Diddy's Defenders
America is riveted by the Diddy trial for many reasons: celebrity, kink, drugs, violence, guns, baby oil. You can almost hear Ryan Murphy calling FX now to pitch American Crime Story: Diddy Do It? Influencers are staking out the courthouse, live-updating X with witnesses' testimony, and providing TikTok updates that one creator calls 'Diddy-lations.' And people are eating it up.
Diddy—whose legal name is Sean Combs—has pleaded not guilty to the charges he faces of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. Many Americans have taken to the comment sections to offer their full-throated belief in his innocence. Despite the video evidence of domestic violence, the photos of Combs's guns with serial numbers removed, and the multiple witnesses testifying that Combs threatened to kill them, this group insists that Diddy's biggest sin is nothing more than being a hypermasculine celebrity with 'libertine' sexual tastes.
The trial is estimated to take eight to 10 weeks; we've made it through just two. No one can predict the outcome. But why do so many men—and a surprising number of women—feel the need to defend this man? The jury has already watched the now-infamous surveillance footage of Combs dragging Cassie Ventura, the prosecution's star witness, by the collar of her sweatshirt through a hotel—and that's not even one of the things he's on trial for.
I can't look away from the Diddy trial, because it feels like the trial not of one man, but of something much larger. The jury—made up of eight men and four women—will decide whether to convict Combs, but the broader culture, in its response to this trial, is deciding whether #MeToo was a movement or a moment.
[Sophie Gilbert: The movement of #MeToo]
At the center of the trial is the question of coercion. Did Ventura participate in hundreds of drug-fueled sexual encounters with strangers for Combs, who liked to watch, because she enjoyed them? Or did Combs use his power over her to force her? When they met, she was 19, an eager and ambitious singer. He was 17 years older, and arguably the most powerful man in the music industry. His label, Bad Boy, signed her to a highly unusual, long-term 10-album deal. He was her boss and, soon, her boyfriend. The evidence presented by both sides serves as a Rorschach test. How you see it says a lot about how the #MeToo movement did—or did not—alter your vision.
The facts seem clear. Ventura was a legal adult, but barely, when her career was effectively handed over to Combs in 2006. Today, musical artists such as Chappell Roan and Sabrina Carpenter invent their own persona. But in the mid-2000s, many artists were strictly controlled by their labels. Particularly when the artists were women. The people paying the bills didn't just dictate what these women sounded like—they dictated their hair color, their weight. You have to watch only one episode of Combs's MTV show Making the Band to get a taste of the climate he created. He made artists compete in singing battles to earn a bed to sleep in and ordered them to walk miles from Manhattan to Brooklyn to get him a specific slice of cheesecake. Behind the scenes, things were worse. One singer said Diddy controlled every aspect of her appearance 'down to my toenails.'
Sure, maybe Ventura loved him. But sometimes hostages fall in love with their captors. Even the ones who beat them. Sure, women have an array of sexual tastes, just like men. But it's hard to imagine a woman enjoying having intercourse while, as Ventura said in her testimony, suffering from a painful urinary tract infection. It's hard to imagine feeling aroused after your partner threw a glass bottle at you, as a male sex worker said he witnessed Combs do to Ventura. And when people are having a consensual good time, they don't usually try to sneak out of the room, barefoot—as Ventura was seen doing in the hotel surveillance footage—only for their partner to catch them, grab them by the back of the neck, throw them to the ground, and kick them. Repeatedly. Ventura said that the sex acts made her feel 'worthless.' But, as the video showed, attempting to extract herself came with a price.
It's been almost eight years since the Harvey Weinstein story broke and the #MeToo movement forced a reassessment of abuse and power. In the future, I remember thinking, we will not just speak out against bad actors; we will refuse to participate in the systems that protected them. Going forward, everyone would understand that, in a world of power imbalances, the difference between what a woman chooses and what happens to her can be very big indeed.
[Danielle Bernstein: #MeToo has changed the world—except in court]
Instead, something else happened over the subsequent years. American women have seen our rights eroded and our access to lifesaving health care curbed. An accused sexual abuser is president of the United States, and his administration is hard at work on schemes to persuade more women to stay home and have kids. Many men have fought hard to undermine the progress of the #MeToo movement. Like Combs running after Ventura in that video, they have tried to drag women back into the past, where they could do as they liked.
