Harvey Weinstein
#196
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Harvey Weinstein
I had dinner with Steven Seagal, and I'm not surprised by the latest accusations
She begins by observing the other guests are 8 buxom blonde women. So she has noted their hair colour and breasts. She says he spent the whole time talking about himself. She also said "As dinner wrapped up and we ate the last of our dessert, I watched Seagal finger his mala beads, spellbound by the cleavage of the most buxom girl at the table. In that moment I very much hoped that the Buddhist beliefs were true and that in his next life Seagal would be reincarnated as a beautiful woman, with massive boobs." So he saw the same thing she did then.
It all seemed much about nothing really - albeit there are more serious accusations about Seagal, just not in this trashy piece.
I googled the writer. She is a former WAG. She's not shy as the images pages show. And she has a kiss and tell book out, serialised in the Australian equivalent of The Sun.
Did nobody check?
It seems the Guardian has boobed. Ooh er missus.
Double standards as well as falling ones.
She begins by observing the other guests are 8 buxom blonde women. So she has noted their hair colour and breasts. She says he spent the whole time talking about himself. She also said "As dinner wrapped up and we ate the last of our dessert, I watched Seagal finger his mala beads, spellbound by the cleavage of the most buxom girl at the table. In that moment I very much hoped that the Buddhist beliefs were true and that in his next life Seagal would be reincarnated as a beautiful woman, with massive boobs." So he saw the same thing she did then.
It all seemed much about nothing really - albeit there are more serious accusations about Seagal, just not in this trashy piece.
I googled the writer. She is a former WAG. She's not shy as the images pages show. And she has a kiss and tell book out, serialised in the Australian equivalent of The Sun.
Did nobody check?
It seems the Guardian has boobed. Ooh er missus.
Double standards as well as falling ones.
#197
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Surrounded by 8 women with cleavages I dare say I'd find it difficult not to look too and that would probably be interpreted as ogling. Probably fairly.
In saying " she's not shy" and so on you are saying that by showing her body she has no justification in objecting to men leering at her? So was she asking to be leered at? Is that what you're saying?
But my main complaint until now and mentioned in earlier posts is how the guardian is publishing any old rubbish and putting it all at the same level as the Weinstein stuff. And this particular example has exceeded that.
I happened to copy the deleted comment after the article into an email before they deleted it.
Is that it? Hollywood actor talked about himself a lot at a dinner. Why is the Guardian publishing this rubbish?
I'm sure it was a bit uncomfortable but doesn't exactly equate to Weinstein and the whole 'raping people' thing does it?
The perpetrators of abuse should be made to face the consequences of their actions and the cultures that sustain them must be torn out at the roots. BUT am I the only one to find the repetition of unsubstantiated allegations really troubling? It feels like trial by the media without right of reply. Justice must be seen to be done.
He wrote her a note saying she was attractive. Years later he wrote her another note saying she was still attractive and they should "catch up". Because there had been many years between contact.
Twelve years between notes constitutes unwanted attention? Why did she keep the notes? He was never in a position to offer her anything. She was the one holding shadow minister office!!
#198
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Yes there is. But that was her interpretation of the way he looked. Someone else might have noted the way the writer looked at the other guests hair and cleavages and may have decided she ogled them too.
Surrounded by 8 women with cleavages I dare say I'd find it difficult not to look too and that would probably be interpreted as ogling. Probably fairly.
Not at all. You could say that she's made a career of trading on her looks and it would be somewhat hypocritical to complain of someone looking. But I think her kiss and tell book says more about her.
But my main complaint until now and mentioned in earlier posts is how the guardian is publishing any old rubbish and putting it all at the same level as the Weinstein stuff. And this particular example has exceeded that.
I happened to copy the deleted comment after the article into an email before they deleted it.
A couple of other comments sum it up well enough.
On a slightly different note but more of "the same" did you see MP Kerry McCarthy's complaints about unwanted attention from another MP?
He wrote her a note saying she was attractive. Years later he wrote her another note saying she was still attractive and they should "catch up". Because there had been many years between contact.
Twelve years between notes constitutes unwanted attention? Why did she keep the notes? He was never in a position to offer her anything. She was the one holding shadow minister office!!
Surrounded by 8 women with cleavages I dare say I'd find it difficult not to look too and that would probably be interpreted as ogling. Probably fairly.
Not at all. You could say that she's made a career of trading on her looks and it would be somewhat hypocritical to complain of someone looking. But I think her kiss and tell book says more about her.
