Author Topic: Louis CK apologizes to everyone  (Read 5947 times)

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2017, 08:40:46 PM »
Look, I'm as much against sexual assault as the next person. It's bad, it's wrong. Just yucky, don't do it. You shouldn't use your position to take advantage of people, and you shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do.

But maaaaaaaybe....

Maybe if you don't want to do sexual things, you should be expected to make that enthusiastically clear. If somebody ignores that and keeps pressing, then that's a separate issue.

The feeling that you can't say no to sex for career reasons is just not acceptable to me.

Well. I知 not sure white men have generally, historically had to deal with the reality of saying no to sexual advances being a career ender.

For women, however, that has been a reality about as long as they have been in the workplace.

Is it extreme to the point that if given the choice, you would choose the unwanted sex to save your career? Do you actually think that's a reasonable response? It's not even like he gave them an ultimatum or anything direct. The threat to their careers was their own misinterpretation of events. Both sides made errors of interpretation.

Uh-huh.

I知 done.

Okay, thanks for letting us know you're done. Obviously you're too emotionally invested in this to have a rational discussion.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2017, 08:41:51 PM »
Look, I'm as much against sexual assault as the next person. It's bad, it's wrong. Just yucky, don't do it. You shouldn't use your position to take advantage of people, and you shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do.

But maaaaaaaybe....

Maybe if you don't want to do sexual things, you should be expected to make that enthusiastically clear. If somebody ignores that and keeps pressing, then that's a separate issue.

The feeling that you can't say no to sex for career reasons is just not acceptable to me.

Well. I知 not sure white men have generally, historically had to deal with the reality of saying no to sexual advances being a career ender.

For women, however, that has been a reality about as long as they have been in the workplace.

Is it extreme to the point that if given the choice, you would choose the unwanted sex to save your career? Do you actually think that's a reasonable response? It's not even like he gave them an ultimatum or anything direct. The threat to their careers was their own misinterpretation of events. Both sides made errors of interpretation.

Uh-huh.

I知 done.

Okay, thanks for letting us know you're done. Obviously you're too emotionally invested in this to have a rational discussion.

That is fucking pathetic, dude.

When a man is losing an argument, calling a woman too emotional to be rational is the oldest trick in the book.

Examine yourself.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2017, 08:46:42 PM »
Look, I'm as much against sexual assault as the next person. It's bad, it's wrong. Just yucky, don't do it. You shouldn't use your position to take advantage of people, and you shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do.

But maaaaaaaybe....

Maybe if you don't want to do sexual things, you should be expected to make that enthusiastically clear. If somebody ignores that and keeps pressing, then that's a separate issue.

The feeling that you can't say no to sex for career reasons is just not acceptable to me.

Well. I知 not sure white men have generally, historically had to deal with the reality of saying no to sexual advances being a career ender.

For women, however, that has been a reality about as long as they have been in the workplace.

Is it extreme to the point that if given the choice, you would choose the unwanted sex to save your career? Do you actually think that's a reasonable response? It's not even like he gave them an ultimatum or anything direct. The threat to their careers was their own misinterpretation of events. Both sides made errors of interpretation.

Uh-huh.

I知 done.

Okay, thanks for letting us know you're done. Obviously you're too emotionally invested in this to have a rational discussion.

That is fucking pathetic, dude.

When a man is losing an argument, calling a woman too emotional to be rational is the oldest trick in the book.

Examine yourself.

Whoa whoa whoa, why are you making this about sex all of a sudden? Up until 2 minutes ago I didn't know you were a female and I didn't care one way or the other. And how do you presume to know my sex??? (maybe I mentioned before, but I don't think I did)

But okay, swear at me, call me pathetic and say I'm losing the argument. I guess saying "uh-huh, I'm done" is the more mature route.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2017, 08:51:57 PM »
Kris, if your boss invites you up to his room after an out-of-town conference, do you go? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If he asks if he can jack off do you say yes or do you say no?

If you feel forced to say yes to either of those things, on the sole premise that he is your boss, then you have made an error. He's not right to ask (without making it abundantly clear that you can say no), but it doesn't mean you're not partially at fault by saying yes when you actually mean no. you have to be responsible for your actions the same way Louie does.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 08:54:15 PM by forumname123 »

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2017, 08:54:01 PM »
Look, I'm as much against sexual assault as the next person. It's bad, it's wrong. Just yucky, don't do it. You shouldn't use your position to take advantage of people, and you shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do.

But maaaaaaaybe....

Maybe if you don't want to do sexual things, you should be expected to make that enthusiastically clear. If somebody ignores that and keeps pressing, then that's a separate issue.

The feeling that you can't say no to sex for career reasons is just not acceptable to me.

Well. I知 not sure white men have generally, historically had to deal with the reality of saying no to sexual advances being a career ender.

For women, however, that has been a reality about as long as they have been in the workplace.

Is it extreme to the point that if given the choice, you would choose the unwanted sex to save your career? Do you actually think that's a reasonable response? It's not even like he gave them an ultimatum or anything direct. The threat to their careers was their own misinterpretation of events. Both sides made errors of interpretation.

This is beyond appalling. Of course it's not extreme to choose unwanted sexual harassment and assault, at times, to save your livelihood, especially when your gender is and has been expected to acquiesce to such conduct from men. For decades. Particularly when your ability to make a living is and has been traditionally discouraged. Particularly in a male-dominated field. Particularly when you've been conditioned to welcome the overt sexualization of yourself because you are a woman, from childhood to adulthood.  Particularly because some men love to explain how you should feel and what you should do even though they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2017, 09:00:08 PM »
Look, I'm as much against sexual assault as the next person. It's bad, it's wrong. Just yucky, don't do it. You shouldn't use your position to take advantage of people, and you shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do.

But maaaaaaaybe....

Maybe if you don't want to do sexual things, you should be expected to make that enthusiastically clear. If somebody ignores that and keeps pressing, then that's a separate issue.

The feeling that you can't say no to sex for career reasons is just not acceptable to me.

Well. I知 not sure white men have generally, historically had to deal with the reality of saying no to sexual advances being a career ender.

For women, however, that has been a reality about as long as they have been in the workplace.

Is it extreme to the point that if given the choice, you would choose the unwanted sex to save your career? Do you actually think that's a reasonable response? It's not even like he gave them an ultimatum or anything direct. The threat to their careers was their own misinterpretation of events. Both sides made errors of interpretation.

This is beyond appalling. Of course it's not extreme to choose unwanted sexual harassment and assault, at times, to save your livelihood, especially when your gender is and has been expected to acquiesce to such conduct from men. For decades. Particularly when your ability to make a living is and has been traditionally discouraged. Particularly in a male-dominated field. Particularly when you've been conditioned to welcome the overt sexualization of yourself because you are a woman, from childhood to adulthood.  Particularly because some men love to explain how you should feel and what you should do even though they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

If we're blaming societal conditioning for our actions, then you might as well excuse Louie as well. He's on the other side of those conditions after all. If it's okay for a woman to be meek and submissive because that's what society has trained her for, then it's okay for a man to be the opposite because that's what society has trained him for. You're holding Louie accountable for his actions as an individual, regardless of societal norms. Why not the same for these women?

They could have said no!!

I would bet my stache that there are women watching this on TV and saying, "oh ya, he tried that shit on me but I told him to get out".

I am not saying Louie is innocent, again, if that hasn't been clear...
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 09:03:00 PM by forumname123 »

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2017, 09:05:03 PM »
Kris, if your boss invites you up to his room after an out-of-town conference, do you go? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If he asks if he can jack off do you say yes or do you say no?

If you feel forced to say yes to either of those things, on the sole premise that he is your boss, then you have made an error. He's not right to ask (without making it abundantly clear that you can say no), but it doesn't mean you're not partially at fault by saying yes when you actually mean no. you have to be responsible for your actions the same way Louie does.
Nope. No one just asks if they can masturbate in front of their colleague.  Your starting premise is inane and irrational.  I think you are being too emotional for anyone to continue debating with you.

