Personally, I think that all people are different, and that there are 13 year old people with more common sense and self-awareness than some 25 year old people. The "18 is the age of majority" is, for the most part, a stupid rule. There needs to be a different way to measure people than an arbitrary day on the calendar.
That being said...
What QT said was pretty dumb.
THAT being said... Uma has said that a lot of what was printed about QT in the article, she didn't say. She says she and QT are still good friends. Apparently there were other men mentioned, but QT and Weinstein were the two who didn't lawyer up to keep their names out of it. I'm not going to look up the link to what I read.
I don't know why I know so much about this. I'm not actively following it.
Harvey Weinstein
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:53 pm
by Leisher
GORDON wrote: Personally, I think that all people are different, and that there are 13 year old people with more common sense and self-awareness than some 25 year old people. The "18 is the age of majority" is, for the most part, a stupid rule. There needs to be a different way to measure people than an arbitrary day on the calendar.
I understand where you're coming from, and scientifically, I can make an argument where you are correct, but socially and morally, I agree with the 18 year old limit.
The scientific reasoning is mother nature says you're ready for sex when puberty hits. Now first reaction will be "But you're not mentally or emotionally ready", and I 100% agree. When a person hits that time, like you said, maturity doesn't come based upon some arbitrary calendar date. I've known 20-somethings who couldn't handle sex in a healthy emotional way. However, I think 18 is a reasonable average, and thus, helps us as a society set a standard for when someone is ready, and thus, legal. This arbitrary date is important when it's impossible to keep tabs on every person's emotional maturity. It keeps older, wiser people from preying upon innocents or it's supposed to...
A 13 year old, no matter their common sense and/or self-awareness, should not be in any sort of relationship or sexual encounter with a 43 year old man. Ever.
Oh, and Harvey Weinstein is no longer in the "Academy", but Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are still members. Forcing/bribing women onto the casting couch is apparently worse than raping children in the Academy's eyes.
Harvey Weinstein
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:58 pm
by GORDON
I shouldn't have said anything about that. One can't really discuss it at all with the pedo flag going up.
18 is fine. Everything else is icky and all sex is rape and all women are victims.
Harvey Weinstein
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:04 pm
by Leisher
GORDON wrote: I shouldn't have said anything about that. One can't really discuss it at all with the pedo flag going up.
18 is fine. Everything else is icky and all sex is rape and all women are victims.
My post was NOT an attack on you or your statement... You are correct that discussion about why the line is drawn there should be had without (you meant to say that) the pedo flag going up.
However, that last sentence is not a good look. I'd ditch that.
People like this guy are truly scum. This isn't offering a role for a diddle or using fame to try and get laid. This is a person in a position of power taking advantage of children under his authority and responsibility.
They want victims paid and employees protected going forward. The victims paid part I get, but the perpetrator is gone and a lot of his co-conspirators followed. The company is being sold to other people who don't have that scandal over their head, so I'm not sure about that protecting employees going forward part.
Fucking brilliant, and it begs the question: All this shit is coming out about sexual abuse in Hollywood, yet why are folks only focusing on the stuff against women? Why are people screaming that we need to choose children over guns while ignoring their rape in Hollywood?
