Everyday sexism

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 7, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Take me to court and prove it. It isn't sexual harassment so stop lying Bells. And your little previous act about arguing real sexual harassment in court and confusing it with casual banter would be laughed out of court. Wake up!
    Show me where addressing anyone as Luv, taking into account, that the person [woman] being addressed is returning the same casual banter, is seen as sexual harassment, and show me where anyone has been convicted. Or is this more of your lies to impress?
    Who are you trying to impress Bells? Any supposed case that I may chose to take to court about your own behaviour, would be have far more chance of success then any case you chose because I address people as they address me. A point you obviously ignore along with Donald.
    Yes, a movement that has rightly revealed much about real sexual harassment. Just as real as "not all men" meaning exactly that...not all men, as "not all women" means not all women, or "not all scientists" means not all scientists
    For calling someone Luv? Liar.
    So sad you see the need for such taking things out of context.
    I have said many things, in context and in answer to others statements and replies...I also have the ability to me jovial and to laugh at myself as well as others I know.
    My only record of "sexual harassment" is that as defined by you and James, the two people that are pushing this agenda of casual banter being sexual harassment. The many lies, misinterpretations, redefining of words etc show this debacle for what it truly is...a witch hunt.
    I advised it was an analogy because both Trump and Guliani are known for their monstrous lies and misinterpretations.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Are you serious Bells? You, who along with James, have called me a sexual monster, based solely on your own warped version of my casual banter in calling someone Luv? And then when I reply to your accusation of me sounding like a perv, that you sound like an embittered old woman, you get all pretentiously uppity about it? Why? Hitting close to home, is it?
    There you go again. Telling, no demanding someone to stop doing something. Who the hell do you believe you are?
    Alex is a gentleman. But he has also dared to come out in support of me and the everyday innocent, casual banter that exists in society and will continue to exist, despite the campaign being conducted by you and James.

    I have two more observations to make before I finally leave this den of iniquity.....In my opinion there are others here that although of the same opinion as yourself, [Dave, Billvon and wegs] have conducted themselves admirably while still essentially disagreeing with me. It is only you and James that has taken this into disgusting territory. All three have admitted that while they may disagree with my everyday casual banter, they understand that I am not a sexual predator or harasser.
    Is this why you have on a few occasions now Bells, seemingly locked yourself in with wegs? You know, to add something to your baseless claims and accusations, because wegs has conducted herself like a Lady?
    The other point of course is your continued accusations on my person, and getting me to return and deny said accusations and lies.
    I also believe there are probably more here that may align more or less with the everyday casual banter that exists, but because of the flak that it would cause from you and James, and the crusade you are pushing, are reluctant to comment
    Bells, one thing is certain. You want me banned. That is a fact.
    That's why you make such disgusting accusations in the hope of me saying something that may hurry that banning.

    I hope I have no more need to return, and I'll now avoid ever clicking onto this place, that condones such lies and dishonesty from people in power. Plus I'm having fun at other interests in my life and elsewhere.
    Take it easy all!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Have fun, and don't forget to have the occasional laugh at yourself...you too Bells!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Even if this is the case you, by calling him Harvey, you say that he is guilty of sexual abuse ... actionable defamation...that is fact not advice..run it by a lawyer mate.

    Please appologise for your Harvey call which is after all a claim of sexual abuse then we can look at your claims for the other..do you have evidence of him being charged for sexual abuse..well do you. Saying what you said is lieing.

    This typifies your general sleazy methods of twisting words and it is entirely tiresome.

    I invited you to present a case against Paddo which I see you fail to do and this is my third and final request.

    I am sorry that your hate for Paddo blinds you to any critisms of bullying and abuse and has you thinking that no evidence is required for any of your claims and that un lawful defamation is acceptable ... you are lieing and shows your desperation...if you provide evidence you would not need to lie would you.

    Most unreasonable of me..requiring proof and evidence and to abandon trial by mind reading...but clearly your philosophy does not require proof in any form does it.

    No it is you that forgets what I say..to wit..after telling my history you say I have no idea.

