Aziz Ansari - sexual assault or unwarranted assault on reputation

Wibbs

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.

This +1000

Contessa Raven wrote: »

The part I have the biggest issue with is that she says that she was in contact with him the next day and she expressed how the night made her feel and he responded to apologise and that his intention wasn't to make her feel the way she did.
So why is she going public with it now? They both made mistakes. He has apologised for his and now she is "outing" him because he wore the badge to the GG's? I don't get it.

Good question C. I would boil it down to: Attention seeking. Revenge for him not living up to her fantasy. Wanting to say #metoo. Possible monetary angle? Media, both social and professional enables this and laps it up. I'd say that covers most of the bases.

Contessa Raven

Silentcorner wrote: »

Sexual assault is an act in which a person sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.

He didn't coerce or force her. He placed her hand on his groin and she was free to leave it there or remove it as she saw fit. As for him putting it back there, perhaps he thought that she had gotten more into the mood. We don't know how quickly all the hand on crotch incidents happened. Maybe several minutes passed. She could have resisted when he started to move her hand. She could have said "Stop" or "No".

We're getting into silly territory here. Context is everything. It is not a huge leap to assume that if I wrap my mouth around someone's genitals, even for a brief period, that I would be OK with my hands touching them there also. If I am really uncomfortable with either of those things, and there is no reason to feel threatened or in danger, then I won't do them and I will clearly express that to the other person.

Triceratops Ballet

givyjoe wrote: »

So that I don't misinterpret your words.. you think that right before intercourse, the next words should be '.. are you ok..?. Or would, '.. may I now enter you..' or '.. may i now straddle you..' be better? Should the person repeat this with each thrust to ensure continued consent?

Some very strange sexual habits on here.

It seems there are two types of folks who could do with consent classes, those who are unable to verbalise their feelings of discomfort and those that are pushy and unable to pick up on clear signs of unease indicating no consent. Everyone else in between seems to be are doing just fine.

I mean they don't have to be "are you ok" they can be "is this ok", "do you want to", there's the awkward condom pause too that gives you time to ascertain you're both on the same page, like it's not a race.

If at any point your partner looks uncomfortable or stops reciprocating you can ask again are they ok I don't see what's odd or difficult about it. Maybe I'm just a considerate person and I've only been with exceptionally considerate men but in my experience that's not an uncommon occurrence.

Wibbs

kylith wrote: »

Asking 'where would you like me to fck you' is not asking 'would you like me to fck you'. She demurred and said 'next time':

Or god forbid she could have just said no K. Or walked away from the meal. Or not go back to his gaff. Or not engage in some hanky panky. Lo and behold when she did say no, he stopped on the spot. He was clearly inept but her pretty damned mixed signals did not help matters.

That's pretty feckin' sleazy.

Sounds pretty sleazy alright, though I'd go more towards the socially/romantically inept angle. Let's take away what she was thinking for the moment, because she wasn't on a date with Uri Gellar.

Him: “Where do you want me to **** you?”

Her: ‘Next time.’

Him: ‘Oh, you mean second date?’

Her: ‘Oh, yeah, sure’

Him ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’

Tone would make a huge difference here. The above said back and forth in a bantering jokey way becomes a helluva lot less "sleazy". His ineptitude kicks in when he thinks this still means let's play ball on that date.

Agreed

I'd have no issue at all with consent classes so long as K said it's not hijacked by some of the current "feminist" rhetoric and slant. Make it clear it is everyone's responsibility regarding consent.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

givyjoe wrote: »

What on earth are you on about?! Utterly ludicrous examples that leave me wondering what on earth happens in your bedroom.

What's your take on how sex works/ should work? Every.. single.. act requires specifically asking.. 'Can i...?'

As for the hand on crotch 7 times, its one part of the account I find hard to believe (numbers wise). Was she literally counting '1 mississippi, 2 mississippi' each time he did it?. Did the oral sex takes place after this? I may have missed it, but he didn't force himself inside her mouth did he? I'd have to re-check the definition of sexual assault to see if placing her hand on his crotch meets the definition sexual assault, perhaps it does.

I mean what's the difference in terms of the crux of the matter here, consent. As you rather crudely put it, you reckon the "dick in the mouth section of the evening" implied consent for other sexual acts, so why can I not take your hand in my pants as reasonably implied consent for my finger up your arse. How am I supposed to know you don't like it, after all, I'm not a mind reader.

