Harvey Weinstein (and assorted horrible people)... RIP career.

[Scuzz]

Comment/Question.....Is it normal now for people to spend an evening naked without having sex or expecting sex or believing sex is imminent? Why didn't she just get dressed and leave? She gives no indication she feared him?

I think we all know that sex can't be presumed to go as expected.

But the standard now is that all consent is specific and explicit. Hanging out naked does not imply consent to have sex. Oral sex does not imply permission for penetrative sex. Vaginal does not imply permission for anal or vice-versa, etc.

Granted while nothing is 100%, I would think most males would think, as would probably most females, that getting yourself into that position kind of implies vaginal sex.

It's like you play with a loaded gun, it goes off shooting someone, and you sue Smith and Wesson.

[tjg_marantz]

And as we know, that happens.

[GreenGoo]

Wait, getting naked and performing oral sex on each other does NOT imply anything else? Really? I can agree it doesn't give consent, but it sure as heck implies more fooling around. Otherwise "foreplay" would just be called "play".

[Smoove_B]

Wait, getting naked and performing oral sex on each other does NOT imply anything else? Really?

It really doesn't, no. If you're there (I have no idea), you can't think about this like a married person that has "known" conditions or situations. I don't want to imply that it's impossible to sexually assault a spouse, but the physical relationship you have with a committed partner isn't the same as one you might have with a complete stranger or a causal acquaintance. Maybe I'm lucky or maybe I've only ever been with people that were comfortable clearly communicating the menu of options available.

[Scuzz]

Wait, getting naked and performing oral sex on each other does NOT imply anything else? Really?

It really doesn't, no. If you're there (I have no idea), you can't think about this like a married person that has "known" conditions or situations. I don't want to imply that it's impossible to sexually assault a spouse, but the physical relationship you have with a committed partner isn't the same as one you might have with a complete stranger or a causal acquaintance. Maybe I'm lucky or maybe I've only ever been with people that were comfortable clearly communicating the menu of options available.

You know, it's possible to logically argue the opposite of that. For many years the wife and I went to bed naked every night and sex wasn't expected every night, it was just more comfortable and allowed for a certain closeness without necessarily having sex.

I would argue getting naked within a couple hours of meeting someone and having oral sex with them implies you are after more than just a "certain closeness". Especially in a situation like this were it is also pretty much implied that neither side was drunk.

[ImLawBoy]

The first time my now wife and I went "upstairs to the bedroom", she clearly indicated that we were not going to have sex. We still had fun, but she clearly communicated and I respected that. Obviously the keys were her clear communication and me not being a creep.

[Smoove_B]

You know, it's possible to logically argue the opposite of that. For many years the wife and I went to bed naked every night and sex wasn't expected every night, it was just more comfortable and allowed for a certain closeness without necessarily having sex.

I don't think we're arguing different things at all here. This is a parameter that was established over time. It work(ed) for you as applied and both parties understood the general scenario.

I would argue getting naked within a couple hours of meeting someone and having oral sex with them implies you are after more than just a "certain closeness". Especially in a situation like this were it is also pretty much implied that neither side was drunk.

This, on the other hand, is a good example of where the problem lies. Getting naked and having oral sex implies you're down to get naked and have oral sex. It doesn't in any way mean you're ok with butt stuff, spanking or missionary position sex. The easiest way to clarify confusion here would be to ask what else. Ideally, ahead of time, but certainly in the moment.

At the end of the day there are two outcomes for these types of encounters with complete strangers or casual acquaintances. The first is that she's upset because she was giving you signals that she wanted more and you didn't take it to a different level. The second is that she's upset that you took it to a different level despite her implying (and possibly saying at first but then changing her mind during) that she didn't want to. Given those two options, I'll select the first one every time.

