Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Neyite

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't think anyone, including the girl who was interview thinks he's a rapist.



I agree he is not guilty of assault (does she accuse of him of assault somewhere I'm not aware of?) but I don't quite agree with the rest of what you say.

Why is it troubling to believe men could read non verbal cues on a first date? Of course we can read non verbal cues we're not morons. Specifically she says she got up and walked away from him put his fingers in her mouth around 30 times or so. I seriously have to question his judgement and character if he cannot understand that non verbal signal; it is hardly subtle.

I think we are being asked to engage in false dichotomies here; either Aziz is a rapist or he did nothing wrong. He did plenty wrong and I hope he actually reflects on his behaviour and learns to be a bit more responsive in his interactions with people.

She accuses him of sexual assault in the article - or rather, states that at some point after the encounter, she realised it was sexual assault.

I'm not saying that men can't read non-verbal cues. They can and do all the time. Men who see a woman who is too drunk to consent and get her friend to take her home or tuck her up in bed are taking a non-verbal cue. I'm saying that we can't entheustically participate and expect ALL men to ALWAYS read non-verbal cues and if they miss one they are by default a rapist.

He did plenty wrong- it sounds like an awful date, and his sexual moves sound cringy and right off a bad porno. I don't think many on this thread are disagreeing there. But it wasn't criminal. It was simply that her non-verbal cues were too subtle for a self-centred man to notice, especially during mutual foreplay which would indicate enthusiastic consent.

The instant she gave him clear indication that she was not into it, he stopped immediately, suggested they get dressed and watch tv. Rapists don't do that.

newport2

Deleted User wrote: »

Or she lied.

The article was compiled by her and the editor of the magazine. No official investigation or verification of her accusations.

I genuinely find it amazing the way everyone is blindly accepting this account as being completely accurate. What do they say about the best lies?

I think truth or lying aside, the trouble is it's only told from one perspective like you say.

I expect you could ask a man and a woman to give an honest account of how a date together went and you would get two quite different stories. On a good or bad date. Both truthful, but through a different set of eyes and interpretations. First dates usually have you a bit on edge, possibly reading and picking up on things in a way you normally wouldn't.

So while I wouldn't disbelieve anything she said, I would believe it's only part of the story, the same as his account would be.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

listening to today FM last night they had a segment on the safety of women in Dublin city at night time. This woman comes on and every second phrase was Sexual assault this and harassment that against WOMEN!! then TV3 now have some program on tonight all about "Mammy Guilt"... so guys don't walk through town for fear of attack?? Men cannot feel guilt leaving a sick child at home and going to work??

In December I walked through town for a taxi for two hours!! the first thing My sister said, was you could have been attacked, groups of lads tend to leave women alone and start on guys who are by themselves etc... I'm not saying that's a fact but all this woman solidarity in victimhood is a joke!

i listened to that and it felt like Matt was annoyed having to add on males can get attacked as wellafter mentioning everytime its horrible for women..

how hard of them was it to say it Is awful for anyone to go in some areas or at some times instead of trying to be the journal and use it as a gender piece again....Last Word is becoming a radio show version of the Journal.ie

newport2

newport2 wrote: »

I think truth or lying aside, the trouble is it's only told from one perspective like you say.

I don't think we can put aside the possibility of lying. And we shouldn't.

I expect you could ask a man and a woman to give an honest account of how a date together went and you would get two quite different stories. On a good or bad date. Both truthful, but through a different set of eyes and interpretations. First dates usually have you a bit on edge, possibly reading and picking up on things in a way you normally wouldn't.

So while I wouldn't disbelieve anything she said, I would believe it's only part of the story, the same as his account would be.

Agreed. You would get two different accounts.

What you wouldn't get is an article that has been edited and reworked by someone from a magazine seeking the most dramatic and emotional reactions. Which is what editors do.

This isn't the honest account of someone reporting to the police with the knowledge that her account will be investigated in a balanced manner.

Samantha Creamy Banister

Samantha Creamy Banister wrote: »

i listened to that and it felt like Matt was annoyed having to add on males can get attacked as wellafter mentioning everytime its horrible for women..

how hard of them was it to say it Is awful for anyone to go in some areas or at some times instead of trying to be the journal and use it as a gender piece again....Last Word is becoming a radio show version of the Journal.ie

THANK YOU Devastator, I thought I'd sound like a crank but wasnt yer wan flying the women only flag a bit high, whilst Matt is there throwing in the odd "indeed for aheeemm men also it must be said". did you notice how it was all SEXUAL harassment!!

Xmas week I stepped over a girl in Temple bar on the ground in a fetal position, mini skirt over the waist, drunk, knickers showing for the world to see!! that to me is an issue of responsibility.

We all have the right to go swimming in the sea, and in some areas we accept that a shark my one day meander by and have a go!! However wearing a swimsuit chummed with mince meat and steak, may not be a good idea!! If that makes sense!!

eviltimeban

So the question is, will the fall out from the Aziz story (which seems to be support for Aziz) make people reconsider some of the others, like Louis CK for example? In CK's case he didn't force himself upon the two women, he just started jerking off on front of them and they laughed at him while he did it. I know there were other similar cases and Aziz's seems to be just one, but is there enough there to make people go "hold up, this isn't the same thing as a sexual predator / rapist / aggressor"?

What got me was the knee-jerk reaction with the cancellation of shows / removal from cast of movies / etc. This doesn't look like it's gonna happen to Aziz, so should it have happened to Louis?

eviltimeban

eviltimeban wrote: »

So the question is, will the fall out from the Aziz story (which seems to be support for Aziz) make people reconsider some of the others, like Louis CK for example? In CK's case he didn't force himself upon the two women, he just started jerking off on front of them and they laughed at him while he did it. I know there were other similar cases and Aziz's seems to be just one, but is there enough there to make people go "hold up, this isn't the same thing as a sexual predator / rapist / aggressor"?

