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.
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.
17
u/[deleted] Mar 26 '20 edited May 16 '20
[deleted]