User Profile

MKS

Forum Activity by MKS

Apex Predator
Janson Jinnistan
Apex PredatorYeah, not a huge fan of Hunter S. Thompson.

PS: Not arguing that he was bad in Fear and Loathing.

OK. ?Considering these two things, its doubly confusing why then you would reference Fear & Loathing as an example of del Toro's acting, rather than roles that he's won awards and nominations for, like Traffic, Che and Sicario. ?I wasn't sure if you were aware that he's a respected actor. ?

In any event, he was not the problem in The Wolfman, and there's, like, stuff on the internet you can read that describes the botched production in detail.


Because it and The Usual Suspects are what I have to go on when it comes to Benicio Del Toro acting. He was definitely good in the latter. I think my issue with Fear and Loathing was the writing and the characters, not the performances.

I found Wolfman pretty boring. If Del Toro had a more charismatic performance, it might have kept my interest better. Having said that, I don't think his acting was an issue either.

Watch more Del Toro performances. Calling the Rock "more dynamic" is shockingly wrong and I quite enjoy the Rock. He may be more "charismatic" than Del Toro but has the tiniest of fractions of range comparatively.
Nov 20, 2017 3:45 AM
Janson Jinnistan
MKSJJ keeps bringing in a running and screaming from the hotel that isn't in the articles I've read

I'd recommend reading the initial NYT article:

During Ms. Goodman and Ms. Wolov's surreal visit to Louis CK's Aspen hotel room, they said they were holding each other, screaming and laughing in shock, as Louis CK masturbated in a chair. "We were paralyzed," Ms. Goodman said. After he ejaculated on his stomach, they said, they fled. He called after them: "He was like, 'Which one is Dana and which one is Julia?'" Ms. Goodman recalled.

So Louie asked first to take out his penis, and let's say that "laughed it off" amounts to sarcastic consent. Where does the line get crossed going forward? "'I think the line is crossed when you take all of your clothes off and start masturbating,' Ms. Wolov said."

Fled = running and screaming
Cool.
Nov 20, 2017 3:42 AM
Takoma1
MKS

Is anonymous, casual and consensual sex/sexual activity possible for a famous man without sexual misconduct taking place? If so, how?

Sorry--not trying to make this the response of a billion quotes (but I think you are raising interesting and important questions).
Anyone who wants to initiate a sexual relationship with someone else over whom they hold power (be that physical dominance, actual boss-employee relationship, or implied power like being a studio head) must proceed with caution. Consent, if it is to be freely given, must be given with the understanding that there are not negative consequences if the answer is no.

For example: one at a college dance I saw a classmate of mine (really big, strong guy who had just come out of the military and looked like a body builder) take the hands of a girl he was dancing with and put them over her head against a wall. I saw the look of surprise on her face and I moved closer in case she needed help. But he also saw this look on her face. He backed away from her a little bit, said "Sorry, is that okay with you?", and after a moment she answered yes and they kept dancing. I cannot quantify this, but I could tell from the way that he was asking that if the answer was no he was going to stop. Despite her initial surprise and his physical dominance, my belief is that she did not feel threatened in the moment that he was asking her and her body language and the tone of her voice implied to me that she was giving an honest answer.

A friend of a friend from college ended up dating someone I would consider famous (an actor everyone in this thread would know and possibly loves). While he initiated the romance, she was the one who ended it a very short period later. She had absolutely no worries that ending that relationship would have negative consequences for her.

When you are in a position of power, you need to take steps to make sure that the consent you get is genuine. And if you have good reason to believe that someone might not be empowered to say no to you (ie because they are just breaking into a career in a field where you dominate, or you are their boss), then the onus is on you to not initiate a sexual interaction. The guy who installed my security system was really into me. And he seemed very nice. I think that under any other circumstance he would have asked me out and I would have said yes. But he didn't and I REALLY appreciate that, because how comfortable would I have been saying "no" to a guy who I just saw has a code to override my security system? Him asking me that would have put me in a really uncomfortable position and so he did the right thing and let it go.

