I'm really sick of the "well Weinstein was worse" defence. That doesn't make Aziz a good guy. It doesn't make him continuing to kiss and grope this woman after she said no acceptable. Ansari has a reputation for being "woke", he's had stories about sexual predators and how unsafe women can feel in his show. Yet it all seems like a facade in light if this. This story deserved to be told.

Mirth wrote:

Following from my post to Claud - Margaret Atwood faces feminist backlash on social media over #MeToo:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/15/margaret-atwood-feminist-backlash-metoo

Sorry, I feel you misunderstood me. My post said the movement was necessary because people are living in fear, etc. it is exactly because of the due process that Margaret Atwood demands that many abused people have not been able to come forward. The presence of a movement finally gives women space to share stories, both the Hollywood stories and then the more therapeutic accounts women share on Twitter/Facebook, typically about anonymous attackers.

When I said more harm than good, whenever there is a revolution of this kind, there are winners and are there losers. There is a lot of anger right now, a lot of vicious language being used towards the woman who has accused Aziz, with people calling for her to out herself so she herself can be put on trial - the classic disadvantage of a sexual assault case. And the movement is still largely restricted to the beaker of the entertainment industry, where journalists are able to cover all the stories in depth, protect sources, etc. What does it look like when it breaks out of this safer environment and reaches the rest of us workingat Ford, Tata and Renault? If we men cannot even deal with abstract Hollywood cases, how will we react if such a movement ever evolved to reach our colleagues, friends or even ourselves?

I also think it is important for #metoo folks to be open to conversation. I tend not to get mixed up in the metoo conversation on social media because I feel like you have to speak so narrowly. I would not dare so what I said above on a social media platform because some maniacs would fly into a rage because it’s great to rage on social media without talking

The Aziz story is the most fascinating to me by the way. I keep reading it and referring to all the commentary I see around it, a lot of it quite vicious from men and women, possibly fans of the star. I talk to a few women and they all say they’ve been through experiences like that, and the story is triggering. I talk to a few guys, and from the story, they are also wondering if they have been in situations like that as well, because although she was uncomfortable, she never explicitly said “No”. We are often falsely and foolishly taught that you need to hear some kind of “No” to end contact

This situation is probably the most important case revealed from the #metoo movement because unlike the violent sadistic activities Weinstein or Lauer’s button, this case is probably closest to what is relevant to most people. I keep reading that story and wondering is there a point in the story when she could have got out? And was he aware of how much pain he was causing her throughout her ordeal, or was he really oblivious to this? Because if in that moment he wasn’t aware that he was doing something wrong, then this is why an open conversation is so necessary

Whatever merits or demerits, pain or no pain to the aziz ansari story, it was a social encounter and is completely different to the weinstein, ck, lauer, halperin stories as those were in the work environment and had threatening impacts on women's livelihoods in what should be mundane daily routines.
That's my gripe with this 'grace' lady that she felt upset by seeing the time's up pin on him. The following day text from her also said she was uncomfortable with the pace at which he was coming on. She made her point to him. And the dude did apologize too. I'm struggling with this complete onus being on the man. Who goes back to the guy's place on a first date without even being let to finish the dinner and not know about his intentions/expectations? Anyways, i'm a man and been told to just shut the fuck up and listen while he is lynched professionally and stood up in line with all the other serial sexual predators, so no point. He's pretty funny btw, hope he can survive this.

Now this idiot on the other hand

Qwiss! wrote:

I'm really sick of the "well Weinstein was worse" defense. That doesn't make Aziz a good guy. It doesn't make him continuing to kiss and grope this woman after she said no acceptable. Ansari has a reputation for being "woke", he's had stories about sexual predators and how unsafe women can feel in his show. Yet it all seems like a facade in light if this. This story deserved to be told.

It's just so cliché. Stories aren't as powerful as the media want you to believe, they peddle them so they make it seem like they are what's really changing the world. It won't really help shape the general consciousness for the better, it'll just feed the jackals. Evidence (recounting events is a part of that, for sure), removal from power, prosecution, and the jailing of sexual abusers and the dismantling of systems that validate and support them is what should be the focus here. This story does nothing at all to advance this, because it doesn't have anything to do with it.

I'm not big fan of Aziz Ansari. Can't manage to watch his show, and I'm not really defending him, gross as he seems to be in the sack (or wherever people are having sex). I'm much angrier at the article and its publishers, which reads more like erotic fan fiction than journalism. It's a scummy way to get some attention and make a quick buck, all the while throwing people into pointless arguments that distract from what I think are the more important issues. I'm sorry that he treated her poorly, he's an asshole for being gross, and I'm sorry that she felt so bad afterward, but I struggle to consider it particularly harrowing in the face of what else is going on, so frankly, I'm not that sorry.

@ Claud, I take a bit of umbrage at the idea that sexual abuse is only being fought against at the level of celebrity, and that it is somehow abstract to everyone else. It isn't abstract to me, or people I know well. Indeed, I'm sure it's not abstract to you, either. Me Too is over a decade old, it's not some new thing, and Hollywood now is just an explosion of what has been simmering under the surface; the result of years of hard work by people like Tarana Burke, and also by good people at every level that have put their careers on the line to make sure that people who commit such heinous acts are at least removed from power and brought to court. I myself have supported a number of friends and colleagues in their fights to be recognized, and of course, in the hopes that we'd see justice served when men abused them from positions of power (that hope is all too often in vain). I've also supported follow-up fights to enact policies that would prevent against such abuses in the future, also too often in vain. So don't say it's abstract to the factory workers and such, because it isn't. In fact, Hollywood is doing its usual bit to abstract it for us, to turn it into the realm of celebrity, to glitz it up a bit, but also to let the paint run a little so we can't quite see the shape of it properly anymore.

It's part of what was always going to happen, but the fight we need is on the ground, and it's as nose on the plane of Ann's face...or however it goes.

Good read. These are the types of questions I meant about exit points, which the author raises. One wonders what in the situation prevented Grace from escaping.

If you are hanging out naked with a man, it’s safe to assume he is going to try to have sex with you.

If the inability to choose a pinot noir over a pinot grigio offends you, you can leave right then and there.

If you don’t like the way your date hustles through paying the check, you can say, “I’ve had a lovely evening and I’m going home now.”

If you go home with him and discover he’s a terrible kisser, say “I’m out.”

If you start to hook up and don’t like the way he smells or the way he talks (or doesn’t talk), end it.

Claudius wrote:

We are often falsely and foolishly taught that you need to hear some kind of “No” to end contact

Are "we" though? Genuine question Claude. If anyone here realised the error in their ways over this metoo campaign fair enough but is this really something you were taught and if so by whom or what?

Also the state of that Bill Maher picture ffs. What a disgusting piece of shit he is

Gawd almighty, Bill Maher is the biggest fuckwad on the planet bar one.

The article claims you'd have to be a "mind reader" to pick up on a range of cues that someone didn't want to have sex with you. It gets some sympathy for the male protagonist of any heterosexual encounter on one level, but it does go both ways.

Men should read stories like this and recognise they should be asking for consent in a variety of more or less subtle ways. Whether or not a guy gets accused of anything afterwards—poor him!—if he's having sex with women and finding out afterwards they didn't really want to, he's doing it wrong.

That article and the one from the Atlantic are case-in-point. It was sordid, tabloid-style celebrity gossip shoddily latched onto the Me Too movement to get clicks, and now people are taking it in turns to declare the "Death of #MeToo!" and to cry "Witchhunt!" and "Backlash!" and get even more clicks, all the while emboldening the fuckwads that never thought abusing your power for sex was all that bad (and maybe even aspired to do it).

Fuck all this garbage.

Coombs wrote:

@ Claud, I take a bit of umbrage at the idea that sexual abuse is only being fought against at the level of celebrity, and that it is somehow abstract to everyone else. It isn't abstract to me, or people I know well. Indeed, I'm sure it's not abstract to you, either. Me Too is over a decade old, it's not some new thing, and Hollywood now is just an explosion of what has been simmering under the surface; the result of years of hard work by people like Tarana Burke, and also by good people at every level that have put their careers on the line to make sure that people who commit such heinous acts are at least removed from power and brought to court. I myself have supported a number of friends and colleagues in their fights to be recognized, and of course, in the hopes that we'd see justice served when men abused them from positions of power (that hope is all too often in vain). I've also supported follow-up fights to enact policies that would prevent against such abuses in the future, also too often in vain. So don't say it's abstract to the factory workers and such, because it isn't. In fact, Hollywood is doing its usual bit to abstract it for us, to turn it into the realm of celebrity, to glitz it up a bit, but also to let the paint run a little so we can't quite see the shape of it properly anymore.

It's part of what was always going to happen, but the fight we need is on the ground, and it's as nose on the plane of Ann's face...or however it goes.

I know that MeToo has been in existence for over a decade, but it has only risen to prominence in the last few months. And yes, there is a lot of great work that MeToo and other activitists have been doing, but that has not been top of mind for the average person. The difference is that, for the first time, sexual abuse has been on the front pages consistently for several months and has thus had a much broader audience than we had typically seen. This does not diminish work done in the past, just says it was less visible to the masses. 

Coombs wrote:

That article and the one from the Atlantic are case-in-point. It was sordid, tabloid-style celebrity gossip shoddily latched onto the Me Too movement to get clicks, and now people are taking it in turns to declare the "Death of #MeToo!" and to cry "Witchhunt!" and "Backlash!" and get even more clicks, all the while emboldening the fuckwads that never thought abusing your power for sex was all that bad (and maybe even aspired to do it).

Fuck all this garbage.

This is standard media stuff, yeah.

It's very similar to when someone finds the most absurd case ever recorded of a student wanting a trigger warning for a literature course, or whatever, and writes it up as "Is this the death of Shakespeare on campus?"

It does feel like this is why we can't have nice things at times.

