Louis CK 'is a wanker' accusations resurface

[Theremin]

As with everything so far, this is just conjecture, but it's possible the two incidents aren't about the same comic. After all, Louis CK isn't actually named in either of them. One's just a blogger's guessing based on an internet rumour, the other is people making assumptions based on someone's description.

The simplest solution:

The 'Wanking at A Comedy Duo' incident DID happen, and it WAS Doug Stanhope. He's already said it's him, and the most likely candidate to have done something like that.

On Kirkman's podcast, she was actually talking about Chris rock. He's an uber-famous comic, with a history of starring in indie comedy-dramas, and he was married in the year named. (Louis CK got divorced in that year.)

[Noodle Lizard]

On Kirkman's podcast, she was actually talking about Chris rock. He's an uber-famous comic, with a history of starring in indie comedy-dramas, and he was married in the year named. (Louis CK got divorced in that year.)

Doesn't fit the "sitcom auteur" or "new material every year" qualifiers though.

[Theremin]

Doesn't fit the "sitcom auteur" or "new material every year" qualifiers though.

Chris Rock did have a sitcom during that time period. And quite an unconventional, arty one too.

Also, as a touring comic, he probably does write a lot of new material every year. No idea if that amount works out to the 'new jokes every year' ratio judge by US Comic standards, tho.

[monolith]

Louis would probably do some material about this if it wasn't true wouldn't he? I can imagine it's the sort of thing he would do to shine a light on how ludicrous it is, on the proviso that he genuinely didn't do it.

If he did do it then unless he is a total psychopath (which I don't think he is) then I think he would be embarrassed and wouldn't do any material over it.

So that's what will seal it for me... If he does material involving this, great, he's not a sexual crazy. If he doesn't, then I'll be a bit suspicious.

[Noodle Lizard]

Chris Rock did have a sitcom during that time period. And quite an unconventional, arty one too.

I wouldn't say it was unconventional or arty really, it's basically Malcolm In The Middle with a black family in the Bronx (though I found it entertaining enough).  I wouldn't say it makes Chris Rock a "sitcom auteur".  Wouldn't they sooner say "blockbuster movie star" or something, unless they were being deliberately cryptic?

Also, as a touring comic, he probably does write a lot of new material every year. No idea if that amount works out to the 'new jokes every year' ratio judge by US Comic standards, tho.

He tours a lot less than most comics nowadays.  I think you really have to stretch to make all those qualifiers apply to Chris Rock, to be honest.  Also I don't think he's performed at the Aspen Comedy Festival for quite some time.

[Theremin]

I wouldn't say it was unconventional or arty really, it's basically Malcolm In The Middle with a black family in the Bronx (though I found it entertaining enough).  I wouldn't say it makes Chris Rock a "sitcom auteur".  Wouldn't they sooner say "blockbuster movie star" or something, unless they were being deliberately cryptic?

He tours a lot less than most comics nowadays.  I think you really have to stretch to make all those qualifiers apply to Chris Rock, to be honest.  Also I don't think he's performed at the Aspen Comedy Festival for quite some time.

All good points

[up_the_hampipe]

Also, as a touring comic, he probably does write a lot of new material every year. No idea if that amount works out to the 'new jokes every year' ratio judge by US Comic standards, tho.

I think he was somewhat critical of Louis for setting that bar for himself.

[comic630]

Look I know there are situations where defendants can make life miserable (or short) for people who threaten to testify against them but we are not talking about some mafia hitman trial.

It's not a perfect system but personally I don't buy the argument that life would be hell if a victim of CK's came out. It's the only way he will ever have to take responsibility - and if it was sexual abuse, that's a serious charge. It might be 'hell', but it might end with a conviction too.

But the whole 'I can't say anything but his name rhymes with gooey' can fuck right off. It appears to be an attempt to further a career by association rather than any real intention of bringing anyone to justice for real crimes - and not to mention the absolute betrayal of possible future female victims.

It stinks altogether.

It does stink.

