Louis CK and the rise of Sexual Stalinism -- Spiked

[+]Deplete11 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

This highlights two issues:

how do we deal with redemption?
how do we deal with the fact this is going to make offenders more vigilant about covering up the truth so they, too, don’t face being erased from history?

[–]ThePigmanAgain[S] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ho-hugger1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link

From what I understand, he never did anything that wasn't consensual. He was not in a position of power. He was just a known comic who was hanging out with female comics who were just getting started. They were not working with or for him. They were chicks who he wanted to have sex with. We need to stop pretending that wealthy men have any power over these females. The females all wanted something from him. All he wanted from them was sex.

Big deal.

[–]ThePigmanAgain[S] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ho-hugger1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I go with Martin Clunes observations. These poor men are having females throw themselves the them constantly. Then the females lie afterward.

[–]ThePigmanAgain[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I disagree—I think his behavior was deviant enough for the women to be legitimately creeped out, and he should have known better than to do it. It's not sexual assault, and it's arguable that his career shouldn't end over it, but I don't think it's fair to just waive this off as completely legit. I have no problem with people who have weird sexual fetishes, but they are the ones who need to make sure they introduce those fetishes appropriately to the sensibilities of the society they live in, and doing so with other professionals you do not know very well is not appropriate to my mind, nor was it to those women, clearly. It's a complex topic, but I definitely think he was out of line.

I'll grant you this much though: my reaction was partly due to seeing a defense of his behavior on this sub, as I really don't like seeing people here give outsiders easy ammunition for confirming the stereotypes about us all being rape apologists.

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So, you think if he had just asked them for sex and they complied, that he wouldn't be pilloried right now?

Honestly? Yeah, kinda. I do think the deviancy contributed to them feeling creeped out by him. But it could still have happened if it was just sex, if it was still awkward and the wrong time to ask. I'm not saying he needed to up hid flirtation game either, although that certainly would have helped—I think there are ways you can proposition people for sex that don't creep them out and make it clear you're not trying to impose or anything.

And back to the power thing real quick—I do think there was a power dynamic he failed to respect there. When you're as much of a celebrity in your field as him, and you know the people in front of you look up to you and view a friendship with you as something that could really help their careers (as he either did or should have from his years being an aspiring comic), you should realize that they might feel extremely pressured to go along with your sexual desires, for fear of missing out on the opportunity of their lives. That doesn't mean I think it's as bad as other forms of professional power dynamics, but I do think it was present enough for him to be expected to be more mindful of it.

As the article says, I agree the utter erasure of his lifetime body of work over this is too extreme, but I won't write off his actions as completely morally acceptable either.

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Honestly? Yeah, kinda. I do think the deviancy contributed to them feeling creeped out by him.

Well, we completely disagree. I think if he had just asked for sex then he would be looked at exactly the same as Weinstein. It's a no-win scenario. I don't think the deviancy has any relevance at all.

I think there are ways you can proposition people for sex that don't creep them out and make it clear you're not trying to impose or anything.

I don't think so. I mean, sure, you can be more socially aware, but not being socially aware shouldn't be criminalized. Plus, we aren't really sure that he was socially unaware. I mean, maybe these women, in the hopes of advancing their career, or whatever reason, had been giving him signals that they were open to him making advances on them.

I don't believe that the after the fact stories really tell the tale. I have seen lots of behaviours which were 'endearing' when the girl was dating the guy, be swapped to "harrassing, and demeaning" when they broke up - it can be really weird. The critical part in sex is 'consent' - and there clearly was consent. I mean, what did he need to do, film them jumping up and down with a happy face saying "yes I want to watch you jerk off"? The bar is kinda high here.

I do think there was a power dynamic he failed to respect there.

I to some extent agree with you. I just don't think it's a significant enough factor here.

Someone hoping to gain a benefit and going along with something in the hopes of gaining that benefit is very, very different from being pressured with threats (explicit or implied) that he would harm their careers if they didn't go along with it.

One of these should be illegal, the other is women not taking responsibility for their choices.

The problem here is that 'viewing a friendship as something that could really help their careers' is not his responsibility. That's their view and them 'feeling pressured' is completely about them believing the first part, none of which has anything to do with LCK at all. It could just as easily have been that saying no and asking for him to use his influence to advance their careers would have been a more successful strategy. Their hopes, and all the pressures to comply, are completely in their own minds.

If anything, the lack of consent is on their shoulders. Did they ask if he would help them? Or did they assume that he would 'owe them' if they went along with it. That's pretty much the reverse of the guy thinking he deserves a BJ for buying dinner.

That puts us back at square one - if someone get's a relatively high level of success in a field, especially a celebrity field, they will always have a power advantage over other people. Does that mean that they should never be able to have sex?

EDIT: As an aside I said "women not taking responsibility for their own choices", That could just as easily apply to men, it's just that it's women in the particular circumstance we are discussing. I don't think this is specific to women at all.

[–]Tedesche 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think so. I mean, sure, you can be more socially aware, but not being socially aware shouldn't be criminalized. Plus, we aren't really sure that he was socially unaware. I mean, maybe these women, in the hopes of advancing their career, or whatever reason, had been giving him signals that they were open to him making advances on him.

We agree that the reaction to his behavior is overboard, but I still think he crossed the line with his sexual advance, even with his request for consent. You're speculating that they mislead him into thinking they were open to it, but there's no evidence of that—he didn't even mention it.

