# Outside the Box > Philosophy and Debate >  >  Hollywood Sex Allegations?

## Cuchculan

I am not putting down people who have been sexually abused at all. That [BEEP] is just wrong. We had the first person come and make allegations about Harvey Weinstein. They are still been looked into. So far he has not been charged with anything at all. But he looks the most certain person to be charged with something. Now my first question is this, is it right to have a trial by media before you have a trial by court? Will they be actually able to find a jury, should a case go to court, who have not already heard what this man was said to have done? Thus a partial jury. Should they have a full black out on the media giving out names in advance of a trial. Then only give out the name if found guilty. In the UK a few years back there were similar claims made against certain people. Papers hung them out to dry. People were calling them all the names under the sun. Only to see some found not guilty in a court of law. One woman even admitted she had made the claims up. But the media hung this bloke out to dry. 

Now we are hearing allegations against a few actors as well. The gripe I have with this is that it happened so many years ago. These women are now in their 50's. We can understand them not wanting to say anything maybe when younger. Teen years or even twenties. Why wait until you are 50 plus? So many years have passed. Is not all abuse allegations either. Some are just women who are claiming the way they were spoken to was wrong. Sexual comments and the likes. Is this sort of stuff I see as so wrong. Back when it happened, as in the sexual comments, was a different age. Different way of living. Most of what you could say back then, you would not get away with today. That much I accept. But should it not be looked at in that exact same way? As in it was another age? I am not talking rape or sexual abuse here. Just the verbal comments. 

If you think about it, anybody could say anything about anybody. But it happened in a different era when we used different words and they were accepted back them. What next? Anybody whoever used the N word in the 70's, 80, and 90's will be pulled up and charged for using a word which is not allowed today. Where do we draw the line? 

Here is your chance to have your say. So fire away.

----------


## Cuchculan

What is driving me mad about a lot of what is happening is that people are using new laws that only came in over the past decade or so to bring cases against people from 50 years ago. Those same laws would not have existed back then. The more serious sexual stuff would have been against the law back then too. So fair enough about those cases. But you should not be allowed to use new laws against a person from 50 years ago. A lot of things have changed in that time frame. But if the law did not exist when the so called crime was committed, it should not be allowed to stand using a new modern law.

----------


## Otherside

Eh, speaking of uk, uncomfortable topic here.

Often what was happening here was that complaints were made and the abuses reported. In some cases, investigations were started. In a few, the perpetrators were arrested. But then, for whatever reason, the case was dropped and the victim encouraged to keep quiet.

And then something happens thats impossible to deny, and everything comes out all at once. There's a big discussion into "historical sex abuse", even though half the time it's not historical and it was still happening, an investigation into why the cases were covered up which often ends in soneone being fired as a scapegoat without addressing the actual problem, and a whole load of promises that it won't happen again.

Then another situation that's eerily similar comes out in the newspaper. It's politicians at the moment here. It's been TV personalities before.

But, that could be what happened with Weinstein. Somebody (or many some bodies) raised it, and was encouraged to keep quiet and the details hushed up. If that was the case, it'll come out at some point. Followed by the investigation as to why. 

Sent from my G3121 using Tapatalk

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I disagree. Completely.

What's happened, from what I've heard, is not that people came forward. It's that people were afraid to come forward. Especially in the cases with Weinstein.

It's an entire population of people that were AFRAID to make complaints and report what was happening.

----------


## Cuchculan

We have a few cases over the years were people were afraid to come forward. Others were told to stay quiet. Bought off even. But there are also some cases of people been falsely accused. 
@Otherside
 might remember the bloke from Coronation Street ( UK Soap ) He played Kevin Webster? I have no idea how the case against him ever made it to court. The media branded him a rapist from day 1. He always denied everything. Turned out his accuser was lying. Once she took the stand the oath she took was explained to her. That she could not lie. Suddenly she broke down. It all came out that it was a story made up. Her name never made the papers once. She was one person I thought should have been named and shamed. Person she accused of raping her saved her from a jail sentence. It was put to him. But he simply wanted to get on with his life and saw no point in sending her to prison. 

