Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anna Kendrick is able to pull off interview without looking like a complete jerk. Can’t say the same for Blake.

I don't really like either of them but I actually respond less negatively to Blake, who just comes off as full of herself, than Kendrick, who comes off as extremely fake to me. Anna Kendrick has aggressive high school theater kid energy that I find incredibly grating. Same vibe from Justin Timberlake. I just cannot with these people.

Blake Lively's attitude is pretty standard in Hollywood, perhaps slightly more annoying because I don't think she's a very good actress so it feels less earned than when someone whose performances I actually enjoy does it.

[Anonymous]

I honestly think Blake thought the case would be over by now. She expected Justin to capitulate quickly with her pr campaign concerning the complaint, particularly with The NY Times article. I would not be at all surprised if there is no evidence to support iher claims because she thought a few texts and emails taken out of context would get it done. There was no legal reason for her not naming witnesses to the alleged behavior in the complaint. She isn’t required to, but it would have made it much stronger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Justin been complained about in about of his past gigs?

Seems like his other co-stars really liked him.

Blake on the other hand. . .

I have never read anything bad about him. He seems to be friends with his past co-stars.

Except that podcaster. Oops.

She hasn’t accused him of any misbehavior with her.

She also hasn't said a word in support or even said "I didn't experience any inappropriate behavior in working with him." It's been weeks and Baldoni could definitely use the backup. This is someone who worked in very close proximity to him for several years. I find that odd.

Especially since there's a third host, Jamey Heath, who is also mentioned in Lively's complaint (he was a co-producer on It Ends With Us and the one Lively accuses of entering the makeup trailer while she was topless and having body makeup applied and insisting on having a conversation with her in that state).

One potential reason for her silence could be that she is a potential witness in both Lively's lawsuit and any potential lawsuit Baldoni might file against Lively. I wonder of Baldoni or Heath ever talked about Lively or what happened on the set with Plank.

More realistically, it’s a terrible optic in 2025 for someone whose entire brand is feminism to say she doesn’t believe a fellow woman. She pulled back from the podcast a few months ago, which says to me she wasn’t sure what to do, not that she was sure he was some creep. Liz Plank was in an impossible situation, and in fact very few people are going to publicly support anyone who is accused of what he’s been accused of. He’s maybe got his mom.

This. No one wants to stand up and defend someone accused of harassment in today’s woke environment. I personally don’t think woody Allen is a pedophile, but you can bet I’m not going to pronounce that in many of my female social circles. Why would I want the headache?

1) Gina Rodriguez, Baldoni's costar on Jane the Virgin, has defended him. So it's not true that "no one" will defend someone accused of harassment. He's also been defended by Megyn Kelly (see the clips posted earlier in this thread).

2) I don't know if Woody Allen meets the strict definition of a pedophile since I don't know exactly what he's done, but the reason I'd never defend him in any situation is because even if he's not technically a pedo, is obviously very gross and pervy. He married his step-daughter. He once cast himself opposite a teenage Mariel Hemingway (in Manhattan) and then tried to seduce her, asking her if she'd go to Paris with him and other weird, gross, inappropriate things. And despite all this, lots of people in Hollywood defend him, or at least are willing to work with him without commenting on his grossness in this respect.

So it's not exactly black and white, is it?

I haven’t heard anything from Gina since the lawsuit. In this type of situation, you really can’t say, “well he never harassed me.” That doesn’t even matter—so people are just going to keep their mouth shut. And who can even blame them? People freak out if you defend someone accused of a crime. Look at how angry people are at Ashton Kutcher? They freaking hate him for standing by his friend.

Is Ashton a good example? Danny Masterson was a convicted rapist. So they weren't defending him against mere allegations. They were defending him after Masterson was convicted. That's why there was such a strong reaction. I think you'd see that if any celebrity decided to write a "character letter" for someone convicted of a violent crime. It's very extreme. And then Ashton handled it really weirdly (those apology videos he and Mila did were strange) and there's the whole Scientology angle. That was abnormal.

There are lots of examples of people standing up for celeb friends when they are in hot water for even pretty awful behavior. Jodi Foster stood by Mel Gibson through all his crap. Lorne Michaels, Tina Fey, and others have supported Alec Baldwin through a bunch of stuff. Plenty of people continue to work with and defend Woody Allen. There are others.

