Aziz Ansari Doesn't Pick Up On "Non-Verbal Cues" and Gets Treated Like A Rapist

[Edwardo Piet]

This. The point of saying "no" is to make it very clear and specific.

Specific, and clear.....okay.

Grace says she spent around five minutes in the bathroom, collecting herself in the mirror and splashing herself with water. Then she went back to Ansari. He asked her if she was okay. “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” she said.

 
She told babe that at first, she was happy with how he reacted. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun.’ The response was technically very sweet and acknowledging the fact that I was very uncomfortable. Verbally, in that moment, he acknowledged that I needed to take it slow. Then he said, ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’”

Was that the end of the evening?  Nope. Just the beginning of round 2.

Yes. He took her hint as a hint that he needed to slow down rather than stop altogether.

It wasn't a time for hints. If she said "Don't touch me" that would have been clear.

I find it really strange how in her article it is mentions how she felt violated and she seemed confused by him not getting her hints... which is fair enough. He was totally oblivious. But the fact she was aware of his obliviousness and she went on trying to give subtle hints anyway.... and then she texted him the next day and ended up going to the newspaper.

Just smells of dishonesty to me. If a guy isn't taking hints you shouldn't give another hint. And if you suck a guy's dick how the hell is he supposed to always know whether your hints mean "Slow down" or "Stop altogether" when they're hints instead of actually saying stop altogether? Mixed messages is mixed messages.

I'm sure I would have gotten the message in this situation. He seems oblivious even by my standards. Well, to be honest I'd be on the extra careful size precisely because of how oblivious I can be. I'd probably just kill the mood by constantly asking if the other person was okay and if they were still into it.

It really worries me if this guy really did think she consented to everything and she really did know he was totally oblivious to her hints.

It also bothers me if what he says is true: That she only decided the following day that what had happened was assault. That's not how assault works. You don't feel uncomfortable but consent to everything and then decide the following day that you think you were so uncomfortable that it was assault even though at the time you actually consented.

Ugh, I mean... none of this is difficult. Why are people so goddamn stupid. Things that are open to interpretation shouldn't be part of this debate. When you suck a guy's dick and then during sex with him you decide you don't want anymore, and you tell him to stop... and he misinterprets that as you wanting to stop the current sex act and slow down... then when you are aware that he misinterpreted that... and you clearly tell him to stop altogether.... then he does. Then that's super awkward but the fact that he behaved appropriately once he got the message... I don't get it. WTF.

It all comes down to intentions. Either he misunderstood and was oblivious and she knew this and continued to give hints that she knew he wouldn't get so she could complain about it and make a story out of it the next day... and she did this on purpose. Or she was honestly hoping he would get the hints eventually and honestly thinks it's okay to blame him for not getting her hints when it was her responsibility to be clear about something important.... or he did actually assault her. Or he pretended not to get her hints. Or... I dunno I'm just trying to think of all the options here. But if he honestly stopped as soon as he honestly got the message... then I don't get it.

Her message was more than clear from most people's perspective, including my own.... but it is indeed possible to honestly not get the message and to think the other person just meant stop the current act.

I mean, if you are deluded into thinking the other person is really enjoying the sex with you, which is not difficult to believe if he really did keep asking "How do you want me to fuck you?"..... then it makes perfect sense from that perspective to think that when the person wants you to stop it must mean the current sexual act because you're deluded into thinking they're enjoying sex with you so much that they couldn't possibly not want sex with you altogether.

Okay right now I'm thinking the guy was deluded into thinking she was really enjoying sex with him so she must have meant stop the current act and not sex altogether.

I mean, all of this could have been solved if she just said "Don't touch me."

Seems more like a victim of miscommunication to me. I really hope he's innocent and I hope that she didn't intentionally not bother to be more direct because she was planning to make a story out of this afterwards.

---

From what I've read it seems he was more clueless than inattentive.

That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Inattentiveness leads to cluelessness, don't you agree? I mean, you have to be attentive to pick up clues.

It's the fact it has a difference that precisely makes it a distinction.

Inattentiveness doesn't lead to cluelessness. The fact you are not paying attention to something doesn't mean you don't understand it. You can have all the clues but fail to get them because you don't bother to pay attention.

My point is that it seems to me that he was more incapable of understanding the clues (hence how he was clueless) rather than being unwilling to spot them.

"Clueless" isn't a synonym for "Careless", you know. It's actually a synonym for "stupid". And the definition of clueless is not "Not bothering to be attentitive enough to pick up clues", the definition of clueless is: having no knowledge, understanding, or ability.

And an example is: "you're clueless about how to deal with the world". And in that statement it's meant that the person is lacking in knowledge..... rather than willpower.

Anyway, my point was that the guy seems more useless at understanding the clues and hints rather than merely failing to pay attention to them.

TL;DR: He's looking but not seeing.