Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

The dangers of false allegations.


Rue
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Stephen Fine said:

Somewhere in the realm of 2%-10% of sexual abuse/rape claims are false.  It's a studied issue.

Who "studied" this issue? Surely a college professor can give us a source for your claim.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Stephen Fine said:

Coin flips are 50/50... even if Levine were innocent (he's not) this isn't the other side of a coin.

How do you know Levine is guilty? Hearsay? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rue --

If you're going to apologise every time somebody complains on some pretext, you'll be the easiest person on the internet to silence.

Say anything substantive, and someone's bound to be vocally unhappy.

No need for you to apologise to anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that James Levine is one of the most shocking examples of the power structure ($$$) turning a blind eye to commonly known and numerous illegal actions. I believe Levine had an arrest warrant out for him in Illinois (or Ohio?) back in the '80s' or '90's that prevented him from conducting in the state.

His fall was the *least* surprising of all those in the news.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crazy jane said:

Except that James Levine is one of the most shocking examples of the power structure ($$$) turning a blind eye to commonly known and numerous illegal actions.

 

"...commonly known and numerous illegal actions."

SRSLY?


And you know this because...?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, lwl said:

And since this involves teenaged boys and not females, the BS currently being spouted in the other thread about predatory women using their wiles on men certainly does not apply.

 

Not to mention father/daughter incest being explained by women withdrawing themselves sexually from the marital relationship ... :unsure:

You just have to LOVE Sundays on Maestronet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, crazy jane said:

 It seems to have been pretty common knowledge in professional music circles...

At one time, it was "pretty common knowledge" the earth was flat. Fact is, I'm no longer so sure myself, considering what comes out of government these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sir Ian McKellen says actresses in the 1960s pitching for work would write DRR - directors rights respected - on their headshots as a coded offer of sex for parts.
Speaking to a packed Oxford Union on December 6, the 78-year-old veteran of stage, screen and television responded to a request for his take on the Harvey Weinstein scandal - after refusing to comment in depth on allegations against Kevin Spacey - saying he hoped "we are going through a period which will help to eradicate it [harassment] all together".
He then shared an anecdote from his early days in the theatre that suggested women were as much to blame for the problem as men.
"From my own experience... when I was starting out in the early '60s, the director of the theatre I was working at showed me some photographs he got from women who were wanting jobs, they were actors, some of them had at the bottom of their photograph DRR - directors' rights respected. In other words, if you give me a job, you can have sex with me," McKellen said.
"That was commonplace from people who proposed that they should be a victim. Madness. People have taken advantage of that and encouraged it and it absolutely will not do."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to excuse exploitation, but it really does come down, in many cases, to "contemporary community standards."  As above.          

And note that -- importantly -- it's the "or no job" clause that makes it criminal. Absent that, if it's not business as usual for all, it certainly is for some. I expect we've all seen it. I certainly have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, A432 said:

Not to excuse exploitation, but it really does come down, in many cases, to "contemporary community standards."  As above.          

And note that -- importantly -- it's the "or no job" clause that makes it criminal. Absent that, if it's not business as usual for all, it certainly is for some. I expect we've all seen it. I certainly have.

Absolutely.  Community standards is what shapes our laws.  That is the democratic process (at least here in the US).  I am not saying that I condone, or vice versa, certain behavior pre-dating a certain era, but the fact of the matter is, if a defined act was legal according to the community standards of a certain time,  the least we can do is acknowledge, learn, discuss, and redefine our existing and future behaviors. 

In any event, the quid pro quo type situations have historically been illegal, or at least frowned upon, and it is certainly illegal now a days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's everywhere........ :rolleyes:https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/claims-prince-andrew-had-sexual-153300425.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_04

1 hour ago, AtlVcl said:

At one time, it was "pretty common knowledge" the earth was flat. Fact is, I'm no longer so sure myself, considering what comes out of government these days.

You've confused "flat" with "warped".  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, crazy jane said:

No young man agrees to homosexual acts with another unless he, himself, is already homosexual. There's no sexual abuse going on if it was mutually acceptable. I don't know about you, but I knew my sexual proclivities since I was about 11 or 12. I really don't care what standard of power dynamic you want to apply here; if it's mutual (and it was...), it's not abuse. Those young men were perfectly free to decline the opportunity at any point.
I actually think the St. John story is much more plausible (but then maybe I'm just trying to cover up my latent homosexual desires...?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, A432 said:

Although, thanks to technology and law changes, adopted-out children finding/reuniting with their birth parents is now probably in contention for first place (see "genetic sexual attraction").

Are you saying adopted-out children are finding their birth parents and having sex with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...