MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Sexual Assault Accusation Against #MeToo Hero Asia Argento Relies on Uncommon Age of Consent Law

An actress who helped take down Harvey Weinstein paid $380,000 to keep a young man quiet about their encounter.

ArgentoLapone/Fotogramma/Ropi/ZUMA Press/NewscomAsia Argento, an Italian actress and director who helped bring down Harvey Weinstein and launch the #MeToo movement, paid $380,000 to an underage actor with whom she had a sexual relationship in 2013.

That actor, Jimmy Bennett, was 17 at the time, and he viewed Argento as a mother figure. Years later, after she became a hero for going public with her sexual assault accusation against Weinstein, Bennett attempted to sue her for intention infliction of emotional distress, lost wages, assault, and battery.

That's according to The New York Times, which obtained documents detailing their agreed upon settlement of $380,000. The Times story claims the documents were sent via encrypted email by an unidentified third party—Bennett declined comment, and it's unclear whether he wanted this story leaked. (I'm somewhat baffled by the paper's decision to name him at all.)

Victims' advocates are reeling from this news. Rose McGowan, an actress and fellow Weinstein accuser, wrote on Twitter, "My heart is broken."

Needless to say, Argento's behavior in this case does not change her status with regard to Weinstein. There's no unwritten law that says you can't be both a perpetrator and a victim of sexual misconduct. People are complicated.

It sounds like at the time the Weinstein allegations were being made public, Argento didn't necessarily know Bennett was uncomfortable with what had happened between them. He didn't threaten to sue her until after she was named in the Weinstein news cycle, in part because "his feelings about [the incident] were brought to the forefront recently when Ms. Argento took the spotlight as one of the many victims of Harvey Weinstein," according to the legal documents.

Also of note: While Argento's alleged conduct does indeed meet the definition of sexual assault, this is only because the age of consent in California is 18. In most other states, it's 16 or 17. Since Bennett was 17 at the time of the encounter, it would have been legal for Argento to have sex with him in 39 of the 50 states. That doesn't make Argento's decision to have sex with this particular young man, with whom she had a quasi-maternal bond, any less creepy. But I'm a little uncomfortable using the word assault to refer to incidents between adults who are both clearly capable of consenting to sex, regardless of what the law says.

Photo Credit: Lapone/Fotogramma/Ropi/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ron||

    it is assault when a person doesn't want it, which is apparently so in this case. Soave seems to be discounting the victim in this case, maybe because he is a male instead of a woman?

  • Idle Hands||

    it's statutory rape.

  • ||

    Soave seems to be discounting the victim in this case, maybe because he is a male instead of a woman?

    I'll defend Soave on this one. Two (really one) reasons:
    1. Buyer's remorse. If you think sex with your maternal figure at 17 is icky. Don't wait until you're 22 to feel assaulted.
    2. Contracts. If you were paid $380K to keep your mouth shut, you went from being a moralist to a principled hooker. Once you're paid to keep quiet and you talk, you become an unprincipled hooker.

  • ||

    Once you're paid to keep quiet and you talk, you become an unprincipled hooker.

    FTA: The Times story claims the documents were sent via encrypted email by an unidentified third party...it's unclear whether [Bennett] wanted this story leaked.

    If you were paid $380K to keep your mouth shut, you went from being a moralist to a principled hooker.

    Not sure I agree with that. You can't undo the incident, maybe $380,000 pays for your therapy.

  • ||

    Fair enough, I skimmed the article and wrongly presumed Bennett had sent them. In any event, Soave isn't outing the victim. He's playing some favorites otherwise (I think), but not really reporting anything that his source isn't reporting.

  • DJK||

    Also, offering hush money to cover up a criminal act is a criminal act in itself. We shouldn't forget that. There is a big difference between an NDA and bribery.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Then accepting hush money to cover up a criminal act should also be a crime.

  • DJK||

    It certainly can be. There are some optics and chilling effect problems with prosecuting an alleged victim though. You'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor who wants to pursue criminal charges against an alleged sexual assault victim.

  • TuIpa||

    "Then accepting hush money to cover up a criminal act should also be a crime"

    If you're the victim, getting restitution should be illegal?

    Fuck off clown.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Legal restitution is out in the open as part of legal proceedings. Hush money is by definition hushed up.

    Fuck off, illiterate idiot.

  • Agammamon||

    Legal restitution is out in the open as part of legal proceedings.

    Why? Are we now saying that people *must* use the government's courts in order to settle disputes? Private arbitration is not allowed if the dispute involves anything the state deems 'criminal'?

    Or are we going to allow people the latitude to sort their affairs in the way that best suits them.

    You're in this situation - which would you rather have? A third of a million to soothe your wounds or the satisfaction of seeing her get a slap on the wrist for statutory rape in a criminal court?
  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I'm all for private redress. Was there a contract for this payoff?

    "Hush money" has the connotation of illegality, or at least under the table. I think blackmail should not be a crime, and "hush money" comes awful close to being paid-up blackmail. But blackmail *is* illegal, no? Why does "hush money" get a pass but not the blackmail it implies?

    IOW, the only defense against blackmail is the publicity you could have paid to avoid. That's what "hush money" is, a payoff to avoid publicity, legalized with a secret contract which itself encourages further blackmail.

  • TuIpa||

    "'Hush money" has the connotation"

    Hey look fucktard is already walking back his previous failure.

    No part of restitution need be public or invilve rhe court.

    Your entire premise is moronic.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I would have blackmailed her into regular sex for as long as possible. And probably negotiated a threesome with her and a friend of hers. Because she is obviously a threesome chick.

  • BILKER||

    i would reply to your post with a resounding #ME TOO

  • TuIpa||

    "Legal restitution is out in the open as part of legal proceedings"

    I see you have no idea what you're talking about.

    "Fuck off, illiterate idiot."

    There is nothing better than watching you step on your dick while calling someone else an idiot, idiot.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    From the New York Times article:
    "The agreement does not prevent either party from discussing it. In the letter, Ms. Goldberg explained that California law does not allow nondisclosure agreements in civil contracts involving the types of allegations made by Mr. Bennett."

    I guess she doesn't have to worry about this, then. And it also renders moot Vernon and Scarecrow's suggestions that somehow Bennett is in the wrong.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I didn't mean to suggest he was "in the wrong" about anything; only that he has no credibility. My choice would be that nothing further happen with this case; neither against Bennett nor Argento.

  • FlameCCT||

    True although this was a civil case not criminal.

  • DarrenM||

    As far as I can tell, Bennett is just a gold digger. He saw and opportunity to cash in and took it.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Unlike the weinstein accusers how?

  • Incredulous||

    Yeah, they're all gold diggers without any real credibility. Unless there is objective proof, all these accusations should be disregarded. As for Bennett, I don't think this is really a crime since California has an unusually high age of consent. If I was on the jury, I would acquit based on that fact alone.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Weinstein's accusers may simply be attention whores.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Weinstein is actually a physically violent imposing man, with lots of resources to destroy a person's career in entertainment, and he also was known to employ thugs to shut people up. He even had 'friends' In places like NYPD, LAPD, etc..

