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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I've seen some suggestion that because she was a young photographer and he was an established star there might be some kind of power dynamics that made this more abusive in nature - anyone got thoughts on that?

Sure.

There is no escaping power dynamics. He's a small, skinny, physically unimposing man. But he's rich and famous. If you're a large man, there's a physical power dynamic. If you're older, you are in danger of exploiting someone who is naïve. If you're famous, you most certainly are taking advantage of people who will do anything to be close to fame. If you're rich or powerful, same thing. At some point you will probably fall into one of these categories if you didn't get married straight out of high school.

But the fact that these dynamics are so prevalent is because we have set up our society that places value on men as earners and players and power brokers while we value women in a very different way--for their looks and service. Sexism. Patriarchy. Clearly. To be certain, women value looks too and there are men who value much more than beauty. But that's where things start.

It is ridiculous to think that rich, famous, powerful men will cease to take advantage of what makes them attractive to women. And not every situation in which a man is aggressive is unwelcome by women--we can debate whether that desire to control and be aggressive is something we program in men (I tend to think we do) and we can debate why that aggressiveness is attractive to women, but until we move to a place where we have manage to fundamentally change the different ways in which men and women are judged and socialized, these dynamics will always exist.

So, I think that Guardian article is a good place to start the conversation. I hope it got Aziz to think about why he expected what he did out of their encounter. And I think the article wasn't a waste of time because it made us all think about where we should draw the lines in our own interactions. But I would prefer to resist the knee-jerk negative reaction to any relationship or encounter in which a power dynamic exists (other than one that is quite clearly a violation in a job setting).

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This piece is also very good and I think gets to the essence of what Adder was trying to convey.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ed-opportunity

TM

Yes, that is good. Especially as to "it's not assault so it's fine." Nope.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Calling it sexual assault insults assault victims.

I'm so glad assault victims have you to speak up for them in this way.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Would it bother you if the story was about how he yelled at a waiter and left a bad tip? I assume no and that you think being a jerk about sex is more private than being a jerk about other stuff. I dunno.

This is a terrible analogy. There is no personal relationship between waiter and customer and being a jerk in a public place means it's already...public.

Do you not believe that certain relationships (even brief ones) come with some level of privacy? If you act poorly in any instance we should all get to hear about it?

Obviously with celebrity, you're being paid for giving that up to a certain extent and if you have a lot of one night stands, you should expect your personal business to be shared. But you're talking about this like any bad act or moment of poor judgment is fair game for the world. That's ridiculous.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Missing signals is not #metoo. Ignoring them? Yes.

Well, she says she doesn't know which it is, soo....

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Do you not believe that certain relationships (even brief ones) come with some level of privacy?

As to the other participant in the relationship? Not really. I mean, one hopes people will be decent, but no, you shouldn't expect that your hookups will stay silent about them.

If you act poorly in any instance we should all get to hear about it?

I don't think you have any grounds to complain should your "victim" choose to tell people about it. I do not think it makes you in any way a victim if they do.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, that is good. Especially as to "it's not assault so it's fine." Nope.

Another good read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/o...ht-region&_r=0

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

As to the other participant in the relationship? Not really. I mean, one hopes people will be decent, but no, you shouldn't expect that your hookups will stay silent about them.

I don't think you have any grounds to complain should your "victim" choose to tell people about it. I do not think it makes you in any way a victim if they do.

Wow. I have a very different expectation when it comes to privacy. If my wife gave me a terrible blowjob, she would be incredibly offended, horrified, embarrassed, angry, and betrayed if I went around telling my friends about it. And I could say the same thing about a girl I dated briefly in high school who was so overly aggressive it was a complete turnoff.

You're weird. And let me guess, you're going to say that these types of examples don't count, right?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

To the extent that there are any negative consequences for Ansari - and as I've said I don't think there will be anything meaningful

Seriously? You have got to be kidding me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by thurgreedmarshall

this piece is also very good

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ed-opportunity

tm

2

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

What are you in town for? Both of those neighborhoods are super easy to get to via the blue line (or Uber/lyft) from the Loop area.

I am going to eat, drink, hang out, explore the city. It has been fifteen years since I last did so. And I prefer funky, dive bars to fancy, upscale places.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

There is a lot that's interesting in this article as well.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000009

TM

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The point needs to be made because Babe launched its missive in the midst of a #metoo moment with the intent of unfairly lumping Ansari into the group of men who are rightly accused of #metoo offenses. That he is not of that crowd cannot be stated strongly enough. That its action in offering that story with the suggestion he is cannot be decried strongly enough. (If you read the Babe piece carefully, it is subtly written to suggest lack of consent and rudeness (for instance, "I prefer red wine, but [Ansari] gave me no choice but white"... translating generously to, "he wasn't thinking about my needs, but his own" or less generously, "he was getting me tipsy").

I don't blame Grace. I smell the stink of creative editing all over this piece, and the people at Babe are getting exactly the controversy they wanted.

"Bad sex" is a topic worth discussing. And guys thinking sex should work like porn are fucked up, and we should have a discussion about how porn is fucking up sex for some people. But this Babe article is a very cynical media campaign, and it only started that conversation by accident. It was written, quite obviously, as a gotcha piece by a very sleazy editor. They wanted a pelt to put on the wall, and it backfired against Grace (with no damage to Babe). And when it gets too hot, the folks at Babe will throw Grace under the bus. They'll leak her name and write a self-serving meta piece about the episode, like Rolling Stone did with the UVA thing.

Grace, Ansari, us... We're all being played here, by Babe. And because this is a really important conversation which should lead to a constructive discussion of what women want in the bedroom, and what men are doing wrong, it should be raised more constructively. It shouldn't start as a tainted thing, initiated by a sleazy website using Harvey Levin's "gotcha" approach.

However, I do agree, to the extent it started the conversation, it's a positive. But if you've worked with or around the media people who start these things (and we all know a few), this story stinks like shit from the start.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with every word here. The Jezebel piece that talked about how badly babe.net fucked this up is worth reading, because while this is an interesting discussion that probably needs to be had, this is just poor execution. This piece was just terribly done, and knowing that babe sought her out rather than her shopping it around makes much more sense. The editor said that the writer was a contemporary of Grace, and it does read like a 23 year old wrote it.

Dudes should be more aware of their partners during sexytimes. Dudes should check in from time to time to see if she's having a good time. Women should feel comfortable saying "whoa" without having to justify it or give that (consensual) get-it-over-with blowjob. Women should also feel comfortable grabbing the reins and taking over. And dudes should be happy to hand them over. Porn shouldn't be the sole educational tool for sex in this country. This is a really fucking important discussion, but because it's framed in the "famous man fails at fucking reluctant 23-year-old" context, the bigger issue is lost.

[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.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am going to eat, drink, hang out, explore the city. It has been fifteen years since I last did so. And I prefer funky, dive bars to fancy, upscale places.

Probably downtown/Loop area is your best home base then. You can get almost anywhere from there pretty easily.