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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

So what I've gathered from this thread is:
A. Aziz Ansari did nothing wrong and everything wrong
B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically
C. That's not the same as the KKK calling black men trash, because of reasons
4. Consent can never be given with a power dynamic, and seeings how everyone is differently empowered in their own ways, consent can never be given
And finally, Cinco: Saying black men commit more crimes is racist, saying white men are sex offenders is just math!

That about sums this up.

Paragon Fury:
But instead of leaving it at that, she goes and has a sensationalist rag publish what is essentially a social media hitpiece on Aziz Ansari because she knows while she has no legal or moral case against him, she can make it sound bad enough and exploitative enough to rile herself up some social media vigilante justice.

Are you saying it wasn't bad or exploitative?

Is your defence of Aziz behaviour actually that he did nothing wrong, that what he did was an appropriate and fine way to behave because he never actually crossed the line into sexual assault, that even if he was physically forceful he was never physically violent and that's good enough..

Or is your defence that this is "normal" behaviour, that it's something women should just learn to expect and not to complain about because we can't talk about men being abusive unless they're abusive enough to cross the line into illegality. That men intrinsically and inherently deserve the right to try and force unwilling women to sleep with them provided it never crosses the line into outright violence.

Because I think you're missing the point.

Do you genuinely think that the reason people are angry about this is because people (women in particular) are so sheep-like and so easily manipulated by online magazines that they will hate someone simply because they've been told to do so, or do you perhaps think that the reason people are angry is because this is something far, far closer to most women's experiences than, say, Harvey Weinstein's horrible antics.

Again, let me quote the open letter which you say "sums it up nicely".

"If you had a bad sexual experience you should have gone home. Maybe just go ahead and tell your friends to avoid this guy, he's gross. Go ahead, tell the date himself he's gross. That he is not the lover that he thinks he is. And without question don't go on a second date with him and certainly do not marry a guy like that."

If he's done nothing wrong, why is a news anchor who vehemently disagrees with the decision to publish the details still advising this woman (and by extension all women) that if they have an experience like this they should try and keep themselves and their friends away from this person? If he's done nothing wrong, why not tell your friends "yeah, I mean I had a bad time but maybe you should date him and he'll be more your thing". It's because, whether you want to admit it or not, everyone who has been in this situation knows it is bad, and they want to protect their friends from it, they want to protect themselves from having to go through the same thing again. Noone deserves to be treated like this, and yet every straight woman is. Still, those women are also constantly told that this is normal, that even if a man treats them like this he can still be a good man, that they still have a responsibility to protect him, that they should be grateful that he never crossed that imaginary line into doing something illegal.

Think about that. What you're basically saying is, "he could have raped you, but he didn't, and you owe him for that."

It's bullshit though, innit. Noone owes anyone a prize for not raping them. We can demand a better quality of conduct from people than simply being able to restrain their desire to commit outright physical violence against us.

Also, because I'm noticing an overlap here and it's funny to me.. anyone feel like burger and fries?

Let me take a crack at translating this hieroglyphics of "nonverbal cues"

Constantly moving away = No
"Not on a first date" = No
When you move your date's hand towards your dick and she jerks it away it = No
Pulling away and saying, "Woah relax, let's chill" = No
When you ask, "Where do you want me to fuck you?" and they say, "Next time" = No
When they say "I don't want to feel forced because I don't want to hate you!" = OH MY GOD, YOU DENSE MOTHERFUCKER! SHE DON'T WANNA FUCK YOU!

What part of this is confusing or requires telepathy? And ask yourself, "Why is the proposition of sex with me so tenuous that a misplaced question will kill the mood?" Interestingly enough, though, the twenty prior "missed cues" don't add up to the untenability of one weird "Are you still feeling this?"

Paragon Fury:
nothing bad actually happened to her

Yeah...no.

Paragon Fury:
This woman has potentially ruined Aziz Ansari's career

Also no. His career is not going to be ruined. He'll lose some of the people he's gotten as fans by appearing to be feminist, but that's on him, not her.

So Aziz is a dick and a shitty guy to go on a first date with. Not exactly front page news, is it? I'll be sure to steer clear of him though.

Also, here is an e-mail from the author of the original piece, doing the rounds on Twitter. When Ashleigh Banfield of HLN criticized the original babe.net author Katie Way and offered to talk about it with her on air, Way's reaction was...a bit much, to say the least: http://www.businessinsider.com/aziz-ansari-writer-email-to-hln-ashleigh-banfield-2018-1 https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ashleigh-banfield-fires-back-after-getting-insulting-email-from-writer-of-aziz-ansari-piece/

Who coulda thunk the reputable babe.net could hire such impulsive people as that? She's 22 whole years old y'all. Twenty-fuckin'-two. I mean, at 22 I had nary a clue what I was doing. I'm 34 and I still have no idea what the fuck I'm doing, on a good day. Methinks the Mrs. Way could have done with sitting on that one for a while. Probably should have just went on TV instead. I mean, who doesn't want their 15 minutes of horrible fame for doing approximately nothing?

Everyone talking down about #metoo can sport their hate boners proud today, for a hypocrite hath been sussed out. But until Master of None gets cancelled, I'm sure Aziz be fine so all you Virtuous Warriors can probably relax and have a Miller Lite or something. I imagine most of them didn't give a shit about him before this and in actuality probably still don't except that this story is another supposed example of "Social Justice Gone Too Faaaaaaaar!!!!" (trademark pending).

This whole mess is like, people with too much time on their hands and not enough common sense. This kind of petty drama is seriously bad for the soul.

Silentpony:
So what I've gathered from this thread is:
A. Aziz Ansari did nothing wrong and everything wrong
B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically
C. That's not the same as the KKK calling black men trash, because of reasons
4. Consent can never be given with a power dynamic, and seeings how everyone is differently empowered in their own ways, consent can never be given
And finally, Cinco: Saying black men commit more crimes is racist, saying white men are sex offenders is just math!

That about sums this up.

#StrawmanOfTheYear2018

Reading this thread sure has been a strain on the old blood pressure. No wonder females are more than fed up of it all. Anybody acting like that guy or defending acting like that guy doesn't deserve any intimacy with such humans and I'm hardly surprised at the extent why so many young girls develop emotional troubles in a world like this, but then again I've observed there are plenty of guys who prefer the damaged female, just means more emotional control and exploitation for them. Totally legal though. So it's all fine, as long as empathy is thrown right out the window for an extra quick fuck

Avnger:

Silentpony:
So what I've gathered from this thread is:
A. Aziz Ansari did nothing wrong and everything wrong
B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically
C. That's not the same as the KKK calling black men trash, because of reasons
4. Consent can never be given with a power dynamic, and seeings how everyone is differently empowered in their own ways, consent can never be given
And finally, Cinco: Saying black men commit more crimes is racist, saying white men are sex offenders is just math!

That about sums this up.

#StrawmanOfTheYear2018

I mean...no? Not at all?

"The difference is that straight men make up somewhere in the ballpark of 90-98% of sexual offenders, whereas black men are only slightly over-represented in violent crimes statistics and that over representation is all but eliminated once you account for socioeconomic factors known to affect crime"

"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."

"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."

"I don't hate corndogs, I fear them, as any sane person should"

I can keep going if you want? I don't want to keep going on without your consent.

The way sex and consent is described in this thread makes it questionable if anyone condemning Aziz has ever actually had a sexual encounter with someone they didn't know well beforehand. Verbal consent typically isn't a thing in real life. No means no of course. But it seems to be implied here the absence of a definitive yes is sexual assult. If so, millions are getting raped every year and seem perfectly fine with it.

Shadowstar38:
The way sex and consent is described in this thread makes it questionable if anyone condemning Aziz has ever actually had a sexual encounter with someone they didn't know well beforehand. Verbal consent typically isn't a thing in real life. No means no of course. But it seems to be implied here the absence of a definitive yes is sexual assult. If so, millions are getting raped every year and seem perfectly fine with it.

Well, my reading of the Ansari encounter is that Ansari is excessively pushy.

It actually reminded me of something from yonks back about some PUA tactics how to pressurise and essentially wear women down into sex (although at the worst end some of these PUA tactics seemed to me to be outright intimidation). My sort of reading is that Ansari is pestering the woman into sex acts, completely unresponsive to the fact she's increasingly not enjoying the experience. The kindest interpretation I can give is that Ansari has developed a mindset that he's in for a great night of non-stop sex, and cannot see past that haze to the woman's unhappiness with proceedings. At worst, however, he's noticed but doesn't care.

The best context for this debacle is not, I think, about sexual assault so much as maintaining awareness of a sexual partner's state of mind, and being responsive to that. I suspect a great deal of unhappiness about sex is not intentional, nor assault, but simple lack of awareness or consideration for how the other person might be feeling; consent may be given, verbally or non-verbally, but with misgivings. Those of us who have had plenty of sex probably have experienced moments where we have become aware our partner is not happy about something. Part of growing up and being responsible is learning to look out for that, recognise it and either remedy the problem or just stop.

But this can be part of a difficult and nuanced conversation not easy in a world where people want to talk about sex to push politics rather than discuss good sexual conduct.

Shadowstar38:
The way sex and consent is described in this thread makes it questionable if anyone condemning Aziz has ever actually had a sexual encounter with someone they didn't know well beforehand. Verbal consent typically isn't a thing in real life. No means no of course. But it seems to be implied here the absence of a definitive yes is sexual assult. If so, millions are getting raped every year and seem perfectly fine with it.

You're not understanding what is being said if this is your takeaway.

Absence of a definitive yes isn't necessarily sexual assault. However, a definitive yes is the only explicit way to ensure consent; definitiveness and explicitness go hand-in-hand.

I made a post on the first page of the thread that clearly lays out this point.

Also, nice cheapshot at those of us who don't agree with you. We're totally all completely sexually inexperienced compared to a master such as yourself.[1]

[1] /s if its not obvious

Shadowstar38:
The way sex and consent is described in this thread makes it questionable if anyone condemning Aziz has ever actually had a sexual encounter with someone they didn't know well beforehand. Verbal consent typically isn't a thing in real life. No means no of course. But it seems to be implied here the absence of a definitive yes is sexual assult. If so, millions are getting raped every year and seem perfectly fine with it.

You find it typical that a guy will follow a woman around the room periodically sticking his fingers down her throat when she seems put off by him?

Shadowstar38:
The way sex and consent is described in this thread makes it questionable if anyone condemning Aziz has ever actually had a sexual encounter with someone they didn't know well beforehand.

I don't know about anyone else, but I went through a phase of doing it at least once a month (which is still pretty tame compared to some of my friends).

I stopped because it's hard work, and I found I wasn't willing to put that work in for what I got back.. and no, I don't mean physically it's hard work and I don't mean that it's hard work to find hookups. I mean that negotiating boundaries is hard work, figuring out what you both want to do is hard work, compromising is hard work, learning to read someone you don't know well is hard work, and then there's the more scary side of figuring out whether you can trust someone, whether they're going to treat you respectfully, whether they're going to turn weird or violent.

But this isn't what you're talking about, is it.. you would never assume that you had to consider these things. To you, I imagine the idea of taking any responsibility for a partner you don't know well is quite alien, which explains why you seem to be so terrified it might get in the way of your ability to nut. This is what I mean when I say that your (hetero)sexual culture is broken, and ultimately it hurts you, because it creates an environment where straight women have to withhold sex from you because they can't trust you. And why would they? They are not allowed the cultural expectation that you will do what is required to make the experience safe and fun for them.