Maybe Baldoni's problem is that he's not famous or talented enough. But the total lack of support from anyone who has worked with him also makes you wonder if maybe people aren't totally surprised. His only public defenders are his lawyer and people who support his lawyer (like Megyn Kelly). No one else in Hollywood seems eager to stand up for him or even to say "well let's wait until we know more."

They would have to be total morons to stand up for him. Not necessarily because he's guilty (I have no opinion on that), but because it would be a VERY bad look to support a man v. a woman with those types of claims looming. So people are keeping quiet. Note that other people who worked with Lively like Anna Kendrick could support her publicly, and they don't. So I don't think this is meaningful to the case or indicates anything.

I don't know why you are fixated on Anna Kendrick. A lot of people who have worked with Lively in the past have spoken up in support of her. Actors, directors, people who have worked with her on her product branding. I don't know why apparently Anna Kendrick is the arbiter here (side note: I find both Anna Kendrick AND Blake Lively very annoying and it doesn't surprise me they wouldn't get along on set because they both have Main Character Syndrome, but that's not really dispositive on whether or not Lively was sexually harassed by Justin Baldoni).

No one is speaking up for Justin. It is odd that people have been pretty vocal in support of Lively (including people from this movie) but that no one has spoken up for Justin. So it's not that everyone is staying quiet and waiting it out. It's that among the people who know these individuals the best, Lively's friends and colleagues are supporting her and Justin's are staying mum.

Because people who speak up for him would be canceled if it turns out he did do something wrong—and really even if he didn’t. Nobody’s going to fault these women for supporting Blake. It’s just not the same at all.

Right, which is why people won't speak up if they think there's a chance the allegations are true. If what she was alleging in her complaint was just totally out of character for him or didn't jibe at all with other coworkers' experiences with him, I do think they would speak up if only to say "this doesn't sound like the Justin I know." I suspect this DOES sound like the Justin they know, even if this same behavior didn't become harassing in their dealings with him because maybe his behavior wasn't unwelcome in that setting but it was harassing on this particular set. And this ties their hands because they can't honestly say "I don't recognize the person described here" but they also can't defend this behavior because when you read it in the complaint it sounds very bad.

I go back to my previous assessment that he is a somewhat green director who is unprofessional and did not understand that his behavior was crossing lines and lacked the self-awareness to rein it in. It also sounds like everyone at Wayfarer might have egged each other on and that helped to validate their behavior even as Lively and, it sounds like, other members of the cast, were increasingly bothered by it.

It’s pretty darn rare to have a single complainant sexual harassment case.

Not true at all. Most sexual harassment cases are single complainant.

You only hear about the ones with a bunch of victims because as a culture we are extremely dismissive of women who lodge these types of complaints and only start to believe them if it happens to a bunch of women who can corroborate each other's stories.

I was sexually harassed at work (clearcut case, there was unwanted sexual touching, it happened with witnesses, and the person who did it admitted it) and I chose not to sue because I did not want to deal with the way my story would have been treated in court -- they would introduced my mental health issues (I have a history of depression), painted me as widely disliked at the company (this was true, a lot of people didn't like me, this was what made me such an easy mark for harassment), and claimed I was lying. They also would have said "none of the other women at this company have these issues, so what makes you so special?" I don't think I could have taken it. It wasn't worth whatever I might have recovered financially. And it would have dragged out for a long time.

My attorney was pretty blunt about this because the company didn't have deep pockets and she didn't think I'd get a huge settlement, so if I was going to do it, I'd need to feel like the abuse I was definitely going to encounter in that process was worth it. I also didn't have a great support system at the time, which concerned her. Bringing a sexual harassment claim requires a lot of fortitude. I had chronic depression, very little family and only a few friends, and had just left my job.

My story is not uncommon. I've met many others like me in support groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think Blake thought the case would be over by now. She expected Justin to capitulate quickly with her pr campaign concerning the complaint, particularly with The NY Times article. I would not be at all surprised if there is no evidence to support iher claims because she thought a few texts and emails taken out of context would get it done. There was no legal reason for her not naming witnesses to the alleged behavior in the complaint. She isn’t required to, but it would have made it much stronger.

