And people also people become more inclined to do stuff when they feel they can get away with it. So it doesn't surprise me that when people get into positions of power and influence and figure out that they can get away with harassing all the women they want that they go right ahead and exploit the privilege.

Opportunity makes the thief.

Two seconds of googling clearly demonstrates that the poor are far more likely to be victims of sexual abuse or assult. Rich people just get the media attention.

https://qz.com/1170426/the-poorest-a...lly-assaulted/

Wait, Clovis. Are you saying that someone here thinks rich people are the most common victims of sexual assault?

Lol. Way to instantly use the least charitable reading of a post in hopes of a "gotcha". Sorry no imagery Internet points for you today.

This is an ironic post. I am asking a legit question. I don’t understand the point you are making and I would like to.

It's fairly reasonable (and common) to extrapolate from victimization rates some ideas about the perpetrators of crimes. I'm seen FBI NCVS data used that way before, e.g. if the very poor are victims the perpetrators are probably not Harvey Weinstein types most of the time. (Edit: and somewhere in NCVS data they ask victims about the offenders, and collect demographics of offenders that way. I'm having trouble finding an example of that quickly though)

I think it's a good point. I think my previous post is probably wrong. I think maybe it's reasonable to say instead that certain patterns of sexual violence or harassment are more common with powerful perpetrators, but other patterns more common for those of lower socioeconomic status. But that's not the same as thinking that the wealthy are more likely overall to be perpetrators if you're asking about a broad range of behavior. I was mostly thinking about the former and somewhat inadvertently implied the latter.

This was exactly my point.

Like all things, the poor are the most victimized. In terms of work place abuse they often literally have no choice but to take it.

Of course rich people are sexual abusers but the overwhelming media attention they get easily blinds people to the bulk of the problem.

I suspect, there is also a bit of confirmation bias going on given to propensity of some on the left to think being wealthy is synonymous with being evil.

Famous people making the news for everything from DUI to having a public argument with their spouse is not an indication that they do those things more or that people think they do. Of course there is more interest when it is a famous person. But there is the added element that fame is a power source. Cops, bosses, coaches and other dynamics that have a baked in power structure provide opportunity as said before. Its not a requirement but it is fertile breeding for it.

Even though it is likely that poorer people are more likely to be the victims of this kind of behavior, I imagine there is an even stronger pattern that the individual perpetrators are wealthier than their respective victims. - i.e. Weinstein was wealthier than the mid-level Hollywood actresses he exploited, and restaurant managers are wealthier than their employees they may tend to exploit.

It's one thing to say power dynamics can contribute to assault or harassment. It's another thing entirely to say, as Wookie did, that "it seems pretty reasonable to assume that there's a good chance any rich and/or powerful man is an abuser".

That is such a ridiculous blanket statement that I'm not surprised most here are in perfect agreement with it.

Who agreed with it? And Wookie's statement "good chance" was pretty vague anyway. In that context "good chance" could easily mean 10% or lower.

I think Wookie's post is hyperbolic but I can relate to the sentiment :P

Yeah, this. I didn't say they would be assumed to be a favorite. I am not sure what the number is, but a fair bit higher than a lower or middle class working stiff.

Except, as Clovis pointed out, this is untrue and is actually just something you pulled out of your ass.

I agree with well named.

???

seems like the whole discussion going on is just people restating this post in longer and less clear ways.

The probability that a rich and famous man is a bad person is higher than the probability that an average man is a bad person. This seems obvious.

Indeed and in deed.

Not sure how the Ali Watkins case will fit into the current narrative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.19f62e2680c1

It seems like it needs to be part of the discussion, but it will only become politicized. Certainly this woman's reputation is destroyed. And maybe she deserves that. Then again, the guy in the equation was clearly acting like a moron.

It's just a mess.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he’s “confident” he did not act inappropriately toward a female journalist at a music festival 18 years ago, but conceded Thursday that she may have experienced their encounter “differently.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...fferently.html

“If I had known you were reporting for a national newspaper, I never would have been so forward.”

https://twitter.com/RealWayneRoot/st...91205349625856

I fantasize about being extorted by a beautiful woman regularly :P

Do you fantasize regularly about being extorted, or is the fantasy about being extorted regularly?