[Vengeance]

I don't think anything should happen for a bad date. Professionally he had no power over her. Bad dates suck we have all had them.

The fact that we are focusing more on Ansari and Grace having a 'bad date' rather then say Eliza Dushku's abuse at the hands of the stunt coordinate while filming True Lies to me is problamatic. One is two adults and no forcing other then verbal coercion. The other is a 12 year old child being assaulted in a hotel room.

Bad dates shouldn't ruin carrer's. Assaulting children should ruin careers.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

It's worth reading the actual 3000 word account on babe.net and not just the other blogs and news sites that have dissected and regurgitated the story with things missing and editorializing.

In the actual account, it seems very much like Ansari was BLINDLY tone deaf to the situation...to a degree that can't be dismissed as "Oh, he just didn't read her non-verbal cues", since after she vocally tells him how uncomfy she was a few times and in different ways...and after more than one instance of "calming down, and relaxing"....he goes after the exact same tactics again and again. I can't dismiss that.

If a date says "I'm not comfortable with doing this"....you stop. Unequivocally and for the remainder of the date. You certainly do not try "watching TV" and then blithely repeat the initial tactics you previously employed that got the interaction to stop to begin with. To me that's where this goes WELL off the rails at Ansari's actions. He should have just watched TV with her and chatted to restore her comfort with him as a date (or conversely put her in a cab if the date wasn't going how he thought it would)....he didn't because I'm sure he assumed "This girl came to my place, I'm getting laid tonight" and that thought refused to leave his head, so he kept blundering on and trying.

This isn't as cut and dried as "oh, he just didn't understand what she was laying down"....it's more that he was patently ignoring what she was doing and what she was saying....because he was trying to get off. I can't read her account of the night and NOT see that.

Now, the reality of the specifics of the night might lie somewhere in the middle...but I think I still come down on Ansari was well in the wrong and that should be noted.

I think the level of detail of the account is part of the reason one gets such mixed reaction.

Because it is a long story rife with detail and different details jump out to different people.

So first, I will say that I agree with your take on Ansari. He should have not only picked up cues, but once he got the communication of any discomfort (which happened multiple times), he should have first tried to figure out her exact level of comfort and where she wanted things to go, and second been very careful about making sure she wanted anything he tried after that.

However, in this particular case, not all cues were pointing in the same direction, and when you read all the details, you also get to many points where it is clear from things he is saying or asking for that he does not get her level of discomfort, and where there is opportunity to express it, and where not only is it not expressed, but she then goes along with the next thing he wants to do.

And so some people are reading this and seeing the descriptions of Ansari following her across the room, jamming fingers in her mouth, and then constantly trying to reinitiate.

And other people are reading it, and seeing that he asks for sex, gets a soft no, accepts it, and then asks for oral and then gets it. Gets the bathroom moment, interprets it as discomfort with sex, and then makes very clear that he thinks that is the extent of the discomfort by immediately asking for oral again, reinforced when she does it. For every verbal or non verbal cue she is giving him, there is one in the account where he makes abundantly clear that he does not get that she wants the whole thing to stop. And when she goes along in those moments, she is reinforcing in his mind the idea that she may be hesitant about sex, but is still generally into him and willing for most of what they are doing.

Both those sets of details are in the account. I don't get how he behaved the way he did. But I do get how, given how he was behaving, her level of cooperation led to him dramatically underestimating the level to which she was uncomfortable. Whenever he misread (or ignored) a sign to slow down, his interpretation got reinforced by what happened next. The whole transcript reads like a horror movie where you are mentally shouting at one or the other "No! don't go up the stairs!".

[Abyss]

@D'rek's upthread post:




The difference is in fact the power/pressure/influence or whatever word associated with male public figures of whatever flavour.

It changes the dynamic, as well as the consequences. In theory women should not be more intimidated because a guy appears on the news, has an HBO special, directed a movie or whatever, but there it is.

Price of fame is he has to be more attentive/careful/better behaved when trying to get laid. Not less.

[QuickTidal]

 Vengeance, on 16 January 2018 - 04:03 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

It's worth reading the actual 3000 word account on babe.net and not just the other blogs and news sites that have dissected and regurgitated the story with things missing and editorializing.

