Aziz Anseri situation

[Crimson Wife]

AND.

 

I detest that this conversation centers so much around women and how they behave - even though their behavior, bad or good, has nothing to do with violating someone else. 

 

This conversation should be about men. Why/How have we conditioned men to approach this situation with entitlement?

 

I didn't see anything in the story where he violated her. Was he a pushy jerk? Absolutely. But there is a difference between being selfish & aggressive in his pursuit and forcing himself on a victim who is ACTUALLY refusing him (not just hoping he'll be a mind reader as this young women apparently did).

Edited January 17, 2018 by Crimson Wife

[EmseB]

It's not illegal. And yes, it's the risk she took.

 

That doesn't mean I'm "okay" with it -- I think it would have been a jerk move. But I am also very much not okay with takes on this situation that call expecting him to be considerate of her infatalizing women and saying they are fragile beings with no agency in need of protection while at the same time expecting her to be considerate of him and protect him. Why does that not infantalize men and consider them fragile beings in need of protection? She has to take her hit as a learning experiene and so does he.

 

I think it's probably because we differ on what being considerate means given the two separate situations.

 

The argument I quoted said that this woman was simply a product of socialization that meant she couldn't refuse to go home with him. Once there she couldn't not make out with him. She couldn't not be naked with him. She couldn't say she wanted a back rub. She couldn't say no to oral sex he asked for. She couldn't do any of that because women are conditioned in such a way that they are incapable.  If women can't do that, then yes, they are fragile and need protection.

 

On the other hand, I think publishing the details of someone's bad game in an effort to call them a criminal goes well beyond being inconsiderate or not protecting them. In Ansari's position as a celebrity I think it's dumb to have encounters with people you don't know very well exactly because who knows who will say what about you. That's why he's not a victim. However, in general, I don't think it's considered fragile to not want the details of your sexual exploits posted on the internet.  If that is fragile, then most people I know are fragile.

 

Further, what I stated was that it was my personal gut reaction to reading the story.  His actual public reaction to all this seems to be taking his lumps and not being fragile about it at all.

[EmseB]

This isn't sexual assault. It shouldn't fall under #metoo. It is an extremely important conversation to have nontheless.

 

I'm actually appalled by the idea that seems to be coming out of the conversation that if a woman doesn't know how to handle herself by immediately saying "no" and walking out, she should not be allowed to be unsupervised. 

 

It's as if internalized misogyny isn't a real thing. We are all just raised in families and in cultures where women are empowered just the same as men. Nothing to see here. Move along. 

 

So because of internalized misogyny, what is a woman to do?  She can't resist going up to his place. Once there she can't resist making out with him. Can't resist getting undressed. Can't resist any of it? If she can't do any of that for herself, if she can't make her own sexual decisions, then what? Is a man to assume that a woman who is making out with him isn't of sound mind and is just uncomfortable with the situation? I would say that societally, that assumption of internalized misogyny handicapping women into not being able to resist a man is what leads to women being seen as inferior.

 

I just reject, totally, that notion of womanhood, that I have no agency because of culture.

[Bluegoat]

Nope. There are always some women who will naturally be less empowered than others. But we cannot on the one hand condone (through pretense of equality) the conditioning into weakness that women have experienced throughout centuries and then on the other, expect them to be empowered. Let's ACTUALLY CHANGE our culture to empower women. EXPLICITLY. It's cruel and a form of gaslighting to train them to be one way and then expect them to be different.

 

Your repeated talk of "extra guardianship" is creepy.  Truly. There is no rational conversation possible here if you keep throwing that out there.

 

You will be taught to be helpless.

You've now proven that you're helpless.

You need extra supervision because you're helpless.

 

 

It might be creepy, but what people are describing here in terms of lack of agency is absolutely why people used to think women needed that kind of care, even up to my mother's generation.

 

It's not irrational to point out that the argument people are making is the same one that said that women could not be responsible parties.  

 

The feminist argument that said that no, women should be allowed the same freedoms to make decisions as men did so on the basis that women were just as able to make decisions and negotiate sexual situations as men are, at least when you aren't at the point of actual assault or threats.  And it also said that adult women are mature enough to handle the kinds of misunderstandings and personal issues (like being shy or confused or dealing with someone unpleasant) that will come up in these situations.

 

I find it profoundly disturbing that people are making arguments that point directly to women being incapable of consent.  

[EmseB]

Nope. There are always some women who will naturally be less empowered than others. But we cannot on the one hand condone (through pretense of equality) the conditioning into weakness that women have experienced throughout centuries and then on the other, expect them to be empowered. Let's ACTUALLY CHANGE our culture to empower women. EXPLICITLY. It's cruel and a form of gaslighting to train them to be one way and then expect them to be different.

 

Your repeated talk of "extra guardianship" is creepy.  Truly. There is no rational conversation possible here if you keep throwing that out there.

 

You will be taught to be helpless.

You've now proven that you're helpless.

You need extra supervision because you're helpless.

 

Who is training women to be helpless?

