Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Peter Martins Sexual Harassment Allegations


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, canbelto said:

Victims don't always act logically or "perfectly" especially when the perpetrator is a powerful, much admired man in the industry. The remarkable consistency of the stories against Cosby, the fact that there were complaints filed over many years by different women, and Cosby's radio silence on the matter make the stories very believable. If they were kept women, still tried to get work via Cosby, or did not come forward immediately, doesn't falsify their claims.

Vincent Paradiso and Mary Helen Bowers sought relief when they were treated unprofessionally,  and to some extent they got it.  It certainly enhances their credibility.  Cosby's accusers' stories most likely are consistent because the "template" was exposed in the media.  There were not "many complaints" filed against him;  the fact is that whether their stories are truthful or not,  only one of Cosby's accusers ever went to the police.  Not one of those who claimed to have been drugged by him went to a hospital or doctor.  Not one of the dancers who supposedly had sex with Martins to enhance their careers has come forward,  which is understandable.    But until such time,  that claim against him is not credible and smacks of professional jealousy.  There have been a couple of high-profile divorces at NYCB where the names of the husbands' girlfriends  have been circulated.  If Martins has been fooling around he and the women he was involved with have been remarkably discreet.

 

Edited by On Pointe
Clarity
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Not one of those who claimed to have been drugged by him went to a hospital or doctor.  Not one of the dancers who supposedly had sex with Martins to enhance their careers has come forward,  which is understandable.    But until such time,  that claim against him is not credible and smacks of professional jealousy. 

If it's understandable, I don't see how it is not credible and smacks of professional jealousy.  If you are talking about two different groups:  dancer who had sex to enhance their careers vs. those who, presumably, didn't, I don't find the claims not credible or smacking of professional jealousy:  they are just as readily claims that support a charge of a hostile "pay for play" work environment.  But such criticism and characterization is the fate of whistleblowers everywhere.

Link to comment
Quote
   22 hours ago,  kfw said: 
   On 1/3/2018 at 8:26 AM,  abatt said: 

Martin's dating of Kistler when she was 16 isn't the issue.  It's an irrelevant side show. So are the DUI's.  The only issue is whether he committed sexual abuse or physical abuse,as defined under the law, against dancers or students during the course of his employment since he was elevated to director in 1983.

I agree. I don’t think the DUIs should have anything to do with it. While it’s true that most people go through life without even one alcohol-related run in with the law, much less three, it’s also true that his have taken place nineteen years and six years apart from each other, and that this last occurred at a time of undoubtedly great stress. To me, that doesn’t signal that he has a problem that’s out of control. Even if it did, if alcoholism is a disease, he shouldn’t be fired for manifesting that disease off the job.
 
The abuse is another issue obviously, but I feel for the younger dancers who see him as a father figure and haven't seen him act badly (possibly because he'd reformed).

Thirded. Although as mentioned earlier, this most recent DUI probably ended any chance Martins had of returning to the company, relevant or not.

(Also, comparisons of Martins to Roy Moore are absurd. The most damaging charge against Moore was that of Leigh Corfman, who was 14 years old at the time she claims that Moore approached her, initially with her mother, and then later alone, and then took her to an isolated place near his home to grope her.)

In my experience, many schools in many parts of the country (although perhaps not Alabama) would consider it highly relevant if it was discovered that a teacher or administrator was dating a 16 year old even in cases where said 16 year old was not a student or a student of the school.  I realize that in the ballet world, many 16 year olds are working professionals but they are still legal minors.  

Actually, I think that it's much more relevant in the Martins case than in the Roy Moore case (minus the whole Leigh Corfman/molestation issue), since he was actually directly teaching and coaching minors.  (Again, liability issues for the school, and the prospect of a parent or child later saying, "You knew said Teacher has had relationships with 16 year-olds.  We entrusted our child to you, and have now found out that Teacher has been engaging in sexual relations with our child.  Lawsuit.")

More generally, I find the parent supervision/care issue irrelevant, though.  Children have legal protection regardless of their parents, and quite frankly what parents may consider good for their children can be ... well, parents have different ideas of what is best.  For many parents, especially old school parents from the Old World, the idea of marrying their daughter off to a successful, well-connected man is one of the greatest prizes possible.  Whether he abuses or cheats on her or not is often not much of an issue.

