The Shrine

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on most of this. I have shared some of these opinions before and have found it to be quite unpopular - so I expect some argument here

Just so we're aware. There's been a lot of blacklisting and people calling for charges against a large number of people.

And I haven't put a great deal of research into the subject, I don't know all of the details, or even all of the people accused, or everything that people are calling for - charges they face. So these are just loose thoughts attached to opinions:

1. Some of these are silly, yes, it may be offensive - but by lumping in so many things like sexual assault, it lessens the overall impact of actual sexual assault.

2. Sexual coercion in a non-government work environment should not be tolerated. But it also shouldn't be viewed as a sex crime, preferably as a coercion-related crime - that means I believe that a person in a position of authority who attempts to coerce an employee that way - it sacrifices his/her jurisdiction as an employer. The employer should have to pay out the ass if they choose to fire the employee after that. They should be forced to pay some amount of money and benefits covering a lengthy period of time, and this should include pay-raise trajectory. If the employee sticks around, the employer should have to be forced to walk on eggshells around them, in any and all situations (not enough pay raise, etc.) the employee should be given the benefit of the doubt and be able to sue for it. If the employee feels forced to quit for any reason, again, they should be entitled to an enormous severance package.

3. Louis CK, he masturbated in front of grown women. Gross and offensive, but he in no way assaulted anything except their sensibilities - they have the right to be offended, their husbands and fans have the right to be offended - but blacklisting and potentially charging Louis CK is unfair; he didn't assault anyone, he only shamed himself. Let others decide if they feel he is fit/unfit to work with or entertain them.

4. Andy Dick, a lot of people already hate this guy for his weird perverseness, but again, calls that he be charged with sexual assault for licking someone seem grossly excessive. He acted inappropriately, and it is up to his own studio to fire him or not. I don't think this is a sexual predatory act, just a weird/disgusting one. He shouldn't have been released from projects that had nothing to do with these incidents; I think he should be able to sue them since he did nothing wrong as an employee.

5. In government-related positions, I think the rules should be a little stricter. I think the government should have very high standards for a code of conduct. Any of these guys should be fired/blacklisted from government work... if they had been employed by the government - but they weren't.

6. Public urination/indecent exposure - unless people are doing it to try and entice minors, these sorts of laws are stupid. Let people walk around naked, let people fuck in the park - as long as they don't leave behind any bodily fluids it's all good; and even then, charge them for that, not sexual assault or some other kind of bullshit.

Pretty much in agreement. I understand the need to address these issues but I think some people are going overboard. A lot of this is driven by anti-Trump fever. There's an attempt to delete any Trump-like males from public life since Trump is currently untouchable. Weinstein is scum & deserves to go. Whereas others? There's a scale of behavior, with lots of gray areas but some people are trying to make it black-and-white. It's not "You either are a sex-offender or not". There's a huge difference between drugged-date-rape Bill Cosby & Jerk-off Louis CK. Al Franken certainly was a jerk but a sex offender? Not so much.

Also, read up on the ridiculousness surrounding Garrison Keillor who's been fired from basically everything he had going because a woman at his office complained about him putting his hand on her bare back. Not a fan of the guy but he didn't deserve that. She said no, he stopped, apologized multiple times & she faced no consequences for turning him down.

I'm a little late in posting this. But it's good that there are people out there in positions of influence that are responsible for how this situation is handled.

Aziz Ansari got accused of sexual assault. The woman anonymously posted the letter and essentially described that she didn't want to have sex with him, but was co-operating with him all the way through until she finally said "I don't want to do this," and Ansari answered "OK." and then they stopped.

Essentially a woman who "#MeToo" when she didn't actually get sexually assaulted like the other women.

Ashleigh Banfield, who had formerly been locked in a closet (MSNBC put her in a closet and didn't allow her to report, and wouldn't sign her release forms) as a result of her criticism of the Iraq war coverage. She criticized the nationalistic angle the news stations took (as opposed to an objective angle). She also criticized the lack of journalistic work in regards to the horrors and devastation that resulted from the war.
That's why it's more impressive (IMO) that after spending over a decade rebuilding her career she sticks her neck out and SLAMS the Ansari accuser. The second video comes later, after a very weak (and insult filled) response from the editor who posted the article.


If only there were more Ashleigh Banfields in the media.
I honestly had only heard of her name before this, I didn't know who she was. But I don't really pay attention to the news.

