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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Silentpony:
I refuse your idea that because I'm straight, I've hurt people unknowingly. That because I'm straight, I somehow am not capable of understanding my own actions or social cues around me. That is a horrifically sexist thing for you to believe is okay, evilthecat.

"Excepting, of course, evilthecat didn't actually say that, which is sorta a relevant point here."

EDIT: Believing it wise not to easily trust men (in general) does not mean each and every man is a bad person. It does not compare to distrusting black or trans people, because black or trans people are not responsible for the majority of crimes. Men are, massively disproportionately, responsible for violence against women, and against everyone else. Everything you'd heard about stranger danger, about women not walking in dark alleys alone or of not wearing revealing clothing or leaving drinks unattended, that's (an often flawed) response to the very real danger of attack by men. Occasionally by women or children, but overwhelmingly by men.

Yeah, it sucks that women don't easily trust men. It's also not great for the women that they shouldn't. You're right to be angry but you should be angry at the men making it so, rather than people acknowledging that there's a problem.

the December King:
That might be a part of the problem, when it's all of womankind that are labeled as the victims, then the discussion is automatically framed, or at least implied, as though all men represent the antagonists? So a natural, initial reaction to that will be to defend yourself based on those criteria (I haven't done anything wrong, therefore notallmen, and perhaps you become more receptive to the defenses displayed by the men who have assaulted women, like blaming the victim, etc.)

I think it's more a reflective defense of one's group. People can say "I don't mean all men" all they want, people will still decide it's an attack on the whole group.

By rough comparison, if a foreigner condemns your country, you are likely to be annoyed. Hell, even if there are plenty of things you'd change about your country, there's still that sting. Gamers can condemn AAA games all they want, but get annoyed when a non-gamer says something similar.

Thaluikhain:

the December King:
That might be a part of the problem, when it's all of womankind that are labeled as the victims, then the discussion is automatically framed, or at least implied, as though all men represent the antagonists? So a natural, initial reaction to that will be to defend yourself based on those criteria (I haven't done anything wrong, therefore notallmen, and perhaps you become more receptive to the defenses displayed by the men who have assaulted women, like blaming the victim, etc.)

I think it's more a reflective defense of one's group. People can say "I don't mean all men" all they want, people will still decide it's an attack on the whole group.

By rough comparison, if a foreigner condemns your country, you are likely to be annoyed. Hell, even if there are plenty of things you'd change about your country, there's still that sting. Gamers can condemn AAA games all they want, but get annoyed when a non-gamer says something similar.

Yeah, that makes sense, too.

I actually find hearing that ("I don't mean all men") actually quite helpful in diffusing that tension, at least for me, and in those instances where the focus of the scrutiny/scorn/criticisms is cloudy, and yes, admittedly influenced by vibe.

Silentpony:
So you ARE straight up sexist. Act as those all straight men will hurt you. Take them out of your life. View every straight man as a imminent danger at all times. They may not all be trash, but treat them as though they are and never trust a straight man, because he's straight.

Okay, so sexism is the idea (often expressed unconsciously) that the inherent worth or value of people, or their competence at particular things, is determined by their sex, which in this context is to say their anatomical bodies. I think it should be pretty clear that I do not subscribe to that.

Unfortunately, many straight men do subscribe to that, whether consciously or otherwise. When people assume an implicit superiority and dominance over women because they have female bodies which men desire, that is sexism. It's sexism noone needs in their life, and noone has a responsibility to endure of even risk it because the alternative might make those men feel bad or call into question their inviolable uniqueness and specialness.

This is not just an individual problem, it's a cultural problem. If it was just a handful of men with antisocial tendencies, if it was just a few extremists, then you might have a point, but look back through this thread. It isn't a few extremists. Your sexism is evident in the fact that you feel compelled to defend straight men (your "group") even when they behave like animals, that you somehow manage to be more outraged that other people have a problem with that than that people behave this way in the first place.

To you, it probably sounds normal. But from outside, it speaks of a fundamental disregard for women's lives and women's right to feel safe and the inherent assumption that this is less important than men's sexual entitlements, and that is quite sexist.

Silentpony:
I think it's okay to want black men out of your life, or to view them as not worth the risk.

