Earlier today, several readers alerted me to a new video out with an alarming title: Vox Day Admits to Sex with Women Without Consent, Says Gay is a Birth Defect.
The video, a 46-minute interview of Science Fiction’s biggest asshole conducted by YouTuber David Pakman, doesn’t quite live up to its sensational title (which I now see Pakman has changed).
While Day — real name Theodore Beale — does indeed say that gayness is a birth defect, he’s evasive when Pakman asks him point-blank about some of the more amazingly wrong and creepy things he’s written about rape. Indeed, he’s so evasive in his answers it’s easy to lose track of what exactly Pakman is trying to get him to clarify.
So let’s look at the actual quotes that Pakman was asking him about. In a 2005 blog post (archived here), Day wrote:
If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent, then I am absolutely a serial rapist. So, too, is every man I know.
Pakman is of course correct to see this as a rather startling admission. Because the very definition of rape is sex without consent; there is no stretching going on here.
In the interview, Vox doesn’t repudiate these comments, but he doesn’t exactly affirm them either; he tells Pakman that he has indeed had sex with women without first obtaining explicit written consent, introducing a qualifier that was not there in the original. He goes on to say that he’s had sex without getting explicit verbal consent for each and every sexual act, a la the famous Antioch College rules. Again, that wasn’t the question. Pakman makes a valiant effort to pin Day down on this, but he wriggles away every time.
If you look at some of the other things Day was writing about rape around the same time of that 2005 post, you can see that he’s been using the “written permission” nonsense to muddle the issue for a very long time.
Less than a week before his “serial rape” comment, Day posted a long, victim-blamey disquisition on rape (archived here), in which he drew a distinction between “genuine rape” and date rape, saying that
most so-called “date rape” is not rape nor a crime of any kind, because he said-she said is no basis for a system of justice. If sex without written permission is a crime, then all sex is rape and all men are unrepentant criminals.
Never mind that “written permission” is never the issue in rape cases.
In another post from around the same time (archived here), he seems to suggest that the difficulty in proving date rape in court means that it doesn’t really exist:
“Date rape” is distinguished from real rape as it involves inherently sexual situations where there is seldom any possibility of obtaining evidence of either criminal activity or criminal intent, both of which are necessary to demonstrate in the conviction of real crimes.
Back to the present. Pakman asks Day about another kind of rape that he thinks doesn’t exist: rape in marriage. In a blog post last year, as you may recall, Day wrote that
The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.
So why isn’t marital rape rape? As Day sees it, “marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis.” So once a woman says “I do” on her wedding day, he believes, she can no longer say no to sex with her husband, as sex is part of her marital duty.
In his interview with Pakman, Day reiterates this basic argument, though he is notably elusive about just which sexual acts a married woman has intrinsically said yes to when she agrees to be married. Pakman asks Day if he believes married men should go ahead and force their wives to have sex when they’ve explicitly said no; Day allows that this might not be such a good idea.
Pakman devotes a decent portion of the interview to the troubling things Day has said about rape; he could easily have devoted an entire hour or two to Day’s odious opinions on the subject. Pakman, for example, doesn’t ask Day about his bizarre assertion, in a blog post last December, that any woman who says a white man raped her is lying. No, really. This is what he wrote:
White American men simply don’t rape these days. At this point, unless a womann claims it was committed by a black or Hispanic man she didn’t previously know, all claims of rape, especially by a college woman, have to be considered intrinsically suspect.
Even though Pakman is unable to get straight answers from Day on most of the questions he asks, the interview is well worth watching. No, scratch that: It is largely because he is unable to get straight answers from Day that the interview is so compelling.
Day is weirdly and floridly evasive on virtually every topic Pakman brings up, from rape to the intentions of #Gamergate, and while he’s never willing to say outright that he was wrong about anything Pakman puts before him, he’s remarkably unwilling to take responsibility for the words he’s written, sounding very little like the “alpha male” he so often proclaims himself to be.
Here’s the video, if you have 45 minutes to spare:
H/T — @laughnwitch on Twitter, the first of several people who alerted me to this video
EDIT: I noted that Pakman has changed the title of his video.
He probably had the good sense to get some legal advice on how to acquire enough wiggle room.
What a horrible human being.
Thanks Vox for reminding me anyone who talks about their IQ can be safely dismissed.
Anybody who claims that consent is haaaaaard, and who zealously defends rapists by defining “real” rape so narrowly that almost no rapes fit within it, is probably a rapist. You don’t go through life with the idea that consent is optional without, sooner or later, raping someone. I suppose it’s possible to be lucky and only wind up with willing partners, but the moment a person like that winds up with an unwilling partner, rape is going to follow. They won’t feel like a rapist, because what they did doesn’t fit into the tiny, tiny box that is labeled “rape” in their mind, but in reality, a person was raped and they did it.
