I might be "stating the obvious here", but since a few posters have brought up the fact that C.K asked the women he masturbated in front if "it was ok", that his behavior should be seen in a much more lenient way than if he had just coldly done so anyway.
I think some of these posters are misunderstanding consent. In several reports, women who encountered C.K in this way described a situation where C.K didn't leave much time for the women to properly react to his proposition before starting to undress (ie, act as if they consented).
Consent isn't merely about saying a string of words, like you're throwing a "get-out-of-trouble"-spell. What's been fairly consistent with C.K's way of behaving, is that he's been - kinda cynically - leaning on the fact that he "did ask if it was ok"(I guess, mostly to soften his own behavior by distancing himself from other high-profile people who didn't "ask" before committing an act that later became established as sexual assault, once it came to light).
I don't want to sound all dramatic here, but there is something that's particularly off-putting about knowingly misusing the concept of consent in this manner.
If you start undressing 10 seconds after abruptly asking an acquaintance "out of the blue" if it's okay if you showed them your dick, you're clearly not particularly interested in establishing actual consent, as much as you're using the concept as a way to (cynically) soften the severity of your actions (in a way that's actually quite perverse, cowardly and very dark).
I'm obviously not privy to the precise circumstances of every time C.K has done or tried this strategy. But while it's possible that he did honor the wishes of the women who were quick-enough to rebuke him, the precise way several of these accounts have been described have left me with the feeling that asking for consent was more of a formality, than an actual choice given to these people.
I think most people - on this forum, at least - have properly picked up on the subtext of this behavior, and how flimsy it is as a point of defense. But I figured it wouldn't hurt if I just wrote out my precise thoughts about it, since it's been on my mind for the last couple of hours.
My point is that (as well I understand the situation) he might as well not have asked, because he clearly didn't give these people proper time and space to actually make an informed decision, which is what consent is all about.
I don't think C.K is dumb enough to not understand this; quite the opposite. I think he cynically worked a "nice-guy" angle to his assault, and it feels disingenuous to have it talked about as if it actually made much difference just because it superficially registers as "consent".
I'm not interested in "calling anyone out" here; just adding some thoughts. Cheers.