Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian. WH counsel Don McGahn cooperated in Mueller inquiry. Giuliani says “truth isn’t truth” during NBC interview. Bomb used in Yemen airstrike was made in US. Bernie Sanders vs Jake Tapper on Medicare-for-all. #Metoo leader Asia Argento paid off alleged sexual assault victim.
0 seconds of 1 hour, 18 minutes, 7 secondsVolume 90%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Shortcuts Open/Close/ or ?
Play/PauseSPACE
Increase Volume↑
Decrease Volume↓
Seek Forward→
Seek Backward←
Captions On/Offc
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreenf
Mute/Unmutem
Decrease Caption Size-
Increase Caption Size+ or =
Seek %0-9
Comments
“within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital. But all methods for the production of surplus-value are at the same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulation becomes again a means for the development of those methods.”
-Karl Marx
Yikes. I love me some Cenk but the sexual assault segment became really difficult to watch.
Thank you Cenk you are 100% correct!
As a 17 yo kid I would have LOVED that too! And I don’t know who wouldn’t.
Thanks for sharing the male perspective so honest and real.
No other anchor would be brave enough to say that
Your post should be corrected to say, “Thanks for sharing a male perspective….” Because as a male, I 100% do not agree with it. Females can have orgasms during rape, so that means they LOVE IT, right?
Asia Argento is a problem. It almost sounds like you’re dismissing her bad actions a bit.
The boy was 17 and underage. Asia wasn’t like a 18 or 19 year old girlfriend. She was 20 years older. It seems petty now, but when I was 22, I had sex with a 30-year-old. I was all down for the sex, but then it felt like I was with somebody so much older and I felt regret. So yeah, in the moment, I could see this kid, sex, yes! Starting with a BJ. But then the clothes come off and she’s almost 40. Well, you’re already turned on, so you’re not going to stop. But I can see regretting it afterwards – especially when she was a friend before and he probably felt used.
It all seems a bit predatory on Argento’s part.
Of course, her and Weinstein are completely different. One was consensual, one was rape. But it still wasn’t right on her part. And who’s to say there wasn’t a bit of the same feeling of pressure as in the METOO movement? This young guy, only 17. She’s an actress, director, producer, and writer. We claim that the actresses feel like they have to have sex to help or avoid harming their career. I think this was the same case.
Sorry Cenk, just because his anatomy worked doesn’t mean it was right. Especially at 17. First contact probably made it work.
Seems a little odd that we’re arguing “for” a report put out by this man that says medicare for all is cheaper, but when he says it’s not, we argue against him. It’s like we consider him credible when he supports our side, but when he doesn’t, we don’t like it.
And we probably can argue the facts of the proposal against his assumptions. But on the surface it sounds like cherry picking.
1. If 17 is the age of consent in your state, then yea it is old enough. Whether I like it or not, it’s the law.
2. If 18 is the age of consent in your state and you think that “17 is old enough to consent”, I wouldn’t necessarily fault you for arguing that; it’s the age of consent in other states. If you reaaaalllly feel that 17 should be age of consent, start a petition. Go around your city and communities asking people to sign a petition in favor of changing your state’s age of consent to 17. Or 16 as apparently other states have. Or whatever the hell you think it should be.
3. Whatever you do or think, understand this: a line must be drawn and it MUST be followed. ANYONE who crosses it should be tried and convicted of statutory rape. If this doesn’t happen, people will exploit it. It will set a precedent that endangers children.
4. Follow the goddamn age of consent laws in your state.
He OBVIOUSLY wanted it and was OBVIOUSLY happy that it happened, come on guys.
Now, that is NOT A LEGAL ARGUMENT. If a jury is convinced that he did not consent, then that IS rape, even if he may have enjoyed it, and we have to prosecute her just as strongly as a male.
As far as judging her personally, it was an immature and misguided thing to do, but I agree with Cenk it by no means puts her in the same class as Harvy Weinstein.
In this case it has nothing to do with consent. It has everything to do with age of consent.
Age of consent is kind of a subset of consent. The age of consent is designed for those who are able to give mature consent.
I’m disgusted with Cenk! Rape is rape is rape is rape! Age, gender, sexuality, or perceived “attractiveness” of the person has nothing to do with it. If consent is not given, or in this case cannot be given as he was a minor, it’s rape no matter which way you try to spin it! Cenk, how about you ask a bunch of 17 year old boys if they would like to be raped, my guess is the answer would be a resounding NO! Rape is what happened to this boy, period!
Ana, thank you for standing up to Cenk on this one, his statement is indefensible. If it wasn’t for Ana I would be canceling my membership right now!
I have never been so disappointed in TYT.
Although I doubt it will happen, I think Cenk should issue an apology. Even if it is just “like your opinion man” you are suggesting that in some situations rape is okay, you are taking victim blaming to a whole other level. Shame on you!
Cenk’s old school sexism did not surprise me Ana’s silence did. I don’t know why we are all patting her on the back she let Cenk get away with a lot of bs in that segment. I am disappointed in both of them
Cenk is exactly right. Exactly 100% right. if it was me, I would have thought I had died and gone to heaven at 17. I’d say his idea of 85% of 17 year old boys would probably be accurate.
He’s right 1 million times and counting.
With a 17 year old girl I’m sure its 100% the opposite.
You are gross
Gross? That a 17 year old boy would want to have sex, even with an older person? Ewe! How gross!
17 year old boys never want sex. That’s just crazy talk. LOL.
With the name Megan, I’m assuming you were never a 17 year old boy.
37 seems a bit on the old side. That’s almost 40. And he’s a good looking boy and an actor. I can’t imagine he was hurting for female companionship. So I could see him maybe being hesitant. But it’s sex and he’s a 17-year-old boy. And maybe there was some of the fact that she’s an actress, director, etc., and he felt like he had to.
I can’t speak for 17 year old girls. Although I have known high school girls to go out with older guys (college and even older). I can’t imagine they were all hating the idea the whole time. I think they were intrigued by a more knowledgeable, more mature guy than the high school guys around them. And I can’t imagine sex never happened.
Two things…
Cenk, given your attitude, don’t be surprised if your son never comes for your support if he’s sexually assaulted. #Old Turks
Ana, I’ve seen this recent reframing. “Hey, we’ve got to understand the abusers if they have been abused”. And yes, you are right. But what happens when Harvey says he was abused?
From my reading, this idea that abused become abusers is a misunderstanding in the world of tv and movies. That actually a small % of people go on to hurt people in the way they are hurt. Of course, it does happen but not the extent that we often assume. It’s also once again a can of worms I am not sure we want to open.
On the Asia Argento story:
As most others have stated in these comments I think Cenk totally got it wrong on his stance. Also, it was rather cowardly how Cenk tried to hide behind the excuse of “hey, I’m only trying to represent what many at home are probably thinking; I’m not saying that’s what I believe.” (paraphrase).
Obviously, the argument he made clearly does represent his view. I’m confident in saying that since I’ve been a TYT watcher since 2008, and I’ve seen Cenk make that argument (or similar ones) before. I earnestly hope he takes constructive criticism in regard to this story and updates his views accordingly.
