Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

Halftrack said:
Obviously, as you've clearly demonstrated, anything can be debated. Doesn't make it look any less dumb when you start disagreeing with stone-cold facts.
Click to expand...

There are no stone cold facts here. We have an anonymous person's one sided account of a series of events and then we have your invented hypothetical that has feck all to do with this thread.
 
Oscie said:
Feeling uncomfortable or uneasy in the lead up to or even during a sexual encounter and feeling regretful of that sexual encounter after it has taken place, really isn't assault - it's life. There seems a massive disconnect between real life and this ideal reality that ultra right-on commentators seem to hold up as the only acceptable standard for a sexual encounter, whereby you've a consent form that has been both signed and notarised, a bonk without spillage on a bed of rose petals and a post-script of warm hugs fading out to idyllic harp music. Oh and the next day you're married and she's now Julie Andrews.

It's all about signals and signs and clues and awkwardness and fumbling and "oh my sh*t, what happened last night?". I don't think regret or displeasure that someone didn't read the signals correctly in the several hours you spent with them before agreeing to go back to their place and end up having their penis in their mouth, really belongs in the conversation. Feels a bit like gatecrashing a group intended for the surviving partners of suicide victims, defending you inclusion by saying that you too have been above the 7th floor of a building. It's not really the same thing and I think makes it harder for actual victims of actual sexual assault.
Click to expand...

Top post. Well said.
 
Halftrack said:
Obviously, as you've clearly demonstrated, anything can be debated. Doesn't make it look any less dumb when you start disagreeing with stone-cold facts.

We're talking about a specific event. After she had made it clear to him that she wasn't comfortable and sex was not on the table, and he suggested they get dressed and watch some TV instead. I don't think it's debatable that at that point, consent had well and truly, explicitly even, been withdrawn. If he then starts kissing her while trying to undo her pants, then that is, by any reasonable definition, sexual assault.
Click to expand...

So they were undressed, they got dressed, they watched TV for a bit and then he decided to start kissing her and undoing her clothing again?

In that scenario I'd struggle with the idea that I'd be alone with a man who has just made an unwanted sexual advance, but I've decided after getting dressed to stick around to watch some television with him. Presumably his intention was to wait and see if she changed her mind. Thought she had, got it wrong, and it was a bit awkward. Still thing it's a stretch to turn that into assault.
 
Raoul said:
There are no stone cold facts here. We have an anonymous person's one sided account of a series of events and then we have your invented hypothetical that has feck all to do with this thread.
Click to expand...
I argued that what happened when they were watching Seinfeld, fully clothed, on the couch was sexual assault. That specific point, that making physical sexual advances after consent has been explicitly withdrawn qualifies as sexual assault was what I commented on. That obviously hinges on that part of the story being accurate. You then claimed that it being debated meant it was debatable, in response to which I used an example to illustrate what a silly statement that was. You knew exactly what point I was making, but decided to be a massive pedant about it instead.
Oscie said:
So they were undressed, they got dressed, they watched TV for a bit and then he decided to start kissing her and undoing her clothing again?

In that scenario I'd struggle with the idea that I'd be alone with a man who has just made an unwanted sexual advance, but I've decided after getting dressed to stick around to watch some television with him. Presumably his intention was to wait and see if she changed her mind. Thought she had, got it wrong, and it was a bit awkward. Still thing it's a stretch to turn that into assault.
Click to expand...
It shows poor judgement on her part, yes. The crucial point here is that she had withdrawn consent by that point. His actions afterwards qualify as sexual assault as a result. We can argue severity till we're blue in the face, but we have to be able to call a spade a spade, however harsh it may seem. And for what it's worth, I don't think he's a criminal or that he had any malicious intent. I've even said that it's understandable that he thought sex might still be on the cards, seeing as she stayed and all. He just went about revisiting the topic in completely the wrong way.
 
Oscie said:
So they were undressed, they got dressed, they watched TV for a bit and then he decided to start kissing her and undoing her clothing again?
Click to expand...

They were watching TV naked, after a few minutes "He sat back pointed at his penis and motioned at me to go down on him and l did." Her words as reported.That was the last
sexual encounter they had.