What is happening in Hollywood now happened in the UK big time a few years back. Mainly in the BBC. Shame one fecker died before they could ever get him to court. Kids used to love him on TV. Only he was abusing loads of them. Wasn't just him though. Was many more. Once one began to talk others came forward too. And I agree that they should have come forward. I said that in my original post. Hunt down feckers like that and hang them up by the balls once found guilty. 

But here in Ireland the media are not allowed to name people before any case at all. It is not trial by media first. Trial by court first. If found guilty the media will go to town on you after the case. That is one thing I think every country should bring in. Because were you might get 10 found guilty, you will also get 5 found not guilty. Those 5 could be branded rapists by the media. When the fact is they done nothing at all. 

There was also an odd case in the UK last year. Football player. Him and his mate and a girl. The girl cried rape on him, but not on his mate. It went to trial and he was found guilty. You have the right to appeal. Here is were it got all messed up. The accuser kept given different versions of events. Never once did she give the same version of what happened that night. Then she tripped herself up. She said she forgets if he gave him consent. This was after saying at the original trial that she had told him no. The judge had no option but to overturn the verdict. Not talking something that happened many years ago either. This was only something that happened in the year before the case. Tripped herself up. The media had hung him out to dry as a rapist too. 

Trial by court and not by media.

----------


## Otherside

> We have a few cases over the years were people were afraid to come forward. Others were told to stay quiet. Bought off even. But there are also some cases of people been falsely accused. 
> @Otherside
>  might remember the bloke from Coronation Street ( UK Soap ) He played Kevin Webster? I have no idea how the case against him ever made it to court. The media branded him a rapist from day 1. He always denied everything. Turned out his accuser was lying. Once she took the stand the oath she took was explained to her. That she could not lie. Suddenly she broke down. It all came out that it was a story made up. Her name never made the papers once. She was one person I thought should have been named and shamed. Person she accused of raping her saved her from a jail sentence. It was put to him. But he simply wanted to get on with his life and saw no point in sending her to prison. 
> 
> What is happening in Hollywood now happened in the UK big time a few years back. Mainly in the BBC. Shame one fecker died before they could ever get him to court. Kids used to love him on TV. Only he was abusing loads of them. Wasn't just him though. Was many more. Once one began to talk others came forward too. And I agree that they should have come forward. I said that in my original post. Hunt down feckers like that and hang them up by the balls once found guilty. 
> 
> But here in Ireland the media are not allowed to name people before any case at all. It is not trial by media first. Trial by court first. If found guilty the media will go to town on you after the case. That is one thing I think every country should bring in. Because were you might get 10 found guilty, you will also get 5 found not guilty. Those 5 could be branded rapists by the media. When the fact is they done nothing at all. 
> 
> There was also an odd case in the UK last year. Football player. Him and his mate and a girl. The girl cried rape on him, but not on his mate. It went to trial and he was found guilty. You have the right to appeal. Here is were it got all messed up. The accuser kept given different versions of events. Never once did she give the same version of what happened that night. Then she tripped herself up. She said she forgets if he gave him consent. This was after saying at the original trial that she had told him no. The judge had no option but to overturn the verdict. Not talking something that happened many years ago either. This was only something that happened in the year before the case. Tripped herself up. The media had hung him out to dry as a rapist too. 
> ...



Michael Le Vell, I think? Don't remember much about that case. Looking at the dates though... At that time everything was coming out. Everything regarding Saville was coming out. I'm not surprised it went to court. Everyone was angry, everyone wanted blood. And they certainly couldn't take it out on Jimmy Saville. He was dead. He literally got away with everything he did. 

Sent from my G3121 using Tapatalk

----------


## Cuchculan

Jimmy Saville was a sick fecker. Death was too good for him. Shame he died when he did. Would have been a target in prison. Not sure if you have a DPP over there? They are the people who say ' yes ' or ' No ' to a case taking place. They see the evidence in advance. Not it all. Just enough to say there should be a trial. With Michael Le Vell I would have loved to see what any DPP was shown. To let it go to trial.

----------


## Ironman

Hollywood is imploding.

