Harvey Weinstein scandal

[DrZoidberg]

Again I'll use the example of Louis CK. The fact that he got crucified for that is crazy. That's what I mean with out of control.

He didn't get "crucified". He CONFIRMED the 5 allegations against him, and he apologized.

I wasn't talking about his possible guilt. I agree that he did it. I also agree that some of it is beyond what is cool. Nothing beyond mild shame. Enough to say you're sorry. Which he did. I don't think is that it's such a big deal.

What happened is that they pulled a film that was about to come out. There was a whole bunch of cancelled contracts and engagements. If that isn't crucified, I don't know what is?

I think it's pretty clear that you and me see what is socially acceptable completely different. It's got to be possible and ok to make mistakes without losing your job. Or we'll go back to the sexually repressed nightmarish society of the 50'ies. That society left everybody miserable. We are sexual beings. It's one of our two main functions in life. Sexuality isn't always straight forward and simple. We're also not equally good at reading other people. Sucking at reading other people isn't being a sexual predator.

I see a lot of people nowadays who see themselves as sensible and middle of the road who so fucking much aren't. I think you are one of these.

In Sweden last year a law was passed that stated that you need to get verbal consent before engaging is sexual acts. Loads of "sensible" people thought that was a sensible law. I'm guessing, without once contemplating on their own sex life and how that works. Or probably doesn't work.

Are the various companies he was associated with stepping back for now? Yes, as is their right. And I predict that he will beback in business within a year.

I didn't say it wasn't their right. I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about what them stepping back tells us about our society. To me #metoo isn't primarily about what is legal. But social norms. What the Louis CK situation shows us is intolerant and sexually repressed social norms.

But nice that you predict that everything will go back to normal within a year. How does that make them, reeling away from him in horror, ok?

Do I find it obnoxious that he has suffered consequences for his behavior while Roy Moore is getting endorsed by the orange turd? Yes. Bigly.

I'm not sure being endorsed by captain Pussy-grabber is a positive. Isn't he a bit like with-friends-like-that-you-don't-need-enemies?

Again... it's a low number of allegations spread out over 50 years! Most of them in the 1970'ies when men were, because of social norms, encouraged to be sexually aggressive. And none of them anywhere near rape or sexual harassment. He allegedly made a couple of failed moves. Also, they're all unverified and unverifiable accusations. He also denies it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. But there's not enough here to do anything. It would be wrong to punish him for it. And it has happened. So it's fucked up.

I will also remind you that reports of his behavior have come out before... and were ignored and promptly squashed. Perhaps if he had dealt with it then, he wouldn't be part of the #MeToo situation now.

Again... we have completely different views on this. I don't think this is something he needs to stop with. What he needs to do is get better at spotting when women are into it. There's only one way to acquire such skills. And that's to keep going for it when he thinks it's welcome. Those women exist. I have met some.

Everything I've read on Louis CK's conduct suggests that he's capable of taking a hint, and when he realized his behaviour was unwelcome he didn't try it again with the same woman. That makes it totally ok in my book.

There isn't any question that he did, in fact, manipulate women in order to satisfy his fetish for public masterbation. And that's the key here, he manipulated the women. He did not have affirmative consent from them. He fully acknowledges this, and there is a pattern over multiple years with multiple women. He has apologized. And now he will get on with his life, hopefully a little wiser and more considerate of the women around him.

How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

I've been to plenty of BDSM clubs and sex clubs in my life. In these environments we do require affirmative verbal consent before anybody is allowed to do anything. Because of the chaotic nature of the situation, lack of talking, and how extremely emotionally vulnerable people are making themselves. It's advanced level sex, and we need extra precautions. If you ever go to a place like that and try it out, you'll immediately realize how unnatural and weird it feels to get affirmative consent. And also, how unsexy it is. In spite it's unsexiness it's still necessary in that environment. But outside that specialised and ritualised behaviour I engage in normal sexual behaviours. Where we don't ask for consent.

The problem here is that we're putting standards on Louis CK that no human (that anybody actually wants to have sex with) will ever be able to live up to. If we're putting them on Louis CK we're also putting them on ourselves. I see it as very unhealthy and a socially dangerous development.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've never known any woman in real life to play 'hard to get.' I've seen it in movies but not in real life.

That said, I dated a guy back in high school after he asked me out pretty persistently. Not game playing but we were friends and I didn't want to wreck the friendship.

Women who play "hard to get", don't want to be got. It's an escape strategy, not a baiting strategy.

I agree.

If you think a woman is 'playing' hard to get, check your premises. She might be completely serious about not hooking up. She might be pursuing a relationship with someone else. She might have doubts about a suitor's sincerity or character and wants to take her time evaluating the situation before making a commitment.

Whatever her reasons, it's better to presume she's serious about them than not.

Southern women are taught to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. This makes them reluctant to just come out and say they are not interested. This is especially true, if you approach them respectfully. Instead of "no," you get, "Well maybe if it were different and things weren't like they were, maybe some other time."

This is said with such a sweet smile, all the guy hears is, "some other time," and he walks away thinking, 'hey, I think she likes me." Next stop, Stalkerville, and it's all because he comes back, some other time, over and over again.

When I was a bachelor, I recognized this as a real problem. I had to institute the "2 noes" rule. If I asked a woman out and got a "some other time," I waited a bit and asked again. If I did not get a firm and absolute "yes", she never heard from me again.

Most of the time, when a woman declines a date with a man, it has nothing to do with him. So guys never get that. They go around thinking women don't find him attractive(always a possibility), but it's really something more like she's seeing someone that no one at work knows about, or she has small children and doesn't want to complicate her home life. There are a thousand other reasons to say no to an obvious good deal, that have nothing to do with what's offered.

