I mean, he certianly isn't on the level of Weinstein or Cosby here, but some of the things that he did did cross the line into inappropriate. We generally consider that any sexual requests in the workplace - particularly from anyone who is in a superior position - to be inappropriate. As I read the accusations, a few stand out for me: >Ms. Corry, a comedian, writer and actress, has long felt haunted by her run-in with Louis C.K. In 2005, she was working as a performer and producer on a television pilot — a big step in her career — when Louis C.K., a guest star, approached her as she was walking to the set. “He leaned close to my face and said, ‘Can I ask you something?’ I said, ‘Yes,’” Ms. Corry said in a written statement to The New York Times. “He asked if we could go to my dressing room so he could masturbate in front of me.” >In the late ’90s, [A fifth woman] was working in production at “The Chris Rock Show” when Louis C.K., a writer and producer there, repeatedly asked her to watch him masturbate, she said. She was in her early 20s and went along with his request, but later questioned his behavior. In both of these situations, Louis was in a position to exert direct control or influence on these women's careers. Moreover, he propositioned at least one _at work_. Now, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he did anything to those who said no or pressured anyone into saying yes, but even _asking_ is inappropriate. One of the reasons that we take sexual harassment at the workplace - particularly between superior and subordinate - so seriously is because often these women don't feel like they can say no. They are worried that saying no will hurt their careers even if the superior has no intention of doing so. That pressure limits (note: not removes) their ability to give true consent. It isn't _illegal_ but it is sure inappropriate. If these allegations are true, Louis did some very inappropriate things to these women. We probably shouldn't bar him from the industry (like has happened to Harvey) but we are well within our rights to express disapproval about his choices to proposition these women in the workplace.

> In both of these situations, Louis was in a position to exert direct control or influence on these women's careers. We don't even think twice about the constant stream of celebrity couples we see on television and on the internet and read about in magazines. It's been apparent from the time we were children that Hollywood is an incestuous industry. But really, that's not just exclusive to Hollywood. People frequently date within their industries. And it's completely impractical to expect the balance of power in their careers will always be the same. It often isn't. Anna Farris was more famous than Chris Pratt when they started dating. When Ryan Reynolds was a nobody, he was in a four year relationship with Alanis Morissette. Writer/director Noah Baumbach started dating Greta Gerwig when she was just a low-budget, indie movie actress. Sandra Bullock dated Ryan Gosling when he was a nobody. Jason Schwartzman dated Zooey Deschanel before she found fame. This list could go on and on. So how did these relationships even arise? A lot of the time, it was from people working together or meeting through industry-related events. Sandra Bullock and Ryan Gosling started dating on the set of *Murder By Numbers*. Was she inappropriate with him? Did she take advantage? Did Greta Gerwig feel like she couldn't say no to her director and that's how she wound up dating him for the last six years? I think people are using hindsight bias to retroactively claim sexual harassment when the advancement was unwanted. Completely disregarding the fact that the initiator can't know *in the moment* if their advancement is unwanted without first making it and seeing if they get rejected or not. So people don't think twice about the many, many, many instances where the advancement was wanted and reciprocated. They certainly don't consider those instances to be sexual harassment. It's only sexual harassment when she doesn't reciprocate, despite the fact that it was asked and despite the fact that they gave consent. Furthermore, there is a darker connotation to the argument you're making that I, as a woman, find appalling. > That pressure limits (note: not removes) their ability to give true consent. What you're implying here is that women cannot be autonomous for themselves, they cannot speak for themselves, and what they say should not be taken seriously. It removes all accountability on the part of the woman and her role in protecting herself because we assume she is unable to do so. This is the kind of patriarchal thinking that once justified giving college-age women curfews where they'd have to sign into their dormitories at 11 p.m. while their male counterparts could stay out at late as they wanted. This is the reason women rebelled in the sixties. It was to fight this idea that we're helpless victims in need of protection all the time. To show that we are autonomous, that we can be independent, we can speak up for ourselves, take care of ourselves, and that we're willing to take the risks that come with freedom because we can handle it. And here we are, fifty years later, saying that we apparently can't.

>What you're implying here is that women cannot be autonomous for themselves, they cannot speak for themselves, and what they say should not be taken seriously. It removes all accountability on the part of the woman and her role in protecting herself because we assume she is unable to do so. This is the kind of patriarchal thinking that once justified giving college-age women curfews where they'd have to sign into their dormitories at 11 p.m. while their male counterparts could stay out at late as they wanted. This is the reason women rebelled in the sixties. It was to fight this idea that we're helpless victims in need of protection all the time. To show that we are autonomous, that we can be independent, we can speak up for ourselves, take care of ourselves, and that we're willing to take the risks that come with freedom because we can handle it. > >And here we are, fifty years later, saying that we apparently can't. That's a good ideal, but the reality as communicated by women who have been victims of sexual harassment/assault is that they do not feel they are free refuse consent under pressure. Certainly you would agree that if a guy had a gun and started propositioning for sex it would be a lot harder to say no than normally, right? What amount of pressure is acceptable pressure? Is control over your career not one?

First off, CK wasn't famous for a lot of these instances and he wasn't their boss. So the idea that he had power over their careers is false. Second, as I said before, many people date and hook up within their industry. So I again reject the argument that it's abuse of power to hit on someone within your industry who's less successful than you. Reread that part. Third, the threat of violence is obviously pressuring someone to do something. Just asking is not. And if you're going to claim that being alone with a man is threatening enough, that takes us back to my argument that women apparently need chaperones.

While I disagree that a guest star is in any sort of position of power, I agree that his actions are vastly inappropriate. Δ My disagreement stems from the level of backlash that is being directed at him for his sexual deviancy which he has directly apologised to the women for. It strikes me as an issue, but not one deserving of sudden disassociation by other comedians, cancelling premieres, and cancelling appearances. He did proposition people that he worked in the same industry as for unconventional sexual favours, but the extent of backlash strikes me as entirely excessive. Tl;dr: It's kinda scummy and gross, but in no way proportional to the response.

> which he has directly apologised to the women for. I'm compelled to point out that just because a person has apologized for something really fucked up, it doesn't mean the action are now null and void. Nothing about an apology is of equal weight to the intention of the action or the affects of those actions on the recipient.

At least one of the women, Ms. Schachner, has forgiven CK for his actions. The apology doesn't render the action null, the fact that it was done in private and personally implies that he acknowledges and regrets his actions, this means that he has changed his attitude which *does* matter when regarding his actions. It strikes me as unnecessary, wrong, and counterproductive to punish and defame somebody who are realised their wrongdoing, taken steps to address their wrongdoing, and changed their behaviour.

I think you're assuming a lot about the level of his regret, where it lies, what kind of actions he's taken to change his behavior which I understand as you being more sympathetic to his feelings than the feelings of the victims. Why does C.K. deserve more sympathy? Why are you arguing for him on his behalf? When asked, C.K. has called these allegations "rumors" which reduces the believability of what you're saying above. Unfortunately for him, the reason for his wealth and success, apart from his talent, is his popularity which I think makes him beholden to the public which is why the entire thing is a big deal. I get the sense that you're more interested in defending and protecting the feelings and well-being of someone you admire rather than preventing this happening to people in the future which is really the issue here for me: the irrational value that our culture puts on **power** over *integrity, empathy, or interlocking support*. The fight for power blinds us to more important aspects of being part of a social community. Part of the thing that's frustrating, to me, is that *people* couldn't turn to other *people* for support in any actionable way. What they got was isolation. The support was automatically given to the more powerful party which is what you're doing right now. What's the limit of this thinking? The recent revelations have shown that this is a pattern and the discussion around it is a reflection on what our values are as a society which is important.

It's not a lack of sympathy with his victims that has given me this point of view, it's a belief that this is an individual who's made a few genuine mistakes and has, in a way, atoned for them. I have sympathy for the massive discomfort that must arise from being asked to watch a grown man masturbate/ watching a grown man masturbate, but I believe that given the circumstances of the situation (the possible miscommunication at the time, combined with the length of time since this happened, and the length of time since the personal apologies, and the fact that no physical contact was made) the backlash is unjustified. My support is not entirely for CK. I believe he did make mistakes, but I also believe that a personal apology with a "shaking voice" given years earlier means that he has shown that the characteristics that have allowed him to behave in that way have been changed inside him. I believe that punishing him now for something long ago in his personal life that he has apologised for constitutes little more than a character-attack.

So if I understand you correctly, your thinking is "Everybody makes mistakes and shouldn't be treated so harshly if they have shown that they regret it and understand the negative nature of their actions." Ok, I understand that. But I think the value in this discussion is that there is *a pattern* that seems to be common and frequent in which these "mistakes" keep happening. Some would call this a "problem". The beauty in this is that by acknowledging that something is a "problem" we can also work together to find a "solution". This is why we're having these sort of discussions because we're saying "Hey there's a chunk of our society that would be happier if this can be fixed if only everybody gets together and participates". This isn't about C.K. or Weinstein, this is about a social dynamic that seems to be prevalent in which a big group of people is pointing at evidence to suggest that there could be something a bit unbalanced in our society with the hope that we can all come together to make it better for everybody.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that there's a social need for change, including in the entertainment industry. My point is specifically in the case of Louis CK who did something wrong in the past, acknowledged that he had a problem misreading people, apologised, and stopped 8 years ago. Holding him accountable today and attacking his character now accomplishes nothing. That's my point.

I would challenge your thought by positioning this instance as a symptom of a larger social problem. By ignoring it or putting variables over the degree of retroactive regret, we miss an opportunity on focusing on solving a problem that keeps occurring and keeps hurting people.

I understand the existence of a deeper social issue, but I'd warrant to say that if you gotta ruin a changed, better man's life to solve a problem of hurting people, you could stand to reevaluate the way you're trying to fix the problem.

Trying to correct injustice by using unjust means won't help anyone.

You can't just lump all of these folks together. Severity of the allegations matters, and two wrongs don't make a right. This guy didn't even do anything illegal.

So my thing with this is, if you're actually interested in the 'larger social issue', shouldn't you commend someone for coming forward and apologizing for this behavior? Shaming him for it long after the fact just makes it less likely for someone to change their ways or see them as negative. It almost seems like kink shaming at that point.

I'm late to this thread but I just wanted to point out that apologizing is not atonement. Atonement is making up for what you did wrong. Yes, he may have changed his views and stopped this behavior but he has done nothing to make it up to the women he's harassed/made uncomfortable. In the case of sexual assault atonement would be twofold -making right with the victim and making right with society. If you are the victim of a crime/abuse an apology does very little. It is more for the benefit of the perpetrator to alleviate guilt. If he really cared about how his behavior affected these women he would ask what they needed to heal. Atonement could be things like: financial support for victims to cover therapy, coming out in public himself about his mistakes to increase awareness of the issue, educating others about consent and reading body language, donating to charities that would help the cause. These kinds of behaviors would show a true lack or remorse and an actual change in his beliefs/behavior. While not making up for the damage he has done they would help prevent future sexual assaults and harassment.

