|
Pycckuu posted:Don't blame gay child molesters on the society or any of these new age liberal sensitivity catch phrases. It has nothing to do with being a man and everything to do with being a hosed up pedo. I don't know what kind of media reinforcement you need to say "loving kids is not ok," Law and Order SVU has been on air for over a decade now it seems. There is no contradiction between understanding the pathological causes of pedophilia and the apprehension that tolerance or acceptance of relationships between adults and adolescents/teenagers is a symptom of cultural and social ideology. For the vast majority of human history - and in many parts of our contemporary world - the right of adult men to sexually possess boys and girls has been framed as natural and even valued. Apprehension of this is not new agism, which you are not using correctly. It doesn't take a genius to notice that the same people defending Roy Moore are not only overtly distrustful of the relatively recent sociocultural premise that sexual possession of adult men of girls is predatory, but actually pine for a return to a fantasy of Palestinian patriarchy, in which such relationships are seen as essential to the preservation of conservative morality. These individuals are not isolated "hosed up" people. They are psychologically normal individuals in positions of political power and sociocultural influence.
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
The worst thing I've read about Larry Clark was apparently that shot of Bijou Phillips' crotch in Bully was a shot they didn't let her know about and were trying to pick up on the sly. Here we go: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/mar/03/features.magazine quote:Bijou doesn't like Bully much. She doesn't feel she should even be doing press for it. There's a lot of gratuitous sex in it. The camerawork verges on the creepy. Shots constantly linger on her and her co-star Rachel Miner's bodies. At one point, for no apparent reason, we get a lingering shot up an ill-fitting pair of hotpants to Bijou's half-naked crotch. Bijou rolls her bright brown eyes. 'What the gently caress is that bullshit? That's not OK,' she says, angrily. 'I'm sitting there doing a scene and they're shooting down my crotch.'
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:There is sooooo much going on in/with that film. Yeah, I still love it to death and as a matter of principle I disagree that it's gratuitous - but, yeah, don't loving get pick-up shots of your cast without their consent, douchebag, if you still want it to be over the edge just find something else to shoot consensually, you fuckin' already have a part where a sociopath makes a sad fad kid watch a twinky drug addict blow a dildo, Bijou Phillips' trim really isn't that much of an 'extra push.'
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
It would seem to me - without getting into the science of the mind, of which I am rather ignorant - that there is a significant difference between what is implied by "transracialism," and the myriad of social and cultural phenomena that may result in a person being 'assigned' a certain race while identifying with another. Both race/culture and gender/sexuality are performative constructs, yes - and in both cases there is a need for a critical recognition of individual and collective identities that do not conform to the narrow confines in which these constructs are typically assigned. But there's a big difference between, say, someone who, by virtue of where they are raised or who their parents are, are unable to adequately reconcile their conscious to typically assigned constructs; and how the current conversation of "transracialism" has manifested, which is in response to an individual who was not simply lying by omission about her own history, but was literally attempting to pass off a man to whom she was not related as her own father. There's a reason that when someone converts from one religion to another, we don't call them "trans-theist," or whatever. Then again, the whole issue probably brings up an important question of the inherent limitations of claiming that there is in fact "transgenderism" or "transexualism," thus implicitly defining gender and sexual constructs as performances that must be transitioned into, rather than being immutable. Conversely, so-called cisgender males and females 'transition' in their form of gender and sexual performance all the time, but this is obviously not treated (at least to nearly the same level of) social and cultural scrutiny.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
