Smuel's good morning extravaganza

I would have been super enthusiastic a few years ago.
But now there is Bloodlines II and Crusader Kings III coming up and I haven't even started on Deadfire.
I foresee an incoming shit storm on how Microsoft fucked over Obsidian when this flops.
Oh, and did we ever have a 'Chris Avellone is a sex offender' thread?

Good morning.

 

Wasn't in the loop about the sex offender news (here's a thread which provides info as well as an article for anyone else curious). Was barely in the loop for Avowed to be honest.

Sounds like some definite abuses of power, and some sexual assaults as well (putting his hands down people's pants, etc.). I guess I'll think of Chris Avellone as both as sex pest and "terrible at video games. A 10 year old Down Syndrome kid with half of his fingers missing would've still performed better" from now on.

On the whole Microsoft acquisition of Obsidian, I'm thinking rather than it flopping it might turn Obsidian into a bit of a powerhouse for new RPGs - with both Avowed and the Outer Worlds. The Outer Worlds was a well designed, well delivered (i.e. non-buggy) RPG imho, so with Microsoft's money if they can keep to the standard they set with the Outer Worlds it might be a very good thing. I think Avowed would be interesting too, I never liked the heavy expositional story-telling of Pillars of Eternity (and it's general bugginess and constant patching after release, as noted from the bitch fit I had) so as a 3D RPG it would hopefully move away from both of those traits it may make for a better game (or at least the bugginess wouldn't be linked to constant shifts in core mechanics). If all of Obsidian's games are going to be Xbox Series X exclusives I think that's the way I'll end up going.

Good morning.

 

I never know what to do with the information that somebody who created a piece of art that I like turns out to be an asshole in real life.

On some level I don't think it should matter. If Chris Avellone writes amazing RPGs then I'm okay with him being paid to write amazing RPGs for me to play 20 years later, regardless of how he behaves when he's not writing RPGs. Blacklisting him from the industry seems like an overreaction, especially given that from what I can tell he didn't actually ever take things further than drunken groping and inappropriate text messages.

On the other hand, that kind of behaviour shouldn't be condoned. I'm not saying "who cares if a few women get groped as long as I get my RPGs". If he can't control himself in an office environment while fully sober then he just can't have an office job in the 21st century, sorry Chris. But if, as it appears, he's well behaved during work hours then you could hire him and say "We'll give you this job, but you can't come to the office party, and we're not sending you to any more conventions, and don't act all innocent and ask why because you know why."

Is that okay? Am I a patriarchal monster who condones rape culture?

Well yes, clearly I am, but is that okay?

Good morning.

 

I would say the industry reaction is appropriate. People obviously do make mistakes when they're drunk, but I don't think sexually assaulting someone needs to be viewed as an acceptable mistake anymore just because it isn't a rape. I know if a guy or girl I wasn't into started grabbing at my flaccid penis it would still be a deeply unpleasant experience, and even if I was into them if it wasn't consensual it would still be crossing a line. And of course, it all becomes seedier when it's habitual behaviour (thereby showing a consistent lack of contrition), and the person in question is also leveraging their influence to carry on like this as well as encouraging women getting into states where consent becomes a dubious prospect.

I think what is interesting is there isn't really any "right to be forgotten" in the entertainment industry. Whereas most people can in some capacity leave their past behind (though to increasingly lesser extents), it will ruin your career if you are an entertainer or artist. People entering these industries will be aware however that a scandal can ruin them, and even though the definition of what is inappropriate has shifted to the more hardline I won't be shedding any tears for the gropers.

On appreciation of art/entertainment vs. the nature of the artist, I'm fine appreciating artists/entertainers who are outed as a harasser or otherwise criminal arsehole. I'm not watching a movie/playing a game because of the moral character of the people behind it, I'm watching it because it has something interesting to say. That said, I can fully appreciate that many people don't compartmentalise like I do and so wouldn't be able to stand media where someone like that had been attached. I also wouldn't expect these people would to continue to be bankrolled by their industry, more that my appreciation of things they had previously been attached to wouldn't be marred.

