|
Post by onebluestocking on Oct 31, 2017 19:06:20 GMT
But he was only 15! Isn't that Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Oct 31, 2017 19:54:06 GMT
While what Spacey is accused of doing to Rapp is probably not actionable, I would describe it as more than a pass. Plus, being drunk doesn’t make you suddenly attracted to very young looking fourteen year-olds. It may lower your inhibitions, but the attraction is already there.
There’s been talk about Spacey for years. When Weinstein was brought down, many people speculated that Spacey would be next. If even a small per cent of the rumors are true, the Old Vic should be liable for having allowed this to continue. It’s outrageous.
I’m glad the Old Vic and others are investigating this and allowing it to be confidential, because I doubt we will see the same outpouring of public statements from victims that we saw with the Weinstein case. For gay men who are still in the closet, going public would mean coming out. Some still regard that as career-ending. I would like to think they’re wrong, but the stigma still exists - at least In the minds of some decision-makers. If straight men were targeted by him, they may worry that the public will assume they are gay. Look at the horrible slurs and accusations that have hurled at Weinstein’s accusers. Rapp is being attacked viciously in some quarters.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Nov 1, 2017 21:03:35 GMT
Whether or not the behaviour is criminal, it should never happen in the workplace. A boss (or potential boss) should never be permitted to "come on" to anyone who works for him. It doesn't matter that she can say no. There's an imbalance of power so many women might feel obliged to say yes. And I think we're beyond the 1950s stereotype of women getting jobs just so they can meet a rich husband. That's the mentality of these disgusting predators that are now being exposed: they figure that there will be plenty of women who will gladly give in to their advances. Workplaces have had to put in place harassment policies to deal with this sort of "non-criminal" behaviour. So maybe it's not against the law for some old rich guy to flirt with his young assistant, but he can be fired for it. That's TWICE you've taken issue with what the same comment I wrote, Magda, when I don't think you actually bothered to even read what I said! The first time you inappropriately took the first sentence only, completely out of context, in order to criticise that sentence alone for not excluding the underage issue, when the following sentences absolutely did. And now again, you're criticising the same comment for not excluding inappropriate behaviour in the workplace as if I hadn't already said "as long as there isn't the abuse of a position of authority". Or what did you imagine that meant? But re Kevin Spacey apparently harrassing all the young actors at the Old Vic (albeit no specific suggestion of minors, as such, in that scenario to my knowledge), that doesn't surprise me much. It's the nature of that, though, which I don't know the details of, that would determine just how inappropriate that's been. As the director of the Old Vic, to have used his authority to oblige sexual favours would be completely out of order in any scenario, but the world of the theatre is quite gay and a lot of gay men like to live a promiscuous lifestyle. Kevin Spacey won't have had a shortage of willing partners. So is his having had willing partners abuse as well, when there is another political correctness issue re how far one should criticism a particular gay lifestyle? It shouldn't be made a crime to ever make a pass at anyone in any scenario, even as unwelcome, so a line has to be drawn somewhere, including in the theatre. And the sexual harassment of good looking boys and young men is just as serious as the sexual harassment of women. I remember an interview with Rupert Graves a long while back, very pretty boy that he was, where he said something to the effect that he used to feel like prey when he was starting out.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Nov 1, 2017 22:01:27 GMT
I think it’s wrong when the person making the pass is in a position of power over the passee, if that’s a word. What we were taught in sexual harassment training, is if there’s a mutual affection and interest in a case like that (where I worked it would be professor/student), then the couple goes to the professors supervisor and talks about it. It needs to be very clear to all three parties what is going on and what the understanding is so there won’t be any recriminations or reprisals down the road.
