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

[Edwardo Piet]

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Unless you're saying that consent once given can't be withdrawn, you're scenario isn't realistic.

Yeah.... affirmative consent sounds way creepier because the only way it could possibly work is in the non-withdrawable sense that is super rapey. Because the only alternative affirmative-consent wise is literally spelling out every single sexual action you want the other person to do before they do it. AND them literally spelling out every single sex before you do it. Sex would come to a complete stand still and the human race would die out. No one would ever have sex ever.

"I am going to touch your ass now. But only if you consent. Do you consent?"

"Yes. I am going to touch your ass as well now, too. But only if you consent as well. Do you consent too?"

"Yes. Can I keep touching your ass for the next 5 minutes as long as you don't say stop?"

"Yes you can. Can I keep touching your ass for the next five minutes as long as you don't say stop, too?"

"Yes. So it is clear that we can both keep touching each other's asses for the next 5 minutes as long as we don't say stop. Yes?"

"Yes."

"I am going to touch your breast with my other hand now. But only if you consent. Do you consent?"

"Yes."

"My first hand is still on your ass. As agreed. We did agree right? I did not mishear you?"

"That is correct. The same for you too?"

"Yes."

"I am going to touch your man nipples now... just as you are touching my breast. Do you consent?"

"Yes."

"YOU FORGOT TO ASK ME IF I CONSENT FOR THE NEXT 5 MINUTES! I DIDN'T AGREE YOU COULD KEEP YOUR HAND ON MY MAN NIPPLES FOR EVEN 3 SECONDS STRAIGHT! I ONLY AGREED TO YOU TOUCHING THEM! I AM GOING TO SUE YOU NOW YOU RAPEY BITCH!"

But seriously... this robotic sex would totally not work and never happens. Maybe Tiz should write a book called "How To Sit Around Naked Watching Movies With Women Because If You Actually Tried To Have Sex With Them The Entire Intercourse Would Be So Robotic And Formal That Sex Would Come To A Complete Halt."

Well... something like that. The title's spelling would be more off. But it could totes become an Amazon bestseller. Totes.

[J a c k]

---

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Unless you're saying that consent once given can't be withdrawn, you're scenario isn't realistic.

Yeah.... affirmative consent sounds way creepier because the only way it could possibly work is in the non-withdrawable sense that is super rapey. Because the only alternative affirmative-consent wise is literally spelling out every single sexual action you want the other person to do before they do it. AND them literally spelling out every single sex before you do it. Sex would come to a complete stand still and the human race would die out. No one would ever have sex ever.

"You may touch my ass now.  But only if you consent. Do you consent?"

"Yes. I am going to touch your ass as well now, too. But only if you consent as well. Do you consent too?"

"Yes. Can I keep touching your ass for the next 5 minutes as long as you don't say stop?"

"Yes you can. Can I keep touching your ass for the next five minutes as long as you don't say stop, too?"

"Yes. So it is clear that we can both keep touching each other's asses for the next 5 minutes as long as we don't say stop. Yes?"

"Yes."

"I am going to touch your breast with my other hand now. But only if you consent. Do you consent?"

"Yes."

"My first hand is still on your ass. As agreed. We did agree right? I did not mishear you?"

"That is correct. The same for you too?"

"Yes."

"I am going to touch your man nipples now... just as you are touching my breast. Do you consent?"

"Yes."

"YOU FORGOT TO ASK ME IF YOU CAN CONSENT FOR THE NEXT 5 MINUTES! I DIDN'T AGREE YOU COULD KEEP YOUR HAND ON MY MAN NIPPLES FOR EVEN 3 SECONDS STRAIGHT! I ONLY AGREED TO YOU TOUCHING THEM! I AM GOING TO SUE YOU NOW YOU RAPEY BITCH!"

But seriously... this robotic sex would totally not work and never happens. Maybe Tiz should write a book called "How To Sit Around Naked Watching Movies With Women Because If You Actually Tried To Have Sex With Them The Entire Intercourse Would Be So Robotic And Formal That Sex Would Come To A Complete Halt."

Well... something like that. The title's spelling would be more off. But it could totes become an Amazon bestseller. Totes.

---

[Catholic_Lady]

Let's go back to the comment I made. It was this:

Pretty sure if you can give a bj "against your will" you can sign a form "against your will" or "under pressure". Consent forms will change nothing. Shit will still happen.

I agree.

Maybe we should try getting to the root of the problem? Promote sexual morality and respect for self and others. Discourage hook up culture. Discourage porn use. Discourage men and women using each other in bed...

Promote the radical idea that sex is a language of self giving love and commitment.

Now there's a thought.

I dont mention religion or being religious at all here, and it was by no means meant to be a religious comment.

A person need not be Catholic to have this view of sex, and Im sure there are atheists out there who also think that hook up culture/porn/using each other in bed is unhealthy and counterproductive to having a better sense of respect for other people. I'm sure there are atheists who also think it's a positive thing for sex to be a language of self giving love and commitment to another person, verses just using each other for pleasure in a one night stand. This can be just as much a humanist approach, and Catholicism doesn't have ownership to this, just as it doesn't have ownership to many other views on morality.

I'd like to think I'd still have this view of sexuality even if I wasn't religious... simply because it seems the healthiest and makes the most logical sense to me. I made that comment because I was voicing my honest response to the post above it. I in no way meant to push Catholic agenda by doing so (still not sure what that even means).

[Amarok]

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.

if having to ask get you out of the mode . Then simply don't have sex there is plenty of porn out there  . And not saying is no is not saying yes.

In answer to your question yes . As consenting to one act is not consenting to any act .

I would expect her response to be her response . It might be "No i'm not in the mood for that "No i'm not into that" "Maybe that far but no further " all response i have received because i asked first . And no i have never had a woman say "

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The entire idea that not raping someone is too much work is the most bizarre thing in the world, fortunately the type of people that entertain these types of ideas are also the type that has to remain involuntary celibate. Thank God.

[Amarok]

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

That was a generalization  moron . And i tend to ask more specific things . 

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

No nowhere did i say that . At any point we can stop. Seriously you are dense . So real sex i have actually had is not realistic? 

[Edwardo Piet]

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

That was a generalization  moron . And i tend to ask more specific things . 

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

No nowhere did i say that . At any point we can stop. Seriously you are dense . So real sex i have actually had is not realistic 

No wonder you mentioned sex robots if you're into robotic sex!

[Amarok]

That was a generalization  moron . And i tend to ask more specific things . 


No nowhere did i say that . At any point we can stop. Seriously you are dense . So real sex i have actually had is not realistic 

No wonder you mentioned sex robots if you're into robotic sex!

Nope not into sex bots . all my partners are real . And nothing i have written implies otherwise.

[Edwardo Piet]

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?

Well my agenda is to make sure The Jews take their revenge on the Germans by taking over the world. How about yours?

---

No wonder you mentioned sex robots if you're into robotic sex!

Nope not into sex bots . all my partners are real . And nothing i have written implies otherwise.

If they looked, sounded and behaved perfectly human I'd totally be up for it!

That'll never happen though. The way sex robots are right now....... it's all just insanely creepy.

[Cyberman]

I can't add any more to what I've already said about how monumentally fucked up that is.

I suppose it is, if the truth does doesn't matter to you.

No, please don't lay that on me. What you're proposing is exactly what I've warned against throughout; trial by journalism.

Who gets to decide what the truth is? The journo? The editor? The person who sold the story instead of reporting it to the authorities? What about the accused? What if that was you? Wouldn't you want your hour in court to put your side of the events?

This stuff isn't merely a drama, for salacious public entertainment or outrage. People, actual real people, can get hurt by it. And it's too late to make amends in the event that a mistake is shown to have happened, because the damage is done.

Actually, this kind of thing might even prevent the case going to trial at all, if the public is so whipped up into a froth that finding an unbiased jury becomes impossible. And let's say this guy managed to overturn the accusations. I can see the comments here: "he only got off - so to speak - because of who is / because he's a man / because he's got money" etc etc.

Bottom line is, I'm all for the truth, it matters a great deal. But the truth is not the province of one person, nor whomever shouts the loudest.

This is why I don't do gossip.