Why can't we hate the sin but love the sinner? To ostracize a person is to say: He's very different from us. His sins are of a different order. By cutting him off from us, we are restored. We're the good people, and we've demonstrated our goodness by ridding ourselves of that devil.
Steuver explains why the remedy is exile:
The end of Louis C.K. — who, at 50, is alive, but in a sense dead to us now — is a difficult but necessary loss.... A certain piggishness was always part of his act, wasn’t it?.... Onstage, he... turned such subjects (pedophilia, necrophilia, chronic onanism; but also marital strife, loss of libido, body-image issues) into a kind of perverted, guy-centric gold....The exile is not from all family and friends. Stuever isn't talking about whether people who know Louis C.K. personally should "keep him." He's talking about whether people who don't know him at all should keep watching his shows. That is: Should we consume the intellectual work product of a mind that causes a man to behave the way Louis C.K. has done?
In [his TV series] “Louie”... Louie makes progress in his understanding of women by sharing the duties of raising his two young daughters as a single dad,....
So, is this goodbye? C.K.’s statement Friday, filled with everything but “I’m sorry,” could almost read as a treatment for that long-overdue new season of “Louie”....
The arc is clearly there: Louie’s behavior costs him everything, including some of his dearest friends, and he must scrape his way up from rock bottom, by listening rather than talking. Part of me wants to say I’m eager to see that show. But the far better part of me would rather see shows made by people who don’t assault and humiliate the people around them.
Yesterday, in this post, I interpreted Louis C.K.'s statement to mean that "from an ethical standpoint, consent is never enough." I 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.The commenter Jupiter wrote:
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.
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.I said:
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.What I hear Stuever saying is: Don't consume the tainted product.
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.
By the way, if you're thinking of reconsidering all the intellectual work product you consume — movies, TV shows, books, political arguments — here's a great place to start: "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson. Johnson shows why you won't want to consume what's been cooked up by Rousseau, Shelley, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, Brecht, Sartre, Norman Mailer, James Baldwin, and Noam Chomsky.
Maybe it's time bring back the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
Posts
107 comments:
He should be forced to wear a Scarlet "M"
Good shout on the recommendation of the Paul Johnson book. Whenever you recommend it to a leftist, watch them discredit Johnson because he's such an awful person, supposedly.
This makes me want to say "Heh", but that's not my line.
Scarlet M. Perfect.
Richard Pryor set a drug user on fire and then told jokes about it. Did we ostracize him?
Exile has been the rule since “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”
Is this the same WaPo that has ababetted the attacks on Clinton's accusers here for decades?
From now on, it's missionary only, guys!
Hollywood sure likes to blacklist people.
Are you or have you ever been a harasser?
A witch hunt that catches a lot of witches is still a witch hunt.
Remember guys to get consent notarized and recognize that it still may be withdrawn on any shift in the wind!
#RoseLynchMob wants "legal consequences " for LCK. Because consent is never enough for legality.
Shaming is central to the Progressive movement. Because it purports to tell you how to live, it must involve force and that force begins with bullying.
If CK must go down to keep shaming intact, he will just be collateral damage.
It is also why elitism is so necessary to the cause. Were it not for ministers to tell the faithful who must and must not be shamed, people might not collectively recoil from the right people.
"No reasonable proscector" was more than an attempt to justify a single person's actions. It extended it to the way every "right thinking" person should see them.
Rape a child -- standing O. Wank in a hotel room while being giggled at -- begone!
<>Sexual coercion is unwanted sexual activity that happens after someone is pressured, tricked, or forced in a nonphysical way. - womenshealth.gov
Under the above standard you are guilty if you lie about your dick.
Where and when will all this end? Seems to me the Handmaid's Tale scenario is more likely the result of the current puritanism than any kind of religion-based bans and beatdowns.
(don't really know the story of the Handmaid's Tale, but have seen it in enough protests to get the goofy gist of it)
So, is this goodbye? C.K.’s statement Friday, filled with everything but “I’m sorry,”
Can we cut off petty people while we're at it? How is "deeply regret" for you.