    I have set out things that to any competent person would be understandable clearly you are not interested in understanding in the least but your tactic of twisting words proceeding with out evidence and a tendency to rely on mind readers have all become tiresome and frankly your lack of substance coupled with your lies makes this no fun although certainly it ensures victory goes to me for your failure to provide evidence and inability to refrain from lieing...Sexual abuse you can not establish and was a disgustingly low call...and then ylu say but the context..mmm context is ok but only when you are using it...

    Parody alert.
    Don't you dare tell me what links to look at do you think I need to be told
    Parody end

    This is to point out your response to my posted links to the domestic violence matters that unfortunately are of no concern to you....

    Nothing predates religion that we can tell ..written records go back to the Sumerians who show that religion and society were around together and that they invented the god in the bible, Adam, the garden and the flood...

    Would you deny the church does not treat women badly? Why don't we have a female Pope? There are many many why's.. why is that?

    Do you read the bible..do you want me to fill page after page quoting parts of the bible that proves my point?

    That just makes you more wrong.

    Not as much cost and trauma as you would experience...you in effect called him a sexual abuser..you can not back it up even after being invited to do so and try to move the goal posts with some nonsense about casting couches...get real.
    You just can not call folk a criminal when they are not...what don't you get? No matter how much you hate Paddo you do not have the right to lie...

    Well go ahead establish a case...you can't.. all you can do is offer unsupported bluster.

    Well if he has such a history you won't have any problem supplying evidence will you.
    I would like to see it.

    You are ignoring the context...personally I would not have called you anything but your names...I think his choice was a poor tactic which took focus off the point he was trying to make..however it was entirely clear the point he was making which did not suffer by you trying to make out it was something that it was not.

    What he was saying was your extremism is no better or worse than those on the right...the thing to note however is you object for the sexual connotation yet you have no problem calling him "Harvey" ..tell me why is it when you do something it's ok but when another does it they are wrong?

    And why don't you ever address thesectyles of questions..can you not bring yourself to address the wrongs you are guilty of?

    I caught it from someone here...my hypocracy exists in your mind due to yourvperpetual twisting of my words..yours..well it just part of who you are obviously...

    Take it to a super market where it is the norm and see how you go...there is a big world out there..7 billion people ..don't be surprised that not all of them think you can dictate the rules and take it upon yourself to look down on them...be humble like me.

    I did not realise Paddo was a movie producer...look don't you think your method as it pertains to gross exaggeration is simply making you look silly...the thread is about..on your account Paddo boy at his local shops...calling folk luv...now you say he is a sex offender...Anyways it's your grave that you dig..the more you talk nonsense the more you lose...sorry.

    Yet you can not point out any without twisting my words can you.

    What do you think is contradictory?

    Can you be specific.

    You want to back that up?

    You think because I point out the need for evidence etc etc..that I have no idea..you ignore my history..it is you who have no idea...your determination to belittle Paddo has you making un supported claims...and you don't think I read all material that pertains to what I will comment upon...I am not like you I read what is posted as I likectomknow why folk hold their opinion...you are clearly different..you wont look at anything that may threaten your reality...just like the video explains..you too fit the stereo type ..in my view...but as you have not seen it and James passed judgement without watching all of it I think it is safe to say neither of you will ,earn from it.

    I don't expect you to look at any video when you have an ear infection but your tirad re being told suggests you know what you will find and therefore you won't watch the videos...there is one by a nice lady who calmly points out that Christian men are more likely to be abusers..real nasty abuse, domestic violence etc...don't you think that is a more serious issue than old folk calling each other luv?
    Your hate for Paddo is what this is about isn't it? That's ok but you are missing out on good research on domestic violence...a trivial thing it seems to you when you are engaged in your witch hunt.

    I did not give him legal advice..Saying "I would sue her" is not advice in any shape or form..it is an opinion..so casual I see your comments as more of the same tiresome twisting of words of an opponent....and legal advice could only be offered if there was a principle/ client relationship ...legal advice would be along the lines of referencing the law, the acts, the cases the opportunity for damages and the like but a product of a principle client contractual relationship...this is yet another example of your need to twist words ... it really is a disgusting and unproductive habit.

    Anyways let us look on the positive..I am sure that the various interactions between you and Paddo boy must see him recognising your concerns and you being more determined to keep presenting the message.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Quote me.
    Quote what I said...
    I did not say what Bells said.
    And she twisted my words to suit her purpose.
    Go on quote what I actually said.
    I did not say what Bells said..it is that simple.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you.

