Aziz Ansari #himtoo

[Atreus21]

I guess I'm perplexed by your inability to perceive the complexity of the situation; the dynamics involved.

All I did was ask him to explain what he means by complexity. I'm interested in his opinion. For God's sake.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think that was the person's intent, nor hers or babe magazine's prediction of how the story would be received. I do classify it more than a bad date, and I'm disappointed that people don't see more complexity here, but it doesn't sound criminal either.

Others have said it - he just wanted to have sex and she wanted something more. He was insensitive in pushing forward without seeing that she wasn't enjoying it, paying attention only to his own gratification. That makes him a bad lover. Which is entirely a matter between the two of them, and not anyone else's business. I don't know what you think her true "intent" was. She had to know this would at the very least embarrass him and very likely ruin his reputation.

So far as the "complexity" goes, if by that you mean that consent was somehow ambiguous here, I would point out that she had every opportunity to make it simple and unambiguous. It's called saying "no," "I don't like that," "I'm not enjoying this," "can we slow down" or words to that effect. I was always taught that "no means no" which struck me a bright line that is easy to comprehend. And I note that the moment she did finally say no, he immediately stopped, which tells us what we really need to know about Mr. Aziz. If, however, we're going to push this further by insisting that we read non-verbal cues to determine consent while in the heat of passion then we may as well get our gratification through porn and masturbation and make all our babies through artificial insemination.

I agree with the feminist author of the WaPo piece which says the entire narrative of this incident is counter-feminist. It's saying, be silent and passive, hoping your lack of enthusiasm will be understood as non-consent, and if it isn't, you can play the victim afterwards.

 

[Jaskalas]

Re: complexity...

A women allowed herself to be coerced instead of acting on what she wanted.
But the man involved did not threaten her, and was not her boss. So far as anyone can tell she made her choice to consent. Her own story includes details to support that idea. The complexity involved stems from the question of consent and how much coercion is right or wrong? How much should you act to get what you want? How much can you act until it becomes a violation, or even a crime?

There are some similarities to #metoo assault cases, but this one sounds a hell of a lot like it's on the legal and normal side of the red line. But the complexity is... WTF is the red line between normal behavior to pursue your interests, and wrong behavior? And how the hell are third parties supposed to judge it when someone complains? Or rather... when someone reports it to the public, to cause the public to harm the other person.

When should it be reported?
Should the complainant be sued for damages?

 

[interchange]

Others have said it - he just wanted to have sex and she wanted something more. He was insensitive in pushing forward without seeing that she wasn't enjoying it, paying attention only to his own gratification. That makes him a bad lover. Which is entirely a matter between the two of them, and not anyone else's business. I don't know what you think her true "intent" was. She had to know this would at the very least embarrass him and very likely ruin his reputation.

So far as the "complexity" goes, if by that you mean that consent was somehow ambiguous here, I would point out that she had every opportunity to make it simple and unambiguous. It's called saying "no," "I don't like that," "I'm not enjoying this," "can we slow down" or words to that effect. I was always taught that "no means no" which struck me a bright line that is easy to comprehend. And I note that the moment she did finally say no, he immediately stopped, which tells us what we really need to know about Mr. Aziz. If, however, we're going to push this further by insisting that we read non-verbal cues to determine consent while in the heat of passion then we may as well get our gratification through porn and masturbation and make all our babies through artificial insemination.

I agree with the feminist author of the WaPo piece which says the entire narrative of this incident is counter-feminist. It's saying, be silent and passive, hoping your lack of enthusiasm will be understood as non-consent, and if it isn't, you can play the victim afterwards.

I'm not really going to go far on what I might actually believe happened between the two because I only have what is presented at face value. As far as resolution to this incident goes, I believe the appropriate intervention was what happened (text exchange, not Babe magazine article), and we've seen media reports here of studies which show that someone bringing attention to bad behavior induces a behavioral change. I think individually that was the appropriate thing to do, what happened, and probably appropriately made Ansari more aware of reading and navigating social cues.

I think your reasoning is perfectly fine for defining criminal assault. From the available information, we could say that his actions reflect those of a reasonable person. Not perhaps a very self-aware or intuitive (at least in sexually charged situations) person, but someone who well knew that assault was wrong and able to act appropriately when direct information was provided to him.

I do not think that should be the end of our discussion. I do not think, also, that this story ought to represent what women should be encouraged to do. I find the story, while insufficient to render judgment on its accuracy, an account that even if fictitious represents of a very troubling area of human behavior that quite commonly goes this way and is definitely influenced by society. I'd rather not engage in discussions on what intervention or message we should strive for unless there is good understanding of the problem.

