Weinstein's "Crimes"?

[DGS49]

Theoretical legal question:

A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped.

Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?

I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.

He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.

Sorry.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Theoretical legal question:

A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped.

Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?

I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.

He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.

Sorry.

Typical leftist demanding every male boss can grope his employees.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Theoretical legal question:

A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped.

Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?

I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.

He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.

Sorry.

Who goes around their workplace touching women in places they shouldn't be touched? Seriously, it's a WORK PLACE and he shouldn't be going anywhere near touching them. Ask them out on a date first, then try and touch them, fine, but to touch before you've even gone past the first thing of seeing if there is any willingness there at all, simply because you're powerful doesn't mean you don't have to act like a human fucking being.

 

[forkup]

Theoretical legal question:

A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped.

Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?

I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.

He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.

Sorry.

I tend to agree, except the no foul thing. Something like that could very well do damage to the actresses self image. I do have a few remarks. First of if she agreed to those sexual favors there is consent and no crime. That is not what is contended in the Weinstein case. There have been instances when consent was not explicitly given and in that case a crime has been committed. If someone comes into another persons hotel room and masturbates he is in fact indecently exposing himself for instance.The Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment allegations: all the key players As to proof that's an entirely different matter. More often then not it's going to be a word against word case and that makes it hard. It would however not change the fact that in fact a crime has been committed. There's also a question of morality of course. That doesn't take beyond reasonable doubt to form an opinion.

 

[forkup]

Theoretical legal question:

A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped.

Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?

I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.

He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.

Sorry.

Typical leftist demanding every male boss can grope his employees.

Really did you condemn Trump for his behavior? Keep left and right out of the discussion please it's embarrassingly easy to dispute.

 

[Cossack1483]

Trump never had an anti white agenda. The (((weinstein))) case highlights the race war and jewish hate crimes against White Women.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Theoretical legal question:

A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped.

Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?

I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.

He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.

Sorry.

Typical leftist demanding every male boss can grope his employees.

Really did you condemn Trump for his behavior? Keep left and right out of the discussion please it's embarrassingly easy to dispute.

Locker room talk vs rape.
Dumbass leftards display their hatred of women once again.

 

[forkup]

Theoretical legal question:

A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped.

Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?

I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.

He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.

Sorry.

Typical leftist demanding every male boss can grope his employees.

Really did you condemn Trump for his behavior? Keep left and right out of the discussion please it's embarrassingly easy to dispute.

Locker room talk vs rape.
Dumbass leftards display their hatred of women once again.

Really? There is nothing here to suggest that he's speaking from anything but personal experience.

The Billy Bush tape we know too. Woman have come forward confirming these specific things he described. So tell me, why you are completely confident Weinstein is guilty but dismiss Trump's confessions as locker room talk?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The left has translated a comment that women will let stars grab them by the pussy into actual grabbing. Now they rely on that.

 

[forkup]

The left has translated a comment that women will let stars grab them by the pussy into actual grabbing. Now they rely on that.

Click my link I dare you. Then say why that is anything but factual?

 

[Windparadox]

Theoretical legal question:A "Hollywood Mogul" meets an aspiring actress. She perceives - correctly or not - that he has the power to grant her a successful career, or on the other hand, to torpedo her aspirations. He requests sexual favors and she grants them, based on her perceptions and ambitions. He "gropes" her, and she politely indicates her unwillingness to be groped. Crime? Rape? Sexual assault?I don't think so. There was no force or coercion, except in her mind. Can she retroactively revoke her consent? Can she prove that she was coerced based on her own narrative? Not without lying her ass off.He is a dirtbag, she is a fool. But no harm, no foul.Sorry.

`
Theoretical opinion -

a) She could call the police and allege sexual assault but then it becomes "he said/she said". Unless there is irrefutable evidence, in reality, DA's stay away from such cases. Any hope for a career though is gone.

b) Is it a crime, Yes but as I indicated, damn near impossible to prove in a court of law, criminal or civil.

c) There are of course, women who do give in to such a mans sexual lusts. It's a very attractive and potentially very lucrative choice. That's the problem because then the male continues that behavior to a point of obsession.

 

[Cossack1483]

Theoretical question......... A new era of jewish awareness?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The left has translated a comment that women will let stars grab them by the pussy into actual grabbing. Now they rely on that.

Yep, crude talk is the equivalent to giving rapists a free pass in Leftardia.

 

[forkup]

The left has translated a comment that women will let stars grab them by the pussy into actual grabbing. Now they rely on that.

Yep, crude talk is the equivalent to giving rapists a free pass in Leftardia.

Lol not answering somebody doesn't mean he went away. You haven't answered my post in any way why is that? I deliberately didn't post the Billy Bush tape but the Howard Stern interview, I deliberately gave you a very specific question. You sir are a coward. Only cowardly not to mention dishonest people disregard a completely valid rebuttal to go right back to the original disproven premise.

Really? There is nothing here to suggest that he's speaking from anything but personal experience.

The Billy Bush tape we know too. Woman have come forward confirming these specific things he described. So tell me, why you are completely confident Weinstein is guilty but dismiss Trump's confessions as locker room talk?