"Emilia Clarke reveals Hollywood's other #MeToo problem"

[Zaccheus]

As far as “treat women” goes in this case I just see a job offer and people who choose to apply for it. You can question the morality of the producers but there is no criminal case to answer to so attaching

Do the nude scene or you don’t get to have a job. (No job–you can’t pay the rent.) The power imbalance is relevant.
The fact that it’s possible to say no, does not relieve the employers of responsibility, nor does it make the practice acceptable.

there is no criminal case to answer to

And nobody claims there is.

so attaching the #metoo tag is totally wrong.

What’s your source for the claim that the #metoo tag applies solely when there’s a criminal case?

Just someone who was tempted by an offer

—pressured into doing something she didn’t want, in order to keep her livelihood.

 

[Zaccheus]

I’ve changed careers before. It’s not that hard.

There are people who struggle for years just to get a job at all. And before you can change careers you need to have a career.

As I understand it she even had a large financial cushion to get her through the transition and pay for any educational expenses.

Do you mean before or after she spent however many years building a reputation and enduring sex scenes in the meantime?

Pornography, but that’s not really a different profession, is it?

Do you mean that being an actress is equivalent to being a porn actress?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Do you mean before or after she spent however many years building a reputation and enduring sex scenes in the meantime?

Realized I jumped the gun on that one. You’re right, she could have have just said no and chosen a career from scratch.

Do you mean that being an actress is equivalent to being a porn actress?

Do you mean before or after she spent however many years building a reputation and enduring sex scenes in the meantime?

It certainly was for her.

I get it. These people who produce this smut are bad people and we want to blame them. The money was there because there was an audience willing to pay to see her or anyone like her. She was tempted and she bit the apple. She’s not a victim.

As someone else pointed out, there’s no metoo because metoo is about sexual harassment. This is not sexual harassment. This is someone blaming the people who placed temptation in front of her for her choice to do a regrettable thing. It’s good she regrets it, but what’s not good is portraying it as something it isn’t.

 

[jack63]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) jack63:

Catholics are taught humility and taught to accept that they are sinners in confession. That is what is missing from this article.

Well…she sure seems to want absolution…some sort of public absolution. Perhaps a desire for absolution is an innate human desire. If the public is ok with this type of absolution (without her acknowledging she did anything wrong) then all of her fame and fortune were won by her hard work and talent.

She would not owe anybody anything. She certainly would not owe anything to the many woman who will have seen her scenes in GoT, come to Hollywood, and who will make similar decisions. It won’t work out for the vast majority of these woman. They’ll either be forgotten or will continue to make porn. These other woman didn’t work hard enough. They weren’t that talented. Perhaps they didn’t stick up for themselves like she did.

 

[blackforest]

I’ve changed careers before. It’s not that hard.

I’d rather see brave woman like Clarke working to change Hollywood from within. If she speaks out, hopefully it emboldens other actors to do the same. There are and can be more shows out there without gratuitous sex. And Hollywood women shouldn’t have to sign their sexual boundaries away in order to get a job.

This is someone blaming the people who placed temptation in front of her for her choice to do a regrettable thing.

She’s not blaming them for her personal choices. She’s blaming them for creating a culture that over-sexualizes women.

If you’re so big on her taking personal responsibility for her actions, don’t you think her employer should take responsibility for theirs? Or does personal responsibility only apply to women somehow?

Well…she sure seems to want absolution…some sort of public absolution.

My hypothesis is that we all have a drive to confess our sins to others; we Catholics just have a ready and easy way to get that fix. Coming public has another advantage, however. She’s raised awareness about how every time there’s a nude scene, a woman has had to compromise herself; there’s a real human being there, not just a sex object. Hopefully her public statements gets film-viewers thinking more critically about this.

 

[Zaccheus]

I get it. These people who produce this smut are bad people and we want to blame them. The money was there because there was an audience willing to pay to see her or anyone like her. She was tempted and she bit the apple. She’s not a victim.

She was made to choose between the nude scenes and no job as an actress. This makes the producers wrong.
It does not make her a helpless victim but she never claimed to be that as far as I can tell. She takes responsibility for her choices.
That does not absolve the producers who forced the choice upon her, and still force that choice upon young actresses as a group.

As someone else pointed out, there’s no metoo because metoo is about sexual harassment. This is not sexual harassment. This is someone blaming the people who placed temptation in front of her for her choice to do a regrettable thing. It’s good she regrets it, but what’s not good is portraying it as something it isn’t.

Do the unpleasant (sexual) thing that you don’t want to do, or suffer consequences. That’s what sexual harassment is.

