Aziz Ansari - Accused of Sexual Misconduct; Guilty of not being a mindreader

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html?_r=0

TL;DR Summary: Woman accuses Aziz Ansari of sexual assault/misconduct. Has her story published, published story basically exonerates Aziz. Aziz still being hung and lynched in court of public opinion. Long version short of what the woman is accusing Aziz of;

- Goes out on date with Aziz - makes specific note that she wasn't given the kind of wine that she prefers
- Returns from date with Aziz, agrees to go back to his place
- During the course of time at Aziz's place, by her own admission, performs oral sex on Aziz twice willingly, and has Aziz perform oral sex on her, willingly
- Has several touchier/closer interactions over the evening, but expresses no outward discontent (instead saying she was relying on "nonverbal queues")
- Is propositioned for sex in front of a mirror at first, declines by saying he is going "too fast" (no explicit denial or refusal is issued)
- Sits around watching TV with Aziz, both of them naked while other flirting/intimacy (no actual sex) occurs that she expresses no outward discontent with and by her own admission takes part in and offers zero effective resistance (relies on "nonverbal" queues, again)
- Aziz propositions her for sex once more, woman finally outwardly says "No" for the first time that evening and gets upset with Aziz
- The evening ends and Aziz calls her an Uber to take her home
- Aziz apologizes the following day

Perhaps I'm wildly out of the loop, but even reading her original version of the night....Aziz did absolutely nothing wrong. Not only did she actively consent and participate in multiple sexual acts over the course of the night, she did not offer any ACTUAL refusal until after the second proposition.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that she was giving the goddamnest green light that ever green lighted by lounging around in her birthday suit with Aziz. Literally the only stronger signal of intent you can have at that point is to force yourself on someone.

And personally, as bad as this is; imagine how goddamn terrifying this is to read for someone socially awkward or a bit weird (IE: someone like me).

This is a socially competent and desirable dude, having a woman willingly come back to his place, give him two BJs, sit around naked with him, then initially decline sex, but not in a way that rules it out. Try again later, declined formally this time. Calls her an Uber so she can go home, apologizes later.

Now finds himself being dragged through the mud of sexual misconduct because he was apparently being too aggressive during what he thought was consensual sexual activity.

That's a goddamn nightmare scenario of top quality right there.

Paragon Fury:
Perhaps I'm wildly out of the loop, but even reading her original version of the night....Aziz did absolutely nothing wrong. Not only did she actively consent and participate in multiple sexual acts over the course of the night, she did not offer any ACTUAL refusal until after the second proposition.

It seems like you are wildly out of the loop mate. Consent is a given not taken; without positive consent, there is no consent at all. Also, consent can be withdrawn at any given time for any given reason regarding any given act. It can be given at one point in time, taken away for another, then given again later.

tldr: Consent is always a no unless an explicit yes has been given.

Paragon Fury:
That's a goddamn nightmare scenario of top quality right there.

If you're so utterly terrified of committing rape/sexual assault, here's a handy-dandy idiot-proof guide: Always assume no until a verbal yes is given. If at any point in time, the other person even slightly seems not 100% comfortable with the situation, stop until a verbal yes is received again. Finally, this guide applies to every individual act at any given time regardless of any previous consent received. The moment you make an assumption of anything but no, you fucked up and have no one else to blame but yourself.

edit: If you can't/won't follow the above guide, you're not cut out for participating in any such actions.

Avnger:

Paragon Fury:
Perhaps I'm wildly out of the loop, but even reading her original version of the night....Aziz did absolutely nothing wrong. Not only did she actively consent and participate in multiple sexual acts over the course of the night, she did not offer any ACTUAL refusal until after the second proposition.

It seems like you are wildly out of the loop mate. Consent is a given not taken; without positive consent, there is no consent at all. Also, consent can be withdrawn at any given time for any given reason regarding any given act. It can be given at one point in time, taken away for another, then given again later.

tldr: Consent is always a no unless an explicit yes has been given.

Paragon Fury:
That's a goddamn nightmare scenario of top quality right there.

If you're so utterly terrified of committing rape/sexual assault, here's a handy-dandy idiot-proof guide: Always assume no until a verbal yes is given. If at any point in time, the other person even slightly seems not 100% comfortable with the situation, stop until a verbal yes is received again. Finally, this guide applies to every individual act at any given time regardless of any previous consent received. The moment you make an assumption of anything but no, you fucked up and have no one else to blame but yourself.

edit: If you can't/won't follow the above guide, you're not cut out for participating in any such actions.

Did she followed said rules?

ex951753:

Avnger:

Paragon Fury:
Perhaps I'm wildly out of the loop, but even reading her original version of the night....Aziz did absolutely nothing wrong. Not only did she actively consent and participate in multiple sexual acts over the course of the night, she did not offer any ACTUAL refusal until after the second proposition.

It seems like you are wildly out of the loop mate. Consent is a given not taken; without positive consent, there is no consent at all. Also, consent can be withdrawn at any given time for any given reason regarding any given act. It can be given at one point in time, taken away for another, then given again later.

tldr: Consent is always a no unless an explicit yes has been given.

Paragon Fury:
That's a goddamn nightmare scenario of top quality right there.

If you're so utterly terrified of committing rape/sexual assault, here's a handy-dandy idiot-proof guide: Always assume no until a verbal yes is given. If at any point in time, the other person even slightly seems not 100% comfortable with the situation, stop until a verbal yes is received again. Finally, this guide applies to every individual act at any given time regardless of any previous consent received. The moment you make an assumption of anything but no, you fucked up and have no one else to blame but yourself.

edit: If you can't/won't follow the above guide, you're not cut out for participating in any such actions.

Did she followed said rules?

I have no idea. I was simply working off the information presented in the OP. If she didn't, she opened herself up to the same accusations. The OP suggests that he was completely consenting to everything though. Feel free to do some research if it bothers you.

Not following those rules doesn't automatically mean you committed sexual assault and/or rape. Following them, however, is the only way to guarantee that you didn't. This applies to everyone regardless of gender.

For example, my ex-fiance and I didn't follow those rules; however, we also knew each other well enough after 4 years of being together that reading our non-verbal cues was second nature. If I were spending time with a woman I only recently met, I would be much more strict with myself though for both her sake and mine.

Warning: shitty analogy incoming

Imagine sexual activities as the equivalent of sticking your hand inside a dog's mouth. You damned well better be 100% sure it won't bite you; otherwise, it's entirely your fault if it happens.

Paragon Fury:
Perhaps I'm wildly out of the loop, but even reading her original version of the night....Aziz did absolutely nothing wrong.

Legally, perhaps not. And no one is pressing charges.

Paragon Fury:
Aziz propositions her for sex once more, woman finally outwardly says "No" for the first time that evening and gets upset with Aziz
- The evening ends and Aziz calls her an Uber to take her home

Some stuff has been left out here between these two:

"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.

This is being overly pushy, even if it may not technically qualify as an assault.

Kind of like this:

Honestly, I don't really get it..

A famous person went on a date with a woman and treated her fucking horrendously. She found it distressing and uncomfortable. She spoke to an online magazine, which published the story about how distressing and uncomfortable it was.

I mean, is this it, is this what y'all straight people lie awake at night terrified of?

Like, you know, maybe don't do creepy maledom shit with people you don't know before asking if they're into that. Because that's what this is, guys. Creepy. fucking. maledom. shit. I know for some reason straight people act like maledom is normal and that it can just be assumed that women are into it without having to ask first, but it's gross, and it shames a lot of really sweet straight guys who are doms and who take their shit seriously, care about consent and can interact with women normally. Can you imagine that, having the capacity to interact with women normally as if they are human beings and not pieces of steak you can put your nob in without it being weird.

It's shit. It's not necessarily illegal, but it's shit. It shows you have no respect for the person you want to put your dick inside, that you don't care how they feel about it or even if they feel bad about it, as long as you get to flop around on top of them for a couple of minutes. Any straight dude who wonders why women don't feel safe around you, this is why. It's because you seem to find it remarkably easy to tolerate blatant disrespect and abusive behaviour towards them if it gets a man a few inches closer to nutting. Who the fuck would ever feel safe around you?

Grow up, and find something real to be afraid of, because right now you are something real to be afraid of.

And to the straight guys who are nice, and care about consent, and don't do this nonsense without asking, or defend this sort of crap, or demand that we sympathise with people who behave like fucking dogs, I'm genuinely, truly sorry for lumping you in with the trash, but right now it's a safe assumption that any straight man has a good chance of being trash.

Paragon Fury:
And personally, as bad as this is; imagine how goddamn terrifying this is to read for someone socially awkward or a bit weird (IE: someone like me).

I think this bit in particular deserves an honest and non-sarcastic response.

I'm on the autistic spectrum. To be bluntly, brutally honest, I consider myself a textbook definition of socially awkward and weird. Now, no two autistic people are the same and we all have different symptoms. Likewise people who are socially awkward because they're just clueless or don't have much experience with people will be different.

But it is not difficult to avoid being the "worst night of someone's life", and if it is difficult to avoid, it says a lot about your attitude. Like, if you have the confidence to bend someone you don't know over in front of a mirror and talk about how you're going to fuck them, if that's something you can do despite being "socially awkward", then you can't really tell me that you can't spend a few moments figuring out if they're happy, if they're comfortable, what they'd like you to do to them. That's not being socially awkward, that's not not doing something because you can't do it, or because you can't figure it out, that's just being a coward. Seriously, it's cowardice.. and not listening to someone when they tell you they're uncomfortable, trying to make them continue even when they've told you they want to stop goes beyond being a coward and straight into being actually abusive.

It's easy, it's so easy, and being socially awkward shouldn't really make it harder. If you can't trust your interpretation of someone's feelings, maybe don't ram your fingers inside them. If you can't figure it out, ask. Like, do you all live in such chronic terror of not getting your end away that the mere chance a person might be merely tolerating you and not actually want to fuck you is worth making them feel like shit?

That is a choice, it's a choice to be, at best, incredibly selfish and frankly, shitty at sex and at worst to be guilty of a sexual offence.

ex951753:
Did she followed said rules?

Are you suggesting that she deliberately positioned her breasts in the way of his hand so that he would be forced to grope her, that she somehow got him to undress her against his will and that her fearsome, hungry vagina kept trying to devour his poor innocent fingers while he stood frozen in horror?

People do not generally accidentally end up naked, they do not accidentally fall on top of each other and start accidentally having sex. A person undresses themselves or another person, a person touches another person, a person moves a part of their body so as to penetrate the body of another person. These things require volition, they require that someone take an action to make the thing happen (that action, of course, may be coerced or against the will of the person doing it, but that isn't something we can reasonably assume without evidence). Merely being subject to the action, merely being passive while someone touches or penetrates you does not imply consent.

Again, I would ask why you have internalised a model of sex in which it's perfectly normal for one partner to do everything, or if they want something done to them to forcibly ask or demand it, while complete passivity or acceptance on the part of the other partner is considered sufficient, but we all know the answer.

I can't comment on whether the accusation is true, but the original source of the story paints a very different picture. https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355 So before going into an interminable debate over the MeToo movement, I think we should clarify what exactly has been said.

Aziz Ansari has not been accused of rape. He has not been accused of sexual misconduct. The article in Babe does mention sexual assault but it's carefully phrased in a way that makes it seem like an accusation while not actually being one (I'm not here to defend the journalistic quality of this publication). He has not been accused of any crime, save for the humanitarian atrocity of asking someone to watch Seinfeld with you on a date.

The accusation paints a picture of a man who acted in a way that was entitled and deeply inconsiderate, what some might be tempted to call a "fuckboy" or dare I say "douchebag" (which is just sad for a 34 year old man), but when all was said and done he accepted her wishes when she said "no", and this is pointed out several times.

The representation of the article in NYT and Atlantic is very inaccurate. To hear them tell it, a man is being accused of rape on the level of Harvey Weinstein just for being clueless or bad at sex, which simply isn't the case at all.

Hopefully this whole mess can serve as a teachable moment. 1.) Never do anything without asking first and 2.) always say no if you don't want to do something.

Yet another male feminist is a creepy sexual abuser. Color me shocked.
image

evilthecat:
I'm genuinely, truly sorry for lumping you in with the trash, but right now it's a safe assumption that any straight man has a good chance of being trash.

thats some straight up next level sexism right there.

Replace the two words "straight" with black and "trash" with criminal and you would fight right in with some bigots at a KKK rally.

Warhound:
thats some straight up next level sexism right there.

Replace the two words "straight" with black and "trash" with criminal and you would fight right in with some bigots at a KKK rally.

Replace what I said with something I didn't say and I would have said something different.

Well, colour me shocked.

evilthecat:

Warhound:
thats some straight up next level sexism right there.

Replace the two words "straight" with black and "trash" with criminal and you would fight right in with some bigots at a KKK rally.

Replace what I said with something I didn't say and I would have said something different.

Well, colour me shocked.

Totally cool to say that the majority of a population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though. Same argument, different words/targets.

Warhound:
Totally cool to say that the majority of the population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though.

Well, that's not what I said, is it. Go back and read again.

evilthecat:

Warhound:
Totally cool to say that the majority of the population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though.

Well, that's not what I said, is it. Go back and read again.

That is EXACTLY what you said.

I'm genuinely, truly sorry for lumping you in with the trash, but right now it's a safe assumption that any straight man has a good chance of being trash.

You are 'genuinely sorry' (I doubt it) for lumping (Any straight man) in with the trash (abusers like aziz), but it is a safe assumption that ANY STRAIGHT MAN(the majority of a population, as I said) has a good chance (same thing as likely) of being trash.(Again, abuses like aziz)

Warhound:

evilthecat:

Warhound:
thats some straight up next level sexism right there.

Replace the two words "straight" with black and "trash" with criminal and you would fight right in with some bigots at a KKK rally.

Replace what I said with something I didn't say and I would have said something different.

Well, colour me shocked.

Totally cool to say that the majority of the population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though. Same argument, different words/targets.

uhh, straight men aren't the majority of the population. Though, we do do most of the rapes and assaults, so I can see why other peeps would be cautious.

Though I think it's funny that you lead off with a generalization, only to complain about a different generalization. What's the problem, somebody's generalizing about a group you belong to instead of a group you don't?

altnameJag:

Warhound:

evilthecat:

Replace what I said with something I didn't say and I would have said something different.

Well, colour me shocked.

Totally cool to say that the majority of the population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though. Same argument, different words/targets.

uhh, straight men aren't the majority of the population. Though, we do do most of the rapes and assaults, so I can see why other peeps would be cautious.

Though I think it's funny that you lead off with a generalization, only to complain about a different generalization. What's the problem, somebody's generalizing about a group you belong to instead of a group you don't?

Sorry I meant the majority of "A" population (Straight men are the majority of the male population) rather than "THE" population, I have corrected my post to reflect that.

My generalization is about a group you can willingly associate yourself with or disassociate yourself with, his target was against a group that they have no control over. (Unless you are one of those folks who believes that sexuality is a choice, I suppose.)

Warhound:
That is EXACTLY what you said.

No, it isn't.

And to the straight guys who are nice, and care about consent, and don't do this nonsense without asking, or defend this sort of crap, or demand that we sympathise with people who behave like fucking dogs

That's five distinct things, isn't it. There are actually a few more things scattered throughout the post, if you look carefully. You've mentioned (your interpretation of) one of those things and assumed I was referring exclusively to that.

See, here's some semantic wizardry for you. I get to decide what kind of behaviours I think make someone trash. It doesn't matter if those behaviours are "criminal" or even abusive, it matters that I don't like them, I consider them to be trashy.

When I allege that there is a good chance that any straight man will be trash, all that I am actually saying is that there is a good chance they will engage in behaviours that I consider to be trash. I mentioned five examples of those behaviours above, there are many, many more examples.

Now, I freely admit that I'm not talking about all straight men, which is why I felt compelled to apologise to those I was unfairly lumping in with the trash. I'm sure you weren't talking about all "male feminists" either when you implied that it wasn't surprising to find them engaging in abusive behaviour. These are generalisations, aren't they. They're pretty normal here in the human world. I simply take a broader view than you, because frankly I'm not surprised when it comes out that any heterosexual man abuses women. I don't see why anyone would be.

I mean, a lot of people would say that I am a male feminist. I could choose to be deeply offended and have a little cry-tantrum about the misandreee of singling out male feminists as abusers based on the actions of a few, but I don't, because that's fucking trashy. Seriously, fuck performative allyship. Fuck men who pretend to be political allies to women and yet use their personal privileges to abuse them. They're scum, and only trash people waste time defending scum.

So yeah, you have a choice. You can derail and cry persecution and whine about how mean it is all that all the woms and queers see you as a potential threat, or you can do better. You've chosen the former so far, but it's not too late to choose the latter.

altnameJag:

Warhound:

evilthecat:

Replace what I said with something I didn't say and I would have said something different.

Well, colour me shocked.

Totally cool to say that the majority of the population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though. Same argument, different words/targets.

uhh, straight men aren't the majority of the population. Though, we do do most of the rapes and assaults, so I can see why other peeps would be cautious.

Though I think it's funny that you lead off with a generalization, only to complain about a different generalization. What's the problem, somebody's generalizing about a group you belong to instead of a group you don't?

to be fair, one is a group you are born as, another is a group you make a conscious decision to join. If you dont like generalizations about republicans, you can always stop identifying as a republican. You dont have the same freedom if you dont like generalizations about black men and you are a black man.

Although religions falls into some weird middle territory in this regard as you are kinda born into it, did not make an active decision to join, but can make an active decision to stop identifying as.

Why is it so fucking hard for some people to wrap their heads around the idea of not being a creep and talking things over? Talking things over is not a hard thing to do! FFS. This is a very, VERY, simple concept!

Paragon Fury:

And personally, as bad as this is; imagine how goddamn terrifying this is to read for someone socially awkward or a bit weird (IE: someone like me).

Dude, I am collaborating with my best Jewish friend to write a freaking Neon Genesis Evangelion fanfiction. I am pretty damn weird, and I can promise you that so long as you talk things through with a woman and ask before you put your hands on her, YOU WILL BE FINE!

Please do not compare yourself to this man, you deserve better than that.

evilthecat:

ex951753:
Did she followed said rules?

Are you suggesting that she deliberately positioned her breasts in the way of his hand so that he would be forced to grope her, that she somehow got him to undress her against his will and that her fearsome, hungry vagina kept trying to devour his poor innocent fingers while he stood frozen in horror?

People do not generally accidentally end up naked, they do not accidentally fall on top of each other and start accidentally having sex. A person undresses themselves or another person, a person touches another person, a person moves a part of their body so as to penetrate the body of another person. These things require volition, they require that someone take an action to make the thing happen (that action, of course, may be coerced or against the will of the person doing it, but that isn't something we can reasonably assume without evidence). Merely being subject to the action, merely being passive while someone touches or penetrates you does not imply consent.

Again, I would ask why you have internalised a model of sex in which it's perfectly normal for one partner to do everything, or if they want something done to them to forcibly ask or demand it, while complete passivity or acceptance on the part of the other partner is considered sufficient, but we all know the answer.

Not sure what you are rambling about. My question was since "the rule" is to ask for consent for every action, then why is the blame never on the female? One would think taking off one's clothes is a form of consent but apparently anything less of "let's do this" is not consent. If the guy is expected to ask every 5 minutes "are you okay with this" why is it never on the female?

Ryotknife:

to be fair, one is a group you are born as, another is a group you make a conscious decision to join. If you dont like generalizations about republicans, you can always stop identifying as a republican. You dont have the same freedom if you dont like generalizations about black men and you are a black man.

Although religions falls into some weird middle territory in this regard as you are kinda born into it, did not make an active decision to join, but can make an active decision to stop identifying as.

Dude's okay with murdering human trafficking victims being brought against their will over the border, I'm not particularly worried about his pearl clutching over generalizing straight white dudes. 'Specially as I'm a straight white dude.

ex951753:

Not sure what you are rambling about. My question was since "the rule" is to ask for consent for every action, then why is the blame never on the female? One would think taking off one's clothes is a form of consent but apparently anything less of "let's do this" is not consent. If the guy is expected to ask every 5 minutes "are you okay with this" why is it never on the female?

Find a situation where that's applicable and it will be.

Turns out, that wasn't this situation.

altnameJag:

ex951753:

Not sure what you are rambling about. My question was since "the rule" is to ask for consent for every action, then why is the blame never on the female? One would think taking off one's clothes is a form of consent but apparently anything less of "let's do this" is not consent. If the guy is expected to ask every 5 minutes "are you okay with this" why is it never on the female?

Find a situation where that's applicable and it will be.

Turns out, that wasn't this situation.

So despite Ansari stepping back as soon as she said no, he is clearly in the wrong for not asking her if she's into it every 5 minutes and the blame is solely on him and not the woman even if she could of voiced her feelings earlier?

ex951753:

altnameJag:

ex951753:

Not sure what you are rambling about. My question was since "the rule" is to ask for consent for every action, then why is the blame never on the female? One would think taking off one's clothes is a form of consent but apparently anything less of "let's do this" is not consent. If the guy is expected to ask every 5 minutes "are you okay with this" why is it never on the female?

Find a situation where that's applicable and it will be.

Turns out, that wasn't this situation.

So despite Ansari stepping back as soon as she said no, he is clearly in the wrong for not asking her if she's into it every 5 minutes and the blame is solely on him and not the woman even if she could of voiced her feelings earlier?

Yes... Did you even read my post you commented on then my reply?

Lack of a yes/no is no. Consent is given not taken. This really shouldn't be a hard concept people.....

If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, is that ok because you never told me not to? If I drop a few crumbs while at a dinner party at your place and you don't tell me to stop, am I free to start throwing the entire meal all over the place until you say no?

ex951753:
Not sure what you are rambling about.

Okay, small steps then..

ex951753:
My question was since "the rule" is to ask for consent for every action, then why is the blame never on the female?

Okay, so the blame is on the woman (assuming there is a woman involved) when a woman does something to someone else without consent. If a woman touches you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, that's no good. If a woman sticks a giant dildo up your ass because she just assumes it's what you want, that's no good.

If you try to stick your finger inside a woman's vagina without asking her, however, then the responsibility isn't on her to ask your consent for her potentially touching your fingers with her genitals. Do you see why? Because she is not actually doing anything. See, sex acts don't just randomly happen. Someone has to make them happen by doing something. Sometimes, all partners are proactively engaged in doing the same thing and it's a kind of mutual effort, and that's great, but we aren't talking about those times. We're talking about times when one person is passive and the other is proactively doing something to them, whether that's touching them, rubbing against them or whatever. In kink and queer circles, we call this "topping", and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. However, the responsibility is always on the top to establish consent because the top is the person doing things, the bottom is having things done to them.

This is not just a matter of etiquette, it's also a matter of law. Passivity or a lack of resistance is not the same thing as consent, and more importantly, it cannot reasonably be assumed to indicate consent. Noone has committed a crime simply for having their body exist and having someone else do something to it. Ever. It doesn't matter if they didn't resist, allowed it to happen or were pressured into it after the fifth or sixth time of asking.

ex951753:
One would think taking off one's clothes is a form of consent but apparently anything less of "let's do this" is not consent.

The woman in this case claims she did not take off her clothes. He started kissing her. He touched her breast. He took off her clothes. He took off his own clothes.

Additionally, this statement doesn't work and won't hold up because consent applies on an act by act basis. Let's say we're making out and you undress yourself, and then suddenly I throw you down, handcuff you to something and whip out the 14 inch strap-on. Now, you undressed so I could argue that you clearly consented to being hollowed out by Genghis the Pengas, except of course you didn't. All you did was undress yourself. Now, while in context I might have reason to believe that the reason you undressed was because you wanted to do something sexual with me, you have not obligated yourself to do anything and I cannot assume that mere passivity on your part constitutes a license for me to do whatever I want. It certainly doesn't constitute a license for me to ignore anything you say you don't want, or to repeatedly try to do something I want to do even if you have made it clear you're not into it.

ex951753:
If the guy is expected to ask every 5 minutes "are you okay with this" why is it never on the female?

Again, it is when the "female" is the one doing something and when there's any question over whether her partner is giving enthusiastic consent. I mean, if you need to ask every 5 minutes to figure out whether someone is into what you're doing, you're.. not very good at sex, are you.

Actually, that's mean. Chances are, if you ask a lot you probably are pretty okay at sex because at least you're communicating with your partner about what they want instead of just assuming that they'll be into whatever you want to do because.. I don't know.. bitches go crazy when you stick your fingers down their throats, I saw it in a porn once!

Avnger:

ex951753:

altnameJag:
Find a situation where that's applicable and it will be.

Turns out, that wasn't this situation.

So despite Ansari stepping back as soon as she said no, he is clearly in the wrong for not asking her if she's into it every 5 minutes and the blame is solely on him and not the woman even if she could of voiced her feelings earlier?

Yes... Did you even read my post you commented on then my reply?

Lack of a yes/no is no. Consent is given not taken. This really shouldn't be a hard concept people.....

If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, is that ok because you never told me not to? If I drop a few crumbs while at a dinner party at your place and you don't tell me to stop, am I free to start throwing the entire meal all over the place until you say no?

So basically he raped her? Since she did not ask him if he was okay every 5 minutes, then why is he in the wrong and not her?

evilthecat:

Warhound:
That is EXACTLY what you said.

No, it isn't.

And to the straight guys who are nice, and care about consent, and don't do this nonsense without asking, or defend this sort of crap, or demand that we sympathise with people who behave like fucking dogs

That's five distinct things, isn't it. There are actually a few more things scattered throughout the post, if you look carefully. You've mentioned (your interpretation of) one of those things and assumed I was referring exclusively to that.

See, here's some semantic wizardry for you. I get to decide what kind of behaviours I think make someone trash. It doesn't matter if those behaviours are "criminal" or even abusive, it matters that I don't like them, I consider them to be trashy.