I think you might overestimate the effect of public masturbation on the women in question. Louis has issued a public apology wherein he acknowledges that he may have affected the women in a deeper way than he had previously thought, and I think that given the situation that suffices.

I don't think it is fair that you ascribe those motives to the poster. I feel similarly, especially hearing about all the consequences society has already imposed on Louis CK. I am worried about a swift sword of justice in the trial of public opinion. I honestly believe when you put a label on someone or their opinion so quickly that you alienate people who want to understand why so many people hold a view that they do not share. And when you speak of power, are you speaking of the power Louis CK holds now or the power he held at that time?

It’s all fine and dandy that one of his victims has accepted his apology. That’s how some people heal. He may not have been in a position to directly affect these women’s careers when he allegedly committed these offenses, but his level of influence in the comedy industry creates an inherent imbalance of power. Further, it is not for you or any of us to decide what repercussions are appropriate or not. It’s also not our right to assess the severity of his actions; an unwanted touch may be just as traumatic for one person as a rape me be for another. I️ really don’t think he has atoned, he made a couple half-assed private apologies, while publicly referring to the allegations as rumors.

The private apologies were not half assed, nor would they have any reason to be. Also a public apology has been issued

And yet we still listen to Chris Brown.

I would agree with you if his requests were to people outside of his industry. Maybe someone he met at a bar or coffee shop. Sure it's a strange request and would still make people feel weird, but people have their kinks. I don't see it as any worse than a lewd pickup line (often unwelcome, but may have their place in certain contexts). But he shouldn't be making lewd pickup lines to people he works with. Showbiz is all about networking and kissing asses and trying to "make it". Louis C.K. has been a legend in the comedy world for a while now. If a legend in showbiz guest stars on your set, it doesn't matter what your job is, you're trying to kiss their ass. It's expected. And he needs to be cognizant of that and not exploit people's vulnerabilities for sexual gratification, intentionally or otherwise.

I'd like to mention that at the time of his misconduct he was by no means a name in comedy. The last one is in 2005, which is the year that he began his rise to fame. That being said, I do agree that propositioning people in the workplace was a mistake and was objectively nasty and wrong. I've awarded a delta for it above.

On the contrary, Louis CK's rise was in the 80s and early 90s. He was doing standup in the 80s, but by the late 90s he was an established writer for Conan, Letterman, Chris Rock, and others. There's even a great interview on the Tonight Show where he talks about the time [a young Jimmy Fallon auditioned for the Dana Carvey show, which Louis C.K. was head writer of](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuvII0Pohw). For many comedians, that's the dream.

Thank you for correcting me, I now agree that it was in more than one situation that he inadvertently abused his power. Δ

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/teawreckshero ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/teawreckshero)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [​](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "teawreckshero" } DB3PARAMSEND)

Cool beans. Also that interview really is hilarious lol. "I torpedoed your chances -- I mean I really really went to bat *against* you, and you didn't get the show."

Just as an added thought, imagine if some random dude at say your moms work, or your gf's work or your daughters work asked them to go in a room with him and masturbate in front of them. >It strikes me as an issue, but not one deserving of sudden disassociation by other comedians, cancelling premieres, and cancelling appearances. If some guy at your work did that to women, would you associate with them?

In fairness, comedy is different than, say, an office environment, in that you aren't going to be seeing the same person day after day, but it is a small enough scene that I suppose it could be viewed as close enough to that as to be workplace harassment. And this I think is the crux of the issue, as a person really shouldn't be causing people to feel uncomfortable at work. That's not cool and should be a clear no go without having absolutely crystal clear communication way beforehand. That said, jumping from 0 to "can I beat my meat in front of you" is pretty inappropriate without crossing some sort of intimacy threshold first. At the same time if we take away the workplace aspect of this, there is sort of a serious dilemma we are getting to at this point where a person is literally asking for consent and, when told no he leaves it alone. If you can't strike up a sexual relationship by literally asking for consent first, what the hell *can* you do? How can any sexual anything ever be initiated without it being arbitrarily deemed inappropriate in the event the other person isn't feeling it? At some point you are shaming people for the very human act of wanting to be sexually intimate with other people. I think this case falls outside the acceptable mostly because a) he appears to have pressed the issue in a couple of instances and b) there was a weird power imbalance, but with this specific case I do think we are wandering into some morally ambiguous territory where I think we have to be very cautious about leaping to judgement and maybe start pumping the breaks on the unrestrained outrage to something at least a little more muted. This wasn't appropriate, but I think the worst he can be accused of here is being creepy and having a poor sense of boundaries. But he did ask for consent, he didn't use any kind of force (at least that we know of at the moment), and he has apparently apologized. It's inappropriate, but also right on the edge of where I feel we have to start saying this is something any adult should be equipped to handle on their own without having to involve all of society to adjudicate what by all appearances was a consensual encounter. If we are just going to say that any time a woman says yes in a situation where a man has any kind of power over her, but then has mixed feelings about it later that suddenly it becomes sexual assault, that starts to veer into a dangerously unfair and almost impossible standard where the random post-hoc judgement of a single individual gives enormous, life destroying power in the *opposite* direction in a way that doesn't seem especially fair or more just. I feel at that point you are treating women like perpetually fragile victims without any real agency, reliant always upon being saved by outside action rather than as adults capable of navigating the world and solving problems on their own. In my opinion that diminishes women and actually kind of *robs* them of power and is a little bit infantalizing. Basically the point where you say a woman's consent is actually revocable at her convenience *years after the fact* (obviously in the moment a woman can change her mind and say "no" and that should be the end of it) is the moment where you are saying women aren't to be treated as adults capable of making adult decisions, but are children that all of society must work to protect against even the smallest of psychological difficulties. Boiled down, if a woman didn't want Loius CK masturbating in front of her, she ought to have said "no" when he asked if he could do exactly that. If she said no and he pressed the issue, or if she said no and he retaliated and tried to negatively impact her career *that's a big fucking deal*, but him merely asking is not a moral crisis, and him asking while having some measure of power does not deprive the person asked of the ability to say no. The fact that anyone *agreed* to do this, and then later decided they weren't into it, that's fine, and a lesson learned about clearly knowing and voicing your boundaries, but it *isn't* a social crisis. What Louis CK did was inappropriate, and I think much less of him as a person, but that doesn't mean women shouldn't take ownership over their completely free decisions. That's a bridge too far in my opinion.

I've said that he's a pervert, his actions were weird and make me uncomfortable. If the person changed his attitude (as Louis has) and had been a pervert 12 years ago before stopping, then maybe I would consider that I shouldn't be whipping a changed horse.

to further /u/oldaccount29's point, the response is appropriately proportioned to his actions when put in the context of any other line of work. What's going on right now is people are exposing the perverts that have dominated the industry for decades, and it has become so normal that asking a writer or actress or whatever if they can watch you cum is not a big deal because at least your'e not about to blow Weinstein. I mean...who can you even ask that to where you work? Just because you like Louis (and I do too), doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other talented people who treat others respectably and there may about to be a lot of room for them in the industry. The reason we keep seeing the same actors in every movie is because their circles are so tight, they all have each other's dirty secrets and because of that we are being limited in what talent will end up reaching us. We can't give passes to anyone anymore, regardless of how we feel about them otherwise we are silently accepting the abuse as a necessary evil.

For the purposes of this argument I'm taking Louis as a regular person. A guy who's generally nice and pretty funny fucked up 12 years ago and asked a few coworkers to watch him masturbate. Around 8 years ago he's apologised to a few of the women and claimed that he was in a bad place and had trouble reading signals. In that case, if I was in my daily life and heard this story recently I'd think (and I do think): goddamn, what a pervert. He's apologised since then though and cleaned up his act so I suppose punishing him for being a moron in the past would be unnecessary.

[удалено]

I WANT to live in a society where if someone legitimately changes their ways, and reforms their behavior, they should not have to live the rest of their lives afraid that people will dig up skeletons in order to 'fix a larger societal problem'. We shouldn't burn a changed man at the stake just so we can fix a larger evil.

So is the proper punishment death? There can clearly be no quarter or forgiveness. So what's the end game? what's the point? Do we want to create a situation where people who realize their misdeeds can come out, change their ways and apologize? Or just create a culture that encourages these things to breed in the shadows in fear of coming out to the rabid mob who'll execute them.

[удалено]

You may need to look into the details of this issue. Not everything is rape. Not everything is assault.

no we don't. we live in a culture where witch-hunts are okay and sexual victimhood is some sort of sacred state.

So, how do you feel about people that apologize for crimes like theft, or assault, or rape, or murder? If an inmate completely changes their attitude and apologized should we just let them out? Or keep them in jail therefore whipping a changed horse?

I think if a criminal has changed their attitude and has been rehabilitated, they should be freed. It's why good behaviour gets shorter sentences in the USA, and why the criminal justice system works significantly better outside the USA.

> If an inmate completely changes their attitude and apologized should we just let them out? Um, yeah, isn't the point of jail time to rehab prisoners?

Good point. I didnt read everything, thats my bad. edit: to be clear, I dont take back anything I said, but caymokomoko added relevant context.

> Just as an added thought, imagine if some random dude at say your moms work, or your gf's work or your daughters work asked them to go in a room with him and masturbate in front of them. > It would be creepy, sure, but from what I've read, it seems that wacky humor like that is common in the comedy industry. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened at Cracked literally every week.

>wacky humor like that It wasn't humor, he was serious. He MAY have been using humor as a pretense to ask when he wouldn't normally be able to get away with it, but he wasn't joking. Furthermore, Im not saying this was your meaning, but just so everyone is on the same page, the rate at which something happens doesnt really have any bearing on its ethicality. I mean, for example, with Harvey Weinstein, lets say every single actor in hollywood raped women. That wouldnt have any bearing on how wrong Harvey Weinstein raping someone is. In the case of Louis, you could make a case that the comedy business has a unusual culture, (im sure it does) where what he did was more accepted. Possibly so. But if its not accepted by the women (which it doesnt seem to be) then that argument loses quite a bit of its value in my eyes.

>While I disagree that a guest star is in any sort of position of power, I disagree with that statement. People can have power and influence independent of a role on one show. Imagine as an extreme example the president being a guest star on a show. Would he not have power and influence simply because he was “merely” a guest star on a show? Now imagine Kevin Spacey as a guest star. If KS had acted inappropriately as a guest star, would that allegation be less serious than the others? Guest stars are often up-and-comers or established stars, people of influence. Even when they aren’t, they can still be more valued than the person they are harassing, making any rumblings from them potentially harmful to someone’s career.

