am i a bad person for laughing at the screaming quadripelgic scenario? GET OVER HERE AND SERVICE MEEEEEE

I was agreeing with her all the way until she said that Ansari was 100% responsible , he wasn't 100% responsible, his behavior is in part the fault of society and the cultural environment.

In order for us to advance as society we need to let guys like Ansari slightly off the hook because if we condemn his behavior and punish him harshly then you will create an environment where people are going to get extremely defensive and you are going to polarize society. Otoh if we absolutely minimize what he did then we perpetuate the problem. Finding the sweet spot is hard and requires a conversation but we can't have that in a witch hunt environment in which everybody that doesn't agree with the #metoo narrative is called a rape apologist.

The people who are being defensive are just as guilty of witch hunt behavior. It's hilarious, really. The guy who accused me of being a witch hunter (lol) was upset about it going too far because someone tweeted something that was a vague accusation of something or something and like, that's just too far! A man may be uncomfortable now! And also a defense of Harvey Weinstein being accused of something else? Better rush to protect him! The concern with overreacting is itself a gross overreaction since, as has been stated there have been limited to no repercussions. A witch hunt had those accused burned at the stake.

What is the #metoo narrative anyway? Anzari's story wasn't a part of that, it came out after that and is another conversation that apparently is sorely needed out in the open. These dudes can't keep saying consent it is too confusing then balk at uncomfortable conversations that will clear it up.

Imo Anzari is 100% responsible for his actions but you are right that he is not 100% responsible for what led him to the attitude that allowed the mistake. We all make mistakes. It's forgivable if you actually give a **** about the mistake. If you take an opportunity to learn from it and teach others it is nobel. In some cases that opportunity will be taken on your behalf with or without your participation, like when you are a celebrity. The people who are uncomfortable with it and over-reacting with surrogate persecution complexes and looking for any flaws or outs are going to have a bad time. Making them feel safe is not a priority.

It seems a bit early to conclude that nothing is going to happen to him.

The #metoo narrative is that there is structural sexual violence against women ? You do realize that while that may seem obvious to you is not a consensus in society, right?

And actually making the discussion environment safe for those people it's absolutely crucial , we need to diagnose the problem first but we can't do that if people are not allowed to speak their opinions.

If you read the article I quoted , the author makes an excellent point into why even women prefer the "meh, not that serious" narrative. But then she offers no solution at all into how to solve that problem.

The tough reality , whether you like it or not is that you need society on your side to make important cultural changes that will allow us to have healthier relationships and safer environments for all women and not only in specific liberal circles where people are more accepting of those views. And yes, getting the average joe to accept that some of the stuff he thinks is cool is not so cool is a gigantic effort but it's the only way I'm afraid.
The other strategies feel better of course , you get your nice progressive circle jerk about how everybody is ****ty except for you but you don't change anything relevant.

It's 100% clear that there will be no legal consequences (unless this story encourages a victim with a tighter story to come forward). His "punishment" is going to be that, now that people know that his dates sometimes leave his apartment sobbing and itching to take a bath from his sex playbook, that he'll be less popular. But that's not really a punishment for him, it's society at large getting the benefit of understanding how Ansari behaves and incorporating that into their understanding of his woke persona. We are so far from where we need to be that people are demanding an embargo of true facts about celebrities unless they can meet a quasi-legal standard of proof. If Ansari is being defamed, he can sue and defend his reputation in court. If he admits that the facts of the account are true, then it is ridiculous for him (or anyone else) to complain that he's being punished by having true and newsworthy facts about him being known to the public.

See I am not concerned with being labeled as a virtue signaler, witch hunter, sjw or whatever. My motives shouldn't be super important, but I have simply decided not to let **** pass without comment when it comes to racism, sexism etc. I cant care what people make of it, that was what kept me quiet in the past and it is cowardly.

