This is spot on.

most of this is bs. esp bolded. it is not an "embarrassing hookup." that is simply a mischaracterization.

the main problem with all of you apologists is that you are trying to assert that anything short of screaming NO and running away is actually consent.
read the story. the only thing she consented to was to sit and "chill".

I think the problem with calling it a "responsibility" or anything like that is that people tend to approach things like responsibility and moral blame as zero sum games. That is, if you say Grace has a "responsibility" to communicate clearly, then you are lessening the responsibility on Ansari to do things like obtain affirmative consent once he gets any kind of mixed signals. I think in addition to talking about moral blame/responsibility, it's important to talk about consequences. If Grace had communicated more clearly and been more assertive, she would have left earlier and would not have been in tears on the way home. This fact does not at all lessen the extent to which Ansari had a moral responsibility to seek affirmative consent.

It reminds me a bit of the debate in criminal justice between people who are like "lock the bad people up!" and others whose main concern is not punishing the wicked, but reducing future incidence of crime. If you frame the encounter in terms of moral responsibility, there's no question Ansari bears the vast majority of it. It's not clear to me exactly what transpired in the encounter, but it's clear enough that he was not careful with the power he had over a young woman. But if you look at it in terms of how the encounter could have played out such that Grace was not crying in the taxi on the way, it seems like Grace had ample opportunity to communicate and assert herself more strongly. This is where many people ITT will be yelling at their screens "but why SHOULD she have to?" but this is an attempt to reframe the question in terms of moral responsibility. "Why SHOULD prisoners in Norway be treated so well?" is a common refrain from people who see how cushily prisoners are treated in Norway. There's no answer to this in moral terms, the answer is simply that doing this leads to less crime.

I can't say to what degree--possibly none--but I think the writer of the original piece bears some responsibility for the backlash and ugly defenses of Ansari/"bad sex" or whatever in other media.

Reading that piece it feels like parts of it were written to present a narrative of "Aziz Ansari is bad at dating" and provided completely unnecessary outs for criticism. Including the bits about having white wine when she prefers red and his behavior at the restaurant* are absolute gifts to anyone who wants to minimize or defend Ansari's behavior. Up to the point where the sexual stuff began I was literally thinking to myself this is why you don't date 22 year olds.

Ansari's behavior as presented was revolting and at best depicts someone completely lacking in empathy in what ought to be an area of life where empathy should be at the forefront. To what extent this should impact Ansari (I'm only vaguely familiar with his work) is an open question but this type of behavior absolutely needs to be an important part of discussions of sex and consent.

*I definitely understand the restaurant bit playing into him only being concerned with sex, but both of these seem to portray a woman unable or unwilling to simply state simple preferences. Did she request they hang around so she can finish her wine at the restaurant? Did she ask where he wanted to take her? etc... Again, absolutely none of this excuses Ansari's aggressiveness in the slightest, but they are unforced errors which open the door for making defenses of Ansari seem more reasonable, including calling into question her interpretations of the signals she was sending.

I think some of those details were indeed relevant. they were meant to show how insensitive and selfish and ulterior aziz truly was acting. but I can see why people are seizing on them and asserting they were extraneous. but those people always act in bad faith.

What does "chill" mean in the context of this encounter? Recap:

Note that all this is written in the passive voice, which makes it sound like Grace is having all these things "done to" her. Let me rephrase what this paragraph says happened after she said "let's chill": "They then resumed kissing and then gave each other oral sex. This all happened quickly, within 10 minutes". See what a difference this makes? This is dishonest use of the passive voice. If Grace was not consenting to this kissing and oral sex, then I want to hear about the way in which she expressed that. If she was perfectly willing to engage in it, then don't use the passive voice.

Later, when Grace again expresses uncertainty about vaginal sex and Ansari says "let's chill on the couch", this is precisely the language she used earlier which was followed up with kissing and oral, which for all we know was totally enthusiastic. This is why I'm wary of this article. It constantly implies that Grace was an unwilling participant, using devices like the passive voice, but actual unwillingness was only expressed a few times and always in the context of vaginal sex, which never took place. I think people who feel sure about what happened here are being way too influenced by the way the article is portraying events. I want to repeat for the 1 millionth time that Ansari should have been more active in seeking affirmative consent, but I'm not sure his failure to do so justifies this sexual encounter being dragged into the media.

