Remember I said to watch for sexual harrassment charges against a famous comedian?


It’s sexual abuse/psychological assault in my opinion – whether the law agrees with me or not.


I somewhat agree, Louis whipping it out and rubbing one out isn’t quite on the same scale as a Bill Cosby slipping you a roofie and banging the bejesus out of you. But it is an assault.


Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but again, this lends to stretching definitions that don’t really fit so they match our outrage.

Legally, it’s an Act of Indecency "when a person does something of a sexual nature with or towards another person or makes the person do something of a sexual nature towards them. For example, it can include the offender masturbating in front of another person.


The thing that’s most egregious about it is that he always did it to other comedians. People who respected him and who believed he could help them in their careers. So the abuse of power/crushing of dreams thing is just inexcusable.


I was about 14 when I had ridden the bus up to visit my Dad over the Holidays, and when I was taking a leak this creepy guy takes the urinal next to mine and starts rubbing his hard cock, it really creeped me out…not so much right at first, but over a few days after I just kept thinking WTF, Why did he pick me?


The law is not necessarily any good at all at defining the psychological harm/ptsd that can result from bullshit like what CK did. That’s what I am trying to look at. The law is a separate issue. Legal categories and definitions don’t determine the damage done.


That’s the thing that can really fuck with you when you’re young and have no one to help you through shit like that.


Psychological harm/PTSD aside, I don’t think we get to extend definitions on those terms.

I have been looking into it and it seems that he asked for consent, it was denied twice, given twice and not asked or given while jacking it on the phone.

Louis CK himself claims that he doesn’t feel these women could say no which is what makes it an abuse.


Because you were there.


…or trying that approach because if recent history serves, he is toast if he denies it or is unrepentant. I’ve noticed over the years that people are often sorry for things they did once they face personal consequence for their actions, but rarely before.


I have no doubt that’s true but he’s toast regardless of showing contrition or not.


You didn’t actually quote me, Lotus. I didn’t say the thing you quoted. You lifted it from a Wikipedia article I linked in my post. Have you given up on ciivil discussion?


Does that change that the definition you provided via a wiki article doesn’t fit either? I said the same thing Norm.


REC, and exactly.

I’m glad that some of us understand this phenomenon and can call it when they see it.


You really really really need to chill. What was uncivil about my post? I know it was from Wikipedia. So?


Yeah I know that now, but I was just an innocent starry eyed child at the time.


Yes, you did. But you didn’t fake quote me.



Ahhh, I see.


Again, I am not talking about the law. NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LAW. DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE LAW. It’s legal to start wars, but I will argue to my dying day that 99% of them are completely immoral and fuck people up.

Again, my posts aren’t about the law.