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.
@isidore
For someone who claims to be smarter than most people Vox is a fucking idiot. What a very transparent attempt at dodging accountability.
@ spindthrift
Actually, even in commercial contracts you can have termination clauses allowing any party to withdraw at any time. Sometimes you set up particular procedures (e.g. “upon written notice” etc.) but there would be nothing to stop you including a term that verbal notification (e.g. saying “stop”) meant immediate withdrawal of consent.
[Which is of course the situation in law anyway]
sunnysombrera: in fairness, that is probably the most moral fibre GoombaGophers have shown in anything, so even as someone who loathes their collective guts I have trouble faulting them for condemning the shitgolem’s morning constitutional.
I’ve heard that there are places were a verbal agreement can be considered a legally binding contract, so consent through verbal agreement shouldn’t be such a novel concept.
[quote]If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent…[/quote]
Um, that’s really not much of a stretch there, Vox. I’m pretty sure that’s precisely the definition of rape, and always has been.
[quote]…then I am absolutely a serial rapist.[/quote]
Um, alrighty then.
[quote]So, too, is every man I know.[/quote]
Not me, nor an overwhelming majority of the men I know. What kind of rapist-crowd are you hanging out with, Vox?
Oh, bullshit.
There is no written contract, INCLUDING A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, that says that sex must be provided on demand. Meaning, sex within marriage is NOT mandatory (although non-consummation IS grounds for a legal annulment, but that’s another story). And that means that a verbal No is quite acceptable for not pressing ahead and fucking her anyway.
And by the way, “he said/she said” rape cases happen all the time. And sometimes, “she” even wins!
Vox Day appears to believe his privilege permits him to act in any manner he sees fit. His attempts to justify his words and actions only makes him more contemptible.
Or worthy of contempt.
Here’s the archive of his updated blog post. https://archive.is/7gaLa
He’s complaining that Pakman wanted an interview specifically about #gamergate, and insinuates that because Pakman says he did not “obtain absolute formal written consent every time [he] had sex,” that Pakman was somehow being hypocritical.
I am 100% certain that I’ve never raped anyone. It’s not hard to not do this. It’s not even, like, a burden. All that is required is that you don’t have sex with anyone that doesn’t want to have sex with you, and if they’re not making it abundantly clear that they want to have sex with you, ask them. That is the lowest bar imaginable.
I feel like you deserve cookies or alcohol or both for slogging through that video to write this up, David.
@Irene:
All those who take up the flaming sword shall die by the flaming sword.
I follow Pakman on youtube. He’s very social justice oriented, but for whatever reason when gamergate broke he took the “both sides have valid points” angle. Which was deeply disappointing to say the least. He gave a platform to a whole bunch of people involved including a number of gater shit stains. But maybe this new interview means he’s seen the goobergaters for what they truly are. We can always hope. (Or we’re about to get a pro-gater counterbalance video. Blech).
Just as an aside: Damn, but Beale sure is looking an awful lot like that obnoxious dude in the pub, the one who’s always loudest about his opinions once he’s had a few pints.
(In his case, few is the operative word. I don’t imagine that it takes much booze to loosen that already much-too-busy tongue.)
According to the professor in the one law class I took, in Canada at least (and I suspect in most countries using British Common Law) a verbal contract is technically legally binding, at least for any field other than real estate. Deeds are still required for that.
Of course, proving the actual contents of the contract if it was only verbal is rather more difficult when any disagreements happen, which is why contracts get written out if there is any suspicion that there might be problems down the line.
Except that their main source of pro-#GG news is Reaxxion, run by somebody who’s even more murderously bigoted and perfectly happy to admit that he’s a rapist.
They aren’t standing up to Vox’s beliefs, they’re covering their own asses. Again.
Ugh. Just looking at him. He’s like a cross between larvae and a bag of ricotta cheese, liberally seasoned with racism and misogyny.
I appreciate how Vox prepares viewers for the brilliance that awaits them.
[11:30]
Vox defends his position on marital rape with saying the words “English” “Common” and “Law”, and then referencing Wikipedia, but he mostly looks confused when Pakman informs him that it’s in fact illegal in all 50 States.
Rather than answer Pakman’s follow ups, Vox complains about how martial rape seems all subjective. Pakman attempts to explain how judging criminal intent and degrees of culpability can involve subjective tests, then Vox simply gives up.
[23:45]
Apparently his “particular intellectual level” involves ignorance of basic legal concepts. He should stick to his blog and the World Net Daily gig his dad got him if he wants to keep up his flimsy intellectual facade.
Casu marzu, perhaps?
This man terrifies me.
Guess I should have checked my youtube page first because Pakman does indeed have a “counterbalance” gamergate video up, featuring Christina Hoff Sommers giving the “feminist” perspective. Gonna go puke in a corner somewhere. I can’t even bring myself to watch it. If anyone else can, here’s the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDPFJENqBc
Beale’s dad is a notorious fraudster and “Soveriegn Citizen” kook. It wouldn’t surprise me if Vox has applied his dad’s bullshit pseudolegal thinking (a hallmark of Sovereign Citizens and Freemen-On-The-Land) to matters of consent. Hence this “written consent” garbage.
This man is unappealing in every possible way. Again, why does he have any following?
My shitgolem is different from regular shitgolems. It’s like my shitgolem is in the top percentage of shitgolems!
…I couldn’t resist.
The same reason CHS has a following: They both pat their followings on the head and tell them that it’s alright, they’re all correct about everything, and those meanie feeemales are all wrong about everything. You’re a good person, and you are better than everyone else!