Catazaro Declines NYCB Reinstatement; Ramasar to Rejoin

[Rock]

I'm amazed that people choose to believe Waterbury but not Maxwell. Waterbury's statements are fact but Maxwell's are accusations. Ramasar was never accused of "rape" far as I know.

[Fleurfairy]

1 hour ago, Rock said:

I'm amazed that people choose to believe Waterbury but not Maxwell. Waterbury's statements are fact but Maxwell's are accusations. Ramasar was never accused of "rape" far as I know.

I think we all know how social media can be. I’m sure many of those faceless people out there in the Twitterscape have thrown those words around without regard to truth. 

[On Pointe]

According to the article,  Alexa Maxwell did not insinuate anything about Alexandra Waterbury.  She stated what Ms. Waterbury said to her,  and Waterbury concurs that she discussed the possible monetary gain from successfully suing NYCB.  Surely Waterbury was aware that without an actual member of NYCB suing the company,  there would be no basis for a lawsuit,  even a suit that would likely fail because it is well-established in law that an employer can not be held liable for the non-work related activities of its employees.  

Bottom line,  Amar Ramasar did not do anything to Waterbury,  and neither did NYCB,  SAB,  Zachary Catazaro or Jared Longhitano.  I find it particularly disturbing that Ramasar has become the villain in this debacle while the uber-Waspy Chase Finlay,  who is the true perpetrator,  is barely mentioned.   Even the UK publication The Guardian has run an article with exaggerations and falsehoods from Waterbury,  including  that she and several other dancers were "assaulted".  It seems like blatant racism to me.

(I believe that Ramasar shared a topless photo of Maxwell.  "Topless" is not "sexually explicit",  especially given the countless artistic depictions of women with exposed breasts,  even by well-regarded dance companies.  If someone  knows otherwise please inform me.)

Edited February 2, 2020 by On Pointe
Spelling

[nyc10024]

14 hours ago, Syzygy said:

After a week of protests outside of West Side Story in response to the casting of Amar Ramasar, Alexa Maxwell released a statement. 

The protest instagram indicates that last night was the second night of protest; the first night was last Friday.

There was not a week of protests.

I've seen the count for the number of people participating in the protest range from 12 to 40. From last night's photos there looked to be 25ish.

[Syzygy]

24 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Bottom line,  Amar Ramasar did not do anything to Waterbury,  and neither did NYCB,  SAB,  Zachary Catazaro or Jared Longhitano.  I find it particularly disturbing that Ramasar has become the villain in this debacle while the uber-Waspy Chase Finlay,  who is the true perpetrator,  is barely mentioned.   Even the UK publication The Guardian has run an article with exaggerations and falsehoods from Waterbury,  including  that she and several other dancers were "assaulted".  It seems like blatant racism to me.

I mostly agree. And I like to believe that if Finlay had not tried to disappear while Ramasar continued to star in Broadway shows we'd be as critical of the former-- although who are we kidding? I see what you're saying.

31 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

(I believe that Ramasar shared a topless photo of Maxwell.  "Topless" is not "sexually explicit",  especially given the countless artistic depictions of women with exposed breasts,  even by well-regarded dance companies.  If someone  knows otherwise please inform me.)

There's a huge difference between an artist consenting to a topless performance and a man trying to impress his bros by sharing sexually explicit photos of a woman who trusts him. 

[On Pointe]

3 minutes ago, Syzygy said:

There's a huge difference between an artist consenting to a topless performance and a man trying to impress his bros by sharing sexually explicit photos of a woman who trusts him. 

That doesn't change the fact that mere toplessness (if there is such a word) is not sexually explicit,  especially since being topless in NYC,  even in public,   is legally permissible.  There are topless women on the beaches and walking around Times Square (at least in the summertime!).   

[aurora]

1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

That doesn't change the fact that mere toplessness (if there is such a word) is not sexually explicit,  especially since being topless in NYC,  even in public,   is legally permissible.  There are topless women on the beaches and walking around Times Square (at least in the summertime!).   

Again you ignore the matter of CHOICE inherent in this.

There may be women walking around topless in Times Square, but they chose to be topless in public.

She did not consent to be seen topless by the people who saw her photo.

[GB1216]

10 minutes ago, aurora said:

Again you ignore the matter of CHOICE inherent in this.

There may be women walking around topless in Times Square, but they chose to be topless in public.

