probably not- how the fuck would I know what the Tragic Tory has done in his life ?

In fact I am going to declare right now : ITK is innocent of any abusive actions.

But so is Harvey Weinstein because- shock horror- even fucking Hollywood Movie Moguls are entitled to the Presumption of Innocence.

There is madness in the air and the Witch Hunt against Weinstein is so fucking ugly it's frightening.

Everyone, including people I have admired like writer Naomi Klein have accepted allegations without proof- without a fucking scintilla of proof.

Klein who recently appeared at the Labour conference called for the sacking of the Weinsten board..why? How would Klein possibly know what is the truth?

Even worse she pontificated about possible lawsuits against the Weinstein company ie: the loss of shareholder's profits seemed to really irk her.

These faux scandals are very illuminating..society is so dumbed down now it really is quite scary.

And when the clamour dies down as creeps like Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan call for a lynching (aided by a pathetic media) even while they remained silent for decades and if claims are true- are enablers of abuse..Mystic Hedda predicts Libel Lawsuits A'Plenty.

I feel rather as I do about Savile; probably a pincher and a groper; probably very much "old school" grabbing a buttock or a tit; probably pushed the envelope of acceptable decency then (which the adapted morality has rightly changed and condemned - but was grudgingly accepted then). Very much, I suspect, the old "casting couch" mentality. But the current exaggeration and inflation of past experiences, encouraged by our extreme media, enhanced by memory adaptation - like Cosby (who I'm sure took "recreational drugs" and offered them to flirty young fans). I warned about this 17 years ago and am only surprised it has taken so long.

JK2006 wrote:
I feel rather as I do about Savile; probably a pincher and a groper; probably very much "old school" grabbing a buttock or a tit; probably pushed the envelope of acceptable decency then (which the adapted morality has rightly changed and condemned - but was grudgingly accepted then). Very much, I suspect, the old "casting couch" mentality. But the current exaggeration and inflation of past experiences, encouraged by our extreme media, enhanced by memory adaptation - like Cosby (who I'm sure took "recreational drugs" and offered them to flirty young fans). I warned about this 17 years ago and am only surprised it has taken so long.

If you read Ashley Judd's account (if it's true and not exaggerated) poor old Weinstein seemed a rather silly old thing asking for someone to watch him in the shower and so on.

I mean really..really..is asking a person to watch you shower abuse?

I haven't read one report yet that says Weinstein launched himself on someone and actually committed assault.

So when the great unwashed public ( not you ITK) goes to the pub and goes through whatever mating ritual they do to attract a mate or even a screw for the night, how do we define what is acceptable and unacceptable?

declaration : ITK to my knowledge has never physically abused anyone.

His politics are another matter and there is a Cold Place in Hell for all Free Marketeers.

hedda wrote:
I mean really..really..is asking a person to watch you shower abuse?
It would surely depend on the relationship and power balance between the person asking and the person being asked, ranging from purely professional with one having the power to hire and fire the other, to purely personal with no repercussions for refusing. Also whether only women are asked or men too.

For what it's worth (not a lot), I don't like the look of either Judd or McGowan. They look like trouble.

Both seem to want to be seen as feminist activists. Could they be reconfiguring things to boost their feminist credentials?

Actress Ashley Judd became the breakout star of the Women's March on Washington
Rose McGowan, Filmmaker and Feminist, Declares War on Hollywood

McGowan not only has a book in the pipeline but seems to have changed tack from hyper-sexualised to hyper-feminist at the time when her looks are going and Judd isn't in the first flush of youth either. Career move? Or maybe they just feel that they now have nothing to lose.

Donna Karan defends Harvey Weinstein, is slapped down and backtracks.

www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/10/don...tein-women?CMP=fb_gu

I just cant see how the casting couch is rape. Rape, to me, is when someone overpowers you against your will, not when they offer you a job in return for sex.

I don't agree with you there Honey - as far as my personal morality is concerned, even lying to some that you love them when you only really want temporary sex is lying and therefore, morally, rape. But then, I'm odd; I believe in personal morality.

JK2006 wrote:
I don't agree with you there Honey - as far as my personal morality is concerned, even lying to some that you love them when you only really want temporary sex is lying and therefore, morally, rape. But then, I'm odd; I believe in personal morality.

It would certainly be a vile thing to do. Morally wrong but not actually rape, I think.