Link to comment

From what I have seen many years in schools is that one person maybe even two people might accuse someone of something, but rarely would 3 or more band together to ruin someone's career. Someone is bound to feel guilt and break down and expose it as a vendetta against the person admitting they made up the story to "get" the person. Even when it is two people one will usually confess it was all a vendetta. For me you can wonder if an accuser has an ax to grind when it is "he says/she says" (one person) but when more than a couple of people come forward I tend to think, "Where there's smoke there is fire!" and just reading many of the comments on this thread make me understand why people don't immediately come forward.

People's feelings are a complex thing also. When a doctor took advantage of my state (months of being told by nurses at the university that it was all in my head, beginning to think I was crazy, feeling exhausted for months and tonsils that hurt so bad I wanted at times of frustration to take a knife and cut them out myself).....well, after months of being sick and medical professionals kept telling me there was nothing wrong with me I was beside myself, finally found a doctor who diagnosed it as mono, gave me a steroid pack which got rid of the problem, and then did a follow up. I was telephoned and told to make an appointment immediately about my blood work. I was worried I had HIV or something because the message sounded urgent. So I rushed over after making the appointment and was told to come on in. He went over the blood work and everything was okay and then he said since I am a new patient he needed to do a full physical. A warning bell went off, and I said, "No, can't be anything but what he's saying" and complied with his suggestion of doing a full physical. Then, I was given a prostate exam (way too early in my life but I didn't know that back then) and it seemed to be way too long. Then, he did a hernia test. Sorry to go into so much detail, but I feel it is important to explain how someone can be manipulated. During the hernia check I became aroused and he jumped on that and at that point I agreed to what he then did. The entire time I said to myself, "What the heck?" and then, "I was a fool to think this was a normal physical! Why was I so dumb?" and then, "But this is sort of naughty and fun" but then "What am I doing? I am perpetuating this behavior! I must be a horrible person!"  The reason I tell all this is that many, many things go through your head. It doesn't feel like a black and white situation. You've never been in the situation so you aren't actually sure how to react. I went back and forth many times, "I should tell him I am out of here and leave" and then, "But I am aroused and this is naughty which makes it fun" and back and forth and back and forth. So you don't really know how to react and let it happen.

As I drove home I was really upset and wondered why I was upset since I agreed to it at some point. I was seeing a counselor about my sister's death at the time and in talking with her the very next day (I luckily had an appointment) I realized what made me mad was not anything after I agreed. It was that he manipulated me and tricked me into getting aroused. I was angry I was tricked, not at the actual thing he did once I agreed. I also actually felt pity and/or sympathy for him. He had pictures of his wife and children all over his office and Bibles on all the tables in the waiting room. It made me think that he felt trapped and couldn't act on his homosexuality and had to express it in this way.

What I am getting at is that someone who has been abused or molested or taken advantage of has VERY conflicted and conflicting feelings. It is never black and white. There is no, "If A happens, do B".......you are in a state of shock that it is actually happening.

Later I went jogging with my jogging buddy the same day, and as we jogged I told him the story, and his immediate reaction was, "Was he hot? Where is his office?" and another gay friend said, "You were probably egging him on and he could tell you wanted it!"

Basically, even close friends did not take the story seriously and didn't understand my conflicting feelings about the entire incident. Friends even doubt you are a victim in these situations especially if at some point you agree to it.

I did not feel I could go back to that doctor ever. Would he take my ailments seriously? Or would he just want to play around?

For years I avoided full physicals because I thought it would happen again. Then, I realized I should go to a female and I have been going to female doctors ever since. This is another point. There are some long lasting issues that stick with you throughout life because someone you trusted broke that trust.

Until someone experiences a certain situation it is very easy to judge and dismiss victims' claims as a vendetta. I just do not think most human beings are willing to ruin a person's career or well being or livelihood just because he or she did not get roles. One person might be evil enough to do that but when the people start to come out of the woodwork in many of these cases, I think there is something to their stories.

