# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/101 "2018-01-15T05:09:10Z")
I think you’ll find that most people and the courts will disagree with you. Actions speak louder than words. ---
**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 15, 2018, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/102 "2018-01-15T05:10:33Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you seem confused, as you didn’t answer my question. > > You are under no obligation to answer my question, but responding to me kinda implies you want to tell me something, but I’m not entirely sure what that is. > > If someone accepts a penis in their mouth, is this explicit consent for future sexual relations, or implied consent for future sexual relations, or is it only consent for putting the penis in the mouth? _I_ am not confused. You OTOH - quite a bit. What I and my wife do and how we communicate has to do with this circumstance and with > [@](#): > > The statement that “Grabbing someone’s hand and pulling it towards your genitals is sexual assault” presented as if it is true by definition is false. To quote someone: “how is this hard?” > > In the context of having been engaged in acts of sex, including giving and receiving oral sex already, grabbing and directing the other’s hand to where it is desired, inclusive of the genitals, is pretty standard sexual communication, not by definition assault. The exception, again, would be if consent to continue has been actively withdrawn. Saying “stop” suffices. Mumbling, sending nonverbal cues, or requesting to go slow, is not such active withdrawal of consent. not at all. In the case of a sexual interaction in progress guiding a partner’s hand to where it is desired is normal communication, not assault. The partner can respond to that communication in many ways - taking the guidance, ignoring the guidance, pushing the hand away, slapping the hand, doing something else with the hand (oh my), or using their words. It’s an ongoing communication process and not assault within that context. Someone taking a penis in their mouth when asked to do so is difficult to read as giving a clear communication that they do want to consent to that activity at that time and for effective communication depending on “I know that my hand stopped moving at some points” to trump that willing ness to put penis in mouth in the communicating of no continued interest? I dunno. A mixed message at best. Maybe she remembered someone advising her to “use her words” and confused it as “use your mouth”? I have not read anyone here claiming that Ansari was the Dream Date person in this particular interaction. He was, by reports of her telling, insensitive and overly insistent. The words “dick” and “creep” have been used by several allegedly “defending” him to describe the behaviors as described. But boorish as he may been, he in no way forced or coerced her to take his penis into her mouth, her subjective “feeling pressured” aside. Again, I have great confidence that my 16 year old daughter understands how to say no to something that she does not want to do and has the ability to laugh at any guy who thinks he can “pressure” her into an activity she is not interested in. A 22 year old woman in Hollywood has not learned how to verbalize the word “no”? Something is wrong with that picture. To my read the problem was not that she had a date with someone who would take no for an answer if only she said it out loud and not just thought it and thought that not moving her hands was enough to make it clear (and again, **what she said no to was penile vaginal intercourse** , not to oral and hand contact). It was that she and Ansari each imagined their date’s goal for the date being something very different than what the other did. Bolding added in preview for emphasis. ---
**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 15, 2018, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/103 "2018-01-15T05:15:48Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Are you aware of my personal history at all? I’ve provided it enough times on this board. I was the victim of serious physical violence and emotional abuse during my marriage. I was violently assaulted in my sleep on three occasions. …I apologize if I bought distress. > [@](#): > > Being in an abusive relationship is a very complicated matter in all respects. And what happened here is a complicated matter in all respects as well. > [@](#): > > If you haven’t survived one, I’d like you to stop trying to claim any kind of authority on the matter or using it as an example here. It has nothing to do with this event. With all due respect: I stand by my analogy. I am not claiming any sort of authority. But it fits here. ---
**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 15, 2018, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/104 "2018-01-15T05:21:41Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > I think you’ll find that most people and the courts will disagree with you. Actions speak louder than words. > **[R v Ewanchuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ewanchuk)** > > R v Ewanchuk, 1 SCR 330 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case concerning the defence of consent to a charge of sexual assault. The Court held that there was no defence of implied consent. The case is also notable for the controversy that arose between Justice John McClung and Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé. > Steve Ewanchuk brought a 17-year-old girl into his van for a job interview. After the interview, Ewanchuk invited the woman to his trailer in behind. He took her into his trailer and bega... > [@](#): > > Each time she would say “no” to his advance and he would stop but, after the passing of some time would then renew his sexual advances. She testified at trial that during her time in the trailer she was very afraid and that is why she did not take further action