Ah. See and I thought we had finally found some common ground. Maybe one of these days you will actually agree with someone on something. Being annoyingly contrary all the time must get tiring after a while.

Anyway regarding your argument: you're wrong. Acting like a horndog who wants to **** as soon as you get a girl into your apartment after a first date, is not acceptable behavior. Even if the girl happens to be one of the few who is 100% OK with it, it's a smarmy move and uncalled for. Aziz might have had some good first-date sex, sex that she was totally into, and not have his creep moves plastered all over Babe.com - if he just made the token old-fashioned effort to act even a little bit like a gentleman before he got to the whole "so, where should I **** you" bit as soon as she walked in his apartment door.

You and I agreed about more than one thing itt, like the fact that he probably could have got laid that night had he calmed down and paid attention to her. High fives and hugs for that.

The part we disagree on is a point of opinion, not a point of fact so I'm not going to tell you you are wrong and I am right, but here is why I dissagree, I don't care if it's annoying, either:

Adults can do what every they want together as long as all parties are on board. Whether it's what I would do or you would do or enjoy or be turned on by is not relevant. I'm not interested in legislating people's sexual preferences as long as they don't encroach on non consenting people, or children who are not able to consent legally.

Some people would say having sex on a first date or anytime before marriage at all is smarmy, so how are you going to say what's right and wrong?

Yeah I guess there's a "don't kiss and tell" general rule of thumb but it's not like she breached some sort of one night standee privilege here. If you do weird **** with your dates they tell their friends. If you're famous, they can tell a reporter.

Who is committing the wrongful act? Is it people who don't like his work because they think he's a creep? Is it people who don't hire him to work because he's not popular? Or is it people who didn't protect his popularity by keeping quiet about his behavior?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...mpression=true

The bring along opponents gently is how we have made progress in Chile. We went from having sodomy illegal in 1997 to having civil unions in 2014, we are not there on gay marriage but we will get there the next time we have progressive government. Divorce was not allowed until 2004.
Only last year we stopped being one of the 5 countries in the world where abortion is ilegal in all cases ( now it's only ilegal almost always but hey something is something).
Of course we have called out our biggest opponents for being the reactionary douchebags they are but many people have changed their mind in important subjects. And we managed that by the effort of a lot people who have fought to win over the opinion of most chileans.
Maybe you guys in USA don't see it because you have seen little improvements in this area in the last 2 decades but I have seen progress so maybe that's why I'm more of an optimist.

https://slate.com/culture/2018/01/th...ics-claim.html

1. Um. The USA legalised gay marriage in every state recently?
2. Im not from the USA.
3. Having abortion still illegal in most cases is not a victory, and perhaps a symptom of the chilean lefts unwillingness to challenge social norms sufficiently when it doesnt directly impact straight men. (Which given the political context, is not unforgiveable)
4. The fact that you are so willing to "nicewash" your own history and the militancy that won those victories on gay rights is not surprising given your complete misunderstanding of history elsewhere too.

This took me 2 minutes to find and covers the history of the gay rights movement in Chile in depth.
*https://nacla.org/article/history-ma...movement-chile

From that article.

Honorable mention later for the headress made of syringes to highlight HIV issues.

Not much of that reads like an argument for "bringing them along nicely".

I get you are an ally, but your arguments are bull****, misunderstand history, and unfortunately bare a strong resemblence to the arguments made by people who deliberetely oppose the change you claim to advocate for.

As it happens, im a big fan of engaging and discussion, but we dont draw the line at "making creepy men feel a little uncomfortable"

Apoligies for singling you out, and im sure im about to get owned in any discussion on Chilean history, an argument for which im completely unequipped.

But come on man, this "nicewashing" revisionist history is actively harmful. Weve just had Donald ****ing Trump praising MLK while at the same time ordering the FBI target MLKs idealogical successors as terrorists.

Of course there was radical activism in Chile but the main wins are because smart activist pushed the agenda intelligently not because of some guys doing radical stuff ( this is of course my opinion and not an universally accepted truth).

I actually have activism experience so I have some kind of clue about what I'm talking about. We had a bunch of sexist traditions in our campus and they stopped when I was president of the students council and when they tried to put them back on I was one of the major opponents. Of course most of the job wasn't done by me but by feminists but I still provided leadership that was needed to engage with people who supported such traditions, I didn't just call people names. I see the current state of the campus now that I'm a graduate now and I see the younger kids confused about what is harassment and what isn't because nobody has bothered to engage with them and if they suggest any kind of dissent towards the narrative then they get socially destroyed. That kind of environment is complete bull****. I think some people can change if you have a conversation with them, if you don't then that's fine but don't tell me I'm ignorant of history or something.

Also MLK engaged with white people, he was called all kinda names by Malcolm X. His dream speech is about unity between two races. The same with Mandela, he could have said **** the springboks but he supported and cheered them on.

