"But despite being very gay, the theatre legend has received a tidal wave of abuse this month – from people wrongly accusing him of sexually assaulting women."

Hate to break it to the writer, but being gay doesn't magically make you incapable of sexual abuse against women. Pretty close, but not quite as nauseating, as "I would never do that because I have a daughter."

Yeah, being gay doesn't mean you aren't attracted to women…

I'm so _confused_.

I think he's talking about lesbians.

Sexual assault does not necessitate sexual attraction.

Sure, pedants, but it is greatly facilitated by it. It's certainly worth mentioning that he's gay, if you want to drive the point home.

Find me a recorded case of a openly gay man who also had a serial history of coercing women into sex.

So maybe not magically immune, but I can't imagine it likely either.

Are you kidding me? Sexual assault is not limited to the actual act of sex, and doesn't necessitate sexual attraction. I've personally seen gay men grope breasts and slap asses without consent.

Point taken, though what you describe is comparatively minor.

And I did find an example:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/13/harvey-weinsteins-worked-for-kept-quiet-meg-rosoff

"There was the creative director who regularly shoved his hand up his secretary’s crotch and down her bra. She was so outraged, she took him to a legal tribunal (which she lost). Most of the rest of us thought she was overreacting. After all, he was gay, so it wasn’t really sexual harassment, was it? For the record, he treated men as badly as he treated women."

HE JUST WANTS TO BE LOVED, IS THAT SO WRONG?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRZxek8rwNU

thanks for letting us know, we really care how you feel.

(also it's 'an' interesting story)

I considered posting about the Weinstein stuff ... but, it's blanket coverage, and the story grows grimmer by the day as more details come out. I'm not sure there's much point. There isn't much point in the post about Harvey Fierstein either, but at least there is a humorous angle to it.

Fair enough.

But “blanket coverage and a story that grows grimmer by the day” is hardly an argument for not posting. On the contrary, those criteria define much of what this site concerns itself with.

I continue to find the omission telling.

I did notice it, and it did strike me as odd. I'm not quite ready to draw conclusions about what that says about the SE user base just yet though.

I mean ... why didn't you post it then?

I haven't accrued sufficient groupthink points to post, otherwise I would have done so.

It’s a grim and fascinating story, from many angles, not least of which is the number of news organization that flatly refused to run with it. It seems clear the NYT blinked on it some years back, and MSNBC rejected it in its current incarnation - People there should be fired for that, but I suspect they won’t be. It appears, like Cosby, that everybody knew, including much of the celebrity chorus currently acting shocked and appalled. It’s a damning story in a number of respects.

Courtney Love Warning Actresses of Harvey Weinstein in 2005

Harvey Weinstein has turned himself in to police in New York