What got me was the knee-jerk reaction with the cancellation of shows / removal from cast of movies / etc. This doesn't look like it's gonna happen to Aziz, so should it have happened to Louis?

eh yes!! that's abnormal behavior that no person should have to be forced into being present for, yes, sure if you flash yourself at the local playground, isn't that enough to get you on the register?? so what's the difference?? it's a sexual offence to expose yourself and engage in self gratification where it's not consensual an unwanted!! No blurry line there for me I don't think!
sure didn't he admit that he took advantage of his position and it was behavior that was not accepted or requested or elicited by the ladies in question so NO, it's not the same, he's a pervert.. OK he might be a good comedian to many but so what, he's a filth!

eviltimeban

rusty cole wrote: »

it's a sexual offence to expose yourself and engage in self gratification where it's not consensual an unwanted!! No blurry line there for me I don't think!

He asked could he do it. They didn't say no and laughed while he did it.

rusty cole wrote: »

sure didn't he admit that he took advantage of his position and it was behavior that was not accepted or requested or elicited by the ladies in question so NO, it's not the same, he's a pervert.. OK he might be a good comedian to many but so what, he's a filth!

He may be a pervert. He may be filth. Bu that's not the point. And he wasn't that powerful then, he wasn't their boss or responsible for their casting. If anything they were colleagues, as back then he wasn't a big name.

eviltimeban

eviltimeban wrote: »

He asked could he do it. They didn't say no and laughed while he did it.



He may be a pervert. He may be filth. Bu that's not the point. And he wasn't that powerful then, he wasn't their boss or responsible for their casting. If anything they were colleagues, as back then he wasn't a big name.

So it's ok to get your cock out and have a jank as long as they DONT say, it's not cool!! It's not acceptable to dip your lad in the sunday trifle their mate, oh sorry, I just thought as I hadn't been told, then it was ok!!

you shouldn't have to be told that's not cool and a woman shouldn't have to tell you, or anyone for that matter, only your parents! there are places to go and women to pay for that stuff if that's your Bag, so why didn't he?? I'll tell you why, he gets off on them actually having to look at it, even if they're not calling the police, I believe it was unwanted and not acceptable, he's got an obviously deviant nature which comes across in his comedy too.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

you shouldn't have to be told that's not cool and a woman shouldn't have to tell you, or anyone for that matter, only your parents! there are places to go and women to pay for that stuff if that's your Bag, so why didn't he?? I'll tell you why, he gets off on them actually having to look at it, even if they're not calling the police, I believe it was unwanted and not acceptable, he's got an obviously deviant nature which comes across in his comedy too.

CKs behavior was risky in any sense of the world... and that risk caught up with him. His own stupidity. And it was stupid. Just like these people who take pictures or make videos of their own sex, and become surprised when their ex-lover releases it on the Internet.

We really need to promote some common sense in people again. Don't do **** that can be considered dodgy. It's as simple as that. And I mean that for both men and women.

And while he deserved to be taken to account for his behavior, those female witnesses should have received a slap too for their own part in things. Let's, at least, try to encourage people not to be so damn two-faced in their behavior.

yes big time, this is what's totally missing in all of this, a lack of self assertiveness, common sense and respect! the whole Louie CK thing anyway.

it beggers belief, though it asks the question, what would make somone think, A: it's ok and B: they wont be found out??

Is it akin to , ah I only took a few quid, others are taking millions??? thus being commonly accepted within the industry, hey you wanna work here?? that's a cross you have to bear every now and again, not just kissing but sucking the odd frog!!!! only to find out multiple therapy sessions, an NDA and addiction later, it was all a sham!!

strandroad

CK exposed himself to women on sets (i.e. his workplace) or in the comedy circles. Therefore the consequences are professional.
Aziz had a date.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

Or she lied.

The article was compiled by her and the editor of the magazine. No official investigation or verification of her accusations.

I genuinely find it amazing the way everyone is blindly accepting this account as being completely accurate. What do they say about the best lies?

Let's think about this for a second. Aziz was in his 30s and had previous relationships, including a two-year relationship with another celeb. He's a comedian working in the entertainment industry, where apparently women throw themselves at him for any number of reasons. So how could he really be so inept in either the seduction or the arrangement of the sex itself? He sounds like a 15-year-old boy in the article. There are so many logical gaps in her story... and yet, so few people are questioning its accuracy.

It's not about accepting her account as true but rather about discussing the implications of her account if it is true.

As for your last paragraph; if women are throwing themselves at him for any number of reasons he doesn't have to be adept at seduction. There is nothing illogical about that, though it's important to note too that human beings are not logical.

Neyite wrote: »

She accuses him of sexual assault in the article - or rather, states that at some point after the encounter, she realised it was sexual assault.

Fair enough; she say she processed it as a sexual assault a long time after the fact. She's entitled to do so.

I'm not saying that men can't read non-verbal cues. They can and do all the time.

Well sorry but your original post was unclear in that case.

I'm saying that we can't entheustically participate and expect ALL men to ALWAYS read non-verbal cues and if they miss one they are by default a rapist.

But who is saying this? The non verbal cues he missed were her getting up and moving away from him 30 times and pushing her hand away from his penis 5 or 6 times.

Do you think he should have been able to read those non verbal cues?

He did plenty wrong- it sounds like an awful date, and his sexual moves sound cringy and right off a bad porno. I don't think many on this thread are disagreeing there. But it wasn't criminal. It was simply that her non-verbal cues were too subtle for a self-centred man to notice, especially during mutual foreplay which would indicate enthusiastic consent.

I don't know that I would call their foreplay mutual. Some of it was but some of it wasn't. She was clearly a lot less enthusiastic than he was and I don't think she was all that subtle about it either.

The instant she gave him clear indication that she was not into it, he stopped immediately, suggested they get dressed and watch tv. Rapists don't do that.

To me someone moving away or pushing their hand away is a clear indication too. Don't know how it could be seen otherwise. And no one is calling him a rapist as far as I can see.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

He said that he was surprised at her response when he received the message and apologized for her feeling that way.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/15/16892498/aziz-ansari-sexual-misconduct-response-me-too-movement

And let's be honest. If he was to release any detailed information about the night that contradicted her "article", his name would be pulled through the mud even more.