You say they tempted her: I say yes, they did. But they also coerced her. Do it or no job, and all the other producers will make the same demand so you can’t just go audition with someone else and get away from the demand.

She does not deny her own responsibility. She points out, truthfully, that the producers also bear responsibility.
There are other women out there facing the same choice because they don’t have either the money or the clout to be in a position to defy the demand. Just as Clarke didn’t at the beginning of her carerr.

 

[Lea101]

She was made to choose between the nude scenes and no job as an actress. This makes the producers wrong.
It does not make her a helpless victim but she never claimed to be that as far as I can tell. She takes responsibility for her choices.
That does not absolve the producers who forced the choice upon her, and still force that choice upon young actresses as a group

Well said. People who can’t see this are clouded by their bias tbh

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I think the article is unclear and has resulted in different interpretations.

Some people, like myself, are thinking that the nude scenes were made clear to everyone before applying for the job. In this case there is no #metoo problem, just women looking for men to blame.

Others think that nude scenes were added afterwards with the actress given the ultimatum to do the scene which she didn’t sign up to do. While I admit this to be both a sin and a crime I don’t see this as a #metoo problem either, just women looking to blame men, again. There are multiple producers and directors who would have all been involved, many of which would have most certainly been women so it’s not even about men but about the producers and directors.

I feel that some people here are thinking about sin while others are thinking about crime. I don’t think any of us disagrees with the thought that this is a sin, it’s the crime that some people are questioning.

I also feel that a lot of people are just fed up with the whole “sex sells” industry and are looking for men to blame, again. Women choose to become strippers, nude models, porn stars, prostitutes, etc, no one forces them. They can still get a normal job like most people.

By using #metoo this becomes feminist propaganda whose objective is to blame men for everything. The same group that claims we created a rape culture. The same group that calls masculinity toxic. The same group that claims the patriarchy (men) are oppressing women.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

She was made to choose between the nude scenes and no job as an actress.

Yup. She chose wrong.

That does not absolve the producers who forced the choice upon her, and still force that choice upon young actresses as a group.

If you’re so big on her taking personal responsibility for her actions, don’t you think her employer should take responsibility for theirs? Or does personal responsibility only apply to women somehow?

Your strawman is on fire. I don’t recall a single person in this thread absolving the creators of smut for placing temptation before her.

Christians were made to choose between offering incense and death. Those who chose to offer incense chose wrong. In acknowledging the wrong of offering incense, no one has ever used that to absolve Diocletian for his evils. That’s not happening here either.

There are other women out there facing the same choice because they don’t have either the money or the clout to be in a position to defy the demand.

Or they don’t care or they want that money and fame more than they care about modesty or scandal and they aren’t willing to work in one of the thousands of other careers available because money and fame. It isn’t going to stop unless you make smut illegal again and raise the morality of society beyond “muh consenting adults.”

 

[Zaccheus]

Some people, like myself, are thinking that the nude scenes were made clear to everyone before applying for the job. In this case there is no #metoo problem, just women looking for men to blame.

“Get naked for the audience or you can’t have the job.”
This is sexual harassment and (unless you and I have very different ideas of what #metoo is about) it does mean there is a #metoo problem.
The actresses faced with this demand are fully responsible for their own choices. The demand is still unjust, and a woman who complains about it is not just “looking for men to blame”. The men in question are blameworthy.

Others think that nude scenes were added afterwards with the actress given the ultimatum to do the scene which she didn’t sign up to do. While I admit this to be both a sin and a crime I don’t see this as a #metoo problem either,

Sexual harassment plus the women were ambushed with the demand after they committed themselves to a contract.
Yes it is a #metoo problem.

There are multiple producers and directors who would have all been involved, many of which would have most certainly been women so it’s not even about men but about the producers and directors.

Multiple people share the guilt for the unjust demands. This does not make the demands less unjust nor does it excuse those who made them.
Yes, it’s likely there were women working for the studios who share responsibility. In no way does that excuse the men responsible. Nor does it make it not sexual harassment. Nor does it mean the exploited actresses have less right to complain.

Women choose to become strippers, nude models, porn stars, prostitutes, etc, no one forces them. They can still get a normal job like most people.

In fact many women are forced into prostitution. Not coerced–forced. Physical beatings, rape, death threats, inability to escape their tormenters, literal imprisonment in whorehouses.
Not all prostitutes are so treated but many have been and still are.
Many women are maltreated and abused into “choosing” to work as strippers or working in porn. Some have more real choice than others but that doesn’t make my statement less true. The abuse exists.