You have a point about getting people over to your side, I have made it myself, but I don't believe it applies to vehemently calling out gross misstatements in a discussion. Further, while it sounds correct it is not really historically accurate. The most notable changes to society have come by disruptive behavior. The existing power structure is often guarded by people who are uncomfortable with the changing dynamic, including some of those in the oppressed groups who would be more comfortable with slow changes, but that doesn't seems to work, and the current state of society demands more than that. The arguments of losing potential allies, I'm not sure about that one. If someone is going to throw up their hands and say they are not participating further because they are confused about the fact that, yeah rape is bad, and flashing your dick is bad, and both can be brought up right now, and hell, even overly aggressive creepy behavior that toes the line of legality can be discussed and it isn't a witch hunt because they all have value as an issue, or because someone rightfully points out to them that defending bad behavior as a priority is in fact apologizing for it, well I guess they will be just as helpful as they were before the movement. Not at all.

Did anyone make these arguments? No one says she can't be mad at him. The question is whether anyone else should care about their personal squabble.

Well there is obviously a line, if someone defends Weinstein call him out of course , but if somebody defends Ansari I think engaging with him rather than denouncing him is the correct move.

The problem with your historical analysis is that it doesn't take into account the context.
When the French kings and the tsars were kicked out of power via revolution it worked in overthrowing the monarchy because they basically killed them.
In the case of some independence wars, violent change worked because the old oppressors went back to their country.
Even in the case of first wave feminism with the suffragette movement it didn't imply massive cultural change , it meant an institutional change.

In this case we want to change the way we relate to each other, maybe you can force the way to a society where women are not harassed but it would require a bunch of bull**** regulations from no flirting except in explicit dating contexts to having women to sign a contract that they want to have sex with you. But do we really want to live in that society ? I don't , the only way we can have healthy flirting without harassment is via education.

I tend to agree I'm ok with Ansari's rough sex techniques and 1-night use 'em then lose 'em attitude coming out - particularly where they show public hypocrisy - but as a general standard simply that something is true and newsworthy doesn't override the expectation and right of privacy we all have. If you reverse the genders, I assume we wouldn't be ok with e.g. Brad Pitt shaming Angelina by telling us true and newsworthy gossip about her bad bedroom techniques.

Agree if you're talking about it as a matter of personal advice rather than public morality.

Even at that time we thought it best to keep it secret - and we did successfully for a few weeks until my wife and I were exiting a field after a picnic just as a car carrying three of out colleagues drove past

But overall I would like couples like us in the future to have the same freedom (e.g. from being sacked, ridiculed) as we did - just as we all hope the same for other couples who could potentially be discriminated against and I don't think that's something that we should just let go in and out of fashion.

This line is interesting:

"He convinced you to say yes even though you said no a bunch of times? "

Would we say this constitutes consent?

Let's be more specific.

I don't know what Anzari needs to be defended from. She didn't level an accusation, she recounted the event from her perspective. The implication from those yelling witch hunt or saying the metoo movement has gone too far is not clear to me. The woman did not claim workplace sexual harassment. She did not claim or file sexual assault charges. She didn't, afaik, file a lawsuit. She isn't looking for a moment of fame or to further her career. She let him know directly that night and the next day that she was uncomfortable with the way he acted, then saw him on tv claiming a woke attitude and called him out. Yet she is not allowed to do that or it diminishes the entire conversation? It is a slippery slope?Painting her actions as suspect is part of the exact issue, man. It is one of the legs that holds the stool up, historically and deserves to be attacked.

If someone was calling Aziz a rapist right now I'd not have an issue with people defending him against that accusation. Nobody is. But if someone is going to say that her signals were unclear, or his behavior was understandable, disputing that is the exact benefit that can come from her going public in the first place. Nothing else really. And as much as some of these guys may not admit it here, the seed has been planted for them to reframe what they think is okay in those situations, if not because they actually contemplate and empathize with what the woman is saying that experience was like for her, then because they are afraid of getting caught up in a (lol) witch hunt.