Pointing at your dick and motioning that somebody blow you, maybe loutish behaviour but it isn't sexual assault.
 
Un4givableB said:
They were watching TV naked, after a few minutes "He sat back pointed at his penis and motioned at me to go down on him and l did." Her words as reported.That was the last
sexual encounter they had.

Pointing at your dick and motioning that somebody blow you, maybe loutish behaviour but it isn't sexual assault.
Click to expand...
You're mis-remembering. We're talking about the point we're they were both fully clothed, on the couch watching Seinfeld. By this point, she had withdrawn consent. He then kissed her and started trying to undress her again.
 
Halftrack said:
You're mis-remembering. We're talking about the point we're they were both fully clothed, on the couch watching Seinfeld. By this point, she had withdrawn consent. He then kissed her and started trying to undress her again.
Click to expand...

Maybe he took her agreeing to watch TV with him as a sign that she was still keen but just wanted to take it slowly?

How in any scenario would you lean in to kiss someone, bearing in mind that people don't say things like "May I kiss you?" or "I've decided I'd now liked to be kissed, so do so before I change my mind". They'd been naked, they'd been in bed, she was in his apartment. She said she wasn't comfortable with how fast things were going earlier, he suggested they watched TV for a bit and later on he tried to kiss her again.

At most that's shitty judgement, something that you've already been happy to completely absolve her of. Misreading the signals, getting the wrong impression, thinking someone's more in to you than they actually are. It happens. Having someone try it on when you're not keen isn't assault. Else how would anyone ever try it on with anyone, bearing in mind real people don't give explicit consent 99% of the time.

How many times have you ever said, or been told, "You may kiss me. Okay, in 3 minutes you can touch my boob". It doesn't happen. We think someone is up for it and we test the waters. It's what we ALL do. If you think you've never kissed someone who wasn't keen on being kissed or moved in on someone who didn't fancy you then you're either a liar or a virgin.
 
Halftrack said:
I argued that what happened when they were watching Seinfeld, fully clothed, on the couch was sexual assault. That specific point, that making physical sexual advances after consent has been explicitly withdrawn qualifies as sexual assault was what I commented on. That obviously hinges on that part of the story being accurate. You then claimed that it being debated meant it was debatable, in response to which I used an example to illustrate what a silly statement that was. You knew exactly what point I was making, but decided to be a massive pedant about it instead.

It shows poor judgement on her part, yes. The crucial point here is that she had withdrawn consent by that point. His actions afterwards qualify as sexual assault as a result. We can argue severity till we're blue in the face, but we have to be able to call a spade a spade, however harsh it may seem. And for what it's worth, I don't think he's a criminal or that he had any malicious intent. I've even said that it's understandable that he thought sex might still be on the cards, seeing as she stayed and all. He just went about revisiting the topic in completely the wrong way.
Click to expand...
The last part that you wrote reads "not a sexual assault", which feels like what most of us are thinking. If you are calling it a sexual assault, then he is a criminal. Your stance in the last paragraph contradicts with the first.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Oscie said:
At most that's shitty judgement, something that you've already been happy to completely absolve her of.
Click to expand...
Wait, what?
Halftrack said:
It shows poor judgement on her part, yes.
Click to expand...
The point is that when some withdraws their consent, you don't revisit the subject by immediately starting to try and undress them. When they have already expressed discomfort, to the point of explicitly withdrawing consent, how about at least trying a somewhat gentler approach, maybe use your words to see if they're feeling more comfortable.

You're making it needlessly complicated. The point is that if a partner expresses discomfort, you communicate. Ask why, and respect their feelings.

And the textbook definition of sexual assault is literally unwanted sexual contact, which includes kissing and groping (and I'm pretty sure attempts at undressing). Disagree with the use of the term all you like, it is applicable here.
 
It's similar to the alcohol thing where people shag each other when pissed. As if we have to pretend we didn't spend our youth with a mindset of getting smashed, pulling someone and getting laid. Oh no, what we actually did was go to a club, buy someone a few drinks and then ask if they'd want to back to our place where all we did is ply them with strong coffee, encouraged them to take brisk walks around the block in the night air to sober up and send them on their way with a handshake and our heart well-wishes. Right?