There shouldn’t be one night stands between two parties if there’s a power dichotomy between them. That’s wrong.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Nov 1, 2017 22:21:21 GMT
I’ve known gay men who were propositioned by their bosses in mainly gay environments. They were retaliated against for rejecting unwanted advances and didn’t like it one bit. Even if some people willingly have sex with the boss to get ahead, where does that leave those who don’t want to comply? No one should ever feel that their employment depends on their willingness to put out, and anyone, gay or straight, should be able to work in the theatre without being harrassed. It’s not descrimination to say that they need to find a way to keep it professional.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Nov 1, 2017 23:15:54 GMT
Whether or not the behaviour is criminal, it should never happen in the workplace. A boss (or potential boss) should never be permitted to "come on" to anyone who works for him. It doesn't matter that she can say no. There's an imbalance of power so many women might feel obliged to say yes. And I think we're beyond the 1950s stereotype of women getting jobs just so they can meet a rich husband. That's the mentality of these disgusting predators that are now being exposed: they figure that there will be plenty of women who will gladly give in to their advances. Workplaces have had to put in place harassment policies to deal with this sort of "non-criminal" behaviour. So maybe it's not against the law for some old rich guy to flirt with his young assistant, but he can be fired for it. That's TWICE you've taken issue with what the same comment I wrote, Magda, when I don't think you actually bothered to even read what I said! The first time you inappropriately took the first sentence only, completely out of context, in order to criticise that sentence alone for not excluding the underage issue, when the following sentences absolutely did. And now again, you're criticising the same comment for not excluding inappropriate behaviour in the workplace as if I hadn't already said "as long as there isn't the abuse of a position of authority". Or what did you imagine that meant? That's not me, dreamsincolour.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Nov 2, 2017 0:09:57 GMT
I think you meant this for me!
I did read your comments, but I just found them contradictory. You say that as long as there isn't the abuse of a position of authority, the behaviour isn't inappropriate. But this discussion has been about that very situation. We haven't had any mention of a situation that involved two people of equal standing. I guess I'm just wondering which situations you thought were appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Nov 2, 2017 0:31:10 GMT
Sorry, no, wasn't you the second time, Magda. And yes, it was you I should have directed that other comment to, Mllemass. It was Magda the first time, though, being critical of that first sentence, when it was inappropriately taken completely out of context. And then you followed with similar and OBS as well. All three of you apparently preferring to jump in with criticism without bothering to read what was there. Not good! And I did read it back. I wasn't at all contradictory.
But CCW Said:
I absolutely agree, it shouldn't be discrimination to say that they need to find a way to keep things professional. I don't personally think the theatre should be any different to any other working environment, but it certainly has been one where there has always been more sexual activity, generally, than in other environments. It's in the nature of the beast, where you get people thrown together in an artificially close environment, with what is a very intense process. You get strong attractions and very close relationships forming very quickly, and that applies to the director as much as it does to the actors. It isn't always about sex, obviously, but short term relationships are much more common than in your average working place. And they can be very destructive re pre-existing relationships too. I can't see that changing, in all honesty, either. But that isn't the same thing as the casting couch or the deliberate abuse of a position of authority to exploit vulnerability.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Nov 2, 2017 0:53:22 GMT
Well, I did read what you wrote. I guess I'm not understanding what you meant. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by igs on Nov 2, 2017 8:22:49 GMT
dreamsincolour I understand what you mean, I think, if you mean that flirting/coming onto someone isn't automatically illegal or morally reprehensible even if the person making the advances is in a position of power over the other person. I agree to an extent since most companies have a very elaborate hierarchy and if you're just some minor boss way down the food chain that doesn't mean you hold any significant power and even if you're someone's employee it doesn't automatically mean that you are in a particularly vulnerable position. Consensual relationships can bloom between two people working together and there's nothing wrong with that. The entertainment business is especially incestuous, of course. I guess where the confusion comes in in this particular discussion is that this has nothing to do with Weinstein/Spacey/etc's case so the argument seems irrelevant. Even if we don't consider coming onto someone automatically a crime, it is if it's done through abusing one's power and authority (as is obvious in Weinstein's case) or when targeting a minor. I mean making sexual advances at a 14-year-old (unless done in a country where that is the age of consent) is always illegal, no matter what the existing relationship between the two.
|
|