Hmmm…I’m not really asserting either. I guess my position is, the decisions she made at the beginning of the interaction I think made it necessary for her to be a bit more forceful in her objections later. Agreeing to go back to his apartment, the kissing, the oral sex…these are all things she consented to. After all…

See, I think Ansari was being very clear about what he wanted. There was no confusion about his goal was. She could have been just as clear in her lack of interest.

That’s what you said, yes? About me? I just want to make sure I have that right. Anyway, it doesn’t appear you’re interested in talking to me anymore, so enjoy you’re Friday.

I think if you don’t get a yes, that pretty much ends the interaction, right?

You’re making A LOT of assumptions about me, Angry Internet Person. I’m saying, ‘This situation was confusing.’ Yet you’re reading as ‘I’m a rapist looking for loopholes.’

Fair enough. Backing off if there’s confusion is definitely the safest way to go. I just think she could have done more to eliminate the confusion.

Is that “clearly” what I am? I’m asking why she wouldn’t just say “no.” I’m asking why she would give him a blowjob if she wasn’t interested in having sex. I’m not looking for rules I can violate. I’m looking for clarity. I don’t think that’s unfair.

I agree that would be the best solution, provided women are willing to say “no.”

Sure. I’m just not convinced that that will be the reality in most interactions. Is the idea that before a guy initiates any contact, he waits for a woman to say, “It’s okay to touch me?” Would women be okay saying that?

Sure. I’m just not convinced that that will be the reality in most interactions. Is the idea that before a guy initiates any contact, he waits for a woman to say, “It’s okay to touch me?” Would women be okay saying that?

A lot of this conversation has revolved around Ansari’s inability or refusal to read nonverbal cues. It seems we’ve evolved from “No means no” to “Why should I even have to say no?” which seems like a doorway to a LOT of situations like this. But whaever.

This was fine. I’ll probably keep watching. Although more than anything, it made me miss Better Off Ted.

So you seem to have missed point of my post, but since I’m here...

“But the voices asking “Why did she stay so long and subject herself to being violated?” sound a lot like people who ask why Trayvon didn’t just talk to Zimmerman, why Freddie Gray ran or—more appropriately— “If it’s not a shithole, why did they come here?”

Wow...it’s wild that some people would consider it more plausible that he would have driven himself into the river to kill her instead of him just freaking out after an accident.

Good lord, the knots people are twisting you into to trying to rebut this. ‘This article is wrong because Storm controls the wind.” Like, seriously?

It’s kind of amazing that Paul Pierce throws a petty-ass tantrum and ends up the hero of this story. I’d always penciled Pierce in as a pretty shitty dude, and now I think fell comfortable committing that opinion to ink. As to the idea that he and Rondo are right, let’s remember all the Celtics were “giving” IT was a…

What I’ve read is that Hulu will become home for the more mature material, and the new service will be the home for Star Wars/Pixar/Marvel/Disney Animation.

Yes we do. We know he cheated on his first wife with his second wife, we know his son donated bone marrow as he was fighting cancer, and we know he cut his kids out of his will. What we don’t know is anything that make us think the cheating or will-cutting was justified.

The casting of Archduke Whiteman or whatever his name is troubling. As for the tanned extras, what I read was that these were actually handlers and specialists who needed to perform specific functions that required them to be on camera. Which is understandable I guess, if you couldn’t find enough POC trained to do…