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

[John V]

What makes you think she was talking about men she herself had dated?

That's the natural reading of it.

Perhaps she was referring to men her friends had dated. Perhaps she was simply trying to say something hurtful in an ugly situation. Perhaps she was expressing disappointment that this guy who puts himself forward as friendly towards women's issues would be such a boor.

You seem to possess much more knowledge than I do about her mindset, though. Perhaps you could consult that knowledge and enlighten us?

So your shtick is, when the known facts don't line up with your desired narrative, to note that we don't have 100% certainty.

[Amarok]

Yes because asking someone if they want fuck while making out naked is such a task

If the creeps have to ask that then how will they get to rape women?

Well sex bots are coming out soon 

[J a c k]

You know what, who knows? It's a small sample size, but CL is a Catholic and hasn't been assaulted. I'm a lifelong atheist and have on many occasions. I guarantee I wouldn't have been if I had thought spending time with men alone drinking in my teens was a detriment to my spiritual life. It wouldn't have stopped all of the things that happened to me in my life, but it would have stopped all but 2 of them. I'm not saying I'd offer the same argument, but she's not entirely wrong when she says it would have prevented this situation.

---

A preacher was my first attacker. He had access to my friend’s room anytime he wanted. I was in it often.
As an adult, I was working. I was a fanatical Christian. I wasn’t even on a date.
I was living in a Bible institute when I was locked away for two months. The things I experienced there I have never talked about entirely. I probably never will.
I grew up as the daughter of ministers. Church was everything. Everyone I know who was molested or raped was attacked by someone who was either a family member or a church member.
Her argument could prevent some situations, but so could not going to church, or not visiting family, or not going to work at night, etc. I understand why she feels that way, though. I used to think the same way.

[Edwardo Piet]

Asking "may I please touch your vagina" would kill the entire mood. 

Yes because you staying in the mood is most important issue here .

No it isn't (although actually, yes, it is if I'm my not staying in the mood means I no longer consent). The most important issue here is what consent actually is. Who cares whether I'm in the mood for sex or not (unless I'm actually going to tell the other person to stop). The point is that if people are going to have sex then they have to be in the mood... and it's not necessary to kill the mood with affirmative consent nonsense if the other person has already consented by not saying stop when sex has already began.

What's next? "May I keep touching your vagina? Are you having doubts about letting me touch your vagina? Do you still want me to touch your vagina? Was that facial expression doubts about me touching your vagina? What that a cue for you to not want me to touch it anymore? And by "it" I mean your vagina."

I would expect her response would most likely be something like "Well I'm certainly not in the mood now that you've said all that weird shit."

The way you're describing consent... sounds far creepier.

[John V]

Yes because asking someone if they want fuck while making out naked is such a task

Whoa, why do you characterize it as a single request?

Unless you're saying that consent once given can't be withdrawn, you're scenario isn't realistic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The assumed motivation of promoting ones religious values as a solution for sexual assault?  Doesn't take much to make the "assumption".......when one explicitly proposes their religious values as a solution for the problem of sexual assualt....

Still irrelevant given that Thump's new position is that you shouldn't denigrate someone even when you may know why they are putting forward a position.

There's a difference between Catholic Lady and her history here, and the woman in the story. We'll see if you can winkle it out. It's germane to what you consider my hypocrisy.

[Catholic_Lady]

Probably not the best example, tibs..since of course she confirmed that her opinion was what she thought the catholic opinion was, and mentioned that what with her being a catholic that's not really much of a surprise.

She suggested a return to puritanical sexual mores as a solution for rape, lol.

It was still an assumed motivation at that point. Thump is being a hypocrite. His words were "when you may or may not know why".

Yes. And just because my opinions on moral issues will always be in line with Catholicism, doesn't mean I'm pushing some kind of agenda when I voice my opinion on a moral issue. Which is precisely what I was being accused of.

Thump is accusing me of pushing my agenda, and has said I've done it before and was doing it when I made one comment earlier on in the thread. It's really fucking shitty when you contribute a comment with your opinion, without even mentioning religion whatsoever, and someone dismisses you with an accusation of pushing agendas. I wasnt even trying to make an argument. A particular point was raised about coorced consent and I made one passing comment in response to it expressing my thoughts. And then got accused by thump of pushing an agenda.