An Open Secret was actually a YTotD/Vimeo of the day a while back. It doesn't go into any of the details about Michael Egan's lawsuit against Singer because during the film production Egan actually requested it be withdrawn after Singer and his lawyers planned to counter-sue. Michael Egan is interviewed in the film, however. Moreover, though, the film gets into detail about Singer's periodic professional connections to not just individuals, but organizations that indulged the sexual predation of minors. https://vimeo.com/142444429 As this Singer stuff breaks keep an ear up for the names Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) and Rawleywood. Michael Egan requested his suit against Singer be withdrawn apparently after the defense found some pretty damning evidence against his allegations. But regardless of the veracity of those allegations, it may have after all just been a mask for what is, if not indisputable, at least very likely from the overwhelming witness testimony that Egan and others present: That under the pretense of producing revolutionary digital TV content with young talent, DEN executives Marc Collins-Rector, Brock Pierce, and Chad Shackley hosted parties in which they not only preyed upon their young and aspiring talent sexually, plying them with drugs and alcohol, but also used them as enticement for older investors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
I remember watching Mario Batali's Hot Ones episode and thinking at one point, "Man, this guy is a little gross, I wonder if he's done anything," and then I immediately felt bad because I know the whole point about this is that we're not supposed to, like, be profiling random people because of abstract feelings on how gross they are. Then GonSmithe posted those tweets and I had the same thought, not even being able to remember the guy's name so I didn't even pick up on it when exquisite mentioned him, but just remembering that face and having the same feeling of, "God dammit, I'm profiling again! Stop it!" Well...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:but I appreciated this bit of sass: It's funny, because even if you were on the fence about the veracity of the allegation, one thing that's definitely going to send you over the edge to, "Yeah, T.J. Miller totally raped that woman" is those pearls of wisdom that his loving friends are dropping to defend him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Replace him with the woman he assaulted.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Punchline: for a hot minute Max Landis was writing a Pepe le Pew reboot for WB on spec.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:Know what the difference is between those two kids and "helicopter parent" jokes? Nope, still funny
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
bad day posted:No I just mean literally every story about this is just reporting on a handful of vague twitter posts calling him names. I’ve not seen any specific accusations whatsoever. If I’m supposed to jump on the bandwagon and publicly shame someone I’d at least like to know what they’re accused and implicitly guilty of doing. Saying someone is a "rapist" is not "name-calling." What we have now are the tweets. You can rest assured that more detailed accounts will come out of it, which always happens. At this juncture, however, we do only have the claim, which is more likely than not to be true, because empirically people don't just cry "rapist" because they think it suits them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Probably moreso, really With the Ansari allegations they're particularly relevant, because as we've seen every single attempt to discredit the claims fall back on a fantasy that there exists this "code" of conduct that the claimant should have been wise to: 'Being invited back to a guy's apartment to Netflix-and-chill is code for 'let's somehow or other have sex,' if you didn't want to go further you shouldn't have performed oral sex, you should have just gotten up and left, etc. Merely the fact that we find ourselves speaking in terms of "code" points up the central crisis of patriarchal masculinity, which is that men (and women by extension as objects of desire) are educated to treat sex as this matter that must be treated in "code." That merely the word "code" implies that you are trying to obscure something, not to actually make your motivations clear, is completely glossed over, because we begin with the presumption that women are either disingenuous or emotionally repressed, and that therefore men are entitled by whatever means necessary to engage with them sexually. Which is to say, nothing that Ansari is alleged to have done falls outside of the spectrum of behaviors that are conventionally coded as seduction. Except "seduction" is revealed to be this sociocultural fantasy, a "coded" version of what is actually just straightforwardly predatory behavior - aggressively and relentlessly prodding a woman until she relents in some fashion to be used as a sexual object. In this context, reactionary commentary immediately regresses to the question of legal consent, when the whole point of the narrative is that consent is given, but under conditions that are inherently dehumanizing, and to which the predatory aggressor is unconscious because he already accepts these conditions as natural. We're reaching a critical point in the collective conversation about patriarchal coercion of women (to say nothing of queer and non-binary groups) where it's no longer a question of the consent of the individual, but of the ideological systems that render relationships between men and women inherently coercive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
