It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:50 pm



Reply to topic  [ 1971 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 40  Next
 A Corrierino Awareness Thread 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Got a couple of interesting stories here: Mark Wahlberg is giving all his All The Money In The World reshoot money to #TimesUp now, after the controversy over his huge paygap when compared to what Michelle Williams got for the reshoots, and Conan O'Brien is heading to Haiti to prove it's not a shithole, because of, well... you know what.

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

that Wahlberg story might be another example of how things didn't play out as nefariously as the headlines would make it seem. i.e. it could be the sole fault of his agency. *shrug* or I dunno. anyway, it's probably not the best example to showcase the inequality between men and women in Hollywood.

also, Margaret Atwood has written about her concerns about the MeToo movement, that any abuses may prevent it from working successfully.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/

(and I don't mean for this to come off as "see? even Margaret Atwood thinks you ladies are gettin' too big for your britches!")


Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:32 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I'm glad to see that I may not going crazy or overreacting to the Aziz Ansari story. There seem to be a number of similar responses to mine, that also reflect my fear for the damage such things could cause the overall movement.

Bari Weiss at the NYT, makes many of the same arguments I have earlier - like how she willingly undressed and remained nude long after (in her telling) she claimed to be giving cues that the date was over, and how she always apparently had the free option of leaving at any time.

Bari Weiss wrote:
It is worth carefully studying Grace’s story. Encoded in it are new yet deeply retrograde ideas about what constitutes consent — and what constitutes sexual violence.

Aziz Ansari sounds like he was aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.

But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say: “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying piss off.

Grace’s story was met with so many digital hosannas by young feminists, who insisted that consent is only consent if it is affirmative, active, continuous and — and this is the word most used — enthusiastic. Consent isn’t the only thing they are radically redefining. A recent survey by The Economist/YouGov found that approximately 25 percent of millennial-age American women think asking someone for a drink is harassment. More than a third say that if a man compliments a woman’s looks it is harassment.


The Atlantic's Caitlin Flanagan:

Caitlin Flanagan wrote:
What she felt afterward—rejected yet another time, by yet another man—was regret. And what she and the writer who told her story created was 3,000 words of revenge porn. The clinical detail in which the story is told is intended not to validate her account as much as it is to hurt and humiliate Ansari. Together, the two women may have destroyed Ansari’s career, which is now the punishment for every kind of male sexual misconduct, from the grotesque to the disappointing.

I thought it would take a little longer for the hit squad of privileged young white women to open fire on brown-skinned men. I had assumed that on the basis of intersectionality and all that, they’d stay laser focused on college-educated white men for another few months. But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky. Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful, and last night they destroyed a man who didn’t deserve it.


And mansplained by The Week's Damon Linker:

Damon Linker wrote:
Over the intervening months, as the movement took down a series of men who had gotten away for years with wildly abusive behavior in the workplace (and also targeted some borderline cases), some of its most prominent champions have insisted the movement be more ambitious. Women need to call out any and all examples of behavior that could be described as sexual misconduct, broadly defined: bad sex, inconsiderate sex, sex in which the man treats his partner solely as an object for his gratification, and sex in which consent is in any way ambiguous or ambivalent.

But of course bad sex isn't illegal. And neither does it violate any clearly defined laws or regulations, such as those set up in the workplace. In the absence of codified norms against such behavior, what can be done?

The Ansari case shows us the chilling possibility: The alleged perpetrator of sexual misconduct can be shamed, humiliated, his every oafish act offered up to the world for mockery and condemnation by the tweet-mob. That's assuming, of course, that he's famous. All the countless thousands of faceless men who treat woman just as bad as (or far worse than) Ansari treated Grace will retain their anonymity, since no one will click on a story about how some random woman hooked up with some equally random horny, self-involved jerk.

The impression one gets from reading that sorry account is that Grace is incredibly passive. Ansari dictates when they leave the restaurant and return to his apartment. Through several rounds of sexual interaction, he's the one who initiates. She stops him multiple times, and indicates that she'd like to take it slower, but until the final conflagration, she never really explains what she wants or expects, or firmly tells him the date is over, or makes clear that she will not continue fooling around with him. On the contrary, she repeatedly relents to his cloddish and smarmy advances. Until she leaves and sends him the angry text the following day. And then speaks to a reporter at Babe.net, which published the whole account for all the world to read.

The psychological term for such behavior is passive-aggression. One of its sources is an inability to communicate emotions, which leads to lashing out in hostility.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I'm glad to see that I may not going crazy or overreacting to the Aziz Ansari story. There seem to be a number of similar responses to mine, that also reflect my fear for the damage such things could cause the overall movement.



The Atlantic's Caitlin Flanagan:



And mansplained by The Week's Damon Linker:



All of these "hot takes" are incredibly awful. There is a huge gulf between a consensual sexual encounter and a sexual assault. No one is saying that Ansari should be arrested or sued. A woman saw him wearing a pin in support of making the world less sexually hostile for women and shared a story about him creating a hostile sexual environment. Something being legal doesn't mean it is okay. If you want to make society, workplaces, etc a better place for people, you also have to address those things that happen in the "not illegal but not okay" area.

1) The movement to protect women does NOT begin with women being more vocal. Spoiler alert: A lot of men are not responsive even when you are vocal and direct. It is important for women to speak up clearly about what they want and do not want, but it is equally important for men to actually hear what women are saying. They might even have to *GASP* make an inference. And if you aren't sure what someone means, you could, oh I don't know, ask them? For example, when someone asks you if you want to sign up for a savings card at a department store and you say "Not right now, thanks" you are saying no politely. If that same clerk came up to you five minutes later and was like "Do you want a savings card now?" you'd be like "What the heck?". If the person you are with is not excited to be having sex with you, maybe don't have sex with them. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Compliance or lack of a direct no is not the same as a yes. If you are the only person in your sexual encounter who is taking the lead, maybe question why that is. Maybe say, "Are you enjoying this? Do you want to keep going?". It's not hard to ask for an affirmative yes instead of ignoring what might be an implied no.

2) "Privileged young white women" might have the majority of voices in the discussion right now, but that label hardly applies to Lupita Nyongo, Aurora Perrineau, or Terry Crews. What is this comment supposed to mean? People who are privileged can't call out sexually questionable behavior? They shouldn't call out Ansari because of his race (Ansari is college educated and arguably more privileged than the woman accusing him of misconduct, but his race somehow negates that, article writer?)? Also, does she not understand the meaning of intersectionality?

3) Bad sex isn't illegal. No one said it is. But if the sex is bad because one partner ignored a lack of consent from the other person, than it is problematic. If your sexual partner asks you to slow down, then they become the one who should set the pace. THEY should be the one to initiate anything further. You can't just say, "Well, she was being very passive." ASK HER. Again, why is this so hard? Actually--I already know the answer. I think that men don't ask because as long as they don't directly ask, they can ignore any implicit "no". And asking doesn't mean something is already happening. It means saying "Do you want me to _________?". If she says yes, you have explicit consent. If she says "no", that's also clear. Would you actually want to perform a sexual act on someone who didn't want it?

The whole thing about women needing to be more verbal is just another way to put the onus of responsibility for sexual encounters on women. If they don't speak up, whatever happens was their fault. But in order for women to be empowered to speak up, men need to be willing to listen. And maybe even willing to ask directly if "Not now" is just a polite "no". I would argue that men ignoring a non-verbal or non-direct no is a much worse form of passive-aggression. Imagine a guy on a subway crowding into a woman. She shrinks away from him. He pushes into her more. She pulls away again, he pins her against the wall of the train car. Should she say "Stop it!"? I guess. But are you really going to argue that because those words haven't come out of her mouth that she's being passive-aggressive or unclear?


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:42 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I was just about to reference the New York Times piece which basically sums up everything I would have to say on the matter.

