Search Box

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Forcing women to watch you masturbate

When most guys get rejected by a woman, their instinct is to slink away with their tail between their legs. They feel embarrassed, maybe even humiliated, and want to make a quick exit.

But evidently some guys have an entirely different reaction: they pull their tail out and wank it. That behavior may stop short of rape, but it's indecent exposure and a half.

Until recently, I didn't even know this was a thing. I had always heard that flashers were basically just guys who were impotent. Evidently not.

Harvey Weinstein has reportedly done this to at least two women who wanted no part of him.

Comedian Louis C.K. has been accused of having done this to several female comediennes.

And now MSNBC personality Mark Halperin is being accused of the same thing.

All three of these men were in positions of power, and the women they did it to were initially reluctant to complain because they felt it might have harmed their careers.

Prison inmates have long been known to do this to female guards. In a way, it's actually harder to blame them. Those who weren't animals to begin with may become that way after a stint in prison, and the female guards are the only females they have any contact with.

That certainly doesn't excuse it, but it does make it a little easier to understand.

I was originally going to describe this behavior as another red flag for sociopathy, since it combines a complete lack of inhibition with a complete disregard for the women forced to watch. And Weinstein is, as I've pointed out before, an obvious sociopath.

But looking through Louis C.K.'s and Halperin's biographies, there just isn't a whole lot else that spells sociopathy about either man. And both are of an age, and have led public enough lives, that, were they sociopaths, the syndrome would have manifested itself in any number of ways. And it just hasn't.

So I can't call the behavior a red flag for sociopathy. But it's probably a red flag for something; I'm just not sure what the syndrome is.


Anonymous said...

You worked on Wall Street and you can't see what the three you mentioned have in common? Please!

John Craig said...

Anon --
I did, but that's not quite a "syndrome."

(And Louis C.K.'s mother is Irish.)

Anonymous said...

I don't think some men quite understand what turns a woman on so some men use themselves as a reference. Obviously, men and woman are very different in this area. Could it be that the man believes that the woman who says "no" will see him masturbate and then suddenly become aroused as a man might if a woman did the same? I don't know if that is true in these cases...especially Weinstein... and haven't read much about the other men you mention...but there is undeniable evidence (my friends and I can provide that evidence!) that men think women think just as they do sexually. This is why many women who have told a man that she is not interested in him sexually tend to receive the "selfie of last resort" which women have termed the "penis pic". The penis pic is always accompanied by a statement like "are you sure you don't want this?" Or "are you seriously going to say no to this?" I cannot say all men think like this nor would all men be enticed by a woman who sent a "selfie of last resort" with a statement of "are you sure you don't want this" but I do know that many men who were previously not interested in a woman would certainly be turned on by the pic...especially if the woman was attractive. Therefore, men try this tactic with a women not knowing that the woman would actually be repulsed by such a thing. You can alway tell when a woman receives a "selfie of last resort". It could be at work, in church, in the middle of a meeting or in line at the grocery store when she is checking her messages and out of nowhere she will let out a grunt of disgust, throw her phone down and yell out, "Seriously! Not another one!"


John Craig said...

Hannah --
I think you're right. That actually occurred to me when I was reading those accounts of Weinstein parading around nude in front of those women: he knew it would turn him on to see them naked, and figured they would react the same way. And you're right, most guys don't realize that women tend to be much less visual.

I'd never thought of those as the "selfie of last resort," but that's a good description. Your description is quite funny.

(BTW, can I have your phone number? I have something I want to send you......)

LBD said...

Nah, Fat Bastard knew very well that nobody, I mean nobody, ever in his life wanted to see him naked, not even people who liked him, not even people he was married to. For him to think otherwise would mean that he did not own a mirror.

Men do that to humiliate women, plain and simple. If they are restrained from physical contact, they do it visually. The disgust is part of the payoff.

Shaun F said...

John - How do we know the accusations are true concerning Louis C. K. and Mark Halperin? Isn't it just he said she said? I believe certain people are known to read stories in the paper and claim it happened to them. Also I think you should check the Mark Halperin link doesn't lead anywhere.

John Craig said...

LBD --
It may be that even though Weinstein knew he was ugly, he thought that the sight of his unclothed body would have still been a turn on. Maybe he has a big cock, and figured that was enough to get their juices flowing.

But, yeah, it could be that the shock and horror and fear he was in their faces was part of what got him off.

John Craig said...

Shaun --[
Thank you re: the Halperin link, it's been fixed.

If it was just he said she said then I wouldn't necessarily put too much stock in it, but with both Louis C.K. and Halperin, it's much more like he said they said. When four or six or eight women all say the same thing, you have to figure they're telling the truth and he's lying. Sure, it's *possible* that they're all lying, but unlikely. A more extreme example: Bill Cosby. (How many of them have to tell the same story before the truth becomes clear?)

And when the person being accused apologizes for his behavior in vague terms (without admitting to anything specific, as per his lawyers), and says he's seeking help, that's pretty much an admission of guilt. That's what both Weinstein and Halperin have done. Louis C.K. hasn't denied any of the accusations, but whenever anybody has brought the subject up to him, he'll deflect and say that he wants to speak only of his work, or take some similarly evasive maneuver.

Shaun F said...

John - The stuff about Halperin is 20 years old and from 2006. I guess they couldn't deal with this 20 years ago?

Anyway, after having watched the Ghomeshi case in our country and seen some stuff in my office - I would never "figure" because of the similarity of the stories that that is a reason to believe it's true. Also after reading what was written by these women seems pretty "dramatic" and well sensational. Like out of a movie!

Apologizes like these that are offered can be "strongly recommended" by your employer. You know. For optics.

I can't honestly say I can see clearly - there is too much sensationalism and noise around all this stuff. But this may be a could be a real bloodbath, so let's keep our fingers crossed.

John Craig said...

Shaun --
The stuff about Weinstein goes back more than 20 years. People need to hang on to their jobs (or get roles), so keep their mouths shut so they won't develop reputations as "troublemakers."

Weinstein was fired by his own company right around the time he issued that vaguely-worded apology in which he also said he would go after the NRA and Trump. His non-apology apology was I'm sure recommended b his PR people and vetted by his lawyer, not his employer, which was basically his own company.

Anonymous said...

Oh God!! Actually, I know you are just playing.


The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

Perhaps the men who do this feel it's not an objectionable act since in their minds, they're paying the woman a compliment -- like,'whoa, baby, you're hot enough to masturbate to!' -- what's offensive about that?

It sure bespeaks of a lack of -- or loss of -- rules of socialization. I think it's back before kindergarten when we learn that it's not OK to parade with our privates hanging out -- or playing with them in public.

The shock/fuck=you-I'm gonna-have you-anyway argument also seems plausible -- at least for some cases.

As far as these guys' reactions, and whether their accusers should be believed, I don't know. There is no graceful or convincing response to such an accusation. Deny it with passion and be met with a collective public smirk; say nothing and slink away, and be met with a rasied eyebrow and a collective 'aha! Guilty as charged!'

I don't even take lawsuit settlements as definitive proof of anything. People who think it is proof don't understand how civil litigation and settlements work. People and corporations settle suits for all sorts of reasons all the time, not necessarily having anything to do with guilt. One of the most egregious examples I've ever come across was of a woman who sued Gerber because she accused the company of making a faulty bottle nipple that she said her infant daughter choked on to death. Mysteriously, her husband and I think a boyfriend also perished (from other causes, but with a hefty payout to her through life insurance policies). Gerber settled the suit with her for $700K before the case made a blip. But it wasn't Gerber's faulty nipple that killed the baby -- it was mom herself. She sits on death row today.

John Craig said...

Ambivalent Misanthrope --
I honestly don't think the men who do this are trying to make the women they do it to feel complimented. (As evidenced by Harvey Weinstein's comment to that newscaster he did it to: "Well then you can stand there and shut up!")

Agree completely about the rules of socialization.

I think that false rape charges are far more common than most people realize, and that Hillary's statement last year that all rape accusers have the right to be believed (which is tantamount to a presumption of guilt for the accused) turns our system of laws on its head. But in cases like those of the three men named in this post, each had so many accusers that it would be hard to believe that where there's that much smoke, there's no fire. Think of the Bill Cosby case: do you think that with 40+ women saying he drugged and raped them, there's any chance at all that he's innocent?

Agree about the nature of lawsuits and out of court settlements though. Corporations get raped, so to speak, by unscrupulous lawyers who pursue nuisance lawsuits, all the time.

As I was reading your last paragraph I was hoping that your story would have a happy ending; glad it did.

Steven said...

Have you seen that the Louis CK allegations are finally blowing up?

I get the impression from reading more about Louis that he had a specific fetish about masturbating in front of women. It never came after he was turned down for sex, like with Weinstein. He always asked them if he could masturbate in front of them...that was the thing he was after. And since he always asked them first, and sometimes they said yes, it seems like he was just as satisfied if it was consensual. I think he was so aroused by this that sometimes he just did it anyway. There's a lack of respect for consent there but I'm guessing he told himself that it wasn't that bad as they weren't being touched or physically assaulted.

Wanking in front of women was simply Louis' kink. I don't know if it implies any other psychological thing beyond that...?

John Craig said...

Steven --
I saw the headline today, but didn't read the article, I was busy with other stuff this afternoon. You're right, that was his specific fetish, totally different than Weinstein who did it as a substitute for real sex. And yes, I think you're right about Louis C.K.'s thinking, he probably figured he wasn't doing them any real harm. (To a certain extent, I agree with him, it's certainly not rape, but it IS indecent exposure.)

There's a certain Puritanical bent that feminism has sort of imposed on us. You're too young to remember, but "streaking," or running around nude, was a thing back in the 70's and 80's. Guys would do it, and it never occurred to anyone to prosecute them for it. It never turned quite as sexual as the recent masturbators have turned it, but it was still, technically, indecent exposure. Which, frankly, I don't see as that big a deal, unless you're doing it to a little kid. Certain European countries have coed nude saunas for crying out loud. (Though I suspect masturbating would be considered bad form there.)