I do know that there are variables in false claims. While the following paragraphs are more about any part of any entertainment industry in any country concerning the figurative and sometimes literal "casting couch", the same points also apply to any industry. For the purposes of this, I will use the term "hiring couch":
A. At any time or place, the talent could be drunk, high, in an emotional state like having PTSD or where they are desperate for attention, have some disability, etc. Their conditions could be diagnosed and/or undiagnosed. They might be or might not be seeing a doctor. In terms of the likelihood of abuses, this could happen before, during, or after the talent's time in the entertainment industry. Each example could include a history of such of abuse outside or inside of the entertainment industry.
B. Obviously, different gigs mean that the same young talent may fall under different examples. For example, one gig might have a young talent fall under Example C, but another gig might have the same talent fall under Example G. Likewise, one gig might have a young talent fall under Example A but years later they fall under Example G (maybe they took meds and got therapy).
C. In terms of the #MeToo being pulled, there are cross-overs of being of a legit victim and falsely pulling the victim card, depending on the gig. For example, an adult that falls under both Example D and Example H is a victim of the former situation but a liar in the latter case. This obviously assumes that no form of abuse was done during the latter case.
D. The following are couch situations that I could think of. Those with "N/A" are situations that lack any condition listed in Paragraph A or that could, should, or wall fall under Paragraph A. Those with "Yes" have at least 1 of the conditions that are listed in Paragraph A or that could, should, or wall fall under Paragraph A.
-Industry Figure A tells Talent A, who is not 18, something like "If you don't sleep with me, I won't help you get a job". Yes
-Industry Figure B tells Talent B, who is not 18, something like "If you don't sleep with me, I won't help you get a job". N/A
-Industry Figure C tells Talent C, who is at least 18, something like "If you don't sleep with me, I won't help you get a job". Yes
-Industry Figure D tells Talent D, who is at least 18, something like "If you don't sleep with me, I won't help you get a job". N/A.
-Talent E, who is not 18, asks Industry Figure E something like "I need a job. Who do I sleep with here?" Yes
-Talent F, who is not 18, asks Industry Figure F something like "I need a job. Who do I sleep with here?" N/A
-Talent G, who is at least 18, asks Industry Figure G something like "I need a job. Who do I sleep with here?" Yes
-Talent H, who is at least 18, asks Industry Figure H something like "I need a job. Who do I sleep with here?" N/A.
- One sex crime victim is one victim too many. One sexual predator is one predator too many. One sexual predator is that doesn't get arrested then charged and convicted is one sexual predator too many. To me, there is a situation that is more egregious than the first two sentences in this paragraph. That is when 1 is false accused of a sex crime. The fact there is a chance of the falsely of going to prison and getting prison raped adds on to such an atrocity. Even though it is estimated that only 2-10% of rape claims are false, one false claimant that is not arrested, charged, and convicted is 1 false claimant too many.
Note: for the sake of argument concerning this section, if a victim mistakes Person A for being the offender when it was Person B, I call that a wrongful accusation. Falsely accused is the accuser knew the accused did not do the crime but still pulled the victim card.
- I find that the most extreme case of false rape claims come a person that corresponds to Talent H WHEN ALL the following points are met: each sexual experience was consensual, and all credible evidence or proof confirms each experience was consensual. This includes firsthand accounts, police reports, and other evidence (video, photographic, DNA, physical, etc.). Also, the same types of evidence or proof points out that Talent H was never abused at any point in their life. Thus, whether it was the end of an investigation that did not go to trial or a trial that resulted in a "not guilty" verdict or a trial with a "guilty" verdict but the suspect was later exonerated, each #MeToo claim by Talent H was a willful and malicious lie. It was a more of a case of Talent H being "evil".