Hollywood Romance Expert And Feminist Aziz Ansari Alleged To Be A Violator Of Women

[blackg]

This says it about as clearly as anyone can.

If you read most articles on this subject, you'll see 90% of the comments are people supporting Aziz and calling the woman making the complaint an idiot.

This is not sexual assault. It is not rape. It is a short ugly ethnic guy who got a date with a girl who was acting like a groupie when she met him. He took her to dinner and when he offered to go back to his apartment she went. She kissed him, he performed oral sex on her, she declined full sex which he respected, and she gave him oral sex because she felt a sense of obligation and wanted a relationship with him.

He was pushy which is not a crime. He kept sticking his fingers in her mouth which is weird but not a crime between two people in the midst of sexual activities.

At no point did this stupid woman:
- Leave.
- Request to leave.
- Tell him that it wasn't acceptable and he needed to stop.

At no point did Aziz:
- Physically restrain or threaten her (he's 5'2" for f***'s sake and looks like 20% body fat).
- Block her from leaving.

In fact, as soon as she said she wanted to go, he ordered her an Uber on his dime. He apologized immediately when she said she didn't enjoy the night the next day.

The reality is men are the sexual aggressors in almost all relationships. Unless you're Nick Bateman as posted previously in this thread, you cannot just wait around for women to make aggressive physical advances on you. And unlike what some of the insane feminists are saying nowadays, asking a woman "Can I kiss you now?" "I want to touch your breast now, is that okay?" "Are you okay with touching my penis now?" "Can we have sex now?" is f*****g insane and does not work. No f*****g way any man is getting laid that way ever.

Sex is a man leading and a woman following. It is like that for pretty much all animals.

This is the end of the #METOO era because just like with James Franco, no crime was committed. This has become about entitled millennial female brats who think that if they even REGRET a sexual encounter or decision they have made, they should just be able to vilify the man because women are apparently incapable of having any agency or choice in life. Women according to these modern feminists are so weak and feeble minded, they can't even be expected to tell a man what they do or do not want, sign a work contract (eg. Franco), or ask to leave when they're unhappy.

It's all gotten so f*****g insane and absurd. The next time (if/when) I get a girl over, I'm putting my cell phone or an MP3 player on audio record the entire night because I don't want to be the next one accused of "sexual misconduct" (an entirely meaningless phrase) the next day when she realized I wasn't an alpha Chad and maybe she regrets it so if she feels bad it must be rape, right?

This is also the first time I have ever agreed with anything Margaret Atwood has ever said, as she has also argued this brand of feminism is based on the principle that women are complete children who can't be expected to make any decisions. If that's the case, let's take away women's right to vote too, since how can they be responsible for that either?

f*** these crazy "young feminists" and their overreaching nonsense. The backlash these "accusations" is causing is 100% deserved.

Just a few points:

You keep referring to the actions of this Indian man attacking this woman as "not a crime."
Sure by the letter of the law his actions don't constitute a crime against another human being, but only just.
What we are dealing with here is a social crime.

This mindset of men over-simplifying the decisions of women (in this case; a woman agreeing to go upstairs with a man) has to be weeded out from the automatic sexual response mechanisms men are subject to.

"Yes, I want to go upstairs with you for a coffee" does not automatically give the man a green light to aggressively grope and molest an unsuspecting woman, no matter how desperate he is.

You may not think an aggressive Indian male repeatedly shoving his fingers down this woman's throat is a legal crime.
But it's a violation, I believe. A violation of her rights to just sit there and enjoy her coffee, free from the manipulations of an aggressive male heathen with a one track mind.

The bullshit you sprouted about it being imperative for males to be the sexual aggressor is the reason that rapes still happen in the first place.
Once an angry man starts something, he usually can't stop until the job is done.
This is purely to protect his fragile ego from the perceptions of feeling like a complete failure or even a sexual non-entity if a woman happens to rejects his advances.

This mindset belongs in the days of the Hominid not in this day and age where the act of a sexual exchange between the two sexes is a mutually agreed to, and mutually acted apon undertaking.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Just a few points:

You keep referring to the actions of this Indian man attacking this woman as "not a crime."
Sure by the letter of the law his actions don't constitute a crime against another human being, but only just.
What we are dealing with here is a social crime.