So to answer your question, *shrug*.

Good morning.

 

There are plenty of examples of assholes whose behaviour we forgive. Gordon Ramsay makes great food, but he yells at and humiliates his kitchen staff to the point where they break down in tears. Do we boycott his restaurants? No. In fact we think the idea is so entertaining that we make a TV show so that we can see more of Gordon Ramsay yelling at and humiliating his kitchen staff while making great food. Haha, what a monster!

Anna Wintour is a great fashion editor, to the point where there's a thinly-veiled film about her where she's played by Meryl Streep. Wintour is famously difficult to work with, making arbitrary or impossible demands of subordinates and firing them when they don't perform. This is a highlighted at great length in the film. Haha, what a monster!

In Chris Avellone's case, he makes great RPGs, but one time a woman got drunk with him at a convention and went back to his hotel room with him, and then he tried to have sex with her and she said "No" so he stopped. What a... monster?

In the thread that Jojobobo linked, the woman in question writes that she saw him do the same with other young women. So he... bought them drinks and then they went to his hotel room with him? I mean, maybe I'm out of touch, but that doesn't seem very different from what most single men aim to do on a Friday night. Evidently Chris Avellone is more successful at it than the average man. What a... monster?

She also wrote this:

"I did not get drunk with him again, and he was a gentleman about my refusals, including the one where I was drunk off my ass, and when he escorted me to the subway station at 4:30am the morning I left to go home."​

So he'll try his luck once, but if you turn him down he'll get the message loud and clear and then respect your boundaries. What a... monster?

I'm not saying Chris Avellone isn't an asshole, or that young women shouldn't avoid drinking with him if they're not super excited to go back to his hotel room, but so far I don't see anything that qualifies as sexual assault. And there's certainly no Weinstein-level abuse of power going on. I think everyone is too quick to trot out the "OMG sexual predators in the entertainment industry!" card. There is a world of difference between "will get drunk with you and grope you until you tell him to stop and after that he'll never do it again" vs "will coldly threaten to fire you from his movie unless you sleep with him right now."

Having said all that, a bit further down the thread someone has written that Avellone was dropped from a convention for "showing up to panels late and wasted if at all, & treating fans/fellow industry SO badly". If that's the case, then fine - he's being blacklisted from conventions because he isn't responsible enough to attend them, and he was fired because companies don't want someone representing them who behaves like that. The punishment fits the crime.

In conclusion, he isn't really a sexual predator by any reasonable definition, though he is an irresponsible asshole. But since society is fine with that, I can still enjoy KOTOR II with a clear conscience. Phew.

Now let's make a TV show where Chris Avellone yells at fans while drunk! Haha, what a monster!

Good morning.

 

As mentioned, this was more in regards to him putting his hand down people's pants (I am aware it will be the American usage) - "At one point, Avellone then put a hand down her pants, after which she told him to stop". For me putting unwanted hands down people's trousers would definitely qualify as sexual assault, though possibly you operate off a different definition? And sure he backed off, but shoving your hands down someone's trousers doesn't particularly seem like a necessary barometer to judge people's willingness for sex.

As you say people will be handsy while drunk, sure, but that isn't the same as thrusting a hand down someone's pants to feel their panties. It's clearly an inappropriate escalation in terms of a sexual advance and was acknowledged as such at the time. I get it's not a Weinstein level, but it doesn't need to be to be wrong. It's also framed that this behaviour is systematic, which I'm taking at face value as opposed to questioning the women involved.

Maybe it's just me, but grabbing someone's ass on the outside of clothes while in da club is a different ballgame to thrusting hands down pants to feel labia through panties. I guess it may not have been down the front of pants, but it's still more intrusive than would ever be needed when trying to get someone into bed. It is framed as out of the blue, and not as natural foreplay.

I guess I should just go around and start thrusting my hands down people's trousers, and when they tell me no and I stop, that will make it okay? Particularly if I've been trying to ply them with alcohol beforehand?

Good morning.