In the actual account, it seems very much like Ansari was BLINDLY tone deaf to the situation...to a degree that can't be dismissed as "Oh, he just didn't read her non-verbal cues", since after she vocally tells him how uncomfy she was a few times and in different ways...and after more than one instance of "calming down, and relaxing"....he goes after the exact same tactics again and again. I can't dismiss that.

If a date says "I'm not comfortable with doing this"....you stop. Unequivocally and for the remainder of the date. You certainly do not try "watching TV" and then blithely repeat the initial tactics you previously employed that got the interaction to stop to begin with. To me that's where this goes WELL off the rails at Ansari's actions. He should have just watched TV with her and chatted to restore her comfort with him as a date (or conversely put her in a cab if the date wasn't going how he thought it would)....he didn't because I'm sure he assumed "This girl came to my place, I'm getting laid tonight" and that thought refused to leave his head, so he kept blundering on and trying.

This isn't as cut and dried as "oh, he just didn't understand what she was laying down"....it's more that he was patently ignoring what she was doing and what she was saying....because he was trying to get off. I can't read her account of the night and NOT see that.

Now, the reality of the specifics of the night might lie somewhere in the middle...but I think I still come down on Ansari was well in the wrong and that should be noted.

She also needs to step up and say no. Then get up and leave. If your home and you say hey how about a blow job and she says no. Then time goes by and you say hey how about a blow job and she does it. Yeah he is trying to get off. If she didn't want to get him off then say no and leave. It doesn't say that he pinned her to the ground and forced himself on to her. Then locked her in the bedroom and came back for round 2 at a later time.

I mean, just because he didn't aggressively force her into what happened doesn't exactly mean she didn't feel forced. No one physically forced that one woman to stay on the phone with Louis CK while he audibly masturbated to her voice...but she's still not at fault for that, and CK is still on control of that act. The "she could have hung up" argument falls on the deaf ears of leaving CK blameless for initiating it, and places the responsibility to stop the act on the victim and not the perpetrator. You already feel nervous on a first date (especially after flirty texting for a while), and who's to say that nervousness didn't extend to "not wanting to offend him" so she went along. It's also entirely possible she felt threatened by the very nature of his aggressiveness with regards to the acts. I mean that putting his fingers in a V into her mouth and throat and then sticking them downstairs and doing that same thing repeatedly...that's not normal sexual behaviour. That's domination behaviour. That's an aggressiveness that needs to be agreed upon BEFORE the act as it's not just average sex moves. So who's to say she didn't feel a little trapped by that stuff, to the point she did what he asked.

Not saying she could not have been more vocal and up front with her no....but I at the very least understand that we need to take into account how she might have felt about rejecting him on that level and what she thought that might entail/lead to.

Could she have done things differently? Sure. Could she have been more vocal? Sure. Does that owness fall all on her? Should it? Is he not responsible for his actions as well? Is she the only one expected to keep his actions in check, or should he be cognizant of them as well?

Bottom line, I feel like removing the blame from him in this acts like he needs to be a mind-reader...when that's not really the case. If I kiss my wife and she's not responsively kissing me back (as Grace said she did to Aziz as a non-verbal cue)...I know something is wrong and I'm in trouble. That's not a hard sign to understand as a male. If you have to KEEP grabbing the woman hand and moving it to your junk....and she's not taking that cue to rub your junk...dude...she's not into it.

 D, on 16 January 2018 - 04:03 PM, said:

So I'm curious: what do you (any/all of you) think should happen to Ansari?

I side with Amph from above. If Ansari is apologetic, and seeks to understand where he went wrong...then I think he can be forgiven for a fumbling, pushy date in which he blindly misread all the signs in an OBVIOUS attempt at a one-night stand. No part of that date spells out to me that he was seeking anything more than a hookup, as such I think he went in thinking one thing, and she another. I don't think that's Weinstein level stuff...but it's not cool either. As such, he has every right to learn his lessons and continue his career and put this is his rearview. Whether the public allows him to do that or not is not up to me.

That said, the ending of Season 2 of MASTER OF NONE (which included a slimy guy using his power to sexually harass those working near him) could NOT be more meta than what it was in hindsight with Aziz playing the "heroic" friend who confronts his golden meal ticket and slams him for being an abuser.

