Categories
#gamergate gaslighting mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA rape rape culture vox day

Did Vox Day, #GamerGate-r and Sci Fi douchebag, just confess to serial rape on the David Pakman Show?

Vox Day:
Vox Day: “I’m smarter than practically everyone else out there.”

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 —  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.

131 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael (contemplativemoorings)

“because he said-she said is no basis for a system of justice”

Isn’t that exactly how our justice system works? The prosecution presents one theory and the defense presents another? Who knew the concept of justice was so hard to grasp.

katz
9 years ago

It’s kind of convenient that the cases where people throw up their hands and go “Welp, no way to know what happened, I guess we can’t prosecute this as a crime” are always crimes against marginalized groups.

Paradoxical Intention
9 years ago

@katz: No kidding. But if it was a prominent cishet white man, everybody’d be clamoring to find the one who victimized him.

Woman gets raped? Black man gets shot? Trans person is beaten to death? Queer person is assaulted?

No proof, can’t prosecute.

dhag85
9 years ago

This is exactly the kind of thing I love to have playing in the background while I play Minecraft. 🙂

Ellesar
Ellesar
9 years ago

I do not think that men with shaved heads typically look like Fascists, but he looks JUST like a fascist.

So funny that he says that if you do not understand his points it is because you do not share his intellectual level! Or maybe he is just spewing a pile of crap?

Lordcrowstaff
Lordcrowstaff
9 years ago

I wonder how this asshole get’s a written contract every time he buys something at a store, since verbal consent is the basic element of everyday shopping.

Oh, wait, he’s just a racist, rapist fuck. And yeah, I agree with the other posters: anytime somebody goes on about how smart they are, chances are they aren’t, and anytime somebody goes on about how rape is really easy to comit under the current laws, chances are they’re rapists.

AltoFronto
AltoFronto
9 years ago

@ Catalpa

I’m in the top, you know, tiny fraction of 1% when it comes to intelligence. I’m smarter than practically everyone else out there.

There are over 7bn people on the planet. He could be in the top 0.001% and still be dumber than 70,000 people.
Though frankly, I’d be amazed if he’s even in the top 60%. Not that I think Vox has taken any kind of objective, standardised IQ test (he only cares about objectivity when it suits his assfax).

But anyone with real intelligence knows that IQ is based on a specific kind of testing, and doesn’t account for all of the different ways of being intelligent.

I scored very highly on most tests in secondary school, but I’m not by any measure smart in engineering, or good at completing mathematical sequences. I bet I could still beat Vox at most things, though.

Can we all challenge him to a series of IQ puzzles? I’ll bet the Mammotheers could all leave him buried in the dirt at a game of wits. 🙂

Spindrift
Spindrift
9 years ago

@Alan Robertshaw

Thanks for pointing that out, I know next to nothing about contract law.

I still think a consent contract would likely get used to victimblame/slutshame rape victims who had signed it but withdrew their consent during sex. And I have my doubts about how useful it’d be in court beyond establishing that at the time of the signing they both consented to sex. Unless you had a third party act as a witness to both the contract signing and the sex, to establish whether there was/wasn’t ongoing consent.

The kind of person who thinks affirmative consent is so confusing that they’d need a contract to avoid being an accidental rapist is not the sort of person I’d feel comfortable having sex with, or being asleep near, or whatever. Affirmative consent is a pretty simple concept.

Sarah
Sarah
9 years ago

This man is unappealing in every possible way. Again, why does he have any following?

Some people think he sock-puppets on his own blog. I’ve seen twitter convos from people discussing him and his antics, and some people who go down into the comments (as I rarely do) have said that many of the comments purportedly not from VD himself have the same grammar and syntax as what is seen in the main posts. I know that I was reading something of his which quoted a commenter allegedly from Making Light, and halfway through the wall of text from this supposedly pseudonymous person I realized what I was reading was indistinguishable in tone and style from what I’d read of VD’s “main” writing. That creeped me the hell out for some reason I can’t put my finger on.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
9 years ago

I’m in the top, you know, tiny fraction of 1% when it comes to intelligence. I’m smarter than practically everyone else out there.

It’s an interesting thing…Mensa members, for all their test smarts, seem to be a lot more susceptible to woo than the average population. Speakers at Mensa meetings frequently include “UFO experts” and anti-vaxxers. Isaac Asimov once had an anecdote about being at a Mensa meeting in which someone came up to him and tried wholeheartedly to convince him to believe in astrology.

Test smarts and good pattern recognition don’t preclude credulousness and shit analytical thinking skills. People like Vox Day suffer from a sort of arrogant self-blindness. Because the tests tell them they’re smart, they think their opinions are infallible, even when their belief system includes obvious nonsense, flimflam, amd bigotry.

