What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Comedian Louis CK admits to sexual harassment of several women (1 Viewer)

FreeBaGeL said:
Yeah after hearing the details it's kind of weird to me.  I mean if he had invited one of these women up to his room, gotten VERBAL CONSENT to have sex with them, and done it, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.  That happens a million times every day.

So because the verbally consented sexual act is something that people aren't into, it's a problem when actual physical penetration would not be?

Now if the timeline was a little different and he whipped it out and THEN asked or something, ok, throw the book at him.  But it sounds like everyone was given a fair opportunity to leave before anything went down.

As to them all being comedians....uh, ok.  Are we all of the belief here that Tom Cruise hasn't boned about 600 wannabe actresses (or actors)?  If having consensual sexual relations with some who admires you because of your fame or success is illegal than basically every famous and successful person in the world is a no-good rapist.
Click to expand...
He did the same thing to a woman that worked as an assistant on a show he produced. He had her watch while he jacked off in his office. At work. 

 
Purely hypothetical question...

Would any of these 5 women react differently if, instead of CK, it was Channing Tatum or Brad Pitt or whoever the guy is that plays Thor that gave them a laptop puppet show?

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
Purely hypothetical question...

Would any of these 5 women react differently if, instead of CK, it was Channing Tatum or Brad Pitt or whoever the guy is that plays Thor that gave them a laptop puppet show?
Click to expand...
I don't know and it doesn't really matter. 

 
McGarnicle said:
It wasn't my example, it was his parasauropholis'. If you want to split hairs and equate "laughing it off" with consent, then I'm starting to wonder if CK is your client or cousin. If you read that account in context from the two women's point of view, they couldn't believe he was serious, and then all of a sudden he's naked. If you knew nothing of his reputation as a perv but you knew his act, and then he says that, it makes perfect sense to just laugh it off at first.

If that one isn't egregious enough for you, I'd love to get your thoughts on this one: 
Click to expand...
I understand that your focus is on this specific case.

No, the first one is not egregious enough for me yet.  With new details it certainly could be. 

The second case is different.  Thay was a co-worker.  He might only have been a guest star, but they still had a work relationship. 

In the first case, they weren't co-workers.  They were in the same industry.  He was successful in that industry.  Is that enough for it to go from weird and creepy to he should lose his job and all future employment opportunities? 

Every time I ask you for your opinion on this you go back to the details of this case.  I understand that it sounds like I'm defending him but i just want to know what the rules for all of us. I understand that not jerking off in front of people is a good rule of thumb, but I'm way more interested in all the other stuff. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Horrifying? He didnt rape these women. He didn't jump out from behind a van and slap it against them. So to describe BF's discussion points in this thread as "horrifying" is ridiculous. 

He actually makes some valid points. A woman should feel ten times worse to be propositioned for a blow job than to have a guy ask to wank it in front of her. If you examine it logically it is pretty disgusting from their perspective. 
Click to expand...
I disagree. Oral sex is a sex act between 2 people. Masturbation is a sex act that involves one person. The later is much weirder and more awkward. 

 
bostonfred said:
I understand that your focus is on this specific case.

No, the first one is not egregious enough for me yet.  With new details it certainly could be. 

The second case is different.  Thay was a co-worker.  He might only have been a guest star, but they still had a work relationship. 

In the first case, they weren't co-workers.  They were in the same industry.  He was successful in that industry.  Is that enough for it to go from weird and creepy to he should lose his job and all future employment opportunities? 

Every time I ask you for your opinion on this you go back to the details of this case.  I understand that it sounds like I'm defending him but i just want to know what the rules for all of us. I understand that not jerking off in front of people is a good rule of thumb, but I'm way more interested in all the other stuff. 
Click to expand...
It depends what the people that employee you think about the matter. 

 
bostonfred said:
Not shtick.  Not a big dater these days either, although I don't think that's relevant.  

I am specifically asking why a guy who has been charged with no crime is losing his job and his ability to get future work because he did icky sex stuff with people who didn't work for him.  Greg found an example where the person did work along side him - that's relevant.  But that's not what most of you guys are talking about.  Most of you are talking about the icky sex things.  

Which kind of icky sex things are enough to lose your job and future employment opportunities without charges? 

If your wife makes you wear her underwear and someone in your industry sees it, is that icky enough to lose your job? 