I was once asked by a playground flasher to look at his dick.  I was too stunned to respond and stood dumbfounded as he whipped it out. There was definitely blame on both sides.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2017, 09:06:30 PM »
That is fucking pathetic, dude.

Let's try to keep this civil, Kris. 

We're poking at a sensitive topic, using a venue in which subtext can be hard to ascertain.  Try to give people the benefit of the doubt here.

You clearly have strong opinions on this topic, and that's both admirable and encouraged.  But I think that your willingness to express those opinions here has to implicitly sanction others to also share their opinions, right?  This a forum for debate, and everybody is allowed to have their say as long as we're all being polite.  You're not being polite.

If you see opinions you don't agree with here (and I think we all do) then please address them directly with a cogent counterargument.  Accusing a poster of chauvinism, especially when that poster is making an honest attempt to be an ally, is probably counterproductive.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2017, 09:08:57 PM »
Kris, if your boss invites you up to his room after an out-of-town conference, do you go? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If he asks if he can jack off do you say yes or do you say no?

If you feel forced to say yes to either of those things, on the sole premise that he is your boss, then you have made an error. He's not right to ask (without making it abundantly clear that you can say no), but it doesn't mean you're not partially at fault by saying yes when you actually mean no. you have to be responsible for your actions the same way Louie does.
Nope. No one just asks if they can masturbate in front of their colleague.  Your starting premise is inane and irrational.  I think you are being too emotional for anyone to continue debating with you.

I was once asked by a playground flasher to look at his dick.  I was too stunned to respond and stood dumbfounded as he whipped it out. There was definitely blame on both sides.

Say no, and call the police if he whips it out. Say yes and call him out on it 10 years later, and you've muddied the water.

Sibley

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #59 on: November 10, 2017, 09:12:53 PM »
As a woman, it's great that sexual harassment is starting to become socially unacceptable with real consequences. Just starting, but hey, gotta start somewhere.

Other things that it would be great to address:
-Calling women "honey", "sweetie", "sugar", "lovey", "kitten", or any of the dozens of other terms that men use, sometimes unthinkingly, without the clear permission of the woman. Unless you're allowed to sleep in my bed, use my NAME. Anything else is sexist.
-Catcalling women in public.
-Assuming that just because a woman is smiling or being friendly that she must be into you.
-Thinking that if a woman doesn't scream "no" that she must actually want it. Also goes with saying "no" but really meaning "yes".
-Blaming women for the bad behavior of men.
-Holding up foot traffic by insisting that women go first. Also insisting on opening doors when it was the woman who got there first. Don't even THINK about running to get ahead of a woman just to open the door.
-Paying women less for the same work.
-Assuming that women are incapable of doing something simply because they are women.
-Women doing most of the housework, childcare, and general household management while men don't. This is getting better, but we're not to equality yet.
-Unspoken assumptions or prejudices that women can't do "men's work". Things like plumbing, electrical, construction, being a doctor instead of a nurse, pilots, etc.
-Denying women appropriate health care and the right to make decisions about her body, without anyone else's moral judgement.
-Attitudes that women belong in the house caring for children.

There's more of course. But for anyone who doesn't get this - the inferiority of women has literally been baked into Western culture over thousands of years. I can't speak for non-Western cultures, but I would be very surprised if they were any different. Pretty much everything you've ever been told about how people should be behave is probably unequal.

You know, I actually have a lot of sympathy for thoughtful men, trying to navigate things. I find it kind of amazing that you are listing something that, until very recently, was drilled into well-mannered boys' heads as POLITE and a sign of proper upbringing, and classifying it alongside actual assault.   Let's get some perspective here.

I mean, my husband is a young boomer age dude, who would not think of doing anything else on your list.  But he struggles with the 'open door for the lady/walk on the traffic side/assist with unwieldy packages/stand when an un-introduced woman enters the room'.  Not because he's so desperate to do those things (he understands the cultural assumptions of patriarchy and sexism that might have contributed to development of some of these customs), but because years of early conditioning trained him to think he was an asshole if he did NOT do those things.  So now, he has to second guess every one of those impulses that were drilled in when he was young, and wonder if he's an asshole no matter what he does. 

It bums me out.  I've had some bad experiences with men over the years...tons of gross and inappropriate comments, a minor technical assault against me which was definitely technically pedophilia, flashers, callers, cat-calls.  Thankfully nothing worse.  So it's not like I've been sheltered or don't see or believe this stuff happens and we should try to acknowledge and prevent it.  But it is really asking a lot for every person to consciously check and examine every impulse, sexual or friendly or old fashioned or whatever, under every single circumstance conceivable.  I think we've got to get some perspective, I'm just not sure where the line should be drawn.

I agree, it's hard. But if we did a little bit more than we are (and trust me, there are plenty of people who think they are thinking about this stuff and really aren't), then it would help. And it would be gradual process to improve things.

To answer your implied question about doors, here's how I define it. If two people are walking towards the same door at similar speeds and person A get there first, then A opens the door. If B is right behind, A holds the door for B. If B gets to the door first, then they open the door. If A gets there first with B right behind and A has stuff in both hands, then B opens the door. And vice versa.

If A is female, B is male, and B opens the door because A is female, regardless of who gets to the door first or is carrying things, that's a problem. The gender of the people and who opens the door should have no impact on each other.

I hold the door for people behind me, regardless of gender. I expect the same of people who are ahead of me. But the default of "men open the doors" actually hurts women in a subtle way, because it implies that they NEED to have a man open the door. A lot of this stuff is not obvious. It's small, subconscious cues that influence how people behave.

It is a problem on elevators because men will hang back waiting for the women to get off, even if they're actually blocking the path of the women to get off. I have that happen to me regularly. In trying to be polite, they're actually being rude by BLOCKING my path. (same issue with getting on)

Basically, try to be considerate of everyone, regardless of male or female. And yes, I know that there are people or areas where not doing the "polite" stuff will get you yelled at. Those also seem to be the people and areas that I find more problematic with how they treat women in general. It's the casual stuff that sometimes has the most widespread impact.

Side note: Historically, chivalrous behavior was part of an ideal in which women were tightly controlled by men. Keeping chivalrous behavior around, even in small pieces, seems incompatible with real equality for men and women.

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #60 on: November 10, 2017, 09:13:56 PM »
That is fucking pathetic, dude.

Let's try to keep this civil, Kris. 

We're poking at a sensitive topic, using a venue in which subtext can be hard to ascertain.  Try to give people the benefit of the doubt here.

You clearly have strong opinions on this topic, and that's both admirable and encouraged.  But I think that your willingness to express those opinions here has to implicitly sanction others to also share their opinions, right?  This a forum for debate, and everybody is allowed to have their say as long as we're all being polite.  You're not being polite.

If you see opinions you don't agree with here (and I think we all do) then please address them directly with a cogent counterargument.  Accusing a poster of chauvinism, especially when that poster is making an honest attempt to be an ally, is probably counterproductive.

Credit where credit is due. Kris's assessment is accurate and certainly productive. Calling out BS is 100% warranted.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #61 on: November 10, 2017, 09:16:10 PM »
I would bet my stache that there are women watching this on TV and saying, "oh ya, he tried that shit on me but I told him to get out".

There are also women watching on TV and saying "ya he tried that shit on me, and I was horny so I banged him."  And that's also fine.  Consenting adults are allowed to do that. 

But in cases where there is an implied or an understood or even a potentially perceived professional consequence of that decision, everything gets more complicated.  In general, this is why it's best not to be sexually involved with your coworkers.  It blurs the lines of consent.

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2017, 09:17:51 PM »
Kris, if your boss invites you up to his room after an out-of-town conference, do you go? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If he asks if he can jack off do you say yes or do you say no?