----------


## Cuchculan

Is happening here in Ireland now. Stage acting. Lot are coming out making claims against a stage manger. Only this lot went to the media first. Which never happens here. So already we know who he is. Had a famous sports writer up last month. Didn't find out his name until after he was convicted. Which is the normal way they do things here.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

It's really scary, the number of allegations that are coming out. It's really scary to realize that all this is...real

----------


## Otherside

> Jimmy Saville was a sick fecker. Death was too good for him. Shame he died when he did. Would have been a target in prison. Not sure if you have a DPP over there? They are the people who say ' yes ' or ' No ' to a case taking place. They see the evidence in advance. Not it all. Just enough to say there should be a trial. With Michael Le Vell I would have loved to see what any DPP was shown. To let it go to trial.



Err, think there is but not sure.

I have to agree with you there about Jimmy Saville. What happened with him incredibly disturbing. 

Sent from my G3121 using Tapatalk

----------


## Cuchculan

When a person is arrested we always hear ' a file is been sent to the DPP '. He or she would determine if it fit for a trial. Plus they would also be first to say if you can appeal something. They do get into trouble a fair few times. Because they do have a big enough say in how things go. Thought every country have one. The one for your country is Alison Saunders.

----------


## Ironman

Another two men in the news.  Movies being canceled is supposed to make everything better?  Sheesh!

----------


## InvisibleGuy

The details about what Louis CK did are reeeeally disturbing to me. I don't know how in the hell you do things like that without being certifiably crazy. All these allegations are really disturbing to me.

----------


## JamieWAgain

I don?t know the details about Louis CK did, in fact, I don?t even know who Louis CK is.

Here?s what?s bothering me...

We have for instance, news anchors sitting behind lucite desks to show off their million dollar insured legs.
We have commentators with plunging necklines being shown in close ups on television from their cleavage on up.

We have the Kardashians running around naked and getting wealthy from exploiting themselves.

I?m not saying that it?s the woman?s fault at all. It?s not. No is no. Period.

I?m saying that there is a double standard it seems and women, every day, pay big money for breast lifts,
face lifts, butt implants?

Seriously, if we are to have this conversation we have to also examine why intelligent women would agree to a lucite desk so their legs would be on display while reporting serious news.
Or why a woman would agree to allowing closeups of her cleavage while discussing serious topics.
I wouldn?t do that.

----------


## Cuchculan

You will hear the same old debate off most people about what you wrote Jamie. Just because a woman dresses a certain way that does not mean she is asking to be sexualised. Lord knows how many times I have heard that line. That women should be allowed dress as they want. Show off what they want. Without men thinking it is an invitation. If you are heading out for a night and you dress in a short skirt and a low cut top, are you doing it to feel good about yourself, or do you want to gain attention? Open a few eyes? You know what I mean. What I wrote about will be said again and again by many as answer to that question. How you dress should not matter. Same line we are hit with all the time. Even if you walk naked down a busy street you will be told that does not give people the right to look at you in a sexual way. How else are they meant to look at you? It doesn't give them the right to touch you. To look and maybe comment on what you look like? Heck you want the attention. You are dressed for the attention. 

Latest case here in Ireland involved a man giving an interview to a woman for a job. She was nervous. He wanted to try and relax her. To make her feel at ease. He asked her was she married and did she have kids. That cost him his job and she was awarded a few thousand in damages. She reported him. Said such questions have nothing to do with an interview. Have no idea where all this is going? Will it be illegal to chat a person up next? Second you say anything to them they will report you. 

There are some serious cases out there been looked into. I am not mocking those cases. Today it is hard to know what is right and what is wrong. As a man what can I say to a woman? That won't be classed as sexual. How do strangers make contact these days? Once we could chat a person up without having to worry about anything at all. Those days as fast going before our eyes.

----------


## JamieWAgain

My point was that I’ve noticed a double standard in the the ‘news’ industry for example. Powerful women in powerful positions are reporting and discussing serious topics. These women are also exploiting their bodies.
Sitting at the end of a curvy desk to best show off your legs in stilettos while allowing the camera to only show close up shots from her cleavage to her face.

Having your own show but sitting behind a lucite desk where your legs are on full display.

This same person is now on another network with a tanking show but wait...there’s a topic she can relate to...
Sexual exploitation and how it effects millions of women. Let’s get special guests to appear on the show to push the ratings through the roof..

But wait...You were the one with the lucite desk showing off your legs while discussing serious topics. 

There are predators, yes. Predators are not sex addicts. They are predators who deserve to be behind bars.

