Framing and the Louis CK Incidents

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

cthulhuspawn82:
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.

There's a reason "fraternization" is a court-martialable offense in the military.

Don't proposition your underlings.

StatusNil:

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?

It's easy: do you directly employ them, or otherwise have the direct ability to make them unemployed?

That. That right there.

My reaction to the news was "well, that's disappointing," because I'm a fan of Louis C.K.

The exact details of his behaviour (indecent exposure, essentially) are something I would rank as "bad, but less bad" when put alongside someone like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby, both of whom had systematically abused their position to coerce or drug women into having sex with them over a period spanning decades. I don't consider the two to be equivalent. People characterising Louis as a "predator" the way Weinstein was, I think that's inaccurate. There's a difference between sexual assault and indecent exposure. They're both bad, obviously, but one is much, much worse than the other.

I found his response to be sincere and humanising. I don't want to see this destroy his career. I think it's good that it's come out, and it's good that he's responded like an adult. I hope he can reconcile with the women involved.

cthulhuspawn82:
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.

...they're saying he can't have a consensual relationship with an employee. Because of the power imbalance. Unless we're talking about a hypothetical boss who employs everyone in the world, what you're saying is nonsense.

Baffle2:
Why is it hard for him!? He did it! And he enjoyed it!

Stop and think for a minute. Have you never done something that you didn't think wrong at the time, but regretted later?

Agema:

Stop and think for a minute. Have you never done something that you didn't think wrong at the time, but regretted later?

Oh, absolutely, though I'm not sure at what point he might have thought this wasn't wrong. My issue is that the apology appears to be mostly about himself and how difficult this is for himself. Maybe I'm missing the tone.

Silentpony:

CheetoDust:

Silentpony:

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.

So you read the Wikipedia link that you threw in my face before posting it, even though it directly contradicted your argument? Really?

I'm willing to bet money that you did not, in fact, read it, and that you did a quick Google search in the *two minutes* between my post and your reply, you grabbed the closest thing available to support the nonsensical argument that this Louis CK incident involved "implied consent."

"There's no proof, these women could just be lying."
"He admitted it himself."
"Why didn't the women do more to stop him then."

Male privelage: when it's a woman's responsibility to make sure you don't spunk on your belly in front of them.

Louis CK's actions are perfectly defensible from a hardcore capitalist/libertarian "personal responsibility" point of view. He initiated a verbal contract concerning whether he could whip his dick out. The contract was affirmed and then he did so. Of course, it turns out that the affirmation of the contract was not genuine, but that's easily passed off as an honest mistake. And power relations don't matter because no one was "coerced" to do anything except in the way that virtually everyone is coerced by how they must act toward people with significant power over their material conditions, and of course those relationships aren't problematic; if they were, surely no reasonable person would enter into them.

(Long, drawn out fart noise.)

bastardofmelbourne:
I hope he can reconcile with the women involved.

He can't. Because the incident is from 2002. Goodman and Wolov have been over it for over a decade. They only wanted to throw some shit on the guy, since that's what you're supposed to do right now.

edit: Okay, this wasn't the only time he did it. However, all of it dates back to over a decade ago.

McElroy:

bastardofmelbourne:
I hope he can reconcile with the women involved.

He can't. Because the incident is from 2002. Goodman and Wolov have been over it for over a decade. They only wanted to throw some shit on the guy, since that's what you're supposed to do right now.

edit: Okay, this wasn't the only time he did it. However, all of it dates back to over a decade ago.

And most of these allegations have been known about for years. Maybe, just maybe more people coming forward has given others the courage to do the same rather than just "what you're supposed to do now." Or whatever just act like women who accuse men of sexual harassment, and then have it confirmed by the men, are a bunch of bitches, you do you pal.

altnameJag:
It's easy: do you directly employ them, or otherwise have the direct ability to make them unemployed?

That. That right there.

I understand that there are serious considerations to take into account with making sexual overtures to people who are organizationally subordinate. But here's the thing: Mr. CK didn't "directly employ" these women. As far as I can tell, they were freelance performers who had been contracted to perform their act at a comedy festival by the organizers, and had just completed their contractual obligation when they met him. Nor is there any plausible claim that he had "the direct ability to make them unemployed", assuming they even were in regular employment at the time, given the gig-by-gig nature of their business.

