• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The SEX ALLEGATIONS Megathread

Well first just cause you can doesn’t mean you should. But honestly yeah I’d be surprised if you can go around telling someone you think their deeply held beliefs are a mental illness or their being gay is unhealthy for society and have them be cool about it.

That really what you’re telling me?

I don't tend to talk about my beliefs or thoughts except with my closest friend to be honest, as we're both fluent in the absurdity and paradoxical nature of reality.. thus nothing really twists us in discussion. Most people are far too invested and caught up in the game of life to talk about things with an open mind, that's been my experience anyway.

People seem to have no problem going around and insulting the deeply held beliefs of Christians, Conservatives, or other faiths and thought systems these days, decrying similar labels as 'mental illness' and 'unhealthy'. Much fun has been made of this in comedy and modern culture, and I have no problem with that.. so why should sexuality be any different? Again, people are way too caught up in this topic area for a real frank open discussion, and too reliant on it generally for their identity, to relinquish control over it for a few minutes in order to facilitate discussion.

If people want to question sexuality that's fine, just so long as it fits one predefined cultural narrative in advance? We can have children in single digits questioning whether they are male or female, encouraging it even, and that's all right.. but it's not alright to question the psychology of sexuality and what's going on in the minds of these people? To have an opinion on what sexuality and the mind are, and how they relate? Given that no one has accurately defined either I think it's a tad hypocritical to deny the right to question, don't you think? Until the mind is accurately defined there is no monopoly on the truth, but only questions to be asked.
 
So it would be fair to say your “gay friends” might perhaps be unaware of what you really think?

Cause I would say that kinda invalidates any “I have gay friends” argument. Cause it doesn’t really mean anything.

If you ask me, people are getting far less tolerant of their friends having different beliefs, not more. You can probably blame Facebook for some of that.
 
So it would be fair to say your “gay friends” might perhaps be unaware of what you really think?

Cause I would say that kinda invalidates any “I have gay friends” argument. Cause it doesn’t really mean anything.

I only mention it in these discussion when the line gets trotted out, or I sense its about to, that I'm a homophobe or something else. Just trying to prevent the discussion from inevitably getting sucked down that route and have people attempt to pigeon hold me with certain labels and contain the discussion at that level.

My gay friends are semi-aware of my beliefs, though I did explain it in detail to one of them. Obviously he didn't accept it, but he didn't lose his mind over it or abandon our friendship. You don't have to buy the whole deal when you're friends with someone. They like to go to gay clubs, I don't, so I don't go with them. I don't get upset about it and they don't get offended by my decision.. it's not a big deal. They're intelligent enough to know that you can hold beliefs about subjects that whilst it may appear to be 'offensive' to some doesn't mean you hate those people or anything. People have every right to be offended, but no right to demand not to be offended.

It's really not that complicated and I'm a bit curious as to why it seems people can't grasp this simple concept.

If you ask me, people are getting far less tolerant of their friends having different beliefs, not more. You can probably blame Facebook for some of that.

Try holding conservative views or views about sexual morality that aren't 'current'. You don't fit under the banner of a religion, so you don't get a pass there, and if you're a white male holding these views you're absolutely fair game for insults, derision, and in some cases even violence. People aren't nearly tolerant as they think they are, it's just an overused propaganda term.
 
I thought everyone was fair game for insults, derision, and in some cases violence, especially if they had it coming? The derision has certainly flowed both ways here, and yet only one of us keeps complaining about the unfairness of being treated fairly, or indulged in some martyr fantasy, the "last tolerant man unspoiled by PC libtards' wrong ideas about everythiing."
 
I thought everyone was fair game for insults, derision, and in some cases violence, especially if they had it coming?

Do you enjoy being deliberately obtuse? Several times now I've stated there isn't a justification for violence towards women. You obviously refuse to read what I'm actually writing so I'm not going to respond to any more of your questions.
 
Do you enjoy being deliberately obtuse? Several times now I've stated there isn't a justification for violence towards women. You obviously refuse to read what I'm actually writing so I'm not going to respond to any more of your questions.

Seems like a reasonable response. I'll answer anyway, to say you absolutely did say that women "could expect to be burnt" for starting that sexy fire in men's desires. You said they were culpable for any "burnings" they should expect to happen. That sure sounds like violence.

I highlighted it for you not more than six hours ago when we discussed it the first time. I could make a joke about a learning impairment, but I don't think those are usually funny, even though you said it's fair to make them. You'd probably complain about my "intolerance" anyway.
 
What I said was,

me said:
That relates to the other point I was making about how women are not automatically off limits in culpability in the general sense. Stoking the fire is going to lead to more people getting burnt and you can't ignore that fact away. It might not seem that important, that 'cultural attitudes have shifted' and so forth, but our biological nature hasn't.

Aside from the fact I've made it very clear, multiple times and in the original post about clothing that it in no way justifies violence towards women, I'll try again. Women wear sexy clothing, sexy clothing initiates a biological response in the man, energy has to go somewhere. Now that doesn't mean I'm implying we jump straight to rape, because that's not what I was implying. What I was trying to communicate is that if more women wear more sexy clothing and we trend in that direction, then there's going to be more responses in men and across the wider society that energy has to go somewhere. It's a feedback loop.. hence, you stoke the fire, the fire grows, eventually someone gets burnt. Again that's not a justification for the criminal actions of a few men, they should be held responsible for their actions, and the issue of clothing is just one of many issues contributing here (others include society wide drug abuse, porn abuse etc).

