Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Why do Supposedly Mighty Hollywood Men Jerk Off in Front of Women?

Why do Supposedly Mighty Hollywood Men Jerk Off in Front of Women?

One peculiar detail common to the many recent claims of sexual harassment by supposedly powerful men in the entertainment industry aka ‘Hollywood’ concerns the unusual prominence of an otherwise uncommon sexual act, namely masturbating in front of a woman. It seems that others have also noticed the unusual prominence of this act in the seemingly endless flow of accusations against supposedly powerful men in that industry.

The current favored explanation by “credentialed experts” is that masturbation in front of an unwilling woman is some sort of dominance move, like a dog pissing on some tree down the street. But there is a small problem with that explanation. It is.. you see.. totally made up bullshit without any connection to reality. If the “expert” explanation was true, this act would be far more common- especially in a country as full of dysfunctional relationships as USA.

So why is this otherwise uncommon sexual act so common for supposedly powerful men in Hollywood? I mean.. what sexual pleasure can you get out of jerking off in front of an unwilling woman? More curiously, why are there so few accounts of white or non-white sport-stars, actors or musicians jerking off in front of unwilling women? Why don’t they have to jerk off in front of women to establish dominance?

Part of the answer is obvious once you look at photos of those accused of that sexual act. Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, Mark Halperin, Brett Ratner, James Tobback etc are not what you would call handsome or physically desirable to most women. They are just plain middle-management types who happened to get lucky and become powerful in that industry. Their social status and alleged importance is linked to the position they have come to occupy in the hierarchy of late capitalism.

In other words, they have virtually no intrinsic sexual appeal to women. If it were not for a lucky break or two, these men would have been the semi-castrated money earning “yes, dear” slaves found within stucco suburban shitboxes and office parks all across USA and pretty much every other ‘developed’ country. In an older post about why women prefer “bad boys” over “responsible men”, I talked about why men who display autonomous agency are far more attractive to women than those who are, for all practical purposes, well-paid slaves.

All these supposedly powerful men in Hollywood derive that power from working within a matrix of rules, regulations and conventions. For all their alleged power, they are completely subservient to the system. In that respect, they are comparable to powerful eunuchs who served in Chinese imperial courts over the centuries. Between that and their rather mediocre physical appearance, it is no surprise that most women do not find them sexually attractive.

Readers can now see why uncompensated sexual advances from such men might cause outright revulsion within most women. In contrast to this, most women would be quite happy to receive such attention from men who are either good-looking, display some degree of autonomous agency or both. That is why sport stars, music stars, physically attractive actors, “criminals”, drug dealers and narcissistic sociopaths do not have to jerk off in front of unwilling women.

But we are still left with the question about why these mediocre middle-management types jerk off in front of women rather than physically threaten them to have sex or have sex with them by force? What stops them from pointing a gun at the head of some woman and asking her to suck their cock or take it in the ass? Why do almost none of the women allegedly harassed or assaulted by these men report feeling afraid of being killed? Also, why didn’t these men just hire escorts to act out their fantasies?

The answer to that set of questions requires us to first confront an unpleasant fact about living in decaying societies full of institutions. The thing is.. large and hierarchical institutions of any type are full of spineless men (and women) because only they will willingly take stupid orders and endure humiliation from their immediate superiors who have to endure if from somebody above them, ad infinitum. It is therefore not surprising that such spineless behavior manifests itself in other aspects of their life.

That is why physical assaults are far more common in dysfunctional blue-collar marriages than their white-collar equivalents. That is why most people living in suburbs and working in office parks threaten legal action than beat the crap out of someone offensive. Now, we can certainly argue if this is good thing or bad thing. My point is that this type of systematic passive-aggressive behavior is not natural to human beings. Anyway, the consequence of living in such a society is that the most supposedly powerful people in it are almost always the biggest pussies.

To make a long story short, all these supposedly powerful men in Hollywood were jerking off in front of unwilling women because they were mediocre men without intrinsic sexual appeal who were also too chicken to actually physically force themselves on those women. Personally, I find all of this darkly comic and absurdist rather than tragic.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. balu
    November 12, 2017 at 4:11 am

    I think this is quite obvious that these were more than jerking off. A woman, who gave a blow job to a powerful manager to further her career, however reluctantly, and then comes up with it 20 years later, doesn’t say that “I sucked his dick”. Whatever you think of these things, such “episodes” are kinda “consensual”, i.e. she sucked his dick or offered her ass without physical forcing. It is well possible and understandable that these women are not proud of this and feel this quite uncomfortable. Now they want to say that they were involved in a sexual act without physical forcing, and the least damaging for themselves is claiming they watched him jerking off.

  2. webej
    November 12, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    Nobody is talking about what kind of women acquiesce and compromise and what kind of women tell such men to shove it. Almost all of the women coming forward are complicit and knew they were getting a leg up (so to say) on other women/competitors. Shame has kept them from admitting it all these many years, not because there is something wrong with society, but because it is, well, shameful. Many happily posed with Harvey or whoever and accompanied these guys when appearances demanded.
    It is telling that only today has male sexuality become so universally loathed and female victimization become so completely unquestioned that all these stories are enabled in an “orgy” of moral indignation and self-pity. Decrepit!


