back
12 comments
This article suffers from a fundamental flaw; the case of ‘Grace’ is a poor one to make any of these points off the back of. There are undoubtedly many cases which would highlight the issues raised, but of course they won’t involve Aziz Ansari. Still, this is a case which ended with a woman finally saying “No” and immediately being met with the offer to just watch some tv, clothes on. It seems unfortunate to use an example of behavior which may not be the ideal, but falls far short of both coercion and force.

As a group, we’re sorting through everything from rape and sexual abuse, through coercion and harrassment, to the merely awkward or ill mannered. I can’t emphasize how much I feel bright lines need to be drawn between the first two categories and the last.

Did you read the article?

> Her repeated objections and pleas that they "slow down" were all well and good, but they did not square with the fact that she eventually gave Ansari oral sex. Finally, crucially, she was free to leave.

That's really all that's said about Ansari, and suggests that his actions don't constitute assault. The article isn't at all about Ansari, it's about the various reactions that have come up in response. Namely those that normalize 'bad sex', which for women it is argued, often involves significant physical discomfort and pain. Even if these bad experiences aren't a result of anything we consider illegal, it doesn't mean they are irrelevant, 'natural', or don't exist.

I didn’t say anything about irrelevancies, I said I hope like hell that the current conversation about the right not to be abused, raped, coerced, and harassed doesn’t become confused with conversations about bad sex, awkwardness, and all manner of the non-pathological.

Also, isn’t it frowned upon to use that trite “did you read...” line?

Having had partners who suffered vulvodynia, the point of clinical trials for erectile dysfunction contrasted against the far fewer number of investigations into female pain during sex is rather salient.
While sexual pain and dysfunction in women is grossly understudied, it’s part of a larger trend in which pharmaceutical and medical research primarily considered one model: adult men. Over time that changed a bit to include children, which led to the realization that kids are not just small adults. (Medically speaking)

I’m addition to sexism there is also the complexity and cost of modeling your drugs and devices on women. Women after all, are not just men with different parts, any more than the reverse is true. For companies trying to minimize R&D costs and maximize profit, giving women (and children originally) the short end of the stick is profitable. There’s pushback on that now, but only relatively recently.

There’s almost certainly elements of societal squeamishness around the notions of everything from menses to vaginismus. That’s probsbly partly why the pushback against testing policies took so long to become widespread.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're arguing but it seems you miss the difference between one group failing to get erections and another experiencing chronic pain. Ignore sexism and the differences between the sexes for a moment and consider which one seems like an actual problem.
They both seem like actual problems, both deserving of research and sympathy. I don’t feel the need to denigrate one to elevate the other.
"Her repeated objections and pleas that they "slow down" were all well and good, but they did not square with the fact that she eventually gave Ansari oral sex."

It's deceptive to construct the narrative this way given that, by her own account, she readily accepted oral sex from him first with no indication of rejection. Of course, that isn't inherently consent for anything further, but the author depicts the encounter as some kind of hostage situation from the outset.

My sister’s reaction to the story was along those lines, but started with, “Why did she go back to his place on a first date if she had no interest in fooling around?”
> women have been routinely harassed, abused, and dismissed because men wanted to have erections in the workplace

I dont think you can ever choose where you have an erection, especially at young age.

I genuinely want to understand her position but this seems she's just taken a long time to make two points.

* More effort needs to be put into addressing pain women feel during sex. I'm in complete agreement.

* People are willing to endure discomfort to give their partner pleasure. She paints this as something that's foreign to men or bad in general. I disagree on both points.

Some of my painful sexual experiences:

* A woman's IUD was literally stabbing the tip of my penis during each insertion.

* Another woman ran out of lubrication just before orgasm. Lost a layer of skin.

* Numerous occasions where I have endured pain similar to extended wall sits or sprinting because she's into it.

* Gave myself a charlie horse one time due to a weird angle.

* Woman was really into scratching. Back was bloody afterward.

* Plenty of occasions where oral isn't enjoyable: bad smell, bad taste, sore jaw, sore neck, etc..

Maybe my experience is abnormal and I'm just an overly generous lover but I'm totally willing to endure discomfort and pain for the pleasure of my partner. I will totally admit that some of this is pressure to perform.

Edit: Made it sound less like /r/ihavesex. It wasn't my intention.

This is classic 'whataboutism'.

The issue is not whether displeasure occurs for either party, but the normalization or expectation of that displeasure. It is very much an issue of magnitudes and whether a discrepancy there exists.

Your experiences are not wrong or less legitimate, they simply don't address the thesis of the article.