My take on how sex works, specifically casual sex with a stranger, is to tune into verbal and physical cues and if in doubt, check if what you're doing is ok, as pointed out above, not in a "please may I do xyz?" just in "do you like that/is that ok?" way. It's not rocket science. Yes people are capable of speaking up, but I'm not personally so hard up for a ride or inconsiderate of other people that I can think "I'm not sure they want me to do this but they're not explicitly saying no, so fcuk it, freebie!"

You're not answering my question about the hand on the dick, nice goal post moving.

Silentcorner

Contessa Raven wrote: »

He didn't coerce or force her. He placed her hand on his groin and she was free to leave it there or remove it as she saw fit. As for him putting it back there, perhaps he thought that she had gotten more into the mood. We don't know how quickly all the hand on crotch incidents happened. Maybe several minutes passed. She could have resisted when he started to move her hand. She could have said "Stop" or "No".

We're getting into silly territory here. Context is everything. It is not a huge leap to assume that if I wrap my mouth around someone's genitals, even for a brief period, that I would be OK with my hands touching them there also. If I am really uncomfortable with either of those things, and there is no reason to feel threatened or in danger, then I won't do them and I will clearly express that to the other person.

She did remove it...between 5 and 7 times...he thought she had gotten more in the mood!! Come on....

Listen, I will freely admit I got it wrong if someone can show me a definition of sexual assault that is different to the one I have presented because I am clearly struggling with accepting that this wasn't a sexual assault...

manonboard

Silentcorner wrote: »

The line between just behaving like a di#k and committing a sexual assault is very very thin....

I read through this thread earlier and again now.

I initially disliked the woman more because it was one sided, and i wasnt too impressed with the outing of him, but keeping herself anonymous.
If she thought it could damage her, then it could equally (more so) damage him.

After a reflecting on the topic. I think you are logically correct Silentcorner. I think by definition the repeated putting of her hands on his c*** would be classed as a form of coercion and that suits the definition of sexual assault. Logically it makes sense. However I also see two other sides to it.

This stuff does not happen in a vacuum of equal roles in these situations. If men were to not be more pushy than women in these encounters, very little initiation would ever happen. We are constantly encouraged as teens and young adults. When taking the ridiculous amount of confusion and mind games we all experience when learning to interact sexually, I absolutely see where people find it non 'real world' to apply your very logical definition.
Luckily as an adult, I've been deeply immersed in communities that have very high communication, practice, and standards of consent, and equality. It's not however mainstream. Infact, I know many who consider it 'not hot' to ask.

The other point is that this woman absolutely gave signs of non consent. I dont doubt her recollection at all (stating she wanted to calm down, and pulling her hand away). She also gave many forms of consent signals such as not saying no, kissing, undressing, and performing oral sex on the man). Its partially akin to say "I moved my mouth away from his lips so he could not kiss me, I then used my hands to masturbate him, so i don't think he should of thought it was ok to masturbate me". It's incredibly grey.

When she verbally said no. He stopped.

I think he acted like a d*** and knew he was coercing a person into acts they weren't too cool with, and would likely regret. He learned this behavior from society and i've no doubt he knew he was walking a thin line. The woman also contributed to this cycle by giving some hints of a no, and then other large ones as a yes. By going back with him after a few drinks, thereby taking part in a huge social mating dance.

So logically, I think you are right, I think it was sexual assault, by the thinnest margin.
However I think the context of how it happens, is absolutely re-enforced by fairly 'normal' mating habits of our society. I think there is huge responsibility on both of these people.
I think he should not be punished legally as the social context supports his actions, and until they change, i dont act shocked that animals behave like animals. I do think she was absolutely right for calling him out on his behavior. If her goal was to highlight wrongness, and improve things. Good.

Silentcorner

manonboard wrote: »

I read through this thread earlier and again now.

I initially disliked the woman more because it was one sided, and i wasnt too impressed with the outing of him, but keeping herself anonymous.
If she thought it could damage her, then it could equally (more so) damage him.

After a reflecting on the topic. I think you are logically correct Silentcorner. I think by definition the repeated putting of her hands on his c*** would be classed as a form of coercion and that suits the definition of sexual assault. Logically it makes sense. However I also see two other sides to it.

This stuff does not happen in a vacuum of equal roles in these situations. If men were to not be more pushy than women in these encounters, very little initiation would ever happen. We are constantly encouraged as teens and young adults. When taking the ridiculous amount of confusion and mind games we all experience when learning to interact sexually, I absolutely see where people find it non 'real world' to apply your very logical definition.
Luckily as an adult, I've been deeply immersed in communities that have very high communication, practice, and standards of consent, and equality. It's not however mainstream. Infact, I know many who consider it 'not hot' to ask.

