MeToo, or maybe Not
The MeToo campaign will spotlight cases of sexual assault, which is a good thing. People should not be subjected to aggressive, physical assault. MeToo will also turn up cases that are not but will be cast as assault.
Take C.K.
Mr. C.K. invited two comediennes to his hotel room. He asked them if they wanted to watch him masturbate.
Louis C.K.'s behavior strikes me as somewhat bizarre; tasteless, and crude, certainly. Were Ms. Goodman and Ms. Wolov "paralyzed" or mesmerized-- don't know. But one thing is certain, they were not compelled to remain in the room, and this didn't happen so quickly that they did not have time to beat a hasty retreat.
Apparently C.K. is a serial masturbator-with-audience. In the incidents discussed in the article, he asked first, and if they declined, he didn't pursue the matter. How to classify C.K.? He seems to have a few sexual screws loose, but a sexual predator he is't.
The "MeToo" campaign will spotlight actual sexual predation, but it will also spotlight cases of bizarre, tasteless, and crude behavior which fall well-short of assault, and cases of typical behavior where there may be regrets, but no fault.
Another case, presented in Quillette presents the problem of a man and woman meeting in a bar, going home together, having more drinks, and sex.
In this case, the author was exposed to herpes simplex II--genital herpes. She felt many regrets about the one night stand, and examined the question of whether she had been assaulted. After all, she hadn't granted positive consent (even though she described herself as the lead in this encounter). And she was exposed to a virus.
Her conclusion was that she had not been assaulted; the sexual encounter was welcomed and facilitated, and the herpetic outcome was unfortunate, but obviously not a deliberate act.
The author concludes:
Take C.K.
Mr. C.K. invited two comediennes to his hotel room. He asked them if they wanted to watch him masturbate.
According to the New York Times... "During Ms. Goodman and Ms. Wolov’s surreal visit to Louis C.K.’s Aspen hotel room, they said they were holding onto each other, screaming and laughing in shock, as Louis C.K. masturbated in a chair. “We were paralyzed,” Ms. Goodman said. After he ejaculated on his stomach, they said, they fled."
Louis C.K.'s behavior strikes me as somewhat bizarre; tasteless, and crude, certainly. Were Ms. Goodman and Ms. Wolov "paralyzed" or mesmerized-- don't know. But one thing is certain, they were not compelled to remain in the room, and this didn't happen so quickly that they did not have time to beat a hasty retreat.
Apparently C.K. is a serial masturbator-with-audience. In the incidents discussed in the article, he asked first, and if they declined, he didn't pursue the matter. How to classify C.K.? He seems to have a few sexual screws loose, but a sexual predator he is't.
The "MeToo" campaign will spotlight actual sexual predation, but it will also spotlight cases of bizarre, tasteless, and crude behavior which fall well-short of assault, and cases of typical behavior where there may be regrets, but no fault.
Another case, presented in Quillette presents the problem of a man and woman meeting in a bar, going home together, having more drinks, and sex.
In this case, the author was exposed to herpes simplex II--genital herpes. She felt many regrets about the one night stand, and examined the question of whether she had been assaulted. After all, she hadn't granted positive consent (even though she described herself as the lead in this encounter). And she was exposed to a virus.
Her conclusion was that she had not been assaulted; the sexual encounter was welcomed and facilitated, and the herpetic outcome was unfortunate, but obviously not a deliberate act.
The author concludes:
Lexa Frankl:Those who stretch the definition of sexual assault to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own choices, or who wilfully ignore the self-evident facts of human nature whenever they conflict with the false rhetoric of their political doctrines, are doing the cause of women’s safety no favors at all. Chastened and humbled by the life lessons I learned too late, I want no part in it.
Comments (34)
This. People don't want to hear about stuff, because it is painful and they might have to change. I don't know the dude, but he is saying what needs to be said right here.
"Actual abuse" as distinct from "imaginary abuse" - you don't get to decide, you, the admirable, who do not like to think and do not have to think.
Frankl's imaginary complaint about imaginary abuse 'proves' that there are imaginary imaginary complaints, but there are very unlikely to be real imaginary complaints as long as the admirable people do not like to think. Imaginary imaginary complaints give the comfortable illusion that the admirable people are thinking in an entirely balanced way about all this.
Being famous as a comedian doesn't confer power over any or every other comedian unless you are in a position to exercise power over them. The two women who came to C.K.'s hotel room weren't compelled by any "power" to stay and watch. Further, he didn't have power over them as comic performers. As far as I know, he didn't own a large chain of comedy clubs from which he could deny them access. He didn't own a large booking company who could refuse to take them on as clients.
No matter the scale on which the analysis is conducted, there will always be an uneven distribution of power between people. "More powerful" might or might not have any effect. Individuals have to be in a position to exercise said power. People who have less power can also be very consequential -- positively or negatively. The difference is what people do, not whether they have more or less power.