Also – and I wish I could remember where I saw this – there was a sci fi discussion thread where Vox Day’s Mensa claim was being discussed. One woman said she actually contacted Mensa (their membership list is public) to see if she could verify the claim. They had no record, ever, of a Theodore Beale or a Vox Day, or even a Theodore Day or Vox Beale. If he is a member, he must have joined under an assumed name. Or possibly, he believes he’s smart enough to join Mensa based on some IQ test score and that’s just as good as actually being a member, so why not just claim the title because who’s ever going to check? Like Space Bunny, it’s whatever he says it is.

zyvlyn
zyvlyn
9 years ago

“My shitgolem is different from regular shitgolems. It’s like my shitgolem is in the top percentage of shitgolems!

…I couldn’t resist.”

Very nicely done. *golfclap*

Isn’t it funny how everyone who talks about their IQ on the internet is invariably

A) Above 140 and
B) Insufferable

It’s almost like they’re lying because they know no one can fact check them.

Juliana
Juliana
9 years ago

I believe in the end it’s always the same logical fallacy people like this fall for: The idea that the absence of resistance implies consent.

Linax5
Linax5
9 years ago

ugh These men have no class at all.

gilshalos
9 years ago

I’ve been told about the percentage thing once. My doctor when I was first diagnosed pointed out that just by being accepted into St Andrews University I was in the top 3%. It as meant to help my slef-hatred. Didn’t work.

weirwoodtreehugger
9 years ago

Michael,
That’s what I always thought? With every other crime we seem to be able to accept the testimony of the victim, defendant, and witnesses as evidence. But with rape, all of a sudden, there better be video evidence. Even then, if the victim was passed out drunk,video isn’t enough.

Sarah,
So Vox is like David. Only, instead of ferrets in a David suit like we are, his commenters miniature Nazi goblins in a Vox suit.

Tyra Lith
Tyra Lith
9 years ago

Ew. ew ew ew. What an awful human being.
There is so much wrong and so much stupid in this video, it’s unbelievable! Top 1%, yeah, keep telling yourself that. ^^

Spindrift
Spindrift
9 years ago

He’s probably in the top 1% in terms of horribleness.

Tyra Lith
Tyra Lith
9 years ago

Oh and I don’t know about US law but as far as I am aware in many (most? all?) European countries verbal contracts are legally binding. for some contracts a different form is required but those are exceptions from the rule. And if the court tries to figure out what exactly the people involved meant by the words they used, it also interprets their behaviour and the general circumstances.

chapwilliams
9 years ago

Even if he weren’t a rapist, misogynist, racist arseface he is still contemptible for his arrogance and stunning stupidity. He thinks of himself as having some sort of towering intellect while his logic falls around his ankles; his definitions are sloppy, he believes in anecdotes over data, he makes arguments from ignorance, selectively views evidence and utterly fails to understand the nature of science.

Those intelligent enough in Goofygoob to claim Vox doesn’t represent them are completely wrong.

Only someone as fractally wrong (and ideologically disgusting) as Vox could represent that douchenado.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

@ Michael & WWTH

With every other crime we seem to be able to accept the testimony of the victim, defendant, and witnesses as evidence.

There’s an interesting history to this. As you point out, these days a person can be convicted just on the word of one witness (e.g. the victim), but that wasn’t always the case.

Some offences, rape being one of them, required ‘corroboration’. In other words there had to be at least two independent pieces of evidence in order to convict.

That rule has been abolished in England (expect for speeding and perjury) but it’s still the rule in Scotland.

There have been moves afoot North of the border to remove the corroboration requirement in order to make it easier to prosecute rape cases, but it’s proving controversial.

sparky
sparky
9 years ago

Wow.

Wow.

It’s like Vox Day is trying to win the “Absolute Worst Person in the World” contest. A sexist, racist, homophobic and probable rapist. He’s the whole package, there.

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.

Did he just say that civilization will crumble if you can’t rape your spouse? Why yes, yes he did.

He also said it’s not rape when a white man does it, and that a woman not consenting to sex isn’t rape. And homosexuality is a birth defect. Vox Day believes all these things.

And he’s got fans out there who think he’s right.

Yep. I think I’m done with humanity for the day.

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
9 years ago

@sparky
I believe this classic gif is in order here.
comment image

Spindrift
Spindrift
9 years ago
Spindrift
Spindrift
9 years ago

Kittyninjad by sunnysombrera!

sparky
sparky
9 years ago

sunnysombrero and Spindrift:

Thanks, folks. Adorable animals are always good. <3

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–7kp6UdSB–/18uzodohufsy4gif.gif