If you feel forced to say yes to either of those things, on the sole premise that he is your boss, then you have made an error. He's not right to ask (without making it abundantly clear that you can say no), but it doesn't mean you're not partially at fault by saying yes when you actually mean no. you have to be responsible for your actions the same way Louie does.
Nope. No one just asks if they can masturbate in front of their colleague.  Your starting premise is inane and irrational.  I think you are being too emotional for anyone to continue debating with you.

I was once asked by a playground flasher to look at his dick.  I was too stunned to respond and stood dumbfounded as he whipped it out. There was definitely blame on both sides.

Say no, and call the police if he whips it out. Say yes and call him out on it 10 years later, and you've muddied the water.

No. Muddy water happened at the time, 10 years earlier. When the victim was victimized. Picked out. Because he or she was vulnerable.  Often after being groomed.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2017, 09:21:56 PM »
Side note: Historically, chivalrous behavior was part of an ideal in which women were tightly controlled by men. Keeping chivalrous behavior around, even in small pieces, seems incompatible with real equality for men and women.

I 100% agree with this assessment.  Pulling out a chair for a woman is akin to saying "You are a delicate flower who needs to be protected from the big bad world, here let me be your protector" and that's 100% bullshit.  Chivalry is chauvinism, and always has been.

But not all women see it that way.  Some women desire to have their chairs pulled out for them, maybe because they are unaware of the historical context of that act and it's role in their own oppression.   Some men desire to pull out chairs, also unaware of the context, because they have been taught it is the correct and polite way to handle that situation.  So maybe we all just need to relax a little, and have an honest conversation about what he want and what we intend.  I'm not sure it makes sense to be offended by a man who pulls out your chair, or by a man who doesn't.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #64 on: November 10, 2017, 09:24:41 PM »
I would bet my stache that there are women watching this on TV and saying, "oh ya, he tried that shit on me but I told him to get out".

There are also women watching on TV and saying "ya he tried that shit on me, and I was horny so I banged him."  And that's also fine.  Consenting adults are allowed to do that. 

But in cases where there is an implied or an understood or even a potentially perceived professional consequence of that decision, everything gets more complicated. In general, this is why it's best not to be sexually involved with your coworkers.  It blurs the lines of consent.

Very true, but when is there ever a case where there are no consequences to these types of decisions?

Social standing is always at risk. Can a billionaire not ask for sex from a waitress because she might feel she has no choice but to have sex with him for her own betterment? Where does that line get drawn and who gets to draw it?

These women were not directly employed under Louie after-all, so there is at least some distinction between the employer/employee relationship some are making it out to be.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #65 on: November 10, 2017, 09:27:58 PM »
Side note: Historically, chivalrous behavior was part of an ideal in which women were tightly controlled by men. Keeping chivalrous behavior around, even in small pieces, seems incompatible with real equality for men and women.

I 100% agree with this assessment.  Pulling out a chair for a woman is akin to saying "You are a delicate flower who needs to be protected from the big bad world, here let me be your protector" and that's 100% bullshit.  Chivalry is chauvinism, and always has been.

But not all women see it that way.  Some women desire to have their chairs pulled out for them, maybe because they are unaware of the historical context of that act and it's role in their own oppression.   Some men desire to pull out chairs, also unaware of the context, because they have been taught it is the correct and polite way to handle that situation.  So maybe we all just need to relax a little, and have an honest conversation about what he want and what we intend. I'm not sure it makes sense to be offended by a man who pulls out your chair, or by a man who doesn't.

Thank you for saying this. Women seem to get offended at both ends of this, so how are men supposed to know what to do? The lines are clearly being blurred, and maybe for the better, but if that's the case then we all have to be accepting of the transition.

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #66 on: November 10, 2017, 09:31:39 PM »
The very reason why victims don't call out perpeperpetrators at the time is because of the mentality that they handled their abuse wrong. What they did or didn't do is highly scrutinised and criticized. But the abuser, the power player gets a few more swipes at their dignity, privacy, sexuality, and humanity.  They also usually get the long game in court, notoriety, and clout. Because the victims life will just plain fucking suck if they do anything.  It's an impossibly high price to pay. 

The answer is not demanding that price or more from the victim.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #67 on: November 10, 2017, 09:34:29 PM »
No. Muddy water happened at the time, 10 years earlier. When the victim was victimized. Picked out. Because he or she was vulnerable.  Often after being groomed.

A playground flasher is probably a bad analogy to use for the types of stories currently in the news about Louis CK.  Flashers exposing themselves is a power and subjugation move, and not even about sex.  It's perverts who want to shock and offend, because they get off on being shocking and offensive.  They're different from peeping toms, who may also expose themselves and masturbate in semi-public places, but do so without any intention of being witnessed.  A flasher's only goal is to be witnessed.

But in the context of a hotel room after the bars closed, between consenting adults, whipping out your junk is not the same as flashing a kid on a playground.  If two consenting adults are going to have sex, they probably have to expose themselves first and some fraction of the time this will mean taking off your own clothes instead of letting the other person do it for you.  I can imagine a (still creepy and inappropriate) situation in which a drunk Louis CK assumes that the drunk woman he has in his room is a groupie who is desperate to bang, like the one last week and the one the week before.  He starts getting naked and fondling himself, not realizing that the woman has no interest in him, partly because she hasn't said so yet but mostly because he's a clueless moron who naturally assumes every woman wants to bang him.  She freaks.  He gets charged with indecent exposure.  He's still totally at fault and she rightfully feels victimized.  He's not a pedo or a flasher, he's just an asshole and a creep.

I don't claim to have any special knowledge of what actually happened in these situations, and like I said above the fact that this apparently happened with Louis CK with some regularity suggests dude is a genuine creep show and not just a clueless and awkward drunk with an oversized sense of entitlement.  I'm just pointing out that the flasher analogy isn't necessarily apt.  Maybe he's a flasher who gets off on shocking and offending women?  Not necessarily, in this case.  It's only been a few hours since this story broke, let's give the man a chance to set himself straight and update his initial response.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2183
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #68 on: November 10, 2017, 09:34:46 PM »
These women were not directly employed under Louie after-all, so there is at least some distinction between the employer/employee relationship some are making it out to be.

One of the women was employed by Louis, or at least working on a show he was producing. She agreed under real or perceived threat to her job/career.

One of the women turned him down.

Two of the women thought he was joking, and possibly agreed under that context ("Ha! Sure, go right ahead.... Wuuut?!?")

One of the women called him and heard him masturbating over the phone.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #69 on: November 10, 2017, 09:42:53 PM »
Some of the complaints though come about after being invited up to a private hotel room by someone of the opposite sex - post drinks and when the bars have all closed.  That is not the same as being at a place of work.

This is the exact same script that Harvey Weinstein used, too.  He invited adults to his room, and then made awkward advances.  If they said no, they left and nothing happened.  Some of them, though, felt pressured to say yes because of his stature in the industry, and that's why his career is over.  He didn't have to do anything at all except ask an adult woman if she wanted to have sex.  That's inappropriate, if there's a perceived power dynamic at play.

I guess this is the point that I personally keep tripping over.  I get how leering at a female colleague and asking her for sex while you're both at the office is ridiculously wrong.

If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

Don't get me wrong, absolutely 100% it's not OK in that scenario for the powerful person to force any kind of sex/sex act . . . but is asking about it at that point really so inappropriate (and unexpected) as it's being made out to be?

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #70 on: November 10, 2017, 09:43:17 PM »
No. Muddy water happened at the time, 10 years earlier. When the victim was victimized. Picked out. Because he or she was vulnerable.  Often after being groomed.

A playground flasher is probably a bad analogy to use for the types of stories currently in the news about Louis CK.  Flashers exposing themselves is a power and subjugation move, and not even about sex.  It's perverts who want to shock and offend, because they get off on being shocking and offensive.  They're different from peeping toms, who may also expose themselves and masturbate in semi-public places, but do so without any intention of being witnessed.  A flasher's only goal is to be witnessed.

