especially when a guilty verdict entails years of prison and lifetime stigma as a convicted rapist.

Griffinmill and I, along with others, are decrying the woeful “evidentiary” standards enabling Weinstein to be convicted in the first place.

In terms of paperwork to settle or avoid problems, Michael Jordan is said to have had lawyers hand out NDAs to women he was sleeping with before sex. By your logic, MJ would have had no reason to have girls sign these if he were “innocent”.

Settling suits before court and/or arranging NDAs avoids hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees, not to mention the long-term damage caused by even false accusations going public.

In addition, probably 15-25% of this forum’s members have fathers who agreed to an otherwise unfair divorce settlement to avoid exorbitant court and lawyers’ fees or prevent further opportunistic accusations from their ex-wives.

I spoke to a family lawyer recently who told me that if you took initial claims in the family court system as valid, something like 40% of fathers are supposedly abusing their kids or otherwise endangering their welfare.

Family law is different from the Weinstein case but I raise it as an illustration that settlements are an expression of practical reality, not an indication of guilt.

First off, sex outside of marriage is a sin, so maybe you are in the wrong forum. Besides being a scumbag, he cheated on his wife many times.

I don't think you comprehend that being rich and powerful lets Weinstein treat women like literal pieces of meat for rough sex and submissive sex. I think he expected the women to say no since, in his own words he is fat and ugly, so he just went ahead and grabbed them by the poosay and groped them before they could run out of the hotel room.

Again, you don't seem to comprehend the idea of consent.
Consent is not something that happens after sex.
Consent happens BEFORE sex.
Call me a romantic for believing that a woman should want sex before it happens.
Maybe Weinstein just thinks that any woman that comes to his hotel room alone for a job interview is sending out signals that she wants sex with him. His mind works like Backroom Casting couch videos.

While many young actresses are willing to sleep to move up to the top, that does not mean these women give CONSENT to being attacked, groped, and pressured into rough sex.

So you think its okay for Weinstein to break into Sciorra's apt uninvited, walk around to make sure no one else was in the other rooms, and jump on top of her and pin her arms back??? Maybe that is not legal enough to get a conviction but it doesn't sound like a CONSENSUAL sex to me.

NDA is not the same as settling lawsuits.
I hope you have the mental intelligence to understand the difference between consensual NDA, and the settling of sexual assault lawsuits.
To my knowledge, Michael Jordan has never been accused nor has he settled any sexual assualt lawsuits.

If you were really a father and had daughters you would understand that women should not be alone in a hotel room or office with Harvey Weinstein. This is about CONSENT to sex. Maybe you believe women can give consent to sex if they send out non-verbal signals like eye contact.
Personally, I think a woman should give out verbal consent. But I guess lawyers and the law disagree on how a woman can give Consent.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
jcrew247 said:
Do you know what consensual sex is?
Because it sounds like you do not.
When Weinstein forces his way into Annabella Sciorra's apartment and then jumps on top of her and penetrates her that is not consensual.
You sound like you have never talked to a woman in your life because many women are too scared and fragile to report a rape or "date rape" to the police. Do you think that every rape that has ever happened has been reported to the police and prosecuted by the DA? There are plenty of rape cases that are not prosecuted due to lack of evidence, etc. It just means that even though the man physically forced himself on top of the woman it became a he said/she said case.


All you do is engage in straw man arguments. No one is saying rapes do not occur. To suggest griffinmill does not understand the difference between rape and consensual sex is just ad hominem nonsense on your part.

Weinstein being fat and Sciorra alleging rape is not enough to make any sane person believe that he raped her beyond reasonable doubt. You need a lot more than that, especially when a guilty verdict entails years of prison and lifetime stigma as a convicted rapist.

Griffinmill and I, along with others, are decrying the woeful “evidentiary” standards enabling Weinstein to be convicted in the first place.

In terms of paperwork to settle or avoid problems, Michael Jordan is said to have had lawyers hand out NDAs to women he was sleeping with before sex. By your logic, MJ would have had no reason to have girls sign these if he were “innocent”.

Settling suits before court and/or arranging NDAs avoids hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees, not to mention the long-term damage caused by even false accusations going public.

In addition, probably 15-25% of this forum’s members have fathers who agreed to an otherwise unfair divorce settlement to avoid exorbitant court and lawyers’ fees or prevent further opportunistic accusations from their ex-wives.

