1% exciting and 99% heartbreaking
May 7, 2013 1:03 PM   Subscribe

During a show in Minneapolis at the end of April, a fan of rapper Danny Brown jumped on stage and and performed oral sex during his performance. Originally reported in this [deleted] reddit thread (probably nsfw), and quickly spread across the internet (definitely nsfw)

Touring partner, and BFF Kitty (formerly Kitty Pryde) ) weighs in on the issue., and Stereogum has a follow-up interview.
Kitty previously on MeFi: 1 , 2 , 3
posted by lkc (361 comments total) 23 users marked this as a favorite
 
"The class-act wasn’t a planned part of the show but rather just an eager fan deciding to show her appreciation for Brown in an extra intimate kind of way."

Bullshit. This has "viral marketing set-up" dribbling down its chin.
posted by vibrotronica at 1:17 PM on May 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


Kitty's post kind of buries the lede:
"The Thing" was not a thing that Danny facilitated—it was an actual sexual assault, and somehow nobody gives a fuck about that but me.

It's obvious that the reason nobody cares is because a girl did it to a boy. I said this on my blog, but I’ll say it again here—I had my pants ripped off onstage, and didn’t know what to do either because being naked in front of 1000 people is incredibly scary and there’s not much quick decision-making happening in your brain during that sort of thing. Now I’m prepared to kick a motherfucker in the teeth if he touches me at all, and I equip myself with giant boots for that reason. What is Danny supposed to do? The girl was at mouth-to-dick level already and to push her away, he would've had to either pushed her face or kicked her, and even the most gentle of either motion would immediately be labeled “abuse” by anyone watching. Guys pushing girls is not a good look when people are taking photos. So what was Danny supposed to do, other than back away, which he did? And if he had figured out a way to gently push the girl off him immediately without looking like he was smacking her in the face, he’s faced with attacks on his masculinity by every douchebro in the building. Yo dude, you don’t want your dick sucked, bro? Are you gay? Haha you’re gay you don’t want girls to suck your dick haha gay dude bro man swag! And that’s a rapper’s literal nightmare.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:17 PM on May 7, 2013 [90 favorites]


Ah, kids today.
posted by freakazoid at 1:19 PM on May 7, 2013


This is a crazy story. It was being played up as how "ratchet" Danny Brown is, I mean the guy is missing teeth and tells stories about selling crack. Until Kitty weighed in and stops just short of calling it rape.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:21 PM on May 7, 2013


Oh, sexism and homophobia! Is there anything these two great tastes can't do when they're together?
posted by rtha at 1:23 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


Kitty's post kind of buries the lede

Yep. I gotta say, I really don't much like her music, but after reading a few of her columns, I find her very smart and funny. I think she's got a pretty bright future.

Until Kitty weighed in and stops just short of calling it rape.
She calls it rape in TFA, right here:

"...but even so, why doesn’t Ricky Smiley or whoever just talk to this girl? I know why. It's because everyone wants the option of blaming it on Danny, because people can’t accept the fact that a white girl raped a black dude in front of a bunch of people. "
posted by lkc at 1:25 PM on May 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


Bullshit. This has "viral marketing set-up" dribbling down its chin.

Sexual Assault is not a "viral marketing set-up". I do not appreciate your choice of words, or your denial of this person's experience.
posted by azarbayejani at 1:25 PM on May 7, 2013 [45 favorites]


fact that a white girl raped a black dude in front of a bunch of people. "

Don't know how I missed that. Thanks for the correction. She did in fact call it rape.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:26 PM on May 7, 2013


If it was rape, why was he bragging about it on Twitter afterwards?
posted by shivohum at 1:27 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Because the relevant patriarchal roles require hypermasculinity?

I'm inclined to trust his close friend about this.
posted by jaduncan at 1:30 PM on May 7, 2013 [35 favorites]


If it was rape, why was he bragging about it on Twitter afterwards?

For all the reasons Kitty discusses about being required to perpetuate a certain image?
posted by shakespeherian at 1:30 PM on May 7, 2013 [29 favorites]


Because you never know how any person reacts to sexual assault?
posted by MartinWisse at 1:30 PM on May 7, 2013 [25 favorites]


If it was rape, why was he bragging about it on Twitter afterwards?

Probably because

1. it's hard to know exactly how to react to something like that, or maybe he felt pressured, to say that for the sake of image, or maybe he really was all about it, I do not discount the possibility, but that doesn't change the fact that

2. if you run up to someone and perform a sex act upon them without bothering to obtain consent in any form before doing so, it's still rape even if they turn out to be cool with it
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:32 PM on May 7, 2013 [57 favorites]


people react to rape in a number of different ways. one of the most problematic parts of rape culture is the policing about how one is supposed to respond for it to be legitimate. i know everyone who brings up that tweet says he was bragging - but it can also be read as someone just trying to make "the thing" go away by not playing it up. his response was about his music, not about face on his dick.
posted by nadawi at 1:32 PM on May 7, 2013 [18 favorites]


If it was rape, why was he bragging about it on Twitter afterwards?

And why did he wear such tight pants to go out?

Seriously, read it again, he's bragging about rapping well. If he'd been stabbed in the arm or the lights had gone out or he'd been hit in the head with a bottle of Faygo and he had kept his flow up, he'd say the exact same thing.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 1:33 PM on May 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


I’m mad that when I went home and said I had no respect for that girl, I was attacked for being a “slut-shamer” (after literally leading a girl to his hotel room at 3AM at her request) and, even more outrageously, for being jealous of the girl who sucked his dick.

I wish she'd elaborated on what she's referring to here. Who was attacking her and calling her jealous? Danny?
posted by heyho at 1:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


kitty's post is incredible. i'm a fan of her music, but wasn't sure about her - the more i see and read, the more i like her.
posted by nadawi at 1:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


shivohum: “If it was rape, why was he bragging about it on Twitter afterwards?”

I'm not saying it was rape or anything – I don't know – but this is absolutely not evidence regarding whether or not something happened. It's basically parallel to "if it was rape, why did she hang around with the guy afterward and stay the night at his house instead of running away screaming?" These questions ignore the very real situations in which rape and assault occur. (For example: in this case, there would be a lot of pressure on an assault victim to play it off on Twitter like it was all cool and didn't make him uncomfortable at all.)
posted by koeselitz at 1:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


I thought Kitty's article was really well written and interesting. Whether she gets the story 100% right or not isn't an issue for me, she brings up some sharp points and it's worth reading.
posted by cell divide at 1:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


And yeah, first instinct with this is either to laugh it off or to blame the guy because you know, rap star and groupie, surely the power must lie with the former and he must have done something to force her to do this. You don't really think about men as victims of sexual assault because, well, we're supposed to like it no matter how we get it or from whom, or where.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


a bottle of Faygo

*Juggalo derail sirens*
posted by shakespeherian at 1:35 PM on May 7, 2013 [15 favorites]


Wait, is she telling me they're not all backstage licking molly off each other’s buttholes? Because that, that's controversial.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:35 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


BFF Kitty (formerly Kitty Pryde)

It's ABOUT TIME Marvel's lawyers got off their ass.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:35 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


I have been to a hell of a lot of concerts and I cannot think of one where security would let some audience member get up onstage and close enough to touch a performer, much less pull down his pants and go to town.
posted by psoas at 1:36 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


she changed her name without any intervention from marvel - she just said that she knew it would be an issue and didn't want it getting in the way. she made a joke about how now she has to worry about kittie's lawyers.
posted by nadawi at 1:36 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


So what would convince anyone that it wasn't rape? If Danny says it wasn't rape, that's being hypermasculine. So is there any evidence that would count as demonstrating it wasn't rape?

What about the Reddit commenter's description? He's considerably more objective an observer than Kitty.

I was near the front row and all night Danny had been going up to the crowd and having random girls touch his dick through his pants. Then this girl in front of me starts flashing him and he goes up to her and grabs her tits. Then all of a sudden gets up close pulls his shirt up a little and she start blowing him.

That sounds like Brown invited this sort of contact.
posted by shivohum at 1:37 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


This is the first I'm hearing about this story. I need to shut off the Internet more often. Boston, Cleveland, this. Every day I hate society a little bit more.

sigh
posted by Fizz at 1:38 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


So what would convince anyone that it wasn't rape?

Evidence of consent?
posted by shakespeherian at 1:38 PM on May 7, 2013 [31 favorites]


did this woman have prior consent to engage in oral sex with the man? If not, then you have assault plain and simple.

What about the Reddit commenter's description? He's considerably more objective an observer than Kitty.

I was near the front row and all night Danny had been going up to the crowd and having random girls touch his dick through his pants. Then this girl in front of me starts flashing him and he goes up to her and grabs her tits. Then all of a sudden gets up close pulls his shirt up a little and she start blowing him.

That sounds like Brown invited this sort of contact.


You have no idea whether or not an anonymous commenter on Reddit was in the audience, or is a Chinese man in an internet cafe in Shanghai who is just stirring the pot.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:39 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


where does danny say it wasn't rape? i trust the telling of someone who is sitting on the bus with him every day more than i trust the telling of a dude from reddit.

That sounds like Brown invited this sort of contact.

so, if a girl lets a guy grab her boobs she's inviting him to yank her pants off and go down on her? that's a weird opinion...
posted by nadawi at 1:40 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


That sounds like Brown invited this sort of contact.

Translation: He was asking for it.

He may have invited people to touch his penis through his pants, but he did not invite them to pull it out and suck it.
posted by azarbayejani at 1:41 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


From TFA:
I will also say that whoever wrote on Reddit that Danny was “walking around the stage getting girls to grab his dick” is 100% false
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:43 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


You have no idea whether or not an anonymous commenter on Reddit was in the audience

I believe said redditor was took and uploaded the pictures of the incident.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:43 PM on May 7, 2013


Someone with the username gucci mane just favorited my first comment. Gucci mane, please guide us
posted by azarbayejani at 1:46 PM on May 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


shivohum: “What about the Reddit commenter's description? He's considerably more objective an observer than Kitty.”

Note here that Kitty emphatically and specifically says that this claim by a commenter on Reddit is "100% false;" and I have no idea how we can say who here is a more objective observer.
posted by koeselitz at 1:49 PM on May 7, 2013


I have been to a hell of a lot of concerts and I cannot think of one where security would let some audience member get up onstage and close enough to touch a performer

Not what was claimed to have happened. Check the picture in the 2nd link- the stage is about a foot high- we aren't talking about $popstar at $sports_arena, it's a little-ish club. holds about 400 people. Article doesn't say she got onstage at all, she was in the front row.
posted by hap_hazard at 1:49 PM on May 7, 2013


I wonder what that girl was thinking. What led her to believe that she should do that?

I'm a little embarrassed to admit (though actually, I'm also a little glad I didn't know for some reason---I think it made me think of sex pretty romantically instead of the porn stuff girls have their sexuality shaped by today) that I was never aware of what a blowjob was until I was 20. That would have been in the year 2000. I'd just never been aware it existed, oddly enough. It wasn't something the guys in my middle school or high school or the ones I ran into in college joked or talked about. I feel like it's something I hear about all the time now, this verbal dry humping plea from men that women be aware that they are expected to love to perform oral sex. I can see how that girl might have thought he would like it. But she objectified him and didn't question the idea that this famous guy would not want a blowjob from some random girl.

Certainly these days, no girl has to reach 20 without knowing or having it shoved down their throat (gross pun I hate but I can't think of an alternative) that they have to learn how to give blowjobs, that it's expected, that it's sexy and that it's a way to get someone's sexual attention or get a guy to possibly sleep with you. Also, the idea that a heterosexual guy is willing to get a blowjob from any woman originates in the talk originating from men that objectifies women into blowjob/sex-giving machines.

It would be good for heterosexual men to be able to express to women that their sexuality has depth, that it matters to them who they are having sex with, that it's not just about "getting it in" and getting random blowjobs. I wonder if that's even possible. I wonder what makes it seem impossible. I wonder if sex will ever get characterized as something a little less cheap than it is in popular culture.

It's all such a huge mess. I feel bad for the rapper and for the girl.
posted by discopolo at 1:50 PM on May 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


I'd take Kitty's word over some random redditor's, especially considering how wrong/outright lying reddit typically is. She describes how bewildered and upset people were after "The Thing" and about how Danny did not facilitate it. It's rape, and he's responding to it in his own way. His tweet back to Kendrick Lamar looks to me as if he's just trying to deflect attention away from it, because he nonchalantly talks about his rapping during it, rather than saying something like "yeah isn't that awesome?"
posted by gucci mane at 1:50 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Gucci Mane is a lurker? That would make my day. Even more so if we could get his less famous relative Lil Ugly Mane.

Now that I linked Lil Ugly Mane, I believe my job on MetaFilter is done
posted by Ad hominem at 1:51 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


shakespeherian: " Evidence of consent?"

I think it's important to note that people routinely engage in consentual sexual activity without there being any actual "evidence" of consent. There's more we don't know about this incident than we do know given that all we have in terms of "evidence" is one photo and a bunch of unreliable narrators (Danny Brown was doing a show and caught up in the moment, Kitty Pryde admits she was "pretty drunk", etc.)

I believe that consent ought to be voiced explicitly whenever possible, but that's not the world we live in, so I find the idea that this is automatically a sexual assault troubling. I'm willing to give Brown the benefit of the doubt if he were to press charges, but as just an observer, I think this is squarely in the "fog of war" category where it's impossible to say one way or another whether this qualifies as an assault without more information, which probably won't be forthcoming without a criminal investigation.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:52 PM on May 7, 2013 [10 favorites]



I believe said redditor was took and uploaded the pictures of the incident.

Don't know where you're getting that.
This article says:" A photo shot by another concert goer can be seen below."
posted by Floydd at 1:52 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


I wonder if Danny is worried about STD's. I wonder if the girl is worried about STD's. This whole scene seems really dangerous for a wide variety of reasons.
posted by Chuffy at 1:53 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


I think it's important to note that people routinely engage in consentual sexual activity without there being any actual "evidence" of consent.

Also important to note: not usually in the middle of a public performance with a stranger.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 1:54 PM on May 7, 2013 [14 favorites]


shivohum: So what would convince anyone

Is there a particular reason you are or anyone else needs to be conviced? What exactly is your dog in this fight?
posted by spaltavian at 1:57 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Also important to note: not usually in the middle of a public performance with a stranger.

Sure, and the possible presence of more evidence is unquestionably a good thing in this case to determine one way or another. I just don't understand the urge to automatically come down on one side or the other given the very sketchy nature of the evidence the public has seen thus far.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:59 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm not clear what is sketchy. Performing a sex act on a performer while they ate performing in public is decidedly non-normative. So far I haven't heard any evidence that an actual, x-rated sex act was requested. His friend, who was there, describes it as sexual assault. Without a clear indication of consent in such a situation, the presumption is assault. Have we had any actual evidence to the contrary?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:03 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


That Kitty Pryde article is mandatory reading for this post IMO.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:06 PM on May 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


I realize this might sound strange but I'm unsure how else I can approach it. It looks to me like the girl sexually assaulted the guy, but he did not reject it. Everyone is speculating on the reasons he might have for not rejecting it. I fully believe that going down on the dude without his consent is sexual assault, but I also believe that it's not a stretch to think that he was okay with it?

The commentary I've seen seems to dismiss the idea that he was okay with it. They even imply that even if he were to say he was okay with it (which is suggested by his tweet), that he's not really okay with it, or that he can't really be okay with it, because there was no explicit consent.

It's a nasty situation, but I think a lot of the reasoning is being done on the guy's behalf with tenuous and biased reasoning behind it (on both sides).

So can it be both sexual assault or rape and not considered a bad thing by him? Again, I am not saying this is the case, only that this seems to be a case being dismissed out of hand.

I guess the over-reduction of my question, sadly, is whether this guy enjoyed the assault, and whether that changes anything.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:06 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


combating rape culture and misogyny means pointing out the areas that some people see as grey. he was in the middle of a performance and someone pulled his dick out and put it in their mouth without ever getting the go ahead. if a guy had done it to him no one would hesitate to call it an assault. if it were a girl who got her pants pulled down and a guy buried his head in her snatch, we wouldn't hesitate to call it an assault. it's sad to me that there is a hesitation here and it's hard to not agree with kitty that it's because he's a guy (with a wild reputation) and she's a woman.
posted by nadawi at 2:07 PM on May 7, 2013 [31 favorites]


Kitty's blog post is so, so great. I read it last week and wanted to shout it from the rooftops because god knows we need more insightful voices to talk about the pressures of gender normativity and hypermasculinity and how necessary help and resources is often denied to men because of it. And in this specific case we also get the bonus of all the complicated societal feelings about celebrity culture and the denial of a private life to a public figure, and it's just... a mess all around. I hope Brown is getting the support he needs.
posted by Phire at 2:08 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


TBH I am pretty sure that whatever Kitty says can be taken as if it was from Brown. They are totes besties and all, she wouldn't take it upon herself to go rogue and write something without running it past him. They probably all know we have an easier time hearing it from her than from him.
posted by Ad hominem at 2:08 PM on May 7, 2013


It looks to me like the girl sexually assaulted the guy, but he did not reject it. Everyone is speculating on the reasons he might have for not rejecting it.

Read the Kitty Pryde article. Or don't, here's a quote:
I had my pants ripped off onstage, and didn’t know what to do either because being naked in front of 1000 people is incredibly scary and there’s not much quick decision-making happening in your brain during that sort of thing. Now I’m prepared to kick a motherfucker in the teeth if he touches me at all, and I equip myself with giant boots for that reason. What is Danny supposed to do? The girl was at mouth-to-dick level already and to push her away, he would've had to either pushed her face or kicked her, and even the most gentle of either motion would immediately be labeled “abuse” by anyone watching. Guys pushing girls is not a good look when people are taking photos. So what was Danny supposed to do, other than back away, which he did? And if he had figured out a way to gently push the girl off him immediately without looking like he was smacking her in the face, he’s faced with attacks on his masculinity by every douchebro in the building. Yo dude, you don’t want your dick sucked, bro? Are you gay? Haha you’re gay you don’t want girls to suck your dick haha gay dude bro man swag! And that’s a rapper’s literal nightmare.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:08 PM on May 7, 2013


I don't "see" anything wrong with this. (I bet I missed something) I've seen pubic sex before.
All I see is is a bunch of kids enjoying a concert, a girl who I bet is SO popular at school this week, and a rapper who thinks that he's the greatest. One of these things is wrong.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 2:08 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


I just don't understand the urge to automatically come down on one side or the other given the very sketchy nature of the evidence the public has seen thus far.

This isn't a courtroom, so I'm pretty comfortable siding with the victim of what seems to be sexual assault given the evidence that is currently known. If new evidence comes up to change my mind then I'll change my mind. But in general when someone describes an event where someone makes uninvited sexual contact with someone else I'm going to go ahead and say that's not cool.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:10 PM on May 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


All I see is is a bunch of kids enjoying a concert, a girl who I bet is SO popular at school this week, and a rapper who thinks that he's the greatest. One of these things is wrong.

Have you absorbed literally not one thing whatsoever from the post, links, and subsequent comments?
posted by ominous_paws at 2:12 PM on May 7, 2013 [39 favorites]


He has not communicated how he feels about it. But assault victims don't always know how they feel about it. He may be okay with it. He may not prosecute. That's his decision.

Regardless, performing an uninvited sex act on someone without consent is sexual assault. That's a really essential part of the discussion of rape, because there have been so many instances where a man mistakes silence for consent, when no consent has been given, and presumes he has permission because he does not tell her to stop.

It's a problem in that circumstance, and, unless he gave consent and we don't know it, it's a problem here.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:14 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Someone pulled down the trousers of a person they had never met and, without their consent, placed their mouth on the stranger's genitals. This behavior is not acceptable.
posted by DrRotcod at 2:15 PM on May 7, 2013 [12 favorites]


I turned out the redditor on reddit did post the picture. I was wrong.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:15 PM on May 7, 2013


From Kitty's post:
I’m mad that a person thought it was okay to pull another person’s pants down during their performance in front of about 700 other people. I’m mad that a person thought it was a good idea to perform a sex act on another person without their consent. I’m mad that nobody made her leave. I’m mad that Danny had to actually wonder what he was supposed to do at that point. I’m mad that when I went home and said I had no respect for that girl, I was attacked for being a “slut-shamer” (after literally leading a girl to his hotel room at 3AM at her request) and, even more outrageously, for being jealous of the girl who sucked his dick. I’m mad that when two dudes pulled my pants down onstage, other people got mad too, but when it happened to Danny the initial reaction was like one big high-five.
posted by ChuraChura at 2:16 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


BlackLeotardFront: “The commentary I've seen seems to dismiss the idea that he was okay with it. They even imply that even if he were to say he was okay with it (which is suggested by his tweet), that he's not really okay with it, or that he can't really be okay with it, because there was no explicit consent.”

