November 10, 2017

Louis C.K. puts out a statement: "These stories are true."

Here's the full text:
I want to address the stories told to the New York Times by five women named Abby, Rebecca, Dana, Julia who felt able to name themselves and one who did not.

These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. 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.

I have been remorseful of my actions. And I've tried to learn from them. And run from them. Now I’m aware of the extent of the impact of my actions. I learned yesterday the extent to which I left these women who admired me feeling badly about themselves and cautious around other men who would never have put them in that position.

I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn't want to hear it. I didn't think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it. There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with.

I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man and given them some guidance as a comedian, including because I admired their work.

The hardest regret to live with is what you've done to hurt someone else. And I can hardly wrap my head around the scope of hurt I brought on them. I’d be remiss to exclude the hurt that I’ve brought on people who I work with and have worked with whose professional and personal lives have been impacted by all of this, including projects currently in production: the cast and crew of Better Things, Baskets, The Cops, One Mississippi, and I Love You, Daddy. I deeply regret that this has brought negative attention to my manager Dave Becky who only tried to mediate a situation that I caused. I’ve brought anguish and hardship to the people at FX who have given me so much The Orchard who took a chance on my movie, and every other entity that has bet on me through the years.

I’ve brought pain to my family, my friends, my children and their mother.

I have spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything I want. I will now step back and take a long time to listen. Thank you for reading.
ADDED: Notice that he's taking a very strong position on the meaning of consent: It's not enough to ask and get a semblance of consent when you have power over another person. And he doesn't mean only power over the other person's career. He includes the power that you have because the other person admires you.

Now, Louis C.K. is fighting for his life here, so maybe he'll say anything, but let's assume this is sincere. I think it means that, from an ethical standpoint, consent is never enough. To share your sexuality with another person, you have to mean them well. You can't be taking advantage of them, even when they like you so much they say yes to what you're offering them. This isn't a legal argument. It's philosophy.

Don't offer bad sex, even to those who will consent to it. Don't take whatever you can get. You should know when you're extracting perverse pleasure from humiliating or hurting someone else. That's what I take Louis C.K. to be saying — whether he's sincere or not. He knows he did wrong, and I think he knows he got off on his own awfulness.

ALSO: Louis C.K. is free to apologize in such a morally profound way because what he is confessing to is not a criminal offense.

364 comments:

1 – 200 of 364   Newer›   Newest»
Annie C said...

Hmm. Does he actually mean it?

jwl said...

That's a proper apology, good for him.

Louis C.K. sounds sincere but who knows.

AReasonableMan said...

This is really a very good apology. While he may ultimately recover from this maybe he would be better off retiring from show business. He's got money. Get in touch with the real world for a while and relax a bit.

Caroline Walker said...

We may be nearing a point at which it becomes possible to ask, “what is sex for?” And a very old understanding may be favorably considered.

Rabel said...

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true."

They didn't say yes according to the Times report. Some specifically said no. Seems to invalidate the sincerity of his apology.

tcrosse said...

Bill Burr did a riff on Conan about the Disgrace Channel, where people who fucked up can go work off their shame until such time as they can be rehabilitated. Even as a lapsed Catholic I like the idea of penance and redemption, so assign Louis 10,000 Hail Marys.

Xmas said...

I always asked first and they never said, "No."

I mean...I dunno...that's a conundrum right there.

jv said...

My ear just hears him saying "admire" five times; his apology is an advertisement for how good he is and how good women think he is.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"That's a proper apology, good for him."

Nevertheless, the distance between proper and sincere is immeasurable.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

So he claims he didn't know this was wrong? He's full of it. What a conniving liar. I might have bought this but for the claim of ignorance. "Later in life, what did he do this when he was 6 years old?

His claim, "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."

n.n said...

He appreciates the nuanced distinction between involuntary and superior exploitation. With maturity and conservation of principles, he probably recognizes individual dignity and intrinsic value, too.

mockturtle said...

Who really gives a shit?

n.n said...

Who really gives a shit?

He, apparently, does. Ultimately, he will have to live with his choices and himself.

Hagar said...

But he lived in an alternate universe to start with.
His mama did not raise him right.

mccullough said...

Did he jerk off in front of men, too?

Ann Althouse said...

"Some specifically said no."

Please quote the part you're talking about.

The 2 women described at the beginning of the article are asked, they just laugh, and then they stay around laughing and screaming for the whole show, and then they leave.

Earnest Prole said...

let's assume this is sincere

Sincerity: Once you can fake that, you've got it made.

Jupiter said...

I have no use for Louis CC or whatever he calls himself, but this is a bunch of bullshit. Since when does a guy have to apologize because some dorky broads watched him jack off? He didn't tie them up. He didn't break into their hotel rooms. He didn't put anything in their drinks, or threaten their piss-ant little exhibitionist careers.

This is just more of the women-get-to-have-it-both-ways bullshit.

DKWalser said...

The entertainment industry has been preaching an if-it-feels-good-do-it ethic for that last 50 years, if not longer. If you tell enough people that 'if you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with', why should you be surprised by an increase in extra-marital affairs? If you claim that men and women think and feel alike and that they want the same things, why would you be surprised if some men start treating women like they'd like women to treat men?

The strictures of 1950's morality were there to protect women and children. The entertainment industry mocked that morality and spurned those strictures, it shouldn't surprise us that those hurt by the anything goes morality are women and children.

Ann Althouse said...

There's this no:

"Ms. Corry, a comedian, writer and actress, has long felt haunted by her run-in with Louis C.K. In 2005, she was working as a performer and producer on a television pilot — a big step in her career — when Louis C.K., a guest star, approached her as she was walking to the set. “He leaned close to my face and said, ‘Can I ask you something?’ I said, ‘Yes,’” Ms. Corry said in a written statement to The New York Times. “He asked if we could go to my dressing room so he could masturbate in front of me.” Stunned and angry, Ms. Corry said she declined, and pointed out that he had a daughter and a pregnant wife. “His face got red,” she recalled, “and he told me he had issues.”"

She said no and that was the end of it.

Bay Area Guy said...

Excellent apology. I am genuinely impressed.

Now, he has to make amends with those he's hurt and promise not to do it again.

As for substance, asking someone to let you show them your dick in public is, still, kinda wierd. I submit that asking the person out on a date, gives them the opportunity to say yes, with an option for dick disclosure after the dinner and a movie.

Virgil Hilts said...

"I will now step back and take a long time to listen."
That means this guy is coming to Arizona. They all are!
Harvey ate dinner in our neighborhood last week (wearing a blond wig). Kevin Spacey is here now (have not yet seen him). My daughter loves Louis C.K. and is very upset. She doesn't know if there really are any good guy celebrities out there. But she's coming back to Phoenix in a week so maybe she'll have the chance to see and hear Louis C.K. apologize in person.
We're thinking of putting a "Statue of Libertine" on the CA -- AZ border. "Send us your wretched refuse, the disgraced, the irredeemably wicked..."

Ann Althouse said...

Upthread, I see this: "I always asked first and they never said, "No.""

But that's not what he said. He said "At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true."

He did ask and get a no. But he never "showed a woman my dick" without asking and getting a yes.

Those 2 statements are very different.