For example, I was still naive and foolish enough to actually think the doctor only did it to me out of a need to experience his homosexual feelings and explore them. I felt compassion and my counselor was absolutely outraged that a fellow medical professional did this to me. The only number I was willing to take was an organization that helps and works with a doctor if there are issues of abuse or alcoholism, etc.

Well, about a couple of weeks later I got a  form letter to all his patients saying he had spoken with his wife and they decided he needed to close his practice after much reflection and thought, and our files could be found with such and such doctor. It suddenly dawned on me, "I wasn't the only one! He may have been doing this to men, women, and children! And he is in trouble! He has to close, because someone has reported him," so I called and gave my story to corroborate anyone who needed another voice. I was especially worried he may have taken advantage of children. Even though I was in my 20s I have always looked very young.

I don't mean to be long winded, but I am trying to show how very complicated these issues can be. You can have a mixture of feelings for the person doing something wrong to you. It is NOT black and white. Nothing in life usually is. There are reasons people do not come forward. There are reasons they come forward later. There are reasons people stay silent.

None of us really knows what did or did not happen with Martins or Gomes or Cosby or Weinstein or anyone for that matter. We just have to hope if it is a legal matter the law will prevail. But when multiple people come forward I think allegations should always be taken seriously. If there is nothing there I think the accusations will actually collapse.

Link to comment

Birdsall, Thank you for sharing your very personal story. It may be that many of us, even almost all of  us, have some sort of personal history with sexual predators, or hostile work environments or the like. it's amazing how many hits the Martins' thread has received. These issues are so widespread and complex and strike different chords in people. I feel our society is being turned inside out in many ways and people are reexamining lots of assumptions. This is kind of like a wildfire that is spreading. I dont believe any institution is free of this behavior. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Birdsall said:

What I am getting at is that someone who has been abused or molested or taken advantage of has VERY conflicted and conflicting feelings

Just look at Frankfurt's article on visiting Balanchine in the hospital.  What he did was despicable, and yet she seems to harbor no ill will, even when writing that a good father wouldn't do what he did.

Link to comment
On 12/16/2017 at 8:02 PM, vipa said:

I think the problem here is that lots of people have opinions about who should be promoted and who shouldn't. Promotions are a subjective thing, and many soloists who have been great in some principal roles  don't get promoted. 

 I've been going to NYCB for a long time. I'd be hard pressed to find a consistent pattern of inadequate dancers being cast in roles. Add to that, NYCB is a company in which the tradition is to throw them in and let them sink or swim. In my experience most swim. There are dancers who I would like to see promoted or given more opportunities, but it is a matter of taste. 

In fact, I find myself shaking my head more at promotions and casting at ABT more than at NYCB. 

I think the problem here is that some people find their own opinions ever so much more valid than those of others. It is transparently obvious that promotions are subjective, as is all advancement in a performing art form; it is also clear that, as Toni Bentley said, 'intrigues, love affairs, manipulations, timing, and idiosyncrasies decide everyone's life and future.'

I have been going to NYCB for decades, and I have no difficulty whatsoever finding patterns of inadequate dancers being cast in roles by Peter Martins on a regular basis.  The 'sink or swim' tradition has faded as well.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Helene said:

If it's understandable, I don't see how it is not credible and smacks of professional jealousy.  If you are talking about two different groups:  dancer who had sex to enhance their careers vs. those who, presumably, didn't, I don't find the claims not credible or smacking of professional jealousy:  they are just as readily claims that support a charge of a hostile "pay for play" work environment.  But such criticism and characterization is the fate of whistleblowers everywhere.

It's understandable because sleeping around to get a role is considered sleazy,  especially with a married man whose wife works in the same place.  You better have ironclad proof if you make that kind of accusation,  because you could be sued for defamation of character. 

I used to work with a famous director who had a beautiful and demanding girlfriend who nagged him constantly about using his contacts to give her career a boost.  We all knew that she was using him - she wasn't the least bit subtle about it.  These situations do happen in every business,  not just theater and dance.  The kicker was the nagging girlfriend was also very talented,  hardworking and intelligent,  and she has an Academy Award to show for her efforts.  She would have made it big anyway.