And lately, they have been having a lot of success.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
Investors react to US attack on Iran nuclear sites
President Donald Trump on Saturday said that a "very successful attack" on three nuclear sites in Iran had been carried out. In a posting on Truth Social, Trump added, "All planes are safely on their way home" and he ended his posting saying, "Now is the time for peace." Following are comments from some financial and corporate analysts: Mark Spindel, CIO, Potomac River Capital, Washington, DC: "I think the markets are going to be initially alarmed and I think oil will open higher. We don't have any damage assessment and that will take some time. Even though he has described this as 'done', we're engaged. What comes next? I think the uncertainty is going to blanket the markets, as now Americans everywhere are going to be exposed. It's going to raise uncertainty and volatility, particularly in oil. "There's plenty of time to deliberate before markets open on Sunday. I'm making arrangements to talk to a few people tomorrow. We'll get an early indication when the dollar opens for trading in New Zealand. This was such a bold action, though, and it's such a big contrast to the comments about negotiating for the next two weeks." Jamie Cox, Managing Partner, Harris Financial Group, Richmond, Virginia: 'Oil is sure to spike on this initial news but will likely level in a few days. With this demonstration of force and total annihilation of its nuclear capabilities, they've lost all of their leverage and will likely hit the escape button to a peace deal." Mark Malek, Chief Investment Officer, Siebert Investment Officer, Siebert Financial, NYC: "I think it's going to be very positive for the stock market. I believe that on Friday if you'd asked me, I would have expected two weeks of volatility with markets trying to analyze every drib and drab of information coming out of the White House and I would have said that it would have been better to make a decision last week. "So this will be reassuring, especially since it seems like a one and done situation and not as if (the US) is seeking a long, drawn out conflict. The biggest risk still out there is the Strait of Hormuz. It could certainly change everything if Iran has the capability to close it." Jack Ablin, Chief Investment Officer of Cresset Capital, Chicago: "This adds a complicated new layer of risk that we'll have to consider and pay attention to... This is definitely going to have an impact on energy prices and potentially on inflation as well." (Reporting by Saeed Azhar, Suzanne McGee. Compiled by Peter Henderson and Vidya Ranganathan)
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump makes the world a safer place — and shows America means exactly what it says
US planes bombed three Iranian nuclear sites Saturday, returning safely with President Donald Trump calling for an immediate peace now that, presumably, the work of destroying Tehran's nuke program is complete. The prez had warned that he'd be deciding 'within two weeks,' and as Iran made it clear Friday, there wasn't much point in waiting as its leaders began to attempt to give world leaders the runaround again. And that, as we noted Friday night, obliged Trump 'to pay even more heed to the risks of holding off on a decisive intervention.' President Trump ordered the bombings of 3 vital Iranian nuclear sites Saturday. Getty Images He plainly decided on a fast intervention, using US bunker-busters to take out the super hardened Fordow site with two other nuclear facilities. It was an action that as we have stated gives 'the best hope for the region to stabilize.' We'll see what comes next; Iran's noise about the United States taking action somehow triggering 'all-out war in the region' will hopefully prove to be nothing but characteristic bluster — but US forces in the Middle East will surely be on full alert for days, with bases worldwide on the watch for some sort of terror attack. Yet most fears of escalation seem ill-founded: Iran has proved unable to do much in the face of daily pounding by Israeli warplanes — a humiliation that all by itself posed a dire threat to the regime. It can't have been holding much back. The president tried to get this done peacefully, giving Tehran ample time to make a deal and clear warning of the consequences. Now, thanks to the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces, he has followed through on his warnings. The Israelis can stand down while the 'regime change' crowd heads back to its think tanks and the 'hundreds of thousands of Americans will die' kooks pretend they never predicted disaster. Moscow, Beijing and the rest of the world are on notice as Trump's clinical strikes reverse the damage of Biden's disastrous Afghanistan pull out. Trump doesn't chicken out — and when it comes to war, peace and America's national interests, he means exactly what he says.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats are at odds over the Israel-Iran war as Trump says US has struck Iranian nuclear sites
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed at odds over policy toward Iran as progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program. Party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations were silent on the Israel-Iran war. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats used Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called 'manosphere' of male Trump supporters. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., was also cautious in responding to the Israeli action and said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X on Wednesday. 'The single reason Iran was so close to obtaining a nuclear weapon is that Trump destroyed the diplomatic agreement that put major, verifiable constraints on their nuclear program.' The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Iranian American from Arizona, said Wednesday on X that Iranians were unwitting victims in the conflict because there were not shelters or infrastructure to protect civilians from targeted missiles as there are in Israel. 'The Iranian people are not the regime, and they should not be punished for its actions,' Ansari posted, while criticizing Trump for fomenting fear among the Iranian population. 'The Iranian people deserve freedom from the barbaric regime, and Israelis deserve security.' ___ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