The Azis Ansari story basically constitutes as bottom feeder journalism, and has resulted in some of the worst responses I've come across so far with this movement. This isn't to say there isn't a discussion to be had about Ansari's conduct. Just because a man's behaviour doesn't resort to assault or predatory harassment or abuse or power, doesn't mean that they should get a complete pass. But framing a story about Ansari being responsible for the worst night of someone's life, whispers of sexual assault, feels much too much like click bait, and has resulted in responses in Twitter feeds the seem to misinterpret the story further every time it is passed along like some game of telephone where someone's career and reputation can ultimately be ruined by what is misheard. I personally feel nearly everything in relation to this story is not only irresponsible in regards to Ansari, but feels irresponsible for the whole movement. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel that framing these stories as assaults (which, some have been careful not to do, but others, not so much) puts it into a discussion about the Weinsteins and CK's of the world, when it should be it's own separate issue (the enormous divide there seems to be between communication between people in such instances).


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:46 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Bannon subpeonaed.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

crumbsroom wrote:
But framing a story about Ansari being responsible for the worst night of someone's life, whispers of sexual assault, feels much too much like click bait, and has resulted in responses in Twitter feeds the seem to misinterpret the story further every time it is passed along like some game of telephone where someone's career and reputation can ultimately be ruined by what is misheard. I personally feel nearly everything in relation to this story is not only irresponsible in regards to Ansari, but feels irresponsible for the whole movement.


Women also tend to have their careers ruined or derailed when they don't go along with sexual come-ons, so that element of it goes both ways. Again, no one is saying he should go to jail or not have a career. But you don't get to put on a pin about empowering women if in your own personal behavior you are disempowering women.

These types of experiences are exactly the ones that do need to be discussed. Most women experience a huge degree of sexual abuse that is not strictly speaking illegal, but is nonetheless gross and creates a hostile environment. Catcalling an 11 year old isn't illegal, but that's not the line that needs to be drawn in these kinds of conversations.

I think that the account in the article is very clear and matter-of-fact. I haven't heard any account of this story or events in it that seem exaggerated or even improbable. It's incredibly telling to me that in her text she calls out specific behaviors of his and he simply says that he misunderstood.

Some people are really banging the drum about #MeToo overreaching. "No one will every be able to flirt again!!!". But I think that generally women (and men) are a lot more forgiving of romantic and sexual missteps when they come from a place of genuine miscommunication and not willfully ignoring someone's lack of consent. If someone takes your hand off of their body, don't put it back without permission. If someone takes their hand off of your body, don't force it back on without their consent. If someone says they want to wait for sex until the second date, don't pour them wine and say "The second date is now!".

On the one hand, I understand your reservations about the click-bait nature of the headline, but on the other hand, experiences like this one should not be dismissed as being no big deal or as falling into the scope of simply being a "bad sexual experience". There is a difference between underwhelming/blah sex and having someone pretend to respect your desire to slow down only to stick his fingers in your mouth.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
All of these "hot takes" are incredibly awful. There is a huge gulf between a consensual sexual encounter and a sexual assault. No one is saying that Ansari should be arrested or sued.

"Grace" has called the incident an "assault". Besides not being accurate, it's a charge that could very well cost Ansari professionally as much as a civil suit could.

Takoma1 wrote:
1) The movement to protect women does NOT begin with women being more vocal. Spoiler alert: A lot of men are not responsive even when you are vocal and direct. It is important for women to speak up clearly about what they want and do not want, but it is equally important for men to actually hear what women are saying.

First, I support any and everyone being more vocal, and would hardly support any movement vying for less voices.

I felt it was important to use "Grace"'s account, listening to what she said. By her own account and in her own words, she did not "speak up clearly", and therefore there was nothing for Ansari to hear. I already pointed out that whatever other body language with which she was communicating is unknoweable to us, as it is subjective and unrecorded. Her reliance on how she felt, as opposed to what she said, makes it difficult to confirm just how blatant she feels her intentions were conveyed. For example....

Takoma1 wrote:
If the person you are with is not excited to be having sex with you, maybe don't have sex with them. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Compliance or lack of a direct no is not the same as a yes.

She had willing undressed, and, from her own account, was not prevented from redressing whenever she felt like. If she didn't want to have sex with him, at any point, putting her clothes back on would be a pretty good non-verbal cue. Nothing in her account indicates that she was prevented from doing this at her will.

And "compliance", absent a threat of violence, is a "yes", a willing act of engagement.

Takoma1 wrote:
"Privileged young white women" might have the majority of voices in the discussion right now, but that label hardly applies to Lupita Nyongo, Aurora Perrineau, or Terry Crews. What is this comment supposed to mean?

I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. None of the stories of those people you mention are remotely similar to this one.

Takoma1 wrote:
(Ansari is college educated and arguably more privileged than the woman accusing him of misconduct, but his race somehow negates that, article writer?)?

I'll be fair to both sides by pointing out that we don't know the race of the accuser, but by the same token nor do we know her education.

Takoma1 wrote:
ASK HER.

He asked her where she wanted him to fuck her. I'm not saying that grants him access, but at this point in her account, she had already shown her internal dialogue to say that she wasn't interested in sex. I wonder why this wasn't her answer to his extremely clumsy question.

Takoma1 wrote:
If she says "no", that's also clear.

I agree completely. I wish she had simply said that. When she finally did say the equivalent, then they got dressed. Ansari shouldn't have tried his last little move on her, but I think it was clear from her account that she really should have called it a night before that.

Takoma1 wrote:
If they don't speak up, whatever happens was their fault.

"Whatever happens" is a misnomer here. Let's stick to the specific case. The problem with "whatever" or your subway example is that these imply a much more aggressive form of offense than anything Ansai is accused of here, even in the worst light. Blaming, say, a rape victim too shocked to speak up is entirely different from saying that this woman, who had repeatedly confirmed that she was not going to have sex and thought the "sex encounter" was over but who remained undressed and even decided to give him oral sex, maybe should have made her intentions more clear. Read her account. She gives him head after claiming that she had made it non-verbally clear that there would be no sex that night. I'm not saying that Ansari isn't oblivious (he obviously is), but that's a pretty mixed signal to send.

Takoma1 wrote:
But in order for women to be empowered to speak up, men need to be willing to listen. And maybe even willing to ask directly if "Not now" is just a polite "no".

Again, you can't blame Ansari for not be willing to listen when there was nothing to hear. Unless we change the definition of listening. And again, we cannot judge the degree of her non-verbal communication. I think that it's noteable that she never claims to have explcitly said no, and that she did not decide to put her clothes on when it was clear to herself that she no longer wished to engage in sexual behavior. These two things make it more difficult for me to see this as any kind of assault, or even overly aggressive situation. The Weiss piece has a point, she had the power to end the encounter whenever she wanted to. Obviously she realized that she has the power to potentially end Ansari's TV show.

Ansari seems to be a pretty insensitive and inept lover. I don't think either of those things are part of the Netflix job requirement.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:04 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:

"Whatever happens" is a misnomer here. Let's stick to the specific case. The problem with "whatever" or your subway example is that these imply a much more aggressive form of offense than anything Ansai is accused of here, even in the worst light. Blaming, say, a rape victim too shocked to speak up is entirely different from saying that this woman, who had repeatedly confirmed that she was not going to have sex and thought the "sex encounter" was over but who remained undressed and even decided to give him oral sex, maybe should have made her intentions more clear. Read her account. She gives him head after claiming that she had made it non-verbally clear that there would be no sex that night. I'm not saying that Ansari isn't oblivious (he obviously is), but that's a pretty mixed signal to send.


Again, you can't blame Ansari for not be willing to listen when there was nothing to hear. Unless we change the definition of listening. And again, we cannot judge the degree of her non-verbal communication. I think that it's noteable that she never claims to have explcitly said no, and that she did not decide to put her clothes on when it was clear to herself that she no longer wished to engage in sexual behavior. These two things make it more difficult for me to see this as any kind of assault, or even overly aggressive situation. The Weiss piece has a point, she had the power to end the encounter whenever she wanted to. Obviously she realized that she has the power to potentially end Ansari's TV show.