It's easy for dancers to claim that another dancer "slept with Peter and got better roles",  but it doesn't prove a quid pro quo.  If he was sleeping with them,  it would indeed create a hostile work environment.  But  sometimes dancers get better roles just because they're better dancers,  and sometimes because they're reliable.  Kathryn Morgan has said that her ability to learn very quickly opened up many opportunities for her.  Michaela DePrince performed the pas de trois in Swan Lake at Dutch National Ballet even though she was the fifth understudy for the role,  because none of the four dancers ahead of her were fit or available.  There are many reasons why dancers are cast,  just as there are many reasons why they fail.

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

It's easy for dancers to claim that another dancer "slept with Peter and got better roles",

Once again, the point isn't even whether a fellow dancer got anything from sleeping with the boss:  it's that a definition of a hostile work environment is one in which the boss has sexual relationships with his/her employees.  If Peter Martins was having sex with his employees, then he created a hostile work environment.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Helene said:

Once again, the point isn't even whether a fellow dancer got anything from sleeping with the boss:  it's that a definition of a hostile work environment is one in which the boss has sexual relationships with his/her employees.  If Peter Martins was having sex with his employees, then he created a hostile work environment.

If,  if,  if - where's the proof?

Link to comment
On 1/3/2018 at 3:07 PM, vipa said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are living in a climate in which every statement is being given the most extreme interpretation possible. The LA Times saying they were publicly dating does not for me, immediately translate to predatory behavior.  I was in a ballet company when I was 17 (not world class like NYCB or ABT) and if I went to the ballet and out to eat with a fellow company member who was much older, I didn't look at it a predatory - I still don't.  I'm not saying that's true of everyone in every case, just that I don't want to make an assumption in one direction or another.

 I feel we have be careful how we categorize things and maintain some sense of proportion. 

As a separate but related note.  NYCB sometimes has company members as young as 15. These young people have co-workers that are older. They form friendships & date.  Should the company not be able to hire dancers under 18?

 

NYCB no longer hires 15 year olds. Dancers now have to be 17 and have a high school diploma to be hired as apprentices. Look at the interview with Unity Phelan.

Link to comment

 

17 hours ago, sidwich said:

 (Again, liability issues for the school, and the prospect of a parent or child later saying, "You knew said Teacher has had relationships with 16 year-olds.  We entrusted our child to you, and have now found out that Teacher has been engaging in sexual relations with our child.  Lawsuit.")

 

Absolutely, sidwich. However, in Martins' thirty years of running the company no such lawsuit ever occurred. We have no evidence at present that Martins was singling out minors for sex, apart from Martins' liaison with Watts and marriage to Kistler, both of which were conducted openly and public knowledge, occurred long ago under Balanchine's approving eye, and were obviously long and significant relationships. IMO abatt's characterization of "sideshow" remains applicable.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, dirac said:

 

Absolutely, sidwich. However, in Martins' thirty years of running the company no such lawsuit ever occurred. We have no evidence at present that Martins was singling out minors for sex, apart from Martins' liaison with Watts and marriage to Kistler, both of which were conducted openly and public knowledge, occurred long ago under Balanchine's approving eye, and were obviously long and significant relationships. IMO abatt's characterization of "sideshow" remains applicable.

I don't think the relationships Heather Watts or Darci Kistler in and of themselves are issues, but I do think they are relevant in the larger conversation considering his position at SAB.  And yes, most schools would frown on the situation and the teacher would discreetly be asked to leave although perhaps not in Alabama.  Perhaps pre-professional ballet schools fall into the same camp.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Vincent Paradiso and Mary Helen Bowers sought relief when they were treated unprofessionally,  and to some extent they got it.  It certainly enhances their credibility.  Cosby's accusers' stories most likely are consistent because the "template" was exposed in the media.  There were not "many complaints" filed against him;  the fact is that whether their stories are truthful or not,  only one of Cosby's accusers ever went to the police.  Not one of those who claimed to have been drugged by him went to a hospital or doctor.  Not one of the dancers who supposedly had sex with Martins to enhance their careers has come forward,  which is understandable.    But until such time,  that claim against him is not credible and smacks of professional jealousy.  There have been a couple of high-profile divorces at NYCB where the names of the husbands' girlfriends  have been circulated.  If Martins has been fooling around he and the women he was involved with have been remarkably discreet.