Ken Schoentag said...

Gee, he is apologetic and sorrowful only after he has been outed as a sexual harasser. He is a typical jerk that only apologizes after he was caught. However, the women that are only coming forth now with allegations of sexual harassment are for the most part jumping on the bandwagon after the band has played. For those women who took a principled stand and reported the sexual harassment when it happened they deserve the kudos and credit. I find it telling that during a highly anticipated senate race that all of a sudden a few women have come forth making sensational charges against the Republican candidate. Where were these women when this man ran for office numerous times before, especially when he was on the Supreme Court of the State or when he ran for other offices. This fits the pattern of a hit job just like the timely release of the video where Trump was caught on tape making disparaging remarks of a sexual nature. That tape only came out at a pivotal time during the last election. Men who abuse their positions of power and take advantage of women should be shamed and humiliated and lose their jobs or positions if the charges are true and provable. Just as many racial issues pushed by the media have turned out to be hoaxes lets not rush to judgment on every harassment claim made.

Gahrie said...

They didn't say yes according to the Times report. Some specifically said no.

It is an open secret that women often mean yes when they say nothing or say no. This is a way of satisfying the whole "good girls don't" meme, while also satisfying their sexual desires. (It's also why so much of college age sex is dependent on alcohol) Fifty Shades of Grey was successful because women liked it, not men. "Romantic" fiction is called bodice rippers for a reason, they're full of sexually aggressive men and quasi-rape.

Seems to invalidate the sincerity of his apology.

No..it is an explanation, not an excuse. I have no idea if he is sincere, the man makes a living by manipulating people's emotions with his words after all.

mccullough said...

This apology is just more self-flagellation

tcrosse said...

FYI Louie's surname is Székely, which in Hungarian is pronounced kind of like See Kay.
Hence Louis CK.

FullMoon said...

I will now step back and take a long time to listen. Thank you for reading.

All these "listeners" should go on a tour. Hillary in charge, they could make a fortune.

Jupiter said...

Caroline Walker said...
"We may be nearing a point at which it becomes possible to ask, “what is sex for?” And a very old understanding may be favorably considered."

Well, I take your point, but if you mean that the purpose of sex is procreation, you should recall that evolution didn't content itself with slipping a little note in everyone's pocket saying "If you want children, you need to fuck". It stuck a great big kink in our brains that says "FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!".

Women take it for granted that men will aggressively seek sex with them, and they can accept it or reject it as they choose. But the idea that sexual advances are perfectly acceptable if they are accepted, and a gross and unforgivable moral lapse if they are not, is absurd and unworkable.

JAORE said...

Gosh I'm glad this happened. How else is a guy to know that, after asking, it's fine and dandy to whip it out and choke the chicken in front of subordinate women?

Somehow the women on my team during my career were spared this action. Just lucky I guess.

The words certainly sound better than most of the (sorry if you were offended) apologies I see today. But as a comedian he should have know the set up was pretty weak to support the punchline.

Bay Area Guy said...

An added benefit to Mr. CK's apology is that maybe the whole spate of sexually harassing liars will come clean. So far, that'd be:

Bill Clinton
Bill Cosby
Harvey Weinstein
Kevin Spacey
Maybe Woody Allen
A bunch more Hollywood types

Diogenes of Sinope said...

He's claiming he didn't do anything wrong since he didn't know it is wrong. So no, I don't thing "he knows he did wrong".

Rob said...

It's for the very reason Louis C.K. gives that I won't let my doctor give me a physical. It would be wrong to exercise my power over the poor bastard to make him look at my dick. I'm woke.

Owen said...

Caroline Walker at 12:52: "We may be nearing a point at which it becomes possible to ask, “what is sex for?” And a very old understanding may be favorably considered."

This.

THIS.

THiS.

I am not optimistic but I do hold out some hope. Maybe Althouse will display some (additional) initiative and lead the conversation in that direction.

Gahrie said...

If he never exposed himself or masturbated in front of someone who actually said no, and only did so in front of adults, not only has he not committed a crime, he has not committed an assault or harassed anyone. In this case the only aggrieved party is his wife.

pdug said...

I read somewhere of an SJW saying that since white men have power, if they want sex with a white woman they need to get consent by asking first, and if they want sex with a black woman, that's two power differentials so they have to ask twice.

So if your Louis CK you have to ask twice, since the women also admire you and that's power you have.

Unknown said...

Good for him! Now let’s see what the fine upstanding Judge Roy Moore and the people of Alabama do.

Gahrie said...

He's claiming he didn't do anything wrong since he didn't know it is wrong. So no, I don't thing "he knows he did wrong".

Doesn't he at least imply that he should have known it was wrong?

alan markus said...

Never heard of him before, but now I see that he is director of "Better Things". I saw Season 1 episodes on HULU, now watching Season 2 on cable. A rather dark comedy, single mom with 3 daughters. In a recent episode, the daughter (maybe supposed to be 16 or 17) is in a scene where she is walking around in very tight panties. Wonder how old she was when the scene was filmed - IMBd just says born in 1999.

Ann Althouse said...

"I have no use for Louis CC or whatever he calls himself, but this is a bunch of bullshit. Since when does a guy have to apologize because some dorky broads watched him jack off? He didn't tie them up. He didn't break into their hotel rooms. He didn't put anything in their drinks, or threaten their piss-ant little exhibitionist careers."

He is free to apologize abjectly precisely because what he did is not a crime. It is a moral offense only. Why not take a very strong moral position? I think that is Christian position. (Louis C.K. was raised Catholic.) Your personal morality should be on a much higher level than what the law requires.

You should not be using another person for the purpose of your sexual pleasure. You shouldn't take whatever you can get away with, and if your sexuality is specifically about doing something that isn't good for the other person, you're doing something wrong. I mean, I think the kind of pleasure he was taking was specifically about its badness to the other person.

Unknown said...

“An added benefit to Mr. CK's apology is that maybe the whole spate of sexually harassing liars will come clean. So far, that'd be:

Bill Clinton
Bill Cosby
Harvey Weinstein
Kevin Spacey
Maybe Woody Allen
A bunch more Hollywood types”

Of course Judge Roy Moore isn’t on your list, lol.

exiledonmainstreet said...

“His face got red,” she recalled, “and he told me he had issues.”"

It's the war and that son of a bitch Johnson.

Drago said...

Ken Schoentag: "Gee, he is apologetic and sorrowful only after he has been outed as a sexual harasser."

Tsk tsk. Now now. What you are failing to do is apply the "liberal in good standing" filter to this apology, like ARM did.

Ince you do that you will find it very easy indeed to cut the guy a break, even as you cheer for others, like males in college campus, to be completely denied due process.

After all, what's the point of having cultural power if you can't abuse it?

It's not like Louis ck did anything really wrong, like voting for Trump, opposing gay marriage or refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding or make a video critical of Hillary.

You know, "real" crimes.

Bay Area Guy said...

In the immortal words of Sheriff Bart in Blazing Saddles:

"'Scuse me while I whip this out!"

pdug said...

The original Gawker article says "the women gave a facetious thumbs up." to the request, and laughed because they thought he was doing shtick.

Is the line now that they did not give a "yes" ?

