https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

"I thought it would take a little longer for the hit squad of privileged young white women to open fire on brown-skinned men. I had assumed that on the basis of intersectionality and all that, they’d stay laser focused on college-educated white men for another few months. But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky. Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful, and last night they destroyed a man who didn’t deserve it."

He deserved it, and so did she.

The only thing he did wrong was go out with a nutjob starf*er who wanted fame, not him.

She hit on him, he turned her down, she hit on him again. He agreed to go out, paid for dinner, she came back to his place, she let him take her clothes off, they had oral, and he's supposed to interpret from all that she's not interested in intercourse?

Then she responds with public character assassination designed to humiliate him and destroy his career.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2018 11:25AM by axeldc.

yet more right wing MRA bullshit from the atlantic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html

Azari is guilty of not reading a crazy chick's mind.

I agree with the NYT's assessment.

People always told me "be careful of what you do"
"Don't go around breaking young girls' hearts"
And mother always told me "Be careful of who you love
Be careful of what you do, 'cause the lie becomes the truth"

( -- Michael Jackson - "Billie Jean" Lyrics)

BTW, "Dave The Atheist" ....

The Atlantic is LEFT-WING lemming bullshit.

Wait, The Atlantic is right wing, uh no, it's left wing?

We're witnessing something akin to how the Terror followed on the heels of the various stages of the French Revolution. Starting with the mob's taking of the Bastille (which was not well defended by motivated troops), the "Republic" went through various abortive phases, as one "enemy of the people" after another had to be purged.

Eventually, everybody and anybody was suspect. Fun fact: Robespierre himself, architect of the Terror, was guillotined in 1794

...and the Salem witch hunts.
And the late-last-century "Satanist" craze.
And...well, the list goes on and on.

Let's call out and kick out the nasty men who abuse women from a position of power/authority.

Let's not turn every male/female encounter into one of those situations.

(I read the whole story. Up until the very, very end [when she finally said she didn't want to have sex, and Ansari still tried one more time], the woman not only didn't tell him to stop, she willingly participated -- and in the story was angry that Ansari didn't get her "clues." For crying out loud, if you want it to stop, say so. If they guy tries to force himself on you after that, he merits all the condemnation he gets. But whether male/female, if somebody's doing something you don't want them to do, SAY STOP).

Also, "Satanic Ritual Abuse" and "Recovered Memories," which, I'm embarrassed to say, gained brief headway among conservative Christians in the 1970s and 1980s. The "recovered memories" was a particularly insidious mix of bad (and I emphasize, un-Biblical) "spirituality" and a very bad take on Freud's concept of the "sub-conscious." A lot of families were broken up, and many lives (parents) destroyed because hunter-killer counselors (including certified ones!) "recovered" "lost memories" of childhood abuse (sexual, religious, disciplinary, etc.) Basically, they were feeding testimony into suggestible people, mostly teen girls and women.

Accused parties were steamrolled by powerful propaganda. After all, "people don't make this up--especially children!" Well, manipulated "victims" can, and do. A form of collateral damage is that this evil "therapy" served to discourage bonafide victims from coming forward with their authentic experiences of exploitation, molestation and abuse.

But the movement gained credibility until (like the examples you've given above, Hie) the movement encroached on too many people who could establish an effective defense.

I post this as a cautionary aside to those who might get carried away by the #me,too fervor.

This is why I always bring along a chaperone.

On other threads, some people have posted negative remarks about certain Mormons who avoid being alone (in a car, behind a closed office door) with a woman not their wife. While that may be taken to silly extremes, it may now be seen as a prudent exercise of the "Billy Graham Rule," Graham being well known for never being alone with a woman, even having staff proceed into a hotel room before his arrival.

On the other hand, there have been plenty of postings about affairs. There is no fool-proof system.

BTW, my church has glass panels on all doors, except the lavatories.

> BTW, my church has glass panels on all doors, except the lavatories.


Well now, is that biblical? Where did Jesus do his 'business', and did he care if people saw? Because as it stands now, you've just announced that members of your church use the bathroom stalls for sex and drug dealing!!!

You must like having someone watch.

No sex or drug transactions in the men's room, but we do discuss and negotiate gun and armament shipments.

Phew! At first glance I thought you wrote “Bring along a chimpanzee”.

Be careful what you eat of the counter top.