I think this is a guy versus a girl thing. Some oddities of women, guys will never come to fully understand, and same with crazy oddities of guys some women will never full realize.
Cenk is not saying that if the boy was a girl that she would have liked it. Thats predator shit and I don’t play that.
If you were around guys constantly in high school you may possibly understand the guys liking it thing. It is a thing.
I also have a guy friend who was actually raped by a girl– he hated it and was scarred psycologically by it, but I think he was truly an outlier.
I really wish TYT would realize that the inconsistency IS the oligarch’s distraction. It’s obvious that they will impeach when they are ready. Oligarchs don’t care about any inconsistency, they see that as OUR problem. Let’s not waste so much time on trump or conservative inconsistencies……
About the Asia Argento discussion, I strongly agree with Cenk. I would say that 95% of 17-year-old males would have loved it. Anna you’re almost always right, but in this case you’re incorrect. The law should reflect what we want, our pursuit of happiness, and freedom. But if he consented, then he consented. There is no changing his mind later. He could have physically stopped it if he wanted to.
We’re talking about this case, a 17-year-old man and an older woman. So, don’t use other stupid extreme scenarios to make your weak point. This case is so obvious. There are differences between men and women.
In the state of California, there are no 17 year old men. There are only 17 year old children. Whether you agree or not, that line has been drawn. If you’re in favor of adult-child sex, at least say it plainly.
So where is the line to you? 17 you give a free pass (even with the circumstances. 16? 15? 12?
I apologize for this but I genuinely don’t understand your response. The line is 18 in California. So no, there should be no free pass for a 17 year old.
Goddamnit I’m a narcissistic dotard. I thought you were replying to my reply, Meghan. My apologies, disregard my reply.
It was meant as a reply to another comment but got put onto this one for some reason…
No, I got confused too I thought it had moved as a reply to you too lol. Anyway, you aren’t a narcissist and the reply was to the idea that this should be a freedom of choice issue. There has to be a line with the age of consent which you seem to agree with so we good *thumbs up*
I haven’t surveyed 100 17 year olds, but my guess is most of them would have sex with an older woman. There are lines there too. 80? Probably none of them. But Asia Argento is/was very nice looking at 37. But like Bullfrog says, 18 is the limit. He was under. IDK about CA, but some states say it’s OK if you’re within a few years. Like an 18 year old (adult) with a 17 year old (child) is OK because they’re only a year apart. And yes, different states have different ages they consider able to consent.
I’d venture to say that if this kid was travelling on his own, he was probably a bit more mature than most 17 year olds. Still illegal. But you could have a discussion about whether this particular boy *should* be able to consent.
And yes, I think you are most certainly allowed to change your mind later. Let’s take the illegal fact out of it. Let’s say it was 2 adults. I think you can be caught up in the heat of the moment and consent. To start off with a BJ is a call-to-arms that gets you going and you’re not going to want to stop.
But then, you can think about it later after the heat-of-the-moment is over and regret it. That doesn’t always mean the other party should be in trouble. Consent was given at the time, done. But you can personally regret it later. You can feel used. And perhaps he felt used by a more powerful person in the industry.
Tell Ana her disdain for Jimmy is showing again. I know she thinks she is superior to him, after all she is in her opinion the beauty queen of TYT, but not supporting your fellow staff is really ugly. She doesn’t have to agree with all his views but her malevolence is absurd.
Could just be me – but I noticed Ana gets a bit wonky when Abby Martin is on the panel. Does she feel threatened by Abby?
I’m trying to understand if you are both unaware of how sexist you are being or just don’t care
explain
Actually I think the onus of proof is on you, squaneenge. Post evidence of what you’re talking about. Be more descriptive than “wonky”. To clarify, I’m not saying you’re wrong. Nonetheless, “wonky” is not sufficient to judge Ana as being threatened by Abby.
1. Based on her reaction I don’t see evidence that she thinks she’s superior. If there is other evidence (I’m not saying there isn’t) please point it out to the rest of us.
2. I’m guessing there is nothing in her contract that says she cannot have disdain for Jimmy. It’s your opinion, but I try not to waste time judging feelings of the staff. If you want to criticize her critiques of Jimmy, I think that’s a more constructive use of energy.
3. These are just my opinions. I could be wrong.
You mean the same chick that starred in XXX? IN A HEARTBEAT.
Sex, sex, sex.
The problem with the argument “most guys would have wanted that” isn’t that it’s not true. When I was 17 all I could think about were ways to lead my dick out of the desert and into the promised land like some kind of Boner Moses. I’m far from the only person who feels this way.
No, the problem with that argument is that it shuts the door on people for whom it isn’t true. Even if Cenk is right and 85% of guys would have loved to be in that situation, that means 15% are still dead set against it. And you can’t tell those guys “C’mon, just appreciate the free sex like the rest of us.” You have to take consent seriously 100% of the time.
Either way, boners don’t care about your feelings. Arousal is physiological. And I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but when I was 17, my dick would err on the side of caution. Oh, is this a good time to get a boner? No? Well, better get a boner just to make sure. The point being, sexual attraction is not necessary for everything to work. I have some very distinct memories of internally screaming at a boner to go away because the timing was plain awful.
On a related note, and slightly off topic, if you teach high school, hear my advice. Please don’t randomly select male students to go to the front of the class to do a problem on the board. They might be fighting down random boners and do not want to get up and be looked at by everyone.
Extremely disappointed with Cenk here. Narrow view and said a lot of things rape apologists say, just said them about a male instead of a female. Rape is rape. People can become aroused during rape, people can orgasm during rape, it doesn’t make it any less rape. Not to mention that he was below the age of consent. What she is being accused of his not just sexual assault, but sexual assault of a minor. You cannot, absolutely cannot, say that it’s more okay because she’s a woman and he’s a man (was a boy at the time). Frankly, this dehumanizes men and suggests that they are entirely sex driven. A man can not want to have sex. That’s a thing that happens. And this is why there are men and boys that are terrified to come forward. If they aren’t told that they wanted it, they’ll be called a freak for not wanting it.
Exactly. What makes this rape isn’t his desire or lack thereof. What makes this rape is that he is a minor. While 18 may seem arbitrary as an age of consent, we as a society have agreed that this is the line that cannot be crossed. When you’re an adult and crossing this line, you are not having sex with an adult. You’re fucking a child.
This line, however arbitrary, must be maintained. Sex between adults and children absolutely cannot be allowed. These laws are not just for Jimmy. They’re also for all children younger than he and for the thousands (millions?) of victims who suffered statutory rape.
Side note: I’m sure that some underage girls also wanted sex with an adult. I’m not gonna toss out random numbers, but statistically they exist. If an underage girl wants sex with an adult and he (or she) has sex with her, it is the same as the situation that occurred between Asia and Jimmy, at least from a legal perspective.
NO – we, as a society, have not agreed on the age of consent. It varies throughout the nation. This a serious variable that not one person is commenting on.
This *is
It has been drawn in California. If someone being tried for statutory rape in California uses “I don’t agree that the age of consent is 18, I believe its 17” they will be found guilty.I understand your point (I think) it that it varies state by state. Here in Missouri it’s confusing as fuck. In California, however, the age of consent is 18. Period.
