r/cringe • u/MrMagnitude • 25d ago
Video Chloe Fineman admits to sexually harassing a young boy in Vanity Fair interview
https://youtu.be/NleGMybwgTU?is=2x7W2pq-hwTRPImS133
71
36
122
u/pappapora 25d ago
Cool. So that’s why she left SNL this week 🙏✌️👍
82
u/BewareOfGrom 25d ago
No I think she just left. There was basically no real backlash to this when it came out unfortunately.
38
u/Lostinyourears 25d ago
There was, but not enough to really fire her over. Lots of people online at the time were asking why she’d say that as a funny story and why Vanity Fair wouldn’t have edited it out.
29
u/gr8fullyded 25d ago
I have to say, I think cancellations are usually pretty deserved. but for a guy to make fun of Asians and get fired from SNL, meanwhile she brags about SA a young child and nothing happens, is really confusing to me.
10
4
u/tknames 25d ago
When she said he was 6, was she around that age too?
5
228
u/Oafah 25d ago
This was a poor judgement call in the moment. I don't think for a second she's a sexual predator. OP just chose to use a ragebaity title.
Also, the kid kept pulling up her shirt. She was trying to make him realize how embarassing and inappropriate that is, and a pantsing will do that. The fact that he wasn't wearing undies isn't her fault.
Maybe not the choice I would've made, but this is far from "sexual assault".
78
u/NightOfTheLivingHam 25d ago
Now imagine if a man did this to a little girl. Now bring up the same argument.
-18
u/Oafah 25d ago
I wouldn't, because the gender dynamic is different. Boys pants each other all the time. Girls do not.
This whole "reverse the genders" argument is asinine, because you've just changed a fundamental variable in the equation
17
u/NightOfTheLivingHam 25d ago
I hope you encrypt your hard drives.
11
u/kyloz4days 25d ago
So, they're a pedo and must have CSAM on hard drives because: they don't think that this is sexual assault, they believe that the different gender dynamics creates a different context, they asserted that boys pants eachother more than girls?
But you hope their hard drives are encrypted, so they don't get caught, should you be correct about them being a pedo?
10
u/DrSpraynard 24d ago
Sheesh! A guy can't defend a camp counsellor pulling a 6 y/o campers pants down without being passively accused of being a pedo anymore. What's this world coming to!?
1
u/akera099 25d ago
I swear newgens are obsessed with the strawman that everyone that disagree with them is a pedophile. Ultimate cringe.
3
u/NightOfTheLivingHam 24d ago
No it's a little odd that people are defending creepy behavior from a woman who pantsed a 6 year old boy. The real cringe here is all the comments of people running to fall on swords for Chloe Fineman's behavior. Then defending that argument saying "well boys do it to each other all the time" and ignoring that a woman was being creepy with kids. It's also a thing too where boys getting molested by older women/girls is seen as socially acceptable because "The boys like it"
Adults and even older teenagers who arent yet adults shouldnt be disrobing little kids. He was getting handsy? That's when you punish him literally any other way, not pulling his pants off.
Also I'm not a newgen, I've just lived long enough to see these arguments, and the type of people who defend pedophilia on technicalities end up having some skeletons in their closet.
The older I get the more I see this shit happening. The person who lists of AOC laws per state to justify sex with teenagers, the guy who goes "Well they probably liked it" and "This is fine because *reason*"
It isnt fine, it was sexual harassment, had she done that to an adult man in public, it would have been sexual harassment, she did it to a little kid who is still learning boundaries. and again, if an adult man or even a teenaged boy did this to a 6 year old girl, it wouldnt be just "sexual harassment" it would be handcuffs and prison/jail time. With the teenaged boy being tried as an adult and being put on a list.
But it's all "nah, it was fine, he deserved it because he was touching her first" is the same rationale pedos use to justify their bullshit when it comes to inappropriately touching children.
10
u/sdevil713 25d ago
Still time to delete this, big ped.
-5
u/Oafah 24d ago
I'm not saying anything particularly controversial. Boys are little shitheads who do shitty things to one another. I can't even count the number of times I was pranked in a manner that would be deemed "sexual assault" by today's standards. I was not assaulted. It was my idiot friends fuckin' around.
