LuLa - on a one way ticket to nowhere

[pegelli]

The "findings" are that you stamped your foot at exactly the right moment.

Where did you get I stamped my foot? You got that wrong Russ. I just laughed out loud at the folly of this discussion (on both sides) 

Btw, I fully agree with Rob, Slobodan and you on the core of the matter, I just am less vocal against people who have a different opinion on it.
Life's too short to get mad about it and arguments like "yours is bigger then mine" (or the reverse) never lead anywhere.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I photograph women too..

Do show us, please.

[Manoli]

I think it's fascinating hearing how sexually oppressed and put-upon women are, and how they're simply unable to fight back and nail their oppressors. . . guys like the gymnast doctor and Weinstein (and those nasty fashion photographers), all of whom should have been arrested early in their careers, and would have been had the women they oppressed raised hell and gone to the cops. . .

... and there, in full view, is the moral turpitude and, as Andrew Molitor accurately described it, 'normalising glibness'.
The women DID, 'twas the US gymnastics governing body that not only suppressed the reports, but threatened some of the gymnasts too.

Sexual assault under the guise of medical treatment, plain and simple.
The entire board of USA Gymnastics has subsequently resigned, complying with the order of the USOC.
There may well be further criminal charges.
The US House of Representatives, the Senate, the Department of Education and the USOC have all announced further investigations.

[Rob C]

... and there, in full view, is the moral turpitude and, as Andrew Molitor accurately described it, 'normalising glibness'.
The women DID, 'twas the US gymnastics governing body that not only suppressed the reports, but threatened some of the gymnasts too.

Sexual assault under the guise of medical treatment, plain and simple.
The entire board of USA Gymnastics has subsequently resigned, complying with the order of the USOC.
There may well be further criminal charges.
The US House of Representatives, the Senate, the Department of Education and the USOC have all announced further investigations.

But where, in all of that, features photography, modelling and acting or even showbiz as a whole?

To the fact that abuse of kids, patients and/or anybody else is "an undesirable thing" there seems to be no argument here at all. Where there is argument is when that logic is seamlessly transported into a situation where different rules have and always will apply, for one simple reason: the "victim" has always been free to get up and walk out of the situation. If she or he chooses not to do that, decides it's in his or her best interest to play along, then there really is no case to contest. It is a choice.

Now, let nobody muddy the clarity of this by introducing rape. That denies the victim the opportunity to choose the option of flight, and is a different thing entirely.

But you know what? As has been pointed out, this will run in circles as long as folks want to be blind and/or prepared to chop and change paragraphs and relocate sentences to suit their arguments.

It is simply a waste of my time to continue. I leave it to others now to play on: they have all had time to learn the new rules of debate.

[amolitor]

Rob, you seem to think  coercion falls into two distinct camps. Let us suppose that I have a lovely in a small room with me, which lovely I propose to have some sort  of physical encounter with. I could communicate, verbally or non-verbally, a variety of things:

- If you attempt to leave, I will shoot you and your family
- If you attempt to leave, I will punch you in the face
- If you attempt to leave, I will destroy your career
- If you attempt to leave, I will make it more difficult for you to get the good gigs
- If you attempt to leave, this gig is over and you will not be paid
- If you attempt to leave, I will be very upset and sad, why do you want to HURT me?!!!
- If you attempt to leave, I will do nothing whatsoever, no harm, no foul

Everything except the last one is coercive to one degree or another. Even in the first case, the young lovely could certainly make a break for the door and see what happens. It's not even that there is a line somewhere in here between rape/not-rape, the whole damn scenario is lines.

ETA: And, notably, the young lovely has a choice in every scenario.

Chuck in there a few other possibles, like maybe the young lovely is 14 years old, or she barely speaks english, or perhaps we've been doing what *I* think is flirting like mad for the last three days, but what *she* thinks is just being polite to the photographer? Or vice versa?