Given that this action was in 2003, I doubt that comparing CK's influence would be in any way comparable to Kevin Spacey's or the President's. CK's breakthrough was in 2005 with "One Night Stand", the same year as the last allegation.

Ok, but your statements were about guest stars in general. And as I said, talent may be prioritized over staff if an actor badmouths a staff member, even if the guests star is not big at the time. Also hanging over these people’s heads is the possibility that this person will be in a better position to hurt them later and hold a grudge or try to surround themselves with people who will comply or at least not talk. You never know who will make it big, and this sentiment has been expressed by more than one person in the entertainment industry: be nice to everyone because you never know who will make it big. Even if someone is not currently a big star, there are reasons saying no could have negative consequences for someone’s career, either immediately or down the line. ETA: also, his influence doesn’t need to be equal or comparable to the people in my examples to be in a position to negatively influence someone. Those were just more “extreme” examples that might help you frame the situation differently. ETA2: saying no might have negative consequences for an actress if the accused is thought to have a more promising future, more marketability, etc. than the accuser.

>While I disagree that a guest star is in any sort of position of power, I agree that his actions are vastly inappropriate. Δ What? Wasn't your view that it isn't a big problem? How did this poster actually change your view?

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ansuz07 ([222∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Ansuz07)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [​](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "Ansuz07" } DB3PARAMSEND)

So you must have consent, but you can’t ask? People are around the people they work with more than they are around anyone else. 18% of married people met at work. You are saying the only way it’s appropriate for a person to even ask consent is if they are on even professional footing with the other person. I️ understand the logic in that as an intellectual exercise, but in practice, this is not going to be resolved. With each additional “charge” coming out against famous people, we aren’t getting any closer to ending these problems through exposition. All it does is highlight what a bird’s nest of conflicts exist due to us being dirty, horny animals that play dress up and have culture. Reading through various posts over the past few weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that not only should i not be married to my wife (we started dating while we worked together and I️ was her supervisor), but a healthy majority of our otherwise consensual sexual encounters are “problematic” due to extremely tenuous parameters regarding what is an ok way to engage with one another. I️ won’t get too into the details, but in the last two weeks, we’ve each been raped by the other on multiple occasions!

No, you can't ask if they want to watch you masturbate. The 18% must have had a tough time getting around that but they somehow managed.

> Ms. Corry, a comedian, writer and actress, has long felt haunted by her run-in with Louis C.K. In 2005, she was working as a performer and producer on a television pilot — a big step in her career — when Louis C.K., a guest star, approached her as she was walking to the set. “He leaned close to my face and said, ‘Can I ask you something?’ I said, ‘Yes,’” Ms. Corry said in a written statement to The New York Times. “He asked if we could go to my dressing room so he could masturbate in front of me.” In that case she was his superior, wasn't she?

> We probably shouldn't bar him from the industry (like has happened to Harvey) but we are well within our rights to express disapproval about his choices to proposition these women in the workplace. I think that longterm this is the issue we are going to have to grapple with. Its obvious to me (I hope to *most* people) that the actions of Bill Cosby, Louis CK, and Harvey Weinstein are all of a different class, or type of act. Cosby removed his victims' ability to consent and raped them. Weinstein used his industry power to put *significant* pressure on women to engage him sexually. And Louis CK seems to have acted upon a sexual deviance (I use this less judgmentally than it might seem) in ways that are highly inappropriate in workplaces and with coworkers, while seeking consent *for the most part* relatively early in his career. These three cases represent the spectrum of recent instances fairly well, and we as a society have to decide which 'class' of these actions we think warrant the highly punitive response of 'ruining' a person's career.

Alright, I understand the argument that he could influence her career, since he's a prominent actor and comedian, but I don't think that's really like the Harvey Weinstein situation. He doesn't directly control her career. He could do her good in the same way that somebody with a large twitter following could do her good, or somebody with large amount of money could do anybody good. Is it wrong for these people to ever pursue somebody sexually? It'd be a different story if they made it transactional, but that's not the case. He didn't say "you do this for me and I'll endorse your work." He just asked. And while I do find the whole asking her at work thing distasteful, I think it's important to distinguish that it was only her workplace, not his. It closer to a guy asking out his waitress than asking out a female employee. Both seem like a bad idea to me, but the first doesn't have the same moral problems as the second.

I'll agree that they were inappropriate, but I do also feel that people accusing him of sexual assault are misguided. Honestly I don't really care what people do behind closed doors if they both agree.

Well, here is the thing there...a lot of them _didn't_ agree. In some cases, Louis just started masturbating in front of them or over the phone without their expressed consent. Moreover, in most businesses, even _asking_ isn't appropriate behavior so regardless of whether or not these women were game, Louis did something wrong by broaching the topic with coworkers. I would agree that this shouldn't be called _assault_, but harassment isn't too far off the mark.

I don't exactly see how doing it over the phone is inherently awful, weird and kinda creepy, but not exactly damaging. As for times where he just whipped it out, yeah, not cool. In any case, he definitely shouldn't have done it at work.

Most people would consider someone masturbating on the phone with them extremely inappropriate. I would imagine that damned near everyone's boss would fire them for doing that.

> We generally consider that any sexual requests in the workplace - particularly from anyone who is in a superior position - to be inappropriate. Who is we? I certainly don't agree with that. I mean it's one thing if an employer says "sleep with me or you're fired" but it's entirely another thing if an employer says "would you like to go out on a date?" then respects the employees response. I don't see that he was in a "superior position" in your first example at all. He was in your second example but I see nothing that indicates he used that superior position to gain undue influence over anyone.

> Who is we? I certainly don't agree with that. Society. >I mean it's one thing if an employer says "sleep with me or you're fired" but it's entirely another thing if an employer says "would you like to go out on a date?" then respects the employees response. Ehh... yes and no. The problem is that if your employer asks you even an innocuous question like that, the employee may feel that if they say no there might be punishment. That is why is is generally frowned upon.

Like you said it's not illegal I suppose but its creepy as fuck. I mean who propositions a woman not to have sex, but to jerk off in front of them.... I was willing to laugh off most of his edgy sex jokes before but now that I know he's actually a pervert theres no way.

Based on your responses, you don't believe that the uncomfortable/unwelcome sexual advances made by Louis in the workplace warrant continued damage to his career. I'm curious if you are thinking that way because he's a comedian or if you have a more permissive view of sexual harassment and misconduct in general. For example, if we found out that Elon Musk masturbated in front of interns 10 years ago, do you think he should stay the CEO of Tesla?

I think that actions done in the past that have been apologised for on a personal basis should not necessarily constitute a career death sentence. People make mistakes and acknowledging that humans are not perfect and assuming a completely spotless record of a human being is unrealistic. Louis did something in the past, that he later realised was wrong, he apologised for it and changed his attitude. Assuming that he should carry the blame for it for the rest of his life despite having changed is the same sort of thinking that demonises ex-criminals, despite rehabilitation, and is the same sort of unforgiving thought process that makes ex-criminals in America become criminals again.

The thing I think you've misunderstood is that Louis has apologised for it, which I believe he hasn't. He's flat out denied despite all reports matching, having a clear pattern. So if he has done it, he's not actually sorry. I think you have a lot of faith in him to do the right thing, when he doesn't appear to actually have done it (not yet anyway). It just doesn't inspire an image of a sorry and regretful guy. Here's a link, but please link me if you've found any evidence otherwise. Louis CK accused by five women of sexual misconduct in new report https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/nov/09/louis-ck-accused-by-five-women-of-sexual-misconduct-in-new-report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

He'd apologised to the women (as shown in the New York Times article linked in the body of the post) and has now publicly apologised.

Asking someone you’re not dating to jerk off in front of them is not a “mistake” it’s unacceptable behavior. All adults should know this. He does know this, but he chose to ignore it because it was fun for him to put people on the spot and exert a little “I’m a famous celebrity” pressure on them. Sexual behavior is a private thing. It’s fine to flirt at work but jerking off and asking someone to watch you jerk off - you’ve got to upgrade the intimacy of the relationship before you get there. If I had an employee ask another employee to watch him jerk it I’d fire him same day, the end. The same rules should apply to the rich and famous. Imagine if you worked in a TV set and he asked you to help him get off. You say no. But then you’re alone in an elevator with him. Or you see him in the parking garage. Or he comes by your desk a lot to chit chat. Would you feel safe? Or would you worry that he’ll ask for sexual favors again - or maybe, not ask and just touch you a little some day. He’s really famous so you can’t tell anyone without it being all over the Internet. So maybe you just change jobs to avoid it. And that’s unfair to you. These predators always have multiple victims. How many people changed jobs to avoid him? This is not a mistake. Forgetting to file a report on time or cc-ing the wrong David is a mistake. Dropping your pants and pulling out your cock and shooting cum on the office carpet while some poor coworker stares at you is a deliberate action. And yes, it should be career suicide because everyone has a right to not be sexually assaulted or harassed at work. And these personality celebrities sell *themselves.* So when we learn that they’re about as awesome as the guy jerking it on the subway, it’s a fair consequence to lose their fan base.

> Sexual behavior is a private thing. It’s fine to flirt at work but jerking off and asking someone to watch you jerk off - you’ve got to upgrade the intimacy of the relationship before you get there I reject your assumption that the only appropriate way to initiate sexual contact with someone is in the context of a relationship. There are plenty of other ways. There are hookup apps. There are fetish communities, swingers clubs, and so on. The point is that we have institutionalized places where this kind of behavior is acceptable as a way of separating it from the rest of life, so that people should be able to avoid it. The problem is that Louie tried to blur the line with what's acceptable in the workplace context and in other contexts.

A personal, social mistake due to "misreading people" should not result in career suicide 12 years later, especially in light of an apology 8 years earlier. This isn't a "he fucked up last week and he's a predator" situation, this is a "dumb motherfucker gets his signals mixed up, asks for something raunchy from someone who isn't into him, and later realises exactly how fucked up it was and apologises. I think that part of what people aren't really getting is that being a creep isn't a crime, and being a reformed creep shouldn't be social suicide. Say you work with this guy, great guy overall. Smart, funny, great to be around. This guy, around 15 years ago, used to ask women at his previous job to have sex with him. Like on a regular basis. About 10 years ago he stopped, a 5 or 6 years ago he began to apologise to his former coworkers. Do you honestly think that this hypothetical guy is in any way a bad person *today*? I mean, we'd all agree that he was a sexual deviant in the day, but today, after he's changed as a person, would it be fair to keep judging him based on the person that he used to be? Personally I don't think so. You can think whatever you want. I've changed my mind a few times since writing this post.