The other point is that this woman absolutely gave signs of non consent. I dont doubt her recollection at all (stating she wanted to calm down, and pulling her hand away). She also gave many forms of consent signals such as not saying no, kissing, undressing, and performing oral sex on the man). Its partially akin to say "I moved my mouth away from his lips so he could not kiss me, I then used my hands to masturbate him, so i don't think he should of thought it was ok to masturbate me". It's incredibly grey.

When she verbally said no. He stopped.

I think he acted like a d*** and knew he was coercing a person into acts they weren't too cool with, and would likely regret. He learned this behavior from society and i've no doubt he knew he was walking a thin line. The woman also contributed to this cycle by giving some hints of a no, and then other large ones as a yes. By going back with him after a few drinks, thereby taking part in a huge social mating dance.

So logically, I think you are right, I think it was sexual assault, by the thinnest margin.
However I think the context of how it happens, is absolutely re-enforced by fairly 'normal' mating habits of our society. I think there is huge responsibility on both of these people.
I think he should not be punished legally as the social context supports his actions, and until they change, i dont act shocked that animals behave like animals. I do think she was absolutely right for calling him out on his behavior. If her goal was to highlight wrongness, and improve things. Good.

Thank you for articulating what I have been trying to articulate in vain....

manonboard

coercion
the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

It's an interesting topic you bring Silentcorner.

This is the crux of the problem.
Did he use force? yes, if by definition it means physically altering the location of her body. That doesn't hold up really though. Its bread and butter in bed to move another.
Threat? no, he didn't threaten her, but did she perceive a threat? Maybe even self inflicted from her own ego? Perhaps from the fact that he previous experiences say its possible?

I think if we need to define sexual assault using the word coercion, then we need to know this word means too.

Its a very tricky topic, and needs to be looked at in the context of how humans react/feel/perceive when they are emotionally and sexually aroused. Our thinking is FAR from rational in any kind of heightened emotional/sexual state. It takes many many years of practice to be able to have an emotion/narrative play in our mind/body without succumbing to it through identification. These skills, we definitely do not teach people. Legally, maybe it is sexual assault, morally in the intent of the law? I dont know, definitely wrong though.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I'll be interested to see his response, if he gives one. I'd understand her doing this if his response to her at the time had been different, but he seemed regretful and took responsibility. He's always struck me as an insightful and kind man, maybe it's all just one big cynical charade but I wouldn't think so.

manonboard

Silentcorner wrote: »

Thank you for articulating what I have been trying to articulate in vain....

I think you did a fine job of articulating yourself. Infact, your comments greatly added to my reflection upon the whole matter.

Triceratops Ballet

Terry Muscular Hotel wrote: »

I'll be interested to see his response, if he gives one. I'd understand her doing this if his response to her at the time had been different, but he seemed regretful and took responsibility. He's always struck me as an insightful and kind man, maybe it's all just one big cynical charade but I wouldn't think so.

He's responded

edited to add: I think it's a fine response, and I certainly don't think him a hypocrite. I've read his book and watched master of none, he comes across as very conscientious and insightful, that could all be for the cameras though, I hope it's not.

al87987

Genuine question: Does the fact that he is only 5 foot 6 and of very slight build change anything at all?

I can't imagine many women being physically intimidated/frightened of a guy of that stature.

givyjoe

Terry Muscular Hotel wrote: »

I mean what's the difference in terms of the crux of the matter here, consent. As you rather crudely put it, you reckon the "dick in the mouth section of the evening" implied consent for other sexual acts, so why can I not take your hand in my pants as reasonably implied consent for my finger up your arse. How am I supposed to know you don't like it, after all, I'm not a mind reader.

My take on how sex works, specifically casual sex with a stranger, is to tune into verbal and physical cues and if in doubt, check if what you're doing is ok, as pointed out above, not in a "please may I do xyz?" just in "do you like that/is that ok?" way. It's not rocket science. Yes people are capable of speaking up, but I'm not personally so hard up for a ride or inconsiderate of other people that I can think "I'm not sure they want me to do this but they're not explicitly saying no, so fcuk it, freebie!"

You're not answering my question about the hand on the dick, nice goal post moving.