Shadowstar38:
But it seems to be implied here the absence of a definitive yes is sexual assult.

No, that's not being "implied" here at all.

What's being "implied" is that you have to know. If you're going to do something to someone, if you're going to touch them or put things inside them or whatever, you have to know it's what they want. You are allowed to make sincere mistakes (in fact, you are allowed to do so to a frankly ludicrous degree) but if there is any doubt in your mind as to whether someone wants something, you should take steps to find out.

If someone goes quiet or stops responding, check they're okay. If someone seems unsure or unhappy, you should check in with them. If someone pushes you away or tries to stop you doing something, don't immediately try to do it again. If you want to do kink or D/s stuff with someone you don't know (which I wouldn't recommend in private, clubs exist for a reason) take the time to establish limits. What's frustrating is that these things are so basic, and yet you seem to want to believe that they are impossible.

The correct response to uncertainty is not to assume that thing are okay so long as someone isn't resisting, or because they haven't said anything. If you're the one doing things to someone else, then you have to pay attention to how they're reacting to you. If you don't, then you're definately an asshole, and you may also be a sexual predator.

At the risk of sounding like victim blaming, what the hell was she expecting? After meeting him at a party she decides to go to his place after dinner only a week later? I don't know how the date went down exactly but this seems like a regular booty call that just went poorly. Who enters the place of a date you just met not expecting sexual advances? If she didn't like what was going on she could have left or used her words. The fact that a gossip mag was the paper to break the story should be giant red flag.

Dansen:
At the risk of sounding like victim blaming

You say this then immediately follow it up with every single one of the most often said victim blaming arguments except "well look at what she was wearing" which I get the feeling you would have included if given the chance to see whatever she chose to wear.

Regarding the "using her words or getting up and leave " you should maybe take some time to read up on why it's a relatively common phenomenon for women to not in cases of sexual assault.

Dansen:
At the risk of sounding like victim blaming, what the hell was she expecting?

Pointing out that you might sound like you're victim blaming only works if you're not really victim blaming.

Dansen:
Who enters the place of a date you just met not expecting sexual advances?

Is that uncommon?

I've done that a few times with dates. Most of my straight woman friends have done this at some point. Maybe this is something about urban living, but public spaces can be an awkward, especially if you're younger and don't have much money. Often, it's much easier to talk to someone in a private setting where the drinks are cheap and there's no loud noise.

Also, I think you've unintentionally revealed the problem here. Do you really think that if a woman enters someone's house that automatically means she's completely receptive to anything, and that you can grab her by the throat or force your finger in her mouth and she will immediately melt into well-lubricated putty? Do you think that the slightest hesitation or delay in sexual response is somehow dishonouring the bargain or, worse, is a sign of the dreaded rejection.

Like, I've never, never gone on a date with someone (male, female, whatever) who I wasn't wondering if I would eventually sleep with, which (if you have the empathy to put yourself into this situation) is what makes it difficult. You can want to sleep with someone, you can really like someone, and yet you can still not want to sleep with them in the way or at the time they're forcing you to, and that's what makes it hard to "use your words" or "leave" because you know that as soon as you do you go straight into that box of people who dishonoured the bargain, you've become the frigid bitch who was clearly never into someone anyway and most of the time that's not true.

You can walk into someone's house with full intentions of sleeping with them, and still have a problem with what they expect of you, or the level of force they use, or how fast they want everything to go. If you don't accept that, if you want to put forward the idea that merely entering the same house as someone means they own you and have a right to do whatever they want to you, then sorry. You're victim blaming. In fact, that's downright apologism, and it's gross.

Ultimately, I think it's very sad, and very indicative of certain (slightly hyperbolic) points I made earlier that you're essentially blaming women for actually liking the men they go on dates with, for caring about how they feel, for not being ready to write them off as awful garbage people the second they make a mistake. You're saying that disrespecting people you date, people you want to sleep with, is so normal that the fault lies not with men who don't respect women they date, who don't care about how they feel and who don't care if the sex they get is actually consensual, but in the fact that women respect their dates too much, that they're too attentive to how these men feel and too willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they go on dates with people they actually like, as opposed to just people they want to use and discard.

I don't know if that's what you meant to say, but it's incredibly revealing, isn't it.

Silentpony:
So what I've gathered from this thread is:

B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically

Not a single person has said this, or anything approaching this.

If that's what you've gathered from the thread, you need to read it again, paying at least a little bit of attention and ensuring you don't get distracted by whatever absurd bull you assume your enemies are thinking.

Avnger:

Dansen:
At the risk of sounding like victim blaming

You say this then immediately follow it up with every single one of the most often said victim blaming arguments except "well look at what she was wearing" which I get the feeling you would have included if given the chance to see whatever she chose to wear.

Regarding the "using her words or getting up and leave " you should maybe take some time to read up on why it's a relatively common phenomenon for women to not in cases of sexual assault.

Oh please, she is a grown ass woman, she can act like one instead of being a little girl that needs defending. She wasn't threatened with violence, blackmail or her livelihood as far as we know. Aziz was a shitty first date, but at some point this woman needed to take responsibility for what she could do in the situation and leave if she wasn't into what was going on. If he impeded the decision to stop in any way, and continued to force himself on her than I'd say she has every right to shout her story from the rooftops. But that isn't what happened, when she finally used her words, they put on clothes and he called her an Uber. Have you actually read the story? She talks about her fucking wine preferences as if its relevant to the story about alleged sexual misconduct.

Dansen:
She wasn't threatened with violence, blackmail or her livelihood as far as we know.

Out of interest, does this defence apply to other things? "I didn't threaten her with blackmail, so it's her fault"? "I didn't threaten him with violence, so I did nothing wrong"?

Silvanus:

Silentpony:
So what I've gathered from this thread is:

B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically

Not a single person has said this, or anything approaching this.

If that's what you've gathered from the thread, you need to read it again, paying at least a little bit of attention and ensuring you don't get distracted by whatever absurd bull you assume your enemies are thinking.

No, people have said things approaching this. To quote evilthecat:

"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."

I think the "fear", though I would suspect it's more just concern, might come from heterosexual men that are single and hoping to date women, the perception that they will constantly be regarded as potential rapists (ie: be feared/despised on some level) for things that they haven't actually done/don't want to do, and in sexual encounters not be afforded the same protections/considerations simply because they are men, and expected to be 'dogs'/want it all the time/didn't verbally ask for permission. I suspect that that degree of pressure could paralyze a novice upon consideration, especially when applied to something that many younger people already find stressful.

the December King:

No, people have said things approaching this. To quote evilthecat:

"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."

That's not really the same thing, though, is it?

I can understand objecting to what was written. Object away. But that's not the same thing. We don't get any discussion done by the endless mischaracterisation.

I think the "fear", though I would suspect it's more just concern, might come from heterosexual men that are single and hoping to date women, the perception that they will constantly be regarded as potential rapists (ie: be feared/despised on some level) for things that they haven't actually done/don't want to do, and in sexual encounters not be afforded the same protections/considerations simply because they are men, and expected to be 'dogs'/want it all the time/didn't verbally ask for permission. I suspect that that degree of pressure could paralyze a novice upon consideration, especially when applied to something that many younger people already find stressful.

Is verbal consent really so difficult to require? I'm unsure why this has to be a sticking point.

We're talking about situations in which the two people involved have understood things wildly differently. One person expects the situation will move onto sex, and the other doesn't. We have two outcomes, then: one in which the guy doesn't act, because he's afraid he might have misread it; and one in which he makes unwelcome physical advances, making the other person very uncomfortable.

One is worse than the other, so that tells us what our priority should be in that situation. But verbal consent can prevent the latter scenario, without any real increased risk of the former scenario either.

So, why not? Must we insist on relying on non-verbal inference, even though it's frequently presumptuous and can cause issues like those above?

the December King:
didn't verbally ask for permission.

This is not really a concern for anyone able to verbally ask for permission. They can always do that if they are worried about the consequences of not doing that.

In any case, acting without someone's consent is bad because you've acted without someone's consent, not because you might get people judging you for doing so.

Silvanus:

That's not really the same thing, though, is it?

I can understand objecting to what was written. Object away. But that's not the same thing. We don't get any discussion done by the endless mischaracterisation.

I thought that was the point, that this was a conclusion, or at least the obvious inference, that could be derived from these kinds of statements? No one wants to be regarded as garbage simply because they are men, right?

Is verbal consent really so difficult to require? I'm unsure why this has to be a sticking point.

We're talking about situations in which the two people involved have understood things wildly differently. One person expects the situation will move onto sex, and the other doesn't. We have two outcomes, then: one in which the guy doesn't act, because he's afraid he might have misread it; and one in which he makes unwelcome physical advances, making the other person very uncomfortable.

One is worse than the other, so that tells us what our priority should be in that situation. But verbal consent can prevent the latter scenario, without any real increased risk of the former scenario either.

So, why not? Must we insist on relying on non-verbal inference, even though it's frequently presumptuous and can cause issues like those above?

To be honest, I agree with you- I feel like some sort of verbal acknowledgement, some communication, of proceeding to a sexual encounter is a no-brainer. I don't find the "hook up" scene particularly subtle in the first place, and clarity seems to be the only way to gain an honest understanding of new dates... if that is what either party really wants from that style of dating.

On the one hand, in this case, fingering someone's mouth and aggressively pursuing intercourse with someone, without consent, is wrong- and she said "no" after he started, which must have been uncomfortable for her at that point, sure, (EDIT:) and he stopped. On the other hand, a couple of blowjobs are not and cannot be called verbal denials of consent- they are not a 'yes', but they certainly aren't a 'no', either.

If, up to that point, there had been little verbal communication, if they both seemed to be enjoying the way the evening was going, and not verbally communicating otherwise, then it's understandable that he might try to go a little farther- and when she emphatically said "no", then that should end the encounter.

So, yeah, I don't find the concept of gaining consent particularly problematic. It was more the rest of what I previously wrote.

Thaluikhain:

the December King:
didn't verbally ask for permission.

This is not really a concern for anyone able to verbally ask for permission. They can always do that if they are worried about the consequences of not doing that.

In any case, acting without someone's consent is bad because you've acted without someone's consent, not because you might get people judging you for doing so.

I agree with this, of course.

EDIT: My main issues here were just trying to explain why some people might be worried about dating, and that some people have indeed claimed that it's best to just view men as trash.

the December King:
EDIT: My main issues here were just trying to explain why some people might be worried about dating, and that some people have indeed claimed that it's best to just view men as trash.

Ah, ok, fair enough. Personally, I feel that people should be somewhat worried about dating (if by people, you mean men. Women obviously have reasons to worry about dating), society has a very warped and unhealthy view of everything relating to it.

Also, evilthecat said "good chance of being trash", not quite the same thing. We live in a society where men aren't really under much obligation not to be trash. The US is currently run by a man who makes no secret of being trash, and people voted for him anyway. More or less every time a woman is sexually assaulted, she's blamed for it, told she should have been more careful, that men are dangerous and she should have known that. As a natural result of that, women tend not to trust men as much as they otherwise might. Sure, it's not nice for the men, but then it's rather worse for the women.

Thaluikhain:

the December King:
EDIT: My main issues here were just trying to explain why some people might be worried about dating, and that some people have indeed claimed that it's best to just view men as trash.

Ah, ok, fair enough. Personally, I feel that people should be somewhat worried about dating (if by people, you mean men. Women obviously have reasons to worry about dating), society has a very warped and unhealthy view of everything relating to it.

Also, evilthecat said "good chance of being trash", not quite the same thing. We live in a society where men aren't really under much obligation not to be trash. The US is currently run by a man who makes no secret of being trash, and people voted for him anyway. More or less every time a woman is sexually assaulted, she's blamed for it, told she should have been more careful, that men are dangerous and she should have known that. As a natural result of that, women tend not to trust men as much as they otherwise might. Sure, it's not nice for the men, but then it's rather worse for the women.

Yeah, I should have clarified I did mean men in that edit, sorry. Though as you say, everyone should at least be concerned going into the dating scene. Lots can happen.

And I certainly cannot argue with Trump being trash. But I'd wager that the public stance on sexual assault has changed quite a bit, or is changing, at least recently.

the December King:
And I certainly cannot argue with Trump being trash. But I'd wager that the public stance on sexual assault has changed quite a bit, or is changing, at least recently.

Possibly, but I daresay not so much as people would like to think. It's become very popular for celebs to talk about #metoo or Weinstein being a bad person, but a lot of the same people doing that supported Allen or Polanski or others. It's currently trendy to talk big about the issue, but there's no requirement for people to back up what they say.

People have dubbed it the "Me too moment", and the last word of that phrase might be more apt than is immediately obvious. Fingers crossed, though.

Silvanus:

Silentpony:
So what I've gathered from this thread is:

B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically

Not a single person has said this, or anything approaching this.

If that's what you've gathered from the thread, you need to read it again, paying at least a little bit of attention and ensuring you don't get distracted by whatever absurd bull you assume your enemies are thinking.

Is this the part where I get to ironically ask you if you read these posts? Sad that someone else beat me to the punch, but lessons should be reinforced, so here:

"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."

I underlined the parts you had trouble reading. And yes, it is the fucking same. If someone says its safe to assume ALL straight men are trash, its safe to assume they mean all straight men are trash. That's the intent, the conclusion, and the words typed.
And your words were 'anything approaching this' And they're wrong. Someone did say something approaching what I said. Very close to what I said, actually. Damn near identical, now that I'm re-reading what I posted earlier.

Thaluikhain:

Dansen:
She wasn't threatened with violence, blackmail or her livelihood as far as we know.

Out of interest, does this defence apply to other things? "I didn't threaten her with blackmail, so it's her fault"? "I didn't threaten him with violence, so I did nothing wrong"?

Don't know why you would think that. To clarify, she is not responsible for Aziz's crap behavior, she only has control over herself and her actions. She had several opportunities to leave but didn't. There was no external distressing pressure to stop her from saying no. She wasn't drunk, drugged or threatened as far as we know. So why the he'll did she get naked and give him two bjs? Why did she stay? All I see are two supposed adults acting like teenagers and not communicating intent.

Silentpony:
Is this the part where I get to ironically ask you if you read these posts? Sad that someone else beat me to the punch, but lessons should be reinforced, so here:

"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."

I underlined the parts you had trouble reading. And yes, it is the fucking same. If someone says its safe to assume ALL straight men are trash, its safe to assume they mean all straight men are trash. That's the intent, the conclusion, and the words typed.
And your words were 'anything approaching this' And they're wrong. Someone did say something approaching what I said. Very close to what I said, actually. Damn near identical, now that I'm re-reading what I posted earlier.

Is this the part where I get to ironically ask you if you read these posts?

"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."

I underlined bolded the parts you had trouble reading. "A good chance of being" is not the same as "all are". Also, if you want to try to twist someone's quote, you might next time want to omit the part contradicting what you are claiming they are saying, in this part "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". Evilthecat can't believe in them and all straight men being trash at the same time.