We've all had sex when drunk. We've all misread signals. We've all 'made a move' on someone who wasn't keen. We've all had sex with someone we'd rather we hadn't. We've all been made uncomfortable during a sexual encounter and the odds are we've all made someone else uncomfortable during a sexual encounter. There's a really bizarre disconnect between actual reality and this theoretical ideal of what happens when boy meets girl.
 
Halftrack said:
Wait, what?

The point is that when some withdraws their consent, you don't revisit the subject by immediately starting to try and undress them. When they have already expressed discomfort, to the point of explicitly withdrawing consent, how about at least trying a somewhat gentler approach, maybe use your words to see if they're feeling more comfortable.

You're making it needlessly complicated. The point is that if a partner expresses discomfort, you communicate. Ask why, and respect their feelings.

And the textbook definition of sexual assault is literally unwanted sexual contact, which includes kissing and groping (and I'm pretty sure attempts at undressing). Disagree with the use of the term all you like, it is applicable here.
Click to expand...


I'm not making anything needlessly complicated, I'm injecting realism into the situation. Unless the number of people you've kissed, let alone went on to have sexual encounters with, is ridiculously low, then chances are you've kissed, fondled or in some other way committed an 'assault' on someone far less keen on the whole affair than you were. Because that's what happens. You can't debate this without the perimeters of reality where we pretend that everyone we've ever kissed told us explicitly to do so, that we'd never take a woman who agreed to stay around and watch TV with someone who she knows only wants sex as a sign that she might also want sex.

Sorry but I struggle to relate any of my sexual encounters with this world where "Let's do sex for a bit" is something that people say. Consent is unspoken, fluid, reliant on giving signals and those signals being interpreted in the correct way. I've been groped by men in a club I've been dancing with. I didn't want them to grope me, but understood it's reasonable they could have assumed my interest because I was dancing with them. I wasn't assaulted by them. They read me wrong. That's all.

If I agreed to watch TV in the flat of a guy I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt was interested in pursuing sex with me, he could either take that as a sign I wanted sex with him or that I really, really loved box sets. Wouldn't see either as unreasonable. That doesn't give him permission to, doesn't make him some kind of predator for thinking that's what was happening all the same.
 
Last edited:
I have to say through all this, I'm very glad I'm relatively old and settled with my partner with whom I'll probably end up with untill I'm old, because my God, dating is going to be a nightmare from 2018 and on. Getting shot down when trying to kiss a girl and then after a bit more banter trying it again only to be shot down again is bad enough as it is. Being labeled a sex offending predator to boot, well, I'm lucky I don't have to go out and chat up the ladies anymore.

Also funny that these things never seem to happen to the Ryan Gosslings and Chris Hemsworths of the world. Being cheecky is only sexual assault if yer not handsome I suppose.

The worst thing is one side of the argument is very quick to play the; you're condoning rape culture card. Some people in this thread tried to make the point about the dating game I made above and were met with comments such as: you're game sucks if you assault people etc, that's not the point. A man trying to get a girl, clumsily, and being shot down is part of life. Aziz Ansari acted like a douchebag in this situation. I think this particulair hackjob article tries to make it sound worse, but even from his perspective I doubt he was the epitome of gentlemanlyness. However, he send her a friendly text the next day saying he had fun. Now unless that was some sort of wicked reverse psychology to cover his tracks, that seems like this was more the case of a slightly drunk man being an awkward douche and a girl that despite hesitance gave him several chances to be intimate with her. I'm not going to speculate on the reason she would do that, because I can't think of a lot that's positive, so I wont.

Naming him however, is by far the biggest offense in this story. Doxxing her in return would be a bit petty, if not entirely without poetic justice.
 
Nikhil said:
Thanks for this post. I agree with all of those tweets.

Millions of women in history have been through. Why? Only because of some sick twisted men. Bloody sick of it. Have zero respect for men who abuse, assault, force themselves on or rape women. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...
This is kind of what I mean. I highly doubt any sane person has any respect for rapists etc, but saying everyone who doubts this story and sticks up for Ansari here somehow condones sexual assault is ridiculous. He was at best a complete douche and at worst a sex offender, but that's not for the general public to decide.
 