As a nice early morning EDIT: I think what's also worth bearing in mind that there is a barrier to entry for making accusations such as this, in that it will come with rape threats, death threats and all sorts of insults about your moral character. This doesn't eliminate the fact that someone could just be making this all up, but practically it's going to be highly unpleasant experience for the person raising their voice.

I think for some people (not you, Smuel) it boils down to whether women act meaningfully different to men on the basis of their gender, which personally I don't think they do. I think this plays a lot into these discussions for the wider community - "Women are naturally bitchy and diva-ish, so of course they're going to want to take down handsome Mr. game designer - they have nothing better to do!" Too much of the badness here draws on perceived differences, whereas as mentioned it's not a gender divide thing to not want someone to put their hands down your pants.

It's also worth mentioning that people on a Friday night shouldn't usually be trying to get people black out drunk to a point where consent isn't an option. Getting people inebriated but fully consignant of what they're doing, fine, getting people to the point of memory loss as is implied in the article - not so much. As such, I don't see this as usual Friday night singles behaviour.

And I do get this isn't as clear cut as something like Weinstein, and the article doesn't make a very transparent completely right or completely wrong case. On that basis, industry could be perceived as taking a no smoke without fire attitude. However Avellone himself said, “If I can't do anything to apologize for it, I understand, and there's nothing more to be done” - which is him personally admitting their is some guilt here, and that he would apologise if it were to be accepted. I guess it really depends on whether a single apology wipes the slate clean on what appears to be pretty habitual.

It is more of a grey story, for sure, but there does seem to be some ownership by Avellone of what happened - and even if he is apologetic, skirting sexual assault isn't a way that anyone needs to behave.

Good morning, now brought to you in the morning.

 

I'm not saying the events didn't happen, or that the women are not being accurate in their accounts, or that it's their fault.

I'm not saying that sexual assault isn't a serious issue.

I am saying that - if you are an adult woman, and you go out drinking with a man, and accept his drinks to the point where you are "black out drunk", and then go back to a hotel room with him, and he tries to have sex with you but you say no, and so he stops, then calling him a "conniving sexual predator" is perhaps stretching the definition a bit far.

He put his hand down her pants. Well, she had accepted a bunch of drinks and then gone back to a hotel room with him. I don't know about you, but if I'm hanging out with a woman and she accepts my drinks and then goes to a hotel room with me and when I kiss her she appears to be going along with it, then I don't think I'm completely out of order putting my hand down her pants as a next move. It's not like Avellone was doing this out of the blue to random women in the office at 11am. She got drunk with him and went to a hotel room.

Then when it later comes out, he doesn't deny the events. He doesn't call her a lying whore, as some men would. He apologises and says he didn't mean any harm. What else do you want him to do at this point?

Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where a woman could get black out drunk in the presence of strangers and they would merely ensure she got home safely while leaving her completely unmolested.

It would also be nice if we lived in a world where a man misreading a woman's level of interest, making a drunken pass at her after upping the ante several stages, and then backing off when her reluctance became clear, wouldn't later be used as grounds for ending his career.

I'm helping society work on these issues by writing posts on this forum. What are you doing to improve the world?

Good morning.

 

I think the thing is he's repeatedly following women back to their own hotel rooms, when they are borderline paralytic and with no mention of him being invited back to their hotel rooms - and then trying very forceful sexual manoeuvres. There's also statements like "he tried to kiss me", which very much doesn't imply she "appeared to go along with it" or that it was wanted.

If they had both separate women had gone willingly back to his hotel room then yes, there's a trajectory and implied consent for sure. And yes, if you're having reciprocated kisses on the way, again I would agree. But as I've said neither of those things were the case for the detail of the article. Then, you add on that he thrust his hand down someone's pants.

And Christ, I don't know why a man looking to have sex with a women would be buying them drinks to the point they are black out drunk anyway. People are fundamentally susceptible to peer pressure from their senior colleagues they hold in some regard, and people in those positions know this. You can clearly see when people are getting to the point of being non-functioning through alcohol - what is to be gained from buying that person another round? Yes people should of course be responsible drinkers, but very few people are in those circumstances (work dos where there's someone to impress, same gender or otherwise). Pushing it too far on a repeat basis is definite pattern of unkosher behaviour, in my opinion.