Disclaimer: This is based on my own brief research on the subject. If there are more nuances to the California age of consent laws that I missed please point them out. I don’t like spreading incorrect information.
I just disagree with the premise of Cenk’s argument. Sure, you may have loved it, but you’re just projecting that on others.
I just generally think young men are stereotyped as sex-crazed when there’s obviously a range.
I have no idea what he’s talking about with male anatomy. Does Cenk think erections are conscious decisions??? I think he’s the one confused about the male anatomy. But it’s also just confusing in terms of abuse and victim-blaming. I don’t really understand what Cenk was trying to say. And I think his vagueries are just trying to get around being more blatant about his victim-blaming beliefs.
And I was also amused when he tried to couch his stance as “I’m just trying to give a range of beliefs.” It’s like pretending to be playing devil’s advocate when you’re just stating your beliefs. It’s so silly.
I actually didn’t mind Cenk providing those stances, and it is absolutely true that these beliefs are common. But come on man, don’t try to pretend that’s not YOUR stance.
I did Cenk giving those arguments is rape culture plain and simple. No one needs to give these arguments. It’s the same as “what was she wearing” “well did she enjoy it” “was she drunk”
These points do not need to be made.
Cenk is not the problem society is. Cenk makes these arguments because he knows a lot of people feel that way and THAT is the issue
Yeah, his, “hey, I’m just giving you an example of what an asshole might say about this sort of situation so we can all fully understand an asshole’s perspective” trick is ridiculous.
Cenk has shared his regret for how few opportunities he had for sex in his teens and early twenties countless times through the years… and also has expressed envy and admiration for Jimmy Dore’s extensive number of sexual partners as a traveling comedian. He just really, really wants every guy to be grateful for every opportunity for sex because not everyone will have many of them. I’m beginning to doubt he’s going to be able to change his outlook regarding this.
Maybe if he read the episode comments he would. If anyone at TYT goes over these comments (haha, why would they do that?) MAKE CENK READ THE FUCKING COMMENTS. HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS SHIT. What he was talking about would literally be breaking the law. This should not be tossed aside and forgotten. Futhermore: HE NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THIS. This is not “just stating his opinion”. His stance, as it appeared, was either advocating for or representing people who advocate for what is LEGALLY defined in California as STATUTORY RAPE.
AHGHHHHH!!!!! FUUUUCKKKK!!!!!
Whew. Sorry for using your comment as a soap box… just had to vent for a sec…
You are absolutely right. Cenk needs to check his facts on male sexual abuse. I am very surprised that he is unaware on this subject.
Ask any young man that was abused by a priest… look at the victims from Penn… the shame that they felt because even though they hated what was happening… they were aroused. Yes a guy can be aroused and not be into the act.
This is why men dont report being raped. Apparently something is wrong with you if you dont want to be forced into sex with a woman.
I have to agree with the other comments. This was not Cenk’s finest segment. I know he wants to make a point about gender differences and what not but the power element is real, plus the law is pretty clear and it benefits nobody to introduce any kind of wiggle room. I hope that at some point he will realize that he’s wrong and maybe “denounce and reject” his commentary on this if it ever comes up on a future incarnation of “TYT Classics”. But this will do nothing except leave a bad taste in the mouths of some of his fans and help create a new meme for his detractors. Sometimes the story needs to end where it’s supposed to end.
Actually you’re incorrect on one point: “it benefits no one to introduce any kind of wiggle room.”
It benefits pedophiles.
Having only been listening to Hour 1 for 10 min or so, but I have a question.
Manafort trial is on day 4 of verdict.
If jury comes back as “hung,” or worse “not guilty,” will the entire Mueller Investigation be in jeopardy? Fox is already acting like this is a WIN. Manafort has 18 freakin’ charges on him ~ I believe all are financial, tax based, etc. If Mueller can’t make any stick or if the jury is hung, then what?
Trump’s in a panic? Maybe. But if Mueller doesn’t get some wins, this is gonna be a whole lot of taxpayer money being spent on a shit show. Trump & Co. could be fuckin guilty of EVERYTHING.
But, if the juries come back hung (which I think is a bullshit weasel way out. Hung juries are passing the buck, plain & simple, not buying that they can’t “come to a decision.” ) then this will be a WHOLE LOT of NOTHING. It also means Trump will be screeching like a banshee about how he was falsely attacked and Trumpsters will carry him into a second term.
This is looking more and more like Teflon Don & his idiots are gonna skate.
I would love to be wrong…but how many times have we been disappointed in the past? While all this stupid shit has been going on, the world is on fire, the Corporations are getting EVERYTHING they want, and the Media Monopolies are now FREE to censor citizens at their discretion. Alex Jones is just their foot in the door.
Cenk is waaaay to positive in thinking Trump is going down.
I think NOT, he’s gonna win a second term with the DEMOCRATS Help.
Manafort trial was not at all about the alleged collusion, so guilty or not, it won’t affect it DIRECTLY. Cenk just believes that if Manafort gets a guilty verdict, he’ll flip on Trump but for me, once something goes to trial, that ship has already sailed: all plea bargains I’ve heard of happen before the trial starts. Will see soon enough.
CNN has a desperate quest to call it all even, is that what Cenk said? Said right after he said THIS HOUR OF TYT has one pro-CNN story (Yemen bombing) and then one anti-CNN story (Sanders/AOC Medicare For All)…. one positive, one negative. Hmmm, Cenk some people might call that “calling it even” at TYT (in this very hour!). Also, as Cenk knows full well, Jake Tapper’s “fact check” stories ALWAYS ends with the catchphrase “You’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts” – that isn’t Jack Tapper deliberately attacking Bernie/AOC, it’s just what he says every single week. Also, progressives do not make up HALF THE COUNTRY! MAYBE they make up half of DEMOCRATS, but not half THE COUNTRY. I find that an important distinction.
Also, Cenk is a RAPE APOLOGIST! Yes, it can happen to you at the time with you “participating” and you can later be disgusted by it! Some HETEROSEXUAL men who are sodomized by other men get an erection from the experience because of the physical stimulation (even if they don’t like a**play) while at that very moment feeling disgusted with themselves for that happening – and it causes them a lot of extra shame later when people like Cenk say that means they “participated” and must have liked it. Where do we stop with that? If a woman gets wet does that mean she wasn’t raped? Cenk disgusted me today on MANY levels and I can see clearly now why The Justice Democrats couldn’t have him at the helm anymore.
Take a poll, guys! This is the perfect topic. Men and Women are DIFFERENT . …thank God. I’m with you ,Cenk. Anna is being naive about our sexuality. Judges are (or should be) endowed with discretion on a case by case basis. Or why have them? This is the pendulum swing back from the Feminist Movements of the past. We ARE of equal value and worth under the law and our rights should reflect that. However, we are very different in reality. Hence, the child support laws and protections under Social Security law for women who have compromised their earning power etc, by leaving the workforce to do the uncompensated work of making a home, passing on our culture to their offspring and keeping a family going.
