Asia Argento, a #MeToo Leader, Made a Deal With Her Own Accuser

a reply to: Grambler


No, I'm not joking and 11 is a far cry from 17. Him being underage is a byproduct of the state in which he resided. If he was one state over; non-issue.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree, but you have to admit this very well could have been a simple money grab by the kids parents. It doesn't matter if the kid wanted it, he was 17. In almost every place on Earth he is legal ... but in Cali that's breaking the law, and him wanting it or not doesn't matter.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Grambler


No, I'm not joking and 11 is a far cry from 17. Him being underage is a byproduct of the state in which he resided. If he was one state over; non-issue.

The charge of him being underage would not apply; however his claims of being forced into unwanted sex would still apply.

And your claim was if a man has an erection, somehow that means he wanted it.

So why wouldnt that apply to 11 year olds; they too get erections, so that must mean they must hacve been excited and wanted it if they got aroused.

Look this may well be a money grab; I have no idea.

And I dont mind any jokjes beimng made.

I am just pointing out that there is a double standard when it comes to men assulated or raped, and it can be a very bad thing that vbelittles actual male victims.

originally posted by: Grambler
So why wouldnt that apply to 11 year olds; they too get erections, so that must mean they must hacve been excited and wanted it if they got aroused.

Because no where in the United States is 11 even remotely close to the age of consent. He knew what he was doing at 17 (having sex with some hot actress) and I would stake my Man Card he wasn't coerced.

a reply to: Grambler

I believe even if said yes it would be considered forced. He CAN'T consent, so it's forced sex either way. Fortunately I am not like #metoo and convict without evidence. I would need to hear him give his side, not just see a legal settlement where they were after money.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
So why wouldnt that apply to 11 year olds; they too get erections, so that must mean they must hacve been excited and wanted it if they got aroused.

Because no where in the United States is 11 even remotely close to the age of consent. He knew what he was doing at 17 (having sex with some hot actress) and I would stake my Man Card he wasn't coerced.

Thats your opinion, and thats fine.

Care to styake your man card on rather or not the women who slept with wienstein, got millions of dollars in carreers, and said nothing for decades were in fact willing particpants?

And the idea that a man cant be raped if he gets an erection is unbelievable naive and incorrect, and contributes to men being ashemd and silenced into not reproting rapes.

As a result of the prevalence of such beliefs, there is an underreporting of sexual assaults by male victims; a lack of appropriate services for male victims; and, effectively, no legal redress for male sexual assault victims. By comparison, male sexual assault victims have fewer resources and greater stigma than do female sexual assault victims. Many male victims, either because of physiological effects of anal rape or direct stimulation by their assailants, have an erection, ejaculate, or both during the assault. This is incorrectly understood by assailant, victim, the justice system, and the medical community as signifying consent by the victim. Studies of male sexual physiology suggest that involuntary erections or ejaculations can occur in the context of nonconsensual, receptive anal sex. Erections and ejaculations are only partially under voluntary control and are known to occur during times of extreme duress in the absence of sexual pleasure. Particularly within the criminal justice system, this misconception, in addition to other unfounded beliefs, has made the courts unwilling to provide legal remedy to male victims of sexual assault, especially when the victim experienced an erection or an ejaculation during the assault. Attorneys and forensic psychiatrists must be better informed about the physiology of these phenomena to formulate evidence-based opinions.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: Grambler
Care to styake your man card on rather or not the women who slept with wienstein, got millions of dollars in carreers, and said nothing for decades were in fact willing particpants?

I would wager that some of them in fact knew what they were doing to further their careers, which would not be rape but sexual harassment, since he was their employer. I would also wager that he did in fact rape other women who were not complicit.

And the idea that a man cant be raped if he gets an erection is unbelievable naive and incorrect...

Asia Argento didn't anally rape him as the quoted piece explains could happen.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I believe even if said yes it would be considered forced. He CAN'T consent, so it's forced sex either way.

That's incorrect. She is guilty of statutory rape which is unforced sexual acts with a person underage and can be charged in California as a misdemeanor or a felony.

originally posted by: Grambler
What does that have anything to do with her saying to be gentle with Asia because more facts will come out?

Simply that it was not her first response...which was to say that her 'heart was broken'. If you are going to offer her up to be judged, at least provide the full story.
The innate hypocrisy revealed in the Argenta story can't be argued. But using it to disparage the whole movement certainly can be.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Asia Argento didn't anally rape him as the quoted piece explains could happen.

Perhaps you missed this.

Many male victims, either because of physiological effects of anal rape or direct stimulation by their assailants, have an erection, ejaculate, or both during the assault. This is incorrectly understood by assailant, victim, the justice system, and the medical community as signifying consent by the victim.

It clearly states that direct stimulation can cause erections or ejaculation and this still does not prove consent.

If you want to believe that anyone with an erection must have wanted it and therefore couldnt be assaulted, thats fine by me.