But in the context of a hotel room after the bars closed, between consenting adults, whipping out your junk is not the same as flashing a kid on a playground.  If two consenting adults are going to have sex, they probably have to expose themselves first and some fraction of the time this will mean taking off your own clothes instead of letting the other person do it for you.  I can imagine a (still creepy and inappropriate) situation in which a drunk Louis CK assumes that the drunk woman he has in his room is a groupie who is desperate to bang, like the one last week and the one the week before.  He starts getting naked and fondling himself, not realizing that the woman has no interest in him, partly because she hasn't said so yet but mostly because he's a clueless moron who naturally assumes every woman wants to bang him.  She freaks.  He gets charged with indecent exposure.  He's still totally at fault and she rightfully feels victimized.  He's not a pedo or a flasher, he's just an asshole and a creep.

I don't claim to have any special knowledge of what actually happened in these situations, and like I said above the fact that this apparently happened with Louis CK with some regularity suggests dude is a genuine creep show and not just a clueless and awkward drunk with an oversized sense of entitlement.  I'm just pointing out that the flasher analogy isn't necessarily apt.  Maybe he's a flasher who gets off on shocking and offending women?  Not necessarily, in this case.  It's only been a few hours since this story broke, let's give the man a chance to set himself straight and update his initial response.

I don't know if debating the context of his offenses is useful, but my flasher comparison is, upon review, pretty on the mark. At least two women were on the job or in a business/work environment.  I didn't read any account similar to what you've assumed.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #71 on: November 10, 2017, 09:44:15 PM »
The very reason why victims don't call out perpeperpetrators at the time is because of the mentality that they handled their abuse wrong. What they did or didn't do is highly scrutinised and criticized. But the abuser, the power player gets a few more swipes at their dignity, privacy, sexuality, and humanity.  They also usually get the long game in court, notoriety, and clout. Because the victims life will just plain fucking suck if they do anything.  It's an impossibly high price to pay. 

I agree these are complicated problems.  Victims face tough choices. 

I would also argue that male victims have it even tougher.  What's a dude to do when a woman sexually assaults him?  He has all of the same problems a female victim has, plus the social expectation that men aren't supposed to object when a woman makes lewd and suggestive comments, exposes themselves, or grabs his crotch. 

And to complicate this issue even further, while men are the overwhelming percentage of perpetrators of sexual assault, they are also roughly half of the victims due to the incredibly high incidence of male on male sexual assault in prison populations.  In that environment, coming forward as a victim is even harder.  You think these women on CNN have it tough?  Imagine if you were confined to prison with your rapist, and forced to live and eat and shower together.  Maybe even share a cell.

Quote
The answer is not demanding that price or more from the victim.

As an honest question from someone who recognizes your legitimate concerns, what IS the answer?  Let's talk about possible solutions for a change, in addition to addressing the bad behavior of perpetrators.  We can certainly continue to try, but I'm not sure we'll ever 100% stamp out perps, so what else can we do?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #72 on: November 10, 2017, 09:51:58 PM »
If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

I think there absolutely is an innocent scenario where you end up drunk at someone else's place late at night, and that's because I have personally ended up drunk at (even coworkers) places late at night with no intention of having sex.  Because those coworkers were male, and sex just wasn't on my mind. 

And in a world of gender equality, that should be possible at a woman's house as easily as at a man's house, right?  If you have a professional and completely non-sexual relationship?  Is there ALWAYS a presumption of sexual possibilities if you're of opposite genders?  What if one or both of you are gay?

Like if I was drunk at my coworkers house at 2am, half conscious on the sofa in his living room, and he tried to kiss me...  I would be shocked and surprised, but I would probably tell him to F off and he would be embarrassed and leave me alone.  It wouldn't matter if he was my boss or my subordinate.  I have no sexual interest in him, he now knows that, no hard feelings.  I wouldn't feel assaulted.  I wouldn't allege rape, and I wouldn't consent to it under any circumstances including fear for my job.  It would be an unfortunate and embarrassing story and we'd both move on and try to forget about it. 

Now flip the genders back.  If that happened on a female coworkers couch, does the narrative change?  What if I'm a female on a male coworkers couch?  Because that last one, I think, has a much higher chance of ending someone's career over sexual assault charges.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #73 on: November 10, 2017, 09:54:27 PM »
Kris, if your boss invites you up to his room after an out-of-town conference, do you go? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If he asks if he can jack off do you say yes or do you say no?

If you feel forced to say yes to either of those things, on the sole premise that he is your boss, then you have made an error. He's not right to ask (without making it abundantly clear that you can say no), but it doesn't mean you're not partially at fault by saying yes when you actually mean no. you have to be responsible for your actions the same way Louie does.

Holy bananas!  You really need some serious training about workplace sexual harassment -- which applies not only in the office, but happy hour after work, on business trips, etc.  Because, yes, what you just described above is a boss acting illegally and the subordinate getting victimized.  This is black letter law in the United States.  I stand with Kris (and the others who have supported her here).

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #74 on: November 10, 2017, 09:56:18 PM »
The very reason why victims don't call out perpeperpetrators at the time is because of the mentality that they handled their abuse wrong. What they did or didn't do is highly scrutinised and criticized. But the abuser, the power player gets a few more swipes at their dignity, privacy, sexuality, and humanity.  They also usually get the long game in court, notoriety, and clout. Because the victims life will just plain fucking suck if they do anything.  It's an impossibly high price to pay. 

I agree these are complicated problems.  Victims face tough choices. 

I would also argue that male victims have it even tougher.  What's a dude to do when a woman sexually assaults him?  He has all of the same problems a female victim has, plus the social expectation that men aren't supposed to object when a woman makes lewd and suggestive comments, exposes themselves, or grabs his crotch. 

And to complicate this issue even further, while men are the overwhelming percentage of perpetrators of sexual assault, they are also roughly half of the victims due to the incredibly high incidence of male on male sexual assault in prison populations.  In that environment, coming forward as a victim is even harder.  You think these women on CNN have it tough?  Imagine if you were confined to prison with your rapist, and forced to live and eat and shower together.  Maybe even share a cell.

Quote
The answer is not demanding that price or more from the victim.

As an honest question from someone who recognizes your legitimate concerns, what IS the answer?  Let's talk about possible solutions for a change, in addition to addressing the bad behavior of perpetrators.  We can certainly continue to try, but I'm not sure we'll ever 100% stamp out perps, so what else can we do?

I know more about prison rape and male on male abuse than I care to discuss here.  Men are much more likely to be abused by another male than a women. And it's fucking devastating.  The prison scenerio is a whole nuther ball of wax that needs its own thread(s). This debate/scandal is clearly not just about female victims. But this particular thread is.

The first thing we need to do is stop assuming how someone should act when they are victimized and judge them on that. Which has happened here. Not by you necessarily. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #75 on: November 10, 2017, 10:03:11 PM »
Kris, if your boss invites you up to his room after an out-of-town conference, do you go? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If he asks if he can jack off do you say yes or do you say no?

Holy bananas!  You really need some serious training about workplace sexual harassment

Agreed.  If my boss asked me if he could jack off in front of me, it really doesn't matter if I say yes or no.  The deed is done, dude is totally getting fired if I want him to get fired.

But what if I don't want him to get fired?  What if I'm a raging twink who thinks my boss is super hot, and I say "Yea big boy, do it!"  forumname's point here is that consent absolutely matters, and things that are clearly illegal without consent can also be totally normal and acceptable, with consent. 

Think back to the last time you had sex with your partner.  Imagine how quickly you would go to jail if he/she had been a stranger who had not given consent.  The normal course of sexual interaction involves doing things that require ongoing and enthusiastic consent, or are else horribly immoral.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #76 on: November 10, 2017, 10:11:31 PM »
If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

I think there absolutely is an innocent scenario where you end up drunk at someone else's place late at night, and that's because I have personally ended up drunk at (even coworkers) places late at night with no intention of having sex.  Because those coworkers were male, and sex just wasn't on my mind. 