Mike said...

My reaction yesterday, noting the lady who said she “declined” and he left, was, “That’s how you do it. Say ‘No!’”
My wife agreed. You know when you’re a star they let you do a lot. I was afraid he would get flogged like Stacy when I saw CK’s behavior much more benign. Boorish and rude but benign.

Now he presents a pretty clear apology that shows he knows about the boundaries he transgressed. I’d say he put all the blame in himself and not the victims. And still there’s some hardcore moralists here not willing to accept this rare admission at face value. You’re being dicks.

Gahrie said...

You should not be using another person for the purpose of your sexual pleasure. You shouldn't take whatever you can get away with, and if your sexuality is specifically about doing something that isn't good for the other person, you're doing something wrong. I mean, I think the kind of pleasure he was taking was specifically about its badness to the other person.

Did you watch Fifty Shades of Grey? Have you read a "romance" novel? I don't think you understand the sexual drives of many, if not most, of your fellow women.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Why do I get the impression he was rubbing one out when he wrote that?

Drago said...

"Of course Judge Roy Moore isn’t on your list, lol."

Note: any list of what is now clearly hundreds of lefty/Dems who have been credibly accused by more victims than we can count AS WELL AS the necessary hundreds of lefty/Dem enablers and enforcers you must always, always, be sure to include at least one republican, guilty or not, in order to pull off the standard Dem "Keating Five" rhetorical sleight of hand.

Mike said...

Ack. I meant “flogged like SPACEY”!

exiledonmainstreet said...

I can't find the quote, but this confession sounds like the reply I got from a wise commenter here a few days ago when I wondered why so many of these men took pleasure in masturbating in front of a beautiful woman. The commenter (I am sorry I don't recall who it was) said it was about all the pleasure of humiliating and controlling a less powerful person.

Louis CK agrees.

walter said...

Blogger Gahrie said...
Fifty Shades of Grey was successful because women liked it, not men. "Romantic" fiction is called bodice rippers for a reason, they're full of sexually aggressive men and quasi-rape.
---
And though he can't say this in public, there are women who get off on watching a guy get himself off.

pdug said...

"if your sexuality is specifically about doing something that isn't good for the other person, you're doing something wrong."

Excellent point Ann.

Drago said...

"...laughed because they thought he was doing shtick."

Clown nose on, clown nose off.

Convenient.

Jupiter said...

"Fifty Shades of Grey was successful because women liked it, not men."

Come to think of it, you're right. His mistake was probably that he *didn't* break into their hotel rooms, tie them up, and threaten their careers. So they feel bad because they stuck around and watched. Note to self.

Mike said...

Also where did someone jot read get the weird idea that booking agents and his fellow comedians are somehow his “subordinates”? What’s up with that kind of sexist crap?

mccullough said...

Louis CK now says he agrees. But his claim that he didn't believe it was wrong at the time because he wasn't woke is bullshit. He got off on degrading himself and women.

Drago said...

We have entire Dem law firms organizing thug squads of former intelligence agents to harass and intimidate victims of Dem abuse so it's time to deflect.

Unknown is simply getting a little ahead if LLR Chuck.

Unknown said...

“Did you watch Fifty Shades of Grey? Have you read a "romance" novel? I don't think you understand the sexual drives of many, if not most, of your fellow women.”

Oh no you did not! You’re seriously chastising Althouse for not wasting brain cells on Fifty Shades of Grey? Romance novels? Women aren’t the borg, you know. Hahahaha!

kjbe said...

IMO, there is some credit to be given to him for standing in this truth. So many others don't. I pray that he consumes himself with atoning, in meaningful, tangible ways, for the pain he's caused.

mccullough said...

Telling the woman in 2005 who pointed out his moral failings as a husband and father that "he had issues" undercuts his newfound claim that he didn't realize it was wrong at the time but now knows better. Total bullshit

Mike said...

“Not read”? Damn you autocorrect! (I’m on a phone.)

I meant “upthread” if anyone cares to note.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Women aren’t the borg, you know. Hahahaha!"

Women are alot of things these days, or so we've been lectured to. Why, these days even men. So why not the Borg?

Gahrie said...

I think it means that, from an ethical standpoint, consent is never enough. To share your sexuality with another person, you have to mean them well.

WTF?!? You really, really don't understand male or female sexuality do you? I hate to break it to you, but many, if not most men, especially when young, don't care. All they need is a yes, or even an implied yes.

You can't be taking advantage of them, even when they like you so much they say yes to what you're offering them.

So now people have to be mind readers? So now not only must I ignore any signals less than oral affirmative consent...now I have to be able to tell if they really want to have sex, or are simply willing to have sex to please me? (isn't that actually wanting to have sex, but for a reason other than sexual desire?)

This isn't a legal argument.

Yet.

Don't offer bad sex, even to those who will consent to it.

Unfortunately for some of us, that's all we have to offer.....

Don't take whatever you can get.

We're back to not understanding men....

You should know when you're extracting perverse pleasure from humiliating or hurting someone else.

And judging from popular culture, that's a pretty popular option for many.

Dave said...

Ann's comment at 1:16pm...

"You should not be using another person for the purpose of your sexual pleasure. You shouldn't take whatever you can get away with, and if your sexuality is specifically about doing something that isn't good for the other person, you're doing something wrong. I mean, I think the kind of pleasure he was taking was specifically about its badness to the other person."

...has me thinking the next shoe to drop is pro athlete culture and hip hop culture, which both center on a heavy dose of taking whatever you can get away with when it comes to sex.

Gahrie said...

The commenter (I am sorry I don't recall who it was) said it was about all the pleasure of humiliating and controlling a less powerful person.

I don't know if I am the one you are talking about, but I did make such a comment.

CStanley said...

Well done. It's never possible to know if an apology is sincere, but intellectually he hit the right notes.

I find that Althouse's addendum about her philosophy of sex trends in the direction that Caroline Walker pointed to but doesn't quite get there.

Step back a bit farther, and if you allow for a Creator you see that the reason that sex requires this mutual self giving to be morally good is that sex is meant foremost for procreation. It's a gift that we also get to enjoy giving each other pleasure and creating emotional bonds for the purpose of creating a family.

If you prefer to see a more biological/evolutionary view, it still comes down to the same thing in the end. Males and females need to be able to form these bonds because human children need intensive parenting for a long period of time. We make an abomination of this when we separate the idea of sexual pleasure from the ideas of emotional bonding and procreation.

Quaestor said...

His face got red, she recalled, and he told me he had issues.

Issues. The word is major league psycho-bullshit, and anyone who admits to having "issue" is trying mighty hard to avoid adulthood.

Mac McConnell said...

Who the fuck asks a woman if they want to see their dick? The trick is to be nice to women till they beg to see your dick. Just be nice to them, smile at them and talk to them, they'll seduce you. Just my fifty years of experience.

tcrosse said...

At least Louie didn't take his dick out in front of Donna Brazile; hers is bigger.

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...

"You should not be using another person for the purpose of your sexual pleasure. You shouldn't take whatever you can get away with, and if your sexuality is specifically about doing something that isn't good for the other person, you're doing something wrong."

