I don't think Aziz Ansari acted appropriately, I think he should've picked up on it like a gentlemen. That said, she gave him verbal consent and him not reading her body language/tone and thus resulting in an awkward sexual encounter should not be put on the same level as sexual assault/rape, which is what 's been happening. I don't see that as helping the movement whatsoever.
Did she really give him consent though? I think that's what the question really boils down to. Where she may not have said an explicit no, she certainly didn't give an enthusiastic yes. In fact, she made it very clear a few times during the encounter that she wasn't really interested at all, and yet he persisted. Is it not his responsibility to understand that?
I did a couple of quick lookups for definitions of sexual assault. To be entirely honest I didn't take a look to see what jurisdiction you live in, so I apologize in advance. Here's one sort of America-centric:
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.
Source: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault
I bolded some keywords. Explicit is sort of tricky to understand in this situation-- It's very clear that we see it two separate ways. I feel that she didn't explicitly consent, due to the fact she rescinded her consent in later parts of their encounter. If I understand correctly, you feel that she did explicitly consent because she said it out loud. I bolded fondling because that seemed to be a very large part of what could have potentially made the encounter into a sexual assault.
Sexual assault is an act in which a person sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.
Source: Cameron, P., Jelinek, G., Kelly, A-M., Brown. A. F. T., Little, M. Textbook of Adult Emergency Medicine E-Book p. 658.
I've bolded the word coerce so that it's used as a point of consideration in discussing this topic. When I read the situation regarding Aziz Ansari, it seemed clear to me that the woman was coerced. While she seemed to consent in parts, it seemed clear that she also did not fully consent in other parts. Is it fair to say that she was coerced in this situation? If she was, it certainly fits this definition of sexual assault that is used in a textbook meant to educate trainee doctors in Emergency Room settings.
I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but I personally think that, considering the facts, it's fair to compare this to sexual assault.
The issue I have with this stems from the communications aspect into perspective. Not everyone can pick up on signals and not everyone is good at conveying them. You can say that partners having it should try and look out for the other making calls they are familiar with and I'd agree with you. It isn't however, societies job to do that.
I personally can't see how it isn't society's job not to do that. The entire point of law (at least from what I understand from a Canadian and United States perspective) is establishing a set of guidelines which is meant to protect people in a fair and democratic society. We have laws which tell people not to harm others in the greater interest of protecting the overall population. How is this any different than establishing guidelines to protect people from being sexually assaulted? Even from a non-legal perspective, is it not our responsibility as a society to educate people from harming others? Is teaching proper communication cues during sexual encounters not beneficial in preventing harmful situations from occurring?
Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this."
I think you need to seriously re-examine what your definition of consent is. I deleted my post earlier, because I thought it was sort of inflammatory, but I think it rings true to what you're saying here.
While sort of sassy, this was taken from a situation I had many years ago. To make a long story short, I got drunk and ended up going home with somebody. It was very clear that he wanted to have sex with me, but I wasn't entirely motivated and comfortable doing it. He goaded me until I eventually gave him consent to have sex with me, despite the fact I didn't want to have it in the first place. To use your language, I
" was willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not.". Was I willing to carry it out? Absolutely, I used it as a mechanism that prevented me from having an argument
despite the fact I didn't want it in the first place. Did I want it at all? No. I didn't want it whatsoever. in literally NO world did I want to have sex, but I had to so that I A) Didn't potentially get further hurt B) Get kicked out drunk and forced to make my own way back home. This isn't real consent. No amount of mental gymnastics anybody goes through will ever justify this being actual, legitimate, true consent, despite the fact I was
willing to carry it out.
Refer back to the earlier definition that I gave. I was
coerced into having sex. Do you know what a great way to understand whether someone wants to have sex with you or not?
Enthusiastic Consent.
Perhaps if consent was only for enthusiastic things then maybe less situations would happen, but that's not a reason in itself to set up a societal standard.
I am going to be very honest with you. How do you understand consent, even when it comes to non-sexual encounters? If you invite friends to go to a movie, but one of them seems apprehensive to go to a movie, do you feel comfortable taking them to that movie, or do you have the reasonable sense to try and compromise? The logic is really the same here. Enthusiasm is a very easy trait to recognize-- Friends can see that I am enthusiastic about playing rugby and continuing my studies. Is this not a characteristic that we should recognize in our interpersonal relationships? I can see my friend Amy is excited to go the movie, so I know my decision is sound! If Amy seems a little apprehensive about going to see this film, maybe I'll go find another one for her, or have a quiet night in.
---
I'm also going to be honest and say that I may not respond to you guys further. I don't spend a lot of time on this website, so your replies may get sidetracked to some of my other responsibilities. I certainly hope I gave you some food for thought though.