And lol if you don't think the liberal environment of censorship wasn't a very important reason why Trump won ( and btw in the aftermath thread I made the same arguments but with race instead of gender).

And while I'm ignorant in many things one **** I'm good at is at reading why people vote the way they do, I take pride of the fact that every students election that I coached won and 3 of those were from clear underdogs.

If censorship is the reason for his win then since the right has a very long and even current history of doing it it should get a dem elected next time!! Oh wait it does not work that way...

Changing the mind of a person in a political issue is an art. First of all you need to read if it's possible or not. If it's deemed possible then you need to proceed like a thief opens a safe deposit box in a movie.

Calling them names is basically hitting your head in the box. It's an awful strategy.

Maybe the disagreement in this thread is because I wasn't clear enough that I think only some people are worth engaging with. I'm not saying you should go to a pro Trump forum to engage with the grievances of the posters, **** them.

Edit: With regards as to why republicans get away with censorship, I don't know what censorship you are referring to. If it's Trump calling the media names, he is getting punished in the polls because of it.
If it's voter suppression then that is because it only affects a small amount of people and because USA is a very racist country.
If it's evangelical pastors saying that everybody is a baby killer/communist , I would say that's not a very good strategy for republicans overall but it benefits the evangelical pastor.

I know im kind of good at it. Least in real life.

I would not agree. Some people who seem open at first may never change and some who seem closed do.


Agree. Call their arguments names. Or at least show displeasure in some way to the objectionable stuff. If they have respect for you it can have an influence if you do it right.


I engage with trump supporters five days a week.

I know why they get away with it. Because censorship is ok with many conservatives if they are the ones doing doing it. Its ok for the WH to ban words if its the words they like banned.

Or many are not against censorship they just say they are.

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. I understood "newsworthy" to mean "will sell copies of my magazine/newspaper" i.e. whether they are interesting. If you mean something more like whether it's in the public interest for the information to come out then we more or less agree.

Regarding 3) maybe not in the Brad case but what if it was an ex from before she was famous who just didn't care about his public reputation, or if the publication just kept him anonymous as with "Grace"? Doesn't she have a general right to privacy? In the Ansari case it's relevant that he was presenting himself as some kind of feminist campaigner in the public sphere and the public interest in it being known that he's into disrespectful forms of sex can override his right to privacy. If this was someone who generally presents themselves as an old dog like e.g. Jack Nicholson then it would be harder to justify it.

Some people interpret the "I don't want to feel forced" quote as meaning "I don't want to have sex with you" - it can also be interpreted as "I'm probably willing to have sex with you if you just do it old school style." which you seem to acknowledge below:

Isn't "play rope-a-dope" pretty much the same as "calm down and pay attention to her". His execution was rubbish in that though.

This was the supreme court (neatly bypassing the need to persuade the public) and is such is to a great extent a symptom of how people were voting 20 years ago, so doesn't really contradict his point.

But society's views (and with them the views of moderate and liberal SC justices) on gay marriage have been moving a couple of percent a year because people have just got used to the idea of there being gay couples around, because of it being presented as something normal, not something radical and upsetting.

Reading between the lines, if the dinner conversation was so bad he wanted to come home early and get the sex over with without finishing the wine then it's clear there was never going to be a second date.

If there's no general right to privacy then presumably that cuts both ways. It's still relatively unusual **** for people to go to a reporter. Would you be ok at this point with Ansari revealing the identity of "Grace" so people know what they are potentially getting into when they go on a date with her?

Yes, a lot of the pay-off has been from the nice approach, especially recently, but that was only earned by a lot of militancy and in-your-face activism in the early years.

At every stage, where gay people
- held hands in public
- kissed in public
- fought for hospital access rights for HIV patients at the "expense" of upset family
- had the first gay relationship on tv
- had the first gay kiss on TV

etc, they were told "hey - we arent againt gay people, but why do you have to push it in our faces, why cant you be more reasonable"

which then gets forgotten and re-written the moment they win some ground.

I mean, right now, a gay couple of getting a ton of abuse for "forcing someone to bake a gay cake"...

Man. In the spirit of your kinder discourse I got to tell you, politely, I don't accept that you believe what you wrote. The reason is she didn't just say that, she said not tonight, she said slow down, she tried to get away from him, she took her hand off his dick repeatedly. When he said let's keep our clothes on she said yes, let's. In total it's pretty damn clear and even by itself, again, using words like forced should be a big red flag. If you are not sure if it means stop or go "old school", then ask. Ask. I mean he licked her genitals but can't ask that question? Too embarrassing?


Not really. What I was saying is if he had actually paid attention to her as if what she wanted also mattered throughout the evening she may have found him attractive and wanted to sleep with him. Note the difference between this and "he could have got her to sleep with him".