I think it's because he goes against the villainous 'norm' of feminists-ie 'aggressive,white,male and MRA' who abuses their 'privilege'. Aziz has promoted himself as a feminist, is generally seen as a funny guy. Down to earth etc. He's brown skinned, and ethnically Muslim(He's atheist or agnostic).

That brings up some rather difficult questions for feminists to answer or deal with. One could argue, based on how Muslim men treat women that this is negative learned behaviour within his culture. If it is, that raises more ugly negative questions-the likes of which feminists don't like to deal with.
Again, this isn't about race, it's about culture.

So when Aziz was so against the feminist norm, there were more defenders. If it had been anyone else, there would be less people defending him. I even heard someone say 'oh come on, this was just bad sex, not rape'...and I'm conflicted on that. Bad sex would imply she was up for it, and was left disappointed. This doesn't sound anything like that.

eviltimeban wrote: »

So the question is, will the fall out from the Aziz story (which seems to be support for Aziz) make people reconsider some of the others, like Louis CK for example? In CK's case he didn't force himself upon the two women, he just started jerking off on front of them and they laughed at him while he did it. I know there were other similar cases and Aziz's seems to be just one, but is there enough there to make people go "hold up, this isn't the same thing as a sexual predator / rapist / aggressor"?

What got me was the knee-jerk reaction with the cancellation of shows / removal from cast of movies / etc. This doesn't look like it's gonna happen to Aziz, so should it have happened to Louis?

With CK, there was a serious case of two personas. Louis paraded himself as a feminist. He often wrote material on how 'awful' us men are. But he didn't own up to the many, many allegations against him.
As a comedian, he could pull the 'mind if I whip out my penis?' question, and ladies thought he was joking. He wasn't, hence their surprise.
The laughing was nervous laughing, not 'oh, you so cray Louie'. It was like his dementia was known.

RabbleRouser2k

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think it's because he goes against the villainous 'norm' of feminists-ie 'aggressive,white,male and MRA' who abuses their 'privilege'. Aziz has promoted himself as a feminist, is generally seen as a funny guy. Down to earth etc. He's brown skinned, and ethnically Muslim(He's atheist or agnostic).

Feminists love labels, generalisations, and such... when applied to men. They will label Aziz the same as other men as a sign of their nonracism. To show that sexism rises above issues like race and religion. :rolleyes:

So when Aziz was so against the feminist norm, there were more defenders. If it had been anyone else, there would be less people defending him. I even heard someone say 'oh come on, this was just bad sex, not rape'...and I'm conflicted on that. Bad sex would imply she was up for it, and was left disappointed. This doesn't sound anything like that.

No, this sounds like inept sex. The kind of sex you have when you're 15-20 years old, and you're on your first to third sexual opportunity. The clinginess in the room, the obliviousness of body language, the cringe-worthy suggesting of sexual positions. She descibes an inexperienced teenager. I can still remember (with embarrassment) some of the idiotic things I did on ONS when I was still very inexperienced. [I suspect most people learn about sex in relationships and can skip these kinds of awkward experiences]

Which is one of the main reasons why I'm so suspicious of her account and wonder if this is simply a twisted story to destroy his reputation.

kunst nugget

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I even heard someone say 'oh come on, this was just bad sex, not rape'...and I'm conflicted on that. Bad sex would imply she was up for it, and was left disappointed. This doesn't sound anything like that.

I really don't understand how anyone could read that account and call that rape.

Penn

Neyite wrote: »

She accuses him of sexual assault in the article - or rather, states that at some point after the encounter, she realised it was sexual assault.

I'm not saying that men can't read non-verbal cues. They can and do all the time. Men who see a woman who is too drunk to consent and get her friend to take her home or tuck her up in bed are taking a non-verbal cue. I'm saying that we can't entheustically participate and expect ALL men to ALWAYS read non-verbal cues and if they miss one they are by default a rapist.

He did plenty wrong- it sounds like an awful date, and his sexual moves sound cringy and right off a bad porno. I don't think many on this thread are disagreeing there. But it wasn't criminal. It was simply that her non-verbal cues were too subtle for a self-centred man to notice, especially during mutual foreplay which would indicate enthusiastic consent.

The instant she gave him clear indication that she was not into it, he stopped immediately, suggested they get dressed and watch tv. Rapists don't do that.

Agreed. It seems like his only crime was being a bit too overly-enthusiastic and pushy, and in doing so missing non-verbal cues or maybe dismissing minor ones until he did get a firm "No". It really doesn't seem like there was any attempt to force, coerce or harass the woman into doing anything she didn't want to (from his perspective).

I think it does raise questions about how to read non-verbal cues better and how certain actions can imply consent when not spoken, but I think Aziz played it absolutely right in his apology and it should be treated as such. She had a bad experience at the end of their date and there was an unfortunate misunderstanding between them based on both of their actions, but it doesn't seem like there was any assault or attempt to otherwise harm by Aziz and it shouldn't be conflated with most of the other #metoo etc stories.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

I think it does raise questions about how to read non-verbal cues better and how certain actions can imply consent when not spoken,

This.

The thing about body language is that it seems perfectly obvious in our own heads. We do something consciously, or subconsciously, and we just expect other people to firstly see it, and secondly to understand it the same way as we do. We apply cold logical thinking (after the fact) to believe that everyone would be able to understand the signals the way they were intended.

I worked as a credit controller (Debt collection), and did negotiations as part of that work. I've gone on dozens of course regarding the "subtle" messages that our bodies present when we're excited, bring dishonest, etc. The people who provide these courses present it as a science, just like Psychology enthusiasts skip over the iffy nature of its research.