But yeah, that V finger thing is what stands out to me most. That's an aggressive control move, and that's where I realize that this is PROBABLY not his first time pulling this pushy stuff on women (rumours persist that this is kind of his hometown MO....finding college-age women and pushy sex moves at his place; time will tell if any other stories come out)...as that's domination behaviour...not some rookie fumble move.

[Nevyn]

 worry, on 16 January 2018 - 01:25 AM, said:

No, the entire post was in earnest and not meant to needle anyone's nerves. Sometimes I respond to a post directly and then springboard from that to related thoughts in later paragraphs, but that aren't necessarily a direct response to the initial post, so if it seemed I was rolling you personally up in that entire thing, I'm sorry. I thought I was being clear from paragraph 2 on that I was expanding to broader (and self-inclusive) territory.

Ok, I can accept that.

I started typing out a long winded response to the part you addressed in reply to me, but I don't want to go back down the road we went before.

So I will keep to the short version. First, when I talked about taking ownership, I did not mean that word in the "taking blame" or "taking responsibility" sense. I meant it in the sense of taking charge. As in you are sharing these tweets of many other women talking about how this is a common circumstance, and how that presents an opportunity not just to try to educate men, but also for women to decide that they don't just have to try to drop hints or spare feelings or give cues, and should not leave their experience up to the ability to sense hesitation, and presumed good character, of the guy.

A woman no more has to do that than she has to keep an eye on her drink in a college bar. Not doing so won't make her culpable or deserving of anything that follows. The onus and blame are not on her. But if she does do it, the likelihood of a bad experience goes down.

[Nevyn]

 Abyss, on 16 January 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:

@D'rek's upthread post:

The difference is in fact the power/pressure/influence or whatever word associated with male public figures of whatever flavour.

It changes the dynamic, as well as the consequences. In theory women should not be more intimidated because a guy appears on the news, has an HBO special, directed a movie or whatever, but there it is.

Price of fame is he has to be more attentive/careful/better behaved when trying to get laid. Not less.

Not sure I agree with that at all.

First, in the case of Ansari, I don't believe his celebrity played any role in her response other than the level to which she was staying in an unenjoyed situation because she wanted to make the thing work. I got zero sense of a power dynamic at play.

But also, in the case of what he did, a big part of the argument that has followed has centered around how a lot of ordinary guys behave very similarly with similar reactions from women. Which both means it was not the power or influence that created the situation, and that one would think women would want consequences for a man doing it regardless of whether he was a celebrity.

But given the comments of QT, worry, and others here, the general consensus seems to be that that consequence should generally be limited to shame and an opportunity to reflect on one's behaviour, and fall short not only of criminal charges, but of even becoming a permanent pariah.

And speaking for my point of view. I think it is healthy to talk about the incident and what Ansari did wrong. But if he puts out more specials or more shows in the future, I am probably still going to watch. But on the other side, if he can't get a date to save his life for the next 15 years, I'm fine with that.

[Abyss]

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 05:21 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 16 January 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:

@D'rek's upthread post:

The difference is in fact the power/pressure/influence or whatever word associated with male public figures of whatever flavour.

It changes the dynamic, as well as the consequences. In theory women should not be more intimidated because a guy appears on the news, has an HBO special, directed a movie or whatever, but there it is.

Price of fame is he has to be more attentive/careful/better behaved when trying to get laid. Not less.

Not sure I agree with that at all.

First, in the case of Ansari, I don't believe his celebrity played any role in her response other than the level to which she was staying in an unenjoyed situation because she wanted to make the thing work.

That's trying to whistle and hum on the same breath... 'it didn't matter except that it did'. My point is that it does and it did.

Quote

I got zero sense of a power dynamic at play.

The story reports her excitement re who he is, so I don't accept that it doesn't play a part.

Quote

But also, in the case of what he did, a big part of the argument that has followed has centered around how a lot of ordinary guys behave very similarly with similar reactions from women. Which both means it was not the power or influence that created the situation, and that one would think women would want consequences for a man doing it regardless of whether he was a celebrity.

Yeah, and this is where the ideal and the reality divide. In an ideal world (this wouldn't happen in the first place, but) perhaps his celebrity wouldn't matter, but it does.

Quote

But given the comments of QT, worry, and others here, the general consensus seems to be that that consequence should generally be limited to shame and an opportunity to reflect on one's behaviour, and fall short not only of criminal charges, but of even becoming a permanent pariah.

And speaking for my point of view. I think it is healthy to talk about the incident and what Ansari did wrong. But if he puts out more specials or more shows in the future, I am probably still going to watch. But on the other side, if he can't get a date to save his life for the next 15 years, I'm fine with that.

Cynical point... so it`s ok for him to make a profit off his celebrity, but not to get a date. How about if he runs for political office? I don't have the answers and the questions are troubling. One can choose to still watch Ansari`s stuff, ok, but how about old Trek episodes in light of the George Takai accusations, or House of Cards post Spacey, are more people going to watch Today because of how NBC dealt with Matt Lauer, or less... and hey how about President Pussy-Grabber.... where does the line get drawn between having bad judgment and being a bad person and where do the consequences start and end...?




SO I agree it IS healthy to talk about the incident, and all the other incidents, but at the end of the day, if I were choosing between a movie starring some guy who may have forced women to do anything but says he feels bad about it, and some guy who didn't, I have an easy time making that decision. Same for what tv series I watch, what news, and who I vote for.

But that's just me.

[Nevyn]

 Abyss, on 16 January 2018 - 06:17 PM, said:

That's trying to whistle and hum on the same breath... 'it didn't matter except that it did'. My point is that it does and it did.

No it is not. Power/pressure/influence is an implication of consequence and is naturally coercive.

Her admiration and default attachment to him is not power. Because she was still free to leave consequence free.

She didn't WANT to leave much later into the encounter than she would with a non celebrity.

You and worry and others are trying to equate this to the Louis CK dynamic, which is "this guy might hire me to write for his show some day, or ask me to open for him, and I can't burn that bridge". Again, there is no indication she thought there would be any retribution, there is no indication she thought leaving would be bad for her career.

All that happened was that she kept overlooking progressively more and more behaviour she did not enjoy because she was particularly eager to be in relationship with him. And that is not a default that implies only to celebrity. That could equally be the boy with the nice dimples who she's been hoping would ask her out for months.

Quote

Cynical point... so it`s ok for him to make a profit off his celebrity, but not to get a date.

He's not making a profit off his celebrity. He became a celebrity because people were entertained by him. I am saying that his behaviour does not change that dynamic for me, nor make me feel like I need to boycott work I would otherwise watch to chastise him.


But I wasn't going to date him regardless, and have no say in what other adults decide or not about his character. If women are put off by it and won't date him, oh well, he did it. That's not a punishment, it is their choice.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 16 January 2018 - 06:38 PM

[QuickTidal]

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

No it is not. Power/pressure/influence is an implication of consequence and is naturally coercive.

Her admiration and default attachment to him is not power.

Huh? That second sentence is VERY much a definition of "power". She admires him. He knows it because he's famous and she's not. He possibly thinks "I'm famous, and she's come to my place on a date...she likely wants to hook up with me like this". Just because that power stems from her "default attachment to him" doesn't make it any less a power he'd be WELL aware of.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

Because she was still free to leave consequence free.

We don't know what his reaction to her leaving earlier than she did would have been. And recall she's a Photographer in NYC...that's very much something he could take hits at if he wanted to, steering other famous people away from her as a job. But above and beyond that, just because it ended with her in a cab on the way home...after she FINALLY got her point across to him...doesn't mean that same outcome would have transpired earlier in the heat of the moment. We don't know, but we should not speculate that she was in any way "free to leave consequence free", no more than we should assume the opposite out of hand.

I also think it should be pointed out that the whole notion that this was just a bad date and the things that transpired in it are just things that "happen" on a bad date...is fucking ludicrous. Worry is right, society has NORMALIZED male sexual behaviour in these instances to make it seem like "Oh, this was just miscommunication, and bad sex encounter on a bad sloppy date"...which is on par with "Oh, they are just boys being boys"....which is bullshit.

