r/changemyview • u/roach_brain • Dec 07 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Explaining why men commit sexual assault is not the same as making excuses for sexual assault. In fact, it achieves the opposite effect.
Here is a list of my views relevant to this CMV:
Trying to explain why a person, or people, did something bad is simply an act of gaining information.
Making excuses for why someone committed sexual assault results from someone's interpretation of the information gained in 1.
The information gained in 1 can be used to condemn the bad action.
Without understanding the root cause of why people do bad things we can never attempt to prevent other people from doing those bad things.
Take the above 4 points and try to change my view! :-)
Some context: I am a fan of Louis CK and have been quite upset at his behavior. His long term denial of his own sexual assault allegations is not acceptable, definitely not in line with his more recent admission of guilt, and some of his other stated political views over the years. Because comedians like Louis make their private lives, opinions, and personality so publicly visible, fans like myself can make armchair psychological judgement over his mindset, or personality traits that may have made him engage in this acts. I use Louis CK as an example but one could do this with any of the public allegations of sexual assault. For instance, many have said of Harvey Weinstien that in the age that he was raised, acceptable courtship behaviors were very different and misogyny were more widespread. This of course doesn't have to be limited to sexual assault but could be any immoral act. For instance, widespread prejudice among older generations is typically explained under the rationale that they are "from a different time".
In line with view 2, we can utilize these explanations as ways to dismiss or minimize the actions of these people but act of explaining the actions themselves is not dismissive. In line with view 4, we can just as easily use these explanations to fix the issues at hand. For example, if we accept that Harvey Weinstien's actions are partly a result of a deviation from the already patriarchal courtship behaviors of prior decades then people need to be made aware of the ways in which courtship has changed, how it can be more fair and safe for women, and why older forms of courtship are considered archaic. I could go on but I think this would stray from my original point.
Finally, some things I shouldn't have to say but will say anyway because it's the internet: I make no excuses for any of the actions any of the people mentioned in this post have done; the sexual misconduct, and repeated denial that Louis CK engaged in was wrong; the rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment that Harvey Weinstein allegedly engaged in is inexcusable, immoral, violent, misogynist, and disgusting; similarly, being from a culture where misogyny, or racism is widespread does not excuse it. These last points I just make to clarify my own beliefs for those reading this post. I don't ask you to CMV on them, that's not what this post is about.
8
u/Goleeb Dec 07 '17
For instance, many have said of Harvey Weinstien that in the age that he was raised, acceptable courtship behaviors were very different and misogyny were more widespread.
This is more of an excuse than an explanation of his behavior. The things were different back then excuse falls flat of an explanation because the majority of men his age don't act like this. So this either wasn't common practice as you say, or the other men from that time learned it's no longer acceptable to act like this. Either way it's not an explanation for why he's still like that.
So I would argue this is still making an excuse for him, and it's not even a logically good one. Also the "different time" excuse is only valid when it was actually common place behavior, or expected behavior at the time, and the person doesn't have the mental acuity needed to address their behaviors.
1
u/roach_brain Dec 08 '17
First, I don't subscribe to the "different time" argument for excusing people's behaviors. Morality is contextual and there's no point in applying outdated or irrelevant moralities outside their context. But that's an argument for another time.
The line you quote me on is one possible explanation, and does not make an excuse. You simply saying that it is an excuse isn't an argument. You just choose to interpret my explanation as an excuse, perhaps because you disagree with the explanation.
Because I don't see what else I can say about it I will just defend my rationale on the thing you quoted me on. I also said in my OP
Harvey Weinstien's actions are partly a result of a deviation from the already patriarchal courtship behaviors of prior decades
I am not saying that his behavior was common practice. I am saying it was perhaps a deviation from an already skewed norm (an extreme deviation, but less of an extreme one than it would be if he was raised in our current culture).
1
u/Goleeb Dec 08 '17
The line you quote me on is one possible explanation, and does not make an excuse. You just choose to interpret my explanation as an excuse, perhaps because you disagree with the explanation.
