(Sep 14, 2018 12:28 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: If she wanted to bang it out, why did she say that his hand was too high? I saw it differently but who knows? I do hope that we’re allowed to flirt without that being considered sexual consent, though. If he had asked her for consent to shove his dick up her ass and she said, "ummm… a little bit" then things would be different.
Absolutely. But you have to wonder. If she flirted, repeatedly giving consent while being as uncomfortable as she now claims, what else did she do without saying "no"? She also knew she was recording the meeting, for what reason is unclear, but any potential witnesses who could judge a woman's actions do weight heavily on her behavior. Now, in this case that judgement could have been from her employer about her not getting the deal, thus an external pressure to consent (not Weinstein's fault). Who knows? The later meeting and supposed rape had no such constraint on her denying consent...which she never says she did. Calling it rape may be an easy way to sidestep that important detail.
There's also no law about requiring strictly verbal overt consent, like some colleges would like. There's only a legal requirement to respect a denial of consent. Even states that require affirmative consent consider overt actions (like going alone to a hotel room and not reporting rape immediately thereafter) to indicate agreement.
We can only judge what we can see for ourselves or what can be proven in court. I started watching this with every expectation of it only further damning Weinstein, much to my own surprise. That she thinks this clearly damns him seems to indicate a self-justifying delusion.