When I allege that there is a good chance that any straight man will be trash, all that I am actually saying is that there is a good chance they will engage in behaviours that I consider to be trash. I mentioned five examples of those behaviours above, there are many, many more examples.

Now, I freely admit that I'm not talking about all straight men, which is why I felt compelled to apologise to those I was unfairly lumping in with the trash. I'm sure you weren't talking about all "male feminists" either when you implied that it wasn't surprising to find them engaging in abusive behaviour. These are generalisations, aren't they. They're pretty normal here in the human world. I simply take a broader view than you, because frankly I'm not surprised when it comes out that any heterosexual man abuses women. I don't see why anyone would be.

So you would be totally cool with a KKK dude going "Well, theres a good chance that any black person will be scum because these five beheviors I will list out." so long as they say they aren't talking about ALL black people?

I mean, a lot of people would say that I am a male feminist. I could choose to be deeply offended and have a little cry-tantrum about the misandreee of singling out male feminists as abusers based on the actions of a few, but I don't, because that's fucking trashy. Seriously, fuck performative allyship. Fuck men who pretend to be political allies to women and yet use their personal privileges to abuse them. They're scum, and only trash people waste time defending scum.

So yeah, you have a choice. You can derail and cry persecution and whine about how mean it is all that all the woms and queers see you as a potential threat, or you can do better. You've chosen the former so far, but it's not too late to choose the latter.

Not exactly similar, since you can choose not to call yourself a feminist ally, but you can't choose to not be a straight male, thats why people get all offended when you assume that an Arab is gonna blow you (Figurative you by the way) because a small minority of them have done so. Though it seems (And do correct me if I am wrong here) that you are defending such judgments since they get to decide what they think makes someone a threat? Is your assuming a straight guy is trash better than someone who assumes a black person will be a criminal or a brown person will be a terrorist?

Seriously, fuck performative allyship. Fuck men who pretend to be political allies to women and yet use their personal privileges to abuse them.

We can 100% agree on this part though!

ex951753:

Avnger:

ex951753:

So despite Ansari stepping back as soon as she said no, he is clearly in the wrong for not asking her if she's into it every 5 minutes and the blame is solely on him and not the woman even if she could of voiced her feelings earlier?

Yes... Did you even read my post you commented on then my reply?

Lack of a yes/no is no. Consent is given not taken. This really shouldn't be a hard concept people.....

If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, is that ok because you never told me not to? If I drop a few crumbs while at a dinner party at your place and you don't tell me to stop, am I free to start throwing the entire meal all over the place until you say no?

So basically he raped her? Since she did not ask him if he was okay every 5 minutes, then why is he in the wrong and not her?

It's almost like you still haven't read my two posts above. Here, I'll link them for you. If you're going to entirely pretend I didn't respond to these basic and, frankly, very revealing of your character questions, I probably won't be responding to you anymore in this thread.

Original: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.1035880.24191098
Response to your first post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.1035880.24191103

Seems like there was no consent(to have sex), and no misconduct either. What's the problem?

I would advise everyone engaging in sexual conduct to ask their partner "do you want to do (this)?". It's an approach that can avoid confusion and one I have used in the past and would always use in future in a new situation.

Blood Brain Barrier:
Seems like there was no consent(to have sex), and no misconduct either. What's the problem?

From her account it does seem like her body language was giving off a distinctive "I don't want this" vibe and he kept pushing which makes it exploitative to say the least, abusive at worst.

From his account she was mostly willing but he was still pushy and overly assertive while she was hesitant and in the end she was full on nope so it was still exploitative even in his account.

So due to my own biases against male feminists I tend to believe her account more.

Warhound:
So you would be totally cool with a KKK dude going "Well, theres a good chance that any black person will be scum because these five beheviors I will list out."

Not really.

I'm entirely aware that the KKK consider various people to be scum. Heck, I'm well aware they consider people like me to be scum and, were I to find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, they'd probably kill me just for existing. Thus, ultimately, what they think doesn't interest me in any way except in terms of how I can best avoid and protect myself from them.

See, this is the difference between my "next level sexism" and good old sexism. I don't think it's okay for straight men to be hurt. I don't want to sexually assault or harass them, and I won't excuse it when it happens. I don't hate straight men, I fear them, as any sane person should. I fear the fact that so many of them can't even find it in their withered, aborted excuses for a conscience to condemn the behaviour of other straight men if they feel it infringes on their perceived ability to potentially fuck an unwilling woman.

Sorry, there is no getting around how terrifying that is, and how little I want it anywhere near my life. I can't blame any woman for feeling the same.

And yes, again, "not all straight men".. I hope that goes without saying now.

erttheking:
Why is it so fucking hard for some people to wrap their heads around the idea of not being a creep and talking things over? Talking things over is not a hard thing to do! FFS. This is a very, VERY, simple concept!

Because that's not how Sex actually works, so yes, it actually is a hard thing to make work in practice. Yeah, it's a simple idea...just one that is very ignorant of how Sex generally works.

evilthecat:
I don't hate black men, I fear them, as any sane person should.

And with the slightest change this goes straight to absolutely bigoted. Know why? Because it already was bigoted. This shit shouldn't be tolerated, reported.

Warhound:

evilthecat:

Warhound:
thats some straight up next level sexism right there.

Replace the two words "straight" with black and "trash" with criminal and you would fight right in with some bigots at a KKK rally.

Replace what I said with something I didn't say and I would have said something different.

Well, colour me shocked.

Totally cool to say that the majority of a population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though. Same argument, different words/targets.

If sexual assault is even a fraction as prevalent as the criminal statistics suggest that it is then I think it's fair to say that there are a shitload of straight men who are abusers, certainly a large enough share of the population where the typical woman feels a need to err on the side of caution when interacting with straight men.

Fischgopf:

erttheking:
Why is it so fucking hard for some people to wrap their heads around the idea of not being a creep and talking things over? Talking things over is not a hard thing to do! FFS. This is a very, VERY, simple concept!

Because that's not how Sex actually works, so yes, it actually is a hard thing to make work in practice. Yeah, it's a simple idea...just one that is very ignorant of how Sex generally works.

I mean, I'm not a sex-haver[1], but research would suggest that sexy talk is a thing that's fairly common.

Fischgopf:

evilthecat:
I don't hate corndogs, I fear them, as any sane person should.

And with the slightest change this goes straight to absolutely bigoted. Know why? Because it already was bigoted. This shit shouldn't be tolerated, reported.

Well that's just crazy talk.

[1] not that it really appeals to me

evilthecat:

Warhound:
So you would be totally cool with a KKK dude going "Well, theres a good chance that any black person will be scum because these five beheviors I will list out."

Not really.

So its ok for you to have a phobia of straight men but its not ok for them to have a phobia of black men? Even though straight and black are exactly the same in the fact that both are beyond the person's control?

Edit: I am really terrible at this system's quoting thing. ~.~

renegade7:

Warhound:

evilthecat:

Replace what I said with something I didn't say and I would have said something different.

Well, colour me shocked.

Totally cool to say that the majority of a population is likely to be abusers/criminals because of a tiny minority of that population though. Same argument, different words/targets.

If sexual assault is even a fraction as prevalent as the criminal statistics suggest that it is then I think it's fair to say that there are a shitload of straight men who are abusers, certainly a large enough share of the population where the typical woman feels a need to err on the side of caution when interacting with straight men.

Really now? I would love to see those sexual assault statistics (Only from a real government source though, I don't wanna see some feminist blog thats like "3 out of every 1 women is raped in her life time so every single man is a triple rapist!" kinda stuff.)

Fischgopf:
And with the slightest change this goes straight to absolutely bigoted. Know why? Because it already was bigoted. This shit shouldn't be tolerated, reported.

I love how you all think it's a big gotcha to change things I said and then act like it's some radical truth bomb to point out that the meaning of said things changes as well.

Besides, I've seen enough of how a significant proportion of white people act around black men to have figured out that it's apparently perfectly socially acceptable to be afraid of them. Heck, isn't this literally the legal defence every time someone shoots a young black man, and yet it seems to work well enough for those people, doesn't it.

But hey, just imagine if you put as much effort into calling out men who make women afraid, as you put into calling out women (and me) for being justifiably afraid of them.

altnameJag:

Fischgopf:

erttheking:
Why is it so fucking hard for some people to wrap their heads around the idea of not being a creep and talking things over? Talking things over is not a hard thing to do! FFS. This is a very, VERY, simple concept!

Because that's not how Sex actually works, so yes, it actually is a hard thing to make work in practice. Yeah, it's a simple idea...just one that is very ignorant of how Sex generally works.

I mean, I'm not a sex-haver[1], but research would suggest that sexy talk is a thing that's fairly common.

"May I rub your clitoris in a circular manner at this current point in time?" is not sexy talk.

[1] not that it really appeals to me

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here