louis ck.

[PCinSD]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
Nice political threadjack. How do you not know, at this point, not to do this?

PSA for those recently joining us (if there are any such, these days): don’t inject lame partisan bickering into unrelated topics. It’s obnoxious and everyone hates it. EVERYONE HATES IT.[/quote]

You know damn well he’s aware of your “rule”. More importantly, he knows there are zero consequences to continuing to thumb his nose at your rules. Sad, but true.

[zk]

Back to the subject of sexual misconduct.

Scenario:

You’re a guy like, say, Matt Lauer. You’re rich, famous, and good-looking. There are a lot of women out there who want to have sex with you. Even sex with no strings. And, of course, a lot who don’t.

And you’re also in a position of power. You can make or break careers.

Are you required to never approach a woman at work regarding sex? Are you required never to approach any woman in your entire field? It seems any approach would put the woman in a position that so many women have found themselves in. They think (some of them correctly) that refusing could hurt their careers. So they say yes, even though they don’t want to.

What if a woman is giving you “the signals?” Signals, Jerry, signals!! What if she’s got the semaphore flags out, with her arms fully extended and waving fiercely, flags making all kinds of noise as she flaps them around, and a look on her face that says, “look! I’m right here! I’m waving these flags at you!” You can’t act on that without risking your own career. You could say, “it appears you want to have sex with me. Is that correct?” Even if you say that (and on the off chance it doesn’t kill the mood), you’re still the one bringing it up and asking the woman to have sex (presumably asking, if she says that you are correct). What if she’s giving more subtle signals? You sure as hell don’t want to screw with that. What if she walks right up to you, unbeckoned, and says, “I want to have sex with you right now in that storeroom right there?”

While never approaching a woman regarding sex in this scenario might be a wise policy, should it really be required? Is there a way to approach a woman in that situation without putting her in a position that you shouldn’t put her in? I mean, even if you say, “yes, I’m Matt Lauer. I can make or break your career. But I won’t. A “no” from you won’t be a problem for you.” Even if you say something like that, there’s a chance they’ll feel pressured anyway.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know the answers to most of your questions.

The human courtship and mating process is infinitely complicated.

But I do know that every adult man is required not to hit on middle-school girls at the local shopping mall.

[FlyerInHi]

Matt Lauer is not goodlooking. Just average. Below average if he weren’t rich. Garrison Keillor is downright ugly. I can see them using power in different forms for sex.

I think it’s pretty easy to tell sexual harassment. Don’t have sex with people you supervise. In the military they have non fraternization rules which they may not enforce. The policies make sense to me.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
I think it’s pretty easy to tell sexual harassment. Don’t have sex with people you supervise. [/quote]

Your interpretation of sexual harassment is comically narrow. Many men have had their careers go to their doom because of, and many women have been damaged by, behavior that isn’t even close to your definition of harassment.

[spdrun]

Nothing is simple and black and white…

There could easily be consent between co-workers. I know a few couples who met at work and ended up married. Even if one is a supervisor and one isn’t. There isn’t necessarily coercion — it really depends how much each of them actually needs the job, what other options they have(*), how much they care about “career.”

(*) – depending on circumstances, the supervisor could actually have fewer options than the subordinate.

Is dating at work always bad? No.
Should employers prohibit it, butting into private lives? No.
Should everyone respect consent? Yes.

[FlyerInHi]

Zk, I have known many men who use money and power for sex. That’s sexual harassment or coercion. They don’t have good social skills so they compensate.

Just because a woman is seductive or flirtatious doesn’t mean she wants sex. And why can a man not resist? There are so many other choices, why risk sex with someone in the company/enterprise? I also think your questions make you old fashioned. You imply that women can be distracting and tempting and men cannot resist. Like if a woman is wearing a mini skirt, she’s giving the signals.

We are entering a world where men are losing social power and that’s a good thing. Men will no longer have to stress about being the providers. Let the women carry 1/2 the load and have the roles be equal. And the pay equal too.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Just because a woman is seductive or flirtatious doesn’t mean she wants sex.
[/quote]

I didn’t say it did. There are all different kinds of signals a person can give. Flirtatious, seductive, and “I want sex” are three different signals. And of course there are a million shades of gray within and between all these signals. And the same type of signals from one woman might mean something different from what they mean coming from another woman. That’s why I went on about the semaphore flags. To make it clear that I was talking about an unusually clear, unambiguous, overt set of signals, and not flirtation or a generally seductive demeanor.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
And why can a man not resist? There are so many other choices, why risk sex with someone in the company/enterprise?
[/quote]
That misses the point. A man can (should be able to, usually is able to) resist. But should he be required to? Most people spend a very large percentage of their time around people who are in the same field as them. So a man in power is required to avoid advances toward any woman in his field? That’s not a small thing.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
I also think your questions make you old fashioned. You imply that women can be distracting and tempting and men cannot resist.
[/quote]
I imply no such thing. I’m asking if they should be required to resist or risk their career.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
Like if a woman is wearing a mini skirt, she’s giving the signals.
[/quote]
Again, there are many different signals. And wearing a mini skirt is not an “I want to have sex” signal. It’s not much of a signal at all, really.

[scaredyclassic]

approximately 70% of mens waking thoughts are about fucking.

men are pigs.

until society is able to talk openly about the intense, everpresent nature ofmale horniness, we will all pretend that reality is not reality.

i never suffered as bad from this myself due to lowish testosterone. but im an outlier.

but it is literally not possible for any normal man to meet any woman and not picture in his mind fucking her within 30 seconds.

