In my attempt to find out what Russell Brand is actually being accused of, I learned something new. Apparently, the word “retard” was introduced as the acceptable and polite way of referring to people with mental disabilities. The previous terms, which were themselves acceptable when they were coined, were things like moron, imbecile and idiot, which came with their own classification system.
Nowadays, the word retard has become hugely offensive. Give it another 20 years and I dare say that whatever term we’re using right now will be deemed equally offensive.
Another example of retroactive offence is the song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”. This was originally written by Frank Loesser in 1944 as a playful duet for him and his wife to perform at the end of their housewarming party. Some people today view the lyrics as being tantamount to sexual harassment, a kind of rapist’s charter in song form.
Or what about the Gillette advert in which a guy sees an attractive woman on the street and is about to introduce himself only to be stopped by someone with a “not cool, bro”?
Whilst I understand that shopping for clothes and shoes takes long enough without all sorts of unwelcome interruptions like random guys asking for your phone number1, I do sometimes wonder how men and women ever actually manage to establish a romantic relationship these days with all of these new rules to navigate.
I suppose there’s always Tinder - which at least makes the harassment one step removed.
Then there’s the move to get consent for every sexual act. Is it OK if I kiss you here? Is it OK if I touch you there? Is it OK if I kiss you here now?
I wonder if the people advocating for things like this have ever actually had sex?
I suppose this consent prescription could, on occasion, be made into a fun and playful game with both parties being in on the act, but it sure isn’t The Postman Always Rings Twice.
The point is that cultures change. What was “acceptable” 20 years ago can easily be seen as grossly inappropriate today. Is this shift in cultural acceptability part of the problem with the whole Brand affair, or was his behaviour unacceptable even then? It’s hard to decouple some of this - particularly given his v1.0 persona which was all part of his, erm, schtick anyway. His outrageous behaviour was a big part of why he was on TV in the first place.
I never liked Russell Brand v1.0 very much. I didn’t find him funny at all, and thought he was a bit of a twat, being “over the top” for being over the top’s sake.
I rather like Russell Brand v2.0
Which maybe points to the power of redemption?
Or maybe he just grew up. Dunno.
Anyway, as we all know, he’s currently undergoing the modern vilification process for things he is alleged to have done as Russell Brand v1.0
Some of the allegations against him are a bit bizarre, to say the least. Others seem a bit more substantive and indicative of a behaviour pattern that could certainly be described as “inappropriate”. But did they cross the line into assault and harassment?
One allegation, for example, describes one woman to whom he is alleged to have exposed Mr Twinky to in his dressing room. And what did this gormless bint do? Run out in shock and horror and complain about the harassment or sexual assault? No. He invited her round to his flat. She went2, and you can guess the rest. I suspect Brand didn’t run through the whole consent list as they humped and pumped away.
OK - perhaps Brand’s alleged “pick up” technique was lacking here. I’ve never tried exposing my bits as a means to introduce myself. But it seems to have worked quite well here.
I’m really struggling to see the “harassment” here because I don’t think the story fully adds up. This dim damsel did not appear to be in any sort of distress - and, indeed, wanted to see more of this horrific weapon of harassment and abuse. To claim “abuse” now seems a little bit of re-writing of history to me.
But we only have one side of the story here. It’s being presented as Brand just randomly having whipped out his todger - but I suspect there was a little more interaction before that dread moment. Did he really just immediately whip out his piece when some random woman walked into his dressing room? Even as licentious as he was in his v1.0 incarnation, I suspect not. We will probably never know the full truth.
One, at least, of the other allegations seems a bit more substantive in that he forced himself upon his partner (with whom he was already in a relationship) and that she went to a rape treatment centre the same day.
But again, I’d like to hear Brand’s version of events before coming to any judgement.
The disturbing thing is that he’s being tried in the court of lore. Judgement has already been passed by entities like YouTube who have already de-monetized him on the basis of allegations.
Will YouTube pay damages to Brand if he’s eventually found to be entirely innocent? Of course not.
The UK government have also requested that Rumble de-monetize him. Yes, the fucking government.
What the hell?
With things like sexual assault and rape it’s so hard to get to the truth of the matter. People lie about it - even women (and with a much higher frequency than one might suppose). There are plenty of instances where this “allegation technique” is used in divorce proceedings, for example.
Obviously rape is a very, very serious crime - and no quarter should be given to a rapist. But false allegations of assault or rape are not as rare as they should be. How the hell do we sort all this out when it’s often a case of “he said