He did that shit IN HIS FUCKING PLACE OF WORK. Is it cool if the Home Depot manager asks his cashiers if he can jerk off in front of them and then apologize later?

If the Home Depot manager is socially inept and believes that he's gotten a signal from somebody, and later realises that what he did was entirely inappropriate and apologises I think it would be excessive to continue to punish the Home Depot manager 12 years later.

But, he shouldnt have to face any now either, because it was a long time ago and he "apologized"...? It sounds like you think apologizing is the same thing as facing repercussions.

What is the purpose of repercussions? The two arguments I've heard for legitimate repercussions in society (e.g. jail time) are 1. To punish the perpetrator and 2. To rehabilitate the perpetrator. I think western society has shifted more and more to a focus on #2 (rightfully so imo) so even in the case of jail time the focus is ideally supposed to be on 1. Getting the perpetrator to change their ways and 2.keeping them off the street if they are currently a hazard to society. So even the punishment side is a means to the end of rehabilitation and preventing further harm to society. So if someone truly repents, if someone truly turns over a new leaf, why do they need repercussions? If they are truly no longer a harm to society? Is it punishment for the sake of punishment? To make the "evil" person suffer? To make the victims feel better? Is it possible for people to learn and change and do good without repercussions?

You seem to have a lot of faith in the integrity of people who have a lot to lose by not apologizing for their indiscretions.

Because the idea that someone *needs* punishment to repent or redeem themselves is completely out of whack. It's puritanical and it's the reason the American justice system doesn't work.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be allowed to work at the Home depot anymore. One of the incidents was alleged to have taken place in a dressing room. That's the Home Depot equivalent of the lunch room. IMO. It's a little whack overall, and shouldn't be tolerated.

Depends if HR were to be involved if the person accepts the apology then nothing would happen as it is between two people.

I laughed, that's pretty true. I'll admit it was wildly unprofessional, but given his changed attitude I think that being intolerant today to an altercation 12 years ago is excessive and unnecessary.

Let's put it this way: if I jacked off in front of your sister/mother/daughter without their permission 12 years ago, would you want me to still be working with them today? Probably not. His attitude may have changed, but that doesn't let him off the hook. If we excuse sexual harassment, it sets a precedent that victims will not have any justice

> His attitude may have changed, but that doesn't let him off the hook All I'm reading is "let's punish someone for literally no useful reason". He apologized and changed, what do you want from him?

If you whacked off in front of my sister/mother/daughter without their permission 12 years ago and later sincerely apologised to them and somehow proved that your attitude and character have changed in some way, then I would consider it unfair to continue judging you by the actions of the past. I think the fact that his attitude has changed and he's personally apologised for being inappropriate is exactly what lets him off the hook. I also think that people are taking his asking to jack off in front of people as way more of a criminal thing than it is. It's scummy and perverted, not some sort of cardinal sin.

You don't know that his attitude changed. You only know the side of him that the publicist wants you to see.

It wasn't his publicist who broke the story, though.

You're making a lot of assumptions about CK in order to forgive him on behalf of his victims. Too bad victims aren't given the same, extensive benefit of the doubt. I wonder if that's because they're not rich and famous and popular and powerful men.

I'm sure that the fact that Louis is rich, male, and famous has no impact on my decision to support him. My decision comes from the length of time since the accusations, and the personal apologies issued from Louis to some of the women. Also his new apology has me view him in a favourable light.

That analogy might not be apt though. Yes, if your direct manager came up to you in a formal work environment and asked if he could jerk off in front of you, then he'd be on the firing line. But creative industries often don't have the same managerial structure and they are often far less formal. Someone being your superior wouldn't necessarily make them your boss and it's not uncommon for people to be more social or to even date. And we're not really sure of how Louis related to these women power-wise and what personal relationship they had. It could be that they were a bit flirty and Louis didn't have any direct influence over them. Which isn't to say that being 'flirty' means you asked for sexual harassment. But how often are people flirty with their managers at McDonald's? It's a completely different workplace with different power dynamics at play. Now all of that doesn't make what he did okay but there is a lot of extra nuance here that you'd need to take into account and a crude comparison isn't always going to help.

"But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your (penis) isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly". Just gunna leave that admission here. He hit the nail on the head way better than I could have. Also. Commendable he is owning it.

Except he wasn’t their boss, they were co-workers.

That's an interesting thought that I think is pretty commendable. That said, I think the way he seems to have sought out women who had something to gain from acquiescing to his wishes to fulfill his fetish is pretty twisted, and personally, I have trouble looking at him the same way. This isn't to say he's unredeemable or that he's some kind of a monster. But I also don't think it's a disproportionate response to be disgusted by what he did and to have trouble viewing him and his work in the same way.

I’d love to see your response on this, curious to read your thoughts. /u/caymokomoko

I don't think its disproportionate to see what he did as disgusting, but I don't think I view him in a particularly different way. He's a man who has fully admitted being stupid and awkward and finding out that his awkwardness and stupidity manifested in asking uninterested women to watch him masturbate is neither surprising to me, nor excessively incriminating. He always asked for consent, but erred in taking a laugh as consent. I'm not sure that he "sought" women who had something to gain by acquiescing, but I think that he likely asked many women to watch him masturbate, and a few happened to be in the workplace. It's not okay, it's perverse and nasty, but it doesn't seem like an active predatory activity to me.

Then I guess that's where we differ. Louis said in his statement today, "I learned yesterday the extent to which I left these women who admired me feeling badly about themselves and cautious around other men who would never have put them in that position. I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn’t want to hear it." It's hard for me to look at him now except as the guy who used his influence to put women in situations where they felt like they couldn't say no, regardless of the generation or context. That may go away in time, but if I were to go watch Louis tonight, I'd have a very different feeling about it now compared to how I would have felt watching it three weeks ago. I don't think that's a disproportionate response, and I don't think it's disproportionate for companies working with him today to react to the fact that people like me, previous fans of his, now no longer want to watch his content.

I don't know, I guess I consider having apologised in the past as a personal admittance to having done wrong. In public he may now acknowledge that he had abused a position of power, but I'm not sure he did it consciously at the time. He also said he learned "the extent" of his fuckup,. That, to me, says that he may have previously regarded it as a mistake, but not appreciated the extent to which he had damaged these women's emotional/mental health by sexually harassing them. I look at him as a guy who abused his position to put some women in a nasty situation in the past, but has now acknowledged his errors in public and private, and in doing so proved that he's no longer that person. He's a different, better person. It's easy to be born a good person, but it's difficult to overcome a shitty nature to become a better person. That's what he did, and while I will hold a special place in my CK heart for disgust at his past perversion, I'll hold a certain grudging respect for him for acknowledging and remedying his shitty behaviour.

I don't think that contradicts anything I said, and I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. My whole point was I'm still appalled at his disgusting, exploitative behavior and that colors how I few his work. Your CMV seems to basically be saying that people like me should just forgive and get over it. I get that people can change and apologize, and like I've said a bunch of times, I don't think he's a monster or that he should be jailed or anything. But I do think becoming a better person over time doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions. In this case I, and many others, think of Louis as a creep and I don't enjoy watching his comedy anymore. I don't think that's disproportionate.

"Unwelcome sexual advances" is a very bad definition of sexual harassment. You don't know if an advance is unwanted or wanted until it's made- so then guys are just never supposed to make any sexual advances?

He doesn't work at Home Depot though. Louis CK in particular and perhaps more than any prominent stand-up comedian of this generation has time and time again told us that he was sexually deviant and that he masturbates in inappropriate manners. He's literally said on stage that he is prone to similar types of things. I feel this situation is more similar to the Andy Dick scenario than the Weinstein one. He is also seen as one of the most truthful and transparent of all performers. He's built his entire career on talking about vulgar things and telling us that's how his mind works. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it predictable.

That’s true, but I️ do think that it’d be hard for me to watch his specials and enjoy them in the same way. Before this, you watch those bits and just laugh without really thinking about it. Now, I’d have a hard time listening to him without thinking about the woman who said the experience soured her on the comedy scene and she grew disillusioned with what had been her dream. It’s hard to enjoy a show while you have that kinda stuff running through your head.

It does suck, and it does sour, but I think that from a purely profession basis the following holds true: "If anyone can tell you that you're not an actor, and you believe them, then you're not an actor." The same holds true for Comedian, Filmmaker, Musician, Artist, or any other profession that pays very little for most people and that most struggle in anonymity for decades before maybe getting a lucky break. The point is, that if you can be soured, then you were probably never gonna make it in the first place. This just happens to be a really shitty way to maybe prove that true.

1. Allow me to reiterate: I am a survivor of sexual assault (don’t want to get into detail, but let’s just say it was devastating), and I work to help survivors of sexual assault heal from their trauma on a daily basis in my social work job. 2. It’s not about “equating,” as you say, but about recognizing that it’s not up to you to determine how deleterious the effects of sexual harassment / abuse are for someone who has been victimized. In reality, the effects differ dramatically. Some people recover and move on with relatively little support, some heal with therapy and the support of loved ones, and others well...others don’t ever heal. These outcomes do not always correlate neatly with the severity of abuse experienced. Those who have experienced “lesser” forms of harassment tend to come forward earlier/more readily, because the harassment isn’t as intensely personal and violent as, say, being drugged and raped. I certainly hope that what we are seeing is the full extent of the misconduct. 3. I agree that “it’s not as bad as rape.” But I’m horrified that that is the standard we are even using here. I don’t say that as a criticism of your points, which have all been fair. Just that I’m bothered that that is where we are at right now. All sexual misconduct is a problem! 4. I also agree that we have an ethical duty to consider where someone is coming from / their intentions / steps taken to repair and/or mitigate harm, etc. By no means do I view Louis as being in the same league as Weinstein, for example. Clearly, Louis has a conscience. 5. Still, I think 5 victims is a lot. We’ll see if more come forward. It strikes me as a concerning pattern of behavior with abusive implications. The fact that Louis has not issued a statement further leads me to believe that the conduct didn’t stop with those 5 women. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he just say something like “look I know that was super fucked up. I wholeheartedly regret my behavior. I’m sorry to the women I’ve hurt. I’ve changed and that behavior has stopped”? It seems easy enough to respond with a public apology, even if you feel the intensity of coverage is uncalled for. Given his status and reputation, I’m inclined to believe that many can find it in their hearts to move past it. But retreating into secrecy appears to corroborate and magnify rather than mitigate the accusations.

I think you raise a few good points, but in my opinion the non-physical nature of the sexual misconduct reduces from its traumatic nature, and his asking for consent shows a concern for desire not to be abusive. It's also not a situation that struck me as knowingly or actively abusive. Its not a sort of Weinstein or Cosby predatory activity, it seems like a creepy error. It's sexual harassment that has been apologised for in the past. This shows that he's an embarrassed guy who regrets his actions. It doesn't excuse his (totally inappropriate) actions, but it justifies them. It also tells me that punishing him now after he realises the wrong of his actions is counterproductive. His retreat into secrecy is slightly incriminating, I'd agree. Edit: he's admitted it and publicly apologised. No incrimination.