There are a ton of points that really go against Aziz Ansari's accuser and it was the first story to come out of #metoo where I came out supporting the accused more than the accuser in my head (professional and legal ramifications are of course another matter). While I do think that it would be a good thing for men to bone up (sorry) on social/non-verbal/body language clues, I don't think that Ansari deserves a lot of backlash over this. The entire philosophy behind "Yes means yes" (which is what the accuser seems to be implying is necessary) puts consent in a murky territory where it feels like men have to perfectly pick up on non-verbal clues (I'm sorry but even women find this to literally be impossible) or constantly ask if what they are doing is okay. It also reminds men of the feeling that it seems as if consent can be taken away in retrospect and who doesn't find that absolutely terrifying (not including drugging and such as obviously that consent is bullshit)?

I'm sure there's more. I don't think the media should label Andy Dick and Louis CK's actions as sexual assault either; they didn't sexually assault anyone.

The whole concept of #MeToo is a necessary development for the safety of women in toxic work environments. There's such a thing as abuse: whether for revenge, attention, or to treat it as a social media bandwagon and make themselves into victims (when they're not). Expanding #MeToo to be about behaviours that aren't sexual assault, and staking these other guys up in the media fire-pit with Cosby/Weinstein, destroys the original intent of #MeToo, and replaces it with a form of New Age Puritanism. It's the slippery slope that goes against the sexual revolution.

As for Garrison Keillor, his employer has now revealed that there was far more to the story that the single isolated incident & that they have a 12-page report documenting multiple incidents of sexual harassment by him over the years (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... bare-back/). That sounds like a much more valid reason to fire someone.

Each case is different. Louis CK was pathetic & gross but assault? He asked the women for consent & they could have left the room. Sure there was a power dynamic... it's complicated.

Aziz Ansari? He was a pushy jerk but I think he just misread the situation. The women was pursuing him at a party, he read that as she wanted to hook up with a celebrity. She apparently wanted to date him. There was no professional power dynamic at play here, just her feeling awkward. But hey, when she said no, he left her alone & didn't force himself on her.

...and I will conveniently edit my above post to kick off Garrison =P

On the whole Louis CK, power dynamic thing. What are your thoughts on treating it as a sexual crime as opposed to a potential corruption scandal?

I don't know his level of power there - but let's say he's a bigwig. Is this a sex crime? Or is it an issue with using influence to create a favourable outcome? Or does it become a sex crime because the power dynamic exists (even though they're all adults)?.

With CK's story, it sounded like he gave them every opportunity to say no, but then they thought he was just joking and that's where things got out of hand according to them (the two women). He didn't touch them, as far as I know. There is one accusation that he jacked off on the phone while talking to someone (without asking) - and while gross, it's not assault. At best a mild argument for indecent exposure.

Anyway, long question, what are your thoughts?

Louie CK's statement didn't involve saying sorry (Al Franken to my knowledge is the only one who did) and it mentioned how the women admired him four times. Probably the second worst statement so far after Kevin Spacey (although obviously Spacey's was far worse), but at least he didn't claim not to remember the events like a great deal of the statements.

I don't really have an opinion how it should change things with his career. It's up to the women to decide how it could have fucked with their careers and it's up to the industry to decide how it should change things for him. If people and companies don't want to work with him then that's his own fault. His manager claims he didn't know the entirety of the story when he confronted them, but intentions aside the outcome was pretty gross in that it further intimidated them.

Marc Marron aptly said something along the lines of how he didn't know the names of the women so took the rumors to be lies, especially since that's what Louis CK said they were. If anyone did know these women were the ones accusing him, they also would have probably seen it as a lie. No one would want to work with a liar of this sort. Laurie Kilmartin wrote a NY Times op-ed where she said if Louis CK had committed this act against her and she had merely just wanted to avoid him in comedy clubs and jobs for the rest of her life that that would have also had a very detrimental effect on her career.

So while I find the degree of backlash deserved debatable, I 100% don't back him in my head.

Short response: This is the latest fad of pearl clutchers that tends to bubble to the surface every 10-15 years. And as usual, society will over compensate until rational thinkers regain the balance.

Unless it involves a crime (ie. Spacey, Cosby), I'm not particularly concerned what two adults do. Sex in the workplace is a dumb idea (see O'Reilly) because of a potential power dynamic that is coercive. But when that power (and money and fame) is not inherently coercive and unavoidable (Louis CK, Franco) - it's not an issue.

What Kali said for the most part.