No.

So I agree with you on this. Framing it as a responsibility is probably the wrong approach.

You're cherry-picking things here. Mumbling is, definitionally, not very clear communication, but "I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you" seems like a pretty crystal clear red flag.

But I think the more important issue is why anyone should be obligated to keep Ansari's secrets. The story Grace is telling is just as much hers as it is Ansari's. If the story reflects badly on Ansari, that's really on him. Here is one way to look at it: if the "punishment" for Ansari is that he had an explicit story about a sexual encounter published about him... that doesn't really seem that bad and is extremely unlikely to have any negative consequences for him. In that nude picture leak a few years ago, lots of celebrities had actual pictures of themselves naked/having sex leaked around, which is a vastly greater violation of privacy. I don't think anyone lost work because of that. But in fact, the real "punishment" here is that everyone knows that a woman was so traumatized by Ansari that she left a date with him sobbing and views it as the worst night of her life because of his sexual aggressiveness. I can see why it's worse for him to have that out there, but if it's true, it's very very hard for me to see why anyone has an obligation to cover up his dirty laundry.

He's right for guys who have to convince women to sleep with them like it's a sale and the vagina is a payment. Begging for sex like you are a in a market has got to be embarrassing when it gets exposed. It's pathetic. I can see why you guys are getting worked up.

ya dude. she was clearly totally all for dude shoving his fingers down her throat, grabbing her by the pussy, and chasing all over the house trying to shove his dick in her.

the amount of dissonance and rationalization involved to minimize aziz conduct and place blame on the girl is just rediculous.

and no, it is not consent to go over to his house. or to ask to "chill".

I think we have a set of competing social norms here, something like "don't kiss and tell" versus "don't be a repulsive creep." It's not clear why Grace's obligation not to kiss and tell is the higher priority, the one that simply must be respected while Aziz's obligations are optional and secondary. You can even rationalize your way into arguing, and I would, that the social obligation not to kiss and tell is overridden by the important goal of creating incentives for men not to be creeps.

In other words, it seems to like the men who are really upset about this see it exactly for what it is: if we allow women to sort of violate this social norm and publically shame men for being creepy and unpleasant, that might make men far more gun-shy, far more cautious, far less selfish in pursuing one-way sexual experiences that ignore the women's interests.

To which I say: And so?

As I've said, it's sort of how the world works in basically all respects: if you're an *******, expect repercussions.

I get your point to an extent. The issue here is that when she asked him to stop he said he would. If he didn't say he would and make attempts to calm her down, claim he understood her concerns and realized she wasn't having fun, said he would keep his clothes on---all reasonable reactions by what she was hoping was a reasonable man on a salvageable date--she would have left earlier.

I'm assuming you would have stopped. I would have. Should she not give a dude who misreads a situation and then is set straight the benefit of the doubt that they will be like us, or should she assume they are like Johnny Crash and too ****ing dumb to understand and flee right away because they are in danger?

That is the responsibility that is unfair. I mean you talk about mixed signals? He was the one giving them off.

They add credibility to the account. If there were no details many of the same people would be debating that it happened. We already have an idiot further upthread calling an accusation vague and pissed about that.

It also helps Aziz in this situation because it is fair to him. Nobody is claiming he did anything illegal because they know exactly what he did do.

It also is just accurate. This situation, just not rape, work related harrasment, or more obvious misconduct is a topic that also needs to exposure, both for men and women.

So what does that leave as a better solution? Keep quiet like women have literally always done. Got it.

When she said "chill on the couch" they were still naked and she gave him a second blowjob. I think you folks are being dishonest, but that's what you guys do.

To be fair we don't know exactly what he did. We know what she says he did. I am guessing if he told his version it would likely be quite different. But he won't, because he has zero to gain from it and it would only make him look worse.

For example:

Not sure if this is just bad writing or what, but I have no clue what actually happened here. Was he literally cutting her off from escaping? Holding her forcibly while he put his fingers in her mouth? Chasing her across the room as she tried to get away? The whole thing is described in such subjective and poorly-expressed language, that what actually went down is not even apparent. If you asked Ansari he would probably say they were making out in a few different spots in his apartment.

