Aziz Ansari - sexual assault or unwarranted assault on reputation

Wibbs

jiltloop wrote: »

He clearly was a fumbling dick who doesn't know how to treat a woman, but this wasn't a sexual assault.

THis pretty much. With his bit of fame he probably never had to learn much beyond showing up.

neonsofa

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Shes confusing. Says hes "cute" polite way of saying sexually attractive. That is interest.

I mean in my experience when a woman thinks your cute it means she has an interest.

It doesnt matter if she thought he was the sexiest man on earth,if she said to him outright "I don't want to have sex with you" then he needs to accept that. There's no confusion. She made it very simple to understand.

I do find it interesting that since the woman in the article is 23 years old, she's automatically assumed to be innocent and inexperienced.

Her messages (verbal/nonverbal), and their failure to stop the encounter are excused due to her inexperience. However, his mistakes in not reading her body language or whatever those messages sent, are seen as creepy and extremely pushy.

Doesn't anyone see the double standards being encouraged here? We don't know the woman. We don't know anything about her past. And yet, a rather particular gender stereotype is being promoted for her, and another one for him.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

THis pretty much. With his bit of fame he probably never had to learn much beyond showing up.

A two-year relationship with Courtney McBroom?

twill

suicide_circus wrote: »

Not going to happen. Women tend to enjoy being pursued (generalisation but on the whole accurate in my experience).

The other side to this is that women are often viewed negatively by men if they approach, or assumptions are made about their intentions. I don't 'enjoy' the state of affairs in which the onus is on men, but there's no way I would be the initiator, purely for safety's sake.

Stonedpilot

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I do find it interesting that since the woman in the article is 23 years old, she's automatically assumed to be innocent and inexperienced.

Her messages (verbal/nonverbal), and their failure to stop the encounter are excused due to her inexperience. However, his mistakes in not reading her body language or whatever those messages sent, are seen as creepy and extremely pushy.

Doesn't anyone see the double standards being encouraged here? We don't know the woman. We don't know anything about her past. And yet, a rather particular gender stereotype is being promoted for her, and another one for him.

Talk alot of sense of Klaz. She is a poor doe eyed rabbit in the headlights and hes the rich successful predator such is the spin in the article and commentary on it.

Whats the say she wasn't a hard hearted calculating lusty vixen who spotted him and his €€€€ ten mile away?.

23 inexperienced?. Oh please.

There is 17 year old girls out there with more sexual experience than everyone on this thread put together..


The double standards are spectacular.

twill

twill wrote: »

The other side to this is that women are often viewed negatively by men if they approach, or assumptions are made about their intentions.

That sounds a lot like the comments about men approaching women...

givyjoe

twill wrote: »

The other side to this is that women are often viewed negatively by men if they approach, or assumptions are made about their intentions. I don't 'enjoy' the state of affairs in which the onus is on men, but there's no way I would be the initiator, purely for safety's sake.

Sorry, but that's another completely unjustified stereotype of men. Women are viewed negatively by men if they approach?! Nonsense. Maybe in older generations, definitely not now. Neither I nor anyone I know, makes assumptions about a woman's intention if they approach us, unless they make it blindingly obvious with their words.

twill

Deleted User wrote: »

That sounds a lot like the comments about men approaching women...

Sorry, could you be a bit more specific? I don't follow.

givyjoe wrote: »

Sorry, but that's another completely unjustified stereotype of men. Women are viewed negatively by men if they approach?! Nonsense. Maybe in older generations, definitely not now. Neither I nor anyone I know, makes assumptions about a woman's intention if they approach us, unless they make it blindingly obvious with their words.

Maybe your circle of friends don't, but in my experience and from what I've heard from others, it's still endemic in society.

kylith

kaymin wrote: »

I find it very naive that you would allow a stranger stay over in your house overnight especially when you have no interest in them. Inviting some-one back to their apartment / home is the ultimate lead-on. It is denying reality to think otherwise.

That's quite true, but do you not think that then outright saying "I don't want to have sex with you, you can sleep in the spare room" is then a blatant revocation of any prior implied sexual suggestion?

