Variety: Ben affleck admits to groping Hilarie Burton

Right.

I mean, I'm OK with holding people accountable, if they have good intentions but fuck up their wording or come across as tone-deaf, they are not exempt from criticism. But right now we need all the allies we can get and there was nothing really objectionable in his post.


Right.

That said, if Harvey Weinstein had been a small man, perhaps he would have indeed more easily refused, but somehow I doubt it would have made such a huge difference. He was frightening mostly because of his power, rather than just his size alone.
I think the bigger point is fearing for your safety adds an aspect of trauma he didn’t experience there. And in the case of a full on sexual assault or rape he doesn't have any experience being physically overpowered and sexually abused like some of these women have been.

The feeling of giving up because you know you can’t stop them from doing what they want to do is something he never experienced and I think makes a significant enough difference that he felt it was important to highlight and point out.
 
Please note, this is only in reference to comments like those from Momoa and Hayter:

Humans aren't perfect guys. You can't hang on their every word. Let someone talk long enough and they'll probably say something eventually that someone out there could take offense to. I'm willing to wager every single person in this topic is guilty of it at some point in their life, some more frequently than others. Because it's human fucking nature.

Nothing Momoa or Hayter said paint them as bad people. You can't (or at least shouldn't) be willing to burn someone at the stake over whatever small comment you view as insensitive, especially when it's not the point of their overall message or it's out of context.

Hayter made a very good statement and told his own story. That's another good thing to have out in the world, hanging on one sentence of it because it is possibly insensitive to some people is missing the entire point.

In Momoa's case the joke wasn't great but it's all about context and reading the room. People in that room did laugh at it. Because his character on the show, which the panel was for, was literally a rapist barbarian. Typically that kind of thing would never fly. And yeah, rape should never be trivialized. But his character literally rapes another right at the start of that show. And everyone in that room knew that, because they were fans of the show. He's poking fun at that. That doesn't make him a bad person, in fact due to the context it doesn't even make it inappropriate. If you want to take real issue with it you have to take issue with the show for depicting it in the first place. Then you're down the rabbit hole of well, it was adapted from a book... so it shouldn't have been written in the first place. Then... can we not have fiction where rape occurs? It's such a stupid slippery slope.

People aren't perfect. This witch hunting is so stupid. It's also completely separate from what the topic is actually about: Ben Affleck groping someone.
The assumption that no one here has ever watched Game of Thrones and therefore doesn't get the context with which Momoa made the joke is stupid. As is calling the joke fine because "people that were present laughed". That's why it's called rape culture. It isn't a one man thing.

I don't think Momoa is a bad guy, but the joke was bad and inappropriate. Period.
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
Good to see him come out with this too, though I'm sorry he had to go through that. I don't think he said anything bad there. He pointed out his stances on all aspects of this issue. He gave his sympathy and support for the abused, gave his assurance that his productions won't have anything of the sort, acknowledged that his own harassment situation was different, and recognized that though he could have physically done something about it, most women cannot. It's not too different from what Terry Crews said. I'm not sure if it's a "humorous" story to tell, though. It's horrifying.

It's disgusting that this is so fucking prevalent. So many people from everywhere coming out with stories like these. And you know that fucking producer guy has done this many times with other people, considering how well 'practiced' he seemed with the whole routine.

At the same time, it's good that everyone seems to be coming out with these stories, though notably a lot of people aren't naming names. They should, to pull these assholes down, but maybe it's so systemic and the assholes so powerful that they can't be pulled down, even with such accusations.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The "I'm just not gay", as if being gay would have justified that abuse of power, is a little weird.
It's not "a little weird;" he talks like a normal person, not like a press release.

He didn't say anything close to it would be justified if he were gay. Finding something to be offended by in Hayter's post seems ridiculous to me.
 
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1407643&highlight=

Reminder I made this thread a couple months ago about Ben Affleck and got banned a month for concern trolling because I had previous bans, even though my views completely changed and I was a teenager when I started browsing GAF.

So now it's a consensus on GAF it's sexual assault eh?
You went through all this trouble and didn’t even bother to read about the interview here. Maybe you should do that.
 
I think the bigger point is fearing for your safety adds an aspect of trauma he didn’t experience there. And in the case of a full on sexual assault or rape he doesn't have any experience being physically overpowered and sexually abused like some of these women have been.

The feeling of giving up because you know you can’t stop them from doing what they want to do is something he never experienced and I think makes a significant enough difference that he felt it was important to highlight and point out.
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of this really.
 
GAF is full of hypocrites, I just wanted anyone reading this thread to read that one.

Just like Ben Afflect they just pretend to behind women but really they're astounding hypocrites.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I think coming back to some other topic to question your ban is a very bad idea.
 
GAF is full of hypocrites, I just wanted anyone reading this thread to read that one.

Just like Ben Afflect they just pretend to behind women but really they're astounding hypocrites.
You should really read about that interview. How it was staged and how she was participating in the whole setup.

Just a suggestion.
 
The assumption that no one here has ever watched Game of Thrones and therefore doesn't get the context with which Momoa made the joke is stupid. As is calling the joke fine because "people that were present laughed". That's why it's called rape culture. It isn't a one man thing.

I don't think Momoa is a bad guy, but the joke was bad and inappropriate. Period.
Sorry, but I don't agree at all. Rape is terrible. I agree with that, as would most sensible people. But nothing should be off limits for comedy. People joke about murder and other equally bad or worse things all the time. And that is fine. Comedy shouldn't have limits.

Now, I agree the joke wasn't that great. And part of the problem is that Momoa is not a comedian. But within the context of his character and the tone of his voice the entire "joke" made sense. It wasn't intended to offend really or to be scrutinized... it was in a panel recorded years ago. Now people are pretending to be outraged by it. He's clearly being incredibly sarcastic BECAUSE his character was literally a rapist barbarian. I am sure some people here have seen Game of Thrones, but I feel like it'd be easy (if you haven't) to completely misunderstand what he was going for with the joke to begin with.

This has nothing to do with "rape culture". In a larger sense, rape as a concept shouldn't be off limits to comedy just because it's a horrific act in reality.

But this is all pretty off-topic. If you want to debate the point in PMs, I'm happy to do so.

I simply think the witch hunt people are now doing, attempting to find any little thing wrong with actors to call them out or say they're somehow bad people, is really idiotic just because one actor groped someone. That doesn't somehow cast guilt on every other actor out there.

Momoa was only even brought up because he is also in a movie with Ben Affleck in a month. So even digging into him seems like some weird anti-DC fanboy thing.
 

ZeoVGM

formerly omg rite
GAF is full of hypocrites, I just wanted anyone reading this thread to read that one.

Just like Ben Afflect they just pretend to behind women but really they're astounding hypocrites.
No one here is being a hypocrite. That SPECIFIC interview has been discussed by the woman in the damn video.

Try informing yourself on the situation before deciding to make it all about you.
 
I'm not quite sure what to make of the Hayter anecdote.

One guy made a move on another guy and the second he said no, it was all over.

So, Hayter is saying if he was smaller or didn't have martial arts training, he might not have felt comfortable saying no. But why is that the "fault" of the producer? Is the producer not allowed to make a move on someone in the event they haven't had combat training?

I understand the inherent power dynamic at play but again, that's not the fault of the producer and shouldn't necessarily preclude him from making a sexual advance, on the proviso that he respects that advance being rebuffed which it was in this case.
 
GAF is full of hypocrites, I just wanted anyone reading this thread to read that one.

Just like Ben Afflect they just pretend to behind women but really they're astounding hypocrites.
That's an awful lot of finger wagging and name calling for someone who didn't even do the bare minimum amount of research.
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
I'm not quite sure what to make of the Hayter anecdote.

One guy made a move on another guy and the second he said no, it was all over.

So, Hayter is saying if he was smaller or didn't have martial arts training, he might not have felt comfortable saying no. But why is that the "fault" of the producer? Is the producer not allowed to make a move on someone in the event they haven't had combat training?

I understand the inherent power dynamic at play but again, that's not the fault of the producer and shouldn't necessarily preclude him from making a sexual advance, on the proviso that he respects that advance being rebuffed which it was in this case.
The anecdote contributes a lot, actually.

The anecdote reinforces the notion that this is something that happens a lot, and can happen to anyone.

The trap laid for Hayter is yet another example of an act of harassment and an abuse of power. The producer tried to pressure Hayter into sex using the difference in power between them. It's the same thing as your boss making a pass at you.

Yes, Hayter turned him down, but there are plenty of people who may have felt pressured to play along, even if they didn't want to. Look at how Hayter still stayed for a while until he noped out of it, even though alarm bells were ringing in his head as soon as he saw the room. He knew what was going on and what his producer wanted. He wanted no part of it. He didn't want to be there. But he still felt pressured to sit down and play along for as long as he did because of the power difference.

It is absolutely the fault of the producer for making a pass at Hayter in this way. It's an abuse of power in an attempt to force Hayter into doing something he didn't want to do. Even though there were no actual verbal threats made, they were absolutely implied due to the power dynamic. It's attempted rape.

If the producer was romantically interested in Hayter, would he have pursued him in this way? Absolutely not. He used his power because he could, and he knew that Hayter was in a disadvantaged position to resist him. That's why the act is abusive and wrong.
 
The context explains what he means. He says he totally doesn't fault/judge people who do use their sex appeal to get ahead if that's what they really want, so to me this implies he might have been tempted to do that, but since he's not gay, it couldn't ever happen.

