What, stand-up-comedy networking at shows typically happens in bars? What’s your basis for this claim?
I think the reason they went up there is unimportant, that’s why they omitted it. They may have gone up there because they enjoyed shooting the shit with him also, or maybe they went up there because they felt some sexual chemistry and wanted to see where things would go (not straight to naked dude masturbating), or maybe they went up there because they figured hey, free booze. The reason they went up there isn’t important.
I don’t mind if somebody chooses to follow such a rule, but it is not true that anybody who doesn’t follow it is implicitly issuing a sexual invitation by going to a private place with someone they don’t know.
Saying “Better not go to a stranger’s hotel room because they might be a creep” is one thing. Saying “If you go to a stranger’s hotel room then they have a right to expect that you’ll let them creep on you” is quite another.
If so, they’re free to complain about it to me or anybody else, and always have been. I certainly haven’t been encouraging my manager or entourage (ha!) to try to keep them from going public.
But it doesn’t point out that “there is more to the story”. There is nothing intrinsically flirty or naughty about two co-workers going to an unknown colleague’s hotel room for a drink when they’re all out of town for the same gig. So the fact that they went to his hotel room (which of course we knew all along ever since the story first broke) does not necessarily imply any hidden aspects to the story at all.
Not in the least. I’m just pointing out that they are free to tell me.
As it happens, though, nobody is complaining about my behavior, and several people are complaining about Louis CK’s. And he agrees that they’re telling the truth.
No, but it does mean there is likely more to the store. in fact the fact that they said “His intentions seemed collegial” directly implies that they had a longer conversation.
:dubious: Well, it’s true we have not been told every single word or gesture that formed part of this incident. It would probably make rather long reading.
What we have been told is that Louis CK suddenly propositioned two fellow comedians who thought he was joking and then masturbated in front of them, which they did not want and thought was inappropriate, and that they and other female comedians with similar experiences have been until recently discouraged from speaking publicly about it. Louis CK agrees that this is all true.
So, despite your continued insistence on your mysteriously divined alternative interpretation, ISTM that there really isn’t anything more to the story that we need to know in order to form a fairly accurate opinion about the events that took place.
It’s simple. the incident didn’t go how any of them though. No one was trying to hurt anyone. Both sides should have been more honest and outspoken. I was weird, move on. There are real predators out there, this instance was not one.
Where in any of this account are you seeing any accusation that anyone was “trying to hurt anyone”? AFAICT none of the female comedians in question claimed that Louis CK was actually trying to hurt them.
They’re simply saying that he behaved inappropriately to them.
Actually, none of what you wrote is true. No one said “suddenly” propositioned.
No one said he was told not to talk about it publicly (or that anyone was told not to for that matter)
No one said in any fashion that the girls indicated that they were not interested or that they were interested. In fact even when they talked about it after, they didn’t say it was unwanted.
The one other person that “accused him” that actually indicated they didn’t want it, he said “ok” and didn’t do it.