No. So many flaws in there I can't even
Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Please, do tell. Can you sue someone for percieving you as a creep? Is falsely accusing someone someone of trying to ruin someones career and reputation out of bitterness over a failed attempt at taking advantage of them not libel (and yes, I know that she is anonymous, and as such won't be able to get anywhere with such a suit, but I'm talking in general terms)?No. So many flaws in there I can't even
Calling someone a creep is not an attack on their character. Saying someone's motivations sharing their experience are revenge and to ruins someone else's career is, saying that their a gold-digger who was only there in the hope of advancing their own career, and that when that didn't work they decided to ruin that persons career is as well. (Again, generally speaking)
We're only here because you somehow thought that saying you think someone is creepy or that they acted like a creep is an attack on their character. It isn't. In any way. The things I took exception to people saying about her, on the other hand, are very much attacks on her character.
And why you made me responsible for what others have said is also a bit of a mystery to me. It's not my job to defend their statements. If you're going to call me out, call me out for something I've actually done, not for the actions of others.
I'm calling you out for your double standards. It's so obvious and therefore very easy to do.
We can clearly see who came out of this the worse off, with reputation and job on the line. And somehow from your twisted perception you may still think that this unknown woman got the short end of the stick. This is where I am laughing so hard.
Also, if you can't see how being called a creep can damage your reputation, then
'My twisted perception'? The feck do you know about my perception? I'll be surprised if you've managed to comprehend a single word I've written. All you've done so far is ascribe opinions to me and attacking me over them.I'm calling you out for your double standards. It's so obvious and therefore very easy to do.
We can clearly see who came out of this the worse off, with reputation and job on the line. And somehow from your twisted perception you may still think that this unknown woman got the short end of the stick. This is where I am laughing so hard.
Also, if you can't see how being called a creep can damage your reputation, then
I said that I thought that the attacks on her character were too much, and that I think, based on the story, his mistake was bigger than hers. I've made no comment on who I think will have a worse time as a result, or who'll be worse off. I didn't call for a stop to calling him a creep becsuse I don't see it as anywhere near as bad as the comments directed towards her. And I have never denied that being labeled a creep can't affect someone's reputation, just that someone perceiving him as one is not an attack on his character.
Again, call me out for something I've actually done.
Ok I'm calling you out for being abusive.
The element of revenge in this puts a massive shadow over her story.
For one, with the revenge element being clear, it's then not a stretch to think you can't take her story at face-value... it will obviously slanted by her POV and agenda, and as others have said, an account from the POV of Ansari will be totally different. However, we'll probably never hear about that, as in the current climate, anything Ansari comes out with now that isn't an apology could just be seen as trying to derail #metoo.
Going on what we know, is it fair to assume that Ansari didn't behave all that brilliantly? Sure... however, this "Grace" woman's behaviour can also not be exempt from criticism, which is why people are criticising (both on here and in the meida)
For one, with the revenge element being clear, it's then not a stretch to think you can't take her story at face-value... it will obviously slanted by her POV and agenda, and as others have said, an account from the POV of Ansari will be totally different. However, we'll probably never hear about that, as in the current climate, anything Ansari comes out with now that isn't an apology could just be seen as trying to derail #metoo.
Going on what we know, is it fair to assume that Ansari didn't behave all that brilliantly? Sure... however, this "Grace" woman's behaviour can also not be exempt from criticism, which is why people are criticising (both on here and in the meida)
Even telling the story from 'Grace's' point of view has her coming off as stupid, naive and spiteful. Aziz Ansari is probably doing her and this journalist a favour by not going public with his side.
That doesn't stop Ansari looking like a creep but at the same time, he's in his 30's, he's comedian, he written about dating. It wouldn't have been his first rodeo.
That doesn't stop Ansari looking like a creep but at the same time, he's in his 30's, he's comedian, he written about dating. It wouldn't have been his first rodeo.
Don't understand why people just go to the police. No one has any idea what transpired that night, yet everyone picks sides. This is not how the world works. Don't settle this stuff in the press. It's great that sexual miss conduct is being addressed, but someone is innocent untill proven guilty.