I mean, what the hell does that even mean?? Is he trying to say I'm attempting to convert people to the Church here? Trust me, I have no delusions that anyone will be converted via online forum. Much less that one comment I made about sexuality will do the trick. I'm here for discussion just like everyone else.

---

Imagine this. Two people start making out. Clothes come off. They continue to make out, completely naked. Is it reasonable at that point for one of them to assume that its ok to reach for the others' genetelia?

If you're making out with someone and you both got naked and are making out naked, do you have to ask "may I touch your vagina?" If you do so without asking, is that sexual assault?

As I said before. Getting naked during a make out session certainly sends out a major non verbal cue.

OK, let's assume this is a first encounter between the two people.

I would find it *very* strange if the first thing that is done after removing clothes is to reach for genitals. Instead, I would expect more making out--kissing, touching, exploring and *eventually* after a fairly long bit of interaction *gradually* move to genitals. And even the make-out would be proceeded with an appreciative look and an offer to resume.

Going slowly not only builds up the mood, but it allows for multiple possibilities for stopping the action if someone isn't into it.

Let me clarify that I agree going slowly and being always considerate of the other person is what should be done. Ive said about a million times that aziz's actions were disrespectful and wrong. But I don't think it's sexual assault not to move so slowly as you describe. Its shitty and selfish and inconsiderate.

[Shell B]

You know what, who knows? It's a small sample size, but CL is a Catholic and hasn't been assaulted. I'm a lifelong atheist and have on many occasions. I guarantee I wouldn't have been if I had thought spending time with men alone drinking in my teens was a detriment to my spiritual life. It wouldn't have stopped all of the things that happened to me in my life, but it would have stopped all but 2 of them. I'm not saying I'd offer the same argument, but she's not entirely wrong when she says it would have prevented this situation.

---

A preacher was my first attacker. He had access to my friend’s room anytime he wanted. I was in it often.
As an adult, I was working. I was a fanatical Christian. I wasn’t even on a date.
I was living in a Bible institute when I was locked away for two months. The things I experienced there I have never talked about entirely. I probably never will.
I grew up as the daughter of ministers. Church was everything. Everyone I know who was molested or raped was attacked by someone who was either a family member or a church member.
Her argument could prevent some situations, but so could not going to church, or not visiting family, or not going to work at night, etc. I understand why she feels that way, though. I used to think the same way.

I'm sorry you went through that. I was never arguing that it was a solution (nor would I), but that it could, as I demonstrated, prevent some situations. All of that said, she was never suggesting it as a cure for sexual assault, as I read it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes because asking someone if they want fuck while making out naked is such a task

We're not talking about making out. She gave the guy a blowjob... not a kiss on the lips. If you had to consent to give affirmative permission for every single sex act during sex "You may touch my knee now" "You may suck my tit now", "you may insert a finger now" . . . then sex would be impossible.

"Hey! I didn't tell you that you could keep your finger in there for 5 seconds! I just said you could put your finger in there!"

"But you didn't tell me to take it out!"

"But I didn't tell you you could keep it in!"

So basically as soon as a guy touches a woman he's already raped her because she didn't tell him that he could touch her for longer than a split second.

You can't literally spell out every single action for the guy. You can't expect the guy to be a mind reader.

Bottom line: Responsible sex is a responsibility for both people. Not just the person who initiates the sex. And if sex has already began consensual, then the other person is not a rapist because you had doubts and they didn't read your mind. Nor are they a rapist because you didn't spell out every single sexual action you wanted them to do before they did it.

Like seriously... "You may touch my knee now." "You may hold my hip now." "You may keep your penis inside me for the next 5 minutes unless I say stop." Does ANYONE have sex like that?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, it's not like she has ever pushed her church's agenda around here.

It's odd that you should need what is so obvious  pointed out to you. But hey, I'm here to help.

It's odd that you think you can denigrate someone over an assumed position but then say that behavior is "presumptuous at best and dishonest at worst".

So are you presumptuous or dishonest?

Again, I'll let you divine the differences in the two people in question, once your coffee has kicked in.

Protip: it has to do with the body of observed behavior.

Let me know if you need another clue. I'll be in and out all day, but perfectly happy to help you out.