I think it's an important detail that the women who experienced these actions from Louis CK were all of lesser status--he wasn't doing this to a female executive or to Amy Pohler.

In anyone's personal sphere there are people over whom we have power, people who have power over us, and people who are neutrals. Even famous people shouldn't have such a hard time avoiding people from category #1.

Thank you for the bolded and your responses are fine.
I think your suggestions are perfectly valid but they don't take into account if someone isn't 100% cautious or reassuring in a situations like this, which I think isn't fair to either party. Should women agree to go to the hotel room of a man they barely know? Likely not. That, however, doesn't justify said woman being subjected to any amount of sexual harassment.
However, I do think notions of tacit consent or verbal consent with power also need some degree of understanding in regards to human error. Once again, I fall into a subjective interpretation of Louis' actions and admission that, while not condoning it and finding it wildly inappropriate, I am merely trying to offer the argument that his situation is far from clear cut and making proclamations like Robin about no one ever should be asked that or lumping him with Weinstein are more detrimental in their reduction than recognizing that our current sex mores have created a clusterfuck for all of those who engage in the act.
I don't think Louie did enough to assure them that he would not harm their careers if they declined, at least on paper. That said, you bring up the intangible in the moment "sense" with your dance story that can't possibly be put into print. That boy didn't ask for permission first and physically touched her, putting her in a compromising position. He subsequently stopped and this is, what I feel, to be an understandable faux pas. While Louie certainly crossed a far more damaging line and deserves a word more damning than faux pas, I am not convinced that it is entirely dissimilar.
Within the NYT article, there is mention of him stopping when told no (not typical of other sexual predators) and showing regret or embarrassment for having asked. There is also mention of the many female comics he has bolstered throughout the years (I am curious to hear Pamela Adlon comment). There is also seemingly no accusation of him harming the career of a woman (though I may have missed that. JJ keeps bringing in a running and screaming from the hotel that isn't in the articles I've read). I'm not going to assume Louie wasn't abusing his power but I also don't see anything that refutes the possibility that he was doing what he said: not thinking about the consequences of his actions on the emotions of others. Privilege is a powerful, blinding thing.
I also think that in regards to his power, the CK of 15 years ago was not the CK of today. He'd only released his debut comedy album a year before this accusation and wasn't in that upper echelon of comedians that he is today. Perhaps I'm wrong about the trajectory of his career but while he was in the business, I don't see his fame or power having near the cache as he would if these accusations were recent.
Nov 20, 2017 1:31 AM
Janson Jinnistan
MKSThe problem is that their response is of precise importance to the nature of transgression and your assumption runs counter to what he admitted, which clashes with your initial claim.

The problem is that this precisely important issue of consent is only disputed by Louie's weak "this is true...but" sleight of hand. And in such a dispute, my "assumption" is to take the account of these women, corroborrated by contemporary accounts they told at the time, over the account of the man whose story has radically changed as it has become publicly necessary. This is the credibility issue that I mentioned. Weinstein has attempted a similar feat with his "I have a problem....but not rape!" Who should we believe?


MKSIs anonymous, casual and consensual sex/sexual activity possible for a famous man without sexual misconduct taking place? If so, how?

This may seem strange given the deluge of allegations recently, but it still seems that the majority of famous sexually active men are capable of not catching sexual assault charges.

The "anonymous" part is tricky when you're famous, but it's irrelevant here because the women didn't go to an anonymous man's hotel room. They went to the room of the top dog on their comedy bill. There was a professional relationship.

Are the corroborated stories refusing that he asked and confirm that they said no? It's not just that but there is a difference of improperly showing your penis to someone that consented but didn't want to and without warning or forcing someone to see your penis.
Is comedy a particularly formal profession in which the lines of casual and professional are clearly defined? That's never been my impression of it but I'm also not a comedian.
Nov 20, 2017 12:06 AM
Takoma1
crumbsroom

As for my personal feelings on CK, I still can't even get into it. I'm just so bothered by what he's done that I can't even quite process it at the moment. I'm rarely disappointed in the personal lives of celebrities, but this is one of the very rare occasions that I feel duped by one and feel genuinely mad at him, which is completely stupid since I don't even actually know the guy.

