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

[Amarok]

(Waits for the token male privilege argument, as if no man has ever been accused of something he didn't do.)

No but plenty have gotten away even thou they were guilty . And yes considering how often that happens and how often women are afraid to speak out. Said privilege is all to real.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imagine shes the worst, a total whore.  If he kept grabbing her pussy when she pushed his hand away..none of the other shit matters at all.  ot the shes a total whore, and not that she sucked his dick the first time, or the secon time (bonus!).

That really is a crime..even though he didn't pin her down or hit her.

I apologize if the term soft assault was somehow confusing..I thought we were all coming up with euphemisms for rape.

It's okay to infer whatever you want, as long as you don't do it to her statement.

Right, those things we're oit aloud to say. I keep squawking about this, but only because it's what I;m hoping to get at. This situation, on the scale of fucked up..makes us posit at least one Thing We Cannot Say™ no matter which way we go with it, this makes everyone uncomfortable..and you can just taste it weighing down the 50 pages of this thread. I think that's why it made the internet go nuts.

I think it makes us jump to say "I'm totally not implying what I cannot imply even though ther's no other sensible way to parse this one" - and it's a percieved fem ally, now..right now, of all times.

[Joods]

So this happened in Tribeca, which is located in New York state, Manhattan, to be more precise. So I looked up the state statutes on what constitutes sexual assault. I think it's pretty easy to determine whats what, so I'll just put the information here.  

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-la...-laws.html

New York Sexual Assault Statute
Forcible Touching and Sexual Abuse Offenses
Penal Code Sections 130.52 - 130.70

Degrees of Sexual Abuse
The baseline act of subjecting another person to sexual contact without the person's consent constitutes third-degree sexual abuse. Elevation of the offense to a more serious degree depends on the circumstances surrounding the contact, including the victim's age. Thus, a person is guilty of second-degree abuse when or she subjects another person to sexual contact and the latter is incapable of consent by reason of some other factor other than being less than 17 years old, or is less than 14 years old.
A person commits first-degree sexual abuse when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact:

• by "forcible compulsion" - compelling the victim through the use of physical force or the threat of immediate death, physical injury or kidnapping;
  
• when the other person is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
  
• when the other person is less than 11 years old; or
  
• the other person is less than 13 years old and the defendant is 21 years old or older.
  

Seems like she gave consent until the moment she no longer wanted it. Then he stopped. He complied with her wishes.  She isn't under 17 years of age. 

Aggravated Sexual Abuse
The Penal Code classifies aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree, the most serious of the sexual-abuse related offenses, as a class B violent felony; fourth-degree aggravated sexual abuse and persistent sexual abuse are class E violent felonies. These offenses carry sentences of 5 to 25 years of imprisonment for first-degree aggravated sexual abuse and of 1.5 to 4 years in prison for fourth-degree aggravated sexual abuse and persistent sexual abuse.
The lowest degree of sexual abuse is a class B misdemeanor and thus subject to a sentence of up to 3 months in prison, a fine of up to $500, or both. The crime of forcible touching is a class A misdemeanor and therefore subject to a sentence of up to 1 year in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pe...30-52.html

A person is guilty of forcible touching when such person intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose:
1. forcibly touches the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor's sexual desire;  or
2. subjects another person to sexual contact for the purpose of gratifying the actor's sexual desire and with intent to degrade or abuse such other person while such other person is a passenger on a bus, train, or subway car operated by any transit agency, authority or company, public or private, whose operation is authorized by New York state or any of its political subdivisions.
For the purposes of this section, forcible touching includes squeezing, grabbing or pinching.
Forcible touching is a class A misdemeanor.

I don't see where she was "forced" to do anything. If she didn't like what was being done, she could have left. At no time was he doing anything to prevent her from leaving. 

We go on... 

A person is guilty of persistent sexual abuse when he or she commits the crime of forcible touching, as defined in section 130.52 of this article, sexual abuse in the third degree, as defined in section 130.55 of this article, or sexual abuse in the second degree, as defined in section 130.60 of this article, and, within the previous ten year period, excluding any time during which such person was incarcerated for any reason, has been convicted two or more times, in separate criminal transactions for which sentence was imposed on separate occasions, of forcible touching, as defined in section 130.52 of this article, sexual abuse in the third degree as defined in section 130.55 of this article, sexual abuse in the second degree, as defined in section 130.60 of this article, or any offense defined in this article, of which the commission or attempted commission thereof is a felony.