Congratulations, you’ve made the most heteronormative, patriarchal, patronizing and benevolently sexist comment yet for this hour. There is no need for a poll. The issue is not that there are differences between the sexes; there are obviously differences between everyone. The ISSUE is that Cenk Uygur seems to disbelieve that a penis will only become erect if and when the person it’s attached to wants it to become erect. It also seems that he continues to have a blind spot when it comes to stories about straight young male sexuality- or at least the idea that a straight young male with an opportunity for sexual activity could ever turn it down.
I’m not commenting in any way about the specific story with the two actors or their situation (frankly, I don’t fully understand what the situation is and I don’t feel like Ana or Cenk thoroughly presented it) so my comments relate only to Cenk’s generalizations in his commentary.
Completely agreed. This entire story about Argento and the OP’s reaction to it was poorly executed at best and vile at worst.
First up, let me repeat what others have already said for posterity: Cenk couching his positions in “I’m not allowed to say this, but it’s what most people think” is cowardly. Where’s your support for that claim, Cenk? What reason do you have to believe that outside your bias and your personal anecdotes? Frankly, that’s the EXACT same line that alt-right lunatics and Alex Jones use when they peddle their crap: “The truth is out there, but nobody wants to say it because it’s not peeeeeceeee. But I’m going to say it because I’m brave, so listen to me!” It’s a coward’s defence; have the courage of your convictions.
Second, his insinuation that if a man becomes erect he cannot claim that the sex was assault is completely absurd. Even when sex is wholly non-consensual or stereotypical, grabbed-from-the-bushes rape, a penis can become erect. It’s not under our conscious control (there’s a jab in here about Cenk thinking with his dick if he believes that; fill it in yourself). Further, even if it was, sex can be judged to be assault even if it’s halfway through or after the fact by the victim. I have had multiple bad sex sessions that I was enjoying in the moment, but that I later judged to have made me feel terrible (not to the level of assault, but still unpleasant). Similarly, a victim of actual sexual assault may not realize how uncomfortable they were with it in the moment, and that discomfort can have lasting consequences.
Third, I found it disappointing that both Cenk and Ana both portrayed terrible versions of the arguments they were trying to make. Cenk wound up letting the accused largely off the hook so he could start making generalizations about how all young boys think about sex and stupid comments about male anatomy, and Ana stated she was against a two-tier justice system universally even though the justice system HAS to have multiple tiers in order to correct for social influences and wrongs inherent to the system (e.g. we punish first-time offenders differently than repeat offenders; we let out convicts early if they display good behaviour; we allow character witnesses and consider past feats to contextualize an accused person’s character; we here in Canada consider community circumstances in sentencing when it comes to indigenous people, etc). This has to be the case, because if we just levied the same judgement on all criminals sans context, we’d wind up disproportionately punishing people who are already screwed over by the system. Ana needs to read more broadly on the purpose and consequences of social justice reform, because the position “We should treat everyone equally” when it comes to criminal justice or free speech or housing discrimination or hiring decisions SOUNDS nice, but ignores the reality of the social world. That statement would only be true if we lived in a world where everyone was already equal, and we don’t.
I don’t feel comfortable judging any case of sexual assault, but I’m disappointed and actively angry that Cenk and Ana screwed this one up.
Agree with most of this. It’s the two-tiered part that I’m unsure on. I took Ana’s comment of being against a two tiered system as being against judging and sentencing people differently based on who they are.
Theoretical example: In a one tiered system an African American man and a white man, both first time offenders and identical in every way except skin color, would receive similar sentences if found guilty.
In a two tiered: The white man would get a lighter sentence while the black man would get a heavier one.
Another example: An adult male is found guilty of having sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old minor (let’s assume it’s Cali and the age of consent is a hard 18). An adult female is also found guilty of having sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old male. In a one tiered system, both adults would face similar penalties. In a two tiered system, the man would get a heavy sentence while the women goes free (or faces a lighter sentence) and the men on the jury would try to high-five the 17-year old for getting some ass.
I get what you’re saying about judging and sentencing people differently for valid reasons being a multi-tiered system. My logic, though, was that they were treated differently based on their actions (or ability to understand their actions; age, mental illness, etc) and that represent a one tiered system, while the two-tiered that I think Ana was referring to was in regard to America’s current system where there are heavy biases involved.
All that said, I may have assumed wrongly.
To say that some of Cenk’s comments on the Asia Argento story were problematic is likely an understatement. Especially his comment on erections in many cases, especially at that age, many erections are involuntary. In many ways Cenk is making the same points that rape apologist’s say about how the woman getting raped was wet(i.e. was “turned on”) therefore she must have liked it is wrong and is just her body responding to a physical act. Inmany cases where this happens women have reported feeling betrayed by their bodies and confused as to why the had the reaction they did, besides if we constantly made decisions based only by our biological responses the world would be too fucking crazy.
Also, Cenk is constantly pointing out the unconscious bias of the main stream media and it seems in this case he did not catch his own bias, which is normal.
I was raped when I was 18. A girl tricked me into getting tied up. She started to undress me. I told her to stop. Keep in mind at the time I was a strict catholic and a virgin. She ended up having sex with me without my consent. (it is easy to get a teen boy hard even if he does want to be hard) I was scarred for a long time. I did not trust anyone for a long time. I am no longer religious. Looking back, if I was less religious, I might not have taken it as badly, but it was still rape and it did affect me (still does to a lesser degree). I am now 50 years old and still upset how I lost my virginity to a rapist. You always remember your first. Cenk, I think you will look back on this video in a few years and feel some shame.
I’m very sorry to hear your story and very sorry that someone did that to you, but thank you for sharing. I am pretty disappointed that Cenk still doesn’t understand how something like this can happen. Unfortunately he’s not alone in his ignorance but hopefully as more and more people have the courage to speak out more and more ignorance can be eradicated.
Thank you.
TYT has a shit ton of researchers,much more than the MSM.
Really?
No idea. Maybe they mean the “TYT Army”?
Is your point that the MSM simply doesn’t do research?
I see a lot of people here disagreeing with Cenk on this issue, which is great. He said your conclusion to it is yours to have. What I think is not great is the comments of how Cenk is so bad and horrible saying those things. He clearly said it was his opinion and could not speak for everyone. He said all that to open up a dialogue. Looks like it worked, so don’t be so negative.
The only complaint I have is that he said, (paraphrasing) “For men, certain things have to work to have sex” and then followed up by saying, “I know, it’s a very *hard*, *hard* question.”
I swear I am an adult! :)
Well rape is not really “I think x and you think y” and also no one is being super insulting so by both counts your point is well… pointless
I understand that statutory rape is rape… it IS RAPE. In my opinion a 17 is old enough to be a sexually active man/woman and able to say no or yes, And at 17 and a man, I have been there once, I personally would have jumped literally and figuratively at the opportunity to have sex with an attractive older woman. I lost my virginity at 16 to a late 20-something year old. Loved it. The age also varies state per state. It is 16 in Nevada, actually I think the majority of the U.S. is 16. Could be wrong about the majority, too lazy to google right now ;)
And I guess super insulting is a bit much, but calling Cenk a “rape apologist” or calling him stupid for a thought/belief or the whole of TYT network is flawed now is a bit of an overreach. Sometimes it seems trying to articulate your belief is hard and may rub people the wrong way, but I am with Cenk on this. And even if his “math” is correct and 15% would not find that scenario right, 85% do. So I guess it all boils down to the age. I say 17, you probably would say 18 (though I could not know since you have not said). And I don’t think there should be an age on the other end. 17 year old with a 20 year old somehow doesn’t seem as bad as a 17 year old with a 40 year old…acceptance wise.