You dont mind being crude yourself do you? Absolutely zero goal post moving.. what exactly didn't I answer? You asked whats my take on it.. I answered. Whats your take, she didn't want her hand on his crotch at that point so everything after is what.. not consented to?

She consented to giving him oral and to receiving it from him, in my view. She didn't consent to him placing her hand there, simple. I don't believe it happened 7 times though.
Just to be clear, I did not imply 'd!ck in her mouth' implied consent to other acts, her giving him oral followed by her allowing him to do the same was consent..

What exactly do you believe she didn't consent to? Do you think she was raped or sexually assaulted?

manonboard

manonboard wrote: »

coercion
the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Did he use force? yes, if by definition you mean physically altering the location of her body. That doesn't hold up though really though.

Did he use force? Where in the article does it say he did? He put/placed her hand on his cock. He didn't force her hand there with her resisting. He didn't force the hand to remain there. Each time he put her hand there, she moved her hand away. (unless you can find in the article where force was applied?)

So. No force. No threats. No fear of violence. No coercion.

Threat? no, he didn't threaten her, but did she perceive a threat? Maybe even self inflicted from her own ego?

All of which you're inserting yourself into the situation. There is no suggestion of fear of him as a threat throughout the article.

Legally, maybe it is sexual assault, morally in the intent of the law? I dont know, definitely wrong though.

Unless the law has changed so much without our knowledge, it shouldn't be sexual assault, since he didn't threaten her, or force her to do anything. At every stage she performed everything based on her own choices. Any of the times where she obviously told him to stop, he stopped. It's only the times where she relied on body language and mumbling, that he missed her suggestions.

So. No... Not assault. Wrong? Maybe. I'd go with Inept... but I'd lay as much responsibility in her corner as in his. At no point was her ability to refuse him, impaired or removed. She just didn't tell him to stop, which was always an option. [And when she did tell him to stop, he did.]

So his biggest critics agree that there is no grounds for prosecution and that prosecution would not be appropriate in any case.

Can I ask if you think that the punishment he did receive, i.e. the publication and dissemination of an explicit and shaming article, is proportionate and appropriate to his wrongdoing?

And where is the line between what was published and revenge porn?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So his biggest critics agree that there is no grounds for prosecution and that prosecution would not be appropriate in any case.

Can I ask if you think that the punishment he did receive, i.e. the publication and dissemination of an explicit and shaming article, is proportionate and appropriate to his wrongdoing?

And where is the line between what was published and revenge porn?

Absolutely not. His career is probably finished. She should never have gone to the media with this. Should have communicated with him, determined his response, and if she felt wronged, sought legal advice or go to the cops. Going to the media just shows a spiteful spirit... since the media will not care about the facts, and will just go with the drama of it all. She gets to keep her name safe, and destroys his.

kylith

al87987 wrote: »

Genuine question: Does the fact that he is only 5 foot 6 and of very slight build change anything at all?

I can't imagine many women being physically intimidated/frightened of a guy of that stature.

No, it doesn't. His behaviour was still pushy and sleazy.

Men are also slightly stronger than women, pound for pound, and women carry less muscle mass than women, so if he had been of a mind to, he could probably have overpowered her, assuming she is not somewhat larger than him.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

So his biggest critics agree that there is no grounds for prosecution and that prosecution would not be appropriate in any case.

Can I ask if you think that the punishment he did receive, i.e. the publication and dissemination of an explicit and shaming article, is proportionate and appropriate to his wrongdoing?

And where is the line between what was published and revenge porn?

This is completely different to revenge porn.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

So his biggest critics agree that there is no grounds for prosecution and that prosecution would not be appropriate in any case.

Can I ask if you think that the punishment he did receive, i.e. the publication and dissemination of an explicit and shaming article, is proportionate and appropriate to his wrongdoing?

There in lies the problem with incidents such as this...

Short of CCTV footage it would be impossible to prove in court...therefore it would be pointless to report it...

Is the victim (and I do recognise only two of us on this thread would suggest she is a victim) expected to keep her silence?

He is a celebrity, one that identifies himself as a feminist, who is capable of acting the dick (at the very least) is taking huge risks...I think he played with fire and got burnt....hopefully he never acts the d##k with any other woman he brings back to his apartment...

I don't particularly feel comfortable with the public exposure.
I also don't think it is right that a young lady who feels she has been the victim of a sexual assault has got very little options to seek any kind of justice...

kylith

kylith wrote: »

This is completely different to revenge porn.

Explain

Edit: Just looking at it objectively there are definite similarities. An aggrieved former lover releases intimate details for public consumption with the purpose of hurting their former lover even though no crime has been committed .

manonboard

Klaz. I retract my response and question to you.
I've just read through your other comments.

The way you are speaking to others shows me that you are not interested in discussion, but in being right.
I think you've got emotionally worked up about this, and are getting tunnel vision.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Explain

Revenge porn is posting pornographic material of someone, in any medium, without their consent.

This is posting an opinion piece about a man with apparently rather poor sexual form.

To my knowledge, she has not published any images or videos of him in a state of undress.

HTH

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Is the victim (and I do recognise only two of us on this thread would suggest she is a victim) expected to keep her silence?

How exactly is she a victim?

There was no sex.
There was no violence, physical or verbal.
There was no coercion.
He didn't mistreat her after she refused sex but offered to sit and chat with her (with their clothes on).
He didn't get angry and throw her out.

He is a celebrity, one that identifies himself as a feminist, who is capable of acting the dick (at the very least) is taking huge risks...I think he played with fire and got burnt....hopefully he never acts the d##k with any other woman he brings back to his apartment...

How did he play with fire exactly?

Let's see. A week of texting. A date in a public place. An invitation to his home. A walk to his home. After that, he behaved like an inexperienced person, and a bit pushy but... he didn't force her to do anything... and you have yet to show that he did.

I also don't think it is right that a young lady who feels she has been the victim of a sexual assault has got very little options to seek any kind of justice...

Hmm... options.

Crime Victims helpline for advice. There's quite a few to choose from.
Legal advice.
The Police themselves.

There's quite a few websites like this too:
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/your-options/sexual-assault

I don't see many places encouraging the victim to report to a gossip magazine and publicly shame the man.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Revenge porn is posting pornographic material of someone, in any medium, without their consent.

This is posting an opinion piece about a man with apparently rather poor sexual form.

To my knowledge, she has not published any images or videos of him in a state of undress.

HTH

No she hasn't so it is not revenge porn.

Is it comparable given the graphic and specific nature of what was shared, which conjures up a lot of imagery and is far beyond an "opinion piece".

I wonder would people feel it is bad form if he named her. (It would be in my opinion but he could probably justify it using whatever arguments are used to justify her actions)

manonboard

The revenge porn comparison is interesting.

I think that would come down to intent. Was it to hurt him for pleasure?
Or was it to bring to light a danger, or an injustice to warn people about?

There is alot of push for women to speak up these days about these events.
A couple of weeks ago, a dear friend of mine told me about a horrific rape that happened to her. The worst i'd ever heard of in real life from a real person i knew.
She didnt report him, and after hearing about the guy 8 years later. It seems he was up to all sorts of repetitive instances over the years.
Most of those people it seems did not report it, and many didnt even tell anyone other than a close friend or two.

There can certainly be a downside to speaking up about these things, when there is grey area, and when the consequences are so brutal, and the trial of this person is media based.

manonboard

manonboard wrote: »

In the most respectful of tones. May I ask you to reread my post with the one just before it too?

Did actually.

I know of no woman in any of my circles who would not have it on their mind on a first date when things have got handsy.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What is it?

Regards the threat component. I've literally said
"no, he didn't threaten her, but did she perceive a threat? Maybe even self inflicted from her own ego?"

Yup. But since the article makes no mention of any degree of threat by him...

Graham

kylith wrote: »

This is posting an opinion piece about a man with apparently rather poor sexual form.

She hasn't accused him of 'poor sexual form', she has accused him of sexual assault.

She hasn't accused him in a court where he has a reasonable chance to defend himself, she has accused him in an online gossip-mag where the burden of proof and the chances of a fair hearing can be rounded up to about zero.

This was a concerted effort for maximum publicity and/or maximum damage.

Triceratops Ballet

Graham wrote: »

She hasn't accused him of 'poor sexual form', she has accused him of sexual assault.

She hasn't accused him in a court where he has a reasonable chance to defend himself, she has accused him in an online gossip-mag where the burden of proof and the chances of a fair hearing can be rounded up to about zero.

This was a concerted effort for maximum publicity and/or maximum damage.

The question is, is it comparable to revenge porn?

manonboard

manonboard wrote: »

Klaz. I retract my response and question to you.
I've just read through your other comments.

The way you are speaking to others shows me that you are not interested in discussion, but in being right.
I think you've got emotionally worked up about this, and are getting tunnel vision.

I'm concerned with being fair and using the information contained in the article rather than making **** up.