These are infernally complicated situations, and to pretend that it's simple is flat-out insulting to everyone. The possibilities for horrendous missteps and horrendous abuse are rife. Given that we're often talking about vulnerable young women (young, under-educated, wildly eager for success) and older wiser staff, it's pretty clear that it's incumbent on the older and wiser staff to a) keep their pants zipped up and b) watch out for the kids.

You may have thought of it as just a bunch of pros working together in a sexually exciting environment. But realistically, it also has a lot in common with a high school full of beautiful girls and male teachers.

It's patently clear that there are plenty of fellows who neither watched out for the kids, nor kept their pants zipped up. They were bad, bad, teachers.

[RSL]

The women DID, 'twas the US gymnastics governing body that not only suppressed the reports, but threatened some of the gymnasts too.

No kidding, Manoli? So you're saying the women went to the cops with this and the US gymnastics governing body suppressed the reports? Golly. How could they do that? What did they do, bribe the DA or the police?

[Manoli]

To the fact that abuse of kids, patients and/or anybody else is "an undesirable thing" there seems to be no argument here at all.

The issue is in your choice of words. No, it's not just 'an undesirable thing' - it's a criminal act.

... for one simple reason: the "victim" has always been free to get up and walk out of the situation. If she or he chooses not to do that, decides it's in his or her best interest to play along, then there really is no case to contest. It is a choice.

... except when it's not. And again, that they didn't, has no relevance as to whether or not it was a criminal act

--

Rob,

Before you go - I'm sure that you mean well, but it's plainly evident that the first-hand experiences you speak of are of another era. Times change, laws with them. The world of pro fashion photography has changed with it.

Photographers are no longer the stars, the models are. Photographers survive under the patronage of the top rags. Look at the credits on some of Testino's books and you might twig.

One more thing - when and where was it that you claim you'd worked for Vogue ?

[amolitor]

No,  Russ, they went to the governing body and left with the impression, accurate or not, that if they DID go to the cops that a) their career in gymnastics would be over and that b) it would be jolly touch and go whether they'd get any satisfaction from  the cops.

Or, possibly, they left with the inaccurate impression that justice would be served, internally, and were surprised to learn gradually that it was not to be served.

[Manoli]

No kidding, Manoli? So you're saying the women went to the cops with this and the US gymnastics governing body suppressed the reports? Golly. How could they do that? What did they do, bribe the DA or the police?

Guess you'll need to read your own press, the results of the various investigations and the Senate reports to find out. Were parts of the police complicit ? Dunno - but whether they were or not , doesn't change the culpability of those so far convicted.

[Rob C]

Rob, you seem to think  coercion falls into two distinct camps. Let us suppose that I have a lovely in a small room with me, which lovely I propose to have some sort  of physical encounter with. I could communicate, verbally or non-verbally, a variety of things:

- If you attempt to leave, I will shoot you and your family
- If you attempt to leave, I will punch you in the face
- If you attempt to leave, I will destroy your career
- If you attempt to leave, I will make it more difficult for you to get the good gigs
- If you attempt to leave, this gig is over and you will not be paid
- If you attempt to leave, I will be very upset and sad, why do you want to HURT me?!!!
- If you attempt to leave, I will do nothing whatsoever, no harm, no foul

Everything except the last one is coercive to one degree or another. Even in the first case, the young lovely could certainly make a break for the door and see what happens. It's not even that there is a line somewhere in here between rape/not-rape, the whole damn scenario is lines.

Chuck in there a few other possibles, like maybe the young lovely is 14 years old, or she barely speaks english, or perhaps we've been doing what *I* think is flirting like mad for the last three days, but what *she* thinks is just being polite to the photographer? Or vice versa?

These are infernally complicated situations, and to pretend that it's simple is flat-out insulting to everyone. The possibilities for horrendous missteps and horrendous abuse are rife. Given that we're often talking about vulnerable young women (young, under-educated, wildly eager for success) and older wiser staff, it's pretty clear that it's incumbent on the older and wiser staff to a) keep their pants zipped up and b) watch out for the kids.

You may have thought of it as just a bunch of pros working together in a sexually exciting environment. But realistically, it also has a lot in common with a high school full of beautiful girls and male teachers.

