Switch Theme:

Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







I've got to say that, from what I've seen in high prevalence in this situation is most of the, "this is an example of a systemic problem of our whole effed up dating system and societal expectations being a gigantic mess" than anything being particularly targeted against the guy meant to 'ruin' him.

Mostly at least. I'm sure there's various 'hot take's that will demand otherwise, but even then I'm sure they're drastically outweighed by the, "she's a coward just out to ruin him" crowd.

In saying that, I do think his career is going to be hammered because of this but personally, I think that actually is not going to be a result of his actions but more going back to that whole relative power dynamic within Hollywood thing. And, considering I haven't heard of him before this situation and, quite frankly because of his skin colour, it really wouldn't surprise me if he's offered up as a sacrificial lamb.


Oh, as a sidenote, if anyone is interested, I'm on the side of 'this is an illustration of a systemic problem when it comes to consent' point of view.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I do feel like it's relevant to point out this isn't a new problem, but a leftover one going back thousands of years that has been worked on and improved but has yet to be resolved.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 avantgarde wrote:
I think I can summarize her points as:
-Women have agency. To put the onus of Aziz's encounter entirely on him partially denies 'Grace' had agency.


It was a good article, thanks for linking to it. But I think you're badly mangling the article's meaning as you apply it to Ansari's case.

Thing is, placing the blame on Ansari isn't about denying 'Grace' her agency. It is about recognising her agency, seeing she made her choice, and seeing that Ansari chose to ignore/deny that choice because he wanted to feth her. And it is about recognising that people will often be in situations where they aren't comfortable giving an immediate, absolute 'no', because of surprise or fear. Ignoring more indirect signals because 'she could have said no' is bs.

It doesn't mean we should treat Ansari or anyone who did anything similar like they are Weinstein or Trump, but it does mean we as a society need to start talking about how fethed Ansari's attempt at sex was.

-#MeToo is a reaction against an intolerable legal situation where the police and judiciary didn't protect people against sexual assault by people in positions of power. What is legally intolerable about Aziz's situation? If it was rape it occurred last year and he can be still be prosecuted. So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?


What? So because something might be a crime, people are not able to talk about it publically unless there is a criminal charge? That's really, really not a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 avantgarde wrote:
being too aggressive on a date


Have you read Grace's description of her date with Aziz Ansari? After attempting to initiate sex with her for 30 minutes, in which she indicated she wasn't interested many times and he pushed on anyway. When she returned, she told him she wasn't interested, and invited her to just chill on the couch, where he then told her to give him oral sex. A short while later she told him again that she wasn't interested, and he again said they could just chill. They put the tv on, and he started trying to finger her.

If you don't know the details of the case, then I'd ask you to read up on them. If you do know the details of the case and think that kind of behaviour is okay, or pushing the limits, then hoo boy there's a whole lot of conversation that has to happen.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Where is the need for the woman to exhibit common sense?


What the actual fething hell is that question? Chongara posted a simple set of rules that men can use so that they can be confident that they won't mistakenly pressure a woman in to doing something they don't want to do. You responded by complaining that women also need to be responsible for... not getting coerced or something.

Wow.

To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.


That's not an honest summary. He didn't dispute any part of her recollection of events, instead he saw those events differently. So when she described coming out of the bathroom and telling him she didn't want to have sex, only for him to invite her to the couch and tell her to give him a blow job, he doesn't deny that happened. His defense is that he thought those events were consensual.

Which brings me back to my original question, what about the woman's actions in the Ansari case? Is he really a "creeper" in this situation or was he a person trying to clumsily get laid? Everything I have read about the encounter places the situation in the "bad date" category and nowhere near harassment or inappropriate actions taken on Ansari's part.


You either haven't read the actual article, or you have problems. Seriously, read the babe.net story and then say that was just a 'bad date'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.


She gave both non-verbal cues, such as taking his hands off her body, and verbal cues, such as telling him multiple times she didn't want to have sex.

I'm not trying to have a go at you or anything, but either you don't know the details of Grace's story, or you really, really need to look at how you understand sex and consent, because if you act like what you're trying to defend then you may end up in a really bad situation one day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber.


This argument is basically saying that it is okay to coerce someone in to sex, if you don't get aggressive if eventually overcome the coercion. It's a really gakky argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So no means no and now also yes means no? Man this is so confusing!!!


In the post of mine you quoted, I wrote this;

"What it means for men is that it isn't enough to say you never heard 'no'. It means what you need to in order to proceed you should be looking for a clear, enthusiastic 'yes'."

So, no, it isn't confusing, and its pretty likely you cut that part of my post out of your quote so you could pretend it is confusing. I have no idea what caused you to do this, but you should know it was a silly, pointless thing to do. Don't do it again.

