Surendra Ananth @surendraananth, you violated my conditional consent. I assented to unprotected intimate relations with you on the STRICT condition that you tell me if you have relations with anyone else. You failed to do so, and I became ill as a direct consequence.

You refused to reveal your own STI results to me, but claimed to others they were negative and alleged I had multiple other partners, slut-shaming me. You gaslit me saying you had told me about your other partners.
You called up @justice_sisters and @SistersinIslam to tell them I was crazy, jilted. You rebuffed attempts to organise a community mediation so we could address matters. You said I was crazy for speaking to your boss and father in an attempt to keep other women safe.
You have a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR of misogyny, harassment and sheer disrespect for women. This was sent to a friend of mine who has never expressed interest in you and has a partner.
You think women are playthings, notches on the bedpost. You, @surendraananth, are no human rights advocate.
This self-styled "human rights lawyer" shared defamatory material posted by @misshelle13 falsely claiming that I had attempted suicide (after a very long, stressful day I told a WhatsApp group she was in that I had taken Xanax).
This lawyer, who claims to care about our fundamental liberties, asked a UNIVERSITY STUDENT he matched with on Bumble to MEET HIM AT A HOTEL BAR.
After pressure from multiple parties, @surendraananth consented to a mediation. Over the course of this mediation he threatened to take action for defamation after people aware of his behaviour alluded to it on social media. Tl;dr, he asked me to CONTROL MY FRIENDS.
Try and control Twitter, @surendraananth. We SEE you.
I want to stress this isn't about me taking ill. It's about the LACK OF REGARD FOR THE TERMS OF MY CONSENT. The refusal to RESPECT MY BODILY AUTONOMY by taking away my ability to make informed choices.
This is how he speak to women. It's not illegal. But I don't think it's acceptable. What do you folks think?
I am tired. Tired of rampant misogyny, tired of men who revel in treading that grey area of morality where they can gaslight as much as they like. I am tired of scrolling through my phone for the screenshots from multiple women I've compiled about @surendraananth 's behaviour.
And now I have to prepare for the possibility he will take me to court. Given the way Malaysian laws are structured, I'll probably lose. But if he does start proceedings, I am ready. The other women too.

WE are ready. #MeToo #TimesUp
Adding accounts from women in my DMs. @surendraananth, what do you have to say for yourself? BTW this woman matched with Suren after he GAVE A TALK AT HER UNI. #MeToo
https://t.co/87tNq0a8LR
Okay. This is the most horrible, heartbreaking one I've received so far. He tried to offer a young, impressionable law student an internship as an opening gambit. This is. Wow. I need a moment.
Surendra's stance is that I am crazy, a jilted ex who has been harassing him. I have no doubt this will be his response, complete with cherry-picked narrative excerpts.
But when you read it, remember that it's not just me speaking up. You've read accounts from other women. #MeToo

More from Law

I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.