Well, there are two things I'm going on here.

First of all, his tweet doesn't suggest he was okay with what happened; on the contrary, his tweet is bragging that what happened didn't slow his flow down, implying that it was an unwanted distraction that he took in stride.

Second, I think Kitty's perspective is understandably a lot more nuanced than the public stance Danny Brown kind of has to take in his position; and when she says 'this is my friend, and my friend is uncomfortable about this weird thing happening and he's trying to forget it now because he wishes it never happened,' well, that carries a big chunk of weight, I think.
posted by koeselitz at 2:16 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


the education around sexual assault is awful all the way around - and one of the areas it falls down massively at is giving men any frame of reference for being victims outside of prison. a member of our own community struggled with defining it because he was bigger and they were in a relationship. i was on another general interest board recently where many guys came forward and talked about being drugged, or woken up, or sick, or otherwise unable to gtfo, about how they expressed a desire to not have sex - and were ignored for what the woman wanted. even then, many of them couldn't call it rape.
posted by nadawi at 2:17 PM on May 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


Regardless, performing an uninvited sex act on someone without consent is sexual assault. That's a really essential part of the discussion of rape, because there have been so many instances where a man mistakes silence for consent, when no consent has been given, and presumes he has permission because he does not tell her to stop.

Right, the point is that unless there is some kind of explicit consent, the initiator of the sex act is basically rolling the dice on whether the other person okay with it or not. The fact some subset of the population would be 100% okay with it happening does not mean that you can randomly do it to whoever you want and not worry about consent.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:19 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


What is Danny supposed to do? The girl was at mouth-to-dick level already and to push her away, he would've had to either pushed her face or kicked her,

Surely he could have just taken one step back, no?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 2:19 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


What would Jerry Lee Lewis do?
posted by KokuRyu at 2:19 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Play the piano, which helps nobody.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:20 PM on May 7, 2013 [19 favorites]


Surely he could have just taken one step back, no?

When somebody has their teeth on your dick? Risky...
posted by MartinWisse at 2:21 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Surely he could have just taken one step back, no?

From the article:

back away, which he did
posted by Greg Nog at 2:21 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


When there are teeth near my penis, I try not to make any sudden moves. Or upset the owner of the teeth in any way.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:21 PM on May 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


What is Danny supposed to do? The girl was at mouth-to-dick level already and to push her away, he would've had to either pushed her face or kicked her,

Surely he could have just taken one step back, no?


From that very same paragraph:

What is Danny supposed to do? The girl was at mouth-to-dick level already and to push her away, he would've had to either pushed her face or kicked her, and even the most gentle of either motion would immediately be labeled “abuse” by anyone watching. Guys pushing girls is not a good look when people are taking photos. So what was Danny supposed to do, other than back away, which he did?
posted by cjelli at 2:21 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


yeah, from the article and already quoted twice upthread before the question.
posted by nadawi at 2:22 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Surely he could have just taken one step back, no?

oh you were so close

just like one sentence away
posted by ominous_paws at 2:22 PM on May 7, 2013 [18 favorites]


nadawi: " This isn't a courtroom, so I'm pretty comfortable siding with the victim of what seems to be sexual assault given the evidence that is currently known. If new evidence comes up to change my mind then I'll change my mind. But in general when someone describes an event where someone makes uninvited sexual contact with someone else I'm going to go ahead and say that's not cool."

I agree with the statement "IF there was uninvited sexual content then it's sexual assault", but the only evidence we have that it was uninvited is from Kitty Pryde saying so. That is more evidence than we have on the consent side, but Pryde also says she was drunk at the time, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's possible consent was verbalized outside of her earshot. Her saying there was no consent doesn't make it so, and I'm uncomfortable rendering judgement without hearing the fan's side of the story.

This isn't a court of law, but it's the court of public opinion, and while there might not be any criminal sentencing in that court, there are consequences for rendering incorrect judgements, which is very easy to do when you're extrapolating from a few shreds of evidence coming from a small number of people, one of whom literally put a disclaimer in her post that she was drunk throughout the show.

All I'm saying is we should have room for a "don't know" in between "guilty" and "not guilty" until both sides have had a chance to get their story out.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:22 PM on May 7, 2013


Surely he could have just taken one step back, no?

The fact that he had a way of avoiding the situation (which is debatable) doesn't excuse her behavior. It wouldn't be acceptable to grope people on the street, even if they're able to walk away.
posted by DrRotcod at 2:22 PM on May 7, 2013


By the time someone has your penis in their mouth without your consent, an assault has already happened.
posted by ChuraChura at 2:23 PM on May 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


That sounds like Brown invited this sort of contact.
Fuck. People can be dense sometimes. If the roles were reversed, would this ever be an acceptable defense? Regardless of whether or not it's what actually happened.
posted by Blue_Villain at 2:23 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's a lot of people asking questions in this thread which are answered in the various articles linked as part of the post. I wonder if there's some shortcut for folks to get their questions answered rather than asking them in here?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:23 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Remedial reading instruction?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:24 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


yeah, from the article and already quoted twice upthread before the question.

Look, we can't know what was "supposed" to have happened according to "people" who say they were "there" and "wrote an article about it". All we can do is refuse to click on the links and then speculate wildly about what words they may or may not contain.
posted by Greg Nog at 2:24 PM on May 7, 2013 [67 favorites]


Pope Guilty,

I read the article and others when the issue was fresh, and have been thinking about it since. I don't mean to be ridiculous, but her perspective is what I was noting, that regardless of what he did, his intentions and mindset must be as she sets them out.

What the scanty evidence seems to suggest is that he did not reject it, and Kitty is saying he had no choice to but accept it. No one seems to countenance even for a second the idea that he accepted it because he felt like it.

Few people, least of all myself, are suggesting that this was not sexual assault or rape, depending on your definitions thereof. It certainly, unquestionably was, and the girl in question must be pretty fucked up to even try. I just think that people are filling the guy's silence with their own ideas of what he must have been thinking.

koeselitz,

I disagree that the tweet does not imply that he was okay with it, but that's just my interpretation.

Certainly Kitty's perspective on the thing is to be taken as more important than some random bystander, I just think that even on her part there's a lot of filling in the gaps, and it's bringing up other questions for me.

Surely he could have just taken one step back, no?


(Various responses)

He did, though there are pictures with his hand behind the girl's head. The idea is, I think, that he might have stepped back instantly, as when you touch a hot burner. Though of course as everyone points out, it by no means excuses the girl's behavior.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:24 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


No one seems to countenance even for a second the idea that he accepted it because he felt like it.

Acceptance isn't the same thing as consent.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:26 PM on May 7, 2013 [7 favorites]


Sounds like a shitty situation, since presumably Brown's stage persona (basically how he earns his livelihood) dictates he can't really follow-up with a sexual assault charge.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:26 PM on May 7, 2013


Being assaulted is sort of a startling, surreal, and shocking experience, and you may not respond instantaneously with the sort of behaviors that society deems acceptable for someone who has been assaulted.
posted by ChuraChura at 2:26 PM on May 7, 2013 [30 favorites]


Assent is not consent.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:27 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


tonycpsu - while i agree with the comment you quoted, i didn't make it.
posted by nadawi at 2:28 PM on May 7, 2013


There's a story from the Talmud about a man raping a woman, and the defense argues that it can't have been rape because she ended up enjoying it. At this moment, the rabbi says if you dipped your thumb in honey and forced it into somebody else's mouth, it is still a violation, even if the person ended up enjoying it.

Some rape victims have orgasms. That doesn't mean they weren't raped, and the fact that they had a biological reaction to it often adds additional layers of shame and guilt.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:29 PM on May 7, 2013 [61 favorites]


I've seen pubic sex before.

It's the easiest kind!
posted by RogerB at 2:29 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


[A couple comments deleted, you know where Metatalk is if you need to talk about moderation or why "this is a stupid topic" is not a good addition to a thread.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:29 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Goodness gracious, can we hurry up and get consent taught in schools yet? My gosh even liberal educated folks tend to be undereducated about the ethics of consent and that's just so... heartbreaking.

I really do believe that well meaning people do these things and don't understand how they are harming others, I think there are intentional rapists and I think there really are people who do not understand the concept of finding out whether someone wants to do sexual things with you before doing sexual things to them.

I don't know the details of what ACTUALLY happened here, but the people who need to understand definitions of sexual assault, rape, sexual abuse, and consent ethics are NOT just the people you might think. I think people, even well educated and good hearted people, need to be willing to read about and get better education about this and think through what consent really should mean in a non-abusive freely consenting context.

What worries me is that if compassionate thoughtful people aren't willing to side in favor of enthusiastic consent before sexy time, what luck are we ever going to have helping the rest of the population, who don't even care about compassion or may be less interested or capable of thinking through things to begin with, get it right?
posted by xarnop at 2:30 PM on May 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


If the roles were reversed, would this ever be an acceptable defense? Regardless of whether or not it's what actually happened.

According to the Reddit commenter, Brown grabbed the woman's breasts after she flashed them at him. Now if you don't believe the commenter, fine. But if the commenter is right, that sounds like assault on Brown's part (certainly it would be according to the standards of most of the commenters on this page).

Then, according to the commenter, he came closer to her after his grabbing and pulled his shirt up to expose himself. Again, if you don't believe the commenter, fine. But if you do, it certainly puts the situation in a different light.
posted by shivohum at 2:31 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


tonycpsu - while i agree with the comment you quoted, i didn't make it.

Sorry about that -- clicked the wrong "quote" link. Meant to reply to burnmp3s, though I welcome any discussion of why it's important that we come down on one side or another before we've had a chance to hear the fan's perspective.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:32 PM on May 7, 2013


Thanks for the snarky responses guys but he stood there long enough for the lady to pull his dick out and put it in her mouth and to have at least one picture taken while it was still apparently in there which seems like way to long to be standing around while you are assaulted when you have a whole stage to retreat to.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 2:32 PM on May 7, 2013


So here's the thing that I see about the argument. We're not a court of law (hooray!) so the stakes are low for the individuals but important on a social level:

If we assume that it was sexual assault because no consent seems to have been verbalized, the friend is saying it was uninvited and unwelcome, and the performer is very likely to have been caught between the devil and the deep blue sea when it came to reacting in the "right" way.... then..... we are, at worst, saying, "This was a very bad thing for that girl to do and verbal consent should be required at all times, especially between people with no prior history who can't read each other's signals."

If we assume that this is not sexual assault because "we can't know for sure," we are reinforcing and ignoring the vast social patterns that might have made this happen in the first place: the idea that men can't be assaulted because they always want it, the idea that black men must subscribe to hypermasculininity, the idea that women can't committ assault, the idea that blowjobs are favors that are always welcome, the idea that performers are required to enjoy having moments that they might prefer to be private exposed, and the idea that if you don't react in the right way to a possible assault, well, then it probably wasn't assault in the first place.

Hmm. I sure as hell know which of those two outcomes I'm more comfortable with.
posted by WidgetAlley at 2:32 PM on May 7, 2013 [42 favorites]


If he grabbed her breasts without consent, it was also assault.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:32 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Hmm. I sure as hell know which of those two outcomes I'm more comfortable with.

Why does it have to be binary? What on Earth is wrong with withholding judgement until we at least get a chance to hear the other side of the story?
posted by tonycpsu at 2:34 PM on May 7, 2013


"Thanks for the snarky responses guys but he stood there long enough for the lady to pull his dick out and put it in her mouth and to have at least one picture taken while it was still apparently in there which seems like way to long to be standing around while you are assaulted when you have a whole stage to retreat to."

Can you PLEASE read the links before speculating like this?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


You have no idea whether or not an anonymous commenter on Reddit was in the audience

I believe said redditor was took and uploaded the pictures of the incident
.

Again, the fact that an anonymous commenter uploaded anything is not proof of (1) the person took the uploaded photos; (2) that the person was even there; or (3) that the person did in fact, witness the event.

There is no foundation for these beliefs.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:35 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


If he grabbed her breasts without consent, it was also assault.

Maybe it was self defense on her part?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:35 PM on May 7, 2013


Yeah. And speaking from experience. IF I don't want a penis in my mouth...IT WON'T BE THERE! no matter how much the penis wants to be.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 2:36 PM on May 7, 2013


>>>No one seems to countenance even for a second the idea that he accepted it because he felt like it.

>>Acceptance isn't the same thing as consent.

>Assent is not consent.


No, it most certainly isn't. The lack of consent makes it rape or assault, that is unquestionable.

My question is what do we do with the acceptance/assent? That's the thing that I see people speculating about, and which seems weird to me.

Again, I am not even suggesting this was not rape or assault. I'm saying there are parallel issues and they bring up uncomfortable ideas (like what bunny ultramod mentions), and people are working hard to find the least ugly explanation, when there's no reason to think that the explanation is as ugly as it gets.

Anyway, it's all academic (except for the assault act, of course) until there's more evidence or the guy talks. And academic arguments always devolve like this. I just wanted to mention that it was something I'd noticed. (edited for spelling error)
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:36 PM on May 7, 2013


I am amazed by the logic gymnastics of this thread. There are many viewpoints on this event here that I see as far far beyond having anything to do with what did or didn't happen.

I am impressed!
posted by cccorlew at 2:38 PM on May 7, 2013


Being assaulted is sort of a startling, surreal, and shocking experience,

This.

I got grabbed in the crotch once by a drunken woman while in a snackbar waiting for my chips to be ready and, yeah, it was only much much later that I got what had happened.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:38 PM on May 7, 2013 [7 favorites]


Yeah. And speaking from experience. IF I don't want a penis in my mouth...IT WON'T BE THERE! no matter how much the penis wants to be.

lucky for you. what's your point? there's a lot of victims who can't say the same.
posted by nadawi at 2:38 PM on May 7, 2013 [17 favorites]


Whatever else this was, it was not "rape", at least according to the FBI or WHO definitions. Rape according to those authorities is only coercive penetration, not "envelopment".
posted by dontjumplarry at 2:38 PM on May 7, 2013


Whatever else this was, it was not "rape", at least according to the FBI or WHO definitions. Rape according to those authorities is only coercive penetration, not "envelopment".

The FBI/WHO definition of rape does not specify that the penetrator must be the offender.

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Nothing in that definition requires that "the victim" is the one being penetrated.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:41 PM on May 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


BlackLeotardFront- the subject of whether assault survivors have arousal during an assault has been discussed at length many times over. You're certainly not the first to consider this, not to mention the millions of assault survivors who have lived it and know it's complexity. It's really truly, irrelevant to the matter of whether the situation is assault or how he might feel about it later.

Arousal is not consent is a common mantra of people who read about and care about consent ethics.

"IF I don't want a penis in my mouth...IT WON'T BE THERE! no matter how much the penis wants to be."
You're sounding very victim blamey and that might not be your intention so before you get piled on I just wanted to mention you could clear that up if it's not your intent.
posted by xarnop at 2:42 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


Why does it have to be binary? What on Earth is wrong with withholding judgement until we at least get a chance to hear the other side of the story?

Because in these situations, withholding judgment is not neutral. If I, God forbid, am raped by a friend of both of ours, and there is only our word to go on, and you say, "Since there's no proof, I'm withholding judgment," you are (unfortunately!) de facto siding with the rapist, because the deck is already stacked in their favor, because sexual assault has a very very long history of not being taken seriously without "proof," and the goalposts for proof, as we've seen in this thread, keep moving. What is proof that it was really assault? Do you have to scream? Fight? Is it enough to say no? What if you're on stage? Did he step back or didn't he?

Now, I agree that there is a faint possibility that this was somehow invited and all the cues just got missed by those reporting somehow. And I would be more hesitant to take it as an absolute assault if we were, for instance, condemning the girl by name and planning to ruin her life or something. But there is no negative outcome for anyone if we assume that this was sexual assault, because it brings awareness to a lot of complex issues. Therefore, I see no logical reason for neutrality here. Even if nothing else, we are avoiding making the pitfalls of ignoring an assault because it didn't happen in the right circumstances or to the right person.
posted by WidgetAlley at 2:43 PM on May 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


And what is that? I'm a man. I do not want a blowjob from a stranger. If a stranger started giving me a blowjob I would not suddenly turn into a cartoon wolf with steam shooting out my ears or some shit.

The guy goes on Twitter and more or less says he got a blowjob on stage "and didn't miss a beat." Is that what people say when they get raped?
posted by phaedon at 2:44 PM on May 7, 2013


Yes, it is.
posted by koeselitz at 2:44 PM on May 7, 2013 [10 favorites]


The guy goes on Twitter and more or less says he got a blowjob on stage "and didn't miss a beat." Is that what people say when they get raped?

I guess the must. This guy seems to have.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:45 PM on May 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


My question is what do we do with the acceptance/assent?

Well since Brown hasn't come out and specifically said, "I'm fine with this. It was not assault," then you must mean "What do we do with the appearance of acceptance/assent" and I hope the answer to that is: nothing, as a rule.

Whether something is rape should never depend on outside observers trying to decide if the victim liked it or not.
posted by straight at 2:45 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is that what people say when they get raped?

No, there's a fucking prepared speech that we all memorize beforehand and recite perfectly just moments afterwards.
posted by elizardbits at 2:45 PM on May 7, 2013 [113 favorites]


So Danny Brown relishes in his own rape. Ok, I guess if that's where this conversation is going, then I'm firmly a step behind.
posted by phaedon at 2:45 PM on May 7, 2013


I don't want to be all, what was he wearing, but I have trouble getting my own penis out of my pants in a timely manner. Seriously, if someone were to try to get my belt undone and my pants pulled down far enough to grab my package...it wouldn't be fast and that's if I wasn't "backing away."

I just don't buy the idea that someone could done this. A penis is a weird bobbing thing. It's hard enough to get it to go where one intends, and seems pretty easy to keep it away from those places you don't want it to be like an audience member's mouth.

I fully admit I may be missing something here, but I am not getting the logistics. If this were a fiction story I would tell the author to rewrite it so it were believable.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:46 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


The guy goes on Twitter and more or less says he got a blowjob on stage "and didn't miss a beat." Is that what people say when they get raped?


If only we had already covered that three times!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:46 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


The most difficult part of being a rapist is having to have foreknowledge of what your victim will tweet later so that you can be assured you have consent.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:47 PM on May 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


phaedon, you're at a minimum woefully ignorant of the ways rape victims react to being raped.
posted by straight at 2:47 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well since Brown hasn't come out and specifically said, "I'm fine with this. It was not assault" then you must mean "What do we do with the appearance of acceptance/assent" and I hope the answer to that is: nothing, as a rule.

Come on, it's a little disingenuous to demote "and didn't miss one bar bruh bruh" to the appearance of acceptance/assent. He's fucking bragging about it.
posted by phaedon at 2:47 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is that what people say when they get raped?

There is not a thing that people say when they get raped. Everyone has different reactions, including minimizing or trying to take power back by acting like it wasn't a big deal. Just because he is trying to play it off does not mean he was "relishing" it. Can we please, please take a moment to consider the absurdly inhumane way we are treating this person if he was assaulted?
posted by WidgetAlley at 2:47 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


If he got attacked by a neo-nazi and tweeted that he did not miss a beat, would you presume the tweet meant he invited and enjoyed the attack?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:47 PM on May 7, 2013 [23 favorites]


The guy goes on Twitter and more or less says he got a blowjob on stage "and didn't miss a beat." Is that what people say when they get raped?

I said stuff like that when I had beer dumped on me while djing, but that doesn't mean I liked it.
posted by empath at 2:49 PM on May 7, 2013 [36 favorites]


I fully admit I may be missing something here, but I am not getting the logistics. If this were a fiction story I would tell the author to rewrite it so it were believable.

I've had my wang try to make a break for it just from dancing too hard. We probably have a different wardrobe.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:50 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


I'm pretty sure Kitty covered the "why he might have felt compelled to own it" angle in TFA.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:51 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


phaedon you really seem to be saying a bunch of stuff that people trying to minimize rape tell women who were raped and if you're trying to demonstrate that that stuff can be said to men, too, it's really not coming off. Please stop.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:52 PM on May 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


He may not prosecute. That's his decision.

It is and it isn't, which is one of the many complexities in this subject. I don't know Minnesota law, but I presume the local (county? state?) prosecutor has discretion irrespective of whether a victim wants to, as we use the popular term, "press charges." For obvious reasons you don't typically see prosecutors moving forward without the participation of the victim(s)—and you can debate whether that's good or bad—but just speaking hypothetically, in a situation where you had multiple witnesses and photo/video evidence, it wouldn't necessarily be the victim's sole decision whether to prosecute.
posted by cribcage at 2:53 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


WidgetAlley, I agree with everything you've said about the history of assault and how the goalposts for proof are often moved, yet I still think it's right in this case to at least give the fan a chance to respond to the allegations before rendering judgement.