However, clothing is the one area/factor that women actually have control over. No one is forcing them to dress that way, they chose and pay with their own money. If they want to that's fine, their choice, doesn't make them a slut or deserving of any criminal offense. But you can't ignore the fact that it does produce an effect in men.. I mean come on, it's not rocket science. What's missed is the implications on wider society, as opposed to a context of one individual man on the street.
 
Thank you for finding your quote for me. You're right, that "energy that must go somewhere" could mean a lot of things, just not actual biology or physics.

Your Point, I think: No, you don't go "straight to rape", but you're "trending in that direction". In fact, a little more time, "the fire grows" and it'll turn into a straight-up rape-firestorm! Because of various behaviors on the part of women, their clothing choice is just one reason.

But because they have control over their clothing, if they get raped because of it, they bear the responsibility. Is that right?

About the eighth time now I've understood you just fine; you seem to not realize what you're saying: women who dress alluringly to your taste will excite men, at least one of whom will then rape her (generally speaking, averaged over time across the population of sluts). Since she chose to dress that way, really, it's her fault.

Right sir? Your own words cited above, sentences paraphrased.

You said you would stop responding to my replies, and that's probably a good idea.

EDIT: Wait, I just realized, by insisting on generalizing this scenario, in fact you're impugning all women for allowing some to dress as sluts. Such that when a woman gets sexually assaulted for any reason, collective womanhood is to blame, for "trending" in that slutty-clothes direction and letting their political power "go autonomous". So yeah, full circle, and we find there's a simple word that describes all of this: misogyny.
 
Last edited:
Carrie Fisher gave predatory producer a cow's tongue in a box

Screenwriter Heather Robinson says that after telling Fisher she’d had to fight off a Hollywood executive, the Star Wars actor hand-delivered him the gift with a threatening note


Carrie Fisher once hand-delivered a cow’s tongue wrapped in a Tiffany box to a predatory Hollywood producer, a friend of the late actor has claimed.

Screenwriter Heather Robinson said that Fisher had intervened after the unnamed executive, identified as an Oscar winner, had tried to force himself on Robinson while in his car.

Robinson told Arizona radio station 94.9 MixFM that two weeks after recounting the incident to Fisher, she received an email from the Star Wars actor saying that she had personally delivered a Tiffany box to Sony studios, where the executive was based.

“It was a cow tongue from Jerry’s Famous Deli with a note that said: ‘If you ever touch my darling Heather or any other woman again, the next delivery will be something of yours in a much smaller box,’” Robinson recalled.


https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...edatory-producer-cows-tongue-heather-robinson
 
The casting couch has been a well known and well used piece of tawdry furniture in that industry and this bloke is not likely to be unique. Im sure a lot would get women quite willingly sleep with him and get acting parts. He probably thought anyone was fair game . They arent though obviously.

I dont think its a mysogynistic problem and blokes would get put in the same position. I wonder if Madonna and her plethora of young spunky back up dancers will end up in the same boat? I wonder if any of them said no and kept their jobs


I wonder why this came to a head now and wasnt a long time ago?

I dont know the bloke but his movies were moneymakers do getting famous would have been pretty much guaranteed so yeah .....

Anyway. Its just weird that well known actresses have come out NOW and in unison when they could have said something earlier .

It would have meant their career but now they have nade it in Hollywood they can let him have it?

Sonething is a bit off. Hes been a gross lecherous dickhead no doubt but like Cosby, he was like that when he was a drawcard but now hes not so much its all of a sudden on him?
 
So yeah, full circle, and we find there's a simple word that describes all of this: misogyny.
amen.

ss, i think you're dancing around this a little. i feel there's a parallel here with trump's missing an opportunity to clearly and unequivocally condemn white supremacists. well, if it "in no way justifies violence towards women" then that's it. period. no "...but their dressing like whores creates 'energy' that has to go somewhere".

alasdair
 
I think they should track down all the whor... women who did the old "fuck you, make me a star" routine, and see how much money they made from their sex for film career prostitution, and then take those ill gotten gain and redistribute them to all the women who were potentially harmed by that greasy fat fuck.
 
Except you missed the part where the women who now have the power to bite this fucker back, have done so, and all those thirty-some other accusers can come forward, the ones who were not actors but non-famous production workers, set designers and such, who would never have gotten any justice at all.

This is more like crawling your way up the cables, then sending the elevator down.
 
Over 40 women and counting...


Weinstein scandal: Game of Thrones actress 'felt powerless'

Game of Thrones actress Lena Headey, who plays Cersei Lannister on the popular HBO show, has accused producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment.


The Hollywood mogul was "furious" after she resisted his sexual advances, she details in a series of Twitter posts.

The British actress joins a list of over 40 women who have accused the producer of misconduct.

Also on Tuesday, Weinstein resigned from the board of directors of his eponymous film production company.

He has been accused of rape, sexual assault and harassment, but has "unequivocally denied" any allegations of non-consensual relationships


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41650350
 
The "dressing like sluts" thing is total nonsense.
I can hang out with girls (and guys) wearing very little - or nothing at all - and never have i considered raping anyone. Ever.

Rape is not about desire. It's about power.
Assuming that these accusations are true, the guy is about the most perfect illustration of that imaginable.
He exploited his power to abuse women who "felt powerless" (as above).
That's the common theme though all of the allegations, from sexual harrassment through to rape. Powerlessness exploited by the powerful.
Again - "when you're a star, they let you" or whatever trump's words were - resonates. He's from the same culture of lecherous celebrity entitlement.
 
DMHypGcUQAAn7ti.jpg


https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/919282639160320001/photo/1
 
Top