    He is a dangerous man. Asia Argento is a sexy Italian actress with DSL who is DTF. The world needs millions more like her.

    And FYI, this is what the kid is crying about having to fuck.....

    https://tinyurl.com/ybdgutgo

  • Cloudbuster||

    I'm sure sex with Asia Argento is totally traumatic.

  • markm23||

    If she truly was a mother figure to him, it could be traumatic.

  • KasperT||

    Young people do not have the life experience to be held accountable for adult issues. You may have something of a point with another adult but there is a reason why statutory rape laws exist.

  • Vernon Depner||

    there is a reason why statutory rape laws exist.

    Not a good reason. The original reason was to prevent young women from marrying without their parents' permission. Over the centuries they've morphed from a prohibition of young people giving consent to a prohibition on adults having sex with young people, with the young people being considered victims on the basis of their alleged incompetence to give consent. In the case of minors in late adolescence, that incompetence is a fantasy.

  • Adler||

    "2. Contracts. If you were paid $380K to keep your mouth shut, you went from being a moralist to a principled hooker. Once you're paid to keep quiet and you talk, you become an unprincipled hooker."

    Shots fired.

  • Eddy||

    "he viewed Argento as a mother figure"

    EEEWWWWWW

  • ipsquire||

    She played his mom in a movie when he was young - no surprise.

  • Eddy||

    The term "EEWWWWWW" may not be adequate to describe this situation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    #MeTooMommy

  • TangoDelta||

    #MommyToo

  • The_Hoser||

    #OedipusMe

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They played pretend while shooting a film over something like Aixty days. Of which they were only in certain scenes together. She didn't raise him.

    I'm assuming the kid is as homo. Otherwise pretty much any healthy 17 year old would have given her a good pounding at the time. Asia Argento is a sexy Italian chick who is probably a good fuck who gives good head.

    I'm not sure why all of that isn't incredibly obvious to anyone. And no a 17 year old male isn't a little boy. He's a physically mature horndpg, almost certainly DTF.

  • Eddy||

    I would think California might have some expertise on age-of-consent issues, since it contains Hollywood, after all.

  • Sevo||

    And Roman Polanksi lived here before going on the lam.

  • Idle Hands||

    Also of note: While Argento's alleged conduct does indeed meet the definition of sexual assault, this is only because the age of consent in California is 18. In most other states, it's 16 or 17. Since Bennett was 17 at the time of the encounter, it would have been legal for Argento to have sex with him in 39 of the 50 states. That doesn't make Argento's decision to have sex with this particular young man, with whom she had a quasi-maternal bond, any less creepy. But I'm a little uncomfortable using the word assault to refer to incidents between adults who are both clearly capable of consenting to sex, regardless of what the law says.

    What was the Roy Moore controversy about?
  • Homple||

    ^^This.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yeah. I'm gonna have fun watching people ignore this.

  • Cyto||

    But Roy Moore asked someone on a date when he was in his mid-20's. His mid-20's!!.

    That's way worse, and you know it!

    (Plus, dude. And really, really white. And Republican. And just to the right of nutty, right-wing.)

  • Cathy L||

    What was the Roy Moore controversy about?

    Mostly not 17-year-olds. Also, physical coercion was alleged.

  • BYODB||

    So, exactly the same you say. Glad you agree.

  • Cathy L||

    There's no physical coercion alleged in this story.

  • DJK||

    The NYT article uses the term "sexual battery". By definition, that includes a lack of consent. What is your definition of "physical coercion" and how is it different from physical acts performed without consent, which is what the NYT article describes?

  • James Pollock||

    "The NYT article uses the term 'sexual battery'. By definition, that includes a lack of consent"

    There's actual consent, and legal consent. The law doesn't consider Californian 17-year-olds to be capable of consenting to sex. Some folks, even some folks who AREN'T accused of or interested in having sex with Californian 17-year-olds, think that's not factually accurate.

    "Age of consent" is a legal fiction. Some minors are not ready to make informed decisions regarding sex. Some are. Rather than sort out exactly which are which, which is difficult to do accurately, we substitute age, which is very easy to prove and saves minors from being cross-examined about their sexuality, which itself can be a traumatic experience.

  • DJK||

    This only enhances the notion that a sexual battery was committed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It was statutory rape.

    A 17 year old cannot give consent to sex with adults.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Of course they can. They're just not permitted to by the State of California.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'll say this, Cathy, you have strong principles if it's the right principal

  • maxfoiler||

    She gave alcohol to an underage boy. Regardless if most of us would have enjoyed this experience, some reasonable laws were broken. While physically prepared for sex at age 17, many are not emotionally mature enough to deal with the complex situation he was exposed to.

  • DJK||

    Physical coercion was alleged here. I recommend reading the NYT article itself, not Robby's terrible selective presentation of it. Seriously, Robby, you should be ashamed at the incredible lack of journalistic integrity.

  • Cathy L||

    I did, and that's not true.

  • DJK||

    Re-read the article and come up to speed on the definition of "sexual battery".

  • DJK||

    For reference, California Penal Code 243.4(e)(1):

    Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery, punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment...

    Excerpted for length. The rest of the statute deals with fines for specific circumstances that are not relevant to this case.

  • DJK||

    Interestingly, if she "fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose" (totally possible in these circumstances), this becomes felony sexual battery. CA Penal Code 243.4(c)

  • Rock Lobster||

    California Penile Code?

  • Longtobefree||

    Robby should be ashamed of using the NYT for a story - - - - - - - -

  • Cloudbuster||

    Weird how the accusers disappeared back into the woodwork once their job sabotaging his election was done.

  • ThomasD||

    If by 'weird' you mean 'totally expected, and much like Soave's selective outrage' then yes I'd say it was weird too.

  • Lester224||

    Well, he was alleged had encounter with 14 yr old when he was 32. A bit creepier if true. He was known for dating high-school girls in his 30s. Not that it was illegal if over age 16 I think.

  • Agammamon||

    His trying to 'date' 14 and 15 year olds while he was in his 20's.

  • SIV||

    Legal in Alabammy at the time

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Which has really only vpbecome unusual in the last sixty or seventy years. Since many young women were married off around that age historically.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm not sure why an adult woman fucking a male in his late teens is 'creepy'. He's not a little kid.

  • Cy||

    She's the one going around asking for every to.... poundmetoo!

  • Eddy||

    Oh, I get it.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    According to the NY Times, Bourdain helped her 'navigate' the issue.

    If we slam a Catholic priest and a 17 year old, we have to slam this too.

  • Just Say'n||

    No, it's different, because Bourdain used heroin, so he's cool.