I think the reason this has been so controversial is that the normal human mechanism (and a healthy one) is to try to imagine yourself as a participant in the story you've heard and anticipate your actions. I think that the vast majority of people would say that, if they were treated with unwanted sexual advance, they would clearly and directly communicate a "no". Unfortunately, there is a vast overestimation of someone's likelihood to communicate this, and when people face trauma overall, freezing response, dissociation, fear of inciting further aggression, self-doubt, etc. are common occurrences. It's hard to project that you would allow a trauma to occur that you are capable of stopping when you are making that projection when you are safe and not confronted with all of these experiences.

Personally, I believe that striving for better involves supporting a potential victim's power and authority over their own experience to help them be more likely to exhibit more direct communication, and I also believe that people need to hear the message that they can be in danger of initiating unwanted sexual activity with another person despite no desire to violate and no challenge in taking appropriate action when confronted with clear communication that actions are unwanted. To me, this is not a path to explicit content for all sexual activity. I believe that would be foolish to expect and contrary to the healthy exploration of mutual sexual encounters. Instead, I would hope for a healthier attention to observing the experience of a partner.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I guess I'm perplexed by your inability to perceive the complexity of the situation; the dynamics involved.

There is no complexity in this situation. The dynamics are extremely simple.

The only people adding complexity are those trying to push a specific narrative.

It would be far easier for you to ackowledge that Ansari really did nothing wrong, and he is the victim of an over zealous blogger looking to drive web traffic.

Public opinion is already dismissing this for what it truly is. Those trying to make it anything more at this point are simply being stubborn.

 

[interchange]

The only people adding complexity are those trying to push a specific narrative.

What narrative am I pushing?

 

[pmv]

Still not sure what I think of it all.

But seems like Aziz's celebrity status is a significant part of it. Would 'Grace' have had such a mistaken idea of what he was like or what the 'date' was about if she hadn't seen him on TV? Would she even have been interested in him at all? And would he have been so insensitively and crassly single-mindedly focused on getting his end away if he wasn't a celeb who (I would guess) gets quite a lot of women wanting to go home with him?

Maybe the whole story would have been better if both parties had been anonymous...as a useful lesson for all, in how not to screw-up intimate and emotional interactions with others....except without a celebrity name attached it wouldn't have gotten anything like the attention.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Still not sure what I think of it all.

But seems like Aziz's celebrity status is a significant part of it. Would 'Grace' have had such a mistaken idea of what he was like or what the 'date' was about if she hadn't seen him on TV? Would she even have been interested in him at all? And would he have been so insensitively and crassly single-mindedly focused on getting his end away if he wasn't a celeb who (I would guess) gets quite a lot of women wanting to go home with him?

Maybe the whole story would have been better if both parties had been anonymous...as a useful lesson for all, in how not to screw-up intimate and emotional interactions with others....except without a celebrity name attached it wouldn't have gotten anything like the attention.

She must not have done her research

 

[Starbuck1975]

What narrative am I pushing?

I didn't respond to you. It seems our positions are more or less in alignment. What narrative do you think you are pushing?

 

[Sunburn74]

There is no complexity in this situation. The dynamics are extremely simple.

The only people adding complexity are those trying to push a specific narrative.

It would be far easier for you to ackowledge that Ansari really did nothing wrong, and he is the victim of an over zealous blogger looking to drive web traffic.

Public opinion is already dismissing this for what it truly is. Those trying to make it anything more at this point are simply being stubborn.

I actually would agree with this. It just doesn't rise to assault or even misconduct. More like poor communication between two adults.

Also so far it appears to be an isolated case.

 

[interchange]

I didn't respond to you. It seems our positions are more or less in alignment. What narrative do you think you are pushing?

Your quote was "The only people adding complexity are those trying to push a specific narrative." Well I certainly am trying to add complexity. The reply was tongue-in-cheek, because I'm not consciously trying to push a particular narrative. I think I understand what you were trying to get at with your comments though.

 

[realibrad]

I didn't respond to you. It seems our positions are more or less in alignment. What narrative do you think you are pushing?

interchange said there is complexity to this situation, and you said "The only people adding complexity are those trying to push a specific narrative." Thus, logically it must follow that you also think interchange is pushing a narrative. So, interchange then asked the question you responded to.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Your quote was "The only people adding complexity are those trying to push a specific narrative." Well I certainly am trying to add complexity. The reply was tongue-in-cheek, because I'm not consciously trying to push a particular narrative. I think I understand what you were trying to get at with your comments though.

Oh I see what happened. You used the word complexity but in a completely different context to the post I did quote.

 

[jackstar7]

Headdesk.gif

 

[realibrad]

Oh I see what happened. You used the word complexity but in a completely different context to the posted I did quote.