Ansari seems to be a pretty insensitive and inept lover. I don't think either of those things are part of the Netflix job requirement.


The oral sex is only a mixed signal if you think of sex as being a purely escalating proposition. My reading of that moment is obviously completely different from yours. To me, someone who has said they don't want sex but then performs a lesser sex act is clearly hoping that the act of compromise (some form of sex) will suffice. She understands his desire (sex) and her desire (no sex) and is compromising--a courtesy that he does not show her by continuing to try to steer the encounter to a point that she's taken off of the table. Something that frequently surprises me is the way that men think that one act automatically implies another. "She said she didn't want sex, but then she kissed me. I'm so confused!" It's not confusing--they are okay with kissing and not with sex.

Lots of women (and men, I'm sure) stay in situations where they have the power to end the encounter. But think about that woman who got sued for not staying the whole movie with that guy. Men can be incredibly unpleasant when they are denied, particularly when they perceive a transactional element (I bought her dinner). And women often feel that it is their place to be grateful and to compromise.

Her moving his hands off of her, moving her hand off of his penis repeatedly, moving away from him, telling him "not now"--no one is that oblivious. And if you are that blind to basic social signaling, then explicit verbal consent DEFINITELY needs to be a part of your sexual encounters. "She's moved her hand off my penis three times. I'm not quite sure what she means by it . . . " Please.

To me the part that speaks most clearly is that after she has said she doesn't want to have sex, he later asks her "Where do you want me to f*ck you?". He literally asks her a question that is designed not to take a "no." He doesn't say "Is that countertop starting to look more appealing?" or "What are you in the mood for now?" or anything else that acknowledges the explicit denial she's already given.

Ive talked before about the experience I had when I was 17, when I misunderstood the sequence that was going to be done for an examination of an injury to my shoulder. I thought that the lab tech (the only other person in the room with me) was going to take off my shirt and bra. I was incredibly uncomfortable with the idea. I could have walked out of the room. There were plenty of people (including my parents) on the other side of the door if I'd called out. He wasn't doing anything threatening or imposing to detain me. But at the same time I didn't do anything and I knew inside that I wasn't going to do anything. But here's what I appreciate about that experience looking back; he was my discomfort, clarified the steps of the procedure, and did nothing to rush or pressure me. I said nothing to him and was probably even nodding along. But he was still able to pick up on my non-verbal cues and put me at ease. It's not rocket science. I don't see buffoonish obliviousness--I see someone who wanted something and ignored every signal that he could reasonably ignore while still keeping his own internal narrative about being a good guy. I totally believe the thing about him saying it's not fun unless they're both enjoying themselves, but then going right back to pressuring her.

Everyone needs to be more proactive about clear communication around issues of consent. And, again, if you are the more enthusiastic partner, then you need to make sure that the other person is on board with what you are doing. If they are, getting a genuine "yes" shouldn't be that hard.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
The oral sex is only a mixed signal if you think of sex as being a purely escalating proposition. My reading of that moment is obviously completely different from yours. To me, someone who has said they don't want sex but then performs a lesser sex act is clearly hoping that the act of compromise (some form of sex) will suffice. She understands his desire (sex) and her desire (no sex) and is compromising--a courtesy that he does not show her by continuing to try to steer the encounter to a point that she's taken off of the table. Something that frequently surprises me is the way that men think that one act automatically implies another.

My view of it is that these are both sex acts. Oral sex is one kind of sex act, penetrative sex is another. I wasn't implying that her giving him oral sex was some kind of guarantee for any further obligation. I just think that it's strange that she stresses how she feels that she was giving off very clear physical indications that she was not going to have sex, and then decides to perform a sex act on him.

And I don't want the nudity part to go unnoticed. I don't consider myself a prude about such things, nudity shouldn't also guarantee any additional sexual obligations, but it is understandable why Ansari would see her willing nudity as a cue that she's open to explore further intimate contact. If Ansari is thick for not reading her disinterest (we can agree on this), then it has to be said that she also seems slow to understand that a very simple non-verbal cue to ending the presumption of sex would have been to get dressed. I bet even Ansari could guess what a woman getting dressed means.

Takoma1 wrote:
"She said she didn't want sex, but then she kissed me. I'm so confused!" It's not confusing--they are okay with kissing and not with sex.

Well, with all due respect, I do not see kissing as a sex act, and I see kissing and oral sex as being very different things.

Takoma1 wrote:
But think about that woman who got sued for not staying the whole movie with that guy. Men can be incredibly unpleasant when they are denied, particularly when they perceive a transactional element (I bought her dinner). And women often feel that it is their place to be grateful and to compromise.

Oh I 'member. But that dude, objectively, was a complete prick, and should not be the standard-bearer for sexual protocol. That story is memorable precisely because it is extremely ridiculous and hardly something that most men would do.

I understand the point about the tradition of accommodation (did you catch Aidy Bryant's SNL piece this week about this?), but it should not be something that is acceptable. In fact, one of the positive aspects of #metoo and the conversation is to evolve past these reflexes and traditional roles. I don't think we need to start using this docility as an excuse to then publicly shame the person who is being accommodated. Did Ansari fully expect "Grace" to accommodate him sexually for a free dinner? That's purely conjecture. I think it's more likely that he expected sex because, for the first 10 minutes or so, she seemed to be into it. Therefore, it isn't really fair to then say that she was only into it as a formal courtesy for an expectation that's already been fulfilled.

Takoma1 wrote:
And if you are that blind to basic social signaling, then explicit verbal consent DEFINITELY needs to be a part of your sexual encounters.

Right, exactly. It looks like Ansari is the kind of guy who definitely needs explicit verbal discontent as well, and as sad and frustrating as that can be.

Takoma1 wrote:
To me the part that speaks most clearly is that after she has said she doesn't want to have sex, he later asks her "Where do you want me to f*ck you?". He literally asks her a question that is designed not to take a "no."

"Nowhere" works pretty well. Getting dressed, even better.

And just to point out, she hadn't given an "explicit denial" at this point. She said things like, "let's slow it down, chill, maybe next time", etc. Since we don't have the non-verbal context to go by, none of these things are explicitly definitive.

Takoma1 wrote:
But he was still able to pick up on my non-verbal cues and put me at ease. It's not rocket science.

Not rocket science, but I believe that these kinds of medical professionals do undergo specific training to help put patients at ease, and pediatrics have a whole other sensitivity skill set to meet. I don't think we can expect everyone (least not a comedian) to already have such skills ingrained. I mean, I agree that more men should try to be more sensitive.

Takoma1 wrote:
Everyone needs to be more proactive about clear communication around issues of consent. And, again, if you are the more enthusiastic partner, then you need to make sure that the other person is on board with what you are doing. If they are, getting a genuine "yes" shouldn't be that hard.

I agree with all of this. The problem I have with this piece is that I feel that it is fundamentally unfair. It's unfair to call it an assault or a violation, and it's unfair to now lump Ansari in with people like Weinstein. And I also think it's unfair to use Ansari's celebrity as a hook for the story. For example, there was a similar story, but fiction, "Cat Person", that touched on a lot of these sensitivity matters, managed to become a trending subject of conversation, and did so without jeopardizing anyone's career or engage in public shaming. I'm going to assume that Roupenian knows an actual-life person who inspired the story, but someone probably not as famous as Aziz. Still, she could have made a non-fiction pice calling out this person. I think that it's a good thing she didn't, and her story's success shows how unnecessary it was to air a lot of Ansari's dirty laundry. As much of a dolt as he comes across in "Grace"'s account, I didn't see anything that deserves being publicly humiliated over. We can have a discussion on these sexual communication issues, and both men and women need to benefit from it, but it's unnecessary to do so by potentially damaging someone's livelihood.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
My view of it is that these are both sex acts. Oral sex is one kind of sex act, penetrative sex is another. I wasn't implying that her giving him oral sex was some kind of guarantee for any further obligation. I just think that it's strange that she stresses how she feels that she was giving off very clear physical indications that she was not going to have sex, and then decides to perform a sex act on him.