 

[RavenSky]

I wasn't talking about his possible guilt. I agree that he did it. I also agree that some of it is beyond what is cool. Nothing beyond mild shame. Enough to say you're sorry. Which he did. I don't think is that it's such a big deal.

What happened is that they pulled a film that was about to come out. There was a whole bunch of cancelled contracts and engagements. If that isn't crucified, I don't know what is?

I think it's pretty clear that you and me see what is socially acceptable completely different. It's got to be possible and ok to make mistakes without losing your job. Or we'll go back to the sexually repressed nightmarish society of the 50'ies. That society left everybody miserable. We are sexual beings. It's one of our two main functions in life. Sexuality isn't always straight forward and simple. We're also not equally good at reading other people. Sucking at reading other people isn't being a sexual predator.

So you are suggesting that other people do not have the freedom to disassociated themselves from someone when it is revealed that he sexually harassed women (and denied/ran from the issue for a year before finally owning up to his actions)? You also assume that this is some sort of permanent banishment when it is certainly not. So he is suffering a small amount of social consequences in the present... as I said - had he addressed his actions when they first surfaced, he likely would not have experienced even this much.

The person I felt bad for was scientist Tim Hunt. He made a boneheaded sexist comment and the hashtag #DistractinglySexy went viral. The twitter hashtag thing was generally good-natured and funny. It highlighted a genuine double-standard in the sciences without vilifying Dr. Hunt. Too many media reports, on the other hand, were over the top in attacking the man in spite of there being absolutely zero evidence that he, personally, had ever said/done anything adverse to any woman anywhere. He was eventually forced to resign from the science committee of the European Research Council. THAT was over the top (but even he is fine now).

I see a lot of people nowadays who see themselves as sensible and middle of the road who so fucking much aren't. I think you are one of these.

My day doesn't hinge on your opinion of me, and I'm sure that your day doesn't hinge on my exceedingly low opinion of you, either Frankly, the only reason you aren't being ignored by me (as you typically are) is that I do think you touched on a nugget of an important point that I thought worth discussing - but if you would rather continue trying to be an insulting ass, I can go back to generally ignoring your nonsense.

In Sweden last year a law was passed that stated that you need to get verbal consent before engaging is sexual acts. Loads of "sensible" people thought that was a sensible law. I'm guessing, without once contemplating on their own sex life and how that works. Or probably doesn't work.

I will point back to something Bronzeage said (and I am paraphrasing here) - if you don't know/trust your sex partner well enough to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have unambiguous affirmative consent, then don't have sex with him/her.

Are the various companies he was associated with stepping back for now? Yes, as is their right. And I predict that he will beback in business within a year.

I didn't say it wasn't their right. I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about what them stepping back tells us about our society. To me #metoo isn't primarily about what is legal. But social norms. What the Louis CK situation shows us is intolerant and sexually repressed social norms.

Finally starting to become intolerant of sexual harassment? Yes, absolutely and it is about time. Sexually repressed? You seem to be assuming that the issue is his fetish rather than the fact that he failed to get genuine consent before engaging in it. I think that, in general, you are wrong. I do think there is a question of whether his fetish requires the non-consensual aspect - much like a peeping tom generally requires non-consent to get the sexual pleasure. But only Louis CK can really know that and it is ultimately none of our business as long as he refrains from the non-consensual behavior that got him into trouble.

But nice that you predict that everything will go back to normal within a year. How does that make them, reeling away from him in horror, ok?

I think you are being hysterical here. I don't see anyone "reeling away from in in horror" Yes, he is experiencing the social consequences of his behavior AND his denial of that behavior for so long. He also has plenty of people standing up for him, and he will recover - hopefully having learned a little bit about genuine sexual consent.

Do I find it obnoxious that he has suffered consequences for his behavior while Roy Moore is getting endorsed by the orange turd? Yes. Bigly.

I'm not sure being endorsed by captain Pussy-grabber is a positive. Isn't he a bit like with-friends-like-that-you-don't-need-enemies?

I fully agree, but the fact that Captain Pussy-Grabber hasn't suffered any consequences for his full-out sexual assaults on women (and a million other disgusting/dishonest/despicable actions) infuriates me even more, and I am trying to not derail this thread into an anti-Trump rant.

Suffice to say, I do find the socially-meted-out consequences to be appalling lop-sided. I do think that Louis CK has received a bit more than the slap on the wrist he deserved, yet at least two out-and-out sexual predators have suffered zero consequences at all. THAT is what is wrong. If those two rapists had been made permanent pariahs, as they should have been, it would have seemed more fair. It is the imbalance that makes the social consequences Louis CK is experiencing seem disproportionate.

Again... it's a low number of allegations spread out over 50 years! Most of them in the 1970'ies when men were, because of social norms, encouraged to be sexually aggressive. And none of them anywhere near rape or sexual harassment. He allegedly made a couple of failed moves. Also, they're all unverified and unverifiable accusations. He also denies it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. But there's not enough here to do anything. It would be wrong to punish him for it. And it has happened. So it's fucked up.

Because of the nature of multi-quotes, I have no idea who you are referring to here. I sincerely hope that you are not defending Ray Moore.

I will also remind you that reports of his behavior have come out before... and were ignored and promptly squashed. Perhaps if he had dealt with it then, he wouldn't be part of the #MeToo situation now.

Again... we have completely different views on this. I don't think this is something he needs to stop with. What he needs to do is get better at spotting when women are into it. There's only one way to acquire such skills. And that's to keep going for it when he thinks it's welcome. Those women exist. I have met some.

