I wanted to mean that long ago but I didn’t, until today :
By asking « where were the parents”, M. Morrissey, implicitly asked this following question :
« Would the same context (*1) have been created if an adult (parents or manager of the young actor) had accompanied him in this party?” => THAT’S ALL WHAT HE MEANS.
(*1) Context = the non-accompanied young knew nobody to this party, got bored, isolated himself into the room to watch TV, the guests left, nobody to tell him, he is face to face with Spacey.
BUT it was just enough to check off that M. Morrissey, in the immediacy of the interview, forgot 5 things, without attacking him as he was :
1/ Law does not judge of “IF”, it judges presumed facts ; useless to rewrite the story, and Rapp admitted himself that he used to go to private parties or events alone when he was a minor.
2/ The ignorance of some facts (not knowing that the person is minor for example) does not exculpate acts or intention of trying or completing the act.
3/ The moments of « weakness » of the attacker (drunkenness for example) does not exculpate acts or intention of trying/completing the act.
4/ The repeated attempts from Spacey, abuse on minors, logically lead to questionings, assessments, then a Court’s judgment (like the Weinstein case because of his systematic practises in his job)
5/ The sexual majority in England is 16 years, 15 years in France ; this means that a minor has not the burden of proof but must to prove the physical restraint. X years after the presumed fact, that’s not easy and not won for Rapp… And he knows that, that’s why others testimonies have been arised.
I don’t believe that M. Morrissey is a bad man ! I've read the whole interview. I've read a lot of things about the Weinstein case. Bad man. But in general, the border between consent and non-consent is not as large as we could think in some contexts. The proofs are not easy. This type of story is not as evident as you could think.