Do you think any lawyer read this piece and thought “She’s got a case!”
Do you think if she approached a lawyer, that they’d take a case?
I don’t understand why you think it is important. To me it appears to have literally no import whether the term has a legal, even primarily a legal, sense. Even if I stipulate that it does, I still conclude that nothing rides on it. No legal action will occur.
If what “Grace” had was “just an unfortunate experience” due to Aziz being something of a pushy beggy handsy jerk, then what Ansari had was “just an unfortunate experience” due to “Grace” spilling the beans about it.
[/quote]
No, Grace had a poor experience. Then she accused him of a crime.
Being accused of a crime is not the same thing as having a poor experience.
Why do you think that women are currently the only ones that accept that a date can be very unpleasant? I have been on many dates that were unpleasant for any number of reasons. I’ve had women that were very sexually aggressive that went much faster than I was comfortable with, I’ve had women that just bored the fuck out of me, I’ve had women that I just wasn’t attracted to for whatever reason, but they continue to harrass me to go out with them again.
I never accused (especially publicly) any of them of sexual assault.
And if that was all that happened, then you would be right. Aziz could certainly stand to become a better person from a relationship perspective, and he probably did learn a bit of how he wasn’t as he hoped he was from her initial text.
But then she went and publicly accused him of sexual assault.
That is theft. That is actually breaking the law. She took your property without your consent.
That is more theft. It isn’t robbery, as robbery requires a threat of force, or at least intimidation. It is larceny, however. I would have no problem justify telling a cop that she had stolen my money.
If, instead of her thieving from you in front of you, she instead went back to your apartment with you, and there rifled through your things and took what she wanted without your consent, are you saying that wouldn’t be committing a crime then? If not, then how did she not commit a crime when she took your money out of your wallet without your consent?
I would describe her as a thief. If the money was enough, I would press charges. Unless she has some amazing other redeeming characteristics, I certainly would never date her again, and I would warn off my friends.
What I would not do is go to a tabloid or social and accuse her of something like assault and robbery.
I would say that she broke the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. If she wants me to buy her something, she can ask. If she wants money, she can ask. If she takes without consent, that’s a crime.
Your analogy fails on the simple fact that your analogy uses a criminal committing actual crimes against me to compare against Aziz not actually committing any crime, and yet being accused of one publically. Apple pie vs Orange juice here.
You got to the heart of the problem here. Frankly I don’t know why people are upset about what you are saying, every other thread on the Dope is about the different definitions for words people use.
But the problem is that people are using the term ‘sexual assault’ to mean something that is not sexual assault, just as they are using the term ‘yes’ to mean no.
(quoting re-ordered)
So you are saying that being rude is more serious than committing a crime? If Ansari actually did sexually assault ‘Grace’ then we should ignore that and just talk about his behavior that was merely rude?
Sorry, not following, which woman wrote a book on this?
Like suppose the dude in the scenario was approached by a tabloid to tell the story of the date, because she’s famous and has built a reputation for giving awesome dating advice.
And in the story that results, he says because the journalist kind of pushed him on this “I guess I realize what she did was stealing” even though she did give the money back. “I feel violated” he says, but he doesn’t bring charges, wouldn’t bring them if approached, no lawyer or prosecutor even sort of starts to think maybe charges should be brought, there are simply no legal consequences.
But in the subsequent discussion at the SDMB, everybody focuses on the question of whether a crime was committed. About for example whether it’s really stealing if you immediately give it back, about what “immediately” means, about whether he probably gave signals that it was okay for her to be playful with his person and his belongings, whether it would still be "stealing’ even so, all with a focus on figuring out whether she committed a crime.
That would be, wouldn’t it, missing the point?
I am writing under an assumption that we have no reason to think a crime was committed.
The woman in Kimstu’s scenario. I add the bit about the dating book in because Ansari is famous for writing a feminism-informed book about dating.
Since it seems unquestionable to you, then you must be aware of how the word is being used by young people today. What is this new definition?
Sorry, I miswrote. I’m talking about falsely accusing someone of committing crime. You don’t think that’s as serious as being rude? What if a few Trump supporters decided to beat up the little brown man for sexually assaulting this nice young woman?
