Framing and the Louis CK Incidents

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html?smid=tw-nytimesarts&smtyp=cur

To start, this isn't an attempt to defend Louis CK or his actions. I think propositioning women, colleagues especially so, to watch you masturbate is some creepy shit. I'm not going to portray that as within the "norm" of courtship and he'd probably benefit from psychiatric attention. I also feel men really need to curb this urge to treat work as an easy dating pool when it's more acceptable to hit on women literally just about anywhere else, in any other context.

That said, I can't bridge the gap between "Louis CK is a sick fuck who acted unprofessionally" to "Louis CK is a sexual predator in the vein of Weinstein or Spacey" and part of that, I feel, is due to sensationalism. Let's look at one of the incidents:

In 2002, a Chicago comedy duo, Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov, landed their big break: a chance to perform at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colo. When Louis C.K. invited them to hang out in his hotel room for a nightcap after their late-night show, they did not think twice. The bars were closed and they wanted to celebrate. He was a comedian they admired. The women would be together. His intentions seemed collegial.

As soon as they sat down in his room, still wrapped in their winter jackets and hats, Louis C.K. asked if he could take out his penis, the women said.

They thought it was a joke and laughed it off. ?And then he really did it,? Ms. Goodman said in an interview with The New York Times. ?He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating.?

[...]

During Ms. Goodman and Ms. Wolov?s surreal visit to Louis C.K.?s Aspen hotel room, they said they were holding onto each other, screaming and laughing in shock, as Louis C.K. masturbated in a chair. ?We were paralyzed,? Ms. Goodman said. After he ejaculated on his stomach, they said, they fled. He called after them: ?He was like, ?Which one is Dana and which one is Julia??? Ms. Goodman recalled.

Again: gross, pathetic, creepy. But I'm not understanding how framing it as "forceful" or as if they were locked in the room is fair or honest. Why isn't there expectation for two adult women in this uncomfortable situation to be like, "Nah, fuck this," open the door, and leave? I feel this was a situation that was escapable with minimal risk, yet we're expected to treat it like a terrifying scene from Jigsaw because they stood scream-laughing in hysterics rather than walking five feet to the exit. There's an implication of power differential, but director-of-Pootie-Tang 2002 Louis CK wouldn't be classified as a powerful man like 2015 Louis CK, right?

Am I being insensitive? Are there such incidents where you can be like, "Ew, that shouldn't have happened to you." without it rising to the level of traumatic or criminal?

Edit: Title changed to reflect Exley's update

Louis CK is a weird guy. But calling him a sexual predator is a bit over the top. He didn't force anyone or even touch anyone, he's just a fuckin' perv who likes being watched while he jerks off. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

Haven't seen any of his work for quite some time, but damn, that's a new level of weird to comprehend. He's hiding the incidents of stuff that he openly jokes and writes about? Like he's accepted of his acceptance of it but the acceptance isn't entirely sincere in all respects? Now what was once comedic honesty becomes like a glass deflection? What is this??

All I know is it's fairly disappointing. But this is the age of fallen grace, lost innocence and perhaps a necessary reminder for imminent society that male 'role models' or 'heroes' or whatever other label applicable in entertainment within a patriarchal system are far more likely to become a letdown through sexual misconduct. Still weird, this case though.

What is it with guys wanting people to watch them masturbate anyhow? It feels related to the dickpic craze...both of which I never understood. But seem prominent enough that I feel the odd one for not 'getting it'.

He just posted a statement admitting the stories are true. And the statement is....well, here's an excerpt:

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It?s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
https://twitter.com/TatianaSiegel27/status/929051198149275648

Note: I checked numerous sources to confirm this statement is authentic and not a joke, for obvious reasons.

P.S. Pertaining to the OP's question...this has been written elsewhere more eloquently and by better minds than mine, but to summarize: yes, it's currently just these published allegations against him, which don't involve any physical contact or assault, however, the speed with which companies with a sizeable investment in CK dropped him (HBO, Netflix, his film distributor) suggests that 1) they knew of these rumors before, and probably gave them some merit, and 2) they've heard other rumors too, perhaps about stuff that DOES involve physical contact, and they expect those allegations to be made public too.

