5 women accuse Louis CK of sexual misconduct

[Kimstu]

@up_the_junction

Afaik, women together, not single/alone, chose to watch his actions rather than leave?

Years later it comes to light

Note, for the seventh or eighth time, that the women this happened to did talk about the incident shortly after it happened, but were pressured by Louis CK’s manager to stop talking about it.

It’s only “coming to light” now because Louis CK and many other people affected by his star status exerted pressure for years to prevent it coming to light.

You don’t get to assign the blame for that to the women who tried to bring it to light back when it first happened.

[Karol_Lewis]

Because they are someone the fan looks up to and respect the celebrity still has substantial pull over the fan’s actions.

@Kimstu

Where are you getting the idea that famous people have influence over the careers of all their fans?

So lets say they build a relationship of mutual trust, someone still has to ask. Once that person asks, are they then a sexual predator if the other person says no?

@Kimstu

(And given that famous people generally have far more access than the average person to sex in categories A1, A3 and A4, I don’t think it’s such a terrible imposition to expect them to refrain from sexually preying on their colleagues in the B categories.)
You evidently missed the part where I said that there’s no problem with colleagues and co-workers having sex with each other once they’re in a position of mutual trust. But no soliciting sexual encounters from colleagues and co-workers who are essentially just strangers/acquaintances who might fear retaliation if they reject you.

No, but I mean literally EVERY famous person, that has ever had sex after becoming famous, has violated this.

@Kimstu

Also, just because some kinds of sexual behavior “happen all the time” doesn’t automatically mean we’re obligated to consider them okay. There’s lots of really awful shit that “happens all the time”.

.

[up_the_junction]

@Kimstu

Note, for the seventh or eighth time, that the women this happened to did talk about the incident shortly after it happened, but were pressured by Louis CK’s manager to stop talking about it.

It’s only “coming to light” now because Louis CK and many other people affected by his star status exerted pressure for years to prevent it coming to light.

You don’t get to assign the blame for that to the women who tried to bring it to light back when it first happened.

And you don’t get to tell me sweet fuck all about how I approach an issue.

What does “pressured” mean? Without facts it’s merely a term of art.

[Kimstu]

Karol Lewis, I already answered your questions back in posts #132 and #138. If you have any new questions, I’ll be happy to try to answer those.

[Karol_Lewis]

I asked a new one in my last post (that you obviously didn’t read, because it scares you that your idea of consent might be flawed)

I will re-post to make it easier for you to find.

“So lets say they build a relationship of mutual trust, someone still has to ask. Once that person asks, are they then a sexual predator if the other person says no?”

@Kimstu

Where are you getting the idea that famous people have influence over the careers of all their fans? They don’t.

Even if they did, that doesn’t change the principle of the importance of sexual consent. If being famous makes the sex lives of famous people potentially more vulnerable to lack-of-consent issues, too fucking bad, that’s just one of the drawbacks of fame. It’s still their responsibility to wait for a situation where there’s genuine mutual consent to sex.

(And given that famous people generally have far more access than the average person to sex in categories A1, A3 and A4, I don’t think it’s such a terrible imposition to expect them to refrain from sexually preying on their colleagues in the B categories.)
You evidently missed the part where I said that there’s no problem with colleagues and co-workers having sex with each other once they’re in a position of mutual trust. But no soliciting sexual encounters from colleagues and co-workers who are essentially just strangers/acquaintances who might fear retaliation if they reject you.

Also, just because some kinds of sexual behavior “happen all the time” doesn’t automatically mean we’re obligated to consider them okay. There’s lots of really awful shit that “happens all the time”.
Sorry pal, I don’t have to revise my perfectly good answer just because you didn’t happen to like it. My answer stands.

@Kimstu

Karol Lewis, I already answered your questions back in posts #132 and #138. If you have any new questions, I’ll be happy to try to answer those.

[Typo_Negative]

@up_the_junction

Underlined by me.

To be clear, there was no sexual harassment, no harassment, nothing illegal occurred. His influence over them is unclear.

If this was in California, you are wrong.

