MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Aziz Ansari and the Limits of 'He Should Know Better'

Sloppy seduction or sexual assault? If those are your terms, you're already missing the point.

Everett Collection/NewscomEverett Collection/NewscomAs this mass cultural conversation about sexual consent continues, I keep remembering a discussion I had last fall. A friend, a woman in her mid-20s, was embarrassed by the comments about her appearance that a middle-aged man she was working with kept making. His remarks weren't lewd or egregious—more along the lines of "that dress looks nice on you" at the beginning of a business meeting, when no men present receive similar sartorial appreciation. Enough to make my friend uncomfortable, to wish he would stop; not severe enough to quiet the doubt that maybe she was overreacting, that maybe she should just shrug it off.

I asked her if she had said anything to the man (who was not her co-worker but someone she encountered frequently in professional contexts) about his comments, and we discussed the merits of this approach: Perhaps he didn't realize he was making her uncomfortable. If she said something, he would likely stop. And if he didn't, then she knew what she was dealing with—not someone clueless, well-meaning, owed the benefit of the doubt, but someone actually intent on harassing (or very poorly hitting on) her. And then that situation could be confronted appropriately.

Yes, she agreed... mostly. But there was something giving her pause: "I shouldn't have to say anything. He should know better."

He should know better because it was 2017. He should know better because she had not been enthusiastic or receptive to his comments on her physical appearance. He should know better.

She's not wrong. And neither is the chorus of people protesting a recent article, in babe, about a sexual encounter involving the actor and comedian Aziz Ansari. The story described a date a young woman had last year with Ansari, as told by the young woman, called "Grace." It ended when his aggressive and clumsy attempts at seduction left her in tears.

At no point, according to the article, did Ansari force himself on Grace, threaten her, or make her fear for her safety. Nor did he hold a position of power over her or represent some sort of gatekeeper in her industry. She simply thought Ansari would respect her initial statements about slowing down, that he was genuine in professing to be OK with that, that they could continue engaging in some sexual activity without him continuously pressuring her for sexual intercourse. She stuck around largely because she thought things might get better.

Some, like Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic, have mocked Grace for this. To Flanagan, Grace clearly wanted something from Ansari—affection, romance, a relationship—that he wasn't willing to give, and her whole grievance is predicated on a pathetic refusal to give up on that scenario and either give in to the sexual encounter or get the hell out of Ansari's apartment.

But to others, including a lot of prominent younger feminists, the pathetic one here is Ansari. He should have stopped pawing at Grace and pushing for sex once she expressed reservations. Her continued presence in his home wasn't consent for him to keep pressing for something she had already said she didn't want. And anyone questioning her reaction, worrying about whether this tale was fair to Ansari, waxing about how affirmative consent is anathema to seduction, or explaining that everyone has had encounters like these is missing the point: Women are tired of having encounters like these. Women want better.

What has tended to get lost between these two takes is their shared premises. Even among old-school conservatives and "problematic" feminists like Flanagan, there has been little suggestion that Ansari's actions are awesome and defensible. You won't find many people arguing that this is how men are supposed to pursue women, that dating necessarily involves women playing hard to get and men taking that as coyness, or that she was leading him on by being in his apartment and owed him some level of sexual activity. The most full-throated defenses of Ansari's actions argue instead that they were both drunk, that her cues were subtle, and that he may (as he allegedly said in a follow-up text) have genuinely thought she was enjoying herself.

Meanwhile, relatively few people are actually calling Ansari's actions sexual assault. People insisting that it's stupid and trivializing to say this was assault or harassment are mostly railing at strawmen. Yes, the story has been inartfully squeezed into the #MeToo frame, but that's more a matter of media economics than anything else. There's no mass of people pushing to criminalize actions like Ansari's or saying he should be fired from any of his projects. His critics' biggest ask has been that people use this as a discussion point and a cautionary tale.

But also lost is this: One of the hardest parts about adjudicating these things on paper is all the minute things that make a difference in the moment. People don't like to focus on this, perhaps because it undermines some cultural need to create heroes and villains, or victims and villains, in every narrative. To make things clear cut.

Why did Grace stay? Flanagan scoffs at the idea that she thought she could change the course of things: What led her to believe that this time would be different? But things are always different. The way someone kisses, or smells, or touches you. The music they play. The connection you feel. How you think the other person sees you. How high your expectations were for the experience beforehand, and how closely it conforms to them. For the many, many people not guided in their sexual relationships by some sort of strict social or religious code, any or all of these things can factor into how far they'll go sexually with someone and when.

Sometimes you don't leave right away because you're still assessing the situation—maybe it was just an awkward first pass. Maybe you are just getting used to each other. Maybe they misunderstood you earlier. Can you turn it around? Do you want to? Staying or going isn't a predetermined conclusion; there's a process of figuring things out.

There is, to be clear, absolutely nothing wrong with that. But while one person is doing this dance internally, the other person may well have no idea. Part of not being sure is at least some want for the other person to like you or impress you still, which can manifest in something that at least looks like enthusiasm. Sometimes we all give off more ambiguous signals than we realize.

Things are also different at a more basic level: Sometimes people do not respond like Ansari allegedly did. Flanagan latches on to the fact that Grace supposedly told Ansari that men were "all the same" as evidence that she should have known better. But this accepts that Grace's assertion was right. Certainly plenty of men pick up cues and accept no as an answer the first time. Certainly plenty are content with some intimacies on a first date and not others. Certainly first dates have happened where the man would happily have sex but the woman isn't sure yet and so they wait and they wind up a happy couple. All sorts of things are possible, because neither men nor women are a monolith in their sexual wants or prowess and because encounters between two individuals are always particular.

Without judging the specific actions of anyone in the Ansari story, it's possible to use it as a jumping off point to talk best practices for similar situations. For those in Ansari's position, the key is to take a partner's initial reticence seriously. If someone says he or she doesn't want to have sex but continues to hang out and/or engage in other activity with you, enjoy this and don't keep pressing for more. Or if that doesn't work for you, stop and call the night to a close.

And if your date says something unclear about their wishes, ask them to elaborate. It may be awkward, but it's better than the alternative. When Grace told Ansari, "I don't want to feel forced because then I'll hate you, and I'd rather not hate you," it wasn't quite the obvious instruction some have been making it out to be. (My first thought on her meaning there would be, "OK, make sure she feels comfortable going forward," not "stop all sexual pursuit now.")

The bottom line isn't that you must stop and verbally discuss consent to every step of sexual interaction. It's that if there is any ambiguity, it's important to use your words.

This goes for people in Grace's situation too, of course. "Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling," she says about the beginning of the encounter. Later, she says that "I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn't interested" but she doesn't "think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored." But between these moments, Ansari offered plenty of cues of his own that this wasn't going to go as Grace hoped. Meanwihle, she continued to engage in some level of sexual activity with him, including mutual oral sex.

It's not unreasonable to think that Ansari may have interpreted her decision to stick around as openness to the possibility of not feeling "forced" with time. Grace's protestations were never a outright "no" to all further sexual activity until they were, at which point Ansari stopped and he called her a car. Being unambiguous and direct worked, and doing so earlier could have altered the course of the evening.

There are a lot of people who say: She shouldn't have to be so blunt, or to say it more than once, or to physically leave in order to show she's serious. He should have picked up on cues. He should have stopped asking about sex after her initial lack of enthusiasm. He should have known better. But no matter how true that might be, it doesn't change the fact that he either didn't understand or didn't care. And some people will always not understand, and some people will always not care.

We shouldn't have to is fine, so long as it's followed for now with: but when you do...

The same for: They should know better—than to make those comments, to keep pushing, to not understand what your cues. But when they don't...

Then more direct communication is in order. So many of today's sexual problems stem from people being socialized to be afraid of that. But it's hard to rectify when cultural chatter around the Grace and Ansari story suffers from a central source of distress within it: the main participants just keep talking and signaling past each other.

Photo Credit: Everett Collection/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    So when he played Tom Haverford, he wasn't acting?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Christ, what an awful character.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    His golden globe winning show, Master of None, made this abundantly clear.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well ya know, I don't get this bunch of Shiite either...

    I mean, once upon a time, I told a female co-worker that she had an attractively shaped gall bladder, and that her epandrium was very nice. She seemed to take offense, as if I were some kind of freak! Sheesh!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Speaking of men and women being located at totally logically incompatible frequencies of non-communication… As a favor of incomprehensibly mega-magnitudinous magnanimousity, I recently figured out that I could provide a technological solution to the ages-old stand-off, when your significant other faces you down with "Does this dress make me look fat"?...

    Just the other day, I tried to market, for FREE, a new "app" I wrote… Just snap a picture on your I-Phone and have the app analyze the picture you just took… And it SOLVES that age-old "bane" of husbands and boyfriends everywhere! "Does this dress make me look fat"? … "Well honey, I dunno, let's see what my I-phone and the 'Does this dress make me look fat' app has to say" SNAP and go!!!… Your opinion is taken OUT, you are OFF the hot seat!

    As publisher of this "app", I was charged with "diagnosing obesity, a medical condition, w/o a Doctor's License". I am writing this post to you, Beloved Reasonoids, from jail… I apologize for my crimes…

  • ThoughtfullyConservative||

    Hahaha!

  • John C. Randolph||

    I stepped in that trap once, long ago. GF asked me "do you think I weigh more or less now than when we met?" I hadn't noticed any variation in her weight at all, and I said so.

    Well, it turned out that she was down a couple of pounds, and she promptly decided that we had to have a major row over my failure to notice it.

