# Aziz Ansari, Sexual assault allegations **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 14, 2018, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606 "2018-01-14T16:22:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/181 "2018-01-16T03:35:15Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Let’s be clear. This report is essentially one anonymous Yelp review of Ansari as a hook-up by someone who thought they were going to Alinea or Everest and … didn’t. The food started to taste a bit off, but they ate the entree anyway. But they declined coffee or dessert. Frustratingly the waiter kept trying to sell them on coffee and dessert before finally giving the check. And later a literal bad aftertaste. One star. A bad review … but it is just one anonymous Yelp review. Not enough to burn a restaurant to the ground over. That would certainly make Tinder a very different sort of app. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/182 "2018-01-16T03:49:25Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …why would you need to use your hands to have oral sex? From the timeline the oral sex happened twice. The first time was consensual. The second: I’m not so sure. > > "Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.” > > Was this consent, or was it [coercion](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/26/victims-sexual-coercion-blind-to-crime)? Do we accept that this is all just a game, and if you play it long enough you win? > > Consent wasn’t explicit here. And we know this (if we accept her account) because between the first oral encounter and the second he attempted to move her hand to his penis and she rejected that at least five times. Consent at that stage had been revoked. If voluntarily putting your mouth on a penis was all that was required to “express consent” then rape and sexual assault would practically cease to become crimes. > > I’m not saying that what Aziz did isn’t something that happens in the bedroom all of the time every single day all over the world. Because it does. And the fact that this happens all the time all over the world is problematic. And we should talk about it. Yes, it is a game. Coercion is the the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Since he didn’t force her to do anything or threaten her it was a game. And guess what? He lost, she left. It is not problematic that men want to have sex with women and try to convince them to engage in sex any legal way they can. It doesn’t speak well of men who can’t use kind words to convince a woman to have sex with him but we have real problems when actual coercion is used and those don’t need to share the stage with immature women who make foolish decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/183 "2018-01-16T03:55:37Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Post snipped > > Because it is absolutely stupid. I just went to the store. A guy bumped into me, by accident I am sure, in the checkout line. There was skin on skin contact (both of us had short sleeved shirts on).I did not consent to be touched so under your definition he assaulted me. > > Who do I get to sue? This is exactly [one of the examples I made in my lengthy post](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20724636&postcount=123)which **FryLock** , having specifically requested I address some of his points, has not given me the courtesy of a reply to. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/184 "2018-01-16T04:11:37Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Where to start? OK, first of all, words have meanings and one of the beauties of the English language (as infuriating as it is to non-native speakers) is its capacity for nuance and not having compound words that sound like someone clearing their throat while getting themselves caught in their fly (looking in your direction, German!) > > In general use, “Assault” is taken to mean physically harming someone - ie, punching someone in the face, kicking them in the groin, slapping them, shoving them into a wall, that sort of thing. No-one argues those things are assault, and where done non-consensually, cause harm and should be punished. I don’t agree that that is what it is taken to mean in general use. It is also taken to mean, for example, grabbing people, even if this doesn’t physically harm them, if it is (to draw a clear case) done explicitly against their consent. > [@](#): > > Similarly, sexual assault is commonly accepted to be physical harm in the form of rape, forced penetration, holding someone down and kissing them when they’re struggling to get away, that sort of unpleasantness. This hasn’t been true for years. Possibly decades. > [@](#): > > Technically speaking, merely touching someone in any way they didn’t agree to is assault, but there’s a legal principle known as [De Minimis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis) - basically “The law does not concern itself with trifles”, which is why you can’t file assault charges against people who bump into you on the high street or clap a friendly hand on your shoulder and say “Mr Frylock, how are you this afternoon?” This is what I already pointed out–that some assaults are trifles are minor, or even not bad at all, and so it would make no sense to complain about them, and no sense to give restitution for them. Apparently the law and I _agree on this_ and you _don’t understand that_. Having said that, I want to clarify _again_ that this is not a discussion about the law. > [@](#): > > The idea that putting one’s hand flirtatiously on the knee of someone else counts as “assault” is seen by (I would suggest) most people as ridiculous Do I strike you as being concerned with what most people would see this as? Why should I be concerned with that? You are familiar I am assuming with all the arguments