Why else would any one hang out with Ansari other than he's a celebrity. Groupie culture isn't anything new that hasn't happened thousands of times among celebrities and their fans for many decades.
Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Why else would any one hang out with Ansari other than he's a celebrity. Groupie culture isn't anything new that hasn't happened thousands of times among celebrities and their fans for many decades.
Maybe she liked him? All are of your human interactions transactional?
So the moment you willingly participate in a sexual act, anything goes? For how long does this grace period last? Or are you just overlooking the fact that I'm talking about after all of that, after she said no, when they were both fully dressed on the couch, and no blowjobs happened, only him stealing a kiss and trying to undo her pants?
And ffs, he's the one who asked for her number and then asked her out. She then refused to have sex with him. There's nothing there to suggest that she was in it to gain anything. Fecking disgusting alegations to make.
Highly unlikely. He's a celebrity and she sounds like a bit of a groupie, even through her own sterilized characterization of why they hung out.
Nah, she went out with a famous guy. Clearly a gold-digging whore/scheeming bitch.
Well if you give someone a BJ then the entire evening is defined by that. You can't then bloviate about how he came on to you.
That's more plausible than her liking someone she never met.
Ok so complete speculation then
Why does anyone go on a date with anyone else?
This is different since he's a celebrity. She knows who he is which changes the dynamic in comparison with two random, anonymous people who just met for the first time.
Groupies are a real thing. People follow celebrities around all the time in the hope of having sex with them.
Last edited:
That's definitely not how it works, though. If I'm having sex with a woman, and midway through she says, "no, stop, I don't want to continue" and I ignore that snd keep on doing her, I'm now guilty of rape. A no is a no, and should be respected. One sexual act is not a carte blanche to do whatever the feck you want, especially after they've asked you to stop.
If you are completely jaded and think everyone else is too, sure
Im aware, thanks. I think it's complete speculation to say that without knowing either of them and without additional details.
I've personally witnessed it in the entertainment industry. Women actually plotting to meet male celebrities for the sole purpose of sleeping with them. Its a part of the culture. This case sounds more like a naive young woman who thought Ansari would like her and want to hang out, when in reality his only objective, as in most of these cases, was a disposable booty call.
Well its also complete speculation to believe one side of the story as well, but people are doing it anyway.
Yeah but that's not what happened here. She actually gave him a Blowjob. At that point, her moral leverage of later claiming she was violated is greatly diminished.
I'm pretty sure most single people (and some in relationships) would jump at the chance to go out with a celebrity they had a positive opinion about. To go from that to just assuming they must be some scheeming bitch just looking to gain something is pretty fecking big leap, and again, there's nothing to suggest that was the case. He asked her for her number, he asked her out, she refused to sleep with him.
If, before they sat on the couch, she hadn't specifically told him that no, she wasn't comfortable with it, then maybe. She did say that, though, so she should be safe to assume that that was the end of his sexual advances.
I don't think she was scheming. As I've previously said numerous times, she, rather naively, seems more in the category of someone who thought it would be cool to hang out with a celebrity without any knowledge of the likelihood that he almost certainly only got in touch because he wanted a booty call.
Rather than blur the lines of intention, she should've just left. Why stay if you're not comfortable.
Inappropriate Behavior
How anyone is having sympathy for this pathetic drama queen is beyond me. If she actually complained about his behaviour without sucking his penis 30 seconds after she might actually have cause to complain, but she can't hold out from blowing him for that long. Instead she gave him come ons all night long.
Either a very stupid or very manipulative woman.
Right and he didn't have sex with her, he kept trying to have sex with her after she gave him many signals that sex was on the cards. She kept giving various forms of consent for the sexual acts they engaged in. But eventually he gave up after her crappy communication eventually became obvious. If you give someone mixed signals don't automatically expect them to take the signal they least desire, without making it very clear.
If you feel uncomfortable in a situation you need to ask yourself questions for creating that situation.
Also was it really a case of her giving 'signals' or regretting first night crappy sex. Which many women do and some women that do wrongfulyl allege rape to make themselves feel better.
I think you missed the point. I was saying, if you want a man(or women) to stop trying to have sex with you, in a situation where you're say, in bed together, or naked together, you actually need to say no. If he keeps trying to talk you into it, that isn't sexual assault. It's already an intimate moment, and there is already a degree of consent given to a degree of intimacy. If you want the guy to stop trying, you need to actually shut him down.
Now, I don't really even know who this Aziz Ansari guy is. He's a comedian I gather. However, all I see here is a guy trying to have sex. Is that a crime? Did he force her? Did he intimidate her? Did he somehow or another coerce her against her will? He seems to have made it pretty clear he wanted to have sex with her, and she stayed. She knew what he wanted, and she stayed. So again, I ask, did he force her? Did he coerce her?