The problem with “well I think a 17-year-old can consent” is that once you open that can of worms it does not close. Age of consent laws are general for a reason and that reason is to protect ALL children from predators. If you do not make it cut and dry then predators will simply use the loopholes for their benefit
As for people insulting Cenk again, I do not see a lot of it and he is being a rape apologist. The idea that you are more offended because people are calling Cenk out for condoning the fact that Asia may have raped an underage boy than you are about the underage boy being raped is part of the problem
What if the molester in this case was Kevin Spacey and not Asia Argento? If you are OK with letting her off the hook in this case, but not Kevin Spacey, then you believe in a two-tier justice system.
While I agree with your point (and also acknowledge that those cases differed in ages involved) for various reasons some people think that 17 is old enough and would argue that’s what makes these cases different. Again, I disagree with that conclusion, but whether the victim is 14 or 17 in Cali seems to be significant for some people in whether she committed a crime or not.
Not to be insensitive but to put it bluntly….. the only scenario I see where a 17 year old male is disgusted by having sex with Asia Argento is if the guy is homosexual……. nothing wrong with that if he is but if you’re a straight 17 year old male you’re gonna be jumping for joy at the prospect of this happening to you
You are gross go away
So every single man has to want to have sex with every single woman who is conventionally attractive? He can’t be nervous or upset about it, can’t be uncertain, can’t be without the sexual drive to do it, can’t be UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT? You are being blinded by your own desires and your own perspective. You can’t say ‘well hoooo-ey I would love it, I know every boy would love it, there’s no way that anyone could not like it. What is he gaaay?’ You have no idea what was in his mind, what the situation was like for him, what his personality was like. This is a horrible perspective.
I had the same initial thought as a heterosexual male, ” What boy wouldn’t jump at the chance at 17? Most of my childhood friends fantasized about that very same scenario”. That was my first reaction, and lasted a split second because we aren’t talking about him pursuing a sexual relationship with her (which implies consent, though he was too young to give it), he wasn’t given a choice. They mentioned she thought of this boy as “her son”. I imagine he looked up to her and maybe even thought of her as a second mom. The level of conflicted emotions that boy must have had is heart breaking. How about this scenario? Do you think every straight teenage male would be jumping for joy because his mother pulls down his pants and goes to town on him? You have no clue as to what that boy was thinking or how he perceived the situation and that is what matters, not how you or I think we would have viewed what she did. That’s why we have laws and they aren’t dependent on gender or peoples opinions. This man was “legally” a minor, a child, no matter if he was a year, a month or a week away from turning 18 and becoming legally recognized as an adult. I really feel for this guy because I know what sexual assault victims go through and it is with you for the rest of your life! I love Cenk and I hope he takes some time to read these comments because I believe he has shown himself to be open minded and willing to learn and WOW, there is a lot of valuable insights on this one.
Peace and Love
I was listening to the Yemen segment with an open mind until Ana said that the United States is supplying Saudi Arabia with fuel. Thats when I tuned out because its obvious no one on the panel knows what they are talking about
She is talking about aerial refueling. The fuel is from Saudi Arabia but its fleet of air refueling planes is not enough to sustain the bombing campaign. For a brief period the US did supply both the Saudis and Emaratis with refueling planes.
That said, the war against Yemen is a legitimate war and falls under the UN charter because the Yemeni rebels have been bombing Saudi Arabia for 9 years and at one point even invaded their territory let alone the terrorism, even Russia which, is no friend of Saudi Arabia, acknowledges the legitimacy of the war and so does China (also not a big Saudi fan on account of the 1 million Uighurs they are currently putting in concentration camps and no one talks about) and neither receives money from Saudi Arabia and China gets most of its oil from Iran which actively supports the rebels.
As for weapons, the US sells weapons to the Turks who killed far more Kurds both at home and abroad than the Saudis (50k), it sells weapons to Pakistan, ‘nugh said and of course how can we forget Israel.
Why is Saudi Arabia so different?
By the way, this cooperation was not for free. If you want the best bases and intelligence to sent drones in Yemen there is no better place than Saudi Arabia which gives the US two air bases for Drone operation, since the early 2000s.
Sec~ War is ALWAYS legitimate in your eyes.
Because war is a giant ffucking GAME.
Please tell me how many of your children have been murdered or mutilated by bombs while on a school field trip? How many of your family members have been killed while at a wedding? Or grocery shopping?
Lets fucking bomb Flint ~ then maybe someone would give a shit.
Could we please bomb ALL the poor areas in the US?
Then maybe they could get some humanitarian relief from OTHER countries.
Since you are always SOOO concerned with “Humanitarian Efforts.”
I am fortunately childless but I do have several relatives including brothers who served and/or serving are safe and because of my medical condition I can’t join the armed forces even if I wanted too and trust me, I wanted to join. I have been obsessed with war and the military since I was 7 years old when I got my hands on a book on the Warsaw Pact fighter jets and probably read over 100 books on WWII alone just in the past 10 years.
As for personal experience, thankfully none of my relatives were hurt but I saw what war did to Syrians in Turkey when I visited it back in 2013 and again in 2014 working with humanitarian organizations and the things I saw and the stories I heard, trust me you really don’t want to hear or see.
We accepted war and humanitarian interference for the Yazidis back in 2014 and rightfully so and we should have done the same in Syria in 2012 when there was a chance for peace without bloodshed and no terrorists and jihadists had any force on the ground.
As for Yemen, again, the Yemeni rebels are an existential threat to Saudi Arabia and the Saudis launched a legitimate war against them whether we like it or not. We could always stop sending arms to them but we shouldn’t expect the Saudis to fight AQ on the ground (which they did) and help us with providing drones and Special Ops and intelligence for free.
We did not hold Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Ukraine, Pakistan, the UK or any other nation that abused US weapons responsible before why start now?
Sec~Then I was right. This is just a wargame.
Except politicians & Corporations decide where we go and who we kill.
“Humanitarian Reasons” have usually been a Good Cover/Excuse to attack another country.
How do you think people respond when their family members are blown into a million pieces? You said you know! Was anyone saying, “Thank you, USA, for blowing up my family! I know you’re only trying to get those terrorists! And you have to kill a few to save a few.”
I can only imagine that I, myself, would want revenge. At the very least, I would hate the people who dropped the bomb. Would I want to help them? No way.
These wars are creating MORE Terrorists abroad and MORE neglected Veterans at home.
Bankrupting the USA of blood & treasure.
