Louis C.k.: The Impact Of A Bald Man Pulling His Dick Out Without Your Consent

[JeanLucBB]

I think having a chad suddenly masturbate in front of you when you're not in any type of relationship with them would still be humiliating and offense. I guess I'm not a "reasonable person" according to you.

He didn't "suddenly masturbate" in front of them, he asked if he could but the facts don't tell us whether or not they said yes or other relevant aspects of the situation (which is fundamental). Your scenario is very different.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I think having a chad suddenly masturbate in front of you when you're not in any type of relationship with them would still be humiliating and offense. I guess I'm not a "reasonable person" according to you.

Reasonable person is a legal term in the USA, might be in Australia as well.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Woman

 

[countjulian]

He didn't "suddenly masturbate" in front of them, he asked if he could but the facts don't tell us whether or not they said yes or other relevant aspects of the situation (which is fundamental). Your scenario is very different.

Asking someone out of the blue if you can masturbate and then doing it in a work setting seems pretty sudden to me.

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

Because he's not the victim.

I know, that's why mentioning his baldness in OP or in comments is completely irrelevant

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

From the statements I read there was an implication that he asked if he could do it, and they potentially consented although this isn't concrete either way from the reports. Highly dependent on the country and state it takes place but if it's out of an employment relationship and a once off question then it is unlikely to be unlawful.

In Australia the typical "reasonable person" test would be applied of whether a reasonable person would anticipate they might be offended or humiliated. Because of this it does indeed mean that the type of person asking such as a chad vs a Louis CK would be expected to provoke a different reaction, so under our law having hair is NOT independent of the question of sexual harassment.

I suspect that "it's only harassment because he's bald" wouldn't fly in a court of law.

The issue in LCK's case among other things is that he had power over these women as a man of authority within the comedy circuit. Since he has power over them they don't have total freedom of action to say yes or no. He may in turn find that power erotic.

 

[JeanLucBB]

No one is trying to get him put in jail it's not a crime. Telling a woman at work she has a nice *** in front of the whole office isn't a crime either, but it's still sexual harassment. There's a huge difference there.

I don't know about elsewhere but under Australian law in a working relationship it is much more likely to constitute sexual harassment in the legal sense.

And if it is just you and a bunch of other people not analysing the facts objectively or accurately calling "sexual harassment", it's kind of f*****g meaningless. The element of consent and the legal definition matters here whether or not you care.

 

[Dench57]

Asking someone out of the blue if you can masturbate and then doing it in a work setting seems pretty sudden to me.

come on we've all done it

 

[JeanLucBB]

I suspect that "it's only harassment because he's bald" wouldn't fly in a court of law.

The issue in LCK's case among other things is that he had power over these women as a man of authority within the comedy circuit. Since he has power over them they don't have total freedom of action to say yes or no. He may in turn find that power erotic.

It most certainly would change the sexual dynamic between them. A reasonable ugly bald man would not expect a woman to reciprocate or accept that question, a chad with hair would have more reason to. Looks and character certainly would be legally relevant. I'm not saying this is the crux of the issue but it is certainly relevant. The consent issue is more relevant.

Also the "man of authority in the comedy circuit" isn't going to fly under the statute, it's pretty specifically that it would have to be an employment linked relationship, not just the typical left-wing academic notion of power structures and authority.

I've studied this in law before I changed degree, there are specific parameters that have to be fulfilled and the total scope of the facts is important, not just empty mud slinging because the act is gross or socially unacceptable.

Also this reminds me of a case they showed us in first year where a 22 year old guy (who was literally a perfect ten) boned a 14 year old in Adelaide, and part of the judgement specifically mentioned that the girl represented herself as older (but still under the age of consent) and was making the advances and was obsessed with his looks. I guarantfuckingtee that if the guy didn't have those looks and it was him making the advances he wouldn't have gotten away with it, even if she consented, as the ruling in his favour was due to him not being the main perpetrator. Chads win under the law.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

It most certainly would change the sexual dynamic between them. A reasonable ugly bald man would not expect a woman to reciprocate or accept that question, a chad with hair would have more reason to. Looks and character certainly would be legally relevant. I'm not saying this is the crux of the issue but it is certainly relevant. The consent issue is more relevant.