It's patently clear that there are plenty of fellows who neither watched out for the kids, nor kept their pants zipped up. They were bad, bad, teachers.

In spite of my better judgement: yes, I am thinking exclusively of an adult situation and I have never, to the best of my knowledge, employed models under seventeen other than the children of friends of my wife, with the mother or my wife around, for "back to school" pix of blazers and school satchels.

There is no place for thirteen-year-old female models in fashion photography, in my opinion, and using them as thin adults because they have better skin is madness. Messing with any child, in any circumstance, should have you jailed for half of your life, at least, because in those cases, one is speaking of perverts, not men with the hots for real women of the age of consent - or refusal.

Regarding your hypothetical school full of beautiful girls: where is it? I married the only one I ever saw in mine! :-)

Here's a snap to show what a pig I must be regarding the ladies:

[amolitor]

To be honest, Rob, your own testimony suggests that you were absolutely one of those who kept his pants zipped and looked out for the kids, and good for you. I believe you. You never were, nor would have been, part of the problem.

[RSL]

No,  Russ, they went to the governing body and left with the impression, accurate or not, that if they DID go to the cops that a) their career in gymnastics would be over and that b) it would be jolly touch and go whether they'd get any satisfaction from  the cops.

Or, possibly, they left with the inaccurate impression that justice would be served, internally, and were surprised to learn gradually that it was not to be served.

So much for the idea of tough, combat-ready women, eh Andrew? (1) If you're being molested by some cruddy doc it seems to me your career in gymnastics would come in somewhere behind the need to end the molestation. (2) Why would you go to a political agency like the "governing body" with your complaints instead of to the cops? (3) If you complained to the "governing body" and then left with the idea that justice would be served; then discovered (gradually? how does gradual molestation work?) that you're still being molested, why would you ignore the situation and just move on? The whole story is absurd.

[amolitor]

We're talking about children here, Russ. Little kids who have devoted almost literally their entire lives to one fanatical dream. Little kids who have lived under the thumb of a group of adults who hold the keys to this dream.

We're not talking about some guy who might lose his job at a donut shop, and we're not talking about grownups.

Do I expect my 8 year old to go to the police with her problems? No, she comes either to me, to mom, or to a responsible adult at her school. If she goes to the latter first, and if they impress upon her that Terrible Consequences Will Occur if she tells her parents, well, it would be hard for me to get out of her what the trouble was.

And she's 8, not 14, and she's not a fanatic.

To suggest that these children must have not really minded the sexual abuse all THAT much because, at age 14, they would rather suffer abuse than to smash their *entire* *life* into tiny broken pieces is wildly fucking offensive.

Let's try this out, Russ. I'm gonna hold a gun to one of your loved one's heads now "Suck my cock, Russ, or I will blow her fucking head off, but hey, you've got a choice, so it must just be that you love the dick, right? C'mon, big guy, on your knees!"

Are you offended yet? Maybe just a little? Or is this all cool with ya?

[amolitor]

And, yeah,  I expect that was a bit much, and I expect to be moderated in some fashion or another. But Russ is ex-military, and I assume he's heard worse and lived to tell about it.

[BobDavid]

To be honest, Rob, your own testimony suggests that you were absolutely one of those who kept his pants zipped and looked out for the kids, and good for you. I believe you. You never were, nor would have been, part of the problem.

agreed

[RSL]

We're talking about children here, Russ. Little kids who have devoted almost literally their entire lives to one fanatical dream. Little kids who have lived under the thumb of a group of adults who hold the keys to this dream.

We're not talking about some guy who might lose his job at a donut shop, and we're not talking about grownups.

Do I expect my 8 year old to go to the police with her problems? No, she comes either to me, to mom, or to a responsible adult at her school. If she goes to the latter first, and if they impress upon her that Terrible Consequences Will Occur if she tells her parents, well, it would be hard for me to get out of her what the trouble was.

And she's 8, not 14, and she's not a fanatic.