Also, not that it has anything to do with it: that Katie Way email with all the mehhh I don't know who she is and no one under 45 does, really doesnt help the case, at all.
That babe.net website sounds dodgy as feck upon further investigation. Sounds like a hack job to me honestly.
Also, not that it has anything to do with it: that Katie Way email with all the mehhh I don't know who she is and no one under 45 does, really doesnt help the case, at all.
That babe.net website sounds dodgy as feck upon further investigation. Sounds like a hack job to me honestly.
Last edited:
While my first thought at reading the babe article is "She should say no", after further reflection I kinda see it from her side.
IMO this is similar dynamics to the kid who got bullied because he/she wanted to be with the popular clique at school. In my experience, many of this kind of bully didnt remember it as bullying later in life, they remember it as just playing around, it's nothing serious. While the bullied kid felt traumatized.
While those who are not in the bullied position are easy to say, you should not be with them, it's not as easy in their position.
With that in mind, to eradicate bullying, other than to teach the bullies to have more compassion, we also need to teach those who were bullied is to learn to stand up for him/herself. To make better choices.
There's a discussion in here that need to be had about how culturally women felt bad about saying no implicitly. And along that, a discussion can be had about how men could treat women better.
Unfortunately, the babe article focused too much on making a sensational piece, rather than asking these questions.
IMO this is similar dynamics to the kid who got bullied because he/she wanted to be with the popular clique at school. In my experience, many of this kind of bully didnt remember it as bullying later in life, they remember it as just playing around, it's nothing serious. While the bullied kid felt traumatized.
While those who are not in the bullied position are easy to say, you should not be with them, it's not as easy in their position.
With that in mind, to eradicate bullying, other than to teach the bullies to have more compassion, we also need to teach those who were bullied is to learn to stand up for him/herself. To make better choices.
There's a discussion in here that need to be had about how culturally women felt bad about saying no implicitly. And along that, a discussion can be had about how men could treat women better.
Unfortunately, the babe article focused too much on making a sensational piece, rather than asking these questions.
I'd also claim that to the extent that Aziz wasn't even close to committing a crime, the story was a violation of his privacy. His career might even survive (unlike Louis CK's), but now the world knows that he's a kind of a creepy date... it's not something people have a right to publicly know about one another, celebrity or not.
How is calling someone a creep not an attack on their character. You seem adamant that calling someone a gold digger is and I agree but why not calling someone a creep?
It is actually not that unbelievable to me. It is undoubtly true that a large chunk of communication between people is nonverbal (studies vary between 65% to 80%), but a lot of that is on a subconcious level and does not affect our logic that heavily. The degree of how much it does affect our thinking is also in a very clear connection to our familiarity with the person. The rule of thump is that the less you know a person the more you have to verbalize to bring something across. This makes sense because we use our experiences with the person to intepret body language. In this case we talk about an encounter between basically strangers.
I have to admit that the whole story went past me until it was shown to me today by my wife, who wanted my opinion on it, partly as male but also because I´m pretty sensitive about the whole topic of sexual abuse. Having to witness my sister struggling with depression and affection after barely escaping rape a few years back and being professionially put into the positon of either ignoring one of my trainees being abused by one of the most influential men at my work or speaking up, getting the swine what he deserved at the risk of my whole career probably does that to you.
So I put myself thorugh the struggle of reading this piece twice. It was a struggle because it had lines (the wine line for example) that felt really random and were used solely to set the tone very firmly in one direction here.
Aziz Ansari certainly does not win sympathy points here. He comes across as insensitve, impatient, pushy, clumsy and really corny. Pretty much your typical douchebag behaviour. Being a douchebag is not a crime, though.
The one point I really had to scratch my head came about halfway in the story when she came out of the bathroom. All females I talked with about this topic would have left at that point but that was not even the mindboggling thing for me. She made it very clear she was not comfortable with the manner Ansari showed his affection nor the pace they were going. Her nonverbal communication failed to reach him, but the most obvious signal she could have used did not reach her mind: putting some damn clothes on. Why would she choose to stay nude in the guys appartment if she did not want to continue in sexual acts and slow things down?
It actually took me a while to figure out what she wanted, although the answer is pretty simple: She wanted intimacy. Thats why she stayed naked and moved close to him again, thats why she hoped for him to play with her hair or rub her back to calm her down. Problem was that he had no interest in that. This is a story of two people wanting two very different things with each of them not realizing what it was.
I don´t blame Ansari for her taking so long to realize it, though. He made it very clear what he wanted. The place they went to, the location of the place (walking distance to his place), the rushed dinner, the way he was all over her the moment the door openend. Everything screamed hook up here. He did not led her on or gave her hopes this would turn into a serious relationship. He just wanted fun. The moment she realized it ("you guys are all he same", which by the way indicates bad past experiences, which could color this whole story way more negative than it actually was), she left without any protest by him (he even called her a car to get her home).
What filled her afterwards was regret. This regret turned into blame on him, which is a very human reation IMO. The problem is that she took that blame, went to a "journalist" with a very clear agenda, who turned the private information into an extremely biased article. On top of that it was put into the context of the "me,too"-movement.
i believe that this movement is worthwile and important. The abuse of power to force sexual pleasure is an extremely ugly thing, that happens every day.
However, this story is not about abuse of power. This woman could have left at any point that evening without fearing damage being inflicted on her, be it personally, financially or professionally. Ansari wielded no power here. He did not use his fame or success, at least there is no mention of it in the article and given the biased nature of it, it would be in there if it would have happened. There were no threats, no violence or psychological pressure. The only power he might have had was not created by him, but her own mind. She put him on a pedestal and when he did not live up to this image, she felt abused and wanted to inflict damage on him with the power (private information) she had.
This is the most ironic part about this story. Even with his douchy behaviour, he is actually a victim, because private information about him was dragged into the public and his career is now in danger because of it. He has like every other person a right of privacy and as long as he does not commit a crime, this right stands.
The other victim is the "me,too"-movement as it´s opponents have now been given the chance to make it look like what they think it is: a tool for witch hunts.
^
Early contender for post of the year. It’s very hard to criticize this material as a man without sounding like you’re condoning this type of behaviour, but you word it perfectly, thank you.
Early contender for post of the year. It’s very hard to criticize this material as a man without sounding like you’re condoning this type of behaviour, but you word it perfectly, thank you.
Good post.
We also have to remember that if most people think Ansari isn't at fault for this even though we are reading the story as it was framed by the girl and the writer, who are obviously seeking to vilify Ansari, then its a pretty good bet that nearly everyone would think it was little more than a bad date if we heard Ansari's own account of how the evening went.
Creep is a vague statement, based on perception. Saying he came off as a creep in this scenario is not an attack on his character, it's a comment on his behaviour. His character isn't called into question by making that statement.
Saying she is a gold-digger who's wants to ruin his character because the she didn't like the way the date turned out is a very specific accusation that calls her character and morals into question.
I've not said anything about people calling her naïve (I've even called her that) or stupid, because that how they perceive her from the story as told. That's completely fair.
We only have her side of the story, and it's important to keep that in mind. There might be things she mistemembered or left out. We'll probably never know. But accusing her of being a shitty, petty person who's falsely accusing him of sexual assault because she thought the date was bad is pretty serious, and goes way beyond healthy scepticism. And, again, is a lot worse than saying he came off as a creep (which I haven't even done).
Last edited:
I actually have a similar story of that of Ansari
I had a temporary roomate (different rooms). Just for 3 weeks. She hit on me, and why not, we made out but even previously I said that we would not have sex. Literally the sentence "Hey, we will not feck" and several times. (Yes, I am quite particular with who I kiss and who I feck, I can separate both things)
The girl entered in the middle of the night at my room and put in my bed and grope me more than one night. I shout "GET OUT" every time. Finally she left my place. I went out with my friends and one friend in common invited her. She told me if it was ok and I said I was sorry because, even if I was clear from the beginning that we would not have sex, I engaged with her and this could be confusing and that as long as she would not try anything I was fine. In the club she did not stop to touch my but and cock (slapping her hand every single time).
I never met her again, but I was completely clear about all the time and she did not stop in multiple days. I was pissed, she crossed the line several times. She was wrong in doing it? absolutely. punishable by law? absolutely not.