California Penal Code 314 PC prohibits the sex crime of “indecent exposure” . . . which means willfully exposing your genitals to someone else, motivated by a desire to sexually gratify yourself or offend the other person.1

Or in New York, its**S 245.01**. In Texas, its Sec. 21.08

Actually, what he did is a crime in most, if not all, States.

You just can’t whip your dick out and masturbate in front of unsuspecting people…hell, pretty much anywhere

[Karol_Lewis]

Hotel rooms are private property. Good try though

@Typo_Negative

If this was in California, you are wrong.

Or in New York, its**S 245.01**. In Texas, its Sec. 21.08

Actually, what he did is a crime in most, if not all, States.

[Kimstu]

@up_the_junction

And you don’t get to tell me sweet fuck all about how I approach an issue.

I apologize for having confused you. I was using “you don’t get to” in the common rhetorical sense of “it is not rationally valid for you to” rather than in the literal sense of “you are forbidden to”.

@up_the_junction

What does “pressured” mean?

It means they were encouraged to stop talking about it. This appears to have been a common experience for people trying to talk publicly about Louis CK’s sexual misconduct:

[…] Speaking directly about the allegations seemed like it could be a career-ending risk.

“I was told to delete a tweet I wrote about Louis CK abusing women before I applied to a high-profile comedy job because the people conducting the hiring process might not like it,” Nicole Silverberg, an editor and TV writer, said Thursday. […]

Megan Koester, working as a journalist for Gawker, confronted male comedians about the allegations on the red carpet of the 2015 Just For Laughs festival. […]

A woman working at the event told Koester her questions about CK had been getting complaints. Then a “livid” executive intervened.

“Red faced, he informed me that JFL [Just For Laughs] is a ‘family’, that Louie is a member of said ‘family’, and that I could ask my question on ‘my turf’, but that this was ‘our turf’,” Koester wrote. “This wasn’t ‘that kind’ of red carpet, he informed me, it was a ‘friendly one’, and Louie was a ‘friend of the festival.’ Were I to ask the offending question again, he said, I would be ejected from the carpet.”

Bruce Hills, the Just For Laughs COO, acknowledged that he approached Koester and said her account was accurate.

[Siam_Sam]

@KidCharlemagne

You have to give it to him - his mea culpa is the best I’ve ever seen for sexual misconduct.

@Gatopescado

Hell yeah! He managed to use the word “dick” a couple times!

It’s like he’s masturbating in front of all of us now.

[Kimstu]

@Karol_Lewis

“So lets say they build a relationship of mutual trust, someone still has to ask. Once that person asks, are they then a sexual predator if the other person says no?”

Like I said, I answered that already:

@Kimstu

Of course, there is no reason that you can’t over time continue social interactions with a person in category B2, B3 or B4 to the point where your relationship of friendly trust justifies you in asking to move them into category A2 (or even category A4 if that happens to be your jam).

I’ll spell it out for you since you seem to have had trouble making the connection: In a situation where it’s okay to ask a particular question, the okayness of your asking does not depend on what answer you get.

[Karol_Lewis]

Perfect answer, So in a hotel room after having some congenial conversation and some flirting. As rage against the machine says “what better place than here, what better time than now?”

@Kimstu

Like I said, I answered that already:

I’ll spell it out for you since you seem to have had trouble making the connection: In a situation where it’s okay to ask a particular question, the okayness of your asking does not depend on what answer you get.

[Rigamarole]

@Fair_Rarity

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.

And if he loses his home and starves? Oh well.

Heh, what world do you live in where you think that could remotely happen to a mega-millionaire A-list celebrity? He’s way beyond set for life, even if he never works again. But he will, anyway.

[Corry_El]

@Fair_Rarity

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.

And if he loses his home and starves? Oh well.

