Lefty was neatly summarizing Karol’s argument.
I have to say, it’s an impressive failure of critical thinking. One of the most egregious I think I’ve ever seen on this board.
Ah. Mea Culpa.
Yes, this is clearly either an English 101 issue or deliberate misunderstanding, and I can’t see engaging either case as being anything but a waste of time. “No one used the literal phrase cover-up, therefore the actions people took to cover this up don’t count as a cover-up!” and “No one used the word wrong, therefore none of them think it was wrong even though they used a lot of synonyms for wrong” don’t lead to any interesting insights.
If he had asked if they would engage in something more conventional, and they did, this would never have been a story. The fact that it was something a bit unusual allows people to gloss over the facts and portray him as some crazy guy in a trench coat.
That’s all you can come up with? Really??
A 21 year old college student goes in to talk with her professor, a man 35 years her senior, boasting of several prestigious degrees from renowned universities. She is quite intimidated by his brilliance, and needs his help with the dense lectures he’s been giving. She knows she needs at least a B to maintain her scholarship, so she’s mustered the courage to come talk to him.
Alone in his office, explaining her fruitless efforts to study, and the importance of this class to her future, the student is interrupted by the guffawing of the learned Doctor.
“Why, you’re problem is that you’re too tense. A really invigorating orgasm would surely do the trick. I’d be happy to offer it, if you’re inclined. I am certain that it would do wonders for your grades. How about a go?”
Nothing inappropriate??
…
A woman in her 30s goes to see her doctor. She’s been blinded by really intense headaches that make it hard to even open her eyes. Sitting in the doctor’s small office, alone, she can’t even make eye contact, it hurts too bad. She’s really hoping that he’ll recommend a shot, or something, so she can head to the office and finally finish up that report she has due next week before getting home to have dinner with the husband and kids.
Instead, the Doctor, who is rubbing her temples while he looks down her throat, announces, “You know, there is a lot of homeopathic treatment these days that focuses on releasing tension. One of the best ways is through intercourse. The hormones it generates are natural pain killers. I know that you’ve previously discussed your husband’s lack of libido, so I’d be happy to stand in for him. We can fornicate right here. I won’t even charge you for the consult.”
Nothing wrong there, too, right?
I’m saying that by the standards people here are using against Louis CK, it was nonconsensual for the witnesses in the room who saw the guy get jerked. They did not give explicit consent, and they were at their workplace which renders consent invalid anyway. (And the fact that they stayed in the room, watched and laughed is not consent according to the people condemning Louis here. It’s exactly what the women in his hotel-room incident did.)
Do you know anything whatsoever about Howard Stern’s show? Because I can’t tell whether you’re deliberately drawing a false equivalence, or just don’t have all the information you need.
Really? What odd standards people have.
If I work on a porn movie, I can’t give consent, because I’m being paid?
Yes, usually sexualizing a workplace creates a hostile environment. But if the workplace is a sexualized environment (or, “bawdy”, if you prefer, to describe Stern’s show), then nobody gets to complain when people - at work - are exposed to the usual conditions of the workplace. It’s when the behavior is not part of the job, or an unexpected condition of doing a job that has nothing to do with that behavior, that makes it harassing.