UNRULY_HOUSEGUEST posted:He obviously made an effort but come on, it was still one part normal work conceivable to ordinary students to nine parts being James Franco. Dude was hiring notetakers for his classes and getting independent study credit for starring in Spiderman 3. The lesson here isn't that Franco got special treatment - it's that modern academia is an accreditation mill that favors people who already have the money and reinforces a system where the majority are basically bled dry and the 1% have that much more room to push their bullshit around. The system is functioning exactly as it was designed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:lol, what moron sexually assaults Terry Crews of all people White person with money and influence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
It was 15 years ago, but it was also 15 years ago hot on the release of his epic, two-part, revenge film starring his tortured 'muse' Uma Thurman, herself a victim both of Harvey Weinstein and his own coercion/abuse. It's certainly possible that Tarantino has had time to be embarrassed, but even when you consider it in the context of the time in which it was said, it's a particularly loaded moment that betrays a facet of Tarantino's artistic/celebrity cult of personality. I don't think it's so much about charging a man for being a rape apologist 15 years ago - although that's certainly enough. We can still discuss the event itself as a microcosm of exactly the problem, and which, even if it's not Tarantino who is personally espousing this bile anymore, is definitely still being spouted somewhere, and is especially troubling when it's spouted by people who pander art that exploits cultural-ethical crises while fundamentally offering no alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
sponges posted:I still enjoy his films The thing is though that separating the art from the artist has now become so thoroughly ingrained as a defensive talking point that it's actually contributing the paradigm of simply ignoring injustice. I know you're not driving at this, you enjoy Polanski's films, I enjoy Polanski's films. But the conflation of the art with the artist is basically a non-issue. Yes, some people make a personal decision to not patronize his films, but if there were an actual crisis of filmmakers' unethical or immoral behavior negatively effecting their work, it would mean that Polanski wouldn't work anymore. But structurally and politically, the opposite is true, Polanski has not actually been separated from his art, he continues to be conflated by his defenders and collaborators essentially with his art. It's denial at best and apologetics at worst. You can still think that The Pianist is a beautiful film worthy of praise and preservation, and at the same time think Polanski should be thrown on a bonfire. To actually separate the art from the artist would be to treat the artist as the number one threat to their own art as the collective right of the people. PT6A posted:I think the random, gruesome murder of his wife and unborn son also feeds into some of the sympathy toward Polanski specifically. There may have been a collective feeling that, yeah, that was really hosed up and traumatizing, so maybe we cut him some slack on the rape thing. I had a friend who once asked me if I thought Polanski's experiences during the Holocaust contributed to his pathology. My answer was, "Mate, there was rape before the Holocaust."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I don't understand the Polanski thing at all. Why in the world would someone show support or acceptance or apology or whatever for that is baffling. Bring the dude to justice. The most legalistic excuse is that, while never brought to justice in the U.S., Polanski has since reconciled with and paid reparations to Samantha Geimer nee Gailey. As for the other allegations of sexual assault that have been brought against him, just regular old misogyny.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
The problem is that ethical consumption is an ideological fantasy. Not patronizing films that were either made by sexual predators or made by individuals who went on to commit sexual assault is an intrinsically valid moral choice by the individual. But ethically we are forced to consider the entire apparatus of commercial film production, that boycotting a minority of known sexual predators fundamentally does nothing, and implicitly lets us off the hook for economically supporting individuals and organizations that are absolutely complicit in rape culture despite the absence of overt evidence. And we can extrapolate this to any number of other acts of injustice: animal cruelty, domestic abuse, racism, etc. Nobody is responsible for watching any particular film, or films at all. But the enterprise of critical engagement does demand a certain degree of conscientious participation. The film is its own defense - for everything else, there's criticism. Luckily, the network of film piracy offers the average person the capacity to both engage with film, while subverting the inherently unethical socioeconomic contexts of their production and distribution.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