Halftrack said:
And for what it's worth, I don't think he's a criminal or that he had any malicious intent. I've even said that it's understandable that he thought sex might still be on the cards, seeing as she stayed and all. He just went about revisiting the topic in completely the wrong way.
Click to expand...
In light of all those conclusions then why is it acceptable for this story to be written?
 
Funny how language works. I didn't know what "doxxing" was yet I immediately knew it was something cnuts do.
 
I still don't see how anyone - be it on here, on twitter, whatever - can draw grand conclusions about Aziz Ansari and whether this was sexual assault from a very one-sided article that is clearly written with an agenda.

If the article was nameless then the discussions would be far more valid.
 
Listar said:
Not that it relates to the topic, but just to be argumentative, there is some parts of places and scenarios you should not walk at.

Example:
1) In between the street where a gang fight is occurring
2) In the hunting ground dressed up like a bear
3) In the airport shouting god is great
Click to expand...

I know I asked to be banned from this thread, but I am disappointed that this post was not expanded on. Shame on all of you.

As you were.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
I still don't see how anyone - be it on here, on twitter, whatever - can draw grand conclusions about Aziz Ansari and whether this was sexual assault from a very one-sided article that is clearly written with an agenda.

If the article was nameless then the discussions would be far more valid.
Click to expand...

Naming Ansari while keeping his date anonymous was obviously done to wield power over him. They could've kept him unnamed but that wouldn't have gotten the clicks and drama this story has gotten, which has obviously helped the career of the story's author and her fringe website.
 
Listar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe in front of the law...of your country. In some others I am pretty sure it exist the figure of a woman rapping a man. At the end of the day, is semantics. Also, it exist the figure of volunteery rape (I know the technical word in spanish but not in english). Were a woman tells a man that if he doesn't feck her, she will kill a member of his family(for example), or put a gun on his head, etc...
 
In English law rape has to be penetration with the penis. Not really sure why there needs to exist a differential between rape and sexual assault, it does send the message that one is less severe than the other. Think there's been a big problem with recognising male victims, despite the fact one of the most prominent figures at the centre of this whole thing has been accused of assaulting and molesting only men.

Various stunts to promote women, such as women only hosts at that award ceremony thing, it's as if the ideology is to promote and support all victims of abuse in Hollywood...except Kevin Spaceys. Definitely an omission. Maybe Hollywood, for all its liberal ideals, is fundamentally uncomfortable with the concept.
 
Last edited:
Most women are conscious that they are always at a physical disadvantage to an able-bodied man, if he chooses to use that advantage. We choose to ignore that, for the sake of our sanity, for the sake of living our daily lives, getting on with our careers, building friendships, and ultimately for the sake of our love lives. Equally, we know the fact that generally women worry about how we're seen and that we want to be seen as kind, or gentle, or at least as polite, can be used against us.

Nonetheless, on a date, 99% of the time we're the physically weaker sex and we're trusting our judgment - judgment that might be impaired by things like youth, drink, physical desire, excitement, or even wishful thinking - to keep us safe, physically and emotionally.

That's the point about strangers who date, you don't know each other. You're finding out about one another. One of the things you're finding out is whether you are looking for the same thing, whether you're tuned into one another intellectually, emotionally, physically. Reading each others body language, non-verbal cues, tone of voice, and mood is part of that.

I still read that article (with my reading influenced by the fact I see it as a single perspective rendering of a multiple perspective event) as two incompatible people date and it goes wrong because he thinks the evening is about sex and she thinks it's about connecting, and maybe even a relationship.

But that's a statistical thing - even if the number of women who were into "sex on the first date" was the same as the number of men who saw it the same way (which it isn't) you don't really know who you're meeting (in either direction). You're guessing. Which from my point of view means that the one who is at a physical disadvantage (especially if they are the doubter) needs other defences. To me, that meant regaining control of the situation - verbally if that seemed like it was enough, or by not placing myself in a situation where I felt at risk (like being alone with the person) if the danger/unknown seemed higher.