  • Just Say'n||

    And he swore and partied with Obama and lived in New York City. He's like a modern day angel to our degenerate society

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I volunteer to slam Argento.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    This is a heterosexual 17 year old male with a very attractive normal sized female. It is nothing like being raped by some homo Pedo priest. Seriously, are a lot of you ousting here have some weak ducked up sexuality that you don't understand this? A 17 year old male is pretty much physically an adult, and is hormonally mature enough to have a very high sex drive. It is natural to want to fuck hot o,dear women.

    Aybe sale tjng is different and millennial kids are sexless little douchebags who don't know what to do with pussy. Any normal guy. Knew in high school would have been hitting that shit as hard and as often as he could. And none of them would have had to be 17 to want to do it.

  • Number 2||

    Isn't this the same type of allegation that caused Kevin Spacey to be summarily fired from House of Cards and instantaneous expunged from the entertainment industry? Why doesn't the same rule apply in this case? Hell, at least Spacey was smart enough not to let his alleged victim photograph their encounter.

  • ||

    Kevin Spacey's victim, IIRC, was a bit younger (13-14?), didn't consent, and wasn't formally paid off. So, not really the same type of allegation at all.

  • ||

    Cheap bastard that Spacey.

    Doesn't he know the game? Bang 'em and pay 'em.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Bang 'em and pay 'em.

    In the Rapp case that started the feeding frenzy against Spacey, no one was "banged".

  • Number 2||

    What do you mean, "didn't consent." The whole point of statutory rape is that the victim is deemed incapable of consentIng. Whether there was "consent" is irrelevant.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The whole stupidity of "statutory rape" is that sexually mature adolescents are in reality capable of consenting. If we're going to forbid them from consenting, fine, make a case for that, but this idea that they are incapable of doing so is fantasy.

  • ||

    What do you mean, "didn't consent." The whole point of statutory rape is that the victim is deemed incapable of consentIng.

    I don't mean from a strictly legal sense and, you're right, no sex occurred. Yet another distinction from the above 'assault'. Rapp's 'assault' wasn't a situation where a 17-yr.-old may've had buyer's remorse. Rapp was well below age of consent and, even if he wasn't again, IIRC, he didn't want to have anything to do with Spacey and was arguably at the party against his will.

  • DJK||

    No sex occurred? From the NYT article:

    "The document lays out Mr. Bennett's account: Ms. Argento asked the family member to leave so she could be alone with the actor. She gave him alcohol to drink and showed him a series of notes she had written to him on hotel stationery. Then she kissed him, pushed him back on the bed, removed his pants and performed oral sex. She climbed on top of him and the two had intercourse, the document says. She then asked him to take a number of photos."

  • DJK||

    Oh. Got it. No sex in the Spacey case.

  • DarrenM||

    And of course that 17-year-old was completely immobilized and unable to push a woman who probably weighed much less than he and was much weaker than he was did off of him. Of course, he may have just been an incredibly puny physical specimen.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    17 year olds eat a lot of soy these days

  • RPGuy16||

    That sounds horrible. I hope that with enough therapy he can come to grips with what happened to him and lead a normal life.

  • DJK||

    So, the usual "he must have loved it". Got it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I was already 6'1" and 200 lbs. at 17. I would have tossed her around like a a Ragggedy Andy.

    I'll bet she likes that sort of thing too.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Like a Raggedy Andy, not a Raggedy Ann? OK....

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I blame autocorrect. Either way, though, pretty raggedy.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Nothing even close to sex happened in the Spacey incident with Rapp, so, no, not the same type of thing at all. From Rapp's account, it sounded to me like a little roughhousing that got a bit too rough due to alcohol. The people clearly at fault in that case were Rapp's parents who let him attend a drunken adult party by himself.

  • Number 2||

    So you are making my point. Spacey got the economic death penalty for an incident that did not even involve sex. Shouldn't the penalty be at least the same in this case?

  • Vernon Depner||

    I think there should be no penalty in either case.

  • ||

    From Rapp's account, it sounded to me like a little roughhousing that got a bit too rough due to alcohol.

    Sure. Except the minor hadn't consumed any alcohol and wasn't really interested in wrestling or was wrestling against their will. If I or one of the other peasants get drunk and restrain someone against their will, that's usually assault and you'd better believe the charges would escalate if it was a minor who got restrained.

    Like Cosby, the worst part about Spacey was the fact that he had already had complaints filed against him from a few police departments and even Scotland Yard. That was distinctly more Weinstein-esque than Argento-esque.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You sound inexperienced with children. Haven't you ever engaged in rough play with a son or nephew or a friend's son with whom you had a close relationship? There's nothing unusual about what would be called "restraint" between adults happening between a man and a boy in that context. From Rapp's account of the incident with Spacey, it sounds to me like Spacey had a different idea about their relationship than Rapp did, and when Rapp made that clear, Spacey let him leave. And as I said, I'm sure the alcohol was a contributing factor. Rapp should not have been there unaccompanied.

  • Number 2||

    I don't necessarily support a penalty, but I was trying inartfully to illustrate the differences in how a case involving a man was handled versus a case involving a woman. And we know damn well that if this had been a man involved instead of a woman, the Twitter-verse and the commentariat would be exploding with stories about "toxic masculinity," the need to change how "men" behave, the continued importance of the 'me-too" movement, and the need for more women in positions of authority.

    Maybe we can reach the point when we get past the nauseating identity politics and recognize these cases for what they are: bad people taking advantage of those too vulnerable to fight back.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Or, in some cases, whores trying to take advantage of a current outrage fad to shake down their former customers.

  • ||

    The people clearly at fault in that case were Rapp's parents who let him attend a drunken adult party by himself.

    I don't entirely disagree with this sentiment.

  • BrianKerk||

    Not with Rapp. But he tried. Tried to have sex with a 14 year old.

    Have you ever seen a 14 year old? They look like kids. Because they are. And he tried to have sex with one.

    More than one, actually. Rapp wasn't the only one, just the first. There's the other 15 or so others (some afults, some kids) who've accused Spacey of everything from groping to attempted rape.

  • widget||

    "That actor, Jimmy Bennett, was 17 at the time, and he viewed Argento as a mother figure."

    Oh stop it! I was 15 or so, not 17, and I would do some gardening for her. She was a has-been actress in her early 40's. She would answer the door in her bath rope when I knocked for my money. She wasn't as nubile as that senior high school gal down the street I was preoccupied by, but she was sexy in other ways that drove me crazy. She was not my mother.

    One hot day she invited me in for a soda. Nothing happened. None of my short stories end well.

  • Eddy||

    "Nothing happened. None of my short stories end well."

    You'll never make Penthouse Forum with that attitude.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Wait...Penthouse Forum stories aren't real?

  • Eddy||

    They represent the writer's truth.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Did you know you can make over $20 a month selling bath ropes online

  • BrianKerk||

    "Truth isn't truth"

  • Idle Hands||

    If this isn't copy pasta it should be.

  • Mongo||

    Pappy Widget: "So what did you do today at your summer job?"

    Teen Widget: "Oh, worked on the trim, shaved down the lawn, filled a few holes..."

    Pappy Widget: " That's my boy!"