Firstly, as I pointed out earlier, this is how a significant proportion of white people literally think. My parents, for example, know literally zero black men, and even they are better than most of their generation, who are still overtly racist. Black men do constantly encounter fear, hostility and assumptions about criminality and threat, whether you think it's right or not. Trayvon Martin literally died because a white (or white passing) man thought he looked "suspicious". Guess what suspicious means.

Secondly, the thing about changing the words around is that you also change the meaning of what is being said. It's almost like words aren't arbitrary and actually contain meaning, isn't it? The thing about black men is that the perception of threat mostly functions as an imposed stigma. Black men generally do not demand that we ignore crimes which other black people commit (they may allege that some of those crimes are fabricated or exaggerated for racist reasons, but that is probably true), they do not insist that we view it as normal for black men to victimize others, or treat others as overreacting for wanting not to be victimized. That requires a degree of entitlement and security which black men generally do not have.

Again, I'm not talking about the actions of fringe extremists, I'm not talking about the kind of elaborate, pseudo-aspiration posturing we might find in hip hop culture, I'm talking about an overarching culture which not only justifies the abuse of women, but does so so successfully that your typical straight man doesn't even seem to know what abuse is or to be able to condemn it as definitively bad.

Silentpony:
That is the very fucking definition of prejudice! You are pre-judging. You are judging all straight men by the actions of a minority and deeming them all, potentially, guilty of the same crimes.

Have you noticed that you're lumping yourself in with the "minority", that you've consistently taken the side of the "minority" to the point of seeking to deny that what they do is anything but normal, because you find it massively upsetting that people would dare to take actions to protect themselves from "the minority".

That is what I'm judging. Prejudice isn't necessary, in this case. You've chosen to side with "the minority", and thus you've become part of it.. and guess what, I'm not even convinced (when you put it in those terms) that it is a minority. It's a whole cultural formation which goes way, way beyond the atrocious sexual conduct of some men and into the underlying justifications and defences which allow those men to believe they've done nothing wrong.

Silentpony:
What happens if there's a straight man working as a waiter? Is it okay to ask the boss for a gay waiter instead? What if a brother is straight? Is it cool to ask the family not to invite him to Christmas until he can prove he's not straight anymore? Is it okay to bare straight men from jobs?

Nope. It's okay not to go to that restaurant though. It's okay to not show up to Christmas. It's okay to quit a job where you don't feel safe or comfortable.

evilthecat:
SNIP

Holy fuck, you are so sexist.

First off, sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. Sex being defined in this case as genetic male and female.
Notice the words prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination.

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
You believe that based on the actions of a minority of straight men that is okay to treat all straight men as trash. Trash being in this case the potentiality of being a sexual assaulter. That ALL straight men should be treated as though they will assault someone.
You are a prejudice

Stereotype: a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group
You believe all straight men conform to this notion of normalized sexual assault. That I see dudes groping women without consent and just shrug it off as straight men being straight men. In fact, you assume that's men being men. In fact you believe is is the culture of straight men to sexually assault people.
You are stereotyping straight men.

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
You believe straight men should all be treated sexual assault perpetrators. You have no evidence for this belief, only paranoia that ALL straight men act this way. And in kind, you believe it okay to act as though all straight men are sexual assault perpetrators.
You discriminate.

You are a sexist human being evilthecat. What you believe is wrong. You are no better than your parents who are racist against black people for prejudicial, stereotypical and discriminatory beliefs.

Silentpony:

evilthecat:
SNIP

Holy fuck, you are so sexist.

For your sake, I hope you're being disingenuous here.

Seanchaidh:

Silentpony:

evilthecat:
SNIP

Holy fuck, you are so sexist.

For your sake, I hope you're being disingenuous here.

My post and her(I assume?) posts speak plain enough. I am sincere in my beliefs and I don't need your approval in this.

the December King:
Yeah, that makes sense, too.

I actually find saying hearing that ("I don't mean all men") actually quite helpful in diffusing that tension, at least for me, and in those instances where the focus of the scrutiny/scorn/criticisms is cloudy, and yes, admittedly influenced by vibe.

I was going to say I disagree with that, but upon further thought, yeah. It really should be necessary to point out that not all men are rapists or whatever, but it does help.

Silentpony:

Seanchaidh:

Silentpony:

Holy fuck, you are so sexist.

For your sake, I hope you're being disingenuous here.

her(I assume?)