 

I mean, I get people coming out of abusive situations and having issues, but societally we're a long way from training women to be helpless in America in 2018.

 

The point about guardanship is not that I seriously believe that needs to happen. It's a superlative to emphasize the fact that if a woman can't even say she wants a different kind of wine, much less decide for herself when she does and doesn't want to makeout with a guy, then, yeah, there are serious problems happening there.  I don't believe, honestly, that most women are trained to be that helpless and I think that's why most reactions to the article have been along the lines of, "uh, just ask for red wine, lady."

[8circles]

Who is training women to be helpless?

 

I mean, I get people coming out of abusive situations and having issues, but societally we're a long way from training women to be helpless in America in 2018.

 

The point about guardanship is not that I seriously believe that needs to happen. It's a superlative to emphasize the fact that if a woman can't even say she wants a different kind of wine, much less decide for herself when she does and doesn't want to makeout with a guy, then, yeah, there are serious problems happening there. I don't believe, honestly, that most women are trained to be that helpless and I think that's why most reactions to the article have been along the lines of, "uh, just ask for red wine, lady."

Then you don't understand what internalized misogyny is.

[8circles]

It might be creepy, but what people are describing here in terms of lack of agency is absolutely why people used to think women needed that kind of care, even up to my mother's generation.

 

It's not irrational to point out that the argument people are making is the same one that said that women could not be responsible parties.

 

The feminist argument that said that no, women should be allowed the same freedoms to make decisions as men did so on the basis that women were just as able to make decisions and negotiate sexual situations as men are, at least when you aren't at the point of actual assault or threats. And it also said that adult women are mature enough to handle the kinds of misunderstandings and personal issues (like being shy or confused or dealing with someone unpleasant) that will come up in these situations.

 

I find it profoundly disturbing that people are making arguments that point directly to women being incapable of consent.

And women are capable of consenting and being empowered. The answer, in the face of the result of conditioning to remove our power, is not to reiterate the argument used at the beginning of time to strip us of our voice, but to advocate for changing the culture of conditioning of both men and women.

 

It's funny how nobody says about the man, that if he doesn't know how to behave then he needs extra guardianship. Or maybe not so funny.

[EmseB]

And women are capable of consenting and being empowered. The answer, in the face of the result of conditioning to remove our power, is not to reiterate the argument used at the beginning of time to strip us of our voice, but to advocate for changing the culture of conditioning of both men and women.

 

It's funny how nobody says about the man, that if he doesn't know how to behave then he needs extra guardianship. Or maybe not so funny.

 

If he is forcing women to have sex with him, then he does need extra guardanship. It's called jail.

[EmseB]

Then you don't understand what internalized misogyny is.

 

Yes, my take on this situation and numerous posts in this thread simply boil down to my own ignorance because I disagree with your take on internalized misogyny and women's agency.

[Bluegoat]

And women are capable of consenting and being empowered. The answer, in the face of the result of conditioning to remove our power, is not to reiterate the argument used at the beginning of time to strip us of our voice, but to advocate for changing the culture of conditioning of both men and women.

 

It's funny how nobody says about the man, that if he doesn't know how to behave then he needs extra guardianship. Or maybe not so funny.

 

Thy do actually.

 

Not in the context that they'd suggest it with women, since that hasn't been a problem.

 

Did you miss people saying that women can't say no to men because they are scared of rape or assault?  

[whitestavern]

I keep wondering how a person is supposed to determine the level of enthusiasm their date/sex partner is showing, when they barely know them. 

 

I'm sure there are many people who even when they are fully into it and enjoying themselves wouldn't be considered "enthusiastic" just due to their personality.

[AimeeM]

I keep wondering how a person is supposed to determine the level of enthusiasm their date/sex partner is showing, when they barely know them. 

 

This.

 

I had a 1 a.m. conversation with our 16 year old DD last night, prompted by this forum discussion.

 

It isn't safe, or fair, to expect a person you barely know, to accurately read your "non-verbal cues." We discussed how even two people who have known each other for years, and intimately, can misjudge the other's non-verbal cues, because how standard those non-verbal cues are is dependent on a number variables; and a person's ability to accurately perceive those non-verbal cues is, likewise, dependent on a number of variables.

If you don't want to do something, say it. 

 

"No -- I want to leave now," combined with non-verbal cues like actively dressing and leaving, is the safer (and , frankly, fairer) bet.

 

Further, if you give verbal consent, or go on to seemingly willingly participate, don't expect a virtual stranger to be able to accurately perceive your level of enthusiasm, in such a way that it would validate or invalidate your already-given verbal consent. <----- That one really gets me. Confusing sh*t, that right there.

[DesertBlossom]

I think this situation highlights what is wrong with today's hookup culture. At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, sex is a big deal. But we're taught that casual hookups are okay, that embracing your sexuality can also include sexual encounters with strangers, and that sex is no big deal. But It's inherently a big deal. That's why "Grace" feels so used and violated by this encounter. It's because she was used and violated, even if the encounter was consensual. Ansari had no feelings for her. She was nothing more than a sexual object to him. 

