Printable View
Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/u...legations.html
He paid off actresses that he forced to watch him masturbate.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...7368200169.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...7368200358.jpg
Makes all the libs look good lol
That's a weird kink. Louise CK got accused of that too, making girls watch him jerk off.
That's it? That's Harvey Weinstein, hey bitch you want the part or not? If he was the manager at Cheap Chili Fry Burger then that would be different. I wouldn't mind having a few beers w Harvey, bet he has some great stories.
There's guys who do that to hundreds of women daily on the webcam sites. They have names Big Dick and have like a rubber dick as their avatar, just kidding BD, sort of.
I guess Gloria Allred scolded her daughter for defending Weinstein, cracks in the shakedown facade folks.
I understand women in the workplace may be bypassed for promos etc. That's why I defend Harvey's fast track promotion program for women. :)
Looks like this will soon spell the end of the casting couch.
Speaking of which, I always wondered if Ryan Seacrest did anything for Merv Griffin. I personally know someone who was a young actor about 40 years ago, and Merv kept inviting him over to his house. The guy actually went there, but only with a few other young guys at the same time, felt uncomfortable, and left.
Clearly Ryan Seacrest, who was known as an incredibly hard worker with a high drive to succeed, didn't feel uncomfortable around Merv.
http://i.imgur.com/j7ytUxS.jpg
Regarding Weinstein, though, this is a tough one for the media to cover because he was a liberal darling and close friend of the Clintons.
Fortunately they don't have to feature the story very prominently, because Stephen Paddock, Rex Tillerson, and Hurricane Nate kindly are dominating the headlines.
apparently his legal team are running not walking away.
There is always one or two cocks to suck to get to the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I don't think there's anything wrong with turning out bitches, more power to this guy. I feel bad for him that this is all public
Who do you have for B'nai B'rith "Man of the Year", Sklansky or Weinstein?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnCommode
Tough to compare these two. None of Weinstein's victims were retarded.
If there's nothing wrong with it, why would publicity matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe
well it was like an under the table sorta thing, like if i hire a hooker to exchange sex for money it's implied that she isn't going to go to the press and tell everybody. the bargain I'm assuming is that they did sex things, and the girls got roles or career advancement in return and that should have been the end of it. these actresses are prostitutes, everything was voluntary and I feel bad for the hollywood guy that they betrayed himQuote:
Originally Posted by KuntmissionerIf there's nothing wrong with it, why would publicity matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe
i didn't read any of the articles so I could be wrong fwiw
also, it could be a muslim, christian, republican, democrat, nazi, commie whatever and I would still feel bad for the guy because he's the real victim here regardless of any political bullshit. again, i'm under the assumption that these whore actresses fucked the old man for opportunistic reasons and everything was voluntary
This is actually a fair point, though with Weinstein it seemed to extend beyond the obvious "casting couch" situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffewell it was like an under the table sorta thing, like if i hire a hooker to exchange sex for money it's implied that she isn't going to go to the press and tell everybody. the bargain I'm assuming is that they did sex things, and the girls got roles or career advancement in return and that should have been the end of it. these actresses are prostitutes, everything was voluntary and I feel bad for the hollywood guy that they betrayed himQuote:
Originally Posted by Kuntmissioner
i didn't read any of the articles so I could be wrong fwiw
In the typical situation, some unknown wannabe starlet fucks an influential Hollywood figure, knowing it will advance her career. In such a case, both people are using one another.
However, Weinstein would invite women who were already semi-established to "have a meeting" in his room, and then make his various demands. These women would often be afraid to refuse him, because Weinstein was still more powerful in Hollywood than they were at that point (think Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan).
To me there's a big difference between a woman knowingly fucking a guy to advance her career and one who is on her way up but feels required to fuck some old perv in order not to get derailed. Weinstein was the latter.
The media is getting so transparent with their coverage of these things, though.
Look how much more zeal they approached the Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes stories, because those two were reviled conservative figures.
I mean, props to the normally-liberal NY Times for being the ones to out this, but they pretty much did so because they had to choose between feminist empowerment and protecting an old, wealthy liberal, and they chose the former.
You can feel the glee coming from the mainstream media when they are detailing the wrongdoing of a conservative. When it's a guy like Weinstein, you can picture them holding their noses and wincing as they write the articles.
There is a big difference between a woman fucking her way to the top and a woman being told fuck me or you don't get the job. In the latter it's still WRONG for the guy to make the demand. A friend of mine's mother was a up and coming star back in the 60's. She had a bitQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis is actually a fair point, though with Weinstein it seemed to extend beyond the obvious "casting couch" situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe
In the typical situation, some unknown wannabe starlet fucks an influential Hollywood figure, knowing it will advance her career. In such a case, both people are using one another.
However, Weinstein would invite women who were already semi-established to "have a meeting" in his room, and then make his various demands. These women would often be afraid to refuse him, because Weinstein was still more powerful in Hollywood than they were at that point (think Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan).
To me there's a big difference between a woman knowingly fucking a guy to advance her career and one who is on her way up but feels required to fuck some old perv in order not to get derailed. Weinstein was the latter.
Of success in Europe. Came to Hollywood, landed a big role opposite a leading man known for sleeping with his costars. She refused his advances, was immediately fired and was
Never able to find work again.
Yes, that was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by hutmasterThere is a big difference between a woman fucking her way to the top and a woman being told fuck me or you don't get the job. In the latter it's still WRONG for the guy to make the demand. A friend of mine's mother was a up and coming star back in the 60's. She had a bitQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Of success in Europe. Came to Hollywood, landed a big role opposite a leading man known for sleeping with his costars. She refused his advances, was immediately fired and was
Never able to find work again.
It seems that Weinstein was in the latter category, who would make sexual demands of existing stars, and then they would feel afraid to say no for obvious reasons.
Your conservobot imagination and spin-fugue is in high gear here. Separate from allegations related to sexual assault/abise, O'Reilly and Ailes are/were despicable people, with the latter damaging the profession of journalism in a manner that hadn't been seen since the days of William Randolph Hearst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You can't rape the willing ammirite!!!!