Ultimately, it's a spotty article. There isn't detail enough to account fully for a trajectory of the evening, but it certainly doesn't seem like there was reciprocated physical contact between them and it is a dubious prospect whether he was invited back given the reaction of the women involved. Whether you want to consider it to be the women who are conniving and duplicitous, and they just have buyer's remorse or a personal grudge, is up to you - but as I said with the accompanying river of hate that come with raising allegations like this it's not something to be taken lightly.

I'm not too sure why these situations also invite a very large benefit of the doubt on the behalf of the man. You say that you think the account of the women is accurate, but you're also saying that you do not believe that have a good grasp of what is sexually inappropriate or not - that they're swept up in mass hysteria and are failing to get a good read on situations. Honestly, I don't think sexually inappropriate situations are really rocket science to grasp - and when there's multiple accounts it does become harder to refute. There is an evident bias here, one side you are infantilising and questioning their judgement - the other side is doing what men do and it's women who should know better.

And yes, fine, in a legal "burden of proof" sense that no the industry shouldn't blacklist him. But this isn't a legal situation, and precisely because people know what they can get away with without it turning into a legal situation too many shitty people get away with operating at the shitty margins of human behaviour without recourse. It's tiring not expecting better from people, and in a brutal ends justifies the means way at least this brings about changes in what is considered acceptable. If these changes mean that far more men no longer think it's a good idea to try and get women brutally drunk so that consent becomes an iffy prospect, and on the whole it prevents more rapes and sexual assaults in the long run, I'm perfectly okay with that. Maybe men shouldn't be relying so strongly on alcohol to convince women to sleep with them in the first place, and should instead work on traits that make them more personable and appealing to those around them - but who am I to judge.

Persuade me otherwise on all points. I'm sure I'm everything wrong with the world.

I'm sure you're joking with the holier than thou tone (or at least I hope so). However to answer your question, I'm not getting women black out drunk and then following them back to their hotel rooms for one.

Good morning.

 

This implies an intimate environment between two individuals. According to the tweets he was buying rounds for everyone.

Again, implied intimacy. I read four men escorting a dead drunk woman back to her room.

These are the things you emphasize:

---

They kissed.
He pounced.


Both of your interpretations of the events are rather charitable.


---

You don't have "half a brain" when you're "black out drunk". You usually have no recollection of events minute to minute (e.g. you can respond to or ask questions but you don't have any recollection of doing so a few minutes later, which is why persons who are "black out drunk" tend to repeat themselves a lot) and are generally not in a position to give consent. Having sex with someone who's unable to give consent is rape.

Fortunately, she was able to refuse. What do you think would have happened had she not been?

Is it? His behavior certainly comes across as conniving, repeatedly getting women drunk in order to have sex with them. Had he not stopped it would have been too modest expression. A sexual predator is not necessarily a rapist; you merely seek to obtain sex in abusive or exploitative ways. Apparently his behavior underwent no changes as a result of this encounter. I don't know about you, but if my pick up artist trite ended with me groping an unwilling target, I'd seriously reevaluate my approach.

Probably because that shit won't work post Me Too. And he knows it.


---

I also think this puts his fit over leaving Obsidian in a rather different light. Despite his high profile he's been freelancing in recent years as a "human stretch-goal", long before the scandal was a fact.

Good Morning.

 

To add more to this on the behavioural side, what is being expected here is:

• Men should be allowed to try and to push women to the limits of being black out drunk.
• Men in social situations where there is a pressure to drink (with people you are looking to impress, of same or opposite gender, for the purposes of sex or no), and bearing in mind as a social species we are inclined to accept generosity and gifts, are allowed to to get drunk to whatever extent they like in relative safety.
• Women's first thought in the same situation should be to know their limits, heaven forbid they "accept his drinks to the point where [they] are 'black out drunk'", which most men wouldn't men wouldn't spare a second thought to. This is all because a man's right to try and coerce a woman way beyond the line of reasonable inebriation trumps their right to engage comfortably in otherwise usual social behaviour.

