Weinstein Verdict

Weinstein was a pig who used his power as a producer to coerce sex from various girls who would put up with it.

But putting up with rough, degrading and humiliating sex is consent. If you put up with being humiliated and degraded so you can get something you want that is consent.

The so-called "survivor" (the victim) in the case in New York maintained a voluntary relationship with Weinstein after her degrading and humiliating sexual events with him. She never told him that what he was doing with her was unacceptable. Her silence was consent.

According to the theory of the prosecution a woman who is in need of benefits from a man is not capable for forming consent because of her need for benefits from him. They point to many cases where wives or domestic partners are forced to have sex against their wishes and cannot leave because of their economic dependence on their partner.

This theory was wrongfully presented to the jury, which bought it, because it was the only way to obtain a conviction the DA wanted for political reasons. The DA is Cyrus Vance, Jr, the son of the former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who was a pure scum bag. The victim in this case was not a domestic partner or spouse economically dependent on her assailant. She was not an employee. She was just another talentless girl who couldn't find acting work by her merits and was trying to take a short cut by sleeping with a producer. She chose the wrong producer and instead of a gfe experience he got off on humiliation and degradation.

After the relationship she didn't get the career, and she was so full of guilt for having agreed to be degraded that in her mind she turned the responsibility around and blamed him for it. But she's as much to blame as he is, and her accusation of him is a psychological trick to project her own responsibility onto him alone.

The danger of all this of course is that now a new and novel standard for what constitutes forced sex has been set, and not for legal reasons but for political ones in the dark age of "me too" and it's non-existent standards of evidence.

Weinstein was a pig who used his power as a producer to coerce sex from various girls who would put up with it.

But putting up with rough, degrading and humiliating sex is consent. If you put up with being humiliated and degraded so you can get something you want that is consent.

The so-called "survivor" (the victim) in the case in New York maintained a voluntary relationship with Weinstein after her degrading and humiliating sexual events with him. She never told him that what he was doing with her was unacceptable. Her silence was consent.

According to the theory of the prosecution a woman who is in need of benefits from a man is not capable for forming consent because of her need for benefits from him. They point to many cases where wives or domestic partners are forced to have sex against their wishes and cannot leave because of their economic dependence on their partner.

This theory was wrongfully presented to the jury, which bought it, because it was the only way to obtain a conviction the DA wanted for political reasons. The DA is Cyrus Vance, Jr, the son of the former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who was a pure scum bag. The victim in this case was not a domestic partner or spouse economically dependent on her assailant. She was not an employee. She was just another talentless girl who couldn't find acting work by her merits and was trying to take a short cut by sleeping with a producer. She chose the wrong producer and instead of a gfe experience he got off on humiliation and degradation.

After the relationship she didn't get the career, and she was so full of guilt for having agreed to be degraded that in her mind she turned the responsibility around and blamed him for it. But she's as much to blame as he is, and her accusation of him is a psychological trick to project her own responsibility onto him alone.

The danger of all this of course is that now a new and novel standard for what constitutes forced sex has been set, and not for legal reasons but for political ones in the dark age of "me too" and it's non-existent standards of evidence.
Originally Posted by pussycat

So now we should all be wondering is when will that other sexual predator that occupies the WH, be held accountable for his sexual assaults against women. Let’s not forget that over 30 women had come forward to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct. But of course this guy can’t face the truth and take responsibility for his predatory activities. Let’s hope that once he leaves office he should be brought to justice and have a fair trial.
We can’t let these monsters off the hook.

The danger of all this Originally Posted by pussycat

The danger? Seriously?

If you're into weird stuff, there's a better way without becoming a registered sex offender: communication, explicit consent, and safe words.

Weinstein wasn't just into weird stuff. He was into raping women. He was a predator, and he deserved everything he got and more.

Hopefully he gets a taste of his own medicine while he's in prison. He deserves to be some gang-bangers bitch for the duration.

