January 14, 2020

"You can’t just have it both ways and say, ‘I should be able to do whatever I want without consequences. I should put myself in any situation I want and play victim.'"

"Having voluntary sex with someone even if it is a begrudging act is not a crime after the fact. What happens with #BelieveAllWomen is that we’re just supposed to believe you without any pushback, or questioning, or cross-examination. I think that’s dangerous.... Yes, [Harvey Weinstein is] a powerful guy. But I think that because he’s a powerful guy, they would use him and use him and use him for anything they could."

Said Donna Rotunno, quoted in "She’s Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyer, and She Thinks #MeToo Is ‘Dangerous’/'We can’t have movements that strip us of our fundamental rights,' said Donna Rotunno, who has faced criticism from feminists" (NYT).

91 comments:

MayBee said...

I don't know what Harvey did or didn't do, but in general she is right.

MayBee said...

My husband and I watched Dateline the other night- it was a story about a rape and murder about 20 years ago. It took decades to find the man who did it. But the interesting thing wrt this story is the number of leads the police got from women who were going through bad divorces or breakups who called to tell the police that their husband/boyfriend surely did it.

People are complicated- both women and men. We can't pretend some men aren't rapists. And we can't pretend some women won't use sex to get what they want, or false accusations to get what they want.

David Begley said...

The feminists are idiots and wrong. Harvey’s lawyer is doing what she supposed to do and is required both by the Constitution and the rules of professional responsibility.

rehajm said...

She seems like the lawyer for the job.

Amexpat said...

Looks like HW hired a very good lawyer.

Kevin said...

We can’t have movements that strip us of our fundamental rights

If only!

Iconochasm said...

"But I think that because he’s a powerful guy, they would use him and use him and use him for anything they could."

My impression is that many of Weinstein's accusers are less victims, than over-paid prostitutes who developed a sense of regret years down the line. I suspect the true victims are all the women who came after them, pressured into the same decisions in part because their forbears went along with it. And even more than them, all the talented young women who never became movie stars at all because they had too much self-respect to let that pig rut on them for a role.

Darrell said...

Having voluntary sex with someone even if it is a begrudging act is not a crime after the fact.

It's the "voluntary" part that is in dispute, of course. But carry on . . .

gilbar said...

#BelieveAllWomen

Juanita Broaddrick?
Leslie Millwee?
Paula Jones ?
Kathleen Willey ?
Monica Lewinsky?
Linda Tripp?
Gennifer Flowers?
all those other trailer park ho's that had $100 bills drug across them?

Big Mike said...

The lawyer is wrong. Women have weak minds and weak wills and cannot be trusted to reason properly about when and where to share their bodies with men. Is this not the feminist message here in the 21st century?

_________
* My wife, who breezed through Quantum Mechanics and other graduate-level physics courses back in graduate school, is a notable exception.

Michael K said...

Hollywood invented the "casting couch" before these women's grandparents were born.

Weinstein is just very ugly and very perverted. Sam Goldwyn was too.

William said...

Harvey seems to have encountered an enormous number of lying and resentful women during his career. What bad luck.

gilbar said...

Darrell said...
It's the "voluntary" part that is in dispute, of course. But carry on . . .


Not with Harvey* it wasn't. Chix said that they were told:
"If you let me do you, you'll get the part"

That's not rape, it's sexual harassment


Not with Harvey* LATER, some gals embellished their stories, saying that THEN he forced them; but that was AFTER the Pound Me Too! movement had started

Otto said...

Intersection of whorism and feminism

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Doesn't she realize that men don't have rights, only responsibilities?

Gahrie said...

Harvey seems to have encountered an enormous number of lying and resentful women during his career. What bad luck.

Perhaps not. The Left seem to have a rather large supply of lying and resentful women.

Hunter said...

I used her she used me
But neither one cared
We were getting our share

JAORE said...

Well I wonder about Harvey's guilt.

But not that damn Justice Kavennaugh! Open and shut case. Clear evidence. Unimpeachable, sincere witnesses, even if they were not there....

Wait, when did I drift into the topic of impeachment.

tim in vermont said...

I wish I didn’t know now, what I didn’t know then

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Iconocasm

"overpaid prostitutes"

It's nice to see that in a world that changes so rapidly and so fast, some professions - like acting - haven't changed much at all.

tim in vermont said...

