Forum posts made by principessa

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 27 Oct 2017 09:55



Several people on this thread have attacked me for suggesting that if more victims had come forward, HW might have been stopped earlier. That others who knew couldn't come forward without naming the victim so they stayed quiet too. Does your comment now mean what I said isn't as offensive as you first said it was?

So now you're saying they did the wrong thing by keeping quiet. Which is it?

And to answer your ridiculous question, no, heymoe's post was not ok. his post was more than disgusting yet you posted at me and not him. Interesting.

You may think that you are the center of the universe, but actually not everything is about you.

I was talking about those who were aware and stood by, not his victims. Some have come forward now, like Matt Damon, saying that they regret keeping quiet. Read carefully. I was not contradicting myself. You accuse others of seeing what they want to see rather than reading your posts carefully. Do the same.

I posted a response to heymoe's post separately from yours.

As for your post, I thought you might confront him rather than metaphorically sit back to watch the fight. We all have our own sense of what is important, I guess.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 26 Oct 2017 17:15



No, that's just too easy. He's a man like me, a homo sapiens sapiens like you and me. But he's just one who seems to lack empathy or control over his basic impulses. He's an ass.


He is a rich and powerful man. He is an entitled bully who has behaved in an obnoxious manner to both men and women over and above the sexual assaults. He has operated in an environment that allowed him to get away with it all until now. There are many actors, producers, directors and writers who were well aware of what he was doing. It is disgraceful that they looked on and said nothing. This has apparently been going on for decades. There is plenty of guilt and shame to go around, especially including those who were powerful enough to be heard if they had outed him.

The Neanderthal is heymoe, the one who posted that ignorant opinion.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 26 Oct 2017 14:08

think about what happened . --A powerful man granted favors to people he liked . Sorry folks , I consider that to be instinct in the animal kingdom. That has been going on since the dawn of time ! That is called -"the real world". Now, remember , those actresses got what they wanted also. Actually that is a distinct advantage that women have over men . Nothing new here ! lol .
Now, please realize I don't condone it , BUT -----that is the way it is ---INSTINCT.

So, your opinion is that men are hard wired to rape women and assault them sexually, and that women use this to get what they want. Somehow, in your view, being victimized is an advantage for women over men. What planet do you live on? There are myriad ways that this is offensive but I have a feeling that explaining it to you would be a waste of my time. I wonder how you explain this to women in your life.

I would like to see some responses from men here about this assertion.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 26 Oct 2017 13:56



https://upload.lushstories.com/1996621215-IMG_7466.GIF

Was the preceding post okay with you?

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 26 Oct 2017 09:25

If you get information somewhere other than Fox and Breitbart you will be aware that Trump and his administration are doing. They are not draining the swamp or helping the people who voted for him because of his populist appeal. He and the GOP as always are working for the wealthy and large corporations. This is from the NYTimes:

At his inauguration Mr. Trump said his presidency was about “transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the American people.” But he and his allies in Congress are transferring power to Wall Street, fossil fuel companies, the chemical industry and other special interests, and are stoking an anti-populist bonfire to incinerate protections for consumers and workers.

On Tuesday night the Senate, with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence, followed the House in voting to overturn a rule that would have allowed consumers to file class-action lawsuits against banks and other financial institutions, rather than be forced to take their disputes to arbitration. The regulation, created after fraud and malfeasance by those businesses financially ruined thousands of Americans and almost wrecked the world economy, joins a series of Obama-era rules that Congress and Mr. Trump have shredded. Meanwhile, they have taken several actions to benefit the well-off at the expense of average Americans.

Health care sabotage.

Mr. Trump signed an executive order allowing insurers to sell skimpy health insurance plans that do not protect people with pre-existing conditions and that will destabilize the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces. He also said he would stop making payments to insurers that were authorized by the 2010 law, which will cause companies to increase premiums, hurting middle-class families. His administration shortened the open enrollment period when people can buy insurance policies for next year, and slashed spending on advertising and outreach efforts.

The administration made it easier for companies to stop providing no-cost birth control to employees if they have religious or moral objections to doing so. It announced that teenage pregnancy prevention grants would end two years early. Congress repealed an Obama-era rule that forbade states to deny family planning funds to Planned Parenthood.

Environmental harm.

Congress overturned a rule restricting the ability of coal companies to dump their mining debris into streams and other waterways, threatening rural communities, forests and wildlife.

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, rejected a staff recommendation to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to developmental problems in children, and started the process to overturn the Clean Power Plan, the Obama-era proposal to reduce planet-warming emissions from power plants.

Hurting workers.

Congress repealed an Obama-era rule that would have required companies seeking federal contracts of $500,000 or more to disclose and fix serious labor and safety violations. It also struck down an Obama-era rule that would have required employers to keep records of workplace injuries for five years, to make sure employers did not hide such information. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed changes that would weaken a rule intended to limit workers’ exposure to beryllium, an industrial mineral linked to lung damage and estimated to cause about 100 deaths a year.

The Education Department has delayed implementation of an Obama-era rule to ensure that for-profit colleges seeking federal funds were preparing students for good jobs and they made sure students’ debt was not too burdensome.

Even though Republicans often describe themselves as champions of states’ rights, Congress made it harder for states and local governments to create retirement accounts for workers whose employers do not provide 401(k) accounts and pensions.

Making housing less affordable.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development delayed by two years a rule that would help poor people in high-cost areas by changing how the value of housing vouchers is calculated.

Helping big corporations.

Congress repealed a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that sought to expose and limit corruption by requiring oil and mining companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. Under the direction of a Trump appointee, the Federal Communications Commission has eased the cap on how many local TV stations one company can own — and is considering relaxing it even further — helping the conservative broadcaster Sinclair and limiting the diversity of voices on the nation’s airwaves. Congress overturned an F.C.C. rule requiring telecommunications companies to get consumers’ permission before collecting, using and selling personal information.


The House and Senate repealed a regulation that would have barred about 75,000 people suffering from conditions like schizophrenia and psychotic disorders — when such conditions prevent them from managing their own financial affairs — from buying a gun.

Still, Republicans in Congress have yet to achieve some of their grandest dreams, like huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and they are counting on Mr. Trump to deliver. Spoilsports like Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, may fret about the small stuff, like, as he said on the Senate floor on Tuesday, “the threats against principles, freedoms and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency.” But what’s all that compared to a bonanza for special interests?

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 25 Oct 2017 11:34

Harvey needs to have a talk with this guy. Steps in shit, makes an apology, comes up smelling like a rose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/arts/leon-wieseltier-magazine-harassment.html

Not exactly. The new magazine he was spearheading will not go forward. His reputation in that industry is tainted now.

Topic Impeach Trump
Posted 24 Oct 2017 17:58

I saw an ad on CNN tonight encouraging Trump's impeachment. It is funded by Tom Steyer, a billionaire and Democratic donor. He is spending $10 million on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXl8vRmLeJk

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 24 Oct 2017 14:44

Don't forget that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial is higher than that in a civil trial. Weinstein does not have to be found guilty of criminal charges for him to be judged appropriately fired from his job. In the United States legal system, there are two standards of proof that must be met before the judge decides who wins a case. Civil courts use a lower standard of “preponderance of evidence”, while criminal courts use a higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

A wrongful dismissal suit will cover a lot of territory including that there are many allegations of bullying and mistreatment by him over and above the sexual harassment and assault allegations. Many employment contracts have clauses that are broadly interpreted against the employee if, for example, they have brought their employer' standing into disrepute. Of course without knowing the contents of Weinstein's employment contract we can't have an informed opinion, but I would caution against predicting he will merely go on with his life unscathed.

As an aside I want to mention something I heard yesterday in a discussion about sex addiction. Several psychiatrists stated that it is not like alcohol or drug addiction. It is a label used mainly by wealthy, white, middle-aged men as a reason for their unsavoury behaviour. One said that going to camp for a couple of weeks and doing group therapy doesn't end this for Weinstein. It is a kind of sociopathy, where he exerts his power and sees no reason to tell himself "no" when he sees someone or something he wants.

Topic Impeach Trump
Posted 24 Oct 2017 06:58


Don't you need more than a petition to impeach a President? Impeach him for what exactly?

I'm just asking a question. There is NO hidden message in my question and I'm not supporting Trump by asking the said question. Just so you know.

The material in the link lays out the authority to impeach and how it would work. The reasons are listed if you click on the red box under "grounds for impeachment".

The most obvious is the conflicts of interest and enriching himself in his office. He has not put his business interests and investments into a blind trust as is required. Having his sons run his business is not even arm's length away from him.

He may well have committed obstruction of justice in connection with his firing of James Comey as he first asked Comey to go easy on Flynn (who later was fired and is under investigation). He stated publicly that he fired Comey to shut down the investigation into Russian interference in the election and the possibility that members of his team and family, himself included, conspired to skew the election in his favour.

He talked about firing AG Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation as he was ethically obliged to do.

There is probably a list of fifty things that could be included in grounds for impeachment given Trump's lies and unethical behaviour and choices. If we look back at Nixon he was going to be impeached for colluding in criminal behaviour to win the election. He resigned rather than go through the process, but the votes were there to impeach him. Illegal and unethical behaviour is not tolerated for a president.

Another thing to be considered is that many people see him as unhinged and out of touch with reality as well as incapable of functioning as president. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution is the mechanism to remove a president unable to fulfill his obligations and responsibilities.

Most likely is that the Mueller investigation will uncover evidence that Trump himself was involved in Russian collusion or ordered others to do it on his behalf. Mueller has a talented team of lawyers who have specialized in many areas of white collar and financial crimes. Mueller is known as a man of great integrity.

You can say thank you now.

Topic Impeach Trump
Posted 23 Oct 2017 15:45

Simmie, the link isn't working. I concur, though. Impeach Trump, but then we'd have Pence and he may be even more dangerous. Spence is slicker than Donald the Goober.

Try again. It worked for me but unfortunately I can't sign because I am not an American.

Topic Why I voted for Donald Trump
Posted 23 Oct 2017 14:54

Two quotations:


"Come the second millennium, In the home of greatest power, The village idiot will come forth to be acclaimed the leader." - Nostradamus, 1555


"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein


And a third that seems relevant:


"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 22 Oct 2017 10:40

It has now been reported that Fox News paid $32 million in a settlement last January to a network analyst to settle new sexual harassment allegations against Bill O'Reilly. This is six months after Roger Ailes, its chairman, was ousted for years of such conduct. The woman’s complaints about Mr. O’Reilly included allegations of repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her. It was at least the sixth agreement — and by far the largest — made by either Mr. O’Reilly or the company to settle harassment allegations against him. Despite that record, 21st Century Fox began contract negotiations with Mr. O’Reilly, and in February granted him a four-year extension that paid $25 million a year. As more and more allegations against Ailes and O'Reilly were revealed over the spring and summer, the Murdochs, who own Fox, decided that they had to let O'Reilly go. They had originally wanted him to stay after losing Megyn Kelly but that became untenable.

I posted this for information's sake. It is a shocking amount of money and shows how pervasive this behaviour is in all sorts of businesses and at their highest levels. Perpetrators come in all political stripes.

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 16:29



Perhaps. I think it would be hard to find someone not familiar with that particular story but not impossible.

Hmmm.... reading something into a comment that wasn't there. There seems to be quite a lot of that going around.

Some benefit of the doubt may be in order. It's a shame there isn't more of that going around as well.





I don't know who you are or if you grew up in another culture. It is very possible that a story I heard as a child was not one you heard in your past. I truly meant no offence and regret you took it that way.

Topic #MeToo on Lush
Posted 20 Oct 2017 16:11

#MeToo

I can't share details but can join the list.

I found out something quite distressing when I discussed it with my GP. He told me that he was shocked and heartbroken by the number of his patients who have told him that they had been abused. We have been living in a world where this has been and is going on all the time. It takes a lot of courage to share this with anyone else. It leaves scars that last a lifetime.

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 15:00



I thought we agreed not to be condescending.

Sprite is right. I really thought you might not be familiar with the story.

Topic Why I voted for Donald Trump
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:39


I am just answering him back.What is he your lover or something?

NO, neither lover nor something.

That wasn't answering him regarding the opinion he expressed. It was just invective.

Topic Why I voted for Donald Trump
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:35


Listen cave-man, why don't you go sit in the corner like a good fucked up excuse for a human would. Go on sit dumbass sit.
https://upload.lushstories.com/1834817536-so-you-like-bernie-sanders-tell-me-again-why-you-live-in-your-mothers-basement.jpg

You seem to be really good at lashing out with insults. I guess it is what you have to do because you are incapable of a rational or relevant argument.

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:25



IMHO it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference if he did his job naked. It's hard to imagine how that could possibly make his press coverage any more negative.

Many if not most of his supporters, not voters, supporters, sent him to Washington to grab the smug, elitist, establishment by the scruff and slap some reality into them. So far he's been doing that.

That was a reference to "The Emperor's New Clothes", a children's story. Not sure that you understood.

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:17



I figured one example per POTUS would establish my point. I wasn't trying to establish an encyclopedia of presidential lies.

The New York Times has catalogued all of his lies with dates and there are dozens of them. The list only goes to July 19, so there have been more since then.

His supporters nonetheless remain in his thrall. When they realize that there will be no southern wall, the coal mines will not reopen, and that more of his promises have not been achieved, perhaps they will wake up. I fear it will be a long time before they see that the Emperor is naked.

Here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Here is a list of people he has insulted on twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 20 Oct 2017 10:34


You seem determined to explain my words in the most negative way possible. If you had realy read all I've written you also would have seen this: "If that was true for any of the eleven she mentioned, I don't know, none of us probably do, but if it was, they are who I am talking about."

You did not couch it that way when you brought up the same idea several times in other posts.

It is not that we all misunderstood what you wrote, we understood it perfectly. You did not understand the implications of what you wrote. The same applies to Trinket. Now you both deny the clear meaning of your words.

I don't see any point in going back and forth with you on this any longer. We each know our own positions. I will let the marketplace of ideas decide who is right.

Topic Quoting two different posts in your response
Posted 20 Oct 2017 10:16

Thank you, B.

Now I want to know how to do the one you asked about.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 20 Oct 2017 09:55

Then read the words I wrote. I did not suggest that labeling them as predators and rapist was victim shaming. What I did write was "Are we victim shaming there?", and that was a rhetorical question, to which the obvious answer was "no". My initial post about this was generalising too much, I'm not afraid to admit that, but in my later posts I repeatedly clarified than I wasn't talking about the victims in general but about people for whom money was the main and possibly only motivation to remain silent about Weinstein.

So now you assert again that some of the victims are greed driven blackmailers. You have said this several times. I feel certain that I can assure you that there may be one women in several million who might see this as a money-making opportunity, but the rest would not. You need to find some more empathy and compassion in thinking about it. Rape and sexual assault are not transactions in the marketplace, priced accordingly.

Topic Quoting two different posts in your response
Posted 20 Oct 2017 08:51

I know how to quote someone's post and respond to it. Could someone please explain to me how to quote two different posts in that one response. Thanks in advance.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 20 Oct 2017 08:09

I'm not suggesting that any victim is complicit in their own abuse. Like I said before (on another thread): becoming a victim if sexual abuse or assault is NEVER your fault. It should not happen, whatever the circumstances and whatever you did.

But that should not stop us from acknowledging that victims can do wrongful things too. Again, I'm not talking about those victims who cannot or dare not open up about their abuse. I'm talking about those who can, but choose instead to use that ability to gain financially rather than stop the predator. That was the premise of Trinket's post, wasn't it; she spoke of victims who went to their lawyers with the intention to make a financial deal with their abuser. If that was true for any of the eleven she mentioned, I don't know, none of us probably do, but if it was, they are who I am talking about.

Over the past two weeks more than forty women have come forward who claim to be Weinstein's victims. It probably is just the tip of the iceberg but consider this, assuming the number eleven is correct:
If it was Weinstein's MO to pay off women for their silence one would expect many more financial deals than just the eleven mentioned. It is not unlikely that the initiative for at least some of those deals came from the victims rather than from Weinstein.

Weinstein probably wasn't one of them, but many sex offenders started out as victims of abuse themselves, and their behaviour is often the result of their traumas. In spite of that we do not hesitate to condemn them and to call them rapists, predators or abusers. Are we victim shaming there? If not. then why is it victim shaming to call out someone who made a conscious choice to hide someone's criminal behaviour in exchange for money. How doesn't that choice make them accomplice to the crimes it allows the offender to commit in the future?

Those are your words. I did not twist them. You said that many sex offenders are abuse victims and their behaviour is the result of their traumas. You suggested labelling them rapists and predators is victim shaming. You said that victims of rape and sexual assault made a conscious choice to hide their behaviour in exchange for money and thereby made themselves complicit in the predators future crimes. Trinket made this suggestion as well: that victims make a decision based on greed rather than stop the predator.

I tried to explain to you how the legal system works and what the money represents. I tried to explain that going through a criminal or civil trial could be another trauma for the victim. I tried once again to talk about the power imbalance that is evident in most of these situations, certain the ones in Hollywood, the workplace, universities, and many other workplaces where men have power over women and their careers. No woman would view being sexually assaulted as the equivalent of winning a lottery if she took a settlement rather than going through a criminal or civil trial for the reasons I outlined more fully in my response to you.

You and Trinket need to own your words. You wrote them in black and white. I am not the only person who understood them as I did. You have been shown at best to be not just misinformed and wrong in your views, but at worst blaming the victims rather than the perpetrators and attaching venal motivations to them. You should read your comments carefully and edit them before you post them because they will be read and taken at their face value. No one has misunderstood you or twisted your words. You wrote them. We read them. You have no basis for complaining.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 19 Oct 2017 19:42

I'm not suggesting that any victim is complicit in their own abuse. Like I said before (on another thread): becoming a victim if sexual abuse or assault is NEVER your fault. It should not happen, whatever the circumstances and whatever you did.

But that should not stop us from acknowledging that victims can do wrongful things too. Again, I'm not talking about those victims who cannot or dare not open up about their abuse. I'm talking about those who can, but choose instead to use that ability to gain financially rather than stop the predator. That was the premise of Trinket's post, wasn't it; she spoke of victims who went to their lawyers with the intention to make a financial deal with their abuser. If that was true for any of the eleven she mentioned, I don't know, none of us probably do, but if it was, they are who I am talking about.

Over the past two weeks more than forty women have come forward who claim to be Weinstein's victims. It probably is just the tip of the iceberg but consider this, assuming the number eleven is correct:
If it was Weinstein's MO to pay off women for their silence one would expect many more financial deals than just the eleven mentioned. It is not unlikely that the initiative for at least some of those deals came from the victims rather than from Weinstein.

Weinstein probably wasn't one of them, but many sex offenders started out as victims of abuse themselves, and their behaviour is often the result of their traumas. In spite of that we do not hesitate to condemn them and to call them rapists, predators or abusers. Are we victim shaming there? If not. then why is it victim shaming to call out someone who made a conscious choice to hide someone's criminal behaviour in exchange for money. How doesn't that choice make them accomplice to the crimes it allows the offender to commit in the future?

I cannot believe what I have just read. Are we are now to feel compassion for the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault because they might have been abused in their past? There are far more people who have been abused in their lives than there are sexual predators. This is not only a weak argument but also a distasteful excuse for atrocious and criminal behaviour. It slanders many people who have been abused by saying that committing rape would be an expected reaction to their experience. So, calling out a perpetrator is not victim shaming, it is the appropriate response to what they have done.

As to those who settled their cases, they were being paid for damages they would have been awarded by a court had they pursued a civil suit for the harm done to them. This kind of litigation is not unusual along with criminal charges being pursued. Many lawsuits are resolved this way as proceeding to trial is a very expensive proposition even if you are in the right. Even if the court awards you costs along with damages they rarely cover the entire amount of litigation. So, the victim accepts a settlement to avoid not only the expense of going forward but also to spare themselves the ordeal of testifying at a trial where they likely would face a character assassination. They would be going up against men who often are well connected and have financial resources to mount a defense with hired experts and top level legal representation. Victims seldom have matching resources. Yes, there is often a confidentiality clause but they have not sold themselves and their integrity for silence as you imply and trinket did.

With respect, you have often posted thoughtful comments. This was not one of them.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 19 Oct 2017 09:15



This is victim shaming in its purest form. How can an assault victim ever be considered an accomplice? The guilt belongs solely on the rapist, not on any of his victims because we never know what they had to overcome.

Bare in mind that these women have every right to handle their trauma as they see fit. Any form of suggesting a victim is complicit is disgusting to the extreme.

Thank you. What seems to be forgotten sometimes (and I know I have said this elsewhere) is that there is more often than not a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim. Whether it is someone who is directly the boss is not necessary for that to be present. If the perpetrator has money and status and power in society, he would be a formidible opponent in court whether criminal or civil because of all the resources and connections he has. That can be very daunting for a victim to confront and fight, especially in a society where there is still shaming and blaming of victims: What was she wearing? Did she drink or take drugs? What is her sexual history? Why did she allow herself to be alone with him? Those questions are still asked, unfortunately.

So, empathy and compassion are the correct response. Not any of the above.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 18 Oct 2017 05:49



Thank you for this. It is so easy to get mad at all men when something like this comes to light. It is never helpful. Thankfully I have had wonderful support from the men in my life as an adult. I can't say the same thing for when I was younger. I can't double quote your other post above but I appreciate it too. Being dismissive of "trivial" acts of sexual harassment or any kind of unwanted sexual attention is most definitely part of the problem.

As a child starting around age 8 or 9 at every family holiday function, there was the "dirty old man uncle" everyone tolerated and would even joke about. Being the only young girl I got most of his attention. My brother and boy cousins would actually push me into him so he could feel me up and comment on how nice my boobs were coming along or squeeze my crotch and give me five bucks. One Thanksgiving I "earned" $50.00. My brother and cousins would then take the money. I never mentioned it then. Eventually, I would get sick at every holiday gathering and hide upstairs at my grandmother's house No one ever figured out what was so upsetting to me. Bringing it up recently I got the whole "well that was just the way it was then". Everyone knew he was doing stuff like that but ignored it. This is the least graphic story I am willing to relate here but I am so glad that more and more people are finally talking about things. Not an end or a solution but a start is discussion and bringing things out in the open and not dismissing ANYTHING that women feel is unwanted sexual attention or makes them uncomfortable or more is a start. Just a start, but for that I am grateful.

Thank you Sprite! Big Hugs

I am so sorry that this happened to you. The victimization is worse because your brother and cousins were complicit. Perhaps you can talk to him about that now and how much it hurt you. He should know.

Family members may have some sense that something is going on but be reluctant to have an uncomfortable conversation with a relative. If your brother and cousins were old enough they should have protected you. I realize that it is only in recent years that children are taught about speaking up regarding sexual abuse. Years ago victims thought they were the only person who was enduring this. So, it is important to tell children not only that they can and should object to someone touching them inappropriately and to report it to parents, but also to tell someone if it is happening to another child. Adults should be more aware that something is amiss if their child is behaving differently around a particular person and do something about it.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 17 Oct 2017 14:42

What is the time length on the legal statute of limitations on bringing charges? Some of Weinstein's assaults may no longer be prosecutable. But I'm sure plenty are.

It would vary state by state and I am not familiar with American law. There may also be an opening to lay federal charges, perhaps with the abuse as a civil rights violation, which would have yet another limitation date. There are jurisdictions which have no time limitation for rape, but I don't know which US states that would include. As well, if Weinstein is charged in the UK there would be another different system to understand.

Edit: I was curious so I found some information on this. Here are a couple of links:

https://victimsofcrime.org/docs/DNA%20Resource%20Center/sol-for-sexual-assault-check-chart---final---copy.pdf?sfvrsn=2


http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 17 Oct 2017 14:35

Man, every day there are more and more people talking about what they knew. Story after story of him doing something or propositioning someone or "I was warned about Harvey" or "I warned others about Harvey". Jessica Chastain today said she'd "been warned from the beginning" about HW. Her friend Jess Weixler suffered years of propositions from him. How is it that everyone knew but no one put a stop to it? Harvey is responsible for his own actions but dammit, how many motherfuckers knew. I think it would be harder to find someone in Hollywood that DIDN'T know. He is 100% to blame for any rape or assault he committed. But there are others that could have done SOMEthing instead of nothing.

That whole "It Starts With Us" campaign, what self-serving bullshit. Unless they meant turning a blind eye/ear starts with them. Fucking hell. All these women (and potentially kids and men) have suffered needlessly. Pisses me right the fuck off that so many motherfuckers knew what a monster he is, and did absolutely NOTHING.

It's like the fucking Catholic church and pedophile priests. A shit ton of people know a dude is assaulting people but they don't tell anyone or put a stop to it. It's the same fucking thing. If you know someone is a monster and you do nothing, you're complicit in his actions. Fucking fuck.

Part of what has to happen is that companies should not be able to keep this behind closed doors and deal with it internally. As I said in my previous post there should be transparency in dealing with harassment allegations and if the behaviour meets the legal definition of sexual assault or rape it should be a police matter and criminally investigated. HR departments are not the friends of victims. Perhaps there should be some sort of independent ombudsman who could be hired and whose decision would be binding.

Most important is for all of us to be decent human beings. When we see something untoward, we have to say something. Silence is consent.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 17 Oct 2017 14:15

Harvey Weinstein has been convicted of the same crime(s) as Bill Clinton. When will Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky get wrapped up in the same protective shroud of victim?


https://upload.lushstories.com/1889571808-Capture1.PNG

No, unless you mean conviction by public opinion. HW has not yet been criminally charged and those charges will have to be proven in court for him to be convicted. As to Clinton and his alleged victims the same applies. Not sure about the law in the various jurisdictions, but the statute of limitations may have passed. As well, if I remember correctly a couple of those women consented to what happened. Adultery is not a crime. So, if and when Clinton is charged criminally relating to any of those women they will have what you call that protection. It may well be that his power and influence is why this did not happen or it may be that there was not enough reliable evidence to charge him, or a combination of both. Trump's actions and behaviour with women should be subject to the same test. Several of them lined up and spoke out during the election campaign and it became a non-issue as it was with Clinton.

Edit: It occurs to me that if we are going to revisit such allegations from the past one that should be high on the list is Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas (who now sits on the SCOTUS). It was that story that coined the term sexual harassment in the 1990s. In 1991 lawyer and law school prof Anita Hill testified before an all-male Senate committee hearing regarding Clarence Thomas' nomination to the SCOTUS. She testified that she described had been sexually harassed by Justice Thomas when he was her superior at two different federal agencies, the Dept. of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The panel included future VP Joe Biden and were aggressively unsympathetic to Hill. Thomas denied all of her allegations and was confirmed. Hill became a symbol of the struggles of women in the workplace nonetheless.