One of the more interesting sentences in C.K.'s statement is "I have been remorseful of my actions." Taking it as sincere, there is a whole story in that tense. Implicit is that the remorse preceded the fall from grace, for an indeterminate amount of time. It also raises the question of whether C.K. personally apologized to the women, colleagues, and friends whose trust he violated. If he did not, that's inexcusable. If he did, he has clearly chosen not to reveal that fact. Assuming he did (and he has to know that the question will be asked of his accusers), his decision to keep that private is interesting. It may be a kind of defensive pride -- "I'll only go so far." Or it may be a consequence of guilt -- "I will not make excuses."
Telling her that if she doesn't want sex with you, you will move on is also coercion per the CDC.
That Index is a hoot. They let Keppler and Hugo back in. Big of them. But the 3 Johns are still banned: John Calvin, John Milton and John Locke.
Maybe for his comeback tour, Louis CK could do a rant where he calls Melania Trump a stupid sloppy bitch and a hosebag, and says that he wants to cum on her tits.
Liberals would think that was really funny.
Practice Tip: All good legalist morality systems start by banning everyone and everything. Then they slowly make exceptions for their friends.
Who knew Harvey Weinstein had this much power? Or maybe we should give credit to Rose McGowan. Mike Pence will be the last man standing.
As an aside, I see Jon Stewart is now tangled up in the LCK story.
This is to the current craze what the million guilder tulip bulb was in that craze.
The problem is that once you cynically unleash a craze like this on the lumpenproletariat, some of them believe it.
Saying that you will call her is sexual coercion, per the CDC.
Lumpen Proletariat? We had a law prof emerita puffing #RoseNoProofNeeded
I hoped he might become Bob
But even with a new heart
He stays Carlin
Louis CK - pays tribute to George Carlin
I don't watch any of the type of media that Louis C.K. appears on, so cutting him off is no dilemma.
But similar "exile or adapt" dilemmas happen all too often in the sports world. One of my favorite sportswriters is Joe Posnanski who had the incredible misfortunate to be writing a celebratory biography of Joe Paterno just as the Jerry Sandusky scandal was becoming public. Posnanski has written, I think sincerely, about his attempt to deal with the scandal with journalistic integrity and put all the facts in his book as they, but there are many who accuse him of going light on Paterno, or of being co-opted by the Paterno family, or, damningly, of avoiding his responsibility to do more investigative journalism.
The poisonous consequences of monstrous, or even vile behavior, goes far beyond the perpetrator.
He's leftie and he tells some funny jokes but his behavior contradicts our puritanical political plan to accuse every Republican away. Let's mentally masturbate over how to keep him without fucking things up.
A lot of commenters here say they no longer watch football on Sundays because a few guys kneel during the pregame.
I find it funny that these same people are critiquing other people for not watching a performer who has made people watch him masturbate.
Kneeling not ok, masturbating in front of people ok?
If the women were true comedians they would just be glad he didn't steal their jokes.
Joke theft.
I am Laslo
Who is Louis C. K.?
Who is Louis C. K.?
I echo that. Never heard of him until now.
Ditto, never heard of him.
"The Intellectuals" = great read.
They loved all humanity but ruthlessly exploited those closest to them.
Louis CK's behavior was unquestionably self destructive. Chronic self destructive behavior is a reliable indicator of deeper problems. Louis CK needs to take a break from show business for his own sanity. He's not a criminal, apparently, but he is clearly not coping either.
Call me a moron but I don't think I have, on purpose, consumed any of the intellectual output of that list at the end, unless the Marx reference is to the Marx Brothers...and don't feel in any way deprived.
Mark said... [hush][hide comment]
A lot of commenters here say they no longer watch football on Sundays because a few guys kneel during the pregame.
I find it funny that these same people are critiquing other people for not watching a performer who has made people watch him masturbate.
Kneeling not ok, masturbating in front of people ok?
Give us three examples.
Pretty soon we'll have nothing left but Tom Hanks movies.
If Louis CK was my neighbor and we interacted in real, mundane ways, then I would feel no need to ostracize him. If he was slinging sandwiches, I wouldn't feel bad eating them. But I only interact with him by consuming his cultural products and he makes his living by selling me a performative, fictional character modeled on himself. That's the only person I have interacted with; I don't know the man himself. As Ross Douthat wrote yesterday on twitter, "abashed self-loathing sincerity is his shtick."
I wouldn't feel bad eating them
THAT'S not mayo!!!
Along the lines of Paul Johnson's Intellectuals, E. Michael Jones' Degenerate Moderns. I don't buy Jones' traditionalist morality but I found the book fascinating.
Humperdink said...
