Louis CK

Just about anything is debatable.

 

“You laughed But did you consent?”

That seems like such an obvious follow-up.

 

@Dick Whitman ain’t debating accuracy here. Beyond that, however, that’s fine by my standards. It’s when the drowsy set starts with the “misogyny” bullshit ... because somebody happened to be intrigued by the particulars of some thing or another ... that sticks in my craw.

 

From what I have seen, many of the people giving the "misogyny" lectures are the worst of the bunch. Likely people protesting too much.

 

Misogyny in *this* culture on a board full of middle aged men?

Clearly a vain projection of miscreants.

 

I don’t think the Times came close to closing the loop on a lot of vital elements to this story. I’m almost always going to find how something is covered a more interesting topic than the thing itself. It’s just how I’m wired.

It doesn’t bother me in the least that Louis C.K. likes to jack off for women. It would bother me if he did so without obtaining consent. Whether he did so in these cases is unclear and I can’t tell that the Times even tried to find out. The weird fetish (it’s not even that weird) was more than enough to go with it.

Compare it the the Post story today. They pushed for every detail and made every relevant fact crystal clear.

 

"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."

There it is. Third graf. Clearly states that they had not consented and he did it anyway.

Anyone who sees a mystery here *wanted* to see one.

 

No, it doesn’t.

 

Yes, it does. And it's creepy and misogynistic to play your dumbass lawyer word games with cases like this, even though you think that you're doing it innocently.

 

“Laughed it off” may mean they said, “Sure, go ahead,” thinking they were joking back, and that he took it seriously. I can’t tell from the story. The reporter apparently didn’t ask.

 

You’re a fool.

 

If it had played out precisely that way, it still wasn't meaningful consent and it still was sexual harassment. The fact that you think otherwise is your problem.