|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Aziz Ansari responds to sexual assault allegation: 'I was surprised and concerned' (CNN)"Master of None" star Aziz Ansari has responded to an allegation of sexual assault by a woman he went out on a date with in the fall. "In September of last year, I met a woman at a party. We exchanged numbers. We texted back and forth and eventually went on a date. We went out to dinner, and afterwards we ended up engaging in sexual activity, which by all indications was completely consensual," Ansari wrote in a statement obtained by CNN on Sunday. "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." In a story published by the website Babe on Saturday, a 23-year-old photographer, who shared her account anonymously, described meeting Ansari at an Emmy Awards event in September where she gave him her phone number. CNN does not know the identity of the woman. About a week later, the two went out to dinner. The date continued at Ansari's apartment afterward, where, according to the woman, she was repeatedly "pressured" by Ansari to have intercourse, which they didn't, and to perform oral sex, which she did. The woman told Babe she used verbal and non-verbal cues to communicate she was "distressed." Following the encounter, Ansari arranged for an Uber to pick her up, she said. "I cried the whole ride home. At that point I felt violated," she said, telling Babe she felt her experience with Ansari amounted to sexual assault. When Ansari won a Golden Globe Award for his Netflix series "Master of None" earlier this month, the woman said she felt compelled to share her experience. "It was actually painful to watch him win and accept an award," she said. "And absolutely cringeworthy that he was wearing the Time's Up pin. I think that started a new fire, and it kind of made it more real." Time's Up is a campaign by women in entertainment to heighten awareness of gender inequality issues and curtail sexual harassment across industries. "I continue to support the movement that is happening in our culture. It is necessary and long overdue," Ansari's statement concluded. The allegations against the 34-year-old comedian, who wrote a 2015 book on dating called "Modern Romance," have sparked debate about what constitutes sexual consent. Feminist author Jessica Valenti tweeted, "A lot of men will read that post about Aziz Ansari and see an everyday, reasonable sexual interaction. But part of what women are saying right now is that what the culture considers 'normal' sexual encounters are not working for us, and oftentimes harmful." |
| Quote: |
| I’m apparently the victim of sexual assault. And if you’re a sexually active woman in the 21st century, chances are that you are, too. That is what I learned from the “exposé” of Aziz Ansari published this weekend by the feminist website Babe — arguably the worst thing that has happened to the #MeToo movement since it began in October. It transforms what ought to be a movement for women’s empowerment into an emblem for female helplessness. The headline primes the reader to gird for the very worst: “I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life.” Like everyone else, I clicked. The victim in this 3,000-word story is called “Grace” — not her real name — and her saga with Mr. Ansari began at a 2017 Emmys after-party. As recounted by Grace to the reporter Katie Way, she approached him, but he brushed her off at first. Then they bonded over their devotion to the same vintage camera. Grace was at the party with someone else, but she and Mr. Ansari exchanged numbers and soon arranged a date in Manhattan. When #MeToo Goes Too Far DEC. 20, 2017 After arriving at his TriBeCa apartment on the appointed evening — she was “excited,” having carefully chosen her outfit after consulting with friends — they exchanged small talk and drank wine. “It was white,” she said. “I didn’t get to choose and I prefer red, but it was white wine.” Yes, we are apparently meant to read into the nonconsensual wine choice. They went out to dinner nearby and then returned home to Mr. Ansari’s apartment. As Grace tells it, the actor was far too eager to get back to his place after he paid for dinner: “Like, he got the check and then it was bada-boom, bada-bing, we’re out of there.” Another sign of his apparent boorishness. Grace complimented Mr. Ansari’s kitchen countertops. The actor then made a move, asking her to sit on the counter. They started kissing. He undressed her and then himself. In the 30 or so minutes that followed — recounted beat by cringe-inducing beat — they hooked up. Mr. Ansari persistently tried to have penetrative sex with her, and Grace says she was deeply uncomfortable throughout. At various points, she told the reporter, she attempted to voice her hesitation, and that Mr. Ansari ignored her signals. 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?’” They got dressed, sat on the couch and watched “Seinfeld.” She said to him: “You guys are all the same.” He called her an Uber. She cried on the way home. Fin. If you are wondering what about this evening constituted the “worst night” of Grace’s life, or why it is being framed as a #MeToo story by a feminist website, you probably feel as confused as Mr. Ansari did the next day. “It was fun meeting you last night,” he texted. “Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me,” she responded. “You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.” He replied with an apology. Read Grace’s text message again. Put in other words: I am angry that you weren’t able to read my mind. It is worth carefully studying Grace’s story. Encoded in it are new yet deeply retrograde ideas about what constitutes consent — and what constitutes sexual violence. |
Dennis Reynolds Contract - ( New Window )
As usual I walk the middle path on this. Men clearly need to re think how they approach women sexually today and rightfully so. Past behaviors are in many cases egregious. However women are not snowflakes either and need to be powerful in their rejections at the moment not post about it later.
Its a complex issue and perhaps the most important one of our time.
But this situation is ridiculous. It is basically setting women back to say “I’m not capable of saying no to this but you should know I don’t want to.”
I was just talking to a friend of mine about that earlier today. Gonna have to document everything.
Like C-SPAN with titties
The point is that there is a great hypocrisy from Hollywood and beyond about overreacting to social issues that present themselves (and the hot topic is sexual assault), all the while closing their doors and engaging in similar activity that they accuse everyone of doing.
Basically, you can't stand on a platform and lecture society (without credentials to do so) on how to act and then be surprised when people expect you to be hypersensitive to those issues in your own actions.
I like Aziz Ansari as a comedian and as an actor. He comes across as a good guy in interviews also. Maybe he made a mistake that one night by acting that way or maybe this is his MO. Either way- perhaps he now understands to carefully examine his own actions before trying to push his own beliefs on the population.
To me, I picture Aziz reading this and it being worse to him than the accusation: "NOOOO, I'm great at sex! Don't listen to her! OK, ok, I'm guilty! Lock me up! As long as I'm not the bad sex guy! I'M NOT THE BAD SEX GUY!"
Basically, you can't stand on a platform and lecture society (without credentials to do so) on how to act and then be surprised when people expect you to be hypersensitive to those issues in your own actions.
I just had this vision I can't unsee of Elizabeth Warren hopping up on a countertop for.... oh, nevermind
Well sure, the client/provider rules are more clearly defined.
Link - ( New Window )
And prices are so low!
touche
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
Equally despicable as sexual assault is destroying an innocent man's life.
And a lot of men have been harmed for harassment accusations. You know what harassment is? Unwelcomed flirting. If the women is into it, it's great. You flirt, sometimes that relationship results in great, consensual sex. But if the women isn't into it, not only does the man not get the sex part, but he gets railroaded to his employer, his peers, and potentially his friends and family. And some of this is because the woman, frustrated by multiple advances, thinks it's easier to go tell H.R. than it is to be straightforward with the man and tell him she's not interested, because some women don't want to feel bad about turning a man down and potentially hurting his feelings or ego.
Also the messaging is that this is an exclusive women thing, or in some cases, a gay man thing. I have been sexually harassed and groped in the workplace by women. Not welcomed, either. But, I did not, and do not make a big deal out of it. Because just because someone is interested in me sexually and touches me, doesn't mean I am truly harmed, even if it is extremely inappropriate behavior, especially so in the workplace. I am harmed if I lose career opportunities if I don't play the game, and people like Weinstein should have to pay those women they have harmed.
However, I do recognize that almost all women have had to deal with unwelcome advances by men, and that most women have had to deal with some sexual inappropriateness in the workplace. I have 4 sisters, and they and my mother have told me all kinds of stories about varying degrees of bad male behavior. Some of them have infuriated me. I can see the terrible position it can put a woman in. But we shouldn't rush to judgement of each man that gets 'outed' as part of this movement, because some don't deserve it, even if they got horny and behaved inappropriately. Trying to get laid is not a crime, and it is not a gender-specific phenomenon. And nobody should be railroaded and careers ended because they tried to get laid and it was unwelcome.
They should suffer consequences if they used their power as a weapon to get laid, or sexually assaulted someone, or continued to sexually harass someone AFTER being told the advances were unwelcome and not reciprocated.
Aziz was just a horny dude trying to get laid. She was expecting a great date and probably hoping for a relationship. Sometime mid-coitus to post-coitus, she realized that he was getting what he wanted, and she probably wasn't going to get what she wanted, and has decided to destroy him over it. That's wrong.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
Also, I've been in situations where i went home with a girl, didn't make a sexual move on her (only a kiss goodnight), because I was trying to be classy and take it slow.... and later found out from her friends that she was really upset that I didn't try and bang her...it's a double edged sword.
There was no other way for this to go.
A culture was created where the claims of women were immediately taken as stone cold truth.
I would like to think that most of the allegations from these women are valid but people are losing jobs and careers based on nothing more than claims without evidence (Matt Lauer, Al Franken). How can anyone defend themselves against that?
There are two positives that are going to come out of this whole thing once the dust settles:
1. Men in general will have to be very careful and more respectful around women when it comes to sexual advances, which is a good thing in the end. Why shouldn't everyone be on the same page when it comes to those situations?
2. The population will stop idolizing celebrities and treating them as some bastion of social goodness, as it's proven now that by and large their subset of society is as tainted and human as the rest of regular society. There is nothing wrong with the ills of the human condition but please stop pretending that the whole Hollywood scene is immune to it and that they live in a pristine bubble of goodness. It's all BS.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
You know what a woman gets who verbally sets boundaries BEFORE you even get to that point? RESPECT.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
Quote:
She definitely could have been more vocal and stood up for herself more. It's not like he forcefully opened her mouth and put his dick inside twice. She took part in it blowing him.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
You know what a woman gets who verbally sets boundaries BEFORE you even get to that point? RESPECT.
Allstarjim is dropping truth bombs in this thread
How much more evidence can you possibly have?
Lauer literally said there was "at least some truth" in the more than 10 allegations by 10 different women of sexual misconduct against him.
I'm sure people will be unfairly punished purely based on an allegation without evidence, but those two aren't the best examples.
Quote:
She definitely could have been more vocal and stood up for herself more. It's not like he forcefully opened her mouth and put his dick inside twice. She took part in it blowing him.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
Also, I've been in situations where i went home with a girl, didn't make a sexual move on her (only a kiss goodnight), because I was trying to be classy and take it slow.... and later found out from her friends that she was really upset that I didn't try and bang her...it's a double edged sword.
I've been there too. Is there anything worse than finding out you could've gotten laid but didn't because you didn't make the move? It's bothered me YEARS later.
And there?
And there?
And there?
Will you touch me there?
And there?
And there?
And there?
I think I love you. Can we start again?
Can I touch you there?
And there?
And there?
And there?
Will you touch me there?
And there?
And there?
And there?
Link - ( New Window )
Lumping this in with #MeToo will cause more harm than good.
But I also love Aziz. He holds a special place to me, because I am also Indian-American, and from the moment I saw Aziz, I loved that he was hilarious without relying on Indian-American stereotypes. Considering this, it's hard for me to judge if I'm being objective or not, but based on the reactions of others falling in line with mine, I think I am.
"Non-verbal cues" is bullshit. When the girl said she wanted to stop (not "slow down" which means something different and is what he did do), he stopped, they got dressed, and watched Seinfeld
I will never not love an Always Sunny reference.
The point is that there is a great hypocrisy from Hollywood and beyond about overreacting to social issues that present themselves (and the hot topic is sexual assault), all the while closing their doors and engaging in similar activity that they accuse everyone of doing.
Basically, you can't stand on a platform and lecture society (without credentials to do so) on how to act and then be surprised when people expect you to be hypersensitive to those issues in your own actions.
I like Aziz Ansari as a comedian and as an actor. He comes across as a good guy in interviews also. Maybe he made a mistake that one night by acting that way or maybe this is his MO. Either way- perhaps he now understands to carefully examine his own actions before trying to push his own beliefs on the population.
Aziz wasn't her boss, didn't rape her, didn't use power to coerce her into anything.
This is not remotely similar - but then again, I know that you'll look for any excuse to bash the "Hollywood elite"
Quote:
She definitely could have been more vocal and stood up for herself more. It's not like he forcefully opened her mouth and put his dick inside twice. She took part in it blowing him.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
Also, I've been in situations where i went home with a girl, didn't make a sexual move on her (only a kiss goodnight), because I was trying to be classy and take it slow.... and later found out from her friends that she was really upset that I didn't try and bang her...it's a double edged sword.
She approached him first. He took her to a nice dinner date and back to his apartment. He made moves and then she realized, oh wait, this famous person actually isn't in love with me, he just wants to hook up. She gets upset...she probably exagerates him not getting clues.
Shame his career is now in some shit over something not that serious.
Quote:
In comment 13792400 OBJXIII said:
Quote:
She definitely could have been more vocal and stood up for herself more. It's not like he forcefully opened her mouth and put his dick inside twice. She took part in it blowing him.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
Also, I've been in situations where i went home with a girl, didn't make a sexual move on her (only a kiss goodnight), because I was trying to be classy and take it slow.... and later found out from her friends that she was really upset that I didn't try and bang her...it's a double edged sword.
I've been there too. Is there anything worse than finding out you could've gotten laid but didn't because you didn't make the move? It's bothered me YEARS later.
Lmao my spank bank is filled with those I could have banged but didn't. Hours and hours of content sadly. Oh well, better off this way then the Harvey Weinstein way lol.
David Binghamton, NY 1 hour ago
I have been arguing for decades that one of the giant failings of "second-wave" and "third-wave" feminism is that while women demand equality in all things - as they should - the one giant exception is that they still expect - no, require - men to take the initiative, make all the moves, and basically take all the emotional risks that come with expressing an interest in someone. If a man doesn't pursue a woman, nothing will ever happen. It's really that simple. It's not fun pursuing women. It's usually frustrating, fatiguing, demeaning, and often deeply humiliating. But this is what women demand of men. When men are assertive and aggressive, women are much more likely to reward them with their companionship and sex. Women seldom if ever reward men for being passive.
So the choices that heterosexual men are faced with are to be assertive, domineering, and sexually successful but run the risk of being accused of sexual harassment, or to do nothing potentially offensive and spend their evenings alone with their fantasies. The solution is for women to accept the responsibilities that come with equality and personhood. That means that the roles of women and men in sex and courtship must be placed on absolutely equal footing. Only when men know for certain that if a woman doesn't express any interest it's because she actually isn't interested, rather than merely playing hard to get, will the problem
Yup. And id have closed circuit video in my place with signs every where.
Quote:
We will never know the true story of what exactly happened that night. The truth probably lies somewhere in between what he says and what she says.
The point is that there is a great hypocrisy from Hollywood and beyond about overreacting to social issues that present themselves (and the hot topic is sexual assault), all the while closing their doors and engaging in similar activity that they accuse everyone of doing.
Basically, you can't stand on a platform and lecture society (without credentials to do so) on how to act and then be surprised when people expect you to be hypersensitive to those issues in your own actions.
I like Aziz Ansari as a comedian and as an actor. He comes across as a good guy in interviews also. Maybe he made a mistake that one night by acting that way or maybe this is his MO. Either way- perhaps he now understands to carefully examine his own actions before trying to push his own beliefs on the population.
I don't find this to be similar activity to what Hollywood was speaking out against in the slightest bit.
Aziz wasn't her boss, didn't rape her, didn't use power to coerce her into anything.
This is not remotely similar - but then again, I know that you'll look for any excuse to bash the "Hollywood elite"
Ansari uses his Hollywood celebrity to champion his self righteousness. He has himself said dating back to 2015 "I've always been a feminist."
Feminists don't do 1/2 of the shit he pulled, assuming that some of that is true.
So what does that make him? A hypocrite who uses his celebrity to lecture the population on morality while being just the same as the rest of the world when the curtain closes. Congrats Aziz- you played yourself.
Quote:
In comment 13792400 OBJXIII said:
Quote:
She definitely could have been more vocal and stood up for herself more. It's not like he forcefully opened her mouth and put his dick inside twice. She took part in it blowing him.
But he does come off as way too persistent and if she said no let's stop, pushing his hand away, then that's him fucking up.
They both look like idiots to me. If I was a woman and went back to a guys place after a date, I would assume he would make a move on me, and it would be MY RESPONSIBILTY to tell him clearly wether I wanted him to do so, or not. Guys can no longer be this mind reader thing that women assume we are....cause half the time the women themeselves are unsure of what they want.
You know what a woman gets who verbally sets boundaries BEFORE you even get to that point? RESPECT.
Allstarjim is dropping truth bombs in this thread
Thanks man. I actually have been on both sides of this. A girl who I wasn't interested in, who I wasn't in a superior position over, told my superiors I was sexually harassing her. Here is what happened...this girl, let's call her "Sally", would often talk to me about her love life. She would say, "I can't find a good man." Or tell me about a bad date she went on and bemoan the fact that she is looking for a boyfriend but can't seem to find someone who is good enough for her. I would tell her things like, "Sally, you are very pretty, if you can't find a good guy then who can?" in response. Or, "I can't believe a girl like you isn't beating them off with a stick." Or, "Sally, if I were single I would certainly ask you out." In this case, it was to at once boost her confidence and make her feel good, but also to let her know that IF she was telling me this as a subtle clue to get me to ask her out, that it wasn't going to happen.
There was a give and take and I never once made any sexual advance to her, or even laid a finger on her. But there I was, across from two of my superiors in a conference room, having to explain my behavior, because she made an informal complaint to them about me. I was furious, hurt, and felt betrayed. And confused. Why would someone who felt harassed by me not say something to me and let me know how they felt? And why would they continue to tell me intimate things about their personal life and love life if they felt harassed by me?
I learned my lesson right there. Don't flirt, don't even have a perception of flirting in the workplace. It takes one crazy chick to fuck up your life. Always keep it 100% professional with women at work.
I didn't get fired, and nothing happened to me administratively, just a verbal counseling to not talk to her unless work related. However, a position I was well-qualified for came open (would've been a promotion), and I asked about the position and let my feelings known that I was interested...and I didn't think I was seriously considered. I don't know if I wasn't considered because of what happened, but possibly. I left that company on my own terms, btw, and am very happy with what I do now. But I know first-hand that guys can be well-meaning and some women will screw them over without any conscious whatsoever.
Cecilia Chicago 14 hours ago
A line from the original piece continues to bother me: “When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair—something to calm her down.” This was after she’d collected herself in the bathroom, after she told him she didn’t want to feel forced. Ansari sat on the couch and watched Seinfeld. Grace then, after the half hour of trying to get away from him, after saying she didn’t want to feel forced, seats herself in a vulnerable position—on the floor with her back to him—intentionally giving him nonverbal cues for physical, intimate interaction: a backrub or hair playing.
When I think of people non-sexually rubbing my back or playing with my hair, I think of friends, partners, people I trust. It’s a gesture that is trusting and intimate. And, by Grace’s own words, she gave Ansari a nonverbal cue for this kind of physical intimacy. She wanted him to touch her, but in a very narrow, specific way. If she wanted physical but nonsexual intimacy, she needed to use her words. I don’t see how it’s reasonable for a near stranger to understand that your nonverbal cue for touching is only for a backrub or hair play. That’s a kind of intimacy that is built. She did seem to want intimacy with Ansari, and maybe that’s why she stayed so long. If this one nonverbal cue isn’t very clear (I would not have been able to pick up on it), I wonder how many of her other cues weren’t as clear as she may have thought they were.
It's also possible to correctly point out that, yeah, "non-verbal cues" do exist, and, if we trust this woman's account of the events (and no one, including Aziz, has bothered to dispute it), it's seems that Aziz was doing his level best to ignore them.
No, I don't think Aziz broke the law. But no, I don't think we give him a pass for how he behaved just because it doesn't meet the standard of a criminal offense.
It's also possible to correctly point out that, yeah, "non-verbal cues" do exist, and, if we trust this woman's account of the events (and no one, including Aziz, has bothered to dispute it), it's seems that Aziz was doing his level best to ignore them.
No, I don't think Aziz broke the law. But no, I don't think we give him a pass for how he behaved just because it doesn't meet the standard of a criminal offense.
There's a right and wrong here. This was a personal interaction and if you feel Aziz didn't commit a crime, then why is it ok for her to publish this and paint him as a sexual predator to the entire world? This is not a he said, she said. We can use her actual words and see that she is completely in the wrong.
The fact that Ansari put Seinfeld on suggests to me he wasn't being pushy, but social. If he wanted sex he would have put on Cinemax imo, and we know he has that channnel let's be honest.
Idk that's just my 0.02 cents.
Quote:
David Binghamton, NY 1 hour ago
I have been arguing for decades that one of the giant failings of "second-wave" and "third-wave" feminism is that while women demand equality in all things - as they should - the one giant exception is that they still expect - no, require - men to take the initiative, make all the moves, and basically take all the emotional risks that come with expressing an interest in someone. If a man doesn't pursue a woman, nothing will ever happen. It's really that simple. It's not fun pursuing women. It's usually frustrating, fatiguing, demeaning, and often deeply humiliating. But this is what women demand of men. When men are assertive and aggressive, women are much more likely to reward them with their companionship and sex. Women seldom if ever reward men for being passive.
So the choices that heterosexual men are faced with are to be assertive, domineering, and sexually successful but run the risk of being accused of sexual harassment, or to do nothing potentially offensive and spend their evenings alone with their fantasies. The solution is for women to accept the responsibilities that come with equality and personhood. That means that the roles of women and men in sex and courtship must be placed on absolutely equal footing. Only when men know for certain that if a woman doesn't express any interest it's because she actually isn't interested, rather than merely playing hard to get, will the problem
That's a really well-put comment. I think there's still the idea that this sort of action from a woman will be met with the past ideas that she's too forward or promiscuous. But I really think that there's something to that.
Ah I forgot that you were there.
Enlighten the plebes if you don't mind of exactly what occurred and how we should react to this?
Quote:
In comment 13792322 ThatLimerickGuy said:
Quote:
We will never know the true story of what exactly happened that night. The truth probably lies somewhere in between what he says and what she says.
The point is that there is a great hypocrisy from Hollywood and beyond about overreacting to social issues that present themselves (and the hot topic is sexual assault), all the while closing their doors and engaging in similar activity that they accuse everyone of doing.
Basically, you can't stand on a platform and lecture society (without credentials to do so) on how to act and then be surprised when people expect you to be hypersensitive to those issues in your own actions.
I like Aziz Ansari as a comedian and as an actor. He comes across as a good guy in interviews also. Maybe he made a mistake that one night by acting that way or maybe this is his MO. Either way- perhaps he now understands to carefully examine his own actions before trying to push his own beliefs on the population.
I don't find this to be similar activity to what Hollywood was speaking out against in the slightest bit.
Aziz wasn't her boss, didn't rape her, didn't use power to coerce her into anything.
This is not remotely similar - but then again, I know that you'll look for any excuse to bash the "Hollywood elite"
Ansari uses his Hollywood celebrity to champion his self righteousness. He has himself said dating back to 2015 "I've always been a feminist."
Feminists don't do 1/2 of the shit he pulled, assuming that some of that is true.
So what does that make him? A hypocrite who uses his celebrity to lecture the population on morality while being just the same as the rest of the world when the curtain closes. Congrats Aziz- you played yourself.
This is just another shitty take to STICK IT TO THE ELITESSSS
Apparently because they got "preachy" about stopping actual sexual assault WITHIN THEIR FUCKIN INDUSTRY! Oh but they weren't "qualified". Are you "qualified" to have a fucking opinion.
This is one reason why this story sucks so much - it gives people like you credence to tear down the very real problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
You're true intentions and motives are so obvious and transparent.
Feel free to specify what "half the shit he did" that a "true feminist" would not.
There's a right and wrong here. This was a personal interaction and if you feel Aziz didn't commit a crime, then why is it ok for her to publish this and paint him as a sexual predator to the entire world? This is not a he said, she said. We can use her actual words and see that she is completely in the wrong.
Because there is a moral discussion to be had about Aziz's behavior, apart from whether he broke a law.
Again, if we accept the woman's account of the events (and, so far as I can see, everyone has done that, at least implicitly), then there's something pretty creepy about Aziz's behavior. It's difficult for me to see how a non-autistic person could miss the signals she was evidently giving out.
Yes, I do think she crossed a line by saying, in the piece, that this amounted to the legal definition of sexual assault. But I don't think that invalidates the entire piece, or renders moot the discussion we might be having about Aziz's behavior on that night.
vs
taking a girl out on a date, engaging in oral sex both ways, trying to have sex, and then NOT having sex with her after she says no. Then calling her an uber when she wants to leave. Then, the next day, after being told she wasn't comfortable, apologizing and saying he misread the situation. Cause you know, he's supposed to understand every "non-verbal cue".
Calling out Weinstein and then having an experience like Aziz 100% does not make you a "hypocrite".
And standing up against actual sexual assault and sexual harassment isn't lecturing on morality, for fucks sake. it's called being a decent human being.
Quote:
There's a right and wrong here. This was a personal interaction and if you feel Aziz didn't commit a crime, then why is it ok for her to publish this and paint him as a sexual predator to the entire world? This is not a he said, she said. We can use her actual words and see that she is completely in the wrong.
Because there is a moral discussion to be had about Aziz's behavior, apart from whether he broke a law.
Again, if we accept the woman's account of the events (and, so far as I can see, everyone has done that, at least implicitly), then there's something pretty creepy about Aziz's behavior. It's difficult for me to see how a non-autistic person could miss the signals she was evidently giving out.
Yes, I do think she crossed a line by saying, in the piece, that this amounted to the legal definition of sexual assault. But I don't think that invalidates the entire piece, or renders moot the discussion we might be having about Aziz's behavior on that night.
I don't see any rationalization for why this should have become public. Being "creepy" or pushing for sex after you've gone down on a girl and gotten a blowjob, and then *not* having sex with her when she says she doesn't want to, doesn't render a public undressing and massive career impact.
Quote:
In comment 13792596 allstarjim said:
Quote:
There's a right and wrong here. This was a personal interaction and if you feel Aziz didn't commit a crime, then why is it ok for her to publish this and paint him as a sexual predator to the entire world? This is not a he said, she said. We can use her actual words and see that she is completely in the wrong.
Because there is a moral discussion to be had about Aziz's behavior, apart from whether he broke a law.
Again, if we accept the woman's account of the events (and, so far as I can see, everyone has done that, at least implicitly), then there's something pretty creepy about Aziz's behavior. It's difficult for me to see how a non-autistic person could miss the signals she was evidently giving out.
Yes, I do think she crossed a line by saying, in the piece, that this amounted to the legal definition of sexual assault. But I don't think that invalidates the entire piece, or renders moot the discussion we might be having about Aziz's behavior on that night.
I don't see any rationalization for why this should have become public. Being "creepy" or pushing for sex after you've gone down on a girl and gotten a blowjob, and then *not* having sex with her when she says she doesn't want to, doesn't render a public undressing and massive career impact.
Agreed. None of your non-verbal cues are going to register at all when the dick is in, or has just been in, your mouth. Sorry. If she felt uncomfortable, she should've and could've said so.
Couldn't agree more with the commenter on the article that said women are being infantilized as if they are incapable of expressing clear intent. You shouldn't have to read tea leaves or interpret mumblings. Your panties were off, his dick was in YOUR mouth.
Far more likely this is consent revocation after the fact. And to impact a man's public image and career in doing so, that is cause for civil litigation. She should publicly apologize immediately, and to him privately.
Not talking about creepy rapist bastards as employee, that is real, for sure, but, in this particular context,.
being told that you should render a very personal service in addition to the one as ordered.
Point being. There are those who go right along, see it as a perk or funny occurance and those who dont go along and it's not amusing.
For me, since I respect all people and yet see all people as social equals, its easy..easier.. to say no.
It seems the willingness to go along or the reluctance to say no correlate with ones belief in a social hierarchy - to begin with.
But, of course, I am male and at 195 lbs and do not in fear...that is a factor as well obviously.
But here is the thing. There are guys who feel comfortable doing it, for whatever reason see it as a perk, don't mind being 'at your service' and t
This is my exact point. I wish some others here could understand it (SY).
Work is one category. A restaurant server is working, for example, not socialising.
Dating is a very different category.
If you call on someone for advice on a non dating non sexual subject, they should not assume it's OK, or professional, to change the subject. It's not.
Professors would be another.. College level. Don't date the students. Simple.
And standing up against actual sexual assault and sexual harassment isn't lecturing on morality, for fucks sake. it's called being a decent human being.
No it's not. Lecturing on morality is telling the Guardian how you respect women so much that you are a self described "feminist". The implication of such a thing is that Aziz is some kind of authority on the subject of women's rights or something.
Then you invite a woman over and don't back off at the first sign of non-reciprocation.
HYPOCRISY
The whole movement is tainted now (not just because of Aziz Ansari), and who suffers is the women who have really been sexually abused or assaulted, whether is be via Weinstein or others, because now we have to view these claims through the "Ansari Lens". That is what sucks but you can thank the #metoo culture that was created for that. Good Work.
Quote:
And standing up against actual sexual assault and sexual harassment isn't lecturing on morality, for fucks sake. it's called being a decent human being.
No it's not. Lecturing on morality is telling the Guardian how you respect women so much that you are a self described "feminist". The implication of such a thing is that Aziz is some kind of authority on the subject of women's rights or something.
Then you invite a woman over and don't back off at the first sign of non-reciprocation.
HYPOCRISY
The whole movement is tainted now (not just because of Aziz Ansari), and who suffers is the women who have really been sexually abused or assaulted, whether is be via Weinstein or others, because now we have to view these claims through the "Ansari Lens". That is what sucks but you can thank the #metoo culture that was created for that. Good Work.
Holy shit, you are equating rape and workplace sexual assault with a bad date. This isn't hard to figure out.
This is just some excuse for you to beat your chest about "the elites" trying to "moralize" to you.
BTW, you shouldn't feel "lectured on morality" by MeToo unless you're, well a fuckin seuxal assaulter/harasser.
The girl said she didn't want to have sex, and they didn't have sex. Theres nothing "ironic" or any "hypocrisy".
But hey, what more could you expect from the person who felt "lectured on morality" by a movement calling out serial rapists and harassers in Hollywood.
I don't see any rationalization for why this should have become public. Being "creepy" or pushing for sex after you've gone down on a girl and gotten a blowjob, and then *not* having sex with her when she says she doesn't want to, doesn't render a public undressing and massive career impact.
Based on her account, Aziz's self-restraint doesn't appear to be the biggest reason they didn't have intercourse. Her account is basically the story of a guy who got some action up front, and decided it gave him the moral right to keep pushing his luck even after she gave him every indication (non-verbal and otherwise) that she wasn't interested. She should have gotten herself out of there long before she did.
The reason I don't have much problem with her telling her story publicly is that this account appears to go far beyond a standard case of two intoxicated people who got their signals crossed. It reads as though Aziz, at some point, decided it didn't really matter what this woman wanted - that if he kept the pressure on, eventually she would break.
People who want to plant their flag on "He didn't break any laws, so it's nobody's business how he treats women when he thinks no one's looking," sound like people less concerned with behaving well, and more concerned with what a guy in that situation can get away with.
Quote:
In comment 13792672 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
And standing up against actual sexual assault and sexual harassment isn't lecturing on morality, for fucks sake. it's called being a decent human being.
No it's not. Lecturing on morality is telling the Guardian how you respect women so much that you are a self described "feminist". The implication of such a thing is that Aziz is some kind of authority on the subject of women's rights or something.
Then you invite a woman over and don't back off at the first sign of non-reciprocation.
HYPOCRISY
The whole movement is tainted now (not just because of Aziz Ansari), and who suffers is the women who have really been sexually abused or assaulted, whether is be via Weinstein or others, because now we have to view these claims through the "Ansari Lens". That is what sucks but you can thank the #metoo culture that was created for that. Good Work.
Holy shit, you are equating rape and workplace sexual assault with a bad date. This isn't hard to figure out.
This is just some excuse for you to beat your chest about "the elites" trying to "moralize" to you.
BTW, you shouldn't feel "lectured on morality" by MeToo unless you're, well a fuckin seuxal assaulter/harasser.
The girl said she didn't want to have sex, and they didn't have sex. Theres nothing "ironic" or any "hypocrisy".
But hey, what more could you expect from the person who felt "lectured on morality" by a movement calling out serial rapists and harassers in Hollywood.
Ah- the old well then you must be a sexual predator if you find issue with any of this card. Well played. You've just done exactly what you are railing against this whole time- accused someone of something that didn't happen. Congrats?
Now I could come back with something personal against you and what you must do in your own life, even though our interactions are sporadic on a Giants message board, but while I abhor your take on this conversation, I respect that you have it and am not going to go to that level.
Quote:
Spouting off about which he knows nothing about. Again.
Ah I forgot that you were there.
Enlighten the plebes if you don't mind of exactly what occurred and how we should react to this?
I don't know. And neither do you. So dispense with your petulant crusade already.
Quote:
In comment 13792607 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Spouting off about which he knows nothing about. Again.
Ah I forgot that you were there.
Enlighten the plebes if you don't mind of exactly what occurred and how we should react to this?
I don't know. And neither do you. So dispense with your petulant crusade already.
No that's unfair I'm not going to let you off of the hook.
You specifically took the time to say that I was "spouting off" on things that I know nothing about. On a message board. Designed for discussion.
That's fine. So tell me what I should know if that is your position? Or....alternatively just browse through and contribute something positive to the conversation rather than just a snide remark. You don't need to agree with me I understand that but it's also not fair to discount an opinion because you don't like it, without becoming involved in the discussion. You also could have simply kept scrolling down and stayed out of it.
What did you accomplish? What are you doing? So weird.
Sex is going the same way. Each party is going to need a lawyer on the date, and the lawyers are going to have to decide what is allowable and what isn’t....
As for this woman with Ansari - she had bad sex and now feels guilty. Welcome to Earth...
Once again, your bullshit is transparent. You've spouted off on other subjects for everyone to know that the real driver of your statement is sticking it "Out of touch Hollywood elites".
Honestly, yes, one of the ONLY reasons you should feel "lectured on morality" by people talking about sexual assault is if you are guilty of those actions. Personally, I don't think that's the case with you - I think you chose to feel condescended to about morality due to petulant, partisan reasons.
Your posts in the thread have basically:
"ha, well Aziz deserves it for his support of #MeToo! Stupid hollywood 'elite' with their moralizing!"
Spicy take.
Once again, your bullshit is transparent. You've spouted off on other subjects for everyone to know that the real driver of your statement is sticking it "Out of touch Hollywood elites".
Honestly, yes, one of the ONLY reasons you should feel "lectured on morality" by people talking about sexual assault is if you are guilty of those actions. Personally, I don't think that's the case with you - I think you chose to feel condescended to about morality due to petulant, partisan reasons.
Your posts in the thread have basically:
"ha, well Aziz deserves it for his support of #MeToo! Stupid hollywood 'elite' with their moralizing!"
Spicy take.
Not what I said at all. Reading is Fundamental. Scroll up. I specifically said that this could have just been a bad series of events in a specific incident for Ansari. I actually believe that is LIKELY what it is.
That doesn't take away from the fact that it's hypocritical to be a champion for women's rights on one hand and then commit an alleged borderline sexual assault on the other.
In the end we are on the same side on this one Sonic. I don't think Ansari did anything wrong per se. I am in the "bad date" crowd.
The point that I keep trying to make and that is passing over your head is that these guys were trying to use their celebrity status to promote their perceived enlightened view on women's rights. I think that's a noble cause and good for them for doing it. BUT- you can't be championing feminism and then doing the things Ansari is accused of and expect to walk away scott free. The world doesn't work in a vacuum like that where they can be two indpendent things.
Spicy yes- but salty? That's your game hombre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4bAULTwAJU&feature=youtu.be - ( New Window )
Turning a worthy cause into an attention-whoring contest is a quick way to lose the movement.
Dude does exactly what we are supposed to do "No means No", and still gets slammed?
Between this girl and the lady who had a 6-month affair with Lauer, I'm not sure who is looking to cash in more on their 15 minutes of fame.
Banfield nails it.
And what happened after that?
Hence the comments from Banfield (and others) claiming "Grace" chipped away at the #meToo movement.
Quote:
And what happened after that?
Yada yada yada, he called her an Uber
Quote:
In comment 13792992 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
And what happened after that?
Yada yada yada, he called her an Uber
You yada yada'd over the best part!
Quote:
In comment 13792646 ThatLimerickGuy said:
Quote:
In comment 13792607 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Spouting off about which he knows nothing about. Again.
Ah I forgot that you were there.
Enlighten the plebes if you don't mind of exactly what occurred and how we should react to this?
I don't know. And neither do you. So dispense with your petulant crusade already.
No that's unfair I'm not going to let you off of the hook.
You specifically took the time to say that I was "spouting off" on things that I know nothing about. On a message board. Designed for discussion.
That's fine. So tell me what I should know if that is your position? Or....alternatively just browse through and contribute something positive to the conversation rather than just a snide remark. You don't need to agree with me I understand that but it's also not fair to discount an opinion because you don't like it, without becoming involved in the discussion. You also could have simply kept scrolling down and stayed out of it.
What did you accomplish? What are you doing? So weird.
Let me spell it out for you.
The majority of this thread (most) has taken in the story and has made fairly nuanced points.
You dont know Ansari. I doubt you could pick him out of a lineup of Indian/Paki folks. You don't know the girl who made the accusations. Yet, you stomp in, as you're prone to do, and start making sweeping generalizations about Hollywood and who the fuck knows what else.
So go on, continue your latest little crusade. But know that you sound like a lunatic.
Quote:
In comment 13792828 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
In comment 13792646 ThatLimerickGuy said:
Quote:
In comment 13792607 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Spouting off about which he knows nothing about. Again.
Ah I forgot that you were there.
Enlighten the plebes if you don't mind of exactly what occurred and how we should react to this?
I don't know. And neither do you. So dispense with your petulant crusade already.
No that's unfair I'm not going to let you off of the hook.
You specifically took the time to say that I was "spouting off" on things that I know nothing about. On a message board. Designed for discussion.
That's fine. So tell me what I should know if that is your position? Or....alternatively just browse through and contribute something positive to the conversation rather than just a snide remark. You don't need to agree with me I understand that but it's also not fair to discount an opinion because you don't like it, without becoming involved in the discussion. You also could have simply kept scrolling down and stayed out of it.
What did you accomplish? What are you doing? So weird.
Let me spell it out for you.
The majority of this thread (most) has taken in the story and has made fairly nuanced points.
You dont know Ansari. I doubt you could pick him out of a lineup of Indian/Paki folks. You don't know the girl who made the accusations. Yet, you stomp in, as you're prone to do, and start making sweeping generalizations about Hollywood and who the fuck knows what else.
So go on, continue your latest little crusade. But know that you sound like a lunatic.
Nor do I know Eli Manning or Landon Collins but we speak of them every day no? We all have opinions on the Giants yet most of us have never been in the locker room?
You're weird dude.
Is it an Indian/Pakistani thing? Is that a nerve or something? I'm not being facetious either, I'm trying to see where your angst is coming from on this one.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think Ansari is guilty and thus reaping what he's sown, or you think he's an innocent bystander. It can't be both. And, you may think Hollywood is overly preachy lately, but this isn't an example of that, is it?
What exactly are you trying to prove on this thread?
Quote:
Now that she's been publicly shamed she'll have to join the anti social-media-bullying campaign....
What exactly are you trying to prove on this thread?
That he should be banned methinks.
You dont know Ansari. I doubt you could pick him out of a lineup of Indian/Paki folks. You don't know the girl who made the accusations. Yet, you stomp in, as you're prone to do, and start making sweeping generalizations about Hollywood and who the fuck knows what else.
Why would he have to know Ansari or the girl to make generalizations about Hollywood? Generalizations are by definition non-specific
Whether or not he nagged her until she agreed to is irrelevant, but it's not sexual harassment or assault. She has agency, no means no, and yes means yes. "Yes" but "my non-verbal cues say no" is foolishness. People aren't psychics and spoken language exists for a reason.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think Ansari is guilty and thus reaping what he's sown, or you think he's an innocent bystander. It can't be both. And, you may think Hollywood is overly preachy lately, but this isn't an example of that, is it?
I like Ansari. I've probably seen every bit of comedy he's done. Each one of his bits are about his upbringing in South Carolina, what an awkward childhood and adolescence he had. You can see it in Master of None.
Are there preachy types in Hollywood? Of course. Aren't there preachy folks in every walk of life? I have a stepdaughter that drives me nuts with her vegan bullshit.
So for a guy I don't consider particularly preachy, it's bizarre to see Limericm take such delight in this story. I dont care whos telling the truth. Probably somewhere in the middle.
Then again, there was a certain senatorial candidate who was recently accused of assult. Multiple accusors. Some underage. Didn't hear a peep about it on here. From Limerick or other champions of truth - those who live to battle such hypocrisy.
THAT'S a non-verbal cue in an of itself!
And on top of that, she has clearly had similar "bad" experiences in the past. Does she ever learn?
If you're not comfortable around a guy, don't go to his apartment after a date! Grow up already.
Quote:
It's the cognitive dissonance between saying, "good thing Ansari is suffering, he's a hypocrite lecturing us while being guilty of these acts" and also saying, "I think Ansari is just in an unlucky situation and hasn't really done anything wrong" that makes your take stupid. And I think that's what caused you to get some shit.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think Ansari is guilty and thus reaping what he's sown, or you think he's an innocent bystander. It can't be both. And, you may think Hollywood is overly preachy lately, but this isn't an example of that, is it?
I like Ansari. I've probably seen every bit of comedy he's done. Each one of his bits are about his upbringing in South Carolina, what an awkward childhood and adolescence he had. You can see it in Master of None.
Are there preachy types in Hollywood? Of course. Aren't there preachy folks in every walk of life? I have a stepdaughter that drives me nuts with her vegan bullshit.
So for a guy I don't consider particularly preachy, it's bizarre to see Limericm take such delight in this story. I dont care whos telling the truth. Probably somewhere in the middle.
Then again, there was a certain senatorial candidate who was recently accused of assult. Multiple accusors. Some underage. Didn't hear a peep about it on here. From Limerick or other champions of truth - those who live to battle such hypocrisy.
Quote:
In comment 13793245 adamg said:
Quote:
It's the cognitive dissonance between saying, "good thing Ansari is suffering, he's a hypocrite lecturing us while being guilty of these acts" and also saying, "I think Ansari is just in an unlucky situation and hasn't really done anything wrong" that makes your take stupid. And I think that's what caused you to get some shit.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think Ansari is guilty and thus reaping what he's sown, or you think he's an innocent bystander. It can't be both. And, you may think Hollywood is overly preachy lately, but this isn't an example of that, is it?
I like Ansari. I've probably seen every bit of comedy he's done. Each one of his bits are about his upbringing in South Carolina, what an awkward childhood and adolescence he had. You can see it in Master of None.
Are there preachy types in Hollywood? Of course. Aren't there preachy folks in every walk of life? I have a stepdaughter that drives me nuts with her vegan bullshit.
So for a guy I don't consider particularly preachy, it's bizarre to see Limericm take such delight in this story. I dont care whos telling the truth. Probably somewhere in the middle.
Then again, there was a certain senatorial candidate who was recently accused of assult. Multiple accusors. Some underage. Didn't hear a peep about it on here. From Limerick or other champions of truth - those who live to battle such hypocrisy.
I'm sure if Ansari put his fingers in his ears and just yelled "FAKE NEWS!!!" TLG would give him the benefit of the doubt like he has to everyone else he politically agrees with as opposed to some bullshit about hypocrisy.
I'd have gladly given you my opinion on Roy Moore and how I did not support his candidacy for Senate if such discussion was permitted here.
Quote:
It's the cognitive dissonance between saying, "good thing Ansari is suffering, he's a hypocrite lecturing us while being guilty of these acts" and also saying, "I think Ansari is just in an unlucky situation and hasn't really done anything wrong" that makes your take stupid. And I think that's what caused you to get some shit.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think Ansari is guilty and thus reaping what he's sown, or you think he's an innocent bystander. It can't be both. And, you may think Hollywood is overly preachy lately, but this isn't an example of that, is it?
I like Ansari. I've probably seen every bit of comedy he's done. Each one of his bits are about his upbringing in South Carolina, what an awkward childhood and adolescence he had. You can see it in Master of None.
Are there preachy types in Hollywood? Of course. Aren't there preachy folks in every walk of life? I have a stepdaughter that drives me nuts with her vegan bullshit.
So for a guy I don't consider particularly preachy, it's bizarre to see Limericm take such delight in this story. I dont care whos telling the truth. Probably somewhere in the middle.
Then again, there was a certain senatorial candidate who was recently accused of assult. Multiple accusors. Some underage. Didn't hear a peep about it on here. From Limerick or other champions of truth - those who live to battle such hypocrisy.
I like Ansari too. I loved him in Parks and Rec.
Here is an analogy. What if you walked in on your stepdaughter eating a chicken tender one day after you had to endure her preaching to you about the vegan lifestyle. I mean she isn't eating a 24oz porterhouse but wouldn't that be mildly annoying after hearing her tell you what a good vegan she was?
If he's not guilty, there's no hypocrisy. Period.
Wow, that analogy makes perfect sense.
Quote:
In comment 13793245 adamg said:
Quote:
It's the cognitive dissonance between saying, "good thing Ansari is suffering, he's a hypocrite lecturing us while being guilty of these acts" and also saying, "I think Ansari is just in an unlucky situation and hasn't really done anything wrong" that makes your take stupid. And I think that's what caused you to get some shit.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think Ansari is guilty and thus reaping what he's sown, or you think he's an innocent bystander. It can't be both. And, you may think Hollywood is overly preachy lately, but this isn't an example of that, is it?
I like Ansari. I've probably seen every bit of comedy he's done. Each one of his bits are about his upbringing in South Carolina, what an awkward childhood and adolescence he had. You can see it in Master of None.
Are there preachy types in Hollywood? Of course. Aren't there preachy folks in every walk of life? I have a stepdaughter that drives me nuts with her vegan bullshit.
So for a guy I don't consider particularly preachy, it's bizarre to see Limericm take such delight in this story. I dont care whos telling the truth. Probably somewhere in the middle.
Then again, there was a certain senatorial candidate who was recently accused of assult. Multiple accusors. Some underage. Didn't hear a peep about it on here. From Limerick or other champions of truth - those who live to battle such hypocrisy.
I like Ansari too. I loved him in Parks and Rec.
Here is an analogy. What if you walked in on your stepdaughter eating a chicken tender one day after you had to endure her preaching to you about the vegan lifestyle. I mean she isn't eating a 24oz porterhouse but wouldn't that be mildly annoying after hearing her tell you what a good vegan she was?
That analogy blows. The equivalent would be taking a vow of celibacy only to be caught hooking up with someone.
Aziz Ansari is allowed to stand up for women’s right and also have consexual sexual relations with women. You realize that, right? Or don’t you?
What if it's chicken fried steak?
If he's not guilty, there's no hypocrisy. Period.
Would you not agree that he stepped over a line a little bit?
I don't think he commited any crime but since when has that been the criteria for judgment? Ask Al Franken how he feels about that.
Quote:
That you can't see how you're having it both ways?
If he's not guilty, there's no hypocrisy. Period.
Would you not agree that he stepped over a line a little bit?
I don't think he commited any crime but since when has that been the criteria for judgment? Ask Al Franken how he feels about that.
Oh fer fluck's sake...
Quote:
That you can't see how you're having it both ways?
If he's not guilty, there's no hypocrisy. Period.
Would you not agree that he stepped over a line a little bit?
I don't think he commited any crime but since when has that been the criteria for judgment? Ask Al Franken how he feels about that.
I don't have much of an opinion on something I have no trustworthy information about. Based on your own interpretation, you're having it both ways. Saying he didn't really do anything wrong while also relishing in exposing some sort of hypocrisy you see in his behavior. That those should be mutually exclusive should have registered by now, no?
So you're actually saying he's guilty of some sort of crime? What crime is he guilty of? Anything more substantial than bad press?
Quote:
What line did he step over that exposes him to charges of hypocrisy beyond merely having an inflammatory article being published about him? What has he himself done that is reprehensible?
*Shudders* Don't remind me...
Quote:
In comment 13793448 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
In comment 13793245 adamg said:
Quote:
It's the cognitive dissonance between saying, "good thing Ansari is suffering, he's a hypocrite lecturing us while being guilty of these acts" and also saying, "I think Ansari is just in an unlucky situation and hasn't really done anything wrong" that makes your take stupid. And I think that's what caused you to get some shit.
You can't have it both ways. Either you think Ansari is guilty and thus reaping what he's sown, or you think he's an innocent bystander. It can't be both. And, you may think Hollywood is overly preachy lately, but this isn't an example of that, is it?
I like Ansari. I've probably seen every bit of comedy he's done. Each one of his bits are about his upbringing in South Carolina, what an awkward childhood and adolescence he had. You can see it in Master of None.
Are there preachy types in Hollywood? Of course. Aren't there preachy folks in every walk of life? I have a stepdaughter that drives me nuts with her vegan bullshit.
So for a guy I don't consider particularly preachy, it's bizarre to see Limericm take such delight in this story. I dont care whos telling the truth. Probably somewhere in the middle.
Then again, there was a certain senatorial candidate who was recently accused of assult. Multiple accusors. Some underage. Didn't hear a peep about it on here. From Limerick or other champions of truth - those who live to battle such hypocrisy.
I'm sure if Ansari put his fingers in his ears and just yelled "FAKE NEWS!!!" TLG would give him the benefit of the doubt like he has to everyone else he politically agrees with as opposed to some bullshit about hypocrisy.
I'd have gladly given you my opinion on Roy Moore and how I did not support his candidacy for Senate if such discussion was permitted here.
Almost.
Regards, Yat
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.
The method of addressing real and perceived imbalances of power by giving a real or perceived power imbalance to one group...especially when its turning into a set, rote, dogmatic method, is one of the most dangerous methods in human history.
BUT....I DONT, repeat DONT think that this is what the METOO movement is doing, per se!
Some few adherents maybe, but for the most part they are just talking openly ...and why not.
The 'power vs power method' IS endemic in our society ....and does immeasurable harm, in short, is evil.
All that being said...its not what the METOO movement is all about.
I think the movement is great, as a father of a teenage girl (not to mention the boy) its great to think that things are changing.
That said, the blind and dumb use of 'empowerment' willy nilly....is another subject and well worth discussing.
Sounds like when the girl verbally said no that they got dressed, sat on the couch and watched Seinfeld.
In today's environment, isn't that almost to the T what he's supposed to do?
He's being accused of ignoring non-verbal cues. I don't even know what that is. Eye rolls? Gag reflex? Closing eyes while being pleasured?
Fuck - if people aren't going to verbalize things, then do acts and the next day follow it up with remorse, lawyers will be overrun with these types of cases.
and...regarding that, how we as individuals culturally express or even -perceive- power (in this case maybe) .. when, where, how...or not...is key in all this.
For example, in one model you may be complete social equals with someone you serve with in service, so- in private time call him a 'silly fucker' and a 'run-away bastard'...but during actual service events, he, being your superior in that context, you happily do -exactly- as he says.
In another contrasting (negative) model, once power is established in -one- aspect of life (job lets say, or the other one has money, or major career contacts) it is then imbedded in ALL the social interactions between the two individuals. So, for example, you see your boss or 'social better' at a barbeque, and he hits on your wife or asks you to run to the store and pick up some more hotdog buns while he throws a baseball to your kids, expects you to call him by Votre as opposed to Tu, etc.
There are different ...and deep... cultural models for how and when individuals sort out and even perceive power between themselves, and this is at the heart of the matter.
The fix is NOT to, for example, 'empower all people under six feet tall', or 'all people with X less $ bank'...that leads to ...all sorts of evils.
The fix is to embrace a volunteer culture where people treat each other as total social equals and yet also volunteer to subject themselves in the proper temporary contexts, i.e. team, military, job, family, while climbing a mountain or sailing a vessel....but NOT at dinner...in the subway....etc etc etc
The last part is the catch 22. How can you impose a just punishments on false accusation? The power assymetry means Anzari has alot more to lose than the 23 yo photographer. She basically posed a complete threat to his livelihhod. He may still lose a significant amount of opportunity from this - due to her accusations - and his recourse is next to zero.
Sounds like when the girl verbally said no that they got dressed, sat on the couch and watched Seinfeld.
I'll ask you again - what happened after they got dressed and watched Seinfeld?
Is there something I'm missing or why you keep asking a question I can't answer?
2) This is an interesting one. Her story changed after his response. The question here is what were the non-verbal cues she referred to. If she was moving his hands, gesturing, etc. then she has a point about him proceeding. But, one version of her story makes me think it was in her head, but never communicated in any way, shape, or form. From her story, it's also possible that her discomfort may have been after the fact.
Is there something I'm missing or why you keep asking a question I can't answer?
What do you mean "apparently?" You say that like you didn't bother to read her account of what happened.
Does her account even mention watching Seinfeld? That's in HIS account. Her account doesn't discuss what happened after she told him no other than she cried the whole way home.
Don't confuse me not reading her account with made up shit.
Aziz hasn't offered his side of these events, that's why. At most, he's offered a 134-word response to her account - in which he doesn't rebut a single thing she said, or offer any new information of his own.
But you got the basic point I was trying to make to FMiC. The encounter didn't end with "Grace" saying 'No,' and them sitting on the couch to watch Seinfeld until he called her an Uber. He basically tried to fuck her again.
Although things are slowly changing, for most of our history (in this culture-some cultures are vastly different, others very similar) women are supposed to not want sex lest they appear "slutty" (for lack of a better term). Men have been taught (maybe not always implicitly) that since women have to at least appear to not want sex, you have to be persistent so that after "succumbing" to a man's advances, they can comfort themselves in the knowledge that they put up resistance.
The perfect example of this behavior is the song that this new generation of feminist idiots love to trot out as a "date rape" song: Baby It's Cold Outside. The song was written in 1944. It is a song about the game I described above in which a man and woman are negotiating a sexual encounter. She obviously wants the encounter, but has to put out a good excuse as to why she would stay at the man's house overnight so everyone doesn't think she's a slut. They are basically discussing this and coming up with all the different excuses she can use. It drives me nuts when I hear folks talk about it being about "date rape". These idiots that can't understand the obvious subtext of a verbal exchange are the same idiots expecting non-verbal cues to be understood by anybody...hilarious.
Anyway- we certainly don't intend to teach our boys and girls to behave in that matter anymore, but culture doesn't change overnight, and that way of thinking about gender roles still does persist for a large chunk of society.
There are also genetic and biological aspects to it as well- behavior is never simply a matter of "nurture"- there's always a "nature" aspect to it. And for sure, the are major biological differences between men and women that account for many of the differences in the way each pursue sex.
A line from the original piece continues to bother me: “When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair—something to calm her down.” This was after she’d collected herself in the bathroom, after she told him she didn’t want to feel forced. Ansari sat on the couch and watched Seinfeld. Grace then, after the half hour of trying to get away from him, after saying she didn’t want to feel forced, seats herself in a vulnerable position—on the floor with her back to him—intentionally giving him nonverbal cues for physical, intimate interaction: a backrub or hair playing.
When I think of people non-sexually rubbing my back or playing with my hair, I think of friends, partners, people I trust. It’s a gesture that is trusting and intimate. And, by Grace’s own words, she gave Ansari a nonverbal cue for this kind of physical intimacy. She wanted him to touch her, but in a very narrow, specific way. If she wanted physical but nonsexual intimacy, she needed to use her words. I don’t see how it’s reasonable for a near stranger to understand that your nonverbal cue for touching is only for a backrub or hair play. That’s a kind of intimacy that is built. She did seem to want intimacy with Ansari, and maybe that’s why she stayed so long. If this one nonverbal cue isn’t very clear (I would not have been able to pick up on it), I wonder how many of her other cues weren’t as clear as she may have thought they were.
This moment is particularly significant for Grace, because she thought that would be the end of the sexual encounter — her remark about not wanting to feel “forced” had added a verbal component to the cues she was trying to give him about her discomfort. When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair — something to calm her down.
Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”
Soon, he pulled her back up onto the couch. She would tell her friend via text later that night, “He [made out] with me again and says, ‘Doesn’t look like you hate me.’”
Halfway into the encounter, he led her from the couch to a different part of his apartment. He said he had to show her something. Then he brought her to a large mirror, bent her over and asked her again, “Where do you want me to fuck you? Do you want me to fuck you right here?” He rammed his penis against her ass while he said it, pantomiming intercourse.
“I just remember looking in the mirror and seeing him behind me. He was very much caught up in the moment and I obviously very much wasn’t,” Grace said. “After he bent me over is when I stood up and said no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this. And he said, ‘How about we just chill, but this time with our clothes on?’”
They got dressed, sat side by side on the couch they’d already “chilled” on, and he turned on an episode of Seinfeld. She’d never seen it before. She said that’s when the reality of what was going on sank in. “It really hit me that I was violated. I felt really emotional all at once when we sat down there. That that whole experience was actually horrible.”
While the TV played in the background, he kissed her again, stuck his fingers down her throat again, and moved to undo her pants. She turned away. She remembers “feeling in a different mindset at that point.”
“I remember saying, ‘You guys are all the same, you guys are all the fucking same.’” Ansari asked her what she meant. When she turned to answer, she says he met her with “gross, forceful kisses.”
After that last kiss, Grace stood up from the couch, moved back to the kitchen island where she left her phone, and said she would call herself a car. He hugged her and kissed her goodbye, another “aggressive” kiss. When she pulled away, Ansari finally relented and insisted he’d call her the car. “He said, ‘It’s coming, but just tell them your name is Essence,’” she said, a name he has joked about using as a pseudonym in his sitcom.
the article that started it all - ( New Window )
That such a simple sentiment is lost on a 23 year-old woman making adult choices is frightening.
That happens?
Quote:
according to her the non-verbal cues were repeatedly moving his hand off her and moving away from him every time he stuck his finger in her mouth, only for him to follow her and do it again. I'm on the side that she had many opportunities to leave and a simple No would have ended it, but I think those are not so subtle non-verbal cues. He, allegedly, then responded to her telling him that she doesn't want to be forced by requesting a bj. Though I think they are both still naked at that point so that could be confusing to Aziz. She did mention Seinfeld in her version of events and how even then he stuck his finger in her mouth and tried to do take off her pants. When that failed, he called an uber. I haven't had a chance to read his side.
Aziz hasn't offered his side of these events, that's why. At most, he's offered a 134-word response to her account - in which he doesn't rebut a single thing she said, or offer any new information of his own.
But you got the basic point I was trying to make to FMiC. The encounter didn't end with "Grace" saying 'No,' and them sitting on the couch to watch Seinfeld until he called her an Uber. He basically tried to fuck her again.
Someone points at their dick and your obligated to blow him??
Someone points at their dick and your obligated to blow him??
Wait, that's not true?
Frack....
So for a guy I don't consider particularly preachy, it's bizarre to see Limericm take such delight in this story.
That's funny... I've read enough of Limerick's post to not find this bizarre in the slightest.
Brought a girl home to eff it
After the suck
He ran out of luck
And she went to rake up the muck.
I can't even confidently say that Ansari's career is safe, even though it appears he did nothing wrong!
How is that acceptable?
Of course, this is a sub-set of the greater threat for false rape allegations that any average male can have their lives ruined by.
So, my apologies if I'm not "moved" by this movement.
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?
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.
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.
The one where there is a misunderstanding, and Kramer spazs out.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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 )
Sounds like something a BBI'er would say! Yeah, a prominent female reporter is unknown but a writer at "Babe"??
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.
she saw it as this
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.
Suggesting they put clothes on really should be the end of the conversation about coersion and assault.
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.
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.
Treating this instance as coercion strips "Grace" of all of her agency and autonomy that she possessed throughout the entire encounter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 think she first broke it out on some skeev when she was 6.
Link - ( New Window )
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 )
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 )
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'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.
There - I've now mansplained mansplaining... except it's only mansplaining if Cam is female, which I kinda doubt.
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!
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.
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 )
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.
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!"
Dudes - find a good woman and don't let her go. If you don't have one, use kleenex and your imagination.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.