Fair enough. To be clear, I’ve never been a fan of Ansari, and I assumed that like most men who claim to be a feminist, or any other political issue appealing to women, he was just doing it to get laid.
Well …
Bullshit to the claim. There has been broad agreement that both men and women in sexual encounters should be concerned about the desires of the other and clear in their communication of their desires both of what they want and what they do not want. Okay maybe not the latter. Some here seem to think that a woman does not need to be clear in her communication and that the responsibility for her communication is upon the man.
Accepting Graces description of the event it is in no way clear to me that Ansari was any of those things. I think we can say their communication was a bit cross wired from early on. She pursued him, he said not interested, she kept asking, he finally relented. At that point her understanding seems to have been possible relationship with a celebrity and she may have felt that she already knew him well because she’s seen him on tv. He apparently was not interested in more than a hook up. And there is nothing in the article that indicates he ever suggested otherwise. Wanting a hook up and only a hook up is not greedy, selfish, or even demanding. No question that mutual oral sex and “heavy petting” was mutually agreed to. His communication of desiring intercourse was clearly heard and her answer of “slow it down” was heard. More oral sex and heavy petting requested and given. After a period of time another clearly heard communication of a desire for intercourse. Communicating that desire is not selfish or demanding. The communication back was “I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” Which was clearly not heard as “I want the encounter to stop” or even heard as clear “No” but was instead heard as “not right now.” At that point there was a communication failure. Blaming that communication failure on one side of the interaction alone, even based on the other party’s perception of how it went down, is unjustified. Based on hearing “no intercourse right now” communicating his continued desire for it later when his read was that maybe her mindset may have shifted, really only shows that as a couple they were bad at the communication thing. To take the position that any failure in communication is by default the male’s deficiency and evidence of him being an ass is dumb at best.
Let’s assume he was greedy, selfish, and demanding during a private sexual encounter with a relative stranger. Just for the sake of discussion. Certainly that was her perception so we will accept that as her truth. Is publishing revenge porn and making an anonymous very public accusation of sexual assault which minimally humiliates the person an acceptable response to having experienced a hook up as greedy and demanding?
Your hypothetical? If the man did not say “give me my money back” then he was an idiot and a baby (sorry to insult babies). If she refused then yes indeed call the police. Because that actually is a crime. You and your hook up not being able to communicate clearly, your hook up turning out not to be the fantasy match for you you imagined him to be and instead experiencing him as an ass? Not a crime. And if that experience, an unsatisfying hook up, is the worst night you’ve ever had? Damn you’ve a had a really easy life so far.
This is disingenuous nonsense.
Earlier in the thread, Frylock made the case for redefining the word “assault” to include literally all physical contact for which explicit verbal consent has not been granted. Including, quite literally, brushing up against someone accidentally and CPR. Under this scheme, assault would be subdivided into non-criminal assault (touching with no intent to do harm) and criminal assault (what we now just call assault). The motivation, apparently, is that these modified semantics would make potential criminal assailants more circumspect if they had to think about whether their contemplated “assault” (i.e. touching someone in some way) would fall into the non-criminal or criminal category of assault.
This now seems to have morphed into a fantasy that “many young people” have actually adopted Frylock’s new semantic scheme.
Cite, please. And if you don’t have one, can we please give this ridiculous distraction from the debate a rest? There is no evidence that anyone in the world aside from you, Frylock, believes that the term “sexual assault” can ever refer to something other than a criminal act.
The fact that no lawyer would take the case is just another way of saying that her accusation was unfounded. You appear to be trying to make a virtue of the fact that the accusation was unfounded. It’s not a virtue. Publicly accusing somebody of committing a crime they did not commit is wrong. Failing to own the consequences of your own poor judgement by falsely blaming others for a night of bad consensual sex is not what the #MeToo movement is about.
“Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”
I’ll see what I can do. It’s just my impression from hanging out with the cool kids on the blogs and instagrams and shit.
No, it’s not a virtue that any such accusation would be unfounded. (I’ve said several times at the very least it indicates irresponsible journalism. Why ignore this?) Rather, that it is not an accusation that would move the legal system even a little bit shows that the legal question has no import.