What's difficult to know as you read Grace's story is why she couldn't react in a different way - to make her reactions more explicit. Had she taken a gamble against her own instincts - the red/white wine thing, the rushed meal and trip back to the apartment? Did she continue out of paralysis, misguided politeness, optimism that he might respond, or even because she still had some vague hope that by mimicking a sexual response she might end up feeling one? I don't know. But whatever it was it did her a disservice, and that for me is the bigger picture here.
 
jojojo said:
Most women are conscious that they are always at a physical disadvantage to an able-bodied man, if he chooses to use that advantage. We choose to ignore that, for the sake of our sanity, for the sake of living our daily lives, getting on with our careers, building friendships, and ultimately for the sake of our love lives. Equally, we know the fact that generally women worry about how we're seen and that we want to be seen as kind, or gentle, or at least as polite, can be used against us.

Nonetheless, on a date, 99% of the time we're the physically weaker sex and we're trusting our judgment - judgment that might be impaired by things like youth, drink, physical desire, excitement, or even wishful thinking - to keep us safe, physically and emotionally.

That's the point about strangers who date, you don't know each other. You're finding out about one another. One of the things you're finding out is whether you are looking for the same thing, whether you're tuned into one another intellectually, emotionally, physically. Reading each others body language, non-verbal cues, tone of voice, and mood is part of that.

I still read that article (with my reading influenced by the fact I see it as a single perspective rendering of a multiple perspective event) as two incompatible people date and it goes wrong because he thinks the evening is about sex and she thinks it's about connecting, and maybe even a relationship.

But that's a statistical thing - even if the number of women who were into "sex on the first date" was the same as the number of men who saw it the same way (which it isn't) you don't really know who you're meeting (in either direction). You're guessing. Which from my point of view means that the one who is at a physical disadvantage (especially if they are the doubter) needs other defences. To me, that meant regaining control of the situation - verbally if that seemed like it was enough, or by not placing myself in a situation where I felt at risk (like being alone with the person) if the danger/unknown seemed higher.

What's difficult to know as you read Grace's story is why she couldn't react in a different way - to make her reactions more explicit. Had she taken a gamble against her own instincts - the red/white wine thing, the rushed meal and trip back to the apartment? Did she continue out of paralysis, misguided politeness, optimism that he might respond, or even because she still had some vague hope that by mimicking a sexual response she might end up feeling one? I don't know. But whatever it was it did her a disservice, and that for me is the bigger picture here.
Click to expand...

As I always say, as a man I can´t even imagine that for woman, even the most simple things, like walking on the street, are different in perception for a woman than for a man. The level of awareness is completely different is very unfair
 
Dave Chapelle makes a good and eye-opening point in his own way on one of his recent Netflix shows, he's talking about how as a teenager he did a show and was given $20k in cash which he had to take home through the city in his backpack, he says how petrified he was that on his person was something that many men around him would have killed him for no question if they had known it was there. He makes the comparison of instead of having $20k, what if it was known that he had a vagina instead and maybe that's how it can feel to be a woman sometimes as no doubt there are men out there in those realms of desperation. Of course I'm paraphrasing and he delivers it a lot better but it does make you think.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
Dave Chapelle makes a good and eye-opening point in his own way on one of his recent Netflix shows, he's talking about how as a teenager he did a show and was given $20k in cash which he had to take home through the city in his backpack, he says how petrified he was that on his person was something that many men around him would have killed him for no question if they had known it was there. He makes the comparison of instead of having $20k, what if it was known that he had a vagina instead and maybe that's how it can feel to be a woman sometimes as no doubt there are men out there in those realms of desperation. Of course I'm paraphrasing and he delivers it a lot better but it does make you think.
Click to expand...

I doubt is comparable. I travelled around the world 3 years nd I had always 3k-4k dollars/euros on me hidden. Passing through among the most violent countries even sometimes in the worst neighbourhoods in some places. And yes, sometimes I was afraid but I knew that I would only lose money (If you give it away right away would not be a problem). Also, no one knew that I had that quantity but men know that a woman has a vagina. And when you get raped, is not comparable in losing any quantity of money.