Anyhow, whatever caused you to do that silly thing, just in case you have some genuine confusion about this I'll explain again;

If you say 'let's have sex' and a the woman says yes, then have sex.
If you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes, then don't have sex.
And if you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes and you push on and have sex, to which she later says she felt violated, if you say you didn't do anything wrong because she didn't actually say no, then you're a gak person.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 06:28:02


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Brisbane, Australia

The difference between the Ansari case and most of the other cases is the difference between inappropriate and continued sexual harassment using power or position to try and coerce sex from others, and one of simply wanting sex.

Ansari wanted sex. Ansari didn't ask at an inappropriate forum like a workplace or harass someone who wasn't interested, he was on a date, and they'd agreed to go back to his place, that is an appropriate time to see if someone is interested in sex. He tried to initiate sex - she told him to slow down. He tried to initiate sex again, he had sex. He did not coerce her into sex, he did not have power or position over her, no violent threats or promises of reward, and she wasn't incapacitated or drunk, he just wanted sex, tried to initiate sex, and had sex.

Saying that he shouldn't have tried to initiate sex is basically the modern day form of slut shaming. Modern victorian/puritan values. It also takes away any agency women have over their own actions. Ansari may have been an inconsiderate lover, but this kiss and tell is just slut-shaming, and should have never been published.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 07:16:36


 
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran






 sebster wrote:


Anyhow, whatever caused you to do that silly thing, just in case you have some genuine confusion about this I'll explain again;

If you say 'let's have sex' and a the woman says yes, then have sex.
If you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes, then don't have sex.
And if you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes and you push on and have sex, to which she later says she felt violated, if you say you didn't do anything wrong because she didn't actually say no, then you're a gak person.


Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation. Usually this responsibility is also put entirely on the male shoulders, which denies agency to women who are made into objects that men act upon.

Of course in situations where there is a power dynamic (boss & employee) things work differently.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Maddermax wrote:
Saying that he shouldn't have tried to initiate sex is basically the modern day form of slut shaming. Modern victorian/puritan values. It also takes away any agency women have over their own actions. Ansari may have been an inconsiderate lover, but this kiss and tell is just slut-shaming, and should have never been published.


No-one is saying that a person can't try and initiate sex. That's not even close to what is being said.

What people are saying is if you try and initiate sex, and you don't get an affirmative response, then stop. It's just that fething simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.


Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.

Usually this responsibility is also put entirely on the male shoulders, which denies agency to women who are made into objects that men act upon.


No, that's total fething bs. Acknowledging the existance of coercion, and recognising that people suddenly put in stressful positions might react by becoming going passive or even somewhat compliant doesn't mean dening their agency. It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations. What we should do instead, as a society, is not put people in the stressful situation of having someone come at them continuously, constantly pressuring them for sex despite being given no indication of any returned interest.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/17 09:14:23


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Brisbane, Australia

 sebster wrote:
 Maddermax wrote:
Saying that he shouldn't have tried to initiate sex is basically the modern day form of slut shaming. Modern victorian/puritan values. It also takes away any agency women have over their own actions. Ansari may have been an inconsiderate lover, but this kiss and tell is just slut-shaming, and should have never been published.


No-one is saying that a person can't try and initiate sex. That's not even close to what is being said.

What people are saying is if you try and initiate sex, and you don't get an affirmative response, then stop. It's just that fething simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.


Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.


Ok, so we agree that consent doesn't always have to be explicit and verbal - while that would be best, it just doesn't happen that way in real life. However, he laid back and asked her to go down on him, and she did. Many people would say that is showing consent, at least for that particular act - he asked her, she brought herself to the deed without him grabbing her, and that's even by her own account. She felt uncomfortable, but continued anyway under her own volition, without telling him again that she felt uncomfortable. I'm not going to say she didn't feel uncomfortable, or that everything was hunky dory, but here she made a bad decision, he didn't force her into it at all. It was, in the end, a decision that is her own. Him not picking up on her being uncomfortable is not anything close to sexual assault or harassment, and even then the text sent afterwards seems to show he still felt they had a positive relationship of some sort, supporting that he not understand her discomfort at the situation. But not being able to pick up on subtle clues is a loooooong way from being any sort of villain.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/17 12:04:20


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

How many times does she have to tell him that she's not interested before he gets the hint? Five? Twenty? A thousand?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran






 sebster wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.


Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.