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I agree with you. I'm very much into being clear wanting such activities before having sex. Verbal Consent is important.

However, the people talking about contracts are referring to the withdrawal of consent which can apparently be done during or after sex has occurred. They're ensuring that the girl doesn't go home after the sexual experience, decide that she didn't want it, and then they could be done for some form of assault/rape.

I agree that after the fact is not a good time to decide that you did not want the encounter, unless you were in a situation where you were forced or could not consent - if you were drunk and were taken advantage of by someone who was not drunk, for instance.

What Ansari did was, I think, not acceptable. He repeatedly moved her hands to her groin after she moved them away. His celebrity status and the fact that he was significantly older than her may have influenced her, but IMO she should have left as soon as it went beyond her comfort zone. Possibly she feared that he would react badly to this, but there is no indication of that in what she wrote. From my perspective the alcohol, rushing through dinner, and then straight back to his place paints a pretty clear picture of a guy who was expecting to have sex with a hot 22 year old, whereas it seems she had built this up as a romantic date and potentially saw it as a burgeoning relationship, which could also explain why she stayed: she thought he actually liked her, would realise that she was uncomfortable, and would take a step back.

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree 100% and would happily pillory them for it. But can we agree that some women can be awfully passive, even to the point of actively going along with such things? And personally I'd happily pillory them for that too. In this case she had a long list of points in that night where she could have made a choice, but she didn't, but when she finally expressed her apparent discomfort - after nakedness and oral sex going both ways - he immediately stopped. He misread signals, but she certainly did too, but only he'll get the bollocking for it in the media and trial by twitter.

The thing about being overly passive is that there are 3 ways humans react to stress: fight, flight, and freeze. Some will thump a guy getting out of hand, some will get the hell out of there ASAP, and some will become passive and allow whatever is happening to happen so that they can get out the other side with as little harm as possible. Unfortunately the 'freeze' group can be the ones with the saddest history: fighting and escaping didn't work, so just go along with it.

In the Ansari situation I don't think it was assault; I think it was two people who had vastly different ideas about what was going to happen that night, both of whom thought their signals were clear. Clearer communication on both their parts could have stopped this before it started. It would probably have been a complete non-issue if he had just said 'Do you want to have sex'.

givyjoe

twill wrote: »

Sorry, could you be a bit more specific? I don't follow.


Maybe your circle of friends don't, but in my experience and from what I've heard from others, it's still endemic in society.

Again utter nonsense, it's endemic because the people YOU know say it is?! How many people do you know, and have specifically talked to them about this? Are these women who are perhaps judging other women when they approach men?

kaymin

kylith wrote: »

That's quite true, but do you not think that then outright saying "I don't want to have sex with you, you can sleep in the spare room" is then a blatant revocation of any prior implied sexual suggestion?

Yes, I agree but life sometimes isn't that simple. You were in a vulnerable position and you put yourself in that position.

Also you didn't spell out the sequence of events - did you make the statement that you don't want sex after he made the initiative. Even with that statement there's always the chance (in his mind) he might make second-base. I'm not making excuses for him but there are different ways to interpret a situation. The clearest signal of all would be not to have him in your home in the first place.

kylith

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Shes confusing. Says hes "cute" polite way of saying sexually attractive. That is interest.

I mean in my experience when a woman thinks your cute it means she has an interest.

It means she thinks a person is cute. It is not an obligation to have sexual relations.

kaymin wrote: »

And at what point did she say she has no interest - after him traipsing back with her to her house? After he takes the initiative back in the apartment? I just find it odd anyone would invite someone back, with drink taken, to their home when they have no interest in them. Drunk people aren't known for their chivalry so why put yourself in such a vulnerable position.

Before we went back to my place. We were having food at some late night place. He'd come a fair distance to meet me and I didn't think it would be decent to just say 'see ya' and leave him roaming the streets of Dublin at 2am. IDGAF if he made the journey anticipating sex, I was under no obligation to provide it.