I also don't know what the fear is here. Men and women getting drunk and having sex is never going to go away as a normal paradigm, and men will always be able to buy women drinks and vice versa. Men pushing women well beyond the limits of normal inebriation, taking them back to hotel rooms with groups of men, and then grabbing them on the cunt can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned. Just because the latter is becoming not acceptable, doesn't mean there's going to be pogroms and witch hunts about men engaging in the former - regardless of what poorly judged and scaremongering videos ("Women are too much trouble") like the one DE posted would try and have you believe.

And besides, as I said earlier, if your only means of convincing women to have sex with you is to rely on getting them drunk to do so, maybe it's time to work on yourself so that you're appealing when people don't have lowered inhibitions? Why is that such a terrible and unconscionable idea?

A related video (and I'm not inferring anyone here doesn't know what consent is, it's just reasonably amusing):


Good morning.

 

I agree that there isn't enough detail available to make any firm accusations in this particular case. We're also only hearing one side of the story. However, yes, I was wrong about whose hotel room it was - in both cases where we have an account of events, it was the woman's hotel room, which lends plausibility to the accusation that Avellone "followed" them to it. That ups the creepiness factor. Although, in the first woman's case, two of her friends also accompanied them, which slightly detracts from the "conniving" narrative. Evidently both of her friends were content to leave her and Avellone together in her room, so you could argue that it can't exactly have been abundantly clear that she didn't want him there. Or alternatively perhaps they weren't very good friends after all, or were too drunk themselves.

The fact is that we live in a society where socialising often involves getting drunk with people. This means both men and women should find out where their limits are and then not breach them in situations where they don't feel safe. In both of the women's accounts, Avellone was buying rounds of drinks for groups of people on the company dime. Jojobobo says that Avellone should have stopped buying drinks once he could see that the recipients were borderline paralytic. However, according to the accounts, Avellone himself also likes to get very drunk - so it's likely he was partaking in the rounds and his own judgement was also impaired. In fact, Avellone himself getting drunk is probably at least half the problem here. Nonetheless, it's a double standard to say that women should be allowed to get as drunk as they want, while men have a responsibility to ensure that no harm ever comes to those women. How about each person takes responsibility for their own level of drunkenness? Avellone is now paying for his because showing up drunk to convention panels is a no no.

Also, this idea that women are helpless in the face of the irresistible force of Chris Avellone buying them drinks seems to be robbing the women of their autonomy. I realise that social pressure to drink is a thing, but saying no is also a thing. The fact that he was buying drinks for the group makes it seem less like "conniving sexual predator" behaviour to me. At worst you could say he's an opportunist - getting everyone drunk and then seeing if any of the women present are inclined to let him kiss them.

"Ah, but that's predatory behaviour, because sex is like tea." Sure, that's a cute video, but I guarantee you that going up to random women and asking "Would you like to have sex?" is not going to yield the level of enthusiastic consent that the video implies. That's just not how it's done. I don't blame women for this. Society has spent the last few thousand years telling them that accepting offers of sex is bad, and that sluts are bad. It's no surprise that the approach doesn't work. Instead a man is supposed to skirt delicately around the subject, ask a woman out for dinner and/or drinks, see how she responds, slowly escalate contact, until suddenly they're both naked in bed.

In a world of 7 billion people, not every man is going to get this right. Some men will take on board the wrong lessons. Presumably, masters of body language like Jojobobo and Ruda are fully aware at all times of any given woman's level of sexual interest in them. Not all men have this level of skill though. In Avellone's case he has evidently taken on board the lesson that you can't just flat out proposition women in public, because that's creepy. So instead he focuses on the "get her drunk and then maybe she'll be up for it" technique. And let's be clear about this - if she still isn't up for it, he doesn't force her. So I'm not saying he's a paragon of virtue, but he's also not quite the outlandish sexual predator breaking all decent social norms that the articles want him to be.