I've stated for the record that I think Ansari was way too quick to want to get to the sexing but this woman's barely-coherent story doesn't do any favors to herself or Ansari. It makes her look unreliable and makes him look like a cretin.

There will never be a standard that is good enough for those who don't want to talk about it.

I'm not even sure who you're talking about so it's likely that I skimmed or didn't read that post. I try to keep my interactions to people who might have an intelligent response, although sometimes I fail at that.


I think the word responsibility is fine, as long as people realize that both parties can have responsibilities.

This woman has a responsibility to herself to be more assertive. Even her unrebutted account portrays a woman who will not speak up for herself in the most basic fashion; that she is often going to end up not getting what she wants or getting things she doesn't want is a fairly predictable outcome.

Ansari also had a responsibility both to himself and to her to be more careful that he wasn't doing things that she did not want to do. Clearly, he failed in this as well.

Meh, it's a social norm. The fact that Ansari comes off badly and she comes off badly are not mutually exclusive; I don't think going to the press was particularly the correct thing to do here but that also doesn't change any of the facts of the encounter.

It's not clear why there is any prioritization at all? It seems like they are both being *******s to each other and so on some level they are both violating their social obligations but it doesn't seem particularly important which one is "worse" or whatever. Nothing here, on either side, seems serious enough to even merit public notice but since our lot is to argue about things on the internet, here we are.

Not necessarily - he's ruined (perhaps) because he's hypocritical to be into rough, degrading sex, 1-night stands etc. when his public persona is the opposite. He hasn't actually done something objectively wrong IMHO - there was at least the minimum required consent for mutual oral sex and it happened - he couldn't get consent for full sex even though he tried hard and it didn't happen. The hypocrisy is the problem.

The same could apply in the opposite direction if one of these "dating expert" guys who suggests the way to get women is "negging" them was found to be dating women (or men) respectfully, wining and dining them etc., in a completely different manner to their public persona. They also wouldn't be doing anything wrong either but would lose out. We still have a right to know though.

The two above are legit public interest cases so should be published so I'm cool with that but .....

If we go by the much wider standard people advocating ITT - that people who are not bad have nothing to fear about true information about their behaviour coming out, then doesn't it follow that we would be cool with Ansari publishing his own review of the date with Grace and including her real name?

I have no reason to believe it except going by her account (yes unrebutted!!!1!) she told him that night several times, left angry and said all you guys are the same (not clear enough!) He responded the next day with an everything is normal text as if he had not crossed any boundaries. He was shocked when she texted back that she was upset. So there is not a good track record of him either being aware or giving a **** what she thought or felt and how his desires and actions played a role in that.

That said I am saying that he has a unique opportunity now to do something mildly extraordinary since it is public already, since he is also a public figure, and since he has some urgent skin in the game to decide how to react anyway. It would be pretty brave and he is not obligated to. Maybe not even capable. Not saying I would or could.
He gets the benefit of adding to his brand of "woke bae". It's not a mystery. I don't doubt he cares about the movement. **** to your point he may have already changed his behavior in private after that encounter. The thing is, as much as I'm a card carrying woman to some people itt with the sole intent on proving my sensitivity to a bunch of anons on a poker forum, as pleased as I must be with myself in those minds I know that I will likely be pushed into rethinking my postitions many more times in my life. I don't do things I thought were okay several years ago because I have been open to why they should not be done. I'm 100% that continues and it should for him.

He doesn't have to take it, but if he really cares enough about this topic to do more than wear a pin on a red carpet he has a huge opportunity here.

its not the starting of a blowjob, its the ending of it.

nothing about that encounter in any way remotely resembles "rough, degrading sex".

Just popping in here to drop this tidbit that Katie Wray (the author of the Aziz Ansari piece) wrote an email to HLN that is really...something when asked if she wanted to appear on Ashleigh Banfield's show:

Banfield read the email on air and responded:

She is in fact a legit journalist who got blacklisted at MSNBC for being overly critical of the media's Iraq War coverage before it was popular to do so.

The bravest people i know don't require anonymity to tell a story knowing it will destroy another person publicly (nor would they be dumb enough to be used by this tabloid reporter).

People need to stop engaging in sexual activity that toes the consent line.

You're doing it wrong if both parties aren't ENTHUSIASTIC about sex. Forget consent, if your girl isn't overly enthused to be with you then pump the damn breaks FFS.