Thaluikhain:
SNIP

So you're backwards argument is that because he said any straight man has a good chance of being trash that he...didn't mean that? Like I'm following what you think you're saying. Evilthecat says he's sorry, but it doesn't matter if you're nice, don't condone bad actions, don't defend them, or whatever, he still assumes you're trash. That's what is being said. Its simply easier to assume straight men are trash, even if they're not, because of the actions of a minority of other straight men.

How are you not getting this?

Silentpony:
So you're backwards argument is that because he said any straight man has a good chance of being trash that he...didn't mean that?

I'm guessing that Evilthecat meant what Evilthecat actually said, and not what you are saying Evilthecat said or meant, which is completely different.

Silentpony:
he still assumes you're trash.

"A good chance of being" is not the same as "all are".

Silentpony:
Its simply easier to assume straight men are trash

"A good chance of being" is not the same as "all are".

How are you not getting this?

EDIT: Hell with it, I don't want to speak for evilthecat, they'll probably respond sooner or later to this.

Thaluikhain:
SNIP

Because its sexist either way? Granted you've made a distinction without a difference. But 'good chance' means higher than even chance. Meaning higher than 50%. Meaning straight men, flip a coin. On heads you're trash. On tails you're trash. If it lands perfectly on its side, you're fine.

Seriously dude, change it up a little bit:
any black man has a good chance of being trash
any straight woman has a good chance of being trash
any Mexican has a good chance of being trash

Would you really be sitting there pulling a Donald Trump, saying 'whoa hold on there, its not sexist/racist. Some I assume are good people! He said good chance. There's wiggle room!'

Silentpony:
Meaning higher than 50%. Meaning straight men, flip a coin.

I'm not sure why "good chance" means more than 50% - that seems a very arbitrary decision.

For instance, in many cases, "good" will be contextual: it might mean "better than you'd expect", or "better than normal", which in the case of low probability events means a "good chance" can still be well under 50%.

Or it might represent the context of the severity of a situation. If for instance you loaded a 6-chamber revolver with one bullet, spun the cylinder, put the dangerous end against your own head and pulled the trigger, many might say there's a "good chance" you'd blow your own brains out. Sure, everyone knows it's actually 1 in 6, but they are terrifyingly high odds in terms of extinguishing your own life.

I think the point, really, is just that every time this debate comes it, it's nearly always a chunk of straight men who sit around thinking of creative ways to excuse "unusually forceful" sexual behaviour (against women). How many there are is moot, but there certainly seem to be a lot more of them than I'd prefer.

Agema:

Silentpony:
Meaning higher than 50%. Meaning straight men, flip a coin.

I'm not sure why "good chance" means more than 50% - that seems a very arbitrary decision.

For instance, in many cases, "good" will be contextual: it might mean "better than you'd expect", or "better than normal", which in the case of low probability events means a "good chance" can still be well under 50%.

Or it might represent the context of the severity of a situation. If for instance you loaded a 6-chamber revolver with one bullet, spun the cylinder, put the dangerous end against your own head and pulled the trigger, many might say there's a "good chance" you'd blow your own brains out. Sure, everyone knows it's actually 1 in 6, but they are terrifyingly high odds in terms of extinguishing your own life.

I think the point, really, is just that every time this debate comes it, it's nearly always a chunk of straight men who sit around thinking of creative ways to excuse "unusually forceful" sexual behaviour (against women). How many there are is moot, but there certainly seem to be a lot more of them than I'd prefer.

My read was that since is a personal safety thing, 'good chance' was 'act as though certain'. If there is a straight man, act as though he intends to sexually assault you.

Also the phrase really does mean high likelihood of happening:
http://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/theres-a-good-chance-that-a-hrefhttp-wwwphrasemixcom-languag

Like the phrase 'chances are X' or 'its a good bet that X'. Yeah, no numerical values are stated, but the cultural understanding is its pretty high. Certainly higher than any other chances.

 Pages PREV 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