The Swamp

bfj wrote:

Shirley wrote:

bfj wrote:Wait, you said hitting on 14 year olds doesn’t make you a pedophile, right?

Yes, in the context of comparing people who are attracted to small children - e.g. 5-year-olds - with those who go after teens. I think there's a huge difference. And actually, so does the medical community who defines the term. Pedophilia, as described in the DSM, specifically means love of prepubescent kids, generally meaning 13 or younger. If you want your own definition, that's your call, but it makes debate about the topic difficult.

Nowhere did I say hitting on 14-year-olds was OK.

To me, a 14 year old is a child. Fuck the DSM. Spacey wasn’t hitting on a man, he was hitting on a boy.

I never said you said that it was ok. Your lawyer did.

Woah, that is completely uncalled for and flat out wrong. I never said it was OK, I said it doesn't meet the definition of pedophile. I also said it is statutory rape, and I am certainly not ok with statutory rape.

Words and terminology have definitions, and you aren't entitled to an opinion on a fact. Pedophilia is a medical term with an actual definition, you can't disagree with the definition. I think we all agree it is disgusting, immoral, and illegal to hit on a 14 year old, but it doesn't meet the definition of pedophile. Not sure why you feel the need to attack me about that.

I think if someone was found to have molested 14 year old and only 14 year olds for a period of time, I'd be ok calling gen a pedophile, definition be damned.

A_B wrote:I think if someone was found to have molested 14 year old and only 14 year olds for a period of time, I'd be ok calling gen a pedophile, definition be damned.

If the speed limit is 65, and someone consistently drives 60, I'd be OK calling him a speeder.

The Sybian wrote:

A_B wrote:I think if someone was found to have molested 14 year old and only 14 year olds for a period of time, I'd be ok calling gen a pedophile, definition be damned.

If the speed limit is 65, and someone consistently drives 60, I'd be OK calling him a speeder.

Well that makes nO sense.

Syb understands under 18 is the bad one, right?

The Sybian wrote:

bfj wrote:
The 14 year old wasn’t drunk. The pedophile was.

Wait, you said hitting on 14 year olds doesn’t make you a pedophile, right?

Jesus, now Shirley is getting attacked from the other side on this comment. He said a man hitting on a 14 year old boy has a stringer correlation to the man being gay than a man attempting to sexually assault a 5 year old boy. He never said it was acceptable behavior. And a upon a quick search, the definition of pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children, 13 or younger, so this doesn't make him a pedophile, just an attempted statutory rapist.

This is what I'm talking about Syb. You implied that I said that Shirley claimed it was acceptable, and I did no such thing. I can disagree with the definition all I want. This isn't court. Spacey hit on a child, you can call it whatever the fuck you want. I don't excuse it because he was drunk 30 years ago, I don't excuse it because the kid was in a play with the same scene, I don't excuse it because he is one year older than what the DSM says. The amount of excuse making made until the CNN report came out was ridiculous.

mister d wrote:Syb understands under 18 is the bad one, right?

Oh, for fucks sake. My point is, the word pedophile, and the legal and medical terms as well have a specific definition. Much like a speed limit. You can think 65 is too fast for that road, but you can't argue someone driving under that number is speeding. Words have definitions, and you can't make an argument based on your opinion of what the definition of the word should be. I don't care about this specific argument, but it's something I run up against constantly, arguing with people who have the facts wrong, and shut down the discussion with, "well, it's my opinion that violent crime rose under Obama, and I'm entitled to my opinion."

Try getting pulled over driving after a few beers, and when you blow a .08, tell the officer in your opinion, .08 BAC isn't impaired.

The point was fine, and I’d agree, but the analogy was messy.

Powerful adult tries to force himself on a vulnerable 14 year old...

Fuck that guy.

Funny, the better parts of two pages arguing finer points of an issue, when we are actually all pretty much in agreement.

sancarlos wrote:Funny, the better parts of two pages arguing finer points of an issue, when we are actually all pretty much in agreement.

That could describe half the threads in here.

Dropped from his latest movie, one month before release, and replaced with Christopher Plummer.

Johnny Carwash wrote:Dropped from his latest movie, one month before release, and replaced with Christopher Plummer.

