Aziz Ansari Responds to Accusations • Page 9

Sounds like you need to read her account again. She said she hoped he would play with her hair/massage her, what he actually did after she said no, and he suggested they hang out non-sexually, was continue to kiss her aggressively, put his fingers in her throat again, and try to undo her pants. At no point throughout the account did he respect her autonomy.

 

I think that's the biggest disconnect I've seen from people pushing back against this instance. They just didn't fucking read the piece.

 

I think the problem is that you say Aziz was in the wrong, but the tone of your original post didn’t convey that well.

 

Rereading my original comment, that's a fair assessment.

 

Fuck that condescending Ashleigh video still

 

Yeah and a lot of the articles written in response to the original piece are dangerously incorrect so if people are only reading those they're not gonna know. One popular article going around claimed that after she said no Aziz respected it and she left, clearly and deliberately ignoring that he tried it again after she said no

 

I think it all relates to what people's current definition of no is, which is why I am glad that we're also adding the aspect of only yes means yes. There are a variety of personalities and some people just have a hard time being definitive, or think they are without realizing that they're not. To the people responding that way to the article, they're seeing every instance of 'lets slow down' or 'lets just chill' as not a no, and that only saying 'stop' and 'no' are. I think men are more than capable of reading that that language, even though it's not explicitly a no, is certainly not a yes. It needs to be taught that any kind of language (verbal or non verbal) that isn't 'I am okay with proceeding with this' is a not a yes. I can understand the lack of clarity that many will feel this presents, and that some men are going to be frustrated that women can't just explicitly say no, but those kind of thoughts are leading to an oversimplification of things and ignoring the reasons why many women don't feel able to be forceful (and I hate to say forceful, as saying no to something that makes you uncomfortable shouldn't be seen as a show of force but I'm struggling for a better term).

 

Amid criticism over Aziz Ansari piece, Babe editor stands by story

 

After thinking through all of this, I've changed my tune a bit. What Mr. Ansari did to this woman was not rape, nor was it sexual assault. Those are the extreme versions of what Mr. Ansari did to this woman. He clearly did not respect this woman and absolutely acted inappropriately; I think "boorish" is the perfect word to summarise how he treated her. I think it's fair to say that what happened is normal in today's culture. Of course that doesn't make it okay, and Mr. Ansari should be embarrassed by all of this. I don't want to try to get in his head, only he knows whether or not he was surprised by how 'Grace' felt. I don't think this should be a career ending situation a la Spacey or Weinstein. What this should be is a wake up call not just for Mr. Ansari, but for all young men. Unless you get a clear "yes," it's probably wise to not take things any further.

 

The secret isn't really in getting a clear "yes". It's in making your partner's desires as important as your own. If that happens, it's impossible to miss the nonverbal cues and body language that let you know if your partner is interested or is just "not going to stop you".

If men (yes, women can be predatory and I apologize for reliance on the gender binary, but for the purposes of this conversation I think it applies) were truly interested in their partner's consent, not proceeding without a "yes" would go with the territory and frankly, I think we need to work on changing the entire ethos and mindset, not just the behavior. One is a symptom, the other is the disease.

In the interim, yes: getting clear, non-coerced consent is important. But I think there's a larger conversation to be had here about why men seem to be so unconcerned with how their partner feels as long as they ~legally~ got to have sex.

 

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC
but he's said he is in no rush to do season 3. Something along the lines of wanting to live life a little more before getting there

 

I don't know if I said it here or somewhere else, but MRA's are gonna love the "women are liars" season 3 of his shitty show

 

In response to your last paragraph: something I've rarely or never seen addressed in these discussions lately is the conflicting message some men receive from some cultural influences regarding how women generally want them to behave in a sexual encounter or setting. It's uncomfortable to talk about, and it also requires lots of nuance from both sides to avoid devolving into the "fuck off" tier of discourse, so it's unsurprising that it gets swept under the rug.

Basically, I believe we (as straight men) are socialized to believe that being perceived as boring or a doormat is the worst of all outcomes in the realm of romance and sex with women. It would be easy to say "that's just PUA bullshit," but if we're being completely honest and trying to address the problem, I think that's an oversimplification. In reality, the "she wants you to take charge and be the aggressor" message is implicit in many facets of mainstream culture. It's not just PUAs or conservatives or white southerners stuck in the 50s culturally.

It goes without saying that there's some gray area between being a doormat and behaving like Aziz did in the story, and that's where most women want men to be. And, to the extent that this cultural evolution is about defining those lines clearly and beating them into the collective male psyche through whatever means necessary, I'm fully onboard. I just think it's important to keep this in mind and not assume that all misbehaving men -- even fairly badly misbehaving ones -- are sociopaths plotting how to straddle the line of "having sex legally." There's no excuse for how Aziz behaved, but if you're not careful and overreach in assuming motives, it undermines the movement's credibility in the eyes of men who most need to listen.

 

Not all men? Really? That was your takeaway here?

I do not need to have it explained to me that not all men are sociopaths. I am not overreaching - this is a behavior pattern and yes, a justification I've seen trotted out time and time again by men across the board - that it's not worth talking about or wasn't that bad if it didn't break the law. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - maybe you didn't mean to be condescending just now. But you certainly achieved it.

I have been doing this for a very long time. I have gotten through to a lot of men. I really don't need to have it explained to me how to best do that - people listen when they're ready to. If they're not there yet, my tone isn't going to help matters. Men who aren't "like that" know that the "not all men" is implied, but if I spent time talking about that EVERY SINGLE TIME instead of addressing the issue actually at hand, the message gets buried and every man - yes, even the ones who ARE like that - get to pat themselves on the back for de facto being one of the good ones instead feeling the call to action to examine their own behavior. Whether they're ready for that call or not is a separate issue. Having to say "not all men" actually REMOVES the ability to have a nuanced conversation from the table because it then becomes about assuring men that they aren't part of the problem when the fact is, even non-predatory men tend to aid and abet the behavior by splitting hairs about what's acceptable and what isn't when it's their fave or buddy on the line.

In case you were wondering, this is why folks in disenfranchised groups lose patience and get so damn angry. We're tired of having this conversation when even the most basic research on your part could avoid it.

 

I'm genuinely confused by this response. I expected some pushback -- perhaps deserved -- but not in this form.

I never said "not all men" anywhere in my post. I said "not all misbehaving men," and in a totally different context than "not all men are bad." I'm talking about the subset of men who do cross boundaries and act out of line, and saying their motives (and even their degree of awareness that there's a problem with their behavior) are probably split quite significantly between predatory vs. clueless. It's a whole different conversation than what you seem to be addressing. Critique my post and call it condescending all you want, as long as it's relevant.

The whole point of what I wrote was to say that some men take problematic cultural influences too much to heart, which needs to change. It was no effort to defend them or their transgressions, aside from differentiating that phenomenon from consciously predatory behavior.

 

I am addressing this conversation. I am addressing you. I do not misunderstand you. "Not all men" came from subtext, I am aware you didn't specifically say it.

The emphasis on "some" is what provided that subtext, given that we're talking about a larger societal problem. I did not believe you were defending them, but instead was letting you know how unhelpful making a point towards that distinction actually is in these conversations. It serves as a distraction and an easy "out" for folks who aren't ready to self-examine yet.

Of course motives vary, and there's a difference between being predatory and uninformed - in theory. My argument is that it's a moot point when the end result is the same. It's a societal problem if "cluelessness" results in behavior that feels so predatory to women. It's a societal problem when even men who I would normally consider to be pretty good allies fall back on the "well, it wasn't illegal..." defense when the problem lands in their backyard. And yes, this happens all the time. Intent is far less important than impact when we're talking about how to fix this issue at the root - and that comes back to how men and women are socialized to deal with each other. Predators are dangerous - but so is ignorance. A person who walks away feeling assaulted isn't going to feel better because the other person didn't know it was important to make sure they wanted it too. They're just going to feel assaulted. That is the conversation I think we need to have - not to further establish that not all "misbehaving" men have ill intentions. We know that.

Again, I didn't misconstrue your point, I just disagreed that it was useful and yes, it it condescending to assume that someone who consistently writes about these issues - for the very site you're commenting on - did not already have a handle on the information you provided. Do with that what you will.

 

Samantha Bee: "[Women] know the difference between a rapist, a workplace harasser, and an Aziz Ansari"

 

Imagine thinking we're sentient beings who can understand nuance in our own experiences without having it explained to us. Revolutionary stuff!

 

I also want to re-post this, because I think it's relevant to some of the conversation going on in here and I've been thinking about the quoted part a lot: On Aziz Ansari And Sex That Feels Violating Even When It’s Not Criminal | HuffPost

 

OK, that is helpful and I think I misunderstood you on some level before, so thanks for elaborating.

I can't respond in full right now, but I wanted to mention I'm not a regular in the non-music threads here, so I wasn't aware of who are you are or your background. No condescension intended, and I will keep that in mind going forward.

Briefly, I would say that I'm in full agreement that encounters with these "clueless" men are a real societal problem. My first post was just a lot of pontificating in response to your line about why "men seem so unconcerned about how their partners feel as long as it's legal," which I concede was probably more of a rhetorical question from you. I just want to be sure we're identifying the distribution of motives and ignorance that lead to these problems with reasonable accuracy - for example, because a guy who did something close to what Aziz did out of "cluelessness" and a misguided notion of what women expect of a man may shut down at the crucial apex of this ongoing conversation if he perceives (rightly or wrongly) that sinister motives are being ascribed to him inaccurately. That line from your first post didn't really do that; it just hinted in that direction and got me thinking about it more.

 

You're welcome. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

 

You make an interesting point about a potential source for where this reprehensible behavior may stem from culturally. Being called a nice guy is not synonymous with being sexy or interesting or exceptionally appealing. I’m sure that encourages a lot of this coercive behavior out of some men.