The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Are we talking about Kevin Spacey or is it too soon?

Are we talking about Kevin Spacey or is it too soon?

by 290 Comments

I find it very depressing. Casts a shadow over everything he’s done. What was he playing at?

0

Comments

  1. What else is there to say? The victim has said all he wants to say and it’s forced Spacey to publically declare his sexuality (pretty much an open secret) although unfortunately has been seen to reinforce that old gay = paedo bullshit.

    • Not sure it forced him. The coming out part of the statement seemed like a very cynical smokescreen to distract from the real issue.

      I have a thespy/operatic friend to whom none of this is a surprise. KS has a reputation, apparently, and a long-standing, hilarious-while-not-actually-funny nickname: Kevin Invades-Your-Personal-Spacey.

  2. The assault was bad enough, although it seems up to now that it was an isolated incident, but as many others have observed, (and I paraphrase) why the fuck has he chosen this very moment to out himself, thereby encouraging the bigoted knuckleheads to associate homosexuality with being a predator and abuser? Self-indulgent Idiot.

  3. I don’t know if I’m alone in feeling a twinge of sympathy for KP…I’m not sure that either his original crime or his apparently catastrophic Twitter statement (in that every gay in the world is now pissed at him for managing to link paedophilia with being gay) is enough to send his entire career down the tube, as seems possible in the wake of Netflix canning HoC*. And I’m sure the last thing KS (and we) needed was his estranged Rod Stewart impersonator brother suddenly announcing (“exclusively” to the Daily Mail, bleeugh…) that their father was a Nazi, thereby giving a free pass to amateur internet psychologists to nod sagely and say, “Ah, that explains everything.”

    Not condoning under-age sex, obvs, but in this time of post-Weinstein hysteria it’s going to be very difficult ever to find out (a) did it happen, (b) did KS know he was underage, (c) was it six of one and half a dozen of another, (d) why now?

    Not sure I see a huge difference between this case and what various rock leviathans got up to in the 60s and 70s. Maybe they’re next, who knows…

    I know I can be shot down in flames on various aspects of this, but that seems to be the way my mind is working this fine morning…

    *as someone Tweeted this morning, we now seem to be demanding higher standards from a fake POTUS than a real POTUS.

      • Yes the series was going to be canned anyway

        I gave up after watching series 2 (by which time Trump had been elected) – I thought it was great but just couldn’t cop watching a supposedly fictional series at the same time as the ghastly truth was unfolding

    • Those are valid points Mike, and while the wording of his twittter statement was unfortunate for what it implied, I’m not sure he had any choice but to out himself, or others would have done it for him, given his ‘reputation’.

      On HoC, yes aren’t they saying they’d already decided to end it?

      • Yes..but they’re distancing themselves from him, thereby ensuring he’ll be known as the man who got canned by Netflix. Same thing happened with everything Weinstein had his chubby little fingers in, eg Hachette closing down the Weinstein publishing imprint overnight. Everything toxic, as in Weinstein’s case it was, of course. You can’t defend the indefensible – but I don’t feel KS is quite in the same league.

    • KP?? Really?? K*v*n P**t*rs*n is a drunk gay peedo?? REEAAALLYYY???!! Wait, hang on hang on… oh, I get it now… wow, talk about ‘hiding in plain sight’!!! K*v*n Peedos*n amirite!!! [Right, that’s enough, stop, just stop there. Afterword Libel Ed.]

  4. Is this a case of a man being found guilty until proven otherwise?

    There have been a plethora of accusations against various well known men recently. None of the evidence has been considered other than in the court of Social Media or The Press, yet entire careers are being ruined. It doesn’t seem right to me.

    • I must admit that was my first thought. But it’s the wording of his apology’ that convinced me there’s genuine fire causing the smoke here. Not ‘that was something I would never do – I’m sorry if that’s what he remembers, but that wasn’t what happened’, but (to paraphrase) ‘I was too drunk to remember, so it might have happened, and I’m sorry if it did’ (plus, ‘I have problems anyway because I’m secretly gay’). What??

      He might as well have said, ‘Well I’m gay and gay people are horrible predators so that explains why I did it. I can’t help myself and I can’t remember that particular incident among many similar ones’.

      Everything about the whole situation is just wrong and depressing.

    • There’s a balancing act between allowing social media to empower hitherto silent victims to come forward (which is a good thing), and allowing a social media witch hunt to destroy the lives of anyone who is accused, without so much as the benefit of a fair trial.

  6. We had a related issue down here. 2 senior guys at the the organisation that runs Aussie Rules here had affairs with colleagues. From memory the colleagues were junior to the males but not junior employees. One if not both worked in separate departments. Neither of the women put in complaints though when it “blew up” both women were outed along with the men. The men were forced to resign as not demonstrating the values of a family oriented organisation like the AFL.

    Consensual office relationships.

    Puritanism lives in the halls of the AFL.

  8. Not a lot of sympathy for him, to be honest, or his PR advisors. The “drunk and gay” defence – oh dear me.

    On a slightly related note, has anyone seen the unexpurgated list of 40 Tory MPs’ perversions and peccadilloes? It’s a fun read but it’s mostly rumour and office gossip. Anyone who tries to defend themselves from the allegations will just end up forever associated with them. ‘No smoke without fire’ is the new ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

  9. Pretty bad PR from KS; so he can remember he was drunk that night, but can’t remember the incident…
    The media snowball that is growing on the back of claim after claim is very dangerous – there’s bound to be some innocent people hit by this mud-slinging.
    Find myself surprised to be saying this, but I think Julia Hartley-Brewer spoke a lot of sense, whilst the media are clearly trying to destroy Michael Fallon.

    • KS says he can’t remember the incident but believes it may well have happened and if it did he must have been drunk. I cannot excuse any of his behaviour, we are after all talking unwanted sexual contact with a minor here, but in the faintest of mitigations I can say that back then lusting after teenage girls or boys by young adult men was pretty standard. I cringe about the time me and some 18 to 20 year-old mates stood outside the local Girls School marking the nubile young things out of 10 whilst desperately fantasising that one of those blonde-haired beauties secretly fancied that sad long-haired git in the Afghan coat. Not in any way saying my behaviour was acceptable just that most men of my acquaintance felt the same way.

      • We’re often told on the blog that this sort of stuff was standard “back then”.

        I’d be intrigued to hear whether any of our number would be willing to put their hand up to having had sex/attempted to have sex with a 14 year old when they were in their 20s. Given how common it apparently was.

        • My recollection from the late 70s is that a few girls at my school went out with lads who were old enough to drive. 15/16 year old girl dating 18 year old boy was just about acceptable. Any older than that was considered a bit suspect.

          • my recollection too @davebigpicture – 15/16 year old girls would target 18 year old boys because they generally had a pay packet/car and also because they were sexually aware.
            In fact it sounds a little like sexual harassment in reverse.

            I have an 18 year old daughter and these days it is not that much different and isn’t the interaction between the sexes predatory by nature. The hunter and the hunted and all that.

            • My god.

              Steve, this post is… genuinely shocking. I’m flabbergasted. I can’t see how this could possible be defensible. Underage girls are the predatory ones really? What, and adult men who sleep with kids just had to do it because their dicks made them?

              And in answer to this: “isn’t the interaction between the sexes predatory by nature. The hunter and the hunted and all that.”

              Emphatically no. Just… emphatically. No.

              • Lighten up Bob ffs it was meant tongue in cheek.

                As I say I Have an 18 year old daughter and have seen her and her friends from 14 to 18 and it is complex for them and for the boys in their group and they are seriously confused by the expectations of how they should behave. What you say I said I am genuinely insulted by.
                I said nothing of the sort and for you to suggest otherwise is frankly shameful.

                Not prepared to enter into conversation with you on this because you have completely misread what I wrote.

        • Unlikely. The average Afterworder is a shy, retiring type (who can only blog under a pseudonym) with obsessions unlikely to be of any interest to a member of the attractive sex. We are clumsy and we are wimps. We still lived with our mothers into our thirties/forties and couldn’t even bring ourselves to ask anyone to dance, let alone anything else.

          Speaking on behalf of a friend.

  11. I haven’t been following this story that closely, but I have a couple of questions that those who have may be able to answer.

    1. Did the alleged victim explain what he was doing at a late-night drunken party with theatricals, presumably not accompanied by a parent or guardian, when he was only 14?

    2. How is there any parallel here with Harvey Weinstein? At the time of the incident Spacey was in his mid-twenties, an unknown stage actor still playing minor roles. There’s no abuse-of-power angle here, is there? By that I mean if Spacey hadn’t gone on to become an A-lister, would the alleged victim today be publicly recalling the night some drunk actor made a pass at him?

    Anyone?

    • I think the Weinstein angle is that the women who finally feel they can talk about their experiences are encouraging others to talk about theirs with other people. You know, finally I might be believed…

      There will come a moment, presumably, when people stop listening and the status quo will be restored.

    • 1. Rapp and Spacey were both acting on Broadway at the time. Spacey wasn’t an A-lister, but he was still higher up the food chain. And an adult. What was Rapp doing at the party? He’d been invited by Spacey, having socialised with him previously. It’s not unusual for actors to go to parties together. In fact, it’s a pretty key component of winning more work. It’s not an invitation to sex, and whatever poor judgement Rapp exercised is no excuse for anything.

      2. See above. I don’t see any real parallel with Harvey Weinstein either, other than that the Weinstein thing has opened up a space for people to talk publicly about the stuff they’ve been through.

      I think you can drop the “alleged victim” business, given that Spacey has effectively apologised. No one seems to be denying this happened.

      • Fair enough to most of that. On the debit side for Spacey, then, is that he must have known Rapp’s age in advance. (I’d been assuming Spacey made the pass within hours or minutes of meeting first meeting him.) On the potential credit – or at least attenuating – side, though, is that, as I understand it, Spacey the Man has never been coy about his sexuality as Spacey the Star has always been. Rapp presumably knew that Spacey was gay (as was/is he himself). Might this not suggest that Rapp attended that party as Spacey’s date or at least, as Smashy and Nicey might put it, his “young friend”, and any ensuing sexual advances – however inappropriate they may now definitely be considered to have been – probably didn’t come as a total shock to him?

          • Isn’t everything, though? Including the kneejerk assumption that Rapp is telling the absolute truth about an incident of which the man whose career he’s now chosen to destroy has no recollection?

            • No, not really.

              Rapp’s version of events is someone recounting something bad he claims happened to him a few years ago.

              Your version of events is you, having (by your own admission) not read all the background, speculating a context around the actions and relationships of people you’ve never met to arrive at a premise that suits your own prejudice.

              I wouldn’t say the two things are equivalent.

              • What’s not equivalent, Bingo, is “a few years ago” to 32 years ago, which is the actual time that has elapsed since when he says the alleged incident took place and when he finally saw fit to name and shame a public figure.

                And you accuse me of fitting the facts to suit my prejudice? *peers over top of spectacles at the prosecution bench*

                  • Not a split hair at all but a crucial element of the case, I think. Spacey’s career is probably now in ruins. Given the current climate, the consequences right now of his still-only-alleged action – probably lasting a matter of seconds and amounting, according to Rapp’s account, to nothing more than a clumsy booze-breathed lunge 32 years ago (i.e., more than half Spacey’s lifetime and more than two thirds of Rapp’s) – seem to me to be vastly out of proportion (“not condign” is the phrase, isn’t it?) to any lasting psychological damage that Rapp may have suffered as a result of said clumsy booze-breathed lunge.* (What a long sentence – Ed.)

                    It’s trial by social media, and it’s wrong, damn it.

                    ___
                    * Even in the original report (yes, I’ve now done the reading you require, you can rest assured) Spacey’s action was characterised as a “sexual advance”, not a “sexual assault”. Was it wrong, improper and misjudged (or as we now say “inappropriate”)? Damn right. Is it unpleasant to think about? Of course. But was it serious and damaging enough that, even if it had been reported at the time, it would have led to criminal proceedings and a conviction? (Then, I mean, not now. And that’s important.) I’m not familiar enough with the laws of the State of New York as they were 32 years ago, but I rather doubt it.

        • By that logic Archie (and hello by the way), every single member of the opposite sex that knows I am a hetrosexual and still mixes with me socially (or at work) shouldn’t complain if I scoop them up, lay them down and climb on top of them. Especially if I’ve had a drink.

      • I’ve looked at his statement again. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t read it as an actual confession.

        “I have a lot of respect and admiration for Anthony Rapp as an actor. I’m beyond horrified to hear his story. I honestly do not remember the encounter, it would have been over 30 years ago. But if I did behave as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior, and I am sorry for the feelings he describes having carried with him all these years.

        “This story has encouraged me to address other things about my life. I know that there are stories out there about me and that some have been fuelled by the fact that I have been so protective of my privacy. As those closest to me know, in my life I have had relationships with both men and women. I have loved and had romantic encounters with men throughout my life, and I choose now to live as a gay man. I want to deal with this honestly and openly and that starts with examining my own behavior. “

        • I didn’t say it was a confession. I said he’d effectively apologised and wasn’t denying it.

          I agree with (most of) what’s being said elsewhere on this thread about due process, I’m no fan of social media, and I’m not calling for Kevin Spacey to be strung up.

          I am, however, interested in the Afterword’s reflexive, knee jerk need to deny that the idea of grown adults making passes at 14 year olds is in any way problematic.

          I’m probably being tremendously unfair, but I get the sense of arguments being rehearsed for the day the chickens finally come home to roost for some of our favourite rock stars. And I think that’s pretty gross.

          • The Afterword’s response ? A bit of a strawman being constructed here. In sixty odd comments on this subject I can only see one person suggesting, or appearing to suggest, that adults making passes at 14 year olds may not be problematic.

                  • If true, of course it’s deplorable. And criminal. My point is purely that someone is accused of a heinous crime and has been found guilty in the Meeja, not a court of law. He’s not the only one either.

                    • I agree with the general sentiment, Tigger.

                      I’m not accusing literally everyone on this thread of minimising the issue. I just think if you take a look across the responses there’s an undertow in a fair few of them of people not really wanting to believe this happened, or that it’s unusual. Which is odd, because Spacey himself is clearly quite open to believing that this happened, and willing to accept that it upset Rapp in a lasting manner.

                      Anyway, I’m not looking to sit here in judgement (however it may appear). It was just a thought.

    • In the current climate it’s not the done thing to question the victim’s side of the story. Others have already come forward in the wake of this with claims about Spacey, and in the end it’ll be the volume rather than the specifics of the allegations that brings him down. A serial knee-toucher who was outed this morning could go the same way. It’s not much of an advert for due process.

      • No, but on the other hand the “current climate” is a tiny blip in centuries of (mostly) women being abused, assaulted, raped, harassed, catcalled, groped and treated as playthings with something close to total impunity for the people doing it. It’s becoming pretty clear that sexual exploitation by men is absolutely endemic, and that so far, due process has only served to maintain the status quo.

        I don’t know a woman who hasn’t experienced sexual harassment. Most of them don’t report it or take action because the mountain is too big to scale: either the abuse gets minimised (“par for the course”/“just what happened at the time”), the blame gets turned onto the victim, or the victim is outright disbelieved.

        Several women in my circle of friends literally cannot get on a bus or a train, or walk down the street, without being approached by some arsehole trying to chat them up. I’m just guessing here, but I reckon 50% or so of men would shrug that off and say “so what” or characterise that as a compliment.

        Every woman I know has received unwelcome sexual advances at work, or been objectified or sexualised at work.

        Every woman I know has suffered at minimum unsolicited and unwelcome touching.

        I have several close friends who are rape victims. Those are the people who’ve told me – I’m guessing I know far more.

        A close friend told me the other day that one of her friends mentioned that her husband sometimes fucks her when she’s asleep. Another says that her husband routinely paws and pesters her and uses the phrase “you’ll enjoy it once we get going”, presumably suggesting that a period of time in which she’s having sex that she’s not enjoying is acceptable to him. Both these men are rapists. Both women have completely internalised and accepted their own routine rape as “just what happens”. How life is.

        Imagine not being able to leave the house without receiving unwelcome attention. Imagine that’s every day. Imagine having to deal with wolf whistles and catcalls from your early teens, just as standard. Just for being out in the world. Every woman you know doesn’t HAVE to imagine, because it’s their daily reality. I don’t think a lot of men get how fucking WEARING that is. The sheer grind of it.

        On a recent Adam Buxton podcast, the brilliant Miranda Sawyer describes the relief at having passed the age where men seem to hassle her as standard. Relief. She’d had 30+ years of daily unwanted attention. It’s not flattering, it’s not nice: it’s a daily minefield that affects nearly every single woman. It affects, or at minimum has affected, the wives and partners of every straight man on this blog. It is an extension of an attitude that says “woman are property”. It is endemic.

        And we still seem to live in a world where men are routinely allowed to say – effectively – “I couldn’t help it. My dick made me do it.” I don’t know what percentage of blokes behave like this; I do know it’s fucking high, and I do know that one bloke behaving like this is one too many.

        Due process, as currently constituted, has got us nowhere. Something has to change, radically.

        • All of that is true and perhaps we’ll see a change in men’s behaviour as a result of what’s happening now. So perhaps we could say that if a few men get wrongly accused it’s a price worth paying. Being uncomfortable with that prospect isn’t the same as condoning the behaviour of the guilty.

          • I know, and the only part of that post I would modify is the part about due process. I believe massively in the rule of law, and really don’t want mob rule on this stuff, but the deck is so stacked in favour of the aggressor right now. Something around the due process needs looking at, but I’d never want to see it junked.

            I can’t remember who said it, but “when you’re accustomed to total privilege, equality feels like oppression”. I think men should be very very wary of minimising or dismissing this stuff.

            • 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
              Nail on head, bob. The tone of this thread was really starting to worry me. Speaking as a normal woman who has experienced decades of unwanted sexual attention, I’m laughing as all these creepy old fuckers get what’s coming to them.

              • I agree with your sentiment @andielou and hope that all of the perpetrators get their just rewards. However there will inevitably be people who get wrongly accused and they deserve the protection of the law too. Just like not every Muslim is a terrorist also not every man in an exalted position is a sex pest yet we are in danger of allowing the media to let us believe that is the case. In both instances the media are profiting from portraying the situation as black and white. Not sure why there is no balance in mainstream media but there clearly isn’t.

          • Those traditional high standards you see on the streets of Chelmsford and Aldershot on a Friday night. I’m sure a squaddie who touched a women’s knee 15 years ago would still be in the glasshouse now.

            • I’m smelling a rat deserting a sinking ship, putting clear “moral” water between himself and the blackguard BoJo.*

              “This job is no fun. I preferred it in the old days when I was being given a knighthood for libelling Ed Miliband’s dad. Those were the days!”

              (*I tried to put a fourth metaphor in the mix… couldn’t make it work. Sorry)

            • You’re thinking of Colchester; here in Chelmsford we manage to reach our own acceptable Saturday night standards without the help of a barracks (writes a man who doesn’t venture in town on Saturday night unless meeting friends for a curry down Baddow Road).

  12. Spacey had his 4am incident in a London park many years ago in which he made a false statement to the police. What he was doing in the park may not have been a crime, but making a false statement is. His career survived this, he may well be doomed now.

  13. Has the meaning of ‘paedophile’ changed? It used to mean a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, but people have been saying it of Spacey and today I see the Mail says it of Adam Johnson, whose victim was 15.

  14. Has our notion of what constitutes sexual harassment changed? There’s no link to the Spacey accusation here – I’m just interested to know what people think.

    Is a hand on the knee now harassment? Trying to kiss someone? Making a pass? I’m not approaching this with any agenda.

    • It’s all about context. If you* put your hand on someone’s knee, unsolicited, at work – that’s harassment. If you’re on the bus and you don’t know her and she’s reading her book, leave the poor woman alone. If you’re on a date and it seems like she is receptive, it’s probably fine, and if she removes your hand, that’s the end of it.