You see reflexive trust of Pryde's version of events as a way to make up for society's historical preference for trusting the assailant's version of the story, and I just don't think that's the right response. I don't see why a bunch of people observing this on the Internet can't hold out to hear the fan's version of events before rushing to judgement in case consent was, in fact, verbalized. It's not like there are no bad consequences to labeling the fan as a sexual assailant, and while the consequences of dismissing the claims of a potential victim are undoubtedly worse, I don't see how it follows that it's a good idea to pick a side before anyone has heard from one of the two principals.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:54 PM on May 7, 2013


[phaedon, I don't know what is going on with you and this thread but you need to step away from it now, period.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:55 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


Of course you're right. I should have said it is his decision whether he personally wishes to pursue pressing charges.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:55 PM on May 7, 2013


Presented without comment, except to say that the event was called an "attack" almost everywhere it was reported:


From earlier this week:

Justin [Bieber] was singing “Believe” when he was approached by a young male wearing a white t-shirt and jeans, according to The National. After the fan threw down the grand piano on stage in an attempt to evade Justin’s security team, they were finally able to contain him.

And Justin kept the show going! Justin slipped away to the side of the stage and actually kept singing as if nothing had happened. His eight-piece band followed along, and Justin successfully finished the concert.


Hours after Beiber tweeted:

Dubai. Nothing stops the show. 2 more to go. #BELIEVEtour Capetown next. #stadiumstatus
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:57 PM on May 7, 2013 [7 favorites]


I suppose I'm just not comfortable assuming that we're going to hear anything from the fan. Is there any compelling reason to believe that we are? If there were, I would kind of see your point. Otherwise, to me it seems like suspending judgment predicated on an event that has a very low probability of happening, which feels suspiciously like dodging the issue.
posted by WidgetAlley at 2:58 PM on May 7, 2013


We probably have a different wardrobe.

Probably, and that's what I was trying to wrap my head around. Some baggy pants and an escape artist wang and I can see someone grabbing a wayward penis, but to have it be, Gulp! Got it! That just seems problematic to me.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:58 PM on May 7, 2013


Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish: The FBI/WHO definition of rape does not specify that the penetrator must be the offender. "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." Nothing in that definition requires that "the victim" is the one being penetrated.

Huh? The FBI definition states that rape is an act of penetration (a transitive verb). It does not define it as an act of envelopment. It was criticized at the time by commenters (including MRAs) for excluding envelopment. Most states also exclude envelopment as rape.
posted by dontjumplarry at 3:00 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


From the second link: "Later, rising rap star Kendrick Lamar wasn't going to just believe anyone about this sporadic mid-set spectacle, and tweet-asked "u really just got the head on stage stanny???" A since-deleted tweet from Brown responds "~ and didn't miss one bar bruh bruh.""

That doesn't seem like much of an "announcement" on Brown's part.

Brown didn't start the conversation about the event on Twitter: other people were talked about it and another rapper tweeted a question. Brown tweeted a reply -- emphasizing his professionalism, not bragging about having it happen or rhapsodizing about how great it felt -- and later deleted it.

I'm still a little confused about how quickly that woman got him unzipped and acquired. I don't think that's proof that he was fine with it. Maybe he really did freeze when she started feeling him up. Maybe he was fine with a little surface fondling, but didn't want or like how it played out. I don't know, and given that he really hasn't been seen bragging and seems to want to avoid the topic altogether, it seems more likely that he never wanted this or that any brief delight in took in it has been swamped with regret.
posted by maudlin at 3:01 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think that goes back to the issue that neutrality isn't neutral, tonycpsu. When someone has been victimized in some manner, third parties holding court over it deciding to "withhold judgment" is often insult to the injury, because it implies that the victim's version of the story isn't enough without also hearing from the assaulter.

I'll admit that this one is complicated because we're hearing from Kitty, not Brown, and she also acknowledges that she was inebriated at the time. But I also think there's a lot of value to be gained in defaulting to sympathy when reacting towards (potential) victims, and that's something we can do without castigating someone who hasn't defended themselves. (Plus, I don't think anyone here is really casting judgment on the fan, though I could have missed something.)

If we're wrong, we made a mistake giving someone the benefit of the doubt, no big. But if we're right, the supportive stance that your word is enough is a pretty strong and important signal to send to survivors of violence.
posted by Phire at 3:04 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


Well, I'm just going to exit the discussion, this is a pretty hostile environment.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 3:04 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


I reckon if people can get a live octopus into their mouth, they can get anything. We spend our lives practicing putting stuff in our mouth, but spend very little time practicing how to keep our penii out of one.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 3:05 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


The FBI definition states that rape is an act of penetration (a transitive verb). It does not define it as an act of envelopment.

Has this been tested? Again, by my reading (which may be overly legalistic, but we're talking about law so if you didn't write with hair-splitting in mind you're doing it wrong) nothing about that definition requires that "victim" refers to the person being penetrated.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:06 PM on May 7, 2013


How I wish I could send that Kitty Pryde blog post back in time for middle school or high school lord_wolf to read.

The whole "you have to be hypersexual and want all sex all the time or else there must be something wrong with you, bro" thing really caused all kinds of problems for younger me. It's such a comfort to see that more and more people are starting to realize that the patriarchy hurts males too and that there's a special flavor of hell black males have to go through with regard to our sexuality.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:08 PM on May 7, 2013 [21 favorites]


[Kitty Pryde] wouldn't take it upon herself to go Rogue

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE
posted by Slothrup at 3:08 PM on May 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


WidgetAlley: "I suppose I'm just not comfortable assuming that we're going to hear anything from the fan. Is there any compelling reason to believe that we are? If there were, I would kind of see your point. Otherwise, to me it seems like suspending judgment predicated on an event that has a very low probability of happening, which feels suspiciously like dodging the issue."

I'm not dodging this issue. If events happened as Pryde described them, then this was clearly an assault, full stop. And I'm also not assuming we will hear from the fan, but until we do, I am uncomfortable labeling her a sexual assailant based primarily on the testimony of one person who wasn't one of the principals in the exchange, and was by her own account drunk at the time the incident happened.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:09 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


The FBI definition states that rape is an act of penetration (a transitive verb). It does not define it as an act of envelopment.

It's always weird to read American-dominated MetaFilter threads and see the "r" word thrown about with no regard to its power.

Don't you guys have the term "sexual assault" to describe a spectrum of... sexual assaults? Or is it a binary thing?

Hate that word.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:12 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


I don't see why a bunch of people observing this on the Internet can't hold out to hear the fan's version of events before rushing to judgement in case consent was, in fact, verbalized.

If the genders were reversed would you insist that we wait to see whether or not the male fan will claim the artist asked him to come up on stage and do that to her?

seems pretty easy to keep it away from those places you don't want it to be like an audience member's mouth.

I can see being curious about the logistics, but would you be comfortable speculating about this if the genders were reversed? ("Seems pretty easy to wiggle your butt out of the guy's way when he's trying to force himself on you.")
posted by straight at 3:12 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Don't you guys have the term "sexual assault" to describe a spectrum of... sexual assaults?

Yes, but this is rape. Penetration without consent from both parties. That's what the word is for.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:14 PM on May 7, 2013


Yes, but this is rape. Penetration without consent from both parties. That's what the word is for.

Uh-oh, better lawyer up if I want to participate in this thread.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:16 PM on May 7, 2013


Uh-oh, better lawyer up if I want to participate in this thread.

WTF were you even asking then?
posted by shakespeherian at 3:16 PM on May 7, 2013 [12 favorites]


Phire: "I think that goes back to the issue that neutrality isn't neutral, tonycpsu. When someone has been victimized in some manner, third parties holding court over it deciding to "withhold judgment" is often insult to the injury, because it implies that the victim's version of the story isn't enough without also hearing from the assaulter. "

Then let me say this clearly -- I do not think the victim's version of the story is "enough" without also hearing from the assaulter.

I do believe the victim's version is enough to begin a criminal investigation, to name the alleged assailant as a suspect, and to bring charges against them, but not to adjudicate the matter, either in court or in the court of public opinion.

But I also think there's a lot of value to be gained in defaulting to sympathy when reacting towards (potential) victims, and that's something we can do without castigating someone who hasn't defended themselves.

I default to sympathy, too, but I can do so without blindly accepting the premise that this is an assault based primarily on one person's account of the events. Once you label it an assault, you might not be castigating someone who hasn't defended themselves, but you're accusing them of a crime. That's serious. As serious as being assaulted? No. But that's why I believe neutrality can, in fact, be neutral.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:17 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


Uh-oh, better lawyer up if I want to participate in this thread.

Or maybe just consult a dictionary. I'm looking around the Interwebs and having a hard time finding any definition of "the R-word" that excludes forced oral sex.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:18 PM on May 7, 2013


I wonder how MetaFilter would have reacted to Jim Morrison showing the audience his wang in Miami. I imagine lots of rah-rah free expression vs. sexual assault a la dudes exposing themselves on a bus/subway.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:19 PM on May 7, 2013


straight: " If the genders were reversed would you insist that we wait to see whether or not the male fan will claim the artist asked him to come up on stage and do that to her?"

The coming up on stage part isn't part of the assault. People get up on stage and dance with performers all the time, often with the blessing of security.

Once the fan is on stage, reversing the genders, I would absolutely want to hear both principals address the consent question before concluding that it was an assault. In this case, we don't have a clear answer on consent from either of them -- just a third party.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:19 PM on May 7, 2013


If he got attacked by a neo-nazi and tweeted that he did not miss a beat, would you presume the tweet meant he invited and enjoyed the attack?

One of these things is not like the other...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:20 PM on May 7, 2013


but can you explain the relevant difference?
posted by ominous_paws at 3:21 PM on May 7, 2013


And Justin kept the show going! Justin slipped away to the side of the stage and actually kept singing as if nothing had happened.

Well, of course. What else could he do? The lip-synch track doesn't stop!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:22 PM on May 7, 2013 [10 favorites]


For a thread that may or may not be about sexual assault, the discussion sure is going exactly like every sexual assault thread everywhere ever.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:22 PM on May 7, 2013 [36 favorites]


Well, the media isn't packaging this as a rape, or really even as a sexual assault at least in part because there is a very specific picture of what sexual assault looks like in the media - and it doesn't generally include men as victims or women as perpetrators. And also because the broad social ideal of masculinity includes being ready and excited for sex, no matter what the context.
posted by ChuraChura at 3:23 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


The discussion about clothing removal and how difficult controlling a penis is is missing one of the major points. Rape isn't always ripping someone's clothes off. It can be more subtle forms of coercion or peer pressure, such as the pressure of a culture that promotes hypermasculinity and always-down-for-sexytimes. He may have wanted to turn away. Or zip up. Or say "no." But he had about a million cultural cues sounding alarms and guiding his behavior that can make one physically submit to something without consenting to it.
posted by nicodine at 3:26 PM on May 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


Man, if this wasn't rape, then what on earth would be? How do you even get to "sure she pulled his pants down and put her mouth on his genitals without consent, and sure he stepped back and extricated himself from the situation as quickly as he could, but it's not like that's REALLY rape" without stopping yourself and going "oh wait!"
posted by KathrynT at 3:26 PM on May 7, 2013 [20 favorites]


Once the fan is on stage, reversing the genders, I would absolutely want to hear both principals address the consent question before concluding that it was an assault.

Aha! I think I found the point where I'm having trouble with this. In a perfect world, I would agree with you. But the social reality of the matter is that Danny Brown may be in a place where he can't reasonably address the consent question. Leaving aside the fact that sexual assault survivors sometimes take a while to be able to acknowledge and come to terms with what's happened, if he was not consenting, he would still be butting up against about a zillion and a half compelling social mores that might make him keep quiet about that fact. Things like being called unmanly for not wanting sex and for not being able to "defend" himself, things that might affect his commercial success or future career by heavily impacting the commercially projected image of black rappers as tough, always-ready for it guys. Can you imagine the ridicule he might face? If he did not consent, he is pretty constrained in what he can do without a lot of backlash.

So in this instance I don't think it's quite fair to simply shrug it off and say, "We haven't heard from those involved," because there are a myriad number of reasons why we haven't and very well might never, many of which are part of the same system that might make unenlightened people refuse to call this sexual assault in the first place.
posted by WidgetAlley at 3:27 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


KathrynT: " How do you even get to "sure she pulled his pants down and put her mouth on his genitals without consent"

I'll start by reiterating that "without consent" hasn't been established.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:27 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


But he might have consented in subtle ways invisible to everyone but horny concertgoers, and until we know for absolute certain on that, it's irresponsible to imply that the total stranger didn't have his okay to initiate public sex in a venue that would otherwise be wildly inappropriate!

It's nice to know the universal presumption against rape is at least gender-blind.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:29 PM on May 7, 2013 [15 favorites]


I'll start by reiterating that "without consent" hasn't been established.

the dude literally had a microphone up to his mouth. If he'd consented, it would have been broadcast to everyone present.
posted by KathrynT at 3:29 PM on May 7, 2013 [16 favorites]


I'll start by reiterating that "without consent" hasn't been established.

I'd be more concerned about that if it weren't the case that, in most of the media, it hasn't even been considered.
posted by straight at 3:30 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


i understand wanting to sit back and withhold judgment if that's your bag - but i don't really understand making that point over and over and over again.
posted by nadawi at 3:30 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


It's nice to know the universal presumption against rape is at least gender-blind.

I'm not the one presuming here. I'm saying don't presume anything. Judge the evidence. Get yes/no answers from both principals on consent. Then judge.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:31 PM on May 7, 2013


nadawi: " but i don't really understand making that point over and over and over again."

Because it's MetaFilter and we sometimes like to discuss contentious topics here? Because all we have to go on is a drunk third party's version of events? Because there's someone who's being accused of a crime without anyone hearing from her? Because you can't right societal wrongs by turning society's historical preference for reflexively believing the assailant on its head?
posted by tonycpsu at 3:33 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


And speaking from experience. IF I don't want a penis in my mouth...IT WON'T BE THERE! no matter how much the penis wants to be.

Speaking from experience, not everyone is as fortunate, skillful, or wonderfully clever as you are. What a special person you must be.
posted by houseofdanie at 3:33 PM on May 7, 2013 [35 favorites]


"There's not enough evidence yet" is a judgment on the available evidence.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:34 PM on May 7, 2013


Also, from the follow-up:

"Nobody thinks about it. At first, we all went backstage, laughing. Obviously there were a bunch of girls back there. It was funny and everybody was drunk. By the time we got back to the hotel, I wasn’t drunk anymore, I was just pissed off. When I tried to say I was upset on my blog — obviously, if it’s on Tumblr, everybody can respond to the shit and send me messages and tell me I’m wrong and shaming sluts, so I was just like, forget it. I’m not even gonna bother. But then over the past couple days, it’s been super awful for Danny to have to read all this shit. There was one article that was the last straw, where some guy said, “I would have to consider this event when booking Danny Brown and Kitty Pryde in the future.” And I was like, Fuck you. You should ask the girls you’re letting in if they plan on sucking Danny Brown’s dick tonight. I was super mad about it, Danny was really upset, and we were talking about it, but Danny doesn’t want to acknowledge it. It’s hard for him to do. Now, people are listening to me. Finally. I been smarter than you guys this whole time."
posted by lkc at 3:35 PM on May 7, 2013 [24 favorites]


"There's not enough evidence yet" is a judgment on the available evidence.

Thanks, Mr. Peart, but a judgement that "we don't know enough yet" is not as potentially dangerous a judgement as a default to one side or another.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:35 PM on May 7, 2013



Seriously, if someone were to try to get my belt undone and my pants pulled down far enough to grab my package...it wouldn't be fast and that's if I wasn't "backing away."

I'm still a little confused about how quickly that woman got him unzipped and acquired.


Saggin. Sometimes Danny Brown doesn't even wear a belt. In any case, he doesn't worry about keeping his pants up with it.
posted by oneirodynia at 3:36 PM on May 7, 2013


tonycpsu: "Then let me say this clearly -- I do not think the victim's version of the story is "enough" without also hearing from the assaulter."

Reasonable people can disagree, but my personal yardstick on this issue is "if my friend had come to me and presented the situation, what would I say?" The way that we see public figures (and the public incidents that happen to them) is so warped that we need to be extra mindful of how we speak about them, which is preferably no different than about anyone else. And so I think that if a friend of mine told me this story about a friend of hers, I will reach for "that is super fucked up and a big deal and I hope you have the resources to deal with it" before I'll reach for "what does the other party say?"

This is affected in no small part by the fact that "what does the other party say" is frequently a dog-whistle for "you're a liar and you must have done something to invite/deserve it". I recognize that's not what you're saying here, but I hope that explains why I'm incredibly wary of that stance. If we say "innocent until proven guilty", then we should also default to "the things people say are true until they are proven false". I can't really think of a way to withhold judgment without implicitly seeing Kitty's account of the events as being untrustworthy.

Also, speaking only for myself, I'm not spending any braincells trying to decide if an anonymous fan is an assaulter. We can think about the things that happen to someone without thinking about the people standing accused of having perpetrated those things.
posted by Phire at 3:41 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


The guy goes on Twitter and more or less says he got a blowjob on stage "and didn't miss a beat." Is that what people say when they get raped?

It's actually pretty common, when horrible and unexpected things happen, to try to summon forth in speech the things that you're doing "right," to reclaim some personal power. There aren't many things that make a person feel as powerless as sexual assault.

Similar: "I didn't miss a single day of class that semester."
Subtext: "I'm still here, I'm still me, and I'm still strong. I think. Maybe."
posted by houseofdanie at 3:41 PM on May 7, 2013 [12 favorites]


I'm not the one presuming here. I'm saying don't presume anything. Judge the evidence. Get yes/no answers from both principals on consent. Then judge.

I'm going to go ahead and judge without reading the perpetrator's side of the story. Just like if my friend said somebody groped them at work I wouldn't need to get the groper's side of the story before believing them. You can feel free to withhold judgment, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to do the same and your not going to change anyone's mind about that at this point.
posted by burnmp3s at 3:42 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thanks lck, I missed that. And it sounds pretty damn conclusive about what Danny Brown's thoughts were.

I sympathize with their reactions about going backstage and laughing about it, and then only later going, "wait hold on that was wrong and I'm really mad about it." The same thing, on a more minor scale, has certainly happened to me (although never with full-on sexual assault, thank heavens.)
posted by WidgetAlley at 3:43 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Saggin. Sometimes Danny Brown doesn't even wear a belt. In any case, he doesn't worry about keeping his pants up with it.

OK. Quick access seems much more plausible now.
posted by maudlin at 3:44 PM on May 7, 2013


only later going, "wait hold on that was wrong and I'm really mad about it."

That's pretty much how life is experienced as a rule in Minnesota.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 3:46 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


Wait, is it even possible to go beyond "mildly annoyed" in Minnesota?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:47 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh, sure, but it happens hours later, when talking to the mirror and imagining the things you wish you had said.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 3:49 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Wait, is it even possible to go beyond "mildly annoyed" in Minnesota?

You can, and there's a wood chipper involved.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:51 PM on May 7, 2013 [10 favorites]



I don't "see" anything wrong with this. (I bet I missed something) I've seen pubic sex before.
All I see is is a bunch of kids enjoying a concert, a girl who I bet is SO popular at school this week, and a rapper who thinks that he's the greatest. One of these things is wrong.

This is my first reaction as well. From Kitty Pryde's blog post and interview, it seems that a.) the whole event happened very quickly, b.) it was a very chaotic and confusing environment (drinks, drugs, adrenaline), and c.) most of Kitty's ongoing concern is for Danny's having to handle the fallout from this event and all the requisite homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. -- not as much for the actual trauma of the assault itself. From the interview:

At first, we all went backstage, laughing. Obviously there were a bunch of girls back there. It was funny and everybody was drunk. By the time we got back to the hotel, I wasn’t drunk anymore, I was just pissed off. When I tried to say I was upset on my blog — obviously, if it’s on Tumblr, everybody can respond to the shit and send me messages and tell me I’m wrong and shaming sluts, so I was just like, forget it. I’m not even gonna bother. But then over the past couple days, it’s been super awful for Danny to have to read all this shit.

I certainly don't want to make any claims as to how Danny himself felt about the event. I think the points made above about how victims handle their experience in different ways are very important, and so I don't really think his tweet says a whole lot about whether or not he feels victimized. But in my mind the whole thing is much closer to "whoa, insane fans!" than "gross bodily violation and transgression of accepted norms".