Some women are into bondage, too. You are suggesting that men should just keep tying women up without their consent until they get better at obtaining that consent? Seriously? And you wonder why Sweden had to pass a law requiring an unambiguous verbal "yes" before sex.

Everything I've read on Louis CK's conduct suggests that he's capable of taking a hint, and when he realized his behaviour was unwelcome he didn't try it again with the same woman. That makes it totally ok in my book.

If he is so capable of "taking a hint", there would not be an "again" nor any accusations for him to contend with.

There isn't any question that he did, in fact, manipulate women in order to satisfy his fetish for public masterbation. And that's the key here, he manipulated the women. He did not have affirmative consent from them. He fully acknowledges this, and there is a pattern over multiple years with multiple women. He has apologized. And now he will get on with his life, hopefully a little wiser and more considerate of the women around him.

How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

Since I have never had sex with a woman, you are correct... I have never obtained affirmative consent for sex with any woman.

I've been to plenty of BDSM clubs and sex clubs in my life. In these environments we do require affirmative verbal consent before anybody is allowed to do anything. Because of the chaotic nature of the situation, lack of talking, and how extremely emotionally vulnerable people are making themselves. It's advanced level sex, and we need extra precautions. If you ever go to a place like that and try it out, you'll immediately realize how unnatural and weird it feels to get affirmative consent. And also, how unsexy it is. In spite it's unsexiness it's still necessary in that environment. But outside that specialised and ritualised behaviour I engage in normal sexual behaviours. Where we don't ask for consent.

I have been to BDSM clubs and sex clubs as well. (You assume much about me, yet obviously know nothing at all) I am very well aware of the necessity of clear, unambiguous, verbal affirmative consent in those situations, and understand what you mean about the clinical, yet extremely important, aspect of it. But I think that you are confusing the extreme version of consent required when the people really are in a voluntary situation of "no means yes" with what ordinary affirmative consent looks like.

“Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity. Consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in the sexual activity."

Affirmative consent is defined as “informed, freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in sexual activity that is expressed by clear and unambiguous words or actions.”

If you have not been getting affirmative consent before and during your sexual interactions, you have been doing it wrong.

The problem here is that we're putting standards on Louis CK that no human (that anybody actually wants to have sex with) will ever be able to live up to. If we're putting them on Louis CK we're also putting them on ourselves. I see it as very unhealthy and a socially dangerous development.

If you think expecting Louis CK to have affirmative consent before whipping it out, then you are part of the problem.

 

[rousseau]

Women who play "hard to get", don't want to be got. It's an escape strategy, not a baiting strategy.

I agree.

If you think a woman is 'playing' hard to get, check your premises. She might be completely serious about not hooking up. She might be pursuing a relationship with someone else. She might have doubts about a suitor's sincerity or character and wants to take her time evaluating the situation before making a commitment.

Whatever her reasons, it's better to presume she's serious about them than not.

Southern women are taught to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. This makes them reluctant to just come out and say they are not interested. This is especially true, if you approach them respectfully. Instead of "no," you get, "Well maybe if it were different and things weren't like they were, maybe some other time."

This is said with such a sweet smile, all the guy hears is, "some other time," and he walks away thinking, 'hey, I think she likes me." Next stop, Stalkerville, and it's all because he comes back, some other time, over and over again.

When I was a bachelor, I recognized this as a real problem. I had to institute the "2 noes" rule. If I asked a woman out and got a "some other time," I waited a bit and asked again. If I did not get a firm and absolute "yes", she never heard from me again.

Most of the time, when a woman declines a date with a man, it has nothing to do with him. So guys never get that. They go around thinking women don't find him attractive(always a possibility), but it's really something more like she's seeing someone that no one at work knows about, or she has small children and doesn't want to complicate her home life. There are a thousand other reasons to say no to an obvious good deal, that have nothing to do with what's offered.

Yea, I had the same thought.

It's a real problem and guys don't get it by default, I was once guilty myself. When a woman says 'maybe some other time' what she's really trying to do is get you out of her immediate environment without any form of violence done to her. But since guys are coming at the problem from the diametrically opposed position, all they hear is 'I should try again later', and they do. It's not ideal, but it's good for reproductive rates.

 

[Bronzeage]

....
How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

...

On what planet?

Affirmative consent is the best part. Extremely subtle signals? I didn't have time for that. While I'm trying to decipher subtle signals, some other woman has her finger hooked in my top shirt button. I've got plenty of ways to create tension, danger and mystery, but none of them start with wondering if she really wants me.

 

[RavenSky]

....
How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

...

On what planet?

Affirmative consent is the best part. Extremely subtle signals? I didn't have time for that. While I'm trying to decipher subtle signals, some other woman has her finger hooked in my top shirt button. I've got plenty of ways to create tension, danger and mystery, but none of them start with wondering if she really wants me.

perfect response!

 

[rousseau]

....
How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

...

On what planet?

Affirmative consent is the best part. Extremely subtle signals? I didn't have time for that. While I'm trying to decipher subtle signals, some other woman has her finger hooked in my top shirt button. I've got plenty of ways to create tension, danger and mystery, but none of them start with wondering if she really wants me.

Without reading the entire exchange between RavenSky and DZ I do see this specific point.

At no point have I ever asked my partner in our five years together if she 'wants to have sex with me', and if I did her answer would most definitely be no.

For guys, it often really is a weird game of mind-reading, you just have to be willing to see and accept the 'no' signals too.

Hell, I've even had to explain to my fiance that it's ok to explicitly tell me that you don't want to have sex, and that it's ok to not want to. In the early days she had some odd ideas in her head.

