Indeed, taking somebody’s account at face value is what we do with adults, with people we treat as respected equals, people with agency and autonomy. The ironic thing here is that the essence of the #MeToo movement is about giving women a voice, listening to what they have to say and taking it seriously. The people who are not listening here are those suggesting that perhaps she didn’t intend to make an accusation of sexual assault; that perhaps she didn’t really mean assault, just a bad experience; that perhaps she left out something important; that perhaps we need to reinterpret her words for her; that perhaps she didn’t really consent when she said she did; that if she did consent, perhaps she needed to be protected from the consequences of that consent; that perhaps Ansari physically coerced her when she says he didn’t.
I accept everything she said about her subjective description of her experience at face value, including of course how distressing it was and how shitty she feels; I hear and understand that Ansari acting boorishly and insensitively; I think she was mistaken only in one thing, in her characterization of that experience as sexual assault on the facts she presented.
It’s Frylock and Kimstu who don’t seem to be listening.
BTW I still don’t find the question of whether it was a crime to be of much import, because like I said, I don’t see any of this plausibly leading to any legal action no matter what. Even further: Even if what he did was a crime as described in the story, I wouldn’t advocate that he be prosecuted. It wouldn’t seem worth the time or resources, I do think the punishment would likely outweigh the crime. I think the work has been done by the publication of the story, and there are plenty of more serious crimes to go after.
The crime question is not the important issue. I’ve only taken it up here out of surprise that the legal definition given by the DoJ is so broad, leading to surprise that people here are leaning on the legal question so hard to defend Ansari.
Much more important is the question of what behavior should be thought of as normative or acceptable, without regard to how “repugnant” people may admit it is on reflection. (In other words, right now his behavior is for most in the “repugnant but to be expected, people should just be better prepared for his kind of crap”, whereas what we should be doing is reconceiving that kind of behavior as “repugnant and not to be expected, the focus of criticism should be on the person rather than those who ‘don’t better prepare themselvses’ to deal with his crap.”
As well as discussion of what is reasonable and not reasonable in coming to a conclusion that consent has been given or can be assumed.
So, if someone published your name in the paper and said you committed sexual assault because you inadvertently touched them when you bumped into them at the store and your arm touched their butt (or breast or whatever), you’d be fine with it?
I’m interested in discussing what behavior leads to good interactions with people. I think both of them screwed up here:
-Ansari interpreted “slow down” etc. as “for a couple of minutes,” and didn’t get clarification. He didn’t pay enough attention to whether his advances were appreciated. He was pushy. He didn’t check in with her.
-Grace expressed her displeasure ambiguously, and when it became clear to her that she wasn’t communicating well, didn’t clarify. She didn’t assert herself. Most appallingly, she decided to deal with this situation through a sexual humiliation of Ansari akin to revenge porn.
I’d tell Ansari that he needs to get way better at checking in with partners, and if someone says to slow down, he needs to be crystal clear that his partner wants to speed back up before he speeds up himself.
I’d tell Grace that she needs to get way better at communicating her desires, and that unless she’s filing police charges, she needs to respect a shitty partner’s anonymity just as she expects her own to be respected.
(Maybe that’s why I’m so concerned about the “is it a crime” thing. If Ansari had committed a crime, I’d be 100% fine with the name-and-shame. If he didn’t, I tend to think that exposing him like this is a deeply shitty thing to do.)
Ahah. I don’t really associate criminality with shamefulness. They’re just two different things for me. It being a crime would make me no more or less likely to think he should be named-and-shamed, and it not being a crime would also make me no more or less likely to do so.
I am with you on the idea that there are lessons to be learned here by both parties. I am trying to counter the general tendency people seem to have to focus on the lessons to be learned by the woman in this situation, and to pass over any lessons Ansari should learn in silence–if not even outright defending his behavior as just what some guys do on a date NBD.
Quite honestly, all I know about you is your idiosyncratic ideas about the definition of “assault” and the notion of “consent”, so there’s no way I could engage in ad hominem even if I were inclined to. I’m more than happy to move on from these distractions if you stop introducing them over and over again to the detriment of the debate. It’s one thing to propose a radical new standard for consent, as you did in the other thread; similarly, to propose a radical new definition for the word “assault” as a thought experiment. But when you persistently reintroduce these same odd ideas as though they are already a reality, it fosters nothing but confusion and (to those who have followed the whole of the thread) a justifiable “Jesus Christ, not this again” reaction.
Your post was an ad hominem attack. It encouraged readers to dismiss the value of an argument based on pointing at something about the person himself. You don’t have to know almost anything about a person in order to engage in ad hom.
I don’t know why you think I’ve reintroduced" any idiosyncratic ideas of consent and assault into the conversation “over and over” again. I have moved along, as has the thread. I’m now talking about a straight definition of assault everyone agrees with. And I haven’t said anything so far as I recall in terms of defining consent, I’ve just remarked it’s a difficult issue along with several others.
Interesting. Overall I’ve seen the conversation going in exactly the opposite way, to the extent that on my FB feed there’s someone saying she’s done listening to men talk about this, and that she refuses to blame Grace for anything, since we’re all damaged by the patriarchy. The question overwhelmingly seems to me, did both people screw up, or just Ansari?
If there’s anyone here who thinks Ansari’s behavior, as described, was above reproach, would you mind raising your hand? Even Ansari apologized for his behavior, and I take him at his word as well.
I’m sorry, I’m having trouble interpreting you clearly. You said " outright defending his behavior as just what some guys do on a date NBD." “No big deal” is pretty equivalent to “above reproach.” But if it’s important to you, I’ll change what I asked:
If there’s anyone here who thinks Ansari’s behavior, as described, was NO BIG DEAL, would you mind raising your hand?
People may well “pass over his behavior in silence” because they don’t disagree that what he did was bad. Folks tend to focus conversation more on areas of disagreement than areas of agreement.
I think characterizaing it as a bad date or a below average date naturally leads a reader to think it is supposed to have been no big deal. I mean, not that it logically implies that, but that it conversationally/pragmatically implies that. There’s a linguistic norm that we try to provide as much info as is relevant and useful. If we just call it “bad” or “below average” it’s natural for others to interpret us as implicitly saying “no worse than bad” and “no worse than below average.”
Given that, people in this thread have already characterized it as no big deal.
Hold up. Think back to how you felt when I paraphrased “NBD” as “above reproach.” You even used body language (okay, an emoji) to let me know. And I picked up on it, yay me!
How do you think other folks are going to feel when you paraphrase them as you just did?
The date was bad because both people screwed it up. I’d put more blame on the dude in this situation, during the date; afterward, the woman screwed up worse. But it’s not one-sided at all; it’s not sexual assault unless we’re missing information; it’s not worth ruining either person’s career over; it’s not worth publicly humiliating either person over.
Whether they mean it or not, it’s a fair paraphrase based on normal language usage.
To be honest, I think they meant it though… I don’t expect anyone to feel good about that, and I’m open to correction. But if they didn’t mean it, I would urge that they shouldn’t call it a “bad date” and a “below average date” because that makes it look like they think it’s not a big deal.