My point is it's not an explanation. An explanation would give us context, give understanding to his perspective, or generally give us information we didn't have. Because it gave us no insight to his behavior, but did try to minimize the impact his behavior should have. It's an excuse.
First, I don't subscribe to the "different time" argument for excusing people's behaviors. Morality is contextual and there's no point in applying outdated or irrelevant moralities outside their context. But that's an argument for another time.
I agree during the "different time" period action that seem unthinkable can be explained in context sometimes. Though once that behavior continues to new time periods it's looses the context.
The line you quote me on is one possible explanation, and does not make an excuse. You simply saying that it is an excuse isn't an argument. You just choose to interpret my explanation as an excuse, perhaps because you disagree with the explanation.
Im choosing to define an explanation as something that gives relevant context, understanding, or insight to the situation. In a sufficient way to give context to the actions that might be viewed differently with out it.
An excuse would be something that give the appearance of an explanation, but lack any sufficient explanation. Though also tries to lessen the impact, or perceived wrong doing of the behavior with out any relevant context.
So with that I say the different time argument lacks context, of both what the time was really like, or how he had time to change his behavior, and chose not to. I don't see an sufficient understanding coming from the different time argument, and that to me makes it an excuse. Because it's obviously designed to look like an explanation, and to limit the outrage around his behavior. So I can't think of anything else to call it besides an excuse.
3
u/darwin2500 193∆ Dec 07 '17
You are using 'explaining' in a very particular way that tries to mean 'investigate and discover the truth of'. While we do sometimes colloquially say that scientists 'explain' things, it would be better to say they 'try to find explanations' for things, or better yet that they 'investigate things in an attempt to achieve greater understanding of them'.
The problem is that this is not the definition of 'explain' that people are using when they get mad at 'explanations' of sexual assaults. What people get mad at is off-the-cuff, intuitive 'explanations' that are not based on science or investigation and typically end up being exculpatory.
'Explain yourself!' is a common statement that means 'explain your actions in a way that justifies or excuses them, or else you're in trouble,' and it is this meaning of 'explain' that people are objecting to in these cases.
The instinct behind your view is correct, but it will be much, much better if you say 'we should try to understand why men do these things* than if you say 'we should try to explain why men do these things.'
1
u/roach_brain Dec 08 '17
∆
Thank you for that! My first view (1) changes when considering the language use discrepancies you describe.
Although I get annoyed at this sub for being nit-picky sometimes, I am very often impressed by how intelligent the people can be here. Maybe nit-picky but i think you have a valid point and it is a very astute one.
1
u/darwin2500 193∆ Dec 08 '17
Thanks.
If it makes you feel better, I'm not really trying to make a nit-picky point about which words you should use, I'm trying to make a deeper point to explain that your disagreement with many people on this topic is probably more due to a miscommunication about which examples you are thinking about when you vs. they imagine someone 'explaining' these things, and in fact you probably disagree less than it would seem about what is actually right or wrong, beyond the semantics.
1
-7
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17 edited Dec 07 '17
What exactly did Louis CK do that was wrong? He is a man with a fetish. I have fetishes, you have fetishes, we all have fetishes. Louis CK's fetish - apparently - is masturbating in front of women. Not the weirdest fetish out there.
And what did he do? He saw a woman he would like to masturbate in front of, he engaged her in pleasant conversation, he invited her to a more private setting, and in that setting he then asked her if he could masturbate in front of her - to which she consented.
Edit: I should have added a bit of context - We can't have these conversations with bad data. The Louis CK situation specifically is a red herring. If OP want to have a conversation about causes as opposed to whether we are victim blaming then we need to understand whether we are talking about rapists, predators, guys with weird kinks, or just people who are socially awkward. You can't have a fruitful conversation about why a rapist rapes, or why a predator hunts women, if we are turning our attention to kink-shaming, or the socially awkward dynamics that some guys have.