    -jcr

  • BambiB||

    This article has helped me to fully understand the problem, which is, Women are fucking NUTS!

    They don't know what THEY want, but they expect men to intuit what they will feel they wanted -- after the fact.

    That's why you get women with "morning after" regrets and the case of the Kalifornia Koed who didn't realize she'd been "raped" until a year after the fact. (No, she wasn't drugged, or unconscious... it just took her that long to decide.)

    I don't take any women seriously. Well... okay, maybe a couple. I can think of one. And no, it's not my mama or my wife - they're as batshit crazy as the rest of them!

  • JFDeplorable||

    Women, in general, aren't "nuts." Feminists and the current incarnation of radical feminism IS nuts. So is the belief among today's SJWs that men and women aren't biologically, psychologically and emotionally different! Feminists helped commoditize both women and sex when they discouraged monogamous relationships, disparaged marriage and promoted sex without consequence via abortion and now, free birth control. Feminism has failed to address the realities of human nature - that women have always sought emotional, financial and physical security within the context of a relationship FROM MEN. Perhaps when more feminists enter the realm of neurobiology and start tinkering with DNA so as to completely revise the biological underpinnings of females, then feminist ideology and belief will be more relevant and less batshit crazy.

  • Bill||

    Only 3/4 of them

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I'd let him buy me the wrong wine, if you know what I mean.

  • damikesc||

    This is a toughie.

    Was he fucked over by a loser chick who is incapable of acting like an adult? Yes.

    Would he have HAPPILY joined in the brigade of voices condemning a dude for the identical thing? Yup.

    Seems like well-deserved karma right there.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Would he have HAPPILY joined in the brigade of voices condemning a dude for the identical thing? Yup.

    They're all the same.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Toughie. Man, I never realized how that was spelled. It looks weird. And this from someone who has it as one of the thirteen nicknames for his erection.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    And this from someone who has it as one of the thirteen nicknames for his erection.

    Fun fact: one of those nicknames is "The Little Engine Who Could."

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Another nickname: Big Shamus.

  • Juice||

    Misspelled shame.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Damn, you old.

  • Juice||

    I was watching them Duke Boys right about then. I had the lunchbox.

  • DiegoF||

    What, they were like two Irish monks?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stay away from my fucking lady friend.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Close. It's "High Speed Rail".

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Automatic Coupler?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Little Red Caboose

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Another: Cherry Poppin' Daddy.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The other 12 are Slappy, Horton, Chipper Boy, Gargamel, My Gentleness, Oprah Winpee, East Altoona, Thomas L. Fairfax Esquire, the U.S.S. Enterthighs, Four Inches of Temporary Inconvenience, 1974, and the Flimp.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "Horton hears a hoo-hoo" gets 'em every time.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Man, your auto-correct is on point for some reason.

  • ThoughtfullyConservative||

    I'm dying!

  • Jayburd||

    ya'all meanin' on E.N.B.

  • albo||

    It's that if there is any ambiguity, it's important to use your words.

    "It's important you use your words" is what parents say to children. That's what most young people are these days, children. We've infantilized them more and more as the decades have gone on. Young people don't know how to be adults and act like them. If you're in your 20s, you should be living on your own and know what you're doing and what you're getting into.

    Rant over.
    *re-adjusts belt onions*

  • ||

    At least you're hip to the style of our time

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Because of the war.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    On account of the Kaiser!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The bottom line isn't that you must stop and verbally discuss consent to every step of sexual interaction. It's that if there is any ambiguity, it's important to use your words.

    This is why I always ask a woman if she would be comfortable squatting over my chest before assuming that she would in fact be comfortable squatting over my chest.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Crusty enjoys the hot lunch, but only if the lady also sings "Danny Boy" in a Cookie Monster voice during.

  • Bearded Spock||

    It's insightful, informative comments like these that keep me coming back to H&R.

    Between this and learning all the names for Fist's penis I might just donate to Reason during the next Beg-a-thon.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Erect penis. Flaccid is a whole other column of names.

  • JohnBee||

    You guys are cracking me up!
    Thanks!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Holy shit that's some intimate knowledge.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    We're the same person.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If you know your H&R history, you would know that Citizen X once hired Crusty for a sensual massage, for which Crusty only got paid $4. Perhaps this came up in conversation during said massage.

  • BambiB||

    (IIRC) Richard Feynman wrote in one of his books of advice a woman had given him to never give a woman ANYTHING until she agrees to have sex. One instance he gave was of a first date he'd scheduled where he pulled up and asked, "Before I take you out and buy you dinner and take you dancing..." yada, yada, "I want to know if at the end of the evening we are going to have sex". When she says, "no", he leaves her at the curb.

    Actually, aside from sex, there are very few things a woman can do for me that I cannot do better for myself - and usually with a lot less trouble. It's the coin of the dating realm. In the end, what other purpose is there in dating women -- unless of course, they're picking up the tab?

  • Tony||

    Can't people just fucking learn to appreciate both white and red wine and the circumstances for which each is appropriate? Is this just the alcoholic in me talking or what?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yes.

  • mandel||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If the circumstances for you is "either and any all the time" then yes.

  • Brandybuck||

    But then the #MeToo crowd hauls your ass out for special outrage if you have the temerity to pair red wine with fish. Not even Al Franken went that far. Sheesh...

  • Stodgers||

    That was the first single in the article that this woman was, in fact, out of her gourd.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, better you should appreciate a full bottle of Drano. Now go drink it.

  • MarkLastname||

    Just drink port and you'll never be sober enough to care what color it is.

  • Tony||

    Of course, but at the end of the meal, after the white with the fish and the red with the meat. Then brandy in the drawing room followed by a nightcap.

  • damikesc||

    At no point, according to the article, did Ansari force himself on "Grace," threaten her, or make her fear for her safety. Nor did he hold a position of power over her or represent some sort of gatekeeper in her industry. She simply thought Ansari would respect her initial statements about slowing down, that he was genuine in professing to be OK with that, that they could continue engaging in some sexual activity without him continuously pressuring her for sexual intercourse. She stuck around largely because she thought things might get better.

    Perhaps putting his cock in her mouth was a poor idea.

  • Brandybuck||

    "that they could continue engaging in some sexual activity without him continuously pressuring her for sexual intercourse""

    This is the height of naivete. Before the modern era when it became politically impermissible to use such terms, I would have called such a date a "cock tease". If you engage me in sexual activity I am going to assume you want sexual activity. If you want lines drawn the by gawd draw them with a thick sharpie marker!

  • TangoDelta||

    Oh! I wasn't aware "white wine" was a euphemism. Does it make her racist because she doesn't like "white wine" or just that she prefers purple teeth when going out to dinner?

    On a side note, what ever happened to that Good2Go sex consent app from a few years ago? I saw one recently that was blockchain based but I don't see how the whole chain thing would work unless both parties are into BDSM.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "I shouldn't have to say anything. He should know better."

    People aren't mind readers and plenty of people like compliments even if they're too embarrassed to acknowledge it with a smile. I'm sorry, but you can't turn off agency simply when having it forces you articulate your desires in possibly uncomfortable ways.

    As for the incident in question, call it an early evening and walk the hell out. But what do I know.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    But what do I know.

    That Philofpoopia is a horrible place?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    IT'S NOT A HORRIBLE PLACE, IT'S THE HORRIBLEST OF PLACES.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It's like the Philadelphia of cities.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I knew a man who went to Philadelphia once. He's dead now.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    That dress looks nice on you Fist.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And I was told never to go sleeveless.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Seems like these sorts of situations could easily be solved by people acting like grown ups. Works for the rest of us.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • RenaD||

    I like her, but her messages might have a broader reach if she could curb the motor-mouthing.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I have to say, ENB, this is an excellent article. It's a perfect balanced assessment of the situation and one we would likely never see anywhere else.

    The one thing about this whole situation that seems the worst is that after the encounter, she confronted him over text and he immediately and sincerely apologized. THEN months later goes to a news outlet during a wave of celeb slamming sex stories. That just seems the most egregious part of the whole story.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Let's not to overboard. The most egregious part of the story is that Aziz Ansari is a golden globe winner for Master of None.

  • albo||

    Location: Hollywood office

    *Ansari raises his head suddenly and looks around, as if he heard a huge 'snap' somewhere*

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    There were some good episodes. Nothing ground-breaking, but not bad.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I thought it became unbearable after the first couple episodes. His relationship stuff is astonishingly uninteresting.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    That was not "acting".

  • L.G. Balzac||

    Girl, you've been hanging around me like a dog following meat.
    Eventually you've got to show some tit.
    I hope you're planning to give up the pooty soon.

  • BYODB||

    Well, in all fairness a Golden Globe award is basically worthless. It just says 'congrats, you're not entirely shit like those sitcoms over there crying in the corner into piles of money'.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The other nominees were: William H. Macy (better), Anthony Anderson (better), Kevin Bacon (better), guy from Will and Grace (probably better, but I don't know Will and Grace). So even with that reasoning it's a sham.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Perfectly balanced? This is a shithouse of double standards. "Women want better." Hmm, maybe Aziz wanted better.

    "I shouldn't have to say anything. He should know better." That's just not true. If he was gay, or romantically desirable, the comments would be welcome. If you don't like it, say something, otherwise you have no right to bitch.

    And it's ok for the chick to not leave to hope that things "get better" (maybe in terms of a commitment), but it's not ok for the dude to keep pressuring in a not assault way? C'mon. I'm embarrassed for you. I'd say you were better than this, but really we just "want better".

