I've been thinking more about the recent revelations about Weinstein and others in Hollywood. I go back and forth as to whether it's relevant to general sexual dynamics or is just the result of an industry that attracts pathological narcissists and sociopaths.

This article in the times cited some interesting studies that I'll quote below:

Social scientists have long documented the ways that power changes people’s psychology. It increases their sense of entitlement — when inequality is high, the affluent have a strong belief that they deserve their money, one recent study suggested — and diminishes their inhibitions.

An experiment published in a psychology journal in 2008 found that men who were given power over women tended to flirt more overtly than men who lacked such power. Another experiment found that those who thought of themselves as powerful underestimated both personal risks, like the chances of developing gum disease, and a more general level of risk, like the number of people who die in plane crashes each year.

“They don’t see threats even if they’re right in front of their face,” Cameron Anderson, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of the second study, said in an interview. Alluding to superstar harassers, Professor Anderson added, “They’re so focused on sexual gratification, they don’t see the moral, ethical and legal problems.”

Many people in an organization, from the most junior scheduler to the chief executive, have some form of power. The distinctive feature of superstars is that they are more likely to use their power with impunity.

Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard University, said in an interview that although he had seen no reliable data on superstars and sexual harassment per se, evidence showed that organizations tended to tolerate a wide range of misbehavior from people they perceived as stars. “They seem to also get away with things,” he said, “in a way they would never be able to do if they were not viewed as superstars.”

Professor Katz cited a study by two economists in which corporate chief executives who won high-profile awards, typically those conferred by major business publications, subsequently spent more time away from the job on outside pursuits like writing books. They were also more likely to manipulate the earnings that their companies reported.

Such license to misbehave appears to have been common for stars in some of the recent high-profile harassment cases. A former Fox News producer who quit several years ago said that Mr. O’Reilly’s contention that no one had complained about him to the network’s human resources department was basically meaningless because bringing a complaint meant having to be ready to quit.

This seems to align with a lot of the RedPill's ideas about frame, and Alpha-ness so to speak. Those perceived as having power are instinctually given a huge lee-way socially, and tend to get what they want sexually.

I'm not at all condoning the behavior of sexual assault, but it strikes me that this sort of sexual intimidation is a thing that can be done to women. I'm not so sure a women would be able to impose herself sexually on a man, regardless of her being larger/stronger.

After all, isn't that the crux of the RedPill? Or part of it? That certain "alpha" behaviors will give you temporary tribal authority in a situation and you can get away with damned near anything?

Is it taking it to far to view these recent sexual assault allegations as confirmation of certain RedPill "truths"? Part of how I view the RedPill is a guide to being dangerously masculine, removed from the moral implications of those actions.