There is a story here about a wild concert with young people doing crazy things, but there's also a story here about us as a community/society/culture not knowing our ass from our elbow when it comes to discussing these things.
posted by DLWM at 3:53 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm not the one presuming here. I'm saying don't presume anything. Judge the evidence. Get yes/no answers from both principals on consent. Then judge.

I'm sure it's happened but I'm not sure why you would expect the assailant to say anything other than 'Of course there was consent.'
posted by shakespeherian at 4:02 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


This is what an ugly thread looks like.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 4:04 PM on May 7, 2013 [15 favorites]




But in my mind the whole thing is much closer to "whoa, insane fans!" than "gross bodily violation and transgression of accepted norms".

Though if this isn't a transgression of accepted norms, I think there may be a new top item on the 'reasons to leave Minnesota' list. Or the 'reasons to go live in a hut in the forest' list.
posted by hoyland at 4:18 PM on May 7, 2013


Can we all just calm down and look at what we have on the table?

What we know so far is from Kitty, who is best friends with Danny Brown and is so far the only and most reliable witness to anything involving this, and that is that Danny Brown is/was, in fact, upset about this happening, and is having to deal with it due to a mirage of issues that revolve around the fact that a fan walked up on to the stage, pulled his pants down and began giving him a blowjob without him consenting to it.

There are a lot of things to discuss here that Kitty brought up in the two articles mentioned, such as dealing with sexual assault as a male celebrity who has an image to maintain, especially a sexual assault that was highly public and is being extremely publicized; the fact that people are congratulating him on it; the fact that no one has bothered to ask the person who did it why they did it; the fact that Kitty is attacked for taking Danny Brown's side and the fact that people are saying she is jealous because of that. There are a myriad of other issues involved in "The Thing".
posted by gucci mane at 4:21 PM on May 7, 2013 [14 favorites]


the 'reasons to go live in a hut in the forest' list.

That list has one reason on it and that reason is "people".
posted by elizardbits at 4:22 PM on May 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


Where is the line between being socially pressured into sex and rape?
posted by maryr at 4:22 PM on May 7, 2013


Round back the Tau Kappa Epsilon house. Why?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:23 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


That list has one reason on it and that reason is "people".

The forest has rabbits.

(Granted there also may be bears)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:24 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


tonycpsu: I think it's important to note that people routinely engage in consensual sexual activity without there being any actual "evidence" of consent....I believe that consent ought to be voiced explicitly whenever possible, but that's not the world we live in, so I find the idea that this is automatically a sexual assault troubling. I'm willing to give Brown the benefit of the doubt if he were to press charges, but as just an observer, I think this is squarely in the "fog of war" category....

I generally agree with your sentiment*, but I don't think that applies here at all. The Brown and the woman didn't know each other nor did they communicate with each other at all beforehand, there's no room for miscommunication or misunderstanding about consent because there was no communication or understanding. This is exactly like sneaking up behind someone and assaulting them in an alley.

* said as someone who has had some experience with women who were faster than me.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 4:27 PM on May 7, 2013


Gucci Mane, voice of reason.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:51 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


This is what an ugly thread looks like

This is what it looks like when doves cry.
posted by P.o.B. at 4:58 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Take Reddit's word for it? They're still convinced that Sunil Tripathi was the girl on Danny's jock.
posted by klangklangston at 5:10 PM on May 7, 2013 [11 favorites]


Someone I know was in the crowd and happened to be standing right next to the woman who did it.
He was pretty unambiguous about describing what he witnessed as a sexual assault.

He said it happened very quickly:Brown was performing on their side of the stage, but pulled himself away very quickly and retreated to the other side after it happened.

My acquaintance said it ruined the show for him, that he went to the back of the room and felt uneasy and awful the rest of the night.
posted by louche mustachio at 5:21 PM on May 7, 2013 [38 favorites]


I can see being curious about the logistics, but would you be comfortable speculating about this if the genders were reversed? ("Seems pretty easy to wiggle your butt out of the guy's way when he's trying to force himself on you.")

I'd be comfortable since this was in front of an audience. I can't imagine a male being able to perform an equivalent act on another person (male or female) without the outcome being questionable.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:23 PM on May 7, 2013


I don't want to be all, what was he wearing, but I have trouble getting my own penis out of my pants in a timely manner. Seriously, if someone were to try to get my belt undone and my pants pulled down far enough to grab my package...it wouldn't be fast and that's if I wasn't "backing away."


I guess his pants had an elastic waistband? The person who was standing right there did say he was surprised at how quickly it all happened.
posted by louche mustachio at 5:27 PM on May 7, 2013


There's another issue going on here, and that's that the way we discuss male victims of rape and sexual assault. In the absence of further evidence, this looks like a performer was sexually assaulted onstage while doing his job, and every single remark about "how'd she get into his pants" "why didn't he back away more" "well he didn't act the way victims are supposed to" etc is another brick in the wall of hypermasculinity, patriarchy and a culture that believes that men and boys cannot be raped or sexually assaulted by women. We know how this works, because we already see how it effects women and girls who have been raped or sexually assaulted. Hell, the whole "how'd they get the pants off" thing is the reason behind Denim Day.

I was disgusted seeing how this went down on reddit, but considering that large swathes of reddit exist to give rape apologists and racists a place to gather and make horrible friends with each other, I expected it. I would not have expected this level of victim blaming in a MetaFilter thread, and I'm extremely disappointed.

Remember, everyone: your words don't exist in a vacuum, this case doesn't stand alone, and it's quite possible that there are victims of similar assaults or even just people who are affected by the way expectations about how masculine people are supposed to perform masculinity reading your words and participating in the world you're shaping.
posted by NoraReed at 5:28 PM on May 7, 2013 [55 favorites]


Take Reddit's word for it? They're still convinced that Sunil Tripathi was the girl on Danny's jock.

I was disgusted seeing how this went down on reddit, but considering that large swathes of reddit exist to give rape apologists and racists a place to gather and make horrible friends with each other, I expected it. I would not have expected this level of victim blaming in a MetaFilter thread, and I'm extremely disappointed

Seriously.

I'm gobsmacked that people here are taking the word of a site that, outside of curated areas, is infamous for being horrid on gender issues in general and rape in particular, and with a known history of being absolutely shitty when it comes to playing the blame game.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:35 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


Thank you for bringing an objective and true 3rd person account, louche mustachio.
posted by P.o.B. at 5:39 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


To be fair the post was in /r/hiphopheads, by someone claiming to have been at the show. I will still take Kitty's word over some random Internet person any day of the week. But /r/hhh has no axe to grind here
posted by Ad hominem at 5:40 PM on May 7, 2013


I don't really understand the people who are using the fact that the performer carried on with the show as if nothing happened, meant that nothing happened. That's part of giving a performance, particularly if, as his tweets indicate, you are in the 'zone'.

Now I'm not a musician or an actor or anything like that, but I do teach undergrads, and teaching is very much a kind of performance. I've had many many experiences of catching someone out checking out or staring at my crotch. What are you going to do? Stop the class and call that student out? Make him or her so embarrassed that they'll probably never come to class again? I'm in the middle of explaining something complex, I don't have time for even thinking about that.

No. You go on with the show, in this case the class. And later on, when you've had time to reflect, feel somewhat uncomfortable about the whole thing.

In a similar vein, I've several gay friends who have been sexually assaulted by drunk women, who think it's fine, or cool, or whatever, to grab their genitals. They were all so shocked they didn't know what quite to do. People don't always act rationally and calmly at such moments.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 5:44 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


You know I don't find it to be such an outlandish idea to want an objective account, from someone who has no personal investment, about an outlandish event.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:01 PM on May 7, 2013


The redditor responded several days ago:
I posted that and it is true, she constantly went back stage and wasn't there for the whole performance. Danny grabbed a friend of mines hand and he put her hand on his dick on top of his shirt. She full of shit on that part. Also I was the sober driver so I remember everything very clearly. edit: Also i don't appreciate her childish comment on Minnesota.
Also, the tendency of so many people on MetaFilter to stereotype people on reddit is fucking pathetic. Reddit users are a large group (I wouldn't call it a community) and a lot of folks there are not so different from folks here.
posted by exogenous at 6:04 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


You know I don't find it to be such an outlandish idea to want an objective account, from someone who has no personal investment, about an outlandish event.

So you want a unicorn, then.
posted by rtha at 6:06 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


When I read discussions of things like this on MeFi, I feel as if I've fallen down the rabbit-hole.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 6:11 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yes, my racist quest would not be complete without a unicorn! Although, I prefer a pegicorn, or maybe just a regular old pegasus. But, hey, beggars can't be choosers.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:14 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Where is the line between being socially pressured into sex and rape?"

Personally I think we need to have a national conversation that includes not calling pressured sex sex at all.

If we want to come up with a word for it such as "exploitive sex" or "abusive sex" that would be fine rather than the "r" word, but really it should not be considered sex to have sex with someone who you psychologically or physically bullied into sex.
posted by xarnop at 6:17 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Still trying to figure out what Julian Assange was doing at a Danny Brown concert in Minnesota.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:24 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Danny wants to be respected as an artist and a human. Like any other male, especially those in the public eye (and especially those who spend a lot of time talking about licking vaginas), he wants to be respected as a “man." I'm only putting man in quotation marks because my ideal man is currently at home in NYC lighting cupcake-scented candles and taking bubble baths.

Yo kitty i appreciate the shout out n whatnot but everyone doesnt need to know i'm what candles im into knam sayin?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:42 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


This story is perfectly calibrated to generate comment thread pissing contests. If it didn't exist, we would have had to invent it.
posted by gerryblog at 6:53 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


In the absence of further evidence, this looks like a performer was sexually assaulted onstage while doing his job, and every single remark about "how'd she get into his pants" "why didn't he back away more" "well he didn't act the way victims are supposed to" etc is another brick in the wall of hypermasculinity, patriarchy and a culture that believes that men and boys cannot be raped or sexually assaulted by women.
I don't think that's exactly fair, since that's not at all what I believe. I didn't question whether it happened. I question how it happened. By extension I am casting doubt on the event, sure, since I don't get how it happened in this case.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:00 PM on May 7, 2013


"Also, the tendency of so many people on MetaFilter to stereotype people on reddit is fucking pathetic. Reddit users are a large group (I wouldn't call it a community) and a lot of folks there are not so different from folks here."

Hey, remember that huge crime recently where Reddit speculation turned out to be bullshit? It was this thing in Boston, you might have heard of it?

Or as Interwebs Daddy always says, "Don't believe everything you read on Reddit."
posted by klangklangston at 7:01 PM on May 7, 2013


Its funny, I missed the surge of this thread when I went out to grab lunch, and kinda didn't expect this much of a response.

As I mentioned upthread, I'm not a fan of Kitty's music, but I am a huge Danny Brown fan. I've seen him a couple times before and the guy is a real tight performer, he doesn't stop for anything. I'm not surprised that he just kept going on with the show, but I've heard he's had a couple disappointing shows in the aftermath, which really sucks all around.

With all the talk of hyper-masculinity and whatnot, I really want to point out that the guy has a soft-side the size of a football field. The guy is modeling for Uniqlo's, Keith Haring line, his best friend is a pretty white girl with justin bieber posters, who posts her poetry raps to tumblr from her macbook. I have friends who follow him on Instagram and are only barely aware that he does music. His catalog (well, until recently) is largely stories of finding fun and humor through a life full of anger and pain and sorrow. The guy has a lot of emotional range, and covers a lot of bases even if it nominally seems like its just sex and drugs and party music.

It makes me very sad, though, since Danny Brown has utterly dominated my playlists for the last couple years, and struck a real resounding chord with me, and its been great seeing him going from dejected and hopeless and angry to beloved, and funny and successful. Then this shit happens and the only characterization is "hyper-masculine", or "homophobic", or "well, lets hear the other side of the story", or "why isn't he talking about this?"

Why the fuck should he? Why shouldn't we believe Kitty? Why is all of this weird apologia being tossed out without answering the real fundamental questions Kitty asks: Why was she allowed to stay at the show? How come no one did anything? If its so goddamn important to get her side of the story, then how come nobody is doing it? Why is all the discussion about him, and whether or not he was asking for it?

Danny Brown the persona is a cartoon character, which was created by Danny Brown the person, who has a lot of friends and family as well as fans, and it makes me really sad to think of him sitting quietly on a tour bus, playing NBA live and not knowing what to make of what happened, or the flood of opinions about him written by people who don't give a shit about him or his music, but are still pretty sure that he did something wrong.

I'm a bit older than his target demo (kids who buy music and go to concerts), but I saw him touring with Bauuer a couple times in between Coachella sets, and the audience at the Santa Barbara set was really fucking gross, the audience had a lot of folks on drugs (which doesn't bother me), but they were really just groping and grinding each other and folks around them in a really appalling way (i was in the San Francisco show the night before, which had a pit and a bit less of the Bro-step massive going on). He ended up quitting part way through the set because people were just standing on the speakers and just staring out in the crowd, a lot of people weren't even paying attention to the set. A lot of them were just there because the Harlem Shake guy was DJ'ing. I've been to lots of shows and clubs, and parties, and I don't mind packed crowds, and most pits, or shitty dancers, but there were dudes facing away from the stage and just falling back on people and grinding their asses into them. I had to seriously shove a guy off of my knee from that, who was looking me in the eye when I was telling him to knock it off. If the Minneapolis crowd was anything like that, I'm not too surprised at the transgressions.

It still fucking sucks, though, and like Kitty says, what the fuck would you do if someone tore your pants off in front of 700 people?

Also, the tendency of so many people on MetaFilter to stereotype people on reddit is fucking pathetic.

I spend a fair amount of time clicking through reddit, and there is a lot of racist, sexist, gay-bashing, and whatever else there. As Ad Hominem mentioned above, this was in r/hiphopheads, which largely exists because r/music users can say a helluva lot of racist shit when hiphop comes up. I'm not a huge fan of r/hhh, since its skews so young and backpackery, but the default subs comment sections are largely turf wars between troll-brigades and endlessly parroted "jokes" that got someone karma at some point. Reddits Eternal September is succuming to its own Eternal September.

I've mentioned it before, but /r/hiphopcirclejerk is the true home for real hip hop (TM).
posted by lkc at 7:11 PM on May 7, 2013 [32 favorites]


My head is spinning from reading this thread.
posted by agregoli at 7:52 PM on May 7, 2013


Hey, remember that huge crime recently where Reddit speculation turned out to be bullshit? It was this thing in Boston, you might have heard of it?

So you want to dismiss everything from the site entirely, fine. Enjoy your snark and facile stereotypes.
posted by exogenous at 7:54 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Kitty doesn't want to go into details because she was pretty drunk. Yet she does anyway and people accept it as gospel. Sounds like drama.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:57 PM on May 7, 2013


you can ignore everything she says about "the thing" and only read the parts about how danny reacted after and still come to the conclusion that something is deeply fucked up about all of this and that he wasn't a consenting partner.
posted by nadawi at 8:00 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


I love how this Kitty person writes, in TFA, about how she goes out of her way to facilitate Danny Brown having sex with his drunk female fans, but at the same time her words are being taken as authoritative proof that what happened onstage was the "rape" of Danny Brown.

It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around.
posted by Unified Theory at 8:10 PM on May 7, 2013


Consent turns out to be a really hard concept for some people to grasp. Especially men, but some women here and there are a bit shaky on it too.

Similarly, the fact that you just got sexually assaulted by someone can be a really hard concept for some people to grasp. I don't know the gender breakdown on that. Maybe it depends in part on to what extent you've ever thought about the possibility of being a victim. Maybe if the answer is 'none, never', it can take a long time to understand.

I'm a guy, and when it happened to me, it took me about six months to realise. It took another three years to find people to talk to about it who didn't both a) dismiss it completely and b) think the whole thing hilarious.

This was a woman I'd invited back to my house. BUT NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH THAT I DIDN'T WANT. I'd never had to point that out to anyone before before. It never occurred to me I'd need to.

I wasn't busy doing a show on stage at the time, though I was quite busy trying to sleep because I was totally exhausted. I wasn't then and am not now in any way usually associated with any particularly macho kind of culture. I have never been accused of being the macho type.

It was still incredibly hard to grasp what had happened at all (ho ho ho I didn't know sex could be so bad ha ha etc) to process, to deal with and years later I am still dealing with it.

So I have great sympathy for this Danny guy. On the plus side, this Kitty woman seems pretty sound. I'm glad for him that she's his friend.
posted by motty at 8:12 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


"So you want to dismiss everything from the site entirely, fine. Enjoy your snark and facile stereotypes."

Yup, exactly what I said — you give me great faith in your ability to read Reddit critically. And you can come back with your "Naw dog its real!" as many times as you like, but until it gets confirmed by someone outside of Reddit, it's not a credible source.
posted by klangklangston at 8:13 PM on May 7, 2013


It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around.

how dare someone consent to have sex with some people and want to reserve the right to not consent to a complete stranger in the middle of a show. and how dare someone be totally fine with their friend having an active sex life but upset when he's assaulted.
posted by nadawi at 8:16 PM on May 7, 2013 [26 favorites]


I read Kitty's description of "the thing", but it certainly doesn't jibe with witnesses from that show or others--the girls grabbing his crotch thing seems to have happened a lot. I'm not saying it's consensual--maybe he just likes being really close even if it means he gets molested at several shows (and now raped).
I just don't know if I trust Kitty as an authority, BUT then, if she's reporting how he feels, then that's all that matters I suppose.
posted by whatgorilla at 8:22 PM on May 7, 2013


I love how this Kitty person writes, in TFA, about how she goes out of her way to facilitate Danny Brown having sex with his drunk female fans, but at the same time her words are being taken as authoritative proof that what happened onstage was the "rape" of Danny Brown.

It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around.


WTF? Has "s/he was asking for it" somehow become acceptable discourse for rape and sexual assault again?
posted by zombieflanders at 8:23 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around.

That's fucking appalling. So because he willingly has sex with some people, he's not allowed to refuse consent with anyone? That's really what you want to write in public?
posted by KathrynT at 8:24 PM on May 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


Yeah, I don't think it's hard to imagine someone who likes sex, and even with different people, but has preferences as to where it happens. If that boundary is crossed then it certainly qualifies as assault.
posted by P.o.B. at 8:26 PM on May 7, 2013


I love how this Kitty person writes, in TFA, about how she goes out of her way to facilitate Danny Brown having sex with his drunk female fans, but at the same time her words are being taken as authoritative proof that what happened onstage was the "rape" of Danny Brown.

It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around.


This is one of the most loathsome statements I have ever read on this site.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 8:33 PM on May 7, 2013 [16 favorites]


"It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around."

You like to have sex with other people? Guess I get to fuck you now.
posted by klangklangston at 8:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


I think the point is that drunk female fans can't consent.
posted by empath at 8:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Sometimes they come back to our hotel with us, and I’ve even parked their cars for them when they’re too drunk to drive.

Is this the line you are referring to? Because it doesn't say she helps procure drunk fans for him to rape.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:42 PM on May 7, 2013


>Uh-oh, better lawyer up if I want to participate in this thread.

WTF were you even asking then?


It was a genuine question. It seems as though there is no such thing as "sexual assault" in the US, and according to the person who answered my question, it's a binary thing: rape vs not guilty. It seems, then, somewhat irresponsible to play soapbox lawyer in this thread arguing that a rape has been committed.

On the other hand, if this had happened in Canada, Brown would certainly be the victim of a sexual assault. But according to whoever answered my question, it's rape.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:52 PM on May 7, 2013


"Rape" vs. "Sexual assault" definitions vary by state in the U.S. Some states don't actually have any legal definition for "rape."
posted by jaguar at 8:56 PM on May 7, 2013


i've been raped and sexually assaulted many times. if i had reported them, all but one of them would not have ended in convictions based upon the burden proof and definitions of rape and societal factors. even so, i don't hesitate at all to refer to them as rape or assault. i know many survivors and i know very few who are given any satisfaction through the court system. some goalposts are unreasonably strict in conversations of acceptable behavior.
posted by nadawi at 9:02 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


The word "rape" is not used in the Canadian Criminal Code. A decent argument can be made that this change, which happened in 1983, served to decrease the seriousness with which rape is treated.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 9:10 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


On the other hand, if this had happened in Canada, Brown would certainly be the victim of a sexual assault. But according to whoever answered my question, it's rape.

The word "rape" is not used in the Criminal Code of Canada, with the term "sexual assault" being used instead. The law in the US generally describes both "rape" and "sexual assault"; as it happens, Minnesota seems to [PDF] delineate various degrees of "criminal sexual conduct". So I guess legally, there was not only no rape, but no sexual assault. If you want to play this sort of fine-semantic game.