If you are on a date and someone asks if you like anal sex, is that icky enough? 

If you ask a potential sexual partner to masturbate in front of you, is that icky enough? 

If you're talking to somebody in a similar line of work about and you ask if they want to go up to your room and have sex, but you're ugly, is that icky enough?  

Which kind of icky sex things are enough to lose your job and future employment opportunities without charges?
Click to expand...


So we have one account of sexual harassment, which he confirmed. 

We have one account of someone calling him on the phone and him masturbating during the conversation, which he confirmed. 

We have one account of him inviting two women to hang out for a nightcap and who after he asked their consent, they "laughed it off" which is not the same as giving consent, only to find he then took off his clothes and went to town.  Which he confirmed.  You asked earlier where the line was, obviously the women in the room thought he crossed a line since one of them said, "“I think the line gets crossed when you take all your clothes off and start masturbating."  Are you saying that sounds to you like someone who gave their consent?

While one woman was asked in advanced and went to his office knowingly, the rest didn't.  You seem to have built up this version that runs contrary to the renditions we have of the events, which Louis CK confirmed as having happened.

Someone once said something along the lines of, "when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your #### isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them."   Do you agree with that statement Fred?   Do you think it would apply to these situations and his connection to these women?

 
Ilov80s said:
I disagree. Oral sex is a sex act between 2 people. Masturbation is a sex act that involves one person. The later is much weirder and more awkward. 
Click to expand...
This is all I wanted to know.  You're the person in charge of deciding how weird a sex thing is?  Is it ok if I like adult actresses who similar to the way Punky Brewster looked when Soleil Moon Frye was over 18 but her character was still in high school but they never said how old she was? Should i pm you whenever I have questions or do you have like a hotline or something? 

 
bostonfred said:
This is all I wanted to know.  You're the person in charge of deciding how weird a sex thing is?  Is it ok if I like adult actresses who similar to the way Punky Brewster looked when Soleil Moon Frye was over 18 but her character was still in high school but they never said how old she was? Should i pm you whenever I have questions or do you have like a hotline or something? 
Click to expand...
It's not me giving an opinion. Oral sex is an act between 2 people. Masturbating in front of someone is not a sexual act between 2 people. One person has sex and the other is just there. Now if the other person helps out or pleasures themselves, then it becomes a sexual act between 2 people. It's considered normal for people to engage in sexual acts. It is not normal for people to pleasure themselves while others are in the room. 

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
Purely hypothetical question...

Would any of these 5 women react differently if, instead of CK, it was Channing Tatum or Brad Pitt or whoever the guy is that plays Thor that gave them a laptop puppet show?
Click to expand...
Brad Pitt had power over Angelina Jolie' s career when they started hooking up.  I'm putting the Vegas line at -1 billion that the woman who used to wear a vial of Billy Bob Thornton' s blood around her neck did weird sex stuff, but I'll have to check with Ilov80s.

 
bostonfred said:
Perhaps I've been unclear. I am not defending these specific situations.  I probably should have mentioned that dozens of times. 
Click to expand...
My post was at the heart of what you keep asking.  How about responding to it and not just hiding behind, "I'm not defending these specific situations".

You keep painting a picture that he asked for consent, got it, and then continued.  That is at odds with the facts we have.

Further, I'd like it if you'd answer my question.  Do you agree with the statement that when someone has influence over another, asking them to look at your #### isn't just a question, it's a predicament.   Do you agree with that?   Do you think these women were put in such a predicament?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred said:
Brad Pitt had power over Angelina Jolie' s career when they started hooking up.  I'm putting the Vegas line at -1 billion that the woman who used to wear a vial of Billy Bob Thornton' s blood around her neck did weird sex stuff, but I'll have to check with Ilov80s.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying people can't or shouldn't have kinky sex. I am saying I don't believe that is what happened with CK. Only 1 of the 3 people in the room was "into" what was happening. 

 
GregR said:
My post was at the heart of what you keep asking.  How about responding to it and not just hiding behind, "I'm not defending these specific situations".

You keep painting a picture that he asked for consent, got it, and then continued.  That is at odds with the facts we have.