This is exactly what I mean. You think that it's strange that she doesn't want to have sex, but then performs a sexual act. I don't. I know a lot of women who (even in healthy, happy relationships) see oral sex or other non-penetrative sex acts as being a compromise when they don't want sex and their partner does. I know women who find this completely reasonable when sex drives in a relationship are not compatible, and also women who have talked about not wanting any kind of sex but doing so out of a sense of "maybe this will be enough". If the idea of someone not wanting penetrative sex but being willing to perform oral sex is such a baffling mixed signal, then that is the time to ask. Especially in your first sexual encounter with someone, you don't have a sense of their boundaries or preferences.

Quote:
And I don't want the nudity part to go unnoticed. I don't consider myself a prude about such things, nudity shouldn't also guarantee any additional sexual obligations, but it is understandable why Ansari would see her willing nudity as a cue that she's open to explore further intimate contact. If Ansari is thick for not reading her disinterest (we can agree on this), then it has to be said that she also seems slow to understand that a very simple non-verbal cue to ending the presumption of sex would have been to get dressed. I bet even Ansari could guess what a woman getting dressed means.


In this paragraph you have twice referenced Ansari's interpretation of non-verbal signals: "he would see", "not reading", etc. If your brain is thinking that someone being naked means she isn't serious about not wanting sex (again, not an assumption I would make), then why not clarify? I just don't get the thought process of "She said no to sex, but she hasn't put her pants on. I'll just assume this means she changed her mind and now wants sex."

For example: if I was sitting next to someone and he put his hand on my knee and I said "Please don't" and walked away, but then came back and sat next to him again, I don't see that as obviously meaning I'm "open" to more touching. Is is a possibility? Yes. Should you just put your hand right back on my knee? No. Ask if it's okay OR wait for ME to make a move. Mixed signals in a situation should always steer people to a default "no", not a default "yes." So much hurt could be avoided by this.

Quote:
Well, with all due respect, I do not see kissing as a sex act, and I see kissing and oral sex as being very different things.


But you would at least concede that oral sex and penetrative sex are in different categories. My point is just that one degree of consent does not domino effect into all other degrees. Kissing does not imply that putting your hands up someone's shirt is okay. Groping does not imply that touching someone's genitals is automatically okay. When someone has set a boundary (and, sorry, but "Not now" in regards to sex is a no, it's just not a no that a guy wants to hear), doing anything less than that boundary doesn't mean that the boundary no longer exists. Kissing, in the context of a sexual encounter, is a sexual act.

Quote:
"Nowhere" works pretty well. Getting dressed, even better.


I'm not saying that I can't sit here and think of plenty of actions she could have taken or things she could have said. But rebuffing advances is something that is genuinely hard for a lot of women, especially when the woman is getting mixed signals (a la the "we can just hang out!" followed by immediate blow job request). Repeated, insistent boundary pushing is a gross and crappy behavior that a lot of men engage in, because if you wear her down and eventually she's like "Fine!" that's cool, right? Technically, maybe. But in practice and as a way that a lot of women experience sexual encounters, it's not cool.

Quote:
And just to point out, she hadn't given an "explicit denial" at this point. She said things like, "let's slow it down, chill, maybe next time", etc. Since we don't have the non-verbal context to go by, none of these things are explicitly definitive.


Have you ever actually said "Maybe next time" to an offer and then changed your mind? I'm not even talking sex here. Just ever. To me, "Maybe next time" is that savings card offer, that asking out to a drink, all those situations where you are trying to give a polite, soft no.

Quote:
Not rocket science, but I believe that these kinds of medical professionals do undergo specific training to help put patients at ease, and pediatrics have a whole other sensitivity skill set to meet. I don't think we can expect everyone (least not a comedian) to already have such skills ingrained. I mean, I agree that more men should try to be more sensitive.


If someone takes her hand off of your penis repeatedly and you keep having to put her hand back on you, that is not some subtle signal that requires training. That is a distinct verbal cue. The picture we're painting of men here is pretty bleak. I have a student with some issues, and one of her issues is hugging people without their permission/consent. So my class had a discussion about our bodies and consent. I can tell you with confidence that every 10 year old in my class was easily able to name the non-verbal cues of someone who doesn't want to be touched and their list was literally the stuff this woman did: moving away from you, taking your hands off of them, saying "not right now" to be nice. This is why I don't buy the idea that men can't read these signals. If my little pre-teen bros know these signals, why don't adult men?

Quote:
As much of a dolt as he comes across in "Grace"'s account, I didn't see anything that deserves being publicly humiliated over. We can have a discussion on these sexual communication issues, and both men and women need to benefit from it, but it's unnecessary to do so by potentially damaging someone's livelihood.


It's obviously up to you how much you believe her account, but I believe her when she says that seeing him with the Times Up pin really angered her. The text message she sent him is pretty clear. Naming him is part of calling out a specific hypocrisy. I think that if you speak one set of values and practice another, you do open yourself up to being called out publicly.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:33 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
This is exactly what I mean. You think that it's strange that she doesn't want to have sex, but then performs a sexual act. I don't.

What I think is weird is that her perfoming the sex act is her voluntary choice, but she describes it as being taken advantage of. She didn't have to perform the sex act, and she wasn't forced to. Married couples do what they have to do to get to sleep. People on a first date don't have comparable relationship obligations. After this second act of oral sex, she could have called it a night, and I think that it's strange that she didn't.

Takoma1 wrote:
If your brain is thinking that someone being naked means she isn't serious about not wanting sex (again, not an assumption I would make)

I dunno, Tak. I'm a grown man, and I've never had a grown woman that was alone and naked in my place in a non-sexual situation, and I haven't been alone and naked in a grown woman's place in a non-sexual situation. Certainly not on a first date. I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe there are lots of young people out there, getting naked on a date, and just chilling on the sofa watching TV. I don't know. But, yes, I think those people are weird.

Takoma1 wrote:
For example: if I was sitting next to someone and he put his hand on my knee and I said "Please don't" and walked away, but then came back and sat next to him again, I don't see that as obviously meaning I'm "open" to more touching. Is is a possibility? Yes. Should you just put your hand right back on my knee? No. Ask if it's okay OR wait for ME to make a move. Mixed signals in a situation should always steer people to a default "no", not a default "yes." So much hurt could be avoided by this.

This is not even close to a comparable situation. Strangers on a bench have a completely different set of etiquette as two people naked on a date. But I agree that signals should be clear and explicit.

Takoma1 wrote:
But you would at least concede that oral sex and penetrative sex are in different categories.

Maybe not as much as you'd think. I can say that I personally prefer penetrative sex, specifically in face-to-face varieties, because I find them to be more intense and meaningful. I honestly don't see much difference between oral sex and, say, doggie-style.

Takoma1 wrote:
My point is just that one degree of consent does not domino effect into all other degrees.

I agree, but to clarify, I don't know if Ansari's end game was penetrative sex or not. Maybe it was simply orgasm. Importantly, "Grace" does not divulge whether any orgasm took place, either in her oral sex or from his. The type of sex act could have been completely secondary to simply being "satisfied". (And her lack of satisfaction with his tongue may very well be part of what turned her off from what was originally a pretty firey start to the evening.)

Takoma1 wrote:
Kissing, in the context of a sexual encounter, is a sexual act.

I disagree. Sex, I guess, can have subjective definitions, but I view it as acts which provoke orgasms. Oral sex, manual sex, penetrative sex, even dry humping, are what I would consider sexual acts. I'm a pretty good smooch, but not that good.

Takoma1 wrote:
But rebuffing advances is something that is genuinely hard for a lot of women, especially when the woman is getting mixed signals

The Bari Weiss piece actually addresses this much better than I can.

Takoma1 wrote:
Repeated, insistent boundary pushing is a gross and crappy behavior that a lot of men engage in, because if you wear her down and eventually she's like "Fine!" that's cool, right? Technically, maybe. But in practice and as a way that a lot of women experience sexual encounters, it's not cool.

