The incident in the first paragraph (the one I believe you’re referring to) is one of the ones I think needs more clarity. “They thought it was a joke and laughed it off.“ This makes their exact response unclear. It’s shitty writing on the Times part.
Yes, and what I'm saying is: Put yourself in their shoes.
Or to flip it: What if someone like ToxicAdam invited you over to their house. You're having dinner with him. "Hey, is it cool if I jack-off in front of you?" *You're not sure if they're being serious or joking and try to laugh it off awkwardly because you're not cool with that* "(I take it your laughing means, 'yes please jack-off in front of me, ToxicAdam!' Cool (we're on the same page!)" *ToxicAdam proceeds to whip it out and jack it in front of you*
You:

"Uh, you're for real?"
ToxicAdam: Of course I was!
You: No, dude. I didn't want you to do that.
---
Ok, that's a bad example given the Bore's gay subtext and it's late and I'm trying to figure out a good way of wording this. Basically he put the suggestion out there, they thought it was an off-color joke and him doing it was over the line for them because they didn't "consent" to it beyond that awkward laugh where they thought he wasn't serious.
Basically it's a mixed message all around between the two, but C.K. doing it repeatedly to folks without saying "yo, I'm an exhibitionist and would like to jack off in front of you, cool?" is crossing the line no matter how you slice it, IMO.