  • Careless||

    She would answer the door in her bath rope

    Need pictures of the bath rope

  • Bearded Spock||

    Remembering how I was as a 17 year-old, I'm not sure if I believe this was a non-consensual encounter.

    Having said all that Signorina Argento helped create the new sexual assault standard, and now she has to live by it.

    It's always Schadenfreude-licious to see Robespierres get destroyed by their own mobs.

  • Mithrandir||

    Yeah there is the underage thing, but putting that aside, this seems a bit insincere to me. Did he voice his disapproval at all? If you were really uncomfortable, you probably should have said something before she took your pants off and starting sucking your johnson. Or when she presumably climbed on top of you.

  • ||

    If you were really uncomfortable, you probably should have said something before she took your pants off and starting sucking your johnson. Or when she presumably climbed on top of you.

    Before she took your pants off, before she started sucking on it, before she climbed on top, after the deed was done, the morning after, before she offered hush money, after she offered hush money, before she ousted Weinstein, and after she ousted Weinstein.

  • Cathy L||

    She created the age of consent? Huh.

  • Bearded Spock||

    She was one of the first accusers of Harvey Weinstein, which set off the #MeToo movement.

    Back in the old days of 2016, when the Clintons were still dining in public with Weinstein and Al Franken was just a harmless joker, Ms. Argento might have been given the benefit of doubt in this situation.

    But now that our society has proclaimed Zero Tolerance for sexual abuse of any kind, what might have been consensual is now rape. Sucks to be her.

    The irony is if she had kept her mouth shut and not hucked a rock through the side of her glass house, Bennett probably would have honored his nondisclosure agreement.

  • Cathy L||

    Yet in this case, the issue is age, and she had nothing to do with setting CA's age of consent at 18.

  • TuIpa||

    "the issue is age"

    Swing and a miss.

    Not surprised to see you defending her Cathy, fucking children is your bag.

  • Bearded Spock||

    True. But she did commit a sexual crime.

    And the irony here is that using your celebrity status to take advantage of young, innocent Hollywood newcomers was one of Weinstein's favorite moves.

    As I noted before, if this story had broke just two short years ago, it would have been a footnote in Variety or a 30-second blurb on TMZ.

    And the public would have reacted differently. Most on the Right would have shaken their heads and muttered "typical Hollyweird perv", most on the left would have responded with "what's the big deal?", and most men aged 20 to 40 would have asked "where were these women when I was in high school?"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "True. But she did commit a sexual crime"

    The only crime is she wasn't doing it to me. Instead she was wasted on this teen fag who has some insane problem banging a sexy older chick.

  • Cathy L||

    Oh, and there was no NDA, and Bennett isn't talking.

  • Bearded Spock||

    If she paid him 380k and she didn't get an NDA, then she should fire her lawyer and sue him for malpractice.

  • Mithrandir||

    I think the NYT article mentioned something about NDAs involving this type of situation being illegal in California.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, the Michael Jackson Law.

  • Jimbo||

    However, she did get his DNA.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Argento and Bennett first met while working on the clumsily-titled and long-since-forgotten 2004 film The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things (which was also directed by her). She played his mother in that film.

    This is reprehensible, not creepy.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    'Creepy' had become a word with no meaning in this society. Or rather, it means whatever the user wants it to mean (usually a man the user doesn't find attached does something slightly abnormal that an attractive man would not be castigated for).

  • Number 2||

    Things like this would not happen if we had more 17-year-old boys in Director and Producer roles!

  • Matthew Chalice||

    I know you're joking about this, but I'd genuinely like to see intelligent teenagers given the chance to make their own big-budget films. Can't be any worse than most of the slop the MCU shovels in our faces.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Megan Fox's career approves this message

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    MCU?

  • Shatterface||

    Sam Raimi was 17 when he started directing The Evil Dead.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Something, something White male privilege.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>There's no unwritten law that says you can't be both a perpetrator and a victim of sexual misconduct.

    if you're a victim first it seems doubly wrong to flip the tables ... if you're a perpetrator first then likely just desserts

  • Nardz||

    Someone hasn't seen the Saw movies...

  • FreeRadical||

    I'm thinking that's one lucky 17-year-old right there.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yep. I would have negotiated at least weekly follow ups with her.

  • Cyto||

    (I'm somewhat baffled by the paper's decision to name him at all.)

    I think that pronoun probably explains the decision.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "I'm somewhat baffled by the paper's decision to name him at all"

    This is something that someone who does not fully accept the idea of pervasive Left-Wing media bias would say.

    I can point out two obvious reasons the Times gleefully trashed the accuser's anonymity.

    First, he damaged the reputation of a liberal feminist heroine. That always will invite retaliation from the Media, no matter who you are.

    Second, the #MeToo movement was never meant to be applied to men. According to prevailing Leftist dogma, as a white cis-het male Bennett doesn't deserve any protection.

    The Times staff did this so effortlessly I'm not even sure they realize they did it. In their minds, there was nothing wrong about revealing his identity.

  • Cy||

    I think this also reveals their obvious sexism. They believe that men are either deserving of the dox or strong enough to take it.

  • Cathy L||

    If they wanted to protect the reputation of a #MeToo hero, why did they break the story?

  • Vernon Depner||

    To put the first spin on it.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Plus, the Legacy Media learned the hard way with Harvey Weinstein what happens when you ignore a story for too long.

    But don't worry, Cathy; because of her gender and victim status the Media will make sure Argento gets off easy. This story won't hang around for long, like it would if she were a male Republican.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Perhaps to frame the narrative in their own words rather than let other sorceresses direct the spin.

  • ||

    First, he damaged the reputation of a liberal feminist heroine.

    Not just that, he's fucking up the entire narrative. I said this when Weinstein was accused. 'The movement' shunned men and favored women. Implicit in that is the notion that women don't or even can't take advantage of or manipulate men for sex (and/or that women don't/can't manipulate women for sex or others to have sex to their own ends).

    Getting rid of Harvey Weinstein, doesn't mean squat if we keep the 'covered-up sexual favors as control' mores and just switch the genders.

  • Mickey Rat||

    How was Bennett, at 17, an adult?

    Legally, he was a minor anywhere, and the state does not have a lower age of consent. What the age of consent is in other states has absolutely no relevance,
    unless you think the federal government has a role in setting statutory rape law..

    Is Soave standard going through puberty?

  • mtrueman||

    "How was Bennett, at 17, an adult?"

    Grass on the pitch.

  • ||

    How was Bennett, at 17, an adult?

    In the sense of the story, what does it fucking matter? As I understand it, all of Weinstein's victims were of legal age in 50 out of 50 states.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Ask Soave, he is the one wringing his hands over whether California age of consent is too high.

  • BYODB||

    Gotta lower the age of consent laws because pedo's are just another gender and/or sexuality, depending on what day of the week it is. /sarc

    A two-tier approach to 'age of consent' is retarded, since one day before your 18th birthday you're not old enough to make any decisions than a day after it you can go off to Afghanistan to shoot the Taliban. The same is true of almost every 'age of consent' since a day before your turn 21 you can't handle the responsibility of drinking, but a day after you can go and buy a keg.