"That's not rape, it's sexual harassment “

It’s solicitation of prostitution. It’s like the old joke

“Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?”
“Sure”
“What about $100?”
“What do you think I am!”
“We have already established that, now we are dickering over the price.”

Dollar amounts adjusted to reflect inflation since I heard it.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Not news. People with enough sense to come in from the rain have always seen the transactional nature of both men and women using sex to get what they want.

Ask yourself, how often is sex between willing adults __not__ transactional in some way? Think about it. Even “semi-willing” where the initial “no no no” turns into “yes yes YES”. Do people regret it later sometimes, well of course they do! Every person on the planet probably has multiple such stories, men and women.

Sex is complicated. Emotions and hormones and yes, sometimes, power and influence are running the show. Pretty much everybody knows that — this idea that the ethics and emotions and power calculations, in the heat of the moment, between two individuals, in a private setting, are so obviously and clearly apparent to outsiders after the fact is pure 100% crazy talk.

Even the participants cannot be trusted to remember facts and events clearly!

tim in vermont said...

"some professions - like acting - haven't changed much at all.”

The movie Moulan Rouge is based on a plan to whore the beautiful star to a rich count in 19th century Paris to fund the production of a show. Didn’t hear a peep about the plot of that movie. Actresses have always been seen as low company, but were sometimes allowed into high society on account of their extreme good looks. Harry would have been well advised to consider that reality.

The Drill SGT said...

Harvey is a pig. Is he a criminal pig? Likely, but it's for a jury to decide...

Jeff Brokaw said...

Our memories lie to us ALL the time. Start there and then unwind #MeToo from the beginning.

We base criminal prosecutions on that hot mess.

This is not to say that unreasonable coercion and actual rape never happens, obviously it does and nobody worth listening to is questioning that. But memories are absolutely not reliable as a way to understand what happened.

rhhardin said...

People are really hard on Harvey. He's a serial pig because women throw themselves at him. Huge opportunity. What other male has to be virtuous in the face of that. Not many.

He's also talented, to judge by the movies he put out.

It's a two-minutes hate thing.

Learn to recognize mob hysteria.

rhhardin said...

Women don't have memories, strictly speaking.

Cassandra said...

The problem I continue to have with feminism is that so much of what passes for it boils down to wanting women (but not men) to have it both ways.

I should be able to drink to the point of incapacity (but everyone around me had better stay sober enough to judge whether I really meant to consent or not).

I should be eligible for the combat specialties in the armed forces (whether or not I can meet the standards applied to men - many of whom try and fail). If fewer women than men meet the current standard, the standard is irrelevant/sexist and should be lowered.

I should be able to work fewer hours on average than men, not negotiate for more money, and gravitate to careers with lower avg. salaries and get the same compensation as men who work longer hours, quit/decline jobs if they don't get the pay they want, and avoid low pay/low status occupations.

If I get pregnant (an outcome I actually have some control over!) I can unilaterally decide to end the pregnancy. My partner (who actually has some control over whether I get pregnant, though it is less direct/effective) has no say in this whatsoever.

Life's not fair. Women and men face different challenges but also have different options and advantages. Making the rules manifestly "unfair" will never level that particular playing field. All it does is make the sexes hostile to/resentful of each other.

tim in vermont said...

It’s true that the vast majority of men would melt at the first Hollywood beautiful woman who winked at them. Throw in the fact that they were stroking his artistic ego as well as his johnson, and he would have to be gay to resist. Of course a gay man in his position would have other supplicants for his favor.

Lucid-Ideas said...

In the English tradition, it was during the Glorious Revolution (return of Charles II) that women were given the right to act on stage with men. Now even before this, when only men could act on stage (including playing womens' roles), it was automatically assumed that actors and anyone within the profession were prostitutes. This extended further back into the days of minstrelsy and courtly ballads. In other words, the historical categories dividing different types of 'entertainment' did not exist, and if you were an entertainer, it was meant to be assumed you did it all.

This extends to other stage traditions as well, for instance China and East Asia, going even further back. There is also a documented link to dance and stage performance in the ancient middle-east with temple ritual and sacred prostitution.

People that act are whores. They always have been. They get paid to play dress-up and act on stage trying to make believable what other people actually did in real life. I don't know how the hell these people became the pseudo-royalty (or in the case of Markle actual royalty...) they are today.

CJinPA said...