Pussycat,

When you are in a position of authority such as upper management, you have to take extra precaution precautions on all of your actions.

He broke the rule on that. From that he has now been found guilty in a court of law and also will be found guilty in civil matters.

I have to agree with Ann Coulter on this one. The real heroes are the women who are now waitresses etc, that had the sense to say NO to Weinstein et al in the first place.

I have to agree with Ann Coulter on this one. The real heroes are the women who are now waitresses etc, that had the sense to say NO to Weinstein et al in the first place. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Some said yes and some said no. It's their choice.

According to the law what is harassment depends solely on the wishes of the person being solicited.

If you are an repulsive troll like Weinstein and you make a pass at a starlet like Gwenyth Paltrow and she's disgusted by it then it's harassment.

But if you are a gorgeous looking producer like Robert Evans and you do exactly the same thing, and the girl likes it, then it is called romance.

The law says that the same behavior is illegal when it is "unwelcome." But if it is welcomed by the girl then it's not a crime.

So now we should all be wondering is when will that other sexual predator that occupies the WH, be held accountable for his sexual assaults against women. Let’s not forget that over 30 women had come forward to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct. But of course this guy can’t face the truth and take responsibility for his predatory activities. Let’s hope that once he leaves office he should be brought to justice and have a fair trial.
We can’t let these monsters off the hook. Originally Posted by BlisswithKriss

Every rich man has scores of women making false claims of harassment. Even Bloomberg has had to settle a number of cases where employees claimed harassment.

The difference between the women making claims against Trump and the women making claims against Bill Clinton is that the ones making claims against Clinton had credibility.

They took their claims to Court and litigated them because there was evidence.

So far no one whose made claims against Trump has done more than tell stories to the media and ask for money.

The danger? Seriously?

If you're into weird stuff, there's a better way without becoming a registered sex offender: communication, explicit consent, and safe words.

Weinstein wasn't just into weird stuff. He was into raping women. He was a predator, and he deserved everything he got and more.

Hopefully he gets a taste of his own medicine while he's in prison. He deserves to be some gang-bangers bitch for the duration. Originally Posted by Dev Null

Degrading and humiliating sex with a partner is not rape if the partner consents to it. Anyone who's seen "Fifty Shades of Grey" knows that. In that story the girl consented and enjoyed it because the rich man doing it was good looking. Poor Weinstein however is a troll who nobody wants.

In the Weinstein case the victims clearly consented. The theory that it was not consent was based on prior case law in which victims continued a amicable relationship with their rapist because they were married to them or a domestic partner and therefore, as the theory goes, had no choice but to adapt their values to being raped because they were dependent.

In the Weinstein case the victim was not a domestic partner, or a spouse, or even an employee. It was a girl who was seeking to be an employee.

The Weinstein case will be thrown out on appeal because of the error by the jury.

The jury erred because they were pressured by media and public opinion because the Defendant is a disgusting person.

But there is no law for being a disgusting troll seeking stupid girls who consent to being degraded.

In the Weinstein case the victims clearly consented. The theory that it was not consent was based on prior case law in which victims continued a amicable relationship with their rapist because they were married to them or a domestic partner and therefore, as the theory goes, had no choice but to adapt their values to being raped because they were dependent.

In the Weinstein case the victim was not a domestic partner, or a spouse, or even an employee. It was a girl who was seeking to be an employee.

The Weinstein case will be thrown out on appeal because of the error by the jury.

The jury erred because they were pressured by media and public opinion because the Defendant is a disgusting person.

But there is no law for being a disgusting troll seeking stupid girls who consent to being degraded. Originally Posted by pussycat

I'm not familiar with New York case law on rape, but in my mind, if he didn't get explicit consent before the first attack, it's rape. Any decisions the victim makes afterwards are irrelevant and do not imply consent. People react differently to trauma, and some people may compartmentalize the attack and not act rationally. Think Stockholm syndrome.