It appears somewhat less easy if we're not going to gloss over the fact that "that right there" was in fact not the case here at all. Rather, the assumption of a "power differential" comes from the statement that the women were familiar with his work and admired it. And that's pretty much the extent of it. So what we're left with is the proposition that women are somehow constitutionally lacking in the necessary autonomy to freely determine their sexual consent towards any marginally famous man whose work they find congenial to their tastes. Is that the Feminist position in the Current Year?

It's so hard to keep up with wokeness, seems like just a little while ago it was all about women being as capable of agency as the mighty Male of the species. Oh, I was "with it" then, but I guess they've changed "it", and what I'm with is now not just not "it", but the opposite. And when you get older, it will happen to you too.

bastardofmelbourne:

I found his response to be sincere and humanising. I don't want to see this destroy his career. I think it's good that it's come out, and it's good that he's responded like an adult. I hope he can reconcile with the women involved.

There is nothing sincere or "adult" in any if his words. They are merely empty platitudes from a man whose indiscretions have at last been made public and which he can no longer just dismiss or deny.

StatusNil:

altnameJag:
It's easy: do you directly employ them, or otherwise have the direct ability to make them unemployed?

That. That right there.

I understand that there are serious considerations to take into account with making sexual overtures to people who are organizationally subordinate. But here's the thing: Mr. CK didn't "directly employ" these women. As far as I can tell, they were freelance performers who had been contracted to perform their act at a comedy festival by the organizers, and had just completed their contractual obligation when they met him. Nor is there any plausible claim that he had "the direct ability to make them unemployed", assuming they even were in regular employment at the time, given the gig-by-gig nature of their business.

It appears somewhat less easy if we're not going to gloss over the fact that "that right there" was in fact not the case here at all. Rather, the assumption of a "power differential" comes from the statement that the women were familiar with his work and admired it. And that's pretty much the extent of it. So what we're left with is the proposition that women are somehow constitutionally lacking in the necessary autonomy to freely determine their sexual consent towards any marginally famous man whose work they find congenial to their tastes. Is that the Feminist position in the Current Year?

It's so hard to keep up with wokeness, seems like just a little while ago it was all about women being as capable of agency as the mighty Male of the species. Oh, I was "with it" then, but I guess they've changed "it", and what I'm with is now not just not "it", but the opposite. And when you get older, it will happen to you too.

That's a lotta words defending a dude who doesn't want to be defended and would likely disagree with you.

EDIT: or to pu5 it another way, Louis C.K., at that point in his career, could stop someone from performing at a comedy festival by going "yeah, I don't think they're funny". Due to the gig based nature of the industry. Because he's the headliner.

Which means him whipping his dick out unexpectedly and masterbating in fron5 of these gals under a flimsy attempt at consent was a bad thing. And he's known it was a bad thing for years. These stories aren't new to anybody paying attention. The dude knew he fucked up, yet still you're here, blaming PC wokeness.

CheetoDust:
And most of these allegations have been known about for years. Maybe, just maybe more people coming forward has given others the courage to do the same rather than just "what you're supposed to do now." Or whatever just act like women who accuse men of sexual harassment, and then have it confirmed by the men, are a bunch of bitches, you do you pal.

Hey, c'mon.

They could be a bunch of bitches in any case. They did go for petty revenge, but I guess it could be because of those dramatic events 10+ years ago. Though I wouldn't bet on it.

Also no strawman pls. I'm only talking about Louis "just relax and watch me jack off" CK.

altnameJag:
That's a lotta words defending a dude who doesn't want to be defended and would likely disagree with you.

EDIT: or to pu5 it another way, Louis C.K., at that point in his career, could stop someone from performing at a comedy festival by going "yeah, I don't think they're funny". Due to the gig based nature of the industry. Because he's the headliner.

Which means him whipping his dick out unexpectedly and masterbating in fron5 of these gals under a flimsy attempt at consent was a bad thing. And he's known it was a bad thing for years. These stories aren't new to anybody paying attention. The dude knew he fucked up, yet still you're here, blaming PC wokeness.