 

I just don't think we can have it both ways. Either sex is a big deal, or it's not. Grace's whole recounting of the night is only gross and disturbing because she felt taken advantage of. If she were to tell the story again, but this time expressed "enthusiastic consent" for every action that took place, we'd think this casual hookup was no big deal. But the internet is at odds over whether Ansari's behavior was just creepy or if it was criminal. Maybe we should stop trying to figure out how to determine consent during a casual hookup (there's an app for that) and start teaching people (both men and women) that sex is for committed, long-term relationships. Imagine how much heartache, guilt and regret would be avoided if we quit trying to make sex no big deal and started treating it with the respect it deserves.

[8circles]

Thy do actually.

 

Not in the context that they'd suggest it with women, since that hasn't been a problem.

They do actually what? Suggest that men need extra guardianship? Where? Who? Did *you* suggest it?

 

Did you miss people saying that women can't say no to men because they are scared of rape or assault?  

 

No, I didn't miss women saying they are afraid of saying "no". Is that an indication of a problem with the women or a problem with the men? I have no idea what your point is.

[8circles]

Yes, my take on this situation and numerous posts in this thread simply boil down to my own ignorance because I disagree with your take on internalized misogyny and women's agency.

 

If you deny that internalized misogyny is an actual thing, then yes - you lack understanding.

[8circles]

If he is forcing women to have sex with him, then he does need extra guardanship. It's called jail.

 

So a woman needs extra guardianship because she's been conditioned to be "nice" but he only needs it if he forces women to have sex with him.

 

The bars are pretty uneven.

 

Oh wait, uneven bars don't exist. Nevermind.

[Scarlett]

I think this situation highlights what is wrong with today's hookup culture. At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, sex is a big deal. But we're taught that casual hookups are okay, that embracing your sexuality can also include sexual encounters with strangers, and that sex is no big deal. But It's inherently a big deal. That's why "Grace" feels so used and violated by this encounter. It's because she was used and violated, even if the encounter was consensual. Ansari had no feelings for her. She was nothing more than a sexual object to him. 

 

I just don't think we can have it both ways. Either sex is a big deal, or it's not. Grace's whole recounting of the night is only gross and disturbing because she felt taken advantage of. If she were to tell the story again, but this time expressed "enthusiastic consent" for every action that took place, we'd think this casual hookup was no big deal. But the internet is at odds over whether Ansari's behavior was just creepy or if it was criminal. Maybe we should stop trying to figure out how to determine consent during a casual hookup (there's an app for that) and start teaching people (both men and women) that sex is for committed, long-term relationships. Imagine how much heartache, guilt and regret would be avoided if we quit trying to make sex no big deal and started treating it with the respect it deserves.

 

QFT I keep thinking how much grief these two could have saved themselves if they only had not made the decision to take their clothes off for a stranger.  

[8circles]

I didn't see anything in the story where he violated her. Was he a pushy jerk? Absolutely. But there is a difference between being selfish & aggressive in his pursuit and forcing himself on a victim who is ACTUALLY refusing him (not just hoping he'll be a mind reader as this young women apparently did).

 

It is a violation of her personhood to start with the assumption of consent and act accordingly.

[mathnerd]

"My rational brain checked out" shouldn't be an excuse for either of them. You can't reduce women to mindless zombies and claim men are in total command at the same time. He doesn't sound any brighter than her and this was a train wreck of a date.

We can talk about how a woman should be strong and clear when it comes to consent. But, what if Grace is NOT a strong woman and what if her brain really checked out because she was surprised that things took such a turn so quickly? I find it annoying that a man's will and persuasive powers seem to have overridden the woman's will for the majority of the encounter. She does say that she was mumbling and pushing him away and resisting him for a while. That does not look like consent. That looks like harassment where men believe that they have not really "persuaded" the reluctant women until the woman changes her heart and relents.

 

This is the excerpt that made me think that he is not being slandered:

But he kept asking, so I said, ‘Next time.’

 

If someone says "Next time", it clearly means "Not this time". Maybe Grace was being polite or was a pushover or was trying to keep his interest in her so that he might get to know her a little and like her for her own personality? I was not there. I don't know what really happened. But, "Next time" means, let it go now.

[EmseB]

If you deny that internalized misogyny is an actual thing, then yes - you lack understanding.

 

What if I understand it and disagree with how you're applying it in this case?

[Bluegoat]

No, I didn't miss women saying they are afraid of saying "no". Is that an indication of a problem with the women or a problem with the men? I have no idea what your point is.

 

No, not women.

 

It was suggested that in this situation, this women might have been too afraid to say, no, she didn't want to go to this guy's house.  In public, where there was little risk and in any case he showed no intention of harming her.

 

If anyone is at the point where normal public interactions leave them completely unable to assert themselves, that's gone beyond where they are safe to be out by themselves.  Most people who have kids at that stage don't let them out.

