Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And her’s what the birthing video was reduced to in The NY Times, “Mr. Heath had shown her a video of his wife naked, she said”. No mention of the birthing aspect at all.

Not sure who’s at fault for this reduction, could be either Blake or the writer. Easy to see why the NYTimes was sued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

It’s like saying you don’t need to see a video of a choreographed fight the way the director wants it on screen because you are a martial arts expert. The vision and portrayal on film are specific, so showing a fight scene would not be insulting or deny the persons expertise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

To be clear, it was not Baldoni who showed her the video, it was Heath. When she questioned if the wife was ok with him showing it, he responded that his wife was not someone who would be bothered by it in a manner that conveyed Blake was weird for even questioning it. Team her side on this particular example.

But again, it is about a pattern, not any particular instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

It’s like saying you don’t need to see a video of a choreographed fight the way the director wants it on screen because you are a martial arts expert. The vision and portrayal on film are specific, so showing a fight scene would not be insulting or deny the persons expertise.

But it is not common for women to birth topless, I can understand her pushing back. Furthermore, it seems it was shown as evidence that because his wife did topless, all/most women do, not because he (Heath) was showing her how he wanted her to act. He then responded dismissively to her questioning the consent of the women in the video which is an absolutely appropriate question to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And her’s what the birthing video was reduced to in The NY Times, “Mr. Heath had shown her a video of his wife naked, she said”. No mention of the birthing aspect at all.

That's very intellectually dishonest, but also technically true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

To be clear, it was not Baldoni who showed her the video, it was Heath. When she questioned if the wife was ok with him showing it, he responded that his wife was not someone who would be bothered by it in a manner that conveyed Blake was weird for even questioning it. Team her side on this particular example.

But again, it is about a pattern, not any particular instance.

This is why I said much earlier in this thread that 30 instances of borderline actions, all taken together, can create a pattern of sexual harassment where one of them alone would not be enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

To be clear, it was not Baldoni who showed her the video, it was Heath. When she questioned if the wife was ok with him showing it, he responded that his wife was not someone who would be bothered by it in a manner that conveyed Blake was weird for even questioning it. Team her side on this particular example.

But again, it is about a pattern, not any particular instance.

This is why I said much earlier in this thread that 30 instances of borderline actions, all taken together, can create a pattern of sexual harassment where one of them alone would not be enough.

Da

I can see this. One or 2 things up can brush off but all together is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

It’s like saying you don’t need to see a video of a choreographed fight the way the director wants it on screen because you are a martial arts expert. The vision and portrayal on film are specific, so showing a fight scene would not be insulting or deny the persons expertise.

I think you can make the argument that it would be appropriate to ask Lively it she would look at a birthing video to get a sense for the mood or vibe you are going for in a scene where her character gives birth.

HOWEVER given that the video features a woman naked and doing something incredibly personal, you should be thoughtful about it -- explain what the video is and why you want her to see it, and get her permission to show to her. If she asks "is your wife okay with me looking at this?" provide a reassurance that is honest and straightforward, not a glib aside about how your wife "isn't weird" about stuff like this.

It's a graphic video. It should have been handled with more care. This isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

It’s like saying you don’t need to see a video of a choreographed fight the way the director wants it on screen because you are a martial arts expert. The vision and portrayal on film are specific, so showing a fight scene would not be insulting or deny the persons expertise.

But it is not common for women to birth topless, I can understand her pushing back. Furthermore, it seems it was shown as evidence that because his wife did topless, all/most women do, not because he (Heath) was showing her how he wanted her to act. He then responded dismissively to her questioning the consent of the women in the video which is an absolutely appropriate question to ask.

have you given birth before? Are women just winnie the poohing it during childbirth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

To be clear, it was not Baldoni who showed her the video, it was Heath. When she questioned if the wife was ok with him showing it, he responded that his wife was not someone who would be bothered by it in a manner that conveyed Blake was weird for even questioning it. Team her side on this particular example.