What about Humanitarian Efforts HERE? Flint is NOT the only city w/o water! It’s nice that you go on Humanitarian Efforts in OTHER countries. How many times have you been to Alabama to help the people with sewage running in their yards? Or all the other cities like Flint?
You think Modern Day Warfare is to HELP people?
If you mean Corporations, War Profiteers & Promoters, and the Billionaires, then yes.
Ideology makes terrorists not war.
People were going to AQ camps in Afghanistan in their thousands well before the US bombed a single muslim country and AQ started the war against the US not the other way around.
As for war’s effects, believe it or not people understand the concept of collateral damage and will accept their loss if the price, peace with honour, is achieved. The warlords who killed a much higher % in Lebanon’s civil war than in Syria’s are still around and the murderers are largely free because the peace that came to Lebanon was an honourable peace.
Finally, your dismissal of humanitarian necessity of intervention borders on naivety. There are 80 million refugees thrown out of their homes for ethnic or religious reasons around the world today and most of the countries that have done so are subject to international sanctions, some, like Burma, for decades and the openness that people like you promised will reduce problems only made them much more worse. Unfortunately the world is not run by Ghandhis, it is run by mini-Saddams and the only way to deal with these people is the threat of force or if needed force itself.
The UN used to play a decent role in managing the situation but now is being defunded by the US and vetoed by Russia and China making any UN guaranteed peace initiative, like the one in Syria in 2012 which was accepted by all parties, dead on arrival.
I wish to God that the UN was stronger and could do great stuff but it can’t and won’t in today’s convoluted international system.
Sec~ Well, lucky for you the US will be in perpetual war and you can continue to play your Wargames, that you have loved since a child. Dreaming of the day when YOU can kill civilians!
What is naive is for you to actually believe that Humanitarian Efforts are to HELP people.
It is purely a reason to go spend money on more weapons & defense contractors.
Since YOU can never physically serve, war is a fun game!
You can speculate & fill pages with facts and figures and what is it all worth?
Not one damn thing.
Most people in the US don’t even know on a map where these countries are, and who we are fighting. It’s easy to say, “We should bomb there” or “We should invade that country.” Who gives a shit about actual citizens here or Vets for that matter. Let’s keep sending our soldiers off to another country to come home disabled, killed or with PTSD. For what? For your bullshit reason of “Humanitarian Efforts.” Even if we don’t send soldiers, we send drones and mutilate people for NO reason.
AGAIN~ WHAT ABOUT HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS IN THE US???
You can NEVER answer that, cuz moving pieces on a game board is much more fun.
Ideology makes terrorists not war.
Explain that to the parents of children blown up on a school bus…by US bombs.
Who do you think they will find responsible?
It’s a real thing. A quick Google search will show you that:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pentagon-to-senate-we-cant-know-if-us-fuel-is-helping-saudi-arabia-kill-civilians-in-yemen_us_5aafb207e4b05b221800ab53?guccounter=1
Do you have a rebuttal or reply for the people who had one for you? I’m curious about what your argument is.
Cenk Cenk!! I thnk you do not realize what your saying about the sexual assault, I totally see where your coming from where he is looking for a buck now and it may have been a “boys dream” however not every boy at 17 feels that way and can be a crazy situation, in addition no way is it my fantasy or was, the typical “Male” is very very different then what you think them to be not many men would agree this is acceptable without it being the type of “dirty thought” it would be like a dirty thought of being rich by taking it away from a really rich persons house something you like you also see in movies.. get the idea? Awesome show today!! Gotta get myself online to watch live show to get in those youtube comments :(
This hour is a great milestone for Ana. I feel like her confidence and sharpness on the main show has been rising since I started watching in early 2016, and especially more since the creation of #nofilter. She hit all the counter-points to Cenk that I was thinking of when it came time to opinion. It’s a big feat given that Cenk can sometimes monopolize the air time. I enjoy it when the anchors sincerely disagree, it enriches the show. Keep it up Ana!
Nah I have never been more disappointed with Ana she should have kicked Cenk’s ass for his bs with the Asia story. I love Ana and respect her to hell but I was very let down by both of them
I was pretty surprised by her lack of (immensely earned) pushback; every 60-90 seconds during that segment my husband would call out, “is Ana setting Cenk’s ass straight, yet?!” as he could overhear me watching the show from another room. They’ve had some heated disagreements on similar subjects a few times through the years and I’m guessing she just didn’t want to deal with it because he obviously hasn’t evolved much in this way of thinking.
RE: Jake Bias Tapper.
I look into that so called anchors eyes and you can read that man soul. He is a hack, bias and lazy so called journalist/anchor. The biggest problem with people like him is that he gives that Traitor Trump a lot of ammo for his “fake news and enemy of the American people” claims.
How can we continue to trust people like him after he stood there in front of those cameras, looked us in the eyes and said, “fact check, Bernie lied etc” His bias was sweating out of his pours as he tried to convince Americans that he was doing great fact checking news. What a bunch of bias shit!
We as regular Americans see right through his bullshit and that is why he is now trying to walk it back. Well Jake, I have some more news for you and you can fact check this we me the author. America is Progressive, America wants medicare for all, America is now awake to the bullshit you have been trying to push down our throats. Want proof? 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It was because of shit like your so called fact checking, that is responsible for that Traitor to be in that office.
Cenk, was way to kind on him. I love you brother, but that asshole is a corporate flunky. He is on the push to stop our agenda of Medicare for all. They are so scared that Bernie and A.O.C and all those other Justice Dems that have won so far are gaining speed to pass our agenda. They do not want to pay their fair share of taxes. It is plain and simple corporate greed.
Take this to your over inflated bank account and stuff it in there. We will have a Medicare for all type system in America, and there is nothing you can do about it. You hacks have been exposed or what you truly are, corporate Dems/G.O.P propagandist through and through.
We are hurting down here in the real America and it is guys like you who won’t take your foot of our necks, that have lost the trust and confidence of the American Citizen. Take your foot off or we will do it politically and you so called journalist will go down in history as “enemies of the American dreams”.
Still time to join us and save our legacy. But I think I can guess the answer to that. Maybe you could ask the Koch Brothers about that!
Cenk , the law is not defined by what you would of loved . Ever heard of the rule of law , you ether believe in it or you don’t .As to whether she used any undue influence , she knowingly committed statutory rape,so obviously she had no regard for the law and a clear sense of entitlement . It is excepted in all but a few jurisdictions in the western world , that arousal is not consent . Finally your fictional scenario of 85% of men would be happy ,it’s not about whether one other person or a billion people would like to have sex with someone (male or female) , it’s about one particular person in a specific situation,and whether or not they wanted it to happen . You know , consent vs non consent . Mayby this is why female on male sexual assault is under reported ,because of the bullshit duplicit attitude of our so called superior western culture .
Have Jimmy Dore on this friday’s power panel, I miss him being on the main show, he’s hilarious and brave af.
I will be shocked if Jimmy Dore is on the main show again without considerably changing a few key elements of his core brand proposition… don’t hold your breath.
RE: Asia Argento Statutory Rape Story
Cenk, you make the case that since the boy responded physically to the event and that he experienced pleasure, then the event was not as abusive as it might have been for someone else who didn’t respond physically.