Coombs wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:

I'm really sick of the "well Weinstein was worse" defense. That doesn't make Aziz a good guy. It doesn't make him continuing to kiss and grope this woman after she said no acceptable. Ansari has a reputation for being "woke", he's had stories about sexual predators and how unsafe women can feel in his show. Yet it all seems like a facade in light if this. This story deserved to be told.

It's just so cliché. Stories aren't as powerful as the media want you to believe, they peddle them so they make it seem like they are what's really changing the world. It won't really help shape the general consciousness for the better

Does it need to change the "general consciousness" to be worth an airing on some random website, I've read far less important stories. If letting women know that Azia Ansari is not what he pretends to be then that is enough.

And this story has caused probably the most interesting and as Claud said important conversation of metoo since Weinstein was first outed. People are actually talking about consent. Its easy to recognise a monster like Weinstein or Spacey but this sort of thing is far more everyday, its something you can teach young men about.

That you are more angry about the publishing of the article than you are about the way Ansari treated this woman is amazing to me.

Burnwinter wrote:

The article claims you'd have to be a "mind reader" to pick up on a range of cues that someone didn't want to have sex with you. It gets some sympathy for the male protagonist of any heterosexual encounter on one level, but it does go both ways.

Men should read stories like this and recognise they should be asking for consent in a variety of more or less subtle ways. Whether or not a guy gets accused of anything afterwards—poor him!—if he's having sex with women and finding out afterwards they didn't really want to, he's doing it wrong.

Is it assumed that because she returned back to his that she was green lighting sex?
That going back to a guys house is a tacit acknowledgement of consent so whatever subsequently happens must involve a woman saying NO as the man is not responsible for asking how she feels or if she's comfortable with how things are going.
To my mind that is central to this sorry episide as it appears that it is exactly what Ansari believed.
It appears that not only did he feel he got the nod for sex but the nod to have it on his terms, his way, which did involved exerting power over her, pestering her, harassing her and degrading her.
The argument that she should have left almost as soon as she got there presumes that she had sound judgement and reflexes good enough to know that he wasn't interested in her for anything other than  sex and that signing off was not acceptable to him.

@Y Exactly. The "poor man" line of the story is dependent on an average interpretation, made somewhat invisible, of her decision to go back to Ansari's house as a clear signal she wanted sex with him.

I think things can get confusing sometimes, but "you're in my house, therefore I expect to sleep with you" is not really how it should work.

y va marquer wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:

The article claims you'd have to be a "mind reader" to pick up on a range of cues that someone didn't want to have sex with you. It gets some sympathy for the male protagonist of any heterosexual encounter on one level, but it does go both ways.

Men should read stories like this and recognise they should be asking for consent in a variety of more or less subtle ways. Whether or not a guy gets accused of anything afterwards—poor him!—if he's having sex with women and finding out afterwards they didn't really want to, he's doing it wrong.

Is it assumed that because she returned back to his that she was green lighting sex?
That going back to a guys house is a tacit acknowledgement of consent so whatever subsequently happens must involve a woman saying NO as the man is not responsible for asking how she feels or if she's comfortable with how things are going.
To my mind that is central to this sorry episide as it appears that it is exactly what Ansari believed.
It appears that not only did he feel he got the nod for sex but the nod to have it on his terms, his way, which did involved exerting power over her, pestering her, harassing her and degrading her.
The argument that she should have left almost as soon as she got there presumes that she had sound judgement and reflexes good enough to know that he wasn't interested in her for anything other than  sex and that signing off was not acceptable to him.

And yet when it became clear to him she would not consent he stopped and decided to chill instead. That she consented to oral sex, while not an indicator of consent to penetrative sex, is still an indicator of a certain degree of willingness. Seeing as she only says she displayed discomfort, and not rejection, I see no reason why he should be held accountable for "pestering her, harassing her and degrading her". 

Is the only way in the future for people to hook up is for consent to be obtained in a sterilised, inorganic manner? Sign a form on your date? Because without that any kind of advance can and will be interepreted in whatever way.

To me, any disclosure of past private affairs is low, unless it's to call out on something criminal or unethical. What the lady did was to ride the crest of a wave of sexual crime exposes to drag some fumbling guy who commited no such crime to be tarred with the same brush. I agree with Arsedoc that one would wish this happened in a different context, but this context is exactly the one the lady wanted to present her story.

banduan wrote:

Is the only way in the future for people to hook up is for consent to be obtained in a sterilised, inorganic manner? Sign a form on your date? Because without that any kind of advance can and will be interepreted in whatever way.

Yeah, but if you want to hook up in a more spontaneous, unscripted way (which is fair enough, perhaps) then the onus is on you to read all the non-verbal cues the article talks about much more closely.

If you're not capable of doing that, or think you shouldn't have to or that implicit come-ons should count, but implicit back-offs shouldn't count, then spontaneous unscripted hookups aren't particularly ethical for you.

The flip side is that ridiculous "consent app" doing the rounds at the moment, which immediately clearly shows a purely sterile, legalistic, contractual view of consent is seriously lacking as well.