The problem here is that 'viewing a friendship as something that could really help their careers' is not his responsibility. That's their view and them 'feeling pressured' is completely about them believing the first part, none of which has anything to do with LCK at all. It could just as easily have been that saying no and asking for him to use his influence to advance their careers would have been a more successful strategy. Their hopes, and all the pressures to comply, are completely in their own minds.

No, come on, man, you can't just pretend people are entirely separate entities with no awareness of the social pressures being faced by each other. Their decision to consent is certainly their choice, and if people were calling for him to be charged with sexual assault and saying their consent wasn't freely given, I'd be strongly objecting to that along with you, but that doesn't change the fact that it was, in all likelihood, inappropriate for him to ask. The women all felt it was, and even if you think his apology was advised by his agent/lawyer, it seemed to acknowledge even he knew it was and was just telling himself "it's all okay if I ask first." All the testimony seems to suggest it was inappropriate, and I do hold him accountable for that—it's his behavior after all.

That puts us back at square one - if someone get's a relatively high level of success in a field, especially a celebrity field, they will always have a power advantage over other people. Does that mean that they should never be able to have sex?

No, obviously not, but I also don't think that power dynamic is present in all situations. In this, it was, and I feel he either knew it or should have known it—again, as his apology seems to confirm. I don't think it's too much to expect a person in a position of power like that to refrain from pursuing someone sexually when it's clear the response may not be genuine and the other person may feel pressured to comply. If he had known these women better, I don't this would have been an issue. Likewise, if they hadn't been comics and he had just met them at a bar, I wouldn't say there was a power dynamic pressuring them to consent, just because he's a celebrity.

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're speculating that they mislead him into thinking they were open to it, but there's no evidence of that—he didn't even mention it.

True. But he felt comfortable enough to ask and they said yes. That sort of implies that there was some amount of signaling. Yes, he could be that clueless that there wasn't but there isn't any reason to believe that.

you can't just pretend people are entirely separate entities with no awareness

Sure, this is a valid criticism of the argument. Mostly from the idea that we know that social obligation is a real thing (to most but not all people) and if you do something for me I do feel like I have a debt. The comparison to dinner + bj though is very similar, albeit reversed. We see a lot of arguments, and I agree with them, that treating a woman nicely doesn't entitle you to sex. It would appear that we should also be teaching that "agreeing to sex" doesn't entitle you to favours.

even if you think his apology was advised by his agent/lawyer, it seemed to acknowledge even he knew it was

It wouldn't be much of an apology if he said "I'm sorry, these women are telling the truth but I wasn't actually in the wrong here" now would it - that's pretty circular logic.

It's very possible that his apology represents that he engaged in behaviour he knew he shouldn't be engaging in - but even his representation of that "I told myself it was ok because I asked first" implies that he was thinking about consent. Now that could be CYA or it could be "I wanted it to be consensual". Can we tell from his apology? I don't know.

I think we have to look at the stories - he invited a woman up to his room, he asked her to partake in a sexual activity, she agreed. Ok - so there's no actual problem with that part of it.

The potential problem is one of a power dynamic.

If he had known these women better, I don't this would have been an issue.

I don't think that's true. If anything, that's worse because they would have said "I thought we were friends and then he sprang this shit on me, I didn't know what to do". He was far better off being up front.

If they hadn't been comics and he had just met them at a bar,

This is potentially true. But is it really sufficiently relevant? I mean, did they have any reason, other than obligating him through sex, to believe that he would help or harm their careers?

Also, does the argument not hold up if they weren't comics? I mean, you meet a celebrity at a bar, they invite you back to their hangout, you think you have made an influential friend, then they ask you to watch them wack off. It's the same thing - you want the influential friend so you say yes. If you say no, well, shit, you are going to be part of the next set of jokes. Public humiliation. In both cases the perceived negative effects are not actually real, they're make believe, unless you can point to real effects or state there were threats or promises.

[–]Tedesche 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

True. But he felt comfortable enough to ask and they said yes. That sort of implies that there was some amount of signaling. Yes, he could be that clueless that there wasn't but there isn't any reason to believe that.

The fact that he was accused by five different women doesn't suggest to you there might be some validity to their common view that his behavior was inappropriate? Come on now....

It would appear that we should also be teaching that "agreeing to sex" doesn't entitle you to favours.

That's not the issue though. These women aren't complaining that they let him masturbate and then failed to get them work in exchange for it. They're complaining that he propositioned them for a sexual act when it was inappropriate to do so, and that the only reason they consented was due to social pressures he should have been aware of. It's not about them feeling entitled to something from him and him not acquiescing to their expectations, it's about him not respecting the fact that his actions put them in a situation where they didn't feel comfortable refusing, and that he should have known it would. I can see the angle you're taking on this, but I think you're turning the issue on its head in a subtly nonsensical way.

As for the rest of our disagreement, it sounds like you just don't think there was a power dynamic in play, and I disagree with that. Don't really know where we go from there.

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Louis CK and the rise of Sexual Stalinism -- Spiked
Author	ThePigmanAgain
Upvotes	8
Comments	18
Date	November 13, 2017 10:20 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7cqtud/louis_ck_and_the_rise_of_sexual_stalinism_spiked/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/louis-ck-and-the-rise-of-sexual-stalinism-spiked.911200 https://theredarchive.com/post/911200

Comments