Agreed that her feeling violated was an undesirable outcome. But I think we pretty much agree that consent for oral sex and “heavy petting” with a relative (but famous) stranger was given, that a clear no was given and heard to requests for intercourse. This is not a “she didn’t say no” discussion. This could be a critique of a particular male’s skill as a lover in one hookup in that he was focused more on his own gratification that on picking up on her needs, but shining media spotlights there in the name of #metoo is I think too far. Publicly shaming him for not being a great lover seems too far.
The circumstance here, per her description and recollection, seems to be that she reached a point where she realized that the real person was not exactly who she had fantasized him to be and she was, in her head, no longer interested in continuing the activities she had consented to. She therefore stoped moving her hands as much and said no to intercourse. She then felt violated when he asked for (and she gave) more of the same activity that she had consented to.
Yes a skillful lover should pick up on nonverbal cues. That sort of skill as a lover may benefit from knowing someone well enough to read their nonverbal cues. Klutzy interactions with poor communication are the risk of recreational sex with someone you don’t know. I’m guessing not every hook up will be with someone able to well read a stranger. Some leave one or the other dissatisfied and feeling that it went a way other than how they had hoped.
There is nothing in the description given that she was physically afraid of him. Using this as a hypothetical to talk about the issues, what is the lesson to be learned?
Sure, some men are not as good at reading the nonverbal cues of their partners, especially in hookup circumstances with strangers, as their partners would want. Some men can, at least on occasion, be selfish lovers, more interested in satisfying their needs than on the reading of their partner. Not sure how much education can help solve that.
And women who are wanting to withdraw consent already given should feel free to do so and feel that they have no choice but to continue because the man is asking for it to continue. Don’t be shy about it and don’t assume that an aroused man is going to pick up on things like your hands not moving as much as withdrawal of consent already given. Say it. Say it clearly. And if not heard say it louder.
I disagree that the thread devolved into mindless knee-jerk responses. I did not respond favorably (mentally) to your first post because it implies the woman was lying, absent evidence. But I didn’t know it was you who made that first comment when I said I disagreed with you. Those types of comments are common/predictable in these threads so it wasn’t particularly shocking, if that’s what you mean. The fact that sometimes people lie is an undisputably true statement that contributes very little to the discussion, so I forgot about it. Your further extrapolations have been more interesting.
My thoughts about this incident are well articulated in numerous posts to AK84. I assume you aren’t referring to my posts, or Frylock’s, Banquet Bear’s, AK84’s, or any number of other posters who have been quite reasonable in the discussion. I suspect your own personal views are coloring your perception of the thread. That said, I don’t disagree about the analytical discussion part of your argument. It does often become a discussion that is reflective of personal viewpoints, especially because in this case, it doesn’t appear the law was violated. I may recall incorrectly but I don’t recall many people arguing that the alleged incident was illegal. I saw a few comments that consent had been withdrawn but nothing that appeared particularly close-minded. This isn’t the mindless exercise in unrelenting bias that you seem to think it is, and that’s where I disagree.
To AK84: Another potential disconnect here, the reason I keep saying I’m not talking about the law is because you could fill the Atlantic Ocean with what I don’t know about the law. What I know are the psychological dynamics of sexual trauma. I’m staying in my lane to the extent that I reasonably can.
I’m reserving judgment. The allegation is not coming from a credible source (that I know of, so far), I can see giving him the benefit of a doubt even if everything she said was true… Sounds like a lot of it was going on inside her own head. I prefer taking this stuff case by case over assuming guilt by default.
By the way, I read part of a book by a guy who was paid to plant false stories on unreputable news sites so that they would work their way up the food chain into credible news sources. It’s a rather insidious process in internet journalism. So I tend to be suspicious when the first place a story shows up is in a tabloid. (The book is Trust Me, I’m Lying… I didn’t buy the book because the idea of giving that creep money was just too much.)
All that said, Aziz sounds like he’d make just the worst lover. Maybe we could incentivize teens into being better at picking up on nonverbal cues by telling them it will make them really good at sex.
That is ABSOLUTELY what this is about - sexual assault is a crime. A man has been publicly accused of a crime, then the entire discussion derails into mincing words about intent, what may or may not have been perceived and down it goes into the social media rabbit hole.
Based on available evidence he did no crime. End of discussion.
But very few people in this thread believe that he committed a crime, including your friendly neighborhood sexual assault prevention advocate. This conversation has shifted to other things because it’s clear to many of us that no crime was committed. And I don’t recall anyone saying they support his crucifixion in the realm of social media, either. Are you talking about other forms of social media? Are you talking about click bait outrage in general? What legal debate do you want us to have in this thread, if there isn’t one to be had?
In the article, ‘Grace’ said she eventually realized was sexually assaulted. Is that the same as criminal sexual assault?
Part of the larger discussion is around the ability for the victim to throw out terms like ‘sexual assault’ against someone. The problem is that term has a wide range of meanings, and the public starts to create assumptions about the accused. I would not classify what happened in the story as ‘sexual assault’. It sounds like a clumsy hookup where he tried to move things along much faster than she wanted. It was not a case of him trying to be sexual with someone who had no interest in him. I get the sense she was interested in getting sexual with him, but obviously they had different expectations about the evening and how things would progress. If he had taken things slower and been more responsive, I’m pretty sure they would have had a mutually satisfying experience.
