Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Shirogayne, Dec 31, 2018.
To be fair, access to free world-class surgical technology won't solve FF's problems either.
The CK debacle is a perfect example of women not willing to take responsibility for their own choices, and then weaponizing the #metoo hysteria to gain revenge and resuscitate floundering careers.
These were adult women who could have walked out of the room at any time, or hung up the phone at any moment, to put an end to CK's exhibitionism. But they didn't choose to do that, because they thought that if they played along with CK's sexual game, he might help them further their comedy careers. Didn't end up happening for these women.
So, time for revenge, and what better way than to seize on the current social zeitgeist and claim victim status?
Except for Sarah Silverman. CK jerked off in front of her all the time, by her own admission. Yet she's not claiming to have been raped or violated or abused. And she's had a very successful career up to this point, highlighted by playing a kinda-love interest for Tom Paris on Voyager.
Her success probably has something to do with her actually being talented, and there's the distinction between her and these other gold-diggers.
Saw a good take on this earlier today.
A central premise of his stuff is that kids should be crazy, be rebelling against the system. However he is showing his age in that he expects them to rebel in the same way his generation did.
Even better, he appears to entirely miss that they are clearly doing a good job of rebelling, because as an old (to them) rich guy they are doing a good job of pissing him off.
Paul Reubens wasn't and he didn't force anyone to watch.
Reubens was caught jerking off in a porno theater (ewww), where he was probably also trolling for anonymous gay hookups.
Now CK is the target of the nuPuritans - social media morality gatekeepers, who apparently have nothing better to do than get on Twatter and police what other people say and think. They spend hours dissecting one of his comedy routines, lecturing others about how <gasp!> inappropriate his jokes are, overlooking the sad fact that if you did the same to virtually any comedians act and took the words out of the context of a stand-up routine, no comedian could survive that kind of scrutiny.
Can you imagine how Andrew Dice Clay or Sam Kinison or Eddie Murphy would react if they had to deal with this gaggle of self-righteous pearl-clutchers?
I remarked in a previous thread about how old-school liberals were "transgressors" - they were looking for the boundaries so they could take 10 steps past them. They were out to provoke and shock, and laughed at the horrified reactions of straight laced squares and uptight authority figures. Comedians like Lenny Bruce risked being arrested on obscenity charges when they went out to perform.
But today's liberals? They've morphed into puritanical moralizing busybodies, preaching strict adherence to an inflexible dogma. They've been running comedians off the stage if the jokes don't conform to their progressive orthodoxy, rioting if conservative speakers are invited to campus, and perpetrating what they used to decry - the politics of personal destruction. They want you fired from your job, blacklisted from your profession, arrested and thrown in jail in some cases.
Louis CK making jokes about whiny, entitled teenagers and college punks? Absolutely, I wish I could have been there to hear it.
Take out the words teenagers and college and you'd have been the fucking target, pal.
Wasn't CK outed for forcing subordinates to watch him jerk off?
Well... that I've heard, they weren't subordinates, just fellow comics. The ones that complained were less famous than him, which some argue makes it sexual harrassment... But he did it to Sarah Silverman in the past as well, and she was fine with it.
It's been a while since I read any direct accounts of it, but I'm not aware of him forcing anyone to watch, more like his victims let themselves be intimidated by his level of fame. I dont know how fair it is to put all of that on him.
CK didn't "do" anything to anyone, and he didn't force himself on anyone. He asked the women for permission, and they all said yes. Only now, years later, in an attempt to resuscitate their floundering careers, are these women trying to revise history and portray themselves as victims. Then you get the typical social media primal horde pile-on.
I'm not much interested in CK, never really heard of him prior to this thread, but for the record lots of rape victims do in fact say "yes" when asked.
Rape where victims are intimidated into submission, acquiescing as part of abusive relationships, drugged or plied with alcohol to the point they are no longer in positions to make informed consent or simply too scared to say no are commonplace and not in question as a well known phenomenon. Surely no one in the modern age needs to have this explained?
Would "this guy works in my field and is more successful than me" count as being intimidated into submission? Or "this guy is famous and I like celebrities?"
Or "this guy can make or break me if I don't give him what he wants".....
There's a big difference between "He politely asked me out on a date" and "In a public space he asked if he could whip his dick out" in terms of implication and intimidation.
So are successful men not allowed to pursue women in the same field? Is there a minimum male power threshold for when a "yes" no longer counts?
Men who raise strong daughters are less susceptible to these issues. Not immune, perhaps, but much less susceptible. Love your daughter, parent her, teach her to be strong, get her engaged in sports, teach her to shoot, and above all: live your own life as an example of what a man should be to his wife, his children, and extended family, and there won't be anything left to fear- she'll never fall prey to the assholes and rapists that are out there. She'll be way too smart for them. A strong, nuclear, moral family is the best defense against the world.
Don't be ridiculous, of course genuine relationships can occur between colleagues, but there are also a great many instances where the behaviour is coercive, dominating and manipulative. This is why so many workplaces have very specific policies about workplace interactions and declaring relationships between colleagues, especially where those relationships may influence or be influenced by the nature of the professional relationship.
I completely agree in raising girls to be strong and able to cope with the outside world, but "she'll never fall prey to the assholes and rapists out there" is pretty optimistic.
Providing positive male role models is absolutely important but it's no guarantee, nothing ever will be, all you can do is give her the best possible start and guidance in life.
Maybe for you.
What the hell did I just post? Thanks, Captian Obvious! Glad you agree!
You'll have to explain that line of reasoning. So "yes" can indeed be yes, but it could be no as well. Is "no" always no?
Google the concept of "enthusiastic consent".
The act of masturbating in front of a less than willing observer is more than a harmless kink. It's been part of more than one accusation. Weinstein, Brett Ratner and James Toback were all said to have done it. It seems like a classic power trip, a man forcing himself on women with the excuse that it can't be called rape since he never touched them. Or maybe it's more about feeling entitled to an immediate orgasm every time they become aroused. It certainly has little to do with consensual exhibitionism.
I get that. But my understanding is that he did ask and received at least a tepid yes before proceeding. Silverman has said that sometimes she'd say yes and sometimes she'd say no, and he'd accept her answer either way.
The women complaining about CK weren't his employees, though. They were two performers contracted to perform at the same event.
Would it not be harrassment if he'd been less successful and his victims hadn't respected him so much?
I think you can do better than this dude.
Take a hypothetical example, you live in a small town, you're a single mum of three kids and are unemployed. Your mortgage is six months overdue and you are all hungry. You have no means of transport and there's only one place hiring. Non one will lend you any money and you have no one to turn to for help. Yes I know this is a contrived situation but illustrations of a principle usually are so work with me.
You go there and there's one post, with ten more qualified people applying but you get an interview anyway. During the interview the guy is looking at you and saying things that make you uncomfortable, especially as you find him repulsive. He then says you're very attractive and he'd love to have you work there, wouldn't it be a shame not to take such a life changing opportunity, whilst unzipping his trousers.
Are you giving genuine consent if you go along with it?
Why do you think the technicality of being in his employ is key here?
Oh, I don't know about you but for me a "tepid yes" would be a "no". I'm not interested unless the person is ripping my clothes off of her own accord.
They are... but in the current climate, you'd be an idiot to do so.
Best to keep far away from your place of business and line of work.
EDIT: On a related note, here's an interesting side-effect of the #metoo movement:
"The war on men"....fucking hell.
Separate names with a comma.