 

[Toni]

I've never known any woman in real life to play 'hard to get.' I've seen it in movies but not in real life.

That said, I dated a guy back in high school after he asked me out pretty persistently. Not game playing but we were friends and I didn't want to wreck the friendship.

Women who play "hard to get", don't want to be got. It's an escape strategy, not a baiting strategy.

I agree.

If you think a woman is 'playing' hard to get, check your premises. She might be completely serious about not hooking up. She might be pursuing a relationship with someone else. She might have doubts about a suitor's sincerity or character and wants to take her time evaluating the situation before making a commitment.

Whatever her reasons, it's better to presume she's serious about them than not.

Yes, to both Arctish and Bronzage's posts. Exactly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you are suggesting that other people do not have the freedom to disassociated themselves from someone when it is revealed that he sexually harassed women (and denied/ran from the issue for a year before finally owning up to his actions)? You also assume that this is some sort of permanent banishment when it is certainly not. So he is suffering a small amount of social consequences in the present... as I said - had he addressed his actions when they first surfaced, he likely would not have experienced even this much.

I don't think it was sexual harassment. If what he did is labelled sexual harassment, I think we've watered down the term. I need some sort of malice for it to be sexual harassment. I see no malice here. It all could have gone just fine. They might have been into it. He did stuff that was in the grey area IMHO. It doesn't make it ok. But it means, to me, he was a bit stupid and made a fool of himself a couple of time. I don't think it makes him a bad person. It also doesn't make him endearing and cute for his flaws. This falls, flat on it's face, somewhere in between.

The person I felt bad for was scientist Tim Hunt. He made a boneheaded sexist comment and the hashtag #DistractinglySexy went viral. The twitter hashtag thing was generally good-natured and funny. It highlighted a genuine double-standard in the sciences without vilifying Dr. Hunt. Too many media reports, on the other hand, were over the top in attacking the man in spite of there being absolutely zero evidence that he, personally, had ever said/done anything adverse to any woman anywhere. He was eventually forced to resign from the science committee of the European Research Council. THAT was over the top (but even he is fine now).

Also, I think it's ok to lack social skills if you're a scientist. Yes, it's double standards. But we need a couple of careers open to awkward nerds who don't understand how to behave in social settings. BTW, this is not justifying sexism. This is more an encouragement to interpret what nerds say in the best possible light we can think of. Rather than the opposite, which is more customary.

My day doesn't hinge on your opinion of me, and I'm sure that your day doesn't hinge on my exceedingly low opinion of you, either Frankly, the only reason you aren't being ignored by me (as you typically are) is that I do think you touched on a nugget of an important point that I thought worth discussing - but if you would rather continue trying to be an insulting ass, I can go back to generally ignoring your nonsense.

That is a tempting offer. Few things brighten up the day than flinging undeserved insults on the Internet.

Sorry about that. That didn't come out right. I could have formulated it better.

In Sweden last year a law was passed that stated that you need to get verbal consent before engaging is sexual acts. Loads of "sensible" people thought that was a sensible law. I'm guessing, without once contemplating on their own sex life and how that works. Or probably doesn't work.

I will point back to something Bronzeage said (and I am paraphrasing here) - if you don't know/trust your sex partner well enough to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have unambiguous affirmative consent, then don't have sex with him/her.

And I'll go back to my earlier comment that, that is not how sex works among humans. Having this standard is condemning all normal people and treating them like rapists. Sometimes we just need to go for it. Men who don't are often socially punished for it, by not getting laid. The incentives here are pretty clear. And trying to teach young people how we want it to work isn't going to change anything. If anything is hardwired it's sexual language.

Finally starting to become intolerant of sexual harassment? Yes, absolutely and it is about time.

I disagree this was sexual harassment. I see it more like people are becoming intolerant of any minor mistake taken during sex. That's my genuine worry. A man being bad in bed does not make him a rapist. I don't even think this is exaggeration. This is where we're heading.

Sexually repressed? You seem to be assuming that the issue is his fetish rather than the fact that he failed to get genuine consent before engaging in it. I think that, in general, you are wrong. I do think there is a question of whether his fetish requires the non-consensual aspect - much like a peeping tom generally requires non-consent to get the sexual pleasure. But only Louis CK can really know that and it is ultimately none of our business as long as he refrains from the non-consensual behavior that got him into trouble.

From the accounts, I somehow doubt he thought the girls weren't into him sexually. I think he was fairly certain he had consent. At worst a gamble. And from the accounts there's no mention of him continuing after any of them expressed disapproval. Nor was he forcing anybody to stay. I saw no hint of coercion.

I do think that Louis CK has received a bit more than the slap on the wrist he deserved

At least we agree on something

I sincerely hope that you are not defending Ray Moore.

I am. I'm not defending his actions, if he did it. I'm defending him if he didn't do it. I'm open to the possibility that he did none of these things. There's not enough here for me to be certain he is guilty. And that's super important to me.

Some women are into bondage, too. You are suggesting that men should just keep tying women up without their consent until they get better at obtaining that consent? Seriously? And you wonder why Sweden had to pass a law requiring an unambiguous verbal "yes" before sex.

There's ways to imply or show that you are into bondage without breaking out the ropes. It's pretty easy to establish if a girl is into being held down without it getting awkward. I've done it many times. But you've got to show "your colors" at some point. And we need to do it in such a way that both people will be able to deny that they actually did. It's called social grace.

I once met a girl at a party. We were standing in a group of people talking. She asks a guy who has a horse "do you only whip your horse with your whip?" To me that strongly suggested that she would consent to getting whipped, if she went home with me. Which she did. And boy was she into it. But I could have been wrong.