Also the "man of authority in the comedy circuit" isn't going to fly under the statute, it's pretty specifically that it would have to be an employment linked relationship, not just the typical left-wing academic notion of power structures and authority.

I've studied this in law before I changed degree, there are specific parameters that have to be fulfilled and the total scope of the facts is important, not just empty mud slinging because the act is gross or socially unacceptable.

Also this reminds me of a case they showed us in first year where a 22 year old guy (who was literally a perfect ten) boned a 14 year old in Adelaide, and part of the judgement specifically mentioned that the girl represented herself as older (but still under the age of consent) and was making the advances and was obsessed with his looks. I guarantfuckingtee that if the guy didn't have those looks and it was him making the advances he wouldn't have gotten away with it, even if she consented, as the ruling in his favour was due to him not being the main perpetrator. Chads win under the law.

You're dismissing the left-wing academic notions of power and authority, while at the same pointing out that a good-looking man is more likely to meet enthusiastic consent than revulsion. That's a privilege, and as has long been noted, you cannot rape the willing. It is also the case, widely-known, that better-looking people get better treatment under the law.

Returning to Louis CK, all of these allegations are taking place outside of the legal system for a good reason: women have virtually no access to the legal system. It would be impossible for one of these women to nail Harvey Weinstein in a court of law as he has better financial access to lawyers, and rape is a very difficult crime to prosecute. It's human nature for people to shift to vigilante justice when the state-sanctioned justice system fails them. We live in a world where judges, prosecutors, police officers, etc are largely indifferent to rape. What they care about is giving out traffic tickets and finding 14 year old black boys smoking marijuana.

 

[JeanLucBB]

You're dismissing the left-wing academic notions of power and authority, while at the same pointing out that a good-looking man is more likely to meet enthusiastic consent than revulsion. That's a privilege, and as has long been noted, you cannot rape the willing. It is also the case, widely-known, that better-looking people get better treatment under the law.

Returning to Louis CK, all of these allegations are taking place outside of the legal system for a good reason: women have virtually no access to the legal system. It would be impossible for one of these women to nail Harvey Weinstein in a court of law as he has better financial access to lawyers, and rape is a very difficult crime to prosecute. It's human nature for people to shift to vigilante justice when the state-sanctioned justice system fails them. We live in a world where judges, prosecutors, police officers, etc are largely indifferent to rape. What they care about is giving out traffic tickets and finding 14 year old black boys smoking marijuana.

I think Harvey will get a conviction, no matter how good a lawyer is they can only bend the law so much and by the sheer number of allegations and details he isn't likely to get away with it all. The guy had sexual-harassment waivers in a lot of the contracts with actresses which certainly suggests intention, I don't know about in the USA but in Australia it would still be illegal for example. The point that statistically rape allegations are often viewed indifferently in cases of regular citizens is accurate and I've seen it quite often with people I know, but Harvey isn't a regular citizen. His looks aren't going to help either, even from a simple psychological perspective from those undertaking criminal investigation and involved in the court process are less likely to be lenient towards old ugly white men.

Also I agree with your traffic tickets and marijuana offence point, but both of those are issue relating to government and the legislature, they have absolutely nothing to do with the courts, prosecutors or police. They're only following what the government has legislated, if you want to end the excesses of black men in prison for drug offences, we need to legalise marijuana, not attack police for doing their job. Same with the traffic tickets; decrease the size of government and government expenses if you think this is a problem, but 95% of the country are too left-wing and greedy to accept what that reduction in government revenue would mean for them in regards to various forms of handouts and government spending.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I think Harvey will get a conviction, no matter how good a lawyer is they can only bend the law so much and by the sheer number of allegations and details he isn't likely to get away with it all. The guy had sexual-harassment waivers in a lot of the contracts with actresses which certainly suggests intention, I don't know about in the USA but in Australia it would still be illegal for example. The point that statistically rape allegations are often viewed indifferently in cases of regular citizens is accurate and I've seen it quite often with people I know, but Harvey isn't a regular citizen. His looks aren't going to help either, even from a simple psychological perspective from those undertaking criminal investigation and involved in the court process are less likely to be lenient towards old ugly white men.