Interesting article in yesterday’s WSJ about Gibson. He really didn’t have a career, that involved any high profile Hollywood support or collaboration, for some years after 2010. Now he again does. It’s been based in part on gradually convincing people (Jodie Foster is a key friend and proponent apparently) he’s not as much of a dick anymore as he appeared to be in two different disgraceful incidents*. And it’s also because he recognized as a good director in particular (Oscar nomination for ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ he finally did do with mainstream Hollywood), and arguably a good actor for certain roles.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-hollywood-decided-mel-gibson-was-safe-again-1510250284

So that probably does give some kind of a road map for CK and other entertainment figures recently accused of sexual misbehavior, that isn’t beyond a certain point. IOW Weinstein will be lucky I think to stay out of prison. But I don’t see why CK couldn’t eventually regain quasi-acceptance if Gibson can. Spacey maybe too (eventually accepted back in some powerful performance as a character in his 70’s, by the time the actor is?). Although sexual misbehavior and Gibson’s problems aren’t exactly the same. Also this is a big wave of sexual abuse revelations rather than one person’s idiosyncratic nut jobbery. Maybe that will permanently harden attitudes toward all these people, or maybe some of the lesser ones will be relatively forgotten faster.

*to refresh, an anti-Semitic screed v police pulling him over for drunk driving in 2006, then a 2010 combination of obscene racist phone message to SO coupled with a no contest plea to misdemeanor domestic violence.

[Kimstu]

@Karol_Lewis

So in a hotel room after having some congenial conversation and some flirting.

Once again, I already addressed your attempt to make this argument:

@Kimstu

The conversation between the female comedians and Louis CK in his hotel room was not a date. It was an informal gathering of colleagues at a professional gig (which happened to take place in a hotel room because that’s where comedians live at professional gigs), and Louis CK should not have solicited a sexual encounter from his colleagues in that situation at all.

[Karol_Lewis]

What determines if it is a date? Talking about work makes it not a date? Lots of people talk about work on dates.

Additionally how many people go to other peoples “places they live” as you called the hotel room, to talk about work. Most people do so at a bar/restaurant.

Also you say they were colleagues, yet they had never worked together before, nor were they working together then. They were just working the same festival. If them being in the same industry counts does that mean insurance agents can’t have sex with insurance agents?

Car sales people can’t have sex with car sales people from other lots?

@Kimstu

Once again, I already addressed your attempt to make this argument:

[QuickSilver]

Pssst… Karol Lewis, go ahead and ask, “What if this took place in Vegas? Still harassment??”

You know you want to.

[Spice_Weasel]

A really good clue to whether or not any given behavior is inappropriate is whether or not the recipients of said behavior felt it was inappropriate and whether or not everyone else around them at the time acted as if it was inappropriate and tried to cover it up.

[Karol_Lewis]

Not a good example. if you are at a BBQ and you start grilling a cat, everyone around you is going to think it is not appropriate and your friends and family will probably start making excuses for you, however lots of cultures eat cat.

@Spice_Weasel

A really good clue to whether or not any given behavior is inappropriate is whether or not the recipients of said behavior felt it was inappropriate and whether or not everyone else around them at the time acted as if it was inappropriate and tried to cover it up.

[Kimstu]

@Karol_Lewis

What determines if it is a date?

All the people involved in this incident (Louis CK as well as the two female comedians) agree that it was not a date. Your attempting to dance around the question with a lot of counterfactual “what-ifs” isn’t helping your flimsy argument in any way.

To

[quote myself]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20595779&postcount=82) again, this time from the concurrent George Takei allegations thread:

@Kimstu

I think as a society we need to remember that constantly searching for “loopholes” isn’t a good approach to sexual-assault issues. Preventing sexual assault is ultimately not about coming up with exceptions and escape clauses to “disqualify” complaints about unwanted sexual actions. It’s about people learning to resist their sexual impulses unless they’re honestly and rationally sure that sexual actions are wanted.

[Kimstu]

And I’ll repeat for Karol Lewis’s benefit what I said earlier in this thread to thirdname:

@Kimstu

Before you grow up and head off to college, you really need to learn that mere absence of explicit rejection does not constitute consent. Just because somebody might be afraid to reject your sexual overtures for whatever reason does not mean that they actually want to get sexual with you.

For your own safety in your future life, you need to recognize that somebody merely enduring your unwanted sexual attentions isn’t equivalent to signing some kind of ironclad permission slip legitimating your sexual misconduct. The fact that you seem so focused on finding ways to invalidate or disallow women’s criticisms of a man’s unwanted sexual behavior, instead of understanding why people should restrain their impulses to make sexual advances to their co-workers, is kind of worrying.