Next Up In The Sexual Assault Allegations List

rugcat said:

I don't read it that way at all. The usual non apology is when someone says "I'm sorry if showing my dick to anyone offended them."

There was no waffling – he said they were five women who told stories about what it happened, and "these stories are true. Period.

I agree he should have specifically said "I'm sorry, I apologize" to the women, but he did say "I have been remorseful for my actions."

He admitted what he did; he did not try to put it in anyway on the women, and recognized what a terrible situation he had put them in. It seemed quite sincere to me. YMMD.

Click to expand...

In addition to what I said above, and because it's bothering me that people (in a general world sense, just quoting for expediency, people online are doing this) are praising this 'apology' -- notice how he doesn't understand, in the statement, what actually happened?

From his statement --

The power I had over these women is that they admired me.

Click to expand...

No, the power you had over them was that you had power over them. The power you had wasn't that they admired you. Women did not stand and stare as you jerked off in front of them in business meetings (once as they still had their coats on from outside) because they so admired you. They did that because you had more professional power than they, and were a man who was sexually assaulting them.

His utter lack of comprehension and the pathology that turns it into a need to repeat how admired he was by his victims and that he was able to do this because the women admired him is unpackable by a team of psychologists.

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.

Click to expand...

This is just a flat fucking lie. What 'disabled' them from sharing their stories was his flat denials of their stories and the threats against their careers. Note again, he's got how admired and looked up to he was inserted here, twice, plus his 'position.' He didn't think about it once he denied it, repeatedly.

I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man

Click to expand...

This is just gross, paternalistic and demeaning.

Again, this did not happen because they admired him; it happened because he chose to repeatedly expose himself to people and masturbate, which if someone did it on the subway, you'd call a cop and they'd get arrested. He does it in business meetings, and thinks he was not properly 'reacting to their admiration.'

Also, they didn't need him to provide 'a good example.' They needed him to act like a non-criminal adult. It's not hard.

It's just NOT a complicated, trying thing to not whip your dick out in the goddamned office. I'm sorry, if someone has a problem restraining themselves from committing sexual acts in business meetings, they need to seek therapy, immediately, because it is not something everyone else is just barely hanging on from doing.

I'm bowing out. I feel like people are climbing over my shoulders to shout down my responses with something they feel is better because I don't match the narrative or something. I'm standing by what I've said already, which isn't all that much, and if that makes me a bad guy, then I'm a bad guy.

*exeunt*

As recently as September 11, 2017, Louis CK was denying the allegations. I don't see him apologizing for that.

I've been giving a lot of earned "attaboys" to men who are asking questions about how to do better, pledging to be better, admitting they didn't know how bad it was and is, apologizing for misdeeds, and more. For just listening! I don't have one for Louis CK. I wish I did, but that apology doesn't earn him one.

Some people were impressed with his "apology," but I wasn't. I don't believe for a minute that he honestly thought all those women wanted him to show them his dick.

I appreciate and agree with cornflake's elaboration of what reads wrong in that statement.

There isn't a narrative in this case, as is obvious by the two very different ways the "apology" is being received. Both are getting lots of play in the media and online.

I've had to explain something over and over to my husband, because it's really difficult to internalize if it hasn't happened to you: The first time you (general you) find yourself in any situation where sexual interaction is not to be expected, (ie: work, riding public transit, or in my case, riding my bicycle, minding my own business) and some person--stranger, friend, co-worker--does something sexually exhibitionistic to you, the shock is profound. You just can't even process what is happening. You think things like, "this can't be what it seems," "I must be...", "Holy shit, now what do I do?"

You are often physically paralyzed with that shock and resulting indecision. Will leaving the room incite anger? Will they try to stop me? Hurt me? Will I be laughed at and called prude and become the subject of a whisper campaign? Do I look away? Stare? Put up a bold front? Play along like it's okay? Laugh? Vomit?

It's the most powerless feeling I, personally, have ever experienced. (I acknowledge there are other, more powerless situations, like being in the scene of a mass shooting or a wildfire, but I haven't experienced those.)

Now layer over that the possibility the person is influential and you really, really, need that job because your kids can't live on air and water. Or maybe a different possibility: that person has a weapon, or that person is in a car and you are on a bike and they can chase you down, follow you home, know where you live. I rode my bike in circles for an hour until I felt sure he wasn't following me, even though he had driven off first. And then I watched for him every day for an entire summer. That's what the powerlessness does.

People who have this happen to them aren't "disabled" because the harasser is admired, but because they (and often their enablers and allies) have created a climate of fear, an atmosphere of utter unpredictability and powerlessness and belittlement and debasement of the victims.

Because the sexual harasser/abuser can, they do, without thought, without and ounce of regard for the other person(s). As with so many of these cases, the "remorse" only comes from being irrefutably unmasked and brought to account, not for the actual act of flashing dick in a meeting. Never that.

BenPanced said:

I'm bowing out. I feel like people are climbing over my shoulders to shout down my responses with something they feel is better because I don't match the narrative or something. I'm standing by what I've said already, which isn't all that much, and if that makes me a bad guy, then I'm a bad guy.