He is also the only celebrity (pending what we find out about George Tekai, I guess) where I really feel disappointed on what I'd consider a personal level. Mostly because he has explicitly displayed awareness about the very real fears and anxieties women have (like his bit about girls getting into a car and just hoping not to get murdered/raped). His awareness of those power dynamics and the gross social forces around sexual assault are what makes the fact that he took advantage of power differentials for sexual purposes really upsetting. Honestly, though, while I consider him a very talented person, he has always made me uncomfortable for reasons I can't explain.

MKS
Robin McDonaldI don't know if this question is to me. I think the place people have landed is?this is not a question anyone should have to be confronted with regardless of whether they gave consent...unless maybe you are in a dating relationship already. Its totally bizarre and not cool. It might cover you legally but its weird and gross even in the asking. ?I think he did say something to that effect though.

This is an entirely different statement than what Janson made and one I find troubling as it leans towards policing sexual behavior in private. If he got consent, then he didn't do it without permission. This places it on an incredibly different level than the Weinsteins and Tobacks that he's being lumped in with.

Putting a woman in a disadvantaged position (ie in a hotel room with someone who could potentially derail your career and/or who is your boss) and then asking her permission is not a situation where someone can give genuine consent. If someone backs me into a wall and says "Can I have your purse?" I'm going to say "Yes"--but I wouldn't consider that consent in any real meaning of the word. It would be one thing if he was on a date with someone, they went back to his or her place, he asked, and she said yes (or no). But when you have power over someone else (be that physical dominance or just in the context of your job), there is a much higher bar for when yes really means yes.


MKSThe clear intended message is implied consent with the asking just as the "laughed it off" carries an implied lack of consent, but when dealing with emotions and sex, imprecision in language is the difference between misconduct, assault and rape. This is what makes the current online treatment of all accusations as gospel (it IS hard to recall specifics after 15 years, isn't it) and all accused as equal frustrating as different conversations need to happen. Sexual impropriety is not equivalent to sexual predation.


But by the same token, not all sexual predation is technically illegal.
A guy earlier today got huffy and said that he didn't like how many women were treating these accusations as if they were "real" sexual assault. But to me (and I think to a lot of other women), that's not really the point. The point is that there is a culture in which women (and men) and being exposed to a whole range of harassment, assault, coercion ,etc. It's the idea that it's okay to do these things to someone you can control that is the problem, whether those actions land under a legal definition of a crime or not. Women should not have to deal with their bosses asking them to do penis-related things. Period.
I don't like the idea that we should more easily forgive some of these people because by the letter of the law what they did was not criminal.
My co-worker's boss (who without warning exposed his penis to her in the office) was technically only guilty of indecent exposure. But the power dynamic between them made his action have far more of an impact than if some random dude had flashed her as she walked through a park or something.

I'm not entirely sure that Louis was as "woke" on these issues at the time as his more recent stand up would seem. At the time of these accusations, his stand up isn't nearly as socially conscious, especially beyond the context of issues that would face a heavy set, white man. If there is more recent overlap, the narrative on this will be demonstrably different (and perhaps there are more recent accusations than I realize).
Despite that, "knowing" of issues does not negate blindness when personal interaction, emotion, sexual urges, etc comes into play. This is why I posed the question how a rich/famous man can possibly have consensual, casual sex given the parameters that are being placed due to power dynamics. If going back to a hotel room or the privacy of a home isn't a place in which one could make a proposition, where could he? How could he? Power dynamics will never be equal and physically, at a minimum, will almost always favor the man, so if a sexual question to gain consent has no bearing on "actual" consent, then there is no real discernable metric by which a man can feel like it's been given. We enter the porno definition of "I know it when I see it."
Nov 19, 2017 11:58 PM
Janson Jinnistan
MKS(it IS hard to recall specifics after 15 years, isn't it)

They told several people shortly afterward, which is why Louie's manager told them to stop telling people about it. The jist of it was preserved, which was that he took his clothes off and masturbated in front of two women he just met while they stared in shock before running for the door.

And this also ignores that these stories lend credence to other stories which have circulated for years involving a similar MO. Maybe one reason why Louie is going into a bunker is because he knows more stories are out there.

They told people the gist, as precise verbatim is "difficult after 15 years." The problem is that their response is of precise importance to the nature of transgression and your assumption runs counter to what he admitted, which clashes with your initial claim.
Is anonymous, casual and consensual sex/sexual activity possible for a famous man without sexual misconduct taking place? If so, how?
Nov 19, 2017 9:54 PM
Janson Jinnistan
MKSThis is where the problem of judging these things off an imprecise article becomes an issue because saying "laughed it off and thought it was a joke" doesn't clarify what was actually said.

Precise verbatim may be difficult after 15 years, but the article is not ambiguous regarding how the women clearly felt that Louie CK. crossed a line. Maybe Louie isn't sensitive enough to have noticed how they fell into shocked silence as he went about his business. But I like how he specifies that he only pulled it out after "asking first", conspicuously not mentioning what the response was. To be clear on that point, Louie's admission does not state that he was given permission, only that he didn't produce the penis "without asking first". Again, that's technically true, not really the point, and I'm not letting him weasel his way out of that discrepancy.


MKSAll other allegations in that article in which Louis was told "no" resulted in him not getting out his penis.

Not counting the phone masturbating, where the option to decline was never given.

You know what, you're correct. I misremembered his apology. The clear intended message is implied consent with the asking just as the "laughed it off" carries an implied lack of consent, but when dealing with emotions and sex, imprecision in language is the difference between misconduct, assault and rape. This is what makes the current online treatment of all accusations as gospel (it IS hard to recall specifics after 15 years, isn't it) and all accused as equal frustrating as different conversations need to happen. Sexual impropriety is not equivalent to sexual predation.
Nov 19, 2017 6:31 PM
Janson Jinnistan
MKSHe said "I never showed my penis to anyone without permission."
That's him saying there was consent.

There might be some credibility issues here.

Let's compare his claim of "asking permission": "Louis CK asked if he could take out his penis, the women said. They thought it was a joke and laughed it off."

So, technically, your honor, Louie was correct that he asked permission. But that permission was never granted, a crucial component of the consensual transaction. Unless laughter is consent. Followed by screams and silence. And "stop telling people".

This is where the problem of judging these things off an imprecise article becomes an issue because saying "laughed it off and thought it was a joke" doesn't clarify what was actually said. All other allegations in that article in which Louis was told "no" resulted in him not getting out his penis.
This is also a far cry from the conversation which Robin is pushing, which is that such a question is icky and no one should ever be asked that outside of a committed relationship.
Nov 19, 2017 5:55 PM
The GuyLooks like everybody is busy watching JL so ill be the one to bump this thread. The first ep was decent, but slow going. Im guessing the fact that the punisher snipes somebody from a rooftop may have played a factor in them delaying the series.

Im getting the feeling that as a standalone movie this could have been the best iteration of punisher, but stretched across 13 episodes its gonna be a bit of a slog.

I thought the first episode was terrible, with transparent cookie cutter characters and a stale, trite plot that could have been an opening scene at best. Episode 2 was solid and had a really entertaining, if slightly too edited fight scene. I'm digging Desi from Girls as Micro.
Nov 19, 2017 5:25 PM
Janson Jinnistan
MKSYou stated that he admitted the charge. Do you now recant that?

I don't really care how he's trying to weasal out of it. He said "these stories are true". Which stories?!? Probably the ones that came out right before he said that, the same ones he's been denying for years.


MKS (of which most said they gave consent, which certainly different than all but is world's different than "none").

The only on-record consent was the employee, in his office. Which isn't consent under sex harassment laws.

He said "I never showed my penis to anyone without permission."
That's him saying there was consent. That removes it from the realm of discussion of "he's confessed and now we just ask "why?" Because a conversation about social mores in relation to sexual activity and misconduct is a different conversation than sexual assault no matter your assuredness of his guilt.
Nov 19, 2017 5:17 PM
Janson Jinnistan
MKSDid he admit to doing it without consent?

Who? The guy who two months ago wasn't admitting to anything?

I'm going by the women's account, and, although it wasn't in that particular article, I'm willing to assume that the stories of him blocking the door in some cases is likely accurate as well.

You stated that he admitted the charge. Do you now recant that? Because that places it into the entirely subjective "I'm going by the women's account" (of which most said they gave consent, which certainly different than all but is world's different than "none").
Discussing the charge he admitted to and some of the accusations are two entirely different conversations that you tried to relegate into an undeniable "one," which isn't correct. Are you admitting that now?
Nov 19, 2017 4:58 PM
Janson JinnistanAccording to the NYT story, the two women is Aspen did not give consent.

The employee at Chris Rock's show consented, but he was her boss, and he did it in his office.

The one from 2005 turned him down, and he yelled at her about his issues.

I'm trying to remember which other one consented.

Did he admit to doing it without consent?
Nov 19, 2017 4:41 PM
Robin McDonald
MKS
Janson Jinnistan
Robin McDonaldCapturing the Friedman's was about a real pedophile but where its on point is that the guy ordered pedo magazines which he kept next to his piano.
But after the police and media had the public believing this guy in his music classroom had the children hold their bare tushes in the air and he would leapfrog from child to child inserting hes penis into each of their behinds and he did it on a daily basis. And no one talked about it.

Again, I don't see a similar contrast between allegation and public perception here. Louie has admitted the charge, and it requires no exaggeration or ambiguity on the part of his audience. What his fans want to understand is "why?" Louie may be introspective enough to handle that. We're just trying to make sense of this behavior. I've never masturbated in front of someone without their permission. I've never asked permission actually. It's all alien to me. I'm not entirely sure what the thrill is supposed to be. These are basic questions. This is a lifestyle that's taken people by shock. I'd like to know what he thought he was doing.




Robin McDonald I think your list of questions to be satisfied would be endless.

I think my questions have been pretty specific.




Robin McDonaldPersonally I don't see Louis as a guy who is a reluctant confessor.

He was still saying that these were untrue rumors two months ago. He could no longer escape the truth when he finally confessed. This was not something he wanted to do.

Didn't Louie explicitly state that he hadn't masturbated in front of anyone without verbal consent?

I don't know if this question is to me. I think the place people have landed is this is not a question anyone should have to be confronted with regardless of whether they gave consent...unless maybe you are in a dating relationship already. Its totally bizarre and not cool. It might cover you legally but its weird and gross even in the asking. ?I think he did say something to that effect though.

This is an entirely different statement than what Janson made and one I find troubling as it leans towards policing sexual behavior in private. If he got consent, then he didn't do it without permission. This places it on an incredibly different level than the Weinsteins and Tobacks that he's being lumped in with.
Nov 19, 2017 4:18 PM
I would suspect a glitch before I suspect censorship machinations.
Nov 19, 2017 7:59 AM
Janson Jinnistan
Robin McDonaldCapturing the Friedman's was about a real pedophile but where its on point is that the guy ordered pedo magazines which he kept next to his piano.
But after the police and media had the public believing this guy in his music classroom had the children hold their bare tushes in the air and he would leapfrog from child to child inserting hes penis into each of their behinds and he did it on a daily basis. And no one talked about it.

Again, I don't see a similar contrast between allegation and public perception here. Louie has admitted the charge, and it requires no exaggeration or ambiguity on the part of his audience. What his fans want to understand is "why?" Louie may be introspective enough to handle that. We're just trying to make sense of this behavior. I've never masturbated in front of someone without their permission. I've never asked permission actually. It's all alien to me. I'm not entirely sure what the thrill is supposed to be. These are basic questions. This is a lifestyle that's taken people by shock. I'd like to know what he thought he was doing.


Robin McDonald I think your list of questions to be satisfied would be endless.

I think my questions have been pretty specific.


Robin McDonaldPersonally I don't see Louis as a guy who is a reluctant confessor.

He was still saying that these were untrue rumors two months ago. He could no longer escape the truth when he finally confessed. This was not something he wanted to do.

Didn't Louie explicitly state that he hadn't masturbated in front of anyone without verbal consent?
Nov 19, 2017 7:58 AM
BadLieutenant
MKS
BadLieutenant
MKS
BadLieutenant
WooleyApparently I need to rewatch Blade II.
Cuz when I saw it back in the day I thought it was absolute crap.
But the praise here makes me feel like I gotta go back and watch it.

I'd stick by your initial assessment: Blade II is absolute crap. Despite a lot of truly primitive CGI, the first Blade movie had enough atmosphere and interesting lighting, together with the novelty of fusing blaxploitation with the horror and superhero genres, to just get by. And with its flat, boring and lazily color-coded cinematography, just as equally David S. Goyer-tastic plotting, and complete lack of novelty factor, I really don't know what Blade II is supposed to bring to the table. Is it just Ron Perlman? Because if he couldn't save Alien Resurrection on his own, he certainly isn't saving this one.

Some mother fuckers are always trying to ice skate up hill.

Credit is due for quoting the superior movie.

You obviously do not know who you are fucking with!

Again, proving my point. That's a generic, forgettable line that could have appeared in any movie. Unlike the former, I had to Google this one to double-check.

Can you blush?
Nov 15, 2017 11:39 PM
BadLieutenant
MKS
BadLieutenant
WooleyApparently I need to rewatch Blade II.
Cuz when I saw it back in the day I thought it was absolute crap.
But the praise here makes me feel like I gotta go back and watch it.

I'd stick by your initial assessment: Blade II is absolute crap. Despite a lot of truly primitive CGI, the first Blade movie had enough atmosphere and interesting lighting, together with the novelty of fusing blaxploitation with the horror and superhero genres, to just get by. And with its flat, boring and lazily color-coded cinematography, just as equally David S. Goyer-tastic plotting, and complete lack of novelty factor, I really don't know what Blade II is supposed to bring to the table. Is it just Ron Perlman? Because if he couldn't save Alien Resurrection on his own, he certainly isn't saving this one.

Some mother fuckers are always trying to ice skate up hill.

Credit is due for quoting the superior movie.

You obviously do not know who you are fucking with!
Nov 15, 2017 5:18 AM
BadLieutenant
WooleyApparently I need to rewatch Blade II.
Cuz when I saw it back in the day I thought it was absolute crap.
But the praise here makes me feel like I gotta go back and watch it.

I'd stick by your initial assessment: Blade II is absolute crap. Despite a lot of truly primitive CGI, the first Blade movie had enough atmosphere and interesting lighting, together with the novelty of fusing blaxploitation with the horror and superhero genres, to just get by. And with its flat, boring and lazily color-coded cinematography, just as equally David S. Goyer-tastic plotting, and complete lack of novelty factor, I really don't know what Blade II is supposed to bring to the table. Is it just Ron Perlman? Because if he couldn't save Alien Resurrection on his own, he certainly isn't saving this one.

Some mother fuckers are always trying to ice skate up hill.
Nov 15, 2017 5:16 AM
Janson Jinnistan
CatbusSilence, on the other hand, got boring quick.

Nah. ?Excellent movie.

I liked that the Grand Inquisitor sounded like the priest from Princess Bride.
Nov 15, 2017 2:37 AM
crumbsroom
MKS
crumbsroomIt would be nice to get a troll who wasn't a boring pile of garbage around here. At least then banning them would mean something.

Personally, I couldn't give a fuck how much this stupid tit wants to spam these forums. I like to feel sad for people.

I don't even particularly get what's getting mined from it. It's like pissing yourself in the middle of a store. At worst, someone is going to have to clean it... But you're pissing yourself. No one is suffering more than the pisser.

The fact is that either sometime tonight or tomorrow all evidence of them will be erased. And if not who cares? Clearly not this forum of 12 people who sporadically post here and think this forum is complete shit regardless of what this nobody does here.

Some men just want the world to shrug at them in contempt and pretend they aren't there.... Err, watch the world burn.
Nov 15, 2017 2:11 AM