She writes in praise of high profile female lawyers who are increasingly being used in courtroom battles to prove sexual misconduct, such as those in the Weinstein Case.

But the other day she described how she used to have sex with her lodger BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T CHARGE HIM RENT. And repeated it when she was asked to clarify.


How is she any different to Weinstein?


www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-80466...buser-plenty-go.html

Spot on Honey; Janet is famous for being a bully and quite possibly a sexual predator.
Stories about poor Normski are abundant.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-80...d-charging-rent.html

Not just a quid pro quo

A common practice in business, and cohabitation


It would seem that all were willing and consensual

Otherwise the possible sexual predator wouldn't have brought it up...

Barney wrote:
Not just a quid pro quo

A common practice in business, and cohabitation


It would seem that all were willing and consensual

Otherwise the possible sexual predator wouldn't have brought it up...






In plain sight, Barney. Plain sight!

So?

Am I missing something?


I do it every day...

Barney wrote:
So?

Am I missing something?


I do it every day...




Coerce your lodgers into having sex?


If someone is going to be on the streets if they don't sleep with their landlord/landlady, they are hardly in a position to refuse are they?
So it is not proper consent.

Like the Harvey Weinsteins, Bill Cosby's and all the rest of the casting crew crowd. Supposedly.

What was it? Third degree rape or something? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Casting COUCH, sorry. not crew. I don't know where crew came from. It sounds like you have to "do your thang" on a boat.

I only see typos in that split second after I press submit.

Honey wrote:
Coerce...


Don't see that being suggested by anyone...

Honey wrote:
Barney wrote:
So?

Am I missing something?


I do it every day...




Coerce your lodgers into having sex?


If someone is going to be on the streets if they don't sleep with their landlord/landlady, they are hardly in a position to refuse are they?
So it is not proper consent.

Like the Harvey Weinsteins, Bill Cosby's and all the rest of the casting crew crowd. Supposedly.

What was it? Third degree rape or something? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I think Barney has it right here, and your reasoning seems faulty, Honey.

It's logical that a legal concept of consent can be overborne by unlawful threat or coercion. Have sex with me or I'll shoot you, for example, or the secret administration of a stupefying drug. It's not so logical that consent can be overridden by quoting a lawful consequence that might arise from the particular circumstances: Have sex with me or I'll not let you live in my property rent-free. And of course, the landlord might not even be the one proposing the exchange.

And your suggestion that there's such a thing as "proper" consent (and presumably improper consent too) isn't reflected in law, although I suspect feminist jurisprudence favours it. This idea of consent that the consenter ex post facto decides wasn't really consent seems to have gained some ground, after having been deployed a lot by the prosecution in Harvey Weinstein's trial.

Randall, I agree, in principal. It seems to me that having it off with directors in exchange for parts is a straightforward business transaction. But when it is (much later) deemed assault (and worse) because of the imbalance of power, How much worse is that imbalance of power when your (rich and powerful) landlady is demanding sex in exchange for a roof over your head.

It just seems to me very hypocritical to bleat on and on about it when you have done something similar herself.

I am pretty sure that if it was a male landlord and a young woman we would be calling her a sex slave.

JSP's specific example is totally innocent and blameless - to all concerned/involved.

A pal of mine has a mate in the West End who owns a pub - he (the governor) often slips her a few G&Ts for nothing.

Whether there's anything going on between then, I don't know. Who cares - they're both adults?

Honey has adopted a somewhat holier than thou approach - to a totally normal and benign arrangement.

If JSP wasn't happy with her role, and return - she wouldn't have told us.

Some of us can be rather hypercritical and overdramatic. I mean 'sex slave'..!¡

I'm with Honey; JSP a ghastly woman; of course there's nothing wrong with her managing to force an unwilling person to participate in sex (how else would she get it?) but times have changed; in those days it was fine; these days it has become the equivalent of rape. Like it or not, consider it mad or not, that's the way things are in 2020. JSP is too stupid to realise, blurting things like this out. Our hope must be that the abused person re-invents his or her historical situation and goes to police.

Force and coercion - where? By whom - and how to you know?

A physical relationship between consenting adults, with a financial dimension. Hardly a crime; even the sexual partner is anonymous.

Never watched a full episode of Loose Women - but aren't they paid to be outrageous.

Hasbeens regularly providing stories of abuse, sexual exploits and misdemeanors - on the show.


Off with their heads...

Barney wrote:
JSP's specific example is totally innocent and blameless - to all concerned/involved.

A pal of mine has a mate in the West End who owns a pub - he (the governor) often slips her a few G&Ts for nothing.

Whether there's anything going on between then, I don't know. Who cares - they're both adults?

Honey has adopted a somewhat holier than thou approach - to a totally normal and benign arrangement.

If JSP wasn't happy with her role, and return - she wouldn't have told us.

Some of us can be rather hypercritical and overdramatic. I mean 'sex slave'..!¡





I think it is overdramatic to call Prince Andrew's "victim" a sex slave but as Mr King says, that's the way things are now, and you cant pick and choose.