NM
Except for the entire ‘mutual oral sex’ part.
Do you think that once consent is given, it can’t be taken away?
Do you think that after a sexual act, saying “no” to other sex acts is just a coy way of saying “yes”?
Or something?
As already written. But I will make it more explicit. She was imagining that she was on a first date as part of a relationship that she already had in her head with the semi-fictional character Aziz Ansari who she thought saw her as someone to have a long term relationship with. It took her a while to realize that she was not. That the real person she just had received cunnilingus from and given oral sex to was not actually the person she had created in her head, and that that real person was less interested in a long term relationship with her than in having somewhat meaningless recreational sex with an attractive young woman who was, he believed, physically attracted to him and also interested in a bit of recreational no strings attached sex. Nothing wrong with mutually desired emotionally meaningless recreational sex mind you. But for her the realization that this star was not thinking of her as long term relationship material but instead as someone to have a fun hook up with, hurt.
No, I’m saying that she seems to have willingly (if perhaps reluctantly) participated in activities that she later regretted. Congratulations to her, she’s human. We’ve all done that. It doesn’t automatically invalidate her responsibility for her own actions or make all of his actions retroactively criminal.
Yes but it certainly is not by definition assault as you state. It would be only if it is clear that consent has been withdrawn. A “go slower” is not such withdrawal of consent; it is an instruction of how to continue to proceed, subject to the perception the partner had of what the intended speed had been.
That she was let down that her fabulous date with a celebrity wan’t all sunshine and rainbows as she fantasized it would be.
I think you misunderstood the “path” part. He wasn’t cutting her off, he was not restraining her or keeping her from leaving. She was just talking about the “path” that the date took through the night.
And yea, if she just says she wants to slow down, that does not mean that sex is off the table, just that I need to work a bit harder to make her more interested, heighten her excitement. Sometimes, a girl says slow down, and then after a bit of talking and maybe cuddling, things go back to kissing, then to fondling, then… well. Sometimes nothing comes of it.
Are you saying that when a girl says slow down, that means to stop? She never said to stop, just to slow down.
From the article
I have never enjoyed receiving oral sex, so that part, I couldn’t tell you, I’ve never offered myself in that fashion. In any case, they were both still naked.
You don’t have to run out of an apartment screaming in order to say “No”, or “Stop”, or “Not tonight, I’d like to get to know you better first”, or “Not tonight, I don’t feel well”, or to just walk out of the apartment without screaming or running involved at all. IT is not a binary choice, her only option was not to run out of the apartment screaming. She had words, she could use them. She had agency, she could exercise it.
You like to go to extremes, don’t you? How about, if someone comes onto you in public, asks for a date, then comes to your place and engages in oral sex with you, then there is a reasonable belief that they want more. If they do not say that they do not want more, if they just mumble and pull away, what are you supposed to do with that?
At all points, when she was hitting on him in public, and at the restaurant, and agreeing to go back to his place, those are all sending signals of “yes, please I want to have sex with you.” As she never did send a clear signal of “No, I do not want to do this!” I don’t understand how you can not see this as mixed signals.
I think Aziz is a terrible comedian, and I hated his show master of none. I have nothing vested in him. I just don’t see how what he did was such a terrible thing that he needs to be dragged through the social media shame alley.
If other stuff comes out, and it turns out that he is a horrible person, then sure, whatever, vilify him all you want, for the stuff he did. For this story, that is told from her perspective so is giving her the benefit of the doubt on everything, I’m not really seeing it.
Did she say “no”?
She did mumble, but even she doesn’t articulate what it was that she mumbled.
Exactly. The notion that a woman of 22 does not have agency and cannot take responsibility for her own actions is ridiculous. Women have the right to decline sex, and also the right to choose an active sex life if they wish, and either choice should be respected. The flip side of some men ignoring women who say “no”, is some men (and indeed some women) labeling women who say “yes” as sluts. But autonomy and agency means on the one hand that other people should respect your decisions, while on the other that you yourself own your decisions, some of which will no doubt be bad ones.
If this young woman is taking things to the level of public accusation, she has taken things beyond the question of whether Anzari is a bit of a horny jerk or socially inept, which he may be, to whether he acted improperly, either ethically or legally. And there’s nothing in her story that suggests he did. Her own story is that he persisted in trying to go faster than she wanted, hardly unusual for a young man on a date with a young woman; but that he did not cross the bright line to ignoring requests to stop or physically coercing her, and that she continued as a willing participant. If you agree to give someone oral sex, the fact that you don’t do it for long and later regret it doesn’t mean it was assault or coercion, it means you made a bad decision.
She seems to have been confused about what she wanted or didn’t want at that time and place. How could he have a clearer idea of what she wanted than she herself did?
In this discussion, we may want to distinguish between unsavory/rude/creepy behavior and sexual assault. If I were a woman, I’d never want to date him and would advise others not to but I don’t think it’s sexual assault. The woman in question is too insecure, confused and eager to transform her disappointment over the loss of an imagined relationship into blaming him for sexual assault.
How would you argue that your understanding of why she was crying is different from her understanding of why she was crying?