Persistent sexual abuse is a class E felony.

I don't find that any of this applies in this case. Again - as I've stated numerous times already - she wasn't being held against her will and she was always free to leave. And we go on...

A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent;  except that in any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative defense that (a) such other person's lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than seventeen years old, and (b) such other person was more than fourteen years old, and © the defendant was less than five years older than such other person.

Sexual abuse in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

None of this applies either. Continuing...

A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact and when such other person is:
1. Incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;  or
2. Less than fourteen years old.
Sexual abuse in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

And another strike. Let's continue. 

A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact:
1. By forcible compulsion;  or
2. When the other person is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;  or
3. When the other person is less than eleven years old;  or
4. When the other person is less than thirteen years old and the actor is twenty-one years old or older.
Sexual abuse in the first degree is a class D felony.

Again - there was no "force" and she wasn't incapable of consent due to being physically helpless. She's not under 11 or 13. 

1. A person is guilty of aggravated sexual abuse in the fourth degree when:
(a) He or she inserts a foreign object in the vagina, urethra, penis, rectum or anus of another person and the other person is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;  or
(b) He or she inserts a finger in the vagina, urethra, penis, rectum or anus of another person causing physical injury to such person and such person is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old.

2. Conduct performed for a valid medical purpose does not violate the provisions of this section.
Aggravated sexual abuse in the fourth degree is a class E felony.

She wasn't injured because none of the above happened so we can discount this entire section as well. 

1. A person is guilty of aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she inserts a foreign object in the vagina, urethra, penis, rectum or anus of another person:
(a) By forcible compulsion;  or
(b) When the other person is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;  or
© When the other person is less than eleven years old.
2. A person is guilty of aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she inserts a foreign object in the vagina, urethra, penis, rectum or anus of another person causing physical injury to such person and such person is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated.
3. Conduct performed for a valid medical purpose does not violate the provisions of this section.
Aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree is a class D felony.

Again - nothing listed here applies. And finally.....

. A person commits a sexually motivated felony when he or she commits a specified offense for the purpose, in whole or substantial part, of his or her own direct sexual gratification.

2. A “specified offense” is a felony offense defined by any of the following provisions of this chapter:  assault in the second degree as defined in section 120.05 , assault in the first degree as defined in section 120.10 , gang assault in the second degree as defined in section 120.06 , gang assault in the first degree as defined in section 120.07 , stalking in the first degree as defined in section 120.60 , strangulation in the second degree as defined in section 121.12 , strangulation in the first degree as defined in section 121.13 , manslaughter in the second degree as defined in subdivision one of section 125.15 , manslaughter in the first degree as defined in section 125.20 , murder in the second degree as defined in section 125.25 , aggravated murder as defined in section 125.26 , murder in the first degree as defined in section 125.27 , kidnapping in the second degree as defined in section 135.20 , kidnapping in the first degree as defined in section 135.25 , burglary in the third degree as defined in section 140.20 , burglary in the second degree as defined in section 140.25 , burglary in the first degree as defined in section 140.30 , arson in the second degree as defined in section 150.15 , arson in the first degree as defined in section 150.20 , robbery in the third degree as defined in section 160.05 , robbery in the second degree as defined in section 160.10 , robbery in the first degree as defined in section 160.15 , promoting prostitution in the second degree as defined in section 230.30 , promoting prostitution in the first degree as defined in section 230.32 , compelling prostitution as defined in section 230.33 , disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree as defined in section 235.22 , use of a child in a sexual performance as defined in section 263.05 , promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child as defined in section 263.10 , promoting a sexual performance by a child as defined in section 263.15 , or any felony attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.

I compel anyone to find anything that would indicate that he sexually assaulted her, under the legal definition as defined by New York State Statutes and I will gladly stand corrected.

But this guy hasn't been charged with anything, she hasn't filed charges, he seemed genuinely remorse and tried to consider her feelings by showing some empathy the very next day. None of us were there and we weren't privy to the conversation that took place. So until we see that she moves forward with pressing charges, then I think I can safely say that she wasn't sexually assaulted but perhaps she feels jilted because he's famous, the little bit of contact they did have was awkward and she's mad that it wasn't any better. It makes no sense to accuse someone of sexual assault if the first place you go to is a reporter instead of the police or even a rape crisis center. Most victims of this type of crime don't want their name plastered in papers because of the type of crime. I know I sure as hell didn't want my name out there.

[CapnAwesome]

I think that's pretty much the end of this thread. Lol.

[Athene]

If what is in that article is sexual assault "by law," then let's see what would happen in court. (Waits for the token male privilege argument, as if no man has ever been accused of something he didn't do.)

You and your buds have spent pages acknowledging that his behavior while pushy, pressure-y, and creepy was in no way sexual assault. When it is indeed is. 

Why can't you just admit that you weren't aware that rape and sexual assault are NOT the exact same thing? And that you all spent hours denigrating this woman for having the audacity to state that she was sexually assaulted, when she in fact WAS in your own unwitting assessments?

Btw, I doubt this would hold it court...Because these things are difficult to prove. 
I'm pretty sure you don't need to start banging your "gender-war" gong just yet. I haven't seen any vicious man-haters in this thread. 

Have you?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that's pretty much the end of this thread. Lol.

I dunno. That whole taking her hand and placing it on his dick after she'd withdrawn it multiple times perhaps could qualify as "forcible touching", depending on the case law and previous decisions. I don't know that much and am not in a position to look it up right now, but I think it might possibly be prosecutable if she asks for charges and a prosecutor deems there to be sufficient evidence. That last bit is, of course, the major hurdle here, so who knows?

[LadyForCamus]

Of course sexual assault encompasses much more than penetration, lol. Jesus, Thena. Really? The only reasonable explanation you could come up with for why some of us do not consider this woman’s story an account of sexual assault is because we don’t know that rape and sexual assault are not the exact same thing? I’m starting to seriously question your objectivity here.

[Joods]

I think that's pretty much the end of this thread. Lol.

I dunno. That whole taking her hand and placing it on his dick after she'd withdrawn it multiple times perhaps could qualify as "forcible touching", depending on the case law and previous decisions. I don't know that much and am not in a position to look it up right now, but I think it might possibly be prosecutable if she asks for charges and a prosecutor deems there to be sufficient evidence. That last bit is, of course, the major hurdle here, so who knows?

If she was so concerned with it being actual sexual assault, then why go to a reporter instead of the police? Would she have done that if she hadn't been with someone famous? Chances are she wouldn't have. One has a right to question her motive for speaking to a reporter because this guy has celebrity status. If there are any charges pressed, it's literally now unrealistic for him to even get a fair trial simply because it's made national headlines. I say she got even, if that's what she was even going for. Who's to say what her motive was for having her "story" told.

[brewer]

Why am I recalling a Rolling Stones article with an anonymous woman making allegations/statements thru a media source? 

To me this feels like sensationalism and not reporting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I dunno. That whole taking her hand and placing it on his dick after she'd withdrawn it multiple times perhaps could qualify as "forcible touching", depending on the case law and previous decisions. I don't know that much and am not in a position to look it up right now, but I think it might possibly be prosecutable if she asks for charges and a prosecutor deems there to be sufficient evidence. That last bit is, of course, the major hurdle here, so who knows?

If she was so concerned with it being actual sexual assault, then why go to a reporter instead of the police? Would she have done that if she hadn't been with someone famous? Chances are she wouldn't have. One has a right to question her motive for speaking to a reporter because this guy has celebrity status. If there are any charges pressed, it's literally now unrealistic for him to even get a fair trial simply because it's made national headlines. I say she got even, if that's what she was even going for. Who's to say what her motive was for having her "story" told.

Didn't you take a powder last year in part because that same first question was asked of you? Forgive me if I'm not remembering that correctly, but it seemed terribly upsetting to you at that time.