I'd love to hear from a broader spectrum of women on this. Women with a financial/professional incentive to lie in service of The Narrative - writers, activists, etc. - dominate the discussion.

Most women have a more nuanced view of things like this and modern feminism in general. No one really speaks for the majority.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Oh dear, criticism from feminists! They write that like it’s some nasty fate. You know how you foster a civil society? You tell the scolds and the school marms to fuck off at every opportunity. Criticism should be thoughtful, not reflexive.

mccullough said...

His lawyer is smart. She got her money up front. Bring a plant to the trial so Harvey can jerk off on it.

mockturtle said...

Maybee declares: I don't know what Harvey did or didn't do, but in general she is right.

Agree.

Rory said...

The message of metoo can only be that you have to report incidents when they occur.

tim maguire said...

It's a private matter if Weinstein used his position to offer career benefits for having sex with him. If some women took him up on his offer, good for him. If there were punishments for not having sex with him (e.g., Minnie Driver), then he's a jerk who deserves social ostracization (which he did not get until Hollywood couldn't protect him anymore).

But aren't there a handful of rape accusations mixed in?

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Aunty Trump said...

Actresses have always been seen as low company, but were sometimes allowed into high society on account of their extreme good looks.

Ladies and gentlemen, here's Meghan Markle...

readering said...

This case is not about casting couch.

rcocean said...

lot of odd Harvey wein-pig love in the comments. Using your power to force women to watch you masturbate or have sex with them, is called sexual harassment. Its against the law. Further, retaliating against someone for not fucking you, by denying them work, is also against the law. Physically forcing yourself on someone through unwanted touching or physical force is sexual assault, and can be rape.

Wein-pig is accused of all of this. It wasn't just "Hey baby, I'll give you a part, if you watch me masturbate into a plant".

hombre said...

“If you do me, you will be in the running for Hollywood Softcore Porn Queen.”

This appears to be a question of breach of contract. What is it doing in criminal court?

tim maguire said...

Aunty Trump said...It’s true that the vast majority of men would melt at the first Hollywood beautiful woman who winked at them. Throw in the fact that they were stroking his artistic ego as well as his johnson, and he would have to be gay to resist.

How did, "if you have sex with me, you'll be in this movie. If you don't have sex with me, you'll never be in any movie" become, "they threw themselves at him. He's only human!"

rcocean said...

Katherine Hepburn stated she had sex, an affair, with Howard Hughes to get funding for Philadelphia story. She also stated she enjoyed the sex. This is an exchange of favors that RH is always talking about.

This is rare in Hollywood. Usually its just some ugly studio exec, sexually assaulting an actress, and she says nothing because she doesn't want her career ruined.

Levi Starks said...

Assuming he’s paying attention, Bill Clinton is adding her number to his speed dial.

hombre said...

‘How did, "if you have sex with me, you'll be in this movie. If you don't have sex with me, you'll never be in any movie" become, "they threw themselves at him. He's only human!“‘

When was it established that Dirty Harvey had an industry-wide blackball?

frenchy said...

Harvey seems to have encountered an enormous number of lying and resentful women during his career. What bad luck.

It's the bane of very rich and powerful men, and the richer and the more powerful the man is, the greater the attraction to such others. The women initiate the contact and come to him seeking favors, not the other way around. Why do people work so hard and go so far out of their way to not understand this simple dynamic?

SGT Ted said...

It's not so much "Harvey love" as it is, rather, a refusal to take the accusations at face value in all cases. Women accusing men of sex crimes, to get revenge, or to cover up their own embarrassment when the sex became public, is not uncommon at all.

Also, in order to #believeallwomen, you have to ignore the fact that attractive, ambitious women have used sex and sexiness to get what they want throughout time.

Including playing the Doe Eyed "I'm an Innocent Victim of a Cad" card to garner sympathy from other people, especially other males they want to manipulate.

Harvey is most likely a pig, but so are some of the women, who get a pass because they are attractive.

Francisco D said...

Harvey is a pig. Is he a criminal pig? Likely, but it's for a jury to decide...

I have not followed the details of the case enough to know whether Weinstein committed any crimes. He is certainly a detestable pig who used his position to get sexual favors from Hollywood actresses.

Hollywood has no ethical rules in regard to this behavior. Perhaps the rule is that when you are the producer you get what you can get. In that sense, he is following established tradition. It's just that he is such a pig that people are complaining.