*exeunt*

Click to expand...

It's okay to change an opinion in light of new data. And I can see how someone not familiar with Louis CK's history might read his statement and think it sounds basically all right. But if even with the added information about his repeated behavior, denials, threats, and coverups, you still choose to stand on Louis CK's side, then I have to agree with your final self-assessment.

cornflake said:

It's just NOT a complicated, trying thing to not whip your dick out in the goddamned office. I'm sorry, if someone has a problem restraining themselves from committing sexual acts in business meetings, they need to seek therapy, immediately, because it is not something everyone else is just barely hanging on from doing.

Click to expand...

That's what I think, too. He finally admitted it, sure. But why the hell did he do it in the first place? What is wrong with him?

I would guess any "apologies" from those accused are carefully constructed with their attorneys as attempts at damage control for themselves.

Celia Cyanide said:

That's what I think, too. He finally admitted it, sure. But why the hell did he do it in the first place? What is wrong with him?

Click to expand...

What is wrong with him? He pretty much tells us in every show he ever did.

rugcat said:

What is wrong with him? He pretty much tells us in every show he ever did.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. And it's obvious from all of it that he knows no woman wanted to see his dick.

Fruitbat said:

I would guess any "apologies" from those accused are carefully constructed with their attorneys as attempts at damage control for themselves.

Click to expand...

You'd think, and yet if they were, they wouldn't read this goddamned badly. Of course, if the people who helped them craft the apologies are the same types of people....

Celia Cyanide said:

That's what I think, too. He finally admitted it, sure. But why the hell did he do it in the first place? What is wrong with him?

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to armchair diagnose (I'm a researcher, not a clinician, so clinical is admittedly outside my area of expertise), but the incidents that have been described read as symptomatic of a clinical paraphilia, specifically "exhibitionistic disorder." Again, I'm not a clinician, so this is just opinion and speculation on my part. Not sure if he's getting psychiatric treatment for it, but it sounds like he might need it.

I always expected some sexual abuse. But never thought it's so sickening....

Denevius said:

. They *are* dangerous people prone to excesses and with only a tenuous hold of their passions. They walk a very thin line between genius and madness.

Insane people are just artists without talent.

Click to expand...

Oh what absolute bollocks.

Denevius said:

I think he did it because he knew it was wrong, and that wrongness excited him.

It's interesting how we have all of these biographies of the exploits of historical artists, and yet we're still surprised when modern day artists engage in antisocial behavior. I used to think that that's what made artists sexy, and why we romanticized them. They *are* dangerous people prone to excesses and with only a tenuous hold of their passions. They walk a very thin line between genius and madness.

Insane people are just artists without talent.

I'm not trying to say that Louis C.K. and the rest of them that came before him and the rest of them that will follow shouldn't be condemned, if that's what you're inclined to do. I think the mistake a lot of artists make is that they interact with people who are better suited to suburbia. They interact with people who keep their passions caged behind white picket fences.

Artists should remain in the jungle. They should remain in the city, in the urban areas where life is raw and painful and gritty. They don't belong amongst civilized people because they *are* uncivilized. It is better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. When artists step into those places where the veneer is so bright that everyone is blinded by how holy they are, the artists' shadows stretch too far behind them for all the world to see.

Click to expand...

That's a whole wheelbarrow load of excuse-making for abusive behaviour.

Helix said:

That's a whole wheelbarrow load of excuse-making for abusive behaviour.

Click to expand...

It will be good when people notice the wheels are coming off those particular barrows....

Denevius said:

They *are* dangerous people prone to excesses and with only a tenuous hold of their passions. They walk a very thin line between genius and madness.

Click to expand...

I'm just curious - do you feel there are any artists who are capable of behaving sanely and decently?

Denevius said:

I think he did it because he knew it was wrong, and that wrongness excited him.

It's interesting how we have all of these biographies of the exploits of historical artists, and yet we're still surprised when modern day artists engage in antisocial behavior. I used to think that that's what made artists sexy, and why we romanticized them. They *are* dangerous people prone to excesses and with only a tenuous hold of their passions. They walk a very thin line between genius and madness.

Click to expand...

A tenuous hold of their passions? We're talking about people who stood in conference rooms and hotel corridors and jerked off into potted plants while fully-clothed strangers stood there going, 'wtf?' That's not what I'd consider an exhibition of passion.

What madness are we talking about? Who's mad? No one is discussing pathology. They may have fetishes, or potentially personality issues, but I've not seen anyone suggesting any serious mental illnesses.

As to bad behaviour or whatnot being what makes artists sexy, that's a new one on me, as 'bad boys,' being sexy is hardly restricted to artists, and plenty of artists don't abuse people. In addition, how do you figure the chicken and egg of that? Do those people engage in bad behaviour and are artists and are thus sexy or are they famous and thus can get away with shit so they behave badly?

Insane people are just artists without talent.

Click to expand...

Sure, that Andrea Yates is the next van Gogh, if only she had an easel. I'm sorry, WHAT?

I'm not trying to say that Louis C.K. and the rest of them that came before him and the rest of them that will follow shouldn't be condemned, if that's what you're inclined to do.

Click to expand...

You understand we're talking about illegal behaviour, right, that violates the policies of every company he worked with.

I think the mistake a lot of artists make is that they interact with people who are better suited to suburbia. They interact with people who keep their passions caged behind white picket fences.

Click to expand...

EXCUSE ME? So people offended by being, you know, raped, assaulted, and the like, are just sheltered suburbanites who can't hack it outside their fenced-in houses?

You're aware that Louis CK, Weinstein, Ratner, and Spacey all assaulted OTHER ARTISTS, right? They weren't going to suburban soccer tournaments and looking for sheltered moms in sweater sets. They abused people in THEIR OWN PROFESSIONS. Louis abused STANDUP COMICS. These are not sheltered, shrinking fucking violets.

Not that it MATTERS who they abused, because abusing people is wrong. That's not a fuzzy line.

Raping people is wrong. Pinning people down and groping them against their will is wrong. It doesn't mean you're a rube if you get offended when your boss whips his dick out in a conference room and jerks off. It means your boss needs to be fired, because that's not how people behave in society. Not 'edgy' society, any society. I'm not exactly from Iowa, and know many artists, yet don't expect them to walk into a business meeting and jerk off into the shrubbery. Nor would I think it was ok to excuse that because 'he's an artist.'

Same as any other random thing people use to excuse this kind of behaviour -- he's a boy, he's got X disorder, he had a bad childhood, he was abused, he's an artist, etc. So are millions of people who manage NOT to do that.

Artists should remain in the jungle. They should remain in the city, in the urban areas where life is raw and painful and gritty. They don't belong amongst civilized people because they *are* uncivilized. It is better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. When artists step into those places where the veneer is so bright that everyone is blinded by how holy they are, the artists' shadows stretch too far behind them for all the world to see.

Click to expand...

Hi, from the big city, where Louis CK, Ratner, Weinstein, Spacey all plied their trades, among their brethren, who are also mostly big-city artists.

Still didn't think it was ok, imagine that.

Maybe it's because they're women, and they don't understand.

Denevius said:

I'm not trying to say that Louis C.K. and the rest of them that came before him and the rest of them that will follow shouldn't be condemned, if that's what you're inclined to do.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what I'm inclined to do.

If all artists are abusers, then fuck art.

mccardey said:

Yep, that's exactly what I'm inclined to do.

Click to expand...

Maybe, just as artists have a wild and completely natural passion for assaulting people, those of us who live less awesome lives could similarly have a great passion for calling out such behavior when we see it. This passion should be equally understandable, right?

Denevius said:

I'm not trying to say that Louis C.K. and the rest of them that came before him and the rest of them that will follow shouldn't be condemned, if that's what you're inclined to do. I think the mistake a lot of artists make is that they interact with people who are better suited to suburbia. They interact with people who keep their passions caged behind white picket fences.

Click to expand...

Wow. Lived in London most of my life. Disgusted by your statement.

Denevius said:

I think he did it because he knew it was wrong, and that wrongness excited him.

It's interesting how we have all of these biographies of the exploits of historical artists, and yet we're still surprised when modern day artists engage in antisocial behavior. I used to think that that's what made artists sexy, and why we romanticized them. They *are* dangerous people prone to excesses and with only a tenuous hold of their passions. They walk a very thin line between genius and madness.

Insane people are just artists without talent.

I'm not trying to say that Louis C.K. and the rest of them that came before him and the rest of them that will follow shouldn't be condemned, if that's what you're inclined to do. I think the mistake a lot of artists make is that they interact with people who are better suited to suburbia. They interact with people who keep their passions caged behind white picket fences.

Artists should remain in the jungle. They should remain in the city, in the urban areas where life is raw and painful and gritty. They don't belong amongst civilized people because they *are* uncivilized. It is better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. When artists step into those places where the veneer is so bright that everyone is blinded by how holy they are, the artists' shadows stretch too far behind them for all the world to see.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with “art” — other posters have covered why — but how does your theory square with the fact that sexual harassment occurs everywhere, in non-artistic professions, in social gatherings, even when women are just walking down the damn street or taking public transportation? The common denominator isn’t “artist”, it’s men in positions of power (even if that power is just “we’re on the sidewalk together and I’m bigger than you”) and a general culture that regards men as people but women as objects.

Rachel77 said:

This has nothing to do with “art” — other posters have covered why — but how does your theory square with the fact that sexual harassment occurs everywhere, in non-artistic professions, in social gatherings, even when women are just walking down the damn street or taking public transportation? The common denominator isn’t “artist”, it’s men in positions of power (even if that power is just “we’re on the sidewalk together and I’m bigger than you”) and a general culture that regards men as people but women as objects.

Click to expand...

This too.

Is the guy on the subway jerking off a tortured artistic soul whom the NYPD should understand just has a tenuous hold on his passions?

Also, btw, Weinstein isn't an artist of any sort. He's a random executive/money finder. So how exactly does that square with this theory? The people he abused were artists, but he's not an artist himself.