By using #metoo this becomes feminist propaganda whose objective is to blame men for everything. The same group that claims we created a rape culture. The same group that calls masculinity toxic. The same group that claims the patriarchy (men) are oppressing women.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

“Get naked for the audience or you can’t have the job.”
The men in question are blameworthy.

“Get naked for the audience or you can’t have the job.”
Where in the article does it say this?

You admit that there are women that are most likely involved so I find it very interesting that you choose to only want to throw stones at the men.

Sexual harassment plus the women were ambushed with the demand after they committed themselves to a contract.

I did say that I understand your interpretation and agree that it is sexual harassment.
Do u however understand my interpretation? That she was well aware of her nude scenes when she signed? Cos the fact that you didn’t even address it makes me doubt your willingness to understand different perspectives as i understand yours.

Multiple people share the guilt for the unjust demands. This does not make the demands less unjust nor does it excuse those who made them.
Yes, it’s likely there were women working for the studios who share responsibility. In no way does that excuse the men responsible. Nor does it make it not sexual harassment. Nor does it mean the exploited actresses have less right to complain.

U seem to have skipped my point. Both men and women are involved so it isn’t a #metoo problem.

In fact many women are forced into prostitution. Not coerced– forced . Physical beatings, rape, death threats, inability to escape their tormenters, literal imprisonment in whorehouses.
Not all prostitutes are so treated but many have been and still are.
Many women are maltreated and abused into “choosing” to work as strippers or working in porn. Some have more real choice than others but that doesn’t make my statement less true. The abuse exists.

Two wrongs don’t make a right

I never said the abuse doesn’t exist. You ignored my points again which really makes me question your sincerity. I made an effort to understand your interpretation and I agreed with u. Your not interested in having a genuine productive conversation, instead your just looking to win an argument which means ignoring many of my points.

I will reiterate my arguments.
1/ My interpretation of the article is that she already knew about the nude scenes when she signed and then had regrets that decision. Can you blame anyone else but her? Is this sexual assault or harassment? Is it a #metoo problem?
2/ In the case that she was forced into getting nude I again say it’s not a #metoo problem as there are women involved also, not just men. The #metoo movement portrays all men as being sexual predators just like “rape culture” and “toxic masculinity” does so I will always speak up against these false blanket statements about men.

Now let’s see how genuine you really are. If you will address my arguments this time around.

 

[blackforest]

By using #metoo this becomes feminist propaganda whose objective is to blame men for everything. The same group that claims we created a rape culture. The same group that calls masculinity toxic. The same group that claims the patriarchy (men) are oppressing women.

You’re poisoning the well. What you don’t like about feminists is irrelevant to the merits of Clarke’s decision to stop doing nude scenes.

My interpretation of the article is that she already knew about the nude scenes when she signed and then had regrets that decision. Can you blame anyone else but her? Is this sexual assault or harassment? Is it a #metoo problem?

She made clear that A) She knew her contract, B) She regretted agreeing, stood up to her producers, and refused to do more nude scenes, and C) Hollywood too often wrongfully compells women to sign away their sexual boundaries in order to secure employment. This is sexual harassment.

We can agree on the first two. Are you having a hard time swallowing that third one?

Can you blame anyone else but her?

@MiserereMeiDei Since you were curious, here’s somebody unwilling to assign any blame to the producers. And perhaps Diocletian.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Hollywood too often wrongfully compells women to sign away their sexual boundaries in order to secure employment. This is sexual harassment.

Define some terms.
Compel… “Force or oblige (someone) to do something”
Sexual harassment… “unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.”

There were no sexual remarks or physical advances so it’s not sexual harassment.
She wasn’t compelled to sign anything, it was her choice which is why no charges can be laid on any of the producers or directors, they are innocent of any crime. No amount of angry women will ever change the law.

Besides we already discussed this and the comments you are referring to were not directed at you. You’ve missed a lot of the conversation and context.

 

[LilyM]

blackforest:

Hollywood too often wrongfully compells women to sign away their sexual boundaries in order to secure employment. This is sexual harassment.

Define some terms.
Compel… “Force or oblige (someone) to do something”
Sexual harassment… “unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.”

There were no sexual remarks or physical advances so it’s not sexual harassment.
She wasn’t compelled to sign anything, it was her choice which is why no charges can be laid on any of the producers or directors, they are innocent of any crime. No amount of angry women will ever change the law.

Besides we already discussed this and the comments you are referring to were not directed at you. You’ve missed a lot of the conversation and context.

“Take your clothes off and pretend to have sex in front of the cameras or you are not going to get/keep this job” is, or ought to be, an entirely inappropriate remark. And of course it is sexual - it is about a sex scene isn’t it?