      Same with trying to kiss someone. If you’re on a date and go for a kiss and she’s not feeling it, that’s pretty no-harm-no-foul stuff. If you’re in the tea room at work, it’s not OK. Women generally want to do their jobs and go home, same as men. Being a woman doesn’t mean she has to put up with advances in the workplace.

      I’m not sure what “making a pass” is supposed to consist of. But I do know this: keeping your hands to yourself until explicitly invited otherwise is the rule. Sexual consent is unmistakeable: it’s enthusiasm. If you’re not sure, don’t. Nobody has the right to get laid. If you’ve got the raging horn and she’s not feeling it, go home and have a wank. It’s nobody’s responsibility to get you off. You won’t die if you don’t “get some”.

      (*You=one, throughout.)

  15. Genuine question – I wonder where/when/how it will be possible for young men to ask young women out?

    I was single in my 20s and used to see lots of live music at bars. In that context, or at get togethers with friends and friends of friends, I’d sometimes ask a girl out. They almost always declined, and I usually sloped away feeling a bit sad. And that was the end of it. If I were in that situation now, would I expect women to spray me with pepper, call the police, out me on Facebook as a weirdo?

    I don’t condone ANY power-tripping, aggressive, abusive, predatory behaviour from anybody ever. But I worry that what was always – for me, certainly – a nerve-wracking, sometimes humiliating, mostly awkward process of asking a girl out has now become a thousand times more terrifying for people in that situation now.

    • But the process of ‘asking someone out’ hasn’t changed that much, has it? The medium may have, obviously (i.e. FB, internet dating, Twitter etc.)

      I think there is a huge difference between ‘asking someone out’ i.e. for a coffee, gig, meal, film, lunch, dinner whatever, and the kinds of behaviour described in this thread.

      No-one minds being asked out, even if it’s unwelcome. I don’t know any woman who would respond in the way you describe. A polite refusal, then that’s that. (Or should be.)

      And of course, we may well ask you out.

      • Well, that last scenario never happened to me, alas. I would always be the guy that got the ‘I’m not looking to go out with anyone at the moment’ response, which was, I suppose, meant to be a kind way of saying ‘You look like shit and have no prospects, go away’. It never softened the blow, though.

        • I think in all matters pertaining to relationships, issues of consent, respect, personal safety, boundaries and communication (verbal and non-verbal) are crucial. And I think that applies to online communication, cross-gender friendships, asking someone out, behaviour on a date, and sex.

        • No, I’m totally with you, Bob. By ‘making a pass’, I meant the general sense of trying to chat someone up. Context is, of course, everything.

          One area I must disagree with, however, is the idea that if you put your hand on someone’s knee in work, it’s automatically ‘harassment’. Not that I’ve ever done it, but I’ve had it done to me countless times – by women and men. Some people are just tactile, with no malice intended. I agree that I’m contextualising, and I do concur with the sentiments expressed above, but actions can be misconstrued.
          As you say, on a date it’s ‘probably’ fine. Probably?

          Personally, I think young men need better life training at college/uni.

          Just for the record, and I hope it goes without saying: I’d never for a second defend harassment of any kind.

          • They can be misconstrued. But as Ruby says, it’s about communication.

            It’s also about power. A person in a position of power over another should resist the urge to be tactile with them. I had a lot of years of having a lot of people working for me; I’m quite a huggy, touchy feely person with my friends and loved ones. I never touched a subordinate except to shake their hands on meeting them, or publicly hugging them goodbye when they left. Touching a knee is pretty intimate: it’s not a shoulder or an upper arm. I don’t think there’s any work context in which it’s ok to touch soneone’s knee.

            As for the “probably” – the context works that out. If you’re on a date and you touch her and she recoils or freezes or moves your hand, remove it and – if she’s looking aghast – apologise. I can’t imagine recriminations arising from that.

            • Bob, absolutely no offence intended I promise, but I’m a bit uneasy about your moral absolutism on all these matters. I think there’s definitely shades of grey around things like how tactile people are, and the slightly blurry cultural differences around the accepted age of consent.

              • That’s fine, Arthur. I don’t expect everyone to share my “moral absolutism”, but personally I just think of it as basic decency.

                Ps. I didn’t say anything about the age of consent except to reiterate that it’s a crime to fuck, or try to fuck, someone who’s under it.

                If you think there’s anything “blurry” about a grown man trying it on with an adolescent, that’s entirely your business. I work with a lot of adolescents – I stand by my conviction that adults who want to spend social (let alone sexual) time with teenagers are pretty sad, and very predatory.

                • Ok, I’d like to find common ground here so let me explain a bit further with an admittedly extreme example and see if we agree.

                  You say there’s no blurring or grey area around a grown up trying it on with an adolescent. So what about person one (one day over the age of sixteen) trying it on with person two (one day under the age of sixteen)? That would be kind of problematic, I think. I certainly wouldn’t be in a rush to label that behaviour as morally, absolutely wrong.

                  That’s a ridiculous example, yes, but my point is that examples get ridiculous when you draw this line between right and wrong with cast iron certainty.

                  To take a slightly less extreme example. An 18 year old wants to go into teaching, so does some voluntary classroom assistance work. They end up inadvertently helping to teach a class that their 16 year old boyfriend / girlfriend is in. Is that suddenly morally repugnant? That’s blurring the lines between teacher and student boundaries, surely.

                  • The 15 year old and the 16 year old example tends not to get as far as court, usually because, for a crime to be realised, it has first to be reported, to the Police, not Facebook or Twitter, and then has to be considered on it’s “merits”. Few people report such crimes so few cases take place. Often there is considerable discretion around 14-16 relationships, should they do. I believe there are both legal and social service guidelines as to when a case is taken forward, usually if there is the whiff of coercion or advantage being taken, rather than consensual “young love”.
                    The trainee teacher and the 6th form girl or boyfriend is easy: the teacher cannot allow him/herself to be in that situation. If he/she discovers his/her paramour in a professional setting, he/she leaves stat.
                    Having said that, at my school, the girl left at the end of the L6th and then married her physics teacher in the school chapel 3 years later. I still cringe.

                    • So, after a 3yr relationship, a c.20yo woman marries a c.25yo man? What’s wrong with that?

                      Is she not capable of knowing her own mind at that age? Is she a ‘victim’ of something, and if so, what? Does she need protecting from something / someone?
                      Is the man a predator, and if so how?

                    • The condonement and celebration of a relationship that began between a teacher and his pupil. I think it would have been more appropriate for him to have left and her to have finished her education, but that may just be little old fashioned me. Are they still together? Did it last? Dunno and irrelevant, but nonetheless

                    • Definite potential for abuse of the teacher’s power there.
                      Agree with the comment that it might have been better if the teacher moved on rather than the girl, preferably before the relationship became serious. I can see though that if the relationship became common knowledge amongst the other pupils, her leaving would save her a lot of embarrassment.

                    • Re. the teacher thing, I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying that any social contact within three years of the end of the professional relationship would be considered criminal grooming if any sexual relationship developed as a result.

                      So a girl leaves school at 18. She stays in touch with her teacher. At her age of 19/20 they have sex. He’s committed a crime.

                      The age of consent is not a factor in teacher/student relationships. If a teacher has social contact with his A level students, he’s committed gross professional misconduct and will be struck off for life. If he has a sexual relationship with an 18 year old student at his school who he doesn’t even teach, he has committed a crime.

        • I once ‘asked a girl out’. (Calm down everybody, I was in my 20s and so was she.)

          She said, ‘OK, but don’t think that means I’m going to sleep with you, because I’m not.’

          That was me told. I was tempted to say, ‘I don’t remember asking you,’ but I didn’t because that was exactly what I had in mind. The relationship never really got off the ground though.

    • So here’s where it starts blurring into Weinstein territory, I suppose. Spacey in a position of power (deep into a successful film career) harassing what would be otherwise consenting adults.

  17. Archie – I’m on a phone and we’re now so far indented that I can only read part of what you’ve written, and barely any of what I’m writing here.

    Fuck it – I’ll post it down here.

    The splitting hairs was re; the difference between “few” and “many” years in my post.

    I’m not prosecuting Spacey, so the fact it was 32 years means very little to me. I don’t nec take the accusations as gospel, and I think the initial interview is nowhere near as damning as his response.

    As you’ll see elsewhere, I don’t like the idea of trial by social media. The Sunil Tripathi incident (http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-falsely-accuses-sunil-tripathi-of-boston-bombing-2013-7?IR=T) soured me on any notion that the Internet is even vaguely competent in working these things out.

    Again, as said elsewhere, I’m not on this thread to hang Kevin Spacey. If you look back upthread you’ll see that I’ve said little or nothing about his guilt or otherwise. On the contrary, it’s the slightly lunatic cartwheels being turned in his defence, on very partial information, that concern me. I don’t think people are providing legal analysis, I think they’re resistant to the idea that Spacey can have done this/that it’s wrong if so. And I think the source of that resistance is… interesting.

    • Thanks, Bing. Similarly, my seeming advocacy of his innocence was motivated more by diabolical than defensive purposes. Spacey may indeed be an abusive bully who preys on the young and vulnerable to get his power-game rocks off. But it is surely equally possible that he’s a promiscuous gay man (and there’s nowt wrong with that) who happens to have a preference for the strapping-lad end of the spectrum of potential partners (and, after all, there’s nowt wrong with that either, when and where it’s legal), who, when he’s had a drink, tends to get a bit touchy-feely or even lungey/gropy and once or twice over the years has misjudged how welcome his attentions were going to be or even the age of the potential “young friend” on the end of them, and he always feels terrible the next day and wishes more than anybody else that he wasn’t such a gropy boor when he’s drunk. We simply don’t know. But if we ever do find out for sure who and how he is, I’d rather that knowledge came to us through trial transcripts than through “My Spacey Hell” stories in the tabloids, possibly recounted in response to a financial incentive. Is all.

    • This is where it all could start getting a bit tricky. There will be allegations made that turn out to have been real incidents and there will be other allegations that turn out to be either un-provable or even completely false. So much speculative attention will be given in the media, social or other, that it will become nigh-impossible to distinguish between the true and the false. Careers will be needlessly wrecked. Genuine accusers will be ridiculed and vilified.
      Eventually public attention will drift away to other subjects.
      Quite possibly a change for the better, in what is considered acceptable behaviour, will have occurred and it will stick. That would be a good thing.
      Alternatively, things might just drift back to just as they were before, with no change at all. This would not be a good outcome.

  19. This might constitute a humblebrag. But I’m going to tell this story anyway. Because of the complicated feelings it evokes in me.

    In my mid twenties I was at a work Christmas party. I wasn’t drunk but my (male) boss was as pissed as a fart. His marriage was also in the midst of breaking down. There was a young attractive female work experience person there who was in my office “team.” Extremely talented, did well for herself later on. Point I’m making is, not a pushover.

    At a point in the evening she came up to me and basically said “I need you to dance with me and place yourself in front of the boss the whole time.” Obviously I did. And I can say it’s kind of the nearest I have come to experiencing life as a woman. She did not want to jeapordise a potential career break, she wanted nothing to do with the boss and I was her shield. My boss, thankfully took the hint after about 30 minutes. But what a dreadful thirty minutes this was.

    Here’s where it gets complicated. I am flattered to have been considered safe and trustworthy. Now. But I wasn’t at the time. Folks, I am not an attractive man, I did not have a lot of girlfriends when young, and it somewhat rankled in me that what an attractive women saw in me was “safety.” I felt, dickless.

    I was young, but fortunately not stupid enough to express this, and I wonder if it’s these thought processes in men which is the problem. I know now that it was a form of toxic masculine entitlement which I felt; women didn’t want me, it’s so unfair, boo hoo hoo, petty poor me, I am a nice guy etc etc etc. Frankly I envied the sheer bastards who seemed to get laid more than me.

    My point is even though I have never harassed a woman ever, (and I know now that shyness, low self esteem, timidity and social awkwardness, alongside near alcoholism and a vast drug consumption had a hell of a lot to do with why I was so unsuccessful with the opposite sex when young), harasser like thoughts were definately there. If I hadn’t grown up, if I remained immature and in a position of power, how would I have behaved?

    These aren’t nice thoughts. But I am starting to think that they are thoughts that men need to have.

          • Twenty-odd years ago, my then boss was very ‘handsy’. Married, and who had several affairs during the time I knew him.

            At Christmas office meals, parties and leaving-do’s, he became a complete pain to any of the women in the office he fancied. Wandering hands, suggestiveness, sit on my lap? Yeuch. Female colleagues would indicate that they’d like me or other men who could behave, to please move over and sit next to them, and avoid an empty chair where he could insert himself. Chester*-Chess/Checkers it was called.

            He never behaved like that day to day in the office, and indeed was the best departmental manager I’ve ever had.

            *not his real name.

  20. After a day travelling back home let me make one thing clear – my discussing what was “acceptable” behaviour back when I was a young man does not in any way excuse what went on when I was a young man: it was wrong then, it is wrong now.

  22. In a private email, an ex-Afterworder suggests that –

    “shyness, low self esteem, timidity and social awkwardness, alongside near alcoholism and a vast drug consumption had a hell of a lot to do with why I was so unsuccessful with the opposite sex when young”

    – might qualify for T-shirt status. When I ask [this person] if I can quote [this person], [this person] replies:

    “By all means, as long as you add that you’ve thought along the same lines since back in Fraser’s day.”

  23. It’s pretty simple really. If you did something that constitutes an assault or worse, you have done something that is wrong. It doesn’t matter if lots of people were doing it or if you did it 30 years ago. Wrong is wrong.

    If you are accused of doing something you didn’t do you are able to sue the person making the accusation. Whilst this can be expensive, I think Kevin, Harvey and all the other accused can afford the legal fees.

    So the principle of people now feeling empowered to come forward can only be a good thing. It shines a light on what is clearly a significant problem with men abusing their positions of power and, hopefully, will start to make men behave themselves.

    This tosh about it being a mistake and not reflecting them as a person is bollocks. It absolutely reflects them as a person.

      • Exactly. What may have been legal a generation ago might well be illegal today. And vice versa. What you are talking about is morality which is harder to define and is still a moveable feast.

        • Is ‘wandering hands’ assault? A “fleeting, almost deniable” (victim’s words) touch of the knee? An invitation to go for a drink after seeing a picture of a woman in her underwear?

          • Context is everything.

            I’ve talked before on here about the fairly wild office I worked in shortly after graduation. Everyone was young, there was a lot of socialising and several of the women were very very “handsy”, as I believe the term now is. On more than one occasion I was outright groped, and there was a memorable incident in a bar in Docklands where I was stood placing an order and one of the “ahem” ladies arrived behind me and stuck her hands down the front of my underwear. I was still quite young and had no idea how to react to this.

            On another, later, occasion as a junior lawyer I was informed I was being seconded to a client because the boss there fancied me. The exact words were “women have to put up with it, so why shouldn’t you”.

            I’m not telling these stories to make out that I’m some sort of irresistible sex god (though happily, I am), but because the idea of going back now and trying to get justice for any of this stuff seems untenable to me. I wouldn’t want it, for me or for those involved. But then, I’m not a woman, I don’t have to put up with it on a more regular basis, the people involved weren’t physically bigger/stronger than me, and it didn’t upset me that much at the time.

            In other circumstances, the same actions might have seemed a lot worse. All of which is just to say: context is everything. Which is another way of saying: I don’t think much is being asked of men here. We’re not being asked to tip toe round women. Just read the situation and don’t be a total dick.

      • Well the law is normally where I would go to understand what is and isn’t an assault.

        And yes, wandering hands without consent would be an assault. I’m slightly bewildered that you don’t think it is. Imagine you as a 14 year old choirboy and having a 45 year old priest grab your arse or balls. The defence of wandering hands is not going to fly is it?

        And finally, I have managed to get to 50 years old and never groped a person without having very clear signs of consent. I have probably had less “action” than some of my peers because I pretty much need a written sign from a member of the opposite before I would even ask them to dance much less anything more. I used to think it was because I was crap with the opposite sex. I’m beginning to think it’s because I’m actually a fairly decent person.

        • Now you’re talking about assault on a child. Yes, the law is very clear on that. I thought you meant men abusing their position of power generally, which is where the law becomes less clear.

          (Actually, reading below, I think that is what you’re referring to)

    • It’s really not that simple. Mud sticks, and very few people want to go through a libel action to prove they’re not a sex pest. Plus, the press tend to emphasise the initial accusation over the eventual libel victory.

      All in favour of holding more of this stuff to account, just think we need to recognise that there’s a balancing act here.

      • The simplicity is in the principle that the law supports both sides. It’s not ideal but working on the basis that most people are not making this stuff up, it is what it is. I don’t see some mud sticking as being worse than having to live with being sexually assaulted and feeling that no one would believe you if you told anyone.

        I do genuinely believe that there is a lot of this behaviour that has been either tacitly approved (it’s what men do when they have had a drink) or not discussed through fear or losing a job or face or just not being believed. And my feeling is that the people being affected by the mud sticking have behaved badly.

        • But the extension of that argument is that it’s worth some innocent people having their lives ruined as the price we pay to ensure justice for the wronged.

          That’s not how our justice system works, nor how it should work.

          • No that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that there are legal means to refute wrong accusations. They might not be ideal, but they are there.

            I don’t think there is no smoke without fire and I don’t think collateral damage should be accepted. But fear of either should not be a reason why people that have been wronged should not speak up. People that make this shit up is a different problem not part of the same problem.

            • They’re two intimately connected problems.

              If no one ever lied this would all be very simple. Ditto if misunderstandings never occurred.

              As I say, I’m totally onside with wanting to make it easier for victims to speak out. But I don’t think this entire issue can be fairly characterised as simple, from a legal perspective at least.

          • My beefiest beef is with the pre-judicial – and prejudicial in the other sense – system under which accusations are made in public (usually first on social media and then in the tabloids), based solely on which the public make the snap decision that a given celebrity (it’s always a celebrity; funny that) is a wrong ‘un, perhaps destroying not only that celebrity’s reputation but also their future career prospects. For example, leaving aside the summary cancellation of House of Cards (which was on the, er, cards anyway because it’s been shit for years), now the Oscars on Kevin Spacey’s mantelpiece and his undisputed success “helming” [spit] the Old Vic will count for nought, and any further prestigious thyatta appointments or front-rank Netflix or HBO vehicles or masterclasses flogged on Facebook are not going to happen now, are they? It’s over. From respected star of stage and screen to sub-Savilean sex pest overnight. (I saw earlier that a lifetime-achievement gong of some sort that the Emmys were going to give him has now been withdrawn.)

            • I guess that represents another difficult aspect of this entire thing.

              While we’d all ideally like these matters to be proven in a court of law, sometimes that doesn’t need to happen. Savile was never tried, but we all accept his rep because of the sheer scale of accusations. Ditto Bill Cosby, who – to my knowledge – hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything so far.

              One of the complexities of Spacey’s situation is that in his response to the Rapp accusation he appears to openly suggest that further such accusations will be forthcoming. We can read this in different ways, but I think he’s pretty much invited a degree of public suspicion, in a manner that makes it hard to have too much sympathy.

              I think this entire thread would look very different indeed if he’d simply stayed quiet. Which is a shame in some ways, because that means expressing contrition is ultimately worse than simply brazening it out, and I’m sure others will be watching and learning.

            • Some of that is due to the kind of industry these potential perps are in. If you do something that has a huge global marketing effort that includes social media, interviews (with the person not the character they are playing) and the person is someone that is happy to be aligned to causes etc. that show them in a good, benevolent light (and all of this works for actors, directors and politicians) then when you are accused of doing something wrong, then you are more exposed.

              If I was accused of doing a similar thing in my office based job, I would expect to be suspended pending resolution of the accusation. If I did something daft outside of work, it may or may not result in similar. I would also be the subject of gossip etc, at work I would expect.

              It’s the same thing just a much smaller goldfish bowl. And if you benefit from global exposure in the good times, the risk is you will be impacted by the same in the bad times.

  24. Bob says up there somewhere that “keeping your hands to yourself until explicitly invited otherwise is the rule.” Which has me wondering what form this explicit and presumably unambiguous invitation could take. During the hormonal confusion of my adolescence, I don’t remember any girl giving me an explicit green light, written or verbal. “Okay, you can touch my breast in the park shelter tonight. Just the left one, and not the nipple until I say so. Best wishes, Steph.” Sexual contact was mysterious and fumbling and frequently baffling; trying to get it, but also trying to get it right. And the girl always, always led. It was always down to what she let you do, what she wanted, but there was never anything helpfully explicit about any of it. Quite literally working in the dark most of the time. I think something along the lines of Bob’s explicit invitations would be of great service to teenage boys. As it is – or rather was – it’s a game where you not only have to discover the rules as you go along, but in which the rules are constantly changing. Women, eh? Cuh!

  25. Surely the matter should be thought of in an ethical way? Everybody here agrees that there must be boundaries, but it’s wrong to do this purely through moralistic rules that simply have to be ‘applied’ to situations. It’s because of the shallowness of rules-in-themselves that some personalty types find it easy to ignore them or suspend them at will

    Two points: 1. There are always unknowns that affect every situation, and this means that the answer to undesired forms of behavior can’t be simple and shallow. And 2. Boundaries are not given. They are acquired during socialisation and formation of the personality, profound in other words.

    I was brought up with no sense of ethics at all, only moralistic religion and the dubious benefits of education via the mass media. I’ve behaved badly on many occasions., when seen from a perspective other than what I had at the time. It’s all about perspective. Boundaries are developed as a matter of personal sensibility through negotiation. ‘Teach your children well,’ etc., but more than this is the problem of adults who don’t know how to negotiate boundaries.

    OK here’s a third question for homework. Its about the ethical and the aesthetic. If you know, or even suspect, that Roman Polanski has on occasion been a rapist, does it affect your appreciation of The Pianist? Answers to be 150 to 200 words.

      • As discussed previously – your relationship is with the work, not the artist.

        Otherwise you find yourself in the rather pathetic position of granting undying love and support to a human being you’ve never actually met, who could (and probably will, given circumstances), be a total scum bag.

        It also means that when superstar X is accused of something nasty, you can take an honest view of the situation, rather than being blinded by your desire to listen to album Y without wincing.

        • It does affect your enjoyment of the art. Rock’n’Roll Part II and Sun Arise are still the same great recordings they always were, but it would feel odd to listen to them, let alone post a clip here, because of the whiff of association with the artists’ crimes.

          • Thankfully, I’m not a Gary Glitter fan, so I can’t speak to that. I don’t have any problem listening to Phil Spector’s Xmas record though, or many other records made by blatant evil bastards. Sometimes horrible people also do good things.

            • It’s easier to not think of Phil Spector on his records because it’s The Ronettes or whoever performing and someone else often wrote the tune. Not so easy with Gary Glitter singing the likes of do you wanna touch me there?! With pop it’s often the perpetrator one must sit and listen to, assuming it’s a record you like. With other arts the artist is less present and maybe the artwork is really old and who cares anyway?, it was a long, long time ago, they’re dead and gone, but the artwork exists as if separated from petty morals, to use a phrase famously coined by one K Richards. Time also makes a difference of course.

              It’s a question of the nature of the deed also. I can only speak for myself in that regard but Glitter became impossible to play due to what he did, whereas other crimes and misdemeanors in other cases can be set aside. Still, behaviour does have a bearing in other ways for me. I am less inclined to bother with Morrissey and The Smiths just because he has become such a dick (I know many always had that opinion but he is an embarrassment for many more these days) and his lyrics have always been so personal, it’s hard to put him, as he now is, to one side when listening.

              • I think if you listen to a lot of hip hop you become fairly immune to the idea that some of the people you’re hearing from are going to be resolutely horrible and telling you about horrible things they may actually have done.

                I don’t have a problem enjoying the records while condemning the horrible actions. They’re two different things, from where I’m sat.

                • So in 20yrs time when your by-then 30yo kids listen to some of your more out-there hip hop and are (in my opinion, rightly) utterly appalled and disgusted by it, and say “Dad, how COULD you have listened to these unforgivably vile misogynistic lyrics?”, will you just shrug and smile and say “oh it was just commonplace ‘back then’ “?

                  • I like to think that by the time my kids are 30 they’ll have learned the difference between song lyrics and real life. But then, as I’m often cruelly reminded, age is no guarantee of even such a basic understanding of the world.

                    • But what if, at some date in the future, one or two of those artists turn out to have been practising the stuff they were preaching in their lyrics?
                      Where’s the difference between song lyrics and real life then?

                    • Think I’ve covered all this previously in various other threads:

                      1. It’s already happened recently. Bobby Shmurda is currently in prison for having actually done most of the stuff he was talking about in Hot Nigga. It remains a brilliant song that I listen to a lot. He remains a nasty piece of work I wouldn’t want to share oxygen with. Doesn’t seem all that complicated to me.

                      2. In a recent review of a hip hop record I explained that I listen to this stuff in spite of, not because of, the lyrics, which are largely risible. Hence why I’m increasingly drawn to rappers whose style makes it impossible to tell what they’re actually saying. It’s the *sound* I’m interested in, not the words. With relatively few exceptions, the same is also true of rock music, which can be just as stupid and chauvinistic, and which is also generally made by morons.

                    • Yeah Bingo, and what if your kids develop radioactive tentacles and use them to signal Mars? Eh? What then, Bingo, what then??

          • Ah, the old Wagner Dilemma. I think Bernstein and Barenboim have shown the way there, their attitude amounting to: “Yes, of course the muttonchoppy old bastard was aggressively anti-Semitic and his work was eagerly co-opted by the Nazis, but his music is sublime, damn it, so of course I’ll conduct it.”

            Equally, when it comes to rock ‘n’ pop ‘n’ roll, I say play the bouncing ball, not the man.

        • I’m not sure that the relationship is with the work not the artist. Otherwise they would go on Graham Norton to publicise their filmin character wouldn’t they. And only Johnny Depp does this (when he’s playing an arse at least).

          • I can only speak for myself.

            But there’s a big difference between the marketing that induces you to watch a movie, and then the relationship you retain with the movie after having seen it.

            • It has to be the art, not the artist; if you put the morals of the artist first you are judging the man, not the art, and many artists have many moral lapses unknown to you. Better not admire any art, then, because the artist may have done something you judge to be morally reprehensible. This is nonsense, and there’s something disturbing about it, too. For consistency, you better not step into any public buildings because the architect may have been a scumbag. And definitely do not watch any movies.

              As Ernie Isley said, art is long, life is short. Whether you consider Rock n’ Roll Part Deux art or not, it will likely outlive its creator and even you. The truly miraculous and diplomatic thing about art is that it may be created by anyone, to be enjoyed by everyone. Enjoy it because it demonstrates that we are capable of creating good work; out of weakness comes strength. Something to be celebrated.

            • Agreed with that Bingo. But it’s not binary and if you are a famous actor with a publicised personality and all the good stuff that carries with it) don’t complain that when the shit hits the fan, the fan is huge and spinning fast. Unless you are innocent. Then you can sue (like Rebel Wilson did – who I respect more now than I did before. Although I had no idea who she was before).

              • You seem to have decided that being famous is a sort of misdeed that should have a corollary downside to it.

                If I was world famous and someone accused me (unjustly) of something completely horrible I would be angry and mortified, and I would most certainly complain. They’re still human beings.

                • I don’t think so. It’s just if you use the media, you have a less credible argument that its unfair if you get roasted by them. And I still maintain that rich Hollywood actors and moguls have access to lawyers and PR advisors (and the money to pay for them) if they have been wronged. And if they were wrongly accused, they would strongly contest the accusations (as some are indeed doing).

                  I think there are plenty of more deserving victims worthy of my sympathy than Weinstein or Spacey.

                    • Sorry, got cut off…

                      * Working in the media doesn’t make it any less unfair if the media unfairly accuse you of something.

                      * People don’t always bring a libel claim when libeled, and you’d be foolhardy to think that the absence of a libel claim confers guilt.

                  • Surely it’s possible to have absolutely sympathy for the victims of assault and a degree of sympathy for an innocent person facing trial by media. They’re not incompatible and defending the latter doesn’t mean you don’t want to see them ripped apart by wolves if they’re proven guilty after (sorry bob) due process has been carried out. It seems like the accusation and the crime are one and the same in some people’s minds.

                    • I think that’s where I am. I realise that you don’t have to sue for libel/slander but I would have thought a statement of innocence is more in keeping with innocence rather than saying I was drunk but I’m sorry and it doesn’t represent the real me.

  26. My wife, Mrs Wells II, was my subordinate at work. We had an affair. We have been together for over ten years, married for 4.

    In my early twenties I was in a pub in Bussellton WA. There I met a young lady and, both heavily drunk, we later fucked. The next day I discovered she was underage.I know not her name nor where she lives.

    I think the only sensible thing is to ban me from the blog, annul my degrees and have me tarred and feathered.

  29. A genuine question of interest: This behaviour seems to be much more prevalent in the UK than elsewhere in Western Europe.
    We have a notably puritanical attitude to sex – is this possibly a contributing factor?

    The Europeans especially the Germans have a much healthier attitude to public nudity for example and as a result seem to face less of the issues being spoken about here.

  31. I have been trying to write something along the lines of ‘FHM, Loaded, the Daily Mail or The Sun (and other contemporary media) have often given the impression that women are to be admired/seduced, so unfortunately I’m not surpised that a lot of men believe it’s perfectly acceptable to cross the line.

  33. Just to say thanks for everyone’s contributions to this. It’s been an interesting and enlightening read, and has certainly made ponder the issues more.

    Also, it’s hilarious that 260-odd comments ago, DFB’s opening contribution was ‘What else is there to say?’…

  34. @DisappointmentBob , I’m posting via phone so have run out of indents, but just wanted to acknowledge and thank you for summarising the legal / professional requirements around teacher / pupil relationships, under Retro’s post upthread; clear and helpful, and good to know.

  35. Something that hasn’t really been said through all this that I thought worth chucking in the mix is that one big difference between *most* actors and the rest of us (the corollary of @ganglesprocket‘s post) is that they are *usually* extremely attractive/beautiful, charming people, of all persuasions and orientations, and they are probably far more used to being treated as irresistible, perhaps leading to an expectation of it (rightly or wrongly). That’s not to excuse any unwanted or inappropriate behaviour, much less any illegal behaviour, just that they’re probably more used to trying it on and advances being welcomed than the rest of us might be. The power/abuse dynamic vs asking out/consent of the Rubyblue branch up-thread seems to be where the divergence comes in to it.

    Having said that, I can’t under any circumstances think of a scenario where Weinstein or Trump is irresistible.

  37. Something that came up in the coverage of Weinstein’s behaviour is that quite apart from his alleged sexual predation he has been accused of extreme bullying towards people that he was not making sexual overtures to.
    Seemingly, males in the industry did not dare argue with or criticise him, because he could and seemingly would, derail your career from sheer spite if he took a dislike to you, or just on a whim. Casting directors who wished to work on anything to do with Miramax were told that certain actors who had displeased him were not ever to be cast by them in anything in Hollywood, even outside of his company.

    • I think I read an interview with Peter Capaldi in which he said he based his characterisation of Malcolm Tucker in the Thick of It on Harvey Weinstein. The idea of the series was clearly updating Yes Minister with an Alastair Campbell figure in it. Peter Capaldi had never met Campbell and so thought of the most permanently aggressive man he had ever met – Weinstein.

      Just as a side note, I had a friend who met Alastair Campbell a number of times through some education work they were both involved with. My friend was pretty far left, and was disposed to dislike Campbell from the off. Unfortunately, he was charm itself. Prepared to listen to different points of view; answering the comments that were made without anything personal being said; conceding on issues where he was wrong; never getting angry. And he didn’t swear. All very disappointing.

  38. I have read about that side of his personality too and it is as abhorrent as his sexual indiscretions.
    Unfortunately it is an attitude I have frequently seen from people in power – do as I say not do as I do. It amounts to bullying but more importantly an abuse of power.
    I don’t know but it would appear his behaviour is a personality trait that has been allowed to go on unchecked for years whilst others possibly including Kevin Spacey have acted badly whilst under the influence of alcohol. I don’t offer that as an excuse but alcohol does have personality changing powers.

      • I have been a great admirer of Kevin Spacey’s work, over the years, so all these stories of gross misconduct are a real disappointment to me.
        Very badly tarnished.

        It’s maybe strange, but I can listen to music by say John Martyn and separate what I hear from the way he treated people, but I can’t separate them when watching a video of him. Similarly footage of Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris or Phil Spector makes me uncomfortable. Their music on it’s own much less so.
        My enjoyment of Spacey’s movies will probably be less now.

  39. The problem is people can be very deceptive. I was at a function a few years ago where Rolf Harris performed and he stayed over at the Hotel we were staying at. We met him at breakfast the next morning and I have to say he was extremely charming.
    Obviously before his court case but who would have known?

    Feel sorry for those who bought his paintings as investments.

    • I’m shocked – SHOCKED – that Morrissey should deliver himself of a take like this. Who could’ve expected him to be a total unreconstructed helmet on any given subject?

      (Someone recently suggested that Morrissey actually died in the early 90s in “Paul is dead” stylee. It’s the only way to explain his transformation from 80s Oscar Wilde to the lovechild of Richard Keys and Yosemite Sam.)

Leave a Reply