Ditto, never heard of him.
Heard of him but never heard him.
"Why ostracize Louis C.K.?"
Virtue signalling. Duh. And almost cost-free, as usual.
But I would be a hater and a homophobe if I were to ostracize, or even look askance at, my 65 year old gay BIL who cruises the country picking up kids forty years his junior to ensconce in his sex RV as his fuckbuddies. I mean, they're over 18 and their consent is rock-solid, despite my BIL's piles of money and high status in the gay community. Right?
Good to know that we're back to it being OK to shun people because we don't like their sexual preferences.
Also, it's good to know that women are incapable of operating in the big bad world as moral agents responsible for their choices. I'll get right on telling my daughters that they can't be expected to sit at the grownups table but will always have to be protected because they're too stupid and irresponsible to handle themselves.
The Stand-Up Comedian in Tacoma...
"Hey! Hello, Tacoma! A bunch of good-looking people here, that's always good...
It's tough doing stand-up now, you know? You're up here telling jokes, and people are wondering what kind of fucked-up shit do YOU do, Mister Stand-Up Comedian, right? Because we ALL are fucked-up -- at least the funny ones...
So, I figure I'll get this out of the way. I'll tell you the shit I've done, and then you can decide whether you are gonna laugh at my jokes or not...
Okay, here goes: sometimes I have accidentally rubbed my crotch against a woman's ass on a crowded bus. Well, maybe not 'crowded' -- let's just say a bus. Keep it simple...
When I was in high school there was a cute girl who sat a few seats behind me. Sometimes I would drop my pencil so I could lean down and try to look up her dress. I think it was math class, if that matters. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I don't know...
I had a girlfriend that lived with me for awhile. When she was out I would sometimes open her dresser drawer and smell her panties. This wasn't like everyday or anything, just sometimes, you know? They pretty much just smelled like laundry detergent anyway, I don't know what I was thinking...
I had another girlfriend pass out drunk on my bed, naked, and I took a picture with my cellphone. Now I didn't post it on the internet or anything -- I haven't even shown it to anybody, I swear -- but it's not like I ever got around to deleting it, either. I've been very busy...
When I was a teenager my sister had a friend stay overnight. Of course she was hot. And my bedroom shared a wall with the bathroom. So I listened to her pee. It's not like that's my thing -- I don't watch piss porn on the internet, okay? -- but I DID do that, and thought you needed to know...
Okay, women, you're really going to hate me for this one: sometimes I don't put the toilet seat down. I know, I know. Patriarchy...
I was with a girl once and we both had been drinking -- no, no, I didn't use this as a time to try anal -- and while she was passed out I confessed to her that I had slept with one of her friends. Later -- when she was sober -- she asked me if I had slept with that friend, and I told her 'No': I figured she had her chance, right? It's okay though: I did eventually tell her the truth. After she left me...
Okay girls, this is a general one: if you have me at your place I WILL look through your medicine cabinet. It's not like I'm going to steal your drugs -- I have a good doctor, he pretty much prescribes me anything I want -- but I AM looking to see if you have herpes medication: I don't want the herpes. And -- if we had sex and you didn't tell me you had herpes -- YOU would be the bad guy, right...?
Now this might be the 'bad one', I don't know how you judge these things. I fucked a fat chick once because she was the only one left at the bar when it closed. It's good, though: I even went down her like I would with a regular girl. But I never called her afterward. Yeah: I'm an asshole. But it WAS kinda her fault: she had all of these damned stuffed animals on her bed -- a fucking ton of them. I mean, a hot chick can have stuffed animals on her bed -- we'll let that slide -- but with her it was a step too far, you know what I mean...?
So, anyway: that's me, that's shit I've done. Are we alright? Because if we're alright I think I'll start my act..."
I am Laslo.
rastajenk said...
(don't really know the story of the Handmaid's Tale, but have seen it in enough protests to get the goofy gist of it)
Super-hard-core Christians take over the US and act like Muslims^Squared and da wimmens bees repressed and IIRC, frequently made into sex slaves. I've read 4 or 5 of Atwood's books and liked it the least, it seemed forced; "Alias Grace" is on the Netflix now, follows the book pretty closely.
It's easy to make fun of the CDC's definition of sexual coercion, "unwanted sexual activity that happens after someone is pressured, tricked, or forced in a nonphysical way."
Under the above standard you are guilty if you lie about your dick.