Uh, I don't think so. She can bring those witnesses forward at any point. Some of them may be reluctant, so leaving them anonymous now might spare them having to be deposed or testify if there is a settlement before it gets that far. Discovery hasn't started yet.

Also I think it's funny when people talk about the legal or PR strategy like Blake Lively is somewhere directing people on what to do. She has hired attorneys and she and Ryan have a PR team. Lively is very likely barely involved in the day to day of this.

Also the speculation around Anna Kendrick is funny because she and Lively have a movie coming out together this year (sequel to A Simple Plan). Not sure of release date but I'm guessing Lively will be doing press and probably the biggest issue they are dealing with is how to promote that movie while dealing with the ongoing Baldoni saga. I guarantee Lively is way more involved in the PR discussions around that than anything related to the legal strategy of the lawsuit, which she has paid people to keep far, far away from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Justin been complained about in about of his past gigs?

Seems like his other co-stars really liked him.

Blake on the other hand. . .

I have never read anything bad about him. He seems to be friends with his past co-stars.

Except that podcaster. Oops.

She hasn’t accused him of any misbehavior with her.

She also hasn't said a word in support or even said "I didn't experience any inappropriate behavior in working with him." It's been weeks and Baldoni could definitely use the backup. This is someone who worked in very close proximity to him for several years. I find that odd.

Especially since there's a third host, Jamey Heath, who is also mentioned in Lively's complaint (he was a co-producer on It Ends With Us and the one Lively accuses of entering the makeup trailer while she was topless and having body makeup applied and insisting on having a conversation with her in that state).

One potential reason for her silence could be that she is a potential witness in both Lively's lawsuit and any potential lawsuit Baldoni might file against Lively. I wonder of Baldoni or Heath ever talked about Lively or what happened on the set with Plank.

More realistically, it’s a terrible optic in 2025 for someone whose entire brand is feminism to say she doesn’t believe a fellow woman. She pulled back from the podcast a few months ago, which says to me she wasn’t sure what to do, not that she was sure he was some creep. Liz Plank was in an impossible situation, and in fact very few people are going to publicly support anyone who is accused of what he’s been accused of. He’s maybe got his mom.

This. No one wants to stand up and defend someone accused of harassment in today’s woke environment. I personally don’t think woody Allen is a pedophile, but you can bet I’m not going to pronounce that in many of my female social circles. Why would I want the headache?

1) Gina Rodriguez, Baldoni's costar on Jane the Virgin, has defended him. So it's not true that "no one" will defend someone accused of harassment. He's also been defended by Megyn Kelly (see the clips posted earlier in this thread).

2) I don't know if Woody Allen meets the strict definition of a pedophile since I don't know exactly what he's done, but the reason I'd never defend him in any situation is because even if he's not technically a pedo, is obviously very gross and pervy. He married his step-daughter. He once cast himself opposite a teenage Mariel Hemingway (in Manhattan) and then tried to seduce her, asking her if she'd go to Paris with him and other weird, gross, inappropriate things. And despite all this, lots of people in Hollywood defend him, or at least are willing to work with him without commenting on his grossness in this respect.

So it's not exactly black and white, is it?

I haven’t heard anything from Gina since the lawsuit. In this type of situation, you really can’t say, “well he never harassed me.” That doesn’t even matter—so people are just going to keep their mouth shut. And who can even blame them? People freak out if you defend someone accused of a crime. Look at how angry people are at Ashton Kutcher? They freaking hate him for standing by his friend.

Is Ashton a good example? Danny Masterson was a convicted rapist. So they weren't defending him against mere allegations. They were defending him after Masterson was convicted. That's why there was such a strong reaction. I think you'd see that if any celebrity decided to write a "character letter" for someone convicted of a violent crime. It's very extreme. And then Ashton handled it really weirdly (those apology videos he and Mila did were strange) and there's the whole Scientology angle. That was abnormal.

There are lots of examples of people standing up for celeb friends when they are in hot water for even pretty awful behavior. Jodi Foster stood by Mel Gibson through all his crap. Lorne Michaels, Tina Fey, and others have supported Alec Baldwin through a bunch of stuff. Plenty of people continue to work with and defend Woody Allen. There are others.

