The symmetric stress tensor (SST) is widely used in the constitutive description of Newtonian fluids. This manuscript examines the author’s proposed objections to that description and compares it with an asymmetric stress tensor (AST). The discussion considers the derivation of the Navier–Stokes momentum equation, spatial stress increments, planar Poiseuille flow, wall traction, drag and lift on a sphere, rigid-body rotation, and compressible viscous dissipation. The proposed AST reproduces selected momentum and drag expressions under the stated assumptions, while giving different individual stress components and stress-power terms. A proposed decomposition of mechanical power is also examined for rotating and dilatational velocity fields. The interpretation of these comparisons requires several distinctions: stress symmetry is local and does not imply spatial uniformity; complementary tensor components are not automatically separate forces on the same wall; the sphere-force calculation requires a complete surface projection; and zero dissipation under Stokes’ hypothesis depends on the selected deformation field and bulk-viscosity assumption. The discussion therefore distinguishes the author’s proposed constitutive interpretation from conclusions that follow directly from the displayed algebra. Particular attention is given to the difference between viscous-force power, stress-work transport, and conversion to internal energy. The unresolved requirements include consistent tensor indexing, angular-momentum balance, observer invariance, and thermodynamic admissibility. The manuscript presents a theoretical comparison rather than experimental validation of an alternative fluid law. The equations and illustrative configurations are retained to make the proposal assessable, while claims that the AST resolves every alleged conflict are qualified by the additional physical conditions that would be necessary to support such a conclusion.