Everything I've read on Louis CK's conduct suggests that he's capable of taking a hint, and when he realized his behaviour was unwelcome he didn't try it again with the same woman. That makes it totally ok in my book.

If he is so capable of "taking a hint", there would not be an "again" nor any accusations for him to contend with.

Was there repeat offences?

There isn't any question that he did, in fact, manipulate women in order to satisfy his fetish for public masterbation. And that's the key here, he manipulated the women. He did not have affirmative consent from them. He fully acknowledges this, and there is a pattern over multiple years with multiple women. He has apologized. And now he will get on with his life, hopefully a little wiser and more considerate of the women around him.

That's not how I interpreted his admittance of guilt. What I understood is that because he was a famous comedian, therefore he had power over everybody and all comedians, and therefore it automatically became manipulation. It hadn't been if he hadn't been famous. I think that is bullshit. People can use power to manipulate their way to sex. But just being famous isn't enough, IMHO. That's putting impossible standards on famous people.

Was there any repeat offences? If there was I missed it.

How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

Since I have never had sex with a woman, you are correct... I have never obtained affirmative consent for sex with any woman.

Sorry for assuming that you weren't a woman or gay man. But the question works in reverse. How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex. Since all body language can be misinterpreted it's never perfect unambiguous. I've misread long time girl friends with hilarious consequences. Even with people you know well it sometimes goes wrong. And it's hilarious with them, because they know it was no ill intent.

But I think that you are confusing the extreme version of consent required when the people really are in a voluntary situation of "no means yes" with what ordinary affirmative consent looks like.

I think it's wide open to being confused about it. There's nothing in that definition that is obvious.

“Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity. Consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in the sexual activity."

Affirmative consent is defined as “informed, freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in sexual activity that is expressed by clear and unambiguous words or actions.”

If you think this settles anything I assure you it doesn't. It's too vague.

If you have not been getting affirmative consent before and during your sexual interactions, you have been doing it wrong.

Your statement is so vague it is meaningless. How the fuck could I know? How the hell could you know? I hope I have. That's as good as it gets.

The problem here is that we're putting standards on Louis CK that no human (that anybody actually wants to have sex with) will ever be able to live up to. If we're putting them on Louis CK we're also putting them on ourselves. I see it as very unhealthy and a socially dangerous development.

If you think expecting Louis CK to have affirmative consent before whipping it out, then you are part of the problem.

I say the same about you. I think it's unhealthy impossible standards that nobody can live up to. That's not how to foster healthy sexual relationships between people. Nor does it help make communication between men and women better. At best I think it'll lead to good men feeling guilty or guilt tripped for reasonable mistakes. As well as push more men toward predatory behavior. In both cases it'll lead to increased misogyny.

 

[RavenSky]

....
How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

...

On what planet?

Affirmative consent is the best part. Extremely subtle signals? I didn't have time for that. While I'm trying to decipher subtle signals, some other woman has her finger hooked in my top shirt button. I've got plenty of ways to create tension, danger and mystery, but none of them start with wondering if she really wants me.

Without reading the entire exchange between RavenSky and DZ I do see this specific point.

At no point have I ever asked my partner in our five years together if she 'wants to have sex with me', and if I did her answer would most definitely be no.

For guys, it often really is a weird game of mind-reading, you just have to be willing to see and accept the 'no' signals too.

Hell, I've even had to explain to my fiance that it's ok to explicitly tell me that you don't want to have sex, and that it's ok to not want to. In the early days she had some odd ideas in her head.

I will repeat - the concept of affirmative consent is not what Zoidberg seems to think it is.

And I will also note that part of the point in promoting "affirmative consent" to encourage clear communication in BOTH directions. In other words, it is also exactly this: "to explain to my fiance that it's ok to explicitly tell me that you don't want to have sex, and that it's ok to not want to." (And to explicitly tell you when she does)

I agree that people (men and women) have some odd ideas about sex. A culture of affirmative consent would help eliminate some of those odd ideas.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't think it was sexual harassment. If what he did is labelled sexual harassment, I think we've watered down the term. I need some sort of malice for it to be sexual harassment. I see no malice here. It all could have gone just fine. They might have been into it. He did stuff that was in the grey area IMHO. It doesn't make it ok. But it means, to me, he was a bit stupid and made a fool of himself a couple of time. I don't think it makes him a bad person. It also doesn't make him endearing and cute for his flaws. This falls, flat on it's face, somewhere in between.

You may demand a standard of malice to term something as "harassment" but the normal usage of the word does not; however, I am not going to argue semantics with you. It is this "grey area" that is the problem. Affirmative consent would have kept him out of that grey area, regardless what specific word you want to use for this not ok behavior on his part.

 

[RavenSky]

In Sweden last year a law was passed that stated that you need to get verbal consent before engaging is sexual acts. Loads of "sensible" people thought that was a sensible law. I'm guessing, without once contemplating on their own sex life and how that works. Or probably doesn't work.

I will point back to something Bronzeage said (and I am paraphrasing here) - if you don't know/trust your sex partner well enough to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have unambiguous affirmative consent, then don't have sex with him/her.

And I'll go back to my earlier comment that, that is not how sex works among humans. Having this standard is condemning all normal people and treating them like rapists. Sometimes we just need to go for it. Men who don't are often socially punished for it, by not getting laid. The incentives here are pretty clear. And trying to teach young people how we want it to work isn't going to change anything. If anything is hardwired it's sexual language.

