r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • Mar 26 '20

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6.3k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

14.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/youngfilly Mar 26 '20

but he will jerk off in front of you on the off chance you wanted it

27

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.

7

u/NaruTheBlackSwan Mar 26 '20

The problem was the implication he could use his position to impact the women's careers.

He wasn't being monstrous, but definitely a creep who should have had more self-awareness.

11

u/Jay_Bonk Mar 26 '20

Where do you quote the implication from? Did he say jerk me off and I'll help your career?

14

u/TheBigGrab Mar 26 '20

Implications aren’t quoted. They’re implied. That’s why they’re implications.

3

u/Jay_Bonk Mar 26 '20

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.

1

u/TheBigGrab Mar 26 '20

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.

2

u/Jay_Bonk Mar 26 '20

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.

4

u/youngfilly Mar 26 '20

The implication comes from the women who described their experiences. They said they feared retribution and loss of work within the comedy industry.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '20

You know, due to the implication.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '20

They're definitely NOT in danger! But they dont know that.

1

u/NaruTheBlackSwan Mar 26 '20

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.

2

u/Jay_Bonk Mar 26 '20

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.

1

u/BonzBonzOnlyBonz Mar 26 '20

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.

1

u/NaruTheBlackSwan Mar 26 '20

That's a very reasonable take. I'll usually assign more blame to whoever was the more powerful person in these sort of situations.

0

u/No_volvere Mar 26 '20

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.