If we don't have a 'mentally stable' figurehead, then soon the movement will go 'too far' in accusing ideology and not just individual perverts. We can't have that, the truth is somewhere in the middle, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:Only because of the amount of people standing up and calling it out as bullshit. What's fracturing the base is the people calling it bullshit versus the people who think it's super serious and is on the same level as Weinsten. Again, nothing has to be "on the same level as Weinstein." We are not hunting for Pennywise. The problem is not individual human-monsters, but the entire ideological framework from which patriarchal power is perpetuated. What's happening in the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements is the exact same thing that happens with any significant progressive social movement. There is no fracturing of the base, the 'base' is a liberal ideological fantasy. In any progressive social movement there is inevitably a schism between individuals and groups whose agenda is specifically to undermine and dismantle systems of injustice; and liberal pragmatists who, while superficially campaigning for greater 'inclusivity' or 'sensitivity' or 'transparency' or whatever the buzzword is, are merely trying to 'reform' the status quo while fundamentally opposing any radical change in ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/962348831789797381 You at least contribute to the discussion with your invaluable insight into not just the superficial talking point of 'false allegations,' but a biographical example of how and in what context false accusations arise. Everything you described in your previous post about your brother was both tragic as well as empirically consistent with what individuals who have actually conscientiously researched definitively false allegations of sexual assault have found to be common. It's crucial to distinguish this critical stand point from what Trump and his ilk are doing, which is to use the statistical minority of empirically false rape allegations* as a rational for not acknowledging rape culture at all. This all revolves around the same point we run into again and again: The problem is not a minority of individual repeat offenders/human-monsters; the problem is ideology. Any effective critique of rape culture necessarily involves an attempt to understand false rape allegations critically as social, cultural, or pathological phenomena. It's not mutually exclusive from the overarching political reality, which is that it is far more likely for an allegation of sexual assault to have some factual basis then for it to be completely, unambiguously "false." * False being completely different from merely unproven or unsubstantiated
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
He's basically Ruggero Deodato at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Anonymous John posted:Starting at 2:48, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZACdJdeHQkI It's definitely a bad look but I'm not sure how to parse what they say immediately after: "Do you know how many letters I'm gonna get because... people are gonna yell at me, that I insisted that you kiss me." "She told me before the interview, if I didn't kiss her, she would not come see us play tonight."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:Nickelodeon isn't stupid, and Paramount is no Weinstein company. Since everyone already got on you for convincing yourself that there was no smoke over Weinstein et al., I'm just going to point out that this is also really dumb. Institutional sexism, rape culture, and exploitation are not the result of stupidity. The whole point of bringing scrutiny to the severity of the Weinstein company's horrific abuses is to educate people that the problem is not isolated, but rooted in ideology. To say 'Paramount is no Weinstein company' intrinsically undermines that entire project. This is what happens as superficial attempts to remain 'rational' inevitably devolves into rational denialism. It's exactly as dumb as when folks get in a huff about white folks being called "devils," like it actually has any concrete effect on their social, cultural, political, and economic power and privilege. Oh, no, a rich white man is being accused of pedophilia because he has a peculiar fascination with little kids' feet! What sort of hatefulness of spirit could lead them to that intuition?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
What a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
In the original script of Leon there was literally a sex scene between Mathilda and Leon.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
I mean, I saw screen caps of it in a cracked article, it probably never got past development stage, but it was a really bad look all around. Besson's scene description even did that whole 'it's not exploitative, it's intimate and beautiful' thing that just screams he knew exactly what he wanted the power/sexual fantasy of their relationship to be from the jump. The 'toning down' of the film to Leon being kind of a man child is really just a vestige of that basic fantasy highly characteristic of pedophilia even if it's no longer explicit. That whole idea of the adult and the child being emotionally or rather spiritually indistinguishable is straight up how many pederasts conceive of their desires and behavior.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
http://scifiscripts.com/msol/LEON.txt spoilering because i'm not gonna suffer anyone to look at this if they don't need precise confirmation that, "Yes, Besson really did think this was a good idea." 