Suppose my sexual pleasure is in impregnating the person I have sex with? She doesn't wish to be pregnant. So she kills a baby. No harm, no foul, right?


"I mean, I think the kind of pleasure he was taking was specifically about its badness to the other person."

That sounds like Weinstein, but not this guy. Look, the women say that they thought he was making a joke. That's because, in the circles these people move in, pushing the envelope is admired. He just pushed it in a place they didn't want it pushed. But he says that they did not say "No". If you are correct, that would have spoiled it for him. "Oh, shit. They're enjoying it."

Clark said...

Don't offer bad sex? I have to offer only good sex? Fuuuuuuuuuuck...

Sydney said...

To share your sexuality with another person, you have to mean them well.

Pope Saint John Paul II would agree. This is what is missing from so many sexual encounters these days.

Jupiter said...

Quaestor said...

"... anyone who admits to having "issue" is trying mighty hard to avoid adulthood."

You are aware, that adulthood is invariably fatal?

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Did you watch Fifty Shades of Grey? Have you read a "romance" novel? I don't think you understand the sexual drives of many, if not most, of your fellow women."

I, for one, can understand the appeal of being swept off your feet and carried up the stairs by Rhett Butler. (More recent versions: Jack Nicholson in "The Post Always Rings Twice" or William Hurt in "Body Heat.")

Rhett pulling it out and waving it in front of Scarlett is an entirely different matter.

What Weinstein and Louis CK did had nothing to do with wanting to please women. They didn't care if the woman was disgusted or not, in fact, the disgusted look on women's faces might have made them enjoy it all the more. It was all about their pleasure.

rhhardin said...

It's the apology at the end of romcoms just before the guy gets the girl back. It's the fixed formula that women tune in for. Guys tune in for getting the girl.

The actual philosophical version is don't offer sex unless you mean it to be long term.

Xmas said...

@Mac,

Your advice is terrible and 20 to 30 years out-of-date. Just google "Nice Guys" or "Friend Zoned" and you'll see what I mean.

Ken B said...

It means no-one can give consent to someone they admire. Full stop. Meade, if he admires Althouse, cannot consent to have sex with her. Althouse, if she admires Meade, cannot consent to have sex with him.

Drago said...

"Who the fuck asks a woman if they want to see their dick?"

Apparently, this is a "thing" amongst "fully woke" leftist males and their leftist female enablers.

Ann Althouse said...

"WTF?!? You really, really don't understand male or female sexuality do you? I hate to break it to you, but many, if not most men, especially when young, don't care. All they need is a yes, or even an implied yes."

You don't seem to understand English. I said from an ethical standpoint. Not caring about the other person is unethical. The fact that many people do what is unethical isn't discussed by me because it's completely obvious. Everyone knows that. Why are you getting sarcastic about my failure to lard my comment with an obvious point.

Come on, get up to speed.

rhhardin said...

"wishing the woman well"

What she needs is a good fuck.

Not a very good criterion.

Ann Althouse said...

"So now people have to be mind readers? So now not only must I ignore any signals less than oral affirmative consent...now I have to be able to tell if they really want to have sex, or are simply willing to have sex to please me? (isn't that actually wanting to have sex, but for a reason other than sexual desire?)"

Wow. You really can't read what I've written. Could you just try again, because this is demoralizing!

I said the ethical question doesn't depend on the other person's consent. The way I've phrased it completely omits the mind-reading demand. You need to look into your own mind and judge your own good or bad intentions. Then it doesn't matter what the other person is willing to accept or say she's willing to accept. You should refrain from offering what is not good, and if what you want from the other person is to hurt and humiliate, then what you are doing is wrong. You shouldn't even get to the point where you need to discern if she accepts. You should withhold even what would be accepted.

Ann Althouse said...

"Don't offer bad sex, even to those who will consent to it."/"Unfortunately for some of us, that's all we have to offer....."

Then you should not take anything from others. First, do no harm.

rhhardin said...

No sex unless it's meant to be long term is for your own soul, not the woman's.

Though you are taking on the woman's well being, feelings or not.

Unknown said...

“What she needs is a good fuck.”

What makes you think she hasn’t had one or even many? Maybe she just doesn’t choose to have one with him.

Fernananindianaide said...

I never showed a woman my dick without asking first

If that's not a true gentleman, I don't know what is.

Ian Underwood Whips It Out

Ken B said...

“Not caring about the other person is unethical.”

How widely do you apply this dictum? It’s unethical to play chess with someone you don’t care about? It's unethical to take a dance lesson unless you care about the instructor? Badminton with strangers, the new shame?

It's unethical to make the other person think you care if you don’t, but why is it unethical if neither of you cares and both of you know it?

mezzrow said...

This "outing the abuser" trend will progress through the culture until something happens to force us to drop everything.

If it goes on for years, we should consider ourselves lucky. Not that any of this is fun in any way. It's only a matter of bad vs worse.

Rabel said...

"In 2003, Abby Schachner called Louis C.K. to invite him to one of her shows, and during the phone conversation, she said, she could hear him masturbating as they spoke."

"Then he slowly started telling her his sexual fantasies, breathing heavily and talking softly. She realized he was masturbating, and was dumbfounded. The call went on for several minutes, even though, Ms. Schachner said, “I definitely wasn’t encouraging it.”

-This was over the phone and not a specific "no" so you're right.

“He leaned close to my face and said, ‘Can I ask you something?’ I said, ‘Yes,’” Ms. Corry said in a written statement to The New York Times. “He asked if we could go to my dressing room so he could masturbate in front of me.” Stunned and angry, Ms. Corry said she declined, and pointed out that he had a daughter and a pregnant wife."

-You're right again because he didn't follow through.

"Ms. Goodman and Ms. Wolov decided against going to the police, unsure whether what happened was criminal, but felt they had to respond in some way “because something crazy happened to us,” Ms. Goodman said."

-I was wrong about "specifically" in this case. But the fact that they considered it potentially criminal would tend to indicate unwilling participation.

"In 2015, a few months before the now-defunct website Defamer circulated rumors of Louis C.K.’s alleged sexual misconduct, Ms. Corry also received an email from Louis C.K., which was obtained by The Times, saying he owed her a “very very very late apology.” When he phoned her, he said he was sorry for shoving her in a bathroom. Ms. Corry replied that he had never done that, but had instead asked to masturbate in front of her."

- Some woman got shoved into a bathroom by Louis. He was confused about which one. We have to stretch "benefit of the doubt" a long way to assume the victim didn't say no.

Althouse said:
"He is free to apologize abjectly precisely because what he did is not a crime."

The Times was careful not to directly accuse Louis of criminal behavior in their article. His apology was written in response to that. Let's give it a little time to see what else arises.

His argument that "I was a total pervert who exposed myself and masturbated in front of co-workers, subordinates and people I just met but always stopped when the girls said no." doesn't wash for me.

Unknown said...

“Don't offer bad sex, even to those who will consent to it."/"Unfortunately for some of us, that's all we have to offer....."

Don’t whine about it, endeavor to do better, sheesh.

Jupiter said...

"I said from an ethical standpoint. Not caring about the other person is unethical. The fact that many people do what is unethical isn't discussed by me because it's completely obvious."