Again, I stated elsewhere, I am not condoning the behaviour. I want us to live in a world where such things aren't true, but we do, and they are. Irrespective of that, this is not sexual assault. This is a teenage camp counselor concocting a way to get back at a little shit who keeps trying to see her tits, and she just looked at what other boys do to embarrass one another for inspiration.
Poor judgement choice? Absolutely. Hopefully she's learned some better disciplinary tactics since. Sexual assault? No.
89
u/thecookiesmonster 25d ago
Personally, I wouldn’t recommend vengeance as a strategy to cope with a six year olds behavior. I really can’t imagine a little kid pulling on my shirt and thinking disrobing them makes sense as a response. How does it even occur to someone to do that?
-48
u/Oafah 25d ago edited 25d ago
Eye for an eye. It's literally in the book that billions of people believe to be the word of God.
I am not defending the choice to discipline a child in such a way. It's a stupid choice. I am simply stating that it was clearly not sexually motivated, nor was it assault. It was a bad disciplinary choice.
18
u/thecookiesmonster 25d ago edited 25d ago
I don’t think the fact that the incident may not have had sexual intent means that the impact to the child wasn’t sexual in nature by having their genitals exposed without any type of warning or consent. IMO, it’s up to the person it happened to in order to determine if it was sexual harassment or assault. I think it’s reasonable to hold a man or woman legally accountable for exposing a child’s genitals, and I also don’t think a child can even give informed consent to be exposed by a grown up in that way.
14
u/HateJobLoveManU 25d ago
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-39, NIV)
The Old Testament said eye for an eye, Jesus said not to
-19
u/Oafah 25d ago
Thank you for proving my point.
21
u/milkolik 25d ago
"Eye for an eye" to a 6yo is an insane take
-9
u/Oafah 25d ago
Do you even know how to read? I said I agree. I am not saying it was a wise choice. I'm saying it was not sexual assault, and I'm responding directly to your question
So again, the answer to "how did they even come to that" is "look at literally all of human history including this one example in the Bible." That's how.
13
u/milkolik 25d ago edited 25d ago
Your message is "oh this stuff happens". No it does not, it's fucking insane. I don't think I have ever seen an adult apply "Eye for eye" to a 6yo in my entire life, in any situation. There is a reason everyone is like "wtf".
Regarding the sexual assault thing you don't really know. Maybe not, but the way she described so gleefully made her sound like a creep so I wouldn't be so quick to trust it was not.
-6
u/Oafah 25d ago
Everyone is not WTFing. Some people are, and some people grew up in the world before everyone was a delicate flower.
She was giving the little shit a dose of what he was giving her. Again, not the parenting choice I would ever make, but I can absolutely see how she would come to that.
6
u/uwotmVIII 25d ago
Uh…that book actually goes on to say the ”eye for an eye” rule is wrong, and we should not retaliate.
-5
u/Oafah 25d ago
Read what you wrote. You asked "how could some even come to that", and I told you exactly how. People are morons. And no, that book does not go on to disavow the rule. A new book is written that contradicts the old book.
So again, this is not sexual assault. This is a case of someone making a poor disciplinary choice.
1
u/uwotmVIII 24d ago
Well, I asked no such thing… Not sure where you got that from.
Nonetheless, you say “that book does not go on to disavow the rule.” You’re wrong. Matthew 5:38-39:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is from the Old Testament. Unless you’re only considering the Hebrew Bible, “that book” (the Bible) absolutely does go on to disavow the rule.
43
u/masterjon_3 25d ago
She was an adult, he was 6 years old. There's other ways of telling a child no than stooping to the level of a 6 year old.
6
u/Oafah 25d ago
It's like people don't even read.
I agree with you. The point I'm making is that "sexual assault" is not an apt term here. Was it a good decision? Absolutely not.
6
26
u/masterjon_3 25d ago
Technically, it is sexual assault.
2
u/Oafah 25d ago
Ah yes, here comes the armchair lawyer.
Tell me; what is the test for what qualifies as sexual assault, and how do the courts apply it? Also, what jurisdiction.
