[Aptorian]

After doing a work place survey it's about an even 50/50 split regarding what the expectations are if somebody invites you "back to their place".

I think I might have caused a minor workplace squabble now as half the personel thinks the others are a bunch of creeps.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 02 January 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 02:30 PM, said:

This is like dating 101.

You go out on a date or you chat somebody up at a bar or party. You hit it off. You feel like there's the possibility this could go further. So you ask "you wanna come up to my place?". The date then reciprocates with "you're sweet but [fake or genuine excuse]" or they say sure but you also make sure what the intentions are by stating what the deal is. Like, no funny business or vice versa.

If somebody asks you if you want to go up to their hotel room that's an invitation for sex.

I thought this was basic dating/hook up rules.

Edit: but I also see where things go wrong if somebody thinks there's implied intent in an offer and the other person is apparently oblivious to such signals.

You're making the entirely wrong set of assumptions here and it's causing you to say some extremely bad things.

Comedy shows usually feature a group of people who know each other from being at comedy shows for a long time. There's a lot of hanging out, getting feedback, learning the ropes, doing politics to get ahead or get gigs, drinking, occasional hookups. The nature of the business means that when out of town, hotel rooms sometimes become sort of basic hangout areas for comedians.

There's some blurring of professional lives and personal lives, but there's also lots of people who try to take advantage of the blurring to do things like Louis CK did. He very specifically targeted women to come over to do the usual hanging out that isn't sexual and then proceeded to masturbate in front of them or over the phone etc. He did this in a way that used his greater fame and comedic connections to keep the women there and to ensure that they didn't kick up too much of a fuss when rejecting him. He then used his connections to keep a few of the women from getting jobs. Those actions are really wrong and he's not actually apologized for doing them or shown remorse.

There's none of this "oh your presence in my hotel room means that something sexual is going to happen" in this dynamic. You can read the accounts of the women describing how Louis CK acted and what he said. It's pretty clearly exploitative and wrong.

Indeed.

Also, in general we should probably be clear that "being invited to a hotel room" does't really mean anything specific besides "let's see where this connection goes together/consensually"....the inviting party might only want to make out and not have sex...therefore nothing should be construed as an invite to sex that isn't an actual invite to sex, because then you get into non-verbal cues and shit and it can be messy as a result.

Being invited to a room should not be an indicator of anything but "being invited into a room". It comes with no connotations further than that because everyone is different and everyone's expectations and "read" of a situation is different. You don't get to read into it and assume and then victim-blame when it goes to shit because consent was not given (like saying "You knew what you were getting into when you accepted the invitation" or miscreant bullshit like that).

[Morgoth]

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 04:14 PM, said:

After doing a work place survey it's about an even 50/50 split regarding what the expectations are if somebody invites you "back to their place".

I think I might have caused a minor workplace squabble now as half the personel thinks the others are a bunch of creeps.

you are. you are a bunch of creeps. Louise CK did not bring dates, or at least that's not what the complaints are about, to his hotel room. He brought colleagues and employees.

[Aptorian]

My comments weren't meant as a defense of Louis CK. It was a more general comment on dating/mating culture.

I'm not stating that accepting an invitation to come to somebody's room or home or what ever is an invitation for sex explicitly but, apparently only for some, it is a signal. Lots of people don't like to express what they specifically want or expect and it becomes a game of cat and mouse.

It's not okay to use that as an excuse for sexual misconduct but on the other hand how fucking naive can you be?

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

but on the other hand how fucking naive can you be?

Say this bullshit to that person's parent...and see where that gets you.

Seriously.

[D'rek]

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

My comments weren't meant as a defense of Louis CK. It was a more general comment on dating/mating culture.

I'm not stating that accepting an invitation to come to somebody's room or home or what ever is an invitation for sex explicitly but, apparently only for some, it is a signal. Lots of people don't like to express what they specifically want or expect and it becomes a game of cat and mouse.

It's not okay to use that as an excuse for sexual misconduct but on the other hand how fucking naive can you be?

Let's say you're having a drink in the hotel bar with a guy. If he leans over, whispers in your ear in a breathy Timothy Dalton voice "So, would you like to [dramatic pause] come up to my room?" {wink} ... yeah, I think the vast majority of people are going to recognize that he doesn't mean it platonically. If he just casually says "Yo dawg, let's go chill up in my room." in the same tone and posture as the rest of your casual conversation, then that would sound a lot more platonic than romantic to most people. I wouldn't call someone naive if they didn't realize a person inviting them to their hotel room had romantic intentions if it was done via something closer to the second way. If the former, sure. In-between, well it depends on the specifics.