Exley97:
He just posted a statement admitting the stories are true. And the statement is....well, here's an excerpt:

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It?s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
https://twitter.com/TatianaSiegel27/status/929051198149275648

Note: I checked numerous sources to confirm this statement is authentic and not a joke, for obvious reasons.

P.S. Pertaining to the OP's question...this has been written elsewhere more eloquently and by better minds than mine, but to summarize: yes, it's currently just these published allegations against him, which don't involve any physical contact or assault, however, the speed with which companies with a sizeable investment in CK dropped him (HBO, Netflix, his film distributor) suggests that 1) they knew of these rumors before, and probably gave them some merit, and 2) they've heard other rumors too, perhaps about stuff that DOES involve physical contact, and they expect those allegations to be made public too.

So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count? Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

Exley97:
He just posted a statement admitting the stories are true. And the statement is....well, here's an excerpt:

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It?s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
https://twitter.com/TatianaSiegel27/status/929051198149275648

Note: I checked numerous sources to confirm this statement is authentic and not a joke, for obvious reasons.

Whoa, someone admiring you is illegitimate power over them? What if you think someone is hot, does that constitute oppression over you as well? I mean, some people have been known to employ cosmetics and becoming outfits to increase their attractiveness in a calculated manner. Would imprisonment be enough of a punishment for these brazen sexual invasions of other people's sovereignty? So many questions!

As for the whole "watch me masturbate" thing, well, obviously as a society, we are far more tolerant, even encouraging of female exhibitionism. No doubt there are some deep-seated bio-facts in play there, but out of respect for the religions that deny the reality of those I will refrain from outlining them. But I will say that this case smacks either of a lack of the required sexual ambition to ask for actual interpersonal sex acts, or a desperate craving for the acceptance of one's customary sexual practice of solitary manual relations.

Either way, it's obvious that not everyone is on the same page regarding sexual etiquette, so uncomfortable faux-pas incidents are bound to happen.

Silentpony:

Exley97:
He just posted a statement admitting the stories are true. And the statement is....well, here's an excerpt:

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It?s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
https://twitter.com/TatianaSiegel27/status/929051198149275648

Note: I checked numerous sources to confirm this statement is authentic and not a joke, for obvious reasons.

P.S. Pertaining to the OP's question...this has been written elsewhere more eloquently and by better minds than mine, but to summarize: yes, it's currently just these published allegations against him, which don't involve any physical contact or assault, however, the speed with which companies with a sizeable investment in CK dropped him (HBO, Netflix, his film distributor) suggests that 1) they knew of these rumors before, and probably gave them some merit, and 2) they've heard other rumors too, perhaps about stuff that DOES involve physical contact, and they expect those allegations to be made public too.

So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count? Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

You're ripping a lot out of context. They weren't just strangers, they're colleagues who work together, and they have an unequal relationship. It's really not that different from a boss asking you for sex. I mean he may not intend any malice, but it's hardly an appropriate thing to do, considering how many people abuse their power and the unspoken implications that come with it, even if it's unintended. Stuff like this is why prison guards can't have sex with inmates, because the gap in power is too big for things to turn out well if the other person says no and the person who propositioned it takes it badly.

Silentpony:
So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count?

Consent is given, not taken.

Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

Dude, at this point it's pretty clear that a man could confess to being a serial rapist and you would still demand that we give him the benefit of the doubt. Just stop.

Silentpony:

Exley97:
He just posted a statement admitting the stories are true. And the statement is....well, here's an excerpt:

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It?s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
https://twitter.com/TatianaSiegel27/status/929051198149275648

Note: I checked numerous sources to confirm this statement is authentic and not a joke, for obvious reasons.