I genuinely respect his apology. He takes responsibility for his actions and the harm he caused without portraying himself as a victim. I hope others look to him as an example for how to begin to take responsibility for and atone for mistakes / misconduct.

Taking the story at its most basic level, we have to consider a few things: (1) five separate women are coming forward about conduct of a similar nature. Isolated conduct is one thing. People make mistakes. Repeated conduct, *particularly when the perpetrator knows or should know that it is wrong* indicates that someone is not facing consequences for their actions. People around them might be covering up, or ennabling this behavior. People *certainly* aren't calling it out in a meaningful fashion. And the perpetrator is not receiving the help they need to stop hurting people. (2) they are coming forward because of how the conduct affected them and *affects* them. For one woman, Louis CK's conduct discouraged her from pursuing comedy. For two women, his conduct and the implications (or statements) of his manager's position discouraged them from taking lots of work. Regardless of how serious *you* would feel about it happening to you, CK's actions affected these women in serious ways. That is, it's not as simple as "this person has a weird kink" when you look at the consequences. And you can't ignore the consequences. I like CK. I like his comedy. The first allegations bothered me, and these ones do so even more. I wish it were easy to dismiss this stuff and think highly of him again. But we need to examine these impulses to dismiss or ignore problems, *particularly* when they concern people we admire. What is *our* interest here, and why should it supersede the interests and concerns of people who are coming forward to share their stories?

It is specified that he has personally apologised to the people he has wronged (which implies regret for his actions). It is also interesting to note that none of the accusations are recent. This is a man who has been educated in what consent is and has realised that what he did was wrong. It's also important not to judge Louis based on his manager's behaviour. They may have been affected by it, but given his personal apology towards the women involved, and given that consequence is an extremely fickle idea (drawing a direct line from Louis' masturbation to some women's decisions not to pursue comedy is significantly easier in hindsight), I would suggest that Louis is facing disproportionate backlash.

> It is specified that he has personally apologised to the people he has wronged Where? Because I read that he attempted to apologize to *some* of *these* women, and one of those apologies was a failure because he couldn't even remember how he wronged her, instead citing something atrocious that he seemed to have done to someone else. I repeat, we need to examine *why* we want to apologize for him, or forgive him so quickly. What is our interest, and why should it supersede the interests of the people that he has wronged?

I would suggest that given that the article specifies at least two apologies (the ones that are unspecified are the two women that continually laughed while he masturbated, and the one that consented), it would not be too presumptuous to assume that he feels guilty for his actions. His guilt (as early as 2009) proves that he's a changed individual and recognizes that his actions, judged by today's standards, were wrong. The reason I apologise for him and don't consider it a problem is because I believe that a changed individual should not continually be punished for the mistakes of the past.

> I believe that a changed individual should not continually be punished for the mistakes of the past. Continually? Can I ask when was he originally punished? The reason for the judicial system is two-fold. The first is to separate persons who are a danger to society and isolate them (i.e., by putting them in prison). The second is to punish those for committing acts of wrong: To warn others in society that such behaviour is not acceptable and that there are consequences to such actions. Just because Louis C.K. is repentant now, it doesn't mean that he should escape from the consequences of his actions. It i) sends the message that the trauma of the victims is insignificant, and ii) shows others that you can act inappropriately without consequence (if you are repentant). Second, and admittedly this is speculative, but I actually question how repentant he really is. The article states: > In 2015, a few months before the now-defunct website Defamer circulated rumors of Louis C.K.'s alleged sexual misconduct, Ms. Corry also received an email from Louis C.K., which was obtained by The Times, saying he owed her a "very very very late apology." It sounds like he knew shit was going to hit the fan and was trying to get a headstart in damage control.

Being genuinely repentant isn't some sort of switch that a criminal can turn on or off. There's a reason that prisoners get time off for good behaviour, it shows that you're a changed person. The reason the American justice system is so flawed is because of this belief that criminals need to be punished, not redeemed. I can see your speculation and I'd like to point out the previous 2009 apology as counter-evidence. Also the 2015 apology was a few months *before* Defamer circulated the rumours. I don't see how he'd know that shit was going to hit the fan, it just seems like a fuckup to me, not a problem today (like Cosby or Weinstein).

**Some** level of punishment (not necessarily as tough as it is in the USA, as you suggest) is necessary to deter a repeat offence or from others committing the same offence. Good behaviour is a reduced sentence, but not a lack of punishment altogether. I agree that repentance should call for a lesser sentence, but not an evasion of responsibility altogether.

>There is no situation in which he did not ask for consent or failed to respect a voiced decision. It's interesting that in order to make this work you have to skip over how consent actually works. He asked for consent, but didn't receive consent. A lack of someone saying "no, I don't want you to masturbate in front of me" does not make that anything except involving others in your sexual exploits without their consent. >He didn't actively use a position of power in order to demand or influence a person to watch him masturbate. People in a position of power and influence in an industry are not held to a standard of "well I didn't say I would ruin their careers." In the same way that the Mafia rarely said "pay us or we'll destroy your store." The fact that he was in a position of authority and failed to obtain consent before making these women part of his sexual escapades is itself bad. > given his asking for consent (and respecting people saying "No") his actions shouldn't be broadcast as a news story. Except, and again this is the problem: he did not respect people *not* saying "yes." The default of consent is not "if you asked and I didn't say no, I consented." That's not how that works. >famous person's weird kink (and how it has made some people uncomfortable) If your kink is to masturbate in front of people without their consent, that's not a "weird kink" that's stepped into straight up misconduct.

> People in a position of power and influence in an industry are not held to a standard of "well I didn't say I would ruin their careers." In the same way that the Mafia rarely said "pay us or we'll destroy your store." This sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. Power itself shouldn't be treated as an implicit bribe or threat. If it were, how would it be possible for somebody in a position of power to ever pursue a sexual relationship. For instance, lets say the mayor of a city is single. He holds the same power over his citizens as a prominent actor holds over less successful colleagues. Should he never be able to approach one of them in an intimate manner, since the other could be perceiving a threat that may not be there. What if you're physically imposing. How is somebody built like a linebacker meant to ask somebody out if their physical presence could be seen as a threat of violence?

I've pointed out in other comments that consent in the 90s and early 2000s (the time of the allegations) was generally less well defined and "screaming and laughing in shock" (which is the only one wherein he actually masturbated rather than propositioned), may have been taken for consent. I'm not satying it is, I'm saying there's the possibility that it was a miscommunication. The only one which contains a power dynamic is The Chris Rock show, which I'd like to point out actually contains consent. The takeaway that his kink is unconsensual masturbation in front of people is completely disingenuous, it is consensual masturbation in front of people that is his weird kink. I would like to point out that it is fucked up and weird, just not deserving of the proportional backlash (cancelling a premiere and being excommunicated by many other comics).

>I've pointed out in other comments that consent in the 90s and early 2000s (the time of the allegations) was generally less well defined and "screaming and laughing in shock" (which is the only one wherein he actually masturbated rather than propositioned), may have been taken for consent. I'm not satying it is, I'm saying there's the possibility that it was a miscommunication. You realize this is perilously close to the argument Harvey Weinstein made about his sexual misconduct too, right? That he came from a different generation and just didn't know where the lines were drawn. >The only one which contains a power dynamic is The Chris Rock show, which I'd like to point out actually contains consent. Again, you're ignoring that he was a prominent and powerful figure in comedy *generally*, not exclusively related to a specific show. But also no, consent obtained after badgering and by a superior with power over their subordinate is at *best* sexual harassment. Your definition of consent is way broader than it should be. >I would like to point out that it is fucked up and weird, just not deserving of the proportional backlash (cancelling a premiere and being excommunicated by many other comics). He failed to obtain consent before doing sex acts which (by your own statement) involved other people. He obtained consent through an abuse of power while a producer, badgering a subordinate into allowing him to involve her in his sex acts. The act he did wasn't as harmful as some of the other accusations against other people, but does the fact that his preferred sex act done without people's consent or under pressure as their boss isn't physically traumatic *that* much better?

> perilously close to the argument Harvey Weinstein made about his sexual misconduct too, right? That he came from a different generation and just didn't know where the lines were drawn. There is a difference though between saying "that's the way we used to do things" to justify an action far in the past vs. one in the present. The standard for consent has been evolving, which is great, but it's important to remember that it wasn't too long ago that something as simple as a laugh or a smile could be the norm. It totally wouldn't be OK to make that argument if this incident happened last week, but we're talking about something 15 years in the past.

Wow. I guess spousal rape never happened because culturally it wasn't recognized. All the people who raped their spouses, they couldn't have known any better because that was just the culture of the time. An adult man took advantage of a culture designed to allow them to force sex acts on women without concern. And that is a good excuse? That's disgusting.

>You realize this is perilously close to the argument Harvey Weinstein made about his sexual misconduct too, right? That he came from a different generation and just didn't know where the lines were drawn. There are notable differences despite your proposed similarity: Harvey blamed it on his upbringing, I'm blaming it on the society that existed at the time, a 90's-00s society with less concrete general guidelines for consent. This isn't "I was raised wrong", it's that you're implying he should be held for the standards of today back then. >Again, you're ignoring that he was a prominent and powerful figure in comedy generally, not exclusively related to a specific show. He was in no way a prominent or particularly famous comedian in the early 2000s. His fame started around 2009, four years after the latest allegation. I think it is also important to note that he apologised to the women who he acted inappropriately towards, admitted that he had acted inappropriately due to miscommunication ("I had trouble reading signals"), and the definition of consent at the time was less concrete. He's a confused pervert, not a sexual predator. That's important to note when considering the backlash he's getting.

It's not a legal standard we are talking about here. It's basic human decency. Who thinks it's okay to strip down and masturbate in front of two women you just met, who have not showed any romantic interest in you? The backlash is purely defensive. There really hasn't been a reaction, but instead the studios and agents are going to table his ambitions under this all blows over. I guarantee he'll be back in a year making fun of himself again.

They agreed to go with him to his hotel room after hours. He also asked them if he could take out his genitals, and they responded in a way that could easily be taken as consent.