I spoke to a family lawyer recently who told me that if you took initial claims in the family court system as valid, something like 40% of fathers are supposedly abusing their kids or otherwise endangering their welfare.

Family law is different from the Weinstein case but I raise it as an illustration that settlements are an expression of practical reality, not an indication of guilt.


First off, sex outside of marriage is a sin, so maybe you are in the wrong forum. Besides being a scumbag, he cheated on his wife many times.

I don't think you comprehend that being rich and powerful lets Weinstein treat women like literal pieces of meat for rough sex and submissive sex. I think he expected the women to say no since, in his own words he is fat and ugly, so he just went ahead and grabbed them by the poosay and groped them before they could run out of the hotel room.

Again, you don't seem to comprehend the idea of consent.
Consent is not something that happens after sex.
Consent happens BEFORE sex.
Call me a romantic for believing that a woman should want sex before it happens.
Maybe Weinstein just thinks that any woman that comes to his hotel room alone for a job interview is sending out signals that she wants sex with him. His mind works like Backroom Casting couch videos.

While many young actresses are willing to sleep to move up to the top, that does not mean these women give CONSENT to being attacked, groped, and pressured into rough sex.

So you think its okay for Weinstein to break into Sciorra's apt uninvited, walk around to make sure no one else was in the other rooms, and jump on top of her and pin her arms back??? Maybe that is not legal enough to get a conviction but it doesn't sound like a CONSENSUAL sex to me.

NDA is not the same as settling lawsuits.
I hope you have the mental intelligence to understand the difference between consensual NDA, and the settling of sexual assault lawsuits.
To my knowledge, Michael Jordan has never been accused nor has he settled any sexual assualt lawsuits.

If you were really a father and had daughters you would understand that women should not be alone in a hotel room or office with Harvey Weinstein. This is about CONSENT to sex. Maybe you believe women can give consent to sex if they send out non-verbal signals like eye contact.
Personally, I think a woman should give out verbal consent. But I guess lawyers and the law disagree on how a woman can give Consent.

^ You sound like a fully inculcated post modernist indoctrinated SJW virgin...self contradictions and all. Thats quite an accomplishment. Congratulations your butt plug is in the mail
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
PapayaTapper said:
...
Whats at stake in this type of case is the very last remnants of "criminal justice" in America. Steadily we are nearing the point where being disliked by the wrong people is a punishable offense

For middle class whites down who can't afford to fight the system (and other groups) that ship sailed long ago so there's no longer a reason for them to give a shit about any of that.

I definitely agree with your last sentence though, except you forgot to use the (((correct punctuation))) around "wrong people". :banana:

Youre not wrong about the system being rigged against anyone without the means to fight it. But its ALWAYS been that way.

And thats the point. Here is a (((man))) who has the means a. Whats different about this is, that again, he's being tried in the court of public opinion and convicted of being "degenerate" "ugly" "scum baggy". Those are not crimes.

No one here is advocating for rape. Nor is anyone defending Weinstein as a person. But I have yet to read anything compelling that convinces me "without a shadow of a doubt" that anything but consensual sex happened followed by a years- long -delayed -band wagon -of -regret sex- charges.


This isnt about Weinstein

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Blackstones Ratio


The idea subsequently became a staple of legal thinking in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions and continues to be a topic of debate. There is also a long pre-history of similar sentiments going back centuries in a variety of legal traditions. The message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.

The loss of that premise is too important to just chalk up to inevitable progress.

Does Weinstein deserve to get punished? Probably.

But we all deserve that he be convicted by the facts first

 

jcrew247

Kingfisher
PapayaTapper said:
Leonard D Neubache said:
PapayaTapper said:
...
Whats at stake in this type of case is the very last remnants of "criminal justice" in America. Steadily we are nearing the point where being disliked by the wrong people is a punishable offense

For middle class whites down who can't afford to fight the system (and other groups) that ship sailed long ago so there's no longer a reason for them to give a shit about any of that.

I definitely agree with your last sentence though, except you forgot to use the (((correct punctuation))) around "wrong people". :banana:

Youre not wrong about the system being rigged against anyone without the means to fight it. But its ALWAYS been that way.

And thats the point. Here is a (((man))) who has the means a. Whats different about this is, that again, he's being tried in the court of public opinion and convicted of being "degenerate" "ugly" "scum baggy". Those are not crimes.