But let’s not pretend that certain people don’t take advantage of their ‘assets’ to rise to the top. Sure I’ll allow myself to be filmed at certain angles for ratings...Sure I’ll talk about the industry and how it takes advantage of women...

What?

And for some reason the fact that a predator by the name of Bill Cosby, who drugged women and raped them, and got away with it is infuriating to me.

In the end, he won’t get away with it.

----------


## JamieWAgain

OH MY GOSH!  I do not know why my apostrophes keep coming out as question marks. That is hysterically funny and weird at the same time.
Sorry about that.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

@sunrise
 I agree, totally. It doesn't excuse his behavior, in any way, shape or form...but Louis CK has admitted that he's sick and has issues and needs help. He's admitted that he took advantage of his position of power (the women at these after-parties and get-togethers really admired and looked up to him). Not all the alleged sexual predators have done as much. I'm just saying, the first step in STOPPING being a sexual predator is probably admitting that it's wrong and you have a very serious problem. If some of these guys can't admit that much then I don't see them stopping.

Personally....and this is just my opinion....but like I've said before a woman can show up to the office wearing a G-string and pasties on her nipples and it doesn't give anyone the right to sexually harass her or be a predator. In reality, is she gonna get some dirty looks? Hell yeah. But it doesn't give anyone the right to treat her like these men have treated their victims. A woman, imo, can dress however the fuq she wants. I'm gonna notice, and I'm not gonna lie, I'm gonna look twice if she's dressed really provocatively but just because she's dressed that way doesn't mean she's my property, or I have the right to sexualize her or treat her like she's there purely for my sexual gratification. I look twice because it's unusual to be dressed that way, or I find her really attractive (I'm human) but there is a huge difference between the two. No one "deserves" to be sexually abused or harassed because of the way they're dressed.

----------


## CloudMaker

I thought everyone already knew that hollywood was BAD NEWS!

Turns out being an illuminati puppet isn't all fun and games after all....

----------


## Ironman

It's sad watching Hollywood implode.  Patriarchy has nothing to do with it.

----------


## Chantellabella

> I am not putting down people who have been sexually abused at all. That [BEEP] is just wrong. We had the first person come and make allegations about Harvey Weinstein. They are still been looked into. So far he has not been charged with anything at all. But he looks the most certain person to be charged with something. Now my first question is this, is it right to have a trial by media before you have a trial by court? Will they be actually able to find a jury, should a case go to court, who have not already heard what this man was said to have done? Thus a partial jury. Should they have a full black out on the media giving out names in advance of a trial. Then only give out the name if found guilty. In the UK a few years back there were similar claims made against certain people. Papers hung them out to dry. People were calling them all the names under the sun. Only to see some found not guilty in a court of law. One woman even admitted she had made the claims up. But the media hung this bloke out to dry. 
> 
> Now we are hearing allegations against a few actors as well. The gripe I have with this is that it happened so many years ago. These women are now in their 50's. We can understand them not wanting to say anything maybe when younger. Teen years or even twenties. Why wait until you are 50 plus? So many years have passed. Is not all abuse allegations either. Some are just women who are claiming the way they were spoken to was wrong. Sexual comments and the likes. Is this sort of stuff I see as so wrong. Back when it happened, as in the sexual comments, was a different age. Different way of living. Most of what you could say back then, you would not get away with today. That much I accept. But should it not be looked at in that exact same way? As in it was another age? I am not talking rape or sexual abuse here. Just the verbal comments. 
> 
> If you think about it, anybody could say anything about anybody. But it happened in a different era when we used different words and they were accepted back them. What next? Anybody whoever used the N word in the 70's, 80, and 90's will be pulled up and charged for using a word which is not allowed today. Where do we draw the line? 
> 
> Here is your chance to have your say. So fire away.



Why now?

Because it's not been ok to say anything until 3 months ago. 

I kid you not. 

As a man, you probably don't know what it's like to put yourself out there for the world to see your shame. This is shameful to us. Then we now have added shame that society is putting on us. "Why didn't you say something sooner, stupid?" 

"Well, your honor, because society has not believed women. They have painted us as hysterical and wrong. They have put the blame on our clothing, our walk, our very being as a woman."