For me was a bad experience that I was a bit guilty as I volunteerally engaged (and said clearly no previously and afterwards) and that's it. Move on.
I had a temporary roomate (different rooms). Just for 3 weeks. She hit on me, and why not, we made out but even previously I said that we would not have sex. Literally the sentence "Hey, we will not feck" and several times. (Yes, I am quite particular with who I kiss and who I feck, I can separate both things)
The girl entered in the middle of the night at my room and put in my bed and grope me more than one night. I shout "GET OUT" every time. Finally she left my place. I went out with my friends and one friend in common invited her. She told me if it was ok and I said I was sorry because, even if I was clear from the beginning that we would not have sex, I engaged with her and this could be confusing and that as long as she would not try anything I was fine. In the club she did not stop to touch my but and cock (slapping her hand every single time).
I never met her again, but I was completely clear about all the time and she did not stop in multiple days. I was pissed, she crossed the line several times. She was wrong in doing it? absolutely. punishable by law? absolutely not.
For me was a bad experience that I was a bit guilty as I volunteerally engaged (and said clearly no previously and afterwards) and that's it. Move on.
I'm not an expert on the Spanish penal system, but I doubt crawling into someone's bed and groping them is fair game. You were sexually assaulted.
It was in Canada, but yeah I was. The difference is the perspective. As a guy and the situation at those moments. I knew I could not be raped and if the situation would be interchangeable would be a fecking mess for me and could go to prison.
But my focus is not in the obvious but sometimes even if uncomfortable and abused, you know that you had a part on it, situation goes a bit out of hand and that is it. Bad experience.
Again, I repeat, in front of the law should be equal, but we know that these situations are different from a man perspective and a female perspective. Physical superiority has a big role
Interesting view from Bardot....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brigitte-bardot-metoo-actresses-hypocritical-175658265.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brigitte-bardot-metoo-actresses-hypocritical-175658265.html
In front of the law, a guy can never be raped by a women. Sexually assaulted yes, but not raped. Something about if you are not willingly partake you will not be aroused hence you won't be erected enough to penetrate. And if they use object to penetrate you, that only falls into the sexual assault category.
Sam B is wrong about his career not being threatened though. When the article came out I was sure Master of None was done and he would struggle to work again. The journalist and the woman had no problem naming him in the article which has helped a largely unknown and unread publication garner a lot of attention. If what they wanted was simply to have a conversation about sexual relations and a woman's perspective on that, they could have written the article and not named him. If I was on a jury and that woman told that story and Aziz confirmed it and we were asked to rule on sexual assault charges, I would vote not guilty.
You'd be weeded out during jury selection.
Just curious, do you think this was sexual assault?
Yeah. (tbf, I'd also be weeded out)
I actually think the Ansari story is one of the more interesting and relevant conversations to come out of the #metoo movement.
Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and friends are very black and white.
They're horrible bastards and hollywood is very far behind modern standards of whats ok (I'd like to think that shit wouldn't ever fly in a million years in a standard office setting, maybe I'm wrong?)
This one has a lot more grey areas really, most people can probably relate a vaguely similar story on some level. A lot can probably relate with both the people in the story.
There are valuable lessons in there though - she went quite far despite being utterly uncomfortable with it.
How intimidation works with men and women is drastically different imo. I think most guys are largely ... immune to it? I just don't think we're really built to feel it.
Were just more wired to being overconfident and maybe overaggressive to compensate I think.
Women really dont seem to be wired in the same manner and a pretty consistent physical mismatch would change the perspective quite a bit i imagine.
I dont think thats obvious or even occurs to most guys and is probably worth pointing out.
From Ansari's perspective ...
I can totally see how i could have acted in more or less the same way. I think i'll use the old 'men have needs and desires' chestnut here.
Its sometimes used to excuse pretty horrific stuff but ... I dont think anyone is really excusing him or that its that horrific.
Men do have a lot of drives and instincts that are utterly inappropriate to the modern world, we ignore them, we dismiss them, we think for half a second and realise what a fecking stupid idea that would be. But they're still there.
In Ansari's position my dick would be a part of the decision making process and its views on what i should do ... would be fairly consistent.