Allrighty then!

 sebster wrote:

No, that's total fething bs. Acknowledging the existance of coercion, and recognising that people suddenly put in stressful positions might react by becoming going passive or even somewhat compliant doesn't mean dening their agency. It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations. What we should do instead, as a society, is not put people in the stressful situation of having someone come at them continuously, constantly pressuring them for sex despite being given no indication of any returned interest.


Well of course harassing someone for sexual favours when it's made clear there is no interest is wrong. But the issue was rather that the responsibility to make sure both partners consent is put solely on the males shoulders. If women cant be responsible for their own consent but must instead rely on a man to take that responsibility for her, then yes thats denying her agency.

As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 ulgurstasta wrote:


As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.


Which brings my question back into focus: how many times does she have to say she's not interested before he'll take the hint?
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Brisbane, Australia

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How many times does she have to tell him that she's not interested before he gets the hint? Five? Twenty? A thousand?


Once, in a clear manner. Walking away also works if words are too much.

What you don't do is say non-committal things, then voluntarily go down on him at his request. That is what you might call a bad signal if you're trying to show you don't want to have sex.

The only villain here is whoever decided the report should be published on their click-bait website - they've helped no one, and hurt both participants here.
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran






 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:


As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.


Which brings my question back into focus: how many times does she have to say she's not interested before he'll take the hint?


Well as I said to sebster, this was not in regards to the Ansari case, as I haven't even read the article.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 ulgurstasta wrote:
 sebster wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.


Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.


Allrighty then!

 sebster wrote:

No, that's total fething bs. Acknowledging the existance of coercion, and recognising that people suddenly put in stressful positions might react by becoming going passive or even somewhat compliant doesn't mean dening their agency. It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations. What we should do instead, as a society, is not put people in the stressful situation of having someone come at them continuously, constantly pressuring them for sex despite being given no indication of any returned interest.


Well of course harassing someone for sexual favours when it's made clear there is no interest is wrong. But the issue was rather that the responsibility to make sure both partners consent is put solely on the males shoulders. If women cant be responsible for their own consent but must instead rely on a man to take that responsibility for her, then yes thats denying her agency.

As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.
The responsibility isn't all on men's shoulders. It is the responsibility of individual A to ensure individual B is consenting, and it is the responsibility of individual B to ensure individual A is consenting. The man/woman thing is really just shorthand because the majority of situations like this are a man imposing on a woman, and because English lacks the genderless nouns to have the discussion as such.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

He should have taken the hint and stopped. Its both creepy and desperate to keep making advances in such a short period of time.

She should have also removed herself from the situation. Not because she is obligated to do on any moral grounds, but because thats the smart thing to do. Especially after a guy keeps making repeated advances which you don't want after you've told him as much.

He was a sleezeball and she was stupid.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Savage Minotaur




Baltimore, Maryland

I'm going to interject something Non-Ansari real quick:

(Sorry if its been covered already, ignore if it has, but all I saw the last few pages were Ansari related)

I'm seeing a celebrity led campaign to pay for Mkayla Maroney's fine for breaching her Non Disclosure Agreement that is tied to her settlement from her abuser. Today, US Gymnastics is saying they won't seek a penalty against her for violating her NDA.

While admirable, its incredibly misguided and dangerous. It could damage one of the few avenues of recourse/justice for some victims in the future. It may well reduce the willingness of accused predators in the future to settle out of court, and instead drag both parties through grueling and deeply personal, embarrassing trials for no good reason and leave up any sort of settlement up to a judge, who may well rule against the victims in some cases or levy a lesser fine that was in the initial settlement. The victims would go from a guaranteed discrete monetary settlement to a public trial that, depending on weight of evidence, could become a 50/50 shot at some amount or no amount of justice.

If she was a key witness or had testimony that alone could validate another victims accusations, I'd maybe be supportive of this, but apparently there a dozens of accusers and all her voice would do is merely add a bit more celebrity to the voices against the accused. The goose is already cooked in this case.

I believe this is a well meaning overreach in this wider scandal and could have damaging ramifications overall in the future.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/17 17:40:38


"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How many times does she have to tell him that she's not interested before he gets the hint? Five? Twenty? A thousand?


From my understanding, after the oral sex, she told him she was not interested in penetration, but wanted to chill. She also did not leave. If he has trouble with nonverbal signals and indirect verbal communication, as awkward people do, he might not have understood that to mean a complete removal of consent but as rather some kind of "slow down" or "try something else". From my reading of it, when she explicitly told him she was done, he stopped trying immediately and called her a cab. I find it easy to believe he really was clueless and not malicious.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




I hope I don't mess up the quotes here
avantgarde wrote: My argument is not all #MeToo claims are the same but that #MeToo "punishments" are binary. It's either your ass is grass or it's not. If I thought all the claims (you're implying I think they're all bogus ) were the same why would I advocate nuance in reaction? You wouldn't need it if everything could be labelled cleanly.

Forgive me but you do not get to define what the movement means. Not because you lack authority or wokeness or whatever. But because it's a twitter hashtag that means something different to different people. To some it means an end of powerful people abusing their positions for sexual gratification, to some it's about justice, to others it means an end to sexual harassment/coercion and to others it's a support group for people with similar experiences to share them without being shamed. It's easily a mix and people are going to place more value on certain parts and that's there prerogative.
" It's either your ass is grass or it's not." That's not the reality of the situation, that's just your assumption of what happens, will happen, or whatever slipper slope argument you are sliding down (and that's where I think you are wrong). Take the "Ansari case". It's being discusses but he has neither lost his job nor has he been dragged in front of a judge. The situation is different from other cases, like Weinstein who got thrown out, ended up in sex rehab for like a week, and then, I don't know what even happened to that case after that. I don't understand where you see this binary judgement that you are talking about. The nuanced reaction is happening if you read around a bit, you are just feeling (for some reason) like it's a binary situation.

And I haven't defined the movement, just explained what's going on while you fantasies about every MeToo is being judged in this binary fashion. There are enough Me too cases that don't get media attention and just disappear in the twitter stream (or where ever they are posted).

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Spoiler:

Mario wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.

You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
"cause"… like the situation around reporting sexual harassment and assault was so much better before and now it's all getting worse.


What? Honestly, what?
You wrote "I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public." It reads like you are devils advocating/handwringing about the tiniest perceived problem. Before this started it was even harder to get attention for all the middle ground cases of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse. Now some of that stuff is actually getting addressed and talked about in the open and not just by people who are interested in reducing that type of behaviour. The Ansari case is a textbook example of two sides not agreeing and one side pushing even when the other side already said no multiple times and/or otherwise indicated that this won't end with the desired answer. In the answers above sebster has already explains some of the nuance of the situation a few times.


Mario wrote:
Spoiler:
A bad date is, if starts to rain and you have to change plans or something like that. The Ansari situation is about him pushing for more even after she decided that she doesn't want to. Not all situations are just about one person forcefully raping somebody. And look at that, we are actually talking about a more grey area-ish situation where things get more complicated like, for example, how women often don't dare to say no just to get it over with and/or because they feel like otherwise the situation could escalate and get even worse (like getting attacked, or this example).


A bad date is also when things are going well and something uncomfortable or awkward immediately changes the mood of the date. Just as you say not all situations are about forcefully raping somebody, not all of these situations can equally be chalked up to victimization on the part of the person claiming victimhood. Based on the evidence shown in "Grace's" account she had the wherewithal to extricate herself from the situation once it crossed a line for her. That Ansari didn't escalate things to violence, or use chemicals/drugs to incapacitate her, and instead called her a ride home and ended the evening amicably (from his perspective) is indicative to me that "Grace" was not a victim in the sense that we discuss victims of sexual assault in this thread. She may have had regrets about how the evening went, she may have been disappointed in her date's behavior, but that behavior does not indicate sexual misconduct to me. Ansari might be pushy, he might be clumsy in romance, but I see nothing that indicates wrong doing.I think that was also already addressed above by sebster. She said no multiple times and he kept pushing. That's getting into harassment territory especially after she declined a few times. That's the whole point. If he were taller/stronger then that same behaviour would have been more threatening and she might have felt like doing whatever he wants might be safer. Just because she wasn't coerced doesn't mean it's okay to behave like that. Him seeing things differently is okay to a degree but he should be able to take the first no as an answer. Like I wrote, it's not just about drugs/violence but also about psychological coercion, manipulation, soft intimidation. He even co-wrote (with a sociologist) a book about that, he should know better.

Spoiler:

Mario wrote:
People were even defending Trump's “When you’re a star, they let you do it” comments as if the women wanted it instead of seeing it as what it is: Sexual assault by a person who abused his position of power and influence over other people. Power dynamics are more complicated than just things like that or the Weinstein example. It goes all the way to a waitress not making a fuss when she get harassed/touched because doing so might lead to her losing their job. Should we just ignore that type of behaviour because power asymmetry makes it harder to say something? That's why the #MeToo movement exists so more people find the courage to tell their stories and so that we as society change and make it better for everyone instead of just passively accepting that something bad is happening but ignoring it as long as it's not affecting us.


Awesome soap box, but you are preaching to the choir here. And that is why I find issue with "Grace" and her claim of victimization. She was not victimized by Ansari, at least not in any meaningful way that compares with the victims who have shared their stories with #MeToo. Conflating "Grace's" encounter with Ansari with sexual harassment does a disservice to the entire #MeToo movement. If everything is harassment then nothing is harassment. "Grace" is making the case that by Ansari being too eager for sex he victimized her. That is a slap in the face of real victims who endured worse. "Grace" may have regretted her encounter with Ansari for a lot of reasons, but I don't buy for one second that she was a victim of anything other than a disappointing evening with a guy.
Again, explained above in other posts. It was more than just him being too eager, it was him pushing for more when she declined multiple times, and yes it is harassment, maybe on the milder side but it's still something that should not be written off as "things happen". #MeToo is for all kinds of harassment/abuse not just for the worst cases and this is one of the milder ones. If a few men read about it and maybe remember when the did something like that and choose to change then that can only be a good thing, also: Why should you define whose contribution to the movement is a valid one? That also comes back to the hand wringing about the "cause" from your first reply.

Mario wrote:
Is it really only then harassment/assault when you feel like it? Or is it harassment/assault when the victim thinks it was (and this is not about the legal definition, which is a hurdle that's needed in front of a judge)? If a person feels violated then most probably they were violated and you handwringing about the credibility of accusations doesn't change that it was a gakky situation for that person.


"Grace" had a disappointing night. She is entitled to her perspective and feelings on the encounter with Ansari, but her feelings shouldn't be enough to warrant the public lambasting of Ansari. Her feelings shouldn't be enough to tarnish someone's reputation, sabotage a person's livelihood, and they most certainly shouldn't be given equal treatment and consideration as accusations of harassment, assault and rape made by others in the #MeToo movement.
She shared her experience due to the movement and again, it's not your place to define what is worthy of being considered. People are talking about it, maybe some will change and be less of a creepy pusher. I just googled his name and apparently he hasn't lost his job, people are talking about it from all sides and his reputation may end up tarnished after it's over. Which is to a degree okay because he was pushy beyond what was comfortable for her. I'm quite confident that he'll keep getting jobs and in a year nobody will talk about his incident too much (if at all).


That people are already judging Ansari as a sexual harasser based on one woman's questionable account of an evening is troubling, and goes back to the point made earlier that these accusations are not insignificant. They can destroy a person's life. If that is merited, like in the cases of Weinstein, Cosby and others where there is ample evidence to back up accusation after accusation, then of course the outcome is appropriate and justified. In this Ansari situation people have their pitchforks out and it is all based on the anonymous postings of a woman who really doesn't seem to have been victimized at all, and instead found herself with a celebrity who only seemed interested in having sex with her. When that didn't happen she went home. Unless more is revealed, then I am afraid I just don't see "Grace's" story as being anything other than regret over a bad hookup.
He didn't even deny the accusations, he said he saw it differently. Maybe he'll reconsider his approach from now on and be less pushy but he's not being equated with Weinstein, Louis C.K., Cosby, or any of the actual rapists. I don't know where people get that idea from that all the accused will be judged the same no matter what they actually did (avantgarde did the same).

We have in this thread people explaining that this type of pushy behaviour is not okay and you are literally writing it off as a "bad date" or "regret" because in this case something worse didn't happen. That alone is a good enough reason to discuss Ansari's approach and where it's lacking.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Grey Templar wrote:
He should have taken the hint and stopped. Its both creepy and desperate to keep making advances in such a short period of time.

She should have also removed herself from the situation. Not because she is obligated to do on any moral grounds, but because thats the smart thing to do. Especially after a guy keeps making repeated advances which you don't want after you've told him as much.

He was a sleezeball and she was stupid.
Yeah, real stupid to want to hang out with someone but not have sex with them. Even stupider to expect that another person would respect your wishes on the matter. Just really stupid. I mean, if I'm out for lunch and a beggar asks me for money and I turn him down, it's pretty dam stupid of me to sit there and keep eating my lunch while the beggar continues to pester me for cash. When he up and steals my wallet it's clearly the fault of both parties, him for stealing my money and me for letting it be stolen. That's how it works, right?

Only in sexual assault are such excuses even remotely acceptable.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
He should have taken the hint and stopped. Its both creepy and desperate to keep making advances in such a short period of time.

She should have also removed herself from the situation. Not because she is obligated to do on any moral grounds, but because thats the smart thing to do. Especially after a guy keeps making repeated advances which you don't want after you've told him as much.

He was a sleezeball and she was stupid.
Yeah, real stupid to want to hang out with someone but not have sex with them. Even stupider to expect that another person would respect your wishes on the matter. Just really stupid. I mean, if I'm out for lunch and a beggar asks me for money and I turn him down, it's pretty dam stupid of me to sit there and keep eating my lunch while the beggar continues to pester me for cash. When he up and steals my wallet it's clearly the fault of both parties, him for stealing my money and me for letting it be stolen. That's how it works, right?