And in a world of gender equality, that should be possible at a woman's house as easily as at a man's house, right?  If you have a professional and completely non-sexual relationship?  Is there ALWAYS a presumption of sexual possibilities if you're of opposite genders?  What if one or both of you are gay?

I've always suspected that people are out to have sex with me if they're getting me drunk and taking me back to their place.  Upon closer inspection, I may have an over-inflated sense of my own sexual attractiveness.  Sure, I've stayed over at co-workers houses after drinking before . . . but never before I knew them really, really well.

Like if I was drunk at my coworkers house at 2am, half conscious on the sofa in his living room, and he tried to kiss me...  I would be shocked and surprised, but I would probably tell him to F off and he would be embarrassed and leave me alone.  It wouldn't matter if he was my boss or my subordinate.  I have no sexual interest in him, he now knows that, no hard feelings.  I wouldn't feel assaulted.  I wouldn't allege rape, and I wouldn't consent to it under any circumstances including fear for my job.  It would be an unfortunate and embarrassing story and we'd both move on and try to forget about it.

Yeah, this sounds 100% accurate to what I'd expect.

Now flip the genders back.  If that happened on a female coworkers couch, does the narrative change?  What if I'm a female on a male coworkers couch?  Because that last one, I think, has a much higher chance of ending someone's career over sexual assault charges.

That also sounds accurate.  Which kinda makes it seem like there is an expectation that women can't be trusted to give clear signals in sexual situations, and that the onus is therefore always on the man.  Kinda a modern extension of the door holding inequality that was remarked on earlier.  But I'm not sure that the expectation is wrong or should be changed given the problems that women face regarding sexual assault on a regular basis.

jezebel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #77 on: November 10, 2017, 10:21:46 PM »
Kris, if your boss invites you up to his room after an out-of-town conference, do you go? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. If he asks if he can jack off do you say yes or do you say no?

Holy bananas!  You really need some serious training about workplace sexual harassment

Agreed.  If my boss asked me if he could jack off in front of me, it really doesn't matter if I say yes or no.  The deed is done, dude is totally getting fired if I want him to get fired.

But what if I don't want him to get fired?  What if I'm a raging twink who thinks my boss is super hot, and I say "Yea big boy, do it!"  forumname's point here is that consent absolutely matters, and things that are clearly illegal without consent can also be totally normal and acceptable, with consent. 

Think back to the last time you had sex with your partner.  Imagine how quickly you would go to jail if he/she had been a stranger who had not given consent.  The normal course of sexual interaction involves doing things that require ongoing and enthusiastic consent, or are else horribly immoral.

Illegal sex acts are not illegal because it's your boss, necessarily.  It's also not necessarily legal because you have actual consent. 

And although your boss might get fired due to sexual misconduct, there are so many women, and men, for whom that is not true. Their word against his or her boss's word usually means nothing unless there is a witness, which is highly unlikely.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #78 on: November 10, 2017, 10:25:00 PM »
Which kinda makes it seem like there is an expectation that women can't be trusted to give clear signals in sexual situations, and that the onus is therefore always on the man.  Kinda a modern extension of the door holding inequality that was remarked on earlier.  But I'm not sure that the expectation is wrong or should be changed given the problems that women face regarding sexual assault on a regular basis.

This is why everyone now advocates for "enthusiastic consent".  It places the onus on the more passive partner, and removes any doubt.  It also means, if properly implemented, that lots of people who wanted to have sex aren't going to have sex, because they weren't affirmative enough about it.  Some people prefer to get laid while making as little sound and movement as possible, unfortunately.

And when I say "everyone" now advocates for enthusiastic consent, I don't include people like forumname123, who on page one of this thread ridiculed the idea.  It's not a euphemism, it's a criteria!  It's for your own protection!  It's more fun anyway!

Imagine if we required enthusiastic consent for pulling out chairs.  If she says "Yes!  pull out that chair hard and fast!" then I'm happy to pull out the chair.  Otherwise, anything less than that and I'll assume she's not really interested in having her chair pulled out, and if she's upset that I didn't pull it out for her, well then that's her fault for not being more enthusiastic about the idea.  Everyone wins if we all communicate our desires clearly. 

Obligatory youtube link to consent and tea:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 10:30:32 PM by sol »

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #79 on: November 10, 2017, 10:30:03 PM »
I will be sure to get signature confirmation of enthusiastic consent from today forward, lest I become a rapist.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #80 on: November 10, 2017, 10:37:41 PM »
So are people in positions of power just not allowed to have sex with people of lower status at all? Is Louie forbidden from having sex with any of his peers because he's successful? If asking permission isn't enough, what else is there?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #81 on: November 10, 2017, 10:40:10 PM »
So are people in positions of power just not allowed to have sex with people of lower status at all? Is Louie forbidden from having sex with any of his peers because he's successful? If asking permission isn't enough, what else is there?

That's kinda what I was originally thinking, but Sol has made a good point that answers this question.  They are allowed to have sex, but need enthusiastic consent.  Not shocked silence and tears.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2017, 10:47:10 PM »
What I hate the most about this is that it blurs the line between actual predatory, rapist acts, and just borderline unacceptable social behavior.

Yes, asking a girl if you can whip it out might be weird to some of us, but like sol points out, it's actually quite normal if the context is right. It is nowhere near the same ballpark as some of the other acts/crimes people have compared it to.

Asking a question when it might be inappropriate isn't really that big of a deal to me (nor to a couple of other women I've talked to about it), so the people acting as if I'm some kind of monster need to chill out. From what I've heard so far, Louie was pretty passive with this stuff, so it's just not fair to label him as a predator. If it's a "suck my dick or you're fired" scenario, that's completely different. But "hey, I get the sense that you might be into it, so can I show you my dick?" - why is that so horrible? Just say no. Yes, we need to teach boys to get proper consent, but we also seemingly have generations of women who don't think they can say no when they can, and that needs to be addressed as well.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #83 on: November 10, 2017, 10:48:20 PM »
So are people in positions of power just not allowed to have sex with people of lower status at all? Is Louie forbidden from having sex with any of his peers because he's successful? If asking permission isn't enough, what else is there?

Like everything related to human romantic relationships, the key is to establish a clear answer before you ask the question.  By the time you ask a woman out on a date, you should be pretty sure she's eager to say yes.  By the time you take off your clothes, you should be pretty sure she's about to remove them for you if you don't.  Humans are very good at using nonverbal clues and subtle hints to ascertain each other's intentions. 

The problem with rich and famous people (and PUAs) is that they tend to skip all of that, and just come right out and ask.  Lots of people, often.  Because they know that some people will say yes anyway, and they're prepared to brush off the negative consequences if someone says no.

If you go down to your local watering hole tonight and start asking women if they want to go back to your place, at least twenty or thirty are going to say no and some of them are going to be offended.  But eventually, you'll find someone looking for a quickie, or on the rebound, or who has a crush on someone who looks just like you, or for whatever reason says yes.  Not just doesn't say no, but who actually wants to say yes.  That still doesn't mean you're not a creep for asking so many people indiscriminately, but at least you're legally in the clear.

Now imagine you went to your workplace and asked all of the women below you on the org chart.  Now you're definitely a creeper, and also a sexual harasser because of the environment in which you creeped.  Just asking the question is inappropriate, in some settings, regardless of the answers you might get.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 11:37:15 PM by sol »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #84 on: November 10, 2017, 10:50:59 PM »
"hey, I get the sense that you might be into it, so can I show you my dick?"

No.  No and no.  Do not show anyone your dick.  Do not take pictures of your dick, either for your own use or to send to anyone.  If you're going to have sex with someone, I generally recommend concealing your dick until the last possible moment.  Trust me, if she wants to see your dick she'll make it abundantly clear to you that she wants to see your dick.

Obligatory PSA from Samantha Bee:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeWpX-ypSls
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 11:36:40 PM by sol »

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2017, 10:52:17 PM »
So are people in positions of power just not allowed to have sex with people of lower status at all? Is Louie forbidden from having sex with any of his peers because he's successful? If asking permission isn't enough, what else is there?

Like everything related to human romantic relationships, the key is to establish a clear answer before you ask the question.  By the time you ask a woman out on a date, you should be pretty sure she's eager to say yes.  By the time you take off your clothes, you should be pretty sure she's about to remove them for you if you don't.  Humans are very good at using nonverbal clues and subtle hints to ascertain each other's intentions. 

The problem with rich and famous people (and PUAs) is that they tend to skip all of that, and just come right out and ask.  Lots of people, often.  Because they know that some people will say yes anyway, and they're prepared to brush off the negative consequences if someone says no.

If you go down to your local watering hole tonight and start asking women if they want to go back to your place, at least twenty or thirty are going to say no and some of them are going to be offended.  But eventually, you'll find someone looking for a quickie, or on the rebound, or who has a crush on someone who looks just like you, or for whatever reason says yes.  Not just doesn't say no, but who actually wants to say yes.  That still doesn't mean you're not a creep for asking so many people indiscriminately, but at least your legally in the clear.

Now imagine you went to your workplace and asked all of the women below you on the org chart.  Now you're definitely a creeper, and also a sexual harasser because of the environment in which you creeped.  Just asking the question is inappropriate, in some settings, regardless of the answers you might get.

I completely disagree. Sure, it's nice when you know, but you shouldn't HAVE to know. The other person is a person too and we should respect them enough to think that they have enough agency to make a choice.

What's wrong with throwing a dart to see if the other person might be up for it? They have every right to say no, and the asker should respect that!

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #86 on: November 10, 2017, 10:55:00 PM »
The other person is a person too and we should respect them enough to think that they have enough agency to make a choice.

As has already been pointed out to you, exposing yourself to an unwilling participant is flashing and is a legal crime.  You will go to jail, or if I catch you around my daughters I will cause you bodily harm.  You are not "respecting" anyone by jerking off under a trenchcoat on a playground.  Nobody has "agency" when you expose yourself to them.  Just don't.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2017, 10:57:50 PM »
The other person is a person too and we should respect them enough to think that they have enough agency to make a choice.

As has already been pointed out to you, exposing yourself to an unwilling participant is flashing and is a legal crime.  You will go to jail, or if I catch you around my daughters I will cause you bodily harm.  You are not "respecting" anyone by jerking off under a trenchcoat on a playground.  Nobody has "agency" when you expose yourself to them.  Just don't.

If you ask first and get verbal permission, it should not be considered flashing! I never condoned anything without asking...

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4396
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #88 on: November 10, 2017, 10:58:01 PM »
Some of the complaints though come about after being invited up to a private hotel room by someone of the opposite sex - post drinks and when the bars have all closed.  That is not the same as being at a place of work.

This is the exact same script that Harvey Weinstein used, too.  He invited adults to his room, and then made awkward advances.  If they said no, they left and nothing happened.  Some of them, though, felt pressured to say yes because of his stature in the industry, and that's why his career is over.  He didn't have to do anything at all except ask an adult woman if she wanted to have sex.  That's inappropriate, if there's a perceived power dynamic at play.

I guess this is the point that I personally keep tripping over.  I get how leering at a female colleague and asking her for sex while you're both at the office is ridiculously wrong.

If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

Don't get me wrong, absolutely 100% it's not OK in that scenario for the powerful person to force any kind of sex/sex act . . . but is asking about it at that point really so inappropriate (and unexpected) as it's being made out to be?
Yes, it is.  Both my husband and I go to conferences and it is expected of people to share hotel rooms.  He has shared with his boss.  If his boss thought this behavior was ok because of them sharing a room, it would be completely unprofessional and sexual harassment.  And guess what, until my year in grad school women were expected to share a room with their male boss all across the college (or male coworker). Until I make a huge fuss about it AND another student got a student expelled for continued sexual harassment.  It required two women, separately being so bothered to risk our careers to get this even considered.  And yes, it was a career ender at the college for both of us, we both Mastered out. 

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #89 on: November 10, 2017, 11:02:12 PM »
Some of the complaints though come about after being invited up to a private hotel room by someone of the opposite sex - post drinks and when the bars have all closed.  That is not the same as being at a place of work.

This is the exact same script that Harvey Weinstein used, too.  He invited adults to his room, and then made awkward advances.  If they said no, they left and nothing happened.  Some of them, though, felt pressured to say yes because of his stature in the industry, and that's why his career is over.  He didn't have to do anything at all except ask an adult woman if she wanted to have sex.  That's inappropriate, if there's a perceived power dynamic at play.

I guess this is the point that I personally keep tripping over.  I get how leering at a female colleague and asking her for sex while you're both at the office is ridiculously wrong.

If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

Don't get me wrong, absolutely 100% it's not OK in that scenario for the powerful person to force any kind of sex/sex act . . . but is asking about it at that point really so inappropriate (and unexpected) as it's being made out to be?
Yes, it is.  Both my husband and I go to conferences and it is expected of people to share hotel rooms.  He has shared with his boss.  If his boss thought this behavior was ok because of them sharing a room, it would be completely unprofessional and sexual harassment.  And guess what, until my year in grad school women were expected to share a room with their male boss all across the college (or male coworker). Until I make a huge fuss about it AND another student got a student expelled for continued sexual harassment.  It required two women, separately being so bothered to risk our careers to get this even considered.  And yes, it was a career ender at the college for both of us, we both Mastered out.

Okay, then I guess we should enact a "no sex with peers, coworkers or employees" law, because apparently asking is just downright inappropriate.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #90 on: November 10, 2017, 11:13:38 PM »
apparently asking is just downright inappropriate.

I again refer you to post #83 above, in which I explained that there are some circumstances, like a workplace, where yes even just asking is downright inappropriate. 

Can you think of any others?  How about the girl's softball team you coach on weekends.  Yes, inappropriate.  A first grade classroom.  Inappropriate.  The person you've hired to work in your home.  Inappropriate.  Your family reunion.  Your client, if you're a lawyer.  Your sexaholics weekly support meeting.  This is not a hard list to make!  Yes, there are absolutely circumstances where even "asking" is inappropriate, and I think you already knew that and were ignoring the obvious answer.

Your workplace is one of those cases.  Do not ask your coworkers if they want to have sex with you.  That's called sexual harassment, and your HR people really hate it when you do that.

forumname123

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #91 on: November 10, 2017, 11:13:48 PM »
And to the "enthusiastic consent" crowd, you're not solving any problems; you're only moving the goalposts. Any woman who would feel obligated to "consent" under fear of consequence would surely also "enthusiastically consent" in the same situation.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4396
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #92 on: November 10, 2017, 11:14:42 PM »
Some of the complaints though come about after being invited up to a private hotel room by someone of the opposite sex - post drinks and when the bars have all closed.  That is not the same as being at a place of work.

This is the exact same script that Harvey Weinstein used, too.  He invited adults to his room, and then made awkward advances.  If they said no, they left and nothing happened.  Some of them, though, felt pressured to say yes because of his stature in the industry, and that's why his career is over.  He didn't have to do anything at all except ask an adult woman if she wanted to have sex.  That's inappropriate, if there's a perceived power dynamic at play.

I guess this is the point that I personally keep tripping over.  I get how leering at a female colleague and asking her for sex while you're both at the office is ridiculously wrong.

If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

Don't get me wrong, absolutely 100% it's not OK in that scenario for the powerful person to force any kind of sex/sex act . . . but is asking about it at that point really so inappropriate (and unexpected) as it's being made out to be?
Yes, it is.  Both my husband and I go to conferences and it is expected of people to share hotel rooms.  He has shared with his boss.  If his boss thought this behavior was ok because of them sharing a room, it would be completely unprofessional and sexual harassment.  And guess what, until my year in grad school women were expected to share a room with their male boss all across the college (or male coworker). Until I make a huge fuss about it AND another student got a student expelled for continued sexual harassment.  It required two women, separately being so bothered to risk our careers to get this even considered.  And yes, it was a career ender at the college for both of us, we both Mastered out.