However, it is the wrong question or perspective. Even very young boys can experience pleasure during sexual abuse, but at the same time be full of terror, fear, anxiety, and pain.
Bill Maher showed an incredible insensitivity regarding child abuse.
He made a joke about the difference between a child being sexually molested versus a child that was beaten by an alcoholic father.
His joke was that he’d prefer to be molested every time versus the violence by the alcoholic father. He basically got a laugh by detailing how much easier the sexual abuse would be to endure than the violence.
I remember reading about a survivor from the Nazi death camps. He suffered horrible pain and violence. Nevertheless, he always kept in mind that this violence was wrong.
He never internalized the violence perpetuated on him as somehow that “it was his fault”. He was an adult that was able to frame and integrate his experiences.
The problem with Maher’s joke is however not one of comparative scale. The problem is the betrayal of a child by an adult. To joke or belittle one damaging event over another is a level of folly so great as to achieve barbarism in the lack of understanding, empathy, and compassion.
To frame the Argento event as a pleasurable gift that any man would desire is a means to culturally castrate all men into a single mold for their approach to relationships and sexual behavior.
To determine the right time to engage in these activities depends on that individual’s perspective. That individual’s frame of mind must sort out a myriad of questions related to self and the other person; something an adult can do, but not a child.
To propel an individual forward into such situations based solely on cultural norms of one-size-fits-all is negligent. A child must be mentored and armed with the necessary skills and readiness to make adult choices for themselves
It’s not like “women are getting wet during rape” wasn’t a thing people “discussed” for years before…
Cenk you could not be more wrong on the sexual assault thing. Like painfully wrong. Just because I am a guy doesn’t mean every woman who throws herself at me I’m like “oooh yeah”. Sexual assault is about power. Is anyone turning around and saying “Whats wrong with all these women they got laid on top of getting money.” That is an infurriatingly narrowminded comment from you. Just because apparently you have anytime anyplace opinion to sex how dare you presume to tell all men, in essence, “You can’t be raped.” Long time viewer, avid member. I have literally never been more disappointed in this network, NEVER. That is Trump level ignorant.
“I like sex so everyone who is a guy must too.” COME ON!
Complete straw man.
1) He never said that men ‘can’t be raped’ – you literally made that up.
2) He never said ‘I like sex so everyone who is a guy must too’ – you literally made that up (btw even if he did – which he didn’t – please tell me the percentage of men that don’t like sex?…).
His point is clear: there are differences between men and women in regards to how we approach sex. If you’re unwilling to admit that, then you’re incredibly disingenuous at worst or living in a fantasy world at best. I’m inclined to think the prior since your comment is laced with hyperbole .
I know it’s 2018 and you’re not allowed to have any type of nuanced discussion about complex issues anymore, but the militant there’s-only-one-correct-response-to-everything attitude is not only ridiculous, but antithetical to what being a progressive is about.
On the substance, you could easily have argued that Cenk is wrong in a sensible and reasoned way: if you had, there’s no way I would have responded. Ironically though, you chose to accuse Cenk of being ‘narrowminded’, but it is you that can’t open your mind to a viewpoint that is different from yours.
There are differences over all between men and women BUT the differences between individuals is FAR greater than any difference between sexes. So to judge anything based on whether someone is male or female is in fact, painting with a broad brush of “women do this” and “men do that” and is what is actually lacking in nuance and complexity.
+10
he was scrambling, but what apisani8 heard, I heard as well. Cenk has to face toxic masculinity and it’s implications, otherwise that will always fuel/inform his -what you yourself admit are- objectionable views on these issues…
agreed
The first question should have been “What’s up with the soft port music playing in the background Jake?”
Re: Trump not making it to 2020
He will make it to 2020, he can’t be touched until then. Hillary Clinton without California and New York loses the popular vote by 2 – 3 million. The narrative of Trump being deposed by the three letter organizations (colloquially known as the “deep state”) will be absolutely ruinous to the country.
The investigative units must have calculated this as well. they can’t take him out with this investigation without stirring up insurrection like feelings amongst a large section of America.
And he will not go silently. Trump is not going to just sit there and take it. He will run his mouth, agitate and instigate the whole way down. He does not care, because he is not required to care about the government, or checks and balances, or the function of the country. I wish i could better verbalize how impossible i view him being taken out by this or any investigation, but I guess time will bear this out in a more visceral language.
Either he makes it to 2020, or we go down a more darker path than you can possibly imagine.
News flash!
All dem presidents from Johnson forward would have lost the popular vote without these two state too.
Same applies even more for Texas and Florida on the republican side, both Texas and Florida are bigger than New York.
Hey P100: Don’t forget the votes that HRC got… Without them Trump would have won by nearly 63 million popular votes…
Cenk, your republican is showing. Gender doesn’t matter, she committed statutory rape, end of story. It doesn’t matter if you THINK 85% of men would love it or whatever %
1. you never know how you’ll respond to a situation until you’re in it and
2. so what if some men wouldn’t have cared? CLEARLY HE DOES by you own admission he falls into that so called 15% of men who wouldn’t love it AND THAT IS OK.
Exactly what you just said is why victims don’t come forward, what you said was the equivalence of “what was she wearing?” My husband and i kept pausing the video to scream about the things you were saying.
Don’y you think, Giuliani has already been diagnosed at having Alzheimers . Thus everything he says will be discounted in the end. I am so tiered of the media treating him seriously. . . Money money money for the media!
In no way should they step away from the movement if you ask me. Cenk just said what many were thinking.
Asia sexually assulated an underage boy and Rose when confronted with the fact that she worked with a convicted pedophile said “whatever he’s nice” but yeah lets let them be the forefront of the movement not the many other women.
Thanks Ryan but get back in your lane you aren’t wanted here
Have to agree with Cenk, the chance of that being an actual “rape” or something that kid didn’t want is very low. We can’t know, but I am extremely skeptical. Was it technically wrong, yes, but IMO it most likely wasn’t a big deal and she certainly isn’t in the same conversation as Weinstein. We’ll see if she makes a statement. BTW it’s probably 95% of guys who would love that to happen to them.
This ain’t it
It’s times like these I’m glad I can separate the art from the artist because I’ve been a big fan since 1998’s B. Monkey, and while the whole story seems off clearly she has at least some (if not all) culpability,
“Speaking” of not doing your research, though, TYT, her name is pronounced Ah-Zee-Ah. ;)
RE: Asia Argento Statutory Rape Story
A 17-year old is almost the age of consent; and maybe almost an adult.
The problem is the past relationship. She was clearly in an adult to boy/teenager relationship with him. She was also in a boss-subordinate relationship with him based upon their professional relationship.
Hence there is a imbalance in power between the two.
In the past with Harvey Weinstein, she might have felt powerless to avoid his sexual advances. She might have worried that rejection might have let to a catastrophic loss in her professional career. Hence the balance of power was in Harvey’s favor.
It is likely the boy felt the same way with her. His perspective of the event might be more muddled that her perspective of her event with Harvey.
He most likely had affection for her based upon their past experiences. He might have felt a cultural need to “man-up” to the opportunity. He might have also been concerned about the possible impact that rejection of these advances might have had on his professional status.
