…I don’t want “sex police” either. That’s why its better that we talk this out instead of ignoring it.
Do you really think that trying to “engage in sex any legal way you can” is letting people “freely choosing to do what they want to do”?
Because one party is “freely choosing” and is “playing a game.” The other party is not. The norm should be mutual consent. The goal should be mutual enthusiastic consent. What you suggest is neither.
I am.
I’m following, it’s just not a good example you’ve used.
Humouring you, however, let’s pretend this minor altercation resulted in Mr Bloggs being arrested and I was talking to someone about the incident at a cafe a bit later, without my journalism hat on. I would say “Did you hear that Fred Bloggs grabbed John Smith’s arm and the cops arrested him?”
The cops are more likely to charge someone in a situation like that with “Disturbing the peace” or “disorderly behaviour” so people would, in my experience, be more likely to say “Fred got arrested for being too rowdy” or “He got fired up and the cops nabbed him for being disorderly” or something like that. “The cops arrested Fred for assault” is, admittedly, one interpretation of how that even played out, but not the most likely one. Maybe things are different in the US?
I am not talking about anyone grabbing anyone’s arm.
Assume John Doe punched Jane Doe in the face. And the cops arrested John Doe for assault.
Subsequently, would it be responsible to report this using the words “John Doe was arrested for assault”?
I am asking because I have been told by knowledgable people in the past that a journalist should not actually say anyone was “arrested for” anything. That though this is a general usage, in journalism it’s a bad idea, because it may imply the person definitely did the thing they were arrested for. Even though it doesn’t imply that in general usage.
Was I told wrong?
Generally that’s correct, but it’s not uncommon to see something like “Mr Bloggs was detained on assault charges” in a print/traditional media story, which is basically the same thing as “Mr Bloggs was arrested for assault”.
Each newspaper/media outlet is going to treat that sort of thing differently; however it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if a “New Media” outlet (particularly a youth-orientated one) did just say “Mr Bloggs was arrested for assault”.
And again, just talking with people (without my journalist hat on), I’d say “Fred Bloggs was arrested for assault” if he’d punched someone in the face.
[quote=“Cartooniverse, post:15, topic:806606”]
Shrew of evidence == stunning. 
Heh. The original typo was a completely different word.
Is there a shrewd of evidence that she has that motivation?
Too shrewd by half…
Two NYTimes Op-Ed columnists, both women, state that Ansari may be guilty of being a bad date, but not of assault worthy of violating his privacy:
Ansari is discussed at the bottom of this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/president-porn-star-stephanie-clifford.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
There’s also this article from the Atlantic, with similar conclusions.
That pretty much encapsulates my thoughts. From the weirdly written article (“we saw her outfit and she looked good” – what?) to the weakness of the story itself, this really felt like a rush to the ramparts to take someone else down. And I haven’t felt that way since this whole thing started but this was the “Eh, maybe this is going too far” moment for me. Some poorly written blog site trying to turn a shitty date into national news for its own glorification and ad clicks just because one party is famous.
Ok, let’s talk.
Yes. Freely choosing to do what they want includes saying NO. That’s the thing here being ignored, no party should feel they can’t say NO, and it’s the responsibility of the person who doesn’t want to do something to say so. Sex is for people who are mature enough to say what they want and don’t want.
The game of love is based on mutual consent. People have to make their rules and play by them. And again, no rule precludes one party saying NO at any time. The game is to get what you want, when it works well it’s a Win-Win game. People who turn it into a Win-Lose situation, whether by exceeded the rules to win, or failing to say NO when the rules are violated is a problem.
I have no sympathy for creeps, as a young man the creeps that many women had met made it a lot harder for me to get anywhere with women. The rules back in those days were a mess, people weren’t talking openly about sex, but while progress has been made we aren’t heading directly to equitable interaction between people. It doesn’t mean that people’s motivations have to be the same, I predict that in most sexual interactions in the world one party is more motivated than the other. That doesn’t mean that if you wanted to have sex more than your partner that you are wrong, or that they should just say no, it means they need mutual consent to move forward, and one may enjoy the interaction more than the other.
I expect generally that men will have a stronger desire for sex than women, but even if you turn that around it doesn’t matter, a person can use any legal means to try to get someone else to agree to sex, that precludes coercion, real coercion involving threats or force.
And I don’t like the idea that people can lie and manipulate to get what they want, but that is a problem not limited to sex, it can happen in any interaction between people, but I don’t believe in creating a standard for sex that doesn’t apply elsewhere. Lying is common between people who are dating, sometimes harmless salesmanship, sometimes despicable manipulation, but whether it comes from a man or a woman, it is each of our responsibilities to be smart and not get talked into doing something we don’t want to do.