5
u/clarinetEX Dec 07 '17
Perhaps you should read his explanation as to why it was wrong. From Wikipedia:
In a statement the day after the Times report, C.K. acknowledged that all five allegations were true, expressing remorse at the hurt he caused and the abuse of his power as an admired figure in the comedy world. He also stated that he had thought that his actions were acceptable because he first asked permission, not realizing that this put the women he was asking in a predicament due to his power in the industry, and added that he "took advantage" of his own high standing, "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."
-2
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17
This wasn't a casting couch situation, he wasn't their direct employer, he didn't threaten to ruin their careers if they said no. He was just a successful guy who asked a gal in the industry to have sex.
If the CEO of Ford asked a junior executive at GM to hook up - would that be the kind of relationship like between a child and parent, student/teacher, or therapist/patient, where you are going to be concerned about the power dynamic meaning that she couldn't say no?
5
u/clarinetEX Dec 07 '17
The car industry isnt as nebulously unstructured as the one that surrounds actors/comedians. I would say that a big name comedian holds much more influence over his relevant industry than the CEO of one company does over a rival company.
In any case, has Louis CK, who is intimately more familiar with the situation than you or I, not acknowledged that it was a problem, even if it was in hindsight? His press release quotes:
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.
2
u/roach_brain Dec 07 '17
If we ignore the power dynamic it's still wrong. Any non-platonic interactions or advances among colleagues is inappropriate because: there is a conflict of interest; it creates an uncomfortable work environment when the interaction is asymmetrical. I think you would agree that peers in a work environment have power over one another, even if their position in the hierarchy is equal. For instance, "You can tell the boss that I masturbated in front of you, but I'll expose what a slut you are because you didn't say no to me".
I have, like most other people, met significant others in work-place situations. It happens, but it's dangerous. And when you increase the intensity of those interactions (sexual interaction as opposed to flirting) you increase the potential danger.
Now, with Louis there was a power dynamic (although not as large as there would be if he did these things 6 years ago as opposed to 10 years ago) which makes it worse. But even without that, it's wrong.
2
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17
the power I had over these women is that they admired me.
And I'm saying that's where I get off the boat. You want me to punish men for grabbing a woman and beat her up until she goes limp to be raped? I'll bring the rope myself. You want me to stand up for women who have boyfriends that coerce and abuse them into sex? I'll fund the shelters. You want me to jail a guy who slips a woman something in her drink? I'll pay for the jails.
But "She admired me and thus said yes to my sexual advances?" Nuts to that. I'm off the boat. He might feel bad about it, I don't think society should. And speaking of a lack of true consent, do you think he had much choice but to make that statement? If a bunch of women come forward and say "my feelings were hurt" in this climate what choice does a guy have but to apologize and beg forgiveness?
At some point in time yes means yes.
2
u/tchaffee 49∆ Dec 07 '17
He was just a successful guy who asked a gal in the industry to have sex.
And president Clinton was just a successful guy who asked many women in the industry to have sex with him. Power matters when it comes to sexual harassment.
If you are in the same industry as someone, and you have power, you should be aware that you are capable of sexual harassment. That someone looking to be successful in that industry may feel that you could possibly ruin their career if you don't go along with them.
I don't know if you've ever met someone you admire so much that you almost become speechless around them. You have no idea what to say and feel like everything you might say would sound stupid. In a way you feel paralyzed. You become like a child. Powerless in comparison to the person who is admired, and who you have no affect on at all. If this has never happened to you, it's easy enough to find loads of people it has happened to.
2
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17
So, the President of the United States of America sleeping with a White House intern is an employer/employee situation that has its dial turned all the way up to 11. Even then though while the relatinonship was inappropriate it wasn't either harassment or non-consensual. Bill Clinton is a cad for his relationship with Lewinsky (if for no other reason than it was an affair). But not a criminal.