At least, I think that's what he meant... Not that "if the abuser had been attractive to these women it wouldn't be so bad". Or I hope so, anyway...
Right. It seemed like it could have been saying both of those things. 'If I had been interested and gay it might not have been so problematic`, which almost seems to validate the proposition.
 
Thanks, I hadn't seen this before.

I apologise to everyone, please dont' ban me again I'm so sorry everyone.
Look my dude. Not only should you have read the thread before posting the link to your previous thread and calling us hypocrite, but people in that previous thread of yours told you that the interview was staged and Ben and AML were friends. People from Québec, like me, who knew that that bit was not assault in any way. And your thread got locked.

Back then, you should have taken this as a sign that you needed to do some research because you might have been off base. It shouldn't have led up to this moment.

Anyways. It's not that big of a deal; it's just annoying because you were literally ignoring everyone, which meant you were posting in bad faith. Don't do that anymore.
 
I'm not quite sure what to make of the Hayter anecdote.

One guy made a move on another guy and the second he said no, it was all over.

So, Hayter is saying if he was smaller or didn't have martial arts training, he might not have felt comfortable saying no. But why is that the "fault" of the producer? Is the producer not allowed to make a move on someone in the event they haven't had combat training?

I understand the inherent power dynamic at play but again, that's not the fault of the producer and shouldn't necessarily preclude him from making a sexual advance, on the proviso that he respects that advance being rebuffed which it was in this case.
that's not the fault of the producer and shouldn't necessarily preclude him from making a sexual advance
He never said the producer was wrong for doing it, he said he knew what was coming and even HE couldn't muster the strength to stop it before it got weird. He could've easily walked out as soon as he saw the setup, but he didn't. He didn't because he was intimidated.
 
Look my dude. Not only should you have read the thread before posting the link to your previous thread and calling us hypocrite, but people in that previous thread of yours told you that the interview was staged and Ben and AML were friends. And your thread got locked.

Back then, you should have taken this as a sign that you needed to do some research because you might have been off base. It shouldn't have led up to this moment.

Anyways. It's not that big of a deal; it's just annoying because you were literally ignoring everyone, which meant you were posting in bad faith. Don't do that anymore.
I will try harder in the future to not be dismissive and thanks for being patient and explaining. I tend to lose double-down when I get into internet arguments without thinking much and it's clearly wrong.

Also I sincerely apologise for derailing this thread and wont' shit it up anymore.
 
Funny enough, no one likes to point out that these kinds of rampages specifically cheapen actual assault accusations and are a major contributor to the culture of silence around sexual assault. The "I need my clicks so generate outrage" culture that has infested Social Justice is protected heavily because of tribalism and "my side can do no wrong" bullshit, when it's a huge problem when dealing with the code of silence around assault and how to help victims.
Yeah. It's also sadly justifying the "never apologize" behavior of Trump and the like. Person makes joke in poor taste and quickly apologizes for it. Years later people dig up the joke but ignore the apology or context. And it's no surprise the people trying to dig for dirt always coincides when they're getting popular, like we're seeing with Momoa or when Donald Glover got awards buzz for Atlanta. It'll end up happening with Boseman's old comments closer to Black Panther. Or Ava DuVernay closer to Wrinkle in Time (they tried recently but it didn't stick).

They have their wires crossed thinking people are either perfect or their the scum of the Earth. There's no comprehension of the scale of wrongdoings or forgiveness. Putting Affleck groping women and Momoa making a tasteless joke he apologized for on the same level is ridiculous. It demeans the problems at hand.
 
I'm not quite sure what to make of the Hayter anecdote.

One guy made a move on another guy and the second he said no, it was all over.

So, Hayter is saying if he was smaller or didn't have martial arts training, he might not have felt comfortable saying no. But why is that the "fault" of the producer? Is the producer not allowed to make a move on someone in the event they haven't had combat training?

I understand the inherent power dynamic at play but again, that's not the fault of the producer and shouldn't necessarily preclude him from making a sexual advance, on the proviso that he respects that advance being rebuffed which it was in this case.
Yes the producer is in the wrong. Lureing someone into a hotel room under a false pretense to try and have sex with them when you have the power to destroy their dreams and primary way of making money is disgusting, gross, wrong and a form of mental abuse that is clearly sexual assault
 
It's not "a little weird;" he talks like a normal person, not like a press release.

He didn't say anything close to it would be justified if he were gay. Finding something to be offended by in Hayter's post seems ridiculous to me.
Hayter is trying so hard providing a ton of context to prevent anyone from taking offense, and so of course someone takes offense not necessarily to the context provided but the amount of context. Because of course they did.
 
Hayter is trying so hard providing a ton of context to prevent anyone from taking offense, and so of course someone takes offense not necessarily to the context provided but the amount of context. Because of course they did.
I can recognize myself in this. As Hayter.