I'm not a big fan of C.K. He's not my cup of tea, most of the time. Recruiting casual acquaintances as an audience for masturbation is not criminal, and if you agree to watch, it isn't an assault either. It isn't an exercise over the audiences career. It's a fetish; a personal kink. Who one can recruit will depend on how attractive (fame, body, money...) one is. This is all in bad taste as far as polite society is concerned, but then polite society has found even non-missionary-position sex in bad taste.
Well, he was there and he did it and he says he did have power over them and what he did was wrong. I presume he knows more about the situation than you do. I don't consider it a sexual assault either by the way but he put them in one hell of a shitty position, and in the end humiliated them. And if he did that to a woman I cared about, I'd want to break his fucking neck. Of course, being the law abiding citizen I am I would do no such thing. O:)
Quoting Bitter Crank
What is a fetish or a personal kink is his desire to do that, which is fine, but you don't drag others into it unless you're pretty sure they're interested. The context in which you get agreement is important. C.K. realizes that hence the apology. Why you think you know more than him about what he himself did is a mystery to me.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, wanking off in front of women may be considered in bad taste by some, but who cares? Wanking off in front of women who don't want you to do that, however, and only agree because they are intimidated by you in some way is a form of sexual harassment if not sexual assault. Get used to it. C.K. has.
(I like his apology by the way and I don't think this should end his career. There's a world of difference between him and rats like HW.)
Thank you for expressing how it would actually effect you and your way of handling what others might consider to be in bad taste but not sexual assault when it involved a WOMAN YOU CARED ABOUT. Yet your instinct to break his neck is tempered by the law, which means that the law should be the one to address it, no?
I don't think it's a criminal act in this case, more a form of abuse of power for which he deserves his humiliation in the court of public opinion. A pity it didn't come earlier. But, yes, that's the objective standpoint when it doesn't involve a loved one of mine. I would make no apologies for not being so objective if it did.
PR stunt. He is trying to get them off his case so that he can continue with his life. Would you not do the same and try to calm the waters before another 30 women show up.
OK, I agree he is a weirdo. He has funny ways of getting his rocks off but he is certainly not alone in that area. How many people like to have sex out in public because they like being watched.
A while ago there was a video of a couple having sex while waiting for the train, plenty of people saw them. All they can be prosecuted for is public indecency, not for sexual assault or abuse of the people that were there.
Another case many years ago where I used to live was about a good looking widow. She invited the eighteen year old son of her neighbor to view her through his bedroom window into hers while she was pleasuring herself. Dad and Mom found out. If I remember correctly she got a suspended sentence and he got a lifetime of kinky memories. Life is not fair.
You might be right. My impression is he's not on the HW level at all and is probably just a bit of a minor perve. But who knows?
According to our records, the world population of people who like to have sex in public while being watched is about 94,360,953. Unfortunately, not all of them are totally awesome.
Ugly, wrinkled up old people are advised to not have sex in public, unless they wish to overthrow the established order. If a few hundred thousand ugly wrinkled up (but mobile) old people were to go to Washington, undress, and begin having group sex on the Capital Mall, and elsewhere -- on the Capital Steps, in congressional office anterooms, in Abe Lincoln's lap, National Public Radio's studios, and all around the White House, etc. and vowed not to stop until Trump had been impeached, I would guess it would be the fastest constitutional crisis in history--Trump would be out of there before the weekend.
Quoting Sir2u
That's what I thought. PR experts have worked out fairly detail routines for dealing with public scandals. One of them is "Step right up and admit you were wrong, and are just terribly sorry for all the harm you did during the previous x number of years... yada yada yada."
Minus 1. I only tried once and was not an enthusiastic participant. X-)
Now I am going to have nightmares. Thanks a lot. :(
See, this is a succinct statement of the problem. Men and women BOTH pursue sex, personal self-fulfillment, physical gratification. It is absurd to think that political doctrines like "no sex without affirmative, explicit permission" are going to become the new norm, and that only rapists will have sex without getting the written permission first. Are there power differentials? Of course, and there have been since before we became a modern species. Are there power meters which can tell us how much power we have, how much power others have, and how much power other people think we have? There are not.
It would pass "miraculous" if every claim to being disadvantaged by someone who had greater power was actually legitimate. "Power" like "goodness" can be assigned without any necessity of providing proof. Just because someone says "C.K. is a powerful comedian" doesn't mean that C.K. actually had any power which could be exercised over some other person. The boss who can fire you has some power. A cop who can arrest you for indecent exposure or look the other way has some power. A professor who grades your essay as trash rather than gold has some power (just a teensy bit).
Human nature can be shaped some, limited a little. Mostly not. Policing sex effectively takes a police state, and even then...
I agree.
What I find troubling is how the powerful the viral #MeToo has become.... reminds me of the pitch fork scene in Frankenstein. Social media inveighing social justice by a viral mob, with very little recourse left to those accused. While I think those guilty of assault or harassment ought to be punished, the power of the mob over the course of justice suggests, to me, all kinds of risks.
