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

[Amarok]

Then that's shady . now to be fair she should ask too . before grabbing your junk .

so in other words ripe for potential rape . Ans as i sad not saying no doesn't mean yes . 

That's absurd

Seriously?  You seriously believe that when two people are mauling each other, grinding hips, and making out passionately, they should stop to ask permission before touching the other person between the legs?  That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard, lol.

Yup because passionately making out  and even grinding does not translate to . "touch my dick " You can do all that and not want someone to do that .

[Athene]

Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.

My bold.

Is it saying that what we call normal consensual sex is neither normal nor consensual?

I don't get the part about no one suggesting the running through a checklist... because that is what affirmative consent would seem to apply. Because there are no clue rules on what precise actions would and wouldn't need affirmative consent...  the only clear boundary would be "everything" which would involve a checklist, and contracts, and impossible robotic sex where perfectly normal and rational and decent people and innocent people could get falsely accused of rape because they slipped up when they didn't follow every single instruction down to the most microscopic details. I do not understand.

Fuck MRA. I'm a feminist and I hate the MRA. Men don't need their rights fought for. But this isn't about men. This is about the fact that this movement ISN'T. feminism. Affirmative consent could never actually work in practice. It would lead to no sex ever at best and regular false accusations of sexual assault at worst. Demonizing men has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

Again, Hammy...Affirmed consent is generally geared towards college and university students, and is suggested to address their very specific circumstances and concerns. Not the average adult citizen engaging in sexual intercourse, especially with people they actually know.

Also, again: There is no checklist.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, but it it does suggest that some of the things me may now or have previously thought was consensual sex doesn't really fit into that set.

If by "some of the things" you mean "100% of all sexual intercourse where one person stops being in the mood and the other person doesn't stop immediately even before they've been told to stop"... then yes.

If by "some of the things" you mean "100% of all sexual intercourse than isn't 100% robotic down to the tiniest micromovements" ... then yes.

"Can I touch your knee?"

"Yes. Can I touch your knee too?"

"Yes."

*3 seconds pass*

"I stopped being in the mood for your touching my knee about half a second ago but you failed to recognize my drop of enthusiasm. Far from merely not being telepathic empathetic enough.... you just sexually assaulted me!"

According to affirmative consent.... this is sexual assault.

[Catholic_Lady]

Let me just say that I get that rape and sexual assault are extremely sensitive/traumatic topics for people who have been through it. I don't understand what it feels like to be assaulted, but I do have my own traumatic experience about something else, and there are certain subjects relating to it that are extremely triggering to me... so I get it. I know that feeling.

To reword what I meant in that comment in case there's any possible unintended offense to any lurker reading, let me further explain my position.

I was basically responding to SaStrike's valid point about consent to explain that I don't think consent should be the end all be all to how we behave, sexually. It's a critical part, obviously, but it shouldn't end there, imho. Because then we get stories like this: where technically there was consent, but someone still came out feeling used and violated and disrespected and taken advantage of. We'll get stories where people consented, but they did so because they were being pressured by the other. We'll get stories where people consented, but were nonetheless treated like sex objects and discarded afterwards. Technically there is consent in these scenarios, and there was no crime, but this doesn't mean it was right.

What I'm saying is there needs to be a root change in our culture's attitude about sexuality to where consent isn't the ONLY standard to go by. There needs to be a better overall sense of care for people and respect for sexuality in general. My opinion on how to promote this greater sense is what I specifically suggested on the post: Promote respect for self and others, promote sexual morality, promote sex as an act of love/commitment to the other person... discourage hook up culture, discourage porn use, discourage using each other in bed.

That's literally all I meant by that. I wasn't trying to victim blame or discredit consent or anything like that, just adding to it.

[Whateverist]

When did this thread switch from attacking positions to attacking each other?  Can’t we ever just say, “guess we’re not going to see eye to eye on this one guys; let’s walk away”, rather than devolving into twenty pages of nasty personal attacks and shit slinging?

Sing it, sister.

[Edwardo Piet]

Again, Hammy...Affirmed consent is generally geared towards college and university students, and is suggested to address their very specific circumstances and concerns. Not the average adult citizen engaging in sexual intercourse, especially with people they actually know.

Also, again: There is no checklist.

So basically if you're a college or university student... then all sex is rape... but if you're not then you're fine as long as you don't actually rape someone.

The fact there's no checklist is the problem because the impossible checklist would be required for the impossible task.

The question was basically how to know when someone has stopped being into sex/enthusiastic if they're expected to let that be known affirmatively. And the answer to how to tell if they'e enthusiastic is.... whether they're enthusiastic. Hey if they're into it then they're into it!

It just seems to be "If you don't know what they're feeling and their feeling is negative then it's rape."

I just find it rather funny how the proposed solution to the problem is just a reassertion of the exact problem. Illogical missteps like that are funny. This one totally begs the question.

[Joods]

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.

QFT. 

And yet, when I have stated pretty much the same thing over several posts, I get called a victim blamer. 

[The Grand Nudger]

---

---

[Catholic_Lady]

To my own part, I'd like to think I only attacked someone/name called when I was defending myself. Probably not ideal behavior, but it is what it is. I'll try to not let emotion get in the way of objective discussion for the rest of the thread.

[polymath257]

Seriously?  You seriously believe that when two people are mauling each other, grinding hips, and making out passionately, they should stop to ask permission before touching the other person between the legs?  That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard, lol.

Yup because passionately making out  and even grinding does not translate to . "touch my dick " You can do all that and not want someone to do that .

From what I can see, a LOT here has to do with how we perceive non-verbal clues, how fast things progress, and whether those clues are respected when recognized.

So, for example, if a woman and I were making out and grinding, ans she *tentatively* moved to touch my dick, I would see that as OK *if* when I moved away she accepted that as 'no thank you'. But *grabbing* is way different than a tentative exploration.

In the same situation, if I moved towards the genitals (says, the mons) and she draws back, that is a sign that she is not interested. But, especially in a first encounter, I would not *grab*.

Does *verbal* agreement need to be procured? I don't think so. But awareness and respect for those non-verbal clues (especially those that go against what you want) is part of the game. Again, going slowly enough that there is an opportunity to draw back is part of the progression. Let's face it, if my hand is moving to the mons and the woman pulls away, that is *hugely* different than pushing the mons into my hand. And how about simply listening? if she is saying 'yes, yes', that is quite different than being quiet or tense.

That said, it is easy to get mixed signals, especially with new people. The first few times, you are learning how this new person's body responds, how they respond, etc. Asking and making sure they are on board is a good thing.