while some of these types of things are serious, like it appears to be the case with Weinstein, i also think it's likely at least some of these are largely BS in that you could simply make a comment like 'nice @$$' towards someone and technically that's sexual harassment even though it's not THAT big of a deal. sure, it's not a good idea to do that stuff but it's not THAT big of a deal especially if it's kept to a minimum etc. basically words are far less of a issue if you ask me vs physical contact like touching etc as that's where you can get in hot water fast as it can go from fairly minor(maybe brushing up against their butt and the like) to serious.
so it makes me wonder what percentage of these claims, since the Weinstein thing came out, are legit vs mostly minor even though it seems like everytime you hear of cases like these they try to play them up like it's the end of the world.
but reading up a bit on the Ratner thing... if some of what's said is true, like what Henstridge said about the forced oral sex, then yeah that's a big problem there. but even looking at this particular case... ain't it pretty much her word against his since i doubt you can get any physical evidence in a case like that as about the best you could do, from what i can tell, is find others who might have been there at the time or others (who might say similar stuff about Ratner) to give your story more credibility. but that's one thing i would not like if i was on the jury as i tend to be of that type i like more hard evidence as when it comes back to someones word against another persons, especially when it's a really serious matter, without some pretty convincing evidence, i could not convict someone of a crime that could put them in prison for years etc. because i am of the mindset that i would rather let a guilty person go than risk putting a innocent person behind bars. that's why i tend to favor physical evidence as that does not lie as when it comes to witnesses things can get a bit less certain and reasonable doubt can come into your mind at that point. but with that said... knowing what could happen to Ratner with her[Henstridge] allegations, unless she's pretty corrupt(which i doubt), i can't really see someone making up a story like that knowing he could be in really serious trouble and you would have to be a pretty vile person to make a claim like that against someone if it was not true. so in this sense i would tend to lean in her favor here as i can't see many people crossing that line and making a serious story like this up. but i guess the more people that come out against Ratner the worse it's going to look for him in general though.
for the serious accusations i am not trying to downplay those, but only the more petty stuff as it's not worth ruining someones career/life over some words (and the like). but if what Henstridge said was true then clearly that's a serious matter as it's basically a form of rape. but with what Jaime Ray Newman said about Ratner, while that definitely looks bad for Ratner, and he should not have did that(assuming he did), it's not to that show stopper level to where he could get into any major trouble over it.
Know God, Know Peace. No God, No Peace. | "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/1225-1274) | "If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave." - Fulton J Sheen (1895-1979) | "He who prays is saved. He who prays not is damned!" - St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) | pray The Holy Rosary daily!