Be Excellent To Each Other

I'm not exactly down with the cool kids of the internet, but one of my YouTube subs is Alex Day, probably most famous for getting to no. 4 in the Christmas charts a few years ago from YouTube fame.

I was vaguely aware that he hadn't posted a new video in yonks, but I'd put that down to the fact that he was making a truckload of dosh from previous videos, his card game, and a new book about the london tube he'd secured a publisher for.

Today this video pops up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqfWxwCMYKA



Where it transpires his silence of many months is down to a series of accusations on Tumblr of him being a sexual predator of underage girls.

Having done a bit of backreading it would appear that some girls he's had sex with (all over age of consent), or some measure of sexy time, have come forward to say that while they didn't say no to anything at the time, they nevertheless 'felt pressured' into doing it, but said nothing.

Now about a dozen people have come forward to say that similarly they either had an unhappy relationship with him, or he flirted with them, or that otherwise he was a womaniser that has cheated on girlfriends and so on.

This is all news to me, and yet I'm amazed by the venom of the YouTube comments that are practically calling him a serial rapist when this is clearly not the case. Not only have no charges been filed or complaints brought to the police, there doesn't seem to be a single instance where any girl has said 'no' and he's proceeded anyway. A couple have said they said 'no' which he accepted but made them feel 'guilty' about it, and apparently this is just as bad.

He behaviour makes him an unquestionable dick, but not a rapist, and not a sexual predator. The suggestion is that he, as the man, needs to be psychic about whether the girl in question might feel uncomfortable about some kind of sexual interaction without saying so, or otherwise assume there is no consent despite an apparent willingness to do things even if this is contrary to the behaviour at the time.

The question is here, how are you supposed to tell? I think it's rather insulting to assume that women are so feeble that the pressure of a man renders them mute to the simple act of saying 'I'm not in to this'. The guy might be flirty, or even a bit pushy, but if they desist immediately if you actually say 'no' then can he be held to account regardless? Does being starstruck at someone's YouTube fame make them additionally susceptible to this kind of behaviour? Is that a worthy excuse? Where is the line here?

The accusations flying around have caused his publisher to drop his book and there now seems to be a hoard of people determined to harass him off the internet. This seems hugely excessive.

Does regret count? Answers on the back of a post.

He is pretty much confirming a lot of the information\issue in interviews

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/26664725

And so this spinning debate continues - what is consent? No means no, except when it doesn't. Yes might also mean no, if you didn't really mean it and felt pressured? Silence means no, even if you cooperatively go along with everything at the time?

I almost feel like the only safe way to have sex with someone you don't know really well and trust is to have a signed agreement, but that also wouldn't work because you can withdraw consent at any time which might also be mid-thrust, but also might not be obvious or verbal. How are you supposed to tell?

I'm stealing this from a reddit post I read on this:



Is this fair? It sounds downright logical to me. Is it up to the individual to be responsible for the possibility of a person's hidden reluctance? Such a grey area.

I think it all comes down to what these situations were ""I created situations that put people under enormous pressure," the 24-year-old said in a statement on Tumblr."

Without knowing that detail, it's impossible to judge.

I while ago I adopted a policy of waiting for enthusiasm, not just consent.

<makes a joke about married life>

That seems sensible, but was that on the back of anything? Or just knowing the possibility of retrospective accusation exists?

I would contribute, but Flis will come along and put my point forward much more eloquently, so I'll just wait this time.

I guess it was in response to discussions around the hazy boundaries of exactly what constitutes consent. Plenty of instances of rape occur where the perpetrator doesn't even realise they are committing rape, they are just assuming consent that hasn't been given.

I used to use psychological tricks while chatting women up to make them think they fancied me. At what point does that cross a line?

(Answer: hypnosis)

While I concur that the absence of a 'no' doesn't mean consent, equally the absence of an explicit 'Yes' doesn't mean rape either. This is part of the problem - some seems ostensibly willing but ultimately decide they didn't really want it and it's suddenly rape?

America seems to have many examples of retrospective rape allegations of this kind, and plenty of examples of false rape accusations that serve to destroy the life of the accused just as effectively as if they'd actually done it.

This is a fear that any man can have. What's to stop any previous partner saying that on x occasion many years ago they didn't really fancy it and are now calling rape? Mud sticks and when you lose your job, friends, family, after being found 'not guilty' or finding there was no case to answer then this doesn't magically repair the damage of the accusation.

Can a man not feel equally pressured? Is his defence ultimately meaningless because if he gets an erection then he's clearly up for it?

Dangerously close to MRA talk here.

Motorcycle Racing Association??

Hmmm Yes, I know the MRA have an enormous stigma attached to them, and yet this cannot be allowed to negate the validity of some of these arguments. It would be like saying that issues affecting women should be muted because some people find feminists fucking annoying.

In relation to my previous post, take this poor guy as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Bank ... n_football)



Victims clearly need to come forward and real rapists put behind bars - no sensible person will argue against that. But what's the defence of innocent people supposed to be in these situations? This guy basically had to admit guilt because he was given a binary choice between a small sentence or a massive sentence if he contested and was found guilty anyway.

Let's turn that on its head. Why should a small amount of cases like the above stop the need for an increase in rape convictions? At the moment it's shockingly low and heavily in favour of the defendant. Men just feel they can rape with impunity and will (probably) get away with it.

So you're happy with the phrase "I don't care how many innocent people go to jail if it helps us catch guilty people"?

What do you mean? Person too drunk to say no?

"Not saying no" isn't consent - saying "yes" is consent.

But if you're drunk (or, in this case, feel under pressure) you might say yes when you don't want to.

I know I have.

Plenty of material to be had there

It does make me glad to be married though.

I guess you have to have been there to know the true facts here, but it almost looks like a consent contract needs to be signed before you do anything these days.

There are plenty of converse examples where this is indeed the case, but I'd modify your comment to stipulate 'some' men, not men in general. Men as a majority don't rape.

So the problem is encouraging victims to come forward, and there are inarguable instances of rape where there's a predatory aggressor and a victim. No consent is given, penetration is forced, and it's seriously traumatic. I can't even imagine what it's like.

But here I'm discussing the grey area. Consensual (ostensibly?) sex with regret, or with the retrospective feeling of it being pressured albeit not forced. Rape? Or where sex has not occurred but 'other stuff' has in similar circumstances - sexual assault?

I believe in American law (someone with knowledge people correct me), if two drunk people have sex, the man is the rapist and the woman is the victim. It's assumed that a woman's ability to give consent is nullified by alcohol, but a man's is not.

There are also different levels of drunk. A girl is passed out drunk or barely conscious and you have sex with her? Rape, no question. But you're both drunk but 'alert' and you have sex and latterly regret it? Still rape? Apparently so.

Good point.

Well I've certainly had sex with a gf when I didn't really want to or wasn't enjoying it, but in that situation she seemed very keen or would be disappointed otherwise (or depending on the girl, would see my unwillingness as a rejection of her). Obviously I wouldn't consider that rape even if she was on top, just a bit of a relationship chore.

I guess your not married then?

I can't fathom anyone considering the issue of unfounded false accusations of rape being a bigger problem than the huge numbers of incidents of rape that do not get prosecuted.

Certainly not suggesting that due process should be abandoned in attempts to convict alleged rapists, but I would certainly advocate any attempts to meaningfully educate young people (especially men) on how to properly ask for consent (and indeed how to take no for an answer).

Again, plenty of individuals who commit rape do not consider themselves to have done so, and certainly don't identify as rapists. There doesn't have to be an explicit threat of violence for someone to fear violence if they don't comply.

I don't think drinking helps for either party in these situations.

Lowers expectations, behaviours and common sense, I would say that both sexes have a responsibility here.

Sadly if you look at footage of any town centre on a weekend there are 100's of people of both sexes so pissed they are going to fall into a situation varying from morning after regret to rape.

And I'm happy to agree, I'm just saying that one doesn't negate the other.

The example of the YouTube guy here seems as though there's no defence against the more severe allegations of being a tantamount rapist or predator, because he's admitted he's a fast-talking womanising dickhead with girls that wish they hadn't given him the time of day. There's no actual suggestion of anything illegal, just much embarrassment and a lot of regret?

Call him a dickhead or a moron or a prick to women for being a cheating shit, but the labels of rapist and predator seem to have no grounds. It seems impossible for him to defend himself against it because any admission of poor judgement seems to be a tacit acceptance of any other accusation levelled in his direction.

But you're trying to fix one problem by encouraging the other

Wanting higher rape conviction rates does not conflate with wanting to put innocent men in prison.

But again, innocence is highly subjective here. You had sex with a dude, but didn't really want to but went along with it at the time. Are you prepared to completely fuck up his life and potentially put him in prison because of it?

Can this really be considered the same crime with the same punishment as a violent sexual assault with forced penetration? It's far too nebulous for my liking considering the stigma and potential punishment attached is identical.

I'm very likely to disappoint you over this one! It's very difficult to have anything other than an emotive opinion on it; I think educating young people is the best way forward in a lot of cases.

I don't know anything about the situation the OP refers to, and I'm in work so I don't want to go researching just now but I will say this, while the issue of consent is a grey area, justice in unlikely to prevail one way or the other in the majority of cases. I think that in a lot of rape cases, the problem is proving consent. The price for rape is high if convicted but is the strength of one persons word against the other, in the absence of any other proof at all, enough to find someone guilty? Of course you'd throw a rapist behind bars but you can't find them guilty if you have any doubt that they did it.

I've told my eldest son that unless a girl specifically says 'yes' then he's not to touch them. I've also discussed with him that them changing their mind means stop, no matter how far they've gone up until that point. It's something I will constantly reinforce with him, too. It's awkward sometimes because he's my baby and I don't want to think of him kissing a girl, let alone anything else but if I don't make him more aware, who will? Both boys are very good and will talk to me about everything and anything at the moment so I'm getting it all in now while I still can, in the hope something sinks in. And asking a hormone fuelled teenage boy to show restraint and honour someone's wishes, should not be a great expectation. This "boys will be boys" attitude does not wash with me.

Nor I, but I hope it would be generally considered that such an attitude is already archaic and more than a bit sexist.

I'm derping this thread with responses but I'll leave it for a bit with the following two thoughts.

1) If I ever thought the person I was with wasn't 100% in to it, that would be a horrifying instant boner-killer.

2) If my current gf makes any noise or squeak that doesn't sound positive, I'll pause and ask if everything is ok. Anything other than firm reassurance would make me stop, and I think that's the right way to go about it. I think it's fairly impractical to have a 'Would you like to have sex now? Please answer a firm Yes or No' in the foreplay.

Edit hijack: 19 year old has sex with 13 year old. Clearly not rape? American trash TV rubbish, but no mention of rape anywhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwlOCzeLn0

Completely agree. Sadly not all men think the same as we enlightened types.

Man, I had a girlfriend once that had the same face for "I like what you're doing" and "Something hurts".

That took some getting used to.

Yes, obviously the older you get, the more in-tune with other people you get and the more competent you are socially. And the longer you're with someone, you know when you can playful pin your girlfriend down without getting a kick in the balls. However, when you meet someone for the first time, and you intend having sex with them for the first time upon that meeting, you need something a little clearer than easily misunderstood signals. When getting it wrong can lead to a rape accusation, whether you believe it should or not, is that a risk worth taking? A quick, "Are you sure you want to do this?" a few times with a new partner should become normal, I think.

I've been in situations where I've resigned myself to the fact things had gone too far to stop, situations I'd have gladly got out of if I was a little stronger or braver and had the confidence to say "I'm sorry but I've changed my mind". I'm definitely not saying a man should be punished for my change of heart but in my experience, men try to get you to change your mind and persuade you in every way they can instead of stopping. At that point you can either physically try to prevent them having sex with you, or just get on with it. Why should that be normal and the alternative of constantly seeking approval, not be?

Some people are weak and do really want the sex, so I can see why they might try to convince you even though that's quite pathetic. I suppose it's possible they think they could change a woman's mind (or perhaps be reassuring) with some encouragement if you're feeling anxious or awkward - that's a possibility, and they might be misreading the situation, but all conversation and action should be swiftly ended with a decisive 'No, get off me now please' and there's no two ways about it. As long as the man is responsive and complies instantly, that's cool?

I think it's fairly positive, although not exactly laudable, that they'd at least try to convince you to continue willingly rather than ignoring you and thereby raping you? As long as the underlying point is that No means No and saying so will cease all undesired activity, then there should be no fear or worry in saying it. I think 99.98% of men would comply too, except it being a bit awkward to go so far and then stop. Awkwardness or not wanting to disappoint shouldn't be the barrier.

Some men will continue even if the woman has said "no, I don't want to, get off me".

It's not always about sex, it's sometimes about power.

Those would be the rapists then. Clear distinction. At that point any arguments of 'But she wanted it initially', and 'She said no but clearly didn't mean it', are all utterly devoid.