Louis CK

zoogs said:
Yeah, I've seen that discussed, too -- and the point I wanted to make is that it's not incidence we are observing, but publicized incidence. Usually, victims do not come forward or are ignored when they do (take the open secret about Louis CK, for example. Publicly suggested in detail and in no uncertain terms. Louis was allowed to kept on because collectively we shrugged at it). It often takes a position of strength to begin with. If you're a famous pop star like Taylor Swift, for example. Or a multiple gold medal-winning Olympic gymnast like Aly Raisman. (Shall we suggest a similar cesspool in athletics, yet?)

In general, I think it is a mistake to look at these events and sweep them away as belonging to an utterly foreign set of people. This happens all around us, to people you know and to people I know. Read this from Aziz Ansari, for example. This is from 2015. He's talking about polling an audience at a show. 


If you want to talk about "sex preoccupied sickos", take a scroll through our Daily Skin forum. 
Click to expand...


I can't tell you the last time I was in the "Skin" forum, but there's a fairly enormous difference in posting pictures of attractive women in there, and what Louis did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, there definitely is. That part of my post is a commentary on our desire to file this away as "[Hollywood/media/etc] sex obsession". Again, it's about power and how those who have it tend to wield it improperly -- ColoradoHusk put it very well a few posts above. Our whole culture is a bit sex crazed. People in general are. And I would contend that uptight, unnecessary morality about it drives misbehavior at least as much, if not more, than libertine attitudes and openness. 

So, that is what I want to emphasize. As an aside, I hope we can see that it's possible and alright to both appreciate a good 'Skin' post and to find some of the conversation there extremely creepy and discomfiting. Most people here would be embarrassed to publicly wear some of the things they've said about the women whose images they consume, so I do wonder: why such a culture of permissiveness about all that? At the least, we should give pause before making a judgment about how unfortunately "sex crazed" Hollywood is. 

But sort of on that topic, there are a whole lot of ways in which I'll agree with anyone protesting Hollywood's treatment of women in their product. 

 
I guess I took Zoogs post to mean that it's easy to say how horrible these things are, but when it comes time to actually talk about an exact circumstance people aren't as brave.  The fact that Ansari talked at length about the problem and then refused to speak to CK's incidents because he knew him or shared a business associate is one more example of the problem.  It hits a different nerve when it's someone they know.

And I only stumbled into the Skin section once.  Its different than what CK did live to women, but looking at women as objects, whether they are live and in front of you or in a photo is closer than many like to admit.

Edit - clarity as I thought more after hitting post ...  the difference is in the perception of the "victim".  The behavior is predatory and creepy, but if a woman gets paid to pose in a sexual way then doesn't she know?  But what about the pics of a regular girl just standing around, of cheerleaders at a sports event, an athlete on the vb court - if they are being sexualized (imo) they're victims, just not face to face.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. And in saying "typical, libertine Hollywood" you're also talking about stuff that is not remotely close to what Louis CK actually did, and saying that Louis and people like him spring from the same culture. I would say it springs just as much -- if not more -- from stuff that's a lot closer to home. People like Louis are people who go "hell yeah" at all the ugly commentary in (for example) the Daily Skin, although obviously not all people who go "hell yeah" at that end up doing what Louis did. 

 
Please believe me when I tell you, without the ability to offer proof, that this is absolutely NOT a "Hollywood thing" or a "politician thing." 

Stuff like this happens every day, by dudes in all walks of life, all the time.  I have seen this 100 times, things far more egregious than this.

 
knapplc said:
Please believe me when I tell you, without the ability to offer proof, that this is absolutely NOT a "Hollywood thing" or a "politician thing." 

Stuff like this happens every day, by dudes in all walks of life, all the time.  I have seen this 100 times, things far more egregious than this.
Click to expand...


Like I stated earlier, maybe it’s just more noticeable when it’s celebrity and we read all about it. And I’ve no doubt this whole world is a somewhat sick and twisted place but I’ll still stand by the claim that your chances of being a normal moral non-sex crazed person is significantly less if you hang in those Hollywood circles. Maybe I’m wrong and the incidence rate is the same throughout society and the only difference is what is reported or what we notice but I am very hesitant to believe there is the same apparent percentage of sick f#cks in general society as there is in entertainment and politics. However, it may be more related to positions of power than any specific industry. I guess that seems to be the more common thread. Nobody should ever accept any of this as remotely normal behavior.

@zoogs Please explain what unnecessary morality is. IMO a person either has the required level of morality or they don’t. I don’t understand how my, or anyone’s, morality can be claimed to drive other people’s actions. How is a more relaxed “libertine” attitude towards this type of behavior seen as better by you than that of a person who has unnecessary (whatever that means) morality?