Maybe Baldoni's problem is that he's not famous or talented enough. But the total lack of support from anyone who has worked with him also makes you wonder if maybe people aren't totally surprised. His only public defenders are his lawyer and people who support his lawyer (like Megyn Kelly). No one else in Hollywood seems eager to stand up for him or even to say "well let's wait until we know more."

They would have to be total morons to stand up for him. Not necessarily because he's guilty (I have no opinion on that), but because it would be a VERY bad look to support a man v. a woman with those types of claims looming. So people are keeping quiet. Note that other people who worked with Lively like Anna Kendrick could support her publicly, and they don't. So I don't think this is meaningful to the case or indicates anything.

I don't know why you are fixated on Anna Kendrick. A lot of people who have worked with Lively in the past have spoken up in support of her. Actors, directors, people who have worked with her on her product branding. I don't know why apparently Anna Kendrick is the arbiter here (side note: I find both Anna Kendrick AND Blake Lively very annoying and it doesn't surprise me they wouldn't get along on set because they both have Main Character Syndrome, but that's not really dispositive on whether or not Lively was sexually harassed by Justin Baldoni).

No one is speaking up for Justin. It is odd that people have been pretty vocal in support of Lively (including people from this movie) but that no one has spoken up for Justin. So it's not that everyone is staying quiet and waiting it out. It's that among the people who know these individuals the best, Lively's friends and colleagues are supporting her and Justin's are staying mum.

Because people who speak up for him would be canceled if it turns out he did do something wrong—and really even if he didn’t. Nobody’s going to fault these women for supporting Blake. It’s just not the same at all.

Right, which is why people won't speak up if they think there's a chance the allegations are true. If what she was alleging in her complaint was just totally out of character for him or didn't jibe at all with other coworkers' experiences with him, I do think they would speak up if only to say "this doesn't sound like the Justin I know." I suspect this DOES sound like the Justin they know, even if this same behavior didn't become harassing in their dealings with him because maybe his behavior wasn't unwelcome in that setting but it was harassing on this particular set. And this ties their hands because they can't honestly say "I don't recognize the person described here" but they also can't defend this behavior because when you read it in the complaint it sounds very bad.

I go back to my previous assessment that he is a somewhat green director who is unprofessional and did not understand that his behavior was crossing lines and lacked the self-awareness to rein it in. It also sounds like everyone at Wayfarer might have egged each other on and that helped to validate their behavior even as Lively and, it sounds like, other members of the cast, were increasingly bothered by it.

It’s pretty darn rare to have a single complainant sexual harassment case.

Not true at all. Most sexual harassment cases are single complainant.

You only hear about the ones with a bunch of victims because as a culture we are extremely dismissive of women who lodge these types of complaints and only start to believe them if it happens to a bunch of women who can corroborate each other's stories.

I was sexually harassed at work (clearcut case, there was unwanted sexual touching, it happened with witnesses, and the person who did it admitted it) and I chose not to sue because I did not want to deal with the way my story would have been treated in court -- they would introduced my mental health issues (I have a history of depression), painted me as widely disliked at the company (this was true, a lot of people didn't like me, this was what made me such an easy mark for harassment), and claimed I was lying. They also would have said "none of the other women at this company have these issues, so what makes you so special?" I don't think I could have taken it. It wasn't worth whatever I might have recovered financially. And it would have dragged out for a long time.

My attorney was pretty blunt about this because the company didn't have deep pockets and she didn't think I'd get a huge settlement, so if I was going to do it, I'd need to feel like the abuse I was definitely going to encounter in that process was worth it. I also didn't have a great support system at the time, which concerned her. Bringing a sexual harassment claim requires a lot of fortitude. I had chronic depression, very little family and only a few friends, and had just left my job.

My story is not uncommon. I've met many others like me in support groups.

If you had witnesses, your lawyer gave you bad advice. Most cases supported by strong evidence settle long before trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think Blake thought the case would be over by now. She expected Justin to capitulate quickly with her pr campaign concerning the complaint, particularly with The NY Times article. I would not be at all surprised if there is no evidence to support iher claims because she thought a few texts and emails taken out of context would get it done. There was no legal reason for her not naming witnesses to the alleged behavior in the complaint. She isn’t required to, but it would have made it much stronger.

Uh, I don't think so. She can bring those witnesses forward at any point. Some of them may be reluctant, so leaving them anonymous now might spare them having to be deposed or testify if there is a settlement before it gets that far. Discovery hasn't started yet.

Also I think it's funny when people talk about the legal or PR strategy like Blake Lively is somewhere directing people on what to do. She has hired attorneys and she and Ryan have a PR team. Lively is very likely barely involved in the day to day of this.

Also the speculation around Anna Kendrick is funny because she and Lively have a movie coming out together this year (sequel to A Simple Plan). Not sure of release date but I'm guessing Lively will be doing press and probably the biggest issue they are dealing with is how to promote that movie while dealing with the ongoing Baldoni saga. I guarantee Lively is way more involved in the PR discussions around that than anything related to the legal strategy of the lawsuit, which she has paid people to keep far, far away from her.

She may be out of luck with The NY Times with promoting her new movie.

And I highly doubt that she and Ryan are not involved in the day to day of the lawsuit. At least now when it continues to generate press and social media every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

I don’t think any actress sleeping with Harvey Weinstein makes them vile. He ruled the industry. Gwyneth left Hollywood after winning an Oscar, a career high, because she didn’t see a way forward without sleeping with him. Then, helped bust the story.

Let’s just say these gatekeepers are the vile ones. Though, I’ll be waiting for your responses to say that these women should just be teachers and nurses instead of making a devils bargain. 3-2-1…

Nope, can't get on board with the idea that Lively was "forced" to exchange sex with Weinstein for Hollywood fame and fortune.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

I don’t think any actress sleeping with Harvey Weinstein makes them vile. He ruled the industry. Gwyneth left Hollywood after winning an Oscar, a career high, because she didn’t see a way forward without sleeping with him. Then, helped bust the story.

Let’s just say these gatekeepers are the vile ones. Though, I’ll be waiting for your responses to say that these women should just be teachers and nurses instead of making a devils bargain. 3-2-1…

Nope, can't get on board with the idea that Lively was "forced" to exchange sex with Weinstein for Hollywood fame and fortune.

He’s in prison for doing just that. But sure, Blake was different only because you irrationally disklike her so very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

The retaliation case is very weak once the texts are reviewed in context.

DP here. I agree the retaliation case is weak. But I agree with the PP here that Lively's team outlines a pretty clear cut case of sexual harassment if they can prove this stuff happened as she said. Nothing Justin has come out with really mitigates it, including like the text of her calling a beanie on her character sexy or inviting him to her trailer. I know people think that's exonerating but it's really just nibbling around the edges and doesn't get to the most explosive allegations.

I think if she can prove the harassment claims, she'll win on those, but that any damages will be pretty limited to "pain and suffering" (which won't be a lot) because I think the retaliation case is weak and that Baldoni has very strong defenses on those, and that it will be next to impossible to prove she lost money as a result of the PR campaign against her and not due to her own actions/behavior.

But I also think Lively would likely view that as a victory -- I think she cares way more about rehabbing her reputation than getting money out of Baldoni.

First pp here. I agree that it will be extremely challenging to prove that any financial losses were solely due to retaliation for protected activity by Baldoni (or if his actions in fact constitute retaliation for engaging in protected activity).

Context will be key here. I'm really looking forward to seeing all the facts once they're available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

I don’t think any actress sleeping with Harvey Weinstein makes them vile. He ruled the industry. Gwyneth left Hollywood after winning an Oscar, a career high, because she didn’t see a way forward without sleeping with him. Then, helped bust the story.

Let’s just say these gatekeepers are the vile ones. Though, I’ll be waiting for your responses to say that these women should just be teachers and nurses instead of making a devils bargain. 3-2-1…

Nope, can't get on board with the idea that Lively was "forced" to exchange sex with Weinstein for Hollywood fame and fortune.

He’s in prison for doing just that. But sure, Blake was different only because you irrationally disklike her so very much.

I'm beginning to believe the posters who say Lively has PR people trying to sway DCUM.