Look, at one point she wants to call it off to the "Next date"...and his response is "If I get you more wine, will that count as the second date?" It's literally him saying "I want this, and I'm going to keep probing at your defences in different ways to get you to agree to it, even tough you JUST told me fucking emphatically that you didn't want to continue doing this." So acting like he doesn't "get her cues" and is just being a typical pushy, sloppy guy trying to get some....should NOT be normalized behaviour that we all accept as a "bad date". It should be categorized as predatory male behaviour that should be stunted.

No one is saying that they should have to sign consent contracts before they engage in acts...but FFS these is enough in this story to see that Aziz is purposely trying to get some and keeps hammering at her defences and hesitancy until he does.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

Huh? That second sentence is VERY much a definition of "power". She admires him. He knows it because he's famous and she's not. He possibly thinks "I'm famous, and she's come to my place on a date...she likely wants to hook up with me like this". Just because that power stems from her "default attachment to him" doesn't make it any less a power he'd be WELL aware of.

Again, that is no more power than the cute guy she had a crush on for months who finally paid her attention.

Quote

We don't know what his reaction to her leaving earlier than she did would have been.

First, yeah we do, because they didn't have sex, and she left. I have no idea why you think she would get a different reaction earlier.

Quote

And recall she's a Photographer in NYC...that's very much something he could take hits at if he wanted to, steering other famous people away from her as a job. But above and beyond that, just because it ended with her in a cab on the way home...after she FINALLY got her point across to him...doesn't mean that same outcome would have transpired earlier in the heat of the moment. We don't know, but we should not speculate that she was in any way "free to leave consequence free", no more than we should assume the opposite out of hand.

You really are making all men powerful if you just default assume they were going to rape you if you said no in the heat of the moment. Also there was not a lot of heat of the moment. There were about 15 different times where all action stopped. When she is in the bathroom and he is saying "its not fun unless we both have fun" is that the heat of the moment? Are you suggesting he would react badlly if she excused herself right then? Because I'm guessing he'd have called her an uber and made the same essence joke he made later.

And all of the "just maybe" stuff with her job is a bit out there.


If she worked at a sawmill in wisconsin, he could still call up her boss and say "hey if you fire this girl I can hook you up with tickets". Any guy, if you assume maximum vindictiveness, can impact a girl's career. And vice versa.

The point is that she never mentions being the least bit concerned about her work. She doesn't mention hoping he would get her work. She doesn't mention him knowing people she works for. She doesn't mention him ever suggesting he could be helpful or harmful to her career. They do not directly work together. People keep projecting this idea on to the encounter without the least indication it was a factor.

There is zero evidence any of that was ever on her mind. Or his. So it being on the mind of commenters is beside the point. And the hypotheticals you are throwing around are now damning him not only for stuff he did, but stuff we-dont-know-for-sure-he-would-not-have-done-so-even-though-she-never-mentions-it-it-was-a-veiled-threat-beneath-the-surface.

[QuickTidal]

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

Huh? That second sentence is VERY much a definition of "power". She admires him. He knows it because he's famous and she's not. He possibly thinks "I'm famous, and she's come to my place on a date...she likely wants to hook up with me like this". Just because that power stems from her "default attachment to him" doesn't make it any less a power he'd be WELL aware of.

Again, that is no more power than the cute guy she had a crush on for months who finally paid her attention.

Are you serious here? He's a rich, famous, and respected comedian/actor/writer. That you think he's got no power over the non-famous/non-rich women he might date just by dint of who he is...speaks a bit to me of your stance.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

First, yeah we do, because they didn't have sex, and she left.

I'm not sure why you consider what they did not having sex. Is oral not considered sex in your universe? Because it is in mine. How about lesbians? Do they have sex when it's just oral pleasure? I would wager that it is considered that. Just because there was no penetration mentioned, doesn't mean they'd didn't have sex.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

I have no idea why you think she would get a different reaction earlier.

Earlier before he'd actually gotten what he wanted out of the encounter (getting off)...yeah, I wonder why I feel he might have reacted differently BEFORE that. Hmmmmm....

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

You really are making all men powerful if you just default assume they were going to rape you if you said no in the heat of the moment.