I understand a bit the analogy, but at most he could grasp a bit and it was just one night, for women is the whole life what it piles up
 
4bars said:
I doubt is comparable. I travelled around the world 3 years nd I had always 3k-4k dollars/euros on me hidden. Passing through among the most violent countries even sometimes in the worst neighbourhoods in some places. And yes, sometimes I was afraid but I knew that I would only lose money (If you give it away right away would not be a problem). Also, no one knew that I had that quantity but men know that a woman has a vagina. And when you get raped, is not comparable in losing any quantity of money.

I understand a bit the analogy, but at most he could grasp a bit and it was just one night, for women is the whole life what it piles up
Click to expand...

Of course it is comparable, you have something on your person that potentially dangerous men will or have the potential to use great violence to 'acquire'. The analogy doesn't need your anecdotes about carrying money around or your assumption about what happens if you give the money away. The idea of the story is to be thought provoking and relate the vulnerability that women face to something a man can more readily understand as it really is something we don't really comprehend in general. Not sure why you would argue against it like it's a mathematical theory.
 
jojojo said:
Most women are conscious that they are always at a physical disadvantage to an able-bodied man, if he chooses to use that advantage. We choose to ignore that, for the sake of our sanity, for the sake of living our daily lives, getting on with our careers, building friendships, and ultimately for the sake of our love lives. Equally, we know the fact that generally women worry about how we're seen and that we want to be seen as kind, or gentle, or at least as polite, can be used against us.

Nonetheless, on a date, 99% of the time we're the physically weaker sex and we're trusting our judgment - judgment that might be impaired by things like youth, drink, physical desire, excitement, or even wishful thinking - to keep us safe, physically and emotionally.

That's the point about strangers who date, you don't know each other. You're finding out about one another. One of the things you're finding out is whether you are looking for the same thing, whether you're tuned into one another intellectually, emotionally, physically. Reading each others body language, non-verbal cues, tone of voice, and mood is part of that.

I still read that article (with my reading influenced by the fact I see it as a single perspective rendering of a multiple perspective event) as two incompatible people date and it goes wrong because he thinks the evening is about sex and she thinks it's about connecting, and maybe even a relationship.

But that's a statistical thing - even if the number of women who were into "sex on the first date" was the same as the number of men who saw it the same way (which it isn't) you don't really know who you're meeting (in either direction). You're guessing. Which from my point of view means that the one who is at a physical disadvantage (especially if they are the doubter) needs other defences. To me, that meant regaining control of the situation - verbally if that seemed like it was enough, or by not placing myself in a situation where I felt at risk (like being alone with the person) if the danger/unknown seemed higher.

What's difficult to know as you read Grace's story is why she couldn't react in a different way - to make her reactions more explicit. Had she taken a gamble against her own instincts - the red/white wine thing, the rushed meal and trip back to the apartment? Did she continue out of paralysis, misguided politeness, optimism that he might respond, or even because she still had some vague hope that by mimicking a sexual response she might end up feeling one? I don't know. But whatever it was it did her a disservice, and that for me is the bigger picture here.
Click to expand...

Thought this was a good post,
Dont really have anything to add or to ask about it ... but i did think about it a fair bit over past couple of days so just thought i'd say.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
Of course it is comparable, you have something on your person that potentially dangerous men will or have the potential to use great violence to 'acquire'. The analogy doesn't need your anecdotes about carrying money around or your assumption about what happens if you give the money away. The idea of the story is to be thought provoking and relate the vulnerability that women face to something a man can more readily understand as it really is something we don't really comprehend in general. Not sure why you would argue against it like it's a mathematical theory.
Click to expand...

Ok, buddy
 
4bars said:
I doubt is comparable. I travelled around the world 3 years nd I had always 3k-4k dollars/euros on me hidden. Passing through among the most violent countries even sometimes in the worst neighbourhoods in some places. And yes, sometimes I was afraid but I knew that I would only lose money (If you give it away right away would not be a problem). Also, no one knew that I had that quantity but men know that a woman has a vagina. And when you get raped, is not comparable in losing any quantity of money.

I understand a bit the analogy, but at most he could grasp a bit and it was just one night, for women is the whole life what it piles up
Click to expand...
You might have missed the point, Chappelle was not comparing the crimes but the fear one experiences when they could be a target if you have something that they want (be it money or your body). Chappelle had 20K on him that thankfully no one knew about so he was safe but you cannot be safe as a woman because a rapist always knows you have what he is looking for.
 