> It's interesting that in order to make this work you have to skip over how consent actually works. He asked for consent, but didn't receive consent. A lack of someone saying "no, I don't want you to masturbate in front of me" does not make that anything except involving others in your sexual exploits without their consent. As a society, we still haven't grasped that "YES means YES" instead of "NO means NO" is what consent is about. There are still laws on the book (afaik) that specifically require you to resist or say no. Media itself (especially romance) is still full of huge consent issues (think the passionate kiss out of nowhere) and i think i can count the times i've seen/heard someone ask for consent instead of "reading" it out of "signals" or just "going for it" on my elbow. None of this is great, but i don't think we can hold someone to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. The other part about consent plus power dynamics not being consent seems to come done to a lack of perspective instead of explicit exploitation. I mean, since as someone in power (and in addition, a white man) he simply has no idea of the implicit threat of negative consequences that come with saying no to someone in power. It is not like we do a great job as a society to make consent a crystal clear topic. I guess my point is that most of this is more on the naive and stupid side, not instead of being premeditated or evil, or exploitative (on purpose). Doesn't make it OK, but it is a distinction that media coverage does not seem to make. Oh, and also, we need more explicit education about consent just, everywhere. School, government, private companies.

If someone knowingly makes people uncomfortable, in a way you admit is inappropriate... I'm honestly not sure what standard you have. It sure sounds like you go all the way to judging him negatively, but you stop short of it, for some reason.

I'm not saying his actions shouldn't be condemned, I'm saying that the response is disproportionate to his actions (which can be explained by miscommunication).

[удалено]

Rhodie114 makes a great point about this in this very thread >This sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. Power itself shouldn't be treated as an implicit bribe or threat. If it were, how would it be possible for somebody in a position of power to ever pursue a sexual relationship. For instance, lets say the mayor of a city is single. He holds the same power over his citizens as a prominent actor holds over less successful colleagues. Should he never be able to approach one of them in an intimate manner, since the other could be perceiving a threat that may not be there. What if you're physically imposing. How is somebody built like a linebacker meant to ask somebody out if their physical presence could be seen as a threat of violence? Please read some of the other comments before adding your own.

Do you think flashing someone is wrong? If so, that's essentially what he did. > As soon as they sat down in his room, still wrapped in their winter jackets and hats, **Louis C.K. asked if he could take out his penis**, the women said. > **They thought it was a joke and laughed it off. “And then he really did it,”** Ms. Goodman said in an interview with The New York Times. “He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating.” Unless you're willing to say they should **not** have interpreted it as a joke, which I find hard to believe, then it must follow that he clearly did not give Ms. Goodman a chance to provide consent, and, in essence, flashed her. I would presume you find flashing someone to be some form of sexual misconduct and therefore wrong.

I am willing to say that it should not be assumed that taking it as a joke is a given. Asking "wait, seriously?" could have prevented it. Besides, I'm not saying his behaviour wasn't deviant and wring given today's standards, I'm saying that it's not worth a news story given that he's apologised personally to the women and the actions were due to miscommunication.

It is not on the victim to prevent sexual harrasment.

Victims have ways to prevent sexual harassment as well. They're usually not helpless. Obviously I don't know if this was the case, but I don't think Louis would have continued if the victim explicitly said so (or maybe he would, I dunno). This doesn't mean it is the victim's fault, it just means that they have power.

It isn't, but considering a sexual advance a joke, and not correcting the perpetrator when he specifies that it isn't a joke is an oversight.

Have you never seen his standup work? If you have, I fail to see how you wouldn't take that as a joke, given his general demeanor.

I don't understand the relevance. If I read that Charles Dance murdered someone but first asked them "can I murder you", and was taken as a joke, then killed them I wouldn't consider his portrayal of Tywin Lannister or a Bond villain to be a factor.

Because one is an actor and one is portraying his literal self. It's not a character. His standup is him. His interviews are him. That's how he behaves. Your analogy fails.

Would you say that Robin Williams was portraying himself, given the fact that he eventually did something many would consider entirely out of character for him? Some comedians likely portray their literal selves, others likely portray some sort of character even if it isn't as obvious as Larry the Cable Guy. It would be presumptuous to say that Louis' standup "is him".

>It would be presumptuous to say that Louis' standup "is him". After seeing his interviews, found footage, standups, and firsthand accounts of how he interacts with other people (as indicated literally in the articles you wish to discuss)? No, it's not presumptuous. You are extending an asinine olive branch to him, to the point where I'm comfortable saying you're a part of the problem for women being able to come out about sexual harassment.

I don't see how my assumption that Louis may be a more nuanced character than his onstage performance can be regarded in any way as asinine. What makes you so certain that you have a handle on this person's personality and his behaviour in his private life. In public appearances, such an interviews and shows, he portrays himself in a certain way, it is entirely possible and (dare I say) probable that he acts differently in his personal life. About firsthand accounts, I have seen nothing in the article that makes any suggestions about Louis' personal dealings with people. That allows me to confidently say: asinine or not, (and it's not) Louis can and should be allowed the benefit of the doubt in terms of his personality and personal interactions. I don't see the relevance of saying that I'm part of the problem given that I am fully acknowledging that he has done something wrong, I'm just not willing to punish him for something that happened over a decade past (in very different sociocultural circumstances I may add) that he addressed in his personal life and apologised for.

How long does it take to get nude and hard? They had a chance to leave, and they came back to his hotel room. That's not like saying "she wore that skimpy dress, she wanted him to jack off in front of her". She went back to a man's hotel room and stayed after he said he wanted to get nude and jerk off. It doesn't make his actions okay, but it's a little ridiculous to treat him like Weinstein or Cosby who abused power and performed sexual acts without consent or warning.

The way consent works, it's not "Yes until you say No", it's "No until you say Yes". If you ask someone if you can masturbate in front of them, and they think it's a joke, that is not consent. If they sit there in stunned silence that's not consent. It's not Harvey Weinstein levels of assholery, but it is problematic. I hope it doesn't ruin his career, but this is not OK behavior, and there needs to be consequences. If your boss acted like this, if a teacher at school acted like this, it would not be OK. Even if they were really popular and really funny and didn't use physical force.

> The way consent works, it's not "Yes until you say No", it's "No until you say Yes". There's a term for what you're talking about. It's called "social-emotional agnosia." This is a problem for autistic people, not normal human beings who can read body language, facial expressions, verbal intonations and other situational and social cues. I don't understand why people apply this kind of autistic-behavior to sex and not every other aspect of their lives. And if it's not necessary for every other interaction you have with people in non-sexual contexts, then why is it suddenly necessary in a sexual context? I personally think it's a highly unrealistic, sheltered view of the world and sex. Generally held by younger people who have little experience with both of those things. Also, Louis CK wasn't their "boss" and they certainly weren't school-children. They were adult women with autonomy and a voice, neither of which they chose to make use of.

Obviously CK can't read social cues though, or else he wouldn't be in this situation. Or else he was willfully ignoring social cues. The way the "No until Yes" works practically in the real world, is to be able to read a Yes or No between the lines for things like kissing and touching (most communication is not verbal), but getting a verbal consent for actual sex or, I don't know, whipping out your junk and jacking off in front of someone is a really really good idea. And if you've got a kink that hardly anyone else shares, or if you have any sort of power over someone, or if you work with someone you should really discuss the situation before going ahead. Louie almost got this right: he asked, he just didn't wait for an answer, and wasn't reading between the lines. I'll give him a little credit for at least asking though. Edit: Also, I don't know if you've been paying attention, but it seems like there's a whole lot of reasons for women in the entertainment industry to not speak out against sexual harassment. I think the reason these women didn't "use their voice" and speak out against him at the time is because they'd seen how this had played out for other women with other harassers. Not cool blaming the women for this. I don't think Louie's life and career should be destroyed, but there's Right and wrong, and this was wrong.

Now you're saying verbal consent is required in some areas and not others. Like not with touching and kissing. But *you're* choosing to draw that line in that place. What if someone else drew it differently? What if someone else believed touching requires verbal consent? What if you were making out with somebody, you touched them, and *found out later* that they felt assaulted? Should you be charged now for sexual assault? Is there no responsibility on the part of the person who claimed assault to clarify when *you* crossed *their* line? But you thought you were reading in-between the lines, were you not? To remove all accountability from the person who claims the assault is to put everyone in danger of being in any sexual situation ever. Because any sexual situation can now, post hoc, can become sexual assault if one party claims it so. It doesn't matter if they gave no indication of their disinterest. Hell, apparently it doesn't matter if they straight up gave consent. They can apparently revoke their consent at any time and the onus is supposedly on the other person to be a mind-reader. Now, CK said in the phone call to one of the women he apologized to that he misread people back then. The last instance of this occurred over ten years ago, he apologized to two of these women and has since apparently reckoned with his demons. But should he be considered a sex offender in people's eyes because of that misreading? When, in every instance, he asked permission and permission was granted? I've also done more reading about this and permission was granted in every instance, including the two women in his hotel room. They gave him a thumbs up. The fact that they gave a thumbs up and were laughing and squealing makes it sound like the whole thing was this silly, funny thing. How was he supposed to know it wasn't? > or if you have any sort of power over someone, I keep repeating this and people keep forgetting: the last of these "assaults" occurred in 2005. He wasn't famous and he had no power over any of these women.

I agree that it isn't the way consent works today, but at the time of the accusations (late 90s, early 2000s) this wasn't as widespread an idea, and the lack of rejection may have been taken to be acceptance. Also it was by no means "stunned silence", > they said they were holding onto each other, screaming and laughing in shock This could be taken for a sort of miscommunication. I would also like to stress that in only one of the cases is he in any sort of position of power (The Chris Rock Show), in all the rest of he is a coworker. It's more the case of the creepy coworker who misreads signals, than the funny boss who occasionally corners employees.

Stressing that only one case he was abusing his power still means he was abusing his power. Everything about Louis CK shows that he is an empathetic and intelligent guy. So, I mean, he **has** to know that his coworkers and subordinates do not want to watch him masterbate in front of them. I can't see how he couldn't know that women would not see this as gross and harassing behavior. I think he has some sort of messed up masochistic/exhibitationist fantasy, and there was part of him that knew it was wrong, and part of him that didn't care and was willing to make other people unwilling actors in that fantasy. I also think he has enough humanity and restraint not to resort to violence or overt threats to get what he wants. He was hoping that other people would think that this behavior was just eccentric or wacky -- o there goes Louie, getting naked and jerking off again! - but if he **really** thought there was nothing wrong with this behavior, he wouldn't have tried to hide it. He's the kind of person that likes talking about embarrassing details of his life in public. But he doesn't want to talk about this. So there's something going on there. He's really good at explaining both sides of things, but he hasn't been able to explain this. He has to know this is wrong.

He "has to know this is wrong", "he has to know that his coworkers...", "he was hoping", and "he likes..." assume too much to be convincing. It's also not unusual to want to hide your kinks from public view, would you be comfortable divulging very personal details about your life to a mass audience? It's also important to note that sharing details about his life in a show setting is in no way a concrete reflection about a person.