I agree. But my solution is that women should probably walk out on these assholes, especially on a first date with so little riding on it.

Takoma1 wrote:
Have you ever actually said "Maybe next time" to an offer and then changed your mind? I'm not even talking sex here. Just ever. To me, "Maybe next time" is that savings card offer, that asking out to a drink, all those situations where you are trying to give a polite, soft no.

In dating situations that went wrong with me where I would opt out of sex....I can honestly say that I wouldn't stick around in my underwear watching TV instead.

Takoma1 wrote:
It's obviously up to you how much you believe her account, but I believe her when she says that seeing him with the Times Up pin really angered her. The text message she sent him is pretty clear. Naming him is part of calling out a specific hypocrisy. I think that if you speak one set of values and practice another, you do open yourself up to being called out publicly.

Time's Up wrote:
Powered by women, TIME’S UP addresses the systemic inequality and injustice in the workplace that have kept underrepresented groups from reaching their full potential. We partner with leading advocates for equality and safety to improve laws, employment agreements, and corporate policies; help change the face of corporate boardrooms and the C-suite; and enable more women and men to access our legal system to hold wrongdoers accountable.

From the group's mission statement, I don't see Ansari doing anything hypocritical to their cause. "Grace" was not an employee, this was not in the workplace or a corporate boardroom, and by your own admission, Ansari did nothing that would require a legal defense.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:47 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Quote:
Married couples do what they have to do to get to sleep. People on a first date don't have comparable relationship obligations. After this second act of oral sex, she could have called it a night, and I think that it's strange that she didn't.


My impression is that she genuinely wanted to hang out with him and hoped that if she did just enough sexual stuff, he'd stop pursuing that. She may have even had sex in mind as an eventuality, but was put off by how fast he was moving and hoped that if things slowed down she'd be more comfortable. I don't know. If someone put his hand in my mouth, saw I wasn't into it, and did it again, I'd be out of there. His behavior all sounds obnoxious and inconsiderate. The thing of pouring the glass of wine as a "clever" way of getting around the second date rule is a good example of like "I heard you . . . and now I'm blatantly disregarding what you meant."

Quote:
I dunno, Tak. I'm a grown man, and I've never had a grown woman that was alone and naked in my place in a non-sexual situation, and I haven't been alone and naked in a grown woman's place in a non-sexual situation.


Fair enough and me neither. But if I was naked (on a first date or with a longer term partner) and made it clear that I didn't want to have sex, I would hope that if I stayed undressed (for whatever reason) that wouldn't magically invalidate what I just said. She may have been willing to participate in sexual stuff, but just not to the degree (or with the urgency) that he did.

Quote:
Maybe not as much as you'd think. I can say that I personally prefer penetrative sex, specifically in face-to-face varieties, because I find them to be more intense and meaningful. I honestly don't see much difference between oral sex and, say, doggie-style.


You might not feel that way if you could get pregnant.
Quote:
I agree, but to clarify, I don't know if Ansari's end game was penetrative sex or not.


Really? I think "Where do you want me to f*ck you?" is pretty unambiguous.

Quote:
I disagree. Sex, I guess, can have subjective definitions, but I view it as acts which provoke orgasms. Oral sex, manual sex, penetrative sex, even dry humping, are what I would consider sexual acts. I'm a pretty good smooch, but not that good.


I would highly recommend reading Come as You Are. If someone I did not know came up to me in a bar or something and kissed me without permission, I'd consider that a sexual assault not just an assault. Any act that involves arousal, to me, can be considered a sexual act. And that can vary from person to person.
Quote:

From the group's mission statement, I don't see Ansari doing anything hypocritical to their cause. "Grace" was not an employee, this was not in the workplace or a corporate boardroom, and by your own admission, Ansari did nothing that would require a legal defense.


While Time's Up might specifically address the workplace, it has opened up a lot of discussions about the treatment of women, and specifically the treatment of women by men in positions of power. Generally speaking, men who are participating in supporting Time's Up are presenting themselves as allies to women. It's hypocritical to say that you support women while treating them poorly in your personal life. If you supported an initiative to push for greater racial diversity in the workplace, but you are caught making racist remarks in your personal life, would the person who overheard those remarks be within their rights to call that out? I think so. And especially if men like Ansari are using the "female ally" persona as a way of getting women to perceive them as being less of a danger in situations like a date.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
The thing of pouring the glass of wine as a "clever" way of getting around the second date rule is a good example of like "I heard you . . . and now I'm blatantly disregarding what you meant."

This was pretty much the moment where it really made no sense to me why she wouldn't end the date right here. Cordially, perhaps, to either be polite or salvage that second date.

But I had also thought about the point of conversation, and noticed how conspicuously absent it was from Grace's recollection. How odd it seems that she never mentions attempts to change the subject or engage in talk. We learn that they first bonded over some 80s camera, but nothing from the date. Ansari may have not been responsive to her attempts, his disregard may have been part of the turn off. But why wouldn't she point this out? The quality (or absense) of their conversation is never made an issue. I think it's significant because without this, I can't say that I really understand what it was that Grace wanted from the date.

Takoma1 wrote:
Fair enough and me neither. But if I was naked (on a first date or with a longer term partner) and made it clear that I didn't want to have sex, I would hope that if I stayed undressed (for whatever reason) that wouldn't magically invalidate what I just said. She may have been willing to participate in sexual stuff, but just not to the degree (or with the urgency) that he did.

I don't want to say that it invalidates her resistence. I think that it added to Ansari's misperception. Most of all though I simply think that this is the easiest avenue to creating an immediately effective impression. Zip up, we're done here. As she said, she "didn't want to fuck him at all". What's to profit from remaining undressed?

Takoma1 wrote:
You might not feel that way if you could get pregnant.

I am a gentleman. I take the necessary precautions.

Takoma1 wrote:
Really? I think "Where do you want me to f*ck you?" is pretty unambiguous.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be funny if she said "my foot"?

Takoma1 wrote:
If someone I did not know came up to me in a bar or something and kissed me without permission, I'd consider that a sexual assault not just an assault.

Point taken.

Takoma1 wrote:
While Time's Up might specifically address the workplace, it has opened up a lot of discussions about the treatment of women, and specifically the treatment of women by men in positions of power. Generally speaking, men who are participating in supporting Time's Up are presenting themselves as allies to women. It's hypocritical to say that you support women while treating them poorly in your personal life. If you supported an initiative to push for greater racial diversity in the workplace, but you are caught making racist remarks in your personal life, would the person who overheard those remarks be within their rights to call that out? I think so. And especially if men like Ansari are using the "female ally" persona as a way of getting women to perceive them as being less of a danger in situations like a date.

I read this piece in The Guardian that makes some interesting points in how the sexual power dynamics in consensual sex are important to discuss - and everything in the Ansari story regarding this issue is crucial - but also how the Ansari story, by the nature of framing it as a #metoo call-out, actually undermines this discussion. I've already said that my problem with the piece is that it is unfair to call it assault or lump Ansari with Weinstein or O'Reilly. I think that these issues of sex and consent can be discussed without wrapping it up in celebrity wax. It may not get as many clicks, or be as salaciously entertaining ("the claw?), but it would also not derail into scaffolded outrage. Instead, we're put into a paradigm of taking sides - "She's right!" "Free Aziz!" "Skank snitch!" "Scummy creep!"

Jill Filipovic wrote:
In a perfect world, Grace would have walked out the door. But women are so strongly socialized to put others' comfort ahead of their own that even when we are furiously uncomfortable, it feels paralyzing to assert ourselves. This is especially true when we are young.


I think this is the crux of the issue: Why she didn't leave? It's important issue, one that I may have been too flip about. It seems simple to me, because, as a man, I don't have this acquiescent programming. But rather than accept it as an excuse, I think that this programming is what needs to change. This is part of the subservience enforced by patriarchy that needs to be demolished. You say that women shouldn't have the responsibility to be more vocal, but I think it's the opposite. It's much better, for all parties, for women to have the vocal dominance in sexual matters: "Note that men never have to say 'no means no' or even 'yes means yes'. They're the ones posing the question, not answering it." And when a man, like Aziz, comes along who isn't posing the question, rather than wait for it, force the question. And recognize the absence of the question as a red flag as early as possible.