I can spare the words, I have some stashed for a rainy day. And I'm not really defending the dude as much as I'm opposing witch-hunting hysteria that would conflate a wide spectrum of behavior under a singular category of transgression. Whether he would disagree is not something I'd know or consider important, as I don't really care for the guy's output that much.

I'm also far from convinced that Louis CK was such a kingpin in the comedy world in 2002 that he could simply deny others bookings at some hypothetical festival where he was the headliner (obviously he couldn't go back in time at that particular festival to stop a performance that had already happened), and I don't even know how it could be demonstrated if he was. But assuming he was, that's a problem in itself, without even bringing a sexual misadventure into it. As you may have noticed, I have something of a problem with crony networks and blacklisting in the entertainment industry, and fully agree that such arrangements should be vigorously combated. In that spirit, I invite you and other readers to join in protesting the influence-peddling network operational right in our presumably shared hobby of gaming. There are already credible allegations that gaining media coverage in the hypercompetitive marketplace is predicated on performing sexual favors for the employees of influential review blogs, such as "N. G." and "P. H." at a leading "games journalism" site, with an aggressive cover-up extending over years of abusive practices. Feel free to ask for details and suggestions about what to do in case you feel this behavior is something you object to.

Now, returning to the case of Mr. CK, even from my limited familiarity with his work it's clear that he's been preoccupied with deep feelings of guilt over autoerotic activities for a considerable period of time, as evinced by what I understand to be frequent anecdotes about masturbation throughout his career. Perhaps this is the key to understanding what at first struck me as somewhat bizarre behavior, in that you'd think the proverbial Rubicon has been crossed by the time you've brandished a naked erection in company, and the remaining step to requesting another person present to handle it for you for a change would be a comparably easy one to take. However, what if the incident was all about an attempt to exorcise the internalized stigma associated with the practice of masturbation, something that he'd also been struggling to achieve through public declarations under the rubric of "comedy"? In other words, maybe his sense of wrongdoing issued from a deeper shame of being "a wanker", rather than a consciousness of deliberate violation of interpersonal boundaries.

Naturally, this understanding has cultural implications beyond adjudicating specific incidents involving crossed signals regarding the situational permissibility of intimate displays. Fortunately, society has progressed past stigmatizing masturbation for a part of the population, namely the female part. Can we really imagine a "games journalist", for an example, publishing a contemptuous dismissal of "sex-starved, masturbation-addled, terminally virginal teenage idiot girls" as a desirable audience in the field they cover in this day and age? I should say not, yet gender-flip it and it's a common trope, employed in exaggeratedly crude terms by any standard-issue hack whose haggard looks betray a very recent conversion from the lifestyle they so venomously condemn, to absolutely no one's shock or surprise, let alone protest.

I would suggest we as a society stop nurturing future pathologies (if that's what it is) like the one described above. The first step is to stop the vicious shaming of teenage boys who would explore their sexuality, perhaps with the visual aid of "yuge animu tiddies" or the like. Masturbation is likely far healthier for their development than refraining from it. And why should we harm them with unwarranted shame because of it?

altnameJag:

StatusNil:

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?

It's easy: do you directly employ them, or otherwise have the direct ability to make them unemployed?

That. That right there.

Honest question, did he have that power back then? In 2002 he was a bit of a nobody, it wasnt until 2005 that he had his breakthrough. He has a lot of power and influence now, certainly, and can do those things you mention now.

Some of y'all are way out in the weeds defending Louis CK when dude ain't even defending himself at this point. The distinction I'm attempting to make, I suppose, is between professional, moral, and social expectations.

Professionally, if I were Louis CK's superior made aware of him masturbating in front of colleagues, I'd be firmly in the "fire him" camp. Even asking to do so is unacceptable to me since I don't think dealing with fallout from men trying to get their dick wet is within the purview of an employer's responsibilities. Put into pseudo-Rational terms, the likelihood of Louis CK encountering a woman who's idea of sexual reciprocity is watching him hunched over like some jack-off troll is far lower than the likelihood of the request being disruptive and/or outright coercive and he knew this. So here, I take the brave position of "Don't whip your dick out and masturbate in front of women in public."

