So where both sides differ generally is that one side faults both parties for their perceived incompetence (with the man being insensitive and the woman being unassertive), while the other side places little fault (if any) on the woman for not being assertive enough during that night (it was up to the man to notice the purportedly clear nonverbal cues of hesitation/rejection being sent by the woman, and so by persisting, he did cause her a lot of harm).

I'm on the latter side, but it's clear people have very different perspectives on matters like this. I think based on the original report that it was clear she wasn't comfortable with the sexual attempts (I mean, come on, he'd have to be really way out there to not notice the repeated verbal and nonverbal indicators of discomfort; even an idiot like me could recognize those), and sure, it would be nice if the woman was able to express herself really really clearly, but not all people are the same, and some have far more struggles with being assertive during a moment like this than others (let's not forget the societal conditioning of women as passive and tolerant of perceptibly mild sexual advances like this). Let's also not pretend to forget that he did forcibly kiss her multiple times, stick his fingers in her throat multiple times, went down on her suddenly, coerced her into going down on him, bent her over to have simulated sex, tricked her into just relaxing on the couch, gave her a hard time to leave, and pretended the next morning in his text to her that all was good and dandy last night.

Also, for those who have problems with social cues and would like to have sex, asking clearly for consent is the way to go. We're not all natural lovers or whatever, and so for people like me, the only way I can know if someone is ready to be kissed/made love to is to ask them (at least at the start of the relationship and if she didn't make the first move herself). Sure, some women may not like this approach, but then again, they're often not the ones I find compatibility with romantically/sexually. And why risk it anyway? If you struggle with car driving, then should you be reasonably expected to suddenly drive alone on a very long trip from one state to another? No, that would be very risky. Instead, you take your time getting accustomed to driving and becoming good at it, and then you can safely do the long trip. Better safe than sorry.

(January 17, 2018 at 8:54 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 7:52 am)Khemikal Wrote: I think that people who are having trouble understanding nonverbal sexual cues should probably abstain from attempting to have sex.

I'm sure you're not advocating breeding out people with (eg) Asperger's from the population, and that I'm reading more into your textual cues than you intended.

Nah, but I do think it would be prudent for people with any type of disorder or syndrome that could conceivably land them in the position of being credibly accused of rape..or even next level creepiness, and them completely unaware of why or how that occurred to be very wary and careful of sexual advances.  We convict people on the spectrum of this..that, and the other of sex offense with some regularity....for better or for worse.

The abstaining from sex bit was more specifically tailored to any serious assumption that a person really couldn't figure it out at all.  Black box.   "Having trouble" was thinly veiled facetiousness.  If aspergers, per your example..somehow makes a person pull a full ansari...then a person with aspergers needs to be made aware of that, aware of themselves....for their own well being just as much as anyone else's.  If it's something more serious..and they can't be made aware of a potential for compromising situations in intimacy..say downs +..then I think it's a big..big fuckin leap to go looking for places to put ones pecker (or peckers to put in ones place).  Basically walking a minefield. It's complicated enough for people without cognitive or perceptual impairments. If nothings clicking, just nothing..throwing in the towel and erring on the side of caution has to be seriously considered. An uncontroversial opinion...I assume.

Essentially, if the narrative we've been considering seems like a person would need consensual ESP to know that something was awry..then that person needs to lay off the sex. They're not there yet. I mentioned earlier in thread that I was sure he thought he was being puckish and sexy...but I'm just as certain that he knows he's a pushy creeper who wears women down, because that takes effort and commitment...like running a gazelle to death...both of which he displayed, with gusto, lol.

Puts his "I thought it was going well" notpology into it's normative context. It was gong well, it worked..like it does...and one could safely assume that he thought she was playing hard to get and that he was doing a good job of chasey chasey - but consider the subtext of each of these statements. This is assuming the best of him and the worst of her. From there it's a road to increasing disingenuity. Where he knows he's a creeper..like I know he's a creeper...but thinks that..for whatever reason..as long as the girl doesn't say no or doesn't say no loudly enough..that's still in field. That some amount of coercion like fatiguing or panic reciprocity plays are okay. That silence is consent. That if she blows you, it can't be a violation. That's feely teenager shit...and we only give them a pass on it (when we do) on account of their age and inexperience - and still a massive disappointment to say the least.

Mostly, I think that's what the howler monkeys are feeling. Massive disappointment. I think that we're all ready to see the back end of the entertainment rape parade. It's all been shitty but this story is a different kind of shitty. Aziz Ansari, feminist ally...or Aziz Ansari, deviant claw crane enthusiast?

(January 17, 2018 at 7:55 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 1:31 am)wallym Wrote:

Damn, you beat me to it!   

I disagree that it’s a comparable scenario though.  And, I don’t think women should be operating under the assumption that every guy who hits on her while they’re alone together is going to most certainly rape her if she rejects his advances, lol.

I agree.  Mildly relevant to the discussion at best.  But any excuse to post it will be taken.

@Grand

I’m not comfortable with the word “fault” though. I think we should be able to have an open discussion about the benefits of teaching women to be clear, and confident during sexual encounters without playing the blame game. If something I said came across as blame, it was not my intention. As I said a few pages back, I personally struggle empathizing with women who have such an apparant hard time saying, “stop, I don’t like what you’re doing.” Perhaps, if she had felt empowered enough to say that right up front, her shitty night wouldn’t have gone on for as long as it did. That’s not blame; I just truly wonder why this is so difficult for some women. In all of her account, she never once claimed she felt unsafe, afraid, or threatened by Ansari, so how does an adult woman come to feel so helpless during an experience that (seems to me) she had plenty of control over?

---

(January 17, 2018 at 10:00 am)wallym Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 7:55 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Damn, you beat me to it!   

I disagree that it’s a comparable scenario though.  And, I don’t think women should be operating under the assumption that every guy who hits on her while they’re alone together is going to most certainly rape her if she rejects his advances, lol.

I agree.  Mildly relevant to the discussion at best.  But any excuse to post it will be taken.

Dennis Reynolds is not comparable to most of the human population, and that’s exactly why we love him.  😛

(January 17, 2018 at 10:03 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:  how does an adult woman come to feel so helpless during an experience that (seems to me) she had plenty of control over?

It's a good question..but..whatever the answer is..it seems to happen with regularity. We do have some idea how it happens..but..honestly, it doesn't change much that we know a little.

(January 17, 2018 at 8:54 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 7:52 am)Khemikal Wrote: I think that people who are having trouble understanding nonverbal sexual cues should probably abstain from attempting to have sex.

I'm sure you're not advocating breeding out people with (eg) Asperger's from the population, and that I'm reading more into your textual cues than you intended.

And this is one of the aspects of this case. How does one read non-verbal clues? if you misinterpret them, you get a ruined career. But it is *always* possible to misinterpret them.

So the best thing is to ask. Communication until there is agreement. Not sexy, but necessary.

It's why Sam and I were perfectly clear from the outset that we would never play the game called "I have a problem and you need to guess what it is".

If you know your careers on the line when you make the move on some date....and if he didn't know that then a picture of incompetence emerges..then you probably ought to come up with a damn good vetting system. 

It's possible to misinterpret road signs, too...but we recognize that no one with too high a propensity for misinterpreting those signs should be driving a car. The same has to be true about swinging richard or having the gravy boat polished.

---

Heres a fun way to rearrange the particulars and see if we notice something relevant.  Imagine the hypothetically difficult rape of a man..or a young boy.  Now I know that somebody can pop up and tell me "ofc you can take advatage of a young boy sexually"..but we have to concede that there ios a certain opinion and norm, to the contrary - and at least some boys think precisely that when they're being taken advantage of.  As that boy, in that moment..a person might be thinking..and visibly showing signs of distress...something along the following:

This doesn't feel right or good..and I don't want it - but...

-I think I'm supposed to.
-that this is me getting lucky.
-that I have to reciprocate now that she's performed a sex act on me.
-that I have to be consistent now that I've consensualy performed one sex act on her.
-that if I'm not consistent and reciprocal people will think I'm a fickle and selfish whore, or maybe just plain old gay.
-that I flat out don't know what to do, panic, and freeze.
-or maybe disgusted resignation to a perceived fate or state of affairs. Chin up, it'll be over in a minute.

So...those are some of the ways that the illusion of control can evaporate. Notions of expectation, consistency, reciprocity, negative consequence, and panic. Our biology and behavioral responses are incredibly subversive..in that position.

(January 17, 2018 at 7:51 am)A Theist Wrote:

(January 15, 2018 at 9:06 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah, if she didn't like it, she should have said no right away. And if he stopped when she said no, then that's what should be expected. If he's having a fabulous time, he shouldn't be blamed for not noticing she's not enjoying it just as much, until she starts pushing him away and saying stop.

She sent him clear nonverbal esp cues. What more do you want.

Blatantly clear verbal ones. Which he listened to when she finally got around to giving them.

(January 17, 2018 at 4:10 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Darrell, it's absolute bull shit and extremely unfair that when I give my opinion, you accuse me of "promoting my agenda." When I objected to this, all you say is to reference my username. So, because I'm a theist, my opinions on this are to be dismissed as merely my "agenda?" I can't just be a person with an opinion like everyone else here because I'm Catholic?

No, it's because your suggestions just happen to coincide with your church's outlook on sexuality. No one is telling you cannot be a real person, so shitcan your martyrdom card and let's get real. When you post an opinion, other people -- and that includes me, I'm a person too -- they have the right to opine as well. And it's my opinion that your opinion is colored by the idea that you need to espouse these beliefs that undergird your outlook as being the be-all of morality. I'm pointing out that no, there's something more basic than that.

Don't like it? Tough shit.

(January 17, 2018 at 4:10 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Fuck that shit. I've always respected you here and considered you one of the people I was on friendly terms with here. We are connected on facebook and have exchanged friendly, personal messages.

...Which is why I don't understand why the past several months you've been a complete ass hole to me on here. I keep brushing stuff off and giving you other chances, refusing to change my positive opinion of you, but now I'm done. Obviously you have an issue with me and are just continuing to be a prick. Good bye.

You know why? Because while I orginally had a positive opinion of you, I've learnt that you're someone who puts a nice veneer on odious positions. If that makes me a prick, that's okay. I've been called worse by better. You don't have to like my opinion. You don't even have to read it. <shrug>

I think you need to reread your signature and really ponder what it means. Look at your post above in response to my simple point and ask yourself if that signature isn't just empty words. Because from here, that's exactly what it looks like.

And with that, I'm done with this derail.