case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-09-04 07:01 pm

[ SECRET POST #3897 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3897 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 01:55 am (UTC)(link)
Although I can agree that nobody on set would have wanted to take the story public in case it hurt their careers- maybe they like him and he's their friend and they really didn't want to hurt him or their other friend he slept with. What would *you* do if this happened at *your* job when you like your job and your boss and your coworkers? This news doesn't make him a monster whose friends are required to publicly shame and ostracize him. He's not Bill Cosby.

It's also possible they didn't want to because not all of them were exactly faithful to their own partners either. You cannot seriously tell me Whedon and the women he slept with were the only people on those sets cheating or otherwise having inappropriate hookups. If Alexis and Alison fell in love on set and made it legal, can't we assume there were other less honest couplings going on?

Don't we aaaalll know about David Boreanaz? Or any of the other rumors which have circulated for years? Fidelity is rare in the entertainment industry, whether it's movie stars or a small town high school drama club.

Anyway, Joss Whedon's not a priest or some sort of family values political candidate or an outspoken conservative (like Baldwin). And as long as the women he slept with were consenting adults...

Then I am still baffled as to why any of this was any of our business until his ex made it public. It's *interesting gossip* and may shed some light on things about the shows he ran which seemed confusing but it should only shock people who thought he was some sort of flawless god in the first place.

Was "I'd never cheat on my wife" a part of his public feminist platform? If it wasn't, then, your fault for assuming he was the picture of moral perfection just because he agrees that women should have rights.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 01:59 am (UTC)(link)
Re: Whedon and feminism, it's not just the cheating on your wife thing people are objecting to, it's the power imbalance involved between the actresses vs. the guy who can have them fired. If Whedon's wife was telling the truth, Whedon was well aware of that imbalance of power and frankly, it sounds like he was more than a little turned on by it.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 02:13 am (UTC)(link)
If they're throwing themselves at his head, is he obligated to say "no" because "power imbalance"? To me, it's one thing if he's the aggressor. It's quite another if he's not.

SA

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 02:17 am (UTC)(link)
Leaving aside the whole "cheating" aspect. He's a shitty person for cheating on his wife. But the women he was sleeping with were also shitty for sleeping with a married man.

It's just gross behavior all around.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 02:33 am (UTC)(link)
I would say yes.

In the same way that, if a college student came on to a professor, it still would not be right for the professor to sleep with the student.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 04:14 am (UTC)(link)
Yep. Unethical AF.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 04:49 am (UTC)(link)
+1

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 04:55 am (UTC)(link)
A film production is very much about a bunch of individuals coming together to complete a shared project.

An educational enviroment is about a bunch of individuals of one status - a status that marks them as underlings - being instructed by a seperate individual of a different and more elevated status.

They're not the same thing, and comparing them as though they were the same is disingenuous. The dynamics of a film set are far more multifasceted and multi-directional.

If it comes out that Whedon was the aggressor in the situation, I will consider his actions to have been unethical and parasitic. But until that time, as far as I'm concerned, the people involved were colleagues, having sex of their own choosing and for their own reasons.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 04:56 am (UTC)(link)
I'm NAYRT, for the record.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 04:25 pm (UTC)(link)
But Whedon was still in a position of authority and power relative to the rest of the people working in the movie. That's the point of the teacher analogy: like a teacher, the director of a film is in a position of authority, and a significant power imbalance exists.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 02:57 am (UTC)(link)
it's one thing if he's the aggressor. It's quite another if he's not.

Yes, this.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 05:16 pm (UTC)(link)
No, not this. Power exists and to pretend it doesn't is disingenuous.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 07:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Gotta say, I'm a bit skeeved out by the way you're determined to make this a victim narrative for the adult women who participated in it - without having any evidence that your victim narrative aligns with reality.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 08:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Almost as skeevy as the anon(s) who seem determined to rationalize this as being somehow not at all Whedon's fault - without having any evidence that this "what if the actress was the aggressor" narrative aligns with reality.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 10:18 pm (UTC)(link)
NAYRT but I'm really not sure what you mean by "victim narrative". Like... it's still a lapse in ethics on his part regardless of whether any harm was done. In my opinion. It is the sort of thing one ought not do and which is wrong to do when one is in a position of power.

And one reason for that is because being in a position of power makes it really hard to evaluate how genuinely interested and consenting the other party is.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-05 02:45 am (UTC)(link)
This comment is a thing of such well-reasoned perfection I could hug you. Thank you, anon. I could not agree more with every word you've said here.

It's kind of surprising to me that so many people's first thought about why no one publicly exposed Whedon's cheating is "They were scared of him." Like, sure, ok, that's one potential reason. But as someone who has remained friends with people who have cheated on their partners, the reality is that life and people are just complicated. A person can be good in a lot of ways, and still kind of shitty in some other ways. You don't necessarily stop liking your friend just because you discover they're cheating - and even if you do stop wanting to be friends with them, the next logical step is not to decide that their business is now your business and it's your duty to blow their shit wide open in the most public manner possible. Like, what kind of insensitive, self-involved notion is that?