My Theory About Why Feminism is Currently Irrelevent to Millenials

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this is all fake news. First "many" there are only 5 women that have come out and all of them gave him consent.

second none of them were co workers they were going to his room and he was flirting with them, that's why they went there.

third he did NOT show his privates to anyone who didnt say yes. What part of GETTING CONSENT is the problem here? GET CONSENT, STILL LOSE YOUR JOB?!?! what the hell is the matter with libtards these days?!

If they went there, thinking they could promote their carrier by asking for his help, or if they felt that if they said no to him, he would actively try to destroy their carrier, that is ALL on them. First they shouldn't be hanging out with someone only to further their own professional interests. Second if they think he 'might' harm their carrier by saying no, they didnt give him the opportunity to not do that, so its a fantasy they are creating. and third, they were all hanging out with him at comedy clubs and drinking and flirting afterhours so its a perfectly find place for someone to engage in flirtatious sexual activity by ASKING FOR CONSENT.

What you are saying is that if someone has the same carrier as you, you cannot partake in any sexual discussion without certified legal written consent.

Its absurd.

Lor, please stop reading and regurgitating fake lies about someone while you continue to shame them for things they didnt do that the lies convinced you he did.

1. extracting and stimulating genitals in ordinary conversation is unusual and may be considered offensive by some.

2. asking for consent in sexual encounters is unusual.

3. opening sexual encounters by combining 1 & 2 is unusual and likely to cause offense.


Yeah, he didn't touch them and he asked permission, but the behavior is just out there and not likely acceptable to most people. And can toooootally be perceived as threatening, especially if you are smaller and/or passive/submissive. i strongly doubt he was blushing or smiling shyly as he did it either.

LCK brandished his penis menacingly at a number of women and is now paying the price for his unsolicited enthusiasm.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

he would actively try to destroy their carrier

Sorry that typo was too amusing not to highlight (I have images of LCK in a bomber attacking either an aircraft carrier or a mobile phone company now).

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If they went there, thinking they could promote their carrier by asking for his help, or if they felt that if they said no to him, he would actively try to destroy their carrier, that is ALL on them. First they shouldn't be hanging out with someone only to further their own professional interests. Second if they think he 'might' harm their carrier by saying no, they didnt give him the opportunity to not do that, so its a fantasy they are creating. and third, they were all hanging out with him at comedy clubs and drinking and flirting afterhours so its a perfectly find place for someone to engage in flirtatious sexual activity by ASKING FOR CONSENT.

Blaming the victim is an essential part of human nature: it's hard-wired in to us. If we hear that something bad happened to someone it causes us stress, because we think "that bad thing could happen to me!" But our brains don't like feeling that way, so they find ways to not have to worry. If you think "well that person did something to deserve whatever horrible thing happened to them" then you can think "well I wouldn't do that thing they did, so I don't have to worry" ... and you don't have to do something painful like empathize with the victim and imagine the horrifying experience they had.

... but it's wrong. The victim is the victim, and they've been wronged by someone. Whipping out your dick in front of your co-workers when they've "shown absolutely no sexual interest in you, like if she’s just walked into your room with her winter coat and a friend—" is wrong. It's not the victim's fault that LCK whipped out his dick, it's LCK's: it's that simple.

[Jimjam]

Words are the last thing i want to put in to your mouth, MM, but the reductio ad absurdium there is that men are fuck boys to be used at a womans whim, otherwise no one would ever makies the babies.

 

I'm aware of logical phalluses

[Lulz~Sect]

every woman that ever came and partied with us in our hotel room post 4AM knew what was up and DTF and i'm not even famous

jus sayin

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this is all fake news. First "many" there are only 5 women that have come out and all of them gave him consent.

second none of them were co workers they were going to his room and he was flirting with them, that's why they went there.

third he did NOT show his privates to anyone who didnt say yes. What part of GETTING CONSENT is the problem here? GET CONSENT, STILL LOSE YOUR JOB?!?! what the hell is the matter with libtards these days?!

If they went there, thinking they could promote their carrier by asking for his help, or if they felt that if they said no to him, he would actively try to destroy their carrier, that is ALL on them. First they shouldn't be hanging out with someone only to further their own professional interests. Second if they think he 'might' harm their carrier by saying no, they didnt give him the opportunity to not do that, so its a fantasy they are creating. and third, they were all hanging out with him at comedy clubs and drinking and flirting afterhours so its a perfectly find place for someone to engage in flirtatious sexual activity by ASKING FOR CONSENT.

What you are saying is that if someone has the same carrier as you, you cannot partake in any sexual discussion without certified legal written consent.

Its absurd.

Lor, please stop reading and regurgitating fake lies about someone while you continue to shame them for things they didnt do that the lies convinced you he did.

Feminism's problem with Louis C.K. is that he used career opportunity to leverage sex acts. Even though nothing illegal took place, there was a power imbalance caused by the status of Louis C.K. and the opportunity he represented for those young women.

Notice: none this actually has much to do with Men and Women. You have to abstract to a point where you say something like: "Men frequently do this specific thing and usually target women." But the actual problem with what is going on is entirely economic.

Young good looking people are approached for sex often. The implied exchange is career development for sex. Keep in mind -- lots of gay (or sometimes straight) men are approached for sex in exchange career potential...weird how all the sudden the exact same issue is completely different in the eyes of the feminist.

It's about class. And that class is economic class not a male/female dichotomy.