Is sex for people who are, while mature enough to say what they want don’t want, nevertheless not mature enough to understand what others want and don’t want even when they aren’t completely explicit?
[Bolding mine]
Provided you both meet the first part, the second part shouldn’t really be relevant now should it? If you don’t like something, speak up instead of trying to make it the other person’s fault for guessing wrong. If you’re not willing to speak up, you’re probably not mature enough to be voluntarily getting naked with them in the first place.
Communication errors happen under the best of circumstances and are going to happen when two people are non-verbally fumbling about and trying to read cues. It’s entirely possible to sincerely interpret someone moving your hand as “No, I hate that” or “That’s nice but not yet” or “That’s nice but this is even nicer” or whatever else. That’s why it’s important to use your words.
Would you agree that it follows from what you said that, if two people are in a room, and one knows how to say what they want and don’t want in the situation, but does not understand what the other wants unless they are absolutely and unequivocally explicit, and meanwhile, the other does not know how to say what they want and don’t want in the situation, then in that room, in that situation, sex is for the first person and not for the second person?
When they do have sex, what exactly has happened? What does it mean when one person, for whom sex is, has sex with another person, for whom sex is not?
Also, to be clear, are unequivocal statements of what one wants and does not want the standard for communication about sex? If one doesn’t meet that standard, sex is not for one?
I have no clue how to parse that.
I am saying that both people have a responsibility to make their wants clear (whether it’s “I like this” or “Go away you creep”) and, if they fail to do so, the breakdown isn’t with the other party.
Sex is for people who are mature enough to say what they do or don’t want. Sex between two mature people shouldn’t come down to guessing games and later resentment that someone didn’t get your nonverbalized cues.
You said:
suggesting that she was coerced.
TriPolar said:
Is your opinion that she was coerced?
If so, was the coercion through force or threat?
If through threat, what was that verbal or non-verbal threat?
If there was a verbal or non-verbal threat, who made it?
No, what you are doing is redefining a word in a way that only you understand then claiming other readers are somehow wrong because they don’t accept your definition.
Slee
I believe the old adage to apply here might be: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” :rolleyes:
Otherwise, hone your social skills and learn how to do a proper rejection. Take responsibility for yourself. Stop being a self-imposed victim.
IMO, what Ansari did was not a capital offense but it was still piggish in the extreme. He was fine with the initial activity even though he missed her nonverbal cues, and then when she told him she wasn’t into it, he actually did the right thing and suggested they stop and watch TV. But then he just kept on pestering her. And pestering her. He didn’t commit sexual assault, and he seems like he’s not a bad guy. But his behavior was clueless and thoughtless and from what I understand, fairly normal among guys who are used to hooking up with whatever lady comes home with them. Hopefully he learns from this.
And no, nothing further should happen to Ansari over this. This should not affect his career at all except to the extent that some people who now don’t like him decide not to patronize him.
From the NY Times: Aziz Ansari is guilty. Of not being a mind reader.
The New York Times editor who wrote that was on Morning Joe this morning and essentially said: Bad sex does not equal assault. You might feel disgusted, mortified, embarrassed, gross, upset, regretful, remorseful, or shaken up afterward, but it does not mean you were assaulted, especially if you continue to hang around and participate in various sex acts. We’re getting the woman’s inner monologue, but presumably, she was pantsless (by her own doing or allowing), was allowing him to go down on her, she went down on him, and was not giving clear signals as to what she really wanted. He was acting obnoxious and entitled, yes, but if at any point she wasn’t in to it, she needs to leave. If at any point she says no, he needs to stop pestering. Neither of them did what they, as mature adults, should have done in this situation, but the fact that this botched hook-up is now being dissected globally shows her to be as obnoxious as him. (I mean, for fuck’s sake, she actually implied in her tell-all that she wasn’t given consent on the color of wine she drank at dinner.)
These two were *both *ham-handed and *both *immature, *both *seemingly unaware of how to proceed with this supposedly-adult encounter. This is not a #MeToo moment.
I agree completely. People have been making the argument that it’s hard for a woman to say no in that situation due to the power differential, but that’s really problematic for many reasons, most notably that it takes all moral agency away from women.
but in her defense, people are unique. She was uncomfortable, she’s apparently not good at asserting herself, and he made it a miserable night. Again, not a capital offense, but I understand her anguish too.
So again, attempting to have sex with strangers goes very badly quite often. I’m sure that’s not the lesson Ansari will draw from this, but what can you do?