I pretty much operate under the assumption that people like Voxxy are either actual rapists, or at a minimum rapists waiting to happen.
O RLY? He must not know a lot of guys, then. Either that, or the whole concept of giving consent, which has been law in a lot of places for quite some time, is unclear to him.
In any case, I highly doubt he’s talking about merely getting consensually laid on the regular, because whose taste is so poor that she would sleep with HIM?
The title showing up on the video now is ‘#GamerGate: Vox Day Says Some Races Smarter Than Others, Gay is a Birth Defect’.
Not that this is any better, mind you…
For anyone who doesn’t want to slog through the whole video, the portion about rape starts at 15 minutes in.
Seems to me that Vox is making two assertions:
1. “Consent” is meaningless and useless as a concept if it doesn’t have some legal weight (like a contract).
2. Since “consent” could only possibly have that strict legally-binding application, and “rape” is defined as a lack of that construct, then nearly all sex is “rape.”
Which… by god, that is some ass-headed word play. Apparently it is inconceivable that “consent” could simply mean “is informed about and willing to engage in a sexual activity.” What the participants actually “want” is an anathama to him.
As for the stuff on marital rape… I don’t even know what the hell he’s going on about. When it comes down to a specific situation of forcing yourself on your wife when she says “I don’t want to have sex,” Beale will say that that is “foolish” and “not what you should do in a relationship like that.” But then immediately after he’ll launch into a long conversation about how marital rape shouldn’t be against the law and how being married means that you have given irrevocable consent to (some) kinds of sex.
Right…
It bothers me a litle just how unsurprised I am that The Shitgolem Vox Day might well be a rapist.
Reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg’s defense of Polanski – “it was rape, but not rape-rape.”
How can Beale live with himself? Does he actually believe that he’s a decent human being?
Am I the only one weirded out to see him sitting on what looks like a throne? Narcissistic dude is narcissistic.
Also, apparently he didn’t know he would be called out on his views regarding race and sexuality, so I give Pakman props for that. https://archive.is/Bl7Ii
@Nequam
Don’t call him a shitgolem.
…imagine that a shitgolem took a shit. That’s what he is. The shit of a shitgolem.
Yeah, going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that anyone who argues that it’s essentially impossible not to have sex without committing rape is probably a rapist.
Jenora, yeah, I just noticed that and added a bit about that in the post. Presumably he realized — or people told him — that it was a little misleading given the amount of wiggle room that Vox gives himself in the interview.
Sarah, interesting! and interesting to see even some of his fans admit that was not a glorious performance from Vox.
I might have to do another post on it; there’s a lot of nonsense in there to unpack.
@Sarah:
Wow.
Blech, what a dishonest response. Like when misogynists say “of course women are intellectually and physically inferior to men, are you saying that the two are genetically identical in every way?”
Unless height is a determining factor of intelligence (and you can finally nail down how man races exist an what they are), you’ve made a non sequitor.
*how many races exist and what they are
Thinking back to my own experience growing up in a very patriarchal religious community, if what he really is alluding to about marital rape is that married women just shouldn’t ever say no. Problem solved, if she never says no than rape will never happen, very convenient.
I have had zero respect for Whoopi Goldberg since she said that. Polanski had sex with an underaged, pubescent girl, who had been drugged, and who was saying, “No, no, no,” and ineffectually trying to fight him off the entire time. How on earth does anyone define that as anything but rape? What extenuating circumstances could possibly exist in Goldberg’s mind to classify that as some kind of misunderstanding or innocent mistake?
This is the same dude who took great pleasure in misunderstanding John Scalzi’s satirical post from the point of view of a rapist, and has gone around ever since saying Scalzi is a self-confessed rapist.
the thing I “like” most about the things these “people” day is that marital rape doesn’t exist but “divorce rape” totally does.
fuck off.
So, in other words, he deserves it?
What a nausea inducing picture of him!
Anytime some guy asks “what am I supposed to, get written consent?” while railing against affirmative consent my answer is always “yes!”
If consent is really so confusing, then get a contract.
He can’t be a rapist because he is white. He says so! White men don’t rape. I declare white women can’t assault Vox Day. So…
Now the Youtube comments are full of GamerGoobers going “waaah this had nothing to do with GamerGate! Vox doesn’t represent us!”
OMFG the end “you should only take [what I write] seriously if I tell you to take it seriously” oh Vox wow “Don’t hold me accountable for anything I say ever unless I say it’s okay for you to hold me accountable”
To clarify the second thing I put in quotes was me paraphrasing Vox’s argument. The first thing was a direct quote.
The idea of a consent contract is just aweful, cause it implies that if one of the people involved stops being into it they can’t back out, or will be blamed for getting raped cause “she/he signed the contract!”. And it’s still a case of he said/she said if one of the 2 violates the rules in the contract. It’s not a consent contract, it’s a rape contract.