Oh, HARVEY! I’ve Never Felt This Way Before!
Yesterday, closing arguments were made in the rape trial of Harvey Weinstein in New York City. The jury begins deliberation next week. As I’ve indicated in a past essay (In Defense of Men, 11/15/19), I do not approve nor condone the alleged sexual behavior of Mr. Weinstein, if in fact it occured. I do not in any way intend to be an apologist for such perverted behavior. None the less, there is one aspect of the current court proceedings that I feel merits comment but that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been fully discussed.
With the exception of crimes of negligence, an essential aspect of criminality is intent. No one, for example, is charged with capital murder if, in fact, they had NO INTENTION of committing such. Similarly, no one is charged with tax evasion if they have unintentionally goofed up the math on their 1040 (they will face interest charges and penalties, but no criminal prosecution). Intent, accordingly, is a major consideration in any criminal case.
In the current Weinstein case, he has pled not guilty, saying the sexual activity in question was consensual. The women involved rebut this assertion, saying, simply: “no way.” Buttressing Weinstein’s claim, however, are numerous post coital communications of a warm and affectionate sort. Prima facie, one might say, that, if a true rape did occur, the women in question would hardly carry on such cordial correspondence.
The aggrieved women, however, have a very good response to this line of reasoning. In essence, they say, that “Mr. Weinstein was a powerful force in Hollywood, and I decided not to publicly accuse him because he could help my career.” And, this is logical, of course, and quite understandable. But there’s a fly in this ointment.
Weinstein would be considered to have committed a crime ONLY if he knew that his sexual behavior was NOT welcome. In short, he would be guilty only if he KNEW that the sex was not consensual. And, here’s the rub: he might have THOUGHT that it was consensual. Remember, the women involved with him were all ACTRESSES. The convincing portrayal of emotion is what they DO. I think the reader will agree that an Academy Award wining actress might not have work too hard to convince a horny Hollywood executive that he’s an alluring hunk of irresistible manhood. “Oh, HARVEY! I’ve never felt this way before!” and so on. And, this impression would only be bolstered by the “lovey dovey” communications that followed.
Now, the fact that, in the woman’s mind, the whole sordid episode was revolting, is immaterial in this circumstance. If she was a convincing thespian, how was Weinstein to KNOW? While it’s true that every man should be sensitive to the sexual desires, or lack thereof, of his paramour, no man should be required to be a mind reader.