Harvey Weinstein
-
From today's New York Times update:
[...]
The 24-year-old was wary, but Mr. Weinstein was friendly, professional and supportive, she said, offering her a screen test at Miramax, inviting her to lunch and dinner to talk about films and even giving her and her boyfriend tickets to see “The Producers” on Broadway.
Then his assistant invited her to a meal with Mr. Weinstein at a Manhattan hotel. Ms. Dunning headed to the restaurant, where she was told that Mr. Weinstein’s earlier meeting was running late, so she should head up to his suite.
There was no meeting. Mr. Weinstein was in a bathrobe, behind a coffee table covered with papers.
He told her they were contracts for his next three films, according to Ms. Dunning. But she could only sign them on a condition: She would have to have three-way sex with him.
Ms. Dunning said that she laughed, assuming he was joking, and that Mr. Weinstein grew angry.
“You’ll never make it in this business,” she said he told her. “This is how the business works.”
[...]
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
-
Poor Harvey, the pile-on is starting to make me feel some sympathy for the guy.
Just announced at People, his wife (fashion designer) Georgina Chapman is leaving him, filing for divorce.
Unmentioned in the People scoop is that there's been rumours for years she tolerated his abusive behaviour with other females as a quid-pro-quo because he made all the Hollywood starlets wear Georgina Chapman gowns on the red carpets at Oscars, Golden Globes, Cannes, and film premieres. Who could ever have imagined she married the guy for influence and power? They look like a perfect couple.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
Poor Harvey, the pile-on is starting to make me feel some sympathy for the guy.
Seriously?
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
Poor Harvey, the pile-on is starting to make me feel some sympathy for the guy.
Seriously?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling. I think it might be time for you to go the way of Frank in the politics forum.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
It is a straw man because you are arguing something nobody ever said or argued.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?
-
An "open secret" from that latest NYT article:
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?
I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.
I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?
I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.
How is it hypocritical?
I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.
It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?
I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.
How is it hypocritical?
I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.
It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.
How is it hypocritical? see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.
Given her comments on Trump and other anti male comments, her decision that behavior like that was acceptable if it was only against her and not against others is laughable. As is her assumption that it only happened to her and therefore keeping quiet is a good option. Remember her speech at the womens march? I would be fascinated how she could reconcile that with her silence about Weinstein.
How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?
I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.
How is it hypocritical?
I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.
It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.
How is it hypocritical, see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.
Still avoiding the question I see.
How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.
I honestly don't care.
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?
I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.
How is it hypocritical?
I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.
It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.
How is it hypocritical, see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.
Still avoiding the question I see.
How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.
I honestly don't care.
I think you do. Most reasonable people would....
And I did answer the question. Once you took down your silly straw man and packed it away till the next time you are out of your depth.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.
So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.
Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.
Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?
What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?
Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.
Holy fuck, the irony.
I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.
You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'
I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.
You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.
No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?
What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?
I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.
How is it hypocritical?
I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.
It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.
How is it hypocritical, see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.
Still avoiding the question I see.
How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.
I honestly don't care.
I think you do. Most reasonable people would....
And I did answer the question. Once you took down your silly straw man and packed it away till the next time you are out of your depth.
It's amazing what you can do if you go back and edit your posts when someone's already addressed your original post.
But to your new point:
Given her comments on Trump and other anti male comments, her decision that behavior like that was acceptable if it was only against her and not against others is laughable. As is her assumption that it only happened to her and therefore keeping quiet is a good option. Remember her speech at the womens march? I would be fascinated how she could reconcile that with her silence about Weinstein.
I don't recall her speech at the 'womens march'. Do you have a relevant transcript?
-
@antipodean it was way over the top hyperbole like all of the speeches given by celebrities are on Trump. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven, especially when you consider this type of stuff is absolutely bloody rife in Hollywood. For them to suddenly take the moral high ground on a few comments Trump made 10 years ago was absolutely absurd, and it's only served to fuel the polarizing environment we see now.
-
This whole thing just reeks of bullshit ... let's be clear, 2 of hollywood's leading, powerful woman, Jolie & Paltrow, who both have NEVER been afraid of speaking out against anything, are now coming out saying it happened to them ...
Really?
I'm not a buyer of fuck all of this.
-
Admittedly, I have read just one story on this, but basically he is being accused of over-enthusiastically trying it on?
I mean for each one of these women who knocked his sexual advances back, there was probably 2 that jumped on board...
Am sure some of them did so expecting it to help thier careers too.
-
Just to give you an idea of how untouchable these pricks think they are, Terry Crews has come out with his story of sexual assault from a Hollywood exec.
If they can grope him and expect to get away with it, what chance does a 20 year old starlet have?
And these guys can destroy your career.