Again, it's a layered question. I tend to agree with the Ashley Banfield editorial, mainly because of the mixed signals. "Grace" absolutely had the right to say no and to change her mind at any point and if her accounts are true, Aziz is a dirtbag for pressuring her in any capacity. I don't get the impression he physically forced her to do anything, nor is she making the case that she was incapacitated by alcohol. By her own account, it sounds like she did something she regrets. That's a completely different situation than so many of the other stories in this thread. While Aziz might be a creep, to lump him in with the Weinsteins and the Louie CKs of the world isn't right.

[coopasonic]

Regardless of what you may feel is implied, implicit is not explicit particularly when it comes to getting explicit. I mean how hard is it to say "So... sex?"

I guess it could be considered a mood killer, mostly because it gives her the opportunity to say no. On the other hand rape is a mood killer for her.

[Scuzz]

You know, it's possible to logically argue the opposite of that. For many years the wife and I went to bed naked every night and sex wasn't expected every night, it was just more comfortable and allowed for a certain closeness without necessarily having sex.

I don't think we're arguing different things at all here. This is a parameter that was established over time. It work(ed) for you as applied and both parties understood the general scenario.

I would argue getting naked within a couple hours of meeting someone and having oral sex with them implies you are after more than just a "certain closeness". Especially in a situation like this were it is also pretty much implied that neither side was drunk.

This, on the other hand, is a good example of where the problem lies. Getting naked and having oral sex implies you're down to get naked and have oral sex. It doesn't in any way mean you're ok with butt stuff, spanking or missionary position sex. The easiest way to clarify confusion here would be to ask what else. Ideally, ahead of time, but certainly in the moment.

At the end of the day there are two outcomes for these types of encounters with complete strangers or casual acquaintances. The first is that she's upset because she was giving you signals that she wanted more and you didn't take it to a different level. The second is that she's upset that you took it to a different level despite her implying (and possibly saying at first but then changing her mind during) that she didn't want to. Given those two options, I'll select the first one every time.

Again, it's a layered question. I tend to agree with the Ashley Banfield editorial, mainly because of the mixed signals. "Grace" absolutely had the right to say no and to change her mind at any point and if her accounts are true, Aziz is a dirtbag for pressuring her in any capacity. I don't get the impression he physically forced her to do anything, nor is she making the case that she was incapacitated by alcohol. By her own account, it sounds like she did something she regrets. That's a completely different situation than so many of the other stories in this thread. While Aziz might be a creep, to lump him in with the Weinsteins and the Louie CKs of the world isn't right.

Not to say I have a problem with your first couple paragraphs, but I think we are pretty much on the same wavelength in your last paragraph. Except for one small detail....I think calling Aziz a dirtbag is a little hard in that almost any guy in the same situation would probably have acted the same way. And the next day, when she contacted him and called him on it he apologized, that's a lot more than many guys would have done. Unless of course they thought they had a second chance.

[Scuzz]

Regardless of what you may feel is implied, implicit is not explicit particularly when it comes to getting explicit. I mean how hard is it to say "So... sex?"

I guess it could be considered a mood killer, mostly because it gives her the opportunity to say no. On the other hand rape is a mood killer for her.

Well, she did finally say no, and he did more or less accept that.

[coopasonic]

Except for one small detail....I think calling Aziz a dirtbag is a little hard in that almost any guy in the same situation would probably have acted the same way.

I strongly disagree. if you had said "a lot of guys" I might give it to you, but "almost any guy"? No. Or, better, I hope not. If I am wrong, then we need to learn. I hope I can teach my boys better.

[El Guapo]

I will say that Aziz doesn't really come off as a "dirtbag" to me in all this. It sounds like he genuinely misread the situation, stopped when she voiced lack of consent, and apologized afterwards when she told called him out on everything. He comes across as someone genuinely trying to do the right thing.

That said, that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with what he did. In some ways this is more important to the strong majority of guys, who won't (and/or can't) do Weinstein-type violations, but could easily wind up doing the kind of thing that Aziz did here. It's an important conversation, and one which is connected to but very different from the MeToo stuff.