Do you also believe that if a woman has an orgasm while raped she wanted it as well and therefore no crime was committed?

originally posted by: Grambler
If you want to believe that anyone with an erection must have wanted it and therefore couldnt be assaulted, thats fine by me.

I don't believe everyone does, but I believe this guy did.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Grambler
What does that have anything to do with her saying to be gentle with Asia because more facts will come out?

Simply that it was not her first response...which was to say that her 'heart was broken'. If you are going to offer her up to be judged, at least provide the full story.
The innate hypocrisy revealed in the Argenta story can't be argued. But using it to disparage the whole movement certainly can be.

I havent seen anyone using this to discredit the whole movement.

I merely stated that people like asia and rose were quick to deem peoplke guilty based merely off of accusations, and criticize others that wanted to wait for a fair trial and wanted people to be viewed innocent until proven guilty.

Now they hypocritically change their tune when its themselves or there friends accused.

Rose's first tweet is irrelevant to her seond tweet which says we should be gentle with asia.

No where in her first tweet does she speak of having to believe the victim, of needing to stop predators that are accused (asia in this incident) like she did when others were accused.

Metoo has doen a lot of good in bringing to light sexual predators; none of this changes that.

However it has been bad on labeling people guilty based merely on accusations; and this case proves the hypocrisy of that. Hoepfully it causes people to reflect on why this is bad.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Grambler
If you want to believe that anyone with an erection must have wanted it and therefore couldnt be assaulted, thats fine by me.

I don't believe everyone does, but I believe this guy did.

Thats fair, and honestly you may be right.

I am just saying just because a man may have an erection doesnt men he couldnt be assaulted.

I have no idea if this guy was or not, and I will not condemn asia until she gets to present her case in a fair venue like a court.

My point was this case shows the hypcrisy of deeming people guilty based merely off of accusations.

originally posted by: Grambler
I am just saying just because a man may have an erection doesnt men he couldnt be assaulted.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying junior here most likely wanted and enjoyed it.

My point was this case shows the hypcrisy of deeming people guilty based merely off of accusations.

I don't have a problem with the court of public opinion either, that's not where she's being hypocritical. She's guilty of sexual assault just like Harvey Turdsandwich. But if we can be blunt, due to the acknowledged double standard, it's not nearly on the same level as him.

Argento co-wrote and directed this movie: The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things (2004)

Bennett was 7 years old and played the part of Sarah's (Argento's) kid.

Here is an excerpt about the plot:

Sarah's current lover, Kenny (Matt Schulze), a truck driver, eventually abandons them at a truck stop while Sarah is soliciting. Sarah realizes that if she is going to keep her men she cannot say Jeremiah is her son. She persuades Jeremiah to cross dress so he can act as her "little sister", and Jeremiah's cross-dressing evolves to include his mother's seduction techniques. After dressing up as a "baby doll" version of Sarah which consisted of her makeup, her white nightgown and her red high heel pumps, Jeremiah seduces Jackson (Marilyn Manson), his mother's latest man, who initially tries to rebuff the boy's advances, but then gives in. Sarah is furious with Jackson for giving in to the boy's advances and with Jeremiah for ruining her panties with drops of blood on them, and she takes Jeremiah and leaves.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing to see here.

Unlike Rose MCgowan, here is how a non hypocritical member of the metoo movement handled this accusation.

The #MeToo movement suffered a shakeup on Monday with revelations that one of its key members, actress Asia Argento (a Weinstein accuser), allegedly paid off an alleged underaged male victim of sexual assault in 2013. While certain #MeToo leaders like Rose McGowan are withholding judgment on Argento, #MeToo founder Tarana Burke says that the allegations show that predators come in all forms.

"Sexual assault is about power and privilege," tweeted Burke on Monday. "That doesn’t change if the perpetrator is your favorite actress, activist or professor of any gender."

www.dailywire.com...

Now I disagree that Asia should be assumed to be guilty. But at least this is someone being consistent, and calling out all abuse equally no matter who is accused.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's what I said, statutory rape, he CANT consent. What do you call sex without consent .. forced.

a reply to: Grambler

there is a double standard when it comes to assault.
if a female commits an act against a minor. they are rarely given prison time. some don't even have to register as sex offenders. most lose their license to work with kids and are put on probation for a couple of years. comment sections where the news stories are posted are filled with:
that kid is going to need a cast after breaking his arm on all the high fives!!
if the child is female, the comments usually sound like... oh my gawd so hawt!!

if a male commits an act against a minor, it's prison time. and comment sections are filled with hate.

and to me what is most disturbing is the court of public opinion. social media is the machine driving the conscious of the world. no evidence needed. people are considered guilty without trial. it's quite scary.

#double_standard
#social_media_bias

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
That's what I said, statutory rape, he CANT consent. What do you call sex without consent .. forced.

In some common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behavior). - U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

This. Virtually any topic can and will be weaponized and taken advantage of by someone.
a reply to: eletheia