There are real cases of sexual assault and rape, where people are bullied, and forced into these situations where the person assaulting them has real, definable power over them, and they exercise it. This is a situation no different from going to a bar, getting blitzed, and then having sex with someone you would never normally have sex with and then regretting it. That isn't violation, that's self loathing and embarrassment.
The reality here is, that we've established a climate that IS friendly towards people coming out against sexual assault, and that is good, but in doing so, we've created a climate where people can confuse sexual assault, or violation, with their own POOR decision making. You know what? That's ok too, so long as we define them as such, recognize them as such, and ultimately, shut them down as such. This woman made a bad decision. This Aziz Ansari guy is probably an enormous douchebag who leveraged his fame into getting laid, but he didn't at any point in this story force her or coerce her.
Having this discussion is sad, but it's also important, because there are real women, and occasionally men, who are pressured into sex by bosses, or people who have actual power over them. Participating in something you regret isn't being violated. It's something YOU participated in, perhaps immediately regretted, or maybe the next day, or next month. I regret having sex with more than a few people, does that mean I get to accuse them of sexual assault? Or does it mean I was a dumbass? I think it means I was a dumbass.
Are you sure you read the story properly? They met before and talked for a while on text and the like. Clearly there was attraction to him on her end.
Yep, they only just met recently. As opposed to a long term friendship or the like.
I'm not suggesting that such was the case here. I'm just pointing out that formal power isn't the only form of power to hold over another person. A woman can feel pressured into doing something because of the physical advantage the man has over her, without it ever being his intention to force or pressure her into doing something she's not comfortable with. Poor communication, basically.
A bit of an aside with regards to this article. As I (think I) stated earlier, she seems to have been a bit naive, and perhaps had some hope of being able to just hang out and get to know him if she managed to shut down his sexual advances. I don't think he's a criminal, and I don't think he had any malicious intent. When he says he misread her signals, I can understand how it happened. Based on what's in the story, I'd like to think that most would have picked up on it sooner and ended it, but that's me doing opinions and stuff. When he made a move on her when they were both clothed on the couch is the point where I feel he undoubtedly overstepped a bound. At that point, she had already said no and that she wasn't ready. Since she stuck around, it's understandable that he might still hold out hope that she could come around and be up for it, but given the fact that she had already told him earlier that she didn't want to, forcing his tongue into her mouth and his hand down her pants was without question the wrong way to go about seeing if she was. I think most can agree that at that point, you ask before trying anything.
He did stop every time she asked, so again, I don't think there was any malicious intent. He's a bit oversexed, rather than a sexual predator. Still doesn't excuse his behavior, though.
That's certainly a less objectionable way of putting it. I have no problem believing him being famous played a part in her agreeing to meet up, I just think making baseless accusations about her having ulterior motives is a bit unfair. She met a famous person, he seemed nice, he asked for her number and then asked her out. I think most single people (and probably some in relationships) would jump on the chance to go out with a famous person they had a positive opinion of.
As for her staying, I don't know. I think in a lot of cases were women (or men, for that matter) have stayed when they really should have left, they'll struggle to tell you why. Maybe wanting to avoid a conflict? Maybe afraid of how he would react? As you said, she seems a bit naive (and I agree), so she might have thought that if she managed to shut down his sexual advances, she might get to spend time with the person she was hoping to meet and salvage the night. But I'm speculating.
I was mainly objection to the assertion that a firm 'no' was needed for it to be classified as sexual assault or rape, not that what happened in this case was either of those.
A no i a no. Period. It doesn't matter if it is before or in the middle of sex. If not we could go BSM just because a BJ. No is no.
The problem is who to believe in mixed signals.
WHen she said "NO" Ansari stopped. He pushed after but what he did was a "lower level" of a BJ that was what set the bar and he tried to go over the bar but never went.
then as I said is a matter of who believe
- Ansari did not picked the mixed signals. He would not be guilty
- Ansari consciously ignored the mixed signals. He would be guilty
I am sure in her version he believes that he ignored them, but because she was suffering that sexual missbehaviour (let's call it that as in my conclusion I don;t know) and she lived it way more intense than Ansari because she was the assaulted one.
But it could happen that Ansari did not read it (as he said in the next text)? could be, he was the strong part and he pushed as much as the BJ bar let him. But he could lie too and that would be terrible from his side
She could be trying to take advantadge of that situation? also, I don't like the way he acuses of things like: "I like red, but he chose white" like trying to drive the opinion that he wanted to impose all the time as alpha machoman, when that, if true, could be read in many ways and is not prove of anything.
IMO is that Ansari is somewhat guilty of trying to hard, but punishable by law? not in my opinion. If her version is 100% true? yes, he should.
The problem is who to believe in mixed signals.
WHen she said "NO" Ansari stopped. He pushed after but what he did was a "lower level" of a BJ that was what set the bar and he tried to go over the bar but never went.
then as I said is a matter of who believe
- Ansari did not picked the mixed signals. He would not be guilty
- Ansari consciously ignored the mixed signals. He would be guilty
I am sure in her version he believes that he ignored them, but because she was suffering that sexual missbehaviour (let's call it that as in my conclusion I don;t know) and she lived it way more intense than Ansari because she was the assaulted one.
But it could happen that Ansari did not read it (as he said in the next text)? could be, he was the strong part and he pushed as much as the BJ bar let him. But he could lie too and that would be terrible from his side
She could be trying to take advantadge of that situation? also, I don't like the way he acuses of things like: "I like red, but he chose white" like trying to drive the opinion that he wanted to impose all the time as alpha machoman, when that, if true, could be read in many ways and is not prove of anything.
IMO is that Ansari is somewhat guilty of trying to hard, but punishable by law? not in my opinion. If her version is 100% true? yes, he should.
He's been an immature creep and a massive idiot here, has Ansari, which is extremely disappointing considering how perceptive he comes across in his work when he explores dating / sexism. Having read the Babe article three times and having read his statement too, it seems he genuinely didn't recognise that she was feeling uncomfortable, but I'm not sure that excuses his actions.
I appreciate they were probably both a bit drunk, but if I'm in that situation and the other person stops responding when I'm kissing them, I'm gonna ask if anything's wrong instead of continuing on. If you suggest towards having sex with someone and they respond by saying "Maybe next time?" or "You men are all the fecking same", it's probably best to back off.
There does need to be a distinction made between cases of this type and the Weinsteins and Spaceys, who inflicted decades of pain on people and carried out predatory, calculated behaviour for years - but that doesn't mean Ansari should be allowed to get away with this. I'm not suggesting he lose his career over this, but considering he's built half his act through male feminism, he should be reminded that he's got miles to go.
I appreciate they were probably both a bit drunk, but if I'm in that situation and the other person stops responding when I'm kissing them, I'm gonna ask if anything's wrong instead of continuing on. If you suggest towards having sex with someone and they respond by saying "Maybe next time?" or "You men are all the fecking same", it's probably best to back off.
There does need to be a distinction made between cases of this type and the Weinsteins and Spaceys, who inflicted decades of pain on people and carried out predatory, calculated behaviour for years - but that doesn't mean Ansari should be allowed to get away with this. I'm not suggesting he lose his career over this, but considering he's built half his act through male feminism, he should be reminded that he's got miles to go.
Maybe I'm alone on this but actively calling yourself a feminism is just a bit weird isn't ? Also from the bit's I've seen of Aziz talk about feminism it seems so water down and simplistic that even as a man it was sort of annoying.
It's depressing and a bit worrying that her character and/or motive for wanting to meet up is part of the argument. She could be a mad, flirty, celeb chasing nymphomaniac and that would still have no bearing on whether the behaviour described is acceptable or not. Neither does oral sex later negate, or lessen the severity of actions at an earlier time.
Is this just typically bad interwebs reasoning or are some people feeling the need to justify their own behaviour in similar situations?
Also LCK showing his dick to unsuspecting women seems less severe to me than someone putting their fingers down an unwilling persons throat or forcing someone who is expressing discomfort to touch your dick again and again, whether or not you had a drink or kiss beforehand - or even oral sex after.
Again I'm for due process and such and it's not up to me to throw someones career in the trash, but if we are debating the described behaviour rather than some epistemic nature of contrasting reports or wildly speculating, then I don't think it is acceptable on a social level or perhaps a criminal justuce level either.
Is this just typically bad interwebs reasoning or are some people feeling the need to justify their own behaviour in similar situations?
Also LCK showing his dick to unsuspecting women seems less severe to me than someone putting their fingers down an unwilling persons throat or forcing someone who is expressing discomfort to touch your dick again and again, whether or not you had a drink or kiss beforehand - or even oral sex after.
Again I'm for due process and such and it's not up to me to throw someones career in the trash, but if we are debating the described behaviour rather than some epistemic nature of contrasting reports or wildly speculating, then I don't think it is acceptable on a social level or perhaps a criminal justuce level either.
Great piece
The Atlantic said:
fecking awful piece of shit. One crap article doesn't deserve ten more crap articles in response.
but elizabeth bruenig actually rules
To be fair, it doesn't matter what he did. The most important thing is the lady felt violated, by him. That is enough justification for a minimum 2 years prison without parole. And registered in the sex offender register. Only leniency is to maybe allow him to release himself of any sexual tensions once every month.
ill read it later I'm off to watch Logan.
Why do you think it is a joke? Don't you agree with the premise?
Thought it was very well done. A welcome departure from the usual herd behavior PC logic.
Its only fair that the woman has her name revealed given that she and the writer have attempted to take down Ansari's career.
for fecks sake