I think the analogy Chappelle made is good, in theory - but falls short on the mind state and ultimately only tells half the story, which I think is what @4bars was alluding to.

Ultimately what makes walking out at night solo dolo for a woman so scary, is not so much that you have a vagina - that's a very surface level analysis.

It's more about the power dynamics, objectification, and difference in size and strength - they can do whatever they want to you, and ultimately you are likely to be unable to stop them.
It's also key to remember that gay men, trans women and lesbians are at high risk (and in some cases, higher risk than heterosexual women) of being targets for rape and sexual assault too.
Having a vagina/being feminine etc isn't necessarily the differentiating factor here.

Everyone knows that on average heterosexual men are more likely to be the dominant figure in any form of sexual contact due to various factors, that power position is what makes it scary - because he knows that I am unlikely to hold him off and I know it too.

Now if I am carrying cash on me, I know it - but nobody else does, and sure, I may be more vulnerable or alert than I normally would be - but outwardly, i'm not in any more immediate danger than I usually would be.
 
vi1lain said:
I think the analogy Chappelle made is good, in theory - but falls short on the mind state ....
Now if I am carrying cash on me, I know it - but nobody else does, and sure, I may be more vulnerable or alert than I normally would be - but outwardly, i'm not in any more immediate danger than I usually would be.
Click to expand...
But he wasn't trying to compare mindsets or even suggest that the two scenarios are in any way equal. Just that as a man this was the first time he felt unsafe and that women must carry around their own version of this fear at all times.

It might be a heavy handed analogy that misses out on many at risk people (as you rightly pointed out) but as @Vidic_In_Moscow says it should be eye opening to the heterosexual male who doesn't need to think twice about walking home alone from the pub after a night on the beer. I would never underestimate how oblivious the general male population (who would never dream of committing a rape) would be to such a mindset.
 
GBBQ said:
But he wasn't trying to compare mindsets or even suggest that the two scenarios are in any way equal. Just that as a man this was the first time he felt unsafe and that women must carry around their own version of this fear at all times.

It might be a heavy handed analogy that misses out on many at risk people (as you rightly pointed out) but as @Vidic_In_Moscow says it should be eye opening to the heterosexual male who doesn't need to think twice about walking home alone from the pub after a night on the beer. I would never underestimate how oblivious the general male population (who would never dream of committing a rape) would be to such a mindset.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I said at a surface level it certainly does the job, and if you're not used to that experience it should definitely give you perspective.

what if it was known that he had a vagina instead and maybe that's how it can feel to be a woman sometimes as no doubt there are men out there in those realms of desperation
Click to expand...

is what @Vidic_In_Moscow wrote, and "how it can feel to be a woman" is probably what I took issue with, as I don't think it's comparable.
I think a better line of reasoning would be "how it can feel to be vulnerable" or even perhaps "how it can feel to lose that element of power" - I think that would've been better.
 
vi1lain said:
I think the analogy Chappelle made is good, in theory - but falls short on the mind state and ultimately only tells half the story, which I think is what @4bars was alluding to.

Ultimately what makes walking out at night solo dolo for a woman so scary, is not so much that you have a vagina - that's a very surface level analysis.

It's more about the power dynamics, objectification, and difference in size and strength - they can do whatever they want to you, and ultimately you are likely to be unable to stop them.
It's also key to remember that gay men, trans women and lesbians are at high risk (and in some cases, higher risk than heterosexual women) of being targets for rape and sexual assault too.
Having a vagina/being feminine etc isn't necessarily the differentiating factor here.

Everyone knows that on average heterosexual men are more likely to be the dominant figure in any form of sexual contact due to various factors, that power position is what makes it scary - because he knows that I am unlikely to hold him off and I know it too.

Now if I am carrying cash on me, I know it - but nobody else does, and sure, I may be more vulnerable or alert than I normally would be - but outwardly, i'm not in any more immediate danger than I usually would be.
Click to expand...

Does that play on your mind regularly or is it a fleeting thought you have every so often?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.