High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

However, it sounds like (although I could be mistaken) they just had sex when he was 17. It doesn't sound like she was in a position of authority or was otherwise groomed or coerced into it. If so, what she did would be perfectly legal in Alberta.

A lot of these cases involve people who have higher status in the entertainment industry and someone who has little status, and the notion that this kind of power disparity is effectively coercion. Then there's the fact he was a minor and she gave him alcohol.

And Argento first worked with him when he was 7 years old, and she played his mom in a movie. Which makes it pretty creepy.

Reverse the genders and there's no doubt this would be considered predatory, and a career-ending move.

[Nsd1]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

However, it sounds like (although I could be mistaken) they just had sex when he was 17. It doesn't sound like she was in a position of authority or was otherwise groomed or coerced into it. If so, what she did would be perfectly legal in Alberta.

It allegedly happened in California where the legal age of consent is 18.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm with you on the internet lynching mob stuff, but just as a matter of principle, should it make a difference to his firability whether this was brought to the public's attention by right-wing trolls or someone who was earnestly bothered by the tweets? Either his conduct deserves the result that he got or it doesn't. It's not that we should fire people for horrible offensive tweets but only if the people who made them into news are on the left. That should be irrelevant to the outcome.

Apparently it wasn't clear that I think the reasons for his firing were BS to begin with, that there wasn't a real moral outrage behind this, and firing him was just the easy, brainless way out.

And I'm against internet lynch mobs because I think this current trend where some bunch of a-holes weaponize them for other reasons was inevitable. In fact it's always been the ugly side of these internet lynch mobs, which is why I've been openly against the internet shaming culture for a long time. (And taken a lot of sh#t for it at times. Less so recently though, at least in my social circles others have mostly come to see my way.)

There are situations where only making things public will create social change. Going public with the accusations against Bill Cosby was I think very necessary to make a point. But I do think these things should happen only to out someone who has committed an actual, provable crime. (And of course of that person is an actively dangerous predator like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein,.taking them down is pretty much a civil duty.)

Trying to get fired individual people for things that are just weird or creepy, or who say something unpopular, that doesn't sit right with me.

Large scale social issues that are not corrected by hunting individuals for their moral failings.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Reverse the genders and there's no doubt this would be considered predatory, and a career-ending move.

Counterpoint: Woody Allen's career survived.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And Argento first worked with him when he was 7 years old, and she played his mom in a movie. Which makes it pretty creepy.

I don't know the dynamics. Don't really know who Asia is at all. I would strongly agree that if they had been in contact since he was 7, not only is that incredibly creepy but certainly grooming and disgusting. If they did a scene in the same movie for a day and didn't meet up again for 10 years, than that's just a random irrelevant fact.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Reverse the genders and there's no doubt this would be considered predatory, and a career-ending move.

Career-ending move? Spacey had one of the best careers possible after trying to rape a 14 year old. Nobody batted an eye after James Franco tried to hook with a 17 year old on Instagram a couple years ago. The only reason, ironically, is that a move like this would be considered in the slightest career-ending is because of her (and the many other women and men involved in the MeToo movement). Allen, Polanski, there's hundreds of examples.

Of course rockstars are a different beast altogether. But let's not forget that the world recently mourned Bowie's passing. Including the 15 year olds he slept with.

Originally Posted by Nsd1

It allegedly happened in California where the legal age of consent is 18.

We don't need to say allegedly, it happened in California. I realize that. And pretty much the only reason she had to pay $380,000 to the victim. If it happened in Alberta, it would have been perfectly legal. Outside of the alcohol to a minor.

EDIT: I don't want to sound like I'm defending this person too much. She could be a complete predator for all know. I'm just saying that a 17 year old hooking up with an adult is something that is perfectly legal in Alberta (with exceptions). Maybe it shouldn't be, but hard to really wrap my head around how 'bad' something is when I live in a place where it's legal.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Ughh, ewww:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/u...y-bennett.html

Ms. Argento, who is divorced and has two children, was both a mentor and a mother figure to Mr. Bennett, the document says, and the two were intermittently in contact as he grew up. “Jimmy’s impression of this situation was that a mother-son relationship had blossomed from their experience on set together,” Mr. Sattro wrote.

On May 9, 2013, the day they met for a reunion in her room at a Ritz-Carlton in Marina del Rey, Calif., she posted on Instagram: “Waiting for my long lost son my love @jimmymbennett in trepidation #marinadelrey smoking cigarettes like there was no next week.”

Alright, changing my tune.

I guess a read a different article before because I don't remember seeing this grossness

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't know how I feel about this one. Of course there's an irony, but it doesn't change what Harvey Weinstein allegedly did to her nor does it change what the MeToo movement is about. If anything it goes to emphasis its importance as it's another case of sexual assault that was just paid off and forgotten for years.

However, it sounds like (although I could be mistaken) they just had sex when he was 17. It doesn't sound like she was in a position of authority or was otherwise groomed or coerced into it. If so, what she did would be perfectly legal in Alberta.

I'm just going off of what I read, but it sounds like she'd been grooming him and acting like a mother figure/mentor since he was 13. Also the actions of the night in question are described as her asking for a meeting, the boy showing up with a family member, Argento basically shooing the family off, giving a 17 year old alcohol, then proceeded to go down on him and then have sex with him, then took photo's of him afterwords.


I have to think that the boy who had been mentored by her since 13 had probably been lead to believe that she would help him with his career.


At the end of the day, this shouldn't distract from the MeToo movement, victims can be assaulters as well. But what she did was gross and it clearly was damaging to her as she settled a possible lawsuit, so she's not much better then Weinstein and the others.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah she;s a predatory, what she did is no better then what Weinstein did.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't like that when the story broke here that Rose McGowan and other well known actresses went the whole "Extortion and setup route" on their social media. They can't sit there and say respect the victim or whistle blower and then when its inconvenient for them roll out a blame or smear the victim.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't like that when the story broke here that Rose McGowan and other well known actresses went the whole "Extortion and setup route" on their social media. They can't sit there and say respect the victim or whistle blower and then when its inconvenient for them roll out a blame or smear the victim.

This tells me McGowan is more interested in social points then actually helping victims.

[Nyah]

I'm no Rose McGowan fan, but I haven't seen her do anything but try to distance herself from AA.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1031477689947967489

Where did she say that this was a setup?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I'm no Rose McGowan fan, but I haven't seen her do anything but try to distance herself from AA.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1031477689947967489

Where did she say that this was a setup?

Rosanna Arquette (Sp?) in responding to Rose, also the whole "Until the facts come out be gentle statement.


Rose was certainly not "gentle" in cases that didn't involve her friends in terms energizing the mobs.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Rosanna Arquette (Sp?) in responding to Rose, also the whole "Until the facts come out be gentle statement.


Rose was certainly not "gentle" in cases that didn't involve her friends in terms energizing the mobs.

That's how this stuff always works.

Rush to judgement and let the mob mentality rule. Unless it is one of your friends having their life ruined by accusations. Then we must wait for the facts to come out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, its unfortunate but true.


I mean I respect Rose, and she rightfully showed nothing but scorn to the people that tried to derail he because she took the settlement from Weinstein.


But when she should have maybe shut down some of her followers and friends who threw out the word extortion, she didn't and that to me is wrong.

[GGG]

Why do you expect Victims to be different than any other person in terms of defending people close to them. Requiring a victim to behave perfectly is a bad standard. The victims of abuse are regular flawed humans. She has no obligation to police anyone.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do you expect Victims to be different than any other person in terms of defending people close to them. Requiring a victim to behave perfectly is a bad standard. The victims of abuse are regular flawed humans. She has no obligation to police anyone.

Doesn’t make it right, but it’s true. I mean, there are people in this very thread taking Rose to task for not being consistent who are blatantly inconsistent themselves when it comes to social or political issues, depending on which “team” is in the wrong.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do you expect Victims to be different than any other person in terms of defending people close to them. Requiring a victim to behave perfectly is a bad standard. The victims of abuse are regular flawed humans. She has no obligation to police anyone.

But it isn't just victims who are selective in their outrage. It's people defending those who they worked with, or who share their political identities, while attacking others for doing the same thing. It's about tribal politics relentlessly chipping away at universal, liberal values.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's about tribal politics relentlessly chipping away at universal, liberal values.

You should just not use that word anymore. This is coming from a guy that often agrees with you, although not in this particular case, as hypocrisy has little to do with values or tribes, and much more to do with self-deception. It's innate to human nature.

Not everything need be distorted through the lens of culture.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do you expect Victims to be different than any other person in terms of defending people close to them. Requiring a victim to behave perfectly is a bad standard. The victims of abuse are regular flawed humans. She has no obligation to police anyone.

Whether fair or not, Rose McGowan isn't just a victim in this. She's rised above and has become a figurehead and brave rolemodel. She's definitely used that platform to speak out about the culture, including accusing those she believes were complicit and hasn't been afraid of calling them out. For example, her feud and nasty words with Milano because Milano associated with Weinstein's ex-wife.

So there is a hypocrisy that should be called out for McGowan arguing to wait and see about the facts in this case only. To be gentle because she's a friend, or female, or whatever the case made be is going against what she has been preaching for the last year.

Right now the facts are that a director promised a young underage actor, who saw the director as a mentor, a spot in her movie after having sex with her that resulted in a sexual assault settlement. If the genders were reversed it would be comparable to what happen to McGowan and many other woman with Weinstein.

[CaptainCrunch]

To me it has to be a consistent message. A victim is a victim of a victim. But when someone lashes out at one person and then for another person its "Be gentle" "Wait for more information". In the case of Rose, as soon as Arquette came out with the cry of extortion, McGowan should have shut her down.


McGowan also should have been more firm in the case of Victor Salva who was convicted of molesting a child actor in 1988 and was on the registered sex offenders list for example, yet she didn't condemn him in 2011.


To me Harey Weinstein is a pig and an animal. But so is Roman Polanski and all of the other dirt bags that abused people under their sway, and so is Asia Argento.