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

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

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.

Why don't you actually try to talk with a living woman in person first, Hammy? We can discuss how consent works after that. One step at a time, right?

Consent basically means you can't rape a woman. Simple enough for you?

No but but but this is too hard on me, it is too annoying for me, do the opposite of raping a woman, that is what consent means.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, when you use a term you have to accept the connotations that other people will attach. If you're happy dragging that luggage around, great. Me, I find the term to be one designed to belittle someone who disagrees, rather than answer them. And that immediately makes me wonder if the person using the term actually has an answer at all.

If this were some random person coming into the thread calling people "White Knight"s... then fair enough. But I've already specified that I only use it to refer to people who actually do behave the same way that the term is intended to denote.

People will attach their connotations... but it's irrelevant when I've already stated that I'm referring to the denotation.

Like I said, if you can think of an alternative term for what I'm describing without the negative connotations then I'll be more than happy to use it. Until then, I'm more than happy to rationally compartmentalize the distinction rather than irrationally conflating it.

[Athene]

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.

If it helps, I don't think that's the only agenda that's being pushed in this thread.

And certainly not the most insidious.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

If it helps, I don't think that's the only agenda that's being pushed in this thread.

And certainly not the most insidious.

No, it doesnt.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

Well sex bots are coming out soon 

I bet they're expensive and unconvincing

[SaStrike]

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.

If it helps, I don't think that's the only agenda that's being pushed in this thread.

And certainly not the most insidious.

Yes finally. What are the other agendas? And who is pushing them?

[J a c k]

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.

I only mentioned those things to explain why it doesn’t make a difference to me if it could prevent some situations. I do understand you and CL didn’t suggest it was a solution. I get that
I’m just saying we could prevent all scenarios if we stayed in a bubble and never left it, but we can’t do that, so... it just seems superfluous to even think about. I hope I’m making sense.

[Shell B]

If it helps, I don't think that's the only agenda that's being pushed in this thread.

And certainly not the most insidious.

No, it doesnt.

Hahahaha, you thought she was actually trying to help.

---

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.

I only mentioned those things to explain why it doesn’t make a difference to me if it could prevent some situations. I do understand you and CL didn’t suggest it was a solution. I get that
I’m just saying we could prevent all scenarios if we stayed in a bubble and never left it, but we can’t do that, so... it just seems superfluous to even think about. I hope I’m making sense.

You are. I understand completely. I'm just going with the flow of conversation. I wouldn't suggesting anything other than "Hey, don't fucking do that" (and derivatives of that basic principle) as a solution to rape.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

White knights are the kind of guys that come in to save ze damsel in distress. What's peculiar about white knights is that the kind of favors and niceness they show towards women they never show towards a brother. If a brother looses an arm the white knight is like "meh", if a gust of wind brush over a hot chick the white knight is like "oh my gosh, are you okay?!!" Oh my gosh, are you okay?! Do you need some water?? "hey bro I lost an arm man.." ".. Stop whining dude, can't you see I'm busy..."

[Amarok]

I bet they're expensive and unconvincing 

Meh give it time .