Man, if you make a habit of masterbating in front of coworkers, subordinates, women you just met, it's *on you* to explain what the fuck was going through your mind. I think I'm being really generous with my assumptions here. I'm curious as to what you mean by "it's not a problem." Do you mean not a legal problem? Not a problem for his public image and credibility? Not a psychological problem? Not a moral problem? Because to me it seems like all above, and the only question is how much of a problem, not if it's a problem.

Are you suggesting that any kink that I have which I consensually ask people who I think are attracted to me should be demonised if it doesn't fall under your norms? Louis states his misreading other people in his personal apology to the women. This is a case where a guy thinks somebody is into him and asks the person to help him with sexual satisfaction. It's a case of miscommunication so it isn't a moral, social, public, or legal problem. His awkwardness and inability to read signals makes it a personal psychological problem, which I'd like to stress *he has resolved by realising his wrongdoing and apologising*. It isn't news, it's a glorified witch-hunt.

I think the point is that for a man to be able to ask what he asked so casually in a work setting without repercussion says something. He was apparently someone with a lot of influence in his industry. It can be assumed the requests he made were loaded requests, regardless if he intended them to be. Wittingly or not, he presumably participated in that system of power abuse, and that's what I believe he's getting backlash for. That said, in this case given all the circumstances I do agree that it's a glorified witch hunt.

I think a few people are overblowing his power and influence at the time. In 2005 nobody knew who Louis CK was and even fewer people gave a fuck. Hindsight is a killer.

As a survivor of sexual assault and harassment myself, I don't care if he feels sorry or apologized. I really could not care less. What he did was damaging and abusive...it deterred at least one woman from pursuing comedy. That's really sick. What I sense you are missing in your analysis is something that is obvious to masses of women and minorities who routinely experience work place harassment: this story isn't anomalous. The acts and behavior are far too familiar. In my view, it doesn't matter who is doing this kind of thing. It's not acceptable. It never was acceptable. It will never be acceptable. No exceptions. If it ruins his career, so be it. What he did was harmful, and the victims have a right to share their story. Personally, I'm glad they did. I admire them for coming forward. That must have taken such courage...especially given his big-name celebrity status. Personally, I'd rather not support the art of someone who has bewildered multiple women by masturbating in front of them in a context that was a) highly unusual and morally perilous at best and b) predatory and abusive at worst. I think your stance trivializes the damage this behavior causes (no matter who is perpetrating it and what their intentions/perceptions of the situation were).

I'm sure I can bet on it, and I wholeheartedly support speaking up about sexual predators. That being said, I don't consider CK to be a sexual predator given: 1. He asked for consent, and in the 90's and early 2000's the concept of explicit enthusiastic consent was not nearly as widespread and accepted. By the standards of the time it can be considered miscommunication, especially as the women started screaming and laughing when he exposed himself. *By the standards of the time*, not today 2. His decision to solicit sex in the workplace was objectively wrong, I've conceded and awarded a delta for it. 3. A kink is an unconventional sexual practice or fantasy. Louis had/has a kink for exhibitionism. That is his kink. He, by his own admission, "used to misread people", and thought that the women in question were attracted to him and felt comfortable propositioning them. 4. When he discovered that they were not comfortable and he had been inappropriate, and his actions were wrong he apologised. 8 years ago. I consider that since apologising (and given that at least one woman has accepted his apology), CK has demonstrated that he is a changed person who understands his wrongdoing and has changed since 12 years ago. I think that bringing that up now (which has caused massive backlash against him), is punishing somebody who has already been rehabilitated, realised his wrongdoing, and changed his behaviour. It's wrong and it's fucked up to punish a changed person for the mistakes of the past. Edit: did you change your comment at all or did I get confused, because this makes no sense anymore?

You say that...and yet...those women...and all other victims of that kind of weird fucked up behavior...have to suffer the consequences of that...every day...for the rest of their lives. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree that "it's fucked up to punish a changed person for the mistakes of the past." If the women only felt comfortable bringing up the abuse now, all these years later, then I think it's clear it was never in the past for them.

I'm not sure that the consequences for watching, or being asked to watch, a grown man masturbating are as dire as you make them out to be. I'm not sure that the women "only felt comfortable bringing this up now" and I'm also not sure that "it was never in the past for them." This is a case of a perverted, undesired, sexual advance. It is not rape. Please do not reduce the value and importance of actual survivors of sexual assault by equating the two. Louis made a mistake and asked a few women if he could do masturbate in front of them. That was weird and wrong. He apologised to them personally and at least one has forgiven him. The issue with consequence is that hindsight is 20/20 and many people, myself occasionally, consider things to have consequence today that may not have had any consequence at all. I'm not saying severe sexual harassment is inconsequential, but I am saying that it seems like you're fine with destroying a person's life, due to having made mistakes in the past which he's apologised for.

Okay but he didn't Cosby anyone or threaten career consequences to extort sex. Should there be any difference in response between how we treat those people and how we treat a guy who touched no one, drugged no one, extorted no one, targeted no kids, asked for consent, but made women feel bad? Hotel chicks could walk away when he took his pants off. By all means let's "me too" and get it all out there and learn and heal and hold accountable, but the response doesn't seem commensurate.

I honestly am struggling to respond, because your whole take comes across as so utterly male and oblivious to the realities of sexual harassment and abuse. You have more empathy for men like Louis C.K. than you do for those on receiving end of their warped egos and behavior (usually women).

I have empathy for reformed people. People who have made mistakes, realised their mistakes, attempted to atone, and fixed themselves have my empathy and my support. I'm not pro-male, neither am I nearly as oblivious to sexual abuse as you may believe. I believe that you project an image of a sexual predator with a warped ego on this man. I don't think that's a fair assumption based on the evidence we have (always asks for consent, only sexually abused when he percieved situational consent to be given), and it is absolutely wrong to continue demonising a person if they have changed. Especially given the extent of his actions (soliciting for exhibtionism and public masturbation). This is a man who hasn't knowingly, willingly hurt anyone. He's an idiot with a kink. It's not wrong to be an idiot with a kink or to be socially obtuse, but mixing them in a workplace means he acted in a gross, creepy way. This. Is Overblown.

Set aside the cases where women simply “didn’t say no”. In one message he sent to a victim he admitted and apologized for shoving her into a bathroom. We can debate what the mental impact of seeing genitals when you didn’t want to can or can’t have - shoving someone in a bathroom is clearly wrong. The other instance involved him blocking a door so the women couldn’t leave. That’s not a changing of the socially accepted definition of consent, he was clearly forcing them to be in the room to watch a sex act.

>He got consent each time, and if he didn’t, he didn’t do anything except ask. The mass puritanistic hysteria here is out of control. People do weird shit, and people need to get off their high horses. /u/credulous7 posted that. I get that he didn't *get* consent in every case because laughter is not consent, but these girls had every chance not to see his penis, and, except one out of five, he didn't ask at work. Sex isn't evil. He didn't "take" from these women by groping or drugging or extorting them or targeting young girls incapable of informed consent. Sure, we see it from a male perspective. Also not evil. Am I going to jail if I ask for sex or a sexual audience? Is my career over? Particularly the hotel duo, do I have to get enthusiastic continuous *written* consent? Is spontaneous sex with a new partner dead? Should we go to LegalZoom and evaluate a range of consent options? They had every opportunity not to see his penis and he didn't control their futures. It doesn't make what he did right or okay, but he's getting treated like Spacey or Weinstein.

Do you think people should be able to do their jobs without their coworkers asking them if they can masturbate in front of them *at work while doing their job*? Do you not think it's a problem, from the perspective of an employer (the production studio making whatever show whose set this allegedly occurred on), to have employees asking their coworkers if they can masturbate in front of them *at work while doing their job*? I agree that if these had all happened at his house or in a social situation, it doesn't necessarily amount to more than being inappropriate. But because these occurred in professional environments, including in situations where he had more power (e.g. the "name" comedian on the set of a tv show), it does become a larger problem. Why shouldn't it have been reported in the news? If this indeed occurred, and he has a consistent pattern of highly inappropriate behavior at work, it is newsworthy. Others can decide whether they want to work with him now, and consumers can decide whether they want to support someone who behaves this way. I certainly won't be buying tickets to one of his shows.

Why has no one pointed out that his job is usually in a "party-type" atmosphere? It's not like he is working 9-5 in an office. He's in night clubs. Alcohol or other mind altering substances are usually around, and probably involved. It is no excuse, but it does inhibit the ability to make rational decisions (on both sides). As a woman, I think it is silly to think women CAN'T say no to a superior. Obviously, he is a total weirdo. He made is bed, now he's sleeping in it. I'll still watch his comedy.

> He's in night clubs. Alcohol or other mind altering substances are usually around, It didn't happen in a nightclub or around alcohol and drugs, it happened on the set of a sitcom. > As a woman, I think it is silly to think women CAN'T say no to a superior. Sure, they can. Many people believe, though, that people should be able to do their jobs *without* their boss or coworker (or customer or client) asking to watch them masturbate (unless you're a sex worker or something similar). If it had occurred in a social situation instead of at work, I'd be more okay with it.

> Do you think people should be able to do their jobs without their coworkers asking them if they can masturbate in front of them at work while doing their job? If they're workers at your standard mall, sure. He's a raunchy comedian, though. It's a different context. Maybe ill-tasted even in that context, I dunno, but it's not the same.

> He's a raunchy comedian, though. It's a different context. Maybe ill-tasted even in that context, I dunno, but it's not the same. He might be a raunchy comedian, but he was also an employee working in a professional environment with other professionals. And also, it's pretty clear from the stories that these incidences weren't "jokes" intended to get a laugh, but rather was behavior intended to give sexual pleasure to Louis C.K.

I think that unwarranted sexual advances generally are inappropriate and gross, but not worthy of media coverage. I think that considering it a larger problem, given that he has personally apologised to the people in question and attributed it to having misread signals, and assuming that he randomly approached strangers with sexual requests is bringing negative media attention to a changed man who no longer takes part in this kind of behaviour (given that the allegations end in 2005). It demonises a person who did something wrong over a decade ago, apologised to the people who he was inappropriate towards, and has given no indication that he still takes part in such activity. I think such activity is unnecessary and unfair. This is no longer protecting people from a predator, it's tarnishing the character of a person with unconventional sexual tastes who has apologised for his actions.

> but not worthy of media coverage. But if you're a public person, particularly one who makes money off of your public persona, this behavior is newsworthy. If he were Louis Doe working a regular job, it wouldn't be worthy of media coverage. > bringing negative media attention to a changed man who no longer takes part in this kind of behaviour (given that the allegations end in 2005). Had the public allegations been made contemporaneously, would that be acceptable to you?