    Absolutely. Just look at their tactics...twist your words, bully, abuse, insist words have a meaning as determined by them, mind reading, arrogant posturing,...and with Bells in effect calls you a sex offender and thinks that is not defamation...and of course it's ok for her to call you Harvey but when you adopt a similar tactic all we get is claims that you are thinking about the sexual links with those guys..they have dirty little minds and a talent for lieing...

    It's not worth coming here...and I raise domestic violence and killings..oh don't talk about that lets concentrate upon the big issues..calling folk luv...shows how odd they are...

    Domestic violence sees deaths but it is not as important as babbling on about folk calling each other luv..it is hard to believe they are so hateful that they just want to hunt you down..jealous I say..you get out, you have friends, you live in a great location, did things they only dream about...jealous of me too..old mate DMOE calls me out for boasting..he could be right from his point of view but for me I am just telling of my hobbies and work experience... they always think we are boasting..that is because to do anything in the real world must seem very adventurous to them..

    Anyways the fact is we are being taken advantage of ..they stir us up to get us to post which generates traffic..think of the traffic both you and I have generated for this place...I think going is our best way to deal with them...for me I have demonstrated that they are liars and guilty of slander, that facing important issues be entirely beyond them and they are incapable of sensible discussion...they build their realities on imaginings and avoid any notion that others see thru their arrogant lieing hypocritical behaviour... now Bells and James show us that you do not lie...I have kept a list...not that you will see it as I am leaving ...all this is a waste of time..I was interested in bringing some focus upon domestic violence but clearly it's just not an important issues for the lefties here...

    I wonder do they ever smile..probably not..

    Let us promise each other that we will leave and never come back....now you watch what this generates..more of you are contradicting yourself shit.and can't face things...well I suppose so one gets sick of nothing but crap outta their mouths..look at DMOE s latest..can't even read what I said and what Bells said and see the difference....oh he thinks he knows what I said but does not have the s4nse to read what was said and spot the difference...it is a pity good folk like Weggs can't see thru them..unfortunately as she feels strongly about the issues, I do also ...she can't not see Bells and James are wrong..James makes up lies about "lubricate" Bells lies about "Sexual offender" to offer only two of many many examples...so Weggs is entrapped by their evil...you can see she is careful not to get off side..in fact you see that with a few here..fuck them they deserve no respect as they are liars and that has been proven and the audience sees the examples is what they don't get..liars are invariably arrogant thinking they are so clever no one will notice..well I am not terribly smart and I notice...well everyone can see...their arrogance prevents them even constructing a plausible lie...bluster...

    So what will the site lose...as I have said..I came here because of you...you posted science news regularly..which helps the site...I posted my photos to help the site ... look at the likes we have both received..and compare them to those of Bells and James...actually I don't know how they rate cause I don't look but I remember you were near the top and I did not notice Bells or James...

    I mistakenly thought they were both ok, even decent..but through their lies and hypocracy and twisting of everything they comment upon I find too much..my time is more important as is yours.

    Let them rant and lie without us..I will grab the ball you get the bat...yes I threw them a crumb ..Let them fight over it.

    I will miss talking with you and thanks for all the great news posts you provided most days...without you it is even less of a science site.

  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    I did quote what you said, Alex!
    I quoted exactly what you actually said!
    It is that simple, Alex.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member


    At 4.00 so true, so very true here.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
    Michael 345 likes this.
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    But I did not.

    She said I said ...absolve old folk of legal responsibility...I did not say that...I spoke about the case for consideration but never did I say that their age should absolve them from their legal responsibility..why would I I dont particulary think that..I do think that consideration could be given to the fact they are set in their ways and that could be taken into account....you could be forgive for reading that I said that was the case with minors but , as I recall , said that indicated that the law certainly has given consideration to age as being relevant...now to take that and say I said old folk should be not liable at law in effect is just another example of twisting words. You may notice Bells said I said it but did not quote my words...if you take her word rather than read what I said you wont know what I actually said will you...go back read what I said not what Bells changed it to..

