To hav3 had enough of Harvey Weinstein on the radio

This kind of behaviour happens in the world not just in the music industry, the army and the police force. It's so difficult for victims to speak out - as this thread shows.

All very unpleasant isn't it Terri

Annie - I concede should have said "allegedly"

Terri, she was allegedly raped .

Seems this behaviour is common in the music industry , and happens in the army and police force too.

It's been mentioned back on various posts why did the women meet HW in hotel rooms. This seems to be a fairly standard practice in the film industry. Hotels are used for interviews and more often that not there will be a coterie of assistants present. The young inexperienced ingenue, as they often were, lets not forget that, did not go to these meetings with the expectation of having to provide quid pro quo sexual services. No doubt they would be lulled into a false sense of security by the assistant or assistants milling around, who at some stage down the line just melted away. Having read much of the same thing it all came across as quite insidious and lets not forget in keeping with the Hollywood ideal some of these women were tiny and were easily overpowered by the sheer bulk that is HW. There was an interview in the Sunday Times yesterday in which actress, Lysette Anthony, who's career was ascending in the late '80s, but didn't go on to reach A lister status, described how she was actually raped by HW and at the time just buried the experience.

As always, such a good summary. Thanks Eloethan.

Thanks Eloethan.

I can’t find anything to disagree with in your post Eloethan it seems a fair summing up of the situation.

The reason that the majority of sexual assault cases are either never prosecuted or fail to get a guilty verdict is usually because it is felt that there isn't powerful enough evidence and the alleged victim's account can be seriously undermined. Generally speaking, people do not have sex in public and therefore there must be overwhelmingly compelling evidence for a guilty verdict to be returned.

If a Hollywood actress decided to make an allegation of sexual assault or harassment, presumably she would put herself at risk of being sued for slander. If she lost the case, she would be persona non grata, branded a liar and undoubtedly her career would be over. To make such an allegation, as Ashley Judd did, was therefore a huge risk and one that many women would be too afraid to take, particularly if they had, in the past, made a tentative complaint to senior figures in the industry, or the police, and had been rebuffed.

There may well have been some women who did not object to this man's attentions or who willingly had sex with him, but if there were any women who experienced any sort of sexual harassment or assault and who felt frightened and intimidated by this man - or any other powerful man in the film industry - a crime had been committed against them and the fact that other women might have consented is totally irrelevant.

Good point Norah, the predator HW is responsible for his behaviour, not the women on the receiving end of it.

I've already referred to why the issue of child sexual exploitation is relevant to discussions of predatory individuals.

Of course people give away sex without pressure, for their own reasons. We all do. Or I do for my pleasure with my husband. What has giving away sex to do with the predator HW?

Try reading what has already been said- no one knows.

And how many do you think make it freely and without pressure trisher?

Actually I wasn't even thinking about what had been said about that. Please just get on with whatever you want to and leave me out of your posts.

How is it attacking women to discuss them choosing to sell their body for sex? If you think it is attacking them it must be because you disapprove of their choice. It may not be a wise choice but if it is taken freely and without any pressure shouldn't they be free to choose for themselves?

I am sorry but this thread has really reached rock bottom for me. I may rejoin, but please don't think that my not posting for the time being means I in anyway agree with the attack some seem to need to make on other women.

Are women who exchanged sexual favours for promotion or a job going to admit it? I can't recall any woman saying she married for money or a title but they do

Perhaps the problem is that society views such use as unacceptable Iam64 and this causes the damage, rather than the actual choice As we don't know how many women may have used sex to further their career it's very hard to make any judgement.
Child abuse in any sector is totally unacceptable so I have no idea why you raised this.

trisher, I'm familiar with the argument and try not to be judgemental in saying I'm very uncomfortable with it. My (wide) experience of women who sold their bodies is that it never ended well. It may be that the women I knew who did this started out very damaged but I do know some who could never be described as that, until their workplace ensured they were.
I also feel that many women who "choose" that are in fact limited in their choices. Nope I'm not saying all women are victims, all men are predators - I'm saying that using sex to earn a living, to promote one's career, rarely leaves the individual feeling good about themselves. That seems equally to apply to all the women coming forward currently about HW, as well as the adults abused as children by men in the entertainment industry. Judy Garland would be one, as it seems was Shirley Temple. It's gross to me, to imagine that men would see that as ok sexual behaviour and that the adult men and women around them wouldn't be shouting from the hill tops. But, we all know life isn't as straightforward as we'd like it to be.