that the way most people see these things is kind of fucked up and leads to fucked up situations, correct? > [@](#): > > Similarly, the idea that a lifeguard performing CPR on someone on a beach might be “assaulting” them is patently ridiculously because they’re not harming the recipient - quite the opposite. Conflating “trying to save someone’s life” with “beating the stuffing out of them” is absurd in the extreme because one of those things is clearly not like the other. Applying a single term to cover two different things is no more conflation than applying the single term “mammal” to both cats and dog is to conflate cats with dogs. You know this. You’re not stupid. I’ve already highlighted this distinction in this thread multiple times. You are pretending to address my points while actualy ignoring them. Why? If you won’t tell me, that’s fine. Ask yourself why. The record of the act is plain as day in this thread. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I don’t like the idea of world where people with hurt feelings - or people who are _told_ they should have hurt feelings - decide to “Come forward” and level accusations at people who have done fairly minor or even insignificant (or maybe even nothing) things. Talk to someone in this thread, please, rather than to your imaginary friends and enemies? > [@](#): > > Take this current thread: What, exactly, has been achieved by this woman accusing Mr Ansari of an unpleasant act? No-one’s life has been improved by this; the world is not a better place, no-one is getting “Justice” and most guys who aren’t SDMB members or Twitter activists would think that “getting handsy” or “being a bit to keen for a blowjob” might be “Uncool” or “A Dick Move” _at worst_ - so all she has done is made things harder for the victims of _actual_ sexual assault. The conversation is opening up more possibilities that some guys who thought this was just a “dick move” will realize it can often be more than that. Do you see a downside to this? Do you not see this as a good thing? Why? No clue how you’re making a connection to this making things harder for victims of sexual assaults of greater severity. Anyway, I’m no longer wedded to the idea of insisting on calling everything “assault” That is touching without permission. While I believe that’s the right way to go, I also think the majority of people are too fucking stupid to not be confused by plain language and clear definitions consistently applied so whatever. That’s not even to mention the utter inability to even _grasp_ the idea that we can and do craft definitions with greater purpose than just “making sure we use the word in already-acceptable ways” and having any responsible control over their power to do that. Gotta deal with the realities I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/185 "2018-01-16T04:13:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Yes, it is a game. …you think sex is a game? Do you really not see that as problematic? What if one party sees it as a game, but the other doesn’t? > [@](#): > > Coercion is the the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Threats don’t need to be verbalised. Just like consent. > [@](#): > > Since he didn’t force her to do anything or threaten her it was a game. And guess what? He lost, she left. He got oral sex twice. You wouldn’t call that a “win?” Was the “win condition” intercourse? Did she “win” because she left? Is winning defined as crying in the uber all the way home? > [@](#): > > It is not problematic that men want to have sex with women and try to convince them to engage in sex any legal way they can. Of course its problematic. “Any legal way they can” involves a whole lot of different things that are really really horrible. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t speak well of men who can’t use kind words to convince a woman to have sex with him but we have real problems when actual coercion is used and those don’t need to share the stage with immature women who make foolish decisions. Well I’m glad you’ve cleared that up for all the women in the world. They aren’t the ones playing games: but they are the immature ones who make foolish decisions. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![ArtBeforeScience](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@ArtBeforeScience](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArtBeforeScience)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/186 "2018-01-16T04:15:43Z")
_Sorry, I get your don’t put yourself in a risky situation advice, but going into a someone’s apartment does not imply consent and even if consent is given a person has every right to change their mind at any point._ Yeah, you are right entering someone’s home does not imply consent. And yet it’s often treated that way to the point where I avoid it unless I am fully prepared to put out. With a stranger, I don’t know if I want to put out yet, haven’t established trust or comfort, want to save something for next time. I would love to believe that all men are true gentlemen because so many of them are. Sometimes I get lucky and find one of those, too. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/187 "2018-01-16T04:17:21Z")