But yeah, I'm totally the one out of line there, not the man who stripped naked in my living room and started trying to undress me and fondle my breasts with no invitation to do so :rolleyes:

twill

givyjoe wrote: »

Again utter nonsense, it's endemic because the people YOU know say it is?! How many people do you know, and have specifically talked to them about this? Are these women who are perhaps judging other women when they approach men?

It's not nonsense, it's from what I've heard more generally. I don't just judge on my own experience, but if you're going to dismiss the latter, please don't cite your experience to bolster your opinion.

twill

twill wrote: »

Sorry, could you be a bit more specific? I don't follow.

twill wrote:

The other side to this is that women are often viewed negatively by men if they approach, or assumptions are made about their intentions.

Seriously? You haven't noticed the posts here on boards giving negative perspectives about men approaching women? The manner in which the man approaches the woman doesn't seem to matter (being polite, careful, friendly etc). The only part that matters is that the woman might feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or simply irritated by the man approaching her.

So... Your declaration that women are often viewed negatively by men if they approach... applies to men approaching women, and being viewed negatively by women.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

I do find it interesting that since the woman in the article is 23 years old, she's automatically assumed to be innocent and inexperienced.

Her messages (verbal/nonverbal), and their failure to stop the encounter are excused due to her inexperience. However, his mistakes in not reading her body language or whatever those messages sent, are seen as creepy and extremely pushy.

Doesn't anyone see the double standards being encouraged here? We don't know the woman. We don't know anything about her past. And yet, a rather particular gender stereotype is being promoted for her, and another one for him.

If a dude moves my hand onto his d!ck and I remove it, and he pushes it back and I remove it and he pushes it back. He is being pushy. Him being made out to be pushy is not an unreasonable inference. He's not a monster, but that is pushy behaviour.

Also, her past is irrelevant.

givyjoe

twill wrote: »

It's not nonsense, it's from what I've heard more generally. I don't just judge on my own experience, but if you're going to dismiss the latter, please don't cite your experience to bolster your opinion.

Sorry, but you're dismissing my experience with your own, not the other way around.

I'm really not sure what your experience counts for in this specific regard however, you seemed to indicate that you were a woman.. so how on earth do you know what a guy thinks of a woman if she woman approaches him? I'd wager the vast majority of guys in this thread for example, do not think negatively of a woman simply because she approached them, nor would they assume (as you implied) that they wanted sex.

Again, your assumption/stereotype is that men will think less of a woman if she approaches. That is nothing but outdated horesh1t. Up there with a woman's place is in the kitchen.

kylith

kaymin wrote: »

Yes, I agree but life sometimes isn't that simple. You were in a vulnerable position and you put yourself in that position.

Also you didn't spell out the sequence of events - did you make the statement that you don't want sex after he made the initiative. Even with that statement there's always the chance (in his mind) he might make second-base. I'm not making excuses for him but there are different ways to interpret a situation. The clearest signal of all would be not to have him in your home in the first place.

OK, let me spell it out for you in nice big letters:
Regardless of if a woman has invited you to sleep in her spare room it is not cool to strip naked as soon as she leaves the room and then try to undress her and grab her breasts while she actively moves your hands away. If consent is not enthusiastic and freely given then what you are doing is not a Good Thing.

If a woman says that she doesn't want to have sex with you and you persist with advances because she might change her mind or you might bea able to pester her into some action then you are a dickhead at best and an abuser at worst.

If you find that you are doing things to someone rather than doing them with them, then you should stop.

Jesus, I have shared an actual bed with a male friend in the past and he didn't attempt to so much as lay a finger on me because he is a decent person who wouldn't assume that anything other than saying 'hey, wanna have sex?' is an invitation to having sex.

Rivertide

What amuses me is people like Kylith want men to ask permission explicitly for sex while at the same time they don't want men talking to women in case they make them uncomfortable or they are obtrusive. :pac:

So you must ask for sex but you also can't ask for sex because that might be obtrusive, good one.

twill

givyjoe wrote: »

Sorry, but you're dismissing my experience with your own, not the other way around.

