Chloe Dykstra speaks out about her emotionally abusive ex

This is a clear statement. I can discuss this.

I would go back to the terrible Babenet story on Aziz Ansari. I think most people agreed that it was a terrible date. Further, I think most people came to the conclusion that Ansari was just looking for sex, while the young woman was looking for something more. That basic communications breakdown was the cause of the issues. The debate seemed to be over how responsible the gal or Ansari was for how it all played out.

I believe we (society) generally got that one right. Ansari was a clod and an awful Tinder hookup, but nothing he did was really wrong because the woman never made her thoughts clear and she admitted to just staying in his apartment despite not being prevented from leaving.

The outcome seems to be that Ansari got a very embarrassing lesson on how he treats his hookup dates but kept his career, and Babe got dragged through the mud for being a rag.

The Hardwick thing is different because we’re talking about multiple instances in long relationship.

Remember, I’m attempting to restate a generic argument from another person. I believe, but am not going to go back to check, that @SlyFrog agrees that was abuse. I certainly do.

I tend to agree. The hesitance is around the fact that I remember the outcome as being a little more anti-Ansari then you state but that’s probably because I don’t consume much tv so he’s more or less vanished into obscurity after the brouhaha.

Initial reaction was strongly negative but that quickly rebounded when people actually read the article and realized it was basically trash that should never have been published. Ansari laid low for a couple months and now is back doing standup.

I think more important than your idea of hypothetical advice is to look internally. Have I been taken advantage of? Have I ever taken advantage of someone else? What if I was in this situation, what would I do. Why would I do it?

It is easy, like you say, to step back and discuss the clinical details of allegations, and that really gets us nowhere. In many cases outside of criminal or civil court, they are he-said she said details. (Personally, I am going to defer to the accuser every time)

The important takeaway we have to do, as men (the majority of people here) and women is to have some self reflection on how we perceive events like this, and have open discussions with loved ones, relatives and our children. Letting them know that it is ok to speak out about things like this, and the responsibility of safe sex, that they should be having open and frank discussions with their sexual partners.

I know that Chloe herself posted this in hopes that young women wouldn’t let themselves be trapped like she was. In that respect, the details don’t matter. She admits she knew she should have left but didn’t, and is hoping by saying all of this, that people don’t feel trapped like she did.

I know that we as nerds love to debate semantics and rules-lawyering, and play “devil’s advocate” but I don’t think discussions like this are the place for that, when this can be a personal topic for many men and women.

The Aziz Ansari thing was regrettable, and Babe.net should take a lot of the blame for this. It does feel like the really pushed the young woman to tell very intimate details and bypassed some ethical practices.

Aziz Ansari had a bad date where he was entirely too thirsty, and the girl wasn’t on the same page as him. A bad situation that probably could have been resolved behind the scenes with apologies and a phone call. I think that Ansari took the correct amount of heat for this, and I would bet he acts differently around women, and probably did some of that self-reflection I mentioned.

What happened in this case is years of physical and emotional abuse from a man who was not only her lover, but her boss too. Which is just an abuse of power.

Yea, it’s always better to be someplace where everyone agrees and nods their heads in unison on every subject. People with opposing views on forums are just evil and muddy up the place.

Ansari took way too much heat for it, if he wasn’t a celebrity nobody would have batted at eye at what was, truly, just a bad date. He was embarrassed for no reason.

Yeah, pretty much. I could be wrong but I don’t remember anyone really attacking him here. There was a pretty unanimous backlash against the woman.

Feel free to believe that the idea of “opposing views” are what I find upsetting about the conversation in this thread, if that makes you feel better.

I know you were parroting other posters, but seeing something you dislike in a thread and then blaming the forum by saying maybe it is time to leave is well, kinda snowflake, to borrow a term.

Argue your point, say what bothers you, but don’t run away like a child who can’t believe others have differing views.

So what does upset you in this thread, out of curiosity? You’re being awful ambiguous in your judgement…

I disagree strongly with some of the views on consent and abusive relationships that have been expressed here. There have been several posters who have done a good job attempting to rebut those, and I appreciate their efforts.

Apologies for being vague, because I’m quite bad at holding extended arguments about emotionally charged subjects on forums, and I don’t want this thread to be about me, so I’m going to step away from this thread. I appreciate your attempts to engage, and they’re quite reasonable requests, but I don’t feel that I can adequately field this discussion.

I’ll try to help. If someone says they are crying but some dude fucks them anyways, that’s either rape or as close to it as you can get. When people on this forum say “hey that happens in relationships, some people just don’t want to have sex as much as others,” that’s pretty abhorrent. You don’t rape your significant other because they don’t put out enough for you. Even saying “well, some women are frigid” is demeaning. Go jack off or something, sexual assault is not the solution.

I’m not pointing out any specific posters here because I don’t even know if I’m fairly representing anyone’s particular views. That’s just what I’m getting in this thread from some people. Maybe you’re only trying to argue nuance about who to believe and internet brigading and the court of public opinion but if that’s what you’re doing then you are doing a poor job of it.

Sure, once. Do you think it is necessary to do so every time one of these stories re-emerges? Is it necessary to do so in open discussion of the topic (again, every time)? Is it possible to discuss anything about the topic, or specific cases, without first going through that inventory on all sides?

And I feel like judging whether or not people are “true nerds” devalues the whole point of being a nerd to begin with, which is being excited about things and enjoying the company of other people excited about those things.

Bullpuckies, I went out with one girl who considered herself a popular culture nerd because she was really into celebrities and read every issue of US magazine. I reject that with my entire soul!

Babylon 5 is available on Amazon Prime right now. Now that’s a nerd card show.

Mabye? But that perspective also ignores the social ostracism nerds experienced as a result of their interests back in the day. Buying a ticket for the new Captain America movie is not the equivalent of getting your ass kicked in the schoolyard for preferring reading SciFi to playing tag at recess. Or preferring reading anything to running around at recess.

A certain amount of alienation due to your personal predilections (relatively high IQ, obsessiveness, preference for abstractions rather than physicality) used to be part of the membership fee for nerdiness. Maybe “nerds” are everywhere now, but the commonality has been lost.

There’s less of an outsider sheen to things, for sure, but you still have the commonality of being into the same thing, which IMO is way more fun to share than, e. g., a history of being bullied in grade school.