"Rape" is used for sexual assault that involves sexual intercourse. Which includes oral sex. Which includes putting a penis in one's mouth. Which is what happened.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:12 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Scenario 1: he consented and Kitty is lying about it despite the fact that it opens her good friend's reputation up to speculation and ridicule.

Scenario 2: he did not consent and she is telling the truth.

Which one makes infinitely more sense?
posted by desjardins at 10:15 PM on May 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


Kitty Pryde: always findin' a way to make it back to the blue.
posted by zscore at 10:27 PM on May 7, 2013


Or he did something at a concert that is threatening to have far reaching repercussions for their tour and careers, and she's trying to do damage control. Honestly, I don't know what the real story is here, but I see everybody reading facts into the story that just are not there.
posted by The World Famous at 10:28 PM on May 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


You claim not to know the real story, but then you basically come right out and say Kitty is lying in her post, but that everyone else is reading facts into the story that aren't there. Help me out here, because I'm having trouble reconciling any two of these three claims.
posted by valrus at 10:42 PM on May 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


No, I assume she is 100% truthful in her post.
posted by The World Famous at 10:45 PM on May 7, 2013


The guy goes on Twitter and more or less says he got a blowjob on stage "and didn't miss a beat." Is that what people say when they get raped?" - posted by phaedon

I was, in fact, very proud of the fact that I did not allow a public sexual assault make me miss a beat (so to speak) and I was able to complete my performance (mostly) as planned. Until about twelve hours later, when I broke down and then spent the next six weeks barely leaving my home.

So, yeah, that is what people say.
posted by _paegan_ at 11:34 PM on May 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


I love how this Kitty person writes, in TFA, about how she goes out of her way to facilitate Danny Brown having sex with his drunk female fans, but at the same time her words are being taken as authoritative proof that what happened onstage was the "rape" of Danny Brown.

It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around.


We have to go deeper! We haven't hit bottom yet!
posted by kafziel at 11:43 PM on May 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


I've had many many experiences of catching someone out checking out or staring at my crotch.

Oh God. I've done this and now I feel very guilty and embarrassed. I sincerely hope my male prof didn't think I had a thing for him. I wasn't even thinking of anything sexual. I was trying to figure out how old that pair of pleated pants were (they were very washed and a navy blue) and if they resembled the ones we had to wear at camp. Then I wondered if he saved up all the money from wearing really used clothes and if he was one of those secretly rich guys who didn't spend money on clothes and shoes then had a pile of money to donate to MoMa after they died. Then I wondered how his wife and kids dressed. Then I wondered if I still had a pair of pleated pants. Then I remembered how my orchestra conductor in high school wore pleated pants and turtlenecks, but it was the 90's and one day he came in wearing pleated pants with a green/blue plaid pattern and all violas gave him a hard time about them. I don't think he ever wore them again.

I will never look at a male prof's crotch area again so help me. I had no idea that he may have thought I was checking him out. Damn pleated pants....I know who I won't be saying hi to if I run into the prof again.
posted by discopolo at 12:17 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


Hey, remember that huge crime recently where Reddit MetaFilter speculation turned out to be bullshit?

Not to mention the time there was a MetaFilter thread about a guy getting sexually assaulted, which turned into a clusterfuck of illiterates who couldn't be arsed to read the links and dudebros sharing their Dear Playboy fantasies. It wasn't one of the site's classier threads.

But, hey, keep on calling that kettle black, my good man. One must keep up appearances.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:34 AM on May 8, 2013


Thankyou discopolo, for trying to minimise my experience. You might have some idea that I'm a crusty old professor or something (not that they should be sexually objectified either), but the story I related happened to me in my mid to late 20s. And no, my pants weren't pleated.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 1:02 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


I will never look at a male prof's crotch area again so help me. I had no idea that he may have thought I was checking him out.
I had this one prof a few years ago who was considered the "boy wonder" of his department. Many of the girls had a crush on him. (He looked like my brother in law.) Because he wore tight pants and was rumored to be "packing heat", I felt like the only female student who'd look him square in the eye. All the other girls were, um, looking elsewhere.

Also during that semester, one of the girls in my class saw that he had a homemade Black Flag tattoo on his upper arm. So that was amusing.
posted by pxe2000 at 4:18 AM on May 8, 2013


Hey, remember that huge crime recently where Reddit speculation turned out to be bullshit? It was this thing in Boston, you might have heard of it?

Metafilter wasn't much better with the Boston thing. And no, you shouldn't use reddit as a credible source, but I say that holds true for any unvetted site on the internet.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:40 AM on May 8, 2013


This thread is a perfect illustration of how the patriarchy hurts men and feminism helps men. Hey MRAs, you're looking for misandry? Here it is, but beware -- the call is coming from inside our gender.
posted by gilrain at 5:04 AM on May 8, 2013 [26 favorites]


"Sometimes they come back to our hotel with us, and I’ve even parked their cars for them when they’re too drunk to drive."

(Bunny Ultramod asked) Is this the line you are referring to? Because it doesn't say she helps procure drunk fans for him to rape.


Yes, and particularly the part you didn't quote, immediately after that, where she said something like "I think everyone should have the opportunity to seduce their favorite rapper, tee hee hee."
posted by Unified Theory at 6:09 AM on May 8, 2013


It sounds more like a case of what goes around comes around.

Nope. No, not buying any of that WTF brand fertiliser.
posted by jaduncan at 7:12 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't think this was a good thing. However, I do find it problematic that Kitty is essentially saying, 'My friend was raped, and if they deny it they're lying.' I imagine it would be why some people in this thread, including me, would want to hear from Danny Brown himself rather than go all in on the account of someone who was 'pretty drunk', in her own words.

Also, I and quite a number of people I know have had consensual sex with few to no words exchanged, so that factors into my thoughts. Overall, I think a lot of good points have been raised, just that this has not been something so cut and dried I can just go with the outrage so easily.
posted by gadge emeritus at 7:14 AM on May 8, 2013 [4 favorites]




If metafilter is being this gross, then we really have a long way to go.

Not that we didn't know that already.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:23 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Kitty doesn't want to go into details because she was pretty drunk. Yet she does anyway and people accept it as gospel. Sounds like drama."

This is why people who get raped while drunk will never see justice from legal system or their communities.

I'm not saying this situation is rape, I'm saying dismissing this as sexual assault on such grounds is an excellent example of what assault and rape victims experience when/if they ever try to speak up.

And it's why many never do. Not to the law, and not their friends, family or peer groups.
posted by xarnop at 7:31 AM on May 8, 2013


just that this has not been something so cut and dried I can just go with the outrage so easily.

Exactly. It's amazing how quickly certain people jump from "you disagree with my characterization of events" to "this website has a long way to go," "people here are gross," etc.

You all realize that reasonable people can disagree, right? It doesn't have to get personal.
posted by Unified Theory at 7:32 AM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


I know a lot of people think this thread is awful but I think it's just another opportunity to discuss the nuance of how we view consent and how we understand assault and deal with it as individuals and communities. I think it's fine for people who still haven't really gotten into the idea of enthusiastic consent to share why they are opposed to the idea, think it's silly or dramatic, or excessive etc. It helps those of us who do advocacy to know the opposition.

Unified Theory-- it's very often impossible to have an opinion about who someone is, what they have done, what they are going through and how to define and treat them without it being personal. It's not "safe" to have any opinion you want, for people around you. These issues are always personal because they define how people think and ACT in the world and how think about and treat others. It matters. That is why some issues are going to be personal and contentious and bring up defense mechanisms-- because sometimes our opinions about others DO threaten the welfare of others, and if you're spreading an agenda that is going to harm others they might get upset about it. Your opinions about social issues and human beings can threaten whether they will be treated with kindness, able to have friends, understood in their communities, get legal help, receive needed protection, or have access to needed resources.

It's not a reality where any opinion is harmless just because you want it to be harmless.
posted by xarnop at 7:41 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think maybe some people who think enthusiastic consent is excessive or silly are undereducated about the lifelong harms that unwanted sex can cause to people who experience it and don't really think preventing rape, sexual abuse, or harmful sex is worth asking communities to go through the trouble of changing how they think about sex and consent to prevent such forms of suffering.

It's something to think about for advocates, how to get that education out in such a way that opponents to enthusiastic consent might learn that it's about more than the convenience of people who want to have carefree sex- and thinking about the welfare of others who may be seriously injured, sometimes permanently from such behavior.

I'm not sure, but those of you who think that obtaining consent before having sex with people is a silly thing to do, I do hope you share as honestly as you can what your thinking is behind it. And I hope that deep down you really don't want to contribute to people being harmed and you might listen to why others are advocating you reconsider your thinking about consent to prevent innocent people from being really harmed.
posted by xarnop at 7:48 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


(I want to reiterate, these conversations would be so much easier if we have them with people BEFORE they start blundering over others sexual resistance as a normal part of sex so that we don't have both men and woman screeching, but I've done that and people I love have done that to me or others and I don't want you to think their bad so it can't be a bad thing and if I wasn't harmed or traumatized by it, and wound up accepting and liking it, no one else could have had a different experience to experiencing sexual advances without any consent!)
posted by xarnop at 7:52 AM on May 8, 2013


You all realize that reasonable people can disagree, right? It doesn't have to get personal.

Yes, let's all be robots and discuss sexual assault as if it is a hypothetical issue at great remove from ourselves. Beep beep boop.

Your statement wasn't reasonable and therefore it's quite understandable that people would take issue with it and let you know. And victim blaming and dismissal of sexual assault feels personal for many people here, as it's bullshit they've lived through in their real lives, not a convo for giggles on the internets.
posted by Squeak Attack at 7:54 AM on May 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


Also the idea that seducing people means overpowering unwilling partners with their own desire and therefore "winning" at the right to harm them with sex that is hurtful to them in many ways they don't want, needs to stop being an ok thing to do to people. Or manipulating the stakes so that you impress on them how they need to supply sex or you're going to do "x". Even the freeze out (Have sex or I'm leaving) needs to stop. If someone isn't ready for sex and you need it immediately just break up-or back way up and re-evaluate how to support each other honestly-don't issue some crappy ultimatum on someone who wants your affection and you only want to give it if they supply the kind of sex you want on the spot. (Also that's not really so affectionate is it? Just because some people haven't seen through you or figured out what real love could be like and that they deserve it, doesn't mean it's ok to abuse the vulnerable. Even "easy" people don't deserve to be treated like.).

If seducing means, "enticing into the mood for sex with a partner who wants that"- it's a totally different matter.

If you're having to overcome someones resistance, because you know they want a real relationship and you're not interested, you know they want birth control use and you're not willing to use it or wait for it to be in place, or they just want to know whether you're a good trustworthy partner and you haven't created a meaningful bond yet-- you're doing it wrong. (Wrong being defined as, harmful.)

First time sex, while I think can even fit into a casual sex model, still needs to have some degree of communication and looking out for the welfare of your partner to not be a totally dangerous and potentially destructive social practice.
posted by xarnop at 8:09 AM on May 8, 2013


xarnop: I'm not sure, but those of you who think that obtaining consent before having sex with people is a silly thing to do, I do hope you share as honestly as you can what your thinking is behind it.

I really don't think anyone is saying that. Or even thinking that. Not in this conversation. My stated experience was one of having had consensual sex without verbal confirmation, which was a point brought up earlier about how Danny Brown could or could not have consented to what happened.

These threads generally make me quite sad, because there's clearly a number of MeFites contributing who have had terrible, personal experiences. But it also makes me think of this comment from cribcage, because it often feels like posters map their experience onto the incident being discussed, and then continue their contributions in-thread as if they are identical, even when they're not. It means differences in the conversation are much more likely to be misconstrued, and just makes everything more difficult - and it's starting from a pretty high point to begin with.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:10 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


I've had consensual sex without verbal confirmation too. I've also had non-consensual sex without verbal confirmation.

It's amazing how different the submissive party can experience the two things as while the instigator has an almost identical experience.

That's why getting the consent issue down is relevant REGARDLESS of how the person responds to sexual acts without consent. It's not about whether we all react the same to sex without any verbal agreement- it's about the fact that innocent people HAVE gotten really harmed by it, sometimes by people who may not have even meant to cause that harm.

If we can clear that up by adopting a policy of ensuring we really do have consent instead of assuming (sometimes correctly!) there is consent, we could prevent a lot of terrible harm from happening to people.
posted by xarnop at 8:14 AM on May 8, 2013


I don't really know what to think. I don't think Kitty is doing Danny a solid by proffering up drunk fans for him to have sex with, since if they are drunk they can't really consent.

I don't think it's cool for some girl to do this at a show, and she should have been restrained and made to leave. I think Danny's tweet was unfortunate though because it reinforces the male stereotype, and particularly male rapper stereotype, of bravado sexual hijinks. But probably this is sort of a confusing and stressful and disorienting time for him, and we should cut him some slack. I hope show security has been increased.

Kitty's tweet about 1200 fans at the last show shouting "suck Danny's dick" is horrifying. If this were a woman we would be talking about PTSD, etc. If the shouts are bothering him, and I don't see how they can't, I wish he would say something and his fans would listen.
posted by onlyconnect at 8:15 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yes, let's all be robots and discuss sexual assault as if it is a hypothetical issue at great remove from ourselves. Beep beep boop.

The problem is that some people want to focus on this particular event, while others see it as another data point in overall sexual assault. So there's a lot of talking past each other.

There's also the stigma of using the words assault or rape and the black and white stance people understandably take with them. It's possible he was assaulted and liked it, then changed his mind. It's possible he liked it and didn't think it was assault, but is now weirded out because his good friend insists on talking about it and his feelings in public or there's weird blowback from fans.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:16 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


gadge emeritus: “Also, I and quite a number of people I know have had consensual sex with few to no words exchanged, so that factors into my thoughts.”

I appreciate this position; however, I've thought about it a bit, and I don't think this approach to rape and consent issues makes sense.

People sometimes raise this issue when we talk about consent – for instance, is not-necessarily-solicited-and-yet-not-unwanted sex thereby rape? If your lover wakes you up with a blowjob or whatever, is that rape because they didn't ask for it? On the one hand, yes, this makes it more difficult for anyone but those two people to know whether there was consent. But I don't think it makes consent any more complicated for the two people involved. The fact is that implicit consent based on knowledge of a person and prior indications is a real thing. Human beings don't always have words for these things, but if you're in that situation you know if there's consent by picking up on a whole host of indicators and signs – for instance, has this person previously expressed that they'd like this? Do the boundaries we've set up between us indicate that this would be desired? What are their specific signs of rejection of advances, and does the respect we have between us make this seem appropriate? We don't always go through a lengthy and explicit thinking-out of these issues in words; usually it's just a natural human calculation that we do instinctively. But it is no less a process that human beings have.

In this case, it makes no sense to pretend that this could possibly have happened. Danny Brown and the woman who accosted him were complete strangers. They didn't talk before the incident, and presumably they are not likely to have talked after it. There were clearly no secret signs, there was no established respect, there were no conversations about "yeah, I kind of like it when people do X to me," nothing. So assuming that perhaps there was an unspoken agreement between them is incoherent – on what could that possibly be based? I can imagine situations where there's unspoken agreement, where people wordlessly meet and have sex; but those situations don't involve one party instigating it by abruptly exposing the other party in front of hundreds of people and immediately diving into the act without waiting for so much as a glance or a word.

“My stated experience was one of having had consensual sex without verbal confirmation, which was a point brought up earlier about how Danny Brown could or could not have consented to what happened.”

I've had consensual sex without verbal confirmation of consent, too. In every case, the only reason that was possible was because a host of nonverbal signs of consent; either (a) both parties got to know each other very well beforehand so that they knew where boundaries were, or (b) the sex proceeded only after both parties could establish, by glances and other nonverbal cues, that consent was given.

It seems extraordinarily unlikely that Danny Brown somehow nonverbally communicated that he wanted to be exposed in front of hundreds of people and engaged in sexual acts immediately. I submit that that's not really how it works when strangers have consensual sex. If you're going to force yourself on someone's crotch like that, I really think actual verbal consent is probably a pretty good thing to wait for.
posted by koeselitz at 8:24 AM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


But why is it relevant for random internet people do define whether he liked it or not? That keeps getting brought up, and I'd be curious to hear from those who think that's a defining point, what that changes about how you interpret this particular scenario. If you could expand on why whether he liked it or not changes something about how you see this incident, I genuinely want to understand that.

Does it make it ok to have done to him if he liked it? Most people get arousal when their genitals are touched... that's pretty common to sexual assault in general, so I'm not exactly understanding how "he liked it" changes or doesn't change that it's awful to assault someone?
posted by xarnop at 8:24 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


The idea that someone can retroactively consent is really harmful as well because it puts pressure on assault survivors to grant retroactive consent, thus making it not a big deal. (Which is a normal reaction to assault as well)
posted by xarnop at 8:26 AM on May 8, 2013


The problem is that some people want to focus on this particular event, while others see it as another data point in overall sexual assault.

I think continuing to dissect every second- or third- or forth-party narrative of this particular event, with derails to snipe back and forth about reddit, is actually a lot less interesting than using it as a springboard to talk about how society views sexual assault of men by women.

Dissecting this particular event, detail by detail, just leads to the typical "assaultee liked it, asked for it, what was he wearing" bullshit that enrages some of us. I've seen so many discussions of sexual assault on women derailed by "men get raped too you know!" and here's the perfect time to discuss that, and instead we're talking about whether Brown's pants had an elastic waist. It's sheer idiocy.
posted by Squeak Attack at 8:27 AM on May 8, 2013 [6 favorites]


Okay, this is my last comment. I think it's pretty disingenuous for people to treat this woman's actions as worthy of outrage when, by Kitty's own words, rape/sexual assault was a routine practice by the alleged victim Danny Brown. If you find Kitty credible, which many of you obviously do, then he was having sex with women who were too drunk to park their own damn cars. So, uh, yeah, excuse me for not being outraged. Several of you are quick to dismiss accounts (such as the Reddit account that has Brown inviting fans to grope him through his pants) that inconveniently depict him as complicit in the atmosphere of sexual abandon. It sounds like someone got carried away in a highly sexualized, debaucherous, sexually exploitative setting, and some of you are treating a person who was regularly a sexual assaulter as the victim here because you have personal agendas at stake that have nothing to do with this incident.
posted by Unified Theory at 8:37 AM on May 8, 2013


koeselitz: I can imagine situations where there's unspoken agreement, where people wordlessly meet and have sex; but those situations don't involve one party instigating it by abruptly exposing the other party in front of hundreds of people and immediately diving into the act without waiting for so much as a glance or a word.

Well, there's this. Or are we being heteronormative now?
Also, considering that there is another account saying Danny Brown groped the woman's breasts first, gives a possibility of a few more signals exchanged than the woman being the sole prime actor. Though I do agree that reddit being a hive of scum and villainy means we can't just assume that it's an accurate portrayal of events, it doesn't also mean that it can't also be true, just that it's less likely to be true. But I don't think 'published on reddit' reduces it 'instant lies and slander'. Just nudges the scale a bit.

xarnop: Does it make it ok to have done to him if he liked it? Most people get arousal when their genitals are touched... that's pretty common to sexual assault in general, so I'm not exactly understanding how "he liked it" changes or doesn't change that it's awful to assault someone?

Not simply if he achieved erection, no, but if he actually enjoyed it? If he were to say, 'Hey, I was cool with that happening.'? Then I can't see how it wouldn't change circumstances. Because it then, by definition, was a consensual act, one that both parties took part in willingly. I'd be very uncomfortable at not taking him at his word on this.

However, I'm going to take a break from this thread, and respectfully, considering the frequency of your posts, I would suggest xarnop that you might find it beneficial to do so as well. Or at least, collate more of your thoughts together into longer, fewer comments.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:43 AM on May 8, 2013


I'm not sure, but those of you who think that obtaining consent before having sex with people is a silly thing to do, I do hope you share as honestly as you can what your thinking is behind it.

I think some of the reaction stems from imagining a scene like this:
[Chris and Jamie are sitting by the fireplace after a romantic dinner]

Jamie: I would like to kiss you. May I kiss you?
Chris: Yes, you may kiss me.

[they kiss]

Jamie: I would like to undress you. May I undress you?
Chris: Yes, you may. You may undress me.

[they undress each other]

Chris: I would like to have sex. Would you like to have sex?
Jamie: I would. Indeed, I would also like to have sex. I am giving you my consent to have sex with me. Here is a list of things you may do with me.
Clearly this is unrealistic, but this is exactly what some people picture when "consent" is talked about in these kinds of conversations.
posted by desjardins at 8:43 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


These two are the best photos I could find. Are there better ones out there?