And I've never served on a jury in New York, but jury members are usually instructed very clearly on their responsibility and the points of law involved in a case. So I think it's a stretch to say that they were pressured by media reports.

But since the rapist in this case is a wealthy motherfucker, he may stand a chance of getting the verdict overturned on appeal.

He still faces charges in LA:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/us/ha...ges/index.html

According to the criminal complaint, Weinstein and a woman attended a Hollywood film festival on February 17, 2013. Later that night, he knocked on her hotel room door and was allowed entry into her room. Once inside, they talked briefly before he allegedly attacked the woman, forced her to perform oral sex on him, digitally penetrated her vagina and raped her, the complaint says.

The woman said she did not disclose the assault because he threatened her life if she spoke, the complaint says. The charges of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by use relate to that incident.

Two days later, on February 19, Weinstein met with a woman and her acquaintance for a business meeting at a hotel eatery in West Los Angeles, the complaint says. Weinstein persuaded the two to accompany him to his hotel suite, and one woman unwittingly followed him into the bathroom, the complaint says.

He allegedly took off his clothes and prevented her from leaving, and then he held her in place by her breast as he masturbated, the complaint says. He faces a charge of felony sexual battery by restraint for that incident, Lacey said.

Maybe Ann Coulter is right. At least in the literal sense, if they had become waitresses instead of production assistants and business acquaintances, they wouldn't have been raped by Weinstein.

But that argument amounts to classic "blame-the-victim" bullshit. No one should have to make career or business choices based on fear of getting raped.

...Maybe Ann Coulter is right. At least in the literal sense, if they had become waitresses instead of production assistants and business acquaintances, they wouldn't have been raped by Weinstein.

But that argument amounts to classic "blame-the-victim" bullshit. No one should have to make career or business choices based on fear of getting raped. Originally Posted by Dev Null

Maybe you missed the point, those that turned down the weasel didn't get that big star job and are working outside of the industry, i.e waitresses and what not. But I do agree 110% with your last line for sure. Hope they put him in Epstein's old cell. Seems safe enough. Well... once he finishes up his LA trials. He'll definitely need the rest

Maybe you missed the point, those that turned down the weasel didn't get that big star job and are working outside of the industry Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

No, just being sarcastic. That's my way of coping with insanity and inanity.

No, just being sarcastic... Originally Posted by Dev Null

So you're casting off your old M.O. of: Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge and copy-pasta

I'm not familiar with New York case law on rape, but in my mind, if he didn't get explicit consent before the first attack, it's rape. Any decisions the victim makes afterwards are irrelevant and do not imply consent. People react differently to trauma, and some people may compartmentalize the attack and not act rationally. Think Stockholm syndrome.

And I've never served on a jury in New York, but jury members are usually instructed very clearly on their responsibility and the points of law involved in a case. So I think it's a stretch to say that they were pressured by media reports.

But since the rapist in this case is a wealthy motherfucker, he may stand a chance of getting the verdict overturned on appeal.

He still faces charges in LA:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/us/ha...ges/index.html

According to the criminal complaint, Weinstein and a woman attended a Hollywood film festival on February 17, 2013. Later that night, he knocked on her hotel room door and was allowed entry into her room. Once inside, they talked briefly before he allegedly attacked the woman, forced her to perform oral sex on him, digitally penetrated her vagina and raped her, the complaint says.

The woman said she did not disclose the assault because he threatened her life if she spoke, the complaint says. The charges of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by use relate to that incident.

Two days later, on February 19, Weinstein met with a woman and her acquaintance for a business meeting at a hotel eatery in West Los Angeles, the complaint says. Weinstein persuaded the two to accompany him to his hotel suite, and one woman unwittingly followed him into the bathroom, the complaint says.

He allegedly took off his clothes and prevented her from leaving, and then he held her in place by her breast as he masturbated, the complaint says. He faces a charge of felony sexual battery by restraint for that incident, Lacey said.

