Louis CK

You are assuming things that we don't see. If they had that answer and didn't use it, that is a mistake. The reporter's job is to make things as clear as possible.

 

Let’s use this example for a moment:

A woman consents to sexual intercourse. They start going at it and she realizes the guy isn’t wearing a condom. She says stop. Because it’s creepy and scary. He doesn’t stop.

Rape?

 

Yes.

 

Pardon the hypothetical here, but bear with me. If he had no real power and didn't think he had any power, is he guilty of harassment just because the women thought he had power? I can see both sides here.

I think that is why Dick is pushing this. If the reporter clearly asks the question of consent and prints the answer, it makes the whole thing a lot clearer.

 

Unequivocally yes.

She tells him in advance she doesn't want it without a condom, he goes for it anyway, and she laughs nervously but doesn't say stop? Also rape

 

Yes, he is.

 

This is a reference to the Louis C.K. story, obviously, and you are larding onto it assumptions that are not supported by the text.

 

I think something important: Whether Louis CK believed what he was doing was harassment or not is immaterial, the way ignorance isn't an excuse for criminal behaviour. Whether the women involved think it was harassment is what matters.

Did the two comedians in the apartment give consent? I can sort of understand that Dick wants the question asked explicitly. I can also understand that their coming forward, along with other women, to say that it's not okay behaviour implies very strongly that they did not give consent.

Adjacent to that point, as we've established: Consent is a thorny enough subject all on its own. Can someone in a position of lesser authority ever give consent? I don't know the answer to that. I was told in my early new singlehood that I should be careful trying to date other writers, because of my position within the industry, and I understand why that's the case, however limiting it might have felt to me. (I am very happily dating someone who's not in the industry, for the record.) I also know of couples whose relationships started at work, for instance, where there was a power dynamic at play, and they seem very happy together.

TL;DR: I think Louis CK was appalling in his behaviour, and I think he would probably agree. I also think a lot of this stuff is fucking complicated.

 

Your beliefs in what is obvious are frequently erroneous.

I was thinking of an article I read a few months ago about the emotional trauma a woman described from a male best friend.

The only meaningful consent is enthusiastic and uncoerced. The absence of that is nonconsent, both socially and journalistically

 

I think he was, too.

I don't know that all five instances qualify as "sexual misconduct" worthy of a New York Times story.

And I think the New York Times did a really poor job closing the loop on essential material factual allegations that would have made it much more clear which or any of the instances qualified as "sexual misconduct" worthy of a New York Times story.

 

I'd think those seriously incompetent editors if that were true. Obviously the behavior is creepy and bizarre regardless, but I can't fathom how anyone would think the core question that determines whether it went beyond merely creepy and weird into illegal/criminal areas should be met with "who cares." It's a mighty important detail to leave out.

And, Dick's right, it's odd how the story almost-evasively glosses over that important question. It makes clear that he asked for permission, but is far less clear concerning what answers he was given. It's a frustratingly written story.

 

Not for nothing, but it also glosses over why they believed they were blackballed from the industry.

They "heard" things.