P.S. Pertaining to the OP's question...this has been written elsewhere more eloquently and by better minds than mine, but to summarize: yes, it's currently just these published allegations against him, which don't involve any physical contact or assault, however, the speed with which companies with a sizeable investment in CK dropped him (HBO, Netflix, his film distributor) suggests that 1) they knew of these rumors before, and probably gave them some merit, and 2) they've heard other rumors too, perhaps about stuff that DOES involve physical contact, and they expect those allegations to be made public too.

So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count? Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

1) That's not what I wrote or even suggested, and I think you're getting carried away.

2) Was consent actually given? The NYT article doesn't say that, and CK only says the he asked. If someone asks if they can expose themselves and jack off in your presence and you *don't* reply in the negative, is that okay? Is that implicitly giving consent?

BeetleManiac:

Silentpony:
So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count?

Consent is given, not taken.

Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

Dude, at this point it's pretty clear that a man could confess to being a serial rapist and you would still demand that we give him the benefit of the doubt. Just stop.

No, at this point a man could confess to being a serial rapist and I'd still demand a court hearing be held, first to determine sanity, then if sanity is proven, a sentencing hearing.
But I guess adhering to the rule of law is just too much these days. Better to use Twitter and Hashtags to prove guilt, right? 'cause you know, courts just need to stop.

Exley97:

Silentpony:

Exley97:
He just posted a statement admitting the stories are true. And the statement is....well, here's an excerpt:

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It?s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
https://twitter.com/TatianaSiegel27/status/929051198149275648

Note: I checked numerous sources to confirm this statement is authentic and not a joke, for obvious reasons.

P.S. Pertaining to the OP's question...this has been written elsewhere more eloquently and by better minds than mine, but to summarize: yes, it's currently just these published allegations against him, which don't involve any physical contact or assault, however, the speed with which companies with a sizeable investment in CK dropped him (HBO, Netflix, his film distributor) suggests that 1) they knew of these rumors before, and probably gave them some merit, and 2) they've heard other rumors too, perhaps about stuff that DOES involve physical contact, and they expect those allegations to be made public too.

So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count? Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

1) That's not what I wrote or even suggested, and I think you're getting carried away.

2) Was consent actually given? The NYT article doesn't say that, and CK only says the he asked. If someone asks if they can expose themselves and jack off in your presence and you *don't* reply in the negative, is that okay? Is that implicitly giving consent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

So...yeah...

Silentpony:
But I guess adhering to the rule of law is just too much these days. Better to use Twitter and Hashtags to prove guilt, right? 'cause you know, courts just need to stop.

There you go again with all the fake hysteria and outrage. Louis CK has admitted that the allegations are true and that what he did was coercion and wrong. You apparently disagree. Stop making excuses, don't derail, don't distract, just own your shit.

Silentpony:

Exley97:

Silentpony:

So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count? Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

1) That's not what I wrote or even suggested, and I think you're getting carried away.

2) Was consent actually given? The NYT article doesn't say that, and CK only says the he asked. If someone asks if they can expose themselves and jack off in your presence and you *don't* reply in the negative, is that okay? Is that implicitly giving consent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

So...yeah...

First, I'm fairly certain you know little to nothing about the term applied consent and its legal applications for sexual misconduct/assault if you're using it in this situation (especially since the Wikipedia link you offered contradicts your argument -- see the "sexual assault" section).

Second, how fucking damaged does one have to be walk into a room with women you're not intimately involved with, ask if it's okay to undress and start masterubating, and then, when the response from the women is nervous laughter/surprise, you take that as an affirmative response and start jacking off on a fern? Do you honestly think that's what "implied consent" is designed to excuse?

BeetleManiac:

Silentpony:
But I guess adhering to the rule of law is just too much these days. Better to use Twitter and Hashtags to prove guilt, right? 'cause you know, courts just need to stop.

There you go again with all the fake hysteria and outrage. Louis CK has admitted that the allegations are true and that what he did was coercion and wrong. You apparently disagree. Stop making excuses, don't derail, don't distract, just own your shit.