    Anyways I thank you for your participation..perhaps you can keep these threads going as both this one and the other one seek to bring the problems created by the church that men are better than women to more people's attention...it is just so wrong that the church enables bad behaviour by their stand that women are less than men...ask why we can't have a female Pope, ask why Christian men are more likely to commit domestic violence, ask why the church tells the victims to pray saying that God will stop it or give the strength to endure, ask why the church does not advocate that wife bashers be immediately charged with assault, ask why some religions are acting in a positive way and others ignore that there is a problem..folk like you and Bells I guess..there is not problem as we won't look at the research...best go after Paddo..that bastard..calling women luv and them calling him love..just imagine what they must be thinking...

    Goodbye again.

  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Not only did I "go back read" what you actually said, Alex...I directly quoted what you said, verbatim.
    I even went so far as to reference both the Thread Page # and the Post #'s that I quoted from.

    ...then you ignore all of the Direct quotes of your words that I Post, Verbatim, and tell me "...if you take her word rather than read what I said you wont know what I actually said will you..." and to "...go back read what I said not what Bells changed it to.."!

    Alex, cannot you possibly see/understand/comprehend that that is precisely why it seems to me that you continue to be disingenious!
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Please use the quote feature so the actual words I said appear and that way we can see what I said can't we.
    Clearly you are able to use the quote feature so go ahead..present the quote that Bells relies upon to claim I say old folk can avoid legal responsibility.
    Quote me.
    If I am wrong I will admit it.

    Post the actual quote please...
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well you are entitled to think what you like just as I am entitled to think what I like.

    I think you have had things in your life that have caused you to be suspicious of people and maybe that there is something about me that causes you to remember someone who was unkind to you in the past ...I certainly am not trying to be disingenious and frankly thought I was rather open and honest ..wanting domestic violence addressed, and to have folk here read the research that tells us the teachings of the church are very much responsible for christian men showing the highest numbers when it comes to domestic violence...what do you feel is disingenious about wanting more done to reduce domestic vilolence? I really think you don't like me because from the start I would as you saw it side with Paddo..you say that liking has nothing to do with it but you use all opportunity to say I an disingenious which clearly ignores my determination to have domestic violence addressed..that seems you dontvlike me..even now you avoid meaningful input ..you won't even read the research...maybe it is you that is disingenious..often folk find fault in others they recognise in themselves..as I said you could be seen as disingenious so maybe you subconsciously realise this and so see it in others as if to make yourself feel better about your problem.

    Anyways I will pop back to see if you found the quote that is at issue...should not take any effort if you went back and read it ..thats what you said...as you will know exactly where to find it won't you...my bet is you won't find it because I am damn sure I did not put it the way Bells claims...and if I did it will need to be changed as I never intended that the law be changed ...Anyways if you are right the actual quote by me will show you are right ....but of course if you can't do that I suppose it will be too much to expect an apology from either you or Bells...I hope for your sake you are actually right because you have really gone out on a limb here and I will not take any joy from seeing you make a fool of yourself...I just think your dislike of Paddo is clouding your outlook...but you are not alone..so good to be acting like the rest of the mob I guess.

    But hurry there is not much time left I won't be here forever.

  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    So, Alex, cognitive dissonance...maybe?
    Or just more disingenious Billshut?

    At any rate :
    Alex, you Posted (my bold) :
    I asked (my bold):
    Alex, you replied (again, my bold):
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Xelasnave.1947 said:
    And thinking about it...can we not extend some consideration for old age given the law recognises that a child under eight can not be guilty of a crime under the law?

    Thank that proves my point doesn't it...I said can we not extend some consideration..which is not what Bells claimed I said is it....thank you.

    I did not say what she said

    Bells said:
    You are the one who said that old people should be absolved all legal responsibility for their actions and that they should be deemed incompetent to face being charged with any crime, akin to children under 8 years of age. Not me. You!

    Should be absolved of all responsibility for their actions and they should be deemed incompetent to face being charged with any crime, akin to children under 8 years...is nothing like...can we not extend some consideration for old age given the law recognises that a child under eight can not be guilty of a crime under the law.

    If you can't see the difference...in my post I ask the question..can we not extend consideration etc ? which is converted to..it is me who say old folk ..."should be absolved of all responsibility for their actions and they should be deemed incompetent to face being charged with any crime.
    I did not say that I asked a question..read it over and over until the penny drops.