Women need to use their own initiative and be firm despite feeling intimidated imo. I'm bad at reading non verbal queues of people i know, I'm just not going to pick them up from someone i dont. Thats not particularly uncommon with guys in general I dont think. A lot of us are slightly autistic, for lack of a better description.
I just think you need to give the guy an opportunity to not be a dickhead, be clear and give him the opportunity to do the right thing and call you a taxi.
Ideally before it goes past a point your not willing to go, guys will always been inclined to push it to the absolute limit of where your willing to go.
I think most will back off and ring the taxi. I think the vast majority will. At worst they might be a bit huffy (to hell with the guys who are tbh).
For guys i think 'do you want me to ring you a taxi?' is a good phrase and worth throwing out if in doubt.
Having sex with someone when your just horny and not that committed to ever seeing them again is shallow and unsatisfying on a good day.
Doing it with someone who's not really interested is going to be pretty crap and your really should feel like a total shitbag for pushing them past where they want to go.
All that sounds kind of puritanical to me and kind of rubs me up the wrong way. I'm a hippy - free love! and all that jazz
That idea seems kind of dead today
Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and friends are very black and white.
They're horrible bastards and hollywood is very far behind modern standards of whats ok (I'd like to think that shit wouldn't ever fly in a million years in a standard office setting, maybe I'm wrong?)
This one has a lot more grey areas really, most people can probably relate a vaguely similar story on some level. A lot can probably relate with both the people in the story.
There are valuable lessons in there though - she went quite far despite being utterly uncomfortable with it.
How intimidation works with men and women is drastically different imo. I think most guys are largely ... immune to it? I just don't think we're really built to feel it.
Were just more wired to being overconfident and maybe overaggressive to compensate I think.
Women really dont seem to be wired in the same manner and a pretty consistent physical mismatch would change the perspective quite a bit i imagine.
I dont think thats obvious or even occurs to most guys and is probably worth pointing out.
From Ansari's perspective ...
I can totally see how i could have acted in more or less the same way. I think i'll use the old 'men have needs and desires' chestnut here.
Its sometimes used to excuse pretty horrific stuff but ... I dont think anyone is really excusing him or that its that horrific.
Men do have a lot of drives and instincts that are utterly inappropriate to the modern world, we ignore them, we dismiss them, we think for half a second and realise what a fecking stupid idea that would be. But they're still there.
In Ansari's position my dick would be a part of the decision making process and its views on what i should do ... would be fairly consistent.
Women need to use their own initiative and be firm despite feeling intimidated imo. I'm bad at reading non verbal queues of people i know, I'm just not going to pick them up from someone i dont. Thats not particularly uncommon with guys in general I dont think. A lot of us are slightly autistic, for lack of a better description.
I just think you need to give the guy an opportunity to not be a dickhead, be clear and give him the opportunity to do the right thing and call you a taxi.
Ideally before it goes past a point your not willing to go, guys will always been inclined to push it to the absolute limit of where your willing to go.
I think most will back off and ring the taxi. I think the vast majority will. At worst they might be a bit huffy (to hell with the guys who are tbh).
For guys i think 'do you want me to ring you a taxi?' is a good phrase and worth throwing out if in doubt.
Having sex with someone when your just horny and not that committed to ever seeing them again is shallow and unsatisfying on a good day.
Doing it with someone who's not really interested is going to be pretty crap and your really should feel like a total shitbag for pushing them past where they want to go.
All that sounds kind of puritanical to me and kind of rubs me up the wrong way. I'm a hippy - free love! and all that jazz
That idea seems kind of dead today
There's 4 key moments for me in the story, when she says she doesn't want to feel forced, when he points to his penis and she gives him oral sex and the part where he says to her "Doesn't look like you hate me" and then when she says "I don't think I'm ready to do this". Personally I think there's a lot missing in this story, the timeline isn't continuous and it's written in a sort of hit job way. There's no doubt that what Ansari did was absolutely wrong and it'ss hard to look at him the same way, personally I struggle to understand the notion of a girl telling you "slow down", "next time", "i don't want to feel forced" and then "I don't think I'm ready to do this" and not taking the hint.
That being said if we're talking about sexual contact against someone's will or physically forcing someone to engage in sexual relations, nothing in that story confirms that happens imo.