No.

Silentpony:
My post and her(I assume?) posts speak plain enough. I am sincere in my beliefs and I don't need your approval in this.

Yeah, evilthecat's posts speak plain enough. But apparently not to you.

Seanchaidh:
SNIP

I know exactly what he means. And if you see fit to agree with him, then you have my condolences. Being wrong is never a good thing, but I will respect your choice to be so.

Time to scale back on the hostility in here. No more personal attacks, please.

Silentpony:
First off, sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. Sex being defined in this case as genetic male and female.

Right, but that isn't the definition I'm using, is it.

Silentpony:
You believe that based on the actions of a minority of straight men that is okay to treat all straight men as trash.

Wrong. I believe that based on the complicity of the majority of straight men in the actions of the minority, in the active defence by the majority of the minority, by the intellectual leaps the majority seems willing to take to side with the minority, that it is perfectly reasonable to be cautious around straight men. I believe that the low key disrespect of the majority is not separable from the atrocious actions of the minority, that one legitimises the other and conceals it behind a mask of "normal" behaviour which should not be normal.

Silentpony:
Trash being in this case the potentiality of being a sexual assaulter.

Nope.

I mean, that's true. Every human you meet being has the potential to be a sexual abuser, but that's not what I defined as trash and I'm not sure why you don't seem able to get past this as it's already come up several times. If a person had to break the law for me to define them as trash, then Aziz Ansari himself would not be trash, and trust me, he is. Men who treat women badly because they know they can get away with it so long as their victims are women are trash. Men who justify treating women badly or who side with men who do because they feel some commonality or kinship with those men are trash. I for one do not want those kinds of people in my life, and I certainly don't want them around my woman friends, because even if they never sexually assault anyone, they still make people less safe, they still contribute to a world in which women can never be safe.

That is sexism.

Silentpony:
You believe all straight men conform to this notion of normalized sexual assault.

You are literally providing me with evidence at this second.

But no, I don't think all straight men do. That's not the same thing as not being able to assume that any random straight man you don't know won't. There are a bunch of male posters in this thread, many of whom I would assume to be straight, who have made the effort to denounce the mistreatment of women and to point out that it isn't normal. I believe they are genuine, which is why I explicitly pointed out in my original post that they do not deserve to be subject to the fear that other men have created. Unfortunately, my experience of living in this world is that they are the minority.

I'm comfortable saying what I said to those guys, because I guess I do trust them. I believe that they are doing what they think is right, and not simply going along with what they think will get them praised or rewarded. I've already pointed out that my approval really doesn't matter, but if it did, that speaks a million times louder to me than any of these "not all men" arguments. You win trust by being trustworthy.

Silentpony:
You believe straight men should all be treated sexual assault perpetrators.

No I don't.

If I believed that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not that much of a masochist.

ex951753:
BAHAHAHA, calling someone sexist is only allowed from a certain group on R&P. Funny how the mods suddenly "care" enough to issue warnings when the undesirables start using it while a certain group of people have been calling people racists and sexist everyday for the past 2 years.

Mod specifically said to tone it down. Silentpony ignored her. You?re projecting. Or do you have an explication for the posts before the warning that got no infractions.

erttheking:

ex951753:
BAHAHAHA, calling someone sexist is only allowed from a certain group on R&P. Funny how the mods suddenly "care" enough to issue warnings when the undesirables start using it while a certain group of people have been calling people racists and sexist everyday for the past 2 years.

Mod specifically said to tone it down. Silentpony ignored her. You?re projecting. Or do you have an explication for the posts before the warning that got no infractions.

She(?) has been a mod for how long now? Conservatives have been called sexists, racists and every name under the sun daily(just look at Zontar) but when the other side does it she suddenly want to "step in". Enjoy your soon to be circle jerking echo chamber.

ex951753:

erttheking:

ex951753:
BAHAHAHA, calling someone sexist is only allowed from a certain group on R&P. Funny how the mods suddenly "care" enough to issue warnings when the undesirables start using it while a certain group of people have been calling people racists and sexist everyday for the past 2 years.

Mod specifically said to tone it down. Silentpony ignored her. You?re projecting. Or do you have an explication for the posts before the warning that got no infractions.