(To **B.B.**'s post) Hands are typically used during fellatio. Most often for cunnilingus too. It is possible to avoid doing so I guess, but in general all of “heavy petting” is part and parcel of consent to oral sex. We are not going to make much … uh … head way here. Did she claim any threat made or implied with the nonverbal request for more fellatio that coerced her to perform? If he whined and begged in an attempt to make her feel pressured to give him a blow job out of pity, would that be “coercion”? We do need to talk about this. But the what we need to talk about is how the words that have serious meaning are being _devalued_ by some who confuse normal communication (as part of life as well as sex, each as appropriate to the context) as “assault”, and those who believe that a no threats made or implied perception of feeling “pressured” is “coercion” and a disappointing hook up is a “violation” or a “sexual assault.” And who lump public figures with an anonymous bad hook up review with true serial sexual predators as deserving of having their careers tanked by public shaming. This attempt to if not criminalize then minimally pathologize the normal behaviors that “happens in the bedroom all of the time every single day all over the world” and to extend the same words to them as to serious predatory actions and abuses of power may be a fine way to signify, but it is counterproductive at best. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/188 "2018-01-16T04:18:35Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Threats don’t need to be verbalised. Just like consent. What threats did Ansari make? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/189 "2018-01-16T04:22:46Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you think sex is a game? … > > … Well I’m glad you’ve cleared that up for all the women in the world. They aren’t the ones playing games: but they are the immature ones who make foolish decisions. Gotcha. I think sex is play, personally. And I think that your twisting **TriPolar** ’s comment that was very clearly referencing one particular woman’s immaturity as meaning something else is **disgusting**. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/190 "2018-01-16T04:24:43Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you think sex is a game? > > Do you really not see that as problematic? > > What if one party sees it as a game, but the other doesn’t? > > Threats don’t need to be verbalised. Just like consent. > > He got oral sex twice. You wouldn’t call that a “win?” Was the “win condition” intercourse? Did she “win” because she left? Is winning defined as crying in the uber all the way home? > > Of course its problematic. “Any legal way they can” involves a whole lot of different things that are really really horrible. > > Well I’m glad you’ve cleared that up for all the women in the world. They aren’t the ones playing games: but they are the immature ones who make foolish decisions. Gotcha. If they lose at the game they voluntarily engage in and claim he violated the rules when he didn’t, then yes, they are immature and made foolish decisions. We let people make up their own rules so we won’t be under constant surveillance from the sex police or locked up in towers. Those rules are a negotiation, game, and yet either party gets to leave the game any time they want, which is what she did. She didn’t allege any threats. I don’t understand the lengths some posters are going to in order to find a crime here. There wasn’t one. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/191 "2018-01-16T04:47:24Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I don’t agree that that is what it is taken to mean in general use. It is also taken to mean, for example, grabbing people, even if this doesn’t physically harm them, if it is (to draw a clear case) done explicitly against their consent. Mate, I’m an experienced journalist. I know what words mean in “general use” - in fact, In a way I get to help decide what “general use” is - and I assure you I’d never file a story in which I described grabbing someone as “assault” unless the next thing that happened was that the person being grabbed also got punched in the face or slapped or shoved into a wall something like that. Merely grabbing someone by their shirt would be “accosting” them, or I’d say “Mr Bloggs grabbed Mr Smith by the front of his shirt”. > [@](#): > > This hasn’t been true for years. Possibly decades. Maybe not in your world, but for the rest of us touching someone’s knee or arm flirtatiously is not sexual assault. Again, were I writing a story about someone doing that, I would not describe it as a “sexual assault”. > [@](#): > > Do I strike you as being concerned with what most people would see this as? Why should I be concerned with that? You are familiar I am assuming with all the arguments that the way most people see these things is kind of fucked up and leads to fucked up situations, correct? > [/quote > quote] > You know this. You’re not stupid. I’ve already highlighted this distinction in this thread multiple times. You are pretending to address my points while actualy ignoring them. Why? If you won’t tell me, that’s fine. Ask yourself why. The record of the act is plain as day in this thread. I’ve addressed your points. I’m sorry you don’t like what I have to say, or disagree, or your reality filter is malfunctioning and won’t let you acknowledge you’re wrong on this one and your views on this matter are, frankly, Very Weird. Being an Edgelord only works to a certain point. > [@](#): > > Talk to someone in this thread, please, rather than to your imaginary friends and enemies? Says the poster who requested a reply from me, received a lengthy one, and then ignored it until I called them out on it. > [@](#): > > The conversation is opening up more possibilities that some guys who thought this was just a “dick move” will realize it can often be more than that. Do you see a downside to this? Do you not see this as a good thing? Why? Obviously I see a downside to this and don’t see it as a good thing. I don’t want a world where people feel they need a fucking Statutory Declaration witnessed by a JP every time they want to have sexytime with someone else, or that women who regret hookups later can suddenly start making largely baseless accusations about it. I don’t want a world where guys start realising that a combination of VR Headset + Pornhub + Fleshlight