Is it permissible to buy a hamburger in a restaurant if I don't actually hope and believe the chef will get a kick out of frying it? People use each other all the time. What makes it ethical is the absence of force. I grant, that's a fine line in the cases under discussion. But "consensual" is not the same as "with deep, unmixed and lasting satisfaction".

Ann Althouse said...

"Suppose my sexual pleasure is in impregnating the person I have sex with? She doesn't wish to be pregnant. So she kills a baby. No harm, no foul, right?"

You are responsible for the death of the baby too. You should have taken far more care not to do harm. Decent men will take care never to impregnate a woman who does not want to have a child with you. Obviously, taking pleasure in impregnating women is a selfish matter unless the woman openly wants the same thing.

You really sound like a moral idiot here.

Ann Althouse said...

"“Don't offer bad sex, even to those who will consent to it."/"Unfortunately for some of us, that's all we have to offer....."

Women seem wicked, when you're unwanted...

rhhardin said...

You need to look into your own mind and judge your own good or bad intentions.

Strictly speaking you don't have intentions. They're retroactive.

J.L.Austin

Again, we ask this young man who is paying attentions to our daughter to declare his intentions. What are his intentions? Are his intentions honourable? Here, would it make any difference if we asked him what was the purpose of these attentions, whether he has some purpose in view, whether he is doing these things on purpose or for a purpose? This makes his conduct seem more calculated, frames him as an adventurer or seducer. Instead of asking him to clarify the position, perhaps to himself as well as to us, are we not now asking to divulge a guilty secret?

"Three Ways of Spilling Ink"

note "to himself"

Ken B said...

Jupiter
Yep. I made the same point. Althouse makes some very serious demands here. Not only must your prospective partner consent, but you must know they would consent even knowing all your secret desires, and in addition you must care about them. And, since she likes the apology, neither of you must admire the other.

Ferananindianaide said...

Jupiter said...
This is just more of the women-get-to-have-it-both-ways bullshit.


As the feminists like to say, "No means no, and yes means no."

rhhardin said...

Thurber _Is Sex Necessary_ "How to Tell Love from Passion"

http://www.sonic.net/~halcomb/Love%20&%20Passion.htm

Ann Althouse said...

"Strictly speaking you don't have intentions. They're retroactive."

Does the word "they" refer to anything?

mockturtle said...

You should not be using another person for the purpose of your sexual pleasure.

Good grief, Ann! By this measure, everyone should just masturbate. Alone.

Jupiter said...

"You should withhold even what would be accepted."

In other words, it's not enough to read her mind. You've got to tell her fortune.

Ann Althouse said...

"Not only must your prospective partner consent, but you must know they would consent even knowing all your secret desires, and in addition you must care about them."

I didn't say that. I disaggregated the question from consent (other than that without consent, you're always wrong).

I wouldn't say it's wrong to have sex in a loving, mutual relationship but to keep secret your desire to worship this woman for the rest of your life if you knew that she'd be freaked out by your overwhelming dedication.

Unknown said...

“Is it permissible to buy a hamburger in a restaurant if I don't actually hope and believe the chef will get a kick out of frying it? People use each other all the time. What makes it ethical is the absence of force. I grant, that's a fine line in the cases under discussion. But "consensual" is not the same as "with deep, unmixed and lasting satisfaction".”

Jupiter compares everyday mundane things to sex. Is that a message about the sex he offers? It’s interesting to see so many right wing men showing themselves to be sexual dunce’s.

Beth B said...

Ugh. That's an apology? It read to me like a repeated humble-brag about how very, very powerful he is - like he thinks that is the most important aspect of his misbehavior. No. It's the being a sexual deviant part, dumbass! Nobody with a healthy mind thinks to whip it out and jerk it off in front of colleagues and co-workers and unwilling witnesses whenever the fancy strikes him. It isn't normal or acceptable behavior.

And boo-hoo... OF COURSE he's sorry now! Getting his creepy jollies off is suddenly going to cost him something. Good. It should.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken B said...

So a woman who says ugly or sexually clumsy men should never suggest sex is calling someone a moral idiot?

Seriously, when someone remarked that the only sex he could offer was bad sex that’s pretty much what he meant. He didn’t mean a secret desire to impregnate, or secretly filming, or anything except that he feared his performance would be inadequate. So he shouldn’t even ask!

mockturtle said...

Exiled womansplains: Rhett pulling it out and waving it in front of Scarlett is an entirely different matter.

LOL! That's for sure!

Drago said...

AA: "Obviously, taking pleasure in impregnating women is a selfish matter unless the woman openly wants the same thing."

Just closing the circle here, would the reverse be true as well?

rhhardin said...

Doctor to colleagues by unconscious woman

This may seem unusual but I'm going to try to restore her will to live.

Rabel said...

"But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your d–k isn’t a question."

This statement from the apology is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

He wasn't a child at the time.

rhhardin said...

"Strictly speaking you don't have intentions. They're retroactive."

Does the word "they" refer to anything?


Intentions are a marker in an account, not a present thing.

Intentions make a convenience of grammar so as to be able to give an account as if they were present at the time. That's how they retroact.

Drago said...

"It’s interesting to see so many right wing men showing themselves to be sexual dunce’s."

Yes, a lefty just wrote that. Just now. On this thread and in this environment.

"Sexual dunce", a term yet to be applied by Inga to her believed Hollywood/media types.

Very similar to her "religious" non-criticism of islamist practices.

Ken B said...

Althouse, you did say what I asserted. You said it wouldn’t be ethical to ask for sex should any of those conditionals fail. And as the turtle bolder, you deny people can ethically have sex just for the pleasure of having sex.

We are not misreading. Perhaps you are miswriting, and what you think is not what you say. But since I am not asking for sex I have no obligation to read your mind. I am responding to your actual statements.

Drago said...

Beloved, not believed

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AReasonableMan said...

Surprisingly broad range of responses to Louis CK's apology.

This is a very different situation to say Roman Polanski, for whom no excuse or apology will ever be acceptable. Louis CK has been a pig, a very weird pig, but still a pig. He seems to accept this and acknowledge that this kind of behavior is not OK. Not sure if anything that he did was criminal. Surprised lawyers haven't opined on this yet. That would change matters. The fact that he is apologizing suggests that he doesn't believe he did anything illegal.

Unknown said...

“AA: "Obviously, taking pleasure in impregnating women is a selfish matter unless the woman openly wants the same thing."

“Just closing the circle here, would the reverse be true as well?”

Yes of course. Why even ask? It goes without saying, dummy.

Ann Althouse said...

"Is it permissible to buy a hamburger in a restaurant if I don't actually hope and believe the chef will get a kick out of frying it? People use each other all the time...."

The chef, if he's not a slave, is working for money. You get an exchange by adjusting the money to the level the chef is willing to work for.

Sex is different. You should not be adding other benefits in a sexual exchange. Either the sex alone is good for both, or, under the morality I am advocating, you should not be having sex. If you have to throw in money to equalize the exchange, you shouldn't be doing sex. Go out and get a hamburger instead. Have a conversation. Maybe some day someone will actually want to have sex with you.