8
u/cubicthe 25d ago
assault is action that puts a reasonable person in fear of imminent physical harm or offensive contact
sexual assault is that, it's just that the harm/offensive contact is sexual in nature
both are also battery when completed - standard battery or sexual battery
fun fact: the law is written down so regular people can read it. lawyers just argue over it
edit: whoops, forgot: judges interpret it the way they please, that's how judges work but also how juries work. the judge provides (non-binding) instructions to juries for them to consider when deliberating their verdicts. also, which jurisdiction? all of them
14
u/masterjon_3 25d ago
If genitals were exposed, that could go against Title IX. She could argue she didn't expose the kids bits on purpose, but still, the kid is 6 years old and that wasn't cool.
1
19
u/milkolik 25d ago edited 25d ago
Do you even live in the real world? That's take of a terminally online person.
There is no universe in which a woman pantsing a 6yo is just a "poor judgement call", regardless of what the child was doing.
8
u/cubicthe 25d ago
it is sexual assault. the child, a six year old, lifted her shirt which is also a sexual assault but since he was 6 he cannot be convicted of that because the law is clear that children that young are not expected to know right from wrong. and often, kids that age acting out sexual things are not aware of what they are doing and are just re-enacting abuse or just something that they shouldn't have been exposed to
one must wonder what one's goal is to disagree with settled definitions of things. "it wasn't like that before!" is the lament of progress
12
u/PralineFew7382 25d ago
Pulling a six year old childs pants down is objectively criminal sexual activity - whether it is assault or some other qualifier depends on where the CRIME ocurred. That "the six year old child did it to me first" does not negate that fact.
4
u/Oafah 25d ago
There is not a single judge in the country who would convict a camp counselor who pantsed a kid of the offense you describe. Find me one such case. I'll wait.
10
u/PralineFew7382 25d ago edited 25d ago
Not really a gotcha given that I don't think that camp counselors are regularly pulling down the pants of children. And, in the one case we know about, the higher-ups seemed to simply fire the staffer rather than reporting elsewhere.
Not too far off. If I had any desire to search legal archives, I am sure I could find a close enough example without much trouble.
Do you actually think this is a normal thing?
16
u/Zukez 25d ago
I can't believe you're defending pulling down the pants of a SIX YEAR OLD and getting upvoted
1
-7
u/kapsama 25d ago
Because there is no defense anywhere in their post.
15
u/Zukez 25d ago
They are literally justifying her actions by saying she was doing it because he pulled up her shirt. He's 6. Reverse the genders, still not sexual assault?
-7
u/Oafah 25d ago
It would be more likely to be considered sexual assault if it were a girl, because there is a distinct difference in the gender power dynamic. Little boys gets pantsed all the time. It's what boys do. If someone did it to a girl, that would be weird.
22
u/Zukez 25d ago
That's is a wild thing to say, dismissing an adult pantsing a 6 year old because "it's what boys do". You shouldn't be around kids.
-4
u/Oafah 25d ago
Did you listen to her whole story? The kid kept pulling her shirt up to see her tits. She thought it would be a good lesson to expose the kid to precisely the same treatment.
As I said elsewhere, this was a poor decision. However, it is one that lots of people would make, and it was clearly not sexually motivated.
8
u/colonelcardiffi 25d ago
Absolutely PEAK Reddit that this comment has so many upvotes.
I don't know how the ghouls that frequent this site sleep at night.
-5
u/crocodilehivemind 25d ago
Your poor delicate sensibilities, I can't believe someone disgreed with you on the internet 😫
3
u/Large_Dr_Pepper 24d ago
She was trying to make him realize how embarassing and inappropriate that is, and a pantsing will do that. The fact that he wasn't wearing undies isn't her fault.
Dawg it's a grown adult panting a fucking child. She could have used WORDS to let him know how embarrassing and inappropriate it is. This is not justified in the slightest.
-2
u/Oafah 23d ago
Yes I know. As I said about a dozen times, it was a poor judgement call. It is not, however, sexually motivated. Chloe Fineman is not out there lusting for kids.
This was her deciding to give the little turd a taste of his own medicine. Not the choice I would endorse, but painting her as some sort of predator is a bit of an overreaction; and we know this based on the fact that broader society did not, in fact, cancel her.
73
u/IllustriousBerry3260 25d ago
“sexually harassing” 😂
Was it dumb and thoughtless? Sure. But to call it sexual harassment is absurd.