The truth of the matter though is that body language is only effective in a sterile envrionment absent strong emotions (in both parties), and where the gestures are extremely obvious (to catch the persons attention and hold that attention long enough for the gesture to be completed). You watch programs like "lie to me" and they present the belief that everything is measurable, but a lot of the interpretation comes from instinct married with training... which most people are lacking. there's also a very strong element of needing time to grow familiar with a persons individual body language, since we all learn different methods of expressing ourselves non-verbally from parents, cultural backgrounds, tv, etc.

Now, in this example, we have two naked people who have performed oral sex on each other. Even before the oral sex, there's nudity, kissing, touching, flirting, playful behavior, etc. Plenty of distractions there to prevent seeing all the body language being expressed... and even if you were to be on the lookout for body language, which gestures would be as a result of pleasure and which would just be flopping about.

I'm not excusing Aziz for missing out on the most obvious of gestures... The traditionally understood gestures that people use regularly to show interest, concern, unhappiness etc. However...

I do get a bit annoyed by this expectation that men should be able to read all the messages that women are supposedly putting about. I've had body language training classes, and I'll still miss quite a bit of it. So, how are guys who have never received any training to do any better? Sure.. some people are naturally more empathetic about these things... But it's instinctual rather than conscious.

The truth is that Body language is notoriously unreliable a medium for communication. It's far too easy to misread due to your present emotional state, physical limitations (eyesight), cultural differences etc etc.

TBH, I do think it's just another way for women to find excuses for their mistakes. The woman in the article could have, at any time, verbally expressed her wishes. She didn't. And so, it falls to the inability of Aziz to read her body language.

There are plenty examples of obvious body language... but don't forget the environmental circumstances of where the encounter is happening. A guy who's just had a blowjob isn't going to be too aware of what's happening around him... Just as a person who's had five pints of beer won't be too clued into his/her surroundings either.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

No, this sounds like inept sex. The kind of sex you have when you're 15-20 years old, and you're on your first to third sexual opportunity. The clinginess in the room, the obliviousness of body language, the cringe-worthy suggesting of sexual positions. She descibes an inexperienced teenager. I can still remember (with embarrassment) some of the idiotic things I did on ONS when I was still very inexperienced. [I suspect most people learn about sex in relationships and can skip these kinds of awkward experiences]

Which is one of the main reasons why I'm so suspicious of her account and wonder if this is simply a twisted story to destroy his reputation.

He may very well be inept.

Like, he's a star now, in comedy and film. So he may very well have been used to lady's being star struck around him, and just putting out.

I honestly must have better reading skills, when it comes to cues I mean. I'm amazed, tbh, as I often am a terrible conversation person. Guess I'm more of a 'body language' reader.

More Golden Globes humour.

https://twitter.com/TheDailyMire/status/953820483337691136

Silentcorner

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

He may very well be inept.

Like, he's a star now, in comedy and film. So he may very well have been used to lady's being star struck around him, and just putting out.

I honestly must have better reading skills, when it comes to cues I mean. I'm amazed, tbh, as I often am a terrible conversation person. Guess I'm more of a 'body language' reader.

I have to agree with you...this wasn't bad sex or inept sex whatever that is...as there was no sex, despite the very swift undressing and oral sex....despite him asking her on multiple occasions "where would you like me to f~~k you?"

I simply cannot relate, in any way shape or form, with Ansaris behaviour...I have tried all week to challenge my opinion on this particular case...I have read it and reread it, along with a lot of other articles arguing both sides...

He chased her around his apartment for the bones of an hour....(he is not challenging any part of her account, nor is he suing the publisher as far as I know...despite being accused of a crime on a website...)

Sticking his two fingers in her mouth several times and unsuccessfully trying to finger her vagina...
Grabbing her hand and forcing it on his cock on between 5-7 times...

This must be par for the course these days....maybe she was playing hard to get ...I just don't know...

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

This must be par for the course these days....maybe she was playing hard to get ...I just don't know...

RabbleRouser2k wrote:

I honestly must have better reading skills, when it comes to cues I mean. I'm amazed, tbh, as I often am a terrible conversation person. Guess I'm more of a 'body language' reader.

Folks, the difference being that I don't believe the article to be an accurate account of what happened. I think it's been edited and formatted to make him sounds as scummy as possible, probably with major exaggerations of his actions, if not outright lies.

I've gone through the article on multiple reads and it doesn't make sense. Aziz is not a fifteen-year-old boy or a 30-year-old man with little to no experience with women, and few opporunties to be with them. He's a successful comedian and actor with past relationships, and likely quite a few ons. The portrayal of his behavior just seems so out of place.

I could also go through the piece line by line and pick out dozens of behaviors to damn him... but... Nah. It doesn't match with the lifestyle that he has available to him.

She accuses him of being the same as so many other men she's met. That suggests a severe bias and considering the method of releasing her "statement", and his surprise when he received her text message the next day, it makes it obvious that this was an intentional attack on him.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Folks, the difference being that I don't believe the article to be an accurate account of what happened. I think it's been edited and formatted to make him sounds as scummy as possible, probably with major exaggerations of his actions, if not outright lies.

I've gone through the article on multiple reads and it doesn't make sense. Aziz is not a fifteen-year-old boy or a 30-year-old man with little to no experience with women, and few opporunties to be with them. He's a successful comedian and actor with past relationships, and likely quite a few ons. The portrayal of his behavior just seems so out of place.

I could also go through the piece line by line and pick out dozens of behaviors to damn him... but... Nah. It doesn't match with the lifestyle that he has available to him.

She accuses him of being the same as so many other men she's met. That suggests a severe bias and considering the method of releasing her "statement", and his surprise when he received her text message the next day, it makes it obvious that this was an intentional attack on him.

Well, he has not challenged anything in her account, despite the pretty explicit nature of the events described....he has every right to, nothing stopping him suing the publishing company...he issued a very short statement...he could have described the events as he saw it...

I agree with you about the style of the piece, there are a few holes in it that I can see, but nothing that vindicates any opinion I might add...

I believe she was not the one to approach Babe.net, they heard about the incident throw a network of people, they approached her and convinced her to give her the story, she did so on the basis of anonymity...

