Louis CK. I just don't get it.

Ok. Let me say this first. I've never asked a woman if i could masturbate in front of her. I would in all honesty, not be able to ask that of my wife (not that it's a bad, thing, just not my thing).

Am i the only one who just doesn't get it? Louis CK asked some women if he could masturbate in front of them. If they said yes, he did. If they said no, he apologised. Where am i missing the crime? Now there is a suggestion that he jacked it while on the phone to someone, but i'm still missing the big crime. Is it possible that he just misread the situation?

I'm not saying what he did is normal, and i'm not saying it should be added to the new code of conduct for gentlemen. These were requests and actions carried out by grown adults. There was co coercion, and if he asked and was refused he apoligsed and left it at that.

Where is the line? Maybe i don't get it. This all seems the wrong side of it, wherever it is.

...and no, i am not masturbating while i type.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/louis-c-k-masturbation-allegations-a-timeline.html

Originally posted by @huckleberryhound
Ok. Let me say this first. I've never asked a woman if i could masturbate in front of her. I would in all honesty, not be able to ask that of my wife (not that it's a bad, thing, just not my thing).

Am i the only one who just doesn't get it? Louis CK asked some women if he could masturbate in front of them. If they said yes, he did. If they sai ...[text shortened]... le i type.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/louis-c-k-masturbation-allegations-a-timeline.html

He steps into a legal problem IMO if he was in a workplace power position relative to the women involved and/or if they were minors. Otherwise he's just another member of the entertainment elite finding out how fickle it is at the top. His employment contracts probably address conditions that would allow termination of the business relationships he is in.

Edit: Under some interpretations of what happened, eg if there was physical restraint or threat to a woman trying to leave, there could be an assault charge.

Originally posted by @js357
He steps into a legal problem IMO if he was in a workplace power position relative to the women involved and/or if they were minors. Otherwise he's just another member of the entertainment elite finding out how fickle it is at the top. His employment contracts probably address conditions that would allow termination of the business relationships he is in.

I haven't read the article, perhaps I should, but from what I understand he obviously crossed a line which many men appear to do without realising what they do is wrong - or do they?

Originally posted by @torunn
I haven't read the article, perhaps I should, but from what I understand he obviously crossed a line which many men appear to do without realising what they do is wrong - or do they?

I edited my remarks, please see.

I think this is a learning opportunity, with both moral and pragmatic lessons.

Originally posted by @js357
I edited my remarks, please see.

I think this is a learning opportunity, with both moral and pragmatic lessons.

I totally agree with what you say.

I "loved it" when Harvey said that because he "grew up" in the 60s and that was the time of "free love" he thought it was OK to do what he did. Give me a break. I grew up in the 60s too, though I was in my 20s, and would never have even thought it was OK to do what he did "later on". The lot of them have been "caught" and aren't "Man" enough to take responsibility for their actions. As a man I am ashamed. Whoa. Where'd that come from?...not very GBSish eh?

Originally posted by @huckleberryhound
...and no, i am not masturbating while i type.

It's only noticeable when you misspell words. 😵

Originally posted by @great-big-stees
I "loved it" when Harvey said that because he "grew up" in the 60s and that was the time of "free love" he thought it was OK to do what he did. Give me a break. I grew up in the 60s too, though I was in my 20s, and would never have even thought it was OK to do what he did "later on". The lot of them have been "caught" and aren't "Man" enough to take ...[text shortened]... ty for their actions. As a man I am ashamed. Whoa. Where'd that come from?...not very GBSish eh?

As a man I am ashamed. Whoa. Where'd that come from?

Ignore the manbashing. There is nowhere to go with it. I mean really, what are your options?
1) agree with it and indulge in self flagellation?
2) retaliate and counter with examples of female treachery?
3) assign bad behavior to a specific group of people you hate, thus implying you belong to a better class?
(turnabout is fair play?)

Or... don't try to balance the board by responding in kind, and in effect become part of the problem. Those who enjoy playing their little blame games think they're the smartest people here.

Imagine a room full of people, and each one is the smartest person in the room...
( I don't think so )

This is what Louis CK has to say:
But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power
over another person, asking them to look at your dick 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.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
This is what Louis CK has to say:
But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power
over another person, asking them to look at your dick 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.

“The power I had over these women is that
they admired me.”

Hmmmm. Does this ring true, and to whom does it ring true?

Originally posted by @huckleberryhound
Am i the only one who just doesn't get it? Louis CK asked some women if he could masturbate in front of them. If they said yes, he did. If they said no, he apologised. Where am i missing the crime?

What I don’t get is how you can think that even asking a woman if you can expose your genitals to them and masturbate in front of them, is somehow in your mind, a reasonable request. As if his apology at rejection makes it ok. Unbelievable.

Originally posted by @divegeester
What I don’t get is how you can think that even asking a woman if you can expose your genitals to them and masturbate in front of them, is somehow in your mind, a reasonable request. As if his apology at rejection makes it ok. Unbelievable.

It's his kink. At the time of asking, he thought it was a good time. That shows misjudgement...but a crime? remember, he honestly thought at the time that asking was not a crime, which it's not. I just don't see it.

Where in your life have you heard "in other news, a man asked a woman to perform a sex act. She said no, and he accepted it" and thought...what a criminal?

At the end it will turn out that almost everyone I liked in entertaining business will be revealed as a sadist, rapist, maniac, psychopath.
Who is next - Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld?!

Originally posted by @great-big-stees
I "loved it" when Harvey said that because he "grew up" in the 60s and that was the time of "free love" he thought it was OK to do what he did. Give me a break. I grew up in the 60s too, though I was in my 20s, and would never have even thought it was OK to do what he did "later on". The lot of them have been "caught" and aren't "Man" enough to take ...[text shortened]... ty for their actions. As a man I am ashamed. Whoa. Where'd that come from?...not very GBSish eh?

In the free love era of the 60's, attractive women chose attractive men just like they do today.

A slob like Weinstein would have been a slob in the sixties.
Would have gotten away with his antics back then.
Today he gets what he has coming to him.

The "casting couch" stories have been around forever.