Weinstein is in prison for rape. Lively made a choice to trade sexual favors for his support to become a Hollywood star. Same with Jennifer Lawrence. Lively also willingly worked with Woody Allen *after* the allegations of pedophilia against him and *after* he married his (essentially) step daughter.

Maybe Baldoni sexually harassed Lively and maybe he didn't. Justice should be served if he did. Either way, Lively is a vile human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

I don’t think any actress sleeping with Harvey Weinstein makes them vile. He ruled the industry. Gwyneth left Hollywood after winning an Oscar, a career high, because she didn’t see a way forward without sleeping with him. Then, helped bust the story.

Let’s just say these gatekeepers are the vile ones. Though, I’ll be waiting for your responses to say that these women should just be teachers and nurses instead of making a devils bargain. 3-2-1…

Nope, can't get on board with the idea that Lively was "forced" to exchange sex with Weinstein for Hollywood fame and fortune.

He’s in prison for doing just that. But sure, Blake was different only because you irrationally disklike her so very much.

I'm beginning to believe the posters who say Lively has PR people trying to sway DCUM.

Weinstein is in prison for rape. Lively made a choice to trade sexual favors for his support to become a Hollywood star. Same with Jennifer Lawrence. Lively also willingly worked with Woody Allen *after* the allegations of pedophilia against him and *after* he married his (essentially) step daughter.

Maybe Baldoni sexually harassed Lively and maybe he didn't. Justice should be served if he did. Either way, Lively is a vile human being.

Vile humans rape, murder and kill. Your hyperbole and exaggerations are truly insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

I don’t think any actress sleeping with Harvey Weinstein makes them vile. He ruled the industry. Gwyneth left Hollywood after winning an Oscar, a career high, because she didn’t see a way forward without sleeping with him. Then, helped bust the story.

Let’s just say these gatekeepers are the vile ones. Though, I’ll be waiting for your responses to say that these women should just be teachers and nurses instead of making a devils bargain. 3-2-1…

Nope, can't get on board with the idea that Lively was "forced" to exchange sex with Weinstein for Hollywood fame and fortune.

He’s in prison for doing just that. But sure, Blake was different only because you irrationally disklike her so very much.

I'm beginning to believe the posters who say Lively has PR people trying to sway DCUM.

Weinstein is in prison for rape. Lively made a choice to trade sexual favors for his support to become a Hollywood star. Same with Jennifer Lawrence. Lively also willingly worked with Woody Allen *after* the allegations of pedophilia against him and *after* he married his (essentially) step daughter.

Maybe Baldoni sexually harassed Lively and maybe he didn't. Justice should be served if he did. Either way, Lively is a vile human being.

When is she supposed to have done this? Wasn't she a teenager? I have a hard time blaming a teenager for something like that. The whole point of that dynamic is that it's a very powerful man exerting the force of his pressure to coerce young women without agency into having sex with them. Weinstein was a particularly extreme and egregious example because he also straight up raped women against their will (and not just young female actresses) and because of his physical size he could intimidate women who were alone with them even if he couldn't also hold his power over their heads.

Also, if she did sleep with him, what would the consequences have been if she didn't? Based on what we know about Weinstein, it could have really hurt her career. How many times has a woman slept with a man to avoid being fired or blackballed in her industry, to keep a boss from falsely accusing her of theft or spreading a rumor that she's lazy or stupid? Do you hate all those women too?

I am not a Blake Lively fan and even I think this line of thinking is pretty gross. Stop blaming women for men being disgusting and abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

I don’t think any actress sleeping with Harvey Weinstein makes them vile. He ruled the industry. Gwyneth left Hollywood after winning an Oscar, a career high, because she didn’t see a way forward without sleeping with him. Then, helped bust the story.

Let’s just say these gatekeepers are the vile ones. Though, I’ll be waiting for your responses to say that these women should just be teachers and nurses instead of making a devils bargain. 3-2-1…

Nope, can't get on board with the idea that Lively was "forced" to exchange sex with Weinstein for Hollywood fame and fortune.

He’s in prison for doing just that. But sure, Blake was different only because you irrationally disklike her so very much.

I'm beginning to believe the posters who say Lively has PR people trying to sway DCUM.