It's not really something I like having to note...but yes, as a culture that possibility is ALWAYS going to be the on the table of "possible" since it DOES happen so frequently...that's not saying that all men are like that by a long shot...but we've seen time and time again that women need to have their full wits about them with strange men/new dates...because that possibility is ALWAYS dangling there. The guy could be good as gold, and the woman would/should STILL feel her way around the situation with the possibility that things may go south FAST.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

And all of the "just maybe" stuff with her job is a bit out there.

Because men in power positions have never sunk lowly people in their industry because it's "out there"? It happens all the time in most companies everywhere. This is not a Hollywood specific thing...this is a global male dominance thing. So yeah, that's on the table nonenesless even is Aziz never acts on it...it's a possibility.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

If she worked at a sawmill in wisconsin, he could still call up her boss and say "hey if you fire this girl I can hook you up with tickets". Any guy, if you assume maximum vindictiveness, can impact a girl's career. And vice versa.

Don't be obtuse. I specifically mentioned that she's a photographer and he's in the entertainment industry (enough to be at an Emmy after party)...those two things are WAY more in the sphere of "working in the industry" than him who he is and she works as a damned sawmill. Come on.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

The point is that she never mentions being the least bit concerned about her work. She doesn't mention hoping he would get her work. She doesn't mention him knowing people she works for. She doesn't mention him ever suggesting he could be helpful or harmful to her career. They do not directly work together. People keep projecting this idea on to the encounter without the least indication it was a factor.

So because it's not explicitly mentioned means it's a non-starter? I'm not saying it was something Aziz would have ever considered. You are trying to say there is no power involved...considering my initial comment about his level of celebrity...that should be clear. Her job as a photographer at after parties in NYC...IS also a power quotient whether it's utilized as such or not.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

There is zero evidence any of that was ever on her mind. Or his. So it being on the mind of commenters is beside the point. And the hypotheticals you are throwing around are now damning him not only for stuff he did, but stuff we-dont-know-for-sure-he-would-not-have-done-so-even-though-she-never-mentions-it-it-was-a-veiled-threat-beneath-the-surface.

No, I'm damning him for the stuff he CLEARLY did. Any speculation on jobs or power are in reposes to you saying he had no power over her. I not only disagree, I pointed out to you how that is the case in one instance (his celebrity VS her non-celebrity), and gave you another possible reason why that might not be the case. I never claimed it was accurate, just that it should be considered when talking about his "power over her". Obviously the celebrity power is the far more easy to nail down "power".

Look, if you don't accept the posit that he's famous and rich and she's on a date with a celebrity and that by it's very nature is his power (and if you're famous, you KNOW about that dynamic) and therefore is a power over her...then I'm not sure we'll find a common ground on that subject t be honest.

[Mentalist]

QT, by your logic, anytime a business manager goes out with a cashier (from a completely different store) there's an inherent "presumed power imbalance" . With the only way to avoid it would be to make sure people only date their social "equals"

I'll have to agree with nevyn. Sometimes people don't care about their social status. It's not on everyone's mind 24/7 and it does not always govern how people think about themselves.

[QuickTidal]

 Mentalist, on 16 January 2018 - 08:10 PM, said:

QT, by your logic, anytime a business manager goes out with a cashier (from a completely different store) there's an inherent "presumed power imbalance" . With the only way to avoid it would be to make sure people only date their social "equals"

Huh? No. If they don't work for the same company then there is no power imbalance. That's not at all what I was saying.

Aziz is an entertainer, and she's a photographer invited to entertainer events (to document them, if her photos are any indication). As such they work in the same industry at different jobs that have overlapped at the VERY EVENT they met at. That leaves an inherent connection to their jobs. All Aziz has to do if he feels the need is blackball her with friends and co-workers, and her jobs in NYC at those parties dips and it affects her status quo. Like Is aid, I;m not implying this was even on his mind...but the implication that such a power dynamic exists in this situation is there, again whether people want to accept that or not. It's present.

If he's just a random business manager and she's a cashier form a different company...there would never be a power imbalance there. Unless she felt that she didn't make as much money as him, but that's a different thing.

 Mentalist, on 16 January 2018 - 08:10 PM, said:

I'll have to agree with nevyn. Sometimes people don't care about their social status. It's not on everyone's mind 24/7 and it does not always govern how people think about themselves.