I found the article interesting and well written. This topic could open up additional topics for rational discussion but I fear this will turn into left vs right, religious vs. non religious. Like it or not, social media visibility has eliminated secrets whether true or not. IMHO, there shouldn't be a problem about sex between consensual adults but maybe the discussion should focus more on individual behavior. While we are there, we should also discuss social media.

trial by social media; every bit as fair and just as a lynch mob, and a lynch mob is what 'me too' always was.

He was in a no win with being a celebrity .. she knew what she was doing. She wanted his attention and was purely in agreement and wanted more. If on the other hand he would of turned her sexual advances .. most likely she would have sued him for discrimination. This whole movement is puzzling to me.

exactly - when did it become acceptable for a girl to go to a guy's apartment, alone, then complain because he made sexual advances? Different if it was HER apartment and him disregarding her cues, but when she was at his place she was able to leave at any time. Unless, of course, she wants to accuse him of kidnapping, too?

A girl cannot give signals to a guy that she is 'possibly' a willing mate and then complain she was abused when she held all the power in the situation - she could always leave. How much did she want to be associated with him, what was she willing to exchange for her goal?

nothing short of a video taped consent listing all the things she is willing to do prior to amorous activity is the coming norm.

https://eforms.com/consent/sexual/

OTOGH, there's this old, probably out-of-date thing called a "marriage certificate."

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OTOGH, there's this old, probably out-of-date
> thing called a "marriage certificate."

That's no guarantee. Haven't you heard? Spouses can refuse sex with their spouse, and if forced after that, it's rape (as it should be)!

You're addressing a guy who has put husbands away--behind bars. Fun fact: women are far more often abused by boyfriends than husbands.

And what happens if a girl agrees to certain acts on the "Sexual Consent Form" and the guy overpowers her? She specifies "use a condom" and he slips it off? She allows oral sex, but he uses persuasion, guile, or a bit of last-minute body English to achieve penetration? Does she file a criminal complaint or initiate a civil suit?

I'm old enough (gasp!) to remember the early, "theoretical" days of the sexual revolution, when the young "New Morality"* turks argued that non-marital sex, facilitated by birth control and freed from the artificial constrains of morality and matrimony, would eliminate rape, child molestation, and even prostitution. And we bought into it!

I steadfastly hold that signing our marriage certificate was far more romantic than any sexual consent form. Please, Hie--don't play me for a fool just because I'm (still) a fool in love! :+o

*Some old prudes called the "New Morality," "the same old sins."

I have no catch-all answers.
I don't think anybody does.
That's one thing the current wave of "#me_too" is making plain to all: men and women (as a whole) have never sat down and figured out how to respect each other as full human beings, respect each others' rights, but still hook up and get down and dirty now and then.

I don't think "consent forms" are the answer (you nicely pointed out their shortcomings, and there are more).

I don't think a marriage certificate is the answer (thought I've got one, and have had one for 25 years).

I think it'll take us a while to hash all this out -- as a society. As an individual, I figured it out a long, long time ago...find a great woman and stay with her. So I did (like you!) :)

I hear you - feminism and the sexual revolution did not benefit young girls growing up with the pressure to be 'modern' and give in to free love, which really meant committment free sex for guys and shame and guilt for girls, not to mention forcing married mothers into employment by driving down middle bracket and low bracket wages. Single motherhood lost it's shame and girls were respected less by their peers for holding on to 'old fashioned' ideals.

Young girls were told they were superwomen in waiting and could have it all but to beat men at their own game rather than bring something 'new' to the table. Now those superwomen admit they did not and could not 'have it all'.

The girls lost respect for the boys as future husbands in the process since their protection and provision was no longer required; in response young boys felt undervalued by society so banded together in their own subcultures (gangs) where they could prove their value to and win the respect of their peers.

Disrespect of all men seems to be the most prevalent attitude in some rather vocal women today. It deflects from the real tragedies like dealing with weinstein, but then in that respect - what were those girls willing to pay/sacrifice to achieve their goals? Everything has it's price - even a marriage certificate.

My girlfriends didn't lose anything by sleeping with their future husbands, or by being intimate with another boyfriend or two before they settled down. They've had long and happy marriages. Women are sexual beings, too. I think the secret is to make a good pick of spouse, and to not feel rushed into marriage.

Plus there were plenty of unhappy marriages back in the old days, with no way out for either spouse since women back then often lacked the capacity to support themselves. Growing up back in the 60s, my parents talked to me about getting my education so that I would have options in life. They were right about that.

I'm not saying that being a single mom is entirely ideal, but I don't think we should wear rose-colored glasses with how things used to be, either. I know some educated single moms who are doing quite well, and I also know some women who are married and who are the sole support of their families.

my friend's mother confided once that in her day (60s) getting married was the only way a respectable girl could leave home. It was obvious hers was still not a happy home - she and her hubby both had a substance abuse problem and their kids were thrill seekers.

Many women married to escape a life they did not enjoy, but before them there were those women who married because they 'had to'. There are many benefits to seeing women as of 'equal value' and leaving home without tongues wagging is just one, however, many girls didn't want to do 'men's' jobs and liked a bit of chivalry, which unfortunately has since become completely unfashionable.

I feel that modern feminism is code for emasculating and belittling men, ie, behaving in the worst way that men have been accused of behaving. It almost appears to be a rejection of all things the female of most mammalian species is naturally programmed to be: a mother and a protector of her young, whose first adult instinct was to find the most suitable father for her young.

Tupac Shakur was well known for filming woman Do you have a video and audio record of their consent before he had sex with them. At least, this is what I heard, I suppose it could be some kind of urban legend. Given his fame at the time, it’s not a bad idea. I think of how many celebrities have been falsely and non-falsely accused of rape.

Should be required by law to have a binding contract with a prospective partner, and all contractual actions and obligations must be performed before public witnesses.

'Course, if the female would-be partner fails to wear the burka, no need for one contract, cuz she's just asking to be raped. (sarc) :)

Why would any man want a sexual encounter with a partner who is anything less than enthusiastically, absolutely, race ya to the bed "yes, let's do this right now"? Consent is not a mystery. It's he77 yes or it's no. Sex is not something women (should) submit to, it's something they (should) do because they want it. The conversation about consent should be "yes, slower, faster, harder, more, right there, yes yes yes OMG yes!" That's not a conversation you want to have? Really? SMH. If anyone having sex with another person is at least as concerned with their partner's pleasure as they are with their own, they will get this. AND! Your partner's pleasure is a gigantic turn on. You want this, it's not a hassle. Aziz was a clueless, selfish Ef-boy. Should he lose his career over it? No. But he freaking wrote a book about modern dating. For that alone he should be called out on what a freaking awful date that was. Stop whining, men. Start listening. This from your lesbian sister. Women love you and want you. Just be better, and if you already are one of the considerate men, don't whine to the women about it - call out the men who don't get it.

The scenario you describe can certainly be exciting, but recognize that “scheming” one’s way into a lady’s pants and having her “resist” also exists as a turn on in some men’s minds.

I see what you're saying, but that sounds a lot like rape culture. There is so much that can go wrong and be misread in this scenario. You would have to be SO sure the woman is on board with this chase game. I think we need to start coming from a culture where we assume the partners are equals. I do - I'm a woman who dates women. If there are domination/submission games, the rules are very clearly laid out and negotiated before anything happens. Straight and vanilla couples should take a page from BDSM about how to negotiate what goes on before assuming that that scheme and resist game is just what sex is. I don't play that (and don't think there is anything wrong with it), but there is always a discussion about what my partner wants in bed, and how she wants it, nothing is ever assumed. There is no "man" and "woman" in the room, no roles are played out, just two people who want to please and be pleased.

Yes, the male needs to know that she is totally in agreement that she is to be inveigled into completing the coupling.

One of the signs that you can trust that the game is afoot is offering to leave and having her bar the door.

Only a signed agreement or videotaped consent to any and all sex acts will prevent your career from being completely destroyed by an anonymous source on Twitter.

Dating in the #metoo era.

Contract between party A and party B

Can "Party A" kiss "Party B"?

If so, please print out your name above Party B, sign and date on the dotted line.

Can Party A play with Party B's titties?

If so, please print out your name above Party B, sign and date on the dotted line.

Can Can Party A go down on Party B's vagina?

If so, please print out your name above Party B, sign and date on the dotted line.

Can Party B suck Party A's penis?

If so, please print out your name above Party B, sign and date on the dotted line.

Can Party A fuck Party B in the vagina?

If so, please print out your name above Party B, sign and date on the dotted line.

Thank you for your consent, which will be recorded and filed with the County Auditor's office prior to commencing. It's been a pleasure doing business with you. My lawyers will be in touch with your lawyers in the future. Until then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2018 09:11PM by koriwhore.

Whew! I'm safe cuz I'm not on twitter!!!

One can say no at any point. No means no.

Ashleigh Banfield, BushII-era truth-telling extraordinaire, still telling the truth, straight-up and direct:

https://mobile.twitter.com/HLNTV/status/953266315476729856

“...a bad case of blue-balls, not a Hollywood blackball”