  • XM||

    He treated her like a sex toy, so she was justifiably peeved that he glowed in the #Metoo moment at the Golden Globes.

    That entire ceremony was a one giant miscalculation. There was not a sign of introspection or contrition anywhere. Half the attendees probably enabled the likes of Weinstein, including the women. Oprah was a Weinstein pal. I'd bet "Grace" wasn't the only person who ground their teeth watching that show of tone deaf, self righteous outrage.

  • E. Kline||

    Jesus really? I thought it was a bazillion words of equivocation.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I will admit begrudgingly that it's fun that people now seem to feel free to air in public all kinds of details about awkward sex. I can't wait to hear the minutiae of bad dates Colin Farrell's various companions have had to suffer.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Men like Colin Farrell are in... short supply.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Talented and handsome? Tell me about it.

  • Brandybuck||

    Big cluestick to the womenfolk out there. Most men are clumsy and clueless. It's just the way things are. Deal with it. We males cannot read minds. The reason we joke about understanding women is because we really don't understand women. There are no classes on this, only cheesy pickup books.

    "He should know better" is bullshit. Men don't know better. Men cannot read your minds. Don't expect them to understand your subtle cues or recognize your emotional state. We are a gender who insult each other as a form of camaraderie. We're not a subtle folk, and so have difficulty reading subtlety in others. It's just the way things are.

    So here's the thing. Slickness is not natural in men. A man who is not clumsy and clueless when he's interested in a women might be a predator. You find a slick smooth talker and odds are that you've found... a slick smoothtalker. And not in a good way.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Big cluestick

    Another of Fist's nicknames.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    slick smoothtalker is code for his willy

  • Brandybuck||

    I thought it was "Floppy Nerf Bat"

  • SQRLSY One||

    No, it's "Dick Durbing". Which is VERY dickdurbing to me!!! So now I am thoroughly mentally dickdurbed...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Does the big big cluestick shoot clue goo?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    We are a gender who insult each other as a form of camaraderie.

    That's all changing with the indoor-cat sensibilities of Millennials.

  • RoyMo||

    I wouldn't know, I live in Idaho, we mostly have barn cats.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's like some women have never seen a stand-up comedian before, ever! Also, they be shoppin'.

  • albo||

    We're idiots, so don't go to our apartments and make out with us unless you ordered the full tube steak entrée that's next

  • ||

    Correction: We're idiots, so don't be surprised if you go to our apartments and want to make out with us but not have sex and we don't pick up on body language cues that seem obvious to you. They are not obvious to us, no matter how much you think they should be.

  • E. Kline||

    Yeah especially when both people are fully nude and going down on each other.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    For as long as I can remember I've tried to explain this to women but I've had no luck with it. They seem to figure if their gal-pals can read the subtle cues, men should be able to as well.

    "So, when I arch my eyebrow like this...what does that mean to you?"
    "Duh! It means stop kissing me for 43.5986 seconds! What else would it be?"
    "Exactly! So why don't men get that?"

  • Stodgers||

    And let's be honest, would 90% of women go out with Ansari if he weren't famous and that character on that show? No. He'd go unnoticed at all the parties.

  • RenaD||

    What's the saying? The line between flirtation and harassment is how attractive you find the other person?

  • cc2||

    Not only that, but women give out contradictory signals, which ironically is an accurate portrayal of what they are thinking. In every account I have seen of campus controversies, the woman is texting how much she wants it, goes up to his room and undresses herself, but later feels bad about it. How is the boy supposed to figure that out? If she undresses herself that=yes as far as any guy is concerned.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    His remarks weren't lewd or egregious—more along the lines of "that dress looks nice on you" at the beginning of a business meeting, when no men present receive similar sartorial appreciation.

    C'mon, the guy doesn't want to appear gay.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Possibly because he finds a nice dress on a woman aesthetically pleasing in a way that he'd never find a suit on a man. Sorry, an expectation of an equal reaction to those situations is not reasonable.

  • RoyMo||

    Noticing what women are wearing? He is clearly gay.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "that dress looks nice on you"

    I always say that to a woman in private. I don't want the rest of my stable to feel bad.

  • DajjaI||

    Why do we want to import more rapefugees?

    (Every comment here about 2 years ago.)

    Still Shillin' for Jill 2020 approves this message.

  • GILMORE™||

    " they could continue engaging in some sexual activity without him continuously pressuring her for sexual intercourse"

    Perhaps my adult experiences have been different from other people's, but the last time i went down on a chick and didn't actually have sex was in High School.

    I'm not saying its a question of reciprocity or something: just that there's this bizarre notion (in my experience, false) that there's a huge greay area in which men and women regularly "engage in sexual activity" WITHOUT actual fucking.

    How many times have you gone on a date, and been midway through a blowjob, and then said, "hey lets stop and watch a movie and cuddle now?" just curious. Or, how many men have you given a blowjob and then said, "i think we haven't gotten to know each other well enough to be more intimate"? I'm not saying these things don't happen, just that there's this weird assumption about 'consent' like its some endless spectrum, when in reality human behavior is more of an on/off switch.

    The post-facto "But i only wanted to get *a little* freaky!" argument just feels false; its not about an "expectation of sex" being imposed by males - its more some people's bizarre inability to actually decide what they want even when in the midst of a sexual encounter. If you didn't want to have a one-night-stand, maybe giving a blowjob in the kitchen wasn't the right way to signal that particular fine-distinction.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How many times have you gone on a date, and been midway through a blowjob, and then said, "hey lets stop and watch a movie and cuddle now?"

    Like, how many all week or just the ones before Thursday afternoon? (I'm counting Friday as "the weekend")

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Oh, and what I mean is they say that to me.

  • Brandybuck||

    Unless the cuddling reveals something disgusting and gross, like a festering carbuncle, men are always wanting to get to home base after rounding first. Women who are content with just first base need to understand this. If you don't want to score then don't slide into first base.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    men are always wanting to get to home base after rounding first

    Always?

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is what I learned from Meatloaf.

  • GILMORE™||

    men are always wanting to get to home base after rounding first

    Oh, indeed. and don't mistake me for thinking that's "good", or something that must simply be accepted.

    I was talking more about the idea that

    "mature adults go to third base all the time and just, like, stop, and then decide they should get to know one another better before proceeding" Its just not a scenario that strikes me as 'plausible'.

    I've dated a bunch of women over the course of my life that 'took things slow' (months!). and i usually ended up dating them for years (unsurprisingly: its the 'old fashioned' way of doing things, and it tends to work) I've also slept with women on the first date that i dated for years. neither sluttiness nor prima-donna were 'better' - just both made sense.

    What they didn't. do is combine the two, blow me on the first date, and then announce that 'intercourse is a magical and special form of intimacy that i'm not ready for quite yet'.

    Had that happened, i'd have been like, "Ok, sure. But: you're also crazy and i want nothing more to do with you."

    Which is this bizarre 'have your-cake-and-get-eaten out-too' thing that i'm talking about.

    Its this, "i want to be able to use sex as a lure to get intimate with a guy, but then sudddenly put the breaks on it midway"", thereby leading to a 'real relationship'-thing that strikes me as schizophrenic and an unrealistic model of human behavior.

  • ||

    "What they didn't. do is combine the two, blow me on the first date, and then announce that 'intercourse is a magical and special form of intimacy that i'm not ready for quite yet'."

    Implying that they can't have it all is sexist. (Even when having it all means getting it and not getting it.)

    Pretending that sex and emotional closeness aren't more connected for women is irresponsible. (That includes preventing them from developing strategies to work around it, in order to pursue casual sex.) Unless, of course, one's responsibility is to overthrow the patriarchy, in which case individuals are sacrificed for the cause. (This connection appears to even go so far that "the odds of subsequent consensual intercourse [are] significantly greater following nonconsensual sex with intercourse versus without intercourse", Sawatsky, et al, Consensual Victim–Perpetrator Intercourse after Nonconsensual Sex: The Impact of Prior Relationship, 2016)

  • GILMORE™||

    i suspect there's a coherent comment somewhere in there, but i can't actually find it.

    my point was, if a girl wants to have a relationship with a dude, they usually go about it 2 ways:

    1 - be straightforward, and say, "i do like you but i need to get to know you better"...

    ....and then what follows is that long, laborious + expensive procedure of dates and dinners and events, and phone calls until both of you are sure that you enjoy each other's company enough to stick around for a while. Then the man hits it from behind.

    2 - give them a blowjob. and the man hits it from behind. then what follows is a long series of hook ups and dates and phone calls, until both of you are sure you either enjoy each other's company, or you don't.

    my point was that *there really isn't some 'third way'*. And if you try some 'third way', it will fail.

    iow, you can't really have your hookups, but stop them before they go, "too far"... and somehow retain the possibility of following the #1 path. That's the sort of shit girls do in Junior High. Dole out 'little bits' of sex as rewards for emotional devotion. Anyone who still does that shit as an adult has some serious fucking problem.

  • GILMORE™||

    if the 2 described scenarios have something in common there, its "emotional honesty"

    (for lack of a better term)

    e.g.

    - if you want to fuck someone? Fuck them. if you don't, don't.
    - if you want an emotional relationship with someone? THEN DO THAT. if you want to fuck them later, its still on you.

    what you don't do is "kinda fuck someone" and think that its some mechanism by which you can shortcut your way to an emotional relationship by holding sex out as a *potential* reward. all that results in is confusion and contempt.

    which goes back to my point above: it seems like people who get themselves into these situations *don't actually know what they want*, and think they don't really have any obligation to be honest with themselves or others.

  • Mcgoo95||

    ^^this...is why I prefer HD porn

  • CLM1227||

    I agree with you but didn't always act the way you describe. Probably clocking in closer to crazy-town, but there was some kind of no-man's land of young single virgin and men expecting sex in a dating relationship.

    A girl reading those signals comes away with an impression that to get the guy to stick around and get to know you better, you do need to have sex on offer, but if you don't want to have sex, here's the middle ground.

    I'm 9 years married, so it's irrelevant for me now, but your comment gives good sense for me to pass down to kids.

  • ||

    I suspect that what would be interesting to read, or whatever. I choose not to, because I agreed with your point. My first paragraph (two sentences) is sarcastic and agrees. The second paragraph isn't sarcastic.

  • ||

    "Unless, of course, one's responsibility is to overthrow the patriarchy, in which case individuals are sacrificed for the cause." Alright, that's cynical.

  • GILMORE™||

  • ||

    You speak too much English. Stop babbling.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "rounding first" was my nickname when I coached girls softball.

  • phillhamian||

    If our communication needs to be more direct, so do our metaphors.

    Golf works way better. Unless you hit a home run (hopefully there aren't other runners on base?), there's a sequence of events I can find no equivalent to in a sexual encounter. Golf would also work great for assessing relative difficulty, par 5? Sand traps?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Wasn't it ENB that gave some old smelly guy a blowjob because "good night" would have been akward?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That was your mom, and I'm not that old.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I agreed, though I was pretty certain this was not going to work out. Ralph looked like an older Baby Huey, and seemed to have a high-school nerd's chip on his shoulder. Back at his apartment--which was entirely empty, save for a few kitchen goods, some clothes in the closet and a mattress on the bedroom floor--Ralph cozied up and started kissing me. He smelled awful. "Tell me about what you were like in high school," he said.

    "I ... went to Catholic high school for a bit, and then switched to public," I told him. "I got good grades. I ... was a cheerleader."

    "Mmmm, my little cheerleader," Ralph said. "Did you wear a short, short skirt? Did you naughty things with the boys?"

    Oh, gawd, it was too much. I can abide bad x-rated talk from someone sexy, but this just would not do. Unfortunately, Ralph was much less understanding than Dave. When I tried to politely excuse myself from the situation, I was met with more pawing and a side of guilt trip. I am probably going to regret admitting this, but I gave him head because it just seemed like the easiest and quickest way out of the situation. The whole time, he talked about my cheerleading uniform and Catholic school jumpers.

    Afterwards, he gave me $300 and asked when he could see me again. I told him I would be out of town for the next two weeks (true) and would get in touch when I got back. I never did.

  • BYODB||

    I hate to tell whoever wrote this the sad truth, but that isn't 'sugar baby' that's 'being a literal prostitute'.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    It's ENB.

  • BYODB||

    Well, that does explain some things I suppose. All she was lacking was a pimp.

  • VillainousWoodchipper||

    How do you know this is her?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Somebody posted it a while ago.

    I searched "elizabeth nolan brown sugar daddy" to find it. Got this instead. Read the last paragraph. The link didn't work but the search for the title in the URL returned the link I posted.

  • VillainousWoodchipper||

    Wow. That definitely undermined this article. I did the same thing and it checked out more or less.

  • ||

    How so? Did that woman call it a devastating night, end up crying and publishing the villain's name for all to see?

  • EscherEnigma||

    I think it's only "literal prostitute" if you agree on the amount beforehand.

    Kind of like how someone can "gift" you a marijuana plant after you "gift" them a PS4, but you can't just buy a marijuana plant for $400†.
    ________
    †Guessing at prices and exchanges. I've never tried to buy entice a gift pot plant. I also don't know how much a PS4 or marijuana plant runs these days.

  • BYODB||


    I think it's only "literal prostitute" if you agree on the amount beforehand.


    That might be the case, I honestly don't know, but it seems to me if that's all that defines it there would be no way to ever prosecute such a crime. Just decide on how much the john owes you later, under threat of baseball bat.

  • EscherEnigma||

    just that there's this bizarre notion (in my experience, false) that there's a huge greay area in which men and women regularly "engage in sexual activity" WITHOUT actual fucking.


    Well, it's not "men and women", but yeah, me and the husband sometimes have nights where we just do oral/hand stuff and don't do anything penetrative. Penetrative intercourse isn't the only way to achieve orgasms.

  • GILMORE™||

    thanks for sharing, but this particular topic is actually about the complexities of male/female relations, not the relative merits "fisting" vs "frottage"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I give it six months.

  • RenaD||

    If you didn't want to have a one-night-stand, maybe giving a blowjob in the kitchen wasn't the right way to signal that particular fine-distinction.

    Nut. Shelled.

  • E. Kline||

    "Or, how many men have you given a blowjob and then said..."
    None, no men have ever given me a blow job or, more to the point, given a blow job to any women either. Wondering if you understand what a blow job is, or did you just make this whole unnecessarily gay without letting anyone know?

  • Juice||

    Sloppy seduction? He had her naked and making out with him on the first date. Not bad, if you ask me.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Context matters.

    For a high school kid, that's locker-room bragging material.

    For a popular media celebrity, that's how a typical date starts.

  • Longtobefree||

    So if 'no means no', why didn't she say 'no'? Only saying the word 'no', is an indication of 'no'. Everything else is teasing.
    Apparently, the only safe choice is to be outside of a place of employment for either party, and directly inquire "would you care to engage in meaningless promiscuous sex with me this evening?", Then if she says no, you can never speak to her again without it being harassment. If she says yes. that is the beginning of a detailed negotiation of who puts which anatomical parts where, and for how long.
    Maybe this new reality is the true reason for the opiod 'crisis'?

  • ||

    Maybe this new reality is the true reason for the opiod 'crisis'?

    A nice one!

  • ||

    "The bottom line isn't that you must stop and verbally discuss consent to every step of sexual interaction. It's that if there is any ambiguity, it's important to use your words."

    I disagree. There is attraction in ambiguity and the unknown, in a different kind of communication. You touch upon this in a different aspect:
    "But things are always different. The way someone kisses, or smells, or touches you. The music they play. The connection you feel. How you think the other person sees you."
    A part of it is in finding out how a person sees you, how he acts without you telling him to. How she fills and navigates ambivalence and ambiguity. Art is fascinating and exciting because of such traits; it would be ruined with instructions that dispel the unknown, the always different. Don't nail instructions to poetry in motion. If she needs them, let her ask. Don't talk over the song.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    He should know better because it was 2017.

    Really shocking that New Feminist Man didn't exist in current year - 1.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I look forward to the day when men know what women mean. Until then, I guess sex is pretty much done with.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I eagerly await our robot-fucking future.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Yeah, that's definitely where this ends.

    I can't wait!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    There are a lot of people who say: She shouldn't have to be so blunt, or to say it more than once, or to physically leave in order to show she's serious. He should have picked up on cues. He should have stopped asking about sex after her initial lack of enthusiasm. He should have known better.

    And none of the people saying that are men.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    He should have stopped asking about sex after her initial lack of enthusiasm.

    This is what we refer to as "married".

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe women occupied a somewhat subservient position in most of human history for a reason..........

  • E. Kline||

    Or even women who don't hate men.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Not to brag but I predicted not too long ago that #MeToo would devolve into pointless and illogical man-hating within a few weeks. Things appear to be right on schedule.

    On a more cynical note, I strongly suspect Mr. Ansari would be getting far less sympathy from the Media if he were a white Christian.

  • GILMORE™||

    You mean like....what's hisname, TJ Miller?

    I can't remember any of the details,but the impression i got from his accuser was something like, "We dated in college and he was a dick".

  • ||

    I can't wait for the first guy to say when accused, 'And? What's your point? We fucked. She was insecure. I came too fast and accidentally hit her in the eye. Happy?

  • GILMORE™||

    Yes, i'm shocked that no one has come even close to this yet.

    I think in most cases, all the accused men were genuinely ashamed of their behavior. and rightfully so, most likely.

    I think Franken (as much as I hate him) probably got a raw deal. he didn't seem to do anything (as far as i could tell) actually malicious. But it made sense that he be hoist by his own party's petard: one the *purging* begins, any perceived misbehavior is fair game.

    but (and i don't really know the details or care to know) i thought some examples on the "Shitty Media Men" list were simply, "people who SJW twitter didn't like".

    e.g. Emitt Rensin, for instance is a hard-lefty dude who went into hiding because he appeared on that list. Not sure what it is he's accused of, but the "hiding" part is probably not the best way to disprove claims.

    I keep waiting, like you said, for someone to be like, "Naw, why you lyin"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Al Franken deserves endless suffering. For so many reasons.

  • Ron||

    the person your waiting for to say she's lyin is Trump although he may be lyin

  • Bearded Spock||

    How crass.

    A real gentleman would have a towel ready, or barring that at least aim for the torso.

  • ||

    And kept his monocle on the whole time.

  • ||

    This is getting stupid.

    Really stupid.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Bunch of snowflakes, am I right?

  • ||

    More like buyer's remorse for some of them it sounds and feels like.

  • Steve-O||

    "Certainty many men pick up on cues and accept no as an answer the first time."

    There is a name for men like that: virgins.

  • Stodgers||

    Except.. she didn't say no. She later *says* she said no, but in her own re-telling of the story, she never actually said no. She also told Ansari via text that they were 'non-verbal cues'. "No" is *very* verbal.

  • Rhywun||

    Not to be a prude, but... it's pretty damn obvious that this is where the sexual revolution was always going to lead.

  • ||

    It's more prudent.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Feminism has always had a strong streak of Victorian Puritanism in it.

    Most of the #MeToo mob would have felt right at home in the Women's Temperance Union.

  • ||

    He should know better because it was 2017. He should know better because she had not been enthusiastic or receptive to his comments on her physical appearance. He should know better.

    She's not wrong

    How are men supposed to know better? Is it that your dad teaches you? Older brother? What if your family life was really fucked up? If your mother left your father because he hit her all the time? You're likely going to have a distorted view of what a good man looks like, which may make it harder to interact effectively.

    Glamour magazine might have a million obvious flaws, but it does show it's socially acceptable for women to want to know more about how to dress and act to get the attention, relationships, and sex they want. There is no such resource for males. The closest thing I know of is the pickup industry, which is 95% snake oil. If you feel like you need that kind of help, Odin forbid you ever tell anyone. At best, people will give you largely useless advice, at worst they'll think you're a predator who wants to manipulate/coerce women into sex.

    But it's 2017! People know better now! Maybe I have a distorted view, but what I see is a growing list of don'ts. I agree pressuring or coercing is not good, I agree you should avoid making people uncomfortable. But if you want to change your own behavior or that of someone else, giving a list of don'ts does not work. People change when they have a positive vision of what they want to be.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is the thing. If he was reading her signals coreectly and just thought he could wear her down would be one thing. If he was dim about what signsls she was sending him, then hiw do you have a exoectation he will always get it right? In what other situation do you ecpect a perfect success rate, always?

    I don't buy ENB's assertion, "Grace" is quite possibly wrong.

  • Ron||

    signals she was sending, she was naked and gave him head but wanted to continue to be with him, those are mixed up signals that no one would know the answer to not even a lesbian

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This is what really irks me about the leadoff. ENB's quoting a friend who took an off-hand compliment from a male co-worker that didn't go anywhere beyond that, yet somehow he should "know better" than to say what has been almost universally considered an actual nice thing for centuries going back to the ancient world. Even worse, she employs that utterly vacuous millennialism IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR bit right out of a fucking John Oliver sketch.

    This is what makes feminism so fundamentally retarded and so dangerous--it deliberately poisons relationships between the sexes by reducing everything to a power dynamic. The very things that enable relationships to grow, i.e., communication, trust, and an understanding of where you stand and what your responsibilities are, are continually subverted because every interaction has to be a "win" for the woman or else she's being abused and harassed.

    It's not a surprise ENB is such a big gung-ho supporter of prostitution, because that's what's going to end up being the most normal relationship for most men if women like her end up dictating our country's social norms. And if we've already gotten there, maybe it's not such a bad thing if Best Korea's Continent-Jumpers are able to reach these shores, because we'd certainly deserve such a fate for allowing this kind of irrational thinking to be seen as normal.

  • Stodgers||

    There are a good many things not quite right with Grace's account here. The first of those is that she says "all men are the same". That statement indicates a person who has been involved in such circumstances in the past, and expected that somehow this *one person* will be different.

    She thinks that his stage persona is how Ansari will really be. She chooses to ignore any such signals to the contrary. She *wanted* to believe he was the nice guy he portrays on TV, even though he *acted* nothing like that in every instance she cites. She got to his apartment and the very first signals were contrary to her preconceived notions. She willfully ignored that she was putting herself in a risky position by staying.

    She also says after the encounter she told people that she said 'no' several times. When she actually describes the encounter, she did not say 'no'. Not even once in her own re-telling. She even says in her text to Ansari that he ignored 'non-verbal cues'. Not 'verbal' cues - only non-verbal. She didn't actually say 'stop', 'no', or 'don't'. Instead she tried to rationalize his behavior in how it would make *her* feel later, rather than challenge the behavior itself.

    Reading this story, it just doesn't add up. It smacks more of a person who has been in such circumstances before, and wanted to believe that *this* someone was a 'really nice guy', and instead was appalled to find out he's just another famous horny dude.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The stupid bitch should grow up and take responsibility for her own actions. If women want to be equal they had better take responsibility for themselves. This chick clearly doesn't.

  • Ron||

    exactly time for "ladies" to learn to slap like a lady, seriously women, speak up and then slap if needed

  • JuanQPublic||

    David Chapelle has more insight into this phenomenon than the last 20 articles written on it have.

  • John C. Randolph||

    she says "all men are the same".

    This refrain is often heard from women who seek out assholes to fuck.

    -jcr

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And then indignantly wonder why said men are assholes after they fuck them.

  • BYODB||


    Yes, she agreed... mostly. But there was something giving her pause: "I shouldn't have to say anything. He should know better."


    He should know better because it was 2017. He should know better because she had not been enthusiastic or receptive to his comments on her physical appearance. He should know better.


    Yes, because only men are expected to be telepathic. Sorry, ladies, but way to fall straight into a persistent and long lived gender stereotype. I would die laughing except you're so darn serious about it.


    The irony of women being too timid to say something in this context isn't lost on me. It's almost like you're writing the arguments against women in the workplace while being totally unaware of it.

  • ||

    The opportunistic denial and confirmation, respectively, of (scientifically and socially established) stereotype accuracy doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the honesty of feminism, which merges activism and supposed science (gender studies) like no other "science". They* lie to and about women, and leave them with little more than nothing, here. Nothing they've offered can replace what they remove. Look up "ambivalent sexism" theory, which poses as science, yet disregards stereotype accuracy and is clearly normative in its rejection of "benevolent sexism". (A short review here)

    *I don't consider ENB a feminist. Which doesn't mean that she doesn't live up to what she considers feminism.

  • BYODB||

    I don't really give a fuck since 'feminism' should have died upon realization of equality under the law. The fact it exists as a zombie stumbling around consuming people is a clue that it's well past it's expiration date.

    Or, in short, it's moved from 'equal rights' to 'paternalism for women' which is perhaps the biggest irony of them all. Orwell would recognize his own work, I think.

  • ||

    (The "since" connection doesn't work.)

    It's far from a zombie, it responds to some interests, and some need. Perhaps something superior should replace it. That nothing hasn't been able to (short term) is requires answers. (I agree that it does harm to women, but it's much more complex.)

    Also, I'm not against "feminism" well-understood. A body of thought that examines what women need, and something that represents their specific interests. In some form, however flawed, corrupted or ideal, that will always exist. (Worth noting that not all of current feminism is wrong, which leads back to the first paragraph.)

  • Hank Phillips||

    My take-away from this and 20 Reason articles in the same vein is to reinvest my IRA in sex robot company stock. The Republicans have been pressing for a Junior Anti-Sex League in their platform since its 2000 platform.*
    The Dems meanwhile are clearly pressing for a Senior Anti-Sex League. I'll wave to youse guys outta da window of my limo.
    * look it up

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Better you should just go fuck yourself. Deranged gibbering idiot.

  • Longtobefree||

    But be sure to get 'continuing affirmative assent' as you go fuck yourself, or you will get expelled.

  • Tony||

    You'll have a brief window before the robots' rights movement heats up.

  • IceTrey||

    The wierd part was him allegedly putting his fingers down her throat repeatedly. What is that?

  • JeremyR||

    Maybe it's like in Japanese porn, they have to use sex toys because their male genitals are too small

  • mpercy||

    "I shouldn't have to say anything. He should know better."

    Something like this is said be so many wives in so many marriages.

    Often along the lines of the man finally picking up on some sense of anger from her and asking "What's wrong?"

    "You should know. If you don't know that's even worse!"

    He has no clue what she's mad about, she won't tell him what she's mad about. She's just gonna let it fester for as long as it feels right to her.

    The trap: if he offers something he might suspect she'd be mad at...she might not know about it and he's just added fuel to the fire. Like "Are you mad because I was late coming home yesterday because I was playing golf with Jim & Ted?" and she's got something more like "I thought you were just working late! Now I know you ignored the 17-month anniversary of our first date for GOLF!?"

    Men are simple folks, speak clearly and plainly. Many men are oblivious to subtle cues from women, so don't be all passive-aggressive. And no man has telepathic abilities.

    P.S. Extra points off for answering "What's wrong?" with a clear lie: "Nothing!". Don't lie.

  • Stodgers||

    Excellent point, heretofore unspoken.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    My wife will pull this shit once in a while, and I have to remind her, "If we don't talk about it, it can't be resolved." Works out a lot better than just shrugging my shoulders and letting her get more pissed off down the line.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Women need to grow the fuck up and learn to deal. Some bitch was 'uncomfortable' because a coworker politely said she looked nice? And he should 'know better' than to say that? Someone like that doesn't belong in a workplace with other adults. They clearly have no coping skills, or any real maturity. Surely someone who ultimately isn't trustworthy or capable of making good decisions, and probably cracks under the slightest pressure.

    People like that are nothing but a liability in any professional environment.

  • JuanQPublic||

    You won't find many people arguing that this is how men are supposed to pursue women, that dating necessarily involves women playing hard to get and men taking that as coyness, or that she was leading him on by being in his apartment and owed him some level of sexual activity.

    And then there are those who largely don't care, who aren't interested in dissecting every interaction of people they do or don't know, nor consider Hollywood, politicians, people high up on the corporate ladder, or in some other world removed, somehow representative or culturally relevant in their day-to-day life.

    Not only has this movement been exploited for righteous social positioning, it has also been an outlet for a growing cultural phenomenon of increased navel-gazing about feelings and discomfort, to the point of absurdity at times. Life is inherently uncomfortable.

    While some women (and men) understandably tire of wondering how to deal with otherwise well-meaning commentary from friends and co-workers, others are tiring of having to include a "disclaimer" before every nuanced viewpoint they express in regards to sex in general. This "disclaimer" usually involves reassuring others that they don't condone certain behavior, aren't "part of the problem" or some other explanation to others they anticipate will reflexively respond to a nuanced point of view that views people as individuals and actions as having a cause.

  • Tony||

    The news alert I got just said that Azis's actions weren't criminal, weren't sexual assault, but they were "a violation."

    What's spilling a detailed private account of another person's sexual behavior to the entire world?

  • ||

    "What's spilling a detailed private account of another person's sexual behavior to the entire world?"

    Revenge porn. As Flanagan put it. But, much like in prisons (and among girlfriends talking), male (sexual) privacy is less protected. That may be justified. However, the silence of those who are so ready to attest sexism and misogyny is hypocritical.

  • Longtobefree||

    Profitable.

  • JuanQPublic||

    The fact that this is "newsworthy" in the first place is troubling.

  • Truth Hurts||

    Aziz was set up and falsely accused in my opinion. I think Grace has mental health problems and has been used by babe magazine to publicise their sordid and tacky little website rather than further the cause of the #Metoo movement.

    babe.net have done irreparable damage to real victims of rape and sexual harrasment and assault. All involved should be ashamed of themselves. Despicable little girls with their rape fantasies and unresolved Daddy issues.

    Shame on them all.

  • Truth Hurts||

    Google "the grad student with graphic rape fantasies"

    It's very revealing and relevant to this case.

  • Mark22||

    Aziz was set up

    Was the woman waiting naked in his bedroom, after being let in by the doorman? No. He invited her home and tried to get her into bed right away. If you sleep with people before getting to know them, you'll get crazy people, gold diggers, and other undesirables. Don't blame other people for that.

    That's why sensible people date and get to know someone before having sex with them.

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    The original story is kind of terrible and I feel weird reading intimate details of real people, especially since the author, "Grace", isn't being introspective at all. BUT this is absolutely something worth discussing. And all the myriad little takes are better for slightly differing and giving more perspectives, because I feel like the heart of the problem here is expectations and experience. A little vicarious experience reading about how other people interpret this, or their own similar experiences, is something it seems like everyone now dating NEEDS.

    Anyway, ENB's is the best takedown I've yet read, even if I'd be the first to ask someone not to complement me in a professional setting on something other than work - because I know a guy who did that and it was because a couple of other women in the office had basically trained him to do that and gotten upset when he didn't notice a new scarf or whatever. He used to know better.

  • ||

    "and it was because a couple of other women in the office had basically trained him to do that and gotten upset when he didn't notice a new scarf or whatever. He used to know better."

    That's pretty funny. Much better than a "perfect" office.

  • Mark22||

    BUT this is absolutely something worth discussing.

    No, it's not.

  • Mark22||

    Ansari is a 30-something Casanova who brags about "the number of white women" he has made notches on his bedpost for and uses his "liberal Muslim" and "male feminist" credentials to lure in women. The 20-something woman he was with hooked up with him while on another date, knew what kind of man she was meeting up with, what she was getting into, gave him half a blowjob, and then had second thoughts.

    It is pointless try to analyze who should have known what or who gave consent to what. This is not a "men vs women" kind of issue, this is a slutty, sleazy, immature people kind of issue. Both Ansari and the girl he was with are confused, dishonest, sleazy people, doing the kinds of things that confused, dishonest, and sleazy people do with each other.

    As a libertarian, I don't have a problem when people sleep around with each other, but stop shoving other people's sleazy personal lives in my face.

  • phenryinohio||

    Sometimes, OK, A lot of times I feel sorry for ENB here in the comments section.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    But there was something giving her pause: "I shouldn't have to say anything. He should know better."

    He should know better because it was 2017. He should know better because she had not been enthusiastic or receptive to his comments on her physical appearance. He should know better.

    She's not wrong.

    Yeah, actually, she is wrong. If you're operating from the premise that men should, for whatever reason, be expected to read minds, then you've demonstrably lost yours.

  • ||

    We all read people ("theory of mind"). To a considerable extent, everyone tries to understand himself, others, and human nature. It'd be ridiculous to argue against affirmative consent while pretending that men have no tacit/implicit understanding of women whatsoever. That said, women are better - certainly different - at it: Women Know Better What Other Women Think and Feel: Gender Effects on Mindreading across the Adult Life Span, 2017 (Yet the test - MASC - sounds like a romantic comedy, and I'm not sure they controlled for despondent, semi-sleeping, and catatonic male viewers.)

  • Mark22||

    If you're operating from the premise that men should, for whatever reason, be expected to read minds, then you've demonstrably lost yours.

    You're not expected to read minds. It's simply prudent to get to know a sex partner well enough to understand what they want before you jump into bed with them. You're free to disregard that advice, but don't complain when things don't work out so well.

  • Mcgoo95||

    How are you supposed to "get to know a sex partner" without having sex with them?

  • Mcgoo95||

    How are you supposed to "get to know a sex partner" without having sex with them?

  • Mark22||

    Are you serious? You talk. You go to the movies together. You have dinners. You go hiking together. You talk more. You take a trip together.

  • Cyto||

    The "she's not wrong" was in response to an objection to "Nice dress". Not a sex partner. A couple of one-off compliments that were not followed up on. So no jumping in bed. Just noticing a new outfit.

  • Mark22||

    I'm not sure what you're saying. If ENB thinks all he did was say "nice dress", that's silly. Ansari clearly wanted a ONS. Now, either Grace was mentally retarded, or she understood this from the beginning and was hoping to translate a ONS into something more and get a slice of his money and fame (since he is a fairly unimpressive male in terms of looks and physique). And when it became clear to her that that wasn't going to work, she was pissed off. This is the typical crap immature men and women engage in.

  • Cyto||

    Reread her article. She provides an anecdote about talking with a friend who has trouble with a guy at work who sometimes complements her clothing in a friendly way before meetings.

    ENB uses this example as a parallel to show that "more communication is needed", which is a valid and much needed point.

    Folks are disagreeing with one aspect of her premise though, that nobody should have to tell someone not to give them complements, they should just know better. But ENB's main point is that even if they don't know better, everyone would be better off if you just communicated your feelings and needs properly. I.E. saying "I don't like you commenting on my appearance."

    Or in the case of Ansari, the girl should have just said "I do not want to do these things you are pushing me to do, so I am getting dressed. But I'd still like to hang out and get to know you better if you are up for that."

  • Mark22||

    But ENB's main point is that even if they don't know better, everyone would be better off if you just communicated your feelings and needs properly. I.E. saying "I don't like you commenting on my appearance."

    And my main point is that ENB is a fool. Replacing "Your dress is nice" with "You're hot, I want to fuck you" or "I'm ugly, rich, and horny and I want to fuck you " or "I think you're pretty ugly but I want to make you feel good" or "I'm practicing my social skills on you, how am I doing" or "I'm mocking you and you're too stupid to even notice" or "I'm secretly transgendered and I wish I could wear a dress like you" or the dozens of other meanings that sentence could have is not "better". Ambiguity in such statements is deliberate and purposeful; honesty is not the better policy.

    Ansari's "Your dress is nice"-style comments were clear enough of the "I'm ugly, rich, and horny and I want to fuck you" type.

  • Wildbill2u||

    I know we are in the Post-Clinton era where oral sex is not supposed to be real sex, but it seems to me that we've lost something when what I consider to be a very intimate sexual act is not supposed to infer some implied consent to enjoy a 'real' sexual encounter.

    If women today can figuratively look at a You Tube or Facebook screen, wag their finger, and state (after mutual oral sex) "I did not have sex with that man" then are we relegating it to the status of a goodnight kiss on the cheek?

    For decades now the feminists have told men that women are ready to hook up for a zipless f--- and they can out work, out drink, and out f--- any man anytime. It's not surprising that men expect them to live up to their billing.

  • ThoughtfullyConservative||

    Huge detail left out of this story: they both willingly got naked and stayed naked for a while. Women don't need to get naked to give blow jobs. How that wasn't a much more pronounced signal that she wanted sexual intercourse that it overruled all the other hints, only a MeTooer could explain.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "He should know better because it was 2017. He should know better because she had not been enthusiastic or receptive to his comments on her physical appearance. He should know better."

    Is there a tv show or commercial these days that doesn't depict men as clueless, bumbling fools? She expected him to know better? She should know better.

  • Marshal||

    Sometimes you don't leave right away because you're still assessing the situation

    She should have read his mind and understood he wanted her to leave, let's charge her with trespassing.

  • John C. Randolph||

    "I shouldn't have to say anything. He should know better."

    If I were an HR manager and someone came to me with this "I want him to be a mind reader" bullshit, I'd them to get bent.

    -jcr

  • John C. Randolph||

    My takeaway from Ansari's situation is that I now see why celebs hire hookers instead of just banging groupies.

    -jcr

  • GILMORE™||

    ^^ this would have been a much smarter "Sex worker-positive" hot take for ENB than... whatever the above is.

  • Mark22||

    Sometimes you don't leave right away because you're still assessing the situation—maybe it was just an awkward first pass.

    You are a 22 year old woman. You go out on a first date with a multi-millionaire celebrity 15 years older than you who gave you his phone number while you were on another date. He cuts dinner short and invites you up to his apartment. He wants to...

    (1) Show you his etchings.
    (2) Start a meaningful long term relationship leading to marriage.
    (3) Have a one night stand with you.

    I mean, are you seriously having to think about this for more than a nanosecond?

  • Longtobefree||

    Don't forget the active pursuit at the first meeting - not only was she with someone else, she went after him like a squirrel up an oak tree. I mean really? "I like your camera"??!!

  • Mark22||

    You are a 22 year old woman. You go out on a first date with a height challenged average looking multi-millionaire celebrity 15 years older than you who gave you his phone number while you were on another date. He cuts dinner short and invites you up to his apartment. You go along. You...

    (1) Want to see his etchings.
    (2) Want to have a one night stand with him.
    (3) Are deluding yourself into thinking that you can convert a one night stand into a long term relationship.

    Again, to any adult, the answer is completely obvious.

  • Wanderer||

    Sounds true.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    And then when men seek to protect themselves from this "he should have known" idiocy by avoiding any unnecessary dialogue with women at work, they get dinged for discrimination and "creating a hostile work environment".

  • Jayburd||

    My neighbor wanted to start a "relationship" with me which included dating, etc. I told her that I would be honest with her unlike her previous dates in that I only wanted to use her for sex. We did moonlight hot tub rendezvous for 3 years. I did cook her dinner once in awhile.

  • Wanderer||

    Then, you had to brag about it here

  • Jayburd||

    I guess my point is that I was honest from the get go and she was alright with that. I have always heard the stories of asking point blank and different odds. If guys want to get laid just ask, be honest. And take no for an answer.

  • Cyto||

    He should know better because it was 2017. He should know better because she had not been enthusiastic or receptive to his comments on her physical appearance. He should know better.

    She's not wrong.

    The hell she isn't. This new standard that commenting on one's appearance, even their clothing is verboten is nonsense. If you are claiming that you don't want your friends to notice if you color your hair, or lose 5 lbs or get a new outfit then you are just lying. "Cute dress" is not in the same category as "nice rack". Stop pretending that it is.

    I don't know how this "men should just know what I want" thing became codified into law, but it is an abomination. Nobody can read your mind. And if you are a grownup, you should be able to voice your objections.

  • Cyto||

    If Tony at the shop keeps on making jokes about my growing paunch, I'm not going to claim that he should "just know better". If it really bothers me, I'm going to tell him to knock it off. And if Lisa says my new blue suit looks nice and brings out my eyes, I'm not going to go home and cry myself to sleep wondering if she's plotting to get me into bed.

    Look, I know it is a heavy burden to go through life having men tell you that you are attractive all the time, but the least you can do is handle it like an adult. And don't worry, those compliments will fade away as you enter your 40s. Then maybe you won't feel so assaulted when somebody makes a kind remark about the new Kate Spade shoes you just bought.

  • Cyto||

    Last note: your friend isn't really saying that she objects to a guy at work complimenting her dress. What she is really saying is "There is this guy who I think is interested in me and he is not hot at all."

    How do I surmise this? Let's try altering the parameters. If she thinks the guy is super-hot and really wishes he'd notice her, what does she think about getting a compliment? Is it an affront to workplace decorum? No. She's giddy as a schoolgirl and runs home to tell you that he noticed the flirty new skirt she wore.

    Or let's alter the other parameter... that she thinks he's interested in her. So if it is a she, rather than a he, how does she respond? Somehow I don't think she's calling her bestie to complain if Kate from accounting keeps saying nice things about her fashion sense. Or what if he's known to be gay? Still think she's put off by his compliments? Of course not.

    So what she hears when he says "nice dress" is "I want to have sex with you" and her take on that is "but you are gross and I don't want to even think about you as a sexual being". That is why she is uncomfortable. And that is why you both think he should "know better". Because he should obviously know that he's beneath her.

  • Cyto||

    She's probably right. He probably finds her attractive. So she should be an adult about it and let him know that she doesn't like it when he notices her dress. Nicely, politely, but directly. That will tell him that she thinks he's a troll without her actually having to say it, just like he's saying he thinks she's attractive without actually having to say it.

    Or maybe he's just a nice guy and he thinks they are friends and wants her to feel good about herself so he pays her a compliment. If you are a woman, you can notice a friend who needs to hear that her diet is working and not have to worry about whether you are allowed to say anything. But guys can notice too. And a lot of women would really appreciate being noticed. And others would take umbrage. Its tough to know which is which a priori, unless you a psychic.

  • ||

    Clever.

  • Cyto||

    The other mistake being made here is interpreting "Ansari's actions" as if this lady's version of events is the unadulterated truth. This isn't even a contemporaneous recollection on her part, and even if it was, it would still just be her version. Taking the time to analyze what interpretations he should have made based on what the accuser says her actions were months ago without getting his version of events is a mistake. She characterizes everything as if she was clearly signalling something. Maybe she thought she was. Maybe she didn't.

    But there really isn't any way to know what was being made available outside of her head.

    I have been on the same end of the conversation as this lady with a couple of different women. I've actually uttered the words "just so you know, we aren't having sex tonight" and still had a woman produce a condom and expect intercourse. It is a bit awkward at that point, to say the least. But I'm responsible for my own actions. So if she pressured me and I did a little more than I really wanted to, that's on me. I would never presume to confuse "c'mon baby, don't tease me like that" with coercion.

  • icutrauma11||

    Guess what Aziz? You are now the same creep you have been calling men that were falsely accused. You thought virtue signaling would get you a pass to their "golden wonder"? Now you're in the same cross hairs that you condemned other men and no man will side with your pathetic beta wimpiness.

    I don't think you raped her, I don't think you were inappropriate, let this be a lesson to you to listen to experienced men instead of relying on your liberated-skinny-jean-latte double vanilla half caff cappuccino drinking friends.

    Reality sure does hurt.

    Go out with the lady your mother approves. They can read each other like Cat in the Hat.

  • Could not connect to remo||

    I thought that there is this unwritten rule about waiting until the third date to have sex. When I was a teenager 50 years ago, you were fortunate as a man to have sex on the 20th date let alone on the third. Females who acquiesced to sex to easily were chastised and labeled as "easy," "good girls," or "sluts." Back then, when a woman said "No" It was not a clear-cut unambiguous refusal. Women wanted to be romanced - something that teenage boys are not very adept at doing - but they learned to compromise somehow (or not). Thinking back to that time, I am actually angry that men have to work that hard to get where the outcome was not only mutually acceptable but also mutually satisfying.

    I've heard it said that women know within 30 minutes or less of meeting a man whether or not she's going to sleep with him. If that is the case, why do women pretend that there is some hope of the situation changing?

    The days of "innocent gestures" are over. You cannot tell a woman that she looks nice without fear of being accused of sexual harassment. I think it's time that women cut man some slack and be honest with them from the start. If they see someone as only being in the "friend zone" and tell them that. Women's hesitancy to do so is a reason why some men wil be content to start off from first base and then gradually round the bases while other men when they hit home runs every time they step up to the plate.

  • E. Kline||

    "I've heard it said that women know within 30 minutes or less of meeting a man whether or not she's going to sleep with him. If that is the case, why do women pretend that there is some hope of the situation changing?"

    That's not accurate. A woman knows within the first 30 minutes if she likes the idea of sleeping with a guy, not whether it's actually going to happen. Most women will give you ample opportunity to fuck it up so they don't end up making a mistake. The majority of American women (about 70%) don't sleep with that many guys ( less than 5 in a lifetime), but they find many guys initially acceptable, and then the guys usually do or say something to disqualify themselves.

  • Cyto||

    I am not sure how that math works out. If most women have fewer sex partners than most men, exactly how does that happen?

    Let's walk through it.... if 70% of women have less than 5 partners in a lifetime, and men on average have more than 7 partners in a lifetime, that leaves 30% of women having an extra 5 partners above their male counterparts - so 12 each. As the numbers get more skewed, they get more extreme. Eventually you end up with the notion of each town having one extremely ambitious lady who does nothing but have sex with novel partners around the clock.

  • wrwoodman||

    So this really all boils down to communication.

    Guys, for the most part, are not good at picking up clues, verbal or non-verbal. If you wish to stop, use your words and say "stop". If you don't want to do something, use your words and say "no". It's not that difficult.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Damm! That this Ansari character is not gay is the shocker.

  • E. Kline||

    Obviously not gay to me. Way too publicly obsequious in public when talking about women to be gay.

  • Mark22||

    A minute of watching Ansari's videos should cure you of that misconception. Ansari is a misogynistic, creepy, wealthy male. Like many such creeps, he hides behind the label "male feminist".

  • MaleMatters||

    "He should know better." Not when someone is as ambiguous as Grace seemed to have been.

    See:

    "How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

    This may be the most thorough analysis you can find of what I think has for many decades been the sexes' most alienating and destructive behavioral difference. I believe this difference results in much of what is called sexual coercion of women.

    Excerpts:

    Most women, it seems, still leave all or the bulk of the initiative-taking to men. Such women include even the accomplished, seemingly feminist Nicole Beland, a former senior editor at Cosmopolitan and Mademoiselle magazines. She produced a column, "Ask the Girl Next Door," for Men's Health. In it, she advised men how to connect with women. She appears to be an expert in sex and male-female relationships. In the January/February 2004 Men's Health, she writes: "I'll spot a good-looking guy in a coffee shop, at the bookstore or in a bar and will immediately pretend he isn't there. My thought: if he's attracted to me and looking to meet someone new, he'll say something. I'll purposely look in the other direction. So yes, it's shyness and pride, but mostly it's our annoying, persistent female reluctance to make the first move." [Emphasis added.]

  • MaleMatters||

    (Cont'd from above)

    Think of the bind that women like Beland put men in: a woman can be purposely looking the other way either because she likes a man or because she wants to avoid a man. (This is one way women's "signals" can vary and be impossible to read.) Thus the man who approaches a woman who is "purposely" looking the other way is, from his view, at risk of getting anything from a polite, ebullient "Oh, hi, how are you?" to a belligerent, humiliating "Get out of my face!" In the workplace, men, especially bosses, risk losing their jobs approaching such women. It continues to amaze me that experts such as Beland, even in the 21st century, still want to keep the courting arena in the 1950s, without realizing — or without caring about — the risk of sexual-harassment accusations they ask men to take.

    Couldn't this be considered toxic femininity?

  • Agnes||

    It is ambiguous and it is a crap shoot. I'm sorry. Because most normal* single girls are dying for men to approach us, it's just a matter of what we consider to being the right ones. It's just an attraction. Which is silent and pre-determined by us.

    Here is some approaching advice for men:
    1) If we're at a bar and look your direction 2 to 3 times where we aren't looking away immediately, please approach us.
    2) If we do a silent smirk while doing an exhaling nose hiss (for longer than 3 seconds) in your direction, please approach us.
    3) A quick smirk which is shorter than 3 seconds and then immediately looking the opposite direction means we're annoyed, do not pass go.
    4) If we're going to the bathroom twice over a 30 min period because you happen to be sitting close to it or in 'viewing distance' please approach us.
    5) If we're letting out really bubbly laughs, have made eye contact (at least twice) and you're sitting close to us, please approach us.
    6) If we're at outings like trivia or karaoke, chances are, we're they're for fun but also to mingle.
    7) Do not approach us if we're not looking in your direction and we're deep in conversation.
    8) If we happen to be standing by you as we're getting a drink at the bar and not looking at you but staring at the bar or bartender, do not approach us.

    I think I can speak for some women by saying, women are not confrontational so cues are the only thing we've got. I'm sorry. Just don't push it if we're not budging.

  • ||

    I think I can speak for some women by saying, women are not confrontational so cues are the only thing we've got. I'm sorry. Just don't push it if we're not budging.

    This is bullshit. Women are every bit as confrontational as men. They just don't generally confront men (and other women) face to face the way men would each other as they can't compete head to head and/or in the men's area of expertise/home field. It's not a fair fight. Attacking/confronting in groups and/or when the target is unaware, worn down, or otherwise incapacitated is the female MO. If you think women aren't confrontational, you've never heard a woman ask "Does this make me look fat?" or "Is that what you're wearing?"

    Audible exhalation is a sign of discomfort or warning across the animal kingdom, from an lizards and snakes to the snort of a bull. Moreover, the fact that you are close enough to hear the breath indicates that more 90% of the approach has already been made. But, let's be clear, men approaching women (or vice versa) in a purely social setting isn't the problem and never really has been.

  • ||

    Oh, come on, show some appreciation. (That's rhetorical. Don't try.)

    You confuse "confrontational" and "aggressive". It's called indirect/relational aggression. Women have it. Men have it, too. But it seems to a lesser extent, and somewhat differently. Men, however, add a lot of direct - confrontational - aggression. She exaggerated a little, but her meaning was clear, and right. (Thanks, Agnes.)

  • Ben1234||

    You come back to my apartment, you get naked, you seem happy to let me go down on you.... All "non-verbal"
    signals that you're in to it. You tell me to slow down, so I do. But slow down does not equal stop. You know what does equal stop? Saying stop. Or no. We're taught no means no, but now apparently secret signals we don't understand also mean no? Don't tell me no means no, and then refuse to say no and get upset when I don't read your mind.

    Grace is a bit of a scumbag. I feel bad for the guy she went to a party with and ditched in favor of trying to hitch herself to a celebrity.

    If women want something, they need to learn to communicate it unambiguously. Secret signals won't do it. Men? We already know they want something, it's not ambiguous. This story represents how men are able to unambiguously communicate their desires, and women refuse to.

    If you're naked and in my apartment and I point at my crotch, that's unambiguous. I'm asking you to do something. If you then respond by going down on me, how am I supposed to interpret that as anything but an unambiguous yes?

  • Mark22||

    If you then respond by going down on me, how am I supposed to interpret that as anything but an unambiguous yes?

    You have to realize that what she's hoping for when she does that is to turn a ONS into a LTR with an ugly height challenged rich dude. She's angry afterwards when she realizes it was just a ONS after all and she got nothing out of it other than a bad taste in her mouth.

  • Devastator||

    This is also a fair analysis. She's just mad she can't get the $$ as a steady side piece.

  • ||

    Grace is a bit of a scumbag.

    Every inch a sexual harasser*, that's for sure.

    *As stated by a pedant who (if only mentally) draws bright red lines between the crime of (sexual) assault and the "tort" of sexual harassment.

  • Ben1234||

    So does this mean we're free to write up publicly any and all bad experiences with women in excruciating detail, using their real names while keeping ours anonymous?

  • Cyto||

    That would be slut-shaming. And that's bad, m'kay?

  • ||

    "There's no mass of people pushing to criminalize actions like Ansari's or saying he should be fired from any of his projects."

    There is on college campuses. Did you see how progressives responded to Betsy DeVos for repealing the Title IX Dear Colleague letter that led to many young males being expelled from colleges for doing less creepy things than Aziz?

    Also, who is surprised that Aziz used his fame and money and thought it meant any girl would want him to bang her? Watch his standup! He talks about banging "white girls" on the first date in his Netflix special! Progressives laugh at those exact jokes, and then act surprised when they hear how many of those dates go down.

  • Kroneborge||

    Which non verbal clues should he be paying attention to again? The fact that she's naked in his apartment and has been sucking his dick would drown out all other non verbal clues.

  • Agnes||

    I get the 'they should know better' because there isn't anything a woman hates more than confrontation. So the fact that we would have to get confrontational because someone isn't getting our cues feels almost like an emotional violation. Don't ask me why, I'm just explaining how it is. This is why we spend so much time talking shit about other women, because they, too, should have known better.

    That being said......you have to grow the fuck up in the dating game. I've never had a hard time being straight up with my intentions when it comes to sexual relationships. MEN ARE EASY. I've told someone before, 'I'm coming over to spend the night, but I'm not sleeping with you. And seriously, don't take that as some kind of a playful challenge.' Nice guys laugh it off and respect it. You literally can't be passive aggressive in a sexual situation and then ruin someone's life because you were too chicken shit to leave earlier.

    For whatever reason, modern feminism means as a woman, you are able to do whatever the fuck you want and have zero consequences. It doesn't work that way. Life doesn't work that way. Biology doesn't work that way. That's just called being a spoiled brat and ruining the dating environment for our future children. As if that wasn't already an issue.

  • ||

    Kudos, (Check out Benenson, Warriors and Worriers, Oxford University Press. She has a pretty interesting hypothesis. [I should remember to use that as euphemism.])

  • GamerFromJump||

    Why any man even talks to a woman in the workplace anymore is beyond comprehension. Who wants to flip that coin?

  • ||

    Why any man even talks to a woman in the workplace anymore is beyond comprehension. Who wants to flip that coin?

    Flipping a coin sounds luxurious! Where I come from women are far more likely to 'trap' a man in a room (or other situation) than the inverse.

  • DesparateReasoning||

    This article is a great example of what's wrong with even less extreme forms of feminism (non-agency feminism in general). Women cannot simultaneously be the gate keepers of sex, and expect men to jump through a huge number of ill-defined hoops without accidentally offending them. If you want equality, then act like it and do some of the fucking working (pun intended) so that men don't always have to push the boundaries to make anything happen. If you want to be the gatekeepers of sex, that sit back and bat eyelids and play coy, then understand that this comes with the reality that you are regularly going to get unwanted advances and you will need to be responsible for clearly demarcating where the line is. I really don't care which path is chosen, but it is bullshit to sit in the middle and want men to do all the work without offending any sensibilities.

  • wally009||

    Aziz Ansari is perverted animal and must pay for what he did.

    He forced innocent young woman to cry in Uber all the way home. Hurt her feelings. Make her feel worthless.

    She expected red wine but was offered only white. He invited her over, and, when she accepted, he seduced her to gave her oral sex and then expected her to return.

    This is unacceptable forcing. Total violation. He must pay dearly for this. Stop him. Boycott him. Sue him.
    Women must take what is ours, and hit those animals where it hurts them most, on their purse.

  • 1980-f||

    " to take a partner's initial reticence seriously" - but she wasn't reticent. She expressed her reluctance, and he really should have picked that up.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's interesting to me that a comedian who did not wield his position of power, did not threaten the woman he had an encounter with, and clearly obtained consent is being defended by a lot of people (including the New York Times). Whereas a mere couple months ago, Louis CK was crucified and quite literally blacklisted for the same thing. (In fact, Louis CK was not in a position of power at the time of his transgressions...)

    Why are they being treated differently? I think it comes down to one thing: people are judging the sexual act specifically. Nobody thinks a blowjob is "gross" but masturbation by a fat bald ginger is yucky.

  • Abu Nudnik||

    She *is* wrong. It's being 2017 is meaningless. There is not one way to look at the world. Men can't read women's minds. Some women *dream* of being complimented. This notion that there is one and only one way is repulsive. If you don't want it, say so.

  • Devastator||

    Until men become telepathic she has no pot to piss in.

  • Devastator||

    She should have said no and that would have been the end of it. Instead she sent mixed signals the whole time and later regretted it and projected her faults onto him and wrote an article about it to get her 15 minutes of fame. That's the entirety of it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online