To get closer to a better hamburger analogy, consider the situation where the chef knows he's using meat tainted with e coli, and the customer either doesn't realize it or is too dumb to care or thinks it will somehow still be okay or he's just so hungry he's only thinking about now. The chef wants to make the money, but he should not serve the meat.

Drago said...

Ubkniwn: "Yes of course. Why even ask? It goes without saying."

Again, Inga just wrote that on this thread, just now, and in this environment.

The ratio of obtuseness to lack of intelligence is up to each reader to determine.

mockturtle said...

"Then he slowly started telling her his sexual fantasies, breathing heavily and talking softly. She realized he was masturbating, and was dumbfounded. The call went on for several minutes, even though, Ms. Schachner said, “I definitely wasn’t encouraging it.” [emphasis mine]

Only an incredibly stupid woman would not have hung up. I'm sure most of us women have at some time received obscene phone calls. You hang up as soon as you realize what it is. No fun for them if you don't listen.

rhhardin said...

The woman wants somebody taking care of her, so what she wants is commitment.

She's not at the moment being granted the power to decide what she wants, part of the double fantasy modern women have. Strong but vulnerable.

They see the inconsistency but don't care about the inconsistency, because they're women.

When the guy takes this on long term, that's part of what he takes on.

rhhardin said...

Taking the other side, the guys' criteria for older women having sex with male students is that it's good luck.

The guy is not looking for somebody to take care of him, he's looking for sex.

It's a very sex-based problem. Equality there is not.

Ken B said...

Althouse 2:12 flatly contradicts Althouse 1:16

tim in vermont said...

Louis C.K. did go to a doctor. The doctor said "Louis, you've got to stop masturbating!"
Louis says "Why?"
The doctor says "Because I am try to examine you!"

Amexpat said...

I'm not an avid follower of Louis CK, but I appreciate his talent. He always struck me as a decent person. Obviously, masturbating in front of women the way he did was pretty indecent. But, unlike HW, Clinton, Cosby, Ailes and O'Reilly he admitted to his wrongdoing and didn't try to hide behind a NDA or that he had "consent" to do what he did.

Unknown said...

You right wing sexual dunces here should take a lesson on how to sweep a woman off her feet and want to have sex with you from Meade. I doubt he’d be writing such retarded comments.

Jupiter said...

"You really sound like a moral idiot here."

Althouse, in all sincerity, I am glad to hear you say that a person who thinks that killing babies is a reasonable response to having pursued one's sexual pleasure further than intended is a moral idiot. That was precisely my point. Your arguments about having one's pleasure at another's expense make perfect sense to me. Although I would say that killing babies is worse than jacking off in public, whatever the Bible may say on the subject.

Ken B said...

@mockturtle 2:04
Exactly. And to be ethical our desires must be pure too I expect. No fantasies that aren’t loving.

AReasonableMan said...

mockturtle said...
Only an incredibly stupid woman would not have hung up. I'm sure most of us women have at some time received obscene phone calls. You hang up as soon as you realize what it is. No fun for them if you don't listen.


I think Louis CK addresses this. These are women who genuinely admired CK. He was the leader in his field. Everyone thought he was one of the greatest comics of his time. The women literally can't get their head around the fact that he is so fucked up. It is a bit like a guru/student relationship. Louis CK is a comic master and at first the student can't see past that to the crazy individual hiding behind the mask.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Come on, get up to speed."

That's what she said..........

exiledonmainstreet said...

Xmas said...
@Mac,

Your advice is terrible and 20 to 30 years out-of-date. Just google "Nice Guys" or "Friend Zoned" and you'll see what I mean."

No, it is not. The trouble is that some men think there is no middle ground between "asshole" and "wimp." (Some women think that too, but they are usually not the ones you want to get involved with.)

I appreciate a nicely mannered man - but not a doormat.

ALP said...

One good thing that could come out of this is that people might stop assuming lefty liberals are paragons of feminist virtue. Yeah, I laughed too!

Seinfeld said it best in one of his episodes, something along the lines of "If women could read men's minds they'd never stop slapping us..."

tim in vermont said...

Different strokes for different folks.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

That's a pretty honest statement. About as honest an apology as they come.

Anonymous said...

"They didn't say yes according to the Times report. Some specifically said no. Seems to invalidate the sincerity of his apology."

No, he's apologizing for one thing, but saying the other thing is a lie and he ain't accepting it.

I still think the whole thing is dumb: the point seems to be applying the rules of rape ("it doesn't matter what you're wearing or how you behave, it's never okay") to things that are not rape. As if women are moral children who need guardians - which is what I thought feminism wanted to get away from.

But of course we will continue to insist that women have agency - when it suits them. They are just powerless and need protection some of the time; it doesn't affect their ability to claim the rights of adulthood. Just the responsibilities.

And rape really is different from "I saw his penis under circumstances I think aren't okay". (Note that a man showing you his penis against your will is just fine if it's a trans person in the girls' locker room.)

Always it's about claiming rights while rejecting the corresponding responsibilities.

Anonymous said...

I do not understand the current fad of "I apologize" and that makes everything okay. This guy clearly did some asshole things to women - hell. it was just asshole behavior in general. Why should an apology now mean anything at all? If he was so remorseful why didn't he contact them personally for a sincere apology? That might have actually been seen as sincere and might have been useful. All the crappy "I'm sorry"s emanating from these people are deserving of Ann's BS tag.

Luke Lea said...

This might be a good time to bring in that distinctively Western virtue (I don't think any other civilizations had it?) that came in with Christianity, namely, forgiveness. If it wasn't a crime, maybe it should be enough that these things be sincerely apologized for and forgiven as artifacts of a less puritan era than the one we have entered.

tim in vermont said...

"The women literally can't get their head around the fact that he is so fucked up."

Sounds like Donna Brazile and Clinton.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I appreciate a nicely mannered man - but not a doormat.

Why do I get the impression that your lack of appreciation for doormats did not arise from a lack of interest in seeking them out?

mockturtle said...

If we fantasize about someone while masturbating is that 'using' them for our sexual pleasure? Even if they know nothing about it? Just curious.

rhhardin said...

- How do you write women so well?

- I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.

rhhardin said...

If we fantasize about someone while masturbating is that 'using' them for our sexual pleasure? Even if they know nothing about it? Just curious.

Rousseau has an essay on this somewhere.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"It’s interesting to see so many right wing men showing themselves to be sexual dunce’s."

It's interesting to see how Inga tries to turn a thread about the perversions of a leftist male into one about right-wingers.

Louis CK is a Democrat who did a particularly vile routine viciously mocking Sarah Palin and her "retard kid."

I'm sure you would have found it quite amusing.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

True Story:

A Louis CK bit once referenced an anecdote whereby he walked by his young daughter, stunned, as she was laying on the floor, spread eagle, opening her vagina up inside out.

Some things might seem to run in families.

Mac McConnell said...

Xmas said...
@Mac,

Your advice is terrible and 20 to 30 years out-of-date. Just google "Nice Guys" or "Friend Zoned" and you'll see what I mean.

Never said I was a nice guy, by today's standards I'm a womanizer. Never ever knock the bottom out of a married woman or someone at work. My benchmark is that I always get asked back.

Ken B said...