    It's absurd in the case of sex considering that it's quite literally a natural biological function that humans want to engage in before 18. These are compromise legislation, I guess, since everyone walks away from it looking like a fool in some respect.

  • Mickey Rat||

    In some respects it is silly, but the law without black and white lines becomes arbitrarily enforced and iimpossible to know whether or not you are committing a crime before you act.

    The law is a blunt instrument that only really works on "yes/no" answers to the questions before it which is one of the reasons it should only be used sparingly.

  • Qsl||

    law without black and white lines becomes arbitrarily enforced

    Kinda. Sorta.

    The issue at hand is rape. For the most part, there should be enough physical evidence (bruising, tears, etc.) to make an exacting charge, edge cases aside. But then the hard edges get extended outward, increasing in complexity and nebulousness. It is less the law is arbitrarily enforced, but the justification for and the law itself is arbitrary while claiming the mantle of the former.

    And here we are with such grave matters of morality such as "supposing sexual congress was intimated on the eve of his 18 birthday, but wasn't complete until after the stroke of midnight in a car traveling backwards at a speed of 460.5 meters per second...".

    Under no conventional understanding of the idea of rape was a crime committed. Adding a bright line to a nebulous justification doesn't give it substance anymore than answering "5!" gives validity to how many angels can stand on the end of a pin.
  • James Pollock||

    " For the most part, there should be enough physical evidence (bruising, tears, etc.) to make an exacting charge, edge cases aside."

    Sure, except that most rapes don't produce such evidence.

  • Qsl||

    And neither do most crimes and yet we muddle through on the one hand telling people who go through burglaries that they should have carried insurance as the probability (and amount of resources devoted to) of recovery is basically nil, and on the other forging countless laws of mindbending complexity to essentially indulge Aquinas-esque inquiries.

    Let's be clear: rape is a violent act. I'd be hard-pressed to explain why out of hundreds of other violent acts rape has so little physical evidence.

  • Vernon Depner||

    In many states, there is no hard and fast "age of consent" anymore, and there are various tiers of offense for sex with minors depending on their age and age difference with the accused, and the issue of consent is not irrelevant unless the victim is very young. That makes more sense than just declaring open season on a particular birthday.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Romeo and Juliet" laws make it so it's a shifting window, but it's still pretty black-and-white what's allowed under the laws and what's not.

    In most cases, it's something like "age of consent is X, except when the younger is at least age Y and the older is no more then Z years older". So "age of consent is 18, except when the younger is at least 13 and the older is no more then 4 years older" allowing high school seniors to date high school freshmen without fear of legal persecution.

    So maybe not quite as "fast", but the lines are pretty stark. But if you want a rule of thumb, "if they could have attended the same four-year high school at the same time, it's probably okay".

  • ||

    A two-tier approach to 'age of consent' is retarded, since one day before your 18th birthday you're not old enough to make any decisions than a day after it you can go off to Afghanistan to shoot the Taliban.

    Again I'm befuddled how, with a public school system, we can't use algebra in crafting the law. The 'n/2 + 7' rule is objective, works just as well at EOL as it does at the beginning, and more accurately captures the distinction in psycho-social maturity rather than arbitrary biologically-based guestimates.

  • Qsl||

    Ah, so an 7 year old can't rape a one year old.

    Good too know.

  • Vernon Depner||

    A 7 year old certainly should not be criminally prosecuted for that, but unfortunately, such cases do happen.

  • Qsl||

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4

    While I have a hard time envisioning a 7 year old doing hard time, I also have difficulties seeing something like that not involving some aspect of law enforcement.

    Besides, I'm not the one using algebra as my basis for law.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Law enforcement is not the appropriate way of dealing with such a situation.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Eh, the current Romeo and Juliet laws work well enough in places that have 'em. You can have your age of consent at 18 and still not prosecute a 19 year old for banging their 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend. No algebra required.

  • James Pollock||

    "How was Bennett, at 17, an adult?"

    Biologically.
    (Physically capable of reproduction.)

  • Mickey Rat||

    Mental and emotional maturity has no role, just physical?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Do you really think guys aren't totally DTF hot chicks at 17? Do you have amnesia from that period of your life?

  • James Pollock||

    "Mental and emotional maturity has no role"

    Reread the question, please.

  • DarrenM||

    Because the law is always more correct than biology.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The goal the law has is to see that a young person has reached an age where, cognitively, consent is meaningful.

    Whether California has gone too far is debatable, but it is a clear standard.

  • James Pollock||

    "it is a clear standard."

    Not even vaguely clear.
    Age of consent laws substitute one variable for another, despite the well-known fact that the one is only occasionally representative of the other.

    Some people are "cognitively prepared" at 13. Others are not at 26. And a few unlucky people go from cognitively prepared to unprepared and back again multiple times in their lifetime. The problem is that "cognitive preparedness" is hard to measure and prove, while chronological age is easy, and courts prefer to make measurements that are easy.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Trying to use a 17-year-old for sex is always wrong, regardless of the victim's gender. (See attached link.)

  • Eddy||

    I took a risk and clicked, and it was a #MeToo narrative - I still shouldn't have risked it, though.

  • MikeP2||

    No...that was shockingly dumb.

  • Shatterface||

    Clicking any link that says 'use a 17-year old for sex' isn't something I'm likely to do.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The victim's gender is very important. There is no equivalency. How do so many of you not understand this?

  • ||

    The thing I find interesting with these people is why in the world would they become a spokesperson for a movement like #metoo with fricken skeletons in their closets? I would never risk it.

    And this is the chick Bourdain allegedly offed himself for?

  • DJK||

    Arrogance? A belief that our culture would never take allegations by a man against a woman seriously? She might not be wrong on the second one.

  • Mark22||

    The thing I find interesting with these people is why in the world would they become a spokesperson for a movement like #metoo with fricken skeletons in their closets? I would never risk it.

    That's because you're a man. She's a privileged, pretty woman who has men swarming around her and worshiping her as long as she can remember. She can't imagine that anybody would criticize or challenge her.

  • MikeP2||

    That is because you are male and not woke enough

    Asia is a female, and thus those are not skeletons, but unfortunate misinterpretations of a human failing. She loved him, so at the end of the day that is whats important and all that matters. Women are givers, men are takers. Except for Polanski, because fytw.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    *loved him... At the time...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Polanski drugged a 12 year old with a quaalude in a hot tub and sodomized her. This isn't remotely like that.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The Whole #MeToo movement bothers me. Not that I think men who pressure people with less power into sex aren't scum, but where were the accusations WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED? If the message of the movement was "We kept silent and now we have no recourse, don't keep silent!" I wouldn't have a problem. But I see far too many men being pushed out of their jobs and lives on the unsupported word of some female actresses. Maybe they're telling the stone truth. But at this late dat it's hard to say. And women, goddamnit, DO lie about sexual assault.