Also I agree with your traffic tickets and marijuana offence point, but both of those are issue relating to government and the legislature, they have absolutely nothing to do with the courts, prosecutors or police. They're only following what the government has legislated, if you want to end the excesses of black men in prison for drug offences, we need to legalise marijuana, not attack police for doing their job. Same with the traffic tickets; decrease the size of government and government expenses if you think this is a problem, but 95% of the country are too left-wing and greedy to accept what that reduction in government revenue would mean for them in regards to various forms of handouts and government spending.

That's a good post, thank you.

I think (no legal training) that Weinstein is toast at this point, but that's largely because women have taken the vigilante route. It's because of Twitter, Facebook, Jezebel, etc that it's widely known that he raped, assaulted, and harassed what may be hundreds of women. There is power in numbers as it's not a he said / she said situation, but a he said vs she said and she also said and she also said ...

It is often the case that society likes to crush women, but that shifts when large numbers of women form communication networks. I'm reminded of the story of that unadvanced tribe where the women sing derogatory songs about the men who offend them. Once there's an awful song about you on the island, and everybody knows that song, you're probably finished -- forever. It may be that this is encoded so deeply within human nature that all of this discussion about courts, etc is bullshit.

With respect to the last point, parking tickets are a trivial sum of tax revenue and could likely be compensated for by minor increases to the rates of other taxes. It's mostly about the social order and harassing citizens. The same is certainly true about putting black teens in jail, that's about the social order, and since then it's been compounded as the private prisons in the USA can afford lobbyists. There was a scandal a few years back involving a Pennsylvania judge who sent nearly every teen to jail ... it turns out that he was getting kickbacks from the private prisons.

 

[SmoothSailing]

I could be wrong on some facts here in which case I apologize.

What Louis did was weird and creepy, and I've certainly lost respect for him.

But when someone is given consent, by a completely sober adult, to wank in front of them, and then they do it, I don't see how it could be considered sexual assault. Sexual misconduct at most.

Are we to say that any form of consent a (very) mildly powerful person gets can be revoked at any time because the person might have felt pressured? That seems illogical and unfair to me.

Also, unrelated to this incident, I think people should be careful not to demonize people over allegations. Innocent until proven guilty is a very important thing.

 

[Rudiger]

Who would stay in the room with someone they are not attracted to whatsoever long enough for a man to ejaculate without attempting to prevent it, then claim they were traumatised by it years later completely shattering a mans life for an easy pay out?


View attachment 70177

Did they monetise this? Or did you even know that they did upon writing this?

This thread is ridiculous. If you knew a friend who said "so lol I whipped my c*** out and started beating at it" you'd think he was fucked in the head and would either insist on him getting help, or forget about him.

But because it suits the narrative he's now a harmless child just beating himself off in front of other people.

I really hope the thread starter has a boss or someone in power randomly ask him if it's ok to have a wank in front of him while he just, looks at you, dead in the eye. Maybe then this will hit home.

 

[Rudiger]

I could be wrong on some facts here in which case I apologize.

What Louis did was weird and creepy, and I've certainly lost respect for him.

But when someone is given consent, by a completely sober adult, to wank in front of them, and then they do it, I don't see how it could be considered sexual assault. Sexual misconduct at most.

Are we to say that any form of consent a (very) mildly powerful person gets can be revoked at any time because the person might have felt pressured? That seems illogical and unfair to me.

Also, unrelated to this incident, I think people should be careful not to demonize people over allegations. Innocent until proven guilty is a very important thing.

You pretty much have the same version I have, but who the f*** would ask that in the first place? Would you ask that to someone?

Of course not. That's why they thought he was joking, because that's insane.