But again, it is about a pattern, not any particular instance.

This is why I said much earlier in this thread that 30 instances of borderline actions, all taken together, can create a pattern of sexual harassment where one of them alone would not be enough.

You were wrong then and are wrong now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

It’s like saying you don’t need to see a video of a choreographed fight the way the director wants it on screen because you are a martial arts expert. The vision and portrayal on film are specific, so showing a fight scene would not be insulting or deny the persons expertise.

But it is not common for women to birth topless, I can understand her pushing back. Furthermore, it seems it was shown as evidence that because his wife did topless, all/most women do, not because he (Heath) was showing her how he wanted her to act. He then responded dismissively to her questioning the consent of the women
in the video which is an absolutely appropriate question to ask.

There is nothing in the complaint about Blake being asked to do the scene topless. I don’t think she would have omitted that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

You really shouldn't use words like "ever" when you're making shit up as you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the porn complaints were different than the birthing videos at least according to the NYTimes

From Blake’s complaint, : “To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth.”

and “Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied ‘She isn’t weird about this stuff,’ as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video.”

And his response.

The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. For example, the Article, based on Lively’s [complaint], sensationally alleges that ‘Mr. Heath had shown [Lively] a video of his naked wife,’ with Lively’s [complaint] even labeling the footage as pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd. The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife and baby during a home birth—a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone.”

“The video was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film. Heath informed Lively that his wife condoned his displaying the video. Any suggestion that Heath engaged in the exhibition of pornography or inappropriate content is false.”

Based on this back and forth, I side with Lively.

Her complaint doesn't call the video porn, it says that when she was presented with a video of a nude woman with her legs spread, she thought she was being shown porn. That's a reasonable supposition and is precisely why you shouldn't show someone a video like that without asking them first. She never said he showed pornography and her complaint doesn't refer to the video that way. But it does demonstrate that Baldoni violated personal boundaries in a variety of ways. His response actually compounds this impression -- he continues to maintain there is nothing inappropriate about showing Lively or others on set his wife's birth video, and seems unconcerned with the fact that this was shown without warning. If the video was as "deeply personal" as he say is it is here (and I agree it is) then why would he shown it to someone without explaining the context and making sure the person understood what they were looking at and were okay with it.

Also, Lively's response after he explained it was his wife is appropriate --

meant to add: it's reasonable after being shown a nude video of a woman you don't know to ask if the woman is aware that video is being shown to people.

It’s a he said/ she said about the context in which the video was shown, but it is indisputable that it is part of her claim for sexual harassment. Maybe he shouldn’t have shown it. But it isn’t sexual harassment.

For people who talked often about porn at work it very well could be. It contributed to an awkward and sexually charged environment when it wasn’t necessary. Blake in particular asked for it to stop.

I disagree, showing a birthing video is not ever pornographic but particularly not in the context of discussing a birthing scene.

What mother of 4 needs to see a birthing video? He tried to mansplain it to her as if there was a right and wrong way.

It’s like saying you don’t need to see a video of a choreographed fight the way the director wants it on screen because you are a martial arts expert. The vision and portrayal on film are specific, so showing a fight scene would not be insulting or deny the persons expertise.

I think you can make the argument that it would be appropriate to ask Lively it she would look at a birthing video to get a sense for the mood or vibe you are going for in a scene where her character gives birth.

HOWEVER given that the video features a woman naked and doing something incredibly personal, you should be thoughtful about it -- explain what the video is and why you want her to see it, and get her permission to show to her. If she asks "is your wife okay with me looking at this?" provide a reassurance that is honest and straightforward, not a glib aside about how your wife "isn't weird" about stuff like this.

It's a graphic video. It should have been handled with more care. This isn't rocket science.

It’s not clear how exactly it was handled. The context is definitely an example of disputed facts. What isn’t disputed is that the film was of a woman giving birth, that the woman was the spouse of Heath and he claimed he had permission to show it.