    Are trials being held? Is evidence being examined? Have I missed a lot of vetting of information? If I'm dead wrong, let me know.

    I don't LIKE Harvey Weinstein. I think a vast proportion of the films he had a hand in producing are drivel. I suspect he's scum. But I can't find out if he's being charged with crimes recent enough that a fair trial is possible or being hustled through a Kangaroo Court as a sacrifice to the Sisterhood.

  • DJK||

    I highly suggest you read the Wikipedia article on Weinstein's alleged sexual assaults. The sheer number of women who have accused him of rape is astonishing.

    Also astonishing is the number of people who have since come forward and claimed to have known about all of this long before #metoo was a thing.

  • ||

    The sheer number of women who have accused him of rape is astonishing.

    There's also a bit of a distinction with Weinstein, Cosby, Spacey, and a few others and I would miss or not fully consider as well. Much like the Catholic Church, the issue isn't a woman being assaulted and not speaking out. The issue is the victim is assaulted, contacts the police or otherwise notifies people that the assault/harassment occurred and the people following up on the allegation are biased in favor of the rich and powerful. Papers get shuffled, people get told perpetrators will be punished, one person gets a semi-friendly office visit from someone who technically works under them that politely says, "Don't do it again." and the other person, who didn't necessarily do anything wrong, gets to go find work somewhere else. As a corollary see James Damore.

    Now, to Schofield's credit or point, frequently this was rolled up in 'The Patriarchy' when, in fact, women were rather knowingly escorting some of these victims to Weinstein's home/office/bedroom and allegedly bringing them alcohol, prophylactics, chemical aids, etc.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I call bullshit. I think you would be hard pressed to find a woman involved with Weinstein who didn't know what she was getting into ahead of time, and was ok with it as a stepping stone to her career.

    Call it rape now, because you never got that seven picture contract, but back then it was a means to an end.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Plus, unfortunately I doubt its ever going to go away...particularly in the entertainment industry. There is an unlimited supply of extremely attractive women seeking a tiny number of roles, any one of which can catapult you to stardom.

    Its all but designed for sex to be used as currency, even if just a small fraction of those involved aren't saints. And a lot more than a small fraction aren't.

  • DJK||

    Robby, what are you talking about? There appears to be a potential sexual assault issue in addition to the age of consent issue. According to the NYT article:

    "The document lays out Mr. Bennett's account: Ms. Argento asked the family member to leave so she could be alone with the actor. She gave him alcohol to drink and showed him a series of notes she had written to him on hotel stationery. Then she kissed him, pushed him back on the bed, removed his pants and performed oral sex. She climbed on top of him and the two had intercourse, the document says. She then asked him to take a number of photos."

    If the sexual acts were non-consensual, that is sexual assault, regardless of the alleged victim's age.

  • DJK||

    Also from the NYT article:

    "Mr. Bennett's notice of intent asked for $3.5 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, lost wages, assault and battery. Mr. Bennett made more than $2.7 million in the five years before the 2013 meeting with Ms. Argento, but his income has since dropped to an average of $60,000 a year, which he attributes to the trauma that followed the sexual encounter with Ms. Argento, his lawyer wrote."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How could she physically force him to do anything? Asia Argento is reportedly 5' 7" and around 130lbs.. which is believable in the pictures I've seen of her. Jimmy Bennet is of similar height and probably outweighs her by at least 10-20 lbs.. not a big guy, but certainly has noticeably more upper body strength being male.

    If he really didn't want to do it, she wouldn't not have been able to force him.

  • Real American||

    "when you're a star, they let you do it."

  • EscherEnigma||

    Am I the only one that read the story and thought of Alanis Morrissette's Hands Clean?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    But I'm a little uncomfortable using the word assault to refer to incidents between adults who are both clearly capable of consenting to sex, regardless of what the law says.

    Just because Jimmy Bennett was capable of consenting to sex, that doesn't mean he did freely consent, rather than being coerced into it.

  • DJK||

    Exactly. Robby missed a hell of a lot of pertinent information in the NYT article.

  • Cathy L||

    Nowhere in the story does it say he didn't consent.

  • MikeP2||

    This is why authority figures having relations with even older 'minors' is particularly frowned upon. Even at 17 on the edge of legal adulthood they were nowhere near parity in status. She was an authority figure and the delta in status alone puts coercion into the mix whether by intent or not. but shes a woman, so thats obviously different enough to defend, when the reverse would send a male to prison.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Nowhere in the story does it say that he did consent, and even if he did nominally consent, the law has long recognized, even in contexts outside of sexual relations, that coercion voids consent.

  • DJK||

    By alleging a sexual battery, he is alleging that there was no consent, by definition of sexual battery. This is true independent of the age of consent issue.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Bennett took a huge sum in hush money and then shut up about it for years. That severely impairs his credibility.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Just like Stormy.

  • Cathy L||

    He only took the money recently.

  • Just Say'n||

    I can tell you're really upset that the hypocrisy of the narrative has been exposed

  • DarrenM||

    Right. It's just so difficult to get a 17-year-old male into the sack.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No kidding. I would have had to been asked at least once.

  • Cloudbuster||

    A wink and a beckoning gesture wouldn't have been enough?

  • Benitacanova||

    I don't even believe her weinstein story. She'd do anything for attention, anything except display talent.

  • John||

    Isn't she the crazy bitch who seduced Anthony Bourdain into leaving his wife and daughter and then dumped him when someone more useful to her career came along?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Supposedly, they had agreed to have an open relationship and Bourdain could not emotionally cope with that. An uncommitted relationship is not satisfying. What a shock.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    That's on Bourdain if that actually happened, it was his choice.

  • Rob Misek||

    What a bunch of hypocrites.

    What the hell good is a justice system where criminals can stay out of jail as long as they steal enough hush money?

    She deserves Weinsteins fate and anyone who says otherwise is a biased hypocrite.

    The paid off victims credibility is the same as every Weinstein victim who received something for their sexual favours.

    The oldest profession isn't movie mogul.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Dude will never press charges, he just wants his hush money.

  • Rob Misek||

    Money and sex.

    The oldest profession.

  • John||

    I am sorry but I don't buy for a minute this woman paid that kind of money over fully consensual sex with a boy who was 17. Yes, the age of consent in California is 18, but how in the world would the kid have ever proven sex happened? And what reason is there to think that California police would even be interested in prosecuting such a case that fully consensual and didn't involve a teacher or some authority figure?

    No. There were consent issues involved her as the Times article shows. She got the kid drunk. Maybe she is entirely innocent and the kid really did consent even though he was drunk. But the fact that she paid to cover it up and the kid and his family were angry enough to force her to do so is pretty good evidence he didn't consent.

    This is just Robby being a good male feminist and giving this woman a pussy pass. No way in hell would Robby or anyone else be so eager to excuse a man who got a 17-year-old girl drunk and banged her as they appear to be to excuse this broad.