No one here is advocating for rape. Nor is anyone defending Weinstein as a person. But I have yet to read anything compelling that convinces me "without a shadow of a doubt" that anything but consensual sex happened followed by a years- long -delayed -band wagon -of -regret sex- charges.


This isnt about Weinstein

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Blackstones Ratio


The idea subsequently became a staple of legal thinking in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions and continues to be a topic of debate. There is also a long pre-history of similar sentiments going back centuries in a variety of legal traditions. The message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.

The loss of that premise is too important to just chalk up to inevitable progress.

Does Weinstein deserve to get punished? Probably.

But we all deserve that he be convicted by the facts first


Its quite scary that you want Weinstein released back into society so he can repeat his actions as a predator. In case you didn't know, he is being tried in California after the New York case, so he may get a conviction there if he is not convicted in NY.

I really hope you don't have a daughter or maybe you want to pimp her out to Weinstein for laughs. Let the guilty run free and eventually they will get caught again, right?

The mantra of Weinstein supporters seem to be:
If she doesn't complain, there is no rape.
If she doesn't complain, there is no rape.
If she complains, then settle the lawsuit.
If she complains, then settle the lawsuit.

If the legal concept of rape and consent confuses you.

Then do you understand the concept of sexual abuse and violence?

In Weinstein's mind women don't want him because he's fat and ugly.
So he takes out his anger by abusing the women who do sleep with him just for money and career advancement.
He knows no woman in her right mind would ever want to be with him if he was not rich or powerful in Hollywood.
He's gotten away with being physically abusive to women, to forcefully groping women, because he was the head of a disney-miramax and they wanted to keep their jobs. Every story about Weinstein is about degrading women and forcing submissive rough sex onto women. I don't know if that is illegal but it shouldn't be celebrated.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Not only the guy is a total sleazebag serial molester, but he's also a bigtime social engineer who has been producing filth and brainwashing hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

It wouldn't bother me if he got the death penalty in this world, he's definitely getting it in the next.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
PapayaTapper said:
...
The loss of that premise is too important to just chalk up to inevitable progress.

Does Weinstein deserve to get punished? Probably.

But we all deserve that he be convicted by the facts first


You're still missing the fact that the only people with any dog in this fight are the ones wealthy enough to have a lawyer on retainer.

The idea that because Harv is famous that he's entitled to a "better" version of the justice system because it helps everyone believe in it a little more is going to ring hollow to anyone who isn't picking their next lawyer out of a telephone book.

If the system is busted then let it be busted for everyone. At least that way everyone can stop pretending.
 

kel

Ostrich
I agree with PT. Obviously Weinstein is a Hollywood scumbag and I don't feel shit for him, but if he's going under it's merely because higher up people might be in danger otherwise and of course every starlet that needs a little bump in notoriety or an easy way to sweep her sleeping her way to the top under the rug is going to pile on to this case.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
911 said:
Not only the guy is a total sleazebag serial molester, but he's also a bigtime social engineer who has been producing filth and brainwashing hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

It wouldn't bother me if he got the death penalty in this world, he's definitely getting it in the next.

As others have surely pointed out, the main reason Weinstein is being thrown under the bus by the other Hollywood elites is so that people are satisfied and therefore don't investigate the rest of the Hollywood elites who most likely commit sex crimes far worse than Weinstein ever has (such as pedophilia and literal child rape).
 

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
^^^^

The real victims here are the greater actors that didn`t get the part/careers. And the general film audience as well. I have little sympathy for the women in question. Rape involves physical force! If that is not the case, it`s voluntary sex. They knew exactly what they where doing, and could have chosen not to engage with Weinstein.
 

jeffreyjerpp

Kingfisher
Lace em up said:
Found guilty of third degree rape and sexual assault charge. Possible sentence of 25 years. 2 more cases in California.

He is fucked, and so is any other straight man accused of something like this*.

No hard evidence required, no use of force, just women crying and complaining in an industry that operates as a de facto prostitution racket.

*who doesn't understand the reality of why you NEVER talk to police, anyways:
 

The Resilient

Ostrich
Orthodox
Lace em up said:
Found guilty of third degree rape and sexual assault charge. Possible sentence of 25 years. 2 more cases in California.

I think weinstein is a scumbag through and through,...but i want proof still nonetheless,....

What were the proofs that were available ?

How did they corroborate these womens stories ? I'm not sayin they were wrong or right...


but damnit, i want proof so i can rest assured we can take this (((cabal))) down one loser at a time so nothing can be said against the movement against it.
 
Top