His hand is clearly on the back of her head in the first one and it also looks like it could be there in the second. Call me a rape apologist if you want, but that photo looks kinda consensual to me. Especially absent any claim otherwise from Brown.
posted by 0 at 8:43 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


rape/sexual assault was a routine practice by the alleged victim Danny Brown

what

And? So? Even if we take as a given (which, why should we?) he has at some point in his life committed sexual assault, that doesn't mean he deserves to be sexually assaulted, which is what you said in your comment that pissed off so many people.

Why yes, I do believe that a convicted rapist who is imprisoned for his crime does not deserve to be raped in prison. I'm not a goody two-shoes. I believe rape is wrong, no matter what. No one deserves it, ever, for any reason.
posted by rtha at 8:45 AM on May 8, 2013 [11 favorites]


xarnop: “But why is it relevant for random internet people do define whether he liked it or not? That keeps getting brought up, and I'd be curious to hear from those who think that's a defining point, what that changes about how you interpret this particular scenario. If you could expand on why whether he liked it or not changes something about how you see this incident, I genuinely want to understand that. Does it make it ok to have done to him if he liked it?”

While I agree with you – it is wrong to have sex with people without their consent, regardless of how they react and regardless of whether consent is granted after the fact – I think it makes sense that the victim's disposition and reaction is naturally taken into account here. But I think it comes from a misunderstanding, really – more specifically a failure to understand the general effects of rape on the social contract and the basic agreements we have with the people we live among.

In other words: rape is wrong because it is an often very damaging violation of a person. When the victim says they liked it, people jump across a few different conclusions: first, if they say they liked it, people assume that means there was no damage or harm done to them. Next, if no damage or harm was done to the victim specifically, people assume that there was no violation at all. Neither of these things are necessarily true. People who have been violated are often tempted to shrug off what happened to them, even in cases where they have experienced harm, so even if they say "oh, I'm fine," it isn't necessarily so (even though of course we have to respect their requests and desires). And even in whatever rare cases there are where the victim really doesn't experience harm from rape, there is still a violation; if nothing else, there is a violation of the intensely important social norms that we hold in common between us. If it's okay to force even one of us human beings into sex without our consent, then all of us are fair game; and so it's clear that society needs to work hard to stop rape in all cases.

Unified Theory: “... some of you are treating a person who was regularly a sexual assaulter as the victim here because you have personal agendas at stake that have nothing to do with this incident.”

It's probably good to pay attention to the details of Kitty's essay. I didn't get the reading you're getting out of it, so I'm going to go over it again and see how I feel.

However, although I guess you're not going to respond (sadly; it'd be nice to talk more about this) I wanted to say – I think it's a little more complicated than this. A person can be a rapist and also a victim. Both cases are distinct, and should be treated as distinct. If Danny Brown has committed sexual assault, that does not mean that he was not also a victim of sexual assault.
posted by koeselitz at 8:45 AM on May 8, 2013


His hand is clearly on the back of her head in the first one and it also looks like it could be there in the second.

In the picture linked, it looks to me as if he's trying to gently remove her head from his crotch while still holding the microphone.
It's hard to tell. It's a snapshot. An instant frozen in time.
posted by Floydd at 8:51 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


gadge emeritus: “Well, there's this. Or are we being heteronormative now?”

I don't think it's heteronormative to say that hip hop shows and sex parties are entirely different contexts for sexual activity, and that that context at least factors into the consent calculation that people make in prelude to sexual acts.

“Also, considering that there is another account saying Danny Brown groped the woman's breasts first, gives a possibility of a few more signals exchanged than the woman being the sole prime actor.”

Yes, this is true. Above, I've gone by Kitty's account, both because I think it's more plausible than other accounts and because I respect her as a source. But it bears repeating that we really don't know what happened, and there are plenty of things that could have passed between Brown and the woman that constituted consent. My argument assumes that Kitty's description – no previous contact, no prelude, just a woman rushing up, pulling down pants, and engaging, and Danny Brown responding by pulling back to get away – is an accurate description of what happened. If it is, I have a hard time imagining even an implicit consenting happening; but of course we aren't completely certain that account is accurate.
posted by koeselitz at 8:54 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


he's trying to gently remove her head from his crotch

From the angle of his hand, it doesn't seem like he could be moving her head away from him rather than towards him (unless he is actually grabbing her hair and pulling it back). I completely agree that it's hardly conclusive evidence that he consented. I just don't agree the evidence we have is conclusive that he didn't consent either.
posted by 0 at 9:04 AM on May 8, 2013


I think scrutinizing his hand movements to find out if he consented is probably not a great way to go about this, especially when we have other, more reliable evidence.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:10 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


if he actually enjoyed it? If he were to say, 'Hey, I was cool with that happening.'? Then I can't see how it wouldn't change circumstances. Because it then, by definition, was a consensual act, one that both parties took part in willingly.

It doesn't change circumstances. If you run up to a stranger and initiate sexual contact with that stranger without obtaining any form of consent - verbal, nonverbal, whatever - their feelings on the encounter are solely the domain of their experience and how they handle it, whether that includes them being cool with it or not.

Their feelings on the encounter are also irrelevant in terms of whether or not what you did was assault.

If her gamble happened to pay off and he was way into getting his dick sucked on stage, it doesn't change the fact that she didn't bother to find out if that was cool first. She created a scenario in which consent would be nice to have, sure, but was not required or even important to her. That's a problem. That's why the circumstances aren't changed regardless of his take on it.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:10 AM on May 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


Clearly this is unrealistic, but this is exactly what some people picture when "consent" is talked about in these kinds of conversations.

If you can't tell whether someone wants to have sex with you without that sort of stilted conversation, you shouldn't be having sex with that person.
posted by straight at 9:15 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yes, and particularly the part you didn't quote, immediately after that, where she said something like "I think everyone should have the opportunity to seduce their favorite rapper, tee hee hee."

I'll note that you didn't quote either, but paraphrased. Let me ask that you post the actual quote in entirety, as your paraphrase is an exceptionally poor representation of it.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:21 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


especially when we have other, more reliable evidence.

I'm honestly curious what the more reliable evidence is. I know of Kitty's account and this one in thread. Is there more I'm forgetting?
posted by 0 at 9:26 AM on May 8, 2013


Unified Theory, I appreciate your most recent response. I understand what you're saying much better now. And you raise some interesting questions - can an (alleged) rapist be (allegedly) sexually assaulted? If an (alleged) rapist is (allegedly) sexually assaulted, should we care? Should consent to being touched through your clothing also constitute consent to removal of your clothing and fellatio? If Brown would've let a woman fellate him after the performance, does it matter if one does it during the performance? If a performer creates a certain atmosphere at their performances, how much are they at fault if a fan takes that atmosphere too far? If men in general seem to respond well to the idea of sexually aggressive women, how are women supposed to know how far is too far*?

(*Question posed for ironic effect only.)
posted by Squeak Attack at 9:27 AM on May 8, 2013


Nope.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:27 AM on May 8, 2013




oops i read the comments

lol humanity bye
posted by elizardbits at 9:35 AM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


I think it's pretty disingenuous for people to treat this woman's actions as worthy of outrage when, by Kitty's own words, rape/sexual assault was a routine practice by the alleged victim Danny Brown. If you find Kitty credible, which many of you obviously do, then he was having sex with women who were too drunk to park their own damn cars.

Not all sex with all drunk people is rape. Not all people who shouldn't be driving are also too drunk to consent to sex.

If we're going to go by her own words, we're talking about women who ask Kitty if she'll help them meet Danny. The agency appears to be theirs. But you know what? Sure. For all I know, Kitty (who has been raped before and who clearly was not okay with Danny getting assaulted) regularly delivers insensate falling-down-drunk girls to Danny so he can have his wicked way with them. Or maybe it's not exactly like that but it's still unethical. I have no way of knowing.

It doesn't matter. Even if he's pressing his affections on passed-out women, it's still shitty that someone decided to assault a stranger.

So, uh, yeah, excuse me for not being outraged. Several of you are quick to dismiss accounts (such as the Reddit account that has Brown inviting fans to grope him through his pants) that inconveniently depict him as complicit in the atmosphere of sexual abandon.

Nothing - nothing - depicts him as complicit in what happened. And I'll even say this: The Reddit account contains a mention that a woman flashed him and he went up and grabbed her tits. Unless he asked her first, I think that's gross and I also think it's assault, and it doesn't matter. There's no such thing as justified sexual assault.

It sounds like someone got carried away in a highly sexualized, debaucherous, sexually exploitative setting

It does! It sounds like someone took it too far! No one disagrees that this is what happened, but some of us think it's not cool.

and some of you are treating a person who was regularly a sexual assaulter

Since you are keenly aware of the specific circumstances under which Danny Brown had sex with groupies, and how drunk everyone involved was and that the women were always too drunk to consent but Danny never was, would you terribly mind citing a source? Just for the doubters?

as the victim here because you have personal agendas at stake that have nothing to do with this incident.

You got me, hoss. I have a personal agenda. Do you know what it is? Here it is: I think rape is bad. I think people shouldn't rape each other. I don't think rape is less bad when it happens in an atmosphere of sexual abandon; or when some interpretations of the event suggest that while consent was ignored, the guy may have turned out to be okay with it; or when the person who is raped is a man.

I think the culture of silence and denial that surrounds rape is pretty gross, as well, and it's happening in full force here. But yeah. My horrific, overwrought, agenda-driven position is that I think rape is bad and that people should not rape each other. Absolutely insane, I know.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:36 AM on May 8, 2013 [25 favorites]


If you can't tell whether someone wants to have sex with you without that sort of stilted conversation, you shouldn't be having sex with that person.

But that's my point - for those talking about "consent" in this thread, what constitutes consent other than an explicit conversation? Otherwise it's subjective. I mean, we have people arguing over whether Brown's hand on the back of the woman's head constitutes consent or not. If my husband put his hand on my head like that, I would definitely think he was consenting, but of course we have years of prior history.

There's some space between possibly-ambiguous body language and stilted conversation that is not being defined by those promoting "explicit consent," and that's what I'm trying to get at.
posted by desjardins at 9:41 AM on May 8, 2013


I've been wrestling with that question off and on myself, and I think the big issue for me is the intersection in this situation between any implication of consent coming strictly through nonverbal, easy-to-misinterpret cues and the complete lack of an opportunity to say "no."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:47 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


desjardins: “There's some space between possibly-ambiguous body language and stilted conversation that is not being defined by those promoting 'explicit consent', and that's what I'm trying to get at.”

I kind of feel like that space begins to shrink a bit when we're talking about complete strangers in a public space in front of hundreds of people. I agree that a glance or a gesture can indicate consent in many cases – but those things are often nebulous when people don't know each other; what kind of glance or even gesture could possibly unequivocally indicate that a person was specifically consenting to having someone else unilaterally come up, expose them, and go to town on their junk? Thinking about the most direct kind of non-verbal consent I can think of, even raising one's eyebrows at someone and pointing at one's crotch doesn't really do it. I have been to hip hop shows where the guys onstage did that pretty much the whole time. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain they weren't consenting to instant public blowjobs. It was part of the act. Similarly, we've talked above about how even unwanted groping of breasts (which sucks if it happened) doesn't imply consent either.

Part of what's tough is that I think (or hope) that most mature adult humans have a sense of what these things mean when they're in the moment, but it's much harder to contextualize after the fact. I think that's probably what you were getting at – that there are a host of possible nonverbal cues, particularly between people who actually know each other. For people who don't, things have to be slightly more explicit, but there still could be nonverbal cues that people are working from.

At the very least, the quickest consensual situation I can imagine here is one where the woman gave Danny Brown at least two or three of those sorts of glance-and-nod looks that say "this is okay, right?" as she was in the process of dropping his pants and going to town. That would be where consent would happen here, I think – a look and a brief pause that waits for small confirmation in the form of a glance or gesture. She'd need to do that to initiate contact, and she'd probably also need to do it again to initiate the act (since consenting to physical contact is not necessarily consenting to sexual activity, I think). Kitty Pryde's account pretty flatly claims that these cursory glances didn't happen at all, that the whole thing took Brown by surprise and he had no time to react beyond stepping backwards. I don't think a hand on the back of the head at one moment even implies that Kitty's account is untrue; hands end up all over the place when this stuff happens. And I have to say that a hand on the back of the head at that point couldn't constitute consent, because it'd be after the fact. Maybe if the hand was on her head before she pulled down his pants and started; I don't know.

Basically, as I said above, I think that if Kitty's account is correct we can be pretty much certain that consent didn't happen. We don't know that it's correct, of course. Also, I should say that, while I think nonverbal communication is possible, I also really believe that any observant person watching this from as close as Kitty apparently was would almost certainly have known if there was consent. Glances from strangers have to be pretty clear to imply consent, and it's generally not that hard to see when one person is uncomfortable or not cool with the way things are going. They might not jump back violently or react emotionally, but it's often visible on their face and in more nervous movements. Those things are all present in the way Kitty describes Brown in the aftermath.

Again, though, it is hard to know the true account. I wish she didn't preface her statement with "I won’t go into detail about the actual events because I was pretty drunk and I don’t want to tell the wrong story."
posted by koeselitz at 10:03 AM on May 8, 2013


I am going to stake out the bold position that spontaneously blowing musicians onstage while they are performing is inherently problematic.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:07 AM on May 8, 2013 [17 favorites]


yeah, when you're putting someone in a position where the only way they can explicitly proclaim their lack of consent is to interrupt the performance they're being paid to give and that is the reason they're there, that's problematic all by itself.
posted by KathrynT at 10:11 AM on May 8, 2013


"the education around sexual assault is awful all the way around - and one of the areas it falls down massively at is giving men any frame of reference for being victims outside of prison. a member of our own community struggled with defining it because he was bigger and they were in a relationship. i was on another general interest board recently where many guys came forward and talked about being drugged, or woken up, or sick, or otherwise unable to gtfo, about how they expressed a desire to not have sex - and were ignored for what the woman wanted. even then, many of them couldn't call it rape."
Hi everyone, this was me too. I can speak from personal experience how even though men don't generally need to deal with this kind of aspect of sexual assault it is still profoundly violating and a hell of a mind fuck to process.
posted by Blasdelb at 10:11 AM on May 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


Ok. Does anyone in this thread actually think what the audience member did was appropriate? I don't see anyone arguing that it was anything other than "not cool." I see people speculating as to the legal status of the incident and people disagreeing about whether this undisputedly-inappropriate action constitutes rape. I think there's a really interesting and important discussion to have there when it comes to how society would treat differently a similar incident if it happened to a female performer. But I don't think it's productive in any context other than a law school criminal law class, maybe, to argue about whether the incident fits various statutory definitions and interpretations.

What I don't see is any claim by Brown that it was an unwelcome incident. I do not dispute for one second that this was a sexual assault. It absolutely was. But, as Kitty points out in her post, "somehow nobody gives a fuck about that but [Kitty]." And, quite frankly, that is extremely messed up. The first part of her post goes to great lengths to describe - in detail - how she likes Danny so much as an artist and a person that she goes out of her way to facilitate and even convince female fans to show him their boobs. She is touring with an act in a genre that is surrounded by a culture of sexual exploitation and messed up, broken, or ignored sexual boundaries and unequal power relationships. And, because of her enthusiasm for the genre and the artists and her understanding that - in her own words - Danny "wants" that sort of sexual attention, she has become an active participant in encouraging and facilitating that destructive culture.

What Kitty didn't bank on - and she was reasonable, I think - was that the sexually-aggressive culture of those concerts and their surroundings was so great that it could lead to an incident like this one. She writes that people jumped up on stage on at least one occasion and pulled her pants down - an undeniable assault and completely inappropriate. And she writes that she goes out of her way to get female fans of a certain "type" to throw themselves at Danny sexually.

Was Danny cool with it when it was happening? I have no idea. As a person who performs on stage in clubs on a fairly regular basis, I can say that, as a performer during a performance, you get in a certain performance mindset where, quite frankly, I don't know that consent to something that's not part of the performance can really ever be assumed unless it's extremely explicit. I can say that, if I was wearing sagging pants and I didn't want fans pulling them down, I would stay behind the monitors. But I'm a pretty shy performer generally, and I cannot deny the performance power of walking out in front of the monitors to get the crowd going. That said, everyone who has spent time performing on a club stage to a rowdy crowd understands that there is always a danger when the performer crosses that line and comes in physical contact with the crowd. But again, I don't think that implies consent in this situation. Just as in the situation of a couple in a long-term relationship, there are cultural cues, non-verbal communication, and established consent patterns that are just as important as verbal consent in many cases. In the context of a stage performance in a club - of rap or any other kind of music - the non-verbal cultural expectations when an artist steps in front of the monitors include a line that audiences do not cross (or, if they do, they get ejected from the club), and what this audience member did clearly crosses that line.

Speaking from experience, when an artist jumps into the audience, they can reasonably expect a lot of things: People will try to take the microphone. They'll try to steal your wallet. They'll rip your clothes. They'll steal your shoes. Whether you're a guy or a girl, they'll grab your private parts. An artist jumping into the audience - for anything but the first time - knows this. But none of that implies consent to sexual assault. None of it. When an artist crosses the monitors and gets right up with the crowd, they know - unless it's their first time - that they're going to get groped. Seriously. It's a big part of why I almost never step in front of the monitors. But none of that implies consent to sexual assault. None of it implies or indicates that Danny Brown consented to this incident.

I'm glad Kitty is on tour with Danny. It bothers me that she is apparently a willing party to encouraging and facilitating a culture of aggressive sexual contact between her tourmates and fans. It bothers me that her tourmates are doing that sort of thing in the first place. But that's probably because I'm a giant prude, and she's free to do whatever she wants. The reason I'm glad she's on tour with him (aside from it being good to see her doing well in her career, which she deserves) is that, if she had not been there, nobody in that actual culture would be complaining about this - it would just be another incident moving that line one more time, further into a dangerous world where fans expect to act a certain way and artists are put more and more at risk. Again, she points out that nobody cares about it but Kitty - not even Danny. I hope she'll realize that, though she is apparently on tour with a lot of people who do not share her view on the issue, she has fans and supporters who are right there with her.

Was Danny cool with it at the time? Is he cool with it now? No idea. But what I do know is that the fan's actions - regardless of Danny's consent or lack thereof - were wildly inappropriate - ethically, morally, legally, etc. And it's a damn good thing that people are recognizing that they were inappropriate, and that it's not just the "establishment" coming down on Danny but people who are part of his own audience.
posted by The World Famous at 10:24 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


The World Famous, there are a few second-hand accounts that indicate that he DOES care. They're referenced upthread.
posted by KathrynT at 10:26 AM on May 8, 2013


"But I don't think it's productive in any context other than a law school criminal law class, maybe, to argue about whether the incident fits various statutory definitions and interpretations."

I think this is absolutely a belief that gets in the way of having a culture that understands sexual consent and what assault/abuse/rape is. It's absolutely relevant that people talk about and understand what sexual assault is, both in the context of legal but abusive behavior, and illegal behavior.

How is the law only relevant to people who make laws and govern the people if the people don't even know what the laws are?

And what's more outside of a legal context, it's still relevant to define sexual assault within communities (whether legally persecuted or not) and how to handle it both by not committing it (which requires knowing what it is) and how to respond to it when it happens. The fact that people are so confused about what is or isn't assault could explain why a lot of "well meaning" people might be able to commit it and not understand what they are doing or the harm it could cause. And the community (and individual) responses of denying it when it happens because they are too confused to figure out whether sexual assault happened or what to do even if it did.

I totally get where you're coming from on the rest of your thinking.
posted by xarnop at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Unified Theory: “... some of you are treating a person who was regularly a sexual assaulter as the victim here because you have personal agendas at stake that have nothing to do with this incident.”

After rereading the article, I don't think this claim has any basis. Here are the relevant portions:
Then there are the gropers, and the girl who blew Danny onstage is one of these. Gropers watch a lot of MTV and tweet about A$AP Rocky until YouTube recommends them “I Will,” which they listen to 500 times and don’t pay attention to anything else. They take everything Danny raps about 100% literally, and assume that before the show we're all backstage licking molly off each other’s buttholes. They often wear tube tops, even in Michigan where it was cold as fuck. Sometimes they come back to our hotel with us, and I’ve even parked their cars for them when they’re too drunk to drive. Usually I like them, because they all try to suck up to me and it's hard to hate people who are being extremely nice to you. I also usually like them because everyone should have the chance to seduce their favorite rapper.

I fuck with both of these groups heavily, because Danny is great and I want him to have fans that appreciate his intelligence and also fans that will show him their boobs. I want him to have everything he wants, because he's my friend.
Okay, so first of all: no sexual assault was stated or implied in these paragraphs, and I think it's pretty clear that the image being painted here – drunk girls being procured for the rap star – is really not being described above. The girls who are "too drunk to drive" are not necessarily the ones who will "seduce their favorite rapper," at least not on the same night, and it's odd that one would assume that they are.
posted by koeselitz at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


The World Famous, there are a few second-hand accounts that indicate that he DOES care. They're referenced upthread.