 

Still so sure of Cosby's innocence?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ben-vereen-defended-accused-serial-rapist-pal-cosby-article-1.3738694

Link to comment
3 hours ago, dirac said:

 

Absolutely, sidwich. However, in Martins' thirty years of running the company no such lawsuit ever occurred. We have no evidence at present that Martins was singling out minors for sex, apart from Martins' liaison with Watts and marriage to Kistler, both of which were conducted openly and public knowledge, occurred long ago under Balanchine's approving eye, and were obviously long and significant relationships. IMO abatt's characterization of "sideshow" remains applicable.

You don't need to have litigation for a liability issue to arise: should SAB be on notice, i.e., have knowledge of a teacher's or director's having or suggesting sexual relations with a minor student or some form of inappropriate behavior,  a liability issue for SAB could arise; a lawsuit is not required to put SAB on notice. [I am not stating here that Martins was doing anything inappropriate as I have no first-hand information on that matter.]    

Link to comment

Some letters to the editor at the NY Times re the Martins debacle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/opinion/martins-new-york-city-ballet-harassment.html

 

One letter takes a derogatory view of Board members who have deep pockets but don't care about running the institution.  In this day and age, we should all be grateful that some rich people are still giving their money to arts institutions. Why should these board members also have a duty to police the day to day behavior of Peter Martins. Those channels should be set up within the institution itself, and not be the responsibility of the board members.

 

Edited by abatt
Link to comment
1 hour ago, canbelto said:

I was never sure of Cosby's innocence.  When I began working in theater and television in New York,  Bill Cosby was one of the guys I was warned about,  a married man known for keeping a string of girlfriends on the side - though he was hardly considered the worst,  and nobody ever called him a rapist.  My point is that it's easy to jump on the bandwagon with accusations years after the fact.  (Especially when Gloria Allred has proposed  that Cosby set aside $100,000,000 as compensation to his "victims",  who are nearly all her clients.   Her cut would be $40,000,000.) 

Some of the women,  who were photographed for New York Magazine,  have offered no proof that they ever even met Cosby.  Others put forth dates for alleged assaults when Cosby wasn't in the country.  Some,  like Beverly Johnson,  made no claim that Cosby ever assaulted them,  but that he offered them drinks that made them feel woozy.  One Cosby accuser  also insinuated herself into the Marv Albert sex assault case,  much to the annoyance of the actual victim.  One woman has apparently mistaken Cosby for Nipsey  Russell,  another black comic popular in the 1980s.  Not one of the women who claimed to have been drugged went to a doctor or hospital.

None of that means that Cosby is innocent.  It does mean that given an incentive,  like the prospect of collecting millions of dollars,  some people will exaggerate or lie.  Although the media has given them a free pass,  if they were actually put on the stand,  their inconsistencies and lack of solid proof would make it very hard to get a conviction.  The best shot was Andrea Constand,  and that trial ended in a hung jury.  (Considering that Constand had settled the case civilly,  continued to call Cosby,  and accepted $200,000 under a non-disclosure agreement,  the case probably should have never been brought to court.)

There has to be real proof of Peter Martins' wrongdoing,  like detailed records of  sexual liaisons,  photographs,  testimony from witnesses.  Anonymous letters and decades-old claims with no police reports or medical evidence are not good enough.  A lot of the negative comments about him seem driven by personal career disappointment and dislike of Martins' choreography more than actual bad acts.

BTW,  what does a story about Ben Vereen have to do with Cosby's guilt or innocence?

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I was never sure of Cosby's innocence.  When I began working in theater and television in New York,  Bill Cosby was one of the guys I was warned about,  a married man known for keeping a string of girlfriends on the side - though he was hardly considered the worst,  and nobody ever called him a rapist.  My point is that it's easy to jump on the bandwagon with accusations years after the fact.  (Especially when Gloria Allred has proposed  that Cosby set aside $100,000,000 as compensation to his "victims",  who are nearly all her clients.   Her cut would be $40,000,000.) 

Some of the women,  who were photographed for New York Magazine,  have offered no proof that they ever even met Cosby.  Others put forth dates for alleged assaults when Cosby wasn't in the country.  Some,  like Beverly Johnson,  made no claim that Cosby ever assaulted them,  but that he offered them drinks that made them feel woozy.  One Cosby accuser  also insinuated herself into the Marv Albert sex assault case,  much to the annoyance of the actual victim.  One woman has apparently mistaken Cosby for Nipsey  Russell,  another black comic popular in the 1980s.  Not one of the women who claimed to have been drugged went to a doctor or hospital.

None of that means that Cosby is innocent.  It does mean that given an incentive,  like the prospect of collecting millions of dollars,  some people will exaggerate or lie.  Although the media has given them a free pass,  if they were actually put on the stand,  their inconsistencies and lack of solid proof would make it very hard to get a conviction.  The best shot was Andrea Constand,  and that trial ended in a hung jury.  (Considering that Constand had settled the case civilly,  continued to call Cosby,  and accepted $200,000 under a non-disclosure agreement,  the case probably should have never been brought to court.)

There has to be real proof of Peter Martins' wrongdoing,  like detailed records of  sexual liaisons,  photographs,  testimony from witnesses.  Anonymous letters and decades-old claims with no police reports or medical evidence are not good enough.  A lot of the negative comments about him seem driven by personal career disappointment and dislike of Martins' choreography more than actual bad acts.

BTW,  what does a story about Ben Vereen have to do with Cosby's guilt or innocence?

This is Beverly Johnson's account, You are right he didn't sexually assault her. But your dismissal of it as "oh he just drugged her"  is not in keeping with what she claimed.

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/12/bill-cosby-beverly-johnson-story

Also while I hate to cite wiki, it is useful here in providing a full account of the women, the accusations and when they came forward (many came forward a long time ago, but their accounts went unpublished / police took little action):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations

You seem to not realize most women who are raped do not go to the police because of how victims are treated.

Who keeps detailed records of sexual liaisons? There usually are no witnesses....I realize you are speaking of Martins here but I don't see how a level of proof that would convince you of anything is even possible...

Edited by aurora
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I was never sure of Cosby's innocence.  When I began working in theater and television in New York,  Bill Cosby was one of the guys I was warned about,  a married man known for keeping a string of girlfriends on the side - though he was hardly considered the worst,  and nobody ever called him a rapist.  My point is that it's easy to jump on the bandwagon with accusations years after the fact.  (Especially when Gloria Allred has proposed  that Cosby set aside $100,000,000 as compensation to his "victims",  who are nearly all her clients.   Her cut would be $40,000,000.) 

Some of the women,  who were photographed for New York Magazine,  have offered no proof that they ever even met Cosby.  Others put forth dates for alleged assaults when Cosby wasn't in the country.  Some,  like Beverly Johnson,  made no claim that Cosby ever assaulted them,  but that he offered them drinks that made them feel woozy.  One Cosby accuser  also insinuated herself into the Marv Albert sex assault case,  much to the annoyance of the actual victim.  One woman has apparently mistaken Cosby for Nipsey  Russell,  another black comic popular in the 1980s.  Not one of the women who claimed to have been drugged went to a doctor or hospital.

None of that means that Cosby is innocent.  It does mean that given an incentive,  like the prospect of collecting millions of dollars,  some people will exaggerate or lie.  Although the media has given them a free pass,  if they were actually put on the stand,  their inconsistencies and lack of solid proof would make it very hard to get a conviction.  The best shot was Andrea Constand,  and that trial ended in a hung jury.  (Considering that Constand had settled the case civilly,  continued to call Cosby,  and accepted $200,000 under a non-disclosure agreement,  the case probably should have never been brought to court.)

There has to be real proof of Peter Martins' wrongdoing,  like detailed records of  sexual liaisons,  photographs,  testimony from witnesses.  Anonymous letters and decades-old claims with no police reports or medical evidence are not good enough.  A lot of the negative comments about him seem driven by personal career disappointment and dislike of Martins' choreography more than actual bad acts.

BTW,  what does a story about Ben Vereen have to do with Cosby's guilt or innocence?

Have you ever seen how rape victims/accusers are treated? Have you ever seen every outfit they ever bought scrutinized, the way their sexual history is poured over with a fine tooth comb, the way they are shamed, ostracized, and (in some cultures) KILLED by their own families? If you haven't, then sorry for you. If you have, I can't believe you think women make these accusations so lightly and with such impunity. 

Just as an example, do you remember Robert Chambers? A troubled young man with a history of theft, violence, drug abuse, and sociopathic behavior? When he strangled a young lady (Jennifer Levin) to death SHE was the slut, SHE had a "sex diary" (actually a contact book, this was before cell phones), and he was the good Catholic boy. His claim of "death by rough sex" was refuted by forensic evidence that proved that they never even had sex that night. She was strangled almost immediately with her own clothes. 

I don't believe people lie about being sexually assaulted, when the stigma, shame and attitudes such as yours make the conditions so difficult.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, aurora said:

This is Beverly Johnson's account, You are right he didn't sexually assault her. But your dismissal of it as "oh he just drugged her"  is not in keeping with what she claimed.

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/12/bill-cosby-beverly-johnson-story

 

You seem to not realize most women who are raped do not go to the police because of how victims are treated.

Who keeps detailed records of sexual liaisons? There usually are no witnesses....I realize you are speaking of Martins here but I don't see how a level of proof that would convince you of anything is even possible...

Read again,  please.  I never said that Cosby "just" drugged Beverly Johnson.  I said that she never claimed to be a victim of his sexual assault.  Her story is compelling and dramatic,  but short on key details - how did she get into her apartment and into bed,  she mentions a doorman,  there must have been witnesses who can corroborate her account,  she ingested a drug  that knocked her out for two days but she didn't seek medical care?  A good defense lawyer would ask those questions.  

Almost nobody keeps records of sexual liaisons.  That's my point.  Unless someone can prove that Martins coerced or bullied dancers into sexual relationships with the promise of better roles,  that accusation will not stand up.  One of the purported victims will have to come forward.  But in doing so,  she would have to admit that she traded sex with a married man for advancement.  Even then it would "he said - she said".

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Read again,  please.  I never said that Cosby "just" drugged Beverly Johnson.  I said that she never claimed to be a victim of his sexual assault.  Her story is compelling and dramatic,  but short on key details - how did she get into her apartment and into bed,  she mentions a doorman,  there must have been witnesses who can corroborate her account,  she ingested a drug  that knocked her out for two days but she didn't seek medical care?  A good defense lawyer would ask those questions.  

Almost nobody keeps records of sexual liaisons.  That's my point.  Unless someone can prove that Martins coerced or bullied dancers into sexual relationships with the promise of better roles,  that accusation will not stand up.  One of the purported victims will have to come forward.  But in doing so,  she would have to admit that she traded sex with a married man for advancement.  Even then it would "he said - she said".

I did read it. You say her only claim was that he gave her a drug that made her woozy. That is it.

So basically, you don't believe victims. Or at least you think nothing can usually be done even if a man is guilty. Your last extremely victim-blaming statement is very telling "In doing so,  she would have to admit that she traded sex with a married man for advancement."

I'm done interacting with you.

Edited by aurora
Link to comment

When I was interviewed both by outside consulting firms, which we all knew was "Bring in an outside party to justify job cuts," and by HR in workplace "investigations," it was pretty clear what the deal was: no one was fooled that HR was there to protect anything more than the company's coffers.

What I find interesting about NYCB's third-party investigation, which they call "independent," is being run by someone whose bio advertises what she does, which is to contain liability and cost for institutions/businesses.   Whether the bosses for whom Hoey is working might have the purest of intentions, they would have hired someone with a different bio, if they had a different agenda.  I'm not sure all of the people coming forward realized that their intentions and hopes weren't necessarily congruent with the process.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...