High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[jayswin]

Like RubeCube said, I feel really bad for his daughters. They've gone from "OMG your dad is Louis CK!!!!" to "Oh god, what did he do??". The high and low of what they've experienced as kids of a famous celebrity at a young age is horrific, especially since Louis had put them in his work a few times so they're not exactly unknown.

Old enough to understand too young to experience it. Hopefully they get through it okay.

[nik-]

https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2...t-nickelodeon/

Odd source, I know. But I definitely remember reading reddit posts about this Dan Schneider guy in the past. A Nickelodeon one would probably be right up there on the disgusting scale.

[wittynickname]

Pretty sure the worst take I've seen today is "consent is a grey area."

Consent is easy. Consent is yes or no. Consent is the ultimate black and white. If it's "grey" it's no.

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Pretty sure the worst take I've seen today is "consent is a grey area."

Consent is easy. Consent is yes or no. Consent is the ultimate black and white. If it's "grey" it's no.

Well some of the women said yes. So...

They said yes but didn't quite grasp what was about to take place, hence the grey area comment. They did in fact say yes to him whipping out his penis and whacking it so you are saying they gave consent?

[Peanut]

Did they say yes or did they laugh and not say no, thinking it was a joke?

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Did they say yes or did they laugh and not say no, thinking it was a joke?

Good point. I only read it once and it was a while ago. They may have done just what you said and I am only assuming they said yes. Well need to verify.


I should add that I'm not defending by any means just pointing something out. I still think you could say "yes" in the wrong context, ie actually thinking he was joking.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Did they say yes or did they laugh and not say no, thinking it was a joke?

The NY Times article doesn't specify. The rumors that have been going around about him for years said that the women laughed and gave him a "facetious thumbs up."

[CliffFletcher]

HBO announced yesterday that it was pulling any CK projects, including Lucky Louie, from its streaming service.

These sanctions are so arbitrary. David Bowie had sex with drunk and stoned 14 year olds. Not wanked in front of them. Not sat on laps. Had intercourse. He's still a revered music icon, and his music is still available on iTunes, Spotify, etc. Jimmy Page kept a 14 year old girl locked up as a sex slave. He has an OBE from the Queen, still makes records, is revered as a rock legend.

This is why mob justice is so dangerous. A court of law is rational, consistent, and proportionate. The court of public opinion is wildly inconsistent and capricious. Bowie and Page get a pass. CK gets crucified.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Just because people are arguing its not criminal doesn't mean they support or defend Louis, can we please stop acting like that's what's happening? This type of response is what shuts down constructive conversation about these issues andy escalates it into a stupid argument.

I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of the scenario you're describing here. Unless I missed it. They are saying if you ask and someone says no you deserve to be fired but it isn't criminal.

People don't want to make those distinctions. It's an emotional issue. That means the most emotionally satisfying narrative will win out. And we live a world where social media and public opinion can destroy a person as surely as a court ruling. So the distinction between criminal and socially reprehensible has become meaningless.

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Pretty sure the worst take I've seen today is "consent is a grey area."

Consent is easy. Consent is yes or no. Consent is the ultimate black and white. If it's "grey" it's no.

Sorry, there is nothing less straightforward than sexual consent. It would be nice if sex was tidy and neat. But it's not. There's no human behaviour more complex.

Only a small fraction of sex acts are preceded by verbal consent. In many cases, a long duration of time passes between any verbal exchange and sexual congress. That means we're left to nonverbal communication and gestures, and several stages of sexual activity in which a party can overstep.

What should be clear is a denial of consent. "No." That's clear. Whether in words or gesture. Where it gets less clear is the cases - which constitute the vast majority of sexual acts - when consent is neither actively denied or positively given. Throw in alcohol and drugs, and these matters couldn't be less straightforward. Read the accounts described here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...policy/538974/

The way we wish sexual relations were in the abstract, and how they are in practice, is worlds apart.

[JohnnyB]

I'm not totally clear about the concept of consent when it comes to what a person does with their own body if in the presence of others who are unconstrained or restricted from leaving. I don't feel like someone needs my consent for what they do with their own junk. As long as I was free to leave, doing it in front of me by surprise or against my will would make me think that person is really messed up, but I wouldn't see it as an issue of my consent in the way I would if they tried to get my junk out or make any other contact with me. For sure I would feel grossed out, disrespected and likely violated, but I'm not sure another person needs my consent for what they do with their body. Consent seems like a right. I have the right to consent over my body, but not over other people's bodies.