That cuts both ways. Why should anyone care about their personal squabbles? You chose to respond to me instead of the dude screaming about revenge porn and self righteous witch hunters. Which of the two of us has the scorching hot take worth commenting on, exactly?

I'm going to repeat my point: men should treat women better, and insofar as this is news, it's the eternal life lesson that personal conduct which isn't quite criminal might still be unpleasant. Treating people as means to an end naturally endangers hard feelings and can obviously sully a reputation. The interesting takes are the people who think the world would operate in some other way for unclear reasons.

These are good posts.

lol'd

We are discussing two different things.
You are arguing against the argument made by Ansari apologists, I have never said those arguments are valid ( unless the argument is that Netflix shouldn't cancel his show which is how I have gone in "defending" him).
I'm making the broader point that unfortunately most men will side with Ansari and say "hey ***** said she wanted sex". We need to engage with the people that take that position instead of denouncing them. That's my point.

1) Not sure why Angelina's sex moves are newsworthy.

2) Gossip magazines run personal details about people's private lives all the time, with no regard whatsoever to whether they are newsworthy. It's distasteful, but generally the standard for whether details about people's private life get published is whether they are interesting.

3) It's relevant that if Brad tried to slander Angelina by spreading around [offensive personal detail], Brad is the one who looks bad rather than Angelina. These kind of potential abuses are largely self-limiting by the fact that it's usually the bad actors who end up looking bad.

I take issue with the idea that most men will side with him. I think a lot will but plenty of men would have gotten the more subtle hints, nevermind the blatant ones.

I am interested in your other points here. First when you say we need to engage these people do you mean people like you and me as individuals or we as a society? When you say don't denounce their position of "she asked for it" are you saying we should honor it as valid or just approach them gently so as not to spook them before we convince them to denounce it themselves? Are we supposed to engage as if they have a chance to convince us they are right about that?

Yeah. Losing your privacy is part of the equation of fame. The spoils are huge if you become a celebrity and the payoff is what it is. They live by it and die by it.

I try hard not to learn anything about celebrities and I still know a ton of things about people who I don't even know what they are famous for. Singing, acting, whatever. It's funny that Angilina Jolie was brought up because somehow I know that she used to keep a vial of billy bob Thorton's blood around her neck and was into kinky blood play sex or something, and I swear that is not from seeking out that kind of info.

In the case of Aziz, for one he put himself out there as a champion of timesup. He was willing to get whatever benefits he could from support of the movement, so now he has an opportunity to step up and talk about his own behavior. I think he could come out of this looking great and making an actual difference etc.

He's a smart guy. If he stops and thinks about what this woman was telling him that night, in the text, and now, and reflects on it, and goes public with the resulting personal growth (not just a damage control statement) he could be an agent of change. The ball is in his court. I like his comedy okay, I've seen him live once, but I don't really care about him, his show or his career one way or the other. If he does the right thing here I would probably become a fan.

Couple of things on this specific point, before moving onto the general discussion.

1. The suffregettes both drove and relied on a massive cultural change. They were incredibly disruptive. They were hunger striking and throwing themselevs under horses ffs.

2. No idea if this is an argument you are making or alluding to, but there is a dumb and disingenuous argument amoung
MRA types which pretends that feminism was fine and polite and reasonable before the "third wave" feminazis came along and went too far. I would suggest being wary that you dont make or buy into that argument.

More generally. I dont agree #MeToo needs to be engage people and bring them along. It is tough. It is disruptive, and a bunch of people are getting hurt.

If we can

a) get rid of some of the worst offenders and ensure they stay the **** gone

b) create some fear of consequences for acting like a disgusting fishhooking creep on dates

That is a win, and neither requires keeping the defenders of the status quo confortable.

I wasn’t talking about legal consequences. I think it would be wrong if Ansari lost work because of this account.

1) Both, of course we can't control what society does.
2) The latter
3) Internally no although pretending to do so externally could help rhetorical effectiveness.