And I will point back to Bronzeage and the vast majority of men and women for whom affirmative consent works perfectly, with zero loss of sexiness or romance. I don't know what your misunderstanding is, but anything other than a "yes means yes" standard is unacceptable in a civilized society.

Throughout history, women were more often than not treated as property and raped regularly. Is that your idea of "how sex works among humans"?

 

[rousseau]

On what planet?

Affirmative consent is the best part. Extremely subtle signals? I didn't have time for that. While I'm trying to decipher subtle signals, some other woman has her finger hooked in my top shirt button. I've got plenty of ways to create tension, danger and mystery, but none of them start with wondering if she really wants me.

Without reading the entire exchange between RavenSky and DZ I do see this specific point.

At no point have I ever asked my partner in our five years together if she 'wants to have sex with me', and if I did her answer would most definitely be no.

For guys, it often really is a weird game of mind-reading, you just have to be willing to see and accept the 'no' signals too.

Hell, I've even had to explain to my fiance that it's ok to explicitly tell me that you don't want to have sex, and that it's ok to not want to. In the early days she had some odd ideas in her head.

I will repeat - the concept of affirmative consent is not what Zoidberg seems to think it is.

And I will also note that part of the point in promoting "affirmative consent" to encourage clear communication in BOTH directions. In other words, it is also exactly this: "to explain to my fiance that it's ok to explicitly tell me that you don't want to have sex, and that it's ok to not want to." (And to explicitly tell you when she does)

I agree that people (men and women) have some odd ideas about sex. A culture of affirmative consent would help eliminate some of those odd ideas.

Indeed. I get the sense of what you're both saying just found Bronzeage's comment a bit dismissive of what DZ was trying to convey.

Usually in any gendered issue like this I think some semblance of truth can be found from both sides, and the reality often lands somewhere in the middle.

But as for the uproar in the media these days, it's clear that the power balance still falls too heavily on men's side and something does need to be done to bring it back to the center. Probably better sex education, better enforcement, better HR policies. This is literally how society works. When there is an imbalance usually the oppressed group expresses themselves to lessen the imbalance. As they should.

It won't stop until something changes.

 

[RavenSky]

Finally starting to become intolerant of sexual harassment? Yes, absolutely and it is about time.

I disagree this was sexual harassment. I see it more like people are becoming intolerant of any minor mistake taken during sex. That's my genuine worry. A man being bad in bed does not make him a rapist. I don't even think this is exaggeration. This is where we're heading.

and I think you are grossly exaggerating the situation, but I will again refer you back to BronzeAge's point about trust. If you think there is any possibility that the person you are about to sleep with is going to call you a rapist for "any minor mistake taken during sex" - don't sleep with him or her.

Sexually repressed? You seem to be assuming that the issue is his fetish rather than the fact that he failed to get genuine consent before engaging in it. I think that, in general, you are wrong. I do think there is a question of whether his fetish requires the non-consensual aspect - much like a peeping tom generally requires non-consent to get the sexual pleasure. But only Louis CK can really know that and it is ultimately none of our business as long as he refrains from the non-consensual behavior that got him into trouble.

From the accounts, I somehow doubt he thought the girls weren't into him sexually. I think he was fairly certain he had consent. At worst a gamble. And from the accounts there's no mention of him continuing after any of them expressed disapproval. Nor was he forcing anybody to stay. I saw no hint of coercion.

Obviously he was not nearly as good at reading the situations as you give him credit for. Under no circumstances should anyone take "a gamble" that they have consent. Seriously. Losing your bet means you sexually harassed/assaulted/raped someone.

I agree that Louis CK believes he had consent, but even he acknowledges that it was of the "she didn't say no" variety. He should not gamble that her frozen/uncomfortable silence is consent - for his sake as much as hers.

I sincerely hope that you are not defending Ray Moore.

I am. I'm not defending his actions, if he did it. I'm defending him if he didn't do it. I'm open to the possibility that he did none of these things. There's not enough here for me to be certain he is guilty. And that's super important to me.

1. He is not being tried in a court of law (unfortunately)
2. The original report, with just two allegations, had more than 30 corroborating sources confirming his behavior. Even trial courts don't typically get that level of testimony. Since then, we are up to ten named women reporting similar stories.

Everyone fully acknowledges that not every report represents a law broken (though some do, including statutory rape and giving minors alcohol). It is about his pattern of targeting teenagers, and using his position as a District Attorney to do it.

Police officers have come forward to confirm his history of targeting teenagers for his sexual advances.

How much more do you need to start believing that this man targeted teenagers for sex when he was in his 30's? He even targeted his wife when she was just 15 years old.

Now I personally believe that there are FAR better reasons for this bigoted bastard to not be elected to the Senate than crimes past their statute of limitations and creepy predatory behavior before he was married, but I don't get how you think there isn't any evidence.

Some women are into bondage, too. You are suggesting that men should just keep tying women up without their consent until they get better at obtaining that consent? Seriously? And you wonder why Sweden had to pass a law requiring an unambiguous verbal "yes" before sex.

There's ways to imply or show that you are into bondage without breaking out the ropes. It's pretty easy to establish if a girl is into being held down without it getting awkward. I've done it many times. But you've got to show "your colors" at some point. And we need to do it in such a way that both people will be able to deny that they actually did. It's called social grace.

I once met a girl at a party. We were standing in a group of people talking. She asks a guy who has a horse "do you only whip your horse with your whip?" To me that strongly suggested that she would consent to getting whipped, if she went home with me. Which she did. And boy was she into it. But I could have been wrong.

So her comment indicated to you that she might be into bondage. SHE made a verbal comment, right?