She did not consent to be seen topless by the people who saw her photo.

I agree with this....however, after reading Maxwell’s statement she unequivocally has forgiven him and they are moving on together.  Whether that is right or wrong, it is not our choice but hers alone.  Another woman may have dropped him and that would have been fine too - if not more in the line of public opinion.  We are not in their relationship and can only speculate.
 

Side note:  I remember seeing images of Waterbury and Finlay prior to the scandal on IG, and thinking “my god what a fast life they are living”.  It showed through - I was not at all surprised that a scandal broke out.

[Villette]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

 

(I believe that Ramasar shared a topless photo of Maxwell.  "Topless" is not "sexually explicit",  especially given the countless artistic depictions of women with exposed breasts,  even by well-regarded dance companies.  If someone  knows otherwise please inform me.)

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

[yukionna4869]

Prior to Maxwell releasing her statement, Waterbury named Maxwell on social media, I believe, for the first time. She also accused her and Ashley Hod of illegally recording their phone conversation. Unfortunately, the tweet she was responding to is now deleted, so we don't really have much context for this. 

 

 

[nubka]

8 minutes ago, Villette said:

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

And if that's not sexually explicit, I don't know what is.  Even if it were only a pic of the breasts, it is still explicit if it was not by her choice.  

[Syzygy]

33 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

 mere toplessness (if there is such a word) is not sexually explicit

Agree to disagree. We don't know each other, but I can tell you I'm a woman with breasts who enjoys being topless. But I'm very, very aware that it's a choice to show any part of your own body (or not).

Either way, as Villette points out:

8 minutes ago, Villette said:

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

 

[macnellie]

This energy should be spent on our Senate. 
 

[Syzygy]

2 minutes ago, macnellie said:

This energy should be spent on our Senate. 
 

It's ok to care about ballet, too. I can multitask. 😉

[Marta]

17 minutes ago, macnellie said:

This energy should be spent on our Senate. 
 

Absolutely!  Sure, fine with me also to discuss the minute details of Ramasar et al.,  but it's good to acknowledge that there's another massive problem that affects us all.

 

[On Pointe]

45 minutes ago, Villette said:

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

I concede that that info ups the ante,  if true.  That detail from the complaint comes from Waterbury.  But according to Maxwell,  there was only one photo,  which she knew Ramasar was taking.  Maxwell is twenty-five,  not fifteen,  mature enough to realize that in this digital age,  it's likely that more than one person might see the photo,  given the fact that it's estimated that 70%+ of cell phone owners share images of an intimate nature.  It would be different if Ramasar took the photos surreptitiously.  At any rate Maxwell is the only party who might have been violated,  but she's not making a complaint.

That fact seems to bother Waterbury the most.  She expects women who, unlike herself,  actually did make it into NYCBallet,  to  blow up their own spot  and end their relationships,  too.  All because she was done wrong by Chase Finlay.  It's a bit rich that she's complaining about her conversation being recorded when she is the one who went through Finlay's texts and revealed conversations that had nothing to do with her.  

[BalanchineFan]

6 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Absolutely. The insinuations against Waterbury weren't necessary nor well-considered. They might be relevant in a court of law, but look ugly trotted out in the court of public opinion.

Respectfully, I disagree. Waterbury contacted Alexa Maxwell to try to persuade Maxwell to take actions that Maxwell did not want to do, and has not done in the two years of this mess. Waterbury is posting content about Maxwell today in her IG stories. Maxwell has a right to reveal whatever she wishes of their communication.  Maxwell sounds like a woman who is fed up with being harrassed.

I don't understand how Waterbury can claim that there has been "no accountability" when her civil case is still wending its way through the courts. Has her case been dismissed? Remember that the conclusion of a civil case is a monetary judgement. While Waterbury probably wants a lot of outcomes it's not an insinuation to say that she chose an avenue that ends with money. If she wants Finlay or Ramasar or the man who actually made the "farm animal" comment off the streets and out of work she should file criminal charges. I don't see how keeping him from work helps her, except in terms of generating publicity and revenge.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

2 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

At any rate Maxwell is the only party who might have been violated,  but she's not making a complaint.

If Maxwell was violated, so was Waterbury. Both women had explicit photos taken by a male sexual partner who then shared those photos with others without the women's consent. 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

5 hours ago, nanushka said:

Of course it’s only her word, but I’ve read many comments suggesting (critically) that Waterbury is in it for the money.

