…satisfied? I fully expect this will be the very next thing Louis CK will do. PR 101.
It doesn’t matter if this “satisfies me” or not. This has nothing to do with me. He needs to start by saying sorry to the women he harassed. If they choose to accept his apology then good on them. If they choose not to accept his apology then good on them as well. This isn’t about Louis CK, it isn’t about how much remorse he feels or how much regret he has or what he can or can’t wrap his head around. This is about the people he harassed. In the rush to accept this “public confession” as an apology we have already started to forget about the 5 (and probably more) women at the centre of this story. But it isn’t our job to grant Louis CK absolution.
Lets say you and I get on on elevator together to ride to the top floor of an office building. When the doors close, I say ‘you mind if I whip this out and masturbate in front of you?’ and then get to wanking it.
Would that be just inappropriate, or would it be a crime?
I don’t know if the allegations are true, but if they are…the behavior goes way past inappropriate and into criminal. It is no different, NO DIFFERENT, than a homeless guy exposing himself to my grandmother on a street corner.
My question has everything to do with you and your opinion, tho. I’m interested in knowing more about what you think than you’ve posted; that’s why I asked you a question. In your previous post you seemed to categorically reject what Louis CK wrote as a form of apology and you pointed to the lack of the phrase “I am sorry” as the primary reason for that rejection.
So I’m asking: if he recognized that error and then said he was sorry for his actions, would you find that be something that you would acknowledge was an apology?
Your post seems to indicate that no, you would not find that an adequate apology, as you equate it with “PR 101” and thus give the impression that you would find such a statement to be insincere; is that accurate?
Jesus. It’s always okay for people to come forward and tell their stories. Shame on you for saying otherwise. It’s never - I repeat, NEVER - wrong for victims, even victims of what you might feel to be minor misbehavior, to come forward and tell the truth.
Shame on you, and any others who attack these women in any way. All they did was tell the truth.
…I hate to have to inform you on this, but I’m not obligated to answer your question in the narrow way that you want me too. Its nice that you are interested in knowing more about the things that I’ve posted, which is why I answered your question in the way I felt appropriate, and if that wasn’t good enough for you then nothing I write will ever be good enough for you, so sorry in advance.
This isn’t about what satisfies me. It isn’t about what satisfies you. THAT IS MY POINT. This is about the people that Louis CK has admitted he harassed.
In my previous post I did categorically reject what Louis CK wrote as a form of apology. The lack of “I’m sorry” was not the primary reason for that rejection. If you want to know why I “reject” the apology, then I suggest you read what I wrote.
I’m well aware of what you are asking. I’ve answered your question: if my answer doesn’t satisfy you then I don’t really care.
My post said what it said, it needs no clarification.
Banquet Bear is a bit more, um, assertive than me, but I think the gist is that it doesn’t matter whether she thinks his apology is sincere or not. The ones with the real stake are the victims. I’m inclined to agree.
It also doesn’t matter if your favorite color is blue or purple or yellow, but I can still be interested in your opinion. My opinion on OJ Simpson didn’t matter during his trial back in the '90s, but I still had one.
And I think it’s largely bupkis, too. Our opinions matter, if only to each other. I doubt that anyone is going to be his fan in the future if they don’t think he apologized, unless they think the whole thing doesn’t matter to begin with. And posting here seems to indicate, to me, that this is meaningful in some way to those posting.
Sure, if any of us thinks what he wrote is an apology, it does nothing to assuage the feelings of those he hurt, but a public display of regret isn’t just between the two immediate parties any more than a wedding is.
And yes, I’d be interested to hear what the 5 (and any others) think of what Louis CK wrote.
…no you haven’t got it. How could you go back, read my posts for clarification, then come to this conclusion?
This isn’t about Louis CK. He doesn’t need to apologize to us. He doesn’t need to make a “sincere apology” to us. He needs to make a “sincere apology” to them. If they accept his apology as sincere, then so will I. But we aren’t in a position to judge his sincerity. I’ll leave that to the people he hurt.
Fair enough. When I read it aloud to my wife, she said pretty much the same thing. I feel no need to defend CK, even if we read the apology a bit differently. He made his bed and now he’s sleeping in it.
If you are unfamiliar with his writing style it does seem sincere. Problem is that he is well practiced in sounding sincere. I’m on his mailing list and all of his writing is like that. "Hey. I’ve made this video, you can buy it if you like, I don’t care. It’s only $5 and it’s no skin off my back if you don’t want it, but I spent all my money on it and am skipping the middle man so can enjoy it. Is it great? Maybe not the best thing I’ve ever done but it’s reasonably entertaining and I figured you might enjoy it, but what do I know. "
He might be genuinely sincere but it’s hard to tell since he presents everything in that old dog tone.