I think this incident is doing a very good job of highlighting why so many people are concerned about the whole “Me Too” thing.
To me, this alleged incident sounds like a bad hookup, possibly with a twinge of disappointment/regretting it later - but one unsubstantiated blog post and suddenly the Twitterati are reaching for their pitchforks.
And I agree with the people saying "A 22 year old is quite capable of saying “No, I don’t like what is happening here”. Vague mumbling, especially in a bedroom situation, could be anything from “Ohh, that’s hot” to “I really shouldn’t” to “Did I remember to leave food out for the dog?”
She feels she was victimized. I don’t think she was.
I don’t understand how you can say this.
I think you are probably confusing an argument that certain assaults are justifiable or understandable with an argument that those actions weren’t assault in the first place.
Just to be clear, yes I am willing to bite the bullet that if I grab somebody without their permission to save their life, that’s assault. Of course it is! It’s laying hands on someone without their permission. But: It’s an assault that is justifiable. Indeed, it’s an assault that is life-saving, hence, this is another case of “it can be both.”
If afterwards, the person says “hey you assaulted me! How dare you!” they are clearly unreasonable, but correct in their description stripped of the attitude.
Let’s assume Ansari did indeed grab this woman’s hand and pull it towards his genitals, as described. That’s an assault. You are saying it also was a communication. Okay, I can grant that. Now, in the life-saving case, the assault was okay because it saved a life. In this case, was the assault okay because it was a communication?
I don’t see how its communicative intent made it a clearly okay case of assault.
I recognize it’s not a clear case to be put in the same category as punching somebody in the face in order to make them do something they don’t want to do.
But I also recognize it’s not a clear case to be put in the same category as asking somebody if they would possibly mind putting their hand on your dick.
I’m not assimilating it to the former, but I’m noting it’s more similar than people are acknowledging.
You’re not assimilating it to the latter, but you’re noting it’s more similar than you expect I am acknowledging.
I acknowledge that somewhat, but it’s important that we re-calibrate our understanding of the extent to which communicative intent makes this kind of assault okay. We have for decades, centuries, however long, assumed it was basicaly okay. Lots of women and others are noting that they don’t actually think it’s that okay, that communicative intent shouldn’t be regarded as as exculpatory as it has been in the past. And the argument makes sense–think of how easily such a scheme (communicative intnt making assault okay) can be used by predators to excuse assault. Think of how easily the alternative (making communicative intent _much less exculpatory) helps to defend potential victims.
Let’s separte the discussion of "what kind of an asshole is Ansari?) from the discussion of “how should we shape our collective understanding of communication and assault?”
If what someone cares about is Ansari’s character, I’ll quickly concede he may be great inside and this may mean nothing about his character. Whatever. (Hell I’m even a bit with Stranger on how immediately to completely accept everythign about the account, given the venue itwas published in.)
That’s hardly an important issue though is it? The real import of this conversation is how we should choose to relate communicative intent with exculpatory attitudes towards assault. Examples like this (true or not, it’s certainly believable and true-to-life) illustrate reasons why we should change our choice in that matter.
Hooboy that was wordy but I ain’t got time to edit.
Fun fact, I think he’s an excellent comedian and I think Master of None is one of the more excellent pieces of television that has been produced in the history of the medium!
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.
I don’t understand how you can not understand this.
And while it an aside, your definition of assault is freakishly wrong. No grabbing someone to pull them away from a bus that was about to run them over is not assault or even “justifiable assault.” Assault is an attack. It requires intent to put someone in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Intent to save someone from harm is not assault. Assault is not defined as touch without explicit permission.
Is your vision of the future of woke dating that all exploratory physical contact should require explicitly articulated mutual consent, with each sequential stage preceded by a verbal enquiry about whether there is mutual consent for this particular body part to come into contact with that one? Perhaps it could be streamlined with boilerplate “first base”, “second base”, “third base” consent documents, with notaries public available on Skype?
This is a murky situation, but the onus is still on Ansari because he’s the one being more sexually aggressive. If he can’t tell the difference between someone who’s playing hard to get and someone who’s uncomfortable, he needs to move a lot slower to avoid this kind of confusion.
It’s a fact that some women enjoy the feeling of being pursued and won over (like that “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” song). But that doesn’t mean that a guy can relentlessly hound any woman he meets.
This discussion seems to have been pretty played out and is at the juncture of panelists rehashing the same points over and over. I think you should all move on and delve into ”how this lipstick stain got inside a toilet.” We need top grade news analysis on this indefatigable mystery of critical interational importance.
Stranger
Where in the hell did you get this from? Giving someone CPR is no more “assault” than changing changing your baby’s diaper is child molestation. There are countless other examples too. Has the world gone (even more) mad?
They don’t meet the common sense or legal definition of assault yet you are saying it like it is a simple fact. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you are the one that is highly mistaken?
…is this how you do sex?
Can I reccomend you stop doing sex like this? Because waiting or expecting “active withdrawal of consent” is going to get you into trouble. If you can’t pick up through non-verbal cues that your partner isn’t into it then you’ve got problems.
If someone was giving you “non verbal cues” that they “just weren’t into it” would you take that as a sign of consent?