 

In any case, there's no indication in the text that she was, in fact, afraid.  Maybe she felt she ought to be polite, but that's hardly the same thing.  I have a hard time assessing myself in social situations because I have social anxiety.  I've not spoken up when I ought to have, including back when I was dating.  It kind of sucks, but if it was to the point where I actually wasn't able to be responsible for myself, I'd be looking for professional help.  Despite being pretty extreme, I never felt I was anywhere near the point I couldn't account for my own actions, or lack of action.

[8circles]

What if I understand it and disagree with how you're applying it in this case?

 

What if I'm not applying it at all, I'm acknowledging it's existence? 

 

It was you who said women weren't conditioned in America in 2018. You deny that it exists today. It appears that you think that our culture equally empowers men and women. 

[Sandwalker]

This isn't sexual assault. It shouldn't fall under #metoo. It is an extremely important conversation to have nontheless.

 

I'm actually appalled by the idea that seems to be coming out of the conversation that if a woman doesn't know how to handle herself by immediately saying "no" and walking out, she should not be allowed to be unsupervised.

 

It's as if internalized misogyny isn't a real thing. We are all just raised in families and in cultures where women are empowered just the same as men. Nothing to see here. Move along.

This. And a lot of slut-shaming, too.

[Bluegoat]

I've been thinking about this, and would agree...except for the fact that Anseri wrote that dating book. I think that puts this in a 'public interest' category, because - if he's going to make money from a dating book, it's relevant to future buyers that we see his actual dating practices, which - from this story - appear pretty sleazy and porny and really, not very good. 

 

He also sets himself up as a male feminist...so, it's more the exposure of hypocrisy that I think tips (just) into public interest. ETA just saw the post re the timesup pin. This is a HUGE problem with leftist men....they talk the talk, but do they walk they walk ? Depressingly often, no. Anseri should either shut up, and stop trying to gain virtue points/sales, or align his private behaviours with his public statements.

 

If he was 'just' an actor, I think the story could have been shared without naming him, and that would have been appropriate. 

 

Well, I don't really know anything about his book, so I don't know that I am much of a judge of whether he presents something really different there that put him in a different light.  As far as this incident goes, I don't really think he was in the wrong.  I mean - I don't really like that kind of dating/hook up scene.  But there seem to be quite a few people in that under 35 age group that operate that way and think it's normal, and I don't think he was operating outside of that.  And as far as criticizing it, I think it would be better to write something that talks about hook up culture more generally - because that isn't on this one guy, and his behaviour really doesn't get at the big picture.

 

Anyway - had it been something about him that related to the book, I think that wold be fair enough, but I still am not all that keen on detailed descriptions of sexual performance - that's really what I think of as an invasion of privacy.  And it also seems itself to be a feature of that casual hook up sex culture, rather than a real criticism of it.

[Bluegoat]

So a woman needs extra guardianship because she's been conditioned to be "nice" but he only needs it if he forces women to have sex with him.

 

The bars are pretty uneven.

 

Oh wait, uneven bars don't exist. Nevermind.

 

No.  No one said that.

 

They said that if a woman cannot say no to a man asking her to come to his place, get undressed, and giving him a blow job, even if she really does not want to do those things, she needs someone to look after her.  Rather like a man who cannot or will not refrain for forcing himself on someone.

 

No ability to advocate for oneself even when someone makes a suggestion is a heck of a long way from "being nice."

[Word Nerd]

This. And a lot of slut-shaming, too.

 

Where?

[marbel]

AND.

 

I detest that this conversation centers so much around women and how they behave - even though their behavior, bad or good, has nothing to do with violating someone else. 

 

 

This conversation should be about men. Why/How have we conditioned men to approach this situation with entitlement?

He isn't asking for consent, consent is assumed. 

 

She had allowed him to remove her clothes. She had allowed him to perform a sex act on her.  I don't have the timeline memorized, so I'm not sure if this happened before or after he asked her where she wanted him to f her, but she performed a sex act on him.

 

At that point it would probably seem reasonable for him to assume she was prepared to "go all the way" as the old saying goes.  And that's where she can/should (and maybe did) say, unequivocally, "no."  "I don't want it anywhere.  I don't want it at all.  Not today."  Or whatever. 

 

I don't think it's an unusual assumption given what they'd already done. I've made that assumption myself, back in my deep dark past, with a guy.  At a certain point (well before the point that Grace and Aziz reached), he said (approximately), "no, we're not going to do this" and apologized for leading me to believe that's where we were headed.  I was embarrassed as all hell, but he was very classy about it. 

 

It's not necessarily a sense of entitlement. (Maybe it was in his case, no way to know.)  It can be a misreading of the situation.

 

And I think pretty much everyone on this thread has said that he behaved badly as well. 

[Bluegoat]

It's hook up culture + porn culture. 

 

I honestly think the best use that can be made of this situation is to explore what cultural pressures are making this 'normal'.

 

Yes.  

 

The porn thing is at least partly tech related, so there's that.