No.

Interchange said there was complexity. Atreus21 then asked what interchange meant by complexity. You then responded with your comment about how those saying there is complexity here blah blah blah. So yes, you were actually saying that interchange was pushing something, you just did not realize the implications of your statement. This is actually quite easy to follow.

Post # 145
Post # 146
Post # 148
Post # 149
Post # 150
Post # 151
Post # 155

That is all it takes. I looks like you were trying to attack Atreus and fucked up and actually went after interchange. You now realize how dumb it looks and that interchange has a far better understanding of this type of topic so you are trying to shift.

 

[LPCTech]

Aziz is gonna come out of this looking better than before. He seems to just be a clueless victim.

Cuz lets be real, if he wasnt famous she would have just walked out, AND would have just never talked to the guy again. No need to write an article. Its not like he wanted to trade sex for something he just was being sexually aggressive to a woman who came home with him since he assumed she wanted the penor.
When she wanted him to ultimately stop he did. When she texted him that she was unhappy about what happened he apologised.

There is really nothing to see here besides a womans desire for attention.




Just one thing tho. That he kept...putting his fingers in her mouth...wha? Is this a thing? do women like to get mouth fingered lol? wtf Thats the only odd part.

Aziz, keep your fingers out of womens mouths dawg lol wtf

 

[Starbuck1975]

No.

Interchange said there was complexity. Atreus21 then asked what interchange meant by complexity. You then responded with your comment about how those saying there is complexity here blah blah blah. So yes, you were actually saying that interchange was pushing something, you just did not realize the implications of your statement. This is actually quite easy to follow.

Post # 145
Post # 146
Post # 148
Post # 149
Post # 150
Post # 151
Post # 155

That is all it takes. I looks like you were trying to attack Atreus and fucked up and actually went after interchange. You now realize how dumb it looks and that interchange has a far better understanding of this type of topic so you are trying to shift.

Read post 155, where I clearly quoted who I was responding to, hence my use of the quote. If I wanted to "go after" @Atreus21 or @interchange, I would have quoted them as part of my response.

Like everything else in this thread. you are adding unecessary complexity to a simple chain of events.

 

[snarfbot]

didnt she blow him twice anyway? like at what point did she say, ugh you men are all the same! im leaving! lol

 

[jackstar7]

That is all it takes. I looks like you were trying to attack Atreus and fucked up and actually went after interchange. You now realize how dumb it looks and that interchange has a far better understanding of this type of topic so you are trying to shift.

I'll assure you that he was directing that shit my way based on the preceding context, and what followed. Still poorly handled, but oh well.

 

[interchange]

I'll assure you that he was directing that shit my way based on the preceding context, and what followed. Still poorly handled, but oh well.

Yeah I was never his target. Just happens that his statement was dumb. Don't confuse that with an endorsement of your position, though.

 

[realibrad]

Read post 155, where I clearly quoted who I was responding to, hence my use of the quote. If I wanted to "go after" @Atreus21 or @interchange, I would have quoted them as part of my response.

Like everything else in this thread. you are adding unecessary complexity to a simple chain of events.

Lol no. He was

Read post 155, where I clearly quoted who I was responding to, hence my use of the quote. If I wanted to "go after" @Atreus21 or @interchange, I would have quoted them as part of my response.

Like everything else in this thread. you are adding unecessary complexity to a simple chain of events.

I don't think you can keep up, but ill try one more time. The person that is saying there is complexity here is interchange. The person you responded to was agreeing with interchange that there is complexity. You saying that there is not directly conflicts with interchange's stance. Do you understand that?

 

[realibrad]

I'll assure you that he was directing that shit my way based on the preceding context, and what followed. Still poorly handled, but oh well.

Yes, but the complexity was brought up by interchange. You agreeing there is complexity does not change that interchange also said it.

 

[zinfamous]

see guys, this is how a thread gets derailed. Do we really need a fricking 2 page exegesis on who said complexity, in what context, the individual definition of complexity, the meaning of the term in the original greek, who was calling out who based on the etymology of the aforementioned complexity?

what does that have to do with anything? FFS

 

[jackstar7]

see guys, this is how a thread gets derailed. Do we really need a fricking 2 page exegesis on who said complexity, in what context, the individual definition of complexity, the meaning of the term in the original greek, who was calling out who based on the etymology of the aforementioned complexity?

what does that have to do with anything? FFS

When people stop having an argument, they can fall back on pedantry.

 

[Starbuck1975]

When people stop having an argument, they can fall back on pedantry.

...or semantics (scrolling back to beginning of thread to make sure no one else used the word "semantics" in any context that may or may not be construed in any way, implied or otherwise)