Morally, I think the moral view is somewhat irrelevant. I don't care about one's view of and intentions toward women. Or rather, I can't reasonably control that. What can be policed is how people behave within society and what standards are set and enforced. In other words, I don't care if Generic Shop Owner gripes to the wife every night about, "All these N-words in my shop!" as long as there's a legal apparatus in place that doesn't allow him to discriminate against any customers. Likewise, I don't care whether Louis CK is woke or was just pretending to be; I care that he not be allowed to be a creep in a professional setting.

Socially is kind of split between interpersonal conduct and criminality for me, the former of which takes me into victim blaming territory. I feel like I can both say Louis CK shouldn't have put any of these women in this position and is being rightfully pilloried for it while also questioning the reactions and the use of words like "haunted by" in the NYT describing the incidents. Accusing a soccer player of diving and playing up an injury isn't denying an injurious act was inflicted upon them. And while Louis CK was out his goddamned mind to do this shit, I encourage women to say "No," (whether it be heeded or not), exit the room if they can, hang-up the phone, etc. which would have ended a lot of these experiences. I would also encourage them to go to whoever the next day and say, "Louis CK asked me if he could whip out his dick and jerk off in front of me." They just kind of lose me at the "Well, I didn't know what to do so I stood there while he stripped naked and finished..." It's failing horror movie logic. There being a hypothetical possibility of reprisal doesn't make every instance of inaction justified to me. In the portion I quoted, you have two adult women who aren't being physically constrained letting a bad situation escalate and I wonder if listing a bunch of rationalizations in an attempt to justify a silly response is reasonable.

Fortunately, that last meandering paragraph is ultimately irrelevant to whether or not Louis CK ought to face repercussions for his action: he ought to and is.

Baffle2:

Oh, absolutely, though I'm not sure at what point he might have thought this wasn't wrong. My issue is that the apology appears to be mostly about himself and how difficult this is for himself. Maybe I'm missing the tone.

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the tone. The letter offers an explanation for his behaviour without making it an excuse, and expresses his shame and remorse.

I don't always think it's a good idea to overanalyse what people write. We're all different. And the problem is that means millions of people scrutinise an apology letter and criticise it (to an extent) in terms of "What would I write?" But we can't really expect people to say things in just they way we'd like it said.

Agema:

I don't always think it's a good idea to overanalyse what people write. We're all different. And the problem is that means millions of people scrutinise an apology letter and criticise it (to an extent) in terms of "What would I write?" But we can't really expect people to say things in just they way we'd like it said.

I didn't really scrutinise it or give it a great deal of thought - I responded to it as it came across to me, with nary a brain cell of engagement on my part. I suppose, to a not insignificant degree, I feel it's really 'I'm sorry this has come to light', not 'I'm sorry I did this' - that is, why apologise when it comes to light, not when, years later, you realise what a tool you've been? (I realise that, on a human level, this is asking an incredible amount of someone; I still have embarrassment flashes of stuff I did ten years ago that pop into my head - I certainly wouldn't go unearthing that in front of someone if I could pretend it'd never happened).

To be fair, I did read it in Donald Duck's voice, so that might've thrown me off a bit.

Exley97:
SNIP

Well here's the thing, Louis CK isn't Canadian, he's Mexican american born in Washington DC, which in fact makes him a US citizen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C.K.

And Canadian laws don't apply outside of Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Canada

And And the conduct in question took place in Colorado
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

And And And, Colorado does not have an Affirmative Consent Law, nor is consent defined as 'freely given'
https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Colorado&group=9

But in your defense, that took longer than 2mins and isn't on a single Wiki page. But go ahead, quote Canadian Law. I'm sure Google will be impressed.

King Billi:

bastardofmelbourne:

I found his response to be sincere and humanising. I don't want to see this destroy his career. I think it's good that it's come out, and it's good that he's responded like an adult. I hope he can reconcile with the women involved.

There is nothing sincere or "adult" in any if his words. They are merely empty platitudes from a man whose indiscretions have at last been made public and which he can no longer just dismiss or deny.

Well, what response would have been appropriate?

bastardofmelbourne:

Well, what response would have been appropriate?