And I am assuming that you didn't, at this point, take "a gamble" and kidnap her to your sex dungeon or anything. I'm assuming that you asked her to go home with you and she communicated a "yes". Once there, I'm also assuming that you didn't immediately go for the ropes, as it were - that there was again some communication involved before you got around to whipping her and her loving it. I wasn't there to be able to point it out step-by-step, but whatever you choose to call it, it sounds to me like you had affirmative consent.

 

[RavenSky]

Everything I've read on Louis CK's conduct suggests that he's capable of taking a hint, and when he realized his behaviour was unwelcome he didn't try it again with the same woman. That makes it totally ok in my book.

If he is so capable of "taking a hint", there would not be an "again" nor any accusations for him to contend with.

Was there repeat offences?

Would you be asking if a known rapist assaulted the same woman more than once before accepting that a rape occurred?

There was a pattern of behavior with multiple women reporting it.

There isn't any question that he did, in fact, manipulate women in order to satisfy his fetish for public masterbation. And that's the key here, he manipulated the women. He did not have affirmative consent from them. He fully acknowledges this, and there is a pattern over multiple years with multiple women. He has apologized. And now he will get on with his life, hopefully a little wiser and more considerate of the women around him.

That's not how I interpreted his admittance of guilt. What I understood is that because he was a famous comedian, therefore he had power over everybody and all comedians, and therefore it automatically became manipulation. It hadn't been if he hadn't been famous. I think that is bullshit. People can use power to manipulate their way to sex. But just being famous isn't enough, IMHO. That's putting impossible standards on famous people.

I agree with you that the mere fact of his fame does not automatically confer any power to him. That said, he clearly believed his fame conferred some level of power, because he consistently used it to pick up these women.

How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

Since I have never had sex with a woman, you are correct... I have never obtained affirmative consent for sex with any woman.

Sorry for assuming that you weren't a woman or gay man. But the question works in reverse. How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex. Since all body language can be misinterpreted it's never perfect unambiguous. I've misread long time girl friends with hilarious consequences. Even with people you know well it sometimes goes wrong. And it's hilarious with them, because they know it was no ill intent.

"How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex." - whenever I clearly and unambiguously wanted to have sex.

No one ever said there would never ever be misunderstandings, but this goes back to knowing and trusting the person you are having sex with, so that misunderstandings are hilarious and not sexual assault. Or if you do not know/trust the other person but still want to hook up, a higher level of communication is needed for everyone's safety/security - just like at the BDSM parties and for much the same reasons.

 

[RavenSky]

How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with? I'm guessing zero? That's the normal number. You're in fantasy land. This is not how humans behave nor how normal human sexuality works. You make a small move, that breaks a normative barrier for what is acceptable, without her consent, and see what happens. Then you try to figure out what her (usually) extremely subtle signals she is sending is conveying. Then you make another small move or pull back. That's how sex normally works. It's also how we want sex to work. We all require some degree of tension, sense of danger and mystery when having sex. Or passion dies.

Since I have never had sex with a woman, you are correct... I have never obtained affirmative consent for sex with any woman.

Sorry for assuming that you weren't a woman or gay man. But the question works in reverse. How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex. Since all body language can be misinterpreted it's never perfect unambiguous. I've misread long time girl friends with hilarious consequences. Even with people you know well it sometimes goes wrong. And it's hilarious with them, because they know it was no ill intent.

One more comment on this exchange...

I find it telling that, to you, the "reverse" is to now ask "How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex?"

Your original question: "How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with?"

Your revised question: "How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex?"

See the difference?

You did not ask me: "How many times have you got affirmative consent from men you've had sex with?" - which should have been the question, imo.

This illustrates my point about the roles people are expected to play, and how a social expectation of affirmative consent is better for everyone.

Women are guilty of sexual harassment, too (as Al Franken's accuser Tweeden demonstrates).

But society expects men to be the pursuers and women to be pursued. When a woman does break from that expectation and is the pursuer, society applauds and the man is expected to cheer whether he wanted her attentions or not. Women are expected to say no when they mean yes. Men are expected to say yes even if they want to say no.

How about if everyone is expected to simply be honest in their sexual encounters? Imagine how much easier it would be for men like Louis CK to be certain he has consent rather than gambling his public reputation?

 

[Underseer]

Let's also not forget that some of these men (such as Harvey Weinstein) actively destroyed careers (both of victims and of journalists who tried to report the story) in order to cover up what they were doing, so you can't say they didn't know that what they were doing was wrong.

Others (Ailes and O'Reilly) paid hush money. Again, you can't say they didn't know that they were doing something wrong when part of the settlement required silence on the part of the victim.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Since I have never had sex with a woman, you are correct... I have never obtained affirmative consent for sex with any woman.

Sorry for assuming that you weren't a woman or gay man. But the question works in reverse. How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex. Since all body language can be misinterpreted it's never perfect unambiguous. I've misread long time girl friends with hilarious consequences. Even with people you know well it sometimes goes wrong. And it's hilarious with them, because they know it was no ill intent.

One more comment on this exchange...

I find it telling that, to you, the "reverse" is to now ask "How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex?"

Your original question: "How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with?"

Your revised question: "How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex?"

See the difference?

You did not ask me: "How many times have you got affirmative consent from men you've had sex with?" - which should have been the question, imo.

This illustrates my point about the roles people are expected to play, and how a social expectation of affirmative consent is better for everyone.

Women are guilty of sexual harassment, too (as Al Franken's accuser Tweeden demonstrates).

But society expects men to be the pursuers and women to be pursued. When a woman does break from that expectation and is the pursuer, society applauds and the man is expected to cheer whether he wanted her attentions or not. Women are expected to say no when they mean yes. Men are expected to say yes even if they want to say no.