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
That's not even just Besson. Sci-fi/fantasy pop is awash in the infantilization of sexual purity, particularly of women. Leeloo is explicitly, more or less, a child who just looks like a full grown adult model. It's just another example of what we constantly need to stress in this thread and throughout the movement in rebuttal to the insinuations and accusations that it's a "witch hunt" (la-a-a-a-a-a-wl): The problem is not individual perverts. The problem is not the individual movie. The pervert is just a pervert, the movie is just a movie. The problem is ideology.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
The author does a lot of waffling to minimize the one detail of the claim that remains consistent. He manages to take, 'A guy is just taking off another guy's pants and about to take off their underwear while they're in a state of disorientation and intoxication' and turn it into, 'Making a move.' Does it recuperate Takei's rep somewhat by making it clear that he didn't keep proceeding when the guy felt invaded upon? Sure. But it's also a very good example of what we see time and time again: The complete exclusion of any conception of affirmative consent, the deployment of how going back to someone's apartment for drinks is 'code' for wanting to have sex, that this incident is just a 'misunderstanding' that resulted from 'mixed' or 'misread signals,' etc. Does Takei deserve to be treated as a monster? No, of course not. But the movement is not about alienating individual 'human monsters.' It's about ideology. Why on earth should we accept, 'Disrobing a drunk person without their consent' as normal? It's clear we already do, and apparently lots of people still fail to see how placing the bar of social normality that low only emboldens precisely the kinds of 'monstrous' poo poo that they superficially oppose.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm gonna say the longevity of the practice is just 50% lazy upper-middle class poo poo/nepotism and the other 50% is a veiled ploy to 'seduce' someone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Why do [straight men] need to be educated not to trick or force people to do stuff Because they're systematically taught the opposite.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
'Nother thought experiment: Could you imagine what the world would be like if the dominant accepted standard for coercion was the same as self-defense - i.e., it doesn't matter if you were actually in danger, all that matters is if circumstances clearly demonstrate that you were being victimized and could realistically fear that you were in danger? Gee, I wonder why women who are compelled into abusive sexual relationships aren't treated to the same standards as gun-owning men...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
esperterra posted:tbf I should have quoted this post with the edited quote in it I can only say that, from my very basic understanding of domestic violence, what you're saying is true and worth putting out there. I didn't mean to suggest that only straight men can be garbage, but as a (mostly) straight man, as someone who's benefited inordinately from the privileges that come with that, I kind of see my responsibility as being more to critique patriarchy and the centrality of heterosexuality and masculinity in it specifically. I didn't mean to minimize abuse and coercion that takes place in homosexual relationships, and I apologize for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:How the heck do you sing along if you don't know the words? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKt75jUuKJY Stop being such a silly goober
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Hold The Ashes posted:
gently caress off
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Why would anyone choose to not go to the police? Cops are notorious for their rigorous investigation of abuses of power
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Martman posted:He's just saying that some of the same reasoning applies to an accused not immediately going for public litigation in response. I don't think the intent was what you're implying. Intent is not the same thing as meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
I think a graduated 25 would be a great age of consent.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Yeah, all he did was call a woman and jerk off too loud. Jesus loving christ, people, did any of you actually read the NYT piece? quote:In 2015, a few months before the now-defunct website Defamer circulated rumors of Louis C.K.’s alleged sexual misconduct, Ms. Corry also received an email from Louis C.K., which was obtained by The Times, saying he owed her a “very very very late apology.” When he phoned her, he said he was sorry for shoving her in a bathroom. Ms. Corry replied that he had never done that, but had instead asked to masturbate in front of her. Responding in a shaky voice, he acknowledged it and said, “I used to misread people back then,” she recalled. Dude has serious issues that aren't going to be resolved by a single moment of public humiliation. He has loving traumatized and discouraged numerous people from doing the things that made them happy. Him loving off forever is totally just. edit: "Well, he made a nice apology." Motherfucker has been apologizing for years and then straight up lying about the veracity of these things in public. Apology is not enough. He needs to gently caress off, for good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 18:55
|
|