I suspect some people would like nothing better than more of these:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suicide-politician-led-fight-against-domestic-violence-r5bb2szg9

bastardofmelbourne:

King Billi:

bastardofmelbourne:

I found his response to be sincere and humanising. I don't want to see this destroy his career. I think it's good that it's come out, and it's good that he's responded like an adult. I hope he can reconcile with the women involved.

There is nothing sincere or "adult" in any if his words. They are merely empty platitudes from a man whose indiscretions have at last been made public and which he can no longer just dismiss or deny.

Well, what response would have been appropriate?

Frankly, considering the memory of this sexual assault (I may be legally incorrect, but colloquially I would consider inappropriate masturbation as sexual harrasment/assault) was something that C.K. used as material for comedy shows I feel that the apology should in some way involve a donation of wealth, specifically to women's charities.

I haven't kept up to date, perhaps that's what he has done, apologies if that is the case. But otherwise there is a lot more that can be said other than "Yeah, sucks that he did it, oh well."

Call me vindictive, but if C.K. doesn't at least get a worse treatment than Connolly then I might lose my fucking mind.

bastardofmelbourne:

King Billi:

bastardofmelbourne:

I found his response to be sincere and humanising. I don't want to see this destroy his career. I think it's good that it's come out, and it's good that he's responded like an adult. I hope he can reconcile with the women involved.

There is nothing sincere or "adult" in any if his words. They are merely empty platitudes from a man whose indiscretions have at last been made public and which he can no longer just dismiss or deny.

Well, what response would have been appropriate?

He did enough simply owning up that the accusations were true, everything else is just words and words are cheap. You can say he is being more honest and up front about this than most of the other "celebrities" currently dealing with sexual harassment accusations but really he has very little to lose at this point and everything to gain. I mean you said it yourself what he did was gross but nowhere near as serious as the likes of Weinstein or Cosby, he's not at risk of going to jail over this (I don't think?) and he has a much better chance of salvaging his career than others in his position so really why wouldn't he be honest. It just seems less of an honest attempt by a human being expressing their shame in their actions and more a calculated attempt at damage control to ensure one isn't out of a job.

Did he actually apologize though? I skimmed it and he says he feels remorse and guilt but I don't think he actually says he's sorry. It's very "I guess I did a bad thing and it's unfortunate that I got caught out. I probably shouldn't have done it maybe."

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Did he actually apologize though? I skimmed it and he says he feels remorse and guilt

That sounds like an apology already.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Did he actually apologize though? I skimmed it and he says he feels remorse and guilt but I don't think he actually says he's sorry. It's very "I guess I did a bad thing and it's unfortunate that I got caught out. I probably shouldn't have done it maybe."

In the usual way of not really apologizing he did, yeah.

Silentpony:

Exley97:
SNIP

Well here's the thing, Louis CK isn't Canadian, he's Mexican american born in Washington DC, which in fact makes him a US citizen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C.K.

And Canadian laws don't apply outside of Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Canada

And And the conduct in question took place in Colorado
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

And And And, Colorado does not have an Affirmative Consent Law, nor is consent defined as 'freely given'
https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Colorado&group=9

But in your defense, that took longer than 2mins and isn't on a single Wiki page. But go ahead, quote Canadian Law. I'm sure Google will be impressed.

First, you're throwing this in my face like *I'm* the one who posted the Wikipedia link in defense of an argument.

That was you.

Second, I never cited Canadian law, or argued it was applicable in this case. In fact, I didn't even mention it. I said the link you posted contradicts your argument. And it does (read the link *closely* and tell me how it largely applies to U.S. law). And now you've set about refuting the link that YOU originally posted (without, I suspect, actually reading it first).

Third, I'm quite familiar with affirmative consent laws, but my original point stands ? nervous laughter is not "implied consent." You appear to be arguing that the absence of a direct rejection to the advance is itself implied consent. That's absurd. Furthermore, if you made such an argument in this case, and claimed that because the women involved didn't immediately verbalize "No!" to C.K.'s request, their relative silence constituted implied consent, I'm pretty sure you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

I mean, FFS -- not even C.K. is claiming there was implied consent. All he stated was that he asked. You're defending the guy with a nonsensical quasi-legal argument that not even C.K. is making.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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