She(?) has been a mod for how long now? Conservatives have been called sexists, racists and every name under the sun daily(just look at Zontar) but when the other side does it she suddenly want to "step in". Enjoy your soon to be circle jerking echo chamber.

You didn't pay attention to what I wrote at all, did you? She told everyone to tone it down because things were getting out of hand. Pony didn't listen. Being called sexist on its own isn't enough, because Pony would've gotten hit before the warning if it was. The infraction he got was because he didn't listen when a mod was trying to find the thread down, not because calling someone sexist by itself is an infraction offenses

You. Are. Projecting.

erttheking:

ex951753:

erttheking:

Mod specifically said to tone it down. Silentpony ignored her. You?re projecting. Or do you have an explication for the posts before the warning that got no infractions.

She(?) has been a mod for how long now? Conservatives have been called sexists, racists and every name under the sun daily(just look at Zontar) but when the other side does it she suddenly want to "step in". Enjoy your soon to be circle jerking echo chamber.

You didn?t pay attention to what I wrote at all, did you? She told everyone to tone it down because things were getting out of hand. Pony didn?t listen. Being called sexist on its own isn?t enough, because Pony would?ve gotten hit before the warning if it was. The infraction he got was because he didn?t listen when a mod was trying to find the thread down, not because calling someone sexist by itself is an infraction offenses

You. Are. Projecting.

Nah, she also came to evil's defense earlier in the thread, its pretty clear that she is on evil's side, so it is very unsurprising that evil saying ~its safe to assume straight guys are trash~ won't get an infraction, but saying that such a statement is sexist would receive an infraction since she agrees with evil and is friends with them(Just take a gander at their friends list).

Note that I am not saying that Evil is sexist, I am just saying that their statement is, as evil put it, complicit in sexism.

Warhound:

erttheking:

ex951753:

She(?) has been a mod for how long now? Conservatives have been called sexists, racists and every name under the sun daily(just look at Zontar) but when the other side does it she suddenly want to "step in". Enjoy your soon to be circle jerking echo chamber.

You didn?t pay attention to what I wrote at all, did you? She told everyone to tone it down because things were getting out of hand. Pony didn?t listen. Being called sexist on its own isn?t enough, because Pony would?ve gotten hit before the warning if it was. The infraction he got was because he didn?t listen when a mod was trying to find the thread down, not because calling someone sexist by itself is an infraction offenses

You. Are. Projecting.

Nah, she also came to evil's defense earlier in the thread, its pretty clear that she is on evil's side, so it is very unsurprising that evil saying ~its safe to assume straight guys are trash~ won't get an infraction, but saying that such a statement is sexist would receive an infraction since she agrees with evil and is friends with them(Just take a gander at their friends list).

Note that I am not saying that Evil is sexist, I am just saying that their statement is, as evil put it, complicit in sexism.

So agreeing with someone automatically disqualifies them from being impartial when it comes to being a mod? Hey, let me ask the question I've asked twice now and still haven't gotten an answer to. Pony called evil sexist multiple times before the mod gave a warning to back off with insults. He only got modded after that, indicating that calling someone sexist is not a mod infraction worthy offense, but rather implying that she was coming down for Pony for not backing off after she said to back off.

Gethsemani:
Time to scale back on the hostility in here. No more personal attacks, please.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. So where's the proof that he got modded because calling someone sexist is a modable offense in and of itself?

And on that note, keep this thread on-topic or it will be locked. This is not the place to discuss moderation issues.

Anyone who thought that was an argument with two sides, or a valid exchange between "left" and "right".. do you even understand what "good faith" is?

I'll give you a clue, when someone has to invent someone else's position in addition to their own in order for their argument to work, that is not good faith.

Warhound:
Note that I am not saying that Evil is sexist, I am just saying that their statement is, as evil put it, complicit in sexism.

Then step up to the plate and demonstrate this, as I have demonstrated my point many, many times.

evilthecat:

Warhound:
Note that I am not saying that Evil is sexist, I am just saying that their statement is, as evil put it, complicit in sexism.

Then step up to the plate and demonstrate this, as I have demonstrated my point many, many times.

It has been demonstrated, many times, no point in going over it and getting myself banned.

ex951753:

She(?) has been a mod for how long now? Conservatives have been called sexists, racists and every name under the sun daily(just look at Zontar) but when the other side does it she suddenly want to "step in". Enjoy your soon to be circle jerking echo chamber.

I can't speak for other forums on this site, but most people - of any political stripe - who call other users sexist or racist risk mod punishment (also factoring in whether a mod's attention is drawn to the offending comment). You complained about Fishgopf a week or two back, but I can assure you I've taken my fair share of official warnings for comments less aggressive and unpleasant than he was being there.

You can say that certain statements are racist (assuming general tone is not spiteful). Just as intelligent people can do stupid things, so can non-racist people say racist things. I don't believe I am, in toto, significantly racist or sexist; equally I am not afraid to say that over the years I have thought, said and done racist and sexist things. No-one's perfect. And at least I've tried to learn and do better next time.

Warhound:
Note that I am not saying that Evil is sexist, I am just saying that their statement is, as evil put it, complicit in sexism.

Silentpony:
Holy fuck, you are so sexist.

Years ago, I was walking down the street in a less salubrious area of town at night, and I passed this woman who eventually said something like that she was glad I wasn't a rapist.

Now I don't like people thinking I might be a rapist, I find it on a certain level quite annoying and offensive. But I also understand that a woman walking home at night has to consider that women not so infrequently get raped by men, and from her perspective, she has no way to know whether I'm the wrong sort of man. So I just suck up my irritation. Her fear of me is rational. In much the same way, see a wire sticking out of a piece of electrical equipment connected to the mains, no matter whether there's any actually current going down it or not, it's rational not to touch it with your bare skin.

Anyone who spends time reading forums surely comes across no small amount of often straight men explaining away various forms of rape, sexual assault, etc. I'm sure a lot of them are generally decent people who are appalled by these things. But you have to consider that often they have fairly limited ideas about what qualifies as rape and sexual assault compared to others, which means they are excusing behaviour that those others believe to be, if not illegal, then certainly extremely unpleasant. Others can - sexual assault allegation after sexual assault allegation after sexual assault allegation - be found de facto defending the accused, regular as clockwork and almost irrespective of any balance of evidence.

These attitudes surely do contribute something to the crimes that derive from them. If someone goes into a locker room and boasts about copping an unsolicited grope, and their peers give hoots of lascivious approval, people learn groping's okay. If instead their peers were going "WTF you scumbag", they'd learn otherwise. Anyone can pop onto a forum and see the widespread quibbling about taking drunk people from parties and shagging them and more easily conclude, hey, enough people think that's okay, it probably is. And if one day they're in that position themselves, that's one little safety ratchet on the valve missing. Some of them will sit on juries at sexual assault trials...

And where this is all going is that if in the end you see large quantities of straight men with "over-generous grey areas on sexual assault", let's say, then it is rational to conclude there is a significant chance any random man is by your standards excessively permissive on sexual assault. Now, your average straight man is going to absolutely fucking hate such a conclusion, because it seems so offensive. I don't like it either. But on the other hand, with the appropriate reasoning, it's also just not that easy to deny or dismiss.

After that it gets tricky. One must surely retain the right to exercise due caution facing an unknown (and even potential threat), and in that sense, in circumstances a straight man could be treated differently. But this is surely different from the sexist discrimination of actively assuming a straight man is a ne'er-do-well merely because he's a straight man and criticising him before establishing any individual fault.

Warhound:

evilthecat:

Warhound:
Note that I am not saying that Evil is sexist, I am just saying that their statement is, as evil put it, complicit in sexism.

Then step up to the plate and demonstrate this, as I have demonstrated my point many, many times.

It has been demonstrated, many times, no point in going over it and getting myself banned.

I'm pretty sure the times it was "demonstrated" plenty other people appropriately responded and countered those demonstrations. As such, I humbly suggest you throw in your own two cents because the arguments you've been attempting to use as substitutes for your own argument are a wee bit lacking.

To kind of get back on topic here, I'm finding it very difficult to make sense of this story, and I'm hoping I'm not the only one here.

On the one hand, the two did have sex, drink, and date. Shitty dates happen, shittier sexual experiences happen, but it doesn't seem that Ansari did anything illegal. Unethical maybe, whether he meant to or not, but it's making me uncomfortable that people are drawing lines from this to the unholy shitshow of the Weinstein abuse and assault scandal. I've been in circumstances that Grace was and it's not exactly fun to read peoples' responses to this.

Yet, at the same time, this entire issue and the discussion around it really seems to underscore this dissonance I've noticed when it comes to men and women talking about and handling dates, consent, and sex. People claim that Grace wasn't entirely consenting and was acting out a kind defensive mechanism to avoid genuine assault, whereas others are stating that this sort of picture paints women as incapable of saying no. At the same time, you see people state that Aziz isn't a mind-reader and wouldn't know if Grace wasn't okay if with if she still decided to play along, but you also see people charge that he should've checked in and make sure that Grace was actually okay with it.

Am I wrong in any of this assessment, or is it not as gray as people are making it out to be?

NemotheElvenPanda:
snip

Going back on topic seems like a good idea so let's recap.

Ansari didn't do anything illegal, neither is it being claimed by anyone that he did. The point the "expose" was trying to make is that simply not doing anything illegal isn't really enough.

The reason this has taken of is that the vast majority of women have been in the circumstances Grace was. In fact, that was the criticism made of her in the original article and in the "open letter" which was posted later, namely, why is she complaining about this? It's just a bad date. These things happen. There's no reason to attach it to serious business like the Weinstein abuse scandal and certainly no reason to go to the media about it.

The important thing to understanding here is that this is only a normal experience for women. For straight men, a bad date means you didn't get on, maybe your date wouldn't stop talking about her ex, or maybe she was really dull and you had nothing to say to each other. For straight women, a bad date means your date grabbing you by the neck and forcing their fingers down your throat, it means your date won't stop trying to finger you even though you keep pushing their hands away. I'm not saying this kind of inappropriate sexual aggression never happens to straight men, but it's certainly very rare. It's not rare the other way around.

If we believe her, then Grace wasn't consenting. She makes that clear. She did not want to have sex with Ansari at any point during the encounter. She didn't actively stop it or vocalise her displeasure, at least not until fairly late, but she did not like what was happening to her and at no point indicated that she did. She clearly liked him, she went on a date with him after all, and she was clearly weighing up whether she was willing to sleep with him. He did not give her the opportunity to make that decision, because, and this is where the problem is he didn't actually care whether she wanted to sleep with him or not, as long as she offered no resistance that was good enough.

Now, here's the thing. What happened in the Weinstein scandal was horrible, but fortunately it's the kind of thing only a minority of women will experience. It's the blatant, criminal disregard for consent which correctly repulses most people (although I for one haven't forgotten that people defended it, or tried to blame the victims in that case too). With this kind of case, people seem to have difficulty even recognising that something wrong happened. The fact that Grace left the apartment in tears, the fact that she was deeply distressed, this apparently doesn't matter. It's normal for women to feel distressed and violated after a date, it doesn't mean anything actually bad has happened.. does it.

But here's the connection. In both cases, you have men who view the objective of an encounter with a woman to be having sex with them, whether they want to or not, whether they're comfortable or not, whether they enjoy it or not. One is an extreme case in which the offending person is so powerful and/or so perverse that they're willing to outright break the law to achieve their objective. The other is a much more routine case, and that's the criticism, that it's so routine we shouldn't be worrying about it. No laws were actually broken, so it's okay.

But that's an excuse. Ansari knew exactly how far he could go before he broke the law and his actions became criminal, and we can tell because he stopped at exactly the point he had to stop to prevent it getting that far. He wasn't interested in how Grace felt, he was interested in whether he would be vulnerable to punishment. Weinstein was a very powerful person, and he knew that he could break the law and get away with it. He knew that his wealth and influence gave him power over his victims and that he could prevent them from acting against him, so naturally he did what he believed he could get away with, and for a long time he did. Does that make him right?

The point is, noone should go into a sexual encounter thinking (consciously or unconsciously) about what they can get away with, about how far they can go in hurting someone before they will be punished. You shouldn't avoid sexually assaulting people merely because it's against the law, or because you might go to prison. You should avoid doing it because your victims are human beings who do not exist for your gratification. It might seem obvious, but when almost every woman can recall a time when something like this has happened, it's clearly not that obvious.

If it's going to have real, lasting meaning, the whole #metoo and the backlash against sexual abuse has to confront the basic inequalities of sexual culture itself, otherwise the only message it sends to abusers is "don't get caught".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

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