|>> || |
And yet in most of these cases, that's precisely what happened. The women consent and then retroactively decided they didn't (or couldn't).
>These actions didn't happen in the midst of a sexual relationship
No shit, Louis made them into a sexual relationships when he asked if they wanted to watch him jerk off and they said "Sure".
How often does any relationship start off as being purely sexual? I know it's 2017, we live in the era of Tindr and casual hooks up, but I feel like most people are still meeting each other as friends or co-workers before developing into sexual relationships. In the case of Louie, first they were friends and co-workers, then they become sexual relationships because Louie initiated sexual activity and they consented to it.
God only knows how many of you schmucks wouldn't be angrily tapping away at your keyboards if workplace rules for fraternization were upheld. People meet, people like each other, people fuck. So is life.
>your analogy with your wife doesn't apply.
And why the fuck not, besides you just saying "does not apply"? Seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially amidst the common talking point of "Sexual abuse isn't about sex, it's about power." Yes, in the midst of these allegations, a lot of people have expressed the idea that sexual abuse has nothing to do with sex, it's just about the desire to hold power over others. I completely fucking disagree, but nonetheless, it aids my point — if the common thread is a desire for power, then why aren't sexual favors and breakfast one in the same?
>To dumb it down a bit, instead imagine if you and your wife were virtual strangers to one another but worked at the same company.
lol, CHRIST! You sit here and try to tell me that I'm wrong to talk about a doting wife who cooks breakfast and has detached sex, because the two are not comparable, and then proceed to pull this out of your ass.
Were the people Louie masturbated to "virtual strangers"? NO THEY WEREN'T. So you can stop right there — but you don't, your proceed to write a dozen more sentences, presumably under this false premise, so I'm gonna cut it short right here.
If society intends to run with this Louie CK thing, then it's going to have far-reaching implications. The very idea behind it is that if you love someone, you can't consent to anything they ask you to do, because "love" has blinded you and turned you into a spineless, unintelligent child. Never ask anything of a person who loves you, because they don't have the will to deny you.
The thing is... It's not wrong. It's true, love is a weakness of the mind, and to quote a book, "Every relationship is a power struggle, and the individual who holds the power is whoever likes the other person less."
I guess what I find appalling about this situation is how the "victims" speak with transcendence — as though they're perfect and they've never held power over others and used it in such a way as to personally benefit. I mean, arguably, that's what a good chunk of these allegations are — just a bunch of people with dirty secrets, speaking up for 15 minutes of fame or to revitalize their careers. What I would give to put all their ex-boyfriends in the same room and give them a platform to talk about the negatives of their relationship with so and so. In essence, I feel like we're all guilty of these things in one way or another and I really don't jive with some people throwing stones when they're just as much at fault.
What does a relationship without power dynamics even look like? Am I wrong if I want a wife who does things for me? Am I an exploited slave if I do thing I don't want to do out of love? I consent to doing those things, not because I specifically want to do them, but because I want the other person to be happy.