GooberTheHat wrote:

Is that a claim that the accusations of sexual assault are absurd, or that the accusations that he deliberately orchestrated the incident in which she was injured are absurd?

Both, I think.

All of the failed / b list actors now accusing Weinstein and other powerful men, you could say it has the hint of resentment about it - ie at the time, maybe you decided to put up with it (or use it?) to further your career, but now you wanna rationalise it as a one way assault.

But with Dushku there is no such thing - she had zero reason to suck up to a stunt coordinator, and neither did her parents.

No, I'm saying the opposite. Jesus Christ.

legaldinho wrote:

No, I'm saying the opposite. Jesus Christ.

Ah, sorry, my bad.

I suppose the question you need to ask (in Weinstein's case) is is it really consensual if there is the quite credible threat that if you dont sleep with him then you career is over?

There was an Israeli case a few years ago, a woman had slept with a Palestinian Muslim who had pretended to be Jewish. The court convicted him of rape. Absolutely ludicrous decision. Consent means consent to the act, not the background motivations. if you are capable of giving consent and you give it, that isn't rape.

But it is gross misconduct for a producer to abuse his dominant position.

legaldinho wrote:

There was an Israeli case a few years ago, a woman had slept with a Palestinian Muslim who had pretended to be Jewish. The court convicted him of rape. Absolutely ludicrous decision. Consent means consent to the act, not the background motivations. if you are capable of giving consent and you give it, that isn't rape.

But it is gross misconduct for a producer to abuse his dominant position.

But you could compel someone to commit a sexual act on you using the threat of violence and that would presumably by rape. Compelling them to do the same with the threat of destroying their professional aspirations is the same is it not?

Escape wrote:

If he lured her, what were her parents doing...

We’ve heard this before, for example in relation to the Spacey thing and I’m sorry, but it’s bollocks.

When I was younger, I was heavily into amateur dramatics. Because I could be relied on to show up (and hopefully because I had some talent, but probably mostly the reliable thing) I was one of a few who got plucked from the children’s groups and used in the adults groups. Operas in the spring, Shakespeare in the autumn. My folks gave me countless lifts up there, delighted at the opportunities I was getting; I became friends with Lady Aberdeen, and I performed with Prince Edward, John D. Collins (one of the two British airmen in ‘Allo ‘Allo) and people who I’m told were pretty big deals in the opera world. And then there were the parties. Luvvies to like a party.

Were my parents there all the time? Of course not. Rarely, in fact. When it came to playing Puck when I was fifteen, I was so involved in rehearsals, I’d be there first thing in the morning until last thing at night. Endless hours away from my parents, in the company of people they trusted because I saw them as friends.

Looking back on it, a couple of the men probably enjoyed my company a little more than they should, but fortunately they never overstepped any boundaries. For the most part they were great people who I looked up to, and whose company I wanted to be in.

Would it have been reasonable for my parents to spend all that time there as well, just in case there was a sexual predator in the group? Of course not. It’s not something that many people thought was a widespread problem. It would never have occurred to them that there was any risk. It wouldn’t even be possible; they had jobs to go to. They certainly wouldn’t deny me the opportunities I had and stopped me going. And that’s at an amateur level. Imagine how it scales up; your kid is in a major Hollywood film with massive stars. Are you going to keep them in your sight non-stop throughout filming? Deny them the opportunity to make friends with those established in the industry? Stand like two prunes in the corner of the room at a cast party where you don’t fit in? No. You’re going to be delighted that your kid is experiencing things and making friends that you never could.

Well, maybe not any more. But we can’t judge people’s actions then on what we know now.

Andy wrote:

How about if I got into bed with your sleepy girlfriend, wearing your aftershave so she thought I was you, and took her from behind, without any use of force?

Sup, Joey montagna.

The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, on circumstances where consent is not established:

Where Person B was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Where Person B was asleep or unconscious.
Where Person B only consented due to being threatened with violence by Person A.
Where B consents whilst unlawfully detained by A.
Where B only consents because they are mistaken as to the nature of the conduct, due to A's misrepresentation.
Where B only consents as a result of A impersonating a personality known to B.
Where someone other than B consents on their behalf.
Where B initially consents, but then withdraws their consent during the sexual act.
Where B is mentally disordered and so incapable of understanding the nature of the activity.

Hang on, though. Goobs, do you mean a literal credible threat (if you don’t suck my dick you’ll never work again) or a perceived notion (this guy is connected, if I don’t suck his dick my career might suffer). Because those are a bit different, and the latter one is cloudy as fuck.

Andy wrote:

legaldinho wrote:

There was an Israeli case a few years ago, a woman had slept with a Palestinian Muslim who had pretended to be Jewish. The court convicted him of rape. Absolutely ludicrous decision. Consent means consent to the act, not the background motivations. if you are capable of giving consent and you give it, that isn't rape.

I’m sorry, I have difficulty with this. Consent is given to a person, not just their penis.

Put it this way, if I convinced your granny that she needed to give me two grand so I could pay for an operation for my sick child, and it turned out I used it to buy a TV and I have no kids, would you say tough luck to your granny, because she was capable of consenting to handing over the money?

How about if I got into bed with your sleepy girlfriend, wearing your aftershave so she thought I was you, and took her from behind, without any use of force?

Well, I hope they don't have you working rapes! As far as I know Scots law is the same as English law. The example you gave has nothing to do with rape. In England it might be another offence (obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception?), Sure there is an equivalent in Scots law, but consent to sex (even if induced by financial pressure) is still consent. There has to be no consent for penetration to be rape. Otherwise a hell of a lot of bosses would be rapists, instead of just dirtbags.

But then again if we are talking morally then I agree.

Andy wrote:

Hang on, though. Goobs, do you mean a literal credible threat (if you don’t suck my dick you’ll never work again) or a perceived notion (this guy is connected, if I don’t suck his dick my career might suffer). Because those are a bit different, and the latter one is cloudy as fuck.

It says right there in your list, threat of violence.

When you do, you'll probabrealise why it's so difficult because impaired consent has to be subjectively known to the D. But you're right, the law is still in development, changes all the time.

I still feel sorry for that Palestinian tho

Andy wrote:

Imagine how it scales up; your kid is in a major Hollywood film with massive stars. Are you going to keep them in your sight non-stop throughout filming?

On the lot, no; I'd be generally hovering in the background. But this sounds like a 12-year-old with her own room in a hotel that her parents weren't staying in. If that's correct then it's about sense, not trust. Anyone could've been in that hotel, whatever the era (Clare Quilty). If they were there and she told them, what did they do? Maybe she had an appointed guardian during filming? She continued to work with him afterwards, so who failed her by not replacing him?

The parents aren't to blame for the actions of others — that's not what anyone's said, but guilty of naivety at best and neglect at worst... well, from the sketchy deets I've read that seems possible. Unless she had a guardian whom they trusted after consideration. It's very different to a kid being snatched while they were out playing on their own.

When it comes down to it, it shouldn't lessen the charge in any way. No-one here's ever said that. Gonz and Greer have chosen to separate rapists from dirtbags, as Hollywood's always been well-known for its sleaze:

Germo wrote:

If you spread your legs because he said 'be nice to me and I'll give you a job in a movie' then I'm afraid that's tantamount to consent, and it's too late now to start whingeing about that.

Allen's deffo a wrong 'un, though.