I also think part of the discussion needs to be about empowering women to say no in the moment in encounters like these. That often gets ignored since it’s lumped with victim blaming, but women should know that they can say no rather than going along and then calling it sexual assault later.
All very good points. It’s a serious allegation in a scenario where it appears no crime was committed. Not fair to Aziz or others in his situation. Not fair to equate this behavior with forcible rape (calling it sexual assault muddies these waters, I believe.) How do we resolve this? I haven’t a clue. Social media is a monster and I haven’t figured out its weakness. I am intensely interested in the subject of social media/public shaming. I’m disturbed by it even for convicted criminals. Now anyone with the internet gets to decide what’s credible and newsworthy. It’s awful.
And I may be diverging from opinion on this topic among other activists, but I think it would be great if a part of consent training was empowering women to clearly articulate what they want and don’t want in sexual scenarios. Many women have a hard time doing this even when sex isn’t involved.
I think the vast majority of posters here agree with the first sentence. The second, not so much. An interesting discussion can still be had (and has been occuring.) I mean, weren’t you the one complaining about discussions devolving into black-and-white? That seems to be exactly what you’re engaging in. I find the entire discussion interesting beyond a simple declaration of “there was no crime.”
Well, I’m glad to wake up, in a much better mood and without yesterday’s headaches, to find that other people have carried the conversation forward with the same viewpoints.
Ansari is a scumbag for what he did and deserves the hit on his reputation.
But she did indeed consent to the activities she performed and…
There was no crime here, regardless of her later feelings about it.
As I said repeatedly, she did something pretty much all humans have done at one point or another in doing something she later greatly regretted. But later regrets do not retroactively make the other person’s activities criminal.
Hopefully she will learn her own limits and what she needs to do in the future.
No he doesn’t. If this young woman had a reputation she’d deserve the hit. She falsely accused Ansari of sexual assault when even by her own words no such thing happened. She had no business smearing him in this way. If a man had revealed details like this about a bad date he’d be pilloried for such tactics.
Viewing this in a web browser, the issue was some combination of Tapatalk/fatigue. I can see now that you made a full statement, but without a period. I parsed this for some reason as ending in the middle of a sentence and couldn’t make heads of tails of it. Apologies.
I think there’s room for all sorts of views in any discussion. As I hope I’ve explained upthread, I wasn’t objecting to any particular line of discussion but introducing my own in an attempt to find some common ground among opposing viewpoints. Like maybe there’s some middle ground between the extremes of ‘‘He’s a scumbag’’ and ''she’s a lying whore," You know? (I am not attributing any of those views to you.) I just don’t see these kinds of things in black and white and part of the problem with the social media outrage brigade is that many people do. They want a villain, and they’re going to pick one.
My opinion of him doesn’t change, because he repeatedly pressured someone who was reluctant for increased sexual activity.
But you make a good point in that her reputation deserves the hit too. I expect that her Tinder/Other Dating Sources will dry up a bit as men decide that they don’t want to date a woman who falsely claims sexual assault.
Because it is absolutely stupid. I just went to the store. A guy bumped into me, by accident I am sure, in the checkout line. There was skin on skin contact (both of us had short sleeved shirts on).I did not consent to be touched so under your definition he assaulted me.
Who do I get to sue?
Was Anasari as ass? Certainly if the story as written is true. Of course it may not be true. Anasari said the sexual activity was 'by all indications was completely consensual.
So we have a he said/she said with an anonymous she.
Sure. I think the discussion, here and in most other places, is compromised by the fact that two levels are being discussed at the same time: Whether it’s the crime of sexual assault and whether it’s socially desirable conduct.
Legally, the idea that having sex with someone who doesn’t have enthusiastic consent, went along because she felt pressured even though the man had no particular power over her and didn’t seem to know what she wanted constitutes sexual assault is unnerving.
Socially, I can see how many would be disappointed that a feminist actor with the reputation of being enlightened on women’s issues would be so crass, pushy and inconsiderate. If what she says is true, his career should suffer for it.
Yes. I don’t think I particularly have a problem with Ansari taking the hit to his reputation. That’s a risk you take if you’re a public figure and you behave like a jerk.
But she didn’t just accuse him of being a jerk, she accused him of criminal sexual assault. Or, at least, the journalist presented it that way. And it seems problematic is that this woman can make public accusations of criminal sexual assault (when by her own testimony no assault took place) with the protection of anonymity, with no consequences whatsoever to her own reputation. But I’m not sure what there is to be done about that - the responsibility lies with the poor judgment of the journalist, I guess. It would be counterproductive to “out” her, even if that seems fair to Ansari, because that would undermine the difficult progress that has been made in giving the real victims of assault more confidence in coming forward. I think it’s the journalist who published the story who bears responsibility, this story should never have been published in this manner as though Ansari is a criminal predator.