To suggest that these children must have not really minded the sexual abuse all THAT much because, at age 14, they would rather suffer abuse than to smash their *entire* *life* into tiny broken pieces is wildly fucking offensive.

Let's try this out, Russ. I'm gonna hold a gun to one of your loved one's heads now "Suck my cock, Russ, or I will blow her fucking head off, but hey, you've got a choice, so it must just be that you love the dick, right? C'mon, big guy, on your knees!"

Are you offended yet? Maybe just a little? Or is this all cool with ya?

Really? How old were these children? Teenagers? Can you imagine what would happen if these creeps tried this stuff on a few teenage boys? I have four sons and I know exactly what would have happened in that case. The creeps would have been lucky to have survived. You mean to tell me these kids were so driven that they didn't tell their folks about this, as you put it, gradual molestation (whatever that is)? And are you telling me their folks were just hunky-dory with it because their "careers" as gymnasts were too important to bother about some minor thing like molestation?

Oh. Okay. You're telling me that if your eight-year-old gymnast went to the school authorities about molestation and they threatened her she wouldn't tell you about it? Wow! That's quite a family situation.

And if you were to try to raise a gun to one of my kids or grandkids or great-grandkids for any reason, I'd blow your head off before you could get the gun up.

These "children" aren't that young, and if the adults around them aren't protecting them from the kind of crap we're hearing about, then there's something terribly wrong with their parents and the other adults involved. And the Olympic committee. Actually, when it comes to the Olympic committee there's plenty wrong, but that's a different subject.

[amolitor]

Yes, precisely! There's something very wrong with the Olympic Committee! We agree. They
should bloody well all hang. And it's perfectly possible there are some seriously bad parents involved
as well. I think  you could argue that permitting your child to compete in Olympic level gymnastics
at all is horrible parenting, even absent sexual abuse by doctors.

These girls are world champions at ages like 16, they're in the system starting WELL before that. The Olympic doctor
was (allegedly, if you like, but there is a conviction on file) abusing these girls at around age 15. Children. Fanatics.

No need to use masculine bluster on me, You know perfectly well I pose precisely no threat to you or to yours,
for lots of reasons. The point is, I hope, clear.

The presence of a choice does not make it OK. If I offer you a terrible choice, that does not make the result your fault.

[amolitor]

And, to be blunt, we know exactly what happens when people try this sort of thing out on teenaged boys, thanks to the tender mercies of the Catholic Church. And it's not terribly pretty.

People in positions of power will offer pretty unpleasant choices in their search for sexual gratification, sometimes, and that doesn't always mean that it's the victim's fault.

[LesPalenik]

So much for the idea of tough, combat-ready women, eh Andrew? (1) If you're being molested by some cruddy doc it seems to me your career in gymnastics would come in somewhere behind the need to end the molestation. (2) Why would you go to a political agency like the "governing body" with your complaints instead of to the cops? (3) If you complained to the "governing body" and then left with the idea that justice would be served; then discovered (gradually? how does gradual molestation work?) that you're still being molested, why would you ignore the situation and just move on? The whole story is absurd.

It's one thing if the male photographer and female model mutually agree on some extracurricular activities, and a completely different thing if the male boss in any occupation presses a woman against her will into something she'd rather not do.
 
I don't know the US Army statistics, but here are some from Canada:
Canadian Military Police have received between 134 and 201 sexual assault complaints every year since the year 2000, averaging to 178 per year. It has been further reported that one-in-thirteen women in the Canadian Forces has been sexually assaulted in connection with their military employment. According to Vice Magazine, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets is "plagued with sexual abuse allegations".

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/canadas-first-female-infantry-officer-breaks-silence-on-abuse/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-almost-twice-as-likely-to-be-sexually-assaulted-statistics-canada-says/article33066760/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/third-sexual-abuse-class-action-suit-in-works-against-canadian-military/article33256676/

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the Royal Canadian Army Cadets is "plagued with sexual abuse allegations"...

Ohm my! And all that in the liberal paradise!?