[worry]

What LCK's done historically -- and now we have to say 'ostensibly' I guess -- is dissect his edgier material with a moral compass. He delved into the id, specifically a kind of privileged American white man's id (there's 'real self' and 'character' but he didn't shy from blurring them). He was 'honest' about the kinds of things that popped into his head, even honest about what made him laugh right or wrong, but always returned to looking at it through a critical lens. What made him so remarkable was how successful he was at traveling so far from that moral compass but almost always managing to return to it. He walked a tightrope for sure, and all the admiration came from recognizing how well he did it. But the context, the one he deliberately promulgated, was a flawed but thoughtful man trying to improve.


The context for the leaked set was a cornered animal lashing out bitterly, because he was caught out as a fraud. I mean, look at this absolute garbage:


That sound like the same point of view, ultimately aiming for personal and relatable insight, to you?


Makes perfect sense to me that it would taint even his earlier material for some people. But either way, you'd have to be either dishonest (to what end? I don't know) or misapprehending to an alarming cognitive degree to interpret this set as close kin with the old stuff. It's a whole other POV. But even if we granted what he was doing was in service of that noble cause, reciting that Special Lament of Obsolete Dumbasses Everywhere -- "PC culture has gone mad!" -- who the hell is serial sexual predator Louis CK to lecture anyone about it anyway? Comedian ain't the only job in the world. Go do something where you won't be a danger to your coworkers, like underwater welding.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 02 January 2019 - 07:25 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

but on the other hand how fucking naive can you be?

Say this bullshit to that person's parent...and see where that gets you.

Seriously.

Again. This isn't about rape. This about adult relationships and dating culture.

Let's boil this down to the simpler act of kissing during or after a date or just during a normal social situation that turns romantic.

If somebody at a specific moment, the chemistry felt right, leaned in to kiss the other person... Is that weird or creepy? Should they ask permission first? Should they announce their intent? Maybe some would want that but a lot of other people would say this spoils the moment.

Are you going to argue mistaking feelings and trying to kiss another person is sexual assault? I hope not.

Now take it further than this. You've been hanging out with a date, friend, co-worker and you've been sending signals (that may be read wrong or not received) and you ask somebody to come to your room... Are you being too forward? Too vague? Should you pull out a letter of intent and a contract denoting consent? Or would you go with the flow, hoping things progress, afraid to spoil the moment by making things weird?

This doesn't have to be about rape or creepiness. Dating and sex is hard. Especially when you've got a bunch of prudes who don't know what come back to my place signifies.

Frosty McFrostface, on 02 January 2019 - 07:28 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

My comments weren't meant as a defense of Louis CK. It was a more general comment on dating/mating culture.

I'm not stating that accepting an invitation to come to somebody's room or home or what ever is an invitation for sex explicitly but, apparently only for some, it is a signal. Lots of people don't like to express what they specifically want or expect and it becomes a game of cat and mouse.

It's not okay to use that as an excuse for sexual misconduct but on the other hand how fucking naive can you be?

Let's say you're having a drink in the hotel bar with a guy. If he leans over, whispers in your ear in a breathy Timothy Dalton voice "So, would you like to [dramatic pause] come up to my room?" {wink} ... yeah, I think the vast majority of people are going to recognize that he doesn't mean it platonically. If he says "Yo dawg, let's go chill up in my room." then that would sound a lot more platonic than romantic to most people. I wouldn't call someone naive if they didn't realize a person inviting them to their hotel room had romantic intentions if it was done via something closer to the second way. If the former, sure. In-between, well it depends on the specifics.

You're completely right and I hope that's also understood in my above posts. Of course there needs to be a back and forth, reciprocated desire for this to happen. Normal people will figure that stuff out like adults.

Most people are thankfully not Louis CK.

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 07:55 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 January 2019 - 07:25 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

but on the other hand how fucking naive can you be?

Say this bullshit to that person's parent...and see where that gets you.

Seriously.

Again. This isn't about rape. This about adult relationships and dating culture.

Let's boil this down to the simpler act of kissing during or after a date or just during a normal social situation that turns romantic.

If somebody at a specific moment, the chemistry felt right, leaned in to kiss the other person... Is that weird or creepy? Should they ask permission first? Should they announce their intent? Maybe some would want that but a lot of other people would say this spoils the moment.

Are you going to argue mistaking feelings and trying to kiss another person is sexual assault? I hope not.

Now take it further than this. You've been hanging out with a date, friend, co-worker and you've been sending signals (that may be read wrong or not received) and you ask somebody to come to your room... Are you being too forward? Too vague? Should you pull out a letter of intent and a contract denoting consent? Or would you go with the flow, hoping things progress, afraid to spoil the moment by making things weird?

