You're welcome.       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
HARVEY WEINSTEIN -- Was He Really the Bad Guy in the Movie?

Consider this alt view of the Harvey saga. It is a well-known fact that thousands of women from all over the U.S. -- and world -- flood into Hollywood every year to seek their fame and fortune.

Many of these women are poor and come from broken families. Many have little or no opportunities or future other than marrying some drunk in their town, tying him down with babies and hoping he doesn't turn into an abusive, womanizer. To such women the risks of making it in Hollywood seem mild compared to their current life, and the upside make anything they may have to go through worth it.

Still others come to Hollywood for the challenge. Wealthy, socially-connected, even college-educated to the doctorate level, these women welcome the challenge of making it in Hollywood as their current life often seems boring and without a serious upside.

Whether rich or poor, educated or not, the one thing most of the women who come to Hollywood have in common is their unchallenged looks.

Errol Flynn's manager summed it up in a sentence: "The women who come to Hollywood are the most beautiful in the world, but they're all hookers in one way or another."

I don't know if Errol Flynn, who was no stranger to women, summed it up like this, but it's safe to speculate that the most beautiful women are not unaware of their beauty. And if this is true, these women always know exactly what they have to offer to Hollywood -- and it is not only their personalities and/or acting abilities.

A beautiful woman knows that sometimes the only way to negotiate with a powerful man is to hold powerful sex over him. Sex is thus the only thing that can bring a man to his knees when all that's involved is money or resources -- for money and resources cannot create beauty. Harvey Weinstein understood these things and used them to his advantage.

When a sexy woman leaves Podunk, Iowa to get a million dollar paycheck on a movie project, and the only thing standing between her and the check is Harvey Weinstein, do you not think it's game on?!

Remember, this woman has had a lot of experience "handling" men. She has had every drunk and abusive man in her home town on her ass since she grew breasts. She is one of the most attractive women in the world and she knows it -- not only because her mother told her so, so did the 300 men she dated from 14 to 22. But when Harvey tells her she is beautiful it's still no different except for one thing, the size of his paycheck.

If there is an iota of truth in these observations, it follows that Harvey could be considered, at the very least, a target. When the most viciously beautiful women on the planet travel thousands of miles to get a part in a movie, at the very least, it's a game.

If Harvey is the bull's eye, in many ways he's also the victim. He's the victim of countless power plays by countless sex goddesses, each one with make-up and sexy clothes weaponized and deployed to target and reel-in the male species, especially the male-producer species. And you don't think make-up is a sex weapon? If not why do women pay hundreds or thousand of dollars for chemicals to smear all over their faces if not to captivate men.

In the Hollywood game, when a Harvey Weinstein says "take off your panties and I'll sign the contract" that's a fair quid pro quo? The price of stardom but a mere dick-length away? And in this who really gets the better deal? The woman gets a lifetime of fame and financial security and the man gets sucked for two minutes. How unfair is that? How is that using women who have done no less in their hometown neighborhoods to the hometown drunks for little more than a joint or toot.

Women use their sexual power to reel in men. That is a fact of the universe. Women who complain that they don't like this fact -- this de facto "quid pro quo" -- are simply using the ploy of entitlement to argue that they should be able to get a job based on acting merit alone. But let's face it: women were placed on this earth attract men and have children -- not act or manage fortune 500 corporations. Men were put on this earth to protect and support women so they can create the next generations. A woman does not need an acting contract to create the next generation. She just needs a man who is willing to share ample resources.

Many women who seek stardom are greedy, selfish, self-centered but most of all insecure. And Harvey knows this.

Harvey knows the moment he turns the tables on a woman with an empire-conquering pussy, she is not going to submit easily. She is not used to that. She is used to saying no, used to doing the demanding. She is used to making the man beg, subtly or overtly. This turns her on, the thought that she is making a man's cock hard by her mere demanding presence. She is "used to THAT" just as Harvey said he is "used to that" when he touched a breast in an elevator one day.

Harvey is also used to the power struggle and probably loves it as much as, or more than, winning Oscars. The same is true of the women that traveled a thousand miles to spread their legs and get what they want from Harvey anyway they can. When viewed in this light, this activity could be considered "mental rape."

And women engage in "mental rape" all day long, all over the world. It's what a million years of evolution has designed them to do. It's the deal between men and women: her sexual favors in exchange for access to his resources. Given the long-term biological history of the male-female relationship, it's quite ignorant to characterize Harvey as anything other than a victim of covert female aggression. Mental rape.

None of this should be construed to mean that "physical rape" is acceptable, only that there is also "mental rape" which is equally unacceptable.

But the women of this world mentally rape men of this world millions of times more than the men physically rape them. So what's worse, mental rape or physical rape? Obviously mental rape, for mental rape is an assault on the very core of a man's psyche, his confidence. Physical rape is an assault on a body, something many women actually dream of -- a powerful man commandeering her body and forcing it to multiple orgasms as she fantasizes what kind of children he would produce.

Add to this the "beauty and the beast" side of the equation. The conniving, fame-seeking sex goddess is the BEAST and Harvey, the courageous man asking for but a few moments of pleasure in exchange for a lifetime of riches, is the BEAUTY.

But the pussy-whipped male world has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by endless female beasts -- from TV-watching mothers, to sisters to girlfriends -- that these "males" would not dare to sympathize with a Harvey Weinstein, or any male, that challenged the female mental rape paradigm or Standard Model.

So there is an alternative view on the Harvey Weinstein saga. In this world no one is totally innocent and those who think otherwise are less innocent than those who can recognize these simple truths.

Last edited by James Jaeger, 2/1/2021, 9:42 pm
2/1/2021, 9:42 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
greendocnowciv Profile
Live feed
Miscellaneous info


Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: HARVEY WEINSTEIN -- Was He Really the Bad Guy in the Movie?

The whole Harvey issue was full of BS due to the fact that what he was judged guilty of was so well known for generations, without most of the articles and discussion of it pointing that out.

The term "the casting couch" was so well-known it was a cliché.

Old B&W movies, much written fiction, and much true reporting revealed all of the "shocking" stuff about Harvey, long years before any young would-be Starlet was challenged by Harvey.

That backs up one basic aspect of the OP - none of the ladies who faced some kind of "moral/ethical" challenge from Harvey should have been surprised by it, or unready to respond in some way that she felt would be to her advantage.

2/23/2021, 10:35 am Link to this post PM greendocnowciv Blog
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: HARVEY WEINSTEIN -- Was He Really the Bad Guy in the Movie?

Which is why I pose the following questions:

(in order to reduce sexual homophobia in our society):

1) What percentage of Hollywood A-list stars slept with their bosses and got the role?

2) What percentage of actors who slept with their bosses did NOT get the role or become an A-list star?

3) What percentage of Hollywood A-list stars who slept with their bosses reported their boss for sexual harassment?

4) What percentage of actors who did NOT get the role reported their boss for sexual harassment?

5) Should White Anglo Saxon actresses who don't provide sex be permitted to star in major studio movies?

6) Should Black Baptist actresses who don't provide sex be permitted to star in major studio movies?

7) Should Jewish actresses who don't provide sex be permitted to star in major studio movies?

8) Should ______________ actresses who don't provide sex be permitted to star in major studio movies?

9) If movie producers inform actresses up front that they will/may be required to perform "sex proficiency tests" at any audition or "cattle call," is this fair play?

10) Would decriminalizing prostitution reduce "sexual harassment?"

11) Would decriminalizing prostitution reduce or increase competition between women for men?
3/5/2021, 7:04 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: HARVEY WEINSTEIN -- Was He Really the Bad Guy in the Movie?

Here are some related posts from another thread regarding Andrew Cuomo.

From the FOX NEWS report at

>The 25-year-old staffer described to the Times an incident that took place in June when she was "alone" with the 63-year-old governor in his State Capitol office.

No crime to be alone with someone AND she was over 18.

>According to the report, he allegedly asked her if she thought age made a difference in romantic relationships

Good question. Millions of men and women have asked this same question over the millennia.

>and that he was open to having relationships with women in their 20s,

No crime in letting other human beings know what experiences in life you are open to -- and closed to.

>which were noted by the Times as "comments she interpreted as clear overtures to a sexual relationship."

And? For millions of years males and females have been making "overtures" to each other for sexual relationships. If this ritual did not happen, or if it was left up to horribly uncomfortable and scared members of the species, the human race would have died out thousands of years ago. We would live on a barren, lifeless planet in the middle of a lethal uncaring universe. Maybe this is how some would prefer things to be.

>While Bennett alleges that Cuomo never tried touching her,

Did she try to touch Cuomo? Was she wearing provocative clothing to try and "touch" Cuomo without physically touching him. Both sides of the story should be told otherwise how will Hollywood screenwriters be able to tell a juicy story.

>the governor's "message" during that exchange was "unmistakable to her."

Well at least she was conscious. That's more than one can say about Cosby's victims.

They already have plenty of Republican's sexual habits they are exploiting.

>"I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared," Bennett told the Times.

If she was an employee, Cuomo should not have made sexual advances towards her unless she was the girl of his dreams and he wanted to marry her. 15% of all marriages started at the office.

>"And was wondering how I was going to get out of it and assumed it was the end of my job."

Maybe she should have just fuc*ked Cuomo for job security -- after all some would say it's only recreational sex, not marriage or brain surgery. But this brings up many questions, like doesn't she like sex? Does she have a sex problem? Did men or her father treat her badly when she was a child? Has she had sex with ANY men ... or does she turn down all advances. Is she homophobic (about men) or does she prefer sex with women? Is she bigoted towards men? What about gays and Jews? Does she wear underwear while working for the government? Sharon Stone in BASIC INSTINCT didn't. All these questions, and many others, need to be explored if Hollywood screenwriters are going to be able to pen full and juicy movies, with complete backstories, for future generations.


The # MeToo Movement, which addressed many legitimate issues, has morphed into the another aspect of the "cancel culture" -- cancel any person, TV show, website, book (or over-sexed creep) that does not align with your interests, values, cultural perspectives or prejudices. In other words the interests, values, cultural perspectives and prejudices of Women's Lib.

Yes, activist women have finally learned to use the cry of "sexual harassment" to ATTRACT attention to their cause in much the same way the Jews have used the cry of "anti-Semitism" to THWART attention from their predatory and unethical business practices in the Hollywood motion picture industry.

But in either case, one does not dare criticize or disagree with either women or Jews -- especially in this cultural Marxist-infested society.

Finally, Jews, who have been victimized by the Holocaust of world war II, and women, who have been victimized by the Men of White America can unite in the common cry for "security." Finally the "Glass Ceiling" can be smashed with the accusation of sexual harassment, whether true or false.


>Cuomo wants sex but packed victims of covid into care facilities which were death houses because Cuomo's funders, were in part the owners of cares homes $avvy? The Javits Center and the Hospital ship Hope went absolutely unfilled because of this dirty deal tween Cuomo and the care homes.

There is no question that Cuomo is a total profligate with regard to this nursing home situation. But just because we disdain a man for being a profligate in Department A, does not mean he is automatically a profligate in Department B.


>He killed many "Grannys" and Gampies." Also, along with the Dem Deep State in New York, he truly killed an awful lot of hopes in the lives of many - truly! - by destroying lot of businesses.


>And now, fairly easily surviving doing all that harm, this new "Me Too" culture may take him down!

Just like tax evasion took down Al Capone.

>No, this isn't a "maybe good thing." Its a tragic travesty of a "flirting-sexual advance minefield" of a thing, that has ruined the lives of many.

We don't know what went on with the women as its a he-said-she-said thing. But to the degree women come forward with similar accusations one has to take note.

What bugs me is when women come forward when a guy is down but didn't come forward when he was riding high and harming other women. If a man is rich, famous and/or powerful he can still provide favors to women, so better not report him. But when he's down, his utility declines as he can be of no further career-advancing use. Why not attack the bastard for "harassment" and get some of the general anger about men out", a predatory, liberated woman may reason.

That said, have you asked yourself how many women are now Hollywood stars yet Harvey Weinstein harassed them and they never mentioned it. I bet at least 80 percent of the women that are now stars in Hollywood who were molested by Harvey have STILL not come forward. Look at that interview of Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks on this subject and go figure. Meryl looks like the fox that swallowed the chicken and she actually had to be rescued by Tom.

><snip> Dating now is apparently much more difficult for Women, than before this odd "Me Too" development.

If women invalidate men for making the initial advance, women will have to perform that function or there will be no copulation, marriages and/or procreation. Surely the death of human civilization in a wilderness universe is more of a "harassment" than stealing a kiss. But maybe not in the "minds" of many.

>Like - I think, most guys - I have no real worry about how most other guys deal with this new risk, at any level. Pay attention, and take care - or don't, fellah. As each guy does, "Evolution in action" will continue to thin the herd!

See above.

Last edited by James Jaeger, 3/5/2021, 7:08 pm
3/5/2021, 7:07 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog

Add a reply

You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top