Once again you're misinterpreting my meaning and intent.
I don't care what happens to CK. I don't care if he's proven innocent. I don't care if he's proven guilty. I care that its proven.
I want more than hearsay. CK admits he did this? Good! Great! That's more than hearsay! Here's a fucking cookie for actually doing what I wanted, providing proof.

When did it become so controversial to want evidence? When did we decide that? I don't remember signing that petition.

In the first case, it's really fucking strange anyway. But the language of the apology is really annoying.

There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with.

This is the highest bullshit. Eh, maybe I'm just irritated (generally), but, despite the wording, the emphasis still apears to be 'I have to reconcile it with who I am', which is a little too 'poor me', not 'I'm a massive tool'.

The hardest regret to live with is what you've done to hurt someone else.

Why is it hard for him!? He did it! And he enjoyed it!

Eh, I was never on the CK lovetrain, I'm not sure of much about the guy. I'm neither sickened nor surprised by what's happened, a little sad maybe. Why the fuck are we still back here?

TLDR (which would be surprising): If you're going to say sorry, say sorry. Don't say sorry but...

Silentpony:

Exley97:

Silentpony:

So wait, because he's a famous man, asking for consent doesn't count? Well then, how does any famous person ever not rape someone? Like, if a power dynamic means consent can't ever be given then...isn't basically everything rape? Regardless of whom, between two people one of them is more 'powerful' than the other. How can consent be given?

1) That's not what I wrote or even suggested, and I think you're getting carried away.

2) Was consent actually given? The NYT article doesn't say that, and CK only says the he asked. If someone asks if they can expose themselves and jack off in your presence and you *don't* reply in the negative, is that okay? Is that implicitly giving consent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

So...yeah...

You just 110% did not read that page and everyone who clicks on it knows it.

CheetoDust:

Silentpony:

Exley97:

1) That's not what I wrote or even suggested, and I think you're getting carried away.

2) Was consent actually given? The NYT article doesn't say that, and CK only says the he asked. If someone asks if they can expose themselves and jack off in your presence and you *don't* reply in the negative, is that okay? Is that implicitly giving consent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

So...yeah...

You just 110% did not read that page and everyone who clicks on it knows it.

No I read the Canadian part.

I don't get it, he asks them if he can do it (probably while drunk and high), they say yes and that's wrong because... they didn't really mean it? (and don't give me the apology as him actually supporting it, it's just as likely he is trying to save himself from the witch hunters).

It seems to me we're just going straight to putting guys in jail for "thought raping". What a happy times to be alive.

inu-kun:
I don't get it, he asks them if he can do it (probably while drunk and high), they say yes and that's wrong because... they didn't really mean it? (and don't give me the apology as him actually supporting it, it's just as likely he is trying to save himself from the witch hunters).

So when the women say something it's because they want a bald guy to have a wank in front of them, but when he says something it's because he's worried about his career?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (I just copied and pasted this bit, it doesn't change after he first ha).

TLDR: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Silentpony:
When did it become so controversial to want evidence? When did we decide that? I don't remember signing that petition.

You're doing it again. Nobody is fooled by the "Woe is me!" shit.

The problem dude is that you're making the mistake a lot of people make: you apply skepticism to the accusers, but not to the accused. You take "innocent until proven guilty" and change it from a legal concept to an article of faith and dogma. It's not rational skepticism, it's just special pleading.

BeetleManiac:

Silentpony:
When did it become so controversial to want evidence? When did we decide that? I don't remember signing that petition.

You're doing it again. Nobody is fooled by the "Woe is me!" shit.

The problem dude is that you're making the mistake a lot of people make: you apply skepticism to the accusers, but not to the accused. You take "innocent until proven guilty" and change it from a legal concept to an article of faith and dogma. It's not rational skepticism, it's just special pleading.

