Louis CK responds to allegations

[PedroDaGr8]

Louis CK just released this statement:

I want to address the stories told to the New York Times by five women named Abby, Rebecca, Dana, Julia who felt able to name themselves and one who did not.

These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It's a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

I have been remorseful of my actions. And I've tried to learn from them. And run from them. Now I'm aware of the extent of the impact of my actions. I learned yesterday the extent to which I left these women who admired me feeling badly about themselves and cautious around other men who would never have put them in that position.

I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn't want to hear it. I didn't think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it.

There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with.

I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man and given them some guidance as a comedian, including because I admired their work.

The hardest regret to live with is what you've done to hurt someone else. And I can hardly wrap my head around the scope of hurt I brought on them. I'd be remiss to exclude the hurt that I've brought on people who I work with and have worked with who's [sic] professional and personal lives have been impacted by all of this, including projects currently in production: the cast and crew of 'Better Things,' 'Baskets,' 'The Cops,' 'One Mississippi,' and 'I Love You Daddy.' I deeply regret that this has brought negative attention to my manager Dave Becky who only tried to mediate a situation that I caused. I've brought anguish and hardship to the people at FX who have given me so much The Orchard who took a chance on my movie and every other entity that has bet on me through the years.

I've brought pain to my family, my friends, my children and their mother. I have spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything I want. I will now step back and take a long time to listen.

Thank you for reading.

THAT is probably the most heartfelt and honest apology I have ever read. He owns it, explains his actions but doesn't excuse them, accepts the damage it caused and doesn't try to paint himself in a better light.

[suncat05]

Bill Clinton should take a hint. And that arrogant prick Weinstein. And Weiner and his wayward weiner.

But they won't.

[MickintheHam]

It is a good apology and better than many. He does not say what he will do the next time or offer atonement. That would have made the complete apology. In an era where men in particular don’t know how to apologize, this effort is outstanding.

[CitizenBBN]

Have to admit, it's at least a very different approach than the blubbering apologies and the "i'm going to get help for 3 weeks in a really expensive retreat with a tennis court and indoor pool then I'll be all better, so we're OK, right" type apologies.

[CitizenBBN]

NOTE, I am in NO WAY condoning his behavior, I find it shocking and disturbing at a minimum, but IMO this case is unique compared to obvious criminals and abusers like Weinstein b/c to my knowledge he never touched anyone or forced anyone into anything, at least not overtly.

That is to say, his behavior is far more confusing, gray, and thus interesting to me from a discussion perspective. There's nothing to talk about with Weinstein, he's a possible rapist (using physical force for sexual acts) and almost certainly a man who used his direct power over people to elicit sex. But Louis CK is somewhat different.

He says he never showed his **** to anyone without asking permission. that statement alone is confusing, funny, sad and just messed up all at the same time. How does that work, "excuse me Miss Perkins, would you care to see my schlong today?" Based on reports that pretty close exactly what he would do btw.

But then he says his "power" over them was that they "admired him". So are we talking about people in his employ or groupies who got into his dressing room?

If we're talking about the latter, then he's probably a cad, but is he an abuser? is it a crime? Is there a right to not have to deal with that kind of crudeness and crassness, even the proposition of it?

In one case, where the ladies felt their career path was tied to it, maybe that's a good debate to have. They could have up and walked out, he in no way touched or restrained them. Everyone seems to agree he at least sortof asked if he could do what he did in front of them, and understandably stunned the women didn't answer at all, then he did it.

Now that's disturbing, and he and everyone agrees he has "issues", but is it criminal? Is it abuse? Can it be one but not the other, or both?

Now, let's look at a more gray area IMO. This is from the Times story on him:

Ms. Corry, a comedian, writer and actress, has long felt haunted by her run-in with Louis C.K. In 2005, she was working as a performer and producer on a television pilot — a big step in her career — when Louis C.K., a guest star, approached her as she was walking to the set. “He leaned close to my face and said, ‘Can I ask you something?’ I said, ‘Yes,’” Ms. Corry said in a written statement to The New York Times. “He asked if we could go to my dressing room so he could masturbate in front of me.” Stunned and angry, Ms. Corry said she declined, and pointed out that he had a daughter and a pregnant wife. “His face got red,” she recalled, “and he told me he had issues.”

Word quickly reached the show’s executive producers, Courteney Cox and David Arquette, who both confirmed the incident. “What happened to Rebecca on that set was awful,” Ms. Cox said in an email, adding that she felt “outrage and shock.”

“My concern was to create an environment where Rebecca felt safe, protected and heard,” she said. They discussed curtailing the production. Ms. Corry decided to continue with the show.

“Things were going well for me,” Ms. Corry said in the statement, “and I had no interest in being the person who shut down a production.”



OK, now that's crass and awful, and I'd never condone it, and if someone did it to my wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter etc. I'd beat the snot out of them on the spot.

But is that abuse? I've been out in towns where random homeless type people have said and done worse things, should they be arrested for yelling out something obscene at a woman? I've seen it happen, had to be talked out of beating them to crap too. But is that abuse?

or is that just a bad thing that happens to people, both male and female, from time to time? I've had some very uncomfortable events in my life, none of them involving quite that scenario, but I'm sure they've happened to us all at one time or another.

I'm not taking up for him, I find the behavior abhorrent, but is there a right to not be crudely propositioned by someone who isn't in a position of authority over you or is that just a part of getting through life dealing with the occasional a-hole or mental defect?

I think we all agree it never SHOULD happen, but when it does, is it abuse or a crime or something else?

In short, is there a right now in this country to be spared words that make you feel bad? Is it a form of actual abuse to proposition a woman in a crude manner, or hurl a racial or non-racial insult at someone that really hurts their feelings?

If this was a dwarf and he was insulted for his size, or a fat person who was insulted deeply by someone over their weight, is that abuse? Is it criminal level of abuse?

To me the cases around Louis CK are somewhat different from the classic moral bankruptcy of the Hollywood casting couch, where sex is expected to be traded for career advancement. he propositioned people who weren't that tied to him, and he wasn't physical with anyone, but was crude and perverted.

So, can speech be an abuse? Be a crime? Even speech we all agree is offensive and hurtful and even leads to anguish? If so, what does that mean for us long term?

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, and btw, in the old days gone by, these things were settled by people just beating the crap out of someone once in a while. It never made it to a court or police officer. Which is an interesting historic morality to juxtapose against this debate over whether speech is a form of violence. In the old days it wasn't considered violent itself, but it was justifiable to use violence to punish it in some cases. That is interesting in and of itself too IMO.

[badrose]

What about Darrel's streaking? Where does that fall on the scale?

[CitizenBBN]

What about Darrel's streaking? Where does that fall on the scale?

lol. It's a question though. Heck last week some messed up guy was walking down the street over around New Circle with his junk hanging out, pants around his knees. Cops of course corralled him.

That's not the same as this of course, but it was certainly offensive and indecent exposure. Is that the legal category for Louis CK's actions or is it something more? Feels like more in some ways, but if so what is it?

Just thought his situation was more interesting for a discussion. I don't think there's any debate guys like Weinstein and Polanski should be in a courtroom and subsequently in prison.

[PedroDaGr8]

NOTE, I am in NO WAY condoning his behavior, I find it shocking and disturbing at a minimum, but IMO this case is unique compared to obvious criminals and abusers like Weinstein b/c to my knowledge he never touched anyone or forced anyone into anything, at least not overtly.

That is to say, his behavior is far more confusing, gray, and thus interesting to me from a discussion perspective. There's nothing to talk about with Weinstein, he's a possible rapist (using physical force for sexual acts) and almost certainly a man who used his direct power over people to elicit sex. But Louis CK is somewhat different.

Agreed entirely. Personally, I believe that this is why he will have a future career again in the future and easily so. I think he knows he needs to take some time off and reevaluate things and himself. As he said, I think he doesn't know HOW to make amends and reparations for this. He knows it is bad but doesn't know how to make it better other than admitting it, validating the women's claims and the pain he caused. I think that is the purpose of the line "now I will sit back and listen". He is looking to see what he should do because he does fall in that grey area.

That being said, one big gray issue that it raises for me, which is really troubling in some ways is the issue of consent. Some of the women consented, they said OK or sure. Now clearly this was a borderline coerced OK, the women were often startled and embarrased and often said OK to avoid confrontation. As such, as he mentions, the were was a power differential that made things strange. Not exactly wrong but not exactly right and certainly downright offensive and creepy irrespective of consent. That being said, because of the power differential are we going to say that the women could NEVER consent or are we going to say that they can consent until they don't? It is a bit of a dangerous path, yet at the same time to not examine this also allows for extreme levels of abuse. In particular abuse of teens and young adults (of all genders) by those in a position of direct power over them. As I mentioned in another thread, I have seen the drama that some women I have known have gone through when being sexually harassed by their adviser in a lab. They were essentially trapped between taking the abuse and giving up on their entire life and chosen career up until that point. How do you split these hairs? It is a really difficult one and something which previously I had considered an easy question but the Louis CK situation brings into a new and much less clear cut light.

He says he never showed his **** to anyone without asking permission. that statement alone is confusing, funny, sad and just messed up all at the same time. How does that work, "excuse me Miss Perkins, would you care to see my schlong today?" Based on reports that pretty close exactly what he would do btw.

But then he says his "power" over them was that they "admired him". So are we talking about people in his employ or groupies who got into his dressing room?

If we're talking about the latter, then he's probably a cad, but is he an abuser? is it a crime? Is there a right to not have to deal with that kind of crudeness and crassness, even the proposition of it?

In one case, where the ladies felt their career path was tied to it, maybe that's a good debate to have. They could have up and walked out, he in no way touched or restrained them. Everyone seems to agree he at least sortof asked if he could do what he did in front of them, and understandably stunned the women didn't answer at all, then he did it.

Now that's disturbing, and he and everyone agrees he has "issues", but is it criminal? Is it abuse? Can it be one but not the other, or both?

I think the generally accepted term for this was he sexually harassed them. It did not rise to the level of abuse, let alone rape but it was far from benign. I think sexual harassment is a perfect word to sum up his behavior (as is creepy). Several of the women that came out against him were fellow comedians, they viewed it as a chance to network and learn from a super star in their field.

To me the cases around Louis CK are somewhat different from the classic moral bankruptcy of the Hollywood casting couch, where sex is expected to be traded for career advancement. he propositioned people who weren't that tied to him, and he wasn't physical with anyone, but was crude and perverted.

So, can speech be an abuse? Be a crime? Even speech we all agree is offensive and hurtful and even leads to anguish? If so, what does that mean for us long term?

There is a lot of discussion on power, consent, harassment, etc. I think right now, nobody is quite sure how everything will shake up. The only accepted thing is the old way was NOT working for around half the population. No matter how well it worked for us men, it was utterly failing the women. That is a stone cold fact. How to fix it though, I believe is still something being worked out.

Just thought his situation was more interesting for a discussion. I don't think there's any debate guys like Weinstein and Polanski should be in a courtroom and subsequently in prison.

Again, entirely agreed. I do not think his behavior is criminal (though quite possibly civil). Weinstein, Spacey, Grissom, Polanski, etc. are all criminal abusers who DO deserve to be tried in a court of law.

[PedroDaGr8]

It is a good apology and better than many. He does not say what he will do the next time or offer atonement. That would have made the complete apology. In an era where men in particular don’t know how to apologize, this effort is outstanding.

I think as for what he should do next time:

I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man and given them some guidance as a comedian, including because I admired their work.

I think that part pretty much says what he feels he should do in the future.

As for atonement, I agree with you. That being said, I think he really doesn't know what he should do next. Saying

I will now step back and take a long time to listen

is basically saying it is time for me to learn what I should do to make things better. He should listen to the victims, what they need from him as well as learn to accept that part of him and figure out what he needs to do to fix it.

[CitizenBBN]

Great reply Pedro, thanks.

I think it's in the area of sexual harassment, but even that isn't totally clear to me. If I walk up and ask a girl to dance or to go to dinner that's OK, but as I get more crude and less sophisticated do I creep into harassment or am I just a crude ass? this concerns more the time he asked a girl to come watch him masturbate than the other ones. She was clearly upset, her bosses were upset, but at what point does it cease to be an invitation to pursue a relationship of some kind and does it become harassment?

Not trying to engage in sophistry, I just don't know what criteria we use. To me if he had walked up to this girl and asked her to go out for dinner and drinks, while hoping the night ends in him masturbating with her watching then that's OK? But to just skip the relationship foreplay and ask for what he really wants is harassment? I find that distinction interesting, and somewhat dishonest.

I'm also troubled that "harassment" is defined as whether the subject feels harassed. I guess that's one way to do it, but since that standard varies widely it seems hard for people to know what to do.

There are cases where people have claimed harassment for being asked out to dinner, and I've seen girls who dont' get upset if you walk up and slap their behinds and call them hunny as a form of introduction. Admittedly I like those kinds of girls (lol) but I've met many of both.

In the old world if a girl felt harassed she slapped the hell out of a guy and that was the end of it. WOrks for me.