Posted on 11/09/2019 10:51:57 AM PST by Libloather
The Manhattan D.A.’s office has asked a judge to block Harvey Weinstein’s defense team from calling on a psychologist to testify about false memories and the distinctly Orwellian-sounding phenomenon they refer to as “unwanted voluntary sex.”
In a court filing made public on Wednesday, prosecutors responded to a series of motions made by Weinstein’s legal team, including his request to call social psychologist Deborah Davis to testify about “the accuracy and reliability of memory in disputed sexual encounters,” including “the formation of fully false memories for events that never happened.” Specifically, Davis would testify about the “phenomenon of ‘voluntary unwanted sex,’ i.e., sex that is undesired, but that the person chooses to engage in.”
In their response, prosecutors argued that Davis’ theories have no scientific or legal basis and should not be allowed at trial. They also addressed the Weinstein team’s claim that Davis would act as counterweight to the testimony of Barbara Ziv, MD, an expert called on by the prosecution who has also testified at the trial of Bill Cosby about how sexual assault survivors respond to trauma.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I Better not get into politics. My fragile ego may not like hearing about who I shouldn’t have seduced lol. (J/k). Sort of
If not a thing, does that mean all hookers are nymphos?
Sounds like prostitution to me. Or perhaps more of a “quid pro quo” situation, to borrow a current term.
>>. But I think there may be something to the “unwanted voluntary sex” thing - though that’s a stupid term. A lot of starlets and wannabe starlets likely hated the casting couch experience, but they went along anyway in search of fame and fortune. More of an “against better judgment” thing.<<
For the “casting couch” scenario, it seems more like the starlet wannabe sees it as a career boost. Then, later on, gets upset when the career opportunities don’t appear.
Something like, if you tell a woman you’ll pay her to have sex with her, and then don’t pay, should she be able to charge you with rape?
“Something like, if you tell a woman you’ll pay her to have sex with her, and then don’t pay, should she be able to charge you with rape?”
—
There is that, yes. Though in most of these cases it would seem the “transaction” has been complete. Weinstein is scum either way, but none of the parties to such doings are wide-eyed innocents. “Get in the mud with the pigs”, y’know.
OMG as a woman I would rather be dead than have this PIG laying on top of me breathing heavy! What the hell is the matter with these actresses there is NOTHING in the world worth having sex with this FAT GROSS ASS!!!!
Unless they lust for fame or/and attention and of course the money. They’re a lot like social climbers only they’re willing to pay with their body and the going rate.
Yep - he’s gonna hear, “On your knees MoFu and do it good or I’ll slash your throat.”
And then will “voluntarily” engage in that unwanted sex with the rest of the cons...
Weinstein never needed to be handsome and well groomed in order to get laid.
You would never have sex with Weinstein, because you are not as hungry for success and money as some of these girls.
Bol......that I would pay to see.
........ rotflol......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.