Waterbury may not be in it for the money, but her lawyer, who works on a contingency basis, surely is. 

[tutu]

15 minutes ago, Leah said:

(This is in response to the thread in general, not one particular person.)  Money is the main means in which justice is carried out in this country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting money from someone who has wronged you. This is the way American law works. If you don’t like it there are other places you can go. It’s because of this legal system that we enjoy the kind of freedoms and safety standards that are uncommon elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with contingency either. It ensures that those who are unable to normally afford a day in court can seek justice. (These are the people who are usually most harmed by those in power.) It further democratizes the legal system. 

... 

Edit: Just to be clear, civil cases for monetary relief are generally a lot easier to win than criminal cases, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very tough hill to climb, especially in sex-related cases where the issue usually comes down to a he said-she argument over consent. Civil actions will usually require a preponderance of the evidence. Thus criminal charges were likely not a viable option for Waterbury.

Thanks for this, @Leah.  Really appreciate the way you articulated this.

[nanushka]

41 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Waterbury may not be in it for the money, but her lawyer, who works on a contingency basis, surely is. 

Of course. He may not be highly skilled, but he’s a professional.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

1 hour ago, BalanchineFan said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Waterbury contacted Alexa Maxwell to try to persuade Maxwell to take actions that Maxwell did not want to do, and has not done in the two years of this mess. Waterbury is posting content about Maxwell today in her IG stories. Maxwell has a right to reveal whatever she wishes of their communication.  Maxwell sounds like a woman who is fed up with being harrassed.

I wasn't aware of Waterbury's most recent IG posts (or of any of them, for that matter, since I don't follow her). I agree that Maxwell is certainly within her rights to report the details of any conversations the two women have had. I just think it would have been the better part of valor to state that she'd forgiven Ramasar, that she doesn't view herself as a victim, and that so far as she's concerned, claims that he's a rapist are exaggerated and leave it at that. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Kathleen O'Connell

[On Pointe]

55 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If Maxwell was violated, so was Waterbury. Both women had explicit photos taken by a male sexual partner who then shared those photos with others without the women's consent. 

Maxwell isn't suing Ramasar.  Waterbury is.  The courts have already made it clear that even the egregious actions of Finlay alone do not constitute actionable revenge porn.  Waterbury has no standing to sue in Maxwell's behalf.   Despite her message to the contrary,  her legal complaint made it clear that she was outing Maxwell - we all knew who she was referring to.  Her actions are veering close to harassment.   Waterbury would be wise to let her case make its way through the courts and stop commenting on it on social media.

[yukionna4869]

47 minutes ago, Leah said:

Edit: Just to be clear, civil cases for monetary relief are generally a lot easier to win than criminal cases, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very tough hill to climb, especially in sex-related cases where the issue usually comes down to a he said-she argument over consent. Civil actions will usually require a preponderance of the evidence. Thus criminal charges were likely not a viable option for Waterbury.

 

According to Waterbury, the DA declined to prosecute.
"The District Attorney of NYC looked into my case, conducting a criminal investigation and similarly to how the DA handled the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, they’re claiming there’s not enough to prosecute the case with. They couldn’t “find” the photos and conversations that were taken and sent after the “revenge porn” law was signed in, in 2018 (although there were laws criminalizing this conduct which were passed in 2014 by Cuomo.) "

Waterbury's post below also includes some screenshots of Finlay's text exchanges. Content warning: the last image in the post contains some vile language, but those messages are not from Amar. One might get confused since the post is about Amar starting previews in West Side Story.

 

[On Pointe]

19 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:

 

According to Waterbury, the DA declined to prosecute.
"The District Attorney of NYC looked into my case, conducting a criminal investigation and similarly to how the DA handled the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, they’re claiming there’s not enough to prosecute the case with. They couldn’t “find” the photos and conversations that were taken and sent after the “revenge porn” law was signed in, in 2018 (although there were laws criminalizing this conduct which were passed in 2014 by Cuomo.) "

Waterbury's post below also includes some screenshots of Finlay's text exchanges. Content warning: the last image in the post contains some vile language, but those messages are not from Amar. One might get confused since the post is about Amar starting previews in West Side Story.

 

Waterbury is starting to sound unhinged.