While I don't condone Avellone's behaviour, at the same time I don't know what I would say to him. "Don't get women blind drunk and then try to have sex with them" seems like a good start. And then he'd say "Okay, but I'd still like to have sex with women, so what should I do instead?" and then I am at a loss.

"Be better at reading women" - this probably isn't going to help if he's managed to get this far in life without being able to read women very well.

"Do basically what you were doing, but in a less creepy way" - this also isn't something he can really work with.

"When you're out getting drunk with women, make sure you stay sober yourself so that you can monitor their levels of inebriation and cut them off if they go too far" - this actually sounds more creepy if anything. We're also back to robbing women of their autonomy - I understand that some women really enjoy getting black out drunk at other people's expense. Are they not allowed to do that any more?

I'm inclined to think that, as others have said, men and women are going to continue to get drunk together. If the worst thing that ever happens as a result is that a woman sometimes comes to and finds a man's hand down her pants, and if she objects then he gets up and leaves, then we've already made quite a lot of progress in the right direction. Castigating the man for doing it wrong in that scenario seems to be at least slightly missing the point.

So I guess what I'd say to Chris Avellone is "Good job on not actually raping anyone. I know it's difficult to read women sometimes, but maybe tone down the alcohol for both you and them, it's not helping as much as you think it is."

Good morning.

 

I do appreciate your view on autonomy, and yes people should ideally be responsible both for themselves and others when drinking.

However the risks are quite different (in that the risk of ass rape or sexual assault for a man on a night out is substantially lower), and so in some ways there is an imposition that women need to hold themselves to a better standard than men because men can't often be expected to control themselves properly.

I'm not saying that men therefore need to fully counterbalance and be vigilant and sober gentlemen on a night out, but rather that a shift in culture that means fewer men chance their arm on iffy consent for me is perfectly okay. Clearly there's getting a woman reasonably tipsy, and then there's buying women round after round and leaning on them to drink until they're past the point of no return. It is of course a grey area, and as you say the men buying the drinks have impaired judgement. However if it gives a few men a bit more pause for thought and they more often consider, "Shit, she's had too much, I better not buy her anything else," then all the better really.

People trying harder to check themselves in dicey situations is never a bad thing, and a cultural shift that engenders that is also not a bad thing. Fundamentally it's better for everyone if people feel safer on a night out, surely?

The video wasn't supposed to be a dry exploration of the tea metaphor as a perfect and accurate replication of sexual scenarios, it was exaggerated for comic effect. I wouldn't read too much into it.

I think we disagree on the nature and tone of the scenarios, to be honest. I also think, if there is any doubt in the scenario, then maybe don't try reaching for the vag? I know, he had impaired judgement himself, but a group of men escorting a woman who in the morning has memory loss sounds like a clearly doubtful case of consent.

Even if your judgement is impaired, is it really that impaired to still think, "Alright, that stumbling barely coherent woman is obvs still game, let's try warming that pussy up!"?

For me it is sexual assault, plain and simple.

Agree, though I'd add, "And also, stop being such a creepy, seedy fucker - you cunt."

Good morning.

 

If your goal is to make a man more aware of issues around consent, I'd argue that starting off by calling him a "creepy, seedy cunt" is not going to have the desired engagement effect. That's -10 to Persuade right there.

On the other hand, if your goal is to signal to everyone else that you're one of the good guys, so that the mob doesn't come after you at some point in the future, then I guess you got +5 to Faction Alignment. Well done.

Good morning.

 

Thanks man, that's exactly what I was going for.

The truth is, I'm a beta cuck simp. I hate myself, but not as much as I hate women. I keep spouting these kind of vaguely feminist politics to hope that one woman, any woman, will properly notice me one day. I denigrate myself constantly in their presence, but as soon as they show me any affection I make sure to subtly put them down to try and erode their confidence. But they always notice, and they never fucking sleep with me! It's so unfair!

And my god, am I jealous of that chad Avellone. What a specimen, what a fucking alpha! I wish I had an ounce of the courage he had to just go for it, to take his hand and thrust it wherever the fuck he pleases. He doesn't care if the women are sober, drunk or barely conscious - he just lives it man. Sometimes, when I'm playing Fallout: New Vegas, I rub one in appreciation of his sheer, laser-bright brilliance - no homo though, haha! What I wouldn't give to walk around in his genes (pun intended, lol) for just one minute. I'd literally fucking kill for it, man.

Good morning.

 

Tomato, tomato (how do you put that expression in writing?) why are you so keen on avoiding the word predator? Buying a group of people drinks rather than singling out an individual certainly comes across as friendly rather than seedy by greatly diminishing the impression of having ulterior motives. If someone buys drinks for you, and only you, they probably want something from you; if they buy drinks for everyone, you’re more likely to drop your guard – after all he’s probably not expecting an orgy.

He gets a group of people drunk and singles out a blind drunk target whom he follows and forcefully kisses. He then puts his hand in her pants (by the way, what does the non-American usage mean?), is this skirting delicately around the subject, slowly escalating contact? You say opportunist, I say predator. In fact, I would call it a textbook example.

No, it is not men’s responsibility to ensure that no harm ever comes to women. Just avoid feeling people up without consent. And, you know, not sexually assault folks.


Is the concept of women actively seeking out sex thoroughly foreign in your eyes? No, randomly prepositioning sex is unlikely to yield the kind of results you’re after but asking people you’ve been spending an evening with (drinking or not) if they would like to go back to your place is another matter entirely. If they seem reluctant (especially after a few drinks) you should back off. Yes, in my experience, women are rather apt at letting you know if they are interested or not. A good indication is that you are not the only one escalating contact.

Not all consent is verbal, but you are likely to miss any non-verbal cues if you lunge at people and forcefully kiss them. You do not have to say, “is it alright if I kiss you?”, it is fine to lean in for a kiss and see what happens. And if you’re in a situation where you think that, yes, a forceful kiss is appropriate, you might very well be right (though I’ve never been in one), but maybe back off afterwards and observe the receptor's reaction? Maybe let her make the next move? Maybe do anything except shoving your hand down her pants?

 

For British people pants are underwear (how Americans would use panties), for Americans they're trousers/jeans/whatever. You could argue that putting your hands down someone's trousers rather than directly into their underwear is better, but it's not exactly like underwear is a thick or protective layer of clothing - so for me the effect is much the same.

My joking post above aside, I'm a bit baffled by saying this is wrong is seen as virtue signalling - to whom, and for what purpose on here? People don't always have to have an angle to call out indecent behaviour, and considered points shouldn't be written off casually as SJW nonsense. And it's not even that I'm railing against the prospect of men buying women drinks, and then trying to sleep with women after having drinks, just not pursuing sexually aggressive manoeuvres on people who are well past drunk - and not leaning on women to encourage them to get well past drunk when a reasonable amount of liquor achieves the desired effect.

As you've mentioned Ruda, they're may be instances where a forceful move is judged to be appropriate - but that would be based on the signals you're picking up from the woman themselves, and not your defacto play under any and all circumstances. When they are shit-faced and not into it, then yeah a hand down pants is sexual assault - and not just "embarrassing" for both involved. I touched a woman in a way that made her feel deeply uncomfortable and die a little inside, how embarrassing! What?

For escalating sexual contact too quickly, I think Monty Python said it best.

Good morning.

 

I'm keen to avoid the word "predator" for two reasons.

One is that Avellone himself almost certainly doesn't think of himself as a predator. In his own mind he's Lawful Neutral at worst. Maybe even Lawful Good. After all, he's not breaking any laws by buying drinks for women, and he doesn't force anyone - if a woman gets drunk with him and then goes along with it then hey, she's probably enjoying it, right? Plus at least one of the women said he behaves like a gentleman at other times. So telling Avellone that he's a predator is just going to fall on deaf ears. He's not going to sit down and take a long hard look at himself, he's going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about, and maybe that you're jealous of him in some way, so are looking to take him down.