Mockturtle 2:27
I think it would be, unless the thoughts were about how much we care, and if the other person wanted to fantasized about, but not because he or she got sexual pleasure out of it, because doing things just for sexual pleasure is unacceptable. Chemical castration is safer.

tim in vermont said...

"Even if they know nothing about it? Just curious."

Asking for a friend.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The trouble is that some men think there is no middle ground between "asshole" and "wimp."

Ritmo has the distinction of being both at the same time.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Louis CK is a Democrat who did a particularly vile routine viciously mocking Sarah Palin and her "retard kid."

I didn't hear that.

What I did hear was Lisa Lampanelli's joke about how her retard kid was Baby Jesus' warning shot to the reproductive system, cautioning it to "shut that thing down." And to wrap yellow police, crime scene tape around it.

Now that was funny.

Run across any right-wing comedians lately? Or even wingers who understand humor?

I didn't think so. The question answers itself.

Get a sense of humor.

Earnest Prole said...

I hope we can agree that a man who is compelled to masturbate in front of unwilling observers is objectively disordered, regardless of any other moral consideration.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Ritmo has the distinction of being both at the same time.

If they're two things at the same time then there's no reason to assume they're distinct, Gimpy Pugsley.

Have you ever thought of having a reunion with your baby daddy? Maybe you could meet and discuss some things.

Figure out if he's where your lifelong problems with men started.

Unknown said...

“If we fantasize about someone while masturbating is that 'using' them for our sexual pleasure? Even if they know nothing about it? Just curious. Even if they know nothing about it? Just curious.”

LOL! All this talk of masturbation and fantasy making Mockturtle horney?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Gimpy Pugsley, AKA sexiled on manstreet, AKA The Sadistic Submissive, is Exhibit A for why I never found anything interesting about BDSM.

glenn said...

Louie is a comedian isn’t he?

exiledonmainstreet said...

I never found anything interesting about BDSM.

11/10/17, 2:36 PM

Neither have I.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"Just closing the circle here, would the reverse be true as well?"

I have to interpret what you mean by the "reverse," but my answer is yes on the assumption that you mean that a woman is morally wrong to seek or hope to become pregnant by a man who does not also want her to become pregnant by him.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I never found anything interesting about BDSM.

11/10/17, 2:36 PM

Neither have I.


I mean socially, too.

Clearly you seem to have this thing about wanting to feel "dominated" by a man, though.

exiledonmainstreet said...

No, I want a man to act like a man.

I'm sorry if that confuses you.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I have to interpret what you mean by the "reverse," but my answer is yes on the assumption that you mean that a woman is morally wrong to seek or hope to become pregnant by a man who does not also want her to become pregnant by him.

Some forms of seeking are less aggressive than others. Would such a woman also be forbidden from persuading?

How many unions do we have to incriminate on the basis of how much mutual interest was not immediately evident before one party committed itself to any form of pursuit upon the other?

Jupiter said...

AReasonableMan said...

"I think Louis CK addresses this. These are women who genuinely admired CK. He was the leader in his field. Everyone thought he was one of the greatest comics of his time. The women literally can't get their head around the fact that he is so fucked up."

I'm sorry, ARM, I wasn't paying attention. What was it the women literally couldn't get their heads around?

rhhardin said...

Rousseau

This vice, which shame and timidity find so convenient, possesses, besides a great attraction for lively imaginations -- that of being able to dispoase of the whole sex as they desire, and to make the beauty which tempts them minister to their pleasures, without being obliged to obtain its consent

Confessions p.111

Cited in Of Grammatology p.151

Amexpat said...

I do not understand the current fad of "I apologize" and that makes everything okay

He starts off by saying that everything the women said was true. That's actually more important than an apology. Of course that doesn't make everything OK, but it's a lot better than distorting the truth or remaining silent.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

No, I want a man to act like a man.

I'm sorry if that confuses you.


I just think you like vague definitions when it comes to explaining your resentful feelings on account of wanting to compensate for your baby daddy.

It's not a clear preference. Men - like all individuals - might prefer and pursue their own likes and dislikes in an infinite number of ways. None of these likes or dislikes make them less "masculine." The fact that you are blind to the internal contradiction in your conformist sense of manliness again just underscores your lack of success with the gender. Starting with your illogic on the issue.

Jupiter said...

Earnest Prole said...
"I hope we can agree that a man who is compelled to masturbate in front of unwilling observers is objectively disordered, regardless of any other moral consideration."

I will agree that my aspiration in that regard has always been to avoid observation, rather than to seek it. But as I get older the only thing about sex that surprises me more than what other men want to do is how many women there are who want them to do it.

rhhardin said...

The point of an apology isn't to compensate for damage done but to affirm the correct attitude, at the present at least even if it wasn't at the time.

Ann Althouse said...

"And as the turtle bolder, you deny people can ethically have sex just for the pleasure of having sex."

No. I said "You should not be using another person for the purpose of your sexual pleasure." The key word there is "using," not "pleasure." I think 2 people can have sex for the sexual pleasure and not be "using" each other. I may be using the word "using" in a stronger sense than you read it, but I do mean it in that strong sense.

I think there are some positive meanings of the word "use," as in the hymns that pray to God to "use me." I think there are some psychological complexities to offering yourself to the other person sexually with this idea: use me. But it's different when you're thinking of finding a use for the other person and it's nothing more than your pleasure, even if you know the other person is so inclined to serve you that she or he would say: use me.

Here's a really shitty 60s pop song that occurs to me in this context: "Bend me, shape me/Anyway you want me..."

I think a moral person would reject that sexual partner.

Paul J said...

Also, it can be difficult to fully inhabit the position that being touched by "me" is a harm. Even if it isn't exactly a benefit, it seems rather benign. About oneself I mean, internally.

Rocky Road said...

Sex is a normal human bodily function. For the most part, we all do it. And as adults, most all of us have seen a penis enough times that we should not be scared by one. Or scarred by seeing one.

It clearly is not OK to touch others without their consent, and blackmailing people with threats to their livelihood is wrong. But short of that, why is a man's exposing his genitals to another person worth all this scorn and a woman's breastfeeding in public celebrated? Either it's OK to expose those body parts or it isn't.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"your conformist sense of manliness"

Sez the beta.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Sez the beta.

Hey. At least I wasn't impregnated (or perpetrated impregnation) in error.

That sounds about as un-dominant a position as they come.

No wonder you are obsessed with dominance. You know so little about it.

Now go call up your baby daddy. You know. The one who "dominated" you!

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jupiter said...

rhhardin said...

"The woman wants somebody taking care of her, so what she wants is commitment."

Not so sure of that. I think that what a woman often wants is the assurance that she was not taken advantage of. That she is not being laughed at.

walter said...

in that hotel room, seems his misconduct was to withhold sex.

Unknown said...

“But short of that, why is a man's exposing his genitals to another person worth all this scorn and a woman's breastfeeding in public celebrated? Either it's OK to expose those body parts or it isn't.”

Jesus. What is wrong with you right wing men? A breastfeeding woman isn’t engaging in a sexual act. Most breast feeding women cover themselves with a drape of some sort besides. Does a picture of the Madonna nursing baby Jesus assault your eyes?

Ken B said...

So by use you mean abuse. But we're misreading.