[Grifman]

Here's another view:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/polic ... 15669.html

You may not agree with everything said, but I think there is a lot of truth here.

[Smoove_B]

I will say that Aziz doesn't really come off as a "dirtbag" to me in all this. It sounds like he genuinely misread the situation, stopped when she voiced lack of consent, and apologized afterwards when she told called him out on everything. He comes across as someone genuinely trying to do the right thing.

It seems to me like he badgered her into having a physical encounter. And when she rebuffed, he pressed back. When she eventually clarified it, he did stop, but the reason I think he acted like a dirtbag is because of that badgering element that started them down the path. It could have gone a million different ways and he apparently did the right thing (eventually). But so much of that could have been avoided if he wasn't so aggressive and/or she was clearer in her intentions in the first place. It's just so difficult for me to empathize with an individual like Aziz because I've never badgered anyone into any type of physical exchange. Instead, I probably went the other direction completely - which likely caused me to miss out on a few opportunities. But alternatively, there's no doubt in my mind as to whether or not consent was ever an issue for anything.

I've absolutely dated women that have tried playing coy and that apparently wanted me to be more aggressive, so at some point they could "give in"; it never worked. I've also dated women that thought when I paid for dinner (because I asked them to go to dinner) that was being too aggressive and it put them on the defense, completely shutting me out to any type of future encounters. Apparently they assumed I expected full release because I paid for dinner and dessert (I didn't).

While I don't know for sure (only she does), I do wonder how this all would have ended if Grace was out with Steve from accounting and not Aziz Ansari.

[GreenGoo]

Wait, getting naked and performing oral sex on each other does NOT imply anything else? Really?

It really doesn't, no.

So it's not implied. You can't infer anything from behaviour. At what point are you able to infer that licking nipples is ok? Or changing positions? Or sticking your tongue in her ear? Or any of a number of common actions that take plus during sex, but aren't sex.

You guys understand what the word "imply" means, right? Consent is consent. Not consent is not consent. But you're saying that sex can not be inferred, even during sex? How do you think this will work from a practical standpoint? Assuming the goal is less assaults on women, how will this work?

"Your honor, we were on our 3rd date, I asked if she wanted to come up for coffee, she agreed, we kissed and petted on the couch, I asked if she wanted to go to the bed room, she said yes, I underdressed her (she did not give an affirmative consent)"

Is that assault?

"After that, she performed oral sex on me. I moved to reciprocate and she did not give verbal consent"

Is that assault?

"after we performed oral sex on each other, I moved to have intercourse with her, she said nothing, did nothing, when I was done, I rolled off her and she asked me why I raped her"

Is that assault?

How on earth are you going to prove any of that? Why on earth would either the man or the woman WANT this to be assault? Is there no room left for simply being together, enjoying yourselves, and if things start going in a direction you don't like or make you uncomfortable, communicate it?

Human nature and sexual desire will never submit to this level of negotiation, no matter how much we might want it to, or make laws requiring it.

Wednesday Night

Consent

blockchain app for consent

Just one of many articles on why consent apps are a bad idea

Coop is welcome to whatever approach he wants, but I can't think of a single partner I had that would respond to "so...sex?" in a positive way. Of course today is not yesterday, and perhaps how single men and women view sex has changed enough to turn it into a more overt transactional exchange than something more intimate and personal, but holy crap. Humans aren't robots. Women aren't and Men aren't, but somehow men are supposed to take responsibility for both yes and no, leaving the woman to simply enjoy herself until she doesn't? Women want to be grown ups too, right? I mean, there has to be responsibility on BOTH SIDES for any of this to work in a satisfactory way for both people.

[Jaymann]

I will say that Aziz doesn't really come off as a "dirtbag" to me in all this. It sounds like he genuinely misread the situation, stopped when she voiced lack of consent, and apologized afterwards when she told called him out on everything. He comes across as someone genuinely trying to do the right thing.