Further, I'd like it if you'd answer my question.  Do you agree with the statement that when someone has influence over another, asking them to look at your #### isn't just a question, it's a predicament.   Do you agree with that?   Do you think these women were put in such a predicament?
Click to expand...
I've answered that repeatedly.  If you have quid pro quo or hostile work environments then that is sexual harassment.  In at least one of the cases reported by the nyt, he was a co worker and likely met both of those criteria.  I am not defending him for that at all.

However, in another case - where two women came to his room and he asked for their consent then did his thing - he was not their employer, was not in his work environment, and did not appear to have direct influence over their careers. However, because he was successful in his industry, they felt he could have influence over their careers.  

That is problematic to me, because it challenges the definition of harassment.

That's why I asked my original question, which remains unanswered. Is it now considered harassment for anyone who is successful in their industry to have any kind of sexual encounter with anyone else in the same or similar industry?  Because that appears to be the precedent. 

If that's not the precedent, then what criteria distinguish this from other cases?  Is it because the sex act was icky?  Because he was old and ugly?  Because you know his name? Is this not harassment? 

Ironically, im answering these questions again and again while you tell me I'm hiding behind something and not responding, but when I ask my questions, it all goes back to specifics of this case and other examples.  That's not very fair. 

 
bostonfred said:
I've answered that repeatedly.  If you have quid pro quo or hostile work environments then that is sexual harassment.  In at least one of the cases reported by the nyt, he was a co worker and likely met both of those criteria.  I am not defending him for that at all.

However, in another case - where two women came to his room and he asked for their consent then did his thing - he was not their employer, was not in his work environment, and did not appear to have direct influence over their careers. However, because he was successful in his industry, they felt he could have influence over their careers.  

That is problematic to me, because it challenges the definition of harassment.

That's why I asked my original question, which remains unanswered. Is it now considered harassment for anyone who is successful in their industry to have any kind of sexual encounter with anyone else in the same or similar industry?  Because that appears to be the precedent. 

If that's not the precedent, then what criteria distinguish this from other cases?  Is it because the sex act was icky?  Because he was old and ugly?  Because you know his name? Is this not harassment? 

Ironically, im answering these questions again and again while you tell me I'm hiding behind something and not responding, but when I ask my questions, it all goes back to specifics of this case and other examples.  That's not very fair. 
Click to expand...
I respect your honest intellectual inquiry here.  But the fact is that his behaviour is predatory, in a gross unsolicited sexual way.   Did he have direct influence over their careers?  Probably not.  But did he recognize that he could exploit his position of power to get off?  Absolutely.  

If he had said “hey, want to come up to my room and watch me jack off?”, and they said “sure, why not?”, then we have a different set of facts here.  

But he didn’t.   He waited until they were in a far more uncomfortable situation and then did it.   It is disgusting.   And predatory.   

 
bostonfred said:
I've answered that repeatedly.  If you have quid pro quo or hostile work environments then that is sexual harassment.  In at least one of the cases reported by the nyt, he was a co worker and likely met both of those criteria.  I am not defending him for that at all.

However, in another case - where two women came to his room and he asked for their consent then did his thing - he was not their employer, was not in his work environment, and did not appear to have direct influence over their careers. However, because he was successful in his industry, they felt he could have influence over their careers.  

That is problematic to me, because it challenges the definition of harassment.

That's why I asked my original question, which remains unanswered. Is it now considered harassment for anyone who is successful in their industry to have any kind of sexual encounter with anyone else in the same or similar industry?  Because that appears to be the precedent. 

If that's not the precedent, then what criteria distinguish this from other cases?  Is it because the sex act was icky?  Because he was old and ugly?  Because you know his name? Is this not harassment? 

Ironically, im answering these questions again and again while you tell me I'm hiding behind something and not responding, but when I ask my questions, it all goes back to specifics of this case and other examples.  That's not very fair. 
Click to expand...
Louis CK engaged in sexual displays in front of some women who did not want them.  Those he did try to get their consent he went about it in ways that would be very uncomfortable for the women to have to handle because he could have influence over their career.

There is no reason to think no one can ever have sex with someone in their industry because of this. It is a completely unwarranted jump to make... so if it bothers you that is the case, then congrats. That isn't the case.

There is every reason to think you should be delicate and careful about broaching such things when you are in a position of power over someone. And you need a lot more clarity than a nervous laugh that someone is amenable before taking off your pants and masturbating.  