 

But the hook up culture - that's a difficult one to pick apart, I think.  At least some of it is intended to be an assertion of women's sexual agency against oppressive paternalism, and a rejection of what were considered prudish views of sexuality.  So that is coming out of the 70's and you have that libertarian sexual culture of that period, which had some pretty destructive elements.

 

I think that a lot of the millennials are a full generation removed from the older supposedly prudish view though - they've really grown up with a very libertarian view of sexuality and to some extent an example of that in their parents and extended family, and certainly on television it's completely the norm, even on sit-coms and such.  (Though there it's cleaned up and romanticized.)  I get the sense from some of the ones I talk to that they don't really see any kind of middle way, where there is another view of sexual expression that isn't based on some set of values they think is stupid, and a sense where it's just a kind of valueless biological function to play with.

 

It would be interesting to consider why this has become such a thing now though - I mean, it's been around since the 70's, but I think it was somewhat on he wane, and now it's picked up again.  Is it things like Tinder, or ?? - I don't know.

[TravelingChris]

I'm sure there are many people who even when they are fully into it and enjoying themselves wouldn't be considered "enthusiastic" just due to their personality.

 

This just made me laugh so hard.

[Bluegoat]

It's hook up culture + porn culture. 

 

I honestly think the best use that can be made of this situation is to explore what cultural pressures are making this 'normal'. Leave aside Anseri as a person, and Grace as a person, and the particulars, and focus on the generalities. In some ways, it's a morality tale for our age.

 

Re women's agency, I don't think we can discount the pressures on young women to behave in particular ways. Something good to come out of this would be some very frank discussions about how we, as women, challenge those pressures and communicate with young women about their agency. 

 

I also don't think we can discount the influences on young men to behave sexually in particular ways either. That needs challenging too.

 

I saw you added more here - yes - of course they have pressures, and so do young men.  And I think often they are somewhat unaware of them.

 

I don't think fear (as in physical fear of being attacked) or misogyny are even the most common.  I think fear of failure, being laughed at, being alone - these are the major ones for young people dating that drive a lot of bad decision making.

 

And dealing with it can be learned, and also taught.  But - I kind of get the sense that they don't feel that this is something older people can tell them about.  But the thing with agency is that ultimately, it does come down to an individual to take hold of it, and to see where they can, no matter what the social structures around them are doing or saying.  I always think it's like the Bob Marley song "None but ourselves can free our minds."  

[EmseB]

What if I'm not applying it at all, I'm acknowledging it's existence?

 

It was you who said women weren't conditioned in America in 2018. You deny that it exists today. It appears that you think that our culture equally empowers men and women.

To the extent that I know I can ask for red wine instead of white and decline to make out naked with someone who makes me uncomfortable, yes, I'd say most women (especially those privileged enough to be attending celebrity parties in NYC) in 2018 America can make those decisions for themselves without the internalized misogyny of our culture being a problem.

 

I don't think "she couldn't help herself because internalized misogyny" is an excuse any more than "boys will be boys" is an excuse the other way around.

[bettyandbob]

I think the only nonverbal cue that would have been clear in the situation was not done. Get up and get dressed. Don't hang out on the couch naked. What kind of message is that. This girl was not held hostage. She was free to say no. She was free to leave.

 

It was a bad sexual encounter because neither person knew the other well enough to communicate. I don't think it's surprising that a bad sexual encounter can come out if two people who don't know each other getting together. That doesn't mean the encounter was constituted assault.

 

Encounters like this happen. One or both parties may feel remorse or pain. That reaction does not make the encounter assault.

 

People have crap experiences sexual or not. They learn from it. Move on. Approach the next situation wiser.

 

Think it through. Ask yourself, "what happens when I go home with some I don't know?" Talk and send clear verbal messages. "I'm not comfortable." Is not that clear. It could mean, I don't like your couch or I'm cold. "I need you to stop. I'm getting dressed now." Conveys a more specific message.

 

Publishing a nonassualt and naming someone is pretty close to slander. Attaching the nonassualt to metoo devalues that movement.

[katilac]

I don't think "she couldn't help herself because internalized misogyny" is an excuse any more than "boys will be boys" is an excuse the other way around.

 

This is a sentence I'm going to be thinking about for a while. 

[8circles]

To the extent that I know I can ask for red wine instead of white and decline to make out naked with someone who makes me uncomfortable, yes, I'd say most women (especially those privileged enough to be attending celebrity parties in NYC) in 2018 America can make those decisions for themselves without the internalized misogyny of our culture being a problem.

 

I don't think "she couldn't help herself because internalized misogyny" is an excuse any more than "boys will be boys" is an excuse the other way around.

I cannot clip your quote on my phone. To your last point. One is used as an excuse to do nothing, the other is a call to change our culture for the better. If you miss that then you are missing the point.

[EmseB]

I cannot clip your quote on my phone. To your last point. One is used as an excuse to do nothing, the other is a call to change our culture for the better. If you miss that then you are missing the point.

 

This is at least twice now: "if you don't think  ____ then you are ____."

 

There's no room for disagreement or discussion there. I'm not missing the point. I disagree with your point. Just telling me repeatedly I'm too misinformed or ignorant about the argument you're trying to make isn't a discussion, it's just not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem remarks and/or extremely patronizing, or maybe both.

[8circles]

This is at least twice now: "if you don't think  ____ then you are ____."

 

There's no room for disagreement or discussion there. I'm not missing the point. I disagree with your point. Just telling me repeatedly I'm too misinformed or ignorant about the argument you're trying to make isn't a discussion, it's just not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem remarks and/or extremely patronizing, or maybe both.

 

Thinly-veiled ad hominem remarks and patronization don't happen in America 2018.

 

But I'm happy to re-phrase. 

 

There is no similarity of meanings between the 2 phrases that you are comparing.

 

"Boys will be boys" is a way of excusing their behavior and doing nothing to change it. That's what it means. Do you disagree that that's what it means?

 

"she couldn't help herself because internalized misogyny" - which isn't actually what anyone except you has said and is actually a very disingenuous way to represent what people have been saying - is  an attempt to explain the immediate questioning of her behavior and blame placed on her shoulders. It's a call to change the culture that strips her of her empowerment. That is exactly what several people have been explaining. Do you understand this?

 

The 2 phrases are not similar in any way.

[EmseB]

Thinly-veiled ad hominem remarks and patronization don't happen in America 2018.

 

But I'm happy to re-phrase. 

 

There is no similarity of meanings between the 2 phrases that you are comparing.

 

"Boys will be boys" is a way of excusing their behavior and doing nothing to change it. That's what it means. Do you disagree that that's what it means?

 

"she couldn't help herself because internalized misogyny" - which isn't actually what anyone except you has said and is actually a very disingenuous way to represent what people have been saying - is  an attempt to explain the immediate questioning of her behavior and blame placed on her shoulders. It's a call to change the culture that strips her of her empowerment. That is exactly what several people have been explaining. Do you understand this?

 

The 2 phrases are not similar in any way.

 

They are, in that in any given situation they remove agency from the individual in order to say they couldn't act in a different way.

 

You are actually stripping her of personal agency in some effort to empower her.  This isn't her fault because she didn't know any better because she has internalized misogyny is not helpful to empower women.  Individual women are the only people who can start making different choices (in places like 2018 NYC where they actually have choices) if they want different outcomes.

 

A woman saying, "He brought me back to his apartment," has given away all of her agency to a man she doesn't even know.  And in this article, she didn't even see that she did that. She assumed everything that happened was to her.

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by EmseB

[Sandwalker]

Yes.

 

The porn thing is at least partly tech related, so there's that.

 

But the hook up culture - that's a difficult one to pick apart, I think. At least some of it is intended to be an assertion of women's sexual agency against oppressive paternalism, and a rejection of what were considered prudish views of sexuality. So that is coming out of the 70's and you have that libertarian sexual culture of that period, which had some pretty destructive elements.

 

I think that a lot of the millennials are a full generation removed from the older supposedly prudish view though - they've really grown up with a very libertarian view of sexuality and to some extent an example of that in their parents and extended family, and certainly on television it's completely the norm, even on sit-coms and such. (Though there it's cleaned up and romanticized.) I get the sense from some of the ones I talk to that they don't really see any kind of middle way, where there is another view of sexual expression that isn't based on some set of values they think is stupid, and a sense where it's just a kind of valueless biological function to play with.

 

It would be interesting to consider why this has become such a thing now though - I mean, it's been around since the 70's, but I think it was somewhat on he wane, and now it's picked up again. Is it things like Tinder, or ?? - I don't know.

I think there was a big fear of HIV for a few decades there, and with the new medications, people aren't afraid of dying from a hook up.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the porn as an influence. For example, I was a teenager in the 70s, and no one I knew had ever given oral sex to a man, and not in the '80s, either. I was not sheltered. And no women felt they had to shave off all their hair except that which was on their head. And no one was ashamed of how her vulva looked.

[8circles]

They are, in that in any given situation they remove agency from the individual in order to say they couldn't act in a different way.

 

You are actually stripping her of personal agency in some effort to empower her.  This isn't her fault because she didn't know any better because she has internalized misogyny is not helpful to empower women.  Individual women are the only people who can start making different choices (in places like 2018 NYC where they actually have choices) if they want different outcomes.

 

A woman saying, "He brought me back to his apartment," has given away all of her agency to a man she doesn't even know.  And in this article, she didn't even see that she did that. She assumed everything that happened was to her.

 

 

*I*'m not stripping her of any agency. I'm acknowledging that our culture has already done so and would like it to be changed. 

[Soror]

This. And a lot of slut-shaming, too.

For sure, I'm just waiting for someone to make a comment about what she was wearing and what she had to drink.

 

I mean she should have expected this behavior because she went home with him and going home with him means she wants to have sex with him. 

 

And just because someone is ok with some sex acts doesn't mean they want to have sex.

[8circles]

No, not women.

 

It was suggested that in this situation, this women might have been too afraid to say, no, she didn't want to go to this guy's house.  In public, where there was little risk and in any case he showed no intention of harming her.