I know that this may seem like an undue burden at first for women to carry, but I really do believe that we'll all be better off by making this the new power dynamic norm.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Double post.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:21 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Just to avoid another sprawling answer-thon:

Re: using precautions:

A friend of mine recently discovered that she is pregnant, despite using an IUD. When you're talking early dates in an uncommitted relationship, it makes a difference.

Re: lumping Ansari with Weinstein and undermining Me-Too


The women in my social circle have had a lot of conversations in the last few months. One friend of mine said something that I thought was incredibly accurate: "All of this stuff has really been making me reflect on experiences I have had with men that, while I wouldn't call them assaults, were definitely not okay and really borderline abusive." One woman talked about being "surprise choked" by a man and immediately several other women chimed in with stories of the same thing happening. One woman recently posted a story about a man aggressively "flirting" with her (in a way very similar to elements of the Ansari story) and her reasons for not immediately bailing and her fears of retaliation and the general desire to keep the peace. It's not that women are lumping Ansari in with Weinstein in the sense that women can distinguish between rape and unacceptably aggressive sexual behavior. But what people fussing about distinguishing the "real bad guys" seem to fail to understand is that women are subjected to so much inappropriate sexual behavior from men that there aren't clear cut categories of good guys and bad guys. It's all men at different points on the scale. The guy who cat calls you on the way to work. The customer at the restaurant who slaps you on the butt. The boss who interrupts your presentation to make a crude sexual joke that you have to laugh along with. Me-Too is evoking for a lot of women very complicated feelings about sexual misconduct--something that for many women spills between their work, their personal lives, and their public lives. The work/private-life distinction just isn't something that many women consider when recounting sexual misconduct.

Re: Women being the dominant voice in sexual encounters

But this is just what I said earlier: Men must be willing to HEAR the no. Another friend-of-a-friend just wrote about literally pushing a man off of her in a car (front seat--stopped waiting for a long train), telling him "No" and "This isn't what I want". It took a good long while for him to get off of her--his initial "move" involved grabbing her by the throat--and finish driving her home. I haven't read the book about the Missoula rapes. But a friend of mine (who lives in Missoula) cited a part of the book where they asked men "Have you ever had sex with someone who tried to fight you off?" "Have you ever had sex with someone who throughout the encounter said no?" "Have you ever raped someone?". And of the men who answered yes to the first two questions, almost none of them answered yes to the third. Women shouldn't have to be more vocal--men should have to be better listeners. You can be incredibly direct, but if men have been raised to think that women are just playing hard to get, or that they need to be convinced, or that sex is a psychological game where pretty much any kind of non-violent coercion is fair play, it won't matter. It doesn't matter what women say if men decide they don't want to hear it.

No one should have vocal dominance in a sexual encounter. Women are not the gatekeepers of sex. Men are not the invading enemy. It's this mentality that makes so many of these encounters so messed up. Both parties need to be empowered to say what they want and don't want. Both parties need to be willing to be open to communication (both verbal and non-verbal) from the other person, even if it means hearing a no. If anything is gender skewed, it's maybe the fact that men might need to be more aware of elements that might (even unintentionally) add a degree of coercion. Are you physically much stronger than your partner? Are you--even tangentially--in a position of power over your partner? Is your partner somehow relying on you for safety (ie walking together through a dangerous part of the city)? The friend in the story above endured a pretty mortifying encounter, partly because if she'd demanded to get out of the car, she'd have been on the side of the road in an unknown part of the city late at night. She was enduring a known danger/discomfort rather than risk an unknown. He wasn't her boss, but clearly he had power over her in that situation.

Re; Women being in control of sex being the new norm


Again, that only works if men will listen (and listen for something that might not be a direct "no"). That part is something that women can't control.

And, to be clear, men are not always the sexual aggressors and women are not always the victims of sexual aggression. I think that there are situations where women don't want to hear no. I think that sometimes men can struggle with how to turn down a woman, when both his partner (and all of societal expectation) is telling him to go for it. What about men whose sexual partners are other men? It certainly isn't only heterosexual men who seem to prioritize their needs above the boundaries of others (*cough* Spacey *cough*).

I don't understand why it's so complicated to say that both parties in a sexual encounter bear responsibility for communicating their needs and boundaries clearly, for getting consent (especially when escalating), and for generally looking out for the emotional wellbeing of their partner. All of these things can happen in a quickie one night stand, and all of these things can happen in a long-term relationship. But especially when encountering a sexual partner for the first time, it should be paramount.

And . . . it got sprawling. Sorry.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:25 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
Re: lumping Ansari with Weinstein and undermining Me-Too

I think that the discussion of these issues are more productive with exactly these kinds of personal anecdotes. The problem with making it a celebrity call-out, as The Guardian article notes, is that it activates all of attendent celebrity impulses - gossipy, scapegoating, people have trouble separating the characters in a virtual soap opera from the human beings. (Celebrity culture is a different contemporary pathology that needs to be addressed elsewhere.) Also, the anonymity can be liberating. These men from the shared stories, as skeevy as they can be, aren't going to lose their jobs over the accusations, and the motive becomes less about persecution and more about the kind of learning that is necessary.

Takoma1 wrote:
It doesn't matter what women say if men decide they don't want to hear it.

Not all men are so obstinate, and those who are may also decide that they're not willing to learn how to listen. I think it's best to identify these signals as early as possible and steer clear from them. There are men out there who do listen, or at least are willing to try. There are also many men who simply don't have the experience (or the wrong experiences) to know how. I'm not entirely convinced that Ansari doesn't fall into this category. He might be a predator simply indifferent to resistence, or he might just be someone with some unpracticed moves he read on reddit, and doesn't have the experience with women to recognize these cues. I honestly don't know.

Takoma1 wrote:
No one should have vocal dominance in a sexual encounter. Women are not the gatekeepers of sex. Men are not the invading enemy. It's this mentality that makes so many of these encounters so messed up. Both parties need to be empowered to say what they want and don't want.

This illustrates the gulf between the ideal and the current reality. Ideally, we should be mutually respecting parties attuned to each other's moods and reactions, articulate enough to express our expectations and desires and introspective enough to even realize them to begin with. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world yet. We should aim to, but we have to navigate the waters as they stand, which are still under the influence of presumptions about dominance/submission, masculine assertion and feminine accommodation. To get from here to there, I think that the calibration I described is the best way forward. As with other social correctives (affirmative action, for example), the goal is to eventually not require the correction.

Also, somewhat stereotypically but generally true, in our current climate, in the majority of cases, if a first date or subsequent date ends without consummation, it is due to the woman's decision. Part of that is the presumption that men are more or less willing not quite all of the time. But the fact is that women currently do have the power to dictate sex in Lysistrata fashion. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, at least for the time being. We've seen how men handle the power to dictate sexual access. But, yes, the ultimate goal is a true collaborration, mutual, as equals, with adequete empathy and understanding. I should also point out that all of those qualities were classically attributed to the female gods.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Quote:
There are men out there who do listen, or at least are willing to try. There are also many men who simply don't have the experience (or the wrong experiences) to know how. I'm not entirely convinced that Ansari doesn't fall into this category.


Have you read his book about dating/romance? I have. Pages upon pages of dissecting communication between men and women, with specific focus often given to the gaps between what is explicitly said and what is implied. I cut him zero slack in this regard. I know he knows better. In that moment, he didn't WANT to know better.

Quote:
we have to navigate the waters a they stand, which is still under the influence of presumptions about dominance/submission, masculine assertion and feminine accommodation. To get from here to there, I think that the calibration I described is the best way forward.


You describe women as being the ones in charge of sexual relations.I'll just say again that this only works if men are receptive to what women are saying.