Okay, then I guess we should enact a "no sex with peers, coworkers or employees" law, because apparently asking is just downright inappropriate.
Most employers have that has a rule, so they don't get hit with sexual harassment lawsuits.  The problem is, as women keep telling you (and the other men on here), that when women speak up, they often lose their jobs.  I literally laughed when I saw Sol's statement about if a male boss asked about taking out his dick, the boss would be fired if Sol wanted.  Not in this society.  What would happen, in most companies is the woman would be assumed to be lying, that she was bring a troublemaker and the company would attempt to get her to quit, be laid off (so they can pretend it was not retaliation) or fired if they think the woman won't have the ability or knowledge to sue (or lack of proof because in a he said, she said situation, she is rarely considered more trustworthy).  This is the reality you men don't see or don't want to see.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5555
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #93 on: November 10, 2017, 11:19:52 PM »
And to the "enthusiastic consent" crowd, you're not solving any problems; you're only moving the goalposts.

You're missing the point.  The "enthusiastic consent" rule is designed to prevent cases of forced sexual contact where a person does not want it, but can't object.  Are they too drunk/drugged?  Are they only semi-conscious?  Did they say yes, and then change their mind halfway through?  If you have sex with someone under any of those circumstances, you can be convicted of rape because you failed to get enthusiastic and ongoing consent. 

A person who does not say no has not said yes.  You need a yes.  Not a "well, I guess maybe" or "I'm not sure" or "is this really a good idea" because all of those are not "yes", and you will be a rapist.

Are you a rapist?

Seriously, take two minutes of your life and watch the consent and tea video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #94 on: November 10, 2017, 11:23:20 PM »
As a woman, it's great that sexual harassment is starting to become socially unacceptable with real consequences. Just starting, but hey, gotta start somewhere.

Other things that it would be great to address:
-Calling women "honey", "sweetie", "sugar", "lovey", "kitten", or any of the dozens of other terms that men use, sometimes unthinkingly, without the clear permission of the woman. Unless you're allowed to sleep in my bed, use my NAME. Anything else is sexist.
-Catcalling women in public.
-Assuming that just because a woman is smiling or being friendly that she must be into you.
-Thinking that if a woman doesn't scream "no" that she must actually want it. Also goes with saying "no" but really meaning "yes".
-Blaming women for the bad behavior of men.
-Holding up foot traffic by insisting that women go first. Also insisting on opening doors when it was the woman who got there first. Don't even THINK about running to get ahead of a woman just to open the door.
-Paying women less for the same work.
-Assuming that women are incapable of doing something simply because they are women.
-Women doing most of the housework, childcare, and general household management while men don't. This is getting better, but we're not to equality yet.
-Unspoken assumptions or prejudices that women can't do "men's work". Things like plumbing, electrical, construction, being a doctor instead of a nurse, pilots, etc.
-Denying women appropriate health care and the right to make decisions about her body, without anyone else's moral judgement.
-Attitudes that women belong in the house caring for children.

There's more of course. But for anyone who doesn't get this - the inferiority of women has literally been baked into Western culture over thousands of years. I can't speak for non-Western cultures, but I would be very surprised if they were any different. Pretty much everything you've ever been told about how people should be behave is probably unequal.

You know, I actually have a lot of sympathy for thoughtful men, trying to navigate things. I find it kind of amazing that you are listing something that, until very recently, was drilled into well-mannered boys' heads as POLITE and a sign of proper upbringing, and classifying it alongside actual assault.   Let's get some perspective here.

I mean, my husband is a young boomer age dude, who would not think of doing anything else on your list.  But he struggles with the 'open door for the lady/walk on the traffic side/assist with unwieldy packages/stand when an un-introduced woman enters the room'.  Not because he's so desperate to do those things (he understands the cultural assumptions of patriarchy and sexism that might have contributed to development of some of these customs), but because years of early conditioning trained him to think he was an asshole if he did NOT do those things.  So now, he has to second guess every one of those impulses that were drilled in when he was young, and wonder if he's an asshole no matter what he does. 

It bums me out.  I've had some bad experiences with men over the years...tons of gross and inappropriate comments, a minor technical assault against me which was definitely technically pedophilia, flashers, callers, cat-calls.  Thankfully nothing worse.  So it's not like I've been sheltered or don't see or believe this stuff happens and we should try to acknowledge and prevent it.  But it is really asking a lot for every person to consciously check and examine every impulse, sexual or friendly or old fashioned or whatever, under every single circumstance conceivable.  I think we've got to get some perspective, I'm just not sure where the line should be drawn.

I agree, it's hard. But if we did a little bit more than we are (and trust me, there are plenty of people who think they are thinking about this stuff and really aren't), then it would help. And it would be gradual process to improve things.

Basically, try to be considerate of everyone, regardless of male or female. And yes, I know that there are people or areas where not doing the "polite" stuff will get you yelled at. Those also seem to be the people and areas that I find more problematic with how they treat women in general. It's the casual stuff that sometimes has the most widespread impact.

Side note: Historically, chivalrous behavior was part of an ideal in which women were tightly controlled by men. Keeping chivalrous behavior around, even in small pieces, seems incompatible with real equality for men and women.

I know all this, and I agree.  This is a product of the Judeo-Christian, western European socio-cultural 'bathwater' we are steeped in, which is inherently kind of patriarchal and sexist.  My concern is that, by lumping this type of societal 'lag' in with something like actual sexual assault, we're going to paralyze ourselves from making effective socio-cultural moves toward preventing the kind of behavior that is more physically or psychologically damaging. 

The thing is, nearly every person has to deal with unpleasant social interactions in life.  Social dynamics are often about a struggle for status or to fit in.  That is probably never going to change because of our biological wiring. And the result is, we don't get to feel good or empowered in all our social interactions all the time. Harassment, bullying, outright abuse, etc., we all deal with it, men as well as women.  And I would argue, some of it is a necessary part of learning social dynamics.  But societal norms have changed over time and continue to change.  We're currently struggling with changing societal goal posts about what we deem acceptable behavior.  This is a valid debate, but I'm just not interested in spending a lot of energy making well-meaning or oblivious people feel actively crappy about culturally ingrained, subtextually sexist behavior when there are much bigger battles to fight. Also, it is likely to lead to a major backlash (to some degree, I think it already has...see Trump). I feel like we should walk before we try to run, as it were.

It might just be me, but I'm just not as upset by men running to open the door for me as by the 50+ year old dude who tried to pick me up as a first-timer for his teenage son when I was 14. Or the flasher who scared me in the public bathroom when I was 7. Or the guy who tricked me into putting my hand on his erection when I was about 8 and he was a teenager.  Those were kind of crappy incidents, but honestly? I don't really have any trauma associated with them.  Honestly, I was far more upset by being verbally bullied all during grade school by other girls my age.  Now THAT affected some parts of my social development.  That sucked a lot more than anything any guy ever did or said to me. But I got over it. Others have different experiences.  Bottom line is, people are good at making other people feel dis-empowered and shitty, and I've felt that way plenty of times. Occasionally, to my shame, I've made OTHER people feel that way.  So I agree that we should try to treat each other as people first, and we should try to shift society away from making people feel bad for reasons of sex, skin color orientation, or any of the jillions of reasons people use to jostle for status.  However, it's hard to deny that Shitty Social Interactions exist on a broad continuum. Personally, I've been lucky to never have  been actually physically hurt or severely disturbed.  And I'd prefer to reserve my energy and outrage to fight against those types of incidents.  But  I dunno. Everyone is certainly different, and I've never followed 'norms'. For all I know,  the majority of women really DO feel oppressed by cultural conditioning that implies they can't open their own doors or carry heavy bags or whatever, and equate it with other more aggressive forms of assault and misogyny.  It sure doesn't seem equivalent to me, though. 
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 11:35:08 PM by wenchsenior »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #95 on: November 10, 2017, 11:29:20 PM »
Which kinda makes it seem like there is an expectation that women can't be trusted to give clear signals in sexual situations, and that the onus is therefore always on the man.  Kinda a modern extension of the door holding inequality that was remarked on earlier.  But I'm not sure that the expectation is wrong or should be changed given the problems that women face regarding sexual assault on a regular basis.