 

If anyone is at the point where normal public interactions leave them completely unable to assert themselves, that's gone beyond where they are safe to be out by themselves.  Most people who have kids at that stage don't let them out.

 

In any case, there's no indication in the text that she was, in fact, afraid.  Maybe she felt she ought to be polite, but that's hardly the same thing.  I have a hard time assessing myself in social situations because I have social anxiety.  I've not spoken up when I ought to have, including back when I was dating.  It kind of sucks, but if it was to the point where I actually wasn't able to be responsible for myself, I'd be looking for professional help.  Despite being pretty extreme, I never felt I was anywhere near the point I couldn't account for my own actions, or lack of action.

 

How do you know if/when she became afraid? AFAIK people have mentioned that as a common occurrence, not that it necessarily applied here.

 

So, say it does apply - does she have to be afraid from the get-go in public? So, she can't have been comfortable there, then become afraid later? 

 

What about sex? If she goes to his apartment, it means she wants to have sex? If she's naked, it means she for sure wants to have sex? If she's making-out, she for sure wants to have sex? If she has oral sex, she wants all other kinds of sex as well?

 

Only the first one was "normal public interactions" and we don't know that she at that point felt afraid at all.

Edited January 18, 2018 by 8circles

[Bluegoat]

For sure, I'm just waiting for someone to make a comment about what she was wearing and what she had to drink.

 

I mean she should have expected this behavior because she went home with him and going home with him means she wants to have sex with him. 

 

And just because someone is ok with some sex acts doesn't mean they want to have sex.

 

I think there are two ideas being confused here.

 

Going home with a guy after a date does not mean she's agreed to have sex with him, and if he forces or threatens her into doing so on that basis, it's rape or assault.

 

Thinking that someone is angling for a hook-up because they come to your place after a date, his you, and get naked with you, is pretty reasonable - I think about 100% of people would tend to make that assumption under those circumstances.  And it's not really a problem if they are willing to listen when the person says no or changes his or her mind.

[EmseB]

What about sex? If she goes to his apartment, it means she wants to have sex? If she's naked, it means she for sure wants to have sex? If she's making-out, she for sure wants to have sex? If she has oral sex, she wants all other kinds of sex as well?

You're right, there's no possible way those things could be confused for wanting to have sex. She was completely helpless to do anything but these things to indicate her lack of desire for him and general discomfort for the situation.

 

Except when she told him clearly that she was done with it all, he called her a car. They didn't have sex.

[EmseB]

*I*'m not stripping her of any agency. I'm acknowledging that our culture has already done so and would like it to be changed.

And that is the part that is infantilizing. You don't change culture by paasively waiting for it to be different. Individuals, men and women, have to change things in individual circumstances. Men have to not act like they live in a porno. Women have to stop doing things because they are uncomfortable saying no. In this case, a woman has to make individual choices about her own actions. But if she has already been stripped of her agency by our culture, and this means that's why she couldn't say no to Ansari, then we're just begging the question.

[Bluegoat]

How do you know if/when she became afraid? AFAIK people have mentioned that as a common occurrence, not that it necessarily applied here.

 

So, say it does apply - does she have to be afraid from the get-go in public? So, she can't have been comfortable there, then become afraid later? 

 

What about sex? If she goes to his apartment, it means she wants to have sex? If she's naked, it means she for sure wants to have sex? If she's making-out, she for sure wants to have sex? If she has oral sex, she wants all other kinds of sex as well?

 

Only the first one was "normal public interactions" and we don't know that she at that point felt afraid at all.

 

But what do you expect people to do under these circumstances, apart from make going to men's apartments a social taboo - the kind of thing you say is creepy?

 

If a woman is too scared to say what she means, even though there is no reason to be, there is nothing the man can do about that.  

 

All of the things you are mentioning are indicators that yes, someone is interested in sex.  It doesn't mean they can't clarify, or change their mind. It doesn't mean that then it is ok for the other person to force the issue.  But that is pretty much how casual date sex works - there is not some kind of rule each person has to constantly ask if the other person is ok with it.  And actually, a lot of non-sexual interaction is like that - it goes by what people expect to happen, and people expect to speak up if they actually want to change direction and do something different.

 

In any case, asking for multiple verbal assurances isn't likely to be effective if the person was too frightened even to speak up, they would also presumably be too frightened to speak up when asked verbally.  If I think a man might hurt me if I say no to him undressing me, I will not think differently if he asks me if it's ok.  The problem isn't not being asked every time het ouches you, it's being alone with someone you don't trust.

 

The only one who can say or indicate her thoughts is the person having them.  If she can't, and she's in a sexual encounter, she's in a pickle that can't be solved.  Lots of people, including me, have experienced this, and mostly they take it as a learning experience - having sex with people you don't know is scary.  Speak up when you are uncomfortable.  Asking other people to stop scaring you by being men isn't going to work, nor is asking them to second guess everything you do.

[Crimson Wife]

 

  It's a superlative to emphasize the fact that if a woman can't even say she wants a different kind of wine, much less decide for herself when she does and doesn't want to makeout with a guy, then, yeah, there are serious problems happening there.  I don't believe, honestly, that most women are trained to be that helpless and I think that's why most reactions to the article have been along the lines of, "uh, just ask for red wine, lady."

 

I think women in our culture are indeed socialized to be people-pleasers and not make a fuss. So if she'd politely asked if he had any white wine and he'd said no, I would not be at all surprised to hear that she sucked it up and drank the red even if it isn't what she wanted. But I'm not buying the argument that women are socialized to be totally passive doormats to the point where they are completely unable to express a preference in the first place. :confused1:

 

Seriously, who raises their daughters to be that passive aside from patriarchal folks who would be against an unmarried daughter spending time unchaperoned in a guy's apartment?

[8circles]

That’s kind of ridiculous. I’m really trying to see it your way, but a voluntary sexual encounter by an adult female equals her being stripped of agency and repressed by the patriarchy.... how?

 

I think that could definitely be argued in some of these power differential cases, where a job or opportunity is at stake. Maybe you could even argue she feared, I don’t know, looking uncool? But she herself said she wanted the date, went back to his apartment, and never felt like she couldn’t say no or was unsafe.

 

What am I missing here, that somehow represents mysogyny and a lack of agency? Is it more sexist that she could go do these things and it is socially acceptable and normal or if she couldn’t and therefore this was aberrant or wrong to happen among two consenting adults?

 

Edit - I just had a thought. I could get the argument about her being stripped of her agency if you’re indicating that she said yes to something she didn’t want precisely because of coercion or pressure she felt she couldn’t say no to. Are you saying those pressures were generally cultural? Which ones in particular? Why would she give in and another woman would not, if it’s generally cultural to 2018 New York or whatever?

 

Yes, you are largely missing although you might be understanding me in your Edit.

 

This sexual encounter is not what stripped her of her empowerment, but it illustrates that it had already been done.

 

As to the questions in your edit, that would be a whole other thread entirely and we've actually had several here already. I don't have the time to do it justice right now, but the threads are there if you look for them.

[marbel]

I think women in our culture are indeed socialized to be people-pleasers and not make a fuss. So if she'd politely asked if he had any white wine and he'd said no, I would not be at all surprised to hear that she sucked it up and drank the red even if it isn't what she wanted. But I'm not buying the argument that women are socialized to be totally passive doormats to the point where they are completely unable to express a preference in the first place. :confused1:

 

Seriously, who raises their daughters to be that passive aside from patriarchal folks who would be against an unmarried daughter spending time unchaperoned in a guy's apartment?

 

Yeah I don't think people are raising their daughters to be such people-pleasers that they figure giving in to an unwanted sexual encounter is the same as consuming some unwanted food or drink to be polite.  But she could have easily just said "no thanks" to the wine, or taken a token sip and put it down. The fact that she complained about the wine in her story was, I think, supposed to set him up as a jerk right from the start - she made the point that "she didn't get to choose" the wine.  Well, a guest in someone's home doesn't always get to choose exactly what they want to drink.  LOL I don't always get to have what I want to drink in my own home, and I'm the one that buys the drinks.  :-)

Edited January 18, 2018 by marbel

[Tsuga]

Do we have to insult the girl? She is merely the product of our culture, that she was too stupid or not brave enough to speak up is a product of our times and what we are working on changing, at all levels. I will use this as an example for my daughters and it won't be in the context of shaming and insulting her. There is always somebody who had it worse, this needn't be a pissing contest. I don't see it demeaning anything but acknowledging there are layers of to this. As I said I don't think he deserves to be lambasted OR that I would use the #metoo in this context but maybe we need a new hashtag.

I object to labeling anyone a product.

 

I know you are not trying to remove her agency or put her down but to call anyone a product, including but not limited to rapists, rape survivors, or people who write about bad sex, is insulting.

 

She made a choice. She had a choice.

 

So did Ansari.

 

Many people are experiencing this culture and many young men get explicit consent and many young women are explicit in their intentions.

 

I don't think young people should be let off the hook. At. All. Women can't wait for men to pick up the ball and run with it. Drive that narrative. Tell him no if you mean no, and when you say yes say "this is what yes looks like". And make it obvious.

 

Men will never turn into mind readers.

[Tsuga]

It's not about "she went home with him so that means she wants to have sex with him."

 

It's about...if she didn't want to be in his apartment, she should not have gone to his apartment. If she didn't want to be naked, she should have put her clothes back on. If she didn't want to have his **** in her mouth she should not have put it there when he "motioned" for her to.

 

Although....you know....I am going to be perfectly honest. If I am naked on the floor, and DH is naked on the couch....UM....that means exactly what it implies. And I think we are ignoring human sexuality to say those ACTIONS mean nothing.

Exactly.

 

There were no threats, promises, or physical coercion in the story.

 

So she needs to learn not to wait for him to take the lead.

 

You.want the lead, take the lead!