to stop the sexual conduct such as leaving or attempting to physically resist the man. Before she left, Ewanchuk paid her $100.00 so she could help pay for childcare. > > … > > Justice Major, for the majority, held there was no defence of “implied consent” to sexual assault and overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal. > > The accused, Major explained, must raise a reasonable doubt that there was consent. Consent can be shown in one of two ways. Either where the “complainant in her mind wanted the sexual touching to take place” or, in the case of establishing a mistaken belief of consent, where “the complainant had affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in sexual activity with the accused”. > > L’Heureux-Dubé held that the defence could not be used unless the accused took sufficient steps to ascertain consent. Here, the accused did not make any attempt to ensure that the accused had consent when he moved from a massage to sexual touching. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if plenty of people disagree with me. But many people do. And in this particular ruling (I’m sure you can find opposing examples) the courts agree with me as well. ---
**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 15, 2018, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/105 "2018-01-15T05:32:00Z")
So what am I missing? Your cite states: > [@](#): > > Consent can be shown in one of two ways. Either where the “complainant in her mind wanted the sexual touching to take place” or, in the case of establishing a mistaken belief of consent, where “the complainant had **affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in sexual activity with the accused** ”. Voluntarily taking a penis in her mouth when asked to do so with no threats or force involved seems to affirmatively communicate by conduct (action) her agreement to engage in that sexual activity with Ansari. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/106 "2018-01-15T05:34:02Z")
By your logic, BB, a woman (and apparently ONLY a woman) could loudly say “Hell NO, I won’t get in your car!” then immediately get in the car; and later be able to file charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment against the driver because she clearly and “explicitly” said no, regardless of the fact that she then voluntarily entered the car. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/107 "2018-01-15T05:55:00Z")
We all, together, get to decide what “assault” means. We’re living in a moment in which the meaning of that term, in a sexual context, is in the middle of changing. We get to help decide how that process ends up for a while. We should understand any violation of a person’s consent to be touched as assault. The reason we should do this is, it puts the onus on the prospective violator to be sure they are not victimizing someone. There will be hard cases, complicated cases, of course. In those hard cases, the person who may be attacking someone is the one we should want to have the onus of being careful. So we should define assault in a way which brings about that result. If we understand violations of a person’s consent to be touched as assault _only when_ that violation… ends poorly? I don’t know, I’m not sure exactly what you’re going for. But anyway, if we go in that kind of direction, then we put the onus on possible victims to be careful. There will be hard cases, complicated cases of cousre. And in those hard cases, on this kind of definition, it will be the one who may be victimized who will receive the onus of being careful. Under _both_ understandings of assault, it will be appropriate to speak with people who trust us about how they can wisely avoid being assaulted to the best of their ability. But on the second scheme, once an assault has occurred, the victim will be put on trial in the public discourse in a way that will among other things frighten victims from coming forward. On the first scheme, instead, once an assault has occurred, the perpetrator will be put on trial in the public discourse in a way that will among othe things frighten men from being forward. If you’re afraid things will be taken too far, reember they’ll be taken too far in both cases. We should ask, would we rather go too far in scaring victims from coming forward, or would we rather go too far in scaring men from being forward with sexual advances? We also should be careful to dstinguish between what _is_ assault and what _is conventionally called_ assault. Mixing this kind of thing up is how people get away with stuff. When I say doing CPR on a person without their consent is a case of assault that it would be unreasonable for the victim to complain about, I get strange looks, and I understand that, because conventionally we don’t _call_ a thing like that assault. But it _is_ an assault. It just happens to be one that it makes little sense to complain about. It’s important to understand that it is assault though. Think about this. Suppose I see a person dying, and I know CPR would save their life, but I also know they have signed a DNR or whatever it is that makes it where I know they do not consent to me doing CPR. I do CPR anyway. I’ve assaulted them, right? How is this case different from the first? Consent was not explicitly given in either case. But in the second, consent was explicitly withheld. In the first, consent was simply assumed in absence of explicit withholding of consent. If the second case is assault and the first is not, then things only count as assault if consent is explicitly withheld. That’s a dangerous road! Much better to understand assault differently than that–to understand that _all_ touch without consent is assault, avoid the lazy rule of requiring explicit non-consent, and instead do the hard work of questioning ourselves about what we are doing before we do it, when that involves the prospect of–assault. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/108 "2018-01-15T05:59:55Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > **We all, together, get to decide what “assault” means**. Cool, it doesn’t mean anything like you think it does because only a fringe minority believes it means what you said it means. That was the easiest debate ever to clear up on this board. Thanks. Start a poll if you don’t believe me. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/109 "2018-01-15T06:02:42Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Cool, it doesn’t mean anything like you think it does because only a fringe minority believes it means what you said it means. That was the easiest debate ever to clear up on this board. Thanks. > > Start a poll if you don’t believe me. I don’t mean “decide” in the sense of “take a vote about what it already means,” I mean in the sense of “figure out what it should mean.” I thought that should be clear from the remainder of my post, where I advocate for a certain meaning and give arguments for why that meaning _should_ be settled on. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/110 "2018-01-15T06:04:14Z")
I should clarify I doubt any of the stuff described in the article rises to any legal definition of assault, and I don’t particularly think it should. (Possibly the very last thing, aggressively kissing her after she says “you guys are all the fucking same”, comes close, but it’s small potatoes int he scheme of things, sure.) I’m talking about how we should conceive of assault in everyday discourse. We should be emphasizing the way that without enthusiastic consent, the person doing the pushing should see themselves as treading in dangerous waters. ---
**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 15, 2018, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/111 "2018-01-15T06:12:46Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > We should be emphasizing the way that without enthusiastic consent, the person doing the pushing should see themselves as treading in dangerous waters. And I hate to be indecorous but _voluntarily getting naked and sucking someone’s dick_ fits the average person\*'s definition of “enthusiastic consent”. \*Unless you’re a social media SJW or a certain type of SDMB poster, it would seem ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/112 "2018-01-15T06:14:01Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > And I hate to be indecorous but _voluntarily getting naked and sucking someone’s dick_ fits the average person\*'s definition of “emphatic consent”. I can agree, I can grant that she showed enthusiastic consent at that point. Does that surprise you? ---
**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 15, 2018, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/113 "2018-01-15T06:16:58Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Does that surprise you? A little bit, since you also called CPR “Assault”, which is one of the more unconventional takes I’ve seen on the boards (and that’s saying something). ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/114 "2018-01-15T06:22:47Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Yes. > > She kept saying no. But she kept saying yes with her actions. She remained, she continued to participate. Hell yes, he’s a creep for what he did. But she isn’t guiltless here. She constantly made choices that were wrong, then regretted them later. She doesn’t get a pass for that and AGAIN, it doesn’t make his actions criminal. A. What did he do that was creepy? B. Who here has made a claim that she was guiltless? I would need to see a quotation or a citation of a post, as I do not think anything said here has explicitly or implicitly made her out to be guiltless. ---
**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 15, 2018, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/115 "2018-01-15T06:26:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > _I_ am not confused. > > You OTOH - quite a bit. What I and my wife do and how we communicate has to do with this circumstance and with not at all. > > In the case of a sexual interaction in progress guiding a partner’s hand to where it is desired is normal communication, not assault. The partner can respond to that communication in many ways - taking the guidance, ignoring the guidance, pushing the hand away, slapping the hand, doing something else with the hand (oh my), or using their words. It’s an ongoing communication process and not assault within that context. …I’m not talking about “assault.” I was asking about consent. > [@](#): > > Someone taking a penis in their mouth when asked to do so is difficult to read as giving a clear communication that they do want to consent to that activity at that time and for effective communication depending on “I know that my hand stopped moving at some points” to trump that willing ness to put penis in mouth in the communicating of no continued interest? I dunno. A mixed message at best. Maybe she remembered someone advising her to “use her words” and confused it as “use your mouth”? But she consented to taking the penis in the mouth. No dispute from me or from Grace. Was taking the penis in the mouth consent for anything else? > [@](#): > > I have not read anyone here claiming that Ansari was the Dream Date person in this particular interaction. He was, by reports of her telling, insensitive and overly insistent. The words “dick” and “creep” have been used by several allegedly “defending” him to describe the behaviors as described. > > But boorish as he may been, he in no way forced or coerced her to take his penis into her mouth, her subjective “feeling pressured” aside. But she consented to taking the penis in the mouth. No dispute from me or from Grace. Was taking the penis in the mouth consent for anything else? > [@](#): > > Again, I have great confidence that my 16 year old daughter understands how to say no to something that she does not want to do and has the ability to laugh at any guy who thinks he can “pressure” her into an activity she is not interested in. > > A 22 year old woman in Hollywood has not learned how to verbalize the word “no”? Something is wrong with that picture. Hoo-boy. I’m happy you have a lot of confidence in your 16 year old daughter, and I have no doubt you are excellent parents, and that you have raising a fantastic young person. I have no doubt that the 22 year old woman in Hollywood **has** learned how to verbalize the word “no.” She used the word several times after all. Maybe “saying no” just isn’t enough to protect you. > [@](#): > > To my read the problem was not that she had a date with someone who would take no for an answer if only she said it out loud and not just thought it and thought that not moving her hands was enough to make it clear (and again, **what she said no to was penile vaginal intercourse** , not to oral and hand contact). It was that she and Ansari each imagined their date’s goal for the date being something very different than what the other did. But she did say no. She did consent to some activities. But consenting to some activities is not consenting to all. > [@](#): > > Voluntarily taking a penis in her mouth when asked to do so with no threats or force involved seems to affirmatively communicate by conduct (action) her agreement to engage in that sexual activity with Ansari. I haven’t disputed that in this case taking a penis in her mouth was consensual. It was suggested that the courts disagree with me on implied consent. I provided an example of a very high profile (Canadian) supreme court decision that did agree with me. ---
**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 15, 2018, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/116 "2018-01-15T06:28:38Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > And I hate to be indecorous but _voluntarily getting naked and sucking someone’s dick_ fits the average person\*'s definition of “enthusiastic consent”. > > \*Unless you’re a social media SJW or a certain type of SDMB poster, it would seem …am I one of those "certain types of SDMB poster? I also agree there was consent at that point. And I’m about as “SJW” as you can get on these boards. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/117 "2018-01-15T06:28:41Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > A little bit, since you also called CPR “Assault”, which is one of the more unconventional takes I’ve seen on the boards (and that’s saying something). I’m not sure how you are connecting my advocating for an understanding of assault that includes all non-consensual touching (and admitting this includes life-saving CPR and then explaining why it nevertheless makes sense to go ahead and admit the possibility of assaults that shouldn’t be complained about\*) with, on the other hand, my granting that enthusiastic consent may have been granted at the point you described. I am not sure, in other words, how the first leads you to be surprised at the second. There was no enthusiastic consent given in the CPR case… so… I’m not seeing the conceptual connection leading to surprise here. In both cases, the conditional holds true that without enthusiastic consent, an assault has occurred. \*Again, because this is a hard concept one does well to hear in multiple ways: It’s basically a burden of proof thing. It shouldn’t be up to the one receiving the action to prove they don’t consent, it should be up to the one doing the action to prove there was consent. This is so that people will be more afraid to assault people, and less afraid to come forward when they are assaulted. Many things that have been assault all along have not conventionally been _called_ assault. We are in a time, now, where we are starting to change what we _call_ assault. It’s important we get this right–that we don’t fall back into conservativism, conventionalism or just old habits, and instead we think of the effects of our discourse and make a wise, informed decision on that basis. ---
**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 15, 2018, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/118 "2018-01-15T06:31:21Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > B. Who here has made a claim that she was guiltless? I would need to see a quotation or a citation of a post, as I do not think anything said here has explicitly or implicitly made her out to be guiltless. …I haven’t claimed she was “guiltless”: but I both remain unconvinced that “guilt” is something that is applicable to her decision not to leave. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/119 "2018-01-15T06:32:58Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I haven’t claimed she was “guiltless”: but I both remain unconvinced that “guilt” is something that is applicable to her decision not to leave. I tend to think her guilt or lack thereof is not an important thing to talk about in this context, and I’m skeptical of its applicability, but I do not positively believe her guiltless (nor do I positively believe her guilty). This is different from **Chimera’s** characterization of us as having declared her guiltless. ---
**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 15, 2018, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606/120 "2018-01-15T06:33:05Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > By your logic, BB, a woman (and apparently ONLY a woman) could loudly say “Hell NO, I won’t get in your car!” then immediately get in the car; and later be able to file charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment against the driver because she clearly and “explicitly” said no, regardless of the fact that she then voluntarily entered the car. …no this isn’t my logic. And the courts would agree with me on this as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aziz-ansari-sexual-assault-allegations/806606.md?page=7)