And this brings us back to the centre of the problem; as times change, so do the meanings of words. Back in the 60s, Rape was a stranger pulling you into the trees. It has, in many ways rightly, blurred in definition; slowly but surely. I joke that a peck on the cheek or a patted bum is now considered Rape but that's not totally a joke. Remember - I was given 6 months jail for putting my hand on the knee of a boy who claimed to be 12 but we proved would have been 16 if it had ever happened (it didn't).

JK2006 wrote:
And this brings us back to the centre of the problem; as times change, so do the meanings of words. Back in the 60s, Rape was a stranger pulling you into the trees. It has, in many ways rightly, blurred in definition; slowly but surely. I joke that a peck on the cheek or a patted bum is now considered Rape but that's not totally a joke. Remember - I was given 6 months jail for putting my hand on the knee of a boy who claimed to be 12 but we proved would have been 16 if it had ever happened (it didn't).


I think we need new definitions and maybe new crimes to suit, but you cant call everything rape.

If it was a crime to give jobs out for sexual favours, that is fine and dandy, but it cant be rape if it was a fully informed choice with no pressure, surely?

hedda wrote:
So when the great unwashed public ( not you ITK) goes to the pub and goes through whatever mating ritual they do to attract a mate or even a screw for the night, how do we define what is acceptable and unacceptable?

declaration : ITK to my knowledge has never physically abused anyone.

His politics are another matter and there is a Cold Place in Hell for all Free Marketeers.

Very kind of you, hedda !

I still think you are a loony though (how did the corset fitting go today?)

JK2006 wrote:
even lying to some that you love them when you only really want temporary sex is lying and therefore, morally, rape


Most unusual/odd comment - meaning that consensual sex is rape, if/when the adult participants are only 'in love' for a short while!¡

Spee32HR wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
even lying to some that you love them when you only really want temporary sex is lying and therefore, morally, rape


Most unusual/odd comment - meaning that consensual sex is rape, if/when the adult participants are only 'in love' for a short while!¡




Not so odd when you compare it to the case of the woman convicted of rape because she pretended to be a man.

The idea is that if one is deceived about the nature of the sexual act or the nature of the person, one has not consented to what happened, but rather to what one expected.

It's all too easy to reduce this to the absurd. How many men have seen a woman the morning after, in daylight without her make-up and thought, 'good god, I would never have slipped her a length of I knew what she really looked like...' And there are many other possible examples.

In my opinion, this concept of deceit vitiating consent should be totally abandoned. What is on offer sexually is clearly apparent and discernible prima facie. If one goes ahead with whatever is on offer, one necessarily consents to the possibility of there being something different or not to your liking.

The woman who pretended to be a man, as referred to above, is a very good example. If I remember correctly, she masked her face during every meeting, and refused to
speak. If what is apparent to you is a sexual partner who obscures his/her identity to such an extent, but NEVERTHELESS you go ahead and knock boots, you have necessarily consented to the possibility that the person's identity might be something other than what you assumed.

Randall wrote:
The idea is that if one is deceived about the nature of the sexual act or the nature of the person, one has not consented to what happened, but rather to what one expected.

It's all too easy to reduce this to the absurd. How many men have seen a woman the morning after, in daylight without her make-up and thought, 'good god, I would never have slipped her a length of I knew what she really looked like...' And there are many other possible examples.

In my opinion, this concept of deceit vitiating consent should be totally abandoned. What is on offer sexually is clearly apparent and discernible prima facie. If one goes ahead with whatever is on offer, one necessarily consents to the possibility of there being something different or not to your liking.

The woman who pretended to be a man, as referred to above, is a very good example. If I remember correctly, she masked her face during every meeting, and refused to
speak. If what is apparent to you is a sexual partner who obscures his/her identity to such an extent, but NEVERTHELESS you go ahead and knock boots, you have necessarily consented to the possibility that the person's identity might be something other than what you assumed.


And likewise, because we cant read minds, we have to accept that there is a possibility that someone might be pretending to love you.
(I suppose getting married first used to be a safeguard)

JK2006 wrote:
I don't agree with you there Honey - as far as my personal morality is concerned, even lying to some that you love them when you only really want temporary sex is lying and therefore, morally, rape. But then, I'm odd; I believe in personal morality.

the casting couch has been there forever and is just glorified prostitution.

Deals are made=- take it or leave it. The price is nominated.

The fantasy here is that people somehow believe struggling actors are wilting flowers when those who make it can be as tough as nails with such sheer unshakable determination some would screw an entire army battalion if it helped.

So who is at fault here? the hooker or the mark?