means they don’t need to bother with women and the associated drama, _and that worldview becomes socially acceptable_. Basically, I want a world where the excessively politically correct are told to _shut the fuck up_ and made to publically apologise for making life noticeably worse for significant numbers of people. > [@](#): > > No clue how you’re making a connection to this making things harder for victims of sexual assaults of greater severity. Basically because every time a woman comes forward and says “I was sexually assaulted by [person with a public profile]”, people are going to say “Were you _really_ assaulted, or just disappointed your date didn’t pan out the way you hoped?” - and people (especially guys) are more likely to assume the guy being accused did something minor like “asked for a blowjob while naked with a woman he’d met up with”. Lots of victims of actual sexual assault will decide it’s not worth the hassle, and more victims with legitimate complaints will find themselves ignored because “they’re probably like that chick who accused the famous guy”. You’re familiar with the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, yes? The moral of the story applies even if it becomes The Boy Who Cried Golden Retriever, with the added disadvantage people won’t believe there was a Golden Retriever OR a Wolf involved. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/192 "2018-01-16T04:54:37Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I think sex is play, personally. And I think that your twisting **TriPolar** ’s comment that was very clearly referencing one particular woman’s immaturity as meaning something else is **disgusting**. …more disgusting than the statement “It is not problematic that men want to have sex with women and try to convince them to engage in sex any legal way they can”? I didn’t twist anything by the way. Sex is play. But do you think sex is a game? Games imply a “win and a loose state” which play does not. Do you not see the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/193 "2018-01-16T04:57:41Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > What threats did Ansari make? …I never claimed Ansari made a threat. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/194 "2018-01-16T05:03:24Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Mate, I’m an experienced journalist. I know what words mean in “general use” - in fact, In a way I get to help decide what “general use” is - and I assure you I’d never file a story in which I described grabbing someone as “assault” unless the next thing that happened was that the person being grabbed also got punched in the face or slapped or shoved into a wall something like that. > > Merely grabbing someone by their shirt would be “accosting” them, or I’d say “Mr Bloggs grabbed Mr Smith by the front of his shirt”. > > Maybe not in your world, but for the rest of us touching someone’s knee or arm flirtatiously is not sexual assault. Again, were I writing a story about someone doing that, I would not describe it as a “sexual assault”. > > I’ve addressed your points. I’m sorry you don’t like what I have to say, or disagree, or your reality filter is malfunctioning and won’t let you acknowledge you’re wrong on this one and your views on this matter are, frankly, Very Weird. Being an Edgelord only works to a certain point. > > Says the poster who requested a reply from me, received a lengthy one, and then ignored it until I called them out on it. > > Obviously I see a downside to this and don’t see it as a good thing. I don’t want a world where people feel they need a fucking Statutory Declaration witnessed by a JP every time they want to have sexytime with someone else, or that women who regret hookups later can suddenly start making largely baseless accusations about it. I don’t want a world where guys start realising that a combination of VR Headset + Pornhub + Fleshlight means they don’t need to bother with women and the associated drama, _and that worldview becomes socially acceptable_. > > Basically, I want a world where the excessively politically correct are told to _shut the fuck up_ and made to publically apologise for making life noticeably worse for significant numbers of people. > > Basically because every time a woman comes forward and says “I was sexually assaulted by [person with a public profile]”, people are going to say “Were you _really_ assaulted, or just disappointed your date didn’t pan out the way you hoped?” - and people (especially guys) are more likely to assume the guy being accused did something minor like “asked for a blowjob while naked with a woman he’d met up with”. > > Lots of victims of actual sexual assault will decide it’s not worth the hassle, and more victims with legitimate complaints will find themselves ignored because “they’re probably like that chick who accused the famous guy”. > > You’re familiar with the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, yes? The moral of the story applies even if it becomes The Boy Who Cried Golden Retriever, with the added disadvantage people won’t believe there was a Golden Retriever OR a Wolf involved. I didn’t ignore your post, I didn’t even know the post existed. You being a journalist, you know you have to be very careful, concise and clear with the words you use. So you use them in _special, careful, concise_ senses, not general use senses. Assault is exactly a case of this. It is used more generally in general, than it is used by journalists. You don’t know what an edgelord is, mr. I’m a Journalist and I know Words. I literally displayed for you, very clearly, how you were not addressing my points but ignoring them while writing in the mere form of addressing them. Literally you were writing as though I had not said, multiple times, things I had in fact said. That is definitionally