Now all that being said. It's BS that C.K is getting all the flak for something men have done for thousands of years -- like he's doing something uniquely bad that everyone agreed was wrong for a long time. But he's being a good sport about it.

Edit: All the effort and ideas around the concept of "protecting a girls reputation" BTW...are completely sex-negative slut shaming style statements. The idea that your reputation is now bad because you slept with Louis C.K. as a young comedian doesn't need to be encouraged by feminists IMO.

[Pokesan]

LCK is on record(repeatedly) as having a humiliation fetish. he's loving every second of this.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

LCK is on record(repeatedly) as having a humiliation fetish. he's loving every second of this.

I can imagine it now.

Hey lady, may I show you my penis so you can whistleblow me? That would be so hot.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's about class. And that class is economic class not a male/female dichotomy.

False. How many of these issues have you heard about with women as the antagonists? This is transparently, obviously, a male problem.

Now it's true that men can absolutely be a victim of this shit, but it's obviously on a different scale. Gay men are what, 10%? 15%? of the male population? That means women experience it 85% more (yes I know that's not technically correct, but I'm too lazy to do the proper math).

And I'm not saying that women don't have issues: they absolutely do. I'm just saying mass sexual harassment/assault isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now all that being said. It's BS that C.K is getting all the flak for something men have done for thousands of years -- like he's doing something uniquely bad that everyone agreed was wrong for a long time. But he's being a good sport about it.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This stuff has been wrong, in a legal sense, going back over 50 years: it's not like Weinstein and Louise CK thought what they were doing was acceptable and then "shit it's the 2000's, suddenly everything I thought was ok is illegal!" Admittedly those laws weren't enforced as strongly as they are now, but that doesn't mean it's ever been ok to break them.

But that being said, I have a certain degree of sympathy for this opinion, although I have it more for Al Franken than Louis CK. Not because he's a democrat (fuck that John Conyers guy), but because at worst he touched a few women inappropriately. That's 100% not ok and the dude deserves a whole lot of flak for it ... but people like him who just did something inappropriate for a few seconds are getting lumped in with people like Weinstein who not only did what Franken did about a thousand times, but also flat out raped women.

Same thing to a lesser extent for LCK: whipping out your dick is wrong, and I think it's wrong on a whole different level from briefly touching someone's private parts ... but it's also on a whole different level from rapists or mass offenders (as bad as LCK was he's only got what 5 accusers? compared to Weinstein's 500?).

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: All the effort and ideas around the concept of "protecting a girls reputation" BTW...are completely sex-negative slut shaming style statements.

Amen! Historically women were considered property, and the only way that property was worth anything was if a man could use it to get a child of their bloodline. Since they didn't have DNA testing the only way you could be "certain" that the kid was your's was to fuck a virgin (although we now know that the hymen doesn't actually work that way and that many/most women break it before their first intercourse).

If you don't believe women are property then you shouldn't shame them for having sex.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can imagine it now.

Hey lady, may I show you my penis so you can whistleblow me? That would be so hot.

I read somewhere that for exhibitionists it's all about getting the reaction from their victim, and that the worst thing you can do to them is completely ignore them and not react. Of course, even if you know that, most people aren't ok with men running around showing their penises in public places, so reaction is almost unavoidable

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Feminism's problem with Louis C.K. is that he used career opportunity to leverage sex acts. Even though nothing illegal took place, there was a power imbalance caused by the status of Louis C.K. and the opportunity he represented for those young women.

Notice: none this actually has much to do with Men and Women. You have to abstract to a point where you say something like: "Men frequently do this specific thing and usually target women." But the actual problem with what is going on is entirely economic.

Young good looking people are approached for sex often. The implied exchange is career development for sex. Keep in mind -- lots of gay (or sometimes straight) men are approached for sex in exchange career potential...weird how all the sudden the exact same issue is completely different in the eyes of the feminist.

It's about class. And that class is economic class not a male/female dichotomy.

Now all that being said. It's BS that C.K is getting all the flak for something men have done for thousands of years -- like he's doing something uniquely bad that everyone agreed was wrong for a long time. But he's being a good sport about it.

He never used career opportunity to leverage sex acts.

He simply used his appeal as a successful comedian to make himself more attractive to the opposite sex.

The reason there is outrage is because america is a prude nation and they do not approve of his kink.

They misinterpret this fear of sex, as him using his power to force women or coerce them into doing something they do not want to do.

But he always asked.

He always understood when they said no.

He gave them no pressure.

He literally behaved exactly the way anyone should ever hope anyone in a position of power should behave. The fembotts have been yelling about consent for years, now they get it, and they STILL blame the white male.

The victims are to blame here. (IMPORTANT NOTE: THEY WERE NOT VICTIMS)

You simply cannot blame LCK for using his attractive qualities, his success, to cloud the fact that he is a fat bald guy, to look attractive to the opposite sex.

What we are saying when we say LCK is in the wrong is:

1. deviant sexual behavior is unacceptable.
2. that handsome men can hit on women, but ugly men cannot even use their success in their field of work to look attractive towards women.

The simple fact is, he used nothing but his qualities as a human, to behave as one. He did not drug them, they were not minors, they simply were also comedians. Comedy is a field where nepotism does not exist by the way.

You cannot ask for more appropriate behavior. LCK was not their boss, LCK was not an icon, LCK was just a man they admired because as a comedian, he was a good one.

But fuck the guy who is attractive because of his mind right? If he had a sexy body, then it'd be ok for him to use his blessings to get women to have sex with him.