The second reason is that, as with most things, it's a scale. Most men want sex with women. One widely accepted way of doing it is to go to a social event and offer to buy drinks for women. Some of the women accept, and get drunk, and then... <insert poorly defined flirting/chemistry/escalation> ... leading to sex. Are all of these men "predators"? Arguably yes - alcohol lowers inhibitions. If a woman wouldn't have sex with a given man while sober, but would after two drinks, then that man who buys her two drinks has manipulated her to an extent. In some cases it might take three drinks. Is the man a predator yet? How about four drinks? At what point are we going to condemn the behaviour as "rapey" but prior to that it's A-Okay?

I would agree that there's something off in Avellone's case. He gets the women too drunk, to the point where it's counter productive. He probably isn't very good at the stage between where you buy the woman a drink and where she agrees to go to bed with you, so his solution is to just buy more drinks and hope that things somehow work out. I imagine this has always been his approach, probably since college, and he's found that sometimes it does work out, so there's no reason to change tactics. The notion that he's using his industry position to prey on vulnerable women is ridiculous hyperbole. Maybe it works better now than it did before, but I very much doubt he woke up one morning thinking "Ooh, now that I'm an acclaimed writer, I can put my hands down women's pants whenever I want!" He's just doing what he always did. Yet now when a woman that he didn't have sex with, and who he treated respectfully after she made her wishes clear, posts a tweet about the incident, suddenly he's the worst person in the world, and random strangers are calling him a cunt who committed sexual assault and saying he should be blacklisted from writing RPGs.

Harvey Weinstein is a predator. Bill Cosby is a predator. However, if you're going to say that Chris Avellone is a "textbook example" of a predator then I guess that any man who wants sex with a woman and tries to arrange situations to influence her accordingly, is a predator. We're all predators now. The word just lost its meaning.

Good morning.

 

If you're really saying that you need a strict arbitrary rule on limit of drinks to be able to define what is an appropriate line not to cross, then what is the matter with you seriously? Are you completely and utterly incapable of making responsible life choices and judgement calls about what is and isn't appropriate (morally, legally?)? Should all men be exempt from making these calls when they're trying to have sex with someone and alcohol is involved? Maybe, I don't know, if the people causing these problems extended a normal amount of empathy towards others and didn't just see them as receptacles for cum that might help.

And yes, I'll cry a river of tears for poor Mr. Avellone because he empirically learnt shitty behaviour that would most expediently him laid and it's taken all this time for him to be challenged on it. I'm not looking for him to change his behaviour at all personally, in that a single person changing really means nothing in the scheme of things - fuck him. Calling him out at least sets a better example for society as a whole, to maybe think twice in bad situations. Just because bad behaviour has gone on for some time, doesn't mean it shouldn't ever change.

I would rather see fewer rapes than more men having a good time in situations that are 50-50 questionable, to be honest. His behaviour (pushing it clearly too far, consistently) goes hand in hand with the mentality that can lead to rape, or it's at least only a whisper away, even though that is not what happened here. Why don't you argue that point, instead of "Shucks, well how can drunk men possibly be expected to know when a women is nearly unconscious and non-consenting? Grabbing pussy is the only way to know"?

What you and others are saying to counter these points so far is fucking grim, I have to say.

 

I could care less. Lots of people are completely lacking in self awareness. And how is his behavior in other situations in any way relevant? I do, however, appreciate your stance favoring rehabilitation over punishment, do you extend that view to other situations?

As have been stated repetedly: when your idea of wooing is to forcefully kiss an inebriated woman and shove your hand down her pants without consent. This isn't hard.

I haven't got a clue as to inner workings of his mind. I could just as well assume that his is a very measured act, repetedly seeking out situations where he has a plausable defenese, where consent is blurred (and they won't remember anything anyway). But I don't know.

Harvey Weinstein is a serial rapist. Bill Cosby is a serial rapist. It's an absurd parallel.