@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Gothish520 said:

Should I bother to even bring up Scott Baio? Oy vey!

Please proceed...

Would love to hear your opinion.

Ok so here's my takeaway - Scott and Nicole had a close relationship that was sexual in nature (though no intercourse) starting from the time she was 14. It appears she was a willing participant and never claims that he raped her or forced her into anything. When she was 17 she willingly lost her virginity to him. There is some question about who initiated.

Regardless of whether she initiated everything or anything, and regardless of how willing she may have been, she was a minor and unable to give consent, as the the age of consent in California is 18, and was so back then. Scott's claim that absolutely nothing at all happened between them until she was 18 and the show was already off the air doesn't really make sense, especially when there were many people who saw something between them and often asked her if Scott Baio was her boyfriend.

If it's true that they did anything at all of a sexual nature before she turned 18 (and I'm inclined to believe they did), then again, whether she was a willing participant or even the initiator is irrelevant - she was a minor.

Men, I don't care if the hottest girl you've ever seen is standing in front of you, begging you for it - if she's one day under the age of consent, then you are a darn fool to lay a hand on her. Or would men like that have us believe that they are powerless to resist temptation?

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Gothish520 said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Gothish520 said:

Should I bother to even bring up Scott Baio? Oy vey!

Please proceed...

Would love to hear your opinion.

Yikes, where to start.

First, this is putting all politics aside and noting that, while I've always liked (or at least had no problem with) Scott Baio, it's not like he was my favorite actor or anything. Although, there was a time when I just loved Charles in Charge.

I've heard Nicole's radio interview from 2013. She states that she and Scott "messed around" when she was a minor during the show's run, (up to third base action) and that she was 17, almost 18 when she decided to lose her virginity to Scott. She says it was her idea, and that afterward he asked if she wanted to go to dinner and she said no. She had started dating another guy and did not want to be a virgin when they had sex - she wanted to "pop her cherry" so she would enjoy sex with her current boyfriend without worrying about losing her virginity to him. I don't really understand that reasoning, but whatever. I guess she figured she did everything else with Scott, why not that? I don't know.

Anyway, the radio guy has stated that after the on air interview, Nicole was visibly upset and said the situation was more traumatic than she had let on during the interview. She had already said on-air that she was young and didn't know any better. Perhaps rehashing it brought up some old feelings.

It's entirely possible that things happened the way Nicole says they did. It's also entirely possible that Scott felt everything was consensual. BUT, if she was under the legal age of consent in California, then what he did was wrong, regardless of whether Nicole wanted it or not. In the interview, she stated things started when she was 16. I guess now she's claiming that it went as far back as 14.

I haven't seen Megyn Kelly's interview yet. Off to watch it and report back!

Thanks,

All this changing the story, refining the story, re-remembering the story, etc. really muddies the waters.

Do you believe what she said then—later—or now?

Of course, expecting someone who has been abused, traumatized, whatever to act in an entirely rational manner makes no sense whatsoever; especially when someone was so young at the time.

In situations such as this, unless there is a “smoking gun” or some detail that’s so persuasive it can’t be denied – there is no way to “called” it.

---

TRUE STORY:

A friend gave up a plum assignment when he found out the person with whom he would have to work one-on-one was someone from his past.

Ms. X had been obsessed with him; but, other than a professional relationship with her--he had had none. He said he has no idea what she told others; but, when he brought his then fiancée (now wife) to meet everyone; someone pulled him aside and said that he should be ashamed of how he treated Ms. X.

He said no way could anyone ever pay him enough $$$ to get him anywhere near Ms. X again.

She sounds very believable during the Megyn Kelly interview. A lot of what she says seems to jibe with other interviews she gave, and she fully admits that she lied repeatedly to cover up the situation. I think she was enamored of him and he was very taken with her. Bottom line, if she was underage during any of it, then he was wrong.

Jailbait - not worth it, folks, just not worth it!

Yes, it would have been wrong for him to "mess around" with her when she was underage. But all things considered, including the changing stories, it doesn't sound like there's really the right kind of evidence to bring official charges. Not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, nobody has to hire him again for any kind of acting work. Nobody has a "right" to be a TV or movie star. But that's not the same as throwing him in jail and giving him a criminal record. Especially all these years later.

By the way, is there any chance she was an emancipated minor? That happens a lot with young actors/actresses so that they can work longer hours, have more options for school, etc. Whether that would have any effect on age of consent may vary by state. But if an emancipated minor can get married without parental consent, it wouldn't make sense for them to still be "jail bait."

@Knixon said:

Yes, it would have been wrong for him to "mess around" with her when she was underage. But all things considered, including the changing stories, it doesn't sound like there's really the right kind of evidence to bring official charges. Not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, nobody has to hire him again for any kind of acting work. Nobody has a "right" to be a TV or movie star. But that's not the same as throwing him in jail and giving him a criminal record. Especially all these years later.

By the way, is there any chance she was an emancipated minor? That happens a lot with young actors/actresses so that they can work longer hours, have more options for school, etc. Whether that would have any effect on age of consent may vary by state. But if an emancipated minor can get married without parental consent, it wouldn't make sense for them to still be "jail bait."

I couldn't find anything about Nicole being emancipated. I agree that bringing charges now doesn't make much sense. It seems they remained friends over the years. I think this is just a case of her first "love" and first sexual experiences happening when she was underage, with a guy who was an adult. The dynamic is all kinds of wrong, but I don't really get what she gains from exposing this and playing up the victim aspect. A cautionary tale? Is she trying to hurt him? Has she been keeping her feelings down for too long, and the #MeToo movement has given her courage? Or has the movement made her realize things she never thought about before? I don't know.

Being one who does not use any form of social media (unless you count anonymous tv forums), I don't get why people are putting all this stuff out there on Twitter, making accusatory tweets and tagging the people they are accusing while the rest of the world watches. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to the authorities, or contact the person directly to ask for an explanation and/or apology? Are they purposely trying them in the court of public opinion first, in order to gain credibility? Maybe that is a good strategy then, but again, I don't know.

Lots of people join the mob for the feeling of belonging they get. For many, it doesn't matter what the mob is, or what they want, or where it's going. And #MeToo is definitely a big mob now.

There was a "daily thought/quotation" in the paper the other day, that might be a little relevant. By A.A. Milne. "The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."

For some reason I thought of this. Probably because of Bart's line near the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taJ4MFCxiuo

@Gothish520 said:

@Knixon said:

Yes, it would have been wrong for him to "mess around" with her when she was underage. But all things considered, including the changing stories, it doesn't sound like there's really the right kind of evidence to bring official charges. Not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, nobody has to hire him again for any kind of acting work. Nobody has a "right" to be a TV or movie star. But that's not the same as throwing him in jail and giving him a criminal record. Especially all these years later.

By the way, is there any chance she was an emancipated minor? That happens a lot with young actors/actresses so that they can work longer hours, have more options for school, etc. Whether that would have any effect on age of consent may vary by state. But if an emancipated minor can get married without parental consent, it wouldn't make sense for them to still be "jail bait."

I couldn't find anything about Nicole being emancipated. I agree that bringing charges now doesn't make much sense. It seems they remained friends over the years. I think this is just a case of her first "love" and first sexual experiences happening when she was underage, with a guy who was an adult. The dynamic is all kinds of wrong, but I don't really get what she gains from exposing this and playing up the victim aspect. A cautionary tale? Is she trying to hurt him? Has she been keeping her feelings down for too long, and the #MeToo movement has given her courage? Or has the movement made her realize things she never thought about before? I don't know.

Being one who does not use any form of social media (unless you count anonymous tv forums), I don't get why people are putting all this stuff out there on Twitter, making accusatory tweets and tagging the people they are accusing while the rest of the world watches. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to the authorities, or contact the person directly to ask for an explanation and/or apology? Are they purposely trying them in the court of public opinion first, in order to gain credibility? Maybe that is a good strategy then, but again, I don't know.

Apparently he's doing a live stream on Twitter (I think)to prove his innocence ,probably against his lawyer's advice.

To paraphrase Raj "Great! Everybody is against sexual harassment"

So to present the opposing point of view here is Harvey Weinstein. Well his telephone hold music to be precise.

https://youtu.be/xat1GVnl8-k

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

I'm surprised we haven't talked about this yet on a movie database, but I compare what's going on in Hollywood right now to a car wreck I don't want to watch but can't look away from.

I mean..... it's pretty much been an open "secret" that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia, transactional sex , both wanted and coerced , sex traded for roles and opportunities,and a lot of it fell on deaf ears for years. Or people outside that sphere it didn't directly affect chose not to care. It's been amazing how many women have come out with accusations against Weinstein , all the stories about him forcing himself on these women. I'm not saying I believe every account(I don't , I think a lot of these stories are missing critical details) but I do believe he used his power to try to get sex from young actresses with a promise of stardom, and in many cases he wouldn't take no for an answer . I also think the women who agreed to sleep with him to get famous are strategically quiet about it. Now he's in sex rehab getting his libido exorcised like that's going to help anybody.

The Kevin Spacey reveal today hit me the hardest not because I didn't think he was gay ( that's about as shocking as Ricky Martin) but because he tried to bury the story of him soliciting an underage boy by coming out. That's really pissing off the LGBTQ crowd, and rightfully so. He really thought we'd be like " O you poor thing, forget the kid that almost got assaulted, how are YOU doin?" He needs to ask the Scientologists for narrative changing lessons.

Anyway, If this is just the tip of the iceberg I don't think we want to see what sordid tales lie underneath the surface. The Oscars are gonna be real awkward this year, folks.

Was anyone else that Cosby was convicted. Must say the decision surprised the heck out of me. Surely thought that he would get another jury. Let's hope that it serves as a warning to the heavy-handed among us who act as if they can get away with anything just because they are who they are.

No doubt that decision has many other "accused" quaking in their boots!

I think this was a case of sheer volume of evidence and testimony being enough to convict him regardless of statutes of limitation.

When you have 50+ women coming forward it's hard for a jury to go the other way.

Did not expect to revive this list soon but add Morgan Freeman to the list

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/entertainment/morgan-freeman-accusations/index.html

Didn't Morgan Freeman marry his young niece or something? Or was that someone else?

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@mechajutaro said:

@Knixon said:

Didn't Morgan Freeman marry his young niece or something? Or was that someone else?

Never heard that one; Woody Allen replaced Mia Farrow's side of the bed with several of their adopted daughters, according to Ronan(that's Farrow; not Mr.Bean)and Jerry Lee Lewis married a relative

At one time, rumor had it that he was having "an affair" with his step granddaughter. And that she was saying that he was going to divorce his wife and marry her. (Of course, that last part I probably read on a Message Board somewhere--but, not the first.)

8 accusers, he's done. Don't be surprised if that numbers jumps to 20 by next Month.

Wouldn't it be funny if ALL the best actors - and actresses - are creeps? So by demanding only non-creeps, #MeToo etc are condemning the world to a future of awful TV, movies, etc.

@Knixon said:

Wouldn't it be funny if ALL the best actors - and actresses - are creeps? So by demanding only non-creeps, #MeToo etc are condemning the world to a future of awful TV, movies, etc.

Except for Morgan Freeman the rest of the crowd are hardly the best Hollywood has to offer unless there is a good one I missed.

A lot of people think Kevin Spacey is one of the best. But still. Who knows, maybe the best are still being protected. The rest are "sacrificial lambs."

Okay then Morgan and Kevin. Also Dustin Hoffman fessed up to something too I think. I prefer my wacko celebritys in the mold of Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson. They know how to be crazy.

Woody Allan doesn't count because he has always been a bit creepy and has been making the same marginal movie every year for what seems forever.

I never was a big Cosby fan. So he made some comedy records sold a lot of Jello and had an over rated sitcom. Big Deal.

And hot off the presses.... ‘My hard-won advice: never get into an elevator alone with Terry Gilliam’ - Ellen Barkin

You don't have to warn me Ellen,
Gilliam would probably go on and on about his movies if I was stuck in an elevator with him.