No you are wrong. I am taking 'innocent until proven guilty' are a literal phrase. As in until proven to be guilty, someone is innocent.
Faith and dogma don't enter into it. Literalness does. Literally prove him guilty. Until then, he's innocent. And I'm not pleading for anything, nor is there a woe is me martyrdom.
I'm saying innocent until proven guilty. Can you prove it? Yes? Great! Guilty! And if you can't? You got it! Innocent. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

Silentpony:
No you are wrong. I am taking 'innocent until proven guilty' are a literal phrase. As in until proven to be guilty, someone is innocent.
Faith and dogma don't enter into it. Literalness does. Literally prove him guilty. Until then, he's innocent.

For the sake of the justice system, yes. That just means that you get a fair trial. It does not mean that you are immune from skepticism toward your claims/defenses.

And I'm not pleading for anything, nor is there a woe is me martyrdom.

Then quit with the hyperbolic snark. You're not fooling anyone, you're just being melodramatic. People can tell.

I'm saying innocent until proven guilty. Can you prove it? Yes? Great! Guilty! And if you can't? You got it! Innocent. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

That's the problem with using something as a slogan: a lack of thought.

BeetleManiac:

Silentpony:
No you are wrong. I am taking 'innocent until proven guilty' are a literal phrase. As in until proven to be guilty, someone is innocent.
Faith and dogma don't enter into it. Literalness does. Literally prove him guilty. Until then, he's innocent.

For the sake of the justice system, yes. That just means that you get a fair trial. It does not mean that you are immune from skepticism toward your claims/defenses.

And I'm not pleading for anything, nor is there a woe is me martyrdom.

Then quit with the hyperbolic snark. You're not fooling anyone, you're just being melodramatic. People can tell.

I'm saying innocent until proven guilty. Can you prove it? Yes? Great! Guilty! And if you can't? You got it! Innocent. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

That's the problem with using something as a slogan: a lack of thought.

You literally said "Nobody is fooled by the "Woe is me!" shit." yet when I say I'm not doing that suddenly I'm melodramatic?! What kind of horseshit is that?
I'm not the one using woe. I'm not the one using melodramatic. I'm not the one going around 'oh people can tell'. That's drama. You're the one causing drama. You're the one being melodramatic! For fucks sake read your actual posts! Other people can!

Baffle2:

inu-kun:
I don't get it, he asks them if he can do it (probably while drunk and high), they say yes and that's wrong because... they didn't really mean it? (and don't give me the apology as him actually supporting it, it's just as likely he is trying to save himself from the witch hunters).

So when the women say something it's because they want a bald guy to have a wank in front of them, but when he says something it's because he's worried about his career?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (I just copied and pasted this bit, it doesn't change after he first ha).

TLDR: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The thing is that the message is written in a peculiar manner "They thought it was a joke and laughed it off", what the fuck does that mean? They sure didn't decline so either they just straight up ignored it and waited for him to undress... for some bizarre reason or said yes because they thought he wasn't serious and pulling a prank/they were all drunk until realizing he was completely serious.

So, it's definately flashing, but after that the definitions get confusing. He didn't ask them to touch him or touch them, but the intent of his actions could be called into question. Would he have done it regardless of wheether they were there, or did he do it because they were there and basically used them to get himself off, because that would change to context from being rude to guests to imposing an unwanted sexual presence on them

inu-kun:
I don't get it, he asks them if he can do it (probably while drunk and high), they say yes and that's wrong because... they didn't really mean it? (and don't give me the apology as him actually supporting it, it's just as likely he is trying to save himself from the witch hunters).

It seems to me we're just going straight to putting guys in jail for "thought raping". What a happy times to be alive.

Seriously? Come on, I like Louis CK but who even does that? Who invites 2 Women to his room to then bluntly ask if they can get out gheir dick and jerk off?

Who would do that without full knowledge that some fucked up power dynamics are involved?

It doesn't sound like he did something illegal but at least it's skeevy as fuck.

I'd personally just laugh this off. Which these women did. For fifteen long years. Until now. For some reason.

