Samantha Bee - THIS SASSY KOALA VIDEO IS ... has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

I agree with him quite a bit on this. *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Mordhaus.

Good points Bill.

Next time I'm breaking some dudes leg with a baseball bat, I'll be sure to remind him that he's not being murdered.

But hey, congrats on one thing. I was kinda unsure about Sam Bee's video until I saw this... now I'm 100% behind her.

So let me mansplain the fuck outta this.
Yes, rape is worse than groping.
No, no one gives a fuck about your opinion.
Yes, some drugs fuck you up more than others.
No, that analogy doesn't fucking apply here.

Honestly, the more I watch Maher, the more I'm convinced he's actually a fucking moron who, by sheer coincidence, happens to agree with some smart people on some things, but when left to his own devices, hasn't a fucking clue.

The senator is EXACTLY right. Right now, we don't need to have a conversation about the varying levels of how fucked up groping or harassment or rape is. If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response. Right now, let's just keep telling dudes (and be honest, it's mostly dudes) STOP BEING WEIRD, GROPEY OR RAPEY. It's just not fucking cool.

And if it takes "ruining someone's career" to do that... well, boo fucking hoo.

And as for the people claiming trial by media, I agree, that's fucked up. And when one of the accused people actually denies what they've done... I'll happily give them the benefit of the doubt.

I literally could not have said this better myself. Well put on all points.

Asis Ansari denies anything untoward or intentionally disturbing.....as is admitted by his accuser that's trying to have him convicted in the court of public opinion and blackballed....over her regretting having had bad consensual sex.

A bad date isn't rape, bad consensual sex later regretted isn't rape, an argument isn't rape, no chemistry isn't rape, only rape is rape and your contention is that this doesn't matter, they are equally guilty and deserve equal scorn and hate?!? Being weird is the same as being a rapist?!? Jesus fucking Christ, I always thought you were rational. This position you're taking is not rational, and drives rational people away from the movement....and will destroy it before it has any effect.
Being weird is a good thing, just look at the "normal" person and tell me they're worth emulating.

Don't stop using your brain.

Does this go both ways? If a man has a bad date, or bad sex, can he accuse the woman of exaggerated disgusting behavior publicly by lumping her in with serious abusers to hurt her professionally and personally as revenge for his own inability to say "stop" or "no"?

I hope that girl you had a bad date with in high school doesn't come back to show you the error of your position by adding your name to the "me too" list, destroying your career, family life, and future with no recourse to prove your innocence...all because she didn't orgasm.....but I do hope you see the error.

BTW, the next time you're caught saying something disturbing to someone else, you need to remind them you aren't trying to murder them. Your position means if you upset someone, that's the same as the worst thing you could have done, torture murder. There is no distinction.

In fact, your post did upset me, you fucking child raping monster. That's not overboard at all according to you, and you are exactly the same as a serial chomo...until legal sentencing time. That is what you advocate.
Fuck. People have all lost their fucking minds over this issue.

Should the child shoplifting the Mars bar go to prison with the Bernie Madoffs of the world?

Both are stealing, both aren't acceptable, both are sure as fuck not equal crimes. One needs the piece of shit put away for ever, the other needs counselling.

Saying that stealing is all bad and that only when shoplifting becomes a capital crime should we worry about the child facing the gas chamber, is ridiculous.

Yes, according to some, they are the same, which is incredibly disrespectful to Bernie's actual victims.

People who have consciously decided to disconnect their brain from their words and actions are rapidly multiplying, and I fear that itself could end civilization as we know it. Civilization cannot exist without the ability to distinguish one thing from another, something being advocated against.
I'm flabbergasted.

@Payback, @newtboy you're missing the point.

It doesn't matter if rape is worse than groping... we need to start drilling into people that neither is acceptable.

The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct. (So no, a shoplifter isn't Bernie Madoff)

But as far as I know, none of the accused has been sentenced to anything.

But public shaming as a minimum? I'm fine with that.

And Aziz Ansari doesn't deny what happened, he's just "sorry she feels that way".

"Does this go both ways? If a man has a bad date, or bad sex..."
There's a difference between bad sex and being pressured into sex. Even if it's not rape, it's still not cool.