What you say logically implies just what I inferred. If two people agree to have sex, uncaring anonymous sex, where each takes his or her pleasure,that is unethical, because it “uses” the other, that it is, treats them as a means to an end. Even if both agree, it’s still unethical Exactly as my hypothetical badminton players “use” each other must be unethical. Unless of course you are slipping in some unmentioned caveats, like people have freedom to enjoy badminton but not to enjoy sex. Which I do think you are doing. Your reasons are religious, but you won’t say so.

MadisonMan said...

Now, he has to make amends with those he's hurt and promise not to do it again.

The women he hurt by asking if he could beat off in front of them and taking them at their word when they said Yes? Those women?

Are these women hurt because they didn't say right away "You've got to be effing kidding me, you perve" and leave? I hope they're more angry at themselves for not having the presence of mind to tell LCK to stuff it.

Women are strong, right? Is that what we've learned in the past 50 years? When will they start acting strong?

In my family, all the women -- my Mom, my sister, my daughter -- are oldest, and have little brothers they learned to keep in line. I wonder how that influences what a women puts up with later in life.

Good for LCK for apologizing, I guess, if he means it. How long must he wear his Hair Shirt? I hope he's not ejaculating onto it.

Roy Jacobsen said...

I'm aghast. What kind of messed up crowd do you run with, what kind of messed up upbringing did you have that makes you think it's OK to show random women your dick?!?!? And then to start masturbating in front if them?

Hollywood is a cesspool.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Nobody ever had to tell me not to ask woman I have only a few minutes acquaintance with if they would mind looking at my penis and watching while I masturbate. People that do that are called flashers and are reviled. The fact that he could get away with it at all pretty much indicates that he is operating in an environment where the norms have been thrown out the window and the only thing that counts is power.

The strong do as they will and the weak endure what they must.

Unknown said...

“Hollywood is a cesspool”

So is Alabama.

rcocean said...

Sorry just don't understand the whole "I'll whip out my dick and masturbate in front of women".

By comparison other sexual weirdness - like Sodomy or being attracted to Barbara Streisand - seems positively normal.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Ritmo, you're just being an asshole. I realize that's normal for you, but I doubt Althouse would like it if this thread degenerated into a Ritmo-exiled contest to see who can come up with better insults. You seem to be raring to shit all over another thread, but I'm not.

mockturtle said...

"Hold my dick and watch this!"

Drago said...

Unknown: "So is Alabama."

.....because......?

Unknown said...

“You seem to be raring to shit all over another thread, but I'm not.”

That’s a first.

Earnest Prole said...

The Venn diagram of your dopey commenters and your creepy commenters forms nearly a perfect circle.

Rocky Road said...

"A breastfeeding woman isn’t engaging in a sexual act."

And neither is she knitting a sweater. What is it about the nature of a sexual act that causes you to find it so worthy of scorn?

"Most breast feeding women cover themselves with a drape of some sort besides."

Most =/= all, and I don't recall the scorn for the others necessitating public apologies.

Drago said...

Unknown: "What is wrong with you right wing men?"

We don't want to supply our own cigars for "intern training"?

We don't hire big name law firms to harass and intimidate the victims of sexual harassment?

We don't sexually enslave women and girls?


I'm trying to identify what it is that right wing men could do, like the above examples, that would cause you to support us as much as you do the folks who do the above.

YoungHegelian said...

To share your sexuality with another person, you have to mean them well. You can't be taking advantage of them, even when they like you so much they say yes to what you're offering them. This isn't a legal argument. It's philosophy.

Don't offer bad sex, even to those who will consent to it. Don't take whatever you can get. You should know when you're extracting perverse pleasure from humiliating or hurting someone else.


So now we're basically back to the Baltimore Catechism again, are we? NTTAWWT.

Its truths are still there, lurking quietly in the corner, until that time that we figure out that we've fucked everything up so badly that what have we got to lose by giving it a quick look-see.

Drago said...

Earnest Prole: "The Venn diagram of your dopey commenters and your creepy commenters forms nearly a perfect circle"

Then just compress your assertion to "dopey AND creepy" commenters without the need for a Venn diagram visual.

Unknown said...

“And neither is she knitting a sweater. What is it about the nature of a sexual act that causes you to find it so worthy of scorn?”

A sexual act that is coercive or unwanted is worthy of scorn. You’re another sexual dunce.

Rusty said...

"It is a bit like a guru/student relationship."

Or a president intern relationship.
I wonder how much blow Louis CK did that day.

exiledonmainstreet said...


“Hollywood is a cesspool”

Inga said: "So is Alabama."

Alabama has nothing on progressive Seattle:


"He withdrew from the Seattle mayor's race in May, after a lawsuit accused him of repeatedly raping a man about 30 years ago. Murray denied the allegations, saying he never heard his accuser's name before the lawsuit. But he said he was dropping his re-election bid so the scandal would not overtake the election.

Delvonn Heckard said he was 15 and Murray was 32 when the sexual acts occurred, claiming that Murray paid him for them. "

Or NJ. And who can forget Swimmer Teddy of MA and his buddy Christopher Todd in CT, who enjoyed making waitress sandwiches, although the waitress herself didn't enjoy being used as the filling?

The Lion of the Senate!

And of course there's ole Billy Jeff his own bad self.

It's so great how liberals just instantly forget about Democrat men behaving like pigs. I mean they read about it and poof! it vanishes from the brains.

In this case, it vanished from Inga's brain in a thread having to do with a Democrat behaving like a pig. She is sooooo desperate to change the subject to avoid looking at the evils on her own side.



PackerBronco said...

You know, I think most of us learned after the age of - say, 4 - that you don't stick your wang out in front of other people and certainly not in front of women. That this is some kind of revelation for him is sad to say the least.

Rocky Road said...

"A sexual act that is coercive or unwanted is worthy of scorn."

So it would have been OK to just expose his penis without the sexual act?

Drago said...

Unknown: "A sexual act that is coercive or unwanted is worthy of scorn"

That might carry more weight if at any time since the mid-90's your side demonstrated they actually believed that.

Instead, you gave us the "one grope rule" and "trailer park trash" and "thats what you get when you drag a $100 bill thru a trailer park" and "nuts and sluts" and celebrated the practitioner of it as well as annointed the key enabler of it.

Congrats.

n.n said...

What other questionable practices lurk beneath a layer of privacy?

PackerBronco said...

Blogger YoungHegelian said...

So now we're basically back to the Baltimore Catechism again, are we?


There are a heck of lot worse ways to live your life.

Ken B said...

Well, Inga, the point is you are pouring scorn on WANTED sexual acts. Some women liked watching LCK jerk off, but you scorn him just for the way he takes his pleasure. You aren’t scorning him for pressing unwanted acts on others but just for his desires.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Ritmo, you're just being an asshole.

I simply asked you to describe your indescribable preferences. But you insist on being circuitous. Hey, being an American means... one gets to be American!

Donuts are like those donut things.

Homer Simpson is more articulate than you.

n.n said...

With respect to superior exploitation, but involuntary exploitation, too, these revelations broach the seemingly impermeable shell of female chauvinism that has not merely tolerated but normalized social progress under a layer of quasi-legal privacy.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 364   Newer› Newest»