It seems to me like he badgered her into having a physical encounter. And when she rebuffed, he pressed back. When she eventually clarified it, he did stop, but the reason I think he acted like a dirtbag is because of that badgering element that started them down the path. It could have gone a million different ways and he apparently did the right thing (eventually). But so much of that could have been avoided if he wasn't so aggressive and/or she was clearer in her intentions in the first place. It's just so difficult for me to empathize with an individual like Aziz because I've never badgered anyone into any type of physical exchange. Instead, I probably went the other direction completely - which likely caused me to miss out on a few opportunities. But alternatively, there's no doubt in my mind as to whether or not consent was ever an issue for anything.

I've absolutely dated women that have tried playing coy and that apparently wanted me to be more aggressive, so at some point they could "give in"; it never worked. I've also dated women that thought when I paid for dinner (because I asked them to go to dinner) that was being too aggressive and it put them on the defense, completely shutting me out to any type of future encounters. Apparently they assumed I expected full release because I paid for dinner and dessert (I didn't).

While I don't know for sure (only she does), I do wonder how this all would have ended if Grace was out with Steve from accounting and not Aziz Ansari.

I hear that Steve from accounting is an agressive dirtbag.

[El Guapo]

I will say that Aziz doesn't really come off as a "dirtbag" to me in all this. It sounds like he genuinely misread the situation, stopped when she voiced lack of consent, and apologized afterwards when she told called him out on everything. He comes across as someone genuinely trying to do the right thing.

It seems to me like he badgered her into having a physical encounter. And when she rebuffed, he pressed back. When she eventually clarified it, he did stop, but the reason I think he acted like a dirtbag is because of that badgering element that started them down the path. It could have gone a million different ways and he apparently did the right thing (eventually). But so much of that could have been avoided if he wasn't so aggressive and/or she was clearer in her intentions in the first place. It's just so difficult for me to empathize with an individual like Aziz because I've never badgered anyone into any type of physical exchange. Instead, I probably went the other direction completely - which likely caused me to miss out on a few opportunities. But alternatively, there's no doubt in my mind as to whether or not consent was ever an issue for anything.

I've absolutely dated women that have tried playing coy and that apparently wanted me to be more aggressive, so at some point they could "give in"; it never worked. I've also dated women that thought when I paid for dinner (because I asked them to go to dinner) that was being too aggressive and it put them on the defense, completely shutting me out to any type of future encounters. Apparently they assumed I expected full release because I paid for dinner and dessert (I didn't).

While I don't know for sure (only she does), I do wonder how this all would have ended if Grace was out with Steve from accounting and not Aziz Ansari.

I'm not fully up on all the details, but my understanding was that what he did was proceed over "verbal and nonverbal cues" that Grace wasn't into it. Proceeding over "cues" as opposed to proceeding over verbal "nos" is pretty different to me - there's some grounds for genuine misunderstanding with cues (especially between two people on their first date, so who don't know each other super well). Seems like Aziz arguably *should* have known that she wasn't into it, but as far as I know there's no real indication that he *did* know that she wasn't into it (which is a big difference).

What was the nature of the badgering?

[GreenGoo]

The more I think about this, the more I think putting all of the responsibility on the man is the exact opposite of feminism. I fail to see how any of this is empowering for women. It's just another way to take a passive role. No wonder some old school feminists aren't on board with the new school's approach.

On the plus side, my opinion will never come into practical effect so I get to be an ornery old grump and complain about the kids these days.

In my day, women gave their consent by pulling on your dick and crushing your ass in their vice like grip while jamming their tongue down your throat. 2 miles both ways in snow.

[Smoove_B]

What was the nature of the badgering?

From her account:

Ansari wanted to have sex. She said she remembers him asking again and again, “Where do you want me to fuck you?” while she was still seated on the countertop. She says she found the question tough to answer because she says she didn’t want to fuck him at all.

“I wasn’t really even thinking of that, I didn’t want to be engaged in that with him. But he kept asking, so I said, ‘Next time.’ And he goes, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and I go, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’” He then poured her a glass and handed it to her. She excused herself to the bathroom soon after.

After she came out of the bathroom:

Then he said, ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’”

This moment is particularly significant for Grace, because she thought that would be the end of the sexual encounter — her remark about not wanting to feel “forced” had added a verbal component to the cues she was trying to give him about her discomfort. When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair — something to calm her down.

Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”

Again, that's all her side; if it's accurate I think it paints him in an aggressive dirtbag light. YMMV.

[Smoove_B]

I mean, there has to be responsibility on BOTH SIDES for any of this to work in a satisfactory way for both people.

On this we agree. I can't even imagine being single and dating right now, so it's difficult for me to speculate on what I'd be doing right now if I had a plethora of options. I can only speak to my past practices and experiences, and having been in situations where [X] was deemed unacceptable ahead of time, then in the moment when [X] was suddenly (and surprisingly) given the green light, I opted not to, it was the right decision. In other situations where it was understood that everything but [Y] was acceptable, we managed to stay within the rules and everyone was happy. I really don't think it's as complicated as people are making it, but it does require that both parties think about and communicate the situation (ideally) before it's actually happening. I understand that's not necessarily realistic, so maybe my default setting of dialing it back was one that worked well for me.

None of this really relates to the awful shit the Harvey Weinsteins of the world have done, but if having these discussions results in people thinking about these ideas and exerting agency, then I guess that's good.

[ImLawBoy]

The more I think about this, the more I think putting all of the responsibility on the man is the exact opposite of feminism. I fail to see how any of this is empowering for women. It's just another way to take a passive role. No wonder some old school feminists aren't on board with the new school's approach.

On the plus side, my opinion will never come into practical effect so I get to be an ornery old grump and complain about the kids these days.

In my day, women gave their consent by pulling on your dick and crushing your ass in their vice like grip while jamming their tongue down your throat. 2 miles both ways in snow.

I think you (and others) are creating a bit of a straw man when you talk about the responsibility being 100% on the side of the man. The woman does need to communicate her desires (or lack thereof, as the case may be), and I think there are legitimate concerns over whether "Grace" properly communicated. There's a big gap between "100% man's responsibility" and "men get free rein until there is a clear and unequivocal 'no'", however. When I read that babe article, I felt that Ansari would have to be a fool or just ignoring her to think she was really interested in sex (assuming what was written is true, of course). Still, after thinking about it some more, I can't 100% blame him, because she did physically reciprocate more than once. I just put myself in that situation, and I can't imagine being so horned up that I'd want to keep trying with someone who is so clearly conflicted. That would be a likely boner kill to me.

Ansari also gets an extra level of scorn for this incident because a very large part of his shtick is based on being a nice guy feminist ally, and the babe piece makes him look like a total hypocrite.

[McNutt]

Saying he's an aggressive dirtbag is the worst you could call him because of this. So does this need to be made public? Does he deserve to be publicly called out for a date that ended in sex that the person now regrets? What exactly is the accuser's goal? The more I read about this the more I get angry at her, which I know is something I should not do. She had 100 ways of getting out of there without having sex, yet she stayed and had sex with no implied threat of force. Now she's going to make sure he pays. WTF?

[GreenGoo]

I think you (and others) are creating a bit of a straw man when you talk about the responsibility being 100% on the side of the man. The woman does need to communicate her desires (or lack thereof, as the case may be), and I think there are legitimate concerns over whether "Grace" properly communicated.

I'm not so sure. There are more "Grace" stories out there with a lot of support for the woman's perspective while piling on the man.

If I tell you I'm uncomfortable with physical contact, then you ask/tell me to suck your dick while pointing at your crotch and I do it, there better be a very real threat (physical intimidation, job endangered) before we start blaming you for wanting your dick sucked. (also, my wife would be pissed). Also also, thanks for the offer, but no thanks.