Maybe Ann Coulter is right. At least in the literal sense, if they had become waitresses instead of production assistants and business acquaintances, they wouldn't have been raped by Weinstein.

But that argument amounts to classic "blame-the-victim" bullshit. No one should have to make career or business choices based on fear of getting raped. Originally Posted by Dev Null

Perhaps you don't know the facts of the case. After the sexual encounter which was deemed "rape," the girl continued with an amicable relationship with him. She continued phoning and texting him, calling him "honey" and "baby" and never gave him any reason to think that he'd done anything she wasn't up for.
She received airline tickets and many other gifts from him. This went on for months and months. It was only after a long period, perhaps years, and when he never came up with any roles she could be in that she cried rape.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

This is why we have trials with evidence and such. Because the public can be easily swayed by groups of people making false accusations. The media is full of stories of actresses and would-be actresses who say he made an "un-welcome pass" or such. Somehow all this has been turned into rape. It is not rape.

What all these women say is that he'd make a pass and imply that it would help their careers. Some were repulsed and told him to fuck off. But others did not. Many girls went for it thinking they'd get a career out of it. Maybe some did. Rumors are that Jessica Alba slept with him many times and that explains why she has the career she has (certainly not based on great talent).

But this is not unusual for that business, or other businesses. And if you've lived anywhere outside the U.S. you'd know that this is normal and common the world over and it's taken for granted that a woman can easily advance herself by sleeping with her boss. It's normal.

The fact is that these American actresses are conceited and they think they shouldn't have to sleep with anyone to have the dream career they want. They think their talents are monumental, huge, and incredible. Well they're not. They're all replacable and inter-changeable. They just resent that he made a pass at them or would link their grand careers to the humiliation of sleeping with a troll.

BTW Gretchen Moll and many others advanced their careers by having sex with him. Disgusting to many but this is supposed to be an escorting site so....

My personal opinion, who else's, and based on life experiences and also what I have learned as a psychologist and having lived a long time is that Pussycat makes some good points. The male/female interaction thing is complicated and not static. It changes with the times, it is nebulous, and depends to some, if not a great, extent, on how each member of those concerned interpret it. There are so many variables that they defy definition. Did the woman give him a "come hither" look , as it used to be called, how did she respond initially to his advances? did she do something to discourage, encourage him,how in the hell do you forcibly go down on a woman without tying her up?



I'm not advocating the old rape defense of fighting to within an inch of your life, but there's just too many complications to send a man to prison on such shaky evidence from years ago.



For me, if I were a juror I would have a very difficult time finding someone guilty over a supposed crime taking place 20 years ago with nothing but hearsay and accusations. In their business the "casting couch" phenomenon is ubiquitous and well known. Whether it was actually true or not, I don't know.

I think what is unusual is that we have women accusing men. I am sure that there was some man on man action going on, considering what happened in the Catholic church and also some woman on man action too. We just don't hear about it in the entertainment world. Perhaps we need a MeToo movement for men.


On a recent television program such an esteemed person as Tom Brokaw remarked that more codification is needed for this new wave of offenses. Good idea , imo.

People are complicated, and it is hard to wrap my head around why she continued interacting with him after he assaulted her. I'm sure that aspect didn't help the case.

But she testified that she told him "no" multiple times and physically resisted the assault. And yet he persisted.

He was on trial for his actions on that specific occasion, and anything that happened afterwards doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. More importantly than what I think, the jury that was selected for the trial believed her and unanimously agreed to a guilty verdict.

It doesn't trouble me at all or make me question male-female interactions in the modern era. Rape victims in ye goode olden timey days pretty much got a raw deal, and as a result, a lot of rapists got away with it and were free to rape again another day.

Whether or not he gets off on appeal, maybe it will deter other rapists or potential rapists from committing similar atrocities, because no matter how it turns out, this guy's life is now a never-ending shit show.