Yes. There is the "pile on" effect, and also the effect of widening the definition of "powerful", boundary crossing, and assault. And i readily acknowledge that power differentials are real, boundaries are crossed, and assault occurs. Power differentials are everywhere, and have frequent disadvantageous consequences for the less powerful (even with no sex whatsoever involved). The boundaries around our persons fluctuate, and become more or less porous. Assault has a range of definitions.
Kevin Spacey's interaction with a young guy -- buying him more drinks at a bar than the 18 year old could manage, then groping him, with perhaps other plans, depending... is an unambiguous violation. In a different context, say a cruisy gay bar where the 18 year old was buying his own drinks and Spacey was chatting him up, and then groped him, the act would be routine and inconsequential.
Quoting StreetlightX
Definitions matter, though, and not just "legally". "Widespread shitty sexual behavior" and "the extent and pervasiveness of the creepy-as-fuck things that men have done - and continue to do - to women" is carte blanche for a witch hunt. "Shitty behavior" -- in sexual and in all other categories -- is endemic. So are "creepy as fuck" things, and these also cover a broad range of behaviors, executed by men and women both. As you say, it's pervasive.
People aren't nice, when you get right down to it, and shitty, creepy behavior is going to be a fixture in human relations -- across the board -- for a long time to come.
After we have eliminated everyone who ever behaved in a shitty, creepy manner, who will be left? You?
http://www.msu.ac.zw/elearning/material/1335344125freire_pedagogy_of_the_oppresed.pdf
How does one decide who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed if all that one has to go on are allegations? How can that be justice....did Carl Sargent get his just desserts?
I am struck by your being "troubled" by the "power" of the abused! Almost as if your whole world is threatened by the empowerment of women. Here's a thing to consider; most people don't get their just desserts; most people can't even safely speak out about their ill treatment exploitation and humiliation, never mind get any justice. Why worry about Carl Sargent, who might or mightn't have been falsely accused, and was definitely not very well served by his supposed comrades to the extent of thinking that men in general are the victims of their accusers and will all be driven to suicide because they are being oppressed? It really doesn't add up.
Carl Sargent had a deal of power, and that is a fact. That tells us immediately that his life was not one of being oppressed. It is possible that he suffered a few weeks of injustice.
I am troubled by the power of a viral mob, how it envelops people's lives and pushes its participants in a blind manner. This is not justice, it is guilt by allegation and that is not just. As I stated, anyone who has sexually harassed another needs to be punished or at very least apologize, but that is based on proof of claim.
Yes, but it seems you are not so troubled by the greater injustice of the status quo, to which the mob is a rough and ready balance. The situation whereby thousands have suffered injustice over years and decades and are only now able, in some cases to dare to speak out, never mind obtain any kind of justice, - this is injustice on a huge scale, on an industrial scale. This troubles you not at all, but only the possibility that someone somewhere who is a man, might be unjustly accused. Do you not get how ridiculously partisan, how unjust your troubling is?
That someone committed suicide doesn't suddenly make them the victim of an injustice. Nobody knows for sure why Carl Sargent made that decision and probably nobody could have predicted it. It's a personal tragedy for him and his family but it doesn't necessarily mean anyone involved in investigating the allegations against him did anything wrong (although that itself should be investigated).
Also, in using the term 'innuendo' in this context, you seem yourself to be guilty of innuendo.
You insinuate that the mass of what more neutrally would be called 'accusations' of harassment, sexual assault, and boorish and bullying behaviour are indirect, and somehow unreal. And you further insinuate that mere accusation in such cases is already injustice.
Apologist trash. "Oh yes he treated you horribly, and placed you in a terrible position, but it wasn't assault though, so why is everyone making such a big deal about it?".
It's still much more likely the case that innocent victims won't report and the guilty get away with it or they do report and are ignored (e.g. with Trump's victims) so I'm all for more swarm and sweeping up the scum. HW got way with it for years, for example. How many women were raped due to lack of swarm? And is that less important than a few false accusations?
I cannot accept justice by allegation regardless of the situation or the "scum" involved. "... all allegations must be examined and pursued..." Corbyn is right.
I'm not saying you should. It depends on the context of each situation. But I relish the swarm and the fact that rapists like HW may actually be brought to justice now. And you can't have it both ways. If you want to see that happen, there has to be some kind of a "swarm" to create an environment in which women feel comfortable in speaking out. What everyone should be mostly concerned with here is that they haven't for so long not the fact that suddenly they have but a few minor transgressors or innocents have been caught up in it. It's a simple matter of moral priorities as far as I'm concerned.
And yet he did not have the benefit of natural justice.
He was suspended from the party on an accusation and did not even know the name of his accusers.
This is contrary to basic justice, and there is all too much of it in the Labour party whose right wing is desperate to suppress the rise of the left. Iain McNichol the chair of the NEC has suspended thousands of party members and they wait, some for over a year to have their case heard.
There is a witch hunt against the followers of Corbyn.
Do you accept innocent until proven guilty? Then why the sacking?
Do you accept that a person has a right to know the details of the accusation and the names of their accusers? Because he was not informed buy summarily sacked from post and suspended from the party.
Is there evidence of this?