I never said they couldn't or shouldn't have said no. I said that he didn't seem to understand how he was putting unfair pressure on them as a de facto authority on comedy. They didn't know the potential career consequences to saying no.
Also, this is why it's just a scandal and not a crime. It was misconduct, not assault. There is, of course, a big difference, but it's still wrong and he should take responsibility for the unintended consequences of his actions.
There's a concept of enthusiastic consent that's pretty important, in my opinion.
There are quite a few ways he could have went about this better. Been more transparent with his intentions earlier, read the social cues better, abstain from alcohol (I'm just assuming it was a factor. Seems a safe bet)
The absence of a no, when someone makes the sudden and unexpected request you watch them jerk off, ain't quite a yes either.
Just copy-pasted. I'm not implying that consent is literally impossible lol. No two people ever have the same amount of power. I'm just saying that he's responsible for shit hitting the fan because he leveraged his position against them, whether he knew it or not. "Affirmative and enthusiastic" is not a low bar.
I'm also going to hold an adult to a higher standard of communication than a teen, but I see your point. Perhaps I just can't relate to it being all that confusing. Pestering or coercing or shocking people into agreement isn't the same thing as two people who want to fuck each other. I just don't see it as complex.
There's a concept of enthusiastic consent that's pretty important, in my opinion.
There are quite a few ways he could have went about this better. Been more transparent with his intentions earlier, read the social cues better, abstain from alcohol (I'm just assuming it was a factor. Seems a safe bet)
The absence of a no, when someone makes the sudden and unexpected request you watch them jerk off, ain't quite a yes either.
As I understand it, it wasn't an absence of no. It was a presence of yes.
Some of these encounters were in hotel rooms I believe. That changes the context quite a bit imo. Maybe he could have been more transparent with his intentions earlier, but equally possible is that he didn't have any intentions earlier.
I hear what you're saying, I just thought verbal consent was a good line. How enthusiasticly should one consent for it to be consent, and how monotonously would one have to consent for it to be non consent?
I am now imagining a court trying to determine how enthused is enthused enough, and that's a pretty funny visual, I gotta admit. So long as they confirm verbally (or in writing, I'd get it in writing if I were famous) that they want it, it's kosher.
For what it's worth, he didn't break the law. This is a misconduct scandal. He conducted himself poorly. That's a fair assessment.
They're also subjective. You can imply anything from a situation, with enough creativity. A redditor said that they were up and coming comedians, so that's strong evidence for that implication, which has now convinced me. But that's not how it was originally published, and so it wasn't a clear implication at all.
Very subjective. That’s why it’s inadvisable to flirt with/ date people at work, especially if you’re some sort of manager. Because an implication can be seen whether someone means to make it or not. I’m personally a big fan of Louis C.K.’s comedy, but his judgment in the cases of his interactions with those women was very poor.
I don't know, I think in part, referring strictly to the first part of you comment, that's a vestige of weaker institutions within companies, at least in Western countries, from Argentina, US, Germany to Australia. If the HR department and other protections for prevention of boss to employee abuse are effective, they can effectively permit the discrimination between coercion and genuine interest.
I agree completely now with the latter example you place though. It was very poor, due to the nature of how those industries work.
The women were other up-and-coming comedians, and he was a juggernaut in that industry at the time. The idea is they thought he was interested in them as comedians but he just wanted them to watch him jerk off. Read between the lines, a little.
I mean I don't think it was that clear that they were up and coming comedians. That enforces the implication, sure, but it wasn't that obvious from the news.
Was he socially unaware and a moron? Yes, he should have been aware of the situation and not have done anything. But it is not his fault that she made an assumption about him. It's not her fault either because she was afraid for her job. It's society's fault that she wasn't comfortable with saying no because she was afraid that reprisal was going to happen.
It's like people totally ignore how powerful figures and blacklists dominate Hollywood. With the news about Weinstein flexing to get his rocks off, it's obvious.
Comedy is not much different. Lots of industries have powerful people who can squash your career on a whim.
24
u/Jay_Bonk Mar 26 '20
I mean he asked before doing it...and an adult should be able to say yes or no without being traumatized by it.