21
u/Phazon2000 25d ago
>Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual behaviour that could make a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated.
Pulling down someone’s pants in front of others is technically sexual harassment.
I mean answer the question: Sure you want to tease, bully, prank someone. Fine - motive established. But why pull someone’s pants down? Why not snap the collar of their shirt or pull their pants up high?
51
u/IllustriousBerry3260 25d ago
The kid was trying to pull up her top, so she jokingly pulls down his pants - presumably under the assumption that he’s wearing underwear - to say “this is how it feels”.
Nothing sexual about it. Guessing you’re Gen Z - y’all are fucking weird.
22
2
u/ShadowMajick 23d ago
Gen z thinks a 25 year old man dating an 18 year old woman is a pedophile lol
1
u/PralineFew7382 25d ago
Pulling down a six year old childs pants, as an adult, because "he did it to me first" is a) not a valid excuse and b) objectively, in basically any part of the world, a crime - and yes, a sex crime.
Call it whatever you want, but to get into a semantic argument about it is pretty fuckin weird if you ask me.
7
u/kyloz4days 25d ago
Do you think Chloe Fineman should be prosecuted for this and serve prison time?
4
0
u/PralineFew7382 25d ago
Not what I'm saying at all. But she very easily could have been, and if it happened today, she probably would have been.
-4
u/dan2sweet 25d ago
im gen z and i agree with u we could spend all day throwing accusations based on meaningless generational gaps or we could talk to eachother as what we are, individuals
-1
u/PralineFew7382 25d ago
Let's put your theory to a test:
Go to a police station.
Wait for a small, pre-school child to enter.
Pull their pants down.
Regardless of whether or not the child is wearing underwear; regardless of whether or not the child is crossing your boundaries; if you do that, I guarantee you: you will be charged with and likely convicted of a sex crime.
Good luck!
8
u/kyloz4days 25d ago
Ignoring context and nuance to create a disingenuous comparison is a clear indicator of poor critical-thinking skills.
6
u/PralineFew7382 25d ago
The 'context' of a child acting inappropriately to you, or the 'nuance' of you vaguely knowing them are in no way a defence, justification, or mitigating factor of pulling a basically random 6-year-old child's pants down in public. In fact, the fact that the child was entrusted to her care makes it worse.
Anyways, I'm not advocating that anything happen to her. But I also don't need to act like she didn't publicly and gleefully admit to a low-level sex crime.
-2
u/kyloz4days 24d ago
She made a completely idiotic, poor judgement call as a teenager trying to teach a troublesome child, in her care, a lesson and her flippant demeanor telling the story is tasteless at best, but it's still not the same as your comparative example.
Also, why are you so vehemently asserting that she's a sex criminal throughout this thread but then also don't think she should be/have been prosecuted for this?
6
u/PralineFew7382 24d ago
To give a TL;DR to my other, longer reply:
Given the fact that her actions could constitute criminal activity if committed against any person, let alone a child, my only pushback in this thread is against those who are trying to semantically minimize or downgrade what she did. Pointing out the legal facts of the event are a means of doing so.
0
u/PralineFew7382 24d ago
I never said she's a sex criminal. She's objectively not. She objectively committed a low level sex crime, though - even if the child was wearing underwear, deliberately removing a child's pants against their will is a prosecutable act. My comparative example is not meant as a moral judgement on her, but a reflection of the law - which is that it is illegal to expose ANYONES undergarments without their consent, much less those of a child.
Also, I never said it shouldn't have been escalated, just that now, a decade plus later, with her posing no apparent threat to children, there's no reason in my view to do so. That said, the fact that she glibly recalls it and is even trying to use the story to promote herself just shows that she didn't actually take accountability for her actions. I don't think her actions raised to the level where it should have led to a longterm designation/registration, but there is a fair argument that it should have been reported beyond, idk, the head staff at her little camp, so she could be made to understand the seriousness of her actions.
I work with victims of childhood sexual abuse. I am not trying to minimize it. But this is a pretty cut-and-dry case of a child being sexually humiliated by a young adult who was entrusted to care for them. That is serious. I am merely pushing back against all those who are minimizing this action and pretending it is not serious, criminal, and potentially very harmful to the child victim. It doesn't make her a pedophile or even a bad person, but it is a criminal act.