That's the fundamental problem with the story and has been pointed out repeatedly by critics (both women and men alike). You just don't get the impression when reading it, that you are getting a full account of the atmospherics surrounding what truly happened. It instead reads more like an attempt to draw the audience towards a conclusion the writer would like them to reach.
Sometimes I think men are obsessed with this idea of portraying and showing off masculinity, that idea that women always want a man who "takes charge" and just end up plowing through without proper consideration for how the partner is feeling.I actually think the Ansari story is one of the more interesting and relevant conversations to come out of the #metoo movement.
Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and friends are very black and white.
They're horrible bastards and hollywood is very far behind modern standards of whats ok (I'd like to think that shit wouldn't ever fly in a million years in a standard office setting, maybe I'm wrong?)
This one has a lot more grey areas really, most people can probably relate a vaguely similar story on some level. A lot can probably relate with both the people in the story.
There are valuable lessons in there though - she went quite far despite being utterly uncomfortable with it.
How intimidation works with men and women is drastically different imo. I think most guys are largely ... immune to it? I just don't think we're really built to feel it.
Were just more wired to being overconfident and maybe overaggressive to compensate I think.
Women really dont seem to be wired in the same manner and a pretty consistent physical mismatch would change the perspective quite a bit i imagine.
I dont think thats obvious or even occurs to most guys and is probably worth pointing out.
From Ansari's perspective ...
I can totally see how i could have acted in more or less the same way. I think i'll use the old 'men have needs and desires' chestnut here.
Its sometimes used to excuse pretty horrific stuff but ... I dont think anyone is really excusing him or that its that horrific.
Men do have a lot of drives and instincts that are utterly inappropriate to the modern world, we ignore them, we dismiss them, we think for half a second and realise what a fecking stupid idea that would be. But they're still there.
In Ansari's position my dick would be a part of the decision making process and its views on what i should do ... would be fairly consistent.
Women need to use their own initiative and be firm despite feeling intimidated imo. I'm bad at reading non verbal queues of people i know, I'm just not going to pick them up from someone i dont. Thats not particularly uncommon with guys in general I dont think. A lot of us are slightly autistic, for lack of a better description.
I just think you need to give the guy an opportunity to not be a dickhead, be clear and give him the opportunity to do the right thing and call you a taxi.
Ideally before it goes past a point your not willing to go, guys will always been inclined to push it to the absolute limit of where your willing to go.
I think most will back off and ring the taxi. I think the vast majority will. At worst they might be a bit huffy (to hell with the guys who are tbh).
For guys i think 'do you want me to ring you a taxi?' is a good phrase and worth throwing out if in doubt.
Having sex with someone when your just horny and not that committed to ever seeing them again is shallow and unsatisfying on a good day.
Doing it with someone who's not really interested is going to be pretty crap and your really should feel like a total shitbag for pushing them past where they want to go.
All that sounds kind of puritanical to me and kind of rubs me up the wrong way. I'm a hippy - free love! and all that jazz
That idea seems kind of dead today
"Let's watch TV with our clothes on"
*tries to undress her again*
Why didn't she leave? Genuine question.
SamB said in the video that his career will not be threatened because everyone knows the difference between sexual assault and his specific case.
Guess she was wrong.
I find it funny that all the feminist can't agree within themselves and then try to get everyone else to agree with them.
Last edited:
Feminist answer: It doesn't matter
Neutral answer (+common sense): She wanted intimacy to put her into the mood
Yeah, I dunno, I think a lot of hook ups like that are kind of built on not thinking in general.
oh man it's like people aren't all the same
she left when he tried again, such good common sense guy
Bardot is a massive dickhead though.
You need to read the article again.
you need to re-read my edit
Im assuming men aren't in the position to actually answer.
But if it was me I'd have just left.
(Single me at 20 something would have totally done it just to say I did)
If even the feminists do not agree with you, you are too far left.
It is easier to support something when everyone is on board and boundaries can be set. A good example is workplace flirtation. This is automatically classed as unwanted sexual advance and therefore it is sexual harassment, despite the objection from men. It is when the boundaries are unclear, and expecting men to abide by YOUR standards, that's when things a bit messy.