This is why everyone now advocates for "enthusiastic consent".  It places the onus on the more passive partner, and removes any doubt.  It also means, if properly implemented, that lots of people who wanted to have sex aren't going to have sex, because they weren't affirmative enough about it.  Some people prefer to get laid while making as little sound and movement as possible, unfortunately.

And when I say "everyone" now advocates for enthusiastic consent, I don't include people like forumname123, who on page one of this thread ridiculed the idea.  It's not a euphemism, it's a criteria!  It's for your own protection!  It's more fun anyway!

Imagine if we required enthusiastic consent for pulling out chairs.  If she says "Yes!  pull out that chair hard and fast!" then I'm happy to pull out the chair.  Otherwise, anything less than that and I'll assume she's not really interested in having her chair pulled out, and if she's upset that I didn't pull it out for her, well then that's her fault for not being more enthusiastic about the idea.  Everyone wins if we all communicate our desires clearly. 

Obligatory youtube link to consent and tea:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

Sol, you rarely fail to brighten up my day.  Now, how about you pull out my chair?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #96 on: November 11, 2017, 07:15:23 AM »
That is fucking pathetic, dude.

Let's try to keep this civil, Kris. 


Sorry, when someone makes an ad hominem attack against me, I reserve the right to call it pathetic.

If I had been engaging in the same level of ridiculousness, I would have called him pathetic.

But I did not.

So, I stand by what I said.

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

HandleBarred

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #97 on: November 11, 2017, 08:17:52 AM »
These women were not directly employed under Louie after-all, so there is at least some distinction between the employer/employee relationship some are making it out to be.

One of the women was employed by Louis, or at least working on a show he was producing. She agreed under real or perceived threat to her job/career.

One of the women turned him down.

Two of the women thought he was joking, and possibly agreed under that context ("Ha! Sure, go right ahead.... Wuuut?!?")

One of the women called him and heard him masturbating over the phone.

I think it's interesting that in his statement he says he asked them, but he never says that they said yes, or agreed, he just kinda glosses over that part, and other people are too (not necessarily here). He says their stories are true, but still tries to minimises or downplay what actually happened in the statement. If you hadn't read the original article it might not seem as bad as it was.

I think his statement is a really well writted cop out that really minimises what he does and is designed to allow other people to minimise it to.

And the guy really wants people to know he was admired, huh.


Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #98 on: November 11, 2017, 08:18:59 AM »
As a woman, it's great that sexual harassment is starting to become socially unacceptable with real consequences. Just starting, but hey, gotta start somewhere.

Other things that it would be great to address:
-Calling women "honey", "sweetie", "sugar", "lovey", "kitten", or any of the dozens of other terms that men use, sometimes unthinkingly, without the clear permission of the woman. Unless you're allowed to sleep in my bed, use my NAME. Anything else is sexist.
-Catcalling women in public.
-Assuming that just because a woman is smiling or being friendly that she must be into you.
-Thinking that if a woman doesn't scream "no" that she must actually want it. Also goes with saying "no" but really meaning "yes".
-Blaming women for the bad behavior of men.
-Holding up foot traffic by insisting that women go first. Also insisting on opening doors when it was the woman who got there first. Don't even THINK about running to get ahead of a woman just to open the door.
-Paying women less for the same work.
-Assuming that women are incapable of doing something simply because they are women.
-Women doing most of the housework, childcare, and general household management while men don't. This is getting better, but we're not to equality yet.
-Unspoken assumptions or prejudices that women can't do "men's work". Things like plumbing, electrical, construction, being a doctor instead of a nurse, pilots, etc.
-Denying women appropriate health care and the right to make decisions about her body, without anyone else's moral judgement.
-Attitudes that women belong in the house caring for children.

There's more of course. But for anyone who doesn't get this - the inferiority of women has literally been baked into Western culture over thousands of years. I can't speak for non-Western cultures, but I would be very surprised if they were any different. Pretty much everything you've ever been told about how people should be behave is probably unequal.

You know, I actually have a lot of sympathy for thoughtful men, trying to navigate things. I find it kind of amazing that you are listing something that, until very recently, was drilled into well-mannered boys' heads as POLITE and a sign of proper upbringing, and classifying it alongside actual assault.   Let's get some perspective here.

I mean, my husband is a young boomer age dude, who would not think of doing anything else on your list.  But he struggles with the 'open door for the lady/walk on the traffic side/assist with unwieldy packages/stand when an un-introduced woman enters the room'.  Not because he's so desperate to do those things (he understands the cultural assumptions of patriarchy and sexism that might have contributed to development of some of these customs), but because years of early conditioning trained him to think he was an asshole if he did NOT do those things.  So now, he has to second guess every one of those impulses that were drilled in when he was young, and wonder if he's an asshole no matter what he does. 

It bums me out.  I've had some bad experiences with men over the years...tons of gross and inappropriate comments, a minor technical assault against me which was definitely technically pedophilia, flashers, callers, cat-calls.  Thankfully nothing worse.  So it's not like I've been sheltered or don't see or believe this stuff happens and we should try to acknowledge and prevent it.  But it is really asking a lot for every person to consciously check and examine every impulse, sexual or friendly or old fashioned or whatever, under every single circumstance conceivable.  I think we've got to get some perspective, I'm just not sure where the line should be drawn.

Thanks wenchsenior.  I'm a Southern Male from Houston.  In the South, there is a pretty strong expectation that a man opens doors for women and pulls out a chair at a restaurant.  They reinforced this for me in my time in the Boy Scouts (can you make the gesture any more wholesome?)

I've run into a few situationa where I was being casually polite and some lady with an overdeveloped sense of women's liberation completely lost her shit on me.  (Who's being rude now?)  I now only do it as convenient so I guess militant women are "winners" on this point. 

FYI, we don't just open doors for women in the south.  Men carrying packages, especially elderly, and the physically impaired get an assist too.  Why does no one presume ill intent in those cases?
Achieve Financial Escape Velocity - Financial Velociraptor

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6651
  • Location: NYC
  • Cake or Death?
Re: Louis CK apologizes to everyone
« Reply #99 on: November 11, 2017, 08:46:18 AM »
FYI, we don't just open doors for women in the south.  Men carrying packages, especially elderly, and the physically impaired get an assist too.  Why does no one presume ill intent in those cases?

I have an overdeveloped sense of women's lib, but I don't get mad at people who do the culturally polite things. I do roll my eyes sometimes when I get stuck behind a dude blocking the elevator exit because he may be considered rude if he steps off first. Or when I would approach a glass door at work from the opposite side as a man. I would hold the door open, since it swung toward me. Men would almost always refuse to go through first, even if they were holding computers or coffee, and even though it would be so much simpler and faster if they did, because then I need to go through and reach behind me to hold it open at a more awkward angle.

But I get it. It's confusing. You never know how the other people in the vicinity are going to feel or think about you. It's a little damned if you do, damned if you don't. I wish I could wear a button that says "PLEASE DO THE MOST EFFICIENT ACTION REGARDLESS OF MY GENDER, I WON'T BE MAD." They don't make buttons that big, though.

Your above comment brings up one of the reasons some people care about this, though. The physically impaired, the elderly, men holding bulky packages, aaaand women. The first three, there's presumably a physical need. Why are all women grouped in this category? Why not just hold doors for people, period? I understand that there's a historical cultural thing here. Put that aside: why, logically, should these specific groups of people get an "assist"?