To highlight - thats' a helluva thing - they are doing a shit ton of expensive work quickly to get him out.

https://twitter.com/THR/status/928680136936972290

There have been rumors about him for a while...

They make it sound like the issue is with the movie (which may or may not be offensive, but there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. I don't mind if a movie is intentionally provocative).

The issue is that scores of women have accused CK of exposing himself and making them watch him masturbate.

It's a bit of a naive question, but how hard is it for these wealthy famous people to find people willing to have sex with them?

Pruitt wrote:It's a bit of a naive question, but how hard is it for these wealthy famous people to find people willing to have sex with them?

It's a power thing. Has nothing to with money or attractiveness or level of fame.

brian wrote:

Pruitt wrote:It's a bit of a naive question, but how hard is it for these wealthy famous people to find people willing to have sex with them?

It's a power thing. Has nothing to with money or attractiveness or level of fame.

I think with CK it's just a fucking fetish. Cause he's been doing it well before he became famous, right?

A_B wrote:

brian wrote:

Pruitt wrote:It's a bit of a naive question, but how hard is it for these wealthy famous people to find people willing to have sex with them?

It's a power thing. Has nothing to with money or attractiveness or level of fame.

I think with CK it's just a fucking fetish. Cause he's been doing it well before he became famous, right?

I still think it's a power thing. And even back then he was famous in comedian circles if not necessarily TV and movies famous like he is now.

Is this going to be like the Missouri Compromise, where every story of a politician's sex offense allegations has to be introduced together with a story about a popular celeb's sex offenses?

Gawker wrote this story 3 or 4 years ago. They had put it out as a blind item and then followed up with a very detailed account. This is not "new news" to people in the industry and it's definitely new to people like me that follow comedians and read sites like Gawker.

I actually haven't really been able to truly get into his comedy after the Gawker stuff came out. I was a huge fan prior.

And as I was writing, this pops up. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts ... nduct.html

Nonlinear FC wrote:I actually haven't really been able to truly get into his comedy after the Gawker stuff came out. I was a huge fan prior.

Same. We were watching his show on demand but it felt skeevy.

I'm just gonna state the obvious. This is a truly remarkable time in our history on so many fronts.

It's almost like Trump opened this portal and now good and evil are done fucking around it's a battle that's finally out in the open.




Maybe I'm still awash in my Stranger Things slow binge the last week or so. But holy shit. What's going on with these sexual allegations and #metoo is fucking amazing. I mean, it's terrible what these people have had to endure, but to have so many women feeling like they are able to finally start to unburden themselves is just amazing.

Nonlinear FC wrote:I'm just gonna state the obvious. This is a truly remarkable time in our history on so many fronts.

It's almost like Trump opened this portal and now good and evil are done fucking around it's a battle that's finally out in the open.




Maybe I'm still awash in my Stranger Things slow binge the last week or so. But holy shit. What's going on with these sexual allegations and #metoo is fucking amazing. I mean, it's terrible what these people have had to endure, but to have so many women feeling like they are able to finally start to unburden themselves is just amazing.

It's remarkable and fucking great.

Nonlinear FC wrote:And as I was writing, this pops up. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts ... nduct.html

Mr. Becky arguably wields even more power in comedy than Louis C.K. He represents Kevin Hart, Aziz Ansari, Amy Poehler and other top performers, and his company, 3 Arts, puts together programming deals for nearly every platform.

That's C.K.'s agent. So yeah, the fallout from these stories is fascinating and it's great that it's happening.

Nonlinear FC wrote:I'm just gonna state the obvious. This is a truly remarkable time in our history on so many fronts.

It's almost like Trump opened this portal and now good and evil are done fucking around it's a battle that's finally out in the open.




Maybe I'm still awash in my Stranger Things slow binge the last week or so. But holy shit. What's going on with these sexual allegations and #metoo is fucking amazing. I mean, it's terrible what these people have had to endure, but to have so many women feeling like they are able to finally start to unburden themselves is just amazing.

I want to add, given the thread we are in, that the men speaking out are just as courageous and praise-worthy.

Let me add something from the where there's fire.. it often spreads rapidly that we are seeing with so many of these stories.

The call confounded her, Ms. Corry said: not only had he misremembered the incident, which made her think there were other moments of misconduct, he also implied she had done something to invite his behavior. “It is unfair he’s put me or anyone else in this position,” Ms. Corry said

I feel like this is going to be very much like Spacey, where the current climate of acceptance is going to open the floodgates on CK. Dude obviously has major psychological issues.

i have a major problem with the new york times article. according to the fifth "nameless victim"
louis approached her and asked her to come back to thw office and asked if he can masturbate in front of her. SHE SAID YES, then he did it, and now ahe is claiming it was harassment. how much more consensual can that act be? she doesnt get to complain later and withdraw her consent after the fact...she never said he threatened or coerced her. granted that means nothing or implies nothinh about the other women claiming anything and he could very well be a piece of shit, but that unnamed victim nweeeds to shut the fuck up

I'll concede you the level of severity, but it's the power dynamic that makes the difference.

That to me was more corroboration that helps prove the other points, though I guess there is some who would say maybe more of those women agreed to it in the first place like that lady did.

TT2.0 wrote:i have a major problem with the new york times article. according to the fifth "nameless victim"
louis approached her and asked her to come back to thw office and asked if he can masturbate in front of her. SHE SAID YES, then he did it, and now ahe is claiming it was harassment. how much more consensual can that act be? she doesnt get to complain later and withdraw her consent after the fact...she never said he threatened or coerced her. granted that means nothing or implies nothinh about the other women claiming anything and he could very well be a piece of shit, but that unnamed victim nweeeds to shut the fuck up

Asking that question at work isn't even remotely the same as asking it at a bar or in church.

Yeah, I remember reading articles about Louis CK a couple of years ago (but didn't remember the details). I don't understand dudes who want to masturbate in front of women. That's just fucking weird. I at least get the goals of Weinstein, Spacey, Moore, etc. But who just wants to jerk off in front of someone? Is the hope that they'll join in? Or is he just broken?

I wonder with him if there aren't a whole lot more stories that are maybe worse. A lot of folks on Twitter seem to be reveling in his downfall, but of the four instances in that NYT piece, none is that abusive (at least compared to the other stories coming out about other people). He just seems pathetic and sad - but he pretty much always asked first. And when they said no, he didn't do it. I guess maybe the worst is the anonymous one that TT mentioned, because he was a producer on that show, so she essentially worked for him. Unless I misunderstood the other ones, he wasn't holding any power in those cases. The two comediennes willingly went to his room very late at night and then stayed and laughed while he jerked off. It sounds like they could have said no or left. They didn't work for him, and in 2002, he wasn't a big star, I don't think (although, checking his IMDB, he was producing and directing some at that time), who could blackball them.

I don't know. Obviously they DO feel traumatized, so I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't be, but where you compare it to the other recent cases where women (and men) were physically assaulted, he seem less predatory and more pathetic. But maybe there's more.

Focusing on the fetish isn't helpful - it wouldn't be my thing either but it is clearly CK's (and I would guess others). I am guessing my own fetishes wouldn't be shared by most.

Difference is, CK used power position to feed his fetish. The power is the issue, not the act, per se. He could have easily gotten a sex worker to watch him jerk off, even pretend to be against her will to watch him jerk off, but that wasn't good enough. It's why his career is probably over too, as it should be.

tennbengal wrote:Difference is, CK used power position to feed his fetish. The power is the issue, not the act, per se. He could have easily gotten a sex worker to watch him jerk off, even pretend to be against her will to watch him jerk off, but that wasn't good enough. It's why his career is probably over too, as it should be.

Did he really have power over these women in these cases though? Maybe I don't understand how these jobs work, but he only sounded like a sort-of boss in one of these. I could be wrong though.

There doesn’t need to be chain of command for there to be a real or perceived power dynamic at play.

Yeah I think in a couple of cases he had seniority at a minimum.

mister d wrote:There doesn’t need to be chain of command for there to be a real or perceived power dynamic at play.

Especially when his fucking agent is telling the accuser to back off if they know what's good for their career.

There's a "statement" floating around on the tweeters purportedly form CK. but I can't see any confirmation that it came from his account so I'm not posting it yet.

How the fuck do you possibly address this as the father of two relatively young girls.