The time to be sorry was back then.

This recent awareness campaign has probably been a net positive overall. This case hasn't been the only miss out there, but I'm left with bad vibes anyway. I don't really watch CK's show so I don't really care (and I know he's filthy rich anyhow), but for all I care, these publishers can still go fuck their own spineless selves with something rusty and sharp. CK's comment sucks but that's expected damage control.

Never really watched CK's stuff, but as I understand it, he's left leaning? In any case, good that we're cleaning house. The culture where people are afraid to speak out because of retribution, or fear of being dogpiled as liars just looking for a payout needs to change.

honestly, if someone told me that 2017 would be the year a fire spread through professional culture that outed a large number of powerful men who abuse their position for sex, and people would start taking it seriously, I would have called them a liar.

what did trump say to excuse his pussy grabbing thing? why arent dudes just copying and pasting that nonsense, it seemed to work a year ago

inu-kun:

Baffle2:

inu-kun:
I don't get it, he asks them if he can do it (probably while drunk and high), they say yes and that's wrong because... they didn't really mean it? (and don't give me the apology as him actually supporting it, it's just as likely he is trying to save himself from the witch hunters).

So when the women say something it's because they want a bald guy to have a wank in front of them, but when he says something it's because he's worried about his career?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (I just copied and pasted this bit, it doesn't change after he first ha).

TLDR: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The thing is that the message is written in a peculiar manner "They thought it was a joke and laughed it off", what the fuck does that mean? They sure didn't decline so either they just straight up ignored it and waited for him to undress... for some bizarre reason or said yes because they thought he wasn't serious and pulling a prank/they were all drunk until realizing he was completely serious.

As someone who deeply enjoys kink, CK can go straight to hell. The thing about kink is that you need more than consent. You need INFORMED consent. If someone says yes without knowing what they're saying yes to, it's a worthless yes. That's what happened and why they didn't take it seriously. He didn't inform properly. That and, you know, there was the probability they were trying to laugh it off, a common response to stress. Either way, the gap in power between them was too great to make the consent anything better than dubious.

Dude, the guy flat out explained why what he did was wrong, don't defend someone who admitted he partook in sexual misconduct, people doing stuff like this is probably why these women stayed quiet for so long.

undeadsuitor:
honestly, if someone told me that 2017 would be the year a fire spread through professional culture that outed a large number of powerful men who abuse their position for sex, and people would start taking it seriously, I would have called them a liar.

what did trump say to excuse his pussy grabbing thing? why arent dudes just copying and pasting that nonsense, it seemed to work a year ago

He said that it was locker room talk and that he has changed, or something.

I'd like to think that pussy grabbing thing and Bill Cosby incident, sparked the rape allegations.

erttheking:
people doing stuff like this is probably why these women stayed quiet for so long.

You forget: it's not a bug, it's a feature. If you want to protect the status quo, a good place to start is making any whistleblowers too scared to make some noise.

erttheking:
Either way, the gap in power between them was too great to make the consent anything better than dubious.

I think erttheking is officially ignoring me, but someone really needs to draw a graph or something to illustrate this alleged consent-negating "gap in power" to me. Because I don't get it. Is everyone just confusing Louis CK with Louis XIV or what?

undeadsuitor:
honestly, if someone told me that 2017 would be the year a fire spread through professional culture that outed a large number of powerful men who abuse their position for sex, and people would start taking it seriously, I would have called them a liar.

what did trump say to excuse his pussy grabbing thing? why arent dudes just copying and pasting that nonsense, it seemed to work a year ago

I mean, the excuses seem to be working for moore so far too, as far as his base is concerned? I think that it isn't working for these guys because they're part of 'the left', and we didn't buy it for trump, not gonna buy it for them either.

It's ridiculous to say that a sexual proposition from someone in power is difficult or impossible to refuse. That comes to close to "All sex is rape." In a certain contexts, that's what is being said. They are claiming the boss cant have a consensual relationship, everything he does is rape or assault.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here