Yes, I saw those. The only account I'm assuming is actually well-informed and factual is Kitty's.

How is the law only relevant to people who make laws and govern the people if the people don't even know what the laws are?

That's not what I said, nor is it what I meant. Having established - beyond any dispute I've noticed - that the audience member's actions were ethically and morally wrong and certainly also illegal, I don't think it's productive to argue about exactly what statutory framework would apply in a hypothetical criminal case brought in various jurisdictions. Granular legal analysis is really super duper fun - don't get me wrong - it's what I do for a living, after all. I just don't think we get anywhere by contentiously splitting hairs about it here.
posted by The World Famous at 10:39 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


"I don't think it's productive to argue about exactly what statutory framework would apply in a hypothetical criminal case brought in various jurisdictions."

I agree with that in terms of defining sexual assault vs rape vs the evidence available to push actual charges etc. I don't think anyone is really debating those issues here, but maybe I missed something. I agree with you though that what legal charges would apply or what actually happened is an appropriate thing to figure out in court in terms of charges pressed.

I also think, communities often have to deal with assaults that don't result in legal convictions so it's still relevant how communities will define this sort of thing, especially GIVEN the lack of evidence or ability to provide proof- which is very normal in cases communities, peer groups and various groups of people deal with regularly.
posted by xarnop at 10:42 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


I completely agree, xarnop. I also find it interesting that nobody (that I can tell) is talking at all about the civil tort claims that Danny could bring against the audience member, given that, according to Kitty, that person's identity is known. Sexual assault is not just a criminal offense, after all. Danny could certainly bring a civil lawsuit on his own. Would he prevail? Maybe. I have to think he'd be better off with a bench trial than a jury, though.
posted by The World Famous at 10:46 AM on May 8, 2013


The World Famous:
Her whole spiel was that he _does_ care, and doesn't particularly want to talk about it, though I agree with the bulk of what you said.

Kitty is making a stink about this because she doesn't want this to become "the thing that happens at Danny Brown shows." Y'know, like a room of 1200 people chanting that she should blow him?

Like whats actually happening now.

The guy wants to be a rapper, and always has, and now the actions of one anonymous person is completely derailing that, and turning his concerts into a sideshow.

The first half of Kitty's post was context, because throughout this, when she has spoken up, she has been called "jealous" (because she wasn't blowing him), or a "slut-shamer", for objecting to someone yanking down her best friends pants and putting her mouth on it. She's friends with the guy because she got a crush on him watching his youtube videos, and they were in the same circles and ended up hitting him off. She has his name written on her fucking binder in that one video.

The anecdotes about introducing fans, even going so far as to drive them to meet him are her pre-empt for being called a "slut-shamer" for objecting to this.

I think it's pretty disingenuous for people to treat this woman's actions as worthy of outrage when, by Kitty's own words, rape/sexual assault was a routine practice by the alleged victim Danny Brown.


Also, again from TFA:
"Sometimes they come back to our hotel with us, and I’ve even parked their cars for them when they’re too drunk to drive. Usually I like them, because they all try to suck up to me and it's hard to hate people who are being extremely nice to you. I also usually like them because everyone should have the chance to seduce their favorite rapper."

So she is admitting to parking their cars, and thinks its cool that fans get a chance to seduce their favorite rapper.
I have no idea how you are getting "rape/sexual assault is a routine practice". In fact, she never says that sex even happened, just that they were given a chance, which doesn't mean much other than just meeting him at a hotel.

Again, I'm glad she's speaking up for this, and all the "well, lets hear Danny's side of the story" crap, reminds me of the recent Steubenville case where the MSM and internet commenters alike were wondering why the victim didn't come out and speak publicly or "account" for her actions, after all, those boy's athletic careers were on the line.

Why should he have to? And if he did, would that satisfy the naysayers in here?
posted by lkc at 10:52 AM on May 8, 2013 [6 favorites]


But that's my point - for those talking about "consent" in this thread, what constitutes consent other than an explicit conversation? Otherwise it's subjective.

Of course it's subjective, and depends entirely on the relationship between the two people. This isn't some foolproof way to judge what happened between other people. But as a bare minimum personal standard, if you aren't completely sure that someone wants to have sex with you, you should back off until you are, whatever that takes.
posted by straight at 10:52 AM on May 8, 2013


I'm glad Kitty is on tour with Danny. It bothers me that she is apparently a willing party to encouraging and facilitating a culture of aggressive sexual contact between her tourmates and fans.

And consent is the bright red line, I guess. Aggressive sexual contact that she facilitates = fine. Aggressive sexual contact that comes out of the blue = not fine.
posted by kgasmart at 11:00 AM on May 8, 2013


[friendly PSA that half of flagging and moving on is moving on. Please try to be mindful of the fact that this is a difficult thread on a difficult topic. Thank you.]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:02 AM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


The World Famous: " Yes, I saw those. The only account I'm assuming is actually well-informed and factual is Kitty's."
...
That's not what I said, nor is it what I meant. Having established - beyond any dispute I've noticed - that the audience member's actions were ethically and morally wrong and certainly also illegal

Do you see the problem here? Your choice of who you deem credible artificially constrains what you view as "beyond any dispute." There is an alternate account that paints a very different picture, but you're not viewing it as credible, even though the person who posted it has, unlike Kitty, no known connection to the two principals, and, also unlike Kitty, claims to have been sober at the time. I'm curious why you won't even put this into the "dispute" category.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:06 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


And consent is the bright red line, I guess. Aggressive sexual contact that she facilitates = fine. Aggressive sexual contact that comes out of the blue = not fine.

From her perspective, I suppose, that's the case. I think fostering an atmosphere and culture of aggressive sexual contact is a bad idea and leads inevitably to things going too far - going beyond consent. But I take issue with your characterization as "sexual contact that comes out of the blue," since it appears to me, based on what Kitty wrote, that this incident, while grossly inappropriate and, yes, a sexual assault, was in the context of an atmosphere of intentional aggressive sexual contact and conduct throughout the tour - not "out of the blue."
posted by The World Famous at 11:07 AM on May 8, 2013


Do you see the problem here? Your choice of who you deem credible artificially constrains what you view as "beyond any dispute."

I don't understand what you mean. The reason I said that that particular element was beyond dispute is that I do not see anyone disputing it. I have not deemed anyone not credible. There is, as far as I can tell - no dispute. In fact, if you had quoted me accurately, you would have included the full clause: "beyond any dispute I've noticed."

There is an alternate account that paints a very different picture, but you're not viewing it as credible, even though the person who posted it has, unlike Kitty, no known connection to the two principals, and, also unlike Kitty, claims to have been sober at the time. I'm curious why you won't even put this into the "dispute" category.

Taking that particular account as 100% accurate, there is still no dispute that the actions were unethical and illegal, is there? We could argue, I suppose, about exactly which Minnesota statute was violated, and we could argue about whether Danny's actions reported in that account indicate or constitute consent. But even with consent assumed, I don't see anyone arguing or contending that open oral-genital contact in a public establishment is lawful under Minnesota law, nor do I see anyone arguing that it was appropriate ethically or morally. I have read this entire thread, but maybe I missed something.
posted by The World Famous at 11:13 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


There is an alternate account that paints a very different picture, but you're not viewing it as credible, even though the person who posted it has, unlike Kitty, no known connection to the two principals, and, also unlike Kitty, claims to have been sober at the time. I'm curious why you won't even put this into the "dispute" category.

Are we talking about the account on Reddit? In what way is the picture it paints different?

The only real unresolvable difference between the two accounts is that the guy on Reddit says Danny was having women touch his penis through his pants, and Kitty says that this is not at all true.

If he was having people touch his clothed dick, does that mean it's okay for someone to reach into his pants and pull his dick out and try to blow him without obtaining consent first? If so, why?
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 11:16 AM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


If he was having people touch his clothed dick, does that mean it's okay for someone to reach into his pants and pull his dick out and try to blow him without obtaining consent first? If so, why?

Generally, if someone is encouraging another person to play with their genitals, it's ok to play with their genitals. Not always, but it's a pretty good sign.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:33 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


so if someone consents to some over the clothes grope action they are defacto consenting to sex?
posted by nadawi at 11:34 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Might could be.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:40 AM on May 8, 2013


Brandon Blatcher, setting aside, for the moment, the questions of legality or consent, do you think the audience member's actions were appropriate? In other words, do you think there is any conceivable scenario in which oral-genital contact between an audience member and a rapper on stage is appropriate at a concert open to the public and not licensed or billed as one in which explicit sex acts will be on display?
posted by The World Famous at 11:41 AM on May 8, 2013


If he was having people touch his clothed dick, does that mean it's okay for someone to reach into his pants and pull his dick out and try to blow him without obtaining consent first? If so, why?

No, it doesn't make it "okay" but (if true) it provides a basis for the idea that Brown may have been comfortable with strangers touching him sexually. Our culture operates under a "rule" that it is inappropriate to touch random people's genitals. Most everybody understands this implicitly. But once somebody blurs that line by encouraging random people to touch his genitals, that rule becomes harder to follow. If hands are ok, then one might wonder why not other parts? The cultural rule hasn't evolved to handle anything beyond a (rather puritanical) bright line, so it becomes more understandable that somebody would draw their own line wherever they pleased once the bright one got blurred. It doesn't make it right, just makes it easier to understand why she may have thought it was ok to blow a stranger.
posted by 0 at 11:47 AM on May 8, 2013


I am really feeling for the people reading this thread who are thinking about how they did or didn't act when they were assaulted and how that makes their assault questionable. These things can take years to process and have a response to. Expecting that anyone is going to have a coherent This was Assault and it was Wrong response immediately is all kinds of victim blaming and it is rough to read. Whether or not he is fine with it now or in the future, it is sexual assault. It is uninvited exposure and contact from a stranger. That's really the baseline discussion needs to start from. I don't see how that's in dispute.
posted by stoneweaver at 11:49 AM on May 8, 2013 [8 favorites]


In other words, do you think there is any conceivable scenario in which oral-genital contact between an audience member and a rapper on stage is appropriate at a concert open to the public and not licensed or billed as one in which explicit sex acts will be on display?

Can't say I'd really care much, as long as I wasn't involved in it. Depending on the musical performance, it might add or detract from the overall show.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:54 AM on May 8, 2013


I don't see how that's an answer to my question at all.
posted by The World Famous at 12:17 PM on May 8, 2013


Its not, he made it clear he doesn't give a shit about your question. Unless, of course, it adds or detracts from the show.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:20 PM on May 8, 2013


The World Famous: " In fact, if you had quoted me accurately, you would have included the full clause: "beyond any dispute I've noticed.""

I did quote you in full in the italicized portion of my comment. You of course can't be held responsible for what you haven't noticed, and I wasn't trying to quote you out of context.

Taking that particular account as 100% accurate, there is still no dispute that the actions were unethical and illegal, is there? We could argue, I suppose, about exactly which Minnesota statute was violated, and we could argue about whether Danny's actions reported in that account indicate or constitute consent. But even with consent assumed, I don't see anyone arguing or contending that open oral-genital contact in a public establishment is lawful under Minnesota law, nor do I see anyone arguing that it was appropriate ethically or morally. I have read this entire thread, but maybe I missed something.

Without evidence of consent, it's of course immoral, illegal, and can be accurately described as sexual assault. There are no alternate accounts that suggest that consent was expressed verbally, and I agree that consent should always be expressed verbally to avoid these gray areas.

My problem is the leap from "it's illegal because they were having sex in a public place" to "it's illegal because it was a sexual assault" which you have said you do not dispute was the case. My understanding of current consent law is that consent can include non-verbal enthusiastic participation by both parties during which no verbal affirmation of consent is requested, nor is consent withdrawn at any time. The Reddit account adds context to the events that suggests there was at least some amount of mutual escalation of the contact -- an flashes, Brown grabs her breasts, he lifts up his shirt, she initiates oral sex.

If at any time Brown resisted or tried to de-escalate, and the fan did not immediately stop, then that would be a violation of his consent, but there's no evidence for that. Was it inconvenient for Brown verbally withdraw his consent given that he was engaged in a public performance? Yes, and that should be a factor in determining whether he was able to withdraw his consent at some point. But, at the very least, I think the Reddit account is a data point that suggests that there may have been a mutual desire from both parties to engage in an escalating series of sexual pre-gaming, and that, importantly, Brown (according to this account) was the first to initiate the physical contact. This does not scream "cut and dried textbook case of sexual assault" to me.

Avoiding these gray areas is a big reason why verbalizing consent is so important, but we don't have a system that requires affirmative verbal consent, so I don't agree that it's beyond dispute that this was sexual assault.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:26 PM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


I don't see how that's an answer to my question at all.

It might be fine, depending on the situation. It's difficult to say in this particular situation, because I wasn't there and there's conflicting stories on what actually happened. Emotionally charged situations, such as a concert, can produce non-regular actions from people, some of which may indeed by inappropriate on a societal level, while an individual may be fine with it.

My personal feeling is whether it's appropriate or not is up to the individual, though clearly the law has its own opinion on this specific situation.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:44 PM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


The misogyny shown to her by the crowd at Irving Plaza is stomach-turning.
posted by zarq at 1:25 PM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


all the "well, lets hear Danny's side of the story" crap, reminds me of the recent Steubenville case where the MSM and internet commenters alike were wondering why the victim didn't come out and speak publicly or "account" for her actions, after all, those boy's athletic careers were on the line.

Our positions aren't that different, performers shouldn't be assaulted onstage, and I think we should give the guy the benefit of the doubt because he just went through something traumatic or at least extremely weird and off putting.

However, he has not been wholly silent about what happened: he tweeted about it with bravado. Some friend did the verbal equivalent of giving him a high five for his onstage blowjob, and Danny seemed to me (I realize Kitty does not agree, so we disagree) to high five him back filled with swagger and bro references.

So I don't know what happened or how he feels about it, really. I get behind Kitty that people should not try to have sex with musicians onstage. Of course! And I'm sorry Danny went through that and now every show has to be about that. But if he doesn't want his audience to make this part of the culture of his shows now, he should make a statement about it. A statement from him, not his friend. Because the only statement people have from him about it now is his self-congratulatory tweet, which really does not in any way suggest that he was not perfectly okay with the fan's behavior and would not want it to happen again.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:25 PM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


But if he doesn't want his audience to make this part of the culture of his shows now, he should make a statement about it.

Nah. All he has to do is not step in front of the monitors anymore. It doesn't make sense to suggest that he needs to make a statement in order to stop people from trying to blow him when he's onstage. There's already an existing way for a performer from keeping the audience away from his crotch.
posted by The World Famous at 2:01 PM on May 8, 2013


(And stepping in front of the monitors makes the monitors not do their job anymore, so staying behind them has the added benefit of giving the performer the stage mix. Not to mention that the Steve Harris foot-on-monitor thing is badass anyway.)
posted by The World Famous at 2:03 PM on May 8, 2013


Nah, because his audience is shouting "suck his dick" at his opening act throughout her performance, and he is sitting on his hands.

From the Village Voice article, which I largely agree with:

Back to the Kitty thing: unless he was willfully ignoring the rest of the night via kush coma, there's no way Brown could have missed how the crowd treated his opener. On the one hand, Kitty is a big girl who ought to be able to carry her own weight on a tour like this; it's part of the deal. On the other, it would be cool, for once, to watch a rapper as currently beloved as Danny Brown come out and straight-up eviscerate those crowd members who tried to make his "baby girl Kitty" (his words) feel small and shitty and unsafe after she penned 1,500 words (and over the past year, likely thousands more) ripping into his critics. Throughout their relationship, despite her insistence that they are friends, Brown hasn't put half as much work into that friendship as one might expect; where she crows about his talents, he keeps quiet about hers. Her aesthetic and loyalty to him amplify his image, but when she took the heat last night for the shit that happened to him in Minneapolis? I'd like to think his line "Thanks for giving it up for my baby girl Kitty" was a cloaked jab at the clowns who thought it was funny to chant SUCK HIS DICK at her, but no one with a brain is naïve enough to think it could've been successful.

Sure, he's got vastly more to lose, but as he loves to point out, at 32, Danny Brown is "old." If that is in fact as old as he says it is, it should be old enough to not put up with this shit anymore. He spits fire, he sends his audience spinning into a nearly unmatched frenzy even as he flops, half-exhausted, through songs like the A-Trak collaboration "Piss Test." If he'd chastised them for their attitude towards Kitty, he might've gotten a few boos, but what successful rapper hasn't? In 2013, the man has power, and authority, and respect. That he ignored an opportunity to use that respect for good last night, for whatever reason, is a shame.

posted by onlyconnect at 2:28 PM on May 8, 2013 [6 favorites]


However, he has not been wholly silent about what happened: he tweeted about it with bravado.

No he didn't, as seen earlier in this thread. Somebody asked him what had happened in disbelief and he answered that it had, but didn't miss a beat. That's not bragging of a blowjob, that's bragging about how professional you are.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:40 PM on May 8, 2013


onlyconnect, staying behind the monitors will take care of the physical contact problem - the problem of the "incident" becoming part of the culture of his shows. The audience heckling his opening act because she's a woman is another issue, and there are other ways to deal with that, none of which involve him making a statement about whether or not he consented to the incident. In fact, I don't see how him making a statement about it would have any effect on the crowd heckling Kitty - which is what's happening. He could take care of the heckling by refusing to perform at all for a crowd that does it.
posted by The World Famous at 2:43 PM on May 8, 2013


The last time I saw Danny Brown perform, he took ecstasy before his set and, upon finishing, collapsed on stage (by which I mean sat on the edge) and let the audience pet him and take Instagram pictures with him. If I were the one rolling, a bunch of strangers touching me and shoving cell phones in my face would be hell on earth, but he seemed to enjoy it and the rest of the show went on as planned around him.

Danny Brown reminds me of a lot of my friends who get black out fucked up. I think getting fucked up is one of the many choices available to adults. I don't think it is responsible or mature, but I wouldn't put a value judgment of 'right' or 'wrong' on it. I think if you're going to get blackout wasted the best things you can do are have compassionate, protective friends (like Kitty Pryde seems to be), and be prepared to deal with things you don't like happening I you're not able to control the situations around you. This does NOT mean it is your fault if you are raped and assaulted.

I hope it doesn't sounds victim blamey to state that the best way to avoid being raped or robbed is to be locked alone and sober in a room in Antarctica and every move we make outside of complete isolation leaves us (all of us) a little more susceptible to the wolves all around us. But being vilnerable is not an invitation!

I do not live in Danny Brown's head but I think he was sexually assaulted, and was shaken by it, but has decided to move on and try to get some positive pr momentum out of it. This is a cynical take but people are complex and allowed to be cynical about their own rape.

One of the things that concerns me about American rape culture and the way some good-hearted people try to fight rape culture is the stigma/assumption that rape victims are damaged. Different people react to different experiences in different ways and it is dangerous to demand that rape and sexual assault victims be physically/emotionally/sexually scarred to guarantee a conviction.
posted by elr at 4:33 PM on May 8, 2013


Thankyou discopolo, for trying to minimise my experience. You might have some idea that I'm a crusty old professor or something (not that they should be sexually objectified either), but the story I related happened to me in my mid to late 20s. And no, my pants weren't pleated.

Wasn't trying to minimize your experience. I'm embarrassed that my prof (he looked pretty good for a guy who dressed eccentric and he's not crusty despite being in his fifties) may have perceived that I was checking him out when I was zoning out because of navy pleated pants.

I'm sure you were/are very attractive and have to beat the coeds off with a stick and that you have excellent taste in pants.
posted by discopolo at 7:29 PM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


While people are getting all up-in-arms and offended, I'm going to go on record as saying that I think it's disgustingly inappropriate to even start comparing this with the Steubenville rape case.

Steubenville victim: 16-year-old girl, too drunk to walk, transported from one location to another by two teenage boys, undressed, raped repeatedly by 2 (3?) people over SIX HOURS, photographed nude, pictures spread across social media, urinated on.

Danny Brown: 32-year-old man, sober/straight enough to perform, on a stage in public, penis removed from pants without his permission and placed in a stranger's mouth for a few seconds.

No, I do not think it's 'okay' or 'not sexual assault' because he's a man, or because it was a woman and a man, or a white woman and a black man, or because he's a rapper who sings about rape, or because he hasn't made a public statement. Unwanted sexual contact is sexual assault. What this woman did was revolting on a number of levels, and is being rightly condemned.