ignoring. Okay, maybe you just didn’t notice I said them? That’s fine. But admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/195 "2018-01-16T05:09:14Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I didn’t ignore your post, I didn’t even know the post existed. Sure mate. You replied to numerous other posts in the thread made after mine, and given the length of it you’d have to have been actively ignoring it to “not even know it existed”, since you’d had to have read it to then get to the posts after it which you were responding to. > [@](#): > > You being a journalist, you know you have to be very careful, concise and clear with the words you use. So you use them in _special, careful, concise_ senses, not general use senses. Assault is exactly a case of this. It is used more generally in general, than it is used by journalists. No, it’s not. Journalists talk to the average person all day, every day. We know what words mean, and I like I said, we help to decide what they mean. > [@](#): > > You don’t know what an edgelord is, mr. I’m a Journalist and I know Words. I assure you I do, Mr Lives In Their Own Strange Reality. > [@](#): > > I literally displayed for you, very clearly, how you were not addressing my points but ignoring them while writing in the mere form of addressing them. Literally you were writing as though I had not said, multiple times, things I had in fact said. That is definitionally ignoring. Okay, maybe you just didn’t notice I said them? That’s fine. But admit it. At this point I’m starting to wonder if you aren’t some sort of AI that’s almost on the verge of passing a Turing test, or if you’re actually an alien visiting from an alternate dimension, or just too obstinate to admit your views don’t align with anyone else’s at all, and you can’t bring yourself to admit that maybe - _maybe_ - you need to have a long, hard think about your stance. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/196 "2018-01-16T05:20:25Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Sure mate. You replied to numerous other posts in the thread made after mine, and given the length of it you’d have to have been actively ignoring it to “not even know it existed”, since you’d had to have read it to then get to the posts after it which you were responding to. Hey mate, I use Tapatalk to read the SD and it is very, very easy to accidentally skip entire pages of posts on that app, especially if you’re reading while they are being posted. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. Journalists talk to the average person all day, every day. We know what words mean, and I like I said, we help to decide what they mean. Person A grabs person B’s arm. No harm comes to B, but B is angry about it. B says “A assaulted me.” And you think… people will think B is wrong? You certainly wouldn’t call it assault in a newspaper where stakes are high concerning extra precision. But the word gets used in the general world for more things than newspapers are willing to call it. Probably precisely because it has both a legal sense and a more general sense, and news reporting has to keep that legal sense in mind more carefully than the general sense. > [@](#): > > I assure you I do, Mr Lives In Their Own Strange Reality. You think I am intentionally taking a controversial stance just to be controversial, and for no constructive purpose? > [@](#): > > At this point I’m starting to wonder if you aren’t some sort of AI that’s almost on the verge of passing a Turing test, or if you’re actually an alien visiting from an alternate dimension, or just too obstinate to admit your views don’t align with anyone else’s at all, and you can’t bring yourself to admit that maybe - _maybe_ - you need to have a long, hard think about your stance. You said I was conflating CPR with punching someone in the face. I had already, multiple times, described the difference between them and stated that it’s a very significant distinction. How am I to interpret this as anything other than you ignoring what I was saying? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/197 "2018-01-16T05:23:01Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > (To **B.B.**'s post) > > Hands are typically used during fellatio. Most often for cunnilingus too. It is possible to avoid doing so I guess, but in general all of “heavy petting” is part and parcel of consent to oral sex. …we don’t know exactly what happened. I didn’t assume that hands were used. But YMMV. > [@](#): > > We are not going to make much … uh … head way here. Did she claim any threat made or implied with the nonverbal request for more fellatio that coerced her to perform? Does she need too? This isn’t witness testimony. Do you want me to ask her if she felt threatened? I’m not sure if she would reply: I don’t even know how to get hold of her. > [@](#): > > If he whined and begged in an attempt to make her feel pressured to give him a blow job out of pity, would that be “coercion”? Yes. Do you think it would be pleasurable to give someone a blow job because you were pressured to? This is exactly the point. It probably wouldn’t be pleasurable. It would probably be horrible. But she would do it because, as **you put it in your own words:** she was pressured to do it. She said in the article that she felt pressured to give him oral sex the second time. Do you now understand how that came to be? > [@](#): > > We do need to talk about this. But the what we need to talk about is how the words that have serious meaning are being _devalued_ by some who confuse normal communication (as part of life as well as sex, each as appropriate to the context) as “assault”, and those who believe that a no threats made or implied perception of feeling “pressured” is “coercion” and a disappointing hook up is a “violation” or a “sexual assault.” And who lump public figures with an anonymous bad hook up review with true serial sexual predators as deserving of having their careers tanked by public shaming. We also need to talk about the attitude that there is “nothing wrong with doing anything you can legally to get sex”, the idea that “implied consent” is the same as “explicit consent”, and that coercion is not consent. > [@](#): > > This attempt to if not criminalize then minimally pathologize the normal behaviors that “happens in the bedroom all of the time every single day all over the world” and to extend the same words to them as to serious predatory actions and abuses of power may be a fine way to signify, but it is counterproductive at best. The point is not to minimally pathologize the normal behaviors that “happens in the bedroom all of the time every single day all over the world”. The point is that these “normal behaviours” are problematic: and they are problematic because invariably one party ends up “happy” because “they won the game” and the party “that lost the game” ends up in distress. There is nothing counterproductive with talking about this. There is nothing counterproductive about spending a bit of time listening to people you disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/198 "2018-01-16T05:33:25Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > If they lose at the game they voluntarily engage in and claim he violated the rules when he didn’t, then yes, they are immature and made foolish decisions. …when did Grace decide she wanted to “play a game?” > [@](#): > > We let people make up their own rules so we won’t be under constant surveillance from the sex police or locked up in towers. Those rules are a negotiation, game, and yet either party gets to leave the game any time they want, which is what she did. Negotiation implies a discussion, and mutual agreement. “Game” implies a “winner” and a “looser” and it implies settled ground rules. In this encounter what was “winning” and what was “loosing?” What were the rules? When did the negotiation happen, and what was the mutual agreement? > [@](#): > > She didn’t allege any threats. I don’t understand the lengths some posters are going to in order to find a crime here. There wasn’t one. I’ve never claimed there was a crime here. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/199 "2018-01-16T05:34:35Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The point is not to minimally pathologize the normal behaviors that “happens in the bedroom all of the time every single day all over the world”. The point is that these “normal behaviours” are problematic: and they are problematic because invariably one party ends up “happy” because “they won the game” and the party “that lost the game” ends up in distress. I’m sorry that your sex life invariably ends up with a loser. And that you think normal behavior is problematic. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/200 "2018-01-16T05:35:57Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Person A grabs person B’s arm. No harm comes to B, but B is angry about it. B says “A assaulted me.” And you think… people will think B is wrong? Yes, I think pretty much anyone who isn’t a lawyer or a pedant will think B is wrong. Let’s throw this one open to the thread - I’ll be interested to see what people think. > [@](#): > > You certainly wouldn’t call it assault in a newspaper where stakes are high concerning extra precision. But the word gets used in the general world for more things than newspapers are willing to call it. Probably precisely because it has both a legal sense and a more general sense, and news reporting has to keep that legal sense in mind more carefully than the general sense. I sincerely hope you’re not trying to explain how the industry I work in, have more than a decade of experience with, and postgraduate qualifications in works, are you? Because I assure you, you are incorrect on this point. > [@](#): > > You think I am intentionally taking a controversial stance just to be controversial, and for no constructive purpose? No, just as I think most people who think the Queen is a Lizard or the Earth is flat or Aliens built the pyramids aren’t doing it just to be edgy/controversial/lol-worthy. Doesn’t make them any less wrong or weird, though. > [@](#): > > You said I was conflating CPR with punching someone in the face. I had already, multiple times, described the difference between them and stated that it’s a very significant distinction. How am I to interpret this as anything other than you ignoring what I was saying? Because you’re calling them BOTH “assault” and other people in this thread have said the same thing I have: That’s a crazy view to have and it’s not reflective of how the average punter uses the term. Assault is a bit like “being pregnant” - you can’t be “slightly pregnant” or “pregnant but it’s trivial and doesn’t matter” so either something is or is not that thing. Similarly, an assault either is (punching someone) or is not (performing CPR, accidentally bumping into them on the street). Assault is a serious thing. There’s a reason people metaphorically shit their pants (or get a metaphorical hard-on) over “Assault Rifles” and “Assault Weapons” and that’s because the term conjures up images of Fucking Shit Up. If we called them Giving CPR To Someone rifles they’d probably have their own anime series. When you apply something as serious as the concept of “Assault” to trivial or nonsensical things, you dilute the meaning of the word beyond usefulness. That’s why pretty much no-one except you thinks giving someone CPR, bumping into someone on the street, or touching an arm in friendliness should be called “Assault” - not even “an assault which is so trivial it doesn’t count”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606.md?page=11)