Given the power dynamics, I would think at least some of those people didn't feel they could leave. That dynamic is very important and makes a big difference. Absent that power dynamic though, I would just see the guy as deranged and a jerk.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I'm not totally clear about the concept of consent when it comes to what a person does with their own body if in the presence of others who are unconstrained or restricted from leaving. I don't feel like someone needs my consent for what they do with their own junk. As long as I was free to leave, doing it in front of me by surprise or against my will would make me think that person is really messed up, but I wouldn't see it as an issue of my consent in the way I would if they tried to get my junk out or make any other contact with me. For sure I would feel grossed out, disrespected and likely violated, but I'm not sure another person needs my consent for what they do with their body. Consent seems like a right. I have the right to consent over my body, but not over other people's bodies.

Given the power dynamics, I would think at least some of those people didn't feel they could leave. That dynamic is very important and makes a big difference. Absent that power dynamic though, I would just see the guy as deranged and a jerk.

Your logic seems like it would support flashing people and jerking off in public urinals would be non criminal.

Certainly in a work environment you have right not to be exposed or offered to be exposed to pornographic material.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I think Louis CK's career is over. Not because nobody will hire him but because when he does come back his jokes which were crude and everyone thought were funny...were actually things he was doing in real life and judging by his recycled sex jokes 30 times a show i wonder if he can even be funny without going to his patented go to "jizz" sounds or "whipping it out" jokes.

I think Louis CK will be back. Mel Gibson is all over the news these days as he is in the new Will Ferrell /Mark Wahlberg movie. Looks like people have forgiven him. Look at Chris Brown -- he continues to have a career.

I'm also willing to bet Louis CK will buy the distribution rights of his movie back from Orchard and either find another distributor or release it himself. But in the short-term (a year or two, maybe?), I don't think we're going to hear from him.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your logic seems like it would support flashing people and jerking off in public urinals would be non criminal.

Certainly in a work environment you have right not to be exposed or offered to be exposed to pornographic material.

Obviously there are laws against public nudity or sexual acts in public. Exposure to pornographic material, in most work places, is also going to be prohibited.

I'm thinking more of this issue of consent for acts that don't clearly violate any other law. If someone wants to puke in a cup in front of me and proceed to drink their puke, I will find that horrific, deranged and very offensive, and I may feel violated, but could I say they violated my right to consent if I'm free to leave at any point?

Consent for what is done with my own body seems clear. Consent for what others do with their bodies is not so clear.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

These sanctions are so arbitrary.

Sanctions? What the hell are you talking about? These aren't sanctions. These are companies choosing not to do business with someone because it's bad for their bottom line. It's pure capitalism.

EDIT: I'm curious to know what you think are acceptable consequences for what CK did?

[Peanut]

Cliff Fletcher: “There is nothing less straightforward than sexual consent.”

I mean... really? NOTHING is more confusing than sexual consent?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Cliff Fletcher: “There is nothing less straightforward than sexual consent.”

I mean... really? NOTHING is more confusing than sexual consent?

Way to latch on to the hyperbole rather than the content.

Save

[calgarybornnraised]

I find it funny that a bunch of guys are debating how sexually violated a women should feel.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

I find it funny that a bunch of guys are debating how sexually violated a women should feel.

And I find it sad that you would think discussing a topic like this is funny.

We all have mothers, most of us, wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces etc.

Why in the hell wouldn't we discuss how they might feel? How they might react if this happened to them? What the consequences should be for someone who was guilty of perpetrating these acts?

Do you seriously believe that all men are so disconnected from their female counterparts that's it's impossible and even insulting for us to even attempt to comprehend what their lives are like? Think about what you're saying about the relationship you have with the women in your life when you make a statement like that.

[Itse]

People often use this thing called "language" to communicate to others about experiences they've had and their feelings about different things. Putting experiences and feelings into words is often messy and complicated, and people have a tendency to exaggerate or play something down, and sometimes they even lie. It's still pretty useful as a tool of communication. For example if a lot of people are saying they feel a certain way about something, it's probably a pretty common way to feel about it.

Women are known to use language, so it's not that hard to "get" women. You listen to what they say and you assume they are people.

[BlackRedGold25]

Add George Takei to the list of Hollywood people who are alleged to have committed sexual assault.

[SportsJunky]

Allegedly.

Not trying to be cute but I think we need to remember that these are accusations.