 
GregR said:
because he could have influence over their career.
Click to expand...
They did stand up.  They did not work for him.  They were not applying for a job with him.  Yet they are front and center in the nyt article.  What influence did he have over their career other than that he is successful in the same industry? 

 
GregR said:
you need a lot more clarity than a nervous laugh that someone is amenable.  
Click to expand...
Ten years later they are paraphrased as saying they laughed it off.  Is there a quote from them that says that they did not say the word ok?  

There is agreement that he asked for consent.  There is agreement that in another case, he asked for consent, did not get consent, and did not continue.  All parties seem to agree on those facts. 

I'm not comfortable saying that all they got was a nervous laugh, but maybe you have information I don't. I don't have all the information from this case, and I'd remind you that I'm not defending him specifically.  I'm only interested in the question of whether, if he got consent, it was harassment.  Yet here you are bringing it back to your assumptions of the specifics of this case. 

 
bostonfred said:
They did stand up.  They did not work for him.  They were not applying for a job with him.  Yet they are front and center in the nyt article.  What influence did he have over their career other than that he is successful in the same industry? 
Click to expand...
i think it is naive to think that Louis might not have implied that agreement from them would lead to him speaking highly of them to some of his connections in the standup/entertainment industry. he has worked with most of the big names in the industry. an endorsement from him would go a long way in furthering their careers. 

 
bostonfred said:
I understand that your focus is on this specific case.

No, the first one is not egregious enough for me yet.  With new details it certainly could be. 

The second case is different.  Thay was a co-worker.  He might only have been a guest star, but they still had a work relationship. 

In the first case, they weren't co-workers.  They were in the same industry.  He was successful in that industry.  Is that enough for it to go from weird and creepy to he should lose his job and all future employment opportunities? 

Every time I ask you for your opinion on this you go back to the details of this case.  I understand that it sounds like I'm defending him but i just want to know what the rules for all of us. I understand that not jerking off in front of people is a good rule of thumb, but I'm way more interested in all the other stuff. 
Click to expand...
I don't think the rules are ambiguous, but I've also been conventional in my dealings with women. Take a shower, dress nice, cook a nice meal. I can't relate to making a lewd proposition to a random chick who hasn't even shown a romantic interest. That is really bizarre to me. He not only violated the rules of male-female respect, but just the rules of common sense and not embarrassing yourself.

I think there's a good debate to be had on how fraught things have become in this arena -- political correctness, "rape culture" and all the lefty stuff that has invaded our lives. But this insanity is orders of magnitude outside of that discussion. I hope he gets help, for his daughters' sake. 

 
zoonation said:
I respect your honest intellectual inquiry here.  But the fact is that his behaviour is predatory, in a gross unsolicited sexual way.   Did he have direct influence over their careers?  Probably not.  But did he recognize that he could exploit his position of power to get off?  Absolutely.  

If he had said “hey, want to come up to my room and watch me jack off?”, and they said “sure, why not?”, then we have a different set of facts here.  

But he didn’t.   He waited until they were in a far more uncomfortable situation and then did it.   It is disgusting.   And predatory.   
Click to expand...
That's a fair distinction. So if you are successful in your career and meet a lady and you invite her back to your place and you ask her to have sex, that's predatory?   Even if you make no promises about future favors or employment opportunities?

And if ten years later she comes back and says you're a predator, you should lose your new job and all future jobs and give up all the money that you would ever make from past work, then rot in jail.  Because that's what's been suggested in this thread as a result.

From now on, men everywhere should know they can't say hey do you want to come back to my place.  From now on, you have to say hey, do you want to come back to my place and have some sex?  Otherwise you're a criminal who must lose his job and all future employment and rot in jail. 

 
Interesting discussion.  :thumbup:   :thumbup:

Obviously, sexual harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, but we've gotten to a point where some think that cold approaching someone in a bar is an "unwanted sexual advance."  It's gotten to the point where just about any interaction between two persons can be considered objectionable. 

 
Conanthecontrarian said:
i think it is naive to think that Louis might not have implied that agreement from them would lead to him speaking highly of them to some of his connections in the standup/entertainment industry. he has worked with most of the big names in the industry. an endorsement from him would go a long way in furthering their careers. 
Click to expand...
Ok, so he should go to jail and lose his job and all future employment opportunities because you believe he probably might have implied that he might not do anything for them specifically but might speak highly of them to someone else who could do something to help them. 