This mindset of men over-simplifying the decisions of women (in this case; a woman agreeing to go upstairs with a man) has to be weeded out from the automatic sexual response mechanisms men are subject to.

"Yes, I want to go upstairs with you for a coffee" does not automatically give the man a green light to aggressively grope and molest an unsuspecting woman, no matter how desperate he is.

You may not think an aggressive Indian male repeatedly shoving his fingers down this woman's throat is a legal crime.
But it's a violation, I believe. A violation of her rights to just sit there and enjoy her coffee, free from the manipulations of an aggressive male heathen with a one track mind.

The bullshit you sprouted about it being imperative for males to be the sexual aggressor is the reason that rapes still happen in the first place.
Once an angry man starts something, he usually can't stop until the job is done.
This is purely to protect his fragile ego from the perceptions of feeling like a complete failure or even a sexual non-entity if a woman happens to rejects his advances.

This mindset belongs in the days of the Hominid not in this day and age where the act of a sexual exchange between the two sexes is a mutually agreed to, and mutually acted apon undertaking.

This is why we have basic social cues to deal with this and make intentions clear. If she had simply tried to leave or said "no" or perhaps when he asked him where she wanted him to f*** her she had said "I don't want to have sex with you" the problem would have been avoided. Reading her piece is like torture. Going through EVERYTHING BUT simply clarifying that she was saying no to sexual interaction.

She even acknowledges

"He was very much caught up in the moment "

"“I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”

So she was blatantly aware that he was failing to read these cues or interpret them and yet didn't simply try to leave or say no. Why? Because she was looking for trouble. Looking to be a victim. Read the article she's obviously not a complete idiot, but a blatant opportunist. Aziz doesn't come off in a mature light but the fact is she looks far worse than he does here, even if she was the one who felt like she was the victim. When she made this story public she turned herself into a perpetrator of hate when by simply saying no in the moment it wouldn't have been more than a short lived awkward situation.

 

[blackg]

This is why we have basic social cues to deal with this and make intentions clear. If she had simply tried to leave or said "no" or perhaps when he asked him where she wanted him to f*** her she had said "I don't want to have sex with you" the problem would have been avoided. Reading her piece is like torture. Going through EVERYTHING BUT simply clarifying that she was saying no to sexual interaction.

She even acknowledges

"He was very much caught up in the moment "

"“I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”

So she was blatantly aware that he was failing to read these cues or interpret them and yet didn't simply try to leave or say no. Why? Because she was looking for trouble. Looking to be a victim. Read the article she's obviously not a complete idiot, but a blatant opportunist. Aziz doesn't come off in a mature light but the fact is she looks far worse than he does here, even if she was the one who felt like she was the victim. When she made this story public she turned herself into a perpetrator of hate when by simply saying no in the moment it wouldn't have been more than a short lived awkward situation.

Hahaha, "she was looking for trouble."
I don't believe that, mate. The trouble started when he tried to jump her bones.

Take off your blinkers.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Hahaha, "she was looking for trouble."
I don't believe that, mate. The trouble started when he tried to jump her bones.

Take off your blinkers.

It had nothing to do with "looking for trouble" cuckg, the problem is solely this

"He was very much caught up in the moment "

"“I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”

And yet didn't say no. We're talking about a scenario that took supposedly over an entire hour and yet not once did she try to leave or say no. Too much effort to simply reject with a single word or action his advances when she knew he was unaware of how she felt about the situation, but happy to publicly shame him for being a cringey sex partner with autist tendencies.

Is your idea of a perfect world in this arena one in which every single sexual action has to inquired about beforehand? Or maybe just be so incredibly good looking and charming that every single action will be embraced positively? Think through how ridiculous the alternative universe you want to live in is.

If a woman goes back to your apartment after dinner there is usually enough rough expectation of sexual interaction to forgive him for the advances, and if she isn't going to reject them with a simple "no" then YES it is her fault. She is not a victim, women have autonomy. You're acting as if they have to be treated like children.

 

[blackg]

It had nothing to do with "looking for trouble" cuckg, the problem is solely this

"He was very much caught up in the moment "

"“I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”

And yet didn't say no. We're talking about a scenario that took supposedly over an entire hour and yet not once did she try to leave or say no. Too much effort to simply reject with a single word or action his advances, but happy to publicly shame him for being a cringey sex partner with autist tendencies.

Is your idea of a perfect world in this arena one in which every single sexual action has to inquired about beforehand? Or maybe just be so incredibly good looking and charming that every single action will be embraced positively? Think through how ridiculous the alternative universe you want to live in is.

If a woman goes back to your apartment after dinner there is usually enough rough expectation of sexual interaction to forgive him for the advances, and if she isn't going to reject them with a simple "no" then YES it is her fault. She is not a victim, women have autonomy. You're acting as if they have to be treated like children.

The fact that this woman was giving off cues that she wasn't interested and he chose to ignore these cues or he just couldn't pick up on them.. shows that this guy is a social misfit or has a completely superior attitude to women in general.

I believe the onus was on the male at this point to heed these obvious signals from the female and just back off a bit.

Try to imagine the situation she was in.
If she tried to get up and leave the guy could have attacked her, considering he was already acting aggressive.
I don't care if he was an Indian. He still would have outweighed her by at least 20 pounds (9kg).

You can't blame her for politely trying to wait out his little sexual spurt. Hoping that he eventually picks up on her cues of non interest.

The blame lies with the oblivious, ego driven male.
Not the woman.
Sucking his smelly c*** was enough.
She was right to not want to take it any further.

 

[JeanLucBB]

The fact that this woman was giving off cues that she wasn't interested and he chose to ignore these cues or just couldn't pick up on them shows that this guy is a social misfit or has a completely superior attitude to women in general.

I believe the onus was on the male at this point to heed these obvious signals from the female and just back off a bit.

Try to imagine the situation she was in.
If she tried to get up and leave the guy could have attacked her, considering he was already acting aggressive.
I don't care if he was qn Indian. He still would have outweighed her by at least 20 pounds (9kg).

You can't blame her for politely trying to wait out his little sexual spurt hoping that he eventually pick up on her cues of no interest.

The blame lies with the oblivious, ego driven male.
Not the woman.
Sucking his smelly c*** was enough.
She was right to not want to take it any further.

"
If she tried to get up and leave the guy could have attacked her, considering he was already acting aggressive.
I don't care if he was qn Indian. He still would have outweighed her by at least 20 pounds (9kg)."

In many cases I would agree, but we're talking about a multimillionare celebrity who also happens to be a twig. How likely was it that he would outright rape her if she said no and lose himself everything?

"Sucking his smelly c*** was enough."

She didn't have to do this though. That is the problem. You're saying that a woman can avoid saying no or trying to leave, have sex and then simply say "he wasn't reading my cues properly" when the only way to actually judge that is if you were actually there when it was happening.

From a legal perspective enforcing what you're talking about would be disastrous. It's also ridiculously condescending to suggest women are too weak to make their intentions clear. You can blame her when she had opportunity as when he asked how she wanted him to f*** her and she gave no answer. You can blame her when she says she was giving off "cues" and yet still went back to his apartment and sucked his dick.

You're defending her just for the sake of it because its your typical role on this forum, offering an alternate cuck-like opinion to contrast everyone else. Not because there are any grounds to defend her stupidity and opportunism.

 

[Patrick_Bateman]

The fact that this woman was giving off cues that she wasn't interested and he chose to ignore these cues or he just couldn't pick up on them.. shows that this guy is a social misfit or has a completely superior attitude to women in general.

I believe the onus was on the male at this point to heed these obvious signals from the female and just back off a bit.

Try to imagine the situation she was in.
If she tried to get up and leave the guy could have attacked her, considering he was already acting aggressive.
I don't care if he was an Indian. He still would have outweighed her by at least 20 pounds (9kg).

You can't blame her for politely trying to wait out his little sexual spurt. Hoping that he eventually picks up on her cues of non interest.

The blame lies with the oblivious, ego driven male.
Not the woman.
Sucking his smelly c*** was enough.
She was right to not want to take it any further.

I’m convinced all of your posts are trolling at this point. You’re just looking for a reaction by going against the grain on every subject.
Blackg the first of his name, the cuck, the feminist, the australian murica patriot, handegg enthusiast, the crypto denouncer, the @Rudiger provoker, the lover of whales.

 

[blackg]

I’m convinced all of your posts are trolling at this point. You’re just looking for a reaction by going against the grain on every subject.
Blackg the first of his name, the cuck, the feminist, the australian murica patriot, handegg enthusiast, the crypto denouncer, the @Rudiger provoker, the lover of whales.

I don't even know what the word "trolling" means.

Now, about this unwarranted attack on an innocent female by a comedian from the sub continent...

I believe all of you angry virgins are viewing this case through a biased lens.
This woman did nothing wrong in going up to this guy's apartment.

She did nothing wrong in accepting coffee.

She did nothing wrong by giving off cues of no interest.

She did nothing wrong by trying to placate this aggressive south Asian by giving him oral sex.

And she also did nothing wrong in trying to wait out this man's blood rushing to his penis and effecting his judgements.
She has probably been in this situation many times before and knows that once a man ejaculates then he will want to think of anything else besides sex.
Anything! Usually sports.

I believe you lot (you know who you are) are just opportunistically trying to shame this woman for acting herself in a difficult situation.
Y'all find this metaphorical stoning of a woman cathartic and I don't like it.
It happens regularly on this forum and usually by the same old culprits.
Those paranoid lesser men with some twisted form of "cuckphobia."

I'm usually the voice of reason trying to calm this pogrom of resentment towards the fairer sex.

I won't apologies!

 

[JeanLucBB]

I don't even know what the word "trolling" means.

Now, about this unwarranted attack on an innocent female by a comedian from the sub continent...

I believe all of you angry virgins are viewing this case through a biased lens.
This woman did nothing wrong in going up to this guy's apartment.

She did nothing wrong in accepting coffee.

She did nothing wrong by giving off cues of no interest.

She did nothing wrong by trying to placate this aggressive south Asian by giving him oral sex.

And she also did nothing wrong in trying to wait out this man's blood rushing to his penis and effecting his judgements.
She has probably been in this situation many times before and knows that once a man ejaculates then he will want to think of anything else besides sex.
Anything! Usually sports.

I believe you lot (you know who you are) are just opportunistically trying to shame this woman for acting herself in a difficult situation.
Y'all find this metaphorical stoning of a woman cathartic and I don't like it.
It happens regularly on this forum and usually by the same old culprits.
Those paranoid lesser men with some twisted form of "cuckphobia."

I'm usually the voice of reason trying to calm this pogrom of resentment towards the fairer sex.

I won't apologies!

youre having a larp mate

 

[blackg]

youre having a larp mate

Nope.

Anyway, are you still on holidays or are you back at work?

 

[JeanLucBB]

Nope.

Anyway, are you still on holidays or are you back at work?

Idk I might get a part time/casual job, might travel a bit, still gotta book another transplant. Idk yet. Enjoying the break atm.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Given that this woman published her account anonymously she's probably not looking for fame. As for her being intimidated by a 5'6 male, she might be 4'11, and regardless, he's wealthier and more powerful than she is.

Aziz is definitely an a**h**. She pulled her head away from his dick and he pulled her back on five to seven times. He told her he'd give her space so he did for a few seconds then moved in to kiss her again. She said she didn't want to have sex so he tells her that's great and then proceeds to keep fondling her. He also didn't even bother giving her time, based on the account he finished his meal as fast as possible and then immediately brought her up to his apartment and then immediately made the moves. No game, no space, from the hypocritical writer of romance self-help books.

And yes, it's true that he's a laughingly hideous incel which I think is part of the point. 5'6, dark south asian, weak bone structure, receding hairline with bald temples, huge lips and serial killer eyes. He's probably never seen enthusiastic consent, and I'm skeptical that he ever will. Somehow that's not making it into much of the public discussion -- lol.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Given that this woman published her account anonymously she's probably not looking for fame. As for her being intimidated by a 5'6 male, she might be 4'11, and regardless, he's wealthier and more powerful than she is.

Aziz is definitely an a**h**. She pulled her head away from his dick and he pulled her back on five to seven times. He told her he'd give her space so he did for a few seconds then moved in to kiss her again. She said she didn't want to have sex so he tells her that's great and then proceeds to keep fondling her. He also didn't even bother giving her time, based on the account he finished his meal as fast as possible and then immediately brought her up to his apartment and then immediately made the moves. No game, no space, from the hypocritical writer of romance self-help books.

And yes, it's true that he's a laughingly hideous incel which I think is part of the point. 5'6, dark south asian, weak bone structure, receding hairline with bald temples, huge lips and serial killer eyes. He's probably never seen enthusiastic consent, and I'm skeptical that he ever will. Somehow that's not making it into much of the public discussion -- lol.

Agree with this generally, but keeping it real I'd certainly rather get sexually assaulted by a rich man than a poor man. Being a rich celebrity doesn't suddenly give you the power to rape people.

"based on the account he finished his meal as fast as possible and then immediately brought her up to his apartment and then immediately made the moves."

This is if you buy into the idea that its a flawless account of the facts which is a little more than naive considering there are blatant mistruths and hyperbole such as when she suggests he was following her around the room for thirty minutes and yet she didn't outright leave or say "no", which while of course is possible seems utterly absurd and unlikely.

The idea that "taking your time" works in all circumstances also is inaccurate, I've met women and had sex with them within an hour before. I don't there's anything to read into that apart from that his romance self-help books aren't necessarily based on personal experience.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

The idea that "taking your time" works in all circumstances also is inaccurate, I've met women and had sex with them within an hour before. I don't there's anything to read into that apart from that his romance self-help books aren't necessarily based on personal experience.

Nobody promoted that idea. Don't shadowbox when replying to my posts, thank you.

I'm talking about this woman and this man. You can't apply one line of behavioral advice that applies to every individual out there in all circumstances (lol), some women will need more time than others, and some won't be interested ever, such as this woman probably.

She wasn't interested, and she was too timid/frozen to explicitly express her disinterest more numerous times. Part of the reason that women often let men off easy rather than saying "I will never have sex with you," is that some men go nuclear when they're turned down, they might hurl a thousand insults at the low end, or turn violent at the high end. We all know of men with very thin skins. Given what I'm reading about Ansari, how he's clueless, as well as his looks, I can see how a woman would be afraid of him going nuclear.

As for her account, no she was probably not using a stopwatch and nobody cares if 30 minutes was really 25 minutes, as it doesn't matter. The magazine investigated her account and spoke to some people who knew her.

Finally don't put yourself in Ansari's shoes as there is no comparison. He is a 3/10 at best and you are a 7/10 at worst. You're not playing the same game.

And I don't think that this woman is an anonymous angel either. Or maybe she is an angel but she's dim and clueless. She's not a role model nor an inspiration either way, she should not have gone up to his apartment as she wasn't interested in him.

 

[blackg]

Given that this woman published her account anonymously she's probably not looking for fame. As for her being intimidated by a 5'6 male, she might be 4'11, and regardless, he's wealthier and more powerful than she is.

Aziz is definitely an a**h**. She pulled her head away from his dick and he pulled her back on five to seven times. He told her he'd give her space so he did for a few seconds then moved in to kiss her again. She said she didn't want to have sex so he tells her that's great and then proceeds to keep fondling her. He also didn't even bother giving her time, based on the account he finished his meal as fast as possible and then immediately brought her up to his apartment and then immediately made the moves. No game, no space, from the hypocritical writer of romance self-help books.

And yes, it's true that he's a laughingly hideous incel which I think is part of the point. 5'6, dark south asian, weak bone structure, receding hairline with bald temples, huge lips and serial killer eyes. He's probably never seen enthusiastic consent, and I'm skeptical that he ever will. Somehow that's not making it into much of the public discussion -- lol.

Well said, Muhammad.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Well said, Muhammad.

Thank you, Mr. Lamington.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Nobody promoted that idea. Don't shadowbox when replying to my posts, thank you.

I'm talking about this woman and this man. You can't apply one line of behavioral advice that applies to every individual out there in all circumstances (lol), some women will need more time than others, and some won't be interested ever, such as this woman probably.

She wasn't interested, and she was too timid/frozen to explicitly express her disinterest more numerous times. Part of the reason that women often let men off easy rather than saying "I will never have sex with you," is that some men go nuclear when they're turned down, they might hurl a thousand insults at the low end, or turn violent at the high end. We all know of men with very thin skins. Given what I'm reading about Ansari, how he's clueless, as well as his looks, I can see how a woman would be afraid of him going nuclear.

As for her account, no she was probably not using a stopwatch and nobody cares if 30 minutes was really 25 minutes, as it doesn't matter. The magazine investigated her account and spoke to some people who knew her.

Finally don't put yourself in Ansari's shoes as there is no comparison. He is a 3/10 at best and you are a 7/10 at worst. You're not playing the same game.

And I don't think that this woman is an anonymous angel either. Or maybe she is an angel but she's dim and clueless. She's not a role model nor an inspiration either way, she should not have gone up to his apartment as she wasn't interested in him.

"I'm talking about this woman and this man."

You aren't this woman and you aren't that man so don't act like you're an insider to the exact nature of the happenings beyond one persons writings about the night. Laughable to complain of my shadowboxing when you're talking about a situation you weren't involved in and only read one side of and act as if it is gospel.

"Finally don't put yourself in Ansari's shoes as there is no comparison. He is a 3/10 at best and you are a 7/10 at worst. You're not playing the same game."

I get this, I'm not defending or denying Ansari's cluelessness but rather his right to cluelessness and for women to stop asking to be treated like children.

"is that some men go nuclear when they're turned down, they might hurl a thousand insults at the low end, or turn violent at the high end."

This is also accurate, but what is the alternative? Burning any man at the moral stake when a woman complains afterwards despite the fact she didn't say no at the time? It's not a workable means of dealing with it and when it only involves 2 people whos word will you take regarding what exactly went down? (In your case clearly the woman)

 

[yetti]

Did ya'll read this article? Thought it might be of interest

 

[JeanLucBB]

Did ya'll read this article? Thought it might be of interest

Any chance you could post it? Past my limit for the month on NYT

 

[JeanLucBB]

There have been many of those "me too" debates on Belgian television. And every time, you see on one side, the women who want to push back against this lunacy, always feminine, sexy and if they're too old, you can tell that they used to be hot, and on the other side, you have the feminist authoritarians: stuck-up, visibly angry, overly emotional, ugly to below average and occasional sporting blue hair and tattoos.

The feminists clearly have an agenda and they will always pedal the same arguments: we need to educate men, they're not behaving properly you see! Unsolicited conversation is violence, catcalling is violence, a hand on the knee is violence, speech is violence, everything is violence! The left desperately wants to broaden the definition of what constitutes violence so they can keep on being the victims despite having been born with a silver spoon up their asses.

There is also a point in the debate where their authoritarian views go full-blown totalitarian since they'll revoke men's right to error, every man should be hyper-intuitive and perceptive, he should be able to tell when a woman is uncomfortable or when she's playing hard-to-get just to be playful, or maybe she is serious? Maybe not? It doesn't matter, if you read the signs wrong, you're going to get publicly shamed buddy!

As you say, they want cluelessness, inexperience and plain stupidity to become crimes. And of course there is always this idea that women can't deal with sh*t themselves, that they need all men to moderate their behavior to the point that no woman ever feels uncomfortable again, because as we know, making someone feel uncomfortable, is violence.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/aziz-ansari-story-missed-opportunity

Same issue in this article

"it finally seems like most of society understands that sexual assault and harassment are wrong; we increasingly understand that it’s not just about sex, but about power,"

Another "progressive" post-modernist deciding that what is inappropriate is whatever they deem it so. Sexual assault is not just about "sex" to them, it's simply about feeling like a victim.