That's the fundamental problem with the story and has been pointed out repeatedly by critics (both women and men alike). You just don't get the impression when reading it, that you are getting a full account of the atmospherics surrounding what truly happened. It instead reads more like an attempt to draw the audience towards a conclusion the writer would like them to reach.
Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That's the fundamental problem with the story and has been pointed out repeatedly by critics (both women and men alike). You just don't get the impression when reading it, that you are getting a full account of the atmospherics surrounding what truly happened. It instead reads more like an attempt to draw the audience towards a conclusion the writer would like them to reach.
Sometimes I think men are obsessed with this idea of portraying and showing off masculinity, that idea that women always want a man who "takes charge" and just end up plowing through without proper consideration for how the partner is feeling.I actually think the Ansari story is one of the more interesting and relevant conversations to come out of the #metoo movement.
Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and friends are very black and white.
They're horrible bastards and hollywood is very far behind modern standards of whats ok (I'd like to think that shit wouldn't ever fly in a million years in a standard office setting, maybe I'm wrong?)
This one has a lot more grey areas really, most people can probably relate a vaguely similar story on some level. A lot can probably relate with both the people in the story.
There are valuable lessons in there though - she went quite far despite being utterly uncomfortable with it.
How intimidation works with men and women is drastically different imo. I think most guys are largely ... immune to it? I just don't think we're really built to feel it.
Were just more wired to being overconfident and maybe overaggressive to compensate I think.
Women really dont seem to be wired in the same manner and a pretty consistent physical mismatch would change the perspective quite a bit i imagine.
I dont think thats obvious or even occurs to most guys and is probably worth pointing out.
From Ansari's perspective ...
I can totally see how i could have acted in more or less the same way. I think i'll use the old 'men have needs and desires' chestnut here.
Its sometimes used to excuse pretty horrific stuff but ... I dont think anyone is really excusing him or that its that horrific.
Men do have a lot of drives and instincts that are utterly inappropriate to the modern world, we ignore them, we dismiss them, we think for half a second and realise what a fecking stupid idea that would be. But they're still there.
In Ansari's position my dick would be a part of the decision making process and its views on what i should do ... would be fairly consistent.
Women need to use their own initiative and be firm despite feeling intimidated imo. I'm bad at reading non verbal queues of people i know, I'm just not going to pick them up from someone i dont. Thats not particularly uncommon with guys in general I dont think. A lot of us are slightly autistic, for lack of a better description.
I just think you need to give the guy an opportunity to not be a dickhead, be clear and give him the opportunity to do the right thing and call you a taxi.
Ideally before it goes past a point your not willing to go, guys will always been inclined to push it to the absolute limit of where your willing to go.
I think most will back off and ring the taxi. I think the vast majority will. At worst they might be a bit huffy (to hell with the guys who are tbh).
For guys i think 'do you want me to ring you a taxi?' is a good phrase and worth throwing out if in doubt.
Having sex with someone when your just horny and not that committed to ever seeing them again is shallow and unsatisfying on a good day.
Doing it with someone who's not really interested is going to be pretty crap and your really should feel like a total shitbag for pushing them past where they want to go.
All that sounds kind of puritanical to me and kind of rubs me up the wrong way. I'm a hippy - free love! and all that jazz
That idea seems kind of dead today
"Let's watch TV with our clothes on"
*tries to undress her again*
Why didn't she leave? Genuine question.
SamB said in the video that his career will not be threatened because everyone knows the difference between sexual assault and his specific case.
Guess she was wrong.
I find it funny that all the feminist can't agree within themselves and then try to get everyone else to agree with them.
Last edited:
Feminist answer: It doesn't matter
Neutral answer (+common sense): She wanted intimacy to put her into the mood
Yeah, I dunno, I think a lot of hook ups like that are kind of built on not thinking in general.
oh man it's like people aren't all the same
she left when he tried again, such good common sense guy
Bardot is a massive dickhead though.
You need to read the article again.
you need to re-read my edit
Im assuming men aren't in the position to actually answer.
But if it was me I'd have just left.
(Single me at 20 something would have totally done it just to say I did)
If even the feminists do not agree with you, you are too far left.
It is easier to support something when everyone is on board and boundaries can be set. A good example is workplace flirtation. This is automatically classed as unwanted sexual advance and therefore it is sexual harassment, despite the objection from men. It is when the boundaries are unclear, and expecting men to abide by YOUR standards, that's when things a bit messy.
She wanted a back rub no? I'm pretty sure she wanted intimacy.
You looked to be one of those that is so far left of the movement that you can't see (therefore can't accept) any arguments from the right.
Soo, this is how one of the most vocal voices of this movement wants to handle this situation? Way to self sabotage and do the job of the opposing voices for them.
First she changes the narrative of the whole situation, citing fear as the main reason that Grace did not leave. Where was this cited in the article? Discomfort, unpleasentness, dissapointment? Sure, but fear? No. She was not too scared to still be around him nude, she was not too scared to still seek and hope for intimacy with him. Did I somehow miss Ansari threathening her in any way and make her do his bidding against her will? If so, he was very forthcoming for sure when she actually did decide to leave and he called her a car to get her home.
Then and this is even worse she says that the "me-too"-movement is not only about covering the cases of rape, sexual assault and abuse, but also about talking about unpleasent encounters in public. She basically gave her ok to public shaming because the public would surely know the difference of cases like this and actual sexual abuse. I guess this is why this case caused an enourmous uproar to the point that even some of the most respected newspapers of the country (Wahington Post, NYT) chose to cover it and offer their perspective and completely overshadowed any of the valid cases this movement stood for.
So far most of the major voices of this movement handled the topic pretty well by distancing themselves from this story, but this video is as contra productive as it gets.
That's where I find it funny. Her premise to public shame is based on people to know the difference. And just a few post up we can see that is not the case. So maybe it is not ok to public shame because her assumption is so wrong that only an idiot would believe?
I'd expect men, women and everyone in between to behave by my standards towards me. Much like I'd behave by their standards towards them. It's human decency to treat people like individuals rather than bulldoze them.
The intimate encounter was over when she voiced her objection, and he accepted it. Him continuing to do the same things constitutes sexual assault. It's like throwing a punch after the bell has rung.
I think you may have misunderstood her point. Aziz not being as bad as Kevin Spacey does not mean his behaviour was acceptable.
When you were being condescending towards me with your "such good common sense guy" sentence, was that ok by your standards or my standards?
Actions speaks louder than words. Don't preach what you can't do.
I mean, it's not like you're a ray of sunshine.
Yes, but at least I am not hypocritical in it.
Nothing hypocritical about it. You were being facetious about what feminists say, as if feminists are a hive mind, and I responded in kind.
Is this before her after she willingly gave him a blowjob ?
If you call someone sucking your dick for a few seconds a blowjob, after. Although she wasn't wholly committed to that either.
Ok, lets not derail the thread. If you are not satisfied with my answer, then please give your answer in response to Billy Blaggs question. I am after all curious on what you think.
I don't know. There's a lot of reasons people don't leave a situation earlier than they should.
It's not been the same since Saville died.
I said to the Mrs he was like some some celebrity sex offender Emperor Palpatine.
Once he was gone there was nobody to stop the police or journalists getting to the truth.
You think it's bullshit? Look what happened to a certain former strike it lucky presenter , he got to the truth and tried to use it to buy his way into hosting a Saturday night prime time game show.
Next thing you know? Dead rent boy in his pool.
Wonder why the likes of Cheggers, Reid, Sharpe and Diamond suddenly disappeared from our Screens?
All crossed Saville, and all were banished.
Since be died?
Open season for the celebrity molesters.
I said to the Mrs he was like some some celebrity sex offender Emperor Palpatine.
Once he was gone there was nobody to stop the police or journalists getting to the truth.
You think it's bullshit? Look what happened to a certain former strike it lucky presenter , he got to the truth and tried to use it to buy his way into hosting a Saturday night prime time game show.
Next thing you know? Dead rent boy in his pool.
Wonder why the likes of Cheggers, Reid, Sharpe and Diamond suddenly disappeared from our Screens?
All crossed Saville, and all were banished.
Since be died?
Open season for the celebrity molesters.
Do I think that he acted like a douchebag according to that article? Absolutely and I doubt that even his side of the story would change my view.
Do I think that should be put on display for everyone to see in a way that tries to paint him like a criminal, creating a very real threat for his career? No, because I believe everyone has a right to have his privacy until he loses that right by commiting an actual crime.
And here is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe he commited sexual assault, I don´t.
I certainly know that this would never fly in court, because even in this very obviously unbalanced piece of "journalism" without his side of the story there are too many inconsitencies and contraditions to make a clear case for it.
Sexual assault is in its essence crossing lines that one of the participants does not want to cross. These lines or boundaries can be very low, at the workplace for example. In situations like at the end of a date between two people, the lines are set by themselves.
Aziz Ansari did not cross the lines Grace did set for herself and him. In the few moments she actually did not rely on her nonverbal signals and verbalized her thoughts to him, she made it fairly clear: she was not ready for actual intercourse. He offered it twice (granted in a weird, clumsy, very corny kind of way), she declined twice, he let go of her twice. What she did was partake in oral sex, in kissing, in making out. She did not enjoy it very much, which we know from her inner thoughts and supposed body language, which Ansari apearantly did not pick up, but she still did it. She had no issue being naked around him and looking for closeness.
You say that him trying to undress her again was sexual assault, but in truth we don´t know what he planned to do. Maybe he wanted to go down on her again like he did before, like she allowed before, and expected the same in return, which she did twice before.
If there are that many, then please select one from your vault that we can all go: Ah, that's plausible.
A blowjob is a blowjob whether its for a few seconds or a few hours. No getting around that one I'm afraid. I just noticed she allowed him to do the same to her as well.
She should've got up and left if any of the events were in any way unpleasant to her. Instead she gave him a blowjob and allowed him to go down on her. Sounds consensual to me.
Awkwardness
Lack of interpersonal skills
Stupidity
Lack of emotional intelligence
Fear
Anxiety
Going from "let's watch TV with our clothes on" to undressing her certainly crossed the lines they set moments earlier.
Some of it being consensual doesn't mean all of it was.
That argument is undercut by her willingness to be consensual at all. If she was vehemently against sex then she should've left. Staying and continuing to be consensual is a good sign she believed the benefits of staying outweighed the benefits of leaving. You don't get to retroactively pick and choose the consensual and non consensual moments after the fact with your article writer at your side, because you later felt the evening didn't go as you'd originally wanted it to.
She voiced her objection during the encounter. This wasn't her retroactively deciding it was assault, it was assault.
Repeating the word assault doesn't change the reality that this was a consensual encounter. The vast response against the article, especially among female journalists is a good sign this was an attempt to anonymously wield power against Ansari because the woman didn't like the way the evening went. She had ample opportunities to leave but didn't take any of the off ramps. At that point you lose all credibility to make a believable claim of assault.
I mean, you had ample opportunities to admit Trump was never going to pivot, but you kept at it for months. People make bad decisions all the time. And I suspect that in time, as Grace's generation of women gain power, the kind of behaviour Aziz displayed will be seen with all the disgust it deserves.
Ok, so at least we can agree she made a bad decision to stay and consensually have oral sex with him. That's a good start.
And he made the worst decision in sexually assaulting her after agreeing to end the sexual encounter.
Ok to be fair, forcibly undressing her is assault. However, attempting to undress another person without force can be read as foreplay by many partners on a date.
Feels like we use the term assault lightly.
You've already admitted she made a bad decision so her consensual actions after wards would seem to discredit any claims to the contrary.
I know assault invoked a particularly grim image, but it really just means physical wrongdoing. I.e, groping a random in a nightclub is sexual assault. And the context in which Aziz tried to undress her, moments after asking her to watch TV fully clothed, it reads less like an attempt to flirt and more a violation.