It’s good that stuff like this is coming up, but some of the NYT article comes across as moral judgements on the sexual deviancy, as opposed to the abuse (which undeniably takes the form of a sexual act). [From as far as I can tell, the situation with Goodman/Wolov and Louis was consensual (the article explicitly avoids saying anything about their response to him asking to masturbate in front of them, and later adds that they laughed through it) and that they told people about it expressly to shame him. It is possible that it was not consensual, which is a different matter altogether, but given how explicit the other allegations are, that seems like a curious omission here.]
If Louis assaulted anyone and/or abused a position of power, then he should go down for that. However, if he likes to jerk off in front of women (consensually), and proposes that to someone who he is interested in, then that should be ok. We shouldn’t equate non-normative behavior with “abuse”.
Reminds me of this really great article and take on the whole ‘grab her by the pussy’ thing with Trump, with the issue that most people had with it was the fact that it was a sexual gesture, not one of power and control:
edit: Louis has come out and apologized, although he states the incidents were consensual, this raises a different (larger?) issue about the nature of consent and perhaps how it relates to fame and fetish. (i.e. is it impossible for Louis to have consent when it comes to masturbating in front of someone because of his fame?)