Only in sexual assault are such excuses even remotely acceptable.


Yes, its stupid to voluntarily keep yourself in what is a dangerous situation.

Maybe, you could justify staying after one advance was made and rebuffed if he stopped completely, which he should have. But continuing to stay after multiple advances is pretty stupid.

Your example isn't really equivalent. Since asking for money isn't implying a threat to steal your wallet. While I would say repeatedly making sexual advances despite getting rebuffed is definitely a red flag for ''imminent danger!".

So yeah. He was/is a sleezeball. She is also pretty stupid and/or reckless for not extracting herself from a dangerous situation. That doesn't absolve him for his behavior in any amount. It just means she is stupid.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/17 23:44:36


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Maddermax wrote:
Ok, so we agree that consent doesn't always have to be explicit and verbal - while that would be best, it just doesn't happen that way in real life. However, he laid back and asked her to go down on him, and she did. Many people would say that is showing consent, at least for that particular act - he asked her, she brought herself to the deed without him grabbing her, and that's even by her own account. She felt uncomfortable, but continued anyway under her own volition, without telling him again that she felt uncomfortable.


Except that before the blow job, there was 30 minutes of Ansari attemping various sex acts and Grace rebuffing them. Grace went in to the bathroom and spent a fair stretch of time getting herself collected, then came out and said "I don't want to do this". Ansari said he didn't want to do anything she didn't, and invited her to the couch to chill. As soon as they were settled on the couch he asked for the blow job.

You get how all that extra stuff that led up the blowjob changes it completely, yeah?

I'm not going to say she didn't feel uncomfortable, or that everything was hunky dory, but here she made a bad decision, he didn't force her into it at all. It was, in the end, a decision that is her own. Him not picking up on her being uncomfortable is not anything close to sexual assault or harassment, and even then the text sent afterwards seems to show he still felt they had a positive relationship of some sort, supporting that he not understand her discomfort at the situation. But not being able to pick up on subtle clues is a loooooong way from being any sort of villain.


Dude, the clues weren't subtle. And it isn't about him being a villain, if he's a villain then so are lots of people. Lots of people think that its okay to keeping pushing for sex, trying different stuff, until you hear 'no', and if you do get that 'no' then all you need to do is wait a while before starting up again.

But that isn't okay, because there's lots of reasons like surprise or fear that a person won't or can't give a definitive 'no'. So men might think they're getting consent simply by not hearing a clear 'no', but they're not.

This isn't about labelling Ansari a villain. If anything the focus on singling out Ansari as a bad guy actually reduces the value of this story. We should understand Ansari was just like thousands of other men, who didn't think they were doing anything wrong but ended up giving girl's the worst nights of their lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
Well of course harassing someone for sexual favours when it's made clear there is no interest is wrong. But the issue was rather that the responsibility to make sure both partners consent is put solely on the males shoulders. If women cant be responsible for their own consent but must instead rely on a man to take that responsibility for her, then yes thats denying her agency.

As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.


No, that isn't how it works at all. Agency means letting someone make their choice and respecting it. The woman's agency begins and ends with her decision. Accepting that decision will not always be perfectly communicated isn't denying anyone agency, it's accepting how real life operates, where people are often placed in challenging situations and don't do everything perfectly.

I see what you're saying that men also won't also act perfectly. However, there's a basic difference in the situation for each gender. The man is initiating, he can stop what he is doing. The woman is haven't the situation put upon her. There's always more expectation on the person driving the situation, than on the person having it put upon them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 nels1031 wrote:
I'm going to interject something Non-Ansari real quick:

(Sorry if its been covered already, ignore if it has, but all I saw the last few pages were Ansari related)

I'm seeing a celebrity led campaign to pay for Mkayla Maroney's fine for breaching her Non Disclosure Agreement that is tied to her settlement from her abuser. Today, US Gymnastics is saying they won't seek a penalty against her for violating her NDA.

While admirable, its incredibly misguided and dangerous. It could damage one of the few avenues of recourse/justice for some victims in the future. It may well reduce the willingness of accused predators in the future to settle out of court, and instead drag both parties through grueling and deeply personal, embarrassing trials for no good reason and leave up any sort of settlement up to a judge, who may well rule against the victims in some cases or levy a lesser fine that was in the initial settlement. The victims would go from a guaranteed discrete monetary settlement to a public trial that, depending on weight of evidence, could become a 50/50 shot at some amount or no amount of justice.

If she was a key witness or had testimony that alone could validate another victims accusations, I'd maybe be supportive of this, but apparently there a dozens of accusers and all her voice would do is merely add a bit more celebrity to the voices against the accused. The goose is already cooked in this case.

I believe this is a well meaning overreach in this wider scandal and could have damaging ramifications overall in the future.


I understand your point, and respect that victims will often want a recourse that doesn't involve a public trial and the media spotlight. However, NDAs have been more than a little problematic, they've been the primary tools that organisations have forced these stories underground, allowing individuals to abuse repeatedly. The enforced secrecy has stopped women finding out they were not alone.

It's a difficult issue, and I'm not sure how it should be resolved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, its stupid to voluntarily keep yourself in what is a dangerous situation.


I think you have a really fanciful notion of how people react when placed in unexpected, stressful situation. They don't act rationally, or sensibly. They often become afraid to completely confront the other person, instead looking to placate the other person, even passively going along with their requests. This is true even when there's no overt physical threat. Humans have strong, primal instincts, and they often cause us to do stuff that moments after the event looks bizarre, even 'stupid'.

Sitting in judgement on people and their reactions in those situations is absolutely, 100% the wrong way to go about things.

Yes, it would be ideal if people who weren't interested always, 100% reacted by saying clearly they didn't want to do anything and left. But that's not the world we live, that's not how humans are going to react everytime.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/01/18 02:55:58


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The fact any adult human being can read the account of what Ansari did and dismiss his actions as being acceptable behavior or even simply boorish is disappointing. I thought female friends were being slightly malicious or insincere when describing some of their more unpleasant sexual encounters, but apparently not. And apparently this isn't remotely uncommon...


The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, its stupid to voluntarily keep yourself in what is a dangerous situation.


I think you have a really fanciful notion of how people react when placed in unexpected, stressful situation. They don't act rationally, or sensibly. They often become afraid to completely confront the other person, instead looking to placate the other person, even passively going along with their requests. This is true even when there's no overt physical threat. Humans have strong, primal instincts, and they often cause us to do stuff that moments after the event looks bizarre, even 'stupid'.

Sitting in judgement on people and their reactions in those situations is absolutely, 100% the wrong way to go about things.

Yes, it would be ideal if people who weren't interested always, 100% reacted by saying clearly they didn't want to do anything and left. But that's not the world we live, that's not how humans are going to react everytime.


I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.

Especially by the 3rd time she should have just up and left. And thats accounting for irrational behavior on her part.

This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Grey Templar wrote:
I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.


There is no 'should' to how people will react to stressful situations. It is way more complex than just 'fight or flight', there are many reactions people have.

Your view starts with a notion of how people 'should' react to a high stress situation, and dismisses the experience of anyone who doesn't react within those expectations. It is a fundamentally broken way of understanding this issue.

This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.


But she did remain there. And her situation is not unique, thousands of women have told stories just like this.

So when you read that and think that it doesn't make sense, that it doesn't fit with how you think people should act, instead of using that to dismiss her account, instead you should use it to consider that perhaps your understanding of how people react to high stress situations was wrong.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 sebster wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.


There is no 'should' to how people will react to stressful situations. It is way more complex than just 'fight or flight', there are many reactions people have.

Your view starts with a notion of how people 'should' react to a high stress situation, and dismisses the experience of anyone who doesn't react within those expectations. It is a fundamentally broken way of understanding this issue.

This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.


But she did remain there. And her situation is not unique, thousands of women have told stories just like this.

So when you read that and think that it doesn't make sense, that it doesn't fit with how you think people should act, instead of using that to dismiss her account, instead you should use it to consider that perhaps your understanding of how people react to high stress situations was wrong.


Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left, and we should push for education for people to remove themselves from bad situations like this. Even if their instincts are telling them to freeze and remain.

IE: Don't be stupid. Leave bad situations while you still can.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Grey Templar wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.


There is no 'should' to how people will react to stressful situations. It is way more complex than just 'fight or flight', there are many reactions people have.

Your view starts with a notion of how people 'should' react to a high stress situation, and dismisses the experience of anyone who doesn't react within those expectations. It is a fundamentally broken way of understanding this issue.

This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.


But she did remain there. And her situation is not unique, thousands of women have told stories just like this.

So when you read that and think that it doesn't make sense, that it doesn't fit with how you think people should act, instead of using that to dismiss her account, instead you should use it to consider that perhaps your understanding of how people react to high stress situations was wrong.


Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left, and we should push for education for people to remove themselves from bad situations like this. Even if their instincts are telling them to freeze and remain.

IE: Don't be stupid. Leave bad situations while you still can.
Wow, you are so obviously part of the problem I don't even know what to say. That you talk about rational thinking while so clearly throwing logic out the window really highlights that. I hope no one close to you never has something like that happen to them, because it would be horrible to go through that then have you look them in the eyes and tell them how stupid they were.
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The responsibility isn't all on men's shoulders. It is the responsibility of individual A to ensure individual B is consenting, and it is the responsibility of individual B to ensure individual A is consenting. The man/woman thing is really just shorthand because the majority of situations like this are a man imposing on a woman, and because English lacks the genderless nouns to have the discussion as such.


 sebster wrote:
No, that isn't how it works at all. Agency means letting someone make their choice and respecting it. The woman's agency begins and ends with her decision. Accepting that decision will not always be perfectly communicated isn't denying anyone agency, it's accepting how real life operates, where people are often placed in challenging situations and don't do everything perfectly.

I see what you're saying that men also won't also act perfectly. However, there's a basic difference in the situation for each gender. The man is initiating, he can stop what he is doing. The woman is haven't the situation put upon her. There's always more expectation on the person driving the situation, than on the person having it put upon them.


As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction. I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...

Slavoj Žižek from "‘You May!’ wrote:A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’. But, of course, seduction doesn’t involve incorrect harassment throughout. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and her reaction will determine whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. There is no way to tell in advance what her response will be (which is why assertive women often despise ‘weak’ men, who fear to take the necessary risk). This holds even more in our pc times: the pc prohibitions are rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process. Isn’t the seducer’s art to accomplish the violation in such a way that, afterwards, by its acceptance, any suggestion of harassment has disappeared?
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





Grey Templar,

I believe that you are basing your rationale on old information. 'Fight or Flight' has been found to mainly to apply to men. Women are more likely to 'Tend or Befriend.' That is one of the reasons women don't immediately leave a bad situation.

More information about this can be found here:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/gender-differences-in-responses-stress-it-boils-down-single-gene
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 ulgurstasta wrote:
As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction. I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...

Slavoj Žižek from "‘You May!’ wrote:A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’. But, of course, seduction doesn’t involve incorrect harassment throughout. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and her reaction will determine whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. There is no way to tell in advance what her response will be (which is why assertive women often despise ‘weak’ men, who fear to take the necessary risk). This holds even more in our pc times: the pc prohibitions are rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process. Isn’t the seducer’s art to accomplish the violation in such a way that, afterwards, by its acceptance, any suggestion of harassment has disappeared?

To be honest that quote right there takes it to a pretty crazy extreme with the 'pc prohibitions' and harassment. While making a pass at a woman to seduce her there are interactions between harassment and not doing anything. But reading a bit on the background of Zizek I have to say this quote doesn't surprise me at all, fits right in.

Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction. I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...

Slavoj Žižek from "‘You May!’ wrote:A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’. But, of course, seduction doesn’t involve incorrect harassment throughout. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and her reaction will determine whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. There is no way to tell in advance what her response will be (which is why assertive women often despise ‘weak’ men, who fear to take the necessary risk). This holds even more in our pc times: the pc prohibitions are rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process. Isn’t the seducer’s art to accomplish the violation in such a way that, afterwards, by its acceptance, any suggestion of harassment has disappeared?

To be honest that quote right there takes it to a pretty crazy extreme with the 'pc prohibitions' and harassment. While making a pass at a woman to seduce her there are interactions between harassment and not doing anything. But reading a bit on the background of Zizek I have to say this quote doesn't surprise me at all, fits right in.
Yeah, that quote is a bit extreme and irrelevant to the matter at hand. People aren't punished if they make a pass and it offends the other individual. The worst that comes out of that is a bit of embarrassment. The great irony of PC culture is how the anti-PC culture is louder and more easily offended than the former. It reads as yet another effort to let people continue nasty behaviors by creating a weird victim complex.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 AdeptSister wrote:
Grey Templar,

I believe that you are basing your rationale on old information. 'Fight or Flight' has been found to mainly to apply to men. Women are more likely to 'Tend or Befriend.' That is one of the reasons women don't immediately leave a bad situation.

More information about this can be found here:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/gender-differences-in-responses-stress-it-boils-down-single-gene


Fair enough. It still doesn't change the fact that leaving is the best way of protecting yourself.

Everyone needs to be part of the solution to sexual harassment. Men and women. Men need to be more aware of their behavior. Women need to be more aware of their surroundings and what signs should mean they should leave a bad situation. And everybody needs to be on the lookout as third party observers.

Biological hardwiring doesn't excuse poor choices. After all, we could find similar justification for guys like Ansari. Maybe his brain chemistry made him unable to pick up on her ques that she was 100% not interested. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility though.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: