Whitman

No. That's a delusion of predators, especially powerful predators who use their power and then deny (maybe even to themselves) that there was any coercion involved ... that their victims were willing ... that they volunteered. Repeating what I already posted: Being intimidated into a sexual encounter by a more powerful person -- for whatever reason -- is not volunteering; a victim who doesn't fight back -- for whatever reason -- is not consenting.

You're talking about being willing to do something for a specific advantage. Or because one thinks he has to in order to have/keep that advantage. That may make the encounter something less than rape, something seemingly consensual, but is it voluntary? At least one of the women who has accused Bill O'Reilly talked about a long term sexual relationship she didn't want to have but felt she had to. She didn't accuse O'Reilly of rape. She ... participated ... apparently without yelling, "No! Stop!" And maybe O'Reilly actually believes that the relationship was consensual, that the woman was willing. What she says is that the "relationship" was entirely unwanted on her part. She participated because she feared for her job. I wouldn't call that voluntary. I also wouldn't call sleeping with someone for $250 voluntary. Nor would I call my own job--which I do for a paycheck--voluntary.

http://78.media.tumblr.com/44e6d2ec6b636e8d506c753ecdf173cb/tumblr_oytnzvDGsA1tcqhjho1_500.png

Is there any such thing as a voluntary "casting couch" relationship? I think that's an oxymoron. Wants to? Or, is willing to? And if it's just a matter of being willing to, why? For what? Because he wants a job? Because he needs a job to pay for food and rent? And why, in your construction, does he have to be a "gay stud" ... what if he's a nervous, inexperienced 18-year-old with a history of bad decisions ... does that make a difference? When one person has all the power, it raises legitimate questions about wants to vs. willing to, about choice, about consent. Even if both parties are of age.

"Enjoy the blaming" ... ??? ... Man, you really don't get it. Not a witch. A predator. A man who takes advantage of those who are younger, less successful, less powerful, for some of whom Spacey was a mentor or a boss. A man who is sexually inappropriate with children. ... And then he -- HE! -- does the blaming. And he blames being gay like you.

He judged himself before any of us "rushed" to do it. He offered no denial. He suggested the possibility of drunkenness. He apologized. He said he was "beyond horrified" by what he might have done. Yeah, well ... me too! Seems to me, I was just agreeing with him! Then he made things exponentially worse by trying to use being a gay man as an excuse for coming on to a 14-year-old who did not want to be come on to by Kevin Spacey. And that was disgusting.

@latbear4blk, please, just for a moment, put aside your opinion of an appropriate age of consent, and of what sex with an adult when you were a 14-year-old child might have been like for you, and consider the hundreds of stories available at your fingertips of children whose lives have been profoundly damaged by adult sexual predators. Are you suggesting that we should not object to non-consensual sex (or sexual harassment) between a man and a boy because we have no issue with sex between consenting adults? That's ridiculous.

If production of what had already been announced as the last season of House of Cards resumes at all, you can bet now that it will resume without Spacey.

New allegations of sexual misconduct have surfaced against actor Kevin Spacey as questions mount over the fate of projects tied to the two-time Oscar winner. --VARIETY (Nov. 1) In the wake of multiple allegations brought against the 58-year-old House of Cards star throughout the past week alleging he made unwanted sexual advances toward young male actors, PEOPLE confirmed Wednesday that he is taking time to get help. “Kevin Spacey is taking the time necessary to seek evaluation and treatment,” a representative for the star said in a statement. “No other information will be available at this time.” --PEOPLE (Nov. 2) A representative for the actor said he "is taking the time necessary to seek evaluation and treatment". They did not give any information about what kind of treatment he wants. --BBC News (Nov. 2)

Kevin Spacey scandal: London theater offers confidential email address for tips USA TODAY Published 12:57 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2017 Two-time Oscar winner Kevin Spacey's troubles continued Tuesday as one of his former employers, The Old Vic theater in London, released a statement saying it was "deeply dismayed" by the allegations made against Spacey. "The Old Vic would like to respond to recent media reports by making it clear that we are deeply dismayed to hear the allegations levied against Kevin Spacey, who was Artistic Director from 2004–2015," the theater said in a statement posted on Twitter. "Inappropriate behaviour by anyone working at The Old Vic is completely unacceptable. We aim to foster a safe and supportive environment without prejudice, harassment or bullying of any sort, at any level ... We want our employees to feel confident, valued and proud to be part of The Old Vic family. Any behaviour we become aware of which contravenes these goals will not be tolerated." The theater also announced it had established a confidential email address for complaints, noting: "Any experience shared will be treated in the utmost confidence and with sensitivity. We have appointed external advisors to help us deal with any information received." Kevin Spacey chose to engage an old and toxic myth By Kate Maltby, CNN - Updated 7:33 PM ET, Mon October 30, 2017 EXCERPT: ... Here in London, where I work as a theater critic, it's possible that stories will surface concerning Spacey's behavior during his time as artistic director of the Old Vic theater. Monday morning, on the flagship BBC "Today" program, a leading British theater director, when asked about the allegations made by Rapp, said, "I think that many people in the theater and in the creative industries have been aware of many stories of many people over a lot of years," noting that "Kevin Spacey would be one of the people that people have had concerns about, yes."

In your opinion. In mine, it is never too soon, nor too late, to speak the TRUTH. I applaud Anthony Rapp for speaking up -- which, as you may have read, he was doing AGAIN, not for the first time. (I mention this only because the time frame seems to matter to you. It doesn't to me because, again, TRUTH shouldn't have a statute of limitations.)

'The Advocate' knew about Kevin Spacey's encounter with teen, but didn't speak. Here's why USA Today NetworkBruce Steele, The Citizen-Times Opinion Published 5:00 a.m. ET Oct. 31, 2017 My magazine had a 'no outing' policy and we stood by it... This is not how we wanted Kevin Spacey to come out as openly gay. When I was an editor at Out magazine and The Advocate in the 1990s and early 2000s, the magazines asked Spacey's publicists for interviews many, many times, typically getting no response at all. Behind the scenes, I had long known Spacey was gay, or at least bisexual, in part because my friend Anthony Rapp had told me his story of a sexual pass Spacey made at him in 1986, when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was about 26. Rapp told me that in the mid 1990s, and we even printed his account of the encounter in The Advocate in 2001, with Spacey's name redacted, as BuzzFeed journalist Adam Vary reported in his thorough and eloquent report published Sunday night. (Responding within minutes to the BuzzFeed publication, Spacey said he was "beyond horrified to hear (Rapp's) story." He did not deny it happened but said, "I honestly do not remember the encounter," nevertheless offering "the sincerest apology.")[/url] Unlike Esquire (in 1997), the gay and lesbian magazines for which I worked never outed Spacey. At Out magazine, we repeatedly told everyone that the name of the magazine was an adjective, not a verb. We did not out people, preferring to give them the time and space to make that decision themselves, a healthier route to honesty on both sides. We were happy to pave the way, and often did, starting with Rupert Everett's coming out interview on the cover of Out's second issue in 1992. At The Advocate, I had the honor to do coming out interviews with many people, famous and not so famous, including an NFL football player (Esera Tuaolo), an "American Idol" finalist (Jim Verraros) and actors such as Robert Gant. My predecessor as The Advocate's editor in chief, Judy Wieder, interviewed many more, including George Michael and Rosie O'Donnell. But as Wieder describes in her new memoir, "Random Events Tend to Cluster" (Lisa Hagan Books), The Advocate had developed a "no outing" policy before I joined the staff, and we stuck to it. We cajoled, befriended and pressured, but we did not report on anyone's sexuality without their cooperation. Just as each of us had reached the decision to come out in our own time, celebrities needed the same opportunity, even if it took them years and years. The result of a healthful, self-motivated decision to come out is often a stronger, more powerful person on the other side. In Wieder's memoir, she recounts our conversation about putting Nathan Lane on the cover in 1999. "I think he's waited too long" to deserve the cover, Wieder argues, but she changes her mind when I tell her what changed his mind: the murder of Matthew Shepard. Lane got the cover and gave an emotionally charged interview. Obviously the situation is not the same with Kevin Spacey. Despite the Esquire story, Spacey has kept his private life extremely private throughout his career. Despite the Hollywood truism that "everybody knows" who's gay within entertainment and media circles, Spacey didn't flaunt his "secret" — unless you consider taking your mom to the Academy Awards a kind of declaration. Of course, many close friends knew of Rapp's encounter with the actor in the 1980s, including some of us in the media. But what could be done with that story? There were only two people in the room, they had never met again and no parade of additional accusers was forthcoming — so, right or wrong, we told ourselves we could not report it. In keeping with The Advocate's "no outing" policy, when Rapp related the entire incident to writer Dennis Hensley in 2001, we removed Spacey's name and identifying details. Rapp understood the decision, and he didn't share the story again via the news media until now. Why now? That's an easy one. The Harvey Weinstein scandal and the resulting opening up of the media to legitimate accusations of unwanted sexual advances changed the rules, and Rapp felt compelled to share his story again, this time with names and dates. His decision was not "to simply air a grievance," he told BuzzFeed, "but to try to shine another light on the decades of behavior that have been allowed to continue because many people, including myself, being silent. … I'm feeling really awake to the moment that we're living in, and I'm hopeful that this can make a difference." It's a hope shared by many. The media's willingness now to report on behavior it long made excuses to avoid (and I don't exclude myself from that) is one thing. The real victory will be when the behavior itself is stopped, even behind the closed doors of hotel rooms and New York bedrooms like Spacey's. In a statement clearly prepared in advance — he knew the story was coming — Spacey said the account "encouraged me to address other things about my life," alluding to "other stories out there about me." He asserted simply, "I now choose to live as a gay man." As he asserted in his Twitter statement, Spacey may well not recall the encounter Rapp describes. It was more than 30 years ago, and Rapp says Spacey was drunk at the time. Whether what happened to Rapp was a singular mistake or a pattern of behavior may come to light in time, along with those "other stories" to which Spacey alluded. The result all these revelations, and the decades of back story about what is told and what is withheld, both in Spacey's case and in Weinstein's and in so many others, should be a moral reckoning for the media. It reaches well beyond sexual misconduct. When immoral behavior of any kind is known to reporters and editors, what is our responsibility to "out" that behavior? Clearly we have long erred, in certain cases, on the side of withholding until the evidence is irrefutable. That's not a sustainable standard. What Rapp's revelation and Spacey's response prove is that even one person, with the story of one night, can make a difference. I will long ponder what we didn't do in 2001, I hope with concrete results about what we can do in 2017. -- Bruce Steele is the planning editor at the Asheville Citizen-Times, where this piece first appeared.

The sixth season of “House of Cards” will be its last. The news, first reported Monday by TVLine, comes amid an allegation of sexual misconduct by star Kevin Spacey. The final season of the Emmy Award-winning Netflix political drama will premiere in 2018, according to TVLine. A Netflix spokeswoman confirmed the news of the show coming to an end... Netflix and TV studio Media Rights Capital said in a joint statement on Monday that they are "deeply troubled by last night’s news concerning Kevin Spacey." In response to the revelations from Rapp, the companies said, "executives from both of our companies arrived in Baltimore this afternoon to meet with our cast and crew to ensure that they continue to feel safe and supported. As previously scheduled, Kevin Spacey is not working on set at this time.” Source: thehill.com, 3:54pm, 10/30/17

"I'm sorry, Mr. Spacey, but your application to join the gay community at this time has been denied." — Dan Savage

"Men who improperly harass or assault do not do so because they are gay or straight — that is a deflection." — George Takei

"I am sorry that Kevin only saw fit to acknowledge his truth when he thought it would serve him -- just as his denial served him for so many years." -- Zachary Quinto

Nothing I have written this morning about Kevin Spacey comes close to making him look as bad as he has made himself look.

Amen to that! Seriously!!?? What a lot to expect of Anthony Rapp. And why? To "protect" Spacey from something he has no reason to want to protect him from? And at what risk? Perhaps to expose himself to the suggestion that he wanted to blackmail Spacey? Good to hear, because you've sure given that impression.

There's an article in the October 27 edition of The New Yorker that focuses on speaking out, years later, against sexual misconduct/assault. It's specifically about Weinstein, but more broadly insightful for understanding why victims may be reluctant to come forward. Here's a link to it: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/weighing-the-costs-of-speaking-out-about-harvey-weinstein

And you, krkwood, don't be so dismissive ... Again: no denial from Spacey ... instead, the age-old excuse: "inappropriate drunken behavior." Is it all hysteria? Or just this particular accusation?

Are you suggesting that there should be a statute of limitations on speech? Or that we should disregard the many accusations against Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein that happened beyond the scope of any legal statute of limitations? Did you hear Spacey suggest that he had been libeled or slandered? Or even deny the accusation?

Yep. And how unfortunate that they -- and the rest of us -- didn't get the official word from Spacey under different circumstances. Because if he was going to come out from under his own rock, it would have been so much better to have the headline be about a two-time Oscar winner proudly sharing the fact that he is also a gay man. But instead ... Spacey makes a statement that plays right into the thinking of homophobes and to their long history of raising the specters of pedophilia or predation whenever gay men get a little too "tolerated" for their comfort. So, this morning, some idiot who thinks less of you or me because we're gay, can turn to some other idiot and say, "You see, our kids aren't safe around them."

http://78.media.tumblr.com/2168e3a0490f4519ec32d703af43c97f/tumblr_ngp28yzm5T1rlpicfo1_500.jpg

From The San Francisco Examiner, within the hour ... A swarm of wildfires ripped through the North Bay on Monday, killing one resident, injuring scores of others, destroying hundreds of homes and businesses, and forcing tens of thousands to flee. The blazes turned wide swaths of the Wine Country into wastelands of twisted metal and ash as firefighters sought to contain flames super-charged by powerful winds. California Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency for Napa and Sonoma as well as fire-struck Yuba County, seeking to streamline aid for firefighting and recovery. He said the blazes, which blanketed much of the Bay Area in smoke, were “really serious,” but added, “We are on it.” Chief Ken Pimlott of Cal Fire said at least 1,500 homes and commercial facilities had been destroyed in 14 fires now burning in eight Northern California counties. He said firefighters had “limited or no containment” on the fires, and that many communities “were just overrun.” More than 100 people were treated for injuries, including burns and smoke inhalation, at hospitals in Napa and Sonoma counties. Two patients with severe burns were in critical condition at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, officials said.