I don't think this qualifies as consent. I will say it's weird they stayed until he ejaculated, but who knows what time frame that was.

 

[PappinAce]

This thread is ridiculous. If you knew a friend who said "so lol I whipped my c*** out and started beating at it" you'd think he was fucked in the head and would either insist on him getting help, or forget about him.

well that’s exactly what i meant to say! it may have come across differently because i would use words like childish or mentally ill, but definitely not predatory.

Louie is the one who needs help here. if you’re a woman in that room, then just forget about him. we have crossed the line from calling out sexual predators, into the territory of publicly shaming a guy who is just fucked up.

you can twist any narrative and make yourself a victim. “oh it disgusted me so much that i was completely turned off comedy!!” i just really think this one should have been handled internally. the media is crazy.

 

[SmoothSailing]

You pretty much have the same version I have, but who the f*** would ask that in the first place? Would you ask that to someone?

Of course not. That's why they thought he was joking, because that's insane.

I don't think this qualifies as consent. I will say it's weird they stayed until he ejaculated, but who knows what time frame that was.

I'd never ask that to someone, and I consider it extremely weird and creepy.

That's besides my point. Which is that consent was given, and it should be treated completely different to a scenario where consent wasn't given. He's not a "harmless child" but neither were the women. He asked first, which is the most important thing.

If I had a friend who did this, I'd consider there to be something seriously wrong with them. But I wouldn't be angry at them like I would be if they did it without consent.

 

[UberBaldaten]

I don't think they would scream sex abuse if Chad pulled out his dick.

They would get wet and start sucking it.

Then sue him for sex harassment when he dumps them...or not.

 

[Rudiger]

well that’s exactly what i meant to say! it may have come across differently because i would use words like childish or mentally ill, but definitely not predatory.

Louie is the one who needs help here. if you’re a woman in that room, then just forget about him. we have crossed the line from calling out sexual predators, into the territory of publicly shaming a guy who is just fucked up.

you can twist any narrative and make yourself a victim. “oh it disgusted me so much that i was completely turned off comedy!!” i just really think this one should have been handled internally. the media is crazy.

This isn't twisting a narrative! The twisting of the narrative is insisting a very quick witted and intelligent man is only debilitated by his insistence on masturbating in front of women.

I'd never ask that to someone, and I consider it extremely weird and creepy.

That's besides my point. Which is that consent was given, and it should be treated completely different to a scenario where consent wasn't given. He's not a "harmless child" but neither were the women. He asked first, which is the most important thing.

If I had a friend who did this, I'd consider there to be something seriously wrong with them. But I wouldn't be angry at them like I would be if they did it without consent.

The consent was given because they thought he was joking. I still find it weird they saw him ejaculate, but in moments of confusion cortisol kicks in, we get the rabbit in the headlights effect, or hysteric. In no way do I find it weird that this would turn someone off of their career path, particularly in the creative art world which is so hard to make money in, you have someone who's making money, masturbating in front of you. And then you have to think "this sh*t is already difficult enough as it is without seeing the people making real money being total nutcases"

I dunno if either of you have ever felt weirdly pressured by a person, but it's particularly weird for women.

Do both of you think these women waited over a decade for a general sex scandal to break out and then jump on the opportunity?

 

[Rudiger]

The idea of asking someone if they want to watch you wank, outside of an intimate situation or their interest in doing so, that is in principle similarly as wrong as masturbating in front of children.

It's not as bad on the "wrong-scale" but if we are to stand by that principle then fine, but that to me is the same as not vilifying the actions of pedophiles or anyone who commits harmful acts because "they just behaved like a stupid kid".

This is not a f*****g stupid kid we're talking about, and he was aware of his position of power at that time. If you're going to go down that road then we can start defending pedophilia too, as far as I see.

A fully functioning intelligent adult just has one vice which is specifically to ask to masturbate in front of other adults at random? Right so.

 

[NimuDash]

C.K
Sure, I've heard of th Cuck King.
Please, oh please don't let me look similar to him in my 40s.
I would rather look like Ryan Reynolds.