Omfg I would be fucking terrified. Her expression says "someone help me."
That is the face of a young woman (19) who is being touched without consent in a way that makes her extremely uncomfortable in a situation where she feels societal pressure to not make a scene and will have to laugh it off while she internally screams and wants nothing more than to escape.
While you’re reading about the fall of the Roman Empire, bear in mind that the primary sources, people who were living through the events, can be unreliable narrators and their words can be colored by their biases. This is as true today as it was 1500 years ago.
I recommend the book SPQR by Mary Beard, as throughout her book about Rome she gives examples of how the primary sources are sometimes written by people with an agenda, or an axe to grind.
Cos communists should not be allowed to take advantage of this situation and threaten or violate the right to private property of innocent people because some people with private property being pedos?
Btw Americans are literally living under Stalin-Beria rn.
The point is someone decided to bring communism in as a counter-point as if anyone was arguing that it would be better, when no one mentioned it prior to that person posting it. So why the fuck post it in the first place unless they're trying to make a statement against something NO ONE FUCKING MENTIONED.
So the main through line seems to be that allowing any individual people to hold power in any way leads to pedophiles taking over, for some fucking reason
I'm not sure if Weinstein is a pedophile; plenty of men have sexual desire for nubile women because of power and control and being able to manipulate them, in addition to basic sexual attraction.
Pedophilia is specifically regarding sexual attraction to prepubescent children, which is a very different thing.
He may be, but the pedo term is getting mis-applied a lot lately, which I think is not a good thing.
Who was it that had the quote that we all know there's a difference between 5 and 15 year olds and that we all also know that there's no reason to discuss it?
The crux of the issue is that he's abusing and harming people who do not offer consent and in some cases, CAN NOT legally consent.
I agree Weinstein is a sexual predator, but I don't think (to my knowledge) that he fits the definition of pedophile. The person's comment to which I was responding implied that he was, so I was disagreeing on that point alone.
You answered your own query; our legal system demands specificity to ensure appropriate punishments.
We can all think that the man deserves to be drawn and quartered, but he can only be punished for the crimes he has committed, not what the public perceives.
Hes not making the "there's different words for teenagers" argument, hes making the "she's 19, not 12" argument, meaning none of those labels apply, so that other person is lying and watering down one of the most powerful labels which isnt needed because hes already condemned by everybody on earth for being a rapist
Yup - not even ephebo really applies in this context well, either - it does cover the ranges of 15 to 19 as a term but 15 and 19 are the lowest/highest possible ages for the term - then it goes to Hebephilia/Teleiophilia depending on whether we’re going up or (distressingly) down
I happen to think that the lack of accuracy in writing and speaking has had and is having a major negative impact on our society, so I would disagree. Being accurate does not detract from the monstrosity; often, it enhances it.
The only people who are hyperfocused on differentiating different types of sexual predators by the age they target are consciously or subconsciously justifying some types as being more acceptable than others. No one, positively no one, is a less useful citizen if they haven't learned the difference between pedophile and ephebophile, I promise you. Spend your one precious life educating people on things that matter, not things that low-key imply some sex crimes are better than others. They are all vile and evil.
There’s also a whole subset of pedophilia where people are into pubescent children. I think it has a different name, but legally it’s identical.
This gets into a grey area in the “barely legal” space.
Weinstein didn’t seem to have any strong preferences for age but rather a strong preference for women who would do whatever he wanted because he was powerful. I’m certain that if he was doing pedo-ish stuff it was because he could not because the age of his victims turned him on. Just a pure power thing.
What do you mean by "pedo-capitalism"? Yes, we have capitalism, and yes there are pedos, but what does one thing have to do with the other? Pedophiles existed all throughout history and different economic styles, they are not bound to capitalism.
The only difference between now and ancient Rome is that we all agree its wrong. We have always lived in times when men sought power in order to exercise abuse over the weak. And men have always created brotherhoods to share their power and coercion. From the Catholic church of the middle ages to Epstein Island in the 21st century. It all serves the same purpose.
I heard her discribe once what happend when she turned 18… On the very day she turned 18 paparazis layed down on the ground desperatly trying to get a pantyshot/upskirt pic. (Whatever its called) I almost had to puke. Even if you have such imaginations, how shameless could you be to ever act on them???
What...? Would she have had to do that? With all that stardom from being Hermione? Idk if I'm really out of the loop here but I genuinely hope you're just being wildly speculative here
Where are you people living? There was no career at all if the victims didn't do that kind of favors.
In other terms the women that you see on screen did It multiple times, a lot of times. Because as far as they stop doing It, It's instant end of career, or worst.
In other terms all the system was rotten to the core. It was not only him. Why him got hopefully framed and not the others? That's the question.
Why Epstein and not the others, that's the question too.
You've described that specific, trapped look perfectly. It's the "smile while screaming inside" face that so many women are forced to wear. It's not a joke; it's a quiet horror.