This doesn't have to be about rape or creepiness. Dating and sex is hard. Especially when you've got a bunch of prudes who don't know what come back to my place signifies.

I never said it was. I was talking about about non-consent acts. Non-consent can include a whole host of stuff.

You understand that unwanted actions of non-consent can be as small as an unwanted hug, yes?

Maybe things in the past have worked from a "You don't have to ask, you just feel it out otherwise it will spoil the mood" perspective...but I think the last year or two should have shown you that things are changing. People are being educated about consent now. Get on board, or be left behind, I guess?

[Morgoth]

Jesus christ apt. This is not some sort of romantic mishap, and I cannot believe you're actually trying to twist it into that. Are you just being obtuse on purpose, or do you genuinely think what Louise CK did was just the result of someone failing to read signals? Again, as has been stated several times, he didn't date these women. Where the hell kind of black hole blogosphere have you gotten the idea that this is about dating culture?

[Aptorian]

@QT- Then why were you mentioning parents?

I think the world you describe is boring and colorless and fragile, filled with scared people who belong in the Victorian era. What happened to the sexual revolution? Sexual freedom?

I guess it's a good thing we've invented Tinder so that we no longer have to deal with complicated human interaction and can boil it all down into eggplant emojis and peaches.

@Morgoth - I've already stated I wasn't discussing Louis CK specifically. Keep up.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 02 January 2019 - 08:23 PM

[Nevyn]

worry, on 02 January 2019 - 07:43 PM, said:

What LCK's done historically -- and now we have to say 'ostensibly' I guess -- is dissect his edgier material with a moral compass. He delved into the id, specifically a kind of privileged American white man's id (there's 'real self' and 'character' but he didn't shy from blurring them). He was 'honest' about the kinds of things that popped into his head, even honest about what made him laugh right or wrong, but always returned to looking at it through a critical lens. What made him so remarkable was how successful he was at traveling so far from that moral compass but almost always managing to return to it. He walked a tightrope for sure, and all the admiration came from recognizing how well he did it. But the context, the one he deliberately promulgated, was a flawed but thoughtful man trying to improve.


The context for the leaked set was a cornered animal lashing out bitterly, because he was caught out as a fraud. I mean, look at this absolute garbage:


That sound like the same point of view, ultimately aiming for personal and relatable insight, to you?


Makes perfect sense to me that it would taint even his earlier material for some people. But either way, you'd have to be either dishonest (to what end? I don't know) or misapprehending to an alarming cognitive degree to interpret this set as close kin with the old stuff. It's a whole other POV. But even if we granted what he was doing was in service of that noble cause, reciting that Special Lament of Obsolete Dumbasses Everywhere -- "PC culture has gone mad!" -- who the hell is serial sexual predator Louis CK to lecture anyone about it anyway? Comedian ain't the only job in the world. Go do something where you won't be a danger to your coworkers, like underwater welding.

This wasn't a netflix or HBO special. This was an early set back at a comedy club. 50 minutes of new stuff untested.

Finished acts don't emerge from whole cloth. The Louis CK specials he is known and was loved for were a product of often a year or more of having things selectively bomb or offend as he probed where the line was and how to find the funny. Bits didn't work. They got cut. They got tweaked where they still had an edge, but reeled back to the line. And even then, if you go back through his specials and sets, and want to pick out specific jokes stripped of the surrounding context and the things CK does to build a rapport and get away with those lines, you could find a lot of stuff to be offended about.

And if you listen to the whole set, it still sounds like a Louis CK set.

But now he's coming back from a scandal people don't want him back from, any joke he wants to try is going to get leaked and judged (which will also skew the reaction he gets as he tries to work it out). They get judged while he's still finding the line, and in the lens of his scandal to boot. So there is going to have to be a measure of reinvention with less cutting material, or he's just going to have to keep at it until fresh outrage at what he says gets boring and people move on to some other horrible white man.


But the notion that some rough edged jokes performed at a club in NYC and leaked online are evidence that he is developing a new persona pandering to the alt right is pure lunacy.

[worry]

I didn't mention the alt-right and I'm aware that comedians work out their material over time.

[Morgoth]

Morgoth, on 02 January 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

If my boss or co-worker invited me to his or her hotelroom during a work trip and promptly asked to masturbate in front of me, that would be an immediate HR issue and a quick firing. Especially if it had happened more than once.

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 09:49 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 02 January 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

If my boss or co-worker invited me to his or her hotelroom during a work trip and promptly asked to masturbate in front of me, that would be an immediate HR issue and a quick firing. Especially if it had happened more than once.