"I hope that girl you had a bad date with in high school doesn't come back to show you the error of your position by adding your name to the "me too" list, destroying your career, family life, and future with no recourse to prove your innocence...all because she didn't orgasm.....but I do hope you see the error."

If she came back said I was crap in bed, I would probably shrug and say "hey I was a teenage boy, they're all crap at sex". If she said, I pressured her into sex, I would deny it vigorously.

"Being weird is the same as being a rapist?!? Jesus fucking Christ, I always thought you were rational. "
Come on, newt, you know that's not what I said. I said "stop being weird, gropey or rapey". If I said "stop eating bacon, doughnuts or sugar", would you think I meant that bacon, doughnuts and sugar are the same?

First, I like weird people on a day to day basis. Second, there's nothing wrong with consensual weirdness.

But in context, it's pretty clear what I was talking about. But if you must have it spelt out, don't
- force people to watch you masturbate
- meet people (especially younger members of the opposite sex that work for you) in a dressing gown in your hotel room
- make sexually explicit remarks to strangers

But to reiterate, yes, there are degrees of violation. Rape is worse than groping and groping is worse than exposure. There, happy now?

Now that we're all agreed on that, can we focus on stopping the problem instead of this pointless grading of offences?

This really isn't difficult. If you can't tell whether another person is enthusiastic about sexual activity with you... maybe relationships aren't for you.

No, you miss the point.
Distinctions are important.
It matters hugely, recognizing the difference between violent rape and an uninvited shoulder rub, just as it matters making the distinction between a spanking and attempted murder....not just legally but rationally.

I wholeheartedly disagree that making those distinctions about gradients of wrongness in any way denies the ability to see that both are wrong.....except for the brainless who can't do both.

Public shaming IS a sentence, one that harms your job, finances, family, and future. I have no problem with fair public shaming, but lumping a bad date in with real rapists is as fair as lumping you in with kidnappers and murderers because you slapped a disobedient child's behind.

He denies he did anything to intentionally make her uncomfortable or pressure her, which is what she accuses him of.

NO SIR. THAT IS YOUR POSITION, you said until overboard sentencing becomes a problem, there's no distinction needed between bad sex and forced sex.
Yes, it's not cool, but it's also not abuse unless it is.

If, like this woman, she #metoo'd that you were an octopus that ignored all her nonverbal signals to stop, your denial wouldn't mean much, and most people would just call you a rapist....just like his denial means nothing to you and you're more than willing to let him be lumped in with rapists and abusers.

You lumped them together in your post about how making distinctions is out of fashion. It's like you said stop eating broccoli, sugar, and bacon, then balked when I said broccoli is good for you, you only meant deep fried candied broccoli. Come on.

Don't expect me to read what you mean and ignore what you write...I absolutely hate that.
Don't be sexually aggressive...do be weird.

Yes, distinctions matter immensely.

No, grading offences is proper, otherwise you put rape and going Dutch on a date at the same level because they both upset the date.

If the person goes on a long date with you, accepts an invitation to your bed, undressed and engages in sex, asks you to slow down a bit (which means continue, slower, which you do), and continues, sleeps over, and only later complains, maybe relationships aren't for HER. Her date did absolutely nothing wrong. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues in the dark 99.9999999% of the time....pretty much any time there's no gun to your head.

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.

A quick Google of sex abuse stats turned up something interesting...even astonishing.....the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.

To be clear, this issue is not JUST about men forcing women...in fact, there's barely a difference in which sex is more victimized, or which sex is the perpetrators when looked at closely without bias.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

I was struck by the decidedly male and extremely loud whooping and cheering as Bill talked.

Spoke volumes, that did.

I am willing to bet $100 that some of those whoopers have been and continue to be creepy with women.

Thank you @ChaosEngine. Per usual, you are a lovely calming flow of reason and understanding in a turbulent time. You sound like a human being. Just... a human being.

I love that in a person.

Or, just maybe there were people who were happy to hear they weren't the only ones who find the whole "kill them all and let god sort them out" mentality a little disturbing.

Nobody here is trying to argue that the Harvey Weinsteins' or the Al Frankens' of the world should not be held to account. Only that the punishment should reflect the severity of their actions, and not just how their actions make you feel.

I used to think the Internet was for Porn, but now I'm beginning to think it's really for outrage and we aren't made to live in a constant state of outrage.