I actually agree with this and I hope he does exactly what you are saying. At the very least, he was not a gentleman. To put it mildly. His rush to go from dinner date to f***ing seems smarmy to say the least. It would go a long way to improve male behavior if he made a heartfelt public admission, saying that that he acted like a creepy middle-aged douche who just wanted to get in a pretty 22-year-old's pants. And that it's not acceptable or OK.

Suffragettes wanted institutional change as the main objective, cultural change was a means to an end.

It's the internet , I don't have to worry about being labeled a mysoginist pig.
With regards to third wave feminism I agree with some of it, I'm strongly opposed to radical feminism because I think it's basically right wing dressed up as progressive politics and I think queer theory is simply wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree with Intersectional feminism but since I'm a men I tend to be an hypocrite from time to time.

Second your type of debate is particularly tiring, you basically asked me to explicitly clarify that I don't buy into "the feminazis went too far , it was better when they just wanted to vote!" narrative , that is the type of annoying **** that really needs to stop if we actually don't want to create a toxic debate environment.

Third, you are confusing having safe environments in certain circles for women with making sure all women feel safe. If you want to make sure that no women gets harassed in the liberal campus , sure keep doing what you are doing , calling people names and banning people that say stuff you don't like from giving speeches in universities. Now if you want to actually want to stop women violence throughout society then it's a different ball game. That requires a lot of difficult ranging from stuff like changing the educational system to making improvements in the legal process so that women can feel safer denouncing violence while at them same time keeping a due process for the accused men.

Are you saying that you will be disappointed if that happens, or that people who no longer want to support him should still watch his show and buy tickets to his performances, and Netflix should continue to produce his program instead of other options that may be healthier and more profitable for their brand?

I mean celebrities and politician's careers are built on their popularity. When they do unpopular things they lose value. Most of these guys who lose market value come back from it just fine, in fact that is more of an issue ime. Clinton, Anthony wiener, Mel Gibson, Tyson, woody Allen.

So much is unfair in Hollywood. None of it is fair. Why is this, (potential) overly harsh career repercussions of men accused of sexual misconduct the instance that needs to be championed? Racism, sexism, cronyism, and lol! Sexual misconduct are all rampant issues but hey! Let's be sure we don't get boilerplate perversion that overstepped social cues mixed up with "real" problems. Tread lightly!

Yeah I'm not down. I have done that plenty. Maybe in person with someone who shows a sign of introspection and empathy for the person in the story they don't identify with, but when an obviously intelligent person is using their energy to twist victim blaming into the discourse I'm going to speak up clearly. Women are finally feeling empowered to come forward and talk about these things, from rape to harassment to whatever. Dudes who want to call them crazy or witch hunters or impune their motives are plentiful, maybe some people should take the role of engaging them there, but women also need to know they are not alone in knowing it's not a witch hunt. I sat by and let things pass so many times in my life. I participated in small, destructive behavior that perpetrated this systematic issue, both by action and inaction. I owe more.

The point i was trying to make (perhaps badly) was that the "hey guys we need to bring opponents along gently" argument is

1. Simply wrong from a historical perspective. Thats not what happened before. Thats not really how change happens.

2. Often disingenous. I.e. they are trying to find whatever argument they can to justify their opposition to change.

Given that arguments about what the other person meant to say or really thinks are tiresome, ill let the rest of this particular argument drop.

See we part ways on what he did wrong.

Nothing wrong with ****ing on a first date. Nothing wrong with rushing home to do it. Nothing wrong with fish hooking. If she wanted all that too, there would be no story and plenty of women do.

The issue is when she signaled to stop he blew past it and when she straight told him to stop, particularly when she used words like "forced", he acknowledged it, played rope a dope and kept going. He either didn't care how she felt about it (likely) or didn't know how to find out and was so self centered he thought he was seducing her that whole time. That is what needs to be addressed by him because that was his mistake. It's not unforgivable from my pov if he learns from it, whether she forgives him is up to her and between them.