Last week, The New York Times reported that comedian Louis CK has a history of masturbating in front of women without their consent. The following day, CK released a statement admitting that the accusations were true.

I cannot decide if I should be more appalled or resentful of the fact that every time we learn about yet another famous sexual predator, I find myself shocked—both by the man's behavior, and the public reaction to it.

In Louis CK's case, people expressed disappointment over the loss of CK’s career for what they felt was an easily remedied issue; one common response was that he should’ve indulged his so-called "fetish" of masturbating in front of women by hiring a sex worker, instead. “Louis CK could have paid a hooker or dominatrix to laugh at him while he wanked it and this all could have been avoided.,” read one tweet. “Oh for f**ks sake!! Why?? Just why? Go pay for a hooker or go pick someone up in a bar! Or keep it in your pants! God damn it #LouisCK I really loved your stuff! Huge letdown that you too are a sad perv,” someone else tweeted.

As if “sad pervs” are the only people who want to masturbate in front of women. And as if sex workers are a quick fix who can and should cheerfully quell serially predatory men's desires, making them no longer a threat to decent society.

It’s not surprising that people would use sex workers as the proverbial punching bags for Louis CK's predatory sexual impulses.

Sex workers are used to butting heads with the comedy world, where vapid strippers and dead hookers run amok in reliably tired stand-up sets and TV shows. Louis CK himself has a bit where he talks about how if murder were legal everyone would be a murderer, making those who don't murder others suspicious. The joke goes: “Not even a hooker? Live a life! What’s wrong with that guy?”

Sex workers are some of comedy’s most disposable people, which is made even worse by the fact that it's a reflection of reality. Amnesty International reports that sex workers around the world are routinely subjected to violence and stigma due to criminalization and marginalization. So it isn’t that surprising to me that people would, in a similar vein, suggest that sex workers exist merely to absorb whatever sexual impulse one might have on a given day—so that non-sex workers may be spared the abuse.

As someone who has not only participated in sex work, but who advertised specifically and explicitly for an exchange where men would pay me to watch them masturbate to completion—with my full consent—I find this narrative dangerous and offensive. Sex workers do not exist to save abusive men from themselves, or to save non-sex-working women from abusive men. Every sex worker ought to have the ability to establish her own boundaries, her own rates, and not face intimidation when she does not give consent for any reason.

What's more, dismissing these abusive behaviors as the result of "weird" fetishes is just another excuse not to grapple with these predators' brazen disregard for consent.

As for the notion that a so-called "fetish" drove CK to commit his abuses: Nonsense. I’ve worked in strip clubs and dabbled in selling used underwear on Craigslist, and I’ve found that many men are interested in having women watch them masturbate. Sometimes I learned this because they asked politely if they could and other times I learned this because they whipped out their penises and began doing so without warning or my consent. It could happen in the public area of a strip club while giving a lap dance: he would touch my arm and smile expectantly, then look down at his own erection in anticipation of my approval. It could happen in a VIP room where there isn’t security necessarily watching the cameras at all times. It could happen when I consented only to sell a man a pair of underwear and he’d begin masturbating before he paid me. Long story short: there are a lot of ways a guy can whip it out without your consent, even if you’re not that shocked by it. But not being shocked by something does not mean I consented to it.