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

[Edwardo Piet]

But "the claw"...apparently, is. 

Dude, he'd already eaten her out, IIRC. They'd kissed and undressed. The claw may not be pleasant, but it wasn't like, "Hey, I just met you . . . "

Get eaten out. Suck the guy's dick. Say you don't feel comfortable.. Make yourself more clear when the guy wasn't getting the message. When you finally make it clear he does get the message. The guy gets you a lift. Then say the next day by text message that you were assaulted. Makes perfect sense. /sarcasm

[Thumpalumpacus]

The guy here should have been paying more attention, in my opinion. He should have had more simple consideration for her feelings. The fact that he didn't have that consideration makes him a douchebag creep in my book.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Get eaten out. Suck the guy's dick. Say you don't feel comfortable..

He seems to get the message, but starts up again.

Make yourself more clear when the guy wasn't getting the message.

Seems to get the message again..then start up...again.

When you finally make it clear he does get the message.

Theres another round between this and the uber..and.....she'd made herself clear two rounds ago already.

The guy gets you a lift. Then say the next day by text message that you were assaulted. Makes perfect sense. /sarcasm

Bitches be lyin.

A woman makes an allegation of assault...the conversation then centers around everything -she- did wrong. Lets just call her a whore, and tell her there aint gonna be no justice for her kind round here. I cant see how it could be worse.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fuck, Tiz. CONTEXT.

I said "grabbing someone's tit isn't something you do to initiate sex."

Khem said, "but the claw apparently is."

I pointed out how it wasn't the initiating move in this scenario. I didn't say "hey, man. Totes cool to ram your fingers down someone's mouth." I just pointed out the obvious difference between starting off there and it being a failed move after you've already got down, so to speak. That doesn't mean it was a smooth, smart move. And, just to be utterly clear, if she said "I don't like you putting your fingers in my mouth" after the first time he did it, her testimony suggests he would have stopped doing it. It would have been a one time fuck up instead of a repeated violation, assuming we've got the facts right.

I mean... during sex if you do something and the person doesn't like it.... and they don't say that they don't like it. And you suck at reading body language and tone of voice... then how the hell else are you supposed to tell?

The guy isn't deaf. If you're having sex and you're not into having someone's fingers in your mouth... the first stop is to say "Don't put your fingers in my life. I don't like it."

---

@everyone defending this dude, will you have the same attitude if this happened to your daughter?

Would people take a more biased attitude from a more biased perspective? Yes.

[Athene]

Thena, Joods isn't blaming Grace. Joods is saying that according to the account, Grace was not forced to do anything, and could have either left and/or said NO at any time.

Joods is saying that Grace can't call sexual assault on a situation where she was not being forced and was free to leave or say no at any time.

This isn't victim blaiming. This is distinguishing the difference between an uncomfortable situation with a douchy guy, and a crime of sexual assault.

One can indeed be somewhere of there own free will and volition AND still be sexually assaulted in the eyes of the law, CL. 
Joods  official "decree" of otherwise of does not change that FACT.

And yes, he did make uninvited and FORCED sexual advances towards her at several points, according to the account. 
You've simply chosen to characterize it "aggression", "pressure", "pushiness" or anything but.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ah, well...I don't think she's gonna be able to make that one stick.  I don;t know if that amounts to much,  I don't think that she could make it stick even if it were, meaningfully, a sexual assault.

Wouldn't matter anyway, whether or not it was assault. In these sorts of cases, usually the accusation is enough. Maybe not in the legal arena, but most definitely in the public one. Some years ago, a relative of mine was accused of sexual assault on minors. He denied it, the statements of the alleged victims were all over the place, forensic and other investigation came back negative, and one of the alleged victims even came out and gave details of why they were making the allegations (hint: compensation money). Yet my relative still served nine years after being coerced into pleading guilty by his own solicitor. His name is on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life.

But despite knowing all the context, there were people at the time - and still are - who said they don't care about all that and that he obviously must be guilty, because why else would the kids say such things? Why would the police have locked him up? Phrases like "no smoke without fire" were thrown about even by people who have known him for years.

Wow that's really shocking.

He was advised to plead guilty even when there was no evidence against him and the accuser admitted it was lies? Crazy. Just goes to show that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply once the witch hunt starts.

---

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.

I might be a diagnosed Aspie some time next month . . . And I totally want to be allowed to have sex.

[The Grand Nudger]

"aggression", "pressure", "pushiness" or anything but.

What can I say.....it's good to be a guy.   To some extent..this is expected and acceptable behavior for a man. Convenient for predators, not so much for the prey.

The problem is clearly everything she did wrong, though...and how we don't want to impugn his good character....that he's stewarding so very well.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Fuck non-verbal cues. Words are clearer.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, something like.."I'm uncomfortable and I don't want to hate you"? Or "You're all the same, you're all the same, you're all the same"? "Next Time"? "I don't think I'm ready to do this"? How about sobbing, just balls out, mascara down the face sobbing?

[Edwardo Piet]

Ad hominem attacks are not arguments, they're ad hominem attacks.

It's a fine line, but yeah. Say your argument is that a person can't be a train operator because said person has a crippling learning disability, it's not a nice thing to have to say, but it's a valid argument. You could argue that a person isn't actually a nice person because they act like an asshole all the time. If the latter is true, it's an argument because it follows the premise. If you just say, "You're wrong about this because you're an asshole," that's an ad hom. Of course, there are a million other examples, but I think it's important sometimes to make clear that unless it's used as part of the argument, it's not an ad hom. It's just an insult. And, it might be insulting, but it might not be an ad hom. Distinctions.

I'm not sure what ad hom you're talking about though. I didn't catch one.

It's nice to see someone else who actually gets what the Ad Hominem fallacy is.

99% of people just use it as a synonym for insulting someone during a debate. Because they don't actually understand the fallacy at all.