We have been told that it's our fault. To try and do this alone is impossible for most of us. 

Now we have power as one voice. 

And still society is trying to shame us with "why didn't you say something sooner."

If you were a woman who was ever in that situation, you would understand.

----------


## Chantellabella

> My point was that I’ve noticed a double standard in the the ‘news’ industry for example. Powerful women in powerful positions are reporting and discussing serious topics. These women are also exploiting their bodies.
> Sitting at the end of a curvy desk to best show off your legs in stilettos while allowing the camera to only show close up shots from her cleavage to her face.
> 
> Having your own show but sitting behind a lucite desk where your legs are on full display.
> 
> This same person is now on another network with a tanking show but wait...there’s a topic she can relate to...
> Sexual exploitation and how it effects millions of women. Let’s get special guests to appear on the show to push the ratings through the roof..
> 
> But wait...You were the one with the lucite desk showing off your legs while discussing serious topics. 
> ...




I agree that there are women who have used sexuality to advance in their career. It's probably because that's all women had to advance. Their talent didn't get them equal pay. Their dedication to the company didn't get them taken any more seriously. They had sexual favors.

And now we are trying to stop that vicious cycle. 

In any battle, a few die. Hence, the guys who are being called down on. 

And to answer the question about why it's being done publicly.

Because for decades (even centuries) it's been behind closed, locked doors, and see how that did no good. 

Now people are listening.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

Well....there is a stigma attached to men, also. I was three, four years old when I was abused. That doesn't change the fact that it's very awkward, very embarrassing to bring up my abuse, even to my therapist.

Because "men don't get abused".

There is a stigma there. But I don't go around blaming women for not understanding it.

----------


## Chantellabella

> Eh, speaking of uk, uncomfortable topic here.
> 
> Often what was happening here was that complaints were made and the abuses reported. In some cases, investigations were started. In a few, the perpetrators were arrested. But then, for whatever reason, the case was dropped and the victim encouraged to keep quiet.
> 
> And then something happens thats impossible to deny, and everything comes out all at once. There's a big discussion into "historical sex abuse", even though half the time it's not historical and it was still happening, an investigation into why the cases were covered up which often ends in soneone being fired as a scapegoat without addressing the actual problem, and a whole load of promises that it won't happen again.
> 
> Then another situation that's eerily similar comes out in the newspaper. It's politicians at the moment here. It's been TV personalities before.
> 
> But, that could be what happened with Weinstein. Somebody (or many some bodies) raised it, and was encouraged to keep quiet and the details hushed up. If that was the case, it'll come out at some point. Followed by the investigation as to why. 
> ...



I agree. Those women who did try decades ago, were shushed.

----------


## Ironman

> Well....there is a stigma attached to men, also. I was three, four years old when I was abused. That doesn't change the fact that it's very awkward, very embarrassing to bring up my abuse, even to my therapist.
> 
> Because "men don't get abused".
> 
> There is a stigma there. But I don't go around blaming women for not understanding it.



Yes, there is.

.....and, yes, I have been the victim of various kinds of harassment myself.  The peer abuse and ridicule growing up aside, I had to report a female employee in 2005 for harassing me (she was in a different department, yet slandered me to people I worked with) over a period of 4-5 months....all over my SA, which was EXTREME at the time (how I managed to continue working is a miracle from God).  I was also retaliated against by people in my own department....who decided to believe her over me.  Harassment doesn't have to be sexual in nature and yet be just as damaging to one's character and ability to work.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

This fuqing pisses me off so, so much.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

That I'm not "allowed" to go there. lmao.

But other female victims are.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

OK. Be victims.

----------


## Ironman

> That I'm not "allowed" to go there. lmao.
> 
> But other female victims are.



Why?  Being a victim has no gender just like the perpetrator.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

ffs

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I'm not, Ironman....

----------


## InvisibleGuy

you are missing the whole point man.

----------


## Chantellabella

> Why?  Being a victim has no gender just like the perpetrator.



I've never liked the term "victim" because it denotes powerlessness. I prefer the term "survivor" because that shows that even though I was powerless as a child, I am now an adult with a ton of power. Power to speak up. Power to call the cops or get a lawyer. Power to write reviews, avoid toxic drama, and to say no. 

Calling myself a victim today would agree with my abusers and bullies that they still had power over me.

So even though the media is using the term to describe these past experiences, these people coming forward are brave survivors who have taken back their power. I see them as finally shedding the victim role and finally refusing to be someone's helpless product.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

Well, it's all a matter of perspective imo.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I mean, you can label it however you want. Labels are pretty meaningless imo, anyway.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

It's just a point of reference lol. I don't think someone calling me a "victim" defines who I am. That's not me, it's a term someone else uses to refer to me in that way, it's not who I am lol.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I don't let other people define who I am by how what they call me, by what they refer to me as. My god man if you did that you'd have a really hard time getting over what you're enemies called you lol.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

Anyway, the stigma that's there wrt men being abused.....really pisses me off.

I'm sorry. No. Wait. I'm NOT sorry.

it's not right. And on top of that, it's ignored. It's not even seen as a legitimate issue, a real issue. It's laughed at. Even in this thread, it's ignored. It's not taken seriously.

The fact that I was punched, kicked, verbally assaulted in ways I can't even repeat here.....for years......

it's looked at like a joke by a lot of people.

Because I'm a guy. And guys don't get abused.

It doesn't matter that I was two, three, four years old and defenseless to a lot of people......I'm a boy, I can't have been abused and according to them if I was it was my fault because I didn't defend myself. I'm not saying that's right, of course it's not right. I'm saying that's the way a lot of people think.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I'll wait for the rush of people to prove me wrong in this thread. There will, I'm guessing, be NO ONE that disputes what i'm saying. At all.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

That has got to be the biggest double standard I've ever heard of.

----------


## Ironman

> I've never liked the term "victim" because it denotes powerlessness. I prefer the term "survivor" because that shows that even though I was powerless as a child, I am now an adult with a ton of power. Power to speak up. Power to call the cops or get a lawyer. Power to write reviews, avoid toxic drama, and to say no. 
> 
> Calling myself a victim today would agree with my abusers and bullies that they still had power over me.
> 
> So even though the media is using the term to describe these past experiences, these people coming forward are brave survivors who have taken back their power. I see them as finally shedding the victim role and finally refusing to be someone's helpless product.



You're right - survivor is a better term.  The survivor ends up being the better person anyway.





> That has got to be the biggest double standard I've ever heard of.



I would think that's only because men have a fear of appearing weak when there has been an offense.  The reporting isn't as frequent, but it definitely happens.  It's probably more underreported than male-to-female offenses.

----------


## JamieWAgain

InvisableGuy,
I think it is horrible, horrendous, hideous that there is a stigma attached to abused men. I hope it helps you to some degree to talk about it safely here. I get it. I do. I think I understand what it feels like to be powerless and helpless as a child and then as an adult not be able to talk about it and be heard. Or worse, ridiculed?

I get it. You probably are rolling your eyes saying ‘yeah, sure, she ‘get’s It, but whatever’. 

Don’t. Because it’s taking a lot of ....searching...it’s taking all of me to write this post.

I. Just. Get. It.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

> InvisableGuy,
> I think it is horrible, horrendous, hideous that there is a stigma attached to abused men. I hope it helps you to some degree to talk about it safely here. I get it. I do. I think I understand what it feels like to be powerless and helpless as a child and then as an adult not be able to talk about it and be heard. Or worse, ridiculed?
> 
> I get it. You probably are rolling your eyes saying ‘yeah, sure, she ‘get’s It, but whatever’. 
> 
> Don’t. Because it’s taking a lot of ....searching...it’s taking all of me to write this post.
> 
> I. Just. Get. It.



No I understand what you're saying. Not rolling eyes.

I appreciate it Jamie. I appreciate you taking the time to post what you did.

I don't mean to say that everyone thinks that way. I know not everyone does, but it's enough people to create this stigma. I don't even feel comfortable talking about it in therapy. It makes me that uncomfortable. But that's just me. It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be talked about. It should. And I have talked about it before. I just....choose not to anymore. The idea of talking about it is I guess worse than the pain of stuffing everything and keeping it to myself. Or it seems like it is, anyway. It's not that I think men who've been abused don't have the right to talk about it. it's just, personally, for me....the stigma keeps me from talking about it. I can do it here because I can hide behind a screen name. And sometimes I regret even mentioning it here.

I actually regret ever bringing it up to my shrink. It did nothing, nothing to help me heal. And imo it changes people's perceptions of you. No, it shouldn't be that way, but sometimes, from personal experience, it does. I think it makes some people see you as weak. That's NOT to say I think it shouldn't be talked about.

I'm sure you get it, Jamie. I just don't think everyone does. In fact, imo a lot of people don't.

----------


## fetisha

> Cracks are starting to appear.  Even in the halls of Congress.



I'm so glad hollywood and the congress is falling apart, I knew something crazy was going on there, and this is coming from someone interested in acting.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

lmao "the congress" isn't falling apart.
lmao

----------


## InvisibleGuy

lmao

----------


## Ironman

> I'm so glad hollywood and the congress is falling apart, I knew something crazy was going on there, and this is coming from someone interested in acting.



Actually, Congress falling apart is not a good thing.  I do believe in justice, but if someone has to resign because of mere allegations, without the proper investigation or due process into them, then the left has finally succeeded in destroying our democracy.

People are supposed to be allowed to respond to allegations, not resign because people look bad.

----------


## Ironman

> No I understand what you're saying. Not rolling eyes.
> 
> I appreciate it Jamie. I appreciate you taking the time to post what you did.
> 
> I don't mean to say that everyone thinks that way. I know not everyone does, but it's enough people to create this stigma. I don't even feel comfortable talking about it in therapy. It makes me that uncomfortable. But that's just me. It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be talked about. It should. And I have talked about it before. I just....choose not to anymore. The idea of talking about it is I guess worse than the pain of stuffing everything and keeping it to myself. Or it seems like it is, anyway. It's not that I think men who've been abused don't have the right to talk about it. it's just, personally, for me....the stigma keeps me from talking about it. I can do it here because I can hide behind a screen name. And sometimes I regret even mentioning it here.
> 
> I actually regret ever bringing it up to my shrink. It did nothing, nothing to help me heal. And imo it changes people's perceptions of you. No, it shouldn't be that way, but sometimes, from personal experience, it does. I think it makes some people see you as weak. That's NOT to say I think it shouldn't be talked about.
> 
> I'm sure you get it, Jamie. I just don't think everyone does. In fact, imo a lot of people don't.



The question is did YOUR perception of other people's perceptions of you change?  Maybe they didn't think the way you think they did.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

> The question is did YOUR perception of other people's perceptions of you change?  Maybe they didn't think the way you think they did.



It doesn't matter, man.

It doesn't matter.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

It bothers me on a level that I can't even describe....

that there are people out there that not only think men that have been abused are weak....

they laugh at it

----------


## InvisibleGuy

i'm sure they're laughing right now at my own weakness for even mentioning it.

You know it says much more about their own lack of integrity, it says more about their own thought process ffs than it does mine. But it doesn't change the fact that they think it's a weakness. Some people just think that way. They are twisted, sick, very, very sick people.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I don't know how else to describe it. It's like laughing at a sex abuse survivor shouldn't matter. It shouldn't. The ones laughing at survivors are sick people. But it doesn't change the fact that you're being laughed at, and it doesn't change the fact that in a way, it hurts. Even tho they are the sick ones.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I'm glad I'm not involved with anyone like that on a personal level, in real life. I'd shut them out. They're not worth my time. You know who you are lol. The only exception would be my mom, my abuser. Not much I can do about that. I can only shut her out so much.

----------


## InvisibleGuy

I do wish them well tho. They need compassion in their life. They need love. They are seriously lacking something, they are perhaps used and abused themselves and they don't know how to deal with it lol. They lash out like a child cos they don't know how else to respond I guess. But I wish them nothing but the best. I hope they find help.

----------


## Ironman

> It doesn't matter, man.
> 
> It doesn't matter.



It does when it comes to wanting to heal.  To heal, we have to be willing to open up to someone who is mature.  





> It bothers me on a level that I can't even describe....
> 
> that there are people out there that not only think men that have been abused are weak....
> 
> they laugh at it



It's not funny, though.

----------


## Cuchculan

Watch as it moves from industry to industry. Hollywood first. Be music next. Then sport. I can see loads more allegations been made against well known people in the New Year.

----------

