NFT: Aziz Ansari accused of sexual harassment but the question is

In comment 13793926 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

And conversely women are told to play "hard to get", to resist some to come over as a "good girl". Its a vicious circle. Women say no and get the guys to pursue. THe guys know this and push forward even after an initial push back. Guys should just stop and girls should just say yes or no. However that is not the way the game is currently played.

Couldn't be anymore on point.

"I'm worth it, so he'll pursue me!"

Women have been programmed to setup this stupid defensive wall. Men have to fight through this wall just to have a chance. Now we're saying that attempting to penetrate (no pun) this wall is akin to sexual assault?

Full email that the Babe.net reporter who wrote the story sent when asked to go on HLN with Ashleigh Banfield (I assume you’ve seen her reaction. If you haven’t you should).

Since when did being "brave" mean making accusations anonymously through the press (or whatever BABE is).

what a juvenile, vindictive response from the writer. Not only do her personal attacks on Banfield undermind the #MeToo movement's quest to stop objectifying women, but her response damages the credibility of the original story. I can no longer trust that the original story was an objective telling of the events.

typo

In comment 13794456 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

is old enough to speak, one of the first things a parent says when the child is trying to express a desire is "use your words." That such a simple sentiment is lost on a 23 year-old woman making adult choices is frightening.

Just catching up with this thread. This crossed my mind too.

episode?

1) Every movement, even the most righteous one, is very likely to get to an extreme, eventually.

2) The challenge isn't that it gets to an extreme. The challenge is pulling back from that extreme, without giving its enemies a "see, I told you it was all BS" opportunity.

So, it seems extremely likely (to me) that Ansari got caught up in one of these extremes. How does #MeToo pull back in a way that leaves Ansari whole, but doesn't screw up responses to the vast number of situations where there clearly was sexual assault, harassment or use of power for sex?

A lot of people seem to be focusing on this set of issues, so it might get fixed.

In comment 13794845 madgiantscow009 said:

Quote:

episode?

The one where there is a misunderstanding, and Kramer spazs out.

manh george said:

Quote:

1) Every movement, even the most righteous one, is very likely to get to an extreme, eventually. 2) The challenge isn't that it gets to an extreme. The challenge is pulling back from that extreme, without giving its enemies a "see, I told you it was all BS" opportunity. So, it seems extremely likely (to me) that Ansari got caught up in one of these extremes. How does #MeToo pull back in a way that leaves Ansari whole, but doesn't screw up responses to the vast number of situations where there clearly was sexual assault, harassment or use of power for sex? A lot of people seem to be focusing on this set of issues, so it might get fixed.

Manh, I agree that there's a teaching moment here, but I disagree about its nature. To put it differently, I think there are several teaching moments running concurrently. They are not mutually exclusive, and they all have real value if we don't get caught up arguing about the grey areas where the topics seem to overlap.

I don't think anyone is confusing Ansari with egregious sickos like Weinstein and Toback. There's an important conversation about powerful men committing horrible crimes against women, and industries protecting them or looking the other way. There's also a broader conversation about everyday workplace harassment, and also one about men like Ansari just being insensitive jerks and behaving as though life is porn and women are objects. While all of these conversations are taking place under the #metoo umbrella, I think most participants understand the breadth of the spectrum. Criticizing #metoo for inclusiveness (or "going too far") seems a bit disingenuous. The whole point of the inclusiveness is to emphasize that the behaviors are a spectrum, and that they are connected - not equivalent, just connected. So the teaching moment has many aspects, but I don't think the lesson is to pull back from pressing the case in areas where it's harder to make.

Whether Ansari deserves to be outed as a bad date is another question. In some sense, it may seem unfair; but kiss-and-tell risk comes with fame. He took that risk by hooking up, and now he's facing the consequences. Tough. Other than humiliation, I doubt the consequences for his career will be all that severe. So far, at least, he's not getting the Weinstein treatment - or even the Kevin Spacey treatment - and he probably won't.

Meanwhile, his fame is being used (again, perhaps unfairly) to enhance one of the teaching moments. If some men - and more importantly, boys - take this story to heart, maybe they won't act like such jerks. They might take the story as cautionary, or they might actually think more deeply about healthier sexual sexual relationships. As the father of three adolescent girls, I'm happy with either deterrence, edification or both. There's obviously a learning opportunity for girls and women too; it's a complex one, and I'd probably stumble across the "mansplaining" line if I even tried to define it.

In comment 13794996 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

manh george said: Quote: 1) Every movement, even the most righteous one, is very likely to get to an extreme, eventually. 2) The challenge isn't that it gets to an extreme. The challenge is pulling back from that extreme, without giving its enemies a "see, I told you it was all BS" opportunity. So, it seems extremely likely (to me) that Ansari got caught up in one of these extremes. How does #MeToo pull back in a way that leaves Ansari whole, but doesn't screw up responses to the vast number of situations where there clearly was sexual assault, harassment or use of power for sex? A lot of people seem to be focusing on this set of issues, so it might get fixed. Manh, I agree that there's a teaching moment here, but I disagree about its nature. To put it differently, I think there are several teaching moments running concurrently. They are not mutually exclusive, and they all have real value if we don't get caught up arguing about the grey areas where the topics seem to overlap. I don't think anyone is confusing Ansari with egregious sickos like Weinstein and Toback. There's an important conversation about powerful men committing horrible crimes against women, and industries protecting them or looking the other way. There's also a broader conversation about everyday workplace harassment, and also one about men like Ansari just being insensitive jerks and behaving as though life is porn and women are objects. While all of these conversations are taking place under the #metoo umbrella, I think most participants understand the breadth of the spectrum. Criticizing #metoo for inclusiveness (or "going too far") seems a bit disingenuous. The whole point of the inclusiveness is to emphasize that the behaviors are a spectrum, and that they are connected - not equivalent, just connected. So the teaching moment has many aspects, but I don't think the lesson is to pull back from pressing the case in areas where it's harder to make. Whether Ansari deserves to be outed as a bad date is another question. In some sense, it may seem unfair; but kiss-and-tell risk comes with fame. He took that risk by hooking up, and now he's facing the consequences. Tough. Other than humiliation, I doubt the consequences for his career will be all that severe. So far, at least, he's not getting the Weinstein treatment - or even the Kevin Spacey treatment - and he probably won't. Meanwhile, his fame is being used (again, perhaps unfairly) to enhance one of the teaching moments. If some men - and more importantly, boys - take this story to heart, maybe they won't act like such jerks. They might take the story as cautionary, or they might actually think more deeply about healthier sexual sexual relationships. As the father of three adolescent girls, I'm happy with either deterrence, edification or both. There's obviously a learning opportunity for girls and women too; it's a complex one, and I'd probably stumble across the "mansplaining" line if I even tried to define it.

JFC. For one, "mansplaining" isn't fucking real. It's called being "condescending" and both genders partake.

Secondly, the point about this whole thing with Aziz is that he is being accused of sexual assault by this anonymous woman- he isn't being accused of being an insensitive jerk.

Third, I'll teach my kids to not be insensitive...that doesn't come from news stories or celebrity gossip. The only lesson young boys (and girls for that matter) are going to get from this story is the same tired bullshit that 3rd wave has been pushing for a decade- that all men are rapists at heart, and that women have need not take any responsibility. Even day after remorse is rape or assault. It is a horrible message to send to girls or boys. You don't even have to say "no" for it to be assault, FFS according to this women and the folks that published her tale.

she went back to his place. She got naked with him, and then had remorse.

There were so many places during that night where the girl could've verbalized her issues and didn't, and so now, because of her insecuritiy and his fame, he has had this story "break".

I'm surprised not everyone is just calling it what it is - bullshit.

Basically, Ansari has his name drug through the mud because he didn't pick up on "non-verbal" cues from a person who willingly went to his apartment and on a date with him. I'm not sure what he can be taught, or what men can be taught about this situation. Learn non-verbal cues?

Meanwhile, the woman will remain anonymous, even though damage, no matter how mild, has been done to him. Why? Because she had an uncomfortable date?

responded to the despicable comments from the writer, Katie Way.

Quote:

To say Way did not take kindly to the response would be an understatement. The Babe.net reporter took the time to write Banfield an absolutely insulting email, which the HLN host read on-air, citing that it gave viewers an “insight into the caliber of person who held that nuclear weapon that was wielded on Ansari’s career.” “Ashleigh, someone I am certain nobody under the age of 45 has heard of,” the email began. “I hope the 500 retweets on the single news write up made that burgundy lipstick, bad highlights, second wave feminist has-been really relevant for a little while.”[ Banfield ripped into Way, calling into question both her intentions and her intelligence. “The reason I want to share that is because if you truly believe in the #MeToo movement, if you truly believe in women’s rights, if you truly believe in feminism, the last thing you should do is attack someone in an ad hominem way for her age, I’m 50, and for my highlights,” she said. “I was brown-haired for a while when I was a war corespondent, interviewing Yasser Arafat, and in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank. Google those places.” Banfield wrapped it up by saying “that is not the way we have this conversation, as women or men”: “We do not attack people for their age, or their highlights or their lipstick because it is the most hypocritical thing a woman who says she supports the women’s movement could ever do and that’s the caliber of the woman who was given all of this power and was able to wield this power.”

Direct video Twitter link: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953470568958849025
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ashleigh-banfield-fires-back-after-getting-insulting-email-from-writer-of-aziz-ansari-piece/ - ( New Window )

like this argumentation:

Quote:

“Ashleigh, someone I am certain nobody under the age of 45 has heard of,”

Sounds like something a BBI'er would say! Yeah, a prominent female reporter is unknown but a writer at "Babe"??

in her mouth? He deserves whatever light backlash he's received for being a weirdo.

Especially if those fingers have been in other of her body parts, that's just not healthy, it's potentially about as bad as ATM.

if I had to guess more than being coerced into oral or even willingly performing oral, the fingers in her mouth is what made her like something was off about their encounter.

he probably pictured it going like this


she saw it as this

that he probably saw in a porn. And I wouldn't be surprised if he did that to other women who pretended to like it. But people do weird things during foreplay/sex and have weird ideas of what is considered desirable. I don't do that, but I'm sure there are things that every guy has done in the bedroom at some point thinking it was sexy or smooth that if retold by someone else after the fact, would come off as bizarre. Again, still a weird move.

More importantly, I disagree STRONGLY with using the word "coerced" or "coercion." He might have been tried repeatedly to hav sex wit her, but that's not coercion. Coercion is getting someone to do something by force or by threat of force. That is a crucial element to the definition. Ansari did not do that at all.

I think it's a very important distinction.

account in the OP, Ansari said this:

Quote:

At last, she uttered the word “no” for the first time during their encounter, to Mr. Ansari’s suggestion that they have sex in front of a mirror. He said: “‘How about we just chill, but this time with our clothes on?’”

Suggesting they put clothes on really should be the end of the conversation about coersion and assault.

Shes 23. She gets protected just because she says she's a victim? Treating her like a victim is the same as assuming Ansari is guilty of victimizing her without any proof. Given how weak her claims are, I think she should be outed. Drag her through the mud that she created.

anything criminal, and perhaps he did nothing wrong - I think almost all males have been in similar situations and acted remotely similar (besides the fingers in the mouth), but there is a whole topic being taught to millenials on sexual coercion that has little to do with force or law.

It has to do with pressuring someone into an act they really don't want to do or have expressed a desire not to do. The reasons the person actually does the act vary (if they do it), but it's not illegal, and yet it's being classified as coercion and some might say it's not even wrong, but that's not a debate I have a horse in.

Quote:

If someone makes you feel obligated or forced to do something you don’t want to, you may be experiencing coercion. By definition, sexual coercion is “the act of using pressure, alcohol or drugs, or force to have sexual contact with someone against his or her will” and includes “persistent attempts to have sexual contact with someone who has already refused.”

This is on many high school health/sex ed curriculum, this is what children are being taught, so maybe in that context coerced is a perfect word.

secondly this is not a legal forum, so whether anyone STRONGLY has an issue with a word I use, too bad.

are toeing the line on an important word with a specific meaning. I'm glad that schools are trying to teach consent and are trying to teach kids not to be pressured into doing things. "Coercion" is something done by force or threat of force.

Treating this instance as coercion strips "Grace" of all of her agency and autonomy that she possessed throughout the entire encounter.

In comment 13795273 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

are toeing the line on an important word with a specific meaning. I'm glad that schools are trying to teach consent and are trying to teach kids not to be pressured into doing things. "Coercion" is something done by force or threat of force. Treating this instance as coercion strips "Grace" of all of her agency and autonomy that she possessed throughout the entire encounter.

I don't disagree, and it's been discussed ad nauseam on here in this thread about traditional gender roles and their constant through most of our respective history.

she had a lot of options, and the fact she exercised none or at least none of the good ones, moves this needle squarely to the side of Ansari doing nothing wrong, but some times feminists and even millenials don't think this way.

just my opinion, I have teenage kids, some of the shit they are being taught is almost like they're being encouraged to be a victim or to embrace being a victim. It's an excuse for failure, regrets, or even simply non-optimal results.

I won't get into anymore because it crosses a lot of political lines, but it's happening.

I agree with you. I don't have children, but it's plainly obvious that the younger generation are learning things much differently than the ones that came before (as is the case with every generation).

Again, I look back at Katie Way's extremely childish response to Ashleigh Banfield and realize how often people without life experience have no concept for the context and history of what came before them.

And, I have to reiterate, that her unstable response discolors and discredits the objectivity of her presentation of "Grace's" version of events.

Maybe it was in fact. Maybe not.

But. Very obviously coercion is not limited to physical force. That's rape anyway, using physical force.

Coercion could be any simultaneous threat and reward, uninvited (who invites a threat?) within career, money, reputation....etc.

Harvey Weinstein. Obviously. Many have said they 'didn't get phone calls returned after negating his advances.'

He implied as much. That's coercion.

Among social equals, if some asshole asks for sex repeatedly and gets a 'no' as answer over and over again, the person saying 'no' should be able to clearly tell them to 'fuck off' and leave before anything happens..even without damaging what was prior only a non sexual relationship where there was prior consent only for proximity and conversation. Or at least while reserving the ability to qualify the nature of the acquaintance going forward...

So....in -what particular- way is any one person not considered or not considering -themselves- as a social equal at the outset of any interaction... and why?

Obviously,Ansari is a little fella, ...most girls could kick his ass, so it comes down to something like this.

In comment 13795169 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

I'm not sure what he can be taught, or what men can be taught about this situation. Learn non-verbal cues?

And that's EXACTLY what this movement wants you to ask yourself. How can I help solve this "epidemic" that men caused?
They want you to believe there is absolutely no blame on the other side.

We've gone from straight rape allegations to women now feeling "violated" because their dream date with a famous actor didn't go the way they envisioned.

being talked into buying a car that you really don't want.

Yeah, the salesman is pushy, it's uncomfortable; but I don't give him non-verbal cues and hope he picks-up on them.
And I don't go back a few days later and complain that I was "coerced" into buying a new car. Nor do I complain to someone else.

Do it on your terms or don't do it at all. And if you have to change your terms to progress forward, be comfortable with it.

I'm glad this subject - generally - is on the table. Lots of things on either side of the fulcrum to chat about, and weigh. Bottom line, I'm hoping it adds to my girl's arsenal if ever faced with a lout that needs a good scrote-punt.

at a very young age that eye stoving is a painful, yet necessary weapon to use.

I think she first broke it out on some skeev when she was 6.

Talking about the cautionary tales she remembers reading in women's magazines growing up in the '70s, which she remembers as still being informed by the morality and social etiquette of the '50s

Quote:

But in one essential aspect they reminded us that we were strong in a way that so many modern girls are weak. They told us over and over again that if a man tried to push you into anything you didn’t want, even just a kiss, you told him flat out you weren’t doing it. If he kept going, you got away from him. You were always to have “mad money” with you: cab fare in case he got “fresh” and then refused to drive you home. They told you to slap him if you had to; they told you to get out of the car and start wailing if you had to. They told you to do whatever it took to stop him from using your body in any way you didn’t want, and under no circumstances to go down without a fight. In so many ways, compared with today’s young women, we were weak; we were being prepared for being wives and mothers, not occupants of the C-Suite. But as far as getting away from a man who was trying to pressure us into sex we didn’t want, we were strong.

Link - ( New Window )

In comment 13795242 WideRight said:

Quote:

Shes 23. She gets protected just because she says she's a victim? Treating her like a victim is the same as assuming Ansari is guilty of victimizing her without any proof. Given how weak her claims are, I think she should be outed. Drag her through the mud that she created.

The problem is, you can't unring that bell if the evidence does subsequently come out. It's SOP to keep any sexual accuser's identity private - it's not just her.

That said, she has already been outed.

Link - ( New Window )

Going by her own story, there simply is no assault. There's just a young woman who had a lousy sexual experience and regrets it.

In comment 13795445 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

Going by her own story, there simply is no assault. There's just a young woman who had a lousy sexual experience and regrets it.

I was just talking about the SOP. This is seeming more and more like the worst form of clickbait by Katie Way and babe dot net, so I'm not surprised that they kept her name anonymous because doing so adds to the sensationalism of the piece.

But if you need to know about the legitimacy of the writer who penned the article, look no further than her other views in this area, and that's beyond the personal attacks on Banfield.

Caution; NSFW language - ( New Window )

She's 22 - why the hell is anyone giving any credence to some 22 year old dolt who has next to no life experience to draw from? I have t-shirts older than her.

the accuser's credibility based on the behavior of the person who wrote the article, it's probably worth reminding people that when Aziz responded, he didn't bother to dispute any of the events laid out in the original article, or offer any clarifying context.

Maybe there's a reason he didn't bother doing that (apart from not wanting to lie). Maybe his rep advised him to make his statement/apology short and bland - that if he got into a 'he said/she said' situation with his accuser, that this thing would go on for weeks and monopolize his life (it looks like it's going to do that anyway).

There. Was. No. Assault. Maybe Aziz Ansari is a jerk, maybe he's crude when it comes to seduction, whatever - he didn't assault her. When she said no, he stopped. He's not a fucking mindreader. If she had wanted him to stop sooner, then say so. If she felt uncomfortable, then she should have stood up, put her clothes back on, and left. She didn't do any of those things, thus she was not assaulted.

In comment 13795520 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

There. Was. No. Assault. Maybe Aziz Ansari is a jerk, maybe he's crude when it comes to seduction, whatever - he didn't assault her. When she said no, he stopped. He's not a fucking mindreader. If she had wanted him to stop sooner, then say so. If she felt uncomfortable, then she should have stood up, put her clothes back on, and left. She didn't do any of those things, thus she was not assaulted.

There's a moral question beyond the legal question. And when she said stop, he stopped. For a minute. And then he tried to fuck her again. So he didn't really stop.

People read non-verbal cues off other people every single day. Half the time, we don't even realize that we've altered our behavior on the basis of them. So I don't really understand why men try to insist that non-verbal cues don't exist or that men have no ability to read them.

to Babe.net to read the original article and I am shocked that someone would choose this website as a forum to tell her story of alleged sexual assault. 95% of their content is complete crap. I'm especially fond of the article proclaiming that a woman who used her sex toy to measure the snowfall outside is a national hero.

Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

There's obviously a learning opportunity for girls and women too; it's a complex one, and I'd probably stumble across the "mansplaining" line if I even tried to define it.

Cam in MO said:

Quote:

JFC. For one, "mansplaining" isn't fucking real. It's called being "condescending" and both genders partake.

Sure, but it's a specific kind of condescension: either (a) a man talks down to a woman who knows more about the subject than he does; or (b) a man talks down to a woman on a subject that almost any woman would know more than any man - menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, female orgasm, menopause, etc. Obviously, male OB/GYNs, endocrinologists, sex therapists, and a few other professionals might get a pass on (b), but even they tread carefully if they're smart.

There - I've now mansplained mansplaining... except it's only mansplaining if Cam is female, which I kinda doubt.

In comment 13795605 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

Big Blue Blogger said: Quote: There's obviously a learning opportunity for girls and women too; it's a complex one, and I'd probably stumble across the "mansplaining" line if I even tried to define it. Cam in MO said: Quote: JFC. For one, "mansplaining" isn't fucking real. It's called being "condescending" and both genders partake. Sure, but it's a specific kind of condescension: either (a) a man talks down to a woman who knows more about the subject than he does; or (b) a man talks down to a woman on a subject that almost any woman would know more than any man - menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, female orgasm, menopause, etc. Obviously, male OB/GYNs, endocrinologists, sex therapists, and a few other professionals might get a pass on (b), but even they tread carefully if they're smart. There - I've now mansplained mansplaining... except it's only mansplaining if Cam is female, which I kinda doubt.

With regards to (a), in my experience men that do that are typically condescending no matter who they are talking to. I've worked with plenty of arrogant individuals that think they know everything about everything!

(b) sadly these individuals exist in far too great a number!

First, she went on a date and then up to his apartment during that first date. This in way is a form of consent, but in today's world I think there is a reasonable expectation of some form of intimate encounter ensuing. To what extent is between the two individuals.

That said, either party absolutely has the right to say no and/or stop the action at any time. Simply being there does not inform consent, nor does it give the other person the right to do anything.

Where it is gray for me is the non-verbal cues. In piecing together both sides of the story (and the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle), it is clear she didn't actually say, "no" until very late in the action and that was to a specific request. Both accounts do seem to indicate her non-verbal cues range from weak to clearly not wanting to do specific things. For example, repeatedly moving his hand away from her body or repeatedly moving his fingers from her mouth. However, those can be interpreted as her not wanting him to do specific things. A more forceful and clear communication of refusal is really needed here. For example, if she wanted no part of any physical contact at that point, she needed to say so and put her clothes on.

I think it is fair to think that he may have been receiving mixed signals throughout most of the action. However, I can't agree with those who say he did nothing wrong. He persisted in trying to do things that she did not want to do. Back to the moving his hands, removing his fingers from his mouth, etc. He tried the same things over and over. He even tried to push the action again on the couch even after she said no to sex and they put their clothes on.

This falls close to sexual assault, in my mind. Even if it isn't quite within the legal criteria, it doesn't quite feel right. He is not completely innocent here; a victim of miscommunication.

That last sentence is not saying he is a victim of miscommunication; it is saying the that he isn't one.

In comment 13795515 BlackLight said:

Quote:

Maybe there's a reason he didn't bother doing that (apart from not wanting to lie). Maybe his rep advised him to make his statement/apology short and bland - that if he got into a 'he said/she said' situation with his accuser, that this thing would go on for weeks and monopolize his life (it looks like it's going to do that anyway).

Because you are NOT allowed to defend yourself in the public court of the MeToo movement!

For fuck's sake, Meghan McCain of The View appears somewhat emotional because she doesn't want to give her opinion for fear of having her own career ruined.
And Rob Riggle knows to keep the fuck quiet simply because he's a male.
Whoopi has the most logical and straight-forward viewpoints.

It's fucking ridiculous.
Link - ( New Window )

I think he is a victim of miscommunication. He should have chilled out a little more-- especially for a celebrity who could probably get laid any night of the week.

After they give each other oral, he asked about getting a condom she said to relax and to chill. Not a no, but a slow down.

Later on in the encounter after more kissing and what not, still naked, he asks her where she wanted him to fuck her, and in easing the tension, she said "next time." So he made a joke about another glass of wine serving as a second date for it and she laughed it off.

At this point, he should have realized that she didn't want to have sex with him that night.

She then went to the bathroom, came back still naked, sent signals hoping he would massage her back. She acknowledged that he acknowledged about slowing down. He then asks for a blowjob again, and she gives him one. They make out and he makes another joke to ease the tension.

He then brings up sex again, and that's when she said "no, I don't think I'm ready to do this."

So he suggests they put their clothes on and they sit on the couch and watch Seinfeld.

After that, Ansari attempted to unbutton her pants and that's when everything stopped cold.

From his perspective, the only activity she had expressed that she didn't want to do was to have sex. He had already fingered her, he performed oral on her, she performed oral on him.. twice. At the very end, I could see how he misread the room when he tried to get into her pants again as there wasn't an indication to him that that activity was off the table.

When she stopped him there, he stopped abruptly and they called her a car.

I don't see where it comes close to sexual assault.

In comment 13795656 Matt M. said:

Quote:

First, she went on a date and then up to his apartment during that first date. This in way is a form of consent, but in today's world I think there is a reasonable expectation of some form of intimate encounter ensuing. To what extent is between the two individuals. That said, either party absolutely has the right to say no and/or stop the action at any time. Simply being there does not inform consent, nor does it give the other person the right to do anything. Where it is gray for me is the non-verbal cues. In piecing together both sides of the story (and the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle), it is clear she didn't actually say, "no" until very late in the action and that was to a specific request. Both accounts do seem to indicate her non-verbal cues range from weak to clearly not wanting to do specific things. For example, repeatedly moving his hand away from her body or repeatedly moving his fingers from her mouth. However, those can be interpreted as her not wanting him to do specific things. A more forceful and clear communication of refusal is really needed here. For example, if she wanted no part of any physical contact at that point, she needed to say so and put her clothes on. I think it is fair to think that he may have been receiving mixed signals throughout most of the action. However, I can't agree with those who say he did nothing wrong. He persisted in trying to do things that she did not want to do. Back to the moving his hands, removing his fingers from his mouth, etc. He tried the same things over and over. He even tried to push the action again on the couch even after she said no to sex and they put their clothes on. This falls close to sexual assault, in my mind. Even if it isn't quite within the legal criteria, it doesn't quite feel right. He is not completely innocent here; a victim of miscommunication.

This is all reasonable to me. I don't think he broke the law, precisely. But I do think simply calling it a "bad date" or a "date that went south" misses the point.

A lot of things are (or can be) simultaneously true:

- "Grace" has ample opportunities to leave the apartment long before she did, and if she felt that uncomfortable, she should have.

- That she did not leave the apartment long before she did does not, ipso facto, mean she didn't really feel that uncomfortable, or that she's overstating her discomfort after the fact.

- Non-verbal cues do exist. People give them off all the time, and people effectively read them, all the time.

- Nobody outside of "Grace" and Aziz Ansari has any basis to dispute the "who-did-what-to-whom-and-when" events described in "Grace's" account. And when given the opportunity to rebut, dispute, or provide additional context, Aziz declined to do so, for whatever reason.

- If what happened in that apartment is anything like it's described in "Grace's" account, then after she gave/received oral, "Grace" gave off repeated non-verbal cues that she wasn't interested getting any more physical. Either Aziz ignored these cues because he's a clueless dope, or he ignored them because he didn't care what she wanted, only what he wanted.

- Aziz did not "stop" after she finally said she wanted to just chill with their clothes on. He did for a minute, then he went back at it again. Kissed her, stuck his fingers back in her mouth, and tried to undo her pants.

- When you're alone with a women, you can act like a decent gentleman without committing a crime. You can also misread a woman's interest or intent for a reasonable period of time without committing a crime. And you can also be a clear and obvious dirtbag with a woman without committing a crime. The point is, that you didn't actually commit a crime doesn't absolve you of the moral blame for acting like a clear and obvious dirtbag.

- We can disagree with "Grace's" assertion that this was a case of sexual assault (and again, I don't think it was). But that it doesn't meet that legal standard doesn't mean we're free to ignore what did take place, or trivialize it. We can evaluate what happened in moral terms, without constantly letting it swing back to "Aziz didn't commit a crime!"

who are getting way with rape by forcing video consent recordings out of their victims. They are then rushing to the police to tell their side of the story before the victim can report it.

Dudes - find a good woman and don't let her go. If you don't have one, use kleenex and your imagination.

that we are reading Grace's version of events. I have no reason to think she is lying AT ALL, but so much is based upon her feelings and nonverbal cues. I bring this up because I imagine that her memory of the clarity/quality of those cues is going to be inflated because they were on the forefront of her mind at the time. To her, all of those signals were probably clear as day because she was intentionally giving them off. I have found that in general, people tend to think that they are being far clearer in their non-verbal communication than what is actually being received by the other person. Hell, just ask my wife when she's sending me nonverbal cues.

As to why Aziz didn't offer an alternative version of events? Perhaps because it was lose-lose. It seems that any time a guy has spoken publicly about #MeToo and tried to offer a perspective of nuance, or to challenge a victim's comments, he is met with a further brigade of accusations of victim-blaming or being told that men should just shut up and listen. Or, maybe it unfolded exactly as Grace described and Aziz regretted how pushy he was.

if we accept that the events happened as Grace remembers, then the only thing that she expressed that she didn't want to do (or slow down from) was have sexual intercourse.

The rest of the night was her giving nonverbal cues while she undressed, received oral, gave oral, went to the bathroom, came out still naked, put herself in a vulnerable position hoping he would pick up the cue to massage her, and then gave him oral again, kissed him again, and then protested sex again. Then they put on their clothes, he tried to get into her pants again, and she got really upset and so he called her a cab.

Was Aziz a gentleman? No. He was a guy in today's casual hook-up culture trying to get laid after a first date with a girl who engaged in very intimate activities with him. He got mixed signals, likely focused on the ones that were positive and minimized the ones that weren't.

The problem with casual encounters is that the people don't know each other well enough to pick up on all the nuances of nonverbal cues and others' personalities. It gets even harder when alcohol is involved. It's exciting, confusing, and at times, awkard.

If Aziz were more gentlemanly, he would have asked her several times along the way what she liked and what she wanted to do. He would have run the risk of being considered unassertive, "unsexy," and not "manly," but he also would have been less likely to make her feel pressured into doing what she didn't want to do. Nice guys and nice women aren't always perfect gentleman and ladies in the throes of passion. But what's important is that the two people are on the same page. The less one partner knows the other partner, the more clear communication is required to be on the same page.

It's unfortunate that "Grace" was uncomfortable an that she felt violated. It's unfortunate that she didn't use her words more clearly or use her agency and autonomy to leave the situation, both of which would have prevented her from feeling violated. It's unfortunate that Aziz (perhaps) unwittingly did things that made her feel violated; it's unfortunate that Aziz is being accused of sexual assault and lumped in with predators by a pitchfork mob who are justifiably tired of and angry about the way things have been for so long.

The whole story is unfortunate and much of that is because we have a culture that is afraid to have open discussions about sex, and is still shaming women about expressing their sexual desires (shamed by women as well as by men) leading to imbalanced dynamics in sexual courtship.

Worst porn ever.

In comment 13795879 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

As to why Aziz didn't offer an alternative version of events? Perhaps because it was lose-lose. It seems that any time a guy has spoken publicly about #MeToo and tried to offer a perspective of nuance, or to challenge a victim's comments, he is met with a further brigade of accusations of victim-blaming or being told that men should just shut up and listen.

I feel like, if he had denied the accusations, at worst, he'd be in exactly the same situation he's in now. Right now, people are taking sides in this like it's a sporting event, and it seems a significant percentage of people think he's getting hosed.

Granted that it's harder to prove that something didn't happen than that it did, especially with no witnesses, but assuming this story is bogus, a unequivocal response with a few specific assertions about what *did* actually happen that night would go a long way. He'd essentially be calling his accuser a lying minx, but there are ways to do that which come off better than others.

these are tough accusations to deny because her accusations are more about how she felt and what her nonverbal cues All he can say is that he thought everything they did was consensual.

I suppose he could have addressed the specific accusations that he was being pushy for sex but I'm not sure that would have served any purpose. They were intimate, he tried to initiate sex and by her own account, whenever she said stop, he stopped. That seems like the way many people have been trying to have sex for as long as time. It's great that people want to change that up and make it more of a mutual dance of who initiates what.

Plus, in his statement, he references her texts:

Quote:

"The next day, I got a text from her saying that although 'it may have seemed okay,' upon further reflection, she felt uncomfortable. It was true that everything did seem okay to me, so when I heard that it was not the case for her, I was surprised and concerned," Ansari's statement continued. "I took her words to heart and responded privately after taking the time to process what she had said."

By her own texts after the fact, she said it may have seemed okay (consensual), that it wasn't until further reflection that she felt uncomfortable. Apparently, she couldn't even read her own mind while they were together.

Again, I think the takeaway is the importance of open communication and that the less the partners know each other, the more clear they need to be.

In comment 13795960 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

Again, I think the takeaway is the importance of open communication and that the less the partners know each other, the more clear they need to be.

And the further you go down the rabbit hole, the more assertive, open and clear you need to be if you choose to go against the grain.