Red Mosquito

I don't know where his behavior falls on the spectrum between unequivocally illegal and unequivocally legal. Besides, that answer probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

But I will say that none of the behaviors you listed above are equivalent to Louis CK's actions or even each other.

What makes these disgusting behaviors equal, in my book, is they are done by consenting adults. You should be able to freely do disgusting things as long as you're not harming anyone else. If you want to watch some one jerk off or pee on someone's butt, even if you claim it's to get a leg up on the competition, that's on you.

Maybe our disagreement has to do with our definition of consent.

Consent requires active, conscious, continuous, and freely given agreement by all parties enraging in sexual activity.

Employees who may consider their financial well-being tied to their participation in some sexual activity are not freely giving consent.

(NOTE: I stole that definition of consent from Peggy Orenstein's book, Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity.)

I agree with the definition, but not this statement, which isn't part of the definition:

Employees who may consider their financial well-being tied to their participation in some sexual activity are not freely giving consent.

They are freely giving consent, in fact. Think of a prostitute, are they also not giving consent for sex? Also, there is no way of knowing Louis demanded their participation or else he'd take away a job.

tree_ wrote:I agree with the definition, but not this statement, which isn't part of the definition:

Employees who may consider their financial well-being tied to their participation in some sexual activity are not freely giving consent.

They are freely giving consent, in fact. Think of a prostitute, are they also not giving consent for sex? Also, there is no way of knowing Louis demanded their participation or else he'd take away a job.

There's a reason prostitution is only legal in one state.

An employer's control over an employee's well-being is implied. It's there whether stated or not.

B wrote:Maybe our disagreement has to do with our definition of consent.

That and animal participation.

wease wrote:

B wrote:Maybe our disagreement has to do with our definition of consent.

That and animal participation.

Well, I'd prefer to keep my argument in human on human interactions. I'll let Sarge debate interspecies consent ethical matters.

B wrote:

tree_ wrote:I agree with the definition, but not this statement, which isn't part of the definition:

Employees who may consider their financial well-being tied to their participation in some sexual activity are not freely giving consent.

They are freely giving consent, in fact. Think of a prostitute, are they also not giving consent for sex? Also, there is no way of knowing Louis demanded their participation or else he'd take away a job.

There's a reason prostitution is only legal in one state.

An employer's control over an employee's well-being is implied. It's there whether stated or not.

Well, I disagree with prostitution being illegal too. People should be able to make their own decisions, so long as it is not harming anyone. Also, when people are caught having had sex with a prostitute, are they shunned the way Louis was? I'm just trying to shine a light on hypocrisy and double standards is all. I'm sure bosses ask subordinates to do inappropriate things all the time and the employee says no that's stupid and everyone carries on.

I just don't understand why sex acts between consenting adults should ever be taboo, boss or no boss, rock star or celebrity, etc... What makes sex special? What if the boss is asking the employee to do even more demeaning tasks? I'm sure of which there are many many examples. The employee always has the right to walk away, unless of course they're being physically forced.

It’s not a black and white situation. There are many, many levels of psychology and nuance at work in any number of those situations.

Which is why it's unfair to shun and judge Louis with such little information

tree_ wrote:I just don't understand why sex acts between consenting adults should ever be taboo, boss or no boss, rock star or celebrity, etc... What makes sex special? What if the boss is asking the employee to do even more demeaning tasks? I'm sure of which there are many many examples. The employee always has the right to walk away, unless of course they're being physically forced.

Some people can't just walk away tree. They need their jobs. And other than prostitution, sex should never be part of the boss/ subordinate equation. It's put unfair pressure on the subordinate to submit to keep their job.

I went back and revisited the claims against him and it does sound like at least one involved him not allowing two women to leave when they expressed the desire to do so, blocking the door with his body. So yeah, that's fucked up and as far as I'm concerned does equal sexual assault. Apologies for not having my facts straight earlier in the thread.

doone wrote:sex should never be part of the boss/ subordinate equation

There are too many examples of sex between bosses and subordinates being massively beneficial or harmless for the subordinate for this to ever be a hard rule. As if you can stop people from fucking anyway. It's the kind of thing that should be taken on a case by case basis, or not worried about at all.

Hahaha this thread sucks just as much as I thought it would.

Mickey wrote:Hahaha this thread sucks just as much as I thought it would.

People shouldn't even have bosses!

Can someone catch me up on how bestiality was brought into this conversation?

tree says dogs consent to watching people masturbate bc they don’t have opposable thumbs too open doors to leave.

Who masturbates in front of their pets? They know what you're doing and they think it's disgusting, you dirty pervs.