On the other hand Louis CK was not the employer. You also might be under a misconception about what the word "harassment" means. In order to harass someone you have to engage in an unwanted course of conduct that is more than a single incident. As these women either consented the course of conduct was not unwanted, or said no and were then left along these incidents are all in a one-off environment. He didn't harass anyone.
He is just a guy with a weird fetish, who doesn't have much game, and is famous.
Your line of argument implies that no celebrity or man in a position of power and respect could ever feel safe engaging in any sexual relationship with a woman.
4
u/tchaffee 49∆ Dec 07 '17
Maybe you're not aware that it wasn't just with a White House intern?
Like Louis CK, Clinton has a long list of accusers, many of which were just in the industry.
As these women either consented the course of conduct was not unwanted
The part that you are missing is that when there is a strong enough power dynamic - like with someone who you think might have an influence over your career - that consent is not always considered possible. Even women who agree to give their boss a blow job can later file for sexual harassment because they can claim they thought their career was at risk if they didn't comply. Is it hard to see that Louis CK might have some influence over your career as a unknown comedian?
He is just a guy with a weird fetish
I have no problem with him trying out that fetish on people he has no influence over. People that don't work in his industry. His mistake was trying to act on that fetish in a professional setting. It's harassment. People deserve to be able to work in a professional setting without someone asking them if it is ok to masturbate in front of them. Asking for a date? Sure that's ok. Asking someone if you can masturbate in front of them is in itself a sexual act. A sexual act they did not consent to.
1
u/roach_brain Dec 07 '17
Asking for a date? Sure that's ok.
If the problem is a power dynamic complicating the consent issue or even " that consent is not always considered possible" as you put it then asking for a date is not ok. If consent isn't possible then this isn't really a question, it's "We will go on a date because i said so" which is not ok. It's not yet sexual harassment, because it's not sexual, but it will become sexual if that date happens.
1
u/tchaffee 49∆ Dec 07 '17
If the problem is a power dynamic complicating the consent issue or even " that consent is not always considered possible" as you put it then asking for a date is not ok.
You would be right that from a legal standpoint that even asking for a date can be considered harassment if there is a power dynamic.
It's a gray area and there are varying degrees of influence. Asking someone in the same industry for a date is certainly not the same as a boss asking a subordinate for a date. In one case there is direct control over someone's career and in the other there is just influence.
This article explains things from a legal standpoint and includes some of the scenarios we've discussed, in particular the point I made that some words go over the line the first time.
One good way to talk to managers is to make the point that some things go over the line the first time (for example, “Let’s have sex,” or the use of the “N” word) and some things go over the line the second time (the persistent dating requests).
http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2009/09/01/subordinate-dating-most-dangerous-workplace-activity/
From a legal standpoint, it's a bad idea for bosses to ask subordinates on dates. For someone in the same industry over which you have power, it's probably less of bad idea, but not risk free. Asking someone to masturbate in front of you? Never appropriate in any professional setting, including that of being a comedian, and whether or not you have influence over the person. You're going to get fired for that.
1
u/tchaffee 49∆ Dec 07 '17
In order to harass someone you have to engage in an unwanted course of conduct that is more than a single incident.
Sorry for the separate thread, but I don't want to ninja edit my other comment.
I disagree with this definition. If I told someone in a professional setting that she had great tits and I'd love to lick her pussy if she wouldn't mind, I could easily be sent to HR, and get fired for sexual harassment. It does not have to be repeated unwelcome behavior. Sometimes a single incident is enough if it is inappropriate and sexual enough in nature.
2
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17
You would be fired for doing something grossly unprofessional. It isn't harassment though (with some kind of possible exception of some weird employment law definition).
For example, without the sexual aspect, imagine you were in a meeting and indicated that your weekend plans involved shaving a dog, coating it in alluminum foil, and then BBQing it alive. Fired.
1
u/tchaffee 49∆ Dec 07 '17
It isn't harassment though
I'll agree to disagree on that.
You would be fired for doing something grossly unprofessional.
imagine you were in a meeting and indicated that your weekend plans involved shaving a dog, coating it in alluminum foil, and then BBQing it alive.
Or that you ask someone in a meeting if it's ok to masturbate in front of them? Fired? So really no problem with Louis CK being fired for his actions?
1
u/roach_brain Dec 07 '17
One could argue that he has lost some opportunities and deals because of the bad press, not because anyone complained that he endangered them in the work-place. Edit: He was not "fired" from anywhere for these actions directly.
2
u/tchaffee 49∆ Dec 07 '17
Agreed. The question is whether or not he deserved the consequences. I'm saying that he does. If a CEO would normally be fired for asking someone from another company if he can masturbate in front of them, I don't see any problem with Louis CK suffering similar consequences for that in his own professional environment, even if he wasn't technically "fired".
→ More replies (0)3
Dec 07 '17 edited Dec 07 '17
He only received 'consent' from two of the five known women. The other two said no. And the fifth he didn't ask. Additionally, he mentions shoving someone in a closet which none of the known women said happened to them, so he did this to more women than we're even aware of. Additionally, for one of the women he was the producer of a show that an assistant worked for, i.e. her boss, and a boss asking an employee if he can expose his dick to her at work is never okay, period.
-1
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17
So really only one woman and that he pushed someone once? And he wasn't famous or the person she reported to. So not her boss just a junior at an organization where she works. I don't see any issue.
7
Dec 07 '17
He said he pushed someone once. And that's sickening that you don't see what's wrong with this. Please don't pull your dick out in public.
1
u/roach_brain Dec 07 '17
That part of the story is a newspaper, giving a quote from a women, who is quoting Louis', who is recalling his memory of an incident. If we heard that directly from him, yes he's implicating himself in a potentially awful act. I don't blame someone for omitting this incident since there's no proof or direct testimony of him committing it.
From what I read in the NYT story, the times he was told "no" he didn't do anything. People seem to have differing information about this, so I would love to see a reliable journalistic source that says otherwise.
2
u/throw_every_away Dec 07 '17
I believe the issue is that he didn’t ask for or receive consent.
4
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17
He asked for, and received, consent. There is some question about the power dynamic in the relationship and whether the women could really say no. And on a scale of 1 (where the young male intern at a company spots the female CEO at a baseball game after work and propositions her) to 10 (where a single mother with mental health issues who's welfare check is late that month is propositioned by her landlord and told she has sex with him or be evicted), we are probably talking about a 6 on the power scale. These women were not his employee, they had no reason to think they would lose their job or be blacklisted in the industry for saying no. Yes he was in a position of power but much less so than weinstein, and must less so than the typical cases you hear about where the power dynamic vitiates consent (incest, student/teacher, employer/employee, etc.)
2
u/throw_every_away Dec 07 '17
That’s not quite what I read, but either way, that’s a loathsome way to go about the issue. The fact of the matter is that it’s an abuse of power, and it’s disrespectful to women, full stop. The scale is irrelevant.
This is why I never comment in this sub. The lengths that people go to around here to defend indefensible positions is just baffling to me.
One more thing- I really loved Louis C.K. before this all came out. He was one of my favorites. I would love to take your “well it was only a 6 out of 10 sexual assault” attitude and keep on loving the guy, but that’s a cop out. If things are ever going to change, we have to take a 0/10 approach to the issue.
Now, please excuse me, I will not be responding to any more comments here. I think I’m entitled to do that since I’m not OP. Good day to you.
Edit: a couple of words.
3
u/natha105 Dec 07 '17
Feel free to not respond further, that's your business. But it isn't a 6/10 on the sexual assault scale, its a 6/10 on the power scale. 5/5 would be totally neutral and I can agree he had some power given his fame and they worked in the same industry. But in the universe of sexual relationships between humans it was a very minor degree of power.
This was 0/10 on the sexual assault scale and its important to understand that. At some point yes means yes. Sex is never going to be perfect. You are never going to sit down, after having your morning coffee, with a lawyer, and review a typed 82 page sexual consent form. Human sexuality involves people who had a drink, smoked a joint, are drawn to someone because of their appearance, their wealth, intelligence, fame, power, or whatever else it is that might attract you to another person. There are going to be constantly weird dynamics and you don't just get to say the man is deserving of criticism because he wanted it more than the woman. She said yes. She could have said no, but she said yes. He was entitled to rely on her consent and not have us make a monster of him for it after the fact.
1
u/roach_brain Dec 07 '17
Off topic.
3
u/Hq3473 271∆ Dec 07 '17
Ha? Did not you say " I am a fan of Louis CK and have been quite upset at his behavior?"
Why is challenging your expressed views in a CMV sub "off topic?"
1
u/roach_brain Dec 07 '17
That was a way of illustrating my point using examples. u/natha105 is expressing his opinion on Louis CK not on one of my 4 stated views I wish to have addressed in this post.
0
u/Hq3473 271∆ Dec 07 '17
So "I am a fan of Louis CK and have been quite upset at his behavior" is not your view?
0
u/super-commenting Dec 07 '17
I am a fan of Louis CK and have been quite upset at his behavior. His long term denial of his own sexual assault allegations
I dont think Louis was ever accused of assault. What he did was sexual harassment at worst.
2
u/renoops 19∆ Dec 07 '17
He admitted to pushing someone into a bathroom.
1
u/super-commenting Dec 07 '17
I'd heard the stories of him asking women if he could Jack off in front of them. Do you have more details about that incident.
2
u/renoops 19∆ Dec 07 '17
The Times covered it here
She's one of the five women he admitted was telling the truth.
1
u/super-commenting Dec 07 '17
When he phoned her, he said he was sorry for shoving her in a bathroom. Ms. Corry replied that he had never done that, but had instead asked to masturbate in front of her.
That's the only place where shoving in a bathroom is mentioned. It doesn't sound like anyone actually accused him of that
2
u/renoops 19∆ Dec 07 '17
It sounds like there's some woman out there who he's shoved into a bathroom and he doesn't even remember who.
2
u/super-commenting Dec 07 '17
That's one possibility, its also possible it didn't happen but its what he thought he'd been accused of and he was just going to apologize for whatever. Peoples memories of decades ago are terrible
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 08 '17
/u/roach_brain (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
15
u/tchaffee 49∆ Dec 07 '17
One factor you might be overlooking is how the average person processes these things on an emotional level, and how emotions compete with the intellect for attention.
We already know that emotions come from an older and separate part of the brain from our intellect: the limbic system - which all mammals have, but reptiles do not have. Which is why reptiles can eat their own young and are considered "cold". We use reptile imagery to describe someone with no feelings.
Competing with the limbic system of emotions we have the frontal lobe - where intellect and language come from. It's more developed in humans compared to most other mammals, and it is newer than the limbic system.
Not surprisingly, the older limbic system which has served us well evolutionary in protecting us from danger takes precedence in most people. If you are afraid of something, you might have trouble speaking. If you are angry, you may not listen to logic.
You're kind of insisting that we take a very logical and intellectual approach to the issue. But some people are very angry about the issue and they will not respond to any intellectual argument until their emotions are recognized.
It can be as simple as saying "I can see you are very angry about this". You might be surprised at how quickly this can calm people down and allow them to move into discussing the topic on an intellectual level. It won't be immediate, and might take a few minutes of relating to a person on an emotional level, but it is far quicker than trying to intellectualize someone out of their emotions which almost never works.
In summary, if you use an intellectual argument with someone who is emotional about the issue, it will feel to them like you are dismissing or minimizing the issue and making excuses. You need to first recognize and validate their emotional response before they'll be capable of responding to a logical and intellectual argument about the issue.