  • Cathy L||

    His family wasn't involved. He had previously sued them, in fact.

  • John||

    That doesn't make her paying him off look any less suspicious.

  • Vernon Depner||

    how in the world would the kid have ever proven sex happened?

    That's the problem with all allegations of rape that happen long after the fact. And, even with many fresh allegations—there is not always good physical evidence, and rarely are there witnesses. That's why criminal law enforcement is a poor tool for addressing or preventing rape. The best tools for preventing rape are the kind of behavioral adjustments that feminists denounce as "blaming the victim".

  • DJK||

    NYT reports that there are pictures of the two in bed. It doesn't say what the content of the pictures is. That's at least a bit of evidence.

  • MikeP2||

    Supposedly the selfie face shots that are being shown were taken in bed on that day.

  • DJK||

    The only photos I saw in the NYT were partial face pictures. If there are pictures showing them in bed, especially if unclothed, Argento is fucked. Or should be, if there is no double standard.

  • Mark22||

    Needless to say, Argento's behavior in this case does not change her status with regard to Weinstein.

    You mean as a privileged woman who prostituted herself for career advancement and then later revealed her sexual encounters for political purposes? As a woman who runs around in obscenely revealing outfits and still uses sexuality to achieve her ends? No, abusing a 17-year-old does not change her status with regard to Weinstein, it is consistent with it.

    Weinstein and Argento both treat sex partners as objects and means to an end.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Revealing outfits have nothing to do with this. That shit is what rapists use to push blame off on rape victims. Any reasonable person needs to call bull shit on blaming women for dressing up the way they want to. You can't fucking touch her if she's spread eagle naked in front of you unless there's consent.

  • ThomasD||

    Everyone has known about the 'casting couch.' It has been around longer than Hollywood. So much so that it used to be considered a form of implicit consent.

    Then some people decided they could change what they saw as an abusive system, and indeed everything changed.

    Argento climbed on that bandwagon.

    Now she's shocked to discover that re-drawing the lines has left her exposed to accusations of being across the line.

    And, as with everything else, Robbie wants to pretend that he has any sort of standing to arbitrate where that line exactly is.

    It's comedy gold, is what it is.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Age of consent laws shouldn't matter when the victim is 17, depending on the principal involved, of course"

    - Shorter Robby article

    Don't hold your breath waiting for him to "to be sure" something like this if it were a male celebrity and a seventeen year-old girl

  • ThomasD||

    Yep. This isn't even virtue signaling. It's a display of tribal affiliation.

  • Ed Medlin||

    My first job after grad school involved taking mugshots and rolling fingerprints in the booking area of a county jail in Central California, midnight to 8 a.m. I vividly remember "mugging and printing" a young "man" who had just turned 19, and who'd been arrested for consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, who was all of a year behind him in school. It prompted to consider that, when I had been 17, I had been similarly "victimized" by my 18 year old girlfriend of that time, though I had been a year ahead of her in school, but, due to the Penal Code's definition of statutory rape, back then, only females could be victims. The law really can be an ass.

  • MikeP2||

    Wow, what a pathetic virtue signalling article Robby.

    Try reversing the sexes and write this again. Maybe a relatively conservative male actor who had relations with an on-screen daughter when she was under 18. Hypocrite.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It isn't the same. The difference in physical strength is a big factor. Most women can't physically coerce a male of even similar height and weight, let alone a larger male. Also, the psychology of the genders isn't the same. Then one has to account for the different perspectives of,the act. Since men are the penetrators. It's easier to stick it in something than to have something stuck into you.

    Seriously, at 17 I would ave plowed her six times in a row. It would ave been the best 32 minutes of my life.

  • nooneuno||

    "Argento didn't necessarily know Bennett was uncomfortable with what had happened between them."

    What? The same could be said for Weinstein, especially considering Argento continued to have a friendly (and even sexual) relationship with him after her alleged rape. Not defending Weinstein but holy double standard! I guess it's only rape if the accused is ugly.

    She knew this boy since he was 6 years old. He looked up to her as a mentor and mother figure. What she did was predatory and sick.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I feel cheated that I didn't know all these hot older European chicks who've were "predatory and sick"when I was his age. Or now for that matter.

    Release Asia Argento into house arrest in my custody. Living with a predator like her with her sexual appetites will be tough, but somehow I will make do.

  • nooneuno||

    As a mom of teens and someone who works with teens, I don't doubt that some 17 year old boys would be all over this. Others are still socially and emotionally very immature and while perhaps physically willing could be confused and humiliated by something like this happening with a 43 year old trusted mentor and friend. Everyone is different. Your personal level of attraction to Asia Argento is not really relevant. I certainly wouldn't want it to happen to my 17 year old son.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    She's 43 now. She was in her thirties then. My 'personal level of attraction' is likely very common. She was even hotter in her thirties. And let's be honest, she's a sexy Italian actress, and probably an excellent seductress. Also, if he didn't really want to, she couldn't have forced him. He's not a very big guy, but he's still heavier, younger and stronger that a thin boned 125 lb. (looked it up) woman.

    Amd up until the last 60 years or so, males were pretty much considered men at 17. We have artificially infantilized young men and women on this country.

    He should be happy with his luckiest boy in America trophy, amd his undeserved shake down money, and move on. Preferably to the sexless life the little dbag craves.

  • WillPaine||

    Robby Soave; well said.

  • Incredulous||

    We are becoming a very sexually repressed society. I'm not buying Bennett's story. I am sure it was consensual and if it's legal in 39 states, it's legal to me. He just decided to blackmail her. As for all these other #metoo accusations, it's probably similar in most cases. It was either consensual or pretty minor. So I'm not buying their whiny "victim" or "survivor" status. It's all about attention-seeking and/or money.

    As for Argento, her credibility is now crap, imo. We need to be skeptical about any accusation without objective proof.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well like a lot of hot, seductive, overly sexual women, she's probably at least somewhat nuts.

    Although I suspect fucking her is likely tantamount to an E ticket ride at Disneyworld. Much like riding the Matterhorn, but way more fun.

  • TGoodchild||

    "People are complicated."

    People are also crazy and rather undeserving of sympathy.

  • Rob Misek||

    In western society, women are sex clowns.

    They both wear makeup, clothes to achieve results and should not be taken seriously.

    Look closely and you'll see Pennywise.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    CA's Age of Consent Law is "uncommon".......did you pull that from the dead part of your brain?

  • vek||

    Uhhh, it's higher than 39 out of 50 states sooooo... Kinda uncommon. And basically every country in Europe is considerably lower too. And everywhere else in the world. So yeah, uncommon is reasonable.

  • SIV||

    I'm not going to read all the comments but is an 18 y/o age of consent all that "uncommon" when it is the law in our 3 * most populous states?

