Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

He doesn't have any expectation of privacy to begin with. What are you talking about? She is free to reveal whatever about him. As long as she's not lying, he can't do anything about it. Where does she get a duty not to embarrass him? She doesn't.

Objectively, empirically, it's pretty obvious that you're wrong -- he had a reasonably expectation of privacy. As others have pointed out, her experience is not uncommon, and most men in his position do not get shamed as he did. I'm not talking about his or her rights, just about how people usually treat each other.

You can think she's a bad person, I guess,

I didn't say that, but I think she did something she shouldn't have done.

but I don't because he treated her in a way that she felt was violative and I don't think that's entirely unreasonable and because of the important conversation.

My question was whether *you* thought she should have done it. She reasonably might have wanted to take a baseball bat to his car the next day, but that doesn't mean that it would have been a good idea. And the idea that people surrender their privacy for the greater good of enlightenment in sexual politics strikes me as a terribly illiberal view, a sexual version of destroying a village to save it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

No you weren't. That theater is in Lincoln Park. Michigan stops well south of Lincoln Park.

I lived about 5 blocks from Wrigley. It was fun when I was younger, but it's probably too fratty for old lawtalkerpeople.

Right Lincoln. I walked from the Loop to the Moth somewhere on Lincoln and was across from the theater.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

He doesn't have any expectation of privacy to begin with. What are you talking about? She is free to reveal whatever about him. As long as she's not lying, he can't do anything about it. Where does she get a duty not to embarrass him? She doesn't.

You can think she's a bad person, I guess, but I don't because he treated her in a way that she felt was violative and I don't think that's entirely unreasonable and because of the important conversation.

Yeah, she's free to reveal what she wants about him down to dick size and thrust frequency, but it does make her a shitty person. And it doesn't negate the idea that sex is generally considered to be a private interaction to be shared only among the participants. In fact, my most held dear line of case law from Girswold to Roe to Casey to Lawrence is based in part on the idea that there is a privacy interest in what happens in the bedroom that should be free of government interference. To dismiss that norm in the private arena out of hand, especially to such a vast audience, requires, in my opinion, a pretty big justification.

It's one thing to bitch over text or mimosas the next day with a bunch of girlfriends (which is I'm sure how this thing started) or report to anonymous posting board full of lawyers who will never meet both parties about a golden shower request, but it's quite another to broadcast these details to the world at large. It's a violation of privacy, in my opinion. It might be worth it for a variety of reasons and it may not have recourse, but it's still a violation of privacy, in my opinion.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

My argument is that if you are a jerk to a women you are trying to sleep with, you shouldn't expect that to stay private, especially if you're famous.

My observation is that if you expect your exes and hook ups to keep all of your foibles secret, you're going to be disappointed. Thankfully, they aren't of much interest to many people so you won't see them in the paper.

But fundamentally I'm saying Ansari is not a victim here.

Let's say he sincerely thought she wouldn't tell anyone about it. So what? He obviously has no ability to stop her from telling anyone.

As I said, we all obviously expect people to be decent, but we don't have recourse if they're not (and truthful).

You keep trying to get out from under having an actual conversation.

• Yes, celebrities, whether or not they acted poorly, should expect people to be shitty and share their experiences--even with media outlets
• Yes, you believe Ansari isn't a victim
• No, no one (who doesn't have an NDA and a pen on hand) has the ability to keep anyone from telling other people about their experiences
• No, there's no recourse if people do share information (for people who aren't Harvey Weinstein)

I'm not sure if you don't want to have a real conversation because the positions you've taken aren't convenient when applied to normal people or non-cad-like celebrities or not. But I'm still trying.

Now, what are your expectations when it comes to being with someone? Do you go into a relationship thinking that your sexual experiences with that person are for public consumption? Is it reasonable for whoever you're with to assume you won't talk about their sexual proclivities with anyone, everyone, and/or the media? Whether or not they understand that every other, every fifth, or every tenth sexual partner will blab to TMZ or Babe.com, can celebrities expect the same things or have they forfeited all rights to any kind of privacy at all? When do those expectations of privacy attach--only in very serious, committed relationships? Do your rules only apply if the person acts aggressively or crosses a line? How about if they're into some kinky shit that the other person isn't? Do they have to explicitly ask the other person to keep their private shit private? How do your rules differ when it comes to men sharing women's private sexual acts vs. women sharing men's?

I think it's funny that you say that we all expect people to act decently when addressing whether or not people should share private information and then say Ansari isn't a victim when his private encounter became the subject of a widely read article. Relative to this woman and the experience she had, it's hard to think of him as a victim or to muster much sympathy, sure. It's easy to say he isn't without really putting any thought into the fact that we're talking about two very different things because he crossed some lines. But does that mean that sharing their private encounter wasn't a shitty thing to do on some level? What if he was a perfect gentlemen and they had enthusiastically consensual sex and he wanted her to stick her finger in his ass and she went to Babe.com with that information? Does that make him a victim?

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

My argument is that if you are a jerk to a women you are trying to sleep with, you shouldn't expect that to stay private, especially if you're famous.

Well that is probably true. And it is a lesson he learned I suppose. Still, I think you ask for pretty perfect, and all knowing, behavior.

The story of the evening, from her account, is far from him being a big shit. She came to his place, they got undressed, she said no, they got dressed again. He kept bringing up doing something, she kept saying no, but not leaving.

She was interested in having a meaningful interaction with a celebrity maybe? He just wanted to get his dick wet maybe? Would she have been happier if he asked her to leave?

I mean, I haven't dated in a long long time, and I hope i would play things right in such a situation. I know I always honored a no, and trust me I had lots of practice at "no"s. But the overall totality was not a clear, "no and stop suggesting stuff," at least from what she wrote.

And it is a shit move to spend time with a celeb, in part because she was likely somewhat starstruck, and then do this reveal. It seems aimed and harming his career if not ruining it. She has "a right" to I suppose, but it just seems wrong.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So how do we feel about the Stormy Daniels piece where she says Trump is bad in bed relative to Ansari?

Hilarious that Trump paid her to keep quiet years after she gave the interview to In Touch.

“Buy the ticket, take the ride,” Donald.

Is there anyone who’s even remotely surprised, or doesn’t feel he deserves it? He’s not Ansari. He’s not in the same stadium with Ansari.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Well that is probably true. And it is a lesson he learned I suppose. Still, I think you ask for pretty perfect, and all knowing, behavior.

The story of the evening, from her account, is far from him being a big shit. She came to his place, they got undressed, she said no, they got dressed again. He kept bringing up doing something, she kept saying no, but not leaving.

She was interested in having a meaningful interaction with a celebrity maybe? He just wanted to get his dick wet maybe? Would she have been happier if he asked her to leave?

I mean, I haven't dated in a long long time, and I hope i would play things right in such a situation. I know I always honored a no, and trust me I had lots of practice at "no"s. But the overall totality was not a clear, "no and stop suggesting stuff," at least from what she wrote.

And it is a shit move to spend time with a celeb, in part because she was likely somewhat starstruck, and then do this reveal. It seems aimed and harming his career if not ruining it. She has "a right" to I suppose, but it just seems wrong.

Ever enjoyed the company of anyone who relished destroying people? Among its worst sins, this Babe piece feeds that instinct among losers.

In an age of so much inequality, expect more of this, in various forms, far beyond sexual stories. Nothing the wretched enjoy more than ripping down a person who’s made it... an “elite” of sorts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

So, the Babe writer had more to say to Ashleigh Banfield:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ashleigh...-ansari-piece/

Huh.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So, the Babe writer had more to say to Ashleigh Banfield:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ashleigh...-ansari-piece/

Huh.

The least shocking part of that is when she says she’s 22.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Objectively, empirically, it's pretty obvious that you're wrong -- he had a reasonably expectation of privacy.

How? What does he do to enforce this privacy right? If he can't enforce it, in what sense does it exist?

I didn't say that, but I think she did something she shouldn't have done

How? What is the sanction for this wrongdoing? If there is none, in what sense should she not have done it?

My question was whether *you* thought she should have done it.

I think she appropriately highlighted conduct that's not okay even if not sanctionable. How are you possibly still asking me that? What she did was appropriate, if poorly handled by babe.net.

And the idea that people surrender their privacy for the greater good of enlightenment in sexual politics strikes me as a terribly illiberal view, a sexual version of destroying a village to save it.

How many time do I have to say he has no privacy right in keeping his inappropriate conduct toward her secret should she choose to make it public? How many times can you fail to even remotely articulate a theory under which he has such a privacy right? Under what theory can he make her not tell the truth about him? None, because he has no such privacy right.

And he doesn't for obvious reasons, including the fact that such a right would chill the speech of victims of actionable misconduct too. We don't get to sue the people who accuse us of wrongdoing unless they are intentionally lying for exactly that reason.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

In fact, my most held dear line of case law from Girswold to Roe to Casey to Lawrence is based in part on the idea that there is a privacy interest in what happens in the bedroom that should be free of government interference.

There is exactly zero government involvement here. Ty is arguing that a participant who feels victimized is barred by the privacy interest of the alleged victimizer. It's not at all analogous.

It's one thing to bitch over text or mimosas the next day with a bunch of girlfriends (which is I'm sure how this thing started) or report to anonymous posting board full of lawyers who will never meet both parties about a golden shower request, but it's quite another to broadcast these details to the world at large.

I share your sense of qualitative difference although I'm not sure there's much remaining practical difference in the social media age.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Now, what are your expectations when it comes to being with someone?

I'm not sure why a "real conversation" is about me but not Ansari, but if I leave someone feeling victimized I hope out of self interest they will accept an apology and keep it to themselves, but I do not expect that nor would I feel victimized if they told others. Whether that's friends or authorities or the press, if I was someone who interested them, it's my fault if I read the signals wrong.

Do you go into a relationship thinking that your sexual experiences with that person are for public consumption?

You guys both seem to have an "ask the same question repeatedly because you don't like the answer" thing going on, but I go into those experiences with the expectation that she will tell someone else about them. Most likely, it's just her friends and assuming things go reasonably okay, she will share only discretely, but should she feel violated I'd expect a wider audience. Were I a celebrity, that wider audience would potentially include the press.

Is it reasonable for whoever you're with to assume you won't talk about their sexual proclivities with anyone, everyone, and/or the media?

Me? It's reasonable to assume I won't talk about mere proclivities except perhaps to semi-anonymous imaginary internet lawyer friends. Partners? It's not reasonable, nor realistic to assume they won't talk about proclivities with friends, and violations with authorities and, if I were a celebrity, the media.

Whether or not they understand that every other, every fifth, or every tenth sexual partner will blab to TMZ or Babe.com, can celebrities expect the same things or have they forfeited all rights to any kind of privacy at all?

Celebrities who leave partners feeling victimized should expect that said partners may talk to the media. They have zero enforceable privacy rights regardless, as long as the revelations are truthful. This is the case regardless of the depth of relationship.

How about if they're into some kinky shit that the other person isn't?

The person who reveals consensual kinky behavior is a bad person, but the person who is exposed nonetheless has no enforceable privacy right against truthful exposure.

say Ansari isn't a victim when his private encounter became the subject of a widely read article.

Ansari is accused of wrongdoing. That you or I think the wrongdoing isn't actionable doesn't make the revelation of alleged wrongdoing itself a wrong.

I can't really believe that's even a point of discussion among lawyers. Surely y'all have seen meritorious claims that have nonetheless not resulted in successful awards. Or sincere complaints that while bad did not rise to the level of recovery. This isn't even remotely controversial in our non-fee shifting system. People are allowed to make allegations that don't bear fruit.

But does that mean that sharing their private encounter wasn't a shitty thing to do on some level?

If you think her claims are entirely without merit, it was an entirely shitty thing to do. I don't.

What if he was a perfect gentlemen and they had enthusiastically consensual sex and he wanted her to stick her finger in his ass and she went to Babe.com with that information?

He asked and respected her no? She would be shitty for revealing it but he would still have no privacy right to stop her from truthfully doing so.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

It seems aimed and harming his career if not ruining it. She has "a right" to I suppose, but it just seems wrong.

In a group of left-leaning lawyers exactly one thinks it's okay that she brought up borderline accusations against him publicly. It is not going to ruin his career.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So, the Babe writer had more to say to Ashleigh Banfield:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ashleigh...-ansari-piece/

Huh.

Definitely does not assuage any of the concerns about her reporting.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

There is exactly zero government involvement here. Ty is arguing that a participant who feels victimized is barred by the privacy interest of the alleged victimizer. It's not at all analogous.



I share your sense of qualitative difference although I'm not sure there's much remaining practical difference in the social media age.

I didn't say that there was government involvement. I'm saying that to say that there's no privacy interest in bedroom activities is absurd. Gawker.com would probably also recognize that point.

I don't think that a single thing as described makes him have done anything illegal. Doesn't mean he acted correctly. Similarly, I think that she and babe.net violated his privacy even though there isn't a damned thing that he can do about it. I feel exactly the same about revenge porn and exes who post private photographs, videos, etc.