Exactly, Trisher. It happens in many and maybe all professions but no one says of the affected women there that they were furthering their careers by doing so. That's only for the acting profession, it seems.

Yes, many female actresses etc were prostitutes. Not all, but they were still tarred by the same brush. There were very few professions open to women so anyone trying to break out of the norms risked being labelled as a whore/prostitute.

If a woman wants to sell her body for sex, charging whatever she thinks acceptable Iam64 shouldn't she be permitted to do so? I'm not saying I approve of it, but it is her body. It isn't accepting something to acknowledge it exists and some women choose to use it.

Does anyone here know of a woman (or a man) who has traded sexual favours to further their career? I don't . I know women in the professions, law, medicine, academia, who have been sexually propositioned and harassed and not gone along with it but been left feeling somehow responsible for the fact the man involved thought he could make such an approach - was I giving out the wrong signals they may ask.

As I said earlier up thread, I know many women, myself included who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. Marital rape is relatively recently a crime. When this was brought in, a friend who works in criminal justice commented that she thought rape by someone you knew well, or had a previous sexual relationship with wasn't as damaging or as bad as stranger rape. Total nonsense of course.

I'm unhappy with the notion that women vie with other women to be star of the moment and men use that to their advantage. Men are also competitive in their workplace and in life generally. Actors vie with each other for roles that will further their careers. Barristers are keen to take on cases, even for pro bono, if the case if very interesting and may be reported. People often compete within the workplace for a promotion. How can the so called 'casting couch' be accepted by some posters here as some kind of equal opportunities basis for being given a sought after role.

Correct trisher these women should have felt able to speak out. There were obviously reasons why they didn’t at the time and now reasons why they now feel differently and possibly empowered to take that step.

Interesting Anya. That is exactly what several of us have been saying for pages and exactly the opposite of what trisher has been saying. She seemed happy to attack those who couldn't, for whatever reason, speak out.

Enlightened times, unenlightened times.

The casting couch probably flourished in the 40s, 50s and 60s before we talked more about sex equality and exploitation.

I conclude that HW was a chancer, a predator and an arrogant fool, thinking his position, power and wealth gave him carte blanche to sexually abuse women. He banked on his lewd behaviour remaining a secret, as do so many who maltreat others.

It is quite amazing that something like this has been shrouded in secrecy for so long.

Actually such men are prominent in many professions and areas of life, but women in those sectors do not accept their behaviour.
The idea that only Hollywood has such men is wrong. That there has been and remains a long standing culture there is true. And it isn't simply a question of saying men take advantage, there are women who regard trading sexual favours for career advancement as fully acceptable.
No-one has said the complaints are baseless just that judgement should be reserved and we prefer to have proper investigations and fair trials.
And actually many actresses in the 17th C were whores, as were many milliners, dressmakers and waitresses in the 19th C. It was simply a way of making ends meet.

Given that HW has admitted his shortcomings and that the Academy Awards and even his own brother have spoken against him, I think whether or not abuse has taken place is pretty clear cut, trial by jury or not.

I really don't see that the possibility some women may have lodged false complaints against him means that other complaints are baseless.

As for career aspirations leading men to take advantage - isn't that the crux of the matter? Men shouldn't be taking advantage. It wouldn't be acceptable in other careers, say law, or politics or teaching so why are women wanting acting careers being singled out? To me, it's almost like we're back in the 17thC when actresses were likened to whores.

By the way, Trisher, ML did originally deny it. It was the existence of the tapes that meant she could no longer keep up that pretence.