But my main complaint until now and mentioned in earlier posts is how the guardian is publishing any old rubbish and putting it all at the same level as the Weinstein stuff. And this particular example has exceeded that.
I happened to copy the deleted comment after the article into an email before they deleted it.
A couple of other comments sum it up well enough.
On a slightly different note but more of "the same" did you see MP Kerry McCarthy's complaints about unwanted attention from another MP?
He wrote her a note saying she was attractive. Years later he wrote her another note saying she was still attractive and they should "catch up". Because there had been many years between contact.
Twelve years between notes constitutes unwanted attention? Why did she keep the notes? He was never in a position to offer her anything. She was the one holding shadow minister office!!
All these examples are examples of men ogling and treating women as sexual prey. They are valid examples of how male dominated culture works.
Again, trading on your looks does not mean that you have to put up with leering stares. To paraphrase, She was not asking for this. Does a woman wearing a low cut dress mean that you can stare,leer, and comment? No it does not.
Once again I'm going to drop out of this male dominated thread.
#199
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Well there's the thing you see. You are assuming it was a professionally written letter. It wasn't.
It was a short note written about catching up after 12 years.
She was not asking for what? She went to the dinner in her capacity as a model at the suggestion of her agent. This doesn't mean she has to put up with something that didn't happen. That's the point.
Did you see the photograph she posed for with him. What happened to her at the dinner? It's only now, having been accused of something else at another time(s) that she's thinking back to the dinner.
This is not victim blaming. She's not been a victim. Yet it's put across as "Oh look, yet another one"
As Julia Hartley-Brewer said a few days ago,
It was a short note written about catching up after 12 years.
Again, trading on your looks does not mean that you have to put up with leering stares. To paraphrase, She was not asking for this. Does a woman wearing a low cut dress mean that you can stare,leer, and comment? No it does not.
Did you see the photograph she posed for with him. What happened to her at the dinner? It's only now, having been accused of something else at another time(s) that she's thinking back to the dinner.
This is not victim blaming. She's not been a victim. Yet it's put across as "Oh look, yet another one"
As Julia Hartley-Brewer said a few days ago,
No one was remotely upset or distressed by it.’ ‘I believe it is absurd and wrong to treat workplace banter and flirting – and even misjudged sexual overtures – between consenting adults as being morally equivalent to serious sexual harassment or assault. It demeans genuine victims of real offences.
Last edited by BristolUK; Nov 14th 2017 at 5:31 pm.
#200
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Well there's the thing you see. You are assuming it was a professionally written letter. It wasn't.
It was a short note written about catching up after 12 years.
It was on House of Commons notepaper and he said he had been dreaming about her, " a nice dream" that she was still good looking -wtf- and he wanted to catch up. Very professional I'm sure
She was not asking for what? She went to the dinner in her capacity as a model at the suggestion of her agent. This doesn't mean she has to put up with something that didn't happen.j That's the point.
Did you see the photograph she posed for with him. What happened to her at the dinner? It's only now, having been accused of something else at another time(s) that she's thinking back to the dinner.
Why shouldn't she reflect on something that happened in the past?
This is not victim blaming. She's not been a victim. Yet it's put across as "Oh look, yet another one"
it seemed to me that you were saying she had posed as a model so therefore should expect and put up with leering and letching, that her actions on another occasion meant she had no reason to complain about his actions.
As Julia Hartley-Brewer said a few days ago,
It was a short note written about catching up after 12 years.
It was on House of Commons notepaper and he said he had been dreaming about her, " a nice dream" that she was still good looking -wtf- and he wanted to catch up. Very professional I'm sure
She was not asking for what? She went to the dinner in her capacity as a model at the suggestion of her agent. This doesn't mean she has to put up with something that didn't happen.j That's the point.
Did you see the photograph she posed for with him. What happened to her at the dinner? It's only now, having been accused of something else at another time(s) that she's thinking back to the dinner.
Why shouldn't she reflect on something that happened in the past?
This is not victim blaming. She's not been a victim. Yet it's put across as "Oh look, yet another one"
it seemed to me that you were saying she had posed as a model so therefore should expect and put up with leering and letching, that her actions on another occasion meant she had no reason to complain about his actions.
As Julia Hartley-Brewer said a few days ago,
#202
Re: Harvey Weinstein
For those of us who didn't meet our partners on the internet, surely many of us got together due to one of us making an advance?
I first kissed my now-wife in a calculated gesture that was going to end up only in one of two ways - either reciprocation or a slap around the chops. We must be very careful about defining every uninvited advance as harrasment.
I first kissed my now-wife in a calculated gesture that was going to end up only in one of two ways - either reciprocation or a slap around the chops. We must be very careful about defining every uninvited advance as harrasment.
#203
Re: Harvey Weinstein
For those of us who didn't meet our partners on the internet, surely many of us got together due to one of us making an advance?
I first kissed my now-wife in a calculated gesture that was going to end up only in one of two ways - either reciprocation or a slap around the chops. We must be very careful about defining every uninvited advance as harrasment.
I first kissed my now-wife in a calculated gesture that was going to end up only in one of two ways - either reciprocation or a slap around the chops. We must be very careful about defining every uninvited advance as harrasment.
#204
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Even if you do meet on the internet someone still has to make a move to go beyond two people with some common interests having a beer together. It's no different than meeting someone in the pub or in socially balanced non-hierarchical, equal opportunity, work related facility such as a gym or smoking room. (Assuming "internet" to mean sites less focused than, say, Tinder or fetlife).
#205
Re: Harvey Weinstein
The MPs were 50 and 30 when they first met and 70/50 later after maybe half a dozen meetings/notes. A handful of examples of contact over 20 years. Two notes 12 years apart. This doesn't sound like stalking. Could she not just nip it in the bud, say "sorry old boy, not interested" rather than keep the notes?
So he's around 70 when he has the nice dream. Rumpy pumpy or picnic on the cliffs at Dover?
Remember too that she was the one with the position and power.
Is anyone disagreeing with that?
Look, I said this several days ago. No matter what the offence is - be it rape, coercion, lies, flirting, unwanted attention....all words used by the female accusers...the media has put it all up together, in equal prominence.
To the point that last week there were a dozen people listed in a single report as if all guilty of comparable stuff but with very little details. One of them is now dead, quite possibly because he has been shamed on a very high level, a far higher level than he apparently did. But there was a lack of distinction between his behaviour and the rapists.
If you want men to take this seriously, repeating the same thing over and over about power and lack of respect (when even the inappropriate word choice or whatever isn't intended to wield power or show lack of respect) won't do it.
So he's around 70 when he has the nice dream. Rumpy pumpy or picnic on the cliffs at Dover?
Remember too that she was the one with the position and power.
Look, I said this several days ago. No matter what the offence is - be it rape, coercion, lies, flirting, unwanted attention....all words used by the female accusers...the media has put it all up together, in equal prominence.
To the point that last week there were a dozen people listed in a single report as if all guilty of comparable stuff but with very little details. One of them is now dead, quite possibly because he has been shamed on a very high level, a far higher level than he apparently did. But there was a lack of distinction between his behaviour and the rapists.
If you want men to take this seriously, repeating the same thing over and over about power and lack of respect (when even the inappropriate word choice or whatever isn't intended to wield power or show lack of respect) won't do it.
#206
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Harvey Weinstein
So what will convince men to take realise that lascivious behaviour is wrong? Looking, admiring, commenting to your friend isn't wrong, yelling across the room is, leering and staring is wrong. Sending creepy letters to someone you work with on the office notepaper is wrong.
#207
Re: Harvey Weinstein
How about not describing “My only reason for asking you out to lunch is because you are attractive, intelligent and charming” and “Much time has passed but I do remember earlier times … and you remain a very attractive woman.” as creepy. It looks stupid. It's just the harmless scribbling of an older guy who enjoyed female company. There's nothing sinister, nothing threatening, nothing asked, nothing offered. It's all just silly and been blown up as if he was stalking her.
#208
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Well the thread has well and truly left Weinstein hasn't it and entered the quagmire that constitutes normal human interaction.
Like it or not it's sex that makes the world go around and how we get it together in the normal spectrum of behaviour begins with a mutual attraction and it's difficult to see how this can happen without a visual appreciation of any potential partner. Now this doesn't mean that anyone has a licence to grope, pressure or attack but an interest and attraction must surely be acceptable and in most cases should be considered flattering.
I accept that this can sometimes be taken to an extreme that flips from being inviting to being insulting but surely this is all part of human behaviour.. and it's not always the men that threaten. I remember as a young engineer being warned off visiting a certain factory staffed predominantly by female welders who ate male visitors for breakfast. I also remember a fellow male sandwich student who was habitually late for work because his landlady had a voracious appetite, although he didn't leave his digs so probably wasn't that insulted by the attention he received.
Some cultures find it more difficult to deal with sexual attraction than others and the burka is an extreme manifestation of this and reeks of phobia whereas some native cultures allow a more relaxed approach to makedness. The western approach encompasses and accepts a fuil spectrum of behaviour and inevitably those at one end abhor the activities at the other and of course those in the middle despair of both.
I think we should lighten up and if we attract attention then accept it for the compliment that it is and it it's over the top and insulting then let them know.
Men will always be attracted by women and vice versa, we can't fight millions of years of evolution and if you have a problem with this then take it up with Darwin... or god if that's your thing.
Like it or not it's sex that makes the world go around and how we get it together in the normal spectrum of behaviour begins with a mutual attraction and it's difficult to see how this can happen without a visual appreciation of any potential partner. Now this doesn't mean that anyone has a licence to grope, pressure or attack but an interest and attraction must surely be acceptable and in most cases should be considered flattering.
I accept that this can sometimes be taken to an extreme that flips from being inviting to being insulting but surely this is all part of human behaviour.. and it's not always the men that threaten. I remember as a young engineer being warned off visiting a certain factory staffed predominantly by female welders who ate male visitors for breakfast. I also remember a fellow male sandwich student who was habitually late for work because his landlady had a voracious appetite, although he didn't leave his digs so probably wasn't that insulted by the attention he received.
Some cultures find it more difficult to deal with sexual attraction than others and the burka is an extreme manifestation of this and reeks of phobia whereas some native cultures allow a more relaxed approach to makedness. The western approach encompasses and accepts a fuil spectrum of behaviour and inevitably those at one end abhor the activities at the other and of course those in the middle despair of both.
I think we should lighten up and if we attract attention then accept it for the compliment that it is and it it's over the top and insulting then let them know.
Men will always be attracted by women and vice versa, we can't fight millions of years of evolution and if you have a problem with this then take it up with Darwin... or god if that's your thing.
Last edited by dave_j; Nov 15th 2017 at 5:55 am.
#209
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Well the thread has well and truly left Weinstein hasn't it and entered the quagmire that constitutes normal human interaction.
Like it or not it's sex that makes the world go around and how we get it together in the normal spectrum of behaviour begins with a mutual attraction and it's difficult to see how this can happen without a visual appreciation of any potential partner. Now this doesn't mean that anyone has a licence to grope, pressure or attack but an interest and attraction must surely be acceptable and in most cases should be considered flattering.
I accept that this can sometimes be taken to an extreme that flips from being inviting to being insulting but surely this is all part of human behaviour.. and it's not always the men that threaten. I remember as a young engineer being warned off visiting a certain factory staffed predominantly by female welders who ate male visitors for breakfast. I also remember a fellow male sandwich student who was habitually late for work because his landlady had a voracious appetite, although he didn't leave his digs so probably wasn't that insulted by the attention he received.
Some cultures find it more difficult to deal with sexual attraction than others and the burka is an extreme manifestation of this and reeks of phobia whereas some native cultures allow a more relaxed approach to makedness. The western approach encompasses and accepts a fuil spectrum of behaviour and inevitably those at one end abhor the activities at the other and of course those in the middle despair of both.
I think we should lighten up and if we attract attention then accept it for the compliment that it is and it it's over the top and insulting then let them know.
Men will always be attracted by women and vice versa, we can't fight millions of years of evolution and if you have a problem with this then take it up with Darwin... or god if that's your thing.
Like it or not it's sex that makes the world go around and how we get it together in the normal spectrum of behaviour begins with a mutual attraction and it's difficult to see how this can happen without a visual appreciation of any potential partner. Now this doesn't mean that anyone has a licence to grope, pressure or attack but an interest and attraction must surely be acceptable and in most cases should be considered flattering.
I accept that this can sometimes be taken to an extreme that flips from being inviting to being insulting but surely this is all part of human behaviour.. and it's not always the men that threaten. I remember as a young engineer being warned off visiting a certain factory staffed predominantly by female welders who ate male visitors for breakfast. I also remember a fellow male sandwich student who was habitually late for work because his landlady had a voracious appetite, although he didn't leave his digs so probably wasn't that insulted by the attention he received.
Some cultures find it more difficult to deal with sexual attraction than others and the burka is an extreme manifestation of this and reeks of phobia whereas some native cultures allow a more relaxed approach to makedness. The western approach encompasses and accepts a fuil spectrum of behaviour and inevitably those at one end abhor the activities at the other and of course those in the middle despair of both.
I think we should lighten up and if we attract attention then accept it for the compliment that it is and it it's over the top and insulting then let them know.
Men will always be attracted by women and vice versa, we can't fight millions of years of evolution and if you have a problem with this then take it up with Darwin... or god if that's your thing.
#210