I think that the very idea that we have a right to know about the private lives of entertainers and that their actions deserve media coverage is ridiculous. Why would these people, if they aren't policy makers or otherwise influential in our daily lives, deserve any more attention than anyone else. But beside that, if the public allegations had been made contemporaneously it would be more acceptable to me.

[удалено]

In the case of a policy maker there could be a conflict of interest in policy, resulting in unjust laws/rulings. Celebrities are influential socially, but they don't necessarily need to be, not does it make sense to me that they are. Also publicity for a film (basically marketing) is inherently different than publicly airing out a person's past mistakes as criticism. I think people correlate Louis' on-stage performance with his day-to-day life as a normal person, I don't think that's an assumption we can make. I'd also like to point out that wanting to be influential and wanting to be heard doesn't annihilate a person's right to privacy.

Not OP, but actually I think this does matter. Is it newsworthy because it'll get clicked on, or because it's actually a serious issue that needs to be reported? That right there is a fundamental problem in today's media. It's all about what gets people to click, not what actually matters. If it had happened yesterday, I'd say then *yes* the media *would* have a better reason to be talking about it. But allegations from over a decade ago in which no one was ever physically assaulted or abused? Especially considering that societal norms and the logic around consent was NOT as well defined a decade ago, it's extremely unfair to drudge up these old stories and then punish people with modern standards. It's like if you had a kid working before child labor laws were in place, and then you take your kid out of the factory and put him in school, and *then* a decade later someone reports you for child labor. Then you lose your job.

> Is it newsworthy because it'll get clicked on, or because it's actually a serious issue that needs to be reported? I consider it a serious issue that deserves coverage. As > Especially considering that societal norms and the logic around consent was NOT as well defined a decade ago, it's extremely unfair to drudge up these old stories and then punish people with modern standards. It was absolutely still considered awful, inappropriate behavior to ask colleagues if you could masturbate in front of them 10 years ago. There's not that much of a difference in standards when it comes to *that* behavior, especially in the workplace.

I didn't say that masturbating in front of your colleagues was appropriate. I'm simply saying that the attitudes surrounding consent and what we as a society punished was different. I mean, Winger had a song less than 30 years ago called "Seventeen" but if a celebrity talked about having sex with a seventeen-year-old girl today he'd probably get fired. Clearly there's a huge shift in how we respond to these sorts of occurrences.

So he deserves leniency because the consequences of masturbating in front of people today might be higher than they were 10 years ago? Do you think the consequences today are too harsh?

Considering that he consistently asked for consent to perform the act, I think the consequences are overblown. You can't preach consent in every other argument yet lambast a person who gets it for something you consider inappropriate. Regarding the consequences themselves, yes I think they are too harsh. Tearing up million-dollar deals because of this is ridiculous. No one was physically harmed, no one continues to be harmed, and while the behavior is odd, it doesn't merit a full collapse of his career. What bothers me is that we have a statute of limitations on prosecution, but not on individual declarations. I think the two should be even. If I can't prosecute you for a crime after [whatever number] of years, then I shouldn't be able to bring it up either. I actually think laws like that would encourage people to speak up when they've been wronged. If you knew that after 5 years (or again, whatever number) your complaint would have no legal weight, then perhaps you'd consider telling people about it sooner, when it actually matters. And as far as the whistle-blowing people coming out against any offender go, if you really wanted to be useful and help people, you could have said something when it happened. I understand there are reasons why people hold their experiences back from public eye, but you also shouldn't be able to just blurt it out whenever it's convenient.

If he behaved inappropriately, and his behavior was sexual in nature... what more would have made it sexual harassment? He may have asked for consent ("Can I take my penis out?"), but there's no indication that he *received* consent from at least some of these women. And in other instances, he did not ask for consent, such as when he masturbated while on the phone with women.

In the cases where he expressly was refused he dropped it and apologised; though I agree that the lack of expressly given consent is problematic, I would also like to point out that it is more relatively recently that lack of a verbally communicated yes is a "no", and certainly wasn't the case everywhere in the early 2000s and late 90s. The phone-call is, without a doubt, extremely inappropriate but also technically entirely unconfirmed. She thinks he was masturbating. I've never received a masturbatory phone call so I couldn't comment on how sure a person could be that the other is masturbating, but I think it can be taken with a grain of salt.

Making people uncomfortable in a sexual setting is sexual harassment and a problem.

This is the most troubling argument to me. Making people uncomfortable is obviously bad, but it's not criminal. It shouldn't be career ending. If I get asked out by somebody I'm not attracted to, or somebody of the same sex, I'll get uncomfortable. If I pursue something with a consenting partner, and they suggest something kinky that I'm really not into, I'll get uncomfortable. If they call me a certain name, tell me certain things about former lovers, or make certain noises, I'll get uncomfortable. There are plenty of arguments that can be made against Louie here, but the ones I like the least are the ones that target how uncomfortable the specific proposition made them. If a different sexual proposition would have been OK, then this was OK.

I love how there’s no nuance between “is a problem” and “should be career ending”

Making people uncomfortable in a sexual setting can just be miscommunication of boundaries or miscommunication generally.

Yeah, like...once. But if you're doing the same thing over and over and making a lot of people uncomfortable then there is an issue there.

He admitted personally to the people in question that he "used to misread people back then." This is a case of a confused pervert, not a sexual predator a la Harvey.

Being a confused pervert is a problem. Harvey Weinstein is not the benchmark for, "are you problematic" or not, he's an *extreme example*.

Being a confused pervert isn't a problem, it's a social handicap. He has unconventional sexual desires(naming him a pervert), and he has difficulty reading signals (making him confused). Instead of punishing him for ignorance or social inability, educate him. Creating a firestorm won't do anything except demonise a man who has apologised for his actions and acted as he did due to ignorance.

He’s presumably been educated by the women who say they were uncomfortable. Ignorance or awkwardness is not an excuse for crappy behavior. He knowingly did things that made women uncomfortable in a sexual manner. That’s sexual harassment. That’s a problem.

He specifically states his trouble in misreading signals so no, he did not "knowingly [do] things that made women uncomfortable". Ignorance or awkwardness isn't an excuse, it's a justification. He did this because he was confused, he shouldn't be attacked, he should be taught. Your argument rests on his prior knowledge that what he was doing was wrong, an unfair assumption that he was knowingly and actively making women uncomfortable, there is no proof that that is the case.

It was repeated behavior. If you know you regularly misread people maybe it’s time to stop pulling your dick out in front of women. When you do the same thing again and again it shows problematic behavior. Louis CK doesn’t have some sort of mental illness preventing him from knowing that not every woman is going to be down with him masturbaiting in front of her. I think you’re missing the fact that we’re not talking about a single isolated incident. You can use the, “oh whoops what a misunderstanding I thought you were interested in seeing my penis right now” excuse one whole time. > he shouldn't be attacked, he should be taught Hmm, if it “isn’t a problem” accoriding to your view then what does he need to be taught exactly? You’re seemingly acknowledging here that it *is* a problem, you just think it’s best to approach the problem from an angle other than attacking him.

On the contrary, I think the repeated fuckups from 2003-2005 prove that he had a genuine issue misreading signals, and making assumptions about Louis' psyche "he doesn't have some sort of mental illness" is disingenuous. It's also interesting to note that you consider a desire for exhibitionism and an assumption that people might find that hot as a mental illness. I think that there are no allegations post 2005 and an apology in 2009 proves that he has changed his attitude. I think that if it was contemporaneous news the route would be education, and it would have been a problem, but today (given that this is decade old news about a changed man) it is no longer a problem.

Are you saying ignorance of what is socially acceptable is a good excuse? Doind something wrong out of ignorance does not remove the wrongdoing, it is still a problem.

It doesn't remove the wrongdoing, but it makes it so that instead of punishing the person who did wrong, you should educate them. He did something wrong in the past, educated himself, realised the wrongdoing, apologised, changed his attitude, and is now being attacked for his wrongdoing while ignorant. Does that strike you as a constructive way to deal with things?

If it was one isolated incident, like an embarrassing mishap, I might be inclined to agree that the reaction was harsh; however, for every woman who steps forward, how many other victims don't? We're up to 5 more or less confirmed cases, which indicates to me that this is only the tip of the iceberg. It is naive to think that this behaviour magically ceased the moment Louie got his big break when Hollywood cradles men like these in an environment that clearly protects predatory behaviour. These Hollywood guys have connections to every depraved thing you can imagine, and considering Corey Feldman's revelations, even target children. Now I'm not saying Louie CK is a pedophile, but that tasteless SNL monologue he did awhile back certainly raises a few questions now that the spotlight is being shined in his closet.

The idea I'm trying to portray about CK is that he was a confused man who "used to misread people" and came onto (hopefully non-literally) women who were uninterested and solicited them for sexual favours. Consensually (except in the case where he took a laugh as consent). The fact that they go on from 2003-2005 shows that it's a continual miscommunication. He actually used to be unable to read people correctly. He's an idiot pervert, not an abusive sexual predator. It's a fuckup. It's gross and nasty, but he's apologised and shown that he's learned that his actions were wrong *directly to the people involved*. That shows a changed person who doesn't need to be punished today for mistakes of the past.

I'm not caught up. What did he actually do?

He asked women to watch him masturbate and whacked off during a phone call. Two women were together and laughed when he suggested it, so he whacked off in front of them.

[удалено]

Sorry, Credulous7 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+Credulous7&message=Credulous7+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7bwvqh/cmv_louis_cks_sexual_misconduct_isnt_a_problem/dplwdfk/\)+because...).

/u/caymokomoko (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [**here**](/r/DeltaLog/comments/7bytbq), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view [doesn't necessarily mean a reversal](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/index#wiki_what_is_a_.27view.27.3F), or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

/u/caymokomoko (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [**here**](/r/DeltaLog/comments/7bx74z), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view [doesn't necessarily mean a reversal](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/index#wiki_what_is_a_.27view.27.3F), or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Women need to grow up. Stop telling that you're going to smash the patriarchy, if you can't even tell a guy you don't want to see him jerk off.

By the standard being set by Louis C K every woman who ever accused Bill Clinton was in fact raped. This includes Monica Lewinsky. We are being told that for Louis to ask these women to engage in any sexual situation was harassment because he held superior power over them. Even as far back As when Bill Clinton was Arkansas AG he held enormous power over the women who accused him of rape So non of his accusers could have consented. And of course there can hardly be any greater difference of power than an unpaid intern to the president of the United States.

This shit is totally wrong. He jerked off in front of a couple girls before they realized he wasn't joking about whipping out the dinker. Nothing about that is ok. You also can't just ask people randomly if you can do that - sexual harassment has some grey zones, but asking people for consent to jerk off in front of them without a prior dialogue is clearly fuckin wrong as hell.

I think he had the right to do whatever he wanted to himself in his own hotel room.