 
@Comfortably NumbI think maybe "moralizing" would be a better way to say it. It's not about not having morality, it's about insisting this-or-that is the line or standard that everyone needs to adhere to. I'm very, very not on board with sexual conservatism as morality (but as far as personal choice goes, fine!). I feel that's damaging, and also I think that's where most of this "Hollywood cesspool" image comes from. IMO, the more prudish and closed off a society is about topics like sex, the more weirdos and wackos it produces, often to tragic consequences. For example, one idea making the rounds was "Louis CK stuff should make everyone realize how much better it was when sex was enshrined in marriage." Someone replied rather pointedly to this, highlighting all the ways marriage did not protect her at all personally from domestic abuse. And that's not some one-off tale, either. This should be somewhere on JK Rowling's twitter feed (or her replies/likes), but I don't care to dig it up at the moment. Just as an example.

"Power is the common thread" is really what I'm going for here. 

 
zoogs said:
@Comfortably NumbI think maybe "moralizing" would be a better way to say it. It's not about not having morality, it's about insisting this-or-that is the line or standard that everyone needs to adhere to. I'm very, very not on board with sexual conservatism as morality (but as far as personal choice goes, fine!). I feel that's damaging, and also I think that's where most of this "Hollywood cesspool" image comes from. IMO, the more prudish and closed off a society is about topics like sex, the more weirdos and wackos it produces, often to tragic consequences. For example, one idea making the rounds was "Louis CK stuff should make everyone realize how much better it was when sex was enshrined in marriage." Someone replied rather pointedly to this, highlighting all the ways marriage did not protect her at all personally from domestic abuse. And that's not some one-off tale, either. This should be somewhere on JK Rowling's twitter feed (or her replies/likes), but I don't care to dig it up at the moment. Just as an example.

"Power is the common thread" is really what I'm going for here. 
Click to expand...


I can go along with that. Originally it seemed sort of like you were saying people with morals were the problem. I really didn’t know how to digest that. You seem to be more concerned with people who want abstinence, silence, who are hypocrites etc., and those are good points.  But let’s not kid ourselves, this behavior is on the people who commit the acts and who are themselves lacking genuine morals or otherwise have mental problems. A normal person does not ask people if he can choke his chicken in front of them. I might even say that a normal person doesn’t stick around to watch it and then complain about it years later, regardless the perceived power that person had over them. I don’t have a terrible amount of sympathy for these actresses who were asked to blow a movie producer and did it to preserve their career. It’s kind of strikes me like a prostitute saying she’s not a whore because it was necessary for her to make money that way.

There, that ought to get things fired up  :lol:

 
Comfortably Numb said:
I can go along with that. Originally it seemed sort of like you were saying people with morals were the problem. I really didn’t know how to digest that. You seem to be more concerned with people who want abstinence, silence, who are hypocrites etc., and those are good points.  But let’s not kid ourselves, this behavior is on the people who commit the acts and who are themselves lacking genuine morals or otherwise have mental problems. A normal person does not ask people if he can choke his chicken in front of them. I might even say that a normal person doesn’t stick around to watch it and then complain about it years later, regardless the perceived power that person had over them. I don’t have a terrible amount of sympathy for these actresses who were asked to blow a movie producer and did it to preserve their career. It’s kind of strikes me like a prostitute saying she’s not a whore because it was necessary for her to make money that way.

There, that ought to get things fired up  :lol:
Click to expand...
Don't.  Have.  Enough.  Energy.  To.  Deal.  With.  This.  Tonight.

It makes me sad to know you typed it JJ.

 
" But let’s not kid ourselves, this behavior is on the people who commit the acts and who are themselves lacking genuine morals or otherwise have mental problems. A normal person does not ask people if he can choke his chicken in front of them."

I think this would have been a good place to stop. :(  

 
Come on guys. @zoogs & @NM11046 I was just stirring pot. I know what's wrong with what I said. That thought is a very minor fraction of what I think about these situations and really not at all about this specific Louis CK deal. I understand (can't come up with that famous producers name that just came out a couple weeks) held power over their careers and in that situation it's not easy to walk away from it. And I get why it took some very brave people to come forward before the floodgates opened and others felt safe enough to join in. I knew it was an extreme opinion that people would jump on and rightfully so. I was just feeling onery after watching that Minny game and dealing with a noob poster. Thought I'd liven things up in here. Sorry if you took me more seriously than that.

 
Nah - I figured you were just poking the bear.  But I too after the Minny game am just exhausted and couldn't dig in.  

I actually think your comments hold some water and it takes some courage to say them out loud.  Zoogs posted an article yesterday (or today?), an editorial by a gal who explained the struggle to balance the knowledge of the issue and the instinct to defend it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top