I'm really not sure what your experience counts for in this specific regard however, you seemed to indicate that you were a woman.. so how on earth do you know what a guy thinks of a woman if she woman approaches him? I'd wager the vast majority of guys in this thread for example, do not think negatively of a woman simply because she approached them, nor would they assume (as you implied) that they wanted sex.

Again, your assumption/stereotype is that men will think less of a woman if she approaches. That is nothing but outdated horesh1t. Up there with a woman's place is in the kitchen.

No, I'm saying your experience does not invalidate mine. I also said I don't just rely on my experience to form my opinions.

I don't claim to know how men think, I can only testify to how some men act. And I agree with you that's it's an outdated ideology. You'd imagine it would have gone by the wayside, but sadly it's necessary to acknowledge that it hasn't.

Seriously? You haven't noticed the posts here on boards giving negative perspectives about men approaching women? The manner in which the man approaches the woman doesn't seem to matter (being polite, careful, friendly etc). The only part that matters is that the woman might feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or simply irritated by the man approaching her.

That's an interesting way of viewing this thread. Unfortunately it has no bearing on what is actually being said.

Rivertide

twill wrote: »

No, I'm saying your experience does not invalidate mine. I also said I don't just rely on my experience to form my opinions.

I don't claim to know how men think, I can only testify to how some men act. And I agree with you that's it's an outdated ideology. You'd imagine it would have gone by the wayside, but sadly it's necessary to acknowledge that it hasn't.

That's an interesting way of viewing this thread. Unfortunately it has no bearing on what is actually being said.

It does have bearing on what is being said, read the last few pages.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

I agree that after the fact is not a good time to decide that you did not want the encounter, unless you were in a situation where you were forced or could not consent - if you were drunk and were taken advantage of by someone who was not drunk, for instance.

Not a good time? It's a dangerous situation for any man if the woman decides later that she didn't want the experience. Hence the belief that men should start getting written consent. It's laughable that this is becoming a reasonable safety net considering the increase in these sort of claims of assault.

Public perception still tends to agree with a female when there is no definite evidence on hand.

What Ansari did was, I think, not acceptable. He repeatedly moved her hands to her groin after she moved them away.

He moved them there and didn't force her to keep them there. Now... you remove the context (the date, the kissing and foreplay) and I'd completely agree with you. You include the context and all that happened before, and it sounds just part of the overall experience. She didn't tell him that she didn't want to touch him there... And I do suspect quite a bit more happened than what she reported because the foreplay is rather disjointed.

His celebrity status and the fact that he was significantly older than her may have influenced her, but IMO she should have left as soon as it went beyond her comfort zone. Possibly she feared that he would react badly to this, but there is no indication of that in what she wrote.

She was 23. She's hardly a child freshly entering adulthood with no experience of the world. What? She's never seen a movie containing what happens when you go home with a guy after a date?

Fact is... we know nothing about her background, and we're all making loads of assumptions about his. But if we were to make similar assumptions about her background, likely she'd have had a few sexual relationships before meeting him, likely have had at least one ons, etc. Hardly the blushing virgin with no experience of men.

From my perspective the alcohol, rushing through dinner, and then straight back to his place paints a pretty clear picture of a guy who was expecting to have sex with a hot 22 year old, whereas it seems she had built this up as a romantic date and potentially saw it as a burgeoning relationship, which could also explain why she stayed: she thought he actually liked her, would realise that she was uncomfortable, and would take a step back.

More assumptions, and not particularly balanced ones either. He expected sex. Ok. An acceptable male stereotype about dating, and bringing a girl home after the first date. But she's not interested in a sexual encounter? Really? So... Women don't enjoy sex? Women don't seek ons? Instead, she's seeking a romantic encounter. Right.

Nah. If she was looking for a relationship or expecting something romantic, she wouldn't have gone home with him after the first date. She'd have held out for as many as 4-5 dates (or more) before going home with him.

In the Ansari situation I don't think it was assault; I think it was two people who had vastly different ideas about what was going to happen that night, both of whom thought their signals were clear. Clearer communication on both their parts could have stopped this before it started. It would probably have been a complete non-issue if he had just said 'Do you want to have sex'.