Speaking as a huge fan of Louis, I feel like his apology is pretty thoughtful and genuine, he always seems ready to accept his shortcomings as a human being, he’s never denied that he is a flawed individual. He should have spoken out when the accusations first arose, I think he was just scared to do that, he had children afterall and maybe it was selfish, but he probably didn’t want to bring that pain on them.
I guess you’d hope as a Father of two young girls he would have had more respect for women, I’ve sadly noticed that is usually not that case with fathers that have daughters, they would never tolerate a man treating their daughter the way those same people do, It is pretty hypocritical and common but I am hopeful and optimistic that maybe the tide is turning, however slowly.
I think he could eventually have a real career again and maybe he could even help out the women he victimized in their careers, I don’t know if people would think it just an act, or bullshit to do, maybe those female peers of his would appreciate such a chance or maybe they would not, sometimes if you can just accept what you’ve done, forgive yourself, and come clean there can be a silver lining.
I’m not sure if he’ll have a proper career. Mel Gibson still kind of has one. I predict Louis will be doing a lot of uncredited comedy writing for a while.
You are completely misrepresenting the situation. They were not trapped in an elevator nor were they in public on a street corner. They were in his own damn hotel room. It is not illegal to have sex or masturbate in a hotel room. He announced what he intended to do. The women were free to get up and leave at any time. They chose to stay, watch and laugh at him. You all are reducing adult women to the status of children incapable of making their own decisions.
Again, there is not the slightest chance in hell that anyone would consider it a crime or even misconduct if a woman did this. A woman invites two coworkers to her hotel room after drinks. She says she wants to masturbate in front of them, and they proceed to sit there and watch. There is no person on the planet who would consider the woman a sex predator. If anything, the guys would probably be attacked for “slut shaming” and violating her privacy if they talked publicly and criticized her for it.
Whether what he did was disgusting is irrelevant. The question is consent. Any sex act is disgusting to people who aren’t into it. Gay male sex is disgusting to most people. If a gay man has drinks with a male coworker, invites him to his hotel room, and then asks he he wants to have sex, should that be a crime in you peoples’ minds, or a career ender?
You seem to believe consent means ‘‘not saying no.’’ It doesn’t. You’re also grossly mischaracterizing what actually happened. In one case, he blocked the door. In another, he pushed a woman into the bathroom. The women were not free to get up and leave at any time.
I wouldn’t presume to say what “normal” is. I know a lot of decent, productive citizens who have at some point in their lives shoplifted, driven drunk, participated in drug transactions, lied to complete a sale, started a fight, pirated vast amounts or media, bought alcohol for somebody who is under 21, and so on, and gotten away with it. In fact, I don’t know any adult in America who has never done one of these or something comparable. So when I say every adult has done something that warrants jail time, I’m setting the bar a lot lower than “masturbating in front of a captive audience” or “molesting a subordinate.”
As the sheer number of #MeToo accusations mounts in the coming days, I think the public will be moved to become more selective about who they are willing to lynch, just because there aren’t that many hours in a day. There is no sexual proposition a man can make to someone he isn’t married to that looks wholesome in the harsh light of public scrutiny; not all of them are worth scuttling a movie release.
Maybe technically they were. Louis C.K. certainly seems to think that at the time announcing what he was about to do and not getting a clear reaction implied consent. Maybe he would have just shrugged if they had insisted on walking out and thought nothing of it.
The problem of course is that the victims didn’t think they were free to leave or refuse consent - they were confused, or froze, or were too intimidated. Whichever was the case in situation to situation there was never any genuine consent, something Louis C.K. has come to realize and/or is finally fessing up to.
If Louis C.K. can admit to being wrong, I’m not sure why you can’t admit he was wrong thirdname. At this point you are effectively disagreeing with his statement.
That’s a good point, and possibly a great point. Because I do believe men who behave this way don’t always understand that ‘‘not saying no’’ is not the equivalent of ‘‘yes’’ and I think it’s totally plausible he didn’t understand the coercion dynamic of his behavior, and if someone like CK can come out and say, ‘‘Holy shit, I didn’t get it, but now, I do, and other people need to get it too, and we need to start thinking more critically when we do this kind of thing,’’ well I can’t see that as anything but a positive.
Whether it actually works out that way remains to be seen. But I am a hopeless romantic.