There is rough justice in Weinstein being pilloried and taken to trail, but is he guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt?

mockturtle said...

Just quid pro quo. You made a Faustian deal and now want to blame the devil.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Mockturtle Just quid pro quo. You made a Faustian deal and now want to blame the devil.

Exactamundo!

Kevin said...

How long until people start complaining that Harvey's getting a fair trial?

Scott M said...

You know who else faces criticism from feminists?

Everyone ever.

SGT Ted said...

The fact that Harveys lawyer is female is tactical.

Women can say things like "You can’t just have it both ways and say, ‘I should be able to do whatever I want without consequences. I should put myself in any situation I want and play victim.'" where a man cannot without being brigaded by feminists or other women in general.

Greg the class traitor said...

@Iconocasm said it well, but this provides teh capper:

hombre said...
‘How did, "if you have sex with me, you'll be in this movie. If you don't have sex with me, you'll never be in any movie" become, "they threw themselves at him. He's only human!“‘

When was it established that Dirty Harvey had an industry-wide blackball?



It was established that Ashley Judd was in the running for the Elf part that Liv Tyler got in Lord of the Rings. But she refused to have sex with Dirty Harvey, do Harvey told the LotR people that she was "difficult to work with", and they went with Liv Tyler

That sounds like an "industry-wide blackball" to me.

"Have sex with me and I'll give you the job / promotion / raise" is criminal sexual harassment. It is and should be criminal even if the person having sex with you is entirely willing, even eager, to make that trade.

Because it turns the industry into a place where you HAVE to be willing to make that deal, in order to get ahead.

If we, as a society, wish the world to be a place where you don't have to have sex with your boss in order to get a promotion, then it has to be criminal for HW to make that offer. Because whether or not she's in the room, the aspiring actress who won't sleep with the producer to get the role, or who doesn't want to be trapped into a situation where "if you want to be an actress, you have to F the producers", is criminally victimized every time some other woman says "yes", and gets the part.

ColoComment said...

Most of these comments add up to exactly what Trump said, and was castigated for, in the Access Hollywood tape, yes? Women (and men I suppose on the gay side) are attracted to celebrities (esp. those from whom they might derive professional or monetary benefits), be they Hollywood producers, pols with power, or their boss in a commercial enterprise.

It's human nature.

F said...

To add to Lucid-Ideas, we can date the end of women in Japanese theater quite accurately. Between the years 1629 and 1640, the Shogunate issued strict rules prohibiting women from appearing in Noh or Kabuki productions. Why? Because the Shogunate declared that too many women actresses were acting as illegal prostitutes; as opposed to legal prostitutes working in licensed houses. See Sam Leiter’s work on Japanese Traditional Theater. Women were banned from Chinese theater before this date, for the same reason.

SGT Ted said...

The fact that Ashley Judd is a crazy-cakes and actually is difficult to work with is left out.

https://starmagazine.com/videos/ashley-judd-nightmare-work-with-video/

Chuck said...

Setting aside the details of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against self-incrimination for just the moment, I agree with Weinstein’s lawyer that cross examination is the great engine of truth. And that we understand contested case best when all of the principals submit to cross examination.

So; when will Weinstein be cross-examined, ma’am?

n.n said...

Some people believe they can have the baby and abort her, too. With a Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, and liberal ideology, yes, they can, but it's a double-edged scalpel that is a first-order forcing of progressive collateral damage.

Caligula said...

It's been said that an honest politician is one who stays bought. Perhaps an extension of that would be that an honest producer is one who delivers what was promised after accepting the sexual bribe?

Of course, this complicates the #MeToo marrative, as it's not only a crime for a politician to accept a bribe but also to offer one.

How much $MeToo is more "I put out but didn't get what was (perhaps implicitly) promised?" than, "I had no choice"?

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Greg the class traitor said...

It was established that Ashley Judd was in the running for the Elf part that Liv Tyler got in Lord of the Rings. But she refused to have sex with Dirty Harvey, do Harvey told the LotR people that she was "difficult to work with", and they went with Liv Tyler

That sounds like an "industry-wide blackball" to me.


The bat shit craziness that is Ashley Judd has been a known quantity for some time now.

ALP said...

Exactly. These women filed lawsuits - did they expect to be exempt from the primary purpose of a lawsuit - incessant questioning? When people file lawsuits, gathering their legal team - are they that stupid to think the other side isn't doing the same?

But I am a paralegal, although not in this type of law. I see clients bring shit cases to us all the time. The attorney says "this is a shit case" and the client wants to spend the money anyway, thinking they are 'special'.

Greg the class traitor said...

Whether or not Ashley Judd is crazy, and whether or not she would have been a better elf than Liv Tyler, are people seriously trying to claim that Dirty Harvey could NOT kill an actresses career, especially a relatively new one, with a few well chosen comments to potential directors and producers?

It's a job market where there always have been, and probably always will be, far more job applicants than job position.

Which means the people in charge of hiring have a great deal of power and leverage.

So, is "pay for play" sexual harassment a crime? Yes or no?

If "yes", then what HW did was a crime, regardless of whether or not they were "willing", regardless of whether or not HW was an honest politician and stayed bought.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
Just quid pro quo. You made a Faustian deal and now want to blame the devil.

an apropos classic from SNL including jon lovitz as the devil

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/pmgueg2g/lovitz_devil_31_std.mp4

Paul Snively said...

Imagine believing that some actresses voluntarily had sex with Harvey Weinstein in order to get parts, but regretted it later and unjustly accused him, and that academy-award-winner Mira Sorvino was black-listed by Weinstein for turning him down, and Weinstein talked Peter Jackson out of casting her in "The Lord of the Rings," at the same time! Why, it's almost as if it's possible for multiple people involved in interactions to be douchebags!

Sebastian said...

"'We can’t have movements that strip us of our fundamental rights,' said Donna Rotunno, who has faced criticism from feminists"

We can't -- but then again, we can, since all lefty movements ended up stripping us of some fundamental rights (not counting the early Civil Rights Movement as left). As a bonus, some lefty movements also had ways to teach deplorables that the rights they lost were really wrongs, so no harm done. Which made the Gulag such a great institution, according to the Bernie Bro organizer recorded by O'Keefe.

Yancey Ward said...

She should be a fine lawyer. I wonder, though, whether she carries this principle as unyielding, or just for this client. In case, she is completely correct.

tim maguire said...

hombre said...When was it established that Dirty Harvey had an industry-wide blackball?

When Minnie Driver refused to sleep with him and he put the word out that she is "difficult to work with." She went from A-lister to unemployable overnight.

mockturtle said...

Good one, ICTA! Link

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Greg the class traitor said...

Whether or not Ashley Judd is crazy, and whether or not she would have been a better elf than Liv Tyler, are people seriously trying to claim that Dirty Harvey could NOT kill an actresses career, especially a relatively new one, with a few well chosen comments to potential directors and producers?

Apparently not. It looks like she has been consistently working since Harvey nixed her for the LOTR roll.

And it is generally understood in Hollywood that "You'll never work in this town again!" always carries an implied "until we really need you or they fire the current studio management team!".

William said...

Is there any other industry on earth where a man with Harvey's predilections could not just survive, but prosper and thrive? Harvey wouldn't last two weeks at Enron or Boeing, but he was a dominant force in Hollywood for decades....Hollywood is blissfully unaware of how bad this makes them look. Harvey had his victims, but he also had his enablers and partners and women willing to strike a bargain. They far outnumbered the victims.....Once upon a time in Hollywood: Tarantino and Brad Pitt show how they'd handle Charles Manson. They were less demonstrative in their opposition to Harvey. Silence is consent. And still they preach to us.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Um, what Cassandra said. All of it.

Sgt Ted, it's not true that HW's lawyer will get a pass for being female. She's more likely to get the opposite, same as Camille Paglia or Michelle Malkin or (switching from sex to race) every black conservative ever. Men at least have the fallback position that it was only their dicks talking; we have no excuse.

Re: Ashley Judd and LOTR: Trust me, what the movies made of Arwen Undomiel was easily the worst part of the enterprise. Judd ought to be thanking her lucky stars that Tyler got saddled with that part. All slo-mo and cheesy music ... Except when (worse) she gets shoved into the action, as when the Nazgul are chasing Frodo across the fords in the first film. Tolkien's Arwen is, well, problematic in that she is never seen actually doing anything, only quite literally sitting around and looking beautiful. You want a modern Power Woman in LOTR, stick with Eowyn.

Nichevo said...


hombre said...
‘How did, "if you have sex with me, you'll be in this movie. If you don't have sex with me, you'll never be in any movie" become, "they threw themselves at him. He's only human!“‘

When was it established that Dirty Harvey had an industry-wide blackball?

Are we demanding absolute power to harm on the part of HW? Why hasn't Mira Sorvino had a career worthy of her? I take that personal. Mira Sorvino is an actress who even RH would remember if she'd been in anything he saw.

Nichevo said...

But, to be sure, she's ground it out, a bit part in some nothing movie or tv show every year, couple of years, few years, decade, whatever.

Nichevo said...

So, not "industry-wide." But why didn't I have her to enjoy in The Lord of the Rings? Cuz Harvey Weinstein told, ok advised, Peter Jackson not to hire her.

Crazy Jane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FullMoon said...

Well, the good news is, in these days of cellphones that record voice and vid as well as take photos, there will be a lot of evidence to balance out the he said/ she said.

The jury gonna make the difference. Confirmation bias important. Look at comments here about actresses being blackballed who have actually been working steady.

Danno said...

Gilbar said..."all those other trailer park ho's that had $100 bills drug across them?"

I believe Carville said it only took $1 bills in trailer parks.

Danno said...

I stand corrected.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm not saying what Weinstein did is OK. It is wrong on a zillion levels. Maybe illegal...maybe not. However, the casting couch and the culture of Hollywood is not new nor is it a big surprise. Hollywood doesn't have an exclusive on it either.

Everyone has choices in life. No one is entitled to a career. If you are a total innocent, nincompoop, you should not be in that industry at all. You should pray that you have someone to look out for you or to give you better advice.

Preying on people is wrong. It happens all the time.

So.... an actress or actor who goes into that industry with eyes wide open, has no standing to complain that the industry is dirty or claim victim-hood when they have a choice to say NO or to find something else to do. It may be what you want. It may be your dream. You might be the best ever. But if you compromise yourself, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Deal with the Devil indeed.

It is like being a garbage man and then bitching about having to deal with garbage. Deal with it or find another job.

tim in vermont said...

I agree with DBQ entirely.

I was going to add something, but really, what is there more to say. We are human all of us, at bottom, except maybe Hillary.

tim in vermont said...

I see via Insty that people are asking Tarantino about the number of lines he gives actresses? I am reminded of the scene in Amadeus where the emperor claims that there were “too many notes” in his opera. Mozart replies that "there are not too many notes, nor are there too few, but the exact right number of notes!”

The left can’t keep their hands off of art. Art scares them. It’s like another point Insty made recently, that there are 1.5 billion people in China, but no decent bands. Communists don’t just let anybody become an artist, they must be vetted and their work approved before it could be performed.

reader said...

I don’t know which, if any, women are telling the truth. I don’t know which, if any, are lying. Isn’t that what cross-examination is for? We shouldn’t emasculate the process that will (hopefully) get us to the truth.

But since we are supposed to believe the woman maybe some people want the process emasculated.

bagoh20 said...

What's a good reason to have sex with someone? How often is a good reason the real reason?

bagoh20 said...

It seems to me that some actresses are vastly overpaid by the casting couch system. They can get a lifetime of fame and fortune for something they give away for far less most of the time.

The guy with the casting couch should expect a percentage on top of the sex.

bagoh20 said...

These actresses are splooge stooges.

Urban Dictionary
splooge stooge

A female that either likes, or is talked into allowing a male partner to ejaculate inside, or onto various parts of her body.

Bunkypotatohead said...

I don't think that walker he's using is gonna get him an acquittal.

tim in vermont said...

This is why artists are right wing in life, even if they profess to be left wing. I can’t imagine a song writer, for example, really wants to be forced to run their lyrics by a committee before their song can be performed, and yet that’s the world they agitate for.

JAORE said...

" Harvey wouldn't last two weeks at Enron or Boeing", but a couple of decades on NBC News would be no problemo....

rcocean said...

Again, why this defense of harvey wein-pig? Even if he's TECHNICALLY not broken the law, he's scum. Someone who should be shunned and derided by every decent person in the USA.

Yeah, a lot of actresses are scum too. Left-wing, anti-American Whores to be exact. But that doesn't give Wein-pig the right to destroy people's lives, commit sexual assault, blackball women who don't "put out", bribe/pressure local DA's to not prosecute him, or hire ex-Mossad agents to dig up dirt on his accusers. YOu'd think decent people would be outraged at his behavior and instead its, "Oh what about HIS Rights?"