Telling her that if she doesn't want sex with you, you will move on is also coercion per the CDC.
Saying that you will call her is sexual coercion, per the CDC.
(all from tim in vermont)
But there are real legitimate questions about what is right. Questions which are especially important to libertarians who worry about both force and fraud.
One reason some of these questions are difficult is that so much is often unstated when it comes to sex. And the unstated is sometimes different than the stated. A big problem for those with autistic tendencies, or who just don't know certain social customs.
"Would you like to come up for coffee?"
"I can't drink coffee late at night. It keeps me up."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-skZx5liyaM
“A lot of commenters here say they no longer watch football on Sundays because a few guys kneel during the pregame.
I find it funny that these same people are critiquing other people for not watching a performer who has made people watch him masturbate.
Kneeling not ok, masturbating in front of people ok?”
I find it odd that there are so many rightists here who are defending LCK masturbating in front of women who were too intimidated to say “no”. How is he different than Weinstein? I’m beginning to think the Right has some messed up ideas about sex.
This is about the enablers, all those people in positions of power who make the decisions about the entertainment product we're allowed to consume. Right now they're concluding that it's better to make an example of some of these guys and cut them off and out (like Ridley Scott recasting Kevin Spacey's role in his upcoming movie, just make him disappear). This way I guess they'll think that we'll have more confidence in the product that is made available. It must be pure or they wouldn't have released it. Which is as phony as believing that what they peddled before was done with no knowledge of who and what they were selling.
Humperdink said...
Who knew Harvey Weinstein had this much power? Or maybe we should give credit to Rose McGowan. Mike Pence will be the last man standing.
It goes back to before Weinstein. This has all been simmering since Trump won the election and the angry pussy-hatted feminists went insane. They decided they were mad as hell at the pussy-grabbing (or pussy-grab-talking) president and weren't going to take it any more. They haven't been able to do anything about him, no matter how much they screamed at the sky, but the other uber-pigs they've had to deal with personally... Well, they could do something about them, and they have. It's been kind of like watching an avalanche on a mountain of gravel, where a pebble rolls downhill and dislodges a stone, a stone dislodges a rock, a rock dislodges a boulder, and a whole lot of gravel is now rolling down the mountain.
I read the Johnson book; and while I enjoyed it, it didn't spoil my admiration for the work of any artist whose work I admired before, however much of a puts that artist may have been in his private life.
Louis C.K is a violent Leftist prick, that I saw fly off the handle at a drop of the hat. I would bet that he has done a lot worse to the women that work for him and with him than has a;ready been reported. Rightly or wrongly, women have the rap of not being funny and there are a lot more women coming out of comedy schools like Second City than there are slots available in standup and improv. Besides the handful of women that get to be headliners, the only slots open are in comedy/improv troops--1 woman or so and like four guys. The one woman can be dropped and replaced at a moment's notice, so the guys treat them like shit. Blowjobs aren't even thought of as sex--right? I haven't heard any LCK blowjob stories so I know we are not done yet.
I meant "putz" not "puts." This cell phone I'm using autocorrect often without my cognizance. It apparently does not speak Yiddish.
Some of the commentary in these on-line jury rooms strikes me as about as crass as the supposed crime. In the yaddayadda rooms, one person's 'assault' becomes another person's 'Ethics' and pretty soon we're supposedly intelligent adults dancing on the head of a penis about right and wrong.
It would be ironically fitting if all these 'sex scandals' each the end with a CK making a stand-up joke out of all of us.
Blogger I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
But I would be a hater and a homophobe if I were to ostracize, or even look askance at, my 65 year old gay BIL who cruises the country picking up kids forty years his junior to ensconce in his sex RV as his fuckbuddies. I mean, they're over 18 and their consent is rock-solid, despite my BIL's piles of money and high status in the gay community. Right?
Good to know that we're back to it being OK to shun people because we don't like their sexual preferences.
Weren't you singing a different tune a couple weeks ago on the age of consent discussion, Ms Pants?
Blogger Mark said...
Kneeling not ok, masturbating in front of people ok?
If the protesters were kneeling in private, no one would give a shit. But imagine, on the other hand, a professional football player masturbating on television during a game. How's that work for you? We haven't even been permitted cheesecake shots of the cheerleaders for decades, now.
The Stand-Up Comedian in Tacoma...