I can relate to her behaviour, she was clearly in a bit of shock (hence splashing water all over herself in the bathroom) and did not react quick enough...

She accuses him of being the same as other men, in the heat of the moment, when she finally had enough...I don't think you can blame her for that, she may just have said "Men are bastards" in that moment and you really couldn't blame her...

I think you are just struggling to believe that a 34 year old celebrity be that awkward/pushy/horny....I'll bet she could hardly believe it either...she was expecting the Pro Feminist/Nice guy man he portrays himself to be...

Trust me, as a fan of Louis CK I had trouble accepting what that guy was up to...

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, he has not challenged anything in her account, despite the pretty explicit nature of the events described....he has every right to, nothing stopping him suing the publishing company...he issued a very short statement...he could have described the events as he saw it...

Considering the nature of Internet media, and the people interested in these kinds of topics, nothing he says will change their minds.

Nobody saw what happened, there is no evidence, and when it comes down to differences in opinion, her account will come up on top. Why? Because victims traditionally have been ignored, muted, or targeted. You just have to look at the #metoo campaign contributions and the reactions to see what I mean.

The social climate is to believe a female and not believe the male. So anything he says (more than his original statement) will just make things worse.

I believe she was not the one to approach Babe.net, they heard about the incident throw a network of people, they approached her and convinced her to give her the story, she did so on the basis of anonymity...

Really, I've read a variety of articles and nobody mentioned that. Any links?

I can relate to her behaviour, she was clearly in a bit of shock (hence splashing water all over herself in the bathroom) and did not react quick enough...

Shock from what? That he stopped trying to have sex when she asked him to stop? Or that he suggested they have a chat with their clothes on? She didn't feel any shock before then? Holes upon holes in that story.

She accuses him of being the same as other men, in the heat of the moment, when she finally had enough...I don't think you can blame her for that, she may just have said "Men are bastards" in that moment and you really couldn't blame her...

In the heat of the moment? Strange how that's in the heat of the moment but the rest of the article is fine to accept. And lets be clear here. The article doesn't have her storming out of his place after having enough. She storms out of the place when he makes it clear that wasn't looking for a romantic relationship.

And I don't blame her for that. I do think that a week of texting and a dinner date should have prepared the groundwork for knowing what was going to happen though. I've been on hundreds of dates and I usually know what the direction is after the first one, and my date will too.

But come on. Their first date starts and ends in his home. Who does that without knowing that sex is part of it? She's not a blushing virgin with no experience of men considering her past experiences weren't much better than Aziz... And few women are going to start a relationship with sex.. It's usually the case with a woman wanting a relationship, will expect a few dates first to establish a connection before sex becoming available (rather than coming across as being easy)

I think you are just struggling to believe that a 34 year old celebrity be that awkward/pushy/horny....I'll bet she could hardly believe it either...she was expecting the Pro Feminist/Nice guy man he portrays himself to be...

Nope. Not struggling at all. I don't believe it. Could he have made some mistakes? Sure. But that many? And to be that clumsy in suggestion and execution? No way.

The Pro Feminist/Nice guy thingy doesn't stop him from being male and being interested in having sex without entering a relationship.

Trust me, as a fan of Louis CK I had trouble accepting what that guy was up to...

CK was always off the wall wacky though. It's hardly a shock that he's done some dodgy things in the past.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering the nature of Internet media, and the people interested in these kinds of topics, nothing he says will change their minds.

Nobody saw what happened, there is no evidence, and when it comes down to differences in opinion, her account will come up on top. Why? Because victims traditionally have been ignored, muted, or targeted. You just have to look at the #metoo campaign contributions and the reactions to see what I mean.

The social climate is to believe a female and not believe the male. So anything he says (more than his original statement) will just make things worse.



Really, I've read a variety of articles and nobody mentioned that. Any links?



Shock from what? That he stopped trying to have sex when she asked him to stop? Or that he suggested they have a chat with their clothes on? She didn't feel any shock before then? Holes upon holes in that story.



In the heat of the moment? Strange how that's in the heat of the moment but the rest of the article is fine to accept. And lets be clear here. The article doesn't have her storming out of his place after having enough. She storms out of the place when he makes it clear that wasn't looking for a romantic relationship.

And I don't blame her for that. I do think that a week of texting and a dinner date should have prepared the groundwork for knowing what was going to happen though. I've been on hundreds of dates and I usually know what the direction is after the first one, and my date will too.

But come on. Their first date starts and ends in his home. Who does that without knowing that sex is part of it? She's not a blushing virgin with no experience of men considering her past experiences weren't much better than Aziz... And few women are going to start a relationship with sex.. It's usually the case with a woman wanting a relationship, will expect a few dates first to establish a connection before sex becoming available (rather than coming across as being easy)



Nope. Not struggling at all. I don't believe it. Could he have made some mistakes? Sure. But that many? And to be that clumsy in suggestion and execution? No way.

The Pro Feminist/Nice guy thingy doesn't stop him from being male and being interested in having sex without entering a relationship.



CK was always off the wall wacky though. It's hardly a shock that he's done some dodgy things in the past.

I'm sorry now, but if you are a high profile individual, and somebody makes up a tissue of lies, or exaggerates a serious incident like a sexual assault ...you defend yourself, he would have had offers to go on network television to defend himself...he has chosen silence apart from a very small statement...

Your dead right, there were no witnesses, that is the problem with sexual assaults of this nature (I know no one believes that this was a sexual assault but she did, and I do)...they are impossible prove...either way...

I'm not sure if this is the website I saw it on (I genuinely must have read 20 related articles about this one) but it does corroborate what I read...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16893896/babe-aziz-ansari-sexual-misconduct-new-journalism-millennials-platform-reporting

It is a good read in any case...

You are not believing her account, there is nothing I can do about that...anything I say will just wind you up, I do believe her account (he hasn't denied it)...that is why i think she probably went into a state of shock and wasn't thinking straight, which does happen to people when they find themselves in very uncomfortable surroundings...

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm sorry now, but if you are a high profile individual, and somebody makes up a tissue of lies, or exaggerates a serious incident like a sexual assault ...you defend yourself, he would have had offers to go on network television to defend himself...he has chosen silence apart from a very small statement...

Personally, I believe any attempt to clear the issue further would backfire badly.

Your dead right, there were no witnesses, that is the problem with sexual assaults of this nature (I know no one believes that this was a sexual assault but she did, and I do)...they are impossible prove...either way...

Still haven't seen enough justification for this to be a sexual assault since she didn't ask him to stop until the act of sex, and he did stop then.

I'm not sure if this is the website I saw it on (I genuinely must have read 20 related articles about this one) but it does corroborate what I read...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16893896/babe-aziz-ansari-sexual-misconduct-new-journalism-millennials-platform-reporting

It is a good read in any case...

Yup. I'd seen it before. And this caught my attention the first time:

"When I spoke to Way on the phone on Monday, she told me Babe has been “soliciting” stories about sexual misconduct for months, and cites a campaign that asked readers to submit information about their “personal Harvey Weinsteins.”

And

"“[We] wrote it in the style [our audience] expects from us: pretty direct, uncensored, no words taken out for the sake of good taste.”"

It was designed to outrage. For an audience, that was looking to be angered at sexual harassment. [Have you ever spent any time reading through the extremist feminist blogs? There's a similar theme with the article in the triggering of emotions]

You are not believing her account, there is nothing I can do about that...anything I say will just wind you up, I do believe her account (he hasn't denied it)...that is why i think she probably went into a state of shock and wasn't thinking straight, which does happen to people when they find themselves in very uncomfortable surroundings...

Even based on her account, there is no reason to see her going into a state of shock since all the really negative things happened before the questions about penetrative sex.

But, yes. we're at opposite angles here. I don't believe her account is accurate, and there are too many logical holes in the overall situation. I'm also not terribly impressed that she would go to a gossip magazine that was soliciting for these kinds of pieces. Smacks too much of a set up to harness the anger that Harvey Weinstein has generated.

RabbleRouser2k

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm sorry now, but if you are a high profile individual, and somebody makes up a tissue of lies, or exaggerates a serious incident like a sexual assault ...you defend yourself, he would have had offers to go on network television to defend himself...he has chosen silence apart from a very small statement...

Your dead right, there were no witnesses, that is the problem with sexual assaults of this nature (I know no one believes that this was a sexual assault but she did, and I do)...they are impossible prove...either way...

I'm not sure if this is the website I saw it on (I genuinely must have read 20 related articles about this one) but it does corroborate what I read...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16893896/babe-aziz-ansari-sexual-misconduct-new-journalism-millennials-platform-reporting

It is a good read in any case...

You are not believing her account, there is nothing I can do about that...anything I say will just wind you up, I do believe her account (he hasn't denied it)...that is why i think she probably went into a state of shock and wasn't thinking straight, which does happen to people when they find themselves in very uncomfortable surroundings...

Won't matter much, but I believe her account too. Yes, there is some 'exaggerations', it mean the choice of wine is neither here nor there, but she includes that detail.

But the rest...it's bizarre and overly aggressive. Disturbingly so. Yet now certain feminists are decrying her account of the 'encounter' with Aziz, and the website, saying its harming the #metoo movement, aka a really fragile ideology that's crumbling from within. I find that reprehensible.
She clearly felt this was beyond the norm. And from reading, it was. Now even Samantha Bee is turning on Aziz.

There's an interesting relationship between Louis Ck scandal and Aziz. Anzari used to refuse to comment on it, trying to change the subject. He had something in his own closet.
He didn't 'stop' when she said no, instead he demanded oral sex. All of this while claiming to be a feminist, claiming not to be one of the 'creepy guys'. He even wrote books about it.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/17/16897440/aziz-ansari-allegations-babe-me-too

Whatever happens from here on out will be interesting, regarding Aziz career. It's the first, major, fracture to occur within the 'metoo' movement, and that's barely a few weeks old. And it didn't take long for cracks to form. But what is also of note is how those defending him are making it about his skin colour. Not his actions, not about his creepiness.
Some of those who were shunned, such as Jeremy Piven, did less than Aziz-yet received far less defense.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I believe any attempt to clear the issue further would backfire badly.



Still haven't seen enough justification for this to be a sexual assault since she didn't ask him to stop until the act of sex, and he did stop then.



Yup. I'd seen it before. And this caught my attention the first time:

"When I spoke to Way on the phone on Monday, she told me Babe has been “soliciting” stories about sexual misconduct for months, and cites a campaign that asked readers to submit information about their “personal Harvey Weinsteins.”

And

"“[We] wrote it in the style [our audience] expects from us: pretty direct, uncensored, no words taken out for the sake of good taste.”"

It was designed to outrage. For an audience, that was looking to be angered at sexual harassment. [Have you ever spent any time reading through the extremist feminist blogs? There's a similar theme with the article in the triggering of emotions]



Even based on her account, there is no reason to see her going into a state of shock since all the really negative things happened before the questions about penetrative sex.

But, yes. we're at opposite angles here. I don't believe her account is accurate, and there are too many logical holes in the overall situation. I'm also not terribly impressed that she would go to a gossip magazine that was soliciting for these kinds of pieces. Smacks too much of a set up to harness the anger that Harvey Weinstein has generated.

Look, I don't mean this in a snotty way but we should just agree to disagree at this stage.

Silentcorner

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Won't matter much, but I believe her account too. Yes, there is some 'exaggerations', it mean the choice of wine is neither here nor there, but she includes that detail.

But the rest...it's bizarre and overly aggressive. Disturbingly so. Yet now certain feminists are decrying her account of the 'encounter' with Aziz, and the website, saying its harming the #metoo movement, aka a really fragile ideology that's crumbling from within. I find that reprehensible.
She clearly felt this was beyond the norm. And from reading, it was. Now even Samantha Bee is turning on Aziz.

There's an interesting relationship between Louis Ck scandal and Aziz. Anzari used to refuse to comment on it, trying to change the subject. He had something in his own closet.
He didn't 'stop' when she said no, instead he demanded oral sex. All of this while claiming to be a feminist, claiming not to be one of the 'creepy guys'. He even wrote books about it.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/17/16897440/aziz-ansari-allegations-babe-me-too

Whatever happens from here on out will be interesting, regarding Aziz career. It's the first, major, fracture to occur within the 'metoo' movement, and that's barely a few weeks old. And it didn't take long for cracks to form. But what is also of note is how those defending him are making it about his skin colour. Not his actions, not about his creepiness.
Some of those who were shunned, such as Jeremy Piven, did less than Aziz-yet received far less defense.

The whole reaction to this one really confused me I have to say.

When I first opened the link to the origional story, I kinda expected to be a bit dismissal of it...

But as I read on I quickly changed my mind....

I have mentioned the parts that I feel are the more serious parts....the parts that in my view, are a sexual assault.

What really got to me in the end was when she left the apartment she broke down, in the corridor and all the way home in the back of a taxi...she was in bits!

RabbleRouser2k

Silentcorner wrote: »

The whole reaction to this one really confused me I have to say.

When I first opened the link to the origional story, I kinda expected to be a bit dismissal of it...

But as I read on I quickly changed my mind....

I have mentioned the parts that I feel are the more serious parts....the parts that in my view, are a sexual assault.

What really got to me in the end was when she left the apartment she broke down, in the corridor and all the way home in the back of a taxi...she was in bits!

Yeah, that stood out to me too. I've female friends who came back from a bad date taking the pee out of it a day after. It wasn't like 3 months later they were still traumatized. It wasn't 'bad sex'-it was a violation.
That's what struck me.

Also, his concern seemed more in line with protecting his image, not any concern for her. There was nothing like 'please let me make it up to you' etc. Something to show any kind of concern. But nope.

Outlaw Pete

Interview with Dylan Farrow from earlier today.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic1kMoM_kPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXHoyppwWuc

cloudatlas

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, that stood out to me too. I've female friends who came back from a bad date taking the pee out of it a day after. It wasn't like 3 months later they were still traumatized. It wasn't 'bad sex'-it was a violation.
That's what struck me.

Also, his concern seemed more in line with protecting his image, not any concern for her. There was nothing like 'please let me make it up to you' etc. Something to show any kind of concern. But nope.

These were the troubling parts (also the ramming of the fingers in the mouth) :

"He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”

“I wasn’t really even thinking of that, I didn’t want to be engaged in that with him. But he kept asking, so I said, ‘Next time.’ And he goes, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and I go, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’”

“I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” she said.

After he bent me over is when I stood up and said no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this. And he said, ‘How about we just chill, but this time with our clothes on?’”

He finally complied when she was clear with him it still doesn't seem like sexual assault to me but very cringeworthy.

Silentcorner

I think the two following and different pieces are both very difficult to argue with...

https://qz.com/1183677/aziz-ansari-is-not-the-woke-desi-feminist-we-thought-he-was/

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/19/16907246/sexual-consent-educator-aziz-ansari

Despite two very different slants....

This case really got to me I have to say...

I recognise that in instances such as this "sexual assault" is such a vague crime and one that is virtually impossible to convict in a courtroom, as there are no witness and no physical evidence...means its use is pointless...

It doesn't seem right that victims of sexual assaults (in this instance) have no recourse open to them...

In summary, I haven't got a clue what to suggest...other than ask myself what the f##k am I doing arguing with people on the internet!!!

Dyr

Silentcorner wrote: »

I think the two following and different pieces are both very difficult to argue with...

https://qz.com/1183677/aziz-ansari-is-not-the-woke-desi-feminist-we-thought-he-was/

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/19/16907246/sexual-consent-educator-aziz-ansari

Despite two very different slants....

This case really got to me I have to say...

I recognise that in instances such as this "sexual assault" is such a vague crime and one that is virtually impossible to convict in a courtroom, as there are no witness and no physical evidence...means its use is pointless...

It doesn't seem right that victims of sexual assaults (in this instance) have no recourse open to them...

In summary, I haven't got a clue what to suggest...other than ask myself what the f##k am I doing arguing with people on the internet!!!

Both those links made me want to bleach my eyes, jesus wept

RabbleRouser2k

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/sullivan-metoo-must-choose-between-reality-and-ideology.html

Not an argument for or against, more a discussion of why certain behaviours that are criticised will never change-it's down to nature. Not groping, btw, more 'how you doin'?'

RabbleRouser2k

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/hollywood/story/scarlett-johansson-slammed-james-franco-womens-march-speech-1150863-2018-01-21

Pretty callous for Scarjo to denounce James franco in a public forum. This is the woman who's made 3 films with Woody Allen. (Yeah, I know that's me being a hypocrite).

JP Liz V1

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/hollywood/story/scarlett-johansson-slammed-james-franco-womens-march-speech-1150863-2018-01-21

Pretty callous for Scarjo to denounce James franco in a public forum. This is the woman who's made 3 films with Woody Allen. (Yeah, I know that's me being a hypocrite).

Any comment from Mila Kunis?

darkdubh

Silentcorner wrote: »

I think the two following and different pieces are both very difficult to argue with...

https://qz.com/1183677/aziz-ansari-is-not-the-woke-desi-feminist-we-thought-he-was/

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/19/16907246/sexual-consent-educator-aziz-ansari

Despite two very different slants....

This case really got to me I have to say...

I recognise that in instances such as this "sexual assault" is such a vague crime and one that is virtually impossible to convict in a courtroom, as there are no witness and no physical evidence...means its use is pointless...

It doesn't seem right that victims of sexual assaults (in this instance) have no recourse open to them...

In summary, I haven't got a clue what to suggest...other than ask myself what the f##k am I doing arguing with people on the internet!!!

What the hell is a desi feminist? I''m still trying to get used to woke.

strandroad

darkdubh wrote: »

What the hell is a desi feminist? I''m still trying to get used to woke.

Desi means "of Indian or Pakistani origin". Just a shorthand term. My friend would say for example "my mother is such a Desi mum" when she means a particular kind of nagging or caring.

JP Liz V1

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/hollywood/story/scarlett-johansson-slammed-james-franco-womens-march-speech-1150863-2018-01-21

Pretty callous for Scarjo to denounce James franco in a public forum. This is the woman who's made 3 films with Woody Allen. (Yeah, I know that's me being a hypocrite).

James Franco's sister in law Alison Brie got asked on SAG red carpet, she replied, "I think that above all what we've always said is that it remains vital that anyone who feels victimized should and does have the right to speak out and come forward. I obviously support my family and not everything that's been reported is fully accurate, so I think we're waiting to get all of the information. But of course I think now is a time for listening and that's what we're all trying to do."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/alison-brie-james-franco-sexual-misconduct-claims-sag-awards-red-carpet-2018-1076579

weldoninhio

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/hollywood/story/scarlett-johansson-slammed-james-franco-womens-march-speech-1150863-2018-01-21

Pretty callous for Scarjo to denounce James franco in a public forum. This is the woman who's made 3 films with Woody Allen. (Yeah, I know that's me being a hypocrite).

A month after Allen's estranged daughter Dylan Farrow penned an open letter accusing him of sexual abuse in 2014, Johansson told the Guardian: 'It's not like this is somebody that's been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, "I don't support this lifestyle or whatever." I mean, it's all guesswork.'

RabbleRouser2k

weldoninhio wrote: »

A month after Allen's estranged daughter Dylan Farrow penned an open letter accusing him of sexual abuse in 2014, Johansson told the Guardian: 'It's not like this is somebody that's been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, "I don't support this lifestyle or whatever." I mean, it's all guesswork.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

The Daily mail shows her getting pally with Polanski also.

But this was before she swallowed the blue pill of 4th wave feminism. Tbh, this is the lady who was once a promising actress, and then went insane-going for the glory. And the money.

Wait


Hqd skipped on this thread for a while and have only read the last few pages...is there a majority opinion in the thread that the Ansari article is anything other than a shambolic hatchet job and a fairly obvious indication that this cleanse has gone far enough?

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait


Hqd skipped on this thread for a while and have only read the last few pages...is there a majority opinion in the thread that the Ansari article is anything other than a shambolic hatchet job and a fairly obvious indication that this cleanse has gone far enough?

Nope, the Anzari story has pretty much tainted him. Possible death of career.

RabbleRouser2k

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Nope, the Anzari story has pretty much tainted him. Possible death of career.

Yeah I know I get that what I was asking was if the opinion in the thread is that it was anything other than a bullsh1t hatchet job of a story

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah I know I get that what I was asking was if the opinion in the thread is that it was anything other than a bullsh1t hatchet job of a story

You need to understand that most people don't care whether it's true or not. It's the same with the articles that are being written online. You'll see a single paragraph highlighting all the reasons why the original story is flawed, and then you'll see two pages talking about the plight of women, how men mistreat them, and how difficult it is for women to gain the support they deserve. They'll point out that it comes down to two peoples opinion, since there is no way to prove what happened, and naturally, they should believe the woman because so many victims have been ignored in the past.

Aziz doesn't matter to most people. They've already convicted him in their heads, because they feel that he should be convicted. His innocence doesn't matter. Instead, it's simply the feeling that men accused of this behavior should be punished.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is dead.

Even if he was to cry out his innocence, most people wouldn't listen/care. The article got in there first and established his guilt in their minds. The discrepancies within the article don't matter.

Personally, I see Aziz as being the victim here, but I'm in the minority on this thread.

A Little Pony

Rather funny how this is still going considering most of the women knew what Weinstein was like, many of them slept with him to get work and now they all pretend they didn't have a clue and isn't it just shocking.

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

Rather funny how this is still going considering most of the women knew what Weinstein was like, many of them slept with him to get work and now they all pretend they didn't have a clue and isn't it just shocking.

Victims bear no responsibility for being victims. (If you're female).

A Little Pony

Deleted User wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Rather funny how this is still going considering most of the women knew what Weinstein was like, many of them slept with him to get work and now they all pretend they didn't have a clue and isn't it just shocking.

Victims bear no responsibility for being victims. (If you're female).

Majority of them aren't victims, most of them slept with him to get work and did it knowingly. That is just the truth of the matter but you aren't allowed to point out the truth anymore. Most people in Hollywood know that is what happened. What Weinstein should be in court for is the rape allegations of which you have some which should be looked into.

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

Majority of them aren't victims, most of them slept with him to get work and did it knowingly. That is just the truth of the matter but you aren't allowed to point out the truth anymore. Most people in Hollywood know that is what happened. What Weinstein should be in court for is the rape allegations of which you have some which should be looked into.

Oh, I agree. I'd suggest that many of them made a choice between gaining power/fame/influence from him and taking the slower riskier path...

But you'll find plenty of reasons or excuses to avoid assigning any responsibility for those choices. It's the victim mentality.

On the other hand, I do believe some of them genuinely were victims, and were abused/assaulted by him and his ilk.

And yes, you can still point out the "truth"... it's just that few people are actually interested anymore.

A Little Pony

Deleted User wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Majority of them aren't victims, most of them slept with him to get work and did it knowingly. That is just the truth of the matter but you aren't allowed to point out the truth anymore. Most people in Hollywood know that is what happened. What Weinstein should be in court for is the rape allegations of which you have some which should be looked into.

Oh, I agree. I'd suggest that many of them made a choice between gaining power/fame/influence from him and taking the slower riskier path...

But you'll find plenty of reasons or excuses to avoid assigning any responsibility for those choices. It's the victim mentality.

On the other hand, I do believe some of them genuinely were victims, and were abused/assaulted by him and his ilk.

And yes, you can still point out the "truth"... it's just that few people are actually interested anymore.

Of course victims exist, the guy is a lunatic and a weirdo. But I just question the holier than thou mentality of these Hollywood actresses.