Not "being on someone's mind", doesn't magically remove it from the conversation by a long shot. Sorry.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 07:47 PM, said:

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 16 January 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

Huh? That second sentence is VERY much a definition of "power". She admires him. He knows it because he's famous and she's not. He possibly thinks "I'm famous, and she's come to my place on a date...she likely wants to hook up with me like this". Just because that power stems from her "default attachment to him" doesn't make it any less a power he'd be WELL aware of.

Again, that is no more power than the cute guy she had a crush on for months who finally paid her attention.

Are you serious here? He's a rich, famous, and respected comedian/actor/writer. That you think he's got no power over the non-famous/non-rich women he might date just by dint of who he is...speaks a bit to me of your stance.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

First, yeah we do, because they didn't have sex, and she left.

I'm not sure why you consider what they did not having sex. Is oral not considered sex in your universe? Because it is in mine. How about lesbians? Do they have sex when it's just oral pleasure? I would wager that it is considered that. Just because there was no penetration mentioned, doesn't mean they'd didn't have sex.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

I have no idea why you think she would get a different reaction earlier.

Earlier before he'd actually gotten what he wanted out of the encounter (getting off)...yeah, I wonder why I feel he might have reacted differently BEFORE that. Hmmmmm....

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

You really are making all men powerful if you just default assume they were going to rape you if you said no in the heat of the moment.

It's not really something I like having to note...but yes, as a culture that possibility is ALWAYS going to be the on the table of "possible" since it DOES happen so frequently...that's not saying that all men are like that by a long shot...but we've seen time and time again that women need to have their full wits about them with strange men/new dates...because that possibility is ALWAYS dangling there. The guy could be good as gold, and the woman would/should STILL feel her way around the situation with the possibility that things may go south FAST.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

And all of the "just maybe" stuff with her job is a bit out there.

Because men in power positions have never sunk lowly people in their industry because it's "out there"? It happens all the time in most companies everywhere. This is not a Hollywood specific thing...this is a global male dominance thing. So yeah, that's on the table nonenesless even is Aziz never acts on it...it's a possibility.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

If she worked at a sawmill in wisconsin, he could still call up her boss and say "hey if you fire this girl I can hook you up with tickets". Any guy, if you assume maximum vindictiveness, can impact a girl's career. And vice versa.

Don't be obtuse. I specifically mentioned that she's a photographer and he's in the entertainment industry (enough to be at an Emmy after party)...those two things are WAY more in the sphere of "working in the industry" than him who he is and she works as a damned sawmill. Come on.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

The point is that she never mentions being the least bit concerned about her work. She doesn't mention hoping he would get her work. She doesn't mention him knowing people she works for. She doesn't mention him ever suggesting he could be helpful or harmful to her career. They do not directly work together. People keep projecting this idea on to the encounter without the least indication it was a factor.

So because it's not explicitly mentioned means it's a non-starter? I'm not saying it was something Aziz would have ever considered. You are trying to say there is no power involved...considering my initial comment about his level of celebrity...that should be clear. Her job as a photographer at after parties in NYC...IS also a power quotient whether it's utilized as such or not.

 Nevyn, on 16 January 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

There is zero evidence any of that was ever on her mind. Or his. So it being on the mind of commenters is beside the point. And the hypotheticals you are throwing around are now damning him not only for stuff he did, but stuff we-dont-know-for-sure-he-would-not-have-done-so-even-though-she-never-mentions-it-it-was-a-veiled-threat-beneath-the-surface.

No, I'm damning him for the stuff he CLEARLY did. Any speculation on jobs or power are in reposes to you saying he had no power over her. I not only disagree, I pointed out to you how that is the case in one instance (his celebrity VS her non-celebrity), and gave you another possible reason why that might not be the case. I never claimed it was accurate, just that it should be considered when talking about his "power over her". Obviously the celebrity power is the far more easy to nail down "power".

Look, if you don't accept the posit that he's famous and rich and she's on a date with a celebrity and that by it's very nature is his power (and if you're famous, you KNOW about that dynamic) and therefore is a power over her...then I'm not sure we'll find a common ground on that subject t be honest.

We aren't going to find common ground.

What I told Abyss was not that he did not have power, but that there was not a power dynamic at play and being used in their interaction.

In other words, he did not implicitly or explicitly suggest he would use his influence if he did not get his way at any point, nor was she ever under the impression that there would be consequences to a rejection. Remember what this is being contrast against. Producers dangling careers explicitly in front of young actresses.

You are talking about the abstract concept of power, and I am talking about its use.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 16 January 2018 - 08:40 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

This article quite nicely sums up the weirdness of the original Ansari article for me: https://www.theguard...sed-opportunity

[Nevyn]

 Mezla PigDog, on 16 January 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

This article quite nicely sums up the weirdness of the original Ansari article for me: https://www.theguard...sed-opportunity

Weird, the author doesn't think he leveraged his power to do wrong.

It is almost like she is completely ignoring his implied thread of first not letting her leave and then having her blackballed that he did by saying nothing about it at any time.


All sarcasm aside, that is an excellent article.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 16 January 2018 - 08:57 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

I think putting yourself in Grace's shoes in that she's in this older famous guys apartment, naked, being manhandled and thinking "shit, I want to leave". It would feel like a massive scene to get some space, grab your clothes, get dressed and get out. And he is famous. It would be really awkward to assert yourself in that situation and especially at the age of 22. Just the age gap alone he should have been more sensitive - I'm 37, sleeping with a 22 year old would be like sleeping with a minor!

[worry]

Lots of posts since I went to bed, and I haven't gotten through them all, but I'll try to quickly address a few things I did see.

I wouldn't say at all that I'm trying to relate this to the Louis CK situation. I haven't mentioned him, though others have, and he hasn't been on my mind one way or another here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What I'm relating it to is where this happens between any two people on a date, regardless of public figure status. I don't think it's a grey area of whether Aziz committed sexual assault. He did. The grey area would be in whether it was criminal sexual assault. Whether he "should" be punished legally isn't my focus though, because the vast majority of criminal sexual assaults, the vast majority of rapes, don't get prosecuted at all anyway. It's kind of a moot point.

What might be more beneficial is talking about how this kind of thing isn't "just a shitty date" even when it's nobody Joe. We don't define every "right" and "wrong" thing by whether it should or can or will be provable or punished in a court of law.

 D, on 16 January 2018 - 04:03 PM, said:

When you go on a first date with nobody-Joe who works at the factory down the road, you have some wine and dinner, you go back to his apartment, he gets touchy too fast, doesn't pick up on your cues at all, it's uncomfortable but you go along with it for a bit before leaving, etc, ... then it's "just" a shitty date. You go home, complain to your friends, text him that he's an asshole, and maybe spread some word around your social circles that he's a dickhead and not to date him.

^^^Like I don't disagree with this response, since that's going to be what happens most of the time. But I will say it causes more damage, more dysfunction than the immediate impact may suggest, and is part of the foundation of rape culture that the (mostly) guys in these scenarios don't get what they did was wrong at all. That Aziz Ansari didn't just ignore his date's wishes, didn't just press the issue over and over to wear her down, but that he thought nothing of it, didn't realize it was wrong, didn't even consider it until she contacted him about it the next day. The (mostly) women in these scenarios were sexually assaulted -- maybe to a degree they're used to, that's normalized, that doesn't even register as "actual assault" to them either. But they were, and the men committed sexual assault. The shrugging it off, as a society, has got to die. Is dying, I think and hope.

I'm not ignoring that in this specific case the power roles were different than on an average date...I just haven't read all the posts yet and don't know how covered the topic already is, though my sense from what I have read so far is I agree with QT. I will say, personally, the more I think about the Aziz/Grace story in particular, the less ambiguity I'm finding in it, especially having read the account more than once. I was probably granting him more than the benefit of the doubt, initially, because I like him -- and I am trying to reckon with that impulse in myself (as many of us are lately, naturally). I very much agree with Abyss's points there though.

[Centzon Totochtin]

To mods: I would suggest this thread belongs in discussions rather than the inn now

[worry]

On another note, Dushku's coming forward inspired two other victims of Joel Kramer to come forward too: https://deadline.com...hku-1202243343/