But... You agreed to go to his/her hotel room? Surely you know what that means?

It's like asking if a date wants to come up for a drink or see your stamp collection.

Morgoth, on 02 January 2019 - 11:00 AM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 09:49 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 02 January 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

If my boss or co-worker invited me to his or her hotelroom during a work trip and promptly asked to masturbate in front of me, that would be an immediate HR issue and a quick firing. Especially if it had happened more than once.

But... You agreed to go to his/her hotel room? Surely you know what that means?

It's like asking if a date wants to come up for a drink or see your stamp collection.

What? No. What kind of world do you live in?

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 02:30 PM, said:

This is like dating 101.

You go out on a date or you chat somebody up at a bar or party. You hit it off. You feel like there's the possibility this could go further. So you ask "you wanna come up to my place?". The date then reciprocates with "you're sweet but [fake or genuine excuse]" or they say sure but you also make sure what the intentions are by stating what the deal is. Like, no funny business or vice versa.

If somebody asks you if you want to go up to their hotel room that's an invitation for sex.

I thought this was basic dating/hook up rules.

Edit: but I also see where things go wrong if somebody thinks there's implied intent in an offer and the other person is apparently oblivious to such signals.

Alternative Goose, on 02 January 2019 - 08:20 PM, said:

@Morgoth - I've already stated I wasn't discussing Louis CK specifically. Keep up.

We were talking about Louise CK, you made your comment about going to an hotel room and compared it to going on a date and going home with that person afterwards. It was pointed out how wrong headed that is and you decided subsequently you had been talking about dating all along.

If you want to move over to a different question that seems rather irrelevant to the topic, or to this thread as a whole that's fine, but it is peculiar to me that you felt the need to pull the discussion away from Louise CK and onto something very different.

[Aptorian]

Oh, I think I actually mistook your earlier post then. I thought your comment on a co-worker and a hotel room was a more general comment on social/dating behavior.

[Silencer]

Alternative Goose, on 03 January 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

Oh, I think I actually mistook your earlier post then. I thought your comment on a co-worker and a hotel room was a more general comment on social/dating behavior.

How?

[Aptorian]

Perception is reality?

Edit: Less facetious reply. This was Morgoth's post. I didn't read that as being related to CK specifically but the situation as a personal experience.

Morgoth, on 02 January 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

If my boss or co-worker invited me to his or her hotelroom during a work trip and promptly asked to masturbate in front of me, that would be an immediate HR issue and a quick firing. Especially if it had happened more than once.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 03 January 2019 - 07:19 PM

[amphibian]

Morgoth's point was that in the more rigidly corporate world, what CK did several times is enough in a generic situation to cause a firing, prompt a possible lawsuit,and is considered wrong.

It's wrong in the less rigid world of entertainment too, but there's no Human Resources department to complain to and there's active pressure to not report things like this to other professionals or managers or venues because CK brings in money and has tons of industry connections.

The several things that have been brought to the public attention are really bad. They're not as bad as what Weinstein did, but they're still bad enough to get significant pushback from society and to get some level of recompense for the people he hurt for years. He hasn't really given that recompense and he's now doing shows in a way that suggests that he doesn't care about people who are hurt by the incomprehensible and damaging acts of others.

[Malankazooie]

[Aptorian]

amphibian, on 03 January 2019 - 08:04 PM, said:

Morgoth's point was that in the more rigidly corporate world, what CK did several times is enough in a generic situation to cause a firing, prompt a possible lawsuit,and is considered wrong.

It's wrong in the less rigid world of entertainment too, but there's no Human Resources department to complain to and there's active pressure to not report things like this to other professionals or managers or venues because CK brings in money and has tons of industry connections.

The several things that have been brought to the public attention are really bad. They're not as bad as what Weinstein did, but they're still bad enough to get significant pushback from society and to get some level of recompense for the people he hurt for years. He hasn't really given that recompense and he's now doing shows in a way that suggests that he doesn't care about people who are hurt by the incomprehensible and damaging acts of others.

Sorry, I missed your reply initially.

You're right of course. Louis CKs actions were definitely inappropriate in a workplace and they should have repercussions professionally.

However, somewhere, in between that. I'm not sure Louis CK the stand up comedian has to change his art, for lack of a better word, because of sexual harassment issues. It's not like the guy has pretended to not be a weird pervert.

The guy still has a right to work for a living. Not that I think the guy is hurting for money.

I would prefer if he did a show that addressed the matter head on but on the other hand I imagine if he comes out a speaks about it and admits any details he opens himself up for lawsuits.