Quote:
Part of that is the presumption that men are more or less willing not quite all of the time. But the fact is that women currently do have the power to dictate sex in Lysistrata fashion.


Women have that power when they are not dealing with men who are willing to use violence, drugs, or other forms of coercion to circumvent the need for consent. The anger that some men feel at the female "power" to deny sex can manifest itself in some pretty unpleasant ways, not the least of which is the notion that a woman's consent is something you lay siege to--which is basically what Ansari did to that woman.

Woman shouldn't have to scream, slap, and fight their way out of rooms to have their autonomy respected. Men should consider it beneath themselves to regard a woman who doesn't want to have sex as an enemy. Seeing sex as a treasure that women guard only feeds the idea that there is an inherently antagonistic dynamic between men and women. There really needn't be. Most women I know love sex. But the common thread in every upsetting sexual encounter described to me in the last few months is a man in one way or another choosing to ignore an implied or an explicit boundary--and these encounters range from inappropriate text messages to physical assaults. I think that the gatekeeping language around sex is a dangerous thing. It turns men into treasure hunters. It turns women into prey and conquests.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:34 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I bet we are gonna see a lot more sexual misconduct accusations in the next year. When it rains it pours and once someone does it, everyone and their grandma need to tell the world what happened to them. I'd tell my story but I'm not a celebrity so it's not uber cool to do so.

Also, if women said yes more often, even if the guy is butt ass ugly, then we wouldn't have these problems. Sex would be as smooth and easy as it should be. Damn women.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
Have you read his book about dating/romance? I have. Pages upon pages of dissecting communication between men and women, with specific focus often given to the gaps between what is explicitly said and what is implied. I cut him zero slack in this regard. I know he knows better.
Having not read the book, but being intimately familiar with publishing industry practices, I’m a little skeptical we can be so certain he knows anything based on a book he “co-authored” with a more credentialed and more obscure figure in popular culture. How certain are you about what parts of the book were contributed (or even read) by Ansari vs. Klinenberg?

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

BL wrote:
Having not read the book, but being intimately familiar with publishing industry practices, I’m a little skeptical we can be so certain he knows anything based on a book he “co-authored” with a more credentialed and more obscure figure in popular culture. How certain are you about what parts of the book were contributed (or even read) by Ansari vs. Klinenberg?


Because I listened to the audiobook which he narrated, unabridged. He even had parts in the audiobook where he took time to describe graphs or other book supplementals. So even if he didn't write it he certainly read it. He also uses his own text messages and interactions with women as the basis for a lot of the discussion.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
Have you read his book about dating/romance? I have.

I have not, and wasn't aware of it. I'm actually barely a fan, enjoying his show and some of his stand-up. That certainly makes him to be more of a scumbag in this instance.

Takoma1 wrote:
You describe women as being the ones in charge of sexual relations.I'll just say again that this only works if men are receptive to what women are saying.

What I'm saying is that men should be receptive to what women are saying, and that women should avoid those that are not.

Takoma1 wrote:
Woman shouldn't have to scream, slap, and fight their way out of rooms to have their autonomy respected.

I hope we can all agree on this. But let's look at something more subtle, like how Grace could have extricated herself in a respectful way. We should all be familiar with these cues: "I'm so tired", "It's been a lot of fun, but", "This wine is starting to give me a headache" "I can't believe they want me there by 7:30", punctuated perhaps with a yawn. I'm not sure if Aziz would take it to the point of physical confrontation - he might! - but for the most part, these are polite options that a man worth keeping will respect.

Takoma1 wrote:
I think that the gatekeeping language around sex is a dangerous thing. It turns men into treasure hunters. It turns women into prey and conquests.

You're applying this "gatekeeping" language to what I'm saying which distorts it into transactional terms. I'm talking about establishing and enforcing norms of sexual behavior which will promote the kind of receptivity and respect for women that I think we both ultimately find ideal.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:06 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Women should want to have sex 24/7. This way it would make it easier on men to get their grind on. I'm serious. Women are such prudes. Always wanting you to take them to dinner and a movie first. Fuck that. Spending money on women makes them prostitutes.

PS - Janson is trying to kiss up to Takoma so he can get some sex.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:17 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Quote:
I hope we can all agree on this. But let's look at something more subtle, like how Grace could have extricated herself in a respectful way. We should all be familiar with these cues: "I'm so tired", "It's been a lot of fun, but", "This wine is starting to give me a headache" "I can't believe they want me there by 7:30", punctuated perhaps with a yawn. I'm not sure if Aziz would take it to the point of physical confrontation - he might! - but for the most part, these are polite options that a man worth keeping will respect.


What I infer from her description of the evening (and from the text messages she sent immediately afterward) is that she was trying to salvage the evening and the relationship. She may have felt that this was her chance to be with someone she liked and respected. I think that she stayed in the situation longer than I would have wanted to. But that doesn't excuse his behavior. It's also worth noting that he wasn't very receptive to her other subtle, respectful rebuffs. "Maybe on a second date" turned into him pouring her more alcohol and requesting sex again.


Quote:
You're applying this "gatekeeping" language to what I'm saying which distorts it into transactional terms. I'm talking about establishing and enforcing norms of sexual behavior which will promote the kind of receptivity and respect for women that I think we both ultimately find ideal.


As long as men take an active part in enforcing and establishing these norms, I agree. But asking women to be solely responsible for policing male behavior is demeaning to men and burdensome to women.

I also think that any man who has been complaining about how overly PC and delicate dating/flirting has become has no excuse not to be working to get affirmative consent. You can't be like "I'm so tired of women acting like all men are rapists!" and then turn around and willingly ignore verbal or non-verbal nos. Any man who is genuinely afraid of the possibility of false rape accusations should be on point with getting enthusiastic consent from any sex partner.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:22 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:

Because I listened to the audiobook which he narrated, unabridged. He even had parts in the audiobook where he took time to describe graphs or other book supplementals. So even if he didn't write it he certainly read it. He also uses his own text messages and interactions with women as the basis for a lot of the discussion.
Got it, and this is a helpful clarification. This makes him an absolute hypocrite for what he publicly espouses and privately practices, and yes, he should know better. Whether he actually does I guess is the point of contention regarding his speech vs. action, as I think people are totally capable of espousing concepts they don’t genuinely grasp, despite what evidence they might offfer. That’s not to contradict what you’re saying, but to offer a skeptical counterpoint.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:23 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

BL is trying to kiss up to Takoma so he can get a threesome with her and Janson. He really wants to do Janson in the a-hole.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:36 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

ski petrol wrote:
BL is trying to kiss up to Takoma so he can get a threesome with her and Janson. He really wants to do Janson in the a-hole.
lovesexy is continuing to try to get anyone to find him humorous, appealing or even tolerable. Again, he fails.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:39 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oh, there’s an ignore feature here. Engage. I genuinely wish better for you, lovesexy, but I don’t have time to deal with all that. Godspeed.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:45 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
But that doesn't excuse his behavior.

Absolutely not. I've only tried to defend against the assault allegation by demonstrating her agency in the situation.

Takoma1 wrote:
As long as men take an active part in enforcing and establishing these norms, I agree.

I'm trying!

Takoma1 wrote:
But asking women to be solely responsible for policing male behavior is demeaning to men and burdensome to women.

That's not what I said. Men need to be responsible for their own behavior quite obviously. I'm saying that women need to be solely responsible for access to their bodies or sex, in other words. The trust of intimacy must be mutually earned, I believe.

Takoma1 wrote:
I also think that any man who has been complaining about how overly PC and delicate dating/flirting has become has no excuse not to be working to get affirmative consent. You can't be like "I'm so tired of women acting like all men are rapists!" and then turn around and willingly ignore verbal or non-verbal nos. Any man who is genuinely afraid of the possibility of false rape accusations should be on point with getting enthusiastic consent from any sex partner.

Well, since I haven't said any of those things, I'll go ahead and agree. I think that the "enthusiastic" requirement I've seen from some may be a tad too subjective to be enforceable, and I don't see anything wrong with promoting women to be empowered enough not to feel obligated to say yes when they don't want to.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

BL wrote:
Oh, there’s an ignore feature here. Engage. I genuinely wish better for you, lovesexy, but I don’t have time to deal with all that. Godspeed.

Good. This way I won't have to inadvertantly read his posts when you quote him.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:49 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Good. This way I won't have to inadvertantly read his posts when you quote him.


Janson ignores me because he's a pussy.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:51 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

What does BL stand for? Butt loser?


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:53 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

The key to my heart is found in the key to my cuffs

Someone leash up Lovesexy and make him eat from a bowl already


Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:57 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

The Nameless One wrote:
The key to my heart is found in the key to my cuffs

Someone leash up Lovesexy and make him eat from a bowl already


How about you put some leather pants on and I eat from your crotch?


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:01 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

The Nameless One wrote:
The key to my heart is found in the key to my cuffs

Someone leash up Lovesexy and make him eat from a bowl already


double post.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:01 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

BL wrote:
yes, he should know better. Whether he actually does I guess is the point of contention regarding his speech vs. action, as I think people are totally capable of espousing concepts they don’t genuinely grasp, despite what evidence they might offfer. That’s not to contradict what you’re saying, but to offer a skeptical counterpoint.


I understand the point: you can write a sterling essay against racism and still exhibit racist tendencies.

Having listened to the book I find it frustrating to read things like "Sounds like he doesn't understand how dates/sex works! Why are we holding his ignorance against him?!".

But, like, he literally wrote a book on the topic (with a whole section, if I remember correctly, dedicated to hookup culture and Tindr). And also he is an observational comedian who has entire bits built around the nuance of language and the observation of human behavior--sometimes specifically regarding dating behaviors. So the conversation isn't about whether or not he understands a decent standard of behavior. The question is why, in this instance, he didn't live up to that standard. That's where I'm objecting to his actions (and his reading of her cues) being classified as obliviousness--it implies an innocence that I just don't think applies in this case.

And maybe I should clarify that I really like him as a comedian. I bought his book. I've watched all of his stand-ups.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:02 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

ski petrol wrote:

How about you put some leather pants on and I eat from your crotch?
Image


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:05 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Good. This way I won't have to inadvertantly read his posts when you quote him.
As a final salvo, I just want to make clear I wish him no harm. It’s just clear after all these years that I’m too far removed from his obvious and urgent problems to offer meaningful input. Earnest advice doesn’t work. Humor doesn’t work. I really don’t know what I could do to suggest he be less abrasive and belligerent online. And if what he suggests online is true, his IRL turmoil is something I just don’t have the patience for and can’t be expected to tolerate as a casual forum poster. lovesexy, if you’re reading this, I wish you well. But also understand that if you’re reading this and decide to respond, it’s unhealthy. This is me disengaging from you online. Please do likewise.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:06 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Sidebar: people are noticing that Trump's health check-in listed him at 6'3" and 239 pounds, which gives him a BMI of 29.9.

Which is .1 below being officially labeled as "obese."

This also means that he grew an inch as he got older.

Unrelated to current topics, but thought it was funny, 'cause it's just all lies. Never Not Lies: Trump.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Hey, I'm 6 feet tall, not 5' 11 and a half. It's all branding


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

BL wrote:
As a final salvo, I just want to make clear I wish him no harm. It’s just clear after all these years that I’m too far removed from his obvious and urgent problems to offer meaningful input. Earnest advice doesn’t work. Humor doesn’t work. I really don’t know what I could do to suggest he be less abrasive and belligerent online. And if what he suggests online is true, his IRL turmoil is something I just don’t have the patience for and can’t be expected to tolerate as a casual forum poster. lovesexy, if you’re reading this, I wish you well. But also understand that if you’re reading this and decide to respond, it’s unhealthy. This is me disengaging from you online. Please do likewise.


Thanks doc. Do you have any follow up advice for me? Maybe I can get better from reading your healthy posts. BTW, Fuck off. Don't talk down to me asshole.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I'm just saying, if Trump is 6'3" 239, then I am Shirley Temple.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:19 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

There are innumerable errors in Fire & Fury. The notion that Trump lies about his height to reduce his BMI never even crossed my mind as being an inaccuracy. That’s just obvious based on photos with other world leaders.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:23 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

DaMU wrote:
I'm just saying, if Trump is 6'3" 239, then I am Shirley Temple.
brb, making a few adjustments to my online dating profiles :shifty:


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I only ever got attention on okc when I had PM Justin Trudeau as my profile pic


Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Can I point out that it doesn't look like she willingly undressed?

Quote:
“He said something along the lines of, ‘How about you hop up and take a seat?’” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself. She remembers feeling uncomfortable at how quickly things escalated.

When Ansari told her he was going to grab a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”


Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Kenji wrote:
Can I point out that it doesn't look like she willingly undressed?


She allowed him to undress her. Ansari did not rip her clothes off her body. And she was free to redress as she became uncomfortable. I have to assume that she would have mentioned it had Ansari prevented her in any way as she attempted to get dressed.

But that's why the concept of "compliance is not consent" is so insidious. It denies the woman's agency to say "no", a power that should be more freely exercised, not less. This absolutely does not absolve the man's responsibility to listen, be sensitive and deferring to a woman's comfort. It's not a zero-sum proposition. Men have a significant amount of work to do in transforming the balance of sexual politics. But this culture of acquiescence is part of the problem, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to allege sexual assault because of "politeness". Women should be encouraged to assert their control over their bodies, just as men should be required to respect that. This acquiescence is not compatible with #metoo empowerment.


Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:14 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I also have to say that this dating book by Ansari really has swayed my perspective somewhat. I still don't like the way this story was published, and I still think that there was miscommunication on both sides. But I no longer give Ansari the benefit of the doubt regarding his cluelessness or inexperience. I didn't give him this benefit to defend him, only that, by her description, that's the way it looked to me, like someone who has heard about some moves but has no, um, "grace" in practice, and an unfamiliarity with women's more subtle cues. I guess that's not the case, and the "seige" mentality seems to be only other option.

I still don't think that's enough to have called him out (while reserving the benefit of anonymity).


Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I still don't think that's enough to have called him out (while reserving the benefit of anonymity).


The sheer volume of stories that I've heard from female (and a few male) acquaintances over the last few months has left me with a "burn it all down" mentality. Call them out. Call them all out. Especially men who promote themselves as being allies and then act this way. The number of women I know who have been drugged, choked, threatened, groped, negged, assaulted, raped, etc is just staggering. I realize as I write this that these women (1) generally speaking never reported their assaults to authorities, and (2) primarily share these stories with other women. But there is a world of hurt and abuse that women keep under wraps, for various reasons.

People need to know that this kind of thing happens with alarming frequency to women. Women need to know that they are not alone. Men need to know that this behavior--even if it is not criminal--is deeply not okay. If you don't want to be dragged for being a sexual aggressor, don't act like a sexual aggressor. If you think you're getting mixed signals, clarify.


Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:26 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
"burn it all down"

No offense, but I will never be an ally to this mentality.

We have far too many people in this country who are too quick to burn it all down, from Trump supporters to Antifa to lulztrolls. Such sweeping "all or nothing" extremism is a rejection of the necessary nuance that this requires. The intimate issues of consent, which no one seriously has suggested to be criminal, require more careful judgment. I've noticed a lot of people slinging "rape" around, as if this is some rational component to Ansari's case. Since some men rape, then Ansari is equally culpable to bear that brunt. The reason why some people have been fearing the #metoo movement becoming a witch hunt might just be due to the torches in the street and the enthusiasm to lower the criteria for which crimes get sentenced to the pyre. Ansari doesn't deserve the judgment that a rapist or assaulter receives, and there's no justification for erasing that distinction. Not all sexual impropriety deserves the same flame. The bad faith begins over the question of the line between rehabilitation and revenge.

Takoma1 wrote:
If you think you're getting mixed signals, clarify.

This works both ways, ideally, in a truly mutual relationship.


Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:32 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 1971 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 40  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.