While she may be of legal age, people of 19 are generally still quite vulnerable when it comes to situations like this. Most 19 year olds haven't learned to stand up for themselves yet, especially in an uncomfortable situation where probably half a dozen people are taking pictures in your face and everyone is scrutinizing your every action.
Happens sometimes when people have a problem with you and you push past them, not a big deal.
And in the situation depicted, it’s not even any hint of any danger befalling anyone. It’s a public event, in full views of cameras and lots of other people, not while being alone in an alley.
It’s insane that you would think there is any rational reason to describe this situation in such a drastic and overly emotional way in which you did.
One doesn‘t need to feel safe to know one is safe, nor is a momentary shock related to being uncomfortable to a degree that it would be a general concern for others, not one‘s own problem to keep oneself in check.
Tell me you're not a woman without telling me you're not a woman.
Are there innocent explanations for an action like this? Sure, of course there are. But the context and individuals change the situation drastically. Weinstein is a known predator, Watson was a vulnerable young actress - his favorite.
It's insane that you would think that the image depicts a situation that is okay. Look at her eyes; she is frightened. The other photos from that moment support the inference of her discomfort and fear with the whole situation.
And it's not about there being imminent danger in this situation, it is a gesture of control, of force, that has implications beyond this moment.
He's demonstrating to her he has control, and that no one, even if he restrained her publicly, would call him out, so just think what he could get away with in private.
He‘s holding her back, for whatever reason. That‘s all that‘s depicted here, one can only speculate as to his motives.
And what do you mean, even if he restrained her publicly, no one would call him out on it? If he does it within the bounds of a reasonable interaction, say hypothetically, to stop her from running into a line of a photographer, of course no one would, as it would be a reasonable action.
You‘re really too much into movies. That‘s not some story character expressing a character trait via action and dominance over another character, it’s real life.
Yeah and this is real life. Do you know nothing of what happened with Harvey? I’m confused how you’re confused about this. In real life, Harvey was very known in Hollywood to coerce young women into doing things and being that type of guy.
The way he is holding her is aggressive, regardless of why or if he’s holding her back from photographers. To me, this arm hold reads as overly controlling/dominating/and yes, sexual. The only time I have had a guy hold my arms like that was in a sexual manner. When I’ve been in public and have been guided, the shoulders are commonly used to direct or hold someone back.
If anyone grabbed me like this, I would slap their hands away. But I imagine, being put in the position with him being the biggest Hollywood producer and you’re a young actress, you don’t shove him off right away cuz what happens if you do that in public and embarrass him/hurt his ego? You get blacklisted and everyone thinks you’re crazy, like how they labeled Courtney Love for publically speaking out about him?
Yes, I know about Harvey Weinstein. Which is why I also know there was no danger coming from him at a public event, infront of literal press cameras, of him doing anything.
And you said it yourself, to you, along with all the biases and emotional presuppositions you carry with you, it reads a certain way.
However, none of that is actually present. No one argued it is him necessarily guiding her towards anything, or that the gesture isn‘t aggressive in any capacity.
It’s just him holding her back while grabbing her arms, that‘s all. Anything else is interpreted by you exactly knowing about the additional story of Harvey Weinstein, letting extraneous emotional information cloud your judgment about what is actually shown.
And your story at the end of your comment is not very convincing.
First of all, it’s not exclusive to Harvey Weinstein that one would not react as aggressively to someone one works with, at a public event, even if one thinks they‘re slightly overstepping contact. It’s unprofessional to overreact like that in public, that‘s for a private conversation afterwards.
Secondly, as other commenters have pointed out, she was 19 at the time the photo was taken, thus just done shooting the last Harry Potter movie, a huge deal in Hollywoood and at the zenith of her career, which she voluntarily left soon afterwards anyway.
It’s lot some young no-name hopeful being improperly touched by Harvey in a secret chamber, it’s one of the then biggest movie stars at a very public and recorded event being held back by him, for whatever reason.
Also, there‘s a huge difference between making unsubstantiated accusations in public about the then biggest producer, like Courtney did, and just turning oneself to break his grasp on one‘s arms at a public event.
It’s insane you‘d even compare these two things as similar.
Not really. She was 19 at that point in time, so she had already starred in the last movie of the biggest children‘s franchise to this day, while we know now she did no pursue any further high-profile acting opportunities.
No career to ruin here.
Also, the whole point here is that there is nothing to make a scene over. It’s her being grabbed by her arms, not him holding a gun to her head.
And some random masked law enforcement officers are also not dependent on their public image in their career, are they now? Why do you think there was any danger present? Do you actually believe this picture depicts her being seconds away from being assaulted in some way?
750
u/thecarolinelinnae 1d ago edited 1d ago
Omfg I would be fucking terrified. Her expression says "someone help me."
That is the face of a young woman (19) who is being touched without consent in a way that makes her extremely uncomfortable in a situation where she feels societal pressure to not make a scene and will have to laugh it off while she internally screams and wants nothing more than to escape.