Regardless of difference in perceptions for these two events, there was still a power imbalance during this event.
Unfortunately, it seems to me she learned from Harvey that you can take what you want for your own sexual pleasure. She is both victim and victimizer.
However, being a victim does not excuse her adult behavior and choices in her approach to the boy/teenager.
Given the boy’s confusion after the event, it seems to me that there was no pre-sex consent discussion or a discussion of the power dynamics in the relationship. That type of discussion would/should take place between two consenting adults. So clearly he was a boy rather than an adult in this relationship.
With the information provided thus far, the woman violated her adult and professional responsibilities to the boy. In this case she broke the law in her betrayal of this boy and she should be held accountable.
I think once you open the “well 17 is almost the age of consent thing” there is a can of worms. Yes sure there is an arguement to be made for case by case but we have general laws like age of consent for a reason. Once you say case by case for 17 why not case by case for 16? So on and so forth.
But yes to your comments overall.
What makes it more difficult though unfortunately is the fact that it’s so different from state to state. Sometimes it’s 16, than it’s 17, than it’s 18 – what is “right” / what is “wrong” here. It’s easier if the difference in age is 20 years – if all participants are around the age of 16/17/18, I think it’s harder.
But none of it actually matters in this case, because he clearly didn’t feel well about it, and there surely was a power imbalance/dependency…
I’m sorry Cenk but nothing you said about the Asia case needed to be said. It was all horrible. I had to force myself not to just close down the app and try to hear you through but big no for me. Those questions don’t need to be asked. A child saying they are ok with having sex with an adult and even being willing does not mean we should reconsider the whole thing. Being turned on when being taking advantage of is not a valid thing. All of it was bad.
Wait no the one thing you did say is just because Asia might have also done sexual assualt does not mean what she says about Harvey no longer matters. The one redeeming thing.
The one thing you guys didn’t mentioned is that Rose was out in force to defend Asia. I will forever be sorry for what happened to Rose but this is the second time she’s publicly defended someone invovled in a case like this, the last time there was no question with the person she defended. Her whole “everybody else knew” thing is projection.
Both Asia and Rose need to step away from the movement
I think it was OK for Cenk to say. A lot of ppl think what he was saying and wonder the same kinds of things. Sometimes you have to talk about the wrong ideas in ppl’s heads before those ideas can change. Ana is right about this subject. We can’t have different rules based on gender. You know that will backfire on women. Also, erections don’t always make sense. A guy can get one even if he isn’t turned on, especially at 17 when your hormones are a mess and you body is changing.
To carlify I am not saying Cenk was wrong for saying it I am saying it’s wrong that those arguments are brought up at all because they are baseless and wrong. Cenk is the not the cause of the problem he is just someone repeating unneeded talking points. I do not think he had any ill intent in what he was saying and I know for a fact he’s not the only person bringing up those points.
Those points do not need to be said though they are wrong. I am not only mad at Cenk… I am like 25% mad at Cenk because you know anger is like that but 75% mad the root cause.
The other reason for a flat age of consent has nothing to do with gender but also if you open up grey areas you open up predators having ways to legally assualt people. 17 is a kid in California that is what it is. Breaking it down by 17 year by 17 year old only serves the wrong people. If Asia really wanted to get laid she could have waited. It’s wrong
Megan, I had the same sort of visceral reaction you did. I just kept repeating no at the screen in horror. Some of the comments he made, especially at the end are the same arguments people use to say that men cannot be raped by women. Sexual arousal can be involuntary. Erections and vaginal lubrication are both involuntary responses and it doesn’t mean that a person actually wants sex. Would we say that a person with a vagina was not sexually assaulted or raped because they had an involuntary physical sexual response to it? Maybe some people, would I was extremely uncomfortable when he said that people with a penis must have to participate, like an erection automatically equates consent. I just… have your opinions, but please don’t invalidate victims of rape or sexual assault like that. This was so upsetting.
Thanks to you and hosam but agreeing
Look I don’t think Cenk ment any harm by what he was saying I don’t think he is a bad guy. I think a lot of what he was saying is based in old school and dangerous beliefs though and it’s extremely upsetting to hear. Like I don’t hate Cenk I just… the mindset that allows Cenk to respond the way he did is a dangerous one and one that needs to be gotten rid of. Cenk is not the problem the larger whole is and he is not the only person thinking it but he might be one of the few that will listen to people that disagree.
It was just upsetting. On many levels
Another point when he talked about men getting hard (which he did not say but that’s what he meant) I thought of all the times when women are asked “well did you orgasm” when talking about being raped…
Agree with everything Megan said, Cenk got it completely wrong on that segment. The whole point of age of consent is that we have decided that below that age, the victim cannot give consent. The fact that she was in his life and closely working with him since age 7 also implies there was a grooming element to this. It would be one thing if he is the one who pursued her (like Macron pursued his teacher and later married her), but it is abundantly clear that she was the one in control and orchestrated the whole thing. Made my skin crawl.
I also don’t understand why there is a need to measure up her crime against Weinstein’s. They are both abhorrent, and there is no benefit from deciding which is more bad. I don’t know the details of her case against Weinstein, but if it was down to just her word, her word means a lot less now.
Thank you they can both be terrbile people. It’s not like “well Asia did x so Harvy is innocent” or “Harvy did y so Asia is innocent” no two people can be guilty
That’s exactly why Cenk is not fully honest when he claims his rejection of talking about toxic masculinity f.e. is just a mere tactical issue – no, for him, it’s not. He doesn’t openly challenge his views, try to say different things in public contradictory to his actual believes. He worries about backlash from the left, but is constantly concerned about right-wing/college bros reaction to what he says. Years ago he didn’t answer a question about homosexuality, because he was worried about people calling him gay … I don’t think that he still holds that view/fear, yet when it comes to other issues/silly “attacks” like “being called cuck” etc. he still reacts the same way.
He also defends Stormy Daniels, but consistently “impugned” Kim Kardashian for recording a sex tape with not all too different words than Ben Shapiro. His reaction to Anziz Ansari is part of the same debate, I think – a little different, but it comes out of the same ideology. Much more obvious is his stance on “benevolent sexism”. On Old School he didn’t wanna talk about “women wanting the bad guys” stereotypes when he realized Ben and Malcom disagreed in part and even talked about teaching his son what he “had to learn the hard way” – he grew up in the Reagan era…
I also don’t just want to bash Cenk, he grew over the years tremendously, I believe he can evolve on those views as well, but “to grow we all have to suffer” as Dolores Abernathy would say / face the past haunting us. And I do have a bridge. Why is it that the one woman Cenk constantly mentions is “totally different” from those generic “>90% of women” in his head, is the one woman who’s not a figure, thought, “an object” or a person admired from afar, but (the) one he actually knows (best), the one he married, the mother of his children, the one waking up next to him in the morning without make-up. Wouldn’t that be a point to start question your ideology on women (,men and other genders) instead of actually believing -way beyond the usual / to be expected rose-colored glasses of true love (,of course :-)- you married the one woman who’s different…