Listen to Sam Bee again. There are things to learn. Or read what Chaos said. Wise human being. A gender free label, that. Wise. @00Scud00.

This is the same ole, same ole.

Nothing is perfect. Nobody can control everyone's every utterance. I'm sure that there some Men's Rights folks out there who make you cringe.

As many women have written -- we know the difference between rape and a grope.

Both need to be knocked the hell off. No groping. Get it? Don't grope.

A lot of women don't talk about punishment for the gropers. They talk about KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF.

As for hearing the whooping differently than did @00Scu00, I immediately thought of this tweet that is making the rounds of women's Facebook walls. Written by a man:

"Conversation with female friends about dating.

I said I liked dating, even bad dates, because dating can be a kind of adventure. Worst case, you learn something about yourself.

Female friend something like, "No, worst case is I'm raped and killed."

That's when I got it."

That whooping didn't sound like relieved whooping to me. It sounded sounded scary to me. Because of this tweet, what this tweet is saying.

Because most men don't get it. That whooping is proof.

We hear with different ears, men and women. Because we have different experiences and have different fears. Real fears.

And we would really, really like to feel like the vast majority of men are our allies and "get it," as this tweeting guy finally got it.

(You think I agree with every single word written by every single woman? Let me assure you that I don't. As if that even needs saying.)

Being held accountable for what we do is a good thing, but ignoring degrees and distinctions can turn it bad.

Weinstein out of a position of power, out of a job, and quite possibly into jail: good. Deserved, and sends an important message to those that might want to abuse their power in similar ways in the future. Precedent set -- however things worked before, we won't stand for that shit anymore.

Louis CK out of favor, and on record for doing creepy things which reduces opportunity to continue doing said creepy things. Also removed from positions where he could exert pressure to "consent" to said creepery where consent likely wouldn't be granted if the threat of job repercussions wasn't implied or patently stated. Again, good outcome -- in my opinion including the fact that he likely won't face criminal charges while Weinstein may.


Franken, on the other hand, was held accountable for actions in a way that I found troublesome for two reasons:

1) He was under scrutiny for past actions, yet placed under the judgement of current (bleeding edge current, even) behavioral standards. That is trending towards ex-post-facto law. I can't pass a law in December making it illegal to wear white shirts, then throw you in jail for having worn a white shirt in November before the law was in effect.

It isn't the same thing because sexual harassment has been illegal all along, and because he wasn't really facing legal trouble, just professional / political trouble -- where "ex-post-facto" judgments aren't prohibited. Still, it seems like when standards change we should try to limit judgement under current standards to current behavior. There's a reason why it works that way in law.


2) Furthermore, a lot of the scrutiny Franken was under completely stripped the behavior from context. Context is extremely important. That's why Weinstein "asking" women to "consent" to his rapey behavior wasn't OK, even though asking for consent is sort of the baseline "good"/expected behavior -- they weren't actually completely free to tell him to shove it.

Ignoring the context of Franken's behavior means that it is immaterial that he was working for the USO at the time, where on-stage suggestive stuff and raunchiness was/is pretty much the whole idea. Immaterial that on-stage "groping and kissing" stuff may well have been scripted as such, and basically consented to by the actors -- part of the show.

Combine that with ignoring degrees of offense, and we're listing Franken's name in the same sentence with Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein, which is ridiculous. Franken "had to" be a sacrificial lamb to demonstrate that Democrats are willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk on this issue -- but did he really?

If more Democrats were willing to "tell it like it is", as I'd argue Maher is doing here, Franken could have said that the photo where he mimed groping a sleeping Karri Turner was a mistake, a joke in poor taste done in the context of an entire tour that seems in poor taste by modern standards, and that could have been the end of it. He could still be in office, and the Democrat party at large would have been better off, as would the net balance in Congress with regards to women's issues.

But nope. Context, distinction, and degrees are all meaningless, so Franken's name is in that same list of dirty sleazeball asshole men, no asterisks or footnotes necessary. I don't think the outcome of that game goes in a favorable direction.

@ChaosEngine @Payback, @newtboy

Don't have time for a lengthy comment, but Chaos, he makes a point of overstating that BOTH --- ARE UN-acceptable.

Payback & Newt, I agree

Get your ears, and overt outdated biases checked.
I heard plenty of women whooping in agreement.

Women don't have a monopoly on being abused, men do not have a monopoly on being perpetrators, as the article/study linked above proved conclusively. Shed your bias and use your brain.

i was an attorney for victims of domestic violence for a couple years under a federal grant. fun job. eye-opening for sure.

Yeah there's a pretty broad range of shit out there, and yeah the details often dictate whether ur a just a bro-tard or whether ur going to jail for a long time.

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.

No.

That's like saying the worst thing to happen with going out with friends for a drink is to be shot dead by a guy who didn't like you checking out his girlfriend.

A date doesn't end in rape. If your meeting with a person ends in rape, it never was a date to begin with. To say it was a date assumes the victim made a wrong choice at some point. Or worse, that the shitball would have allowed a different outcome.

Sexual assaults may have shades of gray, but I believe rape is rape. The idea of "date rape" would be laughable it it wasn't so moronic.

Dates and rapes are mutually exclusive.

What the hell?!?
What about your dad, brother, or son? They've got to fend for themselves?!

Please don't let this be portrayed as a crime only men do to women, I posted a study above that dispels that myth. This is a crime people do to other people nearly equally based on sex, astonishingly. Even if that wasn't the case, that's still no reason to pretend there aren't some male victims and female perpetrators, it's outrageous when you consider the facts instead of mistaken historical cultural assumptions about the sexes.

I totally agree with you, but I think you touched a problem that causes confusion....rape is rape, defined as unwanted penetration of the victim.
That's why men only counted for +-15% of victims outside of prison, and women a small percentage of perpetrators of "rape", they don't penetrate the men in most cases...This leads to the perception that this is mostly men attacking women, and for pure penetrating the victim rape it is....but if you add unwanted insertion (putting their penis in mouth/vagina/rectum against their wishes, etc) that male victim number skyrockets. If you count any sexual assault, unwanted sexual touching, it's near 50/50....with the same going for perpetrators. I was flabbergasted by that statistic.

If people don't want to make distinctions, do it across the board, which means going after the so far ignored women abusers with the same zeal....I've yet to hear a single one called out in the #me too movement, it's appearing to be pure male bashing, sadly.

That context is a litmus test that unconsciously filters my own, personal actions regarding sexual interactions. As I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) I didn't include that which doesn't enter my regular thoughts. As I'm not a woman, I also don't include that as a parameter as well.

No, I don't believe rape is only penetration, nor do I believe is it only perpetrated by men.

Sure, but why does he then spend the rest of the argument talking about how one isn't as bad as the other?

It just feels like making excuses.

Yeah, we get it. Rape > groping > other dumb shit.

Mike Pence is not as bad as ISIS. There, I said it. Congratulations on passing the lowest bar possible. I still don't want him as president.

Even if Minnie Driver makes a stupid comment, she's not a spokesperson for everyone who supports #metoo.

The fundamental point to me is that senator's quote.
"I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation.... You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable"

So Bill wants to have "an additional conversation". Ok, WHY? What is driving this additional conversation? Why do we need to have it and is it distracting from the more important conversation we should be having?

I'm not worried about the distinction between the varying levels of assault, except as a means for deciding how to deal with the perpetrator.

But that's not the conversation that's happening at the moment. 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". But in terms of saying "stop being a dick", yeah, I'm happy to say that to both of them.

I know that you and @newtboy and @Payback understand that groping and harassment (even if they are not as heinous as rape) are things you shouldn't do. That's 'cos you're decent human beings.

But you guys are not the people we need to talk to.

I find tragically comic that the person who best made @bareboards2 argument was Louis CK

I must have missed the news cycle where Weinstein, Spacey, etc were murdered, 'cos last I checked not only were they still alive, they were still free people, who so far, have suffered relatively minor inconveniences for the crimes they committed.

I think you have confused "telling people how someone assaulted you" with "calling for a lynch mob".

It's the mentality, not the degree.
Ruin them all, let God sort it out is really what's happening, and it leaves those of us looking for equality and justice with a bitter taste and serious reservations.
Relatively minor? Career and reputation eradication isn't minor, especially based on accusations....once they're proven or admitted, ok.
I don't know what's happening with Asis, but the intent was clearly to ruin his career over his dates belated regrets, and refuse to acknowledge there's any difference between his inexperienced bumbling and forceful sexual abuse. That is unacceptable, and if that's what #me too is about now, fuck them...I'm out.

That is why you don't overreach, and don't lump minor offences with major ones. It turns reasonable people against your cause.

Again, if making distinctions are not proper, why is the minor distinction between the sexes on this issue front and center? Why are there no #me too accusers going after women?
This really is turning into a battle of the sexes rather than an honest attempt to solve a real, serious issue, sex abuse.
I think that's horrendous, and damns the needed movement to likely failure, certainly it begs for opposition.

I remember that Louis CK bit, @ChaosEngine. Yeah. Louis gets it.

That guy who wrote the tweet gets it (Maybe folks have heard of him? I haven't. Andy Khouri is a DC comics editor. https://twitter.com/andykhouri/status/952641728120369152)

No such thing as date rape? Somebody needs to get an education on the topic.

And since newt is responding to my comments on this comment stream, I want to tell the community that I have him on "ignore." He knows this.

Maybe he even has said it himself. I don't know what he is writing, and I don't wish to know. I don't know if it looks weird that I am not responding. I don't know if he is even talking to me, since he knows I am not reading what he writes. Perhaps they are just general comments and he isn't asking me anything.

I honestly don't know.

So this is the deal.

I am not a chicken, afraid to engage with him. I am tired to my bones of his style of communicating and I am just done with it.

I'm sure that others feel the same way about me. I respect that, and I understand why they are done with me.

I love boundaries, and choice, and self-care.

Because it isn't, and a huge movement wants us to irrationally ignore that fact, to all our detriment. That's what his argument is about. That is never acceptable, and should be railed against with vigor.

Putting me on ignore doesn't mean someone gets to have their say without contradiction....it means she doesn't have to read it.

I don't care a whit if she does or doesn't read me, I know she dislikes me, I doubt she'll read my comments, it's not about her.

It's a public conversation. I get to chime in when I feel there's something to say, even if it's in response to someone who won't engage. Get over it.

Edit: someone might tell her that lucky can hide my posts for her so she won't see me at all if she asks. I'm not trying to harass her.

No, making the argument that one is not as bad as the other isn't the same as making excuses. It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum.

I have a touch more time, so let me go back to your first example.
Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me.

Obviously, I don't want either thing to happen, but justice is about assigning degrees of a spectrum to an infinite number of variables of what is decidedly wrong. Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system.

I won't repeat the examples already given that should have laid bare the problems equating what should be corrected gingerly vs using a heavy hand, but I want to reiterate that they ring true for me.

NSFW warning:

I've had bad dates where I've been made to feel awkward. Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to hmmm... finish... inside a girl when I didn't want to. We had been together a short time and she was ENAMORED with me, and I felt 'meh' about her. (don't put your dick in crazy)

Long story short, I'm strict about using birth control so I'm not making kids when I don't want to. Although, in the heat of the moment, I'm not above a tried and true pulling out for lack of a better option. This had been the plan going into the sexual encounter, but when I let out a warning about a climax, instead of helping me push her off, she pushed her hands against my shoulders and clamped her thighs onto me. I objected "wait!!! no!!!" but not being a fucking Buddhist monk with complete control over every muscle in my body, well, you can imagine where it went from there.


Shortly thereafter, she started asking me what I thought about this or that baby name and it became clearer what she was really after. (yes really)

I waited for confirmation that she wasn't pregnant and we broke up immediately after, because of that and a general disinterest that I had towards her as a person.

That was when I was ehh? 19? idk, somewhere around there. More than 10 years ago at least.

But I digress, did what she did feel a little 'rape-y' to me? I said no, It was something we talked about beforehand, setting up parameters, etc. but it ended up just being a bad experience. Because of that bad experience I never really talked to her again. She does some kind of work in 3d printing now last I checked.

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.

If you said "no" and she forcefully continued, that is absolutely rape, legally and rationally.
You are certainly free to feel it wasn't a devastating or violent rape, but forcing you to continue a sex act for even one second after recognizing you are saying"no" is rape, whether from a man or woman, whether to a man or a woman.
Her reason for it is even worse in my eyes. Tricking or forcing someone into parenthood should carry a minimum mandatory 20 year sentence of hard labor with zero contact with the child. That's what they're trying to trick/sentence their partner with for doing nothing wrong, 20+ years of hard labor, and the child is the product of the crime.

"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.

While I agree that tricking someone into parenthood is an awful thing to do, I feel like your solution might be worse than the crime.

What happens to the child? What happens to the other parent?

Obviously, if it's a man tricking a woman, she can terminate the pregnancy, but I'm pretty sure we don't want to go down the path of forcing a woman to have an abortion, even in this circumstance.

At which point, the woman is in jail and the father, even if he didn't want a kid, might feel he has to raise the child himself.

But yeah, it's an utterly reprehensible thing to do.

This is about where the line is...or if there's no line at all.
If some dude patted your behind, would you try to have them charged with rape, or even sexual assault? Would you even report the assault, or might it be unworthy of reporting?

What I take issue with is you repeat it doesn't matter until people get ridiculous prison terms or death, but when lives are ruined over nothing, or at most an innocent misunderstanding not corrected, too bad. Many, myself included, find that irrational and over-reactionary.
If someone treats you badly, you can't lambast them in the media from an anti nambla rally without some comeuppance, I think rightly.
Warning others outside of that guilt by association context is another matter.

Yeah...I pulled it out of my ass, it's not a well thought out proposal.
My point was it's a horrendous crime that should have serious repercussions, because the crime is serious and life changing.

Adoption is always an option for healthy kids....but I do prefer the abortion choice, plenty of unwanted people already. ;-)

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.

Yes, rational people who DO insist on distinctions have rallied to Aziz, because he is not an abuser, but you would have us all ignore that and ruin him.

If there's a line, you make distinctions based of level of offence.

From what I've heard he's accused of, I've had far worse from girlfriends who didn't know what men liked. He was handsy in bed and bad at sex. Have you heard otherwise?

What I find unacceptable is her not telling him there's a problem, clearly when subtlety failed, but expecting him to act as if she had, and using #metoo to amplify his lackluster performance and make him guilty of sex crimes by association.
What's more unacceptable is the movement to deny gradients of evil so he IS guilty of sex crimes by their estimation for being inexperienced with sex.

I have yet to hear a single thing he did with bad intent or in any way criminal or even ungentlemanly, just inexperienced or plain bad in bed. He called/texted her respectfully thinking she had a great time, and seemed shocked she hadn't. Maybe there's stuff I don't know about this case? It sure sounds like a failure to communicate, which I place on her shoulders.

Who is Grace again? His accuser?

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.

You lot are fucking psychos. America is turning into the next extremist state.

@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It seems I'm an outlier in my opinion then. I don't agree that one second after I said "no" that constitutes rape anymore than my wife grinding into me a few more times when I tell her something similar because I'm seeing cracks in the damn that are going to cause a tidal wave.

To be clearer, I'm laying out a definition argument. I don't feel rape should be defined that way. You can't interlock two sweaty bodies and reasonably expect to constantly have a hand hovering over an ejector seat button.

I'm uncertain about what exactly rape should be defined as, but, in spite of me feeling that what happened to me was an outcome I explicitly didn't want; at some point during the initial physical union of the male and female genitalia, permissions about what is suddenly okay or not okay with that intimate contact becomes EXTREMELY difficult to define. When two people seem to be working in tandem at that point, I assert that permission is intertwined and, as a result, confusing. (hence our debate)

It's because of that confusion that I'm so hesitant to assign blame for a miscalculation of affection/passion.
@newtboy I think this is where the question of intent plays a role.

It's the "consent as a cup of tea" model.

If you ask someone if they want tea, and they do, give them tea.

If they change their mind after you've made the tea, they don't have to drink it.

If they start drinking the tea and decide they don't like this tea, don't force them to finish the cup.

Hell, if they are actually on their last sip and they don't want to swallow... they can spit it out. I mean, it's not very polite, and I'm not really sure why you'd suddenly decide you don't want tea at that point, but fundamentally it's still up to the tea drinker.

HOLY SHIT!
I completely retract my defense. That's completely different from the early report I saw, which indicated otherwise.
Imo, after the first rejection, that's totally out of line.
He deserves to be lumped in, if true. That's predatory behavior.
I was wrong.

Try watching American Beauty from the new cultural perspective, there is definitely a new layer of meaning.

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".

Meh, I don't like that analogy.

If it were an accurate analogy, both people would be holding the cup of tea at the same time.

As I said, the two people are working in tandem. So she and I would be holding the tea with both hands, and we would bring the cup to her mouth to drink and then mine, and so on. Or even if only one person is holding the tea and only receiving instruction;

Think about a time when you've fed someone else food or poured a drink into someone else's mouth. Ever give them more than they wanted? Not enough? Ever spill some of it on their shirt even though you never intended for that to happen?

Remember!!! It's like a game of Operation! Don't give them a drop more or less than they want when you're pouring tea into their mouth or your entire life will be ruined.

Try pouring hot tea into someone else's mouth for them, do it deliberately and without error, and then we'll talk. Finally, consider that pouring hot tea into someone else's mouth is arguably less complicated than interpreting physical cues indicating a desire to have sex.

Those kinds of over simplifications of the nuances of human behavior are just that, over simplifications.

You're overcomplicating it.

Wordless assent is fine, especially in an already committed relationship.

The issue here is less about consent and more about refusal.

If you're feeding each other and someone wants you to stop, just stop. Ok, if you're literally pouring tea into them at the time, it's not going to be instantaneous, but it's still pretty clear that they're no longer into it. Especially if they say "no" or try to push you away.

This isn't rocket science.

There are a few times in this thread where I would describe a lack of appreciation for degrees of the term "forced"

Part of why I don't consider what happened to me to be rape is because I had a mouthful of tea at the time.

Getting burned by hot tea because the other person doesn't react exactly the way I want when I want them to is a risk I was willing to take when we started pouring tea into each other's mouths. A touch too much or too little is to be expected given the situation.

I'd argue that only after that touch-and-go phase is where the place that "the line" gets crossed, and I'm annoyed at the lack of thorough acknowledgement that errors get made in those moments.

Fuck, girls go fucking crazy when they are climaxing. They dun like break a dude's dick in half and shit. Sheeeeeeeet.

Where this can lead if unchecked....
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Australian-Men-Are-All-Considered-Pedophiles

Australian Men Are All Considered Pedophiles has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

Probably nobody is following this vid anymore. I hope someone sees this comment.

Important article here. "The female price of male pleasure"

There are some bumps along the way as I read where I thought "wha???"

And.

Although it is long, every man and woman should read this. Reject what you must. I personally needed some more scientific data -- which isn't available because.... well, read the article.

[EDIT] And if you find yourself rejecting it entirely? Then allow me to quote Louis CK, an imperfect person with demons who is still flipping amazing -- Now is the time to listen.

http://theweek.com/articles/749978/female-price-male-pleasure?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=afternoon&utm_medium=01_25_18-article_2-749978

What on earth do you mean by "can" lead?
We're already there.
Sadly sites like the one in question and even Hannity's show are useful in showing us the other side of the coin that big brother doesn't want us to see.
Society is a sick puppy.
Where losers rejoice at taking down anyone they "perceive" as being better than them.
(Kinda like that gangsta old lady parking violator video mentality on a larger scale)
The bit about the airlines was only a small part of the entire video and still holds up at any rate.
This is why men do have EVERY right to listen in and gosh darnit even COMMENT on the latest rules of conduct being introduced on how they should act and be treated in society.
I'm not even going to lower myself by entering the arguments here on what constitutes rape etc or how a broad slanderous brush will or will not solve the problems.
It's like dealing with people who sniffed glue or suffered brain trauma.
Like talking to anyone who actually thinks CNN is real news or isn't totally biased.
How it's totally ok for the FBI to do what it did and shame on anyone who tries to reveal it.
I always find it cute how CNN pushes news clips at you often not having anything at all to do with what you went there to read.
I am or was a liberal but this trend has gone far beyond troubling.

To be honest, had I known the source, I never would have posted that.

The airline part was partially true, but quite old. Most airlines have changed that policy long ago.

The rest was probably staged, like Faux, anything to make their point.

I suggest you independently fact check any hour of Hannity/Faux vs CNN, then decide which is more fake and biased. I'm no fan of CNN, but they are head and shoulders above right wing opinion/propaganda masquerading as news. CNN has never warned you about the government making fish people, pedophile pizza chains, or claimed mass child shootings are frauds, Faux/ right wing media has, and the president believes them and not his own intelligence agencies (or rationality/reality).