Rope a dope is halting aggression so you can then become aggressive again when you have the advantage. It is an imperfect anaolgy but the reason it rings true here is because the fact that he, and many other men, see sex as something they are supposed to win from a woman, trick her into, get from her etc is a big part of the problem. She liked him. Women like sex also. It's not a battle or a conquest, it's something you share together. Just that idea alone would go a long way to guide any man to understanding consent. It works great. Not sure? Ask. She sends mixed messages? Ask her to clarify. She won't? Gets hot and cold? You say no yourself for your own protection. Go home. Wack off. Live another day without risking being a ****ty creep at best and a rapist at worst. Easy.

Exhibit 3476 from this thread confirming "yes, there is a conversation to be had".

With respect to your last paragraph, what makes you think he hasn’t thought about it? By her own account, he didn’t realize that he’d made her uncomfortable or crossed a line, and then when she confronted him about it he apologized to her. Why would we assume he wasn’t sincere?

Also, what “benefits” is he getting from the time’s up movement? Why would he be anything but sincere in his support for it?

this aziz ansari thing is rediculous. just complete garbage from the atlantic and nyt (and npr that had the victim blaming atlantic reporter on).

heres the thing, you cant sit there and complain that aziz is being treated unfairly and it is embarrassing for him while simultaneously claiming that he did nothing wrong. if his behavior was fine, then there arent any consequences for him.

the atlantic reporter was on npr and whined that aziz was now a "ruined man". well, shouldnt that give her some sort of hint that he was behavior was completely inappropriate?

Have you ever been to a market in Turkey or other eastern countries? If you even look for a split-second at any of the products, the vendors will jump up and pester you, saying "try this, try this, good discount," and so on. Because you've signalled to them that you are interested in making a purchase and they see this as an invitation to push for the sale. If you decide you're not interested the only way to get rid of them is to just walk away and if necessary tell them firmly to leave you alone.

That's like the situation here. By going back to the guy's apartment, letting him kiss and caress her, and so on, she was signalling that she was open for sexual activity. So he pushed forward. This is a typical sort of "dance" that happens. We all know that some women like to "play hard to get" just like some men like to play the part of "winning a woman over." And okay, I'm sure there are some people who prefer to negotiate exactly what is going to happen before they do anything sexual, and that's fine too.

Anyway, just like at a Turkish bazaar, if you change your mind, or you don't want to buy, then what you have to do is walk away and/or make it very clear verbally that you are not happy with what is going on. Shying away with "non-verbal cues" or waffling with stuff like "I'm not sure" isn't going to cut it, because from the man/ vendor's perspective that's all part of the prescribed "game" that's supposed to happen. If you didn't want to be pressured to buy something, you wouldn't have come to a bazaar, you would have just stayed home and ordered what you wanted on Amazon. If you weren't interested in sex, you wouldn't have come to the man's apartment after dinner, or if you did you would have made it clear that you didn't want to do anything sexual.

In short, I'm sure this woman had a bad time, and maybe Mr. Ansari could modify his behaviour in future encounters. But on the other hand, it's hard to really feel sorry for her when all she ever needed to do was to firmly say "Stop" and walk away. And if the worst thing that ever happened to her is a guy pressuring her for sex, then she should be counting her blessings not trying to claim victim status.

you are completely rewriting the situation. she made her desire, or really lack of such, clear.

its one thing to lean in for a kiss and caress and get rebuffed. its another thing to repeatedly jam fingers down someones throat and grab em by the pussy.

No he is right.

Sorry pal. After you post

You dont get to expect people to care what you think. Gtfo.

Cool don't bother talking to me then.

I don’t think she is right to make this account public, and I think she is taking advantage of the metoo movement by trying to portray an embarrassing hookup as him being a predator. I don’t think her anecdote really adds much to the conversation, instead it muddles it. I guess men can get better at understanding mumbling and “going cold”? Like, I think my problem with this whole situation is that it seems like we are acting like women don’t have any agency in situations like this at all. I think there is a responsibility in situations like this on both participants to clearly discuss and articulate boundaries. As embarrassing and clumsy and awkward as Ansari’s behavior was, “mumbling and going cold (whatever that means) is not a clear signal after you have allowed a guy to perform oral on you and performed it on him.

The woman says she feels like he took advantage of her, but that depends on whether Ansari actually realized that she didn’t want to go any further. The fact that she can’t say definitively whether he did or not is a huge issue that reflects poorly on her behavior: She admits that he didn’t pick up on her signals! Yet she still wants to humiliate and punish him for it even after he apologized to her.

The purpose of this piece was clearly to personally embarrass Ansari.This is a story that is barely worthy of a tabloid, but it’s getting treated as some meaningful piece of the metoo movement. Tabloids would have at least had the decency to leave out intimate details like that weird claw thing that serve no purpose in the account other than to embarrass Ansari and make him seem weird.