Just to say, I agree with you. But I'm not going to bend over backward trying to excuse her behavior while condemning his. I think he was a twat, and I don't believe she was as naive as people want her to be.

twill

Rivertide wrote: »

It does have bearing on what is being said, read the last few pages.

It's a position being advanced by literally no one, it's a straw man, so no, it has no bearing.

goose2005

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Yeah, sounds like it was just really unpleasant to me. From the article it sounds like he did stop when she asked him to stop...he started up again but if that was me I would actually verbally explain why I had stopped and what I didn't want to do at that stage and probably tell him why, so he knows.

it sounds like she expected him to understand her every intention. If men terminated every romantic/sexual encounter the moment that the woman looks uneasy or holds back for even a moment, i think the human race would die out.

givyjoe

twill wrote: »

No, I'm saying your experience does not invalidate mine. I also said I don't just rely on my experience to form my opinions.

I don't claim to know how men think, I can only testify to how some men act. And I agree with you that's it's an outdated ideology. You'd imagine it would have gone by the wayside, but sadly it's necessary to acknowledge that it hasn't.

That's an interesting way of viewing this thread. Unfortunately it has no bearing on what is actually being said.

Not going by the wayside and being endemic are completely and utterly different. It's not credible to suggest it is, based on your own experience or the people you know. As I've already said, they're maybe some idiots still who think a woman's place is in the kitchen just like they're may still be men (and women) who think 'less of a woman' etc for approaching men. Both are outdated opinions highly likely to be held by a minority.

goose2005

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus I didn't think I'd have to explain this one...

The wine or its colour isn't the point, the point was she wasn't given any choice...he was making incorrect assumptions from the start...he didn't give a f@@k what kind of wine she liked or even if she liked wine at all...first dates are highly nuanced...anybody with emotional intelligence would recognise that...

The fact that she didn't bother to ask for red, or reject the white doesn't matter...

She was a 23 year old woman in the apartment of a 34 year old World renowned comedian...if you can't relate to what that must of been like for her it might explain why you can't empathise with her...

for christ sake he's a mid-range actor not a mafia don, she was unlikely to end up in a river if she refused him.

Rivertide

twill wrote: »

It's a position being advanced by literally no one, it's a straw man, so no, it has no bearing.

It shows thst the argument made that women shouldn't because of the perception of men is nonsense, as men approaching women is viewed badly by women.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

If a dude moves my hand onto his d!ck and I remove it, and he pushes it back and I remove it and he pushes it back. He is being pushy. Him being made out to be pushy is not an unreasonable inference. He's not a monster, but that is pushy behaviour.

.

The imagery. Seriously... Put what you have described in a little video within your head. Put hand on dick, move away, push back, etc 7 times.

You really think that happened? Without him asking WTF? or her saying something aloud about it? And yet.. her account doesn't mention anything of the sort, except some mumbling.

Also, her past is irrelevant

How is her past experience with men or sex irrelevant? And yet his is?

kylith

Rivertide wrote: »

What amuses me is people like Kylith want men to ask permission explicitly for sex while at the same time they don't want men talking to women in case they make them uncomfortable or they are obtrusive. :pac:

So you must ask for sex but you also can't ask for sex because that might be obtrusive, good one.

OK, firstly, and I'm sorry mods, but 'obtrusive' doesn't mean what you think it does; it means annoyingly noticeable: someone playing music loudly on a bus is obtrusive. It makes you look like you're using obscure words to make yourself look smart but you don't know what they mean so you wind up looking silly. The word you mean is intrusive.

Secondly. The 'don't approach women' bit in the context of that discussion was that a woman sitting on a bench, reading a book, or waiting for a bus is, in all likelihood, not just dying for you to come up and start trying to chat her up.

Thirdly: "OMG, she wants you to not bother women in public and she expects you to check they're happy to have sex with you! What a bicth!" :pac:

twill

twill wrote: »

That's an interesting way of viewing this thread. Unfortunately it has no bearing on what is actually being said.

