Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

Exactly. I don't think Aziz was being predatory or anything close to the Weinstein level. I think the message that needs to come from this is that when a girl pulls her hand away once, she shouldn't have to pull it away a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh time.

 

As an elite, agnostic North Easterner , I don't agree in the least. I don't get why you think when young (overwhelmingly better-educated and better parented by better-educated, better-equipped parents) men try to behave in a respectful manner it's somehow fake or posturing? Strikes me as unfounded cynicism to fit a narrative adopted because evolving attitudes toward sex and relationships conflict with Christian sensibilities. I think what you're seeing is women coming to a new a better-informed understanding of themselves, as Sharon Stone mentioned in the article I referenced above.

“We were raised to accommodate men, particularly in my generation. And women so often lose their own identify to the identity of the men that they’re with,” she said. “We’re starting to acknowledge our own gifts as women and not think that we have to behave as men in order to be empowered or powerful or valuable.”

Does confusion ever result? Sure.

 

I don't think most reasonable people would disagree with your statement here in isolation. You try to put a girl's hand on your cock, and she pulls away, you stop, that's it... The trouble is that in this case, she willfully and apparently consensually put his cock in her mouth twice, which clouds the hand issue for me.

I want to emphasize that I don't think Ansari acted well here. He acted badly. But unlike Weinstein, say, I do have some understanding for why he did what he did. I would like to think I'd act differently in the same situation. But I get the misfire.

 

Not condoning it, just saying that might be how he defends it.

And maybe people (women?) would rather defend little cute and cuddly Aziz Ansari's joking defense over big old hairy and creepy Louis CK's joking defense.

 

I think: 1) he's talking about talk, not behavior; and 2) he (like me) isn't remotely sold on the part of yours that I've bolded.

 

This is the most lurid, detailed account of a post-date sexual encounter we have been presented with, maybe ever, in the media. The reporting blows the reporting in the Louis C.K. piece in the New York Times away. And we still, I think, mostly agree that there is context lacking that would enable us to better determine, definitively, if Ansari acted poorly or not.

Now can you imagine trying to prosecute one of these things?

 

This is a good line, BTW.

If the inability to choose a pinot noir over a pinot grigio offends you, you can leave right then and there.

 

Talk is part of behavior. If you can support the idea that the talk doesn't carry over into actions or physical behavior, I'm open to it.

 

Got it. At least they're saying the right things! Now if we can just get them to quit doing the wrong things ... but we're halfway there!

 

If you can support the idea that the talk doesn't carry over into actions or physical behavior, I'm open to it.

 

I thought that she included that detail to establish the source's excellent recall and also to establish that the source wasn't overly persnicketty. It wasn't intended to cast a poor light on Ansari.

 

No, she included it to be snarky as fuck.

As in, you don't like the wine he chose? Then get up and walk, honey.