And I say that will all the empathy I can muster for women who have grown up in our male dominated culture (less so than almost anywhere else in the world though), and that's a lot. I get that you can be afraid that your date will get angry and/or physical if you displease him somehow, but we can't just accuse the man of wrongdoing because you felt uncomfortable/afraid that he MIGHT get mad, so you acquiesced.

Some viewpoints out there seem to be moving towards blaming men for their sex drives. I realize that is not a universal perspective, but there is plenty of talk in articles and on message boards/social media to this effect.

[GreenGoo]

For the record I have given my consent ahead of time and then backed out at the time the act was about to occur. On the plus side, if a man doesn't wanna have intercourse, it's pretty difficult to make them. Women aren't so lucky.

Anyway, I've said my piece. My support for the #metoo movement is unwavering, despite the occasional opportunist taking advantage.

[Chrisoc13]

For the record I have given my consent ahead of time and then backed out at the time the act was about to occur. On the plus side, if a man doesn't wanna have intercourse, it's pretty difficult to make them. Women aren't so lucky.

Anyway, I've said my piece. My support for the #metoo movement is unwavering, despite the occasional opportunist taking advantage.

I think you've been pretty clear and during this discussion I've never once thought you were opposed to the metoo movement.

The grace story bothers me because most of the things he did wrong are completely inferred in the article. If you take out her internal commentary and just read what was actually done and said... It's not so clear. For instance that part quoted above he said let's chill on the couch. She did. He motioned "give me oral". She did. Without her internal commentary added... It's just a really weird date (or at least would be for my experience but hey I'm willing to admit my experiences were far less broad than that). He didn't have the benefit of her internal commentary we have reading the article.

Overall I've been shocked by the metoo movement stories coming out. It's very disheartening to see our society functions in such a despicable manner. But this one doesn't fit. Don't get me wrong I really hope my son or daughter are ever in a situation like that since all around it wasn't how I would like them to act, but it doesn't fit with #metoo.

[Smoove_B]

I can't unsee "pound me too", which makes me feel terrible.

[Scuzz]

I can't unsee "pound me too", which makes me feel terrible.

That's the second time I have seen someone write that but the first time I got the reference.

I just don't see Anzari being mixed in with Weinstein or even Louis CK.

[Holman]

I haven't delved deep into the Anzari story, but isn't it actually heartening that a lot of the interrogation and criticism (of the story, not just of Anzari) is coming from inside the #MeToo movement itself?

To me that's another sign that this is not a witch hunt. You're never going to have a perfectly flawless run with a topic so contentious, but a willingness to step back and question developments is healthy and smart in ways the OMGFeminazis! panic seems unwilling to acknowledge.

[LordMortis]

I can't unsee "pound me too", which makes me feel terrible.

And now, neither can I.

[gbasden]

Human nature and sexual desire will never submit to this level of negotiation, no matter how much we might want it to, or make laws requiring it.

When you go for the condom and she says she wants to slow down, a decent guy won't then badger her for intercourse. It's not all that difficult to get. Maybe I just have no game, but I can't imagine making a move, getting rebuffed, and then continuing to make moves especially on a first date!

[GreenGoo]

Human nature and sexual desire will never submit to this level of negotiation, no matter how much we might want it to, or make laws requiring it.

When you go for the condom and she says she wants to slow down, a decent guy won't then badger her for intercourse. It's not all that difficult to get. Maybe I just have no game, but I can't imagine making a move, getting rebuffed, and then continuing to make moves especially on a first date!

What has decency got to do with any of this? We're not talking about ill-manners. Well, some people are, and that's part of the problem. If a guy won't quite trying after you've clearly said no, it should make for a short date, just like any other behaviour that is found to be obnoxious. If he puts his hands on you after you've said no, that's assault. Being persistent isn't against the law, nor should it be. If we don't put salesmen in jail when they persist after being told no, I fail to see why we should put men in jail for being equally persistent. The solution is the same for the salesman or the date. A polite no, then extract yourself from the situation. If you are prevented from extracting yourself, then it's assault.

You're right, it's not difficult to get.

[Matrix]

Human nature and sexual desire will never submit to this level of negotiation, no matter how much we might want it to, or make laws requiring it.

When you go for the condom and she says she wants to slow down, a decent guy won't then badger her for intercourse. It's not all that difficult to get.

Seriously? That's the point to slow down... You mean he won't beg? But if he does, he is weak so she won't anyway. But if he doesn't, she will be back in few min...
This is like first grade in here. Some get, most don't. Psychology of dating is deep, rich and fucked up.
When blind people start to see that Aziz is not in s##t, that means we are head deep in it.
The only positive take away here is, his situation made you think.
No its not weinstein, and it's not Luis ck (who is still amazing and I fully think he is totally in the clear), Aziz is an average guy, who has sone social proof and girls notice him. We all do for various reasons, we programed to look for them. To take him to cleaners for this is bad. Anonymously too, why didn't she give her name, why did it have to be only his issues. Yes bitch, you wanted to fuck, yes you liked him but not fully, you liked his power, celebrity status, you just didn't like the feel of him so you regretted it but you like attention, but not personal, do let's release it, trend is there, let him bear the brunt. Because you have nothing to lose, and he has everything to lose. So let's rationalize to the nth degree. How is this close to even iota of fair.

[GreenGoo]

Don't you have some SEO work you should be doing?

[Zarathud]

The point of #metoo is that so many guys won't stop. So sometimes women give in, and men don't notice or even acknowledge it. Or they notice but feel entitled to sex because they were "playing the game" and "just being persistent."

Being a decent human being is making sure you have consent at all stages. If you need an app to know you have consent, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to reproduce. You certainly shouldn't be seeing my daughters.

[GreenGoo]

What's the difference between a douche bag and a criminal?

#metoo, while it has wider ramifications, is about serious sexual assault, or sexual harrasment in the workplace. These are serious crimes.


I have some issues with it being hijacked to discuss bad dates with assholes.

[pr0ner]

No its not weinstein, and it's not Luis ck (who is still amazing and I fully think he is totally in the clear), Aziz is an average guy, who has sone social proof and girls notice him. We all do for various reasons, we programed to look for them. To take him to cleaners for this is bad. Anonymously too, why didn't she give her name, why did it have to be only his issues. Yes bitch, you wanted to fuck, yes you liked him but not fully, you liked his power, celebrity status, you just didn't like the feel of him so you regretted it but you like attention, but not personal, do let's release it, trend is there, let him bear the brunt. Because you have nothing to lose, and he has everything to lose. So let's rationalize to the nth degree. How is this close to even iota of fair.

Yep. This is Return of Kings material right here. "Yes bitch, you wanted to fuck"?

[McNutt]

Luis ck (who is still amazing and I fully think he is totally in the clear)

This, of all things, might be where you lost me. What do you mean, he's in the clear?

[Matrix]

Luis ck (who is still amazing and I fully think he is totally in the clear)

This, of all things, might be where you lost me. What do you mean, he's in the clear?

Ya. It wasnt best spot to place it in. What I meant was Luis ck was thrown into same pool of seedness as Winestein. And Aziz is being thrown there as well. With Aziz there, it's finally starting to strike a nerve with peope, but Luis ck is some where closer to Aziz than to Winestein, but with the histeria everyone being thrown into the same pot.

[pr0ner]

As much as I like CK, lumping his actions in with Ansari's is an incorrect assessment of the situation.

[McNutt]

Ok, I see what you mean. Yes, there are levels of bad and CK and Ansari are nowhere near as bad as Weinstein. Ansari is in the clear as far as I'm concerned because he never exerted any pressure on people working for him. He had no power over anyone. Louis CK used his power to be a total creep. Weinstein used his power to be a violent rapist.

Ansari doesn't need any punishment or rehab. Louis CK could make a comeback, but he's going to have to change his ways and ask for a lot of forgiveness. Weinstein deserves to rot in prison.