"Okay people, when I told you about the shit I've done I didn't lie... but I din't include all of it, either, you know what I mean...?
So here's a story: I got into stand-up comedy because of Jennifer Aniston. Really. She does it for me, you know? And I figured if I became a big-enough comedian that maybe I'd get to do a movie some day, and maybe even a movie with her, and then maybe I could even touch her ass...
But here's the thing: this dream was a decade ago. And Jennifer -- she's still pretty hot -- don't get me wrong -- but she IS a bit older now, if you know what I mean...
I get it: we all get older. Sure. But I don't want to see my Fantasy Chick get older, you know? I liked it when her skin glowed, and now... well, now her face is showing some desperation. She's trying to hold onto The Look, but the face is starting to show the strain...
That fucking Botox: when I shoot my load on a girl's face I want to see some reaction, you know...?
Anyway, I used to have a dream: in that dream I am at a funeral home, and Jennifer Aniston has tragically died, and they wheel her in the back. Now I'm not the kind of guy who gets off on dead chicks -- no judgement here, it's just not my thing, okay? -- but it IS Jennifer Aniston, so: yes, I fucked her dead body...
The good thing is she had died one of those deaths where the body doesn't get all fucked up -- like, her head wasn't smashed from a head-on collision with a semi or anything, she still has her arms and legs. So she's still pretty fresh, as far as dead bodies go. But here's the thing: I'm fucking her, and I can tell she's not really into it...
Then my mother comes into the room while I'm fucking Jennifer Aniston's dead body and the dream gets REALLY weird, I'm not going to go into that part, except to say that -- in the dream -- I did not fuck my mother, but I didn't stop fucking Jennifer either, if you know what I mean...
So the other day I'm reading the internet-- I'm a comic, it's research, okay? -- and I see a picture of Jennifer Aniston on some beach. She's in a bikini, bending over, so the photo is pretty much her ass. But then I see it: there are ripples on her thighs. Ripples. And -- Bam! -- I realized that my Fantasy Chick was gone...
It's okay, I've got a new Fantasy Chick now, it's all good. Of course she's an actress. And hot. I'd tell you who she was, but I'll wait until she turns eighteen...
I am Laslo.
Unknown said: "I find it odd that there are so many rightists here who are defending LCK ...."
Do not include me in your incoherent babble.
“Do not include me in your incoherent babble.”
Read the threads regarding LCK from yesterday and today. It’s clear that rightist men and even some rightist women here on these threads are defending Louis CK’s actions. Do you only read comments that agree with your own stance that come from your fellow rightists? Your reading comprehension is in question, or you’re an idiot.
Althouse said...
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.
Louis C.K. said....
"And if you're feeling bad for them you can go find one and fuck one tomorrow... With all that kindness in your heart."
Weird that right-wingers will defend a lefty. What's wrong with them? Shoe's on the other foot, no way!
Love the sinner, hate the sin is not possible for people who believe in sexual identity politics. For them, what you do is who you are and that's not changeable, hence the inability to overlook the sin or associate with the man any longer.
Forgiveness is really only possible by those who believe that sexual desires are a person's free choice. Everyone else is going to see a pervert who will always be a pervert.
I have yet to see the first lefty to condemn Bill Clinton for his assaults and rape, but their outrage is set to a hair trigger on all others. Although several reliable lefties here tried to stifle Althouse on this subject when it was just Democrat megadonor Weinstein.
“Weird that right-wingers will defend a lefty. What's wrong with them? Shoe's on the other foot, no way!”
So why didn’t you defend Weinstein? How is Louis CK any different? You people are messed up, seriously.
“Although several reliable lefties here tried to stifle Althouse on this subject when it was just Democrat megadonor Weinstein.”
I don’t recall any lefty here defending Weinstein’s actions. Not one.
Have they fired the home wrecker Sally Quinn yet?
Waiting for someone to out Hank Stuever for some piggish behavior in high school, and then hear his excuse.
And yes, "Intellectuals" is a GREAT book and if one has any illusions about morality and intellect flowing together this will dispose of them.
And that fallacy is why people like Ruth Marcus make allowances for Democrats and then (pretend to?) not see it and blame Republicans for doing the same thing.
So why didn’t you defend Weinstein?
He broke the law.
How is Louis CK any different?
He didn't.
“So why didn’t you defend Weinstein?
He broke the law.
How is Louis CK any different?
He didn't.”
Are you so sure? Indecent Exposure. Coerced participation.
Why are rightists here defending LCK’ s sexual acts? Is it somehow connected to the other sexual pervert in Alabama, the good, upright moral, Judge Roy Moore? If you downplay what LCK did, a leftist, then when you downplay what Judge Moore did it’s not hypocritical? Is this some twisted way of rationalizing Moore’s actions in your rightist minds? To describe what CK did as some “sexual preference” makes it ok to describe Moore’s penchant for underage girls as some sexual preference too? Both are clearly wrong. Coerced sexual participation from an adult woman is wrong and illegal, coerced sexual participation from an underage girl is as wrong, actually even worse.
Why wouldn't this have some impact on his box office appeal? I personally don't think his offense is unforgivable, but it takes you out of his set, if you start thinking about his hobbies while he's performing. Actors create an illusion, but if the back story becomes too pungent, then it subverts that illusion......I'm a big fan of Harrison Ford. The next time I see Han Solo or Indiana Jones, I will have to factor in the fact that Harrison took the trouble to travel to Paris to hand deliver Roman Polanski's Oscar......Judi Dench is very good at being regal, but it's hard to accept her as Queen Victoria when you know that she has Harvey's initials tattooed on her ass.
Moore, if he did what is alleged, was a creep and a criminal. Same with Weinstein. Same with Spacey.
I haven't read anything yet about LCK intimidating anyone, groping anyone, trading work for sex, or doing anything illegal.
I don’t recall any lefty here defending Weinstein’s actions. Not one.
I remember one lefty in particular making post after post telling Ann to stop posting about the Weinstein story.
So maybe your recollection should look in the mirror.
Some of this is analogous to statue toppling. There's an argument to be made for taking down the statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Perhaps, although less convincingly, that argument can be extended to Robert E. Lee. But then, when you advance the argument to Washington and Jefferson, you're into Cromwell territory..... I don't know the exact punishment suitable for LCK, but I do know it's considerably less than that for Harvey.......Should we make such ostracisms retroactive? Chaplin had a thing for teen age girls. Should we ban his films to celebrate our enlightened morality?
“In California, where three women have described instances of C.K. non-consensually masturbating either in front of them or while on the phone with them, this behavior might be deemed criminal under California Penal Code 314. Under this code, anyone who exposes themselves "in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed" could be found guilty of a misdemeanor. If they're charged more than once, it's considered a felony, according to a California criminal defense lawyer who asked to remain anonymous. "If convicted, [C.K.] would also have to register as a sex offender for 10 years," she said. All the women would have to do is file a police report, and the state could pursue charges from there.”
http://www.refinery29.com/2017/11/180565/masturbation-illegal-sexual-misconduct-louis-ck
“I remember one lefty in particular making post after post telling Ann to stop posting about the Weinstein story.”
That is not my recollection at all. I don’t know where you people get the nerve to conjure up this shit. Althouse did make numerous posts about Weinstein, and I mean numerous. Everyday for days on end. Making a comment remarking on the frequency of the posts was in no way saying she shouldn’t have made post about Weinstein. Why haven’t we seen as many posts about Roy Moore?
LCK is a cunt, he needs to fuck off. Sexuality and fetish are two different things. Pant's BIL has a fetish for young men just like Oso Pedo has a fetish for young girls... both are not illegal or immoral, just a creepy sign of deeper issues and perhaps a limited hangout designed to mask illegal acts.
"non-consensually masturbating"
Where is anyone getting "non-consensually" from this story?
I 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.
Lol. Are you fucking serious? This is America - the land of the pseudo-intellectual Austrian Economist!
Every and all exchanges are to be reduced to an exercise in economics. Mating is a mutual bargaining process whereby you and the other person haggle over whether the other is the best either one of you can do. Literally.
Especially in America.
“Where is anyone getting "non-consensually" from this story?”
That LCK used his power as a celebrity to coerce these women to watch him masturabate is not consensual. He admitted as much in his mea culpa statement yesterday.
Lots of people who are personally disgusting have provided the world with great art or great amusement. I think right wingers may be more tolerant because they are already used to tolerating the stupid politics of most writers and performers.
Madam Bovary is still a great book even though Flaubert was a pig.
Making a comment remarking on the frequency of the posts was in no way saying she shouldn’t have made post about Weinstein.
Of course your recollection is different. I will help you. To begin, it wasn't one post remarking on the frequency, but such posts hour after hour about how Harvey's sexual assaults were boring and unworthy of anyone's attention.
The reason you can't go back to refresh your memory is that your posts were so disruptive to the people trying to discuss the topic that our hostess had to remove your comments from the thread.
No, of course you never directly stood up for Harvey. Like the NYT, CNN, and most of the power players in Hollywood, you were too busy making it difficult for others to discuss his behavior and the behavior of the politically-connected people who covered for him.
It needed no "conjuring". It was offensive enough that the rest of us will never forget.
The burger analogy is dangerous...since none other than Burger King said "Have it your way".
Strange that Louis had the world by the balls, could get into a wholesome threesome with any number of women..but chose the same hand the lonely or (unhappily married) have to settle for.
I wonder what he has as a ringtone.
"That LCK used his power as a celebrity to coerce these women to watch him masturabate"
"Coerce?" That's a stretch. They were more likely to try to please him because he was a celebrity, sure. That's not him coercing them in the criminal sense of the word.
Wow. My own Althouse tag.
I know this is rank ingratitude, but your counter-analogy is lousy. You were saying -- I think -- that A should not have sex with B unless A felt that having sex would be in B's interest. "Consent is not enough". So a better counter-analogy would be, should the chef serve you cake without first asking whether you are diabetic.
“It needed no "conjuring". It was offensive enough that the rest of us will never forget.”
Oh please, drama queen.
And Kevin, you know what’s truly offensive? Most Rightists here defending LCK to rationalize their defense of the other pervert, Judge Roy Moore.
"I don’t recall any lefty here defending Weinstein’s actions. Not one."
No, just mockery for even discussing it.
"And Kevin, you know what’s truly offensive? Most Rightists here defending LCK to rationalize their defense of the other pervert, Judge Roy Moore"
LOL, you are clueless and since it's always about political advantage with you, you think everyone is like you.
Everyone has a religious/moral philosophy and supporting faith.
Unknown said...
"That LCK used his power as a celebrity to coerce these women to watch him masturbate is not consensual."
You see, Unk, some of us don't believe in superpowers. We don't believe that Spiderman really got the ability to climb walls when a radioactive spider bit him, and we don't believe Louis CK developed an uncanny ability to make women watch him masturbate by telling jokes. Funny, huh?
And I will add, speaking strictly for myself, that I am sick of women whining about men doing what the women spend vast amounts of time, money and energy trying to get them to do. Get a fucking burkha already. How do you think I feel when I see a good-looking woman I would like to fuck, and she rejects me? There she is, sticking her tits in my face, at the place I have to go to make my living, and she's complaining about me staring. Is her cleavage in my face "consensual"?
“How do you think I feel when I see a good-looking woman I would like to fuck, and she rejects me? There she is, sticking her tits in my face, at the place I have to go to make my living, and she's complaining about me staring. Is her cleavage in my face "consensual"?”
Oh Boo Hoo. Go find a woman you want to fuck who says yes, sheesh how hard it that for you?
“How do you think I feel when I see a good-looking woman I would like to fuck, and she rejects me? There she is, sticking her tits in my face, at the place I have to go to make my living, and she's complaining about me staring. Is her cleavage in my face "consensual"?”
Oh Boo Hoo. Go find a woman you want to fuck who says yes, sheesh how hard it that for you?
Jupiter's got a point. It's a double-standard. A woman is allowed to go a lot "further" by dressing provocatively/skimpily than a man.
Not to mention that for a male to be alluring he's got to flaunt attributes that are much more challenging to attain than just a figure and revealing dress.
If seculars are going to adopt rigorous standards of behavior like the religious, then they're going to need to develop standards of penance like the religious, too. It just won't do to cast people into the wilderness forever.
What will be the secular equivalent of a pilgrimage on foot to Santiago de Compostela? Of walking up the cathedral stairs on your knees? Kneeling in the snow in sackcloth & ashes? Twenty "Hail Marys"?
My bet is that secular culture in a Protestant country like the US will go for an analog of the Protestant revival, where "enthusiasm" & sincerity not to sin again counts for more than a specific penalty exacted.
It'll be interesting to see how this social trend develops over the next ten years or so.
“Not to mention that for a male to be alluring he's got to flaunt attributes that are much more challenging to attain than just a figure and revealing dress.”
Well, maybe you guys should start wearing skinny jeans with or without a sock in your crotch.
“If seculars are going to adopt rigorous standards of behavior like the religious, then they're going to need to develop standards of penance like the religious, too.”
I don’t think flagellation will catch on in the secular community.
I will add this to my skinny jeans remark. Many times a man’s brain and personality will be more attractive to many women than his physical looks.
" "That LCK used his power as a celebrity to coerce these women to watch him masturabate"
"Coerce?" That's a stretch. They were more likely to try to please him because he was a celebrity, sure. That's not him coercing them in the criminal sense of the word."
Yeah, I'm with Freeman. Statutory rape is for minors because we think they don't have the mental capacity to say no or to know the consequences of saying yes. With grown women we surely do not need that.
Jupiter: How do you think the woman feels seeing you stare at her tits and knowing you are the type of low-life who defends weenie waggers like LCK. Women can read that on your face and body language like a neon sign. You have completely shattered her self esteem thinking that you are the only type of gamma male that finds her attractive. That's gotta be soul-crushing for her.
"Part of me wants to say I’m eager to see that show. But the far better part of me would rather see shows made by people who don’t assault and humiliate the people around them."
Part of me is delighted to see the Leftist bastard that said all those disgusting things about Sarah Palin getting hung by the balls by his own Left Fascist cronies. But the far better part of me longs to see this simpering candy-ass panty-waist Hank "Holier-Than-Thou" Steuver dangling from the same lamppost. Let him who is without stones cast the first aspersion.
If seculars are going to adopt rigorous standards of behavior like the religious...
Awww... now don't go hating on the "seculars" (or worse yet, the humanists) YH for wanting standards that are not merely rigorous, but actually rational.
"By the way, if you're thinking of reconsidering all the intellectual work product you consume — movies, TV shows, books, political arguments...".
You have been pushing this notion for a while now, that "bad" people cannot produce "good" -- anything, and we should not consume the products they offer on the market. Are you really sure that's a good idea? Doesn't that mean that your taste, and indeed the whole comfortable pattern of existence you have developed over a lifetime, is at the mercy of the latest hysterical witch hunt? And what do you do about those cases where you really aren't sure, and can't be sure, who is lying and who is telling the truth? And is there really anyone who is entirely above reproach?
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"Awww... now don't go hating on the "seculars" (or worse yet, the humanists) YH for wanting standards that are not merely rigorous, but actually rational."
Toothless, are you aware that it is not possible, as a matter of logic, to get from "is" to "should"? A chain of is can get you from one should to another, but if you want a "should", you have to start from a moral axiom. They cannot be deduced.
Toothless, are you aware that it is not possible, as a matter of logic, to get from "is" to "should"? A chain of is can get you from one should to another, but if you want a "should", you have to start from a moral axiom. They cannot be deduced.
AHhh yes... right. Better we get our axioms from a book full of "thou shalt nots" with strange and ambiguous provenance, but at least one proclaimed to be divine by the bronze-age goat herders who handed it down to us!
I want a rock star to say he was sexually harassed because a woman flashed him without permission.
Or....how about someone on a Mardi Gras float? They may not want to see all those breasts from strange women in the crowds.
"Seems to me the Handmaid's Tale scenario is more likely the result of the current puritanism than any kind of religion-based bans and beatdowns."
I haven't read or seen THT, but I have seen ads online, and that's the vibe I get. The left wants to bring back the old stigmas, but only for straight white men. They don't mind a few gays or POCs, even women, getting caught, because you can't cast a wide net without snagging a dolphin or two.
As for what's coercion and what isn't, it seems to be this -- Got game? That's coercion, and you're a rapist Got no game? You a disgusting, spergy creep, and at least an attempted rapist.
For the record, the Shelley discussed in Paul Johnson's book about privileged radical intellectuals is not Mary Godwin, the novelist, but her husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.
I disagree that Hemingway was an intellectual. A critic in the 1930s labeled him a "Dumb Ox" - which is about right.
"Papa" himself said Novelists shouldn't be making public policy because they were too emotion based.
And how the hell did LCK get mixed up with "Intellectuals"?
Judas Priest, he's just an odd ball comedian who couldn't have done his act in public 50 years ago.
But i suppose he says "Fuck" and talks about "Pussy" and "dick" - so he's a deep thinker.
Post a Comment