Harvey Weinstein scandal

[Toni]

I don't believe that you see asking if it is ok to masturbate in front of someone in a workplace setting is acceptable.

These are not individuals that he was dating or in a casual social setting. These are individuals who worked in positions over which he had influence. But switch the roles: I cannot conceive of a situation where an employee would not be immediately terminated for suggesting that his or her supervisor watch them madturbate--at least not outside of the sex industry.

It seems pretty clear to me that DZ would think that is acceptable, indeed, he explicitely stated otherwise:

It would be one thing if these people were under the employ of Louis CK. But they weren't. They were fans.

It seems, that the point of contention is exactly whether or not they were in a workplace setting. I haven't really been following this one, so I don't know.

They may have been fans but it was an after work workplace setting. DZ isn't following carefully either.

In 2002, a Chicago comedy duo, Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov, landed their big break: a chance to perform at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colo. When Louis C.K. invited them to hang out in his hotel room for a nightcap after their late-night show, they did not think twice. The bars were closed and they wanted to celebrate. He was a comedian they admired. The women would be together. His intentions seemed collegial.

As soon as they sat down in his room, still wrapped in their winter jackets and hats, Louis C.K. asked if he could take out his penis, the women said.

They thought it was a joke and laughed it off. “And then he really did it,” Ms. Goodman said in an interview with The New York Times. “He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating.”

Seriously--who would think that someone was serious if they asked that outside of an established sexual relationship or prostitution?

Why would it be acceptable for him to ask if he could masturbate in front of them? Why would it be OK if he did it without asking--or with?


Meeting someone or going to meet them back stage or for drinks or whatever does not create a context where it is expected or acceptable for someone to ask you if they can masturbate in front of you.

Apparently, Louis CK also agrees that it is wrong:

These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions. And I’ve tried to learn from them. And run from them. Now I’m aware of the extent of the impact of my actions. I learned yesterday the extent to which I left these women who admired me feeling badly about themselves and cautious around other men who would never have put them in that position. I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn’t want to hear it. I didn’t think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it. There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with. I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man and given them some guidance as a comedian, including because I admired their work.

 

[RavenSky]

It seems pretty clear to me that DZ would think that is acceptable, indeed, he explicitely stated otherwise:

It would be one thing if these people were under the employ of Louis CK. But they weren't. They were fans.

It seems, that the point of contention is exactly whether or not they were in a workplace setting. I haven't really been following this one, so I don't know.

They may have been fans but it was an after work workplace setting. DZ isn't following carefully either.

In 2002, a Chicago comedy duo, Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov, landed their big break: a chance to perform at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colo. When Louis C.K. invited them to hang out in his hotel room for a nightcap after their late-night show, they did not think twice. The bars were closed and they wanted to celebrate. He was a comedian they admired. The women would be together. His intentions seemed collegial.

As soon as they sat down in his room, still wrapped in their winter jackets and hats, Louis C.K. asked if he could take out his penis, the women said.

They thought it was a joke and laughed it off. “And then he really did it,” Ms. Goodman said in an interview with The New York Times. “He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating.”

Seriously--who would think that someone was serious if they asked that outside of an established sexual relationship or prostitution?

Why would it be acceptable for him to ask if he could masturbate in front of them? Why would it be OK if he did it without asking--or with?


Meeting someone or going to meet them back stage or for drinks or whatever does not create a context where it is expected or acceptable for someone to ask you if they can masturbate in front of you.

Apparently, Louis CK also agrees that it is wrong:

These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions. And I’ve tried to learn from them. And run from them. Now I’m aware of the extent of the impact of my actions. I learned yesterday the extent to which I left these women who admired me feeling badly about themselves and cautious around other men who would never have put them in that position. I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn’t want to hear it. I didn’t think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it. There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with. I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man and given them some guidance as a comedian, including because I admired their work.

I will give him credit for this... although it took him a very long time and a lot of denials first, he is the only person that I am aware of who has come out with a proper apology for his behavior.

These others with their non-apologies and claims of being sex-addicts are almost as bad as those that continue to deny their sexual assaults altogether.

 

[thebeave]

Oh noes! Now its George Takei!

http://www.tmz.com/2017/11/11/george-takei-disputes-sexual-assault-claims-scott-brunton/

 

[DrZoidberg]

You don't see anything wrong with this behavior ? These days, you don't light up a cigarette without asking "do you mind if I smoke?", never mind pulling your pants down and rubbing one out.