    Yes, that is true. The issue I was focusing on is why women are so willing to turn against middle-management type white men as opposed to music stars, famous actors and sportsmen aka the guys they actually want to fuck.

  3. hoipolloi
    November 12, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    “…the unusual prominence of an otherwise uncommon sexual act, namely masturbating in front of a woman.”

    It is equally puzzling to me to read about this phenomenon. I can’t relate to these men masturbating in front of women. Were they on some Viagra kind of drug in anticipation of a sex encounter? It is difficult to argue in a court of law that a blow job is not consensual, as different from vaginal sex. As @balu said above this could be lawyer crafted wording so the women don’t look like whores or worse but make feminism induced allegations for financial gain.

  4. November 12, 2017 at 11:13 pm
  5. balu
    November 13, 2017 at 3:10 am

    I actually know a powerful “tycoon” (of local significance) and a very attractive young woman who has an incredible career as the lover of him. The whole thing started when she gave a blow job to him during a company party. Now I’m inclined to think that this is quite like an “escort service”, and most of the “victims” actually profit from these episodes, and this is a kinda price they have to pay for it. So it is quite dishonest for them now to come up with it. (Kevin Spacey’s case looks like the only exception. He was a young no one at that time, both were drunk, he can’t remember the whole thing, I think that probably started as consensual, and now it got blown out of proportion completely.)

    • hoipolloi
      November 13, 2017 at 4:02 am

      I have read in the news women talking to each other saying, who did she blew to get this assignment? The exchange of sex with a man who makes decisions is not simply because he is corrupt, but competition among possible candidates. They purposely blow a guy to beat competition. All scenarios are possible in office politics, but this is the most travelled.

      • webej
        November 13, 2017 at 4:58 am

        Not just BJs. In academia students typically exchange information on which profs are amenable (better grade) to showing some cleavage or who feel ingratiated upon a touch of flirtation. Even waitresses manage to get extra tips and gifts by turning up the being-female knob. It’s so much part of the warp and woof of society that it’s unconscious: Only excess is (a little) remarkable.

      • P Ray
        November 16, 2017 at 2:34 am

        If there is any wonder why women are so-called “streaking ahead of men in education and gaining degrees”, two reasons come to mind:
        1. coercion by either offering sexual bribes or threatening to accuse a lecturer of asking for such bribes (whether it happened or not)
        2. women mark other women more leniently while in learning institutions.

        Then they get on board the diversity hire train or the management track, and start ordering around men who actually know their work.
        Seen too many examples of that in real life. You can tell these people by the way they act as if learning a subject thoroughly is very simple and the road to financial independence is so simple.
        It is … when you have a pussy to barter with, and thirsty men willing to help you along.

  6. November 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm

  7. Yusef
    November 15, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    “Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, Mark Halperin, Brett Ratner, James Tobback etc are not what you would call handsome or physically desirable to most women. They are just plain middle-management types who happened to get lucky and become powerful in that industry.”

    I don’t think these men can be grouped together this way as if they all fit into the same category. You are lumping them together as the same personality and psychological type, the same perversion type, and so on, but if you look at their biographies, they have very little in common except now they’ve been accused of the same kind of inappropriate behavior.

    I also can’t agree these are just middle management types who got lucky even though luck plays some part in their success, as it does in everyone else’s. Tell me what’s middle management about James Toback? He’s pudgy and maybe a bit ugly– tell me those are traits confined to middle management types…And I’ll tell you that you are out of touch with reality. Toback was a child prodigy who was set to graduate Harvard in two years or something. Then he was an independent director of movies which have been influential over time. He’s not really part of the Hollywood hierarchy, system, or the movie industry per se. He’s had long-term friendships with Jim Brown of the NFL and Mike Tyson. He wasn’t futzing around at any time and he hasn’t been timid. It’s long been known he’s tried and done just about anything and everything there is to be done.

    Face it– you’re jealous and resentful. You want to attribute everything these men have accomplished to their luck…You want to call them mediocre….Because it makes you feel better.

    • P Ray
      November 16, 2017 at 2:31 am

      At which point do you not call someone in the arts mediocre though?
      Were they able to perform their craft with little help or input from a score of others?
      Did they release movies they wrote, casted, directed, filmed, publicised and distributed only by themselves?
      What could they do alone?

      By any measure of art, in the field of music rappers are actually more talented seeing that quite a few were independent yet recognised e.g. Eminem.

      • hoipolloi
        November 16, 2017 at 10:30 am

        @P Ray: “Were they able to perform their craft with little help or input from a score of others?” “What could they do alone?”

        I have been wondering about this for a long time. In order to give a talk and get a job, I go to college with my own finances first, get degree in a particular subject, perform experiments in the lab, collect data, read about it, prepare my own slides and posters, comb my own hair and go present to peers and get criticized. Contrast this with the work of a director, someone gives a story line, some one does a screen play, some one writes dialogues, an investor finances, a builder builds sets, a cameramen chooses angles, make-up persons do the make up, wardrobe persons provide clothing, the actors play their parts, lighting boys arrange lights, some one edits it and so on. You the blessed director/producer get your nomination for Oscar. But to call yourself a top tier artist is always not justified.

        The same can be said of hero and heroine character players.

      • P Ray
        November 16, 2017 at 2:16 pm

        You the blessed director/producer get your nomination for Oscar.
        In the tech world, that role is taken by the founder who had hundreds, if not thousands of programmers behind them, then talks about their innovation and ability.

        If Mark Zuckerberg had been prosecuted for violating the privacy of undergraduates, there would not have been a Facebook, and he would have simply been a creepy pervert for example.

        But add in the “child prodigy”(because parents could afford a private programmer as a tutor), “rich people like him”(Winklevoss twins wanted him to do the work while they got the credit) and “socioeconomic shield”(everyone knows only the poor are degenerate) and et voila, I bring you the “visionary CEO”.

        Fact of it is there’s certainly a blind spot towards ethics when ignoring it promises riches. Money beats morals almost every time.

      • Yusef
        November 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm

        “At which point do you not call someone in the arts mediocre though?”

        Who said anything about the arts? I’ve been talking about the entertainment INDUSTRY, maybe, but not the arts. And I’ve been refuting the idea these men are “middle management types, which I take to mean futzes, putzes, lackluster duffers, dimwits, schmucks, not that they deserve accolades as creative geniuses.

        You’re entirely right to say these men benefit from a lot of other talented people making them look good. What I disagree with is this is a trait of a “middle management” type of person. If you think it is easy to get intelligent, talented, creative people to “make you look good” why aren’t you doing it? The fact is, the entertainment industry is a tough, dog eat dog, go for the throat, no holds barred, toxic world and the people who thrive there, meaning the ones who make a career there, aren’t the ones who have nothing going for them but a little luck. There’s too much at stake, there are too many people who want that life– it’s competitive. No one makes it without guts and a large measure of cunning and calculation. “Middle management” types don’t have that. That’s why I don’t feel the slightest bit of surprise at these “revelations” about guys like Weinstein. I see all this as entirely consistent with his “type.” I believe the real purpose of these “revelations” is to distract us all. I don’t understand why DA succumbs. That’s surprising to me.

      • P Ray
        November 17, 2017 at 6:50 pm

        No one makes it without guts and a large measure of cunning and calculation.
        Uh … that just means that those “middle management” gatekeeper people were stupid, because they added criminal behaviour to the mix, and didn’t run when their victims started coming forward.

        Which also points toward psychopathy, as psychopaths think they are not subject to the same rules as others.

        But in a way they’re also right.

        Women treat regular/ugly men like crap – and get away with it, so those guys were just returning the bad behaviour.

        It’s a gift when men can’t collect on a favour, and, years later, it is “victimisation” when they could.

        Talking (just) about psychopathy leaves out a bunch of people who think that getting favours means you don’t need to reciprocate, it could simply be women psychopaths … getting out-psychopath-ed by men psychopaths.

  8. November 17, 2017 at 8:07 pm

    This article is on point.

    Of course, the reason why “thugs and bad boys” win with women is because they assume the sex is great. Which has validity, but also, these men don’t have a “slave mentality” most middle-class and suburbanite men do. I know you and I both know this. This is also why blue-collar or urban types are seen as more aggressive and manly. Whereas “educated lames” and “do right” men have no sense of agency, let alone stamina and sexual chemistry. Some of them are too chicken to hire escorts. This kind of passive-aggressive behavior is perpetuated in developed countries and this leads to sexual frustration AND what I call “sexual martyrdom” (I wrote about this before years ago).

    I’ll never advocate that anyone forces themselves on women, but you have merit, as usual. But “thugs and bad boys” almost never have to force themselves on bitches, because for one, they have options. Remember “pussy is fungible”; even a “trick” (guy who sees escorts) know this. These “established beta males” are so fucked up and their inability to get pussy warps their minds so much that they advocate the murder, enslavement and rape of women to validate their looney ideas. The feminism issue plus women’s sense of selectivity is another issue. Remember, some women don’t mind getting smacked by a Chris Brown type, but if Max Hardcore tries that on any random chick, we’ll see what happens…

    • Yusef
      November 20, 2017 at 4:49 pm

      This is more b.s.– women liking thugs and bad boys. Sure, women like men with a sense of agency and confidence, over simpering wimpering begging little boys. It just isn’t true “thugs and bad boys” are the ones with agency and confidence. In a contest between two confident men, one a “thug and bad boy” and the other not, women choose the latter each and every time. By the way, there’s no way either you or AD- Diablo are, or present as, thugs and bad boys, so get over it.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: