Louie (Louis C.K.'s show on FX)

I do apologize if it seemed like I was talking over anyone itt. I probably do that a lot in general on ILX as I'm almost always 'working' while I'm posting, which is not the optimal situation for focused conversation.

in a number of anecdotes given he invited the participant (and they acquested), or at the very least they gave off unclear signals (giggling instead of saying no when he asked them).

the thing is this is easy and there's really no grey area. jacking off in front of other people is not really my thing but with anything you want from a partner who's not your regular partner -- how do you not check, like, multiple times? "I wanna do this thing, are you ok with this? Are you sure? If you wanna say 'I'd rather not' please say that, I'd feel like an asshole if you're not 100% on-board." Like, this is not difficult and there aren't any good arguments against just taking a check-the-label-three-times-before-dispensing approach

Claims that consent is hard are, in my view, disingenuous at best. Consent is easy. It is not mood-killing or any other posited bad thing to overdo it on getting consent. As a lot of sex-ed people are fond of pointing out, the chances that it makes the encounter even better for both participants are very high. If you're comfortable jacking off in front of somebody then you can't really claim you didn't feel comfortable enough to get affirmative, enthusiastic consent.

it's really incredibly clear and the only signal that means "go ahead" is an affirmative, enthusiastic "yes." all other signals mean "don't do this."

"I wanna do this thing, are you ok with this? Are you sure? If you wanna say 'I'd rather not' please say that, I'd feel like an asshole if you're not 100% on-board."

well i for one am seduced

mordy is I'm sure right that there's a good amount of people who don't feel comfortable voicing particular viewpoints because they'll get attacked. idk is that the kind of messageboard you want to have? maybe it is. i really don't care, but it's def an ilx "thing" forever and always.

It's an "every forum on the internet I've ever been to" thing and tbh ILX is way more lenient than most.

JCLC otm, I don't find the consent boundaries difficult to understand (full disclosure I am not a rich powerful comedian)

"the thing is this is easy and there's really no grey area. jacking off in front of other people is not really my thing but with anything you want from a partner who's not your regular partner -- how do you not check, like, multiple times? "I wanna do this thing, are you ok with this? Are you sure? If you wanna say 'I'd rather not' please say that, I'd feel like an asshole if you're not 100% on-board." Like, this is not difficult and there aren't any good arguments against just taking a check-the-label-three-times-before-dispensing approach"

Because he just needed the flimsy excuse to tell himself it was fine. Just like how one might justify to themselves that is OK to have another drink or something. Not coming from a rational place.

Not a defense - just speculating.

So correct me if I'm wrong but weren't some of the women involved in this working for LCK at the time he asked them to watch him jack off? Because that blows a lot of normal consent stuff out of the water; there is ALWAYS an element of coercion in asking a office subordinate to do stuff outside of their job description (like picking up your drycleaning and walking your dog for non-PA positions), let alone gaining any level of familiarity with your genitalia.

iirc some were working for him, others were just people from the broader industry. either way there's a clear power differential at work.

yeah just being lower on the entertainment ladder makes you a professional subordinate of sorts

I get that being in an industry tends to limit your ability to meet other people outside of that industry but OTOH there are about a billion dating sites where you can put up a profile that says "I would like to jack off in front of you; interested?" and then sift through the replies to find the ones you're actually interested in and, before those, there were personal ads.

we aren't talking two random adults that don't work together consenting to get crazy, this all took place in the professional realm, among colleagues, often while on the job. that is just not fucking cool.

like if you wouldn't just ask a co worker to go grocery shopping for you then why tf would you ask them to do this?

yeah and also, again - I don't think I'm being dense here, others have said this already - forget the power differential for a second: asking an *acquaintance* to watch you masturbate? AT WORK? That's harrassment if she's the fucking CEO

many xps I guess everyone is saying the same thing

guys I think what he did may have been wrong

Like SO WRONG

it was definitely not OK

it was definitely CK

MAN HAS ISSUES

Perrin:

I’ve always loved comedy. In a sense, comedy saved my life. But comedians are some of the worst people I’ve ever met.

Self-loathing. Contempt for others (audiences and fellow comics alike). Anger. Pettiness. Bitterness. And in many of the men, misogyny, casual racism, sexual confusion, all couched, naturally, in The Joke. Because once the stage lights dim, no matter how vile the material, it’s considered little more than a fading joke.

https://dennisperrinblog.wordpress.com/2017/11/10/wankers/

even regardless of that fact that stand-up comic is a profession with little regard for comprehensive healthcare options and solid, thoughtful supervisor training, it’s very wrong what he did. Can we just agree on this? It was bad stuff, possibly terrible!

you're a pretty shitty person fyi.

you're a pretty shitty person fyi.

El Tomboto
Posted: 10 November 2017 at 20:17:46
even regardless of that fact that stand-up comic is a profession with little regard for comprehensive healthcare options and solid, thoughtful supervisor training, it’s very wrong what he did. Can we just agree on this? It was bad stuff, possibly terrible!

Um I don't think anyone would feel the need to state these givens as givens if we weren't a bit baffled by the debating of the ~finer points~

Like nobody is going to argue there is no difference whatsoever between violent rape and copping a feel on the subway and inappropriately propositioning your colleague but what's terrible about putting them all under the umbrella of harassment & abusive behaviour

well i for one am seduced

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCfhIO8unns

wins: Reductive simplistic reasoning is reductive and simplistic

And because whenever a pile of normally interesting people all decide to turn into Tough On Crime Republicans I find it frustrating and depressing etc.

Now who's being reductive and simplistic?

he didn't use dating sites/consult a professional because as we noted earlier -- the uncomfortable feelings his actions produced are part of the thrill
you don't get that in a simulation

also my screen name is gendered female and display name makes it clear i am a weird woman in a bar ;)
for future reference, i am very transparent and quite genuine about who i am on and off the board. i am a woman.

Are you always in a bar? Not to split hairs or anything

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/11/09/a_sex_therapist_on_why_some_men_force_women_to_watch_them_masturbate.html

he didn't use dating sites/consult a professional because as we noted earlier -- the uncomfortable feelings his actions produced are part of the thrill
you don't get that in a simulation

No I get that; that comment was meant to build upon what you were saying, not negate it.

xp - as long as people keep playing music in bars, not always but frequently :)

Why would a man choose to masturbate in front of a woman instead of physically assaulting her?

Well, a more violent act would make him a rapist. He might not want to think of himself that way, or be seen that way. If he just masturbates, he can tell himself that he’s not strong-arming anybody.

Yeah, I was saying yesterday to someone that maybe this was part of it too. Well, I didn't touch anyone etc.

aka the lamest excuse known to man
cool escape route from predator mountain

I've been thinking about how this finally getting confirmed/seeing the light of day impacts how I view his work. It doesn't really change my opinion re: the quality of his previous work, but his show(s) and standup were already loaded with so many unpleasant images of him and his sexuality it seems like going back and watching any of them now would not be a funny or enjoyable experience. I'm going to have a hard time laughing at any of his jokes (esp any about gender or sexuality or power dynamics) because all I'm just going to immediately picture him dropping his pants and whipping it out. With some awful people's work their personal failings are fairly divorced from their work, making it easier to separate the art from the artist - but with others (Wagner, R. Kelly etc.) that separation becomes really difficult if not impossible and then it's just like "welp, you and your work are now ruined, good job."

I was bullied at work for some time a year ago and I am still recovering from it, I cannot imagine the intense pain from trusting someone who then suddenly decides to sexually assault me in this pathetic way. Why do people do these things why why why.

I could imagine still "enjoying" Horace and Pete since it's the most separate from his usual persona and pet interests, but it was so unrelentingly bleak I can't imagine watching it again.

it definitely makes all the "Louis gets laid by another random woman" episodes of "Louie" (to say nothing of the actual sexual assault episode) just fucking gross. tbh this was a recurring story crutch that always bothered me about the show but now even moreso.

but really if you think about it he was telling people EXACTLY who he was with his stand-up and show! there was a lot of transparency. i'm a gross piece of shit ugh. but like what that slate interview says, when it comes to compulsions the feeling of self-loathing and guilt is a part of the compulsion! which is why i wonder if this isn't something that he is enjoying on some level. which is really fucked up!

yes to all that. but I would add that the show also forgave/validated him a lot of the time. Like yes there was the self-loathing, but then he got to be star of the show being a cute dad and getting laid all the time and telling funny joeks and generally depicting himself as trying to do the right thing (or what he thought was the right thing)

which is why i wonder if this isn't something that he is enjoying on some level. which is really fucked up!

― scott seward, Friday, November 10, 2017 5:00 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, why do you think people have pity parties?

Just want to point out that CK is full of shit in that “apology”—according to the Times story, he did not ask all of these women. And of course the ones he did ask were still being coerced. Do you really have to be a cartoon villain like Weinstein to be held accountable for your actions.

I’ve been reading so much online writing about sexual assault and abuse of power that I can’t remember where I read this, but a woman pointed out that a woman’s first instinct when a man does what CK did is to try to save him embarrassment. As self-defeating and risky as that is, I have found it to be true in my own life, and I am grateful to that woman for naming it. The whole game is set up to protect the abuser, and we’re indoctrinated too.

Also, CK revealed a lot of himself in Louie: all his stuff about how men are disgusting and their desire for women necessarily degrades them...maybe the way you do it, motherfucker

What scott just said, I meant

I could actually almost believe he didn’t understand the impact his abuse had on these women

Bc to him it was one incident

But for women it’s one incident in a looooong-ass chain of “incidents” we’ve experienced

It’s also precisely that CK did not ask women he knew well, in the context of a relationship, if he could masturbate in front of them. It’s clear from the reporting that part of why he was compelled to do it was the degree to which it mimicked that moment on the train when some rando whips it out and starts going at it in your presence. am I right, ladies?

I think he completely understood it. He also dismissed these women as liars mere months ago.

Please Louis C whatever , just join Bono on some island and never bother us again

I wonder if I will ever stop feeling this overpowering rage.

imo it doesn't matter if he understood or not, what his thought processes were, the literal "why" he did it. it's all bullshit excuses. his intent is irrelevant.

just think of how many years he's been on the road. god only knows how many people he's done that too. the sordid life of the traveling salesman.