Yeah this isn't normal rodent grooming behaviour. The animal isn't cleaning itself - rather, it has been covered in soap (quite a lot of it) and can't get it off. This looks like cruelty.

I feel I should offer explanation for my confusion....especially since I don't think I'm alone in what I thought.
I only knew what tv news had said about Aziz, which was nothing like the article. I'm not a fan, so I know nothing else about him beyond a few tv appearances and his nerdy image.
TV implied a normal date, followed by consensual, but awful, sex, and didn't reflect her accusations in the least.
This written described behaviour wouldn't be acceptable with an open minded prostitute, forget a date.

But, I think this spotlights the problem with not making distinctions, it allowed the day long argument without ever discussing actual facts and accusations, because without distinctions, it didn't matter if he was just a bumbler who's bad at sex or an aggressive monster.

I think there needs to be a clear line set for #metoo (though I'm unsure how or exactly where that line belongs) so it cannot be painted as just bitter people seeking revenge for a bad date.
That is how the Aziz thing looked without reading the article and just going by "news".

Maybe you should actually read the article before commenting on this?

Warning: it's a terribly written article that spends a lot of time on completely irrelevant details, also very NSFW, but to summarise (quoting from article):

When Ansari told her he was going to grab a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’”
...
She says Ansari began making a move on her that he repeated during their encounter. “The move he kept doing was taking his two fingers in a V-shape and putting them in my mouth, in my throat to wet his fingers, because the moment he’d stick his fingers in my throat he’d go straight for my vagina and try to finger me.” Grace called the move “the claw.”

Ansari also physically pulled her hand towards his penis multiple times throughout the night, from the time he first kissed her on the countertop onward. “He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”

But the main thing was that he wouldn’t let her move away from him. She compared the path they cut across his apartment to a football play. “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.”

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.

End quoting.

I find it difficult to believe Ansari is "inexperienced". He's 34, famous, good-looking and funny. Hell, he wrote a damn book on the subject.

Now, even though I've lost count of the number of times I've said this, to be perfectly clear: I DO NOT THINK ANSARI IS GUILTY OF A CRIME.

But I also don't think that behaviour is acceptable. He acted like a total asshole.

But since we're talking about degrees of harm, you can still be an asshole and do actual harm without committing a crime.

Should his accuser have just left? Probably. Does that excuse his behaviour? Nope.

Of course, there's a line.

If some dude patted my behind, I probably wouldn't take it as sexual.

It's about context. I am not generally in a situation where there is a power dynamic working against me.

If a mate jokingly patted my behind, I probably wouldn't care.
If my boss patted my behind, I'd certainly tell him that's not ok.

But if I felt it WAS creepy and especially if I felt whoever it was a) might do it again and b) was frequently in a position to do so to vulnerable people... yeah, I'd report it.

I wouldn't try to have them convicted of rape because that's not what they did.

I still want to know whose life is being "ruined" over "nothing".

Weinstein? Spacey? It's certainly not nothing and their lives are far from ruined. They're still incredibly wealthy people living (admittedly a little less now) comfortable lives. Are their reputations sullied? Yep, and deservedly so. They've certainly gotten off easier than their victims.

Aziz? Ok, that's a bit more nuanced.

First, is his life "ruined"? Eh, not really. His reputation has taken a hit, but plenty of people have actually come out in support of him.

Second, was what he did "nothing, or at most an innocent misunderstanding not corrected"? Well, it wasn't Weinstein-level harassment and it certainly wasn't rape. We can all agree on that. But was it "nothing"? Would you be ok with someone treating you like that? Do you really think what he did was acceptable behaviour?

He shouldn't go to jail for it, definitely. And there are far worse people out there... one of them is in the white house.

In all honesty, I think he's been unlucky to end up as the cautionary tale of how not to treat your date. Maybe "Grace" could have handled it better.

But on balance, if I have to choose between his actions and her actions, I think his are worse.

"It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum. "
But the spectrum already exists. It's already enshrined in law for a start. I don't need Maher to lecture me about it.

"Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me. "
Of course. You'd probably still report them to the police for assault though?

"Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system. "
I have. Several times.

"If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response."

"The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct."

"If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". "

"Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to ..."
What happened to you wasn't rape, agreed, but it wasn't far off. If the roles were reversed and you had sneakily taken off a condom, in some jurisdictions that WOULD be rape.

"I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other."

Why does it matter that it wasn't rape? It was still a violation of trust and one that could have had lifelong consequences for you.

If she did that to you, who's to say she won't do it again to someone else?

Again, I go back to the assault metaphor. Even if an assailant doesn't murder you, they're still a violent aggressor and a potential danger to others.

Or even at a lower degree still, if someone treats you badly or swindles you, are you not entitled to warn others?

If what happened to you happened to me, I would warn anyone I knew about that kind of behaviour.

There isn't one single statement in this post that I don't support 1000%. Period.

It's just nothing to do with the point I'm making.

Rape is a crime. A violent assault.

Groping is a crime. Less violent, but still assault.

Patting someone on the butt is wrong, but is unlikely to be pathological behaviour like the above. It's condescending. It's disturbing to the person being marginalized. It creates embarrassment mostly when yes, there should be outrage. I just feel it's a lack of knowledge that should be informed, not a power-based assault requiring punishment.

My personal view is, how would I react to a specific action being used on my mom, sister, girlfriend or wife. If I'd kick the guy's ass so hard he'd have to undo his collar to take a shit, I don't do it. Hell, if I found it mildly irksome I'd avoid it too.

I think you can put everything on the spectrum of "rape-ish" "creepy" whatever... but still recognize that the spectrum has two poles, and a gradient in between. I don't have a problem with publicly discussing WHETHER some behaviour belongs on the spectrum, nor WHERE on the spectrum it belongs. Both are very much the point.

While I'm ecstatic that even (some....enough, but barely) Alabama Republicans appear to have limits to acceptable behaviour from their representatives, it's pretty embarrassing and disheartening that even a gun toting clan prosecuting good old boy only won by <1% against an anti American, anti constitution, anti separation of church and state, serial child abuser, but I've never been a team player.

no, this isn't about NYPD, or anomalous police behaviour, this is clearly about US cops are not constitutionally obliged to protect specific citizens. did everyone miss the part about castle rock v. gonzales?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

which had precedent that goes further back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

No.
You don't fight racism by being racist.
You don't fight sexism by being sexist.
It's not about ego, it's about fairness and honesty and civil behaviour. Those who fight against ignorant hatred with ignorant hatred are also my enemy....no matter what their cause.
What this does is legitimize body shaming. This means the douchbags you decry now can, with impunity, demean women's bodies all they like, and when confronted about their sexist douchebaggery, they can just say "Sam made it OK to demean
your (insert demeaning adjectives here) vagina".

Also, when you're trying to draw people to your side of a debate, it's never a good idea to blatantly insult them. Not all men are abusers, but Sam seems to think we all deserve to be treated as if we are. Had she stopped at :45, I would stand with her. Because she decided it was more important to insult men than instruct them, I now stand against her.

Edit: Finally, this won't create fewer harassed women, it's more likely to create more by giving the predisposed to abuse an excuse and validation of their methods.
This is why I'm barred from team sports...I call fouls on my own team.

I get what you're trying to say but you don't really have to be bigger to abuse someone. You're ignoring the fact that women are typically given the benefit of the doubt in domestic violence situations because of that sort of thinking. Abusive women can and do use that fact to their advantage; a man can feel powerless to defend himself for any number of reasons: fear of mob-justice, criminal charges, loss of job, financial ruin, etc.

It's interesting that the people they interviewed after the roles were reversed felt that the man must have done something to piss off the woman and that somehow justified her behaviour.

No surprise. Racist assholes never look at their own behaviours, they just talk crazy shit about the 'others' and pretend they aren't guilty of the exact same crimes.

I, and perhaps others, will do my best to open your eyes to how your suggestions work when used against you instead of those you dehumanize. Your own public comments are far more racist than her single, private joke someone made public, so you should certainly get worse treatment.



Not really, because I'm not an asshole like that...but I do wish you would come to your senses. How would you like it if any black person caught demeaning whites in any minor way loses their job and job prospects for life, like you seem to suggest is proper when reversed....or are you one of those brain dead idiots that think non whites can't be racist?

It's not about it being not to my liking. It's about it being dishonest and incredibly right biased while claiming to be on the left. It's about the typical one set of rules for one side and a completely different set for the other that is how he makes his "points". It's a style of information that only works with those in the bubble and the ignorant, and it's insulting, no matter which side it comes from. He didn't have a single piece of new information or even a new take. Please don't pretend I don't give right wing ideas consideration. I couldn't point out the flaws if I didn't.

I don't waste my time hearing out the far anything. Extremists are to be educated or ignored, not given a soapbox and our attentive ears repeatedly. I've heard all I need from Nazis, fascists, alt right, antifa, anarchists to know their ideas don't hold up to critical examination, there's no reason to keep listening after that, I won't believe them, so what's to be gained? Hearing this weeks talking points? No thanks.

You can listen to the idiots that tell you these extremists represent the left, I say it's wishful thinking, because that's the only way the right can excuse or deflect from the Nazis and blatant racists the right welcomed into the party to win the last election. (To be clear, I may be left leaning, I'm not a democrat).
I was glad to hear the leadership of the Republicans finally publicly tell the Nazis and KKK that the Republicans don't stand with them and don't want their votes after Charlottesville, and I'm still waiting for a similarly dismissive statement from the Democrats about antifa.

Both (most) extremists groups say and do idiotic, barbaric things and should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law at every opportunity....no matter what their political affiliation or leaning. Ends justify the means is the mantra of tyrants, and they come in all flavors.

How can I agree or disagree with such a meaningless statement....racial collectivists? enlightenment? I do agree, both act as if they are opposed to freedom, sanity, civil behaviour, and rationality.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

Ahhh...ok...so there are a smattering of insane idiots that don't get they advocate forcing their group to accept, let's say Nazis into their hierarchy.
I certainly hope your leaders understand and don't support those short sighted idiots.
Keep in mind, there's a big difference between 'my group will hate you and complain if you do "x"' and 'you may not do "x"'.
Hires for businesses the church owns can't be discriminatory, not church hierarchy. Sounds right to me.
If there's no law, no complaints will be heard in the courts, at least here in the U.S.. Does Canada litigate legal civil behaviour?

You totally lost me with your last paragraph....but it sounds like you are confusing the ultra far left for democrats....they aren't. Sadly, they are being courted by democrats, something I would like to see stop.