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

aurora

Senior Member
  • Posts

    1,248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aurora

  1. Um. what? It is not intrinsic. It is pervasive but your argument seems to be therefore that no change is needed or wanted.
  2. Destroyed overall, perhaps no. But it doesn't negate the fact he tried to, simply because she married someone who wasn't him. The fact she was able to find other, lesser, work, doesn't change the fact his behavior towards her was wrong.
  3. It is relevant to the hypothetical : "Many dancers at NYCB have been students at Columbia. If one of those dancers dated a Columbia professor who mistreated her in the same manner as Finlay allegedly mistreated Waterbury, that dancer would have a case against him, but she wouldn't have standing to sue Columbia, and try to bolster her claim by citing alleged defects in their policy on student-instructor relations." You didn't say have won a case. You said she would have no standing to sue Columbia. And considering there are similar cases (no not identical, but no two cases will ever be precisely the same) in the courts at this moment, it is incorrect to say she "wouldn't have standing to sue Columbia." Which were your exact words.
  4. Are you sure about that? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/04/27/former-george-washington-student-sues-school-alleging-botched-sexual-assault-case/?utm_term=.cc4d93b9ed8e https://www.nyunews.com/2018/08/26/news-ronell-reitman-sexual-assault-lawsuit/
  5. why would it be difficult? Why not fix it? Dating has gone on between company members and SAB students for ages it is true, one of my relatives dated a company member when they were 18 and at SAB and the company member was 28 in the 1990s. That doesn't mean it is a good idea.
  6. Or not every male dancer lacked all sense of morality as these 3 did. That doesn't mean others didn't get the sense they could get away with bad behavior--it just indicates they weren't inclined to treat women in such a disgusting way.
  7. Helene, I was responding to a very specific suggestion--that is, that ABT, or YAGP for that matter, might also be responsible for Longhitano. Given the circumstances I don't see how they would be. That said it would certainly behoove them them cut ties with him given what they know now, if they haven't already. I agree with what you wrote here 100%.
  8. NYCB and ABT are not responsible for the actions of their donors, generally speaking. That is preposterous. NYCB is potentially culpable because of Longhitano's interactions with the company members and employees. He was taking part in, and encouraging illicit acts. There is no sign he did the same with ABT/ABT dancers.
  9. No. It is not normal to share illicit videos of you and your gf **** (as Finlay did) or illicitly taken nude photos of your workmates with other ppl you work with.
  10. No we are not. Photos snuck on the sly of dancers changing can also be used for masturbatory purposes. I didn't think that was necessary to explain but I suppose it is.
  11. There is a huge difference in deciding to put an image of yourself out there (owning an image), and having illicit photos of you passed around by your male colleagues, without your knowledge, specifically for the purpose of jerking off.
  12. My point was simply that saying the women and the company never objected to these men before any facts were known about them is a ridiculous complaint. I was not saying the case was PRECISELY the same as Franken. In just one significant difference, Franken actually appeared remorseful about his actions.
  13. Since the company members at large didn't know about the alleged behavior until recently, I'm not sure how this is relevant. That is like saying but no one in the Senate ever objected to Al Franken being in the senate before, so why should they once they knew the allegations about him
  14. My apologies if it appeared I was saying there was a causal or direct relationship between the two events. I just was calling attention to a seemingly similar situation (albeit with much less information available) going on concurrently across the plaza.
  15. It seems this is the time of year for clearing house of bad actors over at Lincoln Center: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/arts/music/new-york-philharmonic-liang-wang-matthew-muckey.html
  16. Not because of anything they did? Finlay filmed his girlfriend performing sex acts and sent them to other people.
  17. As an analogy, if someone you admired as an artist murdered someone, you'd have sympathy for them, not their victim. This is why people don't come forward when powerful men sexually abuse them. People care more about the abusers than the victims. Additionally, while anonymous, the female dancers whose nudes were illicitly shared should also count as artists that the audience has watched and cared about.
  18. This is a hypothetical you yourself brought up and which has literally no bearing on the issue at hand.
  19. A ballet company is both a workplace and a very close knit community. They are not mutually exclusive. As for the rest, good for you that you would report the person. However many people do not report people in workplaces for violations of professional norms because they are ostracized and punished for doing so. This is why so many people (men usually) get away with sexual harassment in the workplace. I'm glad you do not share their concerns, but people do have them and they are clearly valid, based on empirical evidence.
  20. That is debatable--if it happened at work (which we don't know) you could argue that looking at nude photos creates a hostile work environment. But in any case these "girls" were their coworkers. And at least Alexandra (who was not) was unaware of the photos. That IS "rampant sexual misconduct". If my coworkers were passing around nude photos of me i'd feel really violated. As, I would imagine, would most people.
  21. Julie Kent posted wedding photos of Marcelo and Nick today! Congratulations to them!
  22. A decent human being would acknowledge the harm done to the victim in this case, that is Alexandra Waterbury, whose images and video we know from the case were received by Ramasar. It would behoove anyone who at least wanted to create a pretense that they are a decent human, to acknowledge (and apologize) for the part they played in her humiliation and betrayal. (I do not speak to Catazaro's situation because as you say, it is less clear from the publicly available material, precisely what role he played in all this). Given the activities they are accused of, I'm not sure why anyone should, at this moment, be more concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment, than those of the girlfriends and coworkers they traded images of for sexual gratification, and treated like garbage.
  23. No it is a community. And Ramasar, in particular, seems to be quite popular. See how people here and on instagram are fawning over him. You really can't understand why someone might be leery of speaking out publicly and being ostracized?
×
×
  • Create New...