[scaredyclassic]

….

[zk]

[quote=spdrun]
Nothing is simple and black and white…

There could easily be consent between co-workers.
[/quote]
Well, of course. No one is saying there couldn’t.

[quote=spdrun]

I know a few couples who met at work and ended up married. Even if one is a supervisor and one isn’t.
[/quote]
Well, sure. But if the supervisor is a man, and the subordinate is a woman, and he initiated the relationship, he was taking a chance when he made his first move. Where I work, you would lose your supervisor job if you did that. And even in workplaces where it’s not strictly prohibited, it’s taking a chance. Now more than ever.
[quote=spdrun]

There isn’t necessarily coercion — it really depends how much each of them actually needs the job, what other options they have(*), how much they care about “career.”
[/quote]

Well, the key word there is “necessarily.” Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes it isn’t meant to be, but it is received that way. So, all your protestations aside, my question remains unanswered.

Should a man in power be required to avoid any advances toward any woman in his field in order to not risk his career?

[quote=spdrun]

Is dating at work always bad? No.
Should employers prohibit it, butting into private lives? No.
Should everyone respect consent? Yes.

[/quote]

Well, those are all the easy questions and answers.

Let me ask you this, spdrun: How would you paint a scenario where a man who is very powerful in his field, who has the power to help or hurt the careers of the women in that field, makes a sexual advance toward a woman in his field without risking his career?

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]approximately 70% of mens waking thoughts are about fucking.

men are pigs.

until society is able to talk openly about the intense, everpresent nature ofmale horniness, we will all pretend that reality is not reality.

i never suffered as bad from this myself due to lowish testosterone. but im an outlier.

but it is literally not possible for any normal man to meet any woman and not picture in his mind fucking her within 30 seconds.[/quote]

With this I could not agree more.

I’m not an outlier. And it’s hard.

Louis C.K. put it best. Of a typical woman he said, “you get to have these thoughts. I have to.” And, “You’re a tourist in sexual perversion. I’m a prisoner there.”

I really don’t think most women understand how constantly we have to fight off these thoughts. Louis exaggerates the type of thoughts for effect (well, they’re more exaggerated than mine, anyway), but not the constantness.

I’m with scaredy. Men, in general, are obsessed with sex. It’s our nature. It’s a lot of hard work for us to stay focused on non-sex things. And until society accepts that this is the case and decides to deal with reality, we’ll be trying to deal with an important issue from a false position. And that never really works.

[spdrun]

zk – men (or women, or anyone) should certainly NOT be required to avoid any advances or personal relationships with others in their field(*), though they should be required to observe rules of reasonable politeness and decorum. People with the same interests tend to date, have sex, and occasionally even get married. Deal with it.

American society is way too Puritanical about the whole thing. And the Puritanism coming from the left is as bad as that coming from the right.

(*) – same field is insane. That would mean that two lawyers or architects couldn’t date, even if working for different companies. But I don’t have a problem with dating even in the same company — what goes on outside of working hours is none of HR’s business. (And, in fact, dating policies have been ruled as illegal as a violation of privacy rights.)

[zk]

[quote=spdrun]
People with the same interests tend to date, have sex, and occasionally even get married. Deal with it.
[/quote]
Perhaps I’ve been too cautious with my tone and too slow to get to my actual point. You say “deal with it” as though my problem is with people having sex and getting married. My problem is that people can’t have sex in some situations where maybe they should be able to.

[quote=spdrun]
American society is way too Puritanical about the whole thing. And the Puritanism coming from the left is as bad as that coming from the right.
[/quote]
I agree. And, in fact, the very point I’m trying to make is something similar to that. I don’t think puritanicalness is the problem so much as unreasonableness. I was trying to get to that point through discussion. What happened to Garrison Keillor is ridiculous (if his side of the story is true). And I think Al Franken got the shaft, too. Of course, what Harvey Weinstein did was terrible, and he deserves what he’s getting. My point (and I admit I was taking too long to get to it) is that all of a sudden we’re not even looking at the situation any more. If a woman says, “a man did this to me and I didn’t like it,” the man is immediately and completely guilty in the eyes of society, and receives severe repercussions. Granted, it has been almost the opposite for… forever. But this pendulum, even more violently than society’s pendulum generally tends to, has swing way past “reasonable.” All of a sudden what Al Franken did is as bad as what Harvey Weinstein did. That’s not reasonable. All of a sudden, if, as a man of power, you make any sexual advance toward a woman in your field, your career seems to be in danger. I’m questioning whether that’s reasonable.

[quote=spdrun]

(*) – same field is insane. That would mean that two lawyers or architects couldn’t date, even if working for different companies. But I don’t have a problem with dating even in the same company — what goes on outside of working hours is none of HR’s business. (And, in fact, dating policies have been ruled as illegal as a violation of privacy rights.)
[/quote]
Again, I’ve been unclear. I’m not questioning whether HR should police these things (when outside of work). I’m asking whether or how much society should. Louis CK and no doubt many others have lost their careers due to situations that didn’t happen necessarily happen within their companies.

[spdrun]

Outside of work, it should be none of society’s business, unless there’s some form of quid-pro-quo or physical coercion involved.

[Author]

Posts