And, by the way, what if it was true? Imagine he really did hold the door until he finished masturbating. Would this cause permanent psychological damage? Are these women seeing a therapist for irreparable damage to their psyche? Are they  having PTSD nightmares? Even if it was true, which I seriously doubt, it would probably be an unfortunate episode while he was drunk. It would be creepy, but certainly not serious. Nothing every woman hasn't experienced a bunch of times with exibitionist, but physically harmless creeps on the street.

And that's another reason I think this is, as you say, a way to try to rise up to fame by kicking other people down. Sad...

[Steven]

I've heard a rumour that a certain notable British stand-up comic forces children to lie in a coffin he has in his front room while he looms over them and masturbates furiously, he also takes Polaroids to pleasure himself to as he likes to imagine the children are dead, I obviously can't name who it is but he's at the same level of fame as say Jimmy Carr and has been known to work for Channel 4 quite a lot, it's not Jimmy Carr though.

[thevoola]

This is bullshit, try googling the 2 names or "louis ck masturbation" using " or + , then use a different search engine or tor , google links have all been removed by lawyers.

[newbridge]

I'm guessing Louis got lawyered up, hence the podcast removal. Is Louis CK really that powerful? To me the most powerful American comics have all starred in big feature films, which he hasn't at all. His TV show is surely more on the cult-y level.

It's not Louis CK that's powerful, it's the people currently making a lot of money off of Louis CK's popularity that are powerful.

I'm not going to read the posts in this thread because it's probably a bunch of dum-dum Louis CK fans completely ignoring the pervasive evidence that Louis CK (for many years known as an unfunny misogynistic creep before he became a big shot) is a creep.

[Artemis]

I'd like to hope it isn't true because the logic in his stand-up doesn't point to that

His stand-up stuff, sure. But there have been off-the-cuff moments he's crossed the line when it comes to referring to women. I'm thinking of one or two of his Opie & Anthony appearances specifically. Sure you could brush it off as being part of his style etc., but even within that dynamic it struck me at the time as being ugly and not very funny.

Now, that's not to say there's any logical leap that a guy who gets it wrong occasionally is therefore likely to force upcoming female comics to watch him jerk himself off, but Louis has such a personable connection with his audience that he's easily somebody whose fans might be inclinced to disbelieve anything they don't want to be true, regardless of the truth.

I'd be surprised and gutted if any of this holds any weight, because it undermines the intelligent, self-aware nature of his material. I just can't imagine him doing it without laughing at the absurdity of the situation and failing to get any pleasure in it at all. But people can be two or more things I guess, so it's possible.

I just hope that if there is anything to it, someone will make a specific accusation because implication and gossip is the shittiest way for a career to die, or even be damaged.

[Oops! Wrong Planet]

It's obviously not Louis CK because the people who have made the accusations have immediately responded by saying it's not him.

His SNL end-of-season monologue wasn't funny.

[Shaky]

It does stink.

And, by the way, what if it was true? Imagine he really did hold the door until he finished masturbating. Would this cause permanent psychological damage? Are these women seeing a therapist for irreparable damage to their psyche? Are they  having PTSD nightmares? Even if it was true, which I seriously doubt, it would probably be an unfortunate episode while he was drunk. It would be creepy, but certainly not serious. Nothing every woman hasn't experienced a bunch of times with exibitionist, but physically harmless creeps on the street.

And that's another reason I think this is, as you say, a way to try to rise up to fame by kicking other people down. Sad...

If it's all just some vague smear campaign that is, of course, pretty shitty.

At the risk of sounding like a big right-on bastard, though, it's easy for us blokes to go, "Oh, it's nothing serious". Clearly it is fairly serious. Plenty of women (and men for that matter) have spoken of their enduring horror at being confronted by wankers on public transport and the like. I think it does cross the line to go some way beyond "creepy", myself. You don't need to experience years of 'Nam-esque flashbacks to prove an event has left it's mark.

It's an act which touches on all sorts of personal stuff like sexuality, privacy, self-worth and, y' know, actually choosing for yourself whether you want to see a bloke jazzing off at that point in time. It's not just - "Man wanking - how inconvenient!" I mean, there can be an element of that, but...

Maybe I'm missing out on the fun, though?

[Bored of Canada]

If it wasn't for the one point describing them as a comedian, it could easily be former film student and all round chump Marc Maron.

[up_the_hampipe]

His SNL end-of-season monologue wasn't funny.

http://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c

[comic630]

It's not Louis CK that's powerful, it's the people currently making a lot of money off of Louis CK's popularity that are powerful.

I'm not going to read the posts in this thread because it's probably a bunch of dum-dum Louis CK fans completely ignoring the pervasive evidence that Louis CK (for many years known as an unfunny misogynistic creep before he became a big shot) is a creep.

Keep ignoring the most basic principles of the rule of law. ;)

[comic630]

If it's all just some vague smear campaign that is, of course, pretty shitty.

At the risk of sounding like a big right-on bastard, though, it's easy for us blokes to go, "Oh, it's nothing serious". Clearly it is fairly serious. Plenty of women (and men for that matter) have spoken of their enduring horror at being confronted by wankers on public transport and the like. I think it does cross the line to go some way beyond "creepy", myself. You don't need to experience years of 'Nam-esque flashbacks to prove an event has left it's mark.

It's an act which touches on all sorts of personal stuff like sexuality, privacy, self-worth and, y' know, actually choosing for yourself whether you want to see a bloke jazzing off at that point in time. It's not just - "Man wanking - how inconvenient!" I mean, there can be an element of that, but...

Maybe I'm missing out on the fun, though?

My point wasn't "Man wanking - how inconvenient!" What I'm trying to say is that this wouldn't be serious enough for these women to go after him. It would be wrose than creepy to do that masturbation thing, that's for sure. But it's not anyway near what the women are acusing Bill Cosby, for example. It's a world of difference.

So a woman is spreading rumours of this nature, without any evidence, at the same time Bill Cosby is being publicly acused of far worse things. It stinks of oportunism.

[Beagle 2]

If it wasn't for the one point describing them as a comedian, it could easily be former film student and all round chump Marc Maron.

I thought that, but then I doubt he would be able to resist going on about how he did it at every opportunity in boring twenty-minute long self-indulgent confessional monologues about his enduring guilt and worthlessness.

[phantom_power]

It's not Louis CK that's powerful, it's the people currently making a lot of money off of Louis CK's popularity that are powerful.

I'm not going to read the posts in this thread because it's probably a bunch of dum-dum Louis CK fans completely ignoring the pervasive evidence that Louis CK (for many years known as an unfunny misogynistic creep before he became a big shot) is a creep.

There is no "evidence" whatsoever. It is just tittle-tattle based on a vague description of a comedian in a couple of interviews, one of which doesn't even explicitly state the behaviour described in the original rumour. It is the internet echo chamber at its worst

[Hank_Kingsley]

If you listen to his two part WTF with Marc Maron he talks about being a compulsive masturbator for reals and how it's part of his issues with anxiety. There's a funny, but sad like a sad clown, story about him wanking on an expensive trumpet he bought and realising that he didn't need a trumpet.

I don't see why anyone would make this stuff up, dude probably has a problem keeping it in his pants. Maybe he should come clean before he winds up like Paul Reubens.

[chand]

I don't see why anyone would make this stuff up

For fame and success! The guaranteed fame and success which comes from recounting a tale of an unnamed comedian's shitty behaviour on your podcast which goes largely unnoticed for days until a blogger names the guy, at which point you get the post removed.  It's a classic move!

[Small Man Big Horse]

There is no "evidence" whatsoever. It is just tittle-tattle based on a vague description of a comedian in a couple of interviews, one of which doesn't even explicitly state the behaviour described in the original rumour. It is the internet echo chamber at its worst

Wasn't there some evidence in that the person behind the rumours had contacted Louis, and Louis had replied asking to speak in person? I mean I know it's not much, but if it was all nonsense then surely Louis would have ignored the email / told him to fuck off as it was a pile of shite? Or has that been disproved since?

Count me in as the I really hope it's not him, but if it is then something needs to be done camp, anyhow.

[Dr Rock]

Did I miss the a part where Jen Kirkman gave any kind of clue at all what MrX did or said or gesticulated towards that made her decision to tour with him harder?

If we connect the stories - and we haven't got any good reason to - we get Louis CK wanking near someone who doesn't want to be wanked near again - but does:   

And then I had another guy who is a very famous comic. He is probably at Cosby level at this point. He is lauded as a genius. He is basically a French filmmaker at this point. You know, new material every year. He's a known perv. And there's a lockdown on talking about him. His guy friends are standing by him, and you cannot say a bad thing about him. And I've been told by people "Well then say it then. Say it if it's true." If I say it, my career is over. My manager and my agent have told me that. They didn't threaten it. They just said to me "You know what Jen, it's not worth it because you'll be torn apart. Look at the Cosby women." And this guy didn't rape me, but he made a certain difficult decision to go on tour with him really hard. Because I knew if I did, I'd be getting more of the same weird treatment I'd been getting from him. And it was really fucked up, and this person was married. So it was not good, and so I hold a lot of resentment.

sound like someone talking about a compulsive wank-near-by-er? 'He's a known perv' could mean so many things... It could be any behaviour from stealing underwear to groping to just having a huge embarrassing crush and hitting on them all the time. The last one arguably not as bad as the others. That's what 'same weird treatment' sounds like to me, rather than the weird treatment being sexual harrassment. Would you use those words? Maybe it's in the tone, which we don't have.

but as has been said, saying 'oh he's a ginger fat really successful comedian sitcom maker who I toured with, but I can't say who it is...' You totally just said who it is! And said what he did was anything you can imagine that's not as bad as rape, GO!

[Weeping Prophet]

I don't think it's a stretch that a confessed compulsive masturbator would be enabled within the male-dominated culture of stand-up comedians, where masturbating in front a woman might be seen as some kind of hazing ritual. It's a fucked up abuse of power if true.

[Dr Rock]

I don't know about that but when you hear the US comedians talking about life on the road it's titty-bars this and prostitutes that. Stuff could get normalized. But to put out clues that 99% you are talking about Louis CK then playing coy with naming him, I think the right thing to do is to name the name. It's complex I realise, but if there's a boys club allowing big names to sexually harrass or even make women feel uncomfortable, I'd like it to go beyond hints and obvious clues. It's damaging to the 'scene' and if Loius is innocent he doesn't deserve this trial by very clear insinuation.

[fatguyranting]

I'm a fan, and I like a wank as well, I'm thinking this is all internet bollocks right?

[Squink]

I'm a fan, and I like a wank as well, I'm thinking this is all internet bollocks right?

Interesting take on the whole thing. He forcibly showed them his bollocks on the internet? Eh, that's not so bad. We've all been there. Right lads?

[St_Eddie]

We've all been there. Right lads?

No and you can't prove otherwise![nb]Unless you were recording my video feed, in which case you've caught me with my pants down.  Literally.[/nb]

[a big egg]

First of all, I think Louie CK is terrific and I'll be incredibly disappointed if this is true. I think Gawker is pretty reprehensible as a news source and I tend to be suspicious of anonymous blind items with no names attached. But is it any wonder that women don't come out and make accusations when this is the response? To take an example post almost completely at random:

What I'm trying to say is that this wouldn't be serious enough for these women to go after him. It would be wrose than creepy to do that masturbation thing, that's for sure. But it's not anyway near what the women are acusing Bill Cosby, for example. It's a world of difference.

,So a woman is spreading rumours of this nature, without any evidence, at the same time Bill Cosby is being publicly acused of far worse things. It stinks of oportunism.

If the story is true:

• it's not even a proper rape anyway, what are you complaining about?
• making allegations of sexual assault? that's just spreading rumours without evidence (where exactly is she going to find the evidence of having been aggressively wanked on years ago?)
  
• it's clearly all just a grab for publicity, because those Cosby women all have their own primetime chatshows now

But of course. Why wouldn't someone want to open herself up to that kind of scrutiny/mad judgements over a crime (and yes, aggressive wanking is still a violation and still a crime) that has a miniscule conviction rate? It's a golden opportunity for a lass.