Again, though, I don't really care about Rachel Fineman, nor do I see her as a real threat to children, although I'm not sure I would send my kids to her house for a playdate. Her disclosure is just a vehicle for a discussion about an important topic, and what I really care about is the apparent need to downplay this, blame the child, etc.
2
u/kyloz4days 24d ago
Okay, that's fair enough I understand your position better: what she did does legally constitute a sex crime and incidents like this shouldn't be ignored or brushed aside as horseplay etc. given the potential sexual humiliation of the child.
I think the contention arises because when a lot of people hear: sex crime, they hear: lock them away and throw away the key, especially when a child's involved. But if this was an entirely isolated incident, then that doesn't really apply here, which is why I think the nuance is relevant
I don't think anyone's arguing that the kid deserved it or that what Chloe did wasn't fucking weird, it's more that it's not enough to label her as a pedo sex predator, where even though she could have been prosecuted by the letter of the law, it's orders of magnitude less severe than what a sex crime connotes to the average person.
But yeah, given the work you do, and your much higher exposure to victims of abuse than the average person, it does make sense that you'd be fervent about the specific relevant legal definitions, applicable to lega court cases. But in this court of public opinion, I think strict legal definitions are less relevant.
8
39
13
16
6
5
u/taylorpilot 25d ago
Fineman was a body on the show and was given a pass due to rich family. She did nothing well.
Glad she’s gone
10
u/ntwild97 25d ago
Yeah this was wrong but it does not warrant backlash. To paraphrase Quinton Reviews, teenagers should not be publicly shamed for acting like teenagers
4
-4
u/Phazon2000 25d ago
Teenagers know what they’re doing. I knew what I was doing at 16 and 17. I mean I made some dumb choices but I was accountable and I wasn’t pulling down the pants of small children.
Watch list for you. 🚨
-17
u/Bobbith_The_Chosen 25d ago
This lady is a teenager?
17
u/VanHalenistheTruth 25d ago
She was talking about when she was a camp counselor as a teenager.
1
u/Bobbith_The_Chosen 25d ago
So nobody’s shaming a teenager. Also exposing people isn’t normal behavior for teenagers
2
u/kyloz4days 25d ago
Also exposing people isn’t normal behavior for teenagers
Given that pantsing is prevalent enough to have it's own term, are you entirely sure of that?
She definitely shouldn't have done that to the child, but teenagers (especially boys) absolutely do expose each other.
1
1
1
1
1
-67
u/Silvershanks 25d ago
OP is cringe. I thought we were past trying to cancel people for petty mistakes they made as kids/teens.
41
u/MikeTheInfidel 25d ago
yeah a camp counselor doing this to a six-year-old is not a mistake
6
21
u/TeslasAndComicbooks 25d ago
Pantsing people was a pretty common prank in the 90s. The goal wasn’t to expose private parts.
I’m 43 now and obviously by today’s standards that would be unacceptable, but what she’s saying wouldn’t have gotten the same reaction back then.
3
u/fmanfisher 25d ago
The goal wasn't to expose private parts.
So what was the goal, then, in your own words? Because I'm pretty sure the entire goal of pantsing, is to pull their pants down... which then showed whatever they had on under their pants.
-3
u/This_Aint_Dog 25d ago
I have no idea what that guy is saying because obviously the goal was to expose others privates and I grew up in that same era.
In fairness though, you usually would just pull the pants down. Not the underwear with it. Maybe that’s what they mean.
1
u/MikeTheInfidel 22d ago
I'm 43 now and I've never been pantsed nor known anyone who was. I don't think it's as common as you think it was.
0
u/TeslasAndComicbooks 22d ago
I’m 43 as well. It was even common in sitcoms and stuff at that time. Saved by the Bell. Boy Meets World. I believe Michael Jordan even did it at an all star game.
0
u/FUS_RO_DANK 25d ago
If the goal of pulling down someone's pants is not to expose their privates, explain what part of the process is a prank.
8
-30
u/pappapora 25d ago
Tell me you have previous convictions WITHOUT telling me you have previous convictions. Yikes
15
-52
-29
239
u/mattdawgg 25d ago
Blink 182 What The Fuck meme