How about if everyone is expected to simply be honest in their sexual encounters? Imagine how much easier it would be for men like Louis CK to be certain he has consent rather than gambling his public reputation?

Yes, there's social norms surrounding sex. I don't get what your point is? You acknowledge that the norms exist, but then go on to lecture me on how I should have formulated the question differently. Do we or don't we have sexual norms for men and women that put different demands on them? The question was perfectly in line with these norms. We're not having a discussion on how we think the world should work. We're talking about how it actually works.

With the social norms being the way they are today attractive women do NOT need affirmative consent to do whatever with anyone. And this is strongly encouraged. Granted that less attractive women are on par with men.

Changing norms is also an important detail in this whole #metoo thing. Men are accused for stuff that spans all the way back to the 70'ies. But sexual norms have undergone several radical revolutions in this period. In the 70'ies you just couldn't get it right. Because of the schizophrenic norms everybody was fucked no matter what they did. Which is what the decadent and permissive 80'ies reacted against. Norms influence behavior. Our norms have consequences. Which would be an interesting discussion. I'm not seeing that discussed at all.

Right now I'm seeing a pushback against the new queer PC norms of the 2010's. Everywhere. Even in queer circles.

 

[Playball40]

Sorry for assuming that you weren't a woman or gay man. But the question works in reverse. How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex. Since all body language can be misinterpreted it's never perfect unambiguous. I've misread long time girl friends with hilarious consequences. Even with people you know well it sometimes goes wrong. And it's hilarious with them, because they know it was no ill intent.

One more comment on this exchange...

I find it telling that, to you, the "reverse" is to now ask "How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex?"

Your original question: "How many times have you got affirmative consent from women you've had sex with?"

Your revised question: "How many times have you clearly and unambiguously shown that you want sex?"

See the difference?

You did not ask me: "How many times have you got affirmative consent from men you've had sex with?" - which should have been the question, imo.

This illustrates my point about the roles people are expected to play, and how a social expectation of affirmative consent is better for everyone.

Women are guilty of sexual harassment, too (as Al Franken's accuser Tweeden demonstrates).

But society expects men to be the pursuers and women to be pursued. When a woman does break from that expectation and is the pursuer, society applauds and the man is expected to cheer whether he wanted her attentions or not. Women are expected to say no when they mean yes. Men are expected to say yes even if they want to say no.

How about if everyone is expected to simply be honest in their sexual encounters? Imagine how much easier it would be for men like Louis CK to be certain he has consent rather than gambling his public reputation?

Yes, there's social norms surrounding sex. I don't get what your point is? You acknowledge that the norms exist, but then go on to lecture me on how I should have formulated the question differently. Do we or don't we have sexual norms for men and women that put different demands on them? The question was perfectly in line with these norms. We're not having a discussion on how we think the world should work. We're talking about how it actually works.

With the social norms being the way they are today attractive women do NOT need affirmative consent to do whatever with anyone. And this is strongly encouraged. Granted that less attractive women are on par with men.

Changing norms is also an important detail in this whole #metoo thing. Men are accused for stuff that spans all the way back to the 70'ies. But sexual norms have undergone several radical revolutions in this period. In the 70'ies you just couldn't get it right. Because of the schizophrenic norms everybody was fucked no matter what they did. Which is what the decadent and permissive 80'ies reacted against. Norms influence behavior. Our norms have consequences. Which would be an interesting discussion. I'm not seeing that discussed at all.

Right now I'm seeing a pushback against the new queer PC norms of the 2010's. Everywhere. Even in queer circles.

I think you need to recognize that 'norms' change. Just because something was a 'norm' 30 years ago, doesn't make it right or acceptable. You cannot tell me that stars suck as Cosby, or even Louis didn't know full well that their fame had women trying to get close to them - and took advantage of that power. I suspect it was less about misunderstood signals and more I didn't give a crap about 'signals' at the time. But whatever.

Regardless, any 30 something man pursuing a 14, 15 year old girl is a disgusting, vile, weak man who is a fucking chicken shit who didn't have the balls to pursue women his own age who likely told the sick mother fucker to go jack himself. He pursued children because he could control them. Sick fucker.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Now its Sylvester Stallone!

http://www.tmz.com/2017/11/16/sylvester-stallone-denies-sexual-assault-allegations/?adid=hero3

I don't actually like most of his movies, so no great loss.

Anyone else notice that these allegations tend to involve older men and not younger men? I wonder if that's because younger men are actually less likely to do this sort of thing because society started changing before we realize, or if it's just the case that younger reprobates have had fewer opportunities to get caught.

Stallone categorically denies this. And he was fit as fuck back in the day. He had the hardest body in the universe. Why would he do it, when he had a free pick of any woman back in the day? Based on the story of his life he seems like a sensitive introvert. So a billion times less likely to do this sort of thing. I don't know him. So I'm just speculating freely. He also had a hard body. That means that he took care of himself. So, no drugs, and only healthy food. Discipline. So even less of a reason to think he would go rapey.

Your speculation just assumes that the allegation is true? There's such a massive unknown here that we have no reason to infer anything from it. At this point I'm getting increasingly sceptical of every new accusation.

You're right that he was very fit from taking steroids or whatever, but rape is about power to a big extent and the story I read from the woman wasn't that she was non-consensual with him but instead when he brought his friend into the picture for a threesome of sorts. That sounds like the sort of thing that someone with some power might seem entitled to do. I'm not going to put a "billion times less likely to do" it on this, but maybe 50/50.