Academic research on sexual harassment, and even assault, in the workplace, presents a clear narrative that sets up why the men mentioned previously acted as they did. A study done by Joni Hersch of Vanderbilt University confirmed some basic facts about the majority of those preyed upon by sexual predators in the workplace.

The study states that, “Victims are more likely to be younger, hold lower-position jobs, work mostly with and be supervised by members of the opposite sex, and, for female victims, work in male-dominated occupations,” (Hirsch 4).

Comparing this to Weinstein, and even Mayer to an extent, one can see that the research matches up perfectly. Both of these men targeted women who were younger, more impressionable actresses who were just entering the profession (a lower-position job, to an extent), and had to answer to both of these men because of their status as producers. Given the male-dominant nature of the job, especially during Mayer’s time, it was much easier to use an actress’ career as leverage. Hirsch’s study also confirms that sexual predators are more likely to act in a workplace with abnormal structures and little mobility.

Another journal on sexual harassment, written by Barbara Gutek of the Notre Dame Journal of Law, goes into more detail about the behaviors and viewpoint of the harasser. When talking about the issue of how an individual can define sexual assault or harassment Gutek lists four ways the act can often be misconstrued. She writes, “men and people in authority are less likely than others to label a behavior sexual harassment” (Gutek 340).

Going by this definition, it makes sense why several men in Hollywood appear to be denying the harassment allegations against them. They might not see the act as sexual harassment but as something they were either entitled to or weren’t able to notice whether or not the act was nonconsensual. Where this often occurs is in, what Gutek calls, sex-role spillover. This theory basically states that sexual assault can occur because men view women as objects of sexual pleasure rather than someone they’re supposed to work within a professional setting.

To apply this theory to the Hollywood structure, it can often be very easy for men to see women as sexual objects given how superficial the entertainment industry actually is. In a more traditional workplace, it’s easier to differentiate. In Hollywood, where a woman’s job can often be defined by how she looks it becomes much easier for the work-sex barrier to become blurred.

This behavior is a byproduct of sexism, where the man is unable to see the woman not as his equal but as a sexual partner. Working past that barrier and normalizing the narrative of gender equality in the workplace and in Hollywood will definitely help prevent future scandals. However, the catalyst of sexual bias lies in how the entertainment industry portrays women in the media which can often enforce how these producers and stars see their counterparts.

Richard Jackson Harris and Christopher Barlett of Kansas and Iowa State University did an editorial piece in 2009, "Effects of Sex In Media," discusses the sexual undercurrent in all of media. Sex is an inherent part of the human experience; even if one is asexual, he or she will still be exposed to sex in some shape or form.

Even if it’s not implicit, sex is in advertising, it’s in movies, it’s in TV, it surrounds and shapes the society anyone is a part of.

How much sex defines the media depends on the nation and the culture but the effect is still there. As a result, the separation of the sexual role and the workplace role, particularly the workplace where said implicitly sexual content is produced, is almost impossible to determine. Producers and actors find themselves immersed in an environment where sex reigns supreme. Their ego and inability to separate the woman they work with from the woman they may sleep with often leads to these issues.

What starts as a mistake or misunderstanding, as seen in the case of Aziz Ansari can possibly develop into a Kevin Spacey. If one were to rank the downward spiral of sexual deviancy in Hollywood, what Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Louis Mayer eventually became could and should be considered rock bottom. These are examples of the end-point of Hollywood sexual corruption, where they’ve overdosed on the sexual culture they were a part of.

There isn’t a cure for the implicit sexual overtones in Hollywood, but there is a cure for sexism and sexual assault.

To conclude, the differentiation between sexual relationship and professional relationship should take precedent in how future generations are taught to handle social interaction. What women are doing in Hollywood by speaking out against directors and actors, no matter how minor the offense compared to the likes of Weinstein, does help them in the long run. It helps them understand the difference and gives them the opportunity to think twice moving forward.

The accusations against Louis C.K., for instance, shouldn’t ruin his career. If anything, they should be used as a learning experience to prevent him from becoming like Harvey Weinstein. Speaking against the system and providing women with a platform to expose their harassers helps in the short run and the long run. It fixes the ugly problem Hollywood has brushed under the rug.

By digging out the root of the problem and exposing it for the world to see, these women are creating a future Hollywood that can grow and move past these issues. Not by shutting sex out of the system but by creating a level of maturity within the entertainment industry. As long as those who have been victimized stand together, perhaps, Hollywood can build a new home on solid foundations that will last forever.