Ms. Corry, a comedian, writer and actress, has long felt haunted by her run-in with Louis C.K. In 2005, she was working as a performer and producer on a television pilot — a big step in her career — when Louis C.K., a guest star, approached her as she was walking to the set. “He leaned close to my face and said, ‘Can I ask you something?’ I said, ‘Yes,’” Ms. Corry said in a written statement to The New York Times. “He asked if we could go to my dressing room so he could masturbate in front of me.” Stunned and angry, Ms. Corry said she declined, and pointed out that he had a daughter and a pregnant wife. “His face got red,” she recalled, “and he told me he had issues.”

You don't have an issue with this ?

Nope. I think it's fine. Here's the question you've got to ask yourself.

1) Did he abuse any power?
2) Did he do stuff that requires consent, and he didn't have conscent?

He was a guest star. He wasn't her boss, and he wasn't paying her bills. So, no power. Just being a famous person, isn't having power. That's not how that works. Abuse of power, like Weinstein did, is "do this for me or you'll get fired and I'll make your life horrible". There's none of that in this encounter. He didn't even threaten with it. In this situation they were on the same power level. So it's fine.

He asked her for consent, and she declined. That's perfectly fine. Are we suddenly not even allowed to propose disgusting stuff any longer? If we're into disgusting stuff, are we now suddenly forbidden to even attempt at satisfying that need? How fucked up is that? How the hell are perverts supposed to get laid in that case?

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's none of her fucking business that he had a daughter and a pregnant wife. Having that doesn't suddenly add a layer of shit you need to take into consideration when propositioning third parties.

I think you've swerved way into moralistic territory. "Moral majority" bullshit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Meeting someone or going to meet them back stage or for drinks or whatever does not create a context where it is expected or acceptable for someone to ask you if they can masturbate in front of you.

Apparently, Louis CK also agrees that it is wrong:

These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions. And I’ve tried to learn from them. And run from them. Now I’m aware of the extent of the impact of my actions. I learned yesterday the extent to which I left these women who admired me feeling badly about themselves and cautious around other men who would never have put them in that position. I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn’t want to hear it. I didn’t think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it. There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with. I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man and given them some guidance as a comedian, including because I admired their work.

For the record. It's nice that Louis CK thinks it's wrong. I don't agree with him. I don't think it's wrong. Being admired is volontary power that is given to him by the other person. He didn't ask for it. It's insane that anybody famous should have to take that into consideration. How could they? All that means is that being famous means they would be required to be socially paralyzed when flirting. Ok... how famous? What's the cut off point? In 2005 Louis CK wasn't particularly famous. As I recall that was even before his shitty series Lucky Louis. I think it's total bullshit.

 

[Toni]

Meeting someone or going to meet them back stage or for drinks or whatever does not create a context where it is expected or acceptable for someone to ask you if they can masturbate in front of you.

Apparently, Louis CK also agrees that it is wrong:

For the record. It's nice that Louis CK thinks it's wrong. I don't agree with him. I don't think it's wrong. Being admired is volontary power that is given to him by the other person. He didn't ask for it. It's insane that anybody famous should have to take that into consideration. How could they? All that means is that being famous means they would be required to be socially paralyzed when flirting. Ok... how famous? What's the cut off point? In 2005 Louis CK wasn't particularly famous. As I recall that was even before his shitty series Lucky Louis. I think it's total bullshit.

You are obviously simply unwilling to admit that you are wrong. Louis CK was an extremely well known and well respected performer. His word alone would go a long way towards making or breaking a career.

But all that aside: you are visiting a city and you casually meet someone that say..your brother went to school with and had spoken of several times. Would recognize each other and he invites you and your friend to come up for a night cap. There is nothing about this that triggers any suspicion or even vague idea that there is any romantic or sexual intentions. You and your friend say sure and go up to his place for what you think will be a quick drink. He drops trousers, with or without asking if it's ok with you.

The only reasonable response would be stunned disbelief. The guests might be stunned into silence, might turn and bolt from the room, might make a joke or call him out. Depending on their personalities and circumstances. It would not be unreasonable to wonder if he intended to sexually assault you or if he was heavily under the influence of some substance or seriously mentally ill.

There is zero circumstance, outside of commercial sex work, where this would be acceptable behavior to drop trousers in front of casual acquaintances so that you could masturbate.

If they had called the police, either Louis CK would have been arrested or the responding officers would have been star struck and tried to calm the callers--before they asked for his autograph.

 

[abaddon]

So, who is going to be next? I hope it's not Steven Colbert or Morgan Freeman.

Eventually it will also be the next democratic presidential candidate.

I want women to feel safe to say "This guy was inappropriate" (and then give good evidence). But the tactic of trying to change society by shaming as many males as possible in as public way as possible will have its negative consequences ... there's always a flipside to the coin. There's ugly power here that's going to be wielded to manipulate people in the worst of ways.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For the record. It's nice that Louis CK thinks it's wrong. I don't agree with him. I don't think it's wrong. Being admired is volontary power that is given to him by the other person. He didn't ask for it. It's insane that anybody famous should have to take that into consideration. How could they? All that means is that being famous means they would be required to be socially paralyzed when flirting. Ok... how famous? What's the cut off point? In 2005 Louis CK wasn't particularly famous. As I recall that was even before his shitty series Lucky Louis. I think it's total bullshit.

You are obviously simply unwilling to admit that you are wrong.

Let's just say, what is obvious to you, is less obvious to me.

Louis CK was an extremely well known and well respected performer. His word alone would go a long way towards making or breaking a career.

So what? That's not what "abusing power" means. He wasn't their boss. Whatever power he held was at best informal. You are assuming that it's common for powerful people to go out of their way to destroy anybody who does not sleep with them, to the point where it's best to make that assumption. Absolute fucking bollocks.

But all that aside: you are visiting a city and you casually meet someone that say..your brother went to school with and had spoken of several times. Would recognize each other and he invites you and your friend to come up for a night cap. There is nothing about this that triggers any suspicion or even vague idea that there is any romantic or sexual intentions. You and your friend say sure and go up to his place for what you think will be a quick drink. He drops trousers, with or without asking if it's ok with you.

The only reasonable response would be stunned disbelief. The guests might be stunned into silence, might turn and bolt from the room, might make a joke or call him out. Depending on their personalities and circumstances. It would not be unreasonable to wonder if he intended to sexually assault you or if he was heavily under the influence of some substance or seriously mentally ill.

She invited them to his room for a night cap!!! At that point they should be suspicious if sex is on the table. If they don't, they're complete idiots. Misreading a situation isn't rape or sexual assault, or even sexual misconduct. They sent signals to each other that the other party misread. That's all that happened here. He took out his cock and they didn't bite. So they left. That's fine IMHO. He made a play for sex and didn't get any. I've probably unsuccessfully propositioned thousands of women for sex throughout my life. It doesn't make me a rapist. It is the only way to find out whether somebody wants sex. Consent is mostly given tacitly anyway.

There is zero circumstance, outside of commercial sex work, where this would be acceptable behavior to drop trousers in front of casual acquaintances so that you could masturbate.

I disagree. I've done it on many occasions. Two of those occasions ended up in marriages. Not at the same time though.

If they had called the police, either Louis CK would have been arrested or the responding officers would have been star struck and tried to calm the callers--before they asked for his autograph.

In Iran perhaps. But hardly in a civilized country.

 

[TSwizzle]

Nope. I think it's fine.

It's obviously not fine otherwise CK would still be in a job. Just as an experiment, why don't you go round your workplace and ask a few women if they would mind popping into your office/restroom whatever to watch you masturbate. Update here with the outcome.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nope. I think it's fine.

It's obviously not fine otherwise CK would still be in a job. Just as an experiment, why don't you go round your workplace and ask a few women if they would mind popping into your office/restroom whatever to watch you masturbate. Update here with the outcome.

Being a comedian is completely different than having a regular office job. I used to work in bars. The staff fucking each other is completely normal in that environment. That's one of the reasons to work in such a place. The only rule is that bosses don't fuck their underlings. Well... Louis CK didn't. So he's in the clear IMHO.

There's a difference between what is moral and the ethically right thing to do. And what is publicly acceptable. He didn't lose his jobs because he acted immorally. He lost them because he was publicly lynched by a mob, so caught up in their witch hunt that they haven't stopped to think what the fuck they're doing.

Since you seem to think what he did was immoral, could you please list the moral transgressions he did and motivate them. That would help me. Because right now, I can't see you have a case.

 

[LordKiran]

It's obviously not fine otherwise CK would still be in a job. Just as an experiment, why don't you go round your workplace and ask a few women if they would mind popping into your office/restroom whatever to watch you masturbate. Update here with the outcome.

Being a comedian is completely different than having a regular office job. I used to work in bars. The staff fucking each other is completely normal in that environment. That's one of the reasons to work in such a place. The only rule is that bosses don't fuck their underlings. Well... Louis CK didn't. So he's in the clear IMHO.

There's a difference between what is moral and the ethically right thing to do. And what is publicly acceptable. He didn't lose his jobs because he acted immorally. He lost them because he was publicly lynched by a mob, so caught up in their witch hunt that they haven't stopped to think what the fuck they're doing.

Since you seem to think what he did was immoral, could you please list the moral transgressions he did and motivate them. That would help me. Because right now, I can't see you have a case.

Technically, when you're on a casting couch you're not employed yet.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Being a comedian is completely different than having a regular office job. I used to work in bars. The staff fucking each other is completely normal in that environment. That's one of the reasons to work in such a place. The only rule is that bosses don't fuck their underlings. Well... Louis CK didn't. So he's in the clear IMHO.

There's a difference between what is moral and the ethically right thing to do. And what is publicly acceptable. He didn't lose his jobs because he acted immorally. He lost them because he was publicly lynched by a mob, so caught up in their witch hunt that they haven't stopped to think what the fuck they're doing.

Since you seem to think what he did was immoral, could you please list the moral transgressions he did and motivate them. That would help me. Because right now, I can't see you have a case.

Technically, when you're on a casting couch you're not employed yet.

I think propositioning somebody on your casting couch is worse than if they're hired IMHO. Anybody applying for work is in an emotionally vulnerable state.

But were they on his casting couch? There were a number of accusations, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about. But I don't think any of these was about Louis CK propositioning women he was thinking of hiring? Him propositioning women that somebody else is thinking of hiring, isn't abuse of power. That's just being a flirt.

 

[LordKiran]

Technically, when you're on a casting couch you're not employed yet.

I think propositioning somebody on your casting couch is worse than if they're hired IMHO. Anybody applying for work is in an emotionally vulnerable state.

But were they on his casting couch? There were a number of accusations, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about. But I don't think any of these was about Louis CK propositioning women he was thinking of hiring? Him propositioning women that somebody else is thinking of hiring, isn't abuse of power. That's just being a flirt.

Just speaking generally. I was curious how you might square your prior posts with my response. You seemed to be suggesting that because these women did not explicitly work for Louis that there could not have been wrongdoing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think propositioning somebody on your casting couch is worse than if they're hired IMHO. Anybody applying for work is in an emotionally vulnerable state.

But were they on his casting couch? There were a number of accusations, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about. But I don't think any of these was about Louis CK propositioning women he was thinking of hiring? Him propositioning women that somebody else is thinking of hiring, isn't abuse of power. That's just being a flirt.

Just speaking generally. I was curious how you might square your prior posts with my response. You seemed to be suggesting that because these women did not explicitly work for Louis that there could not have been wrongdoing.

There's formal and informal power. Formal power (in this context) means controlling a persons salary. We've all been there. We're at work, and some boss makes an inappropriate joke, but you think, it's not worth the hassle to make a thing of it, so we let it slide. If we were sitting around a group of friends, and the same joke was said, you'd shoot it down. That's how formal power works. That's why salary cartels is wrong. While unions are ok.

Evoking formal power is a variant. You don't have formal power, but you're, for example, close buddies with a person who does, which de facto, gives you the same power, so people behave toward you as if you had formal power. But for this one to kick in you need to make some sort of threat. You need to demonstrate you have this power for it to matter.

Informal power is when you have the capacity to control another's life, if you'd put some effort into it. This is how fame works. There's just no way to take this into consideration in any sober way. If people with informal power aren't allowed to do anything that might risk them extorting favours due to their informal power, then we've just said that they're not allowed to do anything ever. It forces them into a bizarrely tight politically correct sweater that would paralyse them. That's what anybody condemning Louis CK is doing IMHO.

I think people just like condemning famous people. But this time, I don't think those who do, have thought through it's implications.

And, it's just a fact, if you want to get laid, you need to make a play. Some of those will fail. That's just life. These are just examples of Louis CK crashing and burning a couple of times. And that's fine. We all need to be allowed to make mistakes. Being inapropriate when flirting, or misreading a situation doesn't make you guilty of a sexual crime.

I've seen thousands and thousands of examples of people doing the most disgusting and vile attempts at getting attention from someone they want to fuck... and it worked. But more that didn't. We all learn from mistakes. And we have to be allowed to make them. Even Louis CK.

 

[TSwizzle]

Being a comedian is completely different than having a regular office job. {snip}

It doesn't matter if it you are comedian or a camera operator. You can't sexually harass women in the workplace which is what I am talking about. And it has nothing to do with morals. Even CK seems to understand this but you can't.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Being a comedian is completely different than having a regular office job. {snip}

It doesn't matter if it you are comedian or a camera operator. You can't sexually harass women in the workplace which is what I am talking about. And it has nothing to do with morals. Even CK seems to understand this but you can't.

I don't think it's a question of understanding. It's a question of not agreeing. I think Louis CK is wrong. I also think that it's important that this doesn't become the new moral standard, because, boy would that suck. That's not a world I want to live in. We're supposed to be the lovers of freedoms, and free expression. If these things become criminal, it's not looking so good for freedom.

A comedian performs in a club. There's completely different rules of conduct in clubs. Everybody knows that going to a bar or a club flirting is part of it. That's one of the reasons they exist at all. Comedians not in a boss/employee relationship are of course free to flirt with one another.

In one of these he asked them if they wanted to go to his room... and they went with him. Once they're in his room, they've removed themselves from the "place of work". One's room is an intimate space. One of the ways to find out if an office flirt is up for it, at lets say a conference, is to ask if they want to go to one's room. It's deeply ingrained in office culture.

I think you've got pretty extreme double standards. I think Louis CK did everything correctly. Except one. He did one where he called a woman while he was masturbating. A woman he was working with and no consent. He admitted to doing that. But he didn't tell her that he was masturbating. She had to infer it. So while not ok, I think it's grey area. He also didn't do it, to this woman, again.

From all of these accusations I get the impression that he's super awkward around women and has no fucking clue how to initiate sex or even flirt with women. Which... if his act is personal and taken from his real life... is true. Sucking at flirting is not a crime. All of these accusations are one time, one off, events. He sure as hell seems to get the message when the women are clear about not being interested. Which makes it ok IMHO. He could have handled all these events better... but hey... we all make mistakes. I think these are fairly minor mistakes.

 

[abaddon]

I think these are fairly minor mistakes.

I agree. I think Louis CK's accusers (and others who jumped on that bandwagon) have confused "icky man abusing his power" with "powerful/famous man who's icky". It's an important distinction. Wanting to take down any powerful man who's made himself vulnerable with personal foibles is a bit twisted in itself.

Also, just because it coincides with the Weinstein stuff doesn't make it automatically the same thing or even like it. People make a category of the several different events, and anyone who falls into the category becomes guilty by association. "Oh no, another man in showbiz gets accused! What scummy people those men in showbiz are!" That's a lazyminded failure of reason.

And about workplaces... If I were around another person of my trade in a casual setting, I'm not "in the workplace". I didn't find a hint of a "do this or you'll never get work" or anything remotely like it in any of CK's purported "abuses" of anyone. So some women saw him get naked and masturbate... weird and potentially upsetting? OK. But traumatizing?? That's feeble and pathetic.

 

[RavenSky]

I think these are fairly minor mistakes.

I agree. I think Louis CK's accusers (and others who jumped on that bandwagon) have confused "icky man abusing his power" with "powerful/famous man who's icky". It's an important distinction.

I think there is a distinction, but I don't think that makes what Louis CK did a "fairly minor mistake."

Although Harvey Weinstein IS an example of a "powerful/famous man who's icky" who was ALSO an "icky man abusing his power" - the underlying issue it not about whether a man is powerful/famous - but about how too many men treat women and think it's OK.

Where power/fame comes in is because people love to grill the victims on why they didn't walk out or knock the "icky man" upside his head. Fear is usually the reason. Fear of physical repercussions, fear of the Harvey Weinstein's ruining one's career, fear of the Louis CK's retaliating in other ways...

And about workplaces... If I were around another person of my trade in a casual setting, I'm not "in the workplace". I didn't find a hint of a "do this or you'll never get work" or anything remotely like it in any of CK's purported "abuses" of anyone. So some women saw him get naked and masturbate... weird and potentially upsetting? OK. But traumatizing?? That's feeble and pathetic.

So...??? What he did was fine?

 

[laughing dog]

So some women saw him get naked and masturbate... weird and potentially upsetting? OK. But traumatizing?? That's feeble and pathetic.

If these women walked into his room unannounced and unasked, then you would have a point. Otherwise, you have no point because no one has any business getting naked and masturbating in front of people who have not asked for it - regardless of their lack of social skills. If Louis CK had an urge to masturbate, he could go somewhere in private. The fact he did it in front of these women strongly suggests he had some ulterior motive.

 

[RavenSky]

Another one dammit!!!!



Oh wait...