    (*Texas is arguably 17)

    SLD: Grass on the mound? PLAY BALL!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I've jever considered those states to be good examples of anything i would care to emulate where I live.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    No one knows if this was consensual or not (everything to me seems to indicate consent to me). BUT the elephant in the room is that he was 17 in an 18 state, and that right there fucks her over no matter what. So she should have been smarter about her little trist. I don't really feel much mercy for her. She's gonna have to pay up. The article is right though, it has nothing to do with Weinstein.

  • Rob Misek||

    Why, because all of Weinstein"s accusers we're over 18?

  • vek||

    Thank god I live in Washington state where it's 16! LOL

    God I can't imagine ever even going through the effort of trying to sleep with some idiot who is that young at this point in my life... But if I ever get duped by some girl with half a brain and a fake ID someday, I'll be glad to have that extra couple years fluff room!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yep. If that hot little number down the street ever deigned to seduce me, at least she's legally DTF. Though I doubt I will be that lucky.

  • vek||

    I'm only in my early 30s, and I had a little sister of a friend flirting up and down with me several months back... She was 19. Soooo wouldn't touch that shit with a 10 foot poll. Other than the friend drama that would cause, people are just soooooooo dumb at that age. I can scarcely imagine a 16 year olds level of stupid.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Burn baby burn.

  • vek||

    Pshhhh. Everybody knows you can't rape a 17 year old boy. Not unless the chick is SUPER buckled. And she's not. So it's all lies, and he's just trying to get laid and paid!

  • GoatOnABoat||

    "There's no unwritten law that says you can't be both a perpetrator and a victim of sexual misconduct."

    No, but there's a word called hypocrisy that might fit...

  • FlameCCT||

    "But I'm a little uncomfortable using the word assault to refer to incidents between adults who are both clearly capable of consenting to sex, regardless of what the law says."

    Really Robby? You have no problem accusing an adult male in a position of power with ASSAULT when he takes advantage of an adult female yet you're uncomfortable accusing an adult female in a position of power with ASSAULT when she takes advantage of an adult (depending on the State law) male?

    Hypocrite much?

  • Cloudbuster||

    Let's all pretend male and female sexuality are the same. All aboard the radical egalitarianism bus.

  • IndependentTexan||

    We have to get past looking at all of these situations as being equally reprehensible. They are not equal.

    I have no trouble finding a lot more evil in a serial manipulator/abuser like Weinstein than in what seems to be a more one-off situation like this one with Asia Argento. Weinstein is an out-and-out predator, malicious and vicious. Argento seems to be guilty of having Hollywood morals but not much more.

    All y'all who have a problem differentiating between the two are being pedantic. 17 year old males are always DTF, their brains are awash in testosterone. For this kid to accept money from Argento -- regardless of whether she was covering up a misdeed or not -- and then years later to decide he was a victim? A sign of the times. No such thing as taking personal responsibility anymore. So, since we can't take care of ourselves, we need a government to step in and declare a 17 year old as being incapable of consent. Ridiculous.

  • vek||

    Weinstein was skeezy for sure... But the question with half the people he supposedly abused is: How many of them did it on purpose, knowingly? Bribing somebody with a blow job is no different than giving them some cash. I bet most of those women knew exactly what they were doing, and didn't feel one bit bad about it at the time. Then they saw everybody hopping on the train and decided they felt violated all of a sudden, 20 years later, and after they received the perks they bought with their sexual bribes.

    I'm sure some women felt coerced right off too... But women are manipulative little creatures, and they always use sex to get their way. What percentage were coerced versus knowingly whoring themselves will never be known, but they weren't all victims.

  • ThomasD||

    Presumably she didn't think she was doing anything wrong when she did it.

    Having done so she should have stuck with that. Paying hush money making any opinion of Robbie's entirely irrelevant. Particularly so, given her stand on Weinstein.

  • ThomasD||

    Well, this is interesting.

    Actress Asia Argento reportedly denied sexual assault allegations levied against her and said that her late boyfriend Anthony Bourdain paid her accuser Jimmy Bennett because the then-couple considered him "dangerous" after he asked for financial assistance.

    "I strongly deny and oppose the contents of the New York Times article dated 20 August 2018, as circulated also in national and international news," Argento said in a statement given to reporter Yashar Ali. "I am deeply shocked and hurt by having read news that is absolutely false. I have never had any sexual relationship with Bennett."

    https://tinyurl.com/yb67e3t5

  • ThomasD||

    I wonder if the leak came from someone else in the Bourdain camp, and she's still counting on the (former) kid to maintain his silence?

  • nooneuno||

    Or maybe she's just trying to shift the blame to someone who isn't around to defend himself.

  • ThomasD||

    Winner!

    Not sure why Robby has decided to hitch his wagon to this lying bag of sleeze.

    https://preview.tinyurl.com/ycb73wse

    "Asia Argento says she did not have sex with then 17-year-old Jimmy Bennett, but a photo and various text messages between Argento and a friend tell a very different story ... she flat-out says she had sex with him."

  • wreckinball||

    Well, I guess technically she is guilty. A couple of things though. What 17 year old boy can't kick the crap out of just about any woman. I mean how can she actually assault him?

    And she is hot. What 17 year old boy wouldn't consent.

    So we have a total wimp who is gay? That seems to be the only explanation.

  • Widhalm19||

    No .... his reason is cash and 15 minutes of celebrity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I would understand if he were gays and he just wasn't attracted to her. I certainly wouldn never ant a man to touch me in a sexual way. But there is no indication of that.

  • vek||

    Money/attention whore. There is no other reason. I got "sexually assaulted" by a fat girl when I was drunk as a teenager, but if I REALLY felt violated so badly about it I wouldn't wait a million years to bring it up. If he felt bad about it at all, which he probably didn't, it wasn't THAT bad, or else he would have done something about it a long time ago. Money/attention whore.

  • Truthteller1||

    She just paid the guy off to help him out.

  • Widhalm19||

    She's a Leftist moron. What do you expect? Ethics? Morality? Uh .... no.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    She's a hot Italian chick. We need more like that. Gotta watch the ratio. Or it turns into a sausagefest.

  • Bongo Supreme||

    "While Argento's alleged conduct does indeed meet the definition of sexual assault, this is only because the age of consent in California is 18. ... I'm a little uncomfortable using the word assault to refer to incidents between adults who are both clearly capable of consenting to sex, regardless of what the law says."

    "Bennett attempted to sue her for intention [sic] infliction of emotional distress, lost wages, assault, and battery."

    Read your own fucking article, you dunce. The accusation is of SEXUAL BATTERY. He was barely 17 and he trusted her as a mother figure. She was his mentor and he had known her since he was 7 years old. If it's true, it's fucking sexual assault, period.

  • James Pollock||

    "Read your own fucking article, you dunce. The accusation is of SEXUAL BATTERY"

    No, it flatly isn't.
    Sexual battery is a crime. Prosecution for crimes is by "the people" of the jurisdiction. The accusation was made in a civil lawsuit, and thus alleges torts, not crimes.

    First rule of Internet fuckwittery... if you're going to correct someone, make DAMN sure you're right before you click on "submit".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online