    I did not make the statement Bells claimed and it is in black and white before you.

    As I have said before your hate and eagerness to judge has you inserting what your reality dictates but as you can see in this example you are wrong...

    Now wiggle and squirm ignore my truth and fail to appologise...you are wrong...learn to read what I wrote not what you think I wrote.



  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    My condolences, Alex...
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Again you look for problems, you experience, in others...read both posts..

    You are the one who is wrong about my post so your credibility holds no value...I don't bullshit and no one can show where I have without recourse to twisting my words or employing lies...James has been show to lie, Bells has been shown to lie...lies equal bullshit dontvthey...show where I have lied..you can't can you and oh that must be so very hard to accept..I can see you huffing and puffing, turningvred and dribbling over your computer well huff and puff all you like but read the posts and see where you are wrong and my allegation that what Bells said I said was not what I said.

    Still I like you and Bells and James...for unlike all of you I am not judgemental ..clearly you all have terrible flaws which I goes to reflect drama in your lives...the lieing usually means the actor has been lied to..the hater has had hate filled environments..I get all that...I can over look it for a while but the persistence certainly worries me.

    No where did I say for example..I think old people should be absolved etc etc..no where.

    And it is this reading different meanings into what I say is unforgivable..it's the same tactic as employed against Paddo boy..don't read what is said twist it subtly ever so slightly such that may go un noticed and paint a different and damning picture...

    I deserve an apology from both you and Bells and of course that won't happen will it...actually there is your chance to prove me wrong ..by apologising you will prove what I just said is wrong..take it its the only chance you will ever get.
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I am not sure what you mean...are you apologising or being disingenious? Please a straight answer.

    If apologising then my respect for you has never been unjustified..if you are being disingenious I will have to reassess my position.

  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Well by this point any potential learning has disappeared under defensiveness and people who enjoy the attack. That's too bad. Wegs had some good input at least.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Why would I take you to court?

    Wonderful! My speciality was sex offenses and child abuse. That's who I prosecuted.

    So tell me again, why do you want me to take you to court?

    I have. Repeatedly.

    The issue that you keep missing is that it could affect someone negatively and it's simply best to err on the side of caution and not do it.

    Just because something is the norm, does not mean it will always be acceptable, paddoboy.

    The norm used to be that marital rape, for example, was acceptable. That the wife was expected and forced to submit, whether she wanted to or not. Things change. As a society we progress and if you going up to young women and commenting on their looks, their accent's, being overly familiar with them will possibly make some of these women uncomfortable and even feel stressed... The onus is on you to alter your behaviour to ensure these women are able to feel as though they are working in a safe environment.

    If you want to read up on sexual harassment cases. Austlii is the site you can look at.

    You have been provided with numerous links that explain how and why what you keep demanding is casual banter can constitute sexual harassment. You were also provided with numerous links that describe how young retail and customer driven industry staff, particularly female staff end up feeling harassed and stressed because of the overly familiar way men approach them or make comments about their bodies in various ways - you do it by commenting on their looks, their accents, etc.

    Let me put it to you this way.

    If you are at work and you have a female boss. Would you go up to her and tell her she's pretty? Tell her she has a lovely accent? Keep calling her "love"? The answer as you attested a while ago, is no. You would not. Because it would be disrespectful and diminish her position. But you seem to think that these young women are somehow less or worthy of less respect. You, as a customer, are in a position of power over these younger women, and they literally have no grounds for complaint if you do make them feel uncomfortable or harassed. I posted you links that show just how few even join unions and how Australian retail unions are doing their best to provide these young women with help because of the male customers who disrespect them. You contribute to that atmosphere.

    I don't particularly care if you think it's common or "the norm". Times change. We progress. We move forward. What was the norm for many many things, no longer are. Embracing behaviour that is by every definition sexual harassment, because you think it's the norm, just makes you a sexual harasser.

    So your demands that I take you to court.. It's kind of pathetic for one. Equally ridiculous for the other. I know where you are going with this. I also know where Alex is going with this. You, sir, are getting horrendously bad legal advice.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    I think the question I should be asking is who are you trying to impress, or perhaps puff yourself up with your bluster? You were begging me to take you to court before. Do you know which way is up or down?

    I am literally giving you the facts.

    I'm not the one threatening court action over something said in a forum. You referred to us as sex offenders. I called you Harvey and provided the context in regards to your repeated assertions with "the norm". Again, you are getting seriously bad legal advice. Let me put it to you this way. Defamation cases have about a 35% chance of being successful. You are not identifiable on this website - in other words, no one knows who you are, where you live, what you look like, what you do for a living, your name, etc or anything that could easily identify you. You would have to prove that the comment was damaging to you in a way that affected your life - others shunned you because of the comment, etc, and that the comment affected your way of life negatively. Which given this:

    Does not appear to be the case.

    That's just a broad overview of how and why you have been given bad legal advice. A word of caution. Do not take legal advice in regards to defamation, when the person giving said advice does not know or understand the difference between libel and slander for starters..

    And about how you address people. Is that really something you wish to highlight? "Girly", "Wegsy", your continued harassment and stalking of other members for which you have dozens of infractions, you have sexually harassed me and others on this site in the past. How many times have you called me a "feminazi"? Hmm? What, you don't know the connotations of that offensive name?

    And I advised that my comment was an "analogy" in regards to the "norm" crap you keep trying to push.

    No no, do go on..

    All you have been told, repeatedly, that the behaviour you keep boasting about, can lead to others feeling uncomfortable and that just because the smile, giggle, laugh in response, does not mean they appreciate it and your come-on's, such as commenting on how they look "gee you're so pretty!", their accent, etc, is sexual harassment.

    And you target these women and come onto them specifically. You don't speak to men that way. Why?

    You flirt with these women and you come onto them. You don't do it to men, because you aren't gay..

    And that, right there, is why your behaviour constitutes sexual harassment and is not appropriate.

    These women are trying to get about their daily life, they are often at work in their workplace and they deserve and have the right to not have anyone come onto them. They deserve and have the right to not have anyone comment on their looks, how they sound, etc or to be diminished to your "luv", "darl" or any other cutesy pet names you use at women.

    That does not actually mean what you think it means...

    Oh, I'm sorry.

    Don't I conform to your expectations of how you believe women should behave?

    Did you want me to *giggle* and smile at you? That's what you expect, isn't it?
    Given the amount of people who have advised they have put you on ignore, the number of complaints we receive from others about your behaviour and your sexist jokes and comments.. I am going to straight up say that you are probably wrong on that front.
    Personally, I think you are a waste of moderator time. Not because you are so sexist. But because of the time and effort we have to put in when dealing with your bullying, harassment and stalking behaviour towards others. To put it into perspective, you have received 40 infractions. And that's not even counting the in-thread warnings, etc you have received and the countless of hours we have to spend when you go on a rant in PM's or in threads.
    Dude, you have received 40 infractions. If I wanted you banned, I'd make the case that you are a drain of moderator time and you'd be banned.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Of course not.

    He does not want the men to think he's coming onto them because he's not gay.

    For me, it was mostly about "the norm" argument he keeps making.

    Remember this:

    "Mr. Weinstein did not invent the casting couch in Hollywood," Brafman told reporters after his client’s arraignment. He added that “bad behavior is not on trial in this case.”

    Brafman also told the Times of London that the “casting couch” is not a crime, but rather a “choice.”

    “If a woman decides that she needs to have sex a Hollywood producer in order to advance her career and actually does it and finds the whole things offensive, that’s not rape,” he told the newspaper in March

    Perspective and context matters greatly. Weinstein lawyer's comments about the casting couch was to essentially say that it was 'the norm'. That everyone was doing it. That what he was doing was not outside of the ordinary. And that it had been around since the entertainment industry in its various shapes and sizes, existed. That what Weinstein was doing was simply what all others did. And that the women who participated in it, knew and had a choice.

    Remember when paddoboy tried to argue that what he did was between consenting adults?

    Interesting, no?

    That is the context paddoboy seems to fail to see or note.


    And when she smiles at him and responds as he expects, he calls the manager to praise them ..
  23. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    If an older female handed you something and said, “Here you go, dear,” would it bother you?

Share This Page