 

[Zaccheus]

I’m willing to discuss issues such as this one.
I’m not interested in refuting your poor personal opinion of me.
May God bless you.

Edit: Your definition of sexual harassment in response to @blackforest is incomplete and misleading. There is more to it than that.
Leaving the thread now.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I’m willing to discuss issues such as this one.
I’m not interested in refuting your poor personal opinion of me.

Your perception on my opinion of your character does not discredit my argument.
Your simply unable to address my arguments and/or understand my interpretation as i did yours.

Your definition of sexual harassment in response to @blackforest is incomplete and misleading. There is more to it than that.

The full definition of sexual harassment is this…
“behaviour characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.”
I simply shortened it

You quoted “Get naked for the audience or you can’t have the job.” from where?
It’s very misleading as it’s not in the article at all.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

“Take your clothes off and pretend to have sex in front of the cameras or you are not going to get/keep this job” is, or ought to be, an entirely inappropriate remark. And of course it is sexual - it is about a sex scene isn’t it?

Please reference the quote you are referring to as it is not in the article. Someone else quoted “Get naked for the audience or you can’t have the job.” which is also not in the article.

If that is what you imagine was said to her than i have already stated that I agree it is sexual harassment and that I see 2 potential interpretations to the article.

My interpretation of the article as well as of others on this thread is that she knew about the nude scenes when she signed and now regrets it. According to the law this is not sexual harassment. Do u agree?

This quote is from the article and lead me to my interpretation.
“Clarke recalls thinking when she first got a hold of the script, looking at the “f— ton of nudity” and sex scenes.”

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

“Take your clothes off and pretend to have sex in front of the cameras or you are not going to get/keep this job” is, or ought to be, an entirely inappropriate remark. And of course it is sexual - it is about a sex scene isn’t it?

Please reference the quote you are referring to as it is not in the article. Someone else quoted “Get naked for the audience or you can’t have the job.” which is also not in the article.

If that is what you imagine was said to her than i have already stated that I agree it is sexual harassment and that I see 2 potential interpretations to the article.

My interpretation of the article as well as of others on this thread is that she knew about the nude scenes when she signed and now regrets it. According to the law this is not sexual harassment. Do u agree?

This quote is from the article and lead me to my interpretation.
“Clarke recalls thinking when she first got a hold of the script, looking at the “f— ton of nudity” and sex scenes.”

As has been said upthread, scripts are generally not handed out in such situations prior to a contract being signed. So that would have been afterwards.

Are you imagining there was a clause in the contract itself which said in effect that she was obligated to do any nude/sex scenes that might be scripted for her, and any objection could result in her being dismissed and/or blacklisted? Or that this would verbally have been said to her before she signed, or even before a sex scene was due to be filmed? Unlikely. The devil is much more subtle than that. So, I would think, are most casting agents.

Besides which, there are sex scenes and sex scenes. Some don’t involve nudity or much graphic detail at all. And scripts of such scenes don’t, I imagine, involve a lot of graphic detail, any more than a fight scene in a Shakespeare play is described blow-by-blow in his script.

And unless she had THAT level of knowledge - not just that there might be sex scenes, but what they might involve, and that objecting could have repercussions in terms of her career - then I would argue that she was somewhat less than adequately informed by those who signed her up.

 

[blackforest]

There were no sexual remarks or physical advances so it’s not sexual harassment.

Commanding someone to get naked for an erotic scene on camera isn’t a sexual remark? And why do you keep bringing the law into this? Clarke isn’t suing anyone.

You quoted “Get naked for the audience or you can’t have the job.” from where?
It’s very misleading as it’s not in the article at all.

Actually, yes, those terms were stipulated in the contract. “Get naked . . .” is simply a colloquial paraphrasing of whatever legal mumbo-jumbo Clarke had to sort through.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Are you imagining there was a clause in the contract itself which said in effect that she was obligated to do any nude/sex scenes that might be scripted for her, and any objection could result in her being dismissed and/or blacklisted?

Yes that’s what I thought when I read the article. If it’s the case then it doesn’t constitute as a crime in our justice system as some people here have claimed.

After reading the article a few times I admit that my interpretation may be incorrect and that she maybe was forced into something she didn’t sign up for. In this case it is a crime, sexual harassment.

That’s basically all im saying. Im not arguing over which interpretation is right, so I have an answer for both. Also Im not supporting anyone’s actions in this case as they have all sinned under the God’s law.

I thank you @LilyM for seeking understanding. I hope this is where we reach a prayful agreement. God Bless