It has bearing on what you said.

retro:electro

It sounds like an embarrassing fumbling mess of an encounter, but one I certainly would not describe as assault. I'm not gonna jump on the "she should have done this, she should have said that" school of thought because in all honestly that's as useful now as a kick in the face. But it does sound like he was too pushy, she was too passive, and the consequential result was a complete clusterfcuk of awkwardness. I think it's important to note that when she finally voiced up and articulated her reluctance to have sex with him, he seems to have respected that.

twill

givyjoe wrote: »

Not going by the wayside and being endemic are completely and utterly different. It's not credible to suggest it is, based on your own experience or the people you know. As I've already said, they're maybe some idiots still who think a woman's place is in the kitchen just like they're may still be men (and women) who think 'less of a woman' etc for approaching men. Both are outdated opinions highly likely to be held by a minority.

It's a bit pointless to argue with you if you're going to twist my words and pretend I said things that I didn't say. And if you think such opinions aren't endemic, you're not reading the thread, where it's been argued by more than a few posters that a woman who goes back to a man's apartment/flirts/goes out with a famous person has already agreed to sex.

Deleted User wrote: »

It has bearing on what you said.

You have manifestly failed to establish that so far.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

The imagery. Seriously... Put what you have described in a little video within your head. Put hand on dick, move away, push back, etc 7 times.

You really think that happened? Without him asking WTF? or her saying something aloud about it? And yet.. her account doesn't mention anything of the sort, except some mumbling.



How is her past experience with men or sex irrelevant? And yet his is?

I don't need to put it in a video in my head, I have actual memories of it happening both as a teen with over enthusiastic teenage boys, and as a grown woman! So yes, based purely on my own life experience I can totally imagine that happening!

I didn't say his past sexual history was relevant, it's not.

givyjoe

twill wrote: »

It's a bit pointless to argue with you if you're going to twist my words and pretend I said things that I didn't say. And if you think such opinions aren't endemic, you're not reading the thread, where it's been argued by more than a few posters that a woman who goes back to a man's apartment/flirts/goes out with a famous person has already agreed to sex.

You're actually having a completely laugh now.. Twist your words?! I've done nothing of the sort. I've read the thread, and you are now clearly twisted words. Nobody, on this thread has said that she has agreed to have sex by simply going back to his apartment. Sweet jebus the irony.

twill

twill wrote: »

You have manifestly failed to establish that so far.

Hilarious. :pac::pac:

You just don't want to acknowledge that your excuse for women not approaching men, reflects the same criticisms that women place on men. You started this. You even worded it that way.

Funny.

Edit:

twill wrote: »

where it's been argued by more than a few posters that a woman who goes back to a man's apartment/flirts/goes out with a famous person has already agreed to sex.

Err.. no. It wasn't argued that. The kissing, touching, undressing and oral sex suggested consent for sex.

Just on the moving the hand to the groin thing, any other lad here had the whole "Stop. Don't stop" experience? Bloody infuriating and this seems a case where it goes very badly.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well I don't know about you, but when they began kissing for the first time, when he suggesting finding a condom, to which she "allegedly" responded with "Whoa, lets relax for a second, let's chill" .... would have been the first signal of discomfort...it also is an very odd thing to suggest after a first kiss!

"He moved my hand to his d@@k at least 5-7 times"....the fact she didn't grab it the first time would be another signal...

"It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a ****ing game.”....another signal...

"Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”...another signal....

“I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”....another signal...

I really shouldn't have to go on...this sounds like a prolonged sexual assault...

Its really sad that we can't all agree that his behaviour was outrageous...

Exactly. It's troubling, though not in the least surprising, that the usual suspects on here don't see anything wrong with that. If someone is verbally and physically resisting sexual advances, you don't need to be a fcuking mindreader to stop. Regardless of the ethics of naming him, the behaviour as described here is not on, no matter who was doing it. Describing this as normal male sexuality is an insult to men.

Exact same crowd who reckon consent classes are an assault on masculinity and nobody needs them, of course.

twill

givyjoe wrote: »

You're actually having a completely laugh now.. Twist your words?! I've done nothing of the sort. I've read the thread, and you are now clearing twisted words. Nobody, on this thread has said that she has agreed to have sex by simply going back to his apartment. Sweet jebus the irony.

kaymin wrote: »

I find it very naive that you would allow a stranger stay over in your house overnight especially when you have no interest in them. Inviting some-one back to their apartment / home is the ultimate lead-on. It is denying reality to think otherwise.

Right, no one. That's just from this page.

You just don't want to acknowledge that your excuse for women not approaching men, reflects the same criticisms that women place on men. You started this. You even worded it that way.

It's not an excuse. It's a reason. Again, I'm not sure what you think I started. I'm not engaging in whatever gender war garbage you seem to be pushing.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

He moved them there and didn't force her to keep them there. Now... you remove the context (the date, the kissing and foreplay) and I'd completely agree with you. You include the context and all that happened before, and it sounds just part of the overall experience. She didn't tell him that she didn't want to touch him there... And I do suspect quite a bit more happened than what she reported because the foreplay is rather disjointed.

Deleted User wrote: »

The imagery. Seriously... Put what you have described in a little video within your head. Put hand on dick, move away, push back, etc 7 times.

You really think that happened? Without him asking WTF? or her saying something aloud about it? And yet.. her account doesn't mention anything of the sort, except some mumbling.

How is her past experience with men or sex irrelevant? And yet his is?

If I try to hand you something and you won't take it from me a half dozen times one would hardly need to hold a degree in psychology to deduce that you didn't want to hold it.

Deleted User wrote: »

She was 23. She's hardly a child freshly entering adulthood with no experience of the world. What? She's never seen a movie containing what happens when you go home with a guy after a date?

Fact is... we know nothing about her background, and we're all making loads of assumptions about his. But if we were to make similar assumptions about her background, likely she'd have had a few sexual relationships before meeting him, likely have had at least one ons, etc. Hardly the blushing virgin with no experience of men.

Maybe she had. Maybe she was expecting a man in his 30s not to act like a horny teenager. Like I said, she appears to have had a different expectation of the date than he did and, like I said, if they had both communicated better then this would have been a non issue.

Aside: Why are you happily making assumptions about her sexual past here, yet deriding other people's assumptions?

Deleted User wrote: »

More assumptions, and not particularly balanced ones either. He expected sex. Ok. An acceptable male stereotype about dating, and bringing a girl home after the first date. But she's not interested in a sexual encounter? Really? So... Women don't enjoy sex? Women don't seek ons? Instead, she's seeking a romantic encounter. Right.

Who said women don't enjoy sex? Who said women don't seek ONSs?

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah. If she was looking for a relationship or expecting something romantic, she wouldn't have gone home with him after the first date. She'd have held out for as many as 4-5 dates (or more) before going home with him.

More assumptions, Klaz? Maybe we could hold a poll to see how many people have had sex on the first date and had it turn into a relationship?

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to say, I agree with you. But I'm not going to bend over backward trying to excuse her behavior while condemning his. I think he was a twat, and I don't believe she was as naive as people want her to be.

I dont' think she was naïve, I think she was fully aware that going home with him would likely lead to sex. However I don't think that she was expecting him to be heading to the condom drawer "within minutes of their first kiss" (per the Babe article). She wanted to slow down the encounter, he either didn't cop that or didn't want to slow down.

Terry Muscular Hotel

Terry Muscular Hotel wrote: »

Exact same crowd who reckon consent classes are an assault on masculinity and nobody needs them, of course.

Not seeking to derail the thread, but this is the first time I've even seen a reference to "consent classes".

And TBH I do think that consent and what consists of giving consent should be taught to everyone. Just so we're all clear as to what is expected. I get the feeling that the traditional perspectives on consent no longer cover the whole area.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

anna080 wrote: »

It sounds like an embarrassing fumbling mess of an encounter, but one I certainly would not describe as assault. I'm not gonna jump on the "she should have done this, she should have said that" school of thought because in all honestly that's as useful now as a kick in the face. But it does sound like he was too pushy, she was too passive, and the consequential result was a complete clusterfcuk of awkwardness. I think it's important to note that when she finally voiced up and articulated her reluctance to have sex with him, he seems to have respected that.

Yeah neither of them come off great. I do understand her point that she was struggling to reconcile his behaviour with the image she had of him, and that that was influencing her reaction, but he's not responsible for that like.

Dunno about calling it a sexual assault but it was shítty behaviour from him, the fact that people are like "sure that's just a normal sexual encounter" makes me pretty depressed for the women they're having sex with.

Anzari himself understood the wrongness when she texted him like.

givyjoe

twill wrote: »

Right, no one. That's just from this page. Try facts some time.

It's not an excuse. It's a reason. Again, I'm not sure what you think I started. I'm not engaging in whatever gender war garbage you seem to be pushing.

Jesus wept. He doesn't say that's consent does he? He said lead on.. as others have said, the oul consent could have been taken for example from the 'd!ck in mouth' section of the evening.

Also, I thought it was endemic on this thread? That's just one post which still doesn't back up your word twisting point. Facts.. you're having a laugh.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Just on the moving the hand to the groin thing, any other lad here had the whole "Stop. Don't stop" experience? Bloody infuriating and this seems a case where it goes very badly.

Do you mean the back and forth of apparent consent that can happen, almost like foreplay?

Triceratops Ballet

givyjoe wrote: »

Jesus wept. He doesn't say that's consent does he? He said lead on.. as others have said, the oul consent could have been taken for example from the 'd!ck in mouth' section of the evening.

As an aside, those others are wrong in saying that, one often does follow the other, but one is not consent for the other.

twill

twill wrote: »

It's not an excuse. It's a reason. Again, I'm not sure what you think I started. I'm not engaging in whatever gender war garbage you seem to be pushing.

Gender war garbage I seem to be pushing?

Your words: "The other side to this is that women are often viewed negatively by men if they approach, or assumptions are made about their intentions"

Now I change a little bit:
"The other side to this is that men are often viewed negatively by women if they approach, or assumptions are made about their intentions"

Still don't get it? If you don't... I give up.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

givyjoe wrote: »

Jesus wept. He doesn't say that's consent does he? He said lead on.. as others have said, the oul consent could have been taken for example from the 'd!ck in mouth' section of the evening.

.

If you have your hand in my pants I have a carte blanche for consent do I? Dildo up your arse is implied as fine, is it?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you mean the back and forth of apparent consent that can happen, almost like foreplay?

Perhaps that's one way of putting it

givyjoe

Terry Muscular Hotel wrote: »

If you have your hand in my pants I have a carte blanche for consent do I? Dildo up your arse is implied as fine, is it?

Yeah, thats a completely rational proportional example to make..

Perhaps allowing him to perform oral sex would be an example of consent continuing.

You talk of usual suspects.. :rolleyes:

Terry Muscular Hotel

Terry Muscular Hotel wrote: »

Dunno about calling it a sexual assault but it was shítty behaviour from him, the fact that people are like "sure that's just a normal sexual encounter" makes me pretty depressed for the women they're having sex with.

Who said what happened was "sure that's just a normal sexual encounter"?

I wouldn't imagine it to be anything close to being normal.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Not seeking to derail the thread, but this is the first time I've even seen a reference to "consent classes".

And TBH I do think that consent and what consists of giving consent should be taught to everyone. Just so we're all clear as to what is expected. I get the feeling that the traditional perspectives on consent no longer cover the whole area.

There's been talk of weaving education about consent into sex ed classes, leading to uproar from some quarters that it's, idk, acting like men can't spot when a woman doesn't want to have sex with them which, in the context of this thread is a bit....um...odd.

givyjoe wrote: »

Jesus wept. He doesn't say that's consent does he? He said lead on.. as others have said, the oul consent could have been taken for example from the 'd!ck in mouth' section of the evening.

You can perform oral sex on someone and decide you don't want to go any further. You can perform oral sex on someone and decide you don't want to do it again. You can be in the act of performing oral sex on someone and decide you want to stop now. Them same applies when they are performing oral sex on you; you do not have to let them continue, do it again, or take it further.