Louis CK

You didn't ask me, but not only is it not paramount, it doesn't really matter.

 

It's not at all. But if the women themselves believe that they may have conveyed consent, you can't let them publicly lodge potentially career-ending allegations of a sex crime against somebody.

 

Is laughing considered consent on any level? How do we know they weren't laugh-rioting because they thought it was pervy in a sexy kind of way; or sexy in a pervy kind of way?

The motivation behind their laughing is definitely difficult to discern 15 years later. And no, that doesn't mean I absolve Louis for that particular instance of pop masturbation.

 

Wait a minute now.

Under this standard, there should be no investigations. No interviews. No trials.

An accusation should lead straight to a conviction, like not passing "Go" in "Monopoly."

Of course, it matters. The degree to which it matters will depend upon circumstances, but of course it matters how the accused viewed an encounter as regards consent.

 

Seems like something the reporter might have, you know, asked.

 

Ignorance is a defense after all?

 

You are conflating two concepts.

Ignorance of the law is typically not a defense.

That's not what I'm talking about here.

Where consent is at issue in a civil, criminal, or court of public opinion case, the man's explanation of why he believes he reasonably perceived consent to have been granted is material to the case.

 

I figured she'd be on her Victory Tour today.

Congratulations on your shitty reporting job, Ms. Kantor.

 

To be fair, she was one of three with bylines.

 

Well, they're not thinking about it the way you think about it, that's for sure.

You want a framework for how something can be true without being accurate, I'm giving it to you. That even the people in question wouldn't necessarily acknowledge it doesn't necessarily negate the framework.