Are you comfortable with the same standards being implied to every sexual encounter you've ever had?  

 
bostonfred said:
Ok, so he should go to jail and lose his job and all future employment opportunities because you believe he probably might have implied that he might not do anything for them specifically but might speak highly of them to someone else who could do something to help them. 

Are you comfortable with the same standards being implied to every sexual encounter you've ever had?  
Click to expand...
Yes.

 
bostonfred said:
Ok, so he should go to jail and lose his job and all future employment opportunities because you believe he probably might have implied that he might not do anything for them specifically but might speak highly of them to someone else who could do something to help them. 

Are you comfortable with the same standards being implied to every sexual encounter you've ever had?  
Click to expand...
He's going to jail now? I missed that. Also, he pulled this same stunt with a woman he worked with at his office. 

 
Ilov80s said:
He's going to jail now? I missed that. Also, he pulled this same stunt with a woman he worked with at his office. 
Click to expand...
As i said, "Because that's what's been suggested in this thread as a result."

As I said, if he did this with a co worker that's a hostile work environment. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
Interesting discussion.  :thumbup:   :thumbup:

Obviously, sexual harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, but we've gotten to a point where some think that cold approaching someone in a bar is an "unwanted sexual advance."  It's gotten to the point where just about any interaction between two persons can be considered objectionable. 
Click to expand...
And this is what people are reacting to in here, not specifically the CK stuff. It makes sense to me now.

 
Ghost Rider said:
Interesting discussion.  :thumbup:   :thumbup:

Obviously, sexual harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, but we've gotten to a point where some think that cold approaching someone in a bar is an "unwanted sexual advance."  It's gotten to the point where just about any interaction between two persons can be considered objectionable. 
Click to expand...
It depends what your cold approach is. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
Interesting discussion.  :thumbup:   :thumbup:

Obviously, sexual harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, but we've gotten to a point where some think that cold approaching someone in a bar is an "unwanted sexual advance."  It's gotten to the point where just about any interaction between two persons can be considered objectionable. 
Click to expand...
If that's the conversation that we're having, then yeah, I'll be squarely on the same side as BF.  I just don't see the Louis CK situation as even close to a grey area.  

 
Ghost Rider said:
Interesting discussion.  :thumbup:   :thumbup:

Obviously, sexual harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, but we've gotten to a point where some think that cold approaching someone in a bar is an "unwanted sexual advance."  It's gotten to the point where just about any interaction between two persons can be considered objectionable. 
Click to expand...
Who approaches anyone at a bar these days? Basically all you need is the right apps on your phone and you can get laid all you want.

 
Dennis: Think about it. She’s out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. She looks around her, what does she see? Nothing but open ocean. “Oh, there’s nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?”

Mac: Okay…that seems really dark though.

Dennis: No, no, it’s not dark. You’re misunderstanding me, bro.

Mac: I think I am.

Dennis: Yeah, you are. ‘Cause if the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no. The thing is that she’s not gonna say no, she’d never say no…because of the implication.

Mac: Now, you said that word “implication” a couple of times. What implication?

Dennis: The implication that things might go wrong for her if she refuses to sleep with me. Now, not that things are gonna go wrong for her, but she’s thinking that they will.

 
bostonfred said:
Ok, so he should go to jail and lose his job and all future employment opportunities because you believe he probably might have implied that he might not do anything for them specifically but might speak highly of them to someone else who could do something to help them. 

Are you comfortable with the same standards being implied to every sexual encounter you've ever had?  
Click to expand...
maybe we should swap usernames? mine seems more appropriate for you given your stance in this thread.

at a minimum Louis is gulity of indecent exposure.

 
Conanthecontrarian said:
maybe we should swap usernames? mine seems more appropriate for you given your stance in this thread.

at a minimum Louis is gulity of indecent exposure.
Click to expand...
I'm still not defending him and still not suggesting that he did nothing wrong. I'm still concerned about the standard that's being applied. 

As for his specific case, there are specific things that he did that were wrong. I'm not sure about the legal standard for indecent exposure or which specific activities he did that might be considered indecent exposure but I'm not comfortable with your phrase at a minimum Louis is guilty of it when, as far as I know, he hasn't even been charged.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR
D
The Battle of Boz Qandahari
Replies
0
Views
690
Don't Toews Me
D
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
12K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top