But how do you know she wasn’t just reading this situation as playful coyness on his part? What if she genuinely thought he did want to give her all his money?
What if she’s been with a lot of guys who are in fact happy to give her a lot of money, but like to pretend reluctance so she’ll do the suggestive-teasing bit (sticking the money down her dress, smiling and complimenting, etc.)? There’s certainly nothing criminal in that, right? How’s she supposed to know that that’s not what this particular guy wants?
After all, the guy in the story voluntarily asked to buy her dinner, and then also voluntarily bought her ice cream. How is she supposed to know that he doesn’t also want to give her all the money in his wallet? If she honestly thought he wanted to give her a lot of money but was just being playfully coy about it, then obviously she wasn’t committing any crime.
You (and TriPolar and k9bfriender and DSeid and perhaps others) seem to be immediately jumping to the conclusion that this woman was committing an actual crime, when maybe she’s just kind of bad at interpreting subtle cues. Maybe the guy should have communicated more clearly at the outset that he didn’t want to give her a lot of money.
For someone complaining about “Grace” misusing the language of criminal behavior to describe something that wasn’t actually criminal sexual assault, you guys sure are quick to seize on the language of criminal behavior to describe the actions of a woman who might well have been merely misreading her date’s intentions about voluntarily giving her a lot of money.
Exactly. What I’m getting at here is the issue of a persistent and pervasive double standard in our culture. In that double standard, bad behavior by men is often trivialized or handwaved away as excusable or just the way things are: “Oh, he just misread her signals.” “He was awkward.” “She wasn’t clear about what she wanted.” “Lots of guys are clumsy lovers.” “It was just a bad date.”
At the same time, the bad behavior of women is “significantized” and emphasized as a serious problem with very grave consequences: “As soon as the woman in the story took the wallet from his hand she committed theft, which is a crime!” “When ‘Grace’ used the term ‘sexual assault’ she accused Ansari of a crime, which is very serious!” “Telling this story will destroy his career or at least profoundly humiliate him!”
I am not in the least defending anybody actually committing a crime or falsely accusing someone else of committing a crime. All I’m doing is pointing out that there’s often quite a bit of gender bias in the importance we attach to behavior.
Going by memory, how would you define “sexual assault” the way the the cool kids are using it?
Like, something like it’s sexual assault if it’s a sex act done without clear consent.
That’s often not a crime. But I think it is the kind of thing that people are starting to call “sexual assault” in a looser sense than the legal one.
But hey maybe I’ve got the wrong impression. I’ll try looking for examples.
We don’t know because you didn’t tell us how it ended; you said you didn’t know how it ended. Which is one of the reasons your supposed analogous story sucks.
Do we only know Ansari thought he had consent because we know the end of his date??
That is what the crime of sexual assault is. You seem to be saying (whether you intend to or not) is that misunderstanding of what consent is results in people calling something sexual assault when it isn’t. And I’m sure that happens, and it’s the likely explanation for why ‘Grace’ said she was sexually assaulted.
“Clear” consent? Is that different than regular consent? What part of the story did Aziz engage in a sex act that made it sexual assault according to this newer definition?
Remember we’re not talking about a legal definition of a specific crime right now.
She felt she had not consented to the way he treated her, and so she felt she had been sexually assaulted. This doesn’t make her feeling accurate, this doesn’t make her judgment that she had not indicated consent accurate, I’m just pointing out that on my theory about how younger people are using the term, it makes sense that she thought, or could be convinced, the term applied in her case.
Huh.
Hmmm.
So then… define… explicit?
That quoted definition from the feds is starting to make me think it much more likely that he did commit the crime of sexual assault! But that’s not the issue! But maybe he did! Does not compute does not compute
No, in that story we knew he had consent because ‘Grace’ said she consented in the middle of the story. If the middle had been left out, so ‘Grace’ just told us that she went with Ansari to his apartment, and then skipped ahead to the end where she said she was sexually assaulted, then we wouldn’t know if she gave consent.
And I’m a bit surprised that you think what Ansari thought about consent mattered here because it’s really about whether ‘Grace’ consented or not. You have propagated the male-centric concept that only what a man considers to be consent matters.