Weinstein is in prison for rape. Lively made a choice to trade sexual favors for his support to become a Hollywood star. Same with Jennifer Lawrence. Lively also willingly worked with Woody Allen *after* the allegations of pedophilia against him and *after* he married his (essentially) step daughter.

Maybe Baldoni sexually harassed Lively and maybe he didn't. Justice should be served if he did. Either way, Lively is a vile human being.

People are calling Blake all sorts of names such as "vile human being" for simply existing and you think Blake has PR here? What exactly are they doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Lively can be a vile human being AND Baldoni can be a vile human being.
- if Lively's claims against Baldoni are true and without mitigating context, then that's a clear case of sexual harassment.
- I firmly believe that Lively willingly slept with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for his promoting her career. She made movies with pedo Woody Allen after the allegations of child rape and after he married his partner's daughter who he helped raise since she was a child. She's a classic mean girl who attacks other women. She's no feminist ally.

But none of that matters if Baldoni sexually harassed her. Everyone is protected under law to be free from sexual harassment, regardless of the victim's own character.
- The only things that matter are 1) Did Baldoni sexually harass Lively and/or others and 2) Did Baldoni engage in retaliation against Lively for her protected activity (reporting sexual harassment)?
- Many times plaintiffs have a weak harassment case but then a very strong retaliation case. What matters is whether there was retaliation after blowing the whistle.
- Hollyweird is an unusual workplace. Sexual content is often part of the job - as in this case. That blurs the lines a bit. It's not like Lively was a GS-12 working on her analytics report when (allegedly) Baldoni bit her lip and whispered lusty things into her ear. Context will be central to this case.
- The bar for sexual harassment is higher than disorganized, incompetent, etc.
- As for damages, Lively has the burden of proof that Baldoni's actions were the cause of her loss of income.

This is an interesting case and I look forward to discovering the full set of facts when available.

I don’t think any actress sleeping with Harvey Weinstein makes them vile. He ruled the industry. Gwyneth left Hollywood after winning an Oscar, a career high, because she didn’t see a way forward without sleeping with him. Then, helped bust the story.

Let’s just say these gatekeepers are the vile ones. Though, I’ll be waiting for your responses to say that these women should just be teachers and nurses instead of making a devils bargain. 3-2-1…

Nope, can't get on board with the idea that Lively was "forced" to exchange sex with Weinstein for Hollywood fame and fortune.

He’s in prison for doing just that. But sure, Blake was different only because you irrationally disklike her so very much.

I'm beginning to believe the posters who say Lively has PR people trying to sway DCUM.

Weinstein is in prison for rape. Lively made a choice to trade sexual favors for his support to become a Hollywood star. Same with Jennifer Lawrence. Lively also willingly worked with Woody Allen *after* the allegations of pedophilia against him and *after* he married his (essentially) step daughter.

Maybe Baldoni sexually harassed Lively and maybe he didn't. Justice should be served if he did. Either way, Lively is a vile human being.

When is she supposed to have done this? Wasn't she a teenager? I have a hard time blaming a teenager for something like that. The whole point of that dynamic is that it's a very powerful man exerting the force of his pressure to coerce young women without agency into having sex with them. Weinstein was a particularly extreme and egregious example because he also straight up raped women against their will (and not just young female actresses) and because of his physical size he could intimidate women who were alone with them even if he couldn't also hold his power over their heads.

Also, if she did sleep with him, what would the consequences have been if she didn't? Based on what we know about Weinstein, it could have really hurt her career. How many times has a woman slept with a man to avoid being fired or blackballed in her industry, to keep a boss from falsely accusing her of theft or spreading a rumor that she's lazy or stupid? Do you hate all those women too?

I am not a Blake Lively fan and even I think this line of thinking is pretty gross. Stop blaming women for men being disgusting and abusive.

Maybe, but I look at Annabella Sciorra, Mira Sorvino, Ashley Judd and others more favorably than someone like Blake Lively but you're right, it's part of the reality of Hollywood. A lot of people will do anything for success.

Both she and Baldoni sound like nightmares and these cases are exposing the ruthlessness of that world and it's extremely ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, why would BL make any of this up? She has nothing to gain.

She was trying to buy the rights to the sequel to It Ends With Us from Justin and he wouldn’t sell.

This.