But yes, there are 'levels' of sexual assault. Of course there are. That's why different crimes get different sentences. On behalf of the CHILD who was raped in Steubenville: please stop this odious comparison.
posted by Salamander at 9:12 PM on May 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


one of the first things i learned through my healing process was that it's generally not helpful to rank assaults on a list of bad to worse. i can understand bristling at the comparison, but i don't think discussing how rape culture looks a lot of different ways is odious to any survivor.
posted by nadawi at 9:23 PM on May 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


it's generally not helpful to rank assaults on a list of bad to worse.

Not helpful to whom? All crimes are ranked on a list of bad to worse. It's how the legal system works (yes, I know it's deeply flawed). And the legal system is supposed to reflect societal condemnation of certain acts, so yeah, it's a perfectly valid way of discussing assault.

If you're talking about whether it's 'helpful' to an assault victim, yeah, probably not, but that's between them and their therapist.

i don't think discussing how rape culture looks a lot of different ways is odious to any survivor.

Well, I am a survivor, and the comparison is odious to me.
posted by Salamander at 9:40 PM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


(Sorry: that is to say, discussing the fact that rape takes many different forms, if that's what you mean by 'rape culture', is not odious. Comparisons that draw parallels between two assaults that have basically nothing in common except that they are assaults: yes, odious. In my opinion.)
posted by Salamander at 9:44 PM on May 8, 2013


I appreciate everyone who actually turned into this into a conversation instead of the dismissive snarkfest it was earlier, and not really surprised the former happened when the latter ceased.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:55 PM on May 8, 2013


While people are getting all up-in-arms and offended, I'm going to go on record as saying that I think it's disgustingly inappropriate to even start comparing this with the Steubenville rape case.

Who compared this to the Steubenville case? A search for Steubenville yields exactly one hit before you were up in arms, and it was clearly about the media treatment of the case, and the expectations that the media placed on the victim, and not in any way about the actual rape. One can compare Apocalypse Now and Kramer vs. Kramer without drawing an equivalency between the Vietnam war and divorce.

Sorry: that is to say, discussing the fact that rape takes many different forms, if that's what you mean by 'rape culture', is not odious.


I'm not an expert but I believe that rape culture means a culture where rape is trivialized, normalized, or excused. Some manifestations include things like victim blaming, prison rape jokes, or insisting that there's rape and then there's rape rape, and it's inherently offensive to compare the two.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 12:30 AM on May 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Who compared this to the Steubenville case? A search for Steubenville yields exactly one hit before you were up in arms, and it was clearly about the media treatment of the case, and the expectations that the media placed on the victim, and not in any way about the actual rape.

There are online articles comparing the two. (I can't go looking for them at the moment as I'm at work.)

And actually, I think the media should have treated the two cases differently, because they are different.

I'm not an expert but I believe that rape culture means a culture where rape is trivialized, normalized, or excused. Some manifestations include things like victim blaming, prison rape jokes, or insisting that there's rape and then there's rape rape, and it's inherently offensive to compare the two.

Inherently offensive to compare the two what?

insisting that there's rape and then there's rape rape

Nobody said that. Rape is rape. But there's bad rape and worse rape. For example, all things being equal, do I think a 16-year-old being gang-raped repeatedly while she's blind drunk is worse than me being raped once by my ex-boyfriend at the age of 28? Why, yes I do.
posted by Salamander at 1:17 AM on May 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


insisting that there's rape and then there's rape rape, and it's inherently offensive to compare the two.

Right, sorry. I get it. So you're saying that thinking some sexual assaults are worse than others is 'trivializing, normalizing or excusing' rape? We'll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by Salamander at 1:45 AM on May 9, 2013


"Right, sorry. I get it. So you're saying that thinking some sexual assaults are worse than others is 'trivializing, normalizing or excusing' rape? We'll just have to agree to disagree."

No acknowledging that some sexual assault could indeed be reasonably considered worse than others does not trivialize, normalize or excuse rape. However, coming into conversations about rapes one considers 'less bad' according to some arbitrary standard specifically to hold it up against rapes one considers 'more bad' to argue that the assault was comparatively trivial, something we should consider normal, or perhaps even excusable is pretty much exactly that. Rape culture.

This:
lkc: "Again, I'm glad she's speaking up for this, and all the "well, lets hear Danny's side of the story" crap, reminds me of the recent Steubenville case where the MSM and internet commenters alike were wondering why the victim didn't come out and speak publicly or "account" for her actions, after all, those boy's athletic careers were on the line."
Which as far as I can tell is the only thing in this thread you could be reacting to, contributes something salient about a meaningful connection between the two fucked up ways the media reacted to both of these cases of sexual assault - so far all you have contributed is your feelings about disgusting you feel it is that people are taking this man's assault seriously. On a personal level it is hard to read your comments in this thread so far without getting a distinct impression of how unworthy of concern you would feel my own sexual assault would be.

When I got my bike stolen a while ago I never had to fear that pretty much every single fucking conversation I had about it would be about how I should be glad I didn't have a car that was stolen, or about how awful someone else's home invasion was, or about an infamous heist somewhere. I never had to deal with pretty much every single fucking conversation being filled with prying questions about the quality of my lock or my bike parking skills trying to prove that the bike theft was all my fault somehow, I never had to explain to people how - no - bike theft cannot be accurately thought of as a misunderstanding, I was never expected to just shrug off having my bike stolen because of my perceived gender much less appreciate being congratulated for it, and no one ever wondered what my angle was - what with getting my bike stolen.

This is rape culture and you are contributing to it right here in this thread, please stop.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:20 AM on May 9, 2013 [11 favorites]


Salamander: "While people are getting all up-in-arms and offended, I'm going to go on record as saying that I think it's disgustingly inappropriate to even start comparing this with the Steubenville rape case... On behalf of the CHILD who was raped in Steubenville: please stop this odious comparison."

Is it "disgustingly inappropriate" to compare the Brooklyn Bridge with a smallish footbridge in Vermont? Is it an "odious comparison" to discuss the similarities between a statue in the park and Mount Rushmore? This seems incoherent to me. If they're both bridges, or they're both sculptures, what is wrong with comparisons? This is how conceptions and ideas work. Very different things can be grouped in the same category if they're similar in one respect. In cases where someone was subjected to unwanted sexual contact, that's sexual assault - no matter how bad it was. And the situations are thereby comparable.
posted by koeselitz at 6:43 AM on May 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


to argue that the assault was comparatively trivial, something we should consider normal, or perhaps even excusable is pretty much exactly that. Rape culture.

Except I didn't say any of that. Read my post.

This is rape culture and you are contributing to it right here in this thread, please stop.

No, I'm not. I have not said a single thing that contributes to 'rape culture'. You don't get to shut down any discussion of a topic that does not gel with your own personal view. That's not how the world works.

But really, this has gone beyond any interesting discussion, so forget it. I'm out. Carry on.
posted by Salamander at 7:03 AM on May 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


koeselitz: I was using 'comparable' to mean 'worthy of comparison', not 'able to be compared'. I thought that was clear from the context. I'm sorry you misunderstood, or perhaps were not aware of the two definitions.
posted by Salamander at 7:26 AM on May 9, 2013


or maybe you just came in here completely aggro without much context yelling about how one situation is worse than this one when no one here was making that comparison. if you're mad about shit going on in other articles, then maybe make that point up front so it doesn't look like you just waltzed in and started swinging your arms around.

you can discuss whatever the hell you want, but other people are going to react how they're going to react. you're not being shut down - you're being disagreed with.
posted by nadawi at 8:47 AM on May 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


No he didn't, as seen earlier in this thread. Somebody asked him what had happened in disbelief and he answered that it had, but didn't miss a beat. That's not bragging of a blowjob, that's bragging about how professional you are.

As I said in my comment, I disagree that he is only bragging about how professional he was. The tone of the initial inquiry, asking Danny "u really just got the head on stage?" is obviously not just disbelief, it is admiration. He did not say, "u really just got molested onstage" or "some girl really exposed your dick?" The guy asked about receiving head, not sexual assault, and in his response Danny did not correct him. That doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted, but to me it signals that he is going along with the "this is something to be in awe of" tone that the original tweet was filled with.

I have since checked out more of his tweets and in general I am done defending him. When an attractive woman asked if he had really received a blowjob his response was "LOL that's just a rumor." And his response to the woman who wrote the Village Voice entry I excerpted above was that she was going off at the mouth about something she knew nothing about, and to retweet a fan response saying that the piece was less a concert review than something written by an angry feminist who had nothing to do with her time.

I'm sorry it happened to him, but I am vaguely uncomfortable supporting him having it both ways, and be the cool rapper dude who receives blowjobs onstage without missing a beat that his douchebro fans love while being the victim of a sexual assault that has feminists rising to his defense. Maybe that just makes me an angry feminist who has better things to do with my time.
posted by onlyconnect at 9:01 AM on May 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Wasn't trying to minimize your experience. I'm embarrassed that my prof (he looked pretty good for a guy who dressed eccentric and he's not crusty despite being in his fifties) may have perceived that I was checking him out when I was zoning out because of navy pleated pants.

I'm sure you were/are very attractive and have to beat the coeds off with a stick and that you have excellent taste in pants.
posted by discopolo at 7:29 PM on May 8 [+] [!]


Yes. CoEds. since it is the 1960's?

I am so going to wear my hottest navy pleat pants tomorrow!
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 9:34 AM on May 9, 2013


NYT Review of NYC Brown/Kitty performance, describing attendees' comments at the concert:
This sort of misogyny is rote, and likely to be familiar to this rapper, who wrote an intense, sharp defense of Mr. Brown, identifying the episode — captured in blurry photo and shaky video on the Internet — as a sexual assault, and astutely detailing how expectations about race and gender made it difficult for Mr. Brown to identify as a victim, if indeed he was.
posted by MoonOrb at 9:36 AM on May 9, 2013


The guy asked about receiving head, not sexual assault, and in his response Danny did not correct him. That doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted, but to me it signals that he is going along with the "this is something to be in awe of" tone that the original tweet was filled with.

Or it signals that he didn't want to deal with it in 140 characters on Twitter in public. 140 characters doesn't leave a lot of room for nuance, and I think you are asking it to be a thing that it is not.
posted by stoneweaver at 9:36 AM on May 9, 2013


nadawi: metafilter threads are not by-invitation only, last time I checked. It's pretty arrogant to accuse me of 'waltzing in here', just because you don't like what I said.

And yeah, Blasdelb telling me today I'm contributing rape culture in this thread, and I should 'please stop', sounds less like good-faith discussion and more like shutting-down to me.

Let's have a look at what i said when I came in here 'throwing my arms around' and being 'aggro':

"No, I do not think it's 'okay' or 'not sexual assault' because he's a man, or because it was a woman and a man, or a white woman and a black man, or because he's a rapper who sings about rape, or because he hasn't made a public statement. Unwanted sexual contact is sexual assault. What this woman did was revolting on a number of levels, and is being rightly condemned."

Which garnered this from Blasdelb:

"...so far all you have contributed is your feelings about disgusting you feel it is that people are taking this man's assault seriously. On a personal level it is hard to read your comments in this thread so far without getting a distinct impression of how unworthy of concern you would feel my own sexual assault would be."

Such a gross misrepresentation of my actual comment, followed by an accusation that I'm contributing to 'rape culture' in this thread and should 'please stop'? That's not good-faith discussion.

No wonder some of us never venture onto the blue.
posted by Salamander at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


As I said in my comment, I disagree that he is only bragging about how professional he was. The tone of the initial inquiry, asking Danny "u really just got the head on stage?" is obviously not just disbelief, it is admiration.

He may have not processed how he felt about it at that point.

Would someone want a stranger to just pull down their pants and suck them off? Like in real life?
posted by discopolo at 9:50 AM on May 9, 2013


He may have not processed how he felt about it at that point.

That's a mighty big assumption on what another person, whom you don't know, is feeling.



Would someone want a stranger to just pull down their pants and suck them off? Like in real life?

Out of seven billion people on the planet, there is indeed a large diversity in sexual appetites.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:57 AM on May 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Salamander - you were begging the question at the bottom of a fraught thread, discussing something that hadn't even happened in this thread, with some really loaded language. that's gonna get a reaction.
posted by nadawi at 9:58 AM on May 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


nadawi: Sure, 'a reaction' is one thing. Saying that someone holds a view that is the opposite of what they just stated, and essentially asking them to gtfo of the thread on that basis, is another thing altogether.
posted by Salamander at 10:16 AM on May 9, 2013


Let's have a look at what i said when I came in here 'throwing my arms around' and being 'aggro'

I think what nadawi was more talking about was this:

While people are getting all up-in-arms and offended, I'm going to go on record as saying that I think it's disgustingly inappropriate to even start comparing this with the Steubenville rape case.

...

On behalf of the CHILD who was raped in Steubenville: please stop this odious comparison.


As you said, the Steubenville comparisons were coming from external websites that are not part of the discussion we're having here. Your comment was basically "Shame on you all for your disgusting comparison" when in fact you should have been directing it to a bunch of people who aren't here. It was non sequitur comment that made a bunch of people who you mostly agree with about the actual discussion topic think that you were picking a fight with them. I'm sorry that you feel like you're getting piled on unfairly (I've been there before too), but really it was not a great way to enter a discussion in a heated thread about a controversial subject.
posted by burnmp3s at 10:17 AM on May 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


No, the Steubenville case was also brought up in this thread, albeit briefly, and I thought it was a step too far. I believe it was something about how differently the media treated the respective victims of the Steubenville case and this case. My stated opinion was, 'Yes, and rightly so'. I stand by that opinion.

I then wrote a whole paragraph making it *very* clear thst I condemn Danny Brown's rape, precisely to avoid this kind of derail. But nope, wasn't to be.

I really am done now, because it's nearly 2am here. It's been...interesting.
posted by Salamander at 10:35 AM on May 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


It was actually about how similarly they were treated.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:36 AM on May 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Salamander: “No, the Steubenville case was also brought up in this thread, albeit briefly, and I thought it was a step too far. I believe it was something about how differently the media treated the respective victims of the Steubenville case and this case. My stated opinion was, 'Yes, and rightly so'. I stand by that opinion.”

Salamander – I know you're done; I hope I can be forgiven saying one more thing. I want to say that I think we probably all agree on what's happening here, and I think (sorry, this is only my opinion, I know it may be wrong) that you are just kind of coming at this from a different angle.

This is what was said about Steubenville above:

lkc: “Again, I'm glad she's speaking up for this, and all the 'well, lets hear Danny's side of the story' crap, reminds me of the recent Steubenville case where the MSM and internet commenters alike were wondering why the victim didn't come out and speak publicly or 'account' for her actions, after all, those boy's athletic careers were on the line. Why should he have to? And if he did, would that satisfy the naysayers in here?”

Now, lkc is emphatically not saying that Steubenville and the Danny Brown case are on the same scale or the same level (even though they are both sexual assaults.) What lkc is saying is that they are both sexual assaults, and there are a few similarities; for one thing, people are demanding that the perpetrator's perspective and viewpoints must be given a lot of attention, which minimizes the victim's experience and acts as though the evidence from eyewitnesses is somehow less reliable than testimony from the assaulter would be.

I think that really is a similarity between the Danny Brown assault and the Steubenville assault. Make no mistake, I absolutely agree that what happened in Steubenville was much worse; and if I'm not mistaken, I think pretty much everyone here actually probably agrees on that point. I don't think lkc was at all saying that they were the same thing, or that they were equally damaging to the victims, or anything like that. lkc was really only saying that, in this one respect, there is a similarity between the two cases.

You might not realize why people are reacting so strongly – I can see how that might not be exactly clear – so I guess I'll try to explain that. There's an argument that happens to sound sort of like yours that we often have to deal with in these kinds of conversations, an argument which minimizes and even dismisses very real sexual harassment and sexual assault. For example: if a woman gets called the c word viciously by a stranger in public, we call that "sexual harassment" – and that's what it is. But when we call it sexual harassment, we'll get a whole bunch of static from people who will say: "that's not sexual harassment! That's just a little insult! There are women who spend their whole lives being verbally abused by their husbands; to call the c word "sexual harassment' is totally insulting to all the real suffering of those poor women!" You see what's happening there? A very real instance of abuse is being dismissed as not important or not actual abuse by people who point to much more serious and scary abuse and say "that's what real abuse looks like!"

The people here are sensitive to that possibility, and I think they're worried that you're pushing to say that what happened to Danny Brown wasn't assault, or to say that it wasn't really that serious. I know you probably don't mean to be dismissive at all; that's just what people heard because of the similarity of your argument to this other argument we often hear from people who don't really care about these "smaller" instances of harassment or assault.

Sorry this has been so long, but it feels like we're kind of talking past each other, and I wanted to try to explain to you, Salamander, why there are some strong reactions to what you've said here. I disagree with you about what lkc said – I really don't think lkc's comment was saying that Steubenville and the Danny Brown case were at all on the same level – but more importantly I think that, while you probably didn't realize it, your argument sounded a lot like a familiar argument that people here have had to spend some time arguing against. Maybe knowing all this will help us realize that we're probably on the same page; at the very least, it's probably a good idea to step back a bit and think about where we're coming from.
posted by koeselitz at 1:45 PM on May 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


posted by discopolo at 7:29 PM on May 8 [+] [!]

Yes. CoEds. since it is the 1960's?


The 50's, I think, and since I bought the cat's pajamas.
posted by discopolo at 5:39 PM on May 9, 2013


"Out of seven billion people on the planet, there is indeed a large diversity in sexual appetites"

But the fact that the majority of people would not is why most ethical communities that value casual sex or intimacy with stranger have explicit verbal consent as part of their ethical values.

Even a very simple, "Do you want me to do x?" can be arranged.

For people who are submissive and want advances without verbal conversation the onus is on such people to fill their kink without promoting a world where people are encouraged to walk up to strangers and do sexual things to them where the consent is unclear and based on reading of signals that often are hard to read without stated verbal consent.

If you're into making sexual advances on others without conversation, I think it's important you find a way to fill that desire with others who have expressed that is what they want and has agreed they know their safe word or to say no if they need you to stop.

Not everyone is born knowing how to stop sexual advances they don't want. At some point we like everyone to learn this skill but really first time sex should assume you have no idea where the other person is at with regards to their personal issues, trauma history, or ability to feel they can safely say no to you without getting attacked, socially demeaned, or retaliated against in various ways that scorned partners do.

I side with preventing sexual abuse over convenient of people who prefer not to just at least freaking ASK someone they barely know if they enthusiastically want sexual activities of specific nature and what the persons boundaries are.
posted by xarnop at 1:51 PM on May 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Since most people never got a good sex education, Heather Corinna wrote a great piece on why explicit consent is a better model for people to adopt in their sexual lives and ESPECIALLY with a partner you have never had sex with before.
posted by xarnop at 1:53 PM on May 10, 2013


Also grabbing someones body that you just met in a public place and saying "Is it ok that I'm doing this do you?" which has happened to me before, is NOT asking for consent. It's a dick ass move even if you ask because then the person is in a public situation where they have to fend you off and make you look bad in front of a lot of other people and it can be humiliating no matter how the person responds.

(BTW if Danny Brown did anything like that to others, the same criticism stands.)
posted by xarnop at 1:56 PM on May 10, 2013


Wow, I didn't realize this thread was still going.

Salamander: Koeselitz had it right on, I was not comparing them as crimes or drawing equivalency, I was specifically referring to the public and media reaction to the situations. Particularly some of the responses in this thread. I also haven't seen an equivalency drawn elsewhere.

Not trying to pile on more, but figured I should clarify instead of disappearing behind other folks interpretations. This was a hell of a thread, and I didn't expect it to go the directions that it did.
posted by lkc at 6:18 PM on May 11, 2013




As always, never read the youtube comments
posted by Blasdelb at 9:06 AM on May 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


I avoided this thread for the most part, but actually, coming in here to read it finally has been strangely refreshing. Because it's shown me that the sort of second-guessing of victims of sexual assault that happens in here doesn't only get thrown at women.

Granted, it's kind of a shitty marker of progress, but it is indeed progress of a sort....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:40 AM on May 14, 2013


"Granted, it's kind of a shitty marker of progress, but it is indeed progress of a sort...."

I think I get the, I guess super extreme, misery-loves-companyness but progress? I ..I think you meant the other thing.
posted by Blasdelb at 1:09 PM on May 14, 2013


"Progress" was sort of sarcastic; I was thinking more in terms of how the victim-blaming in most reports of sexual assault tends to be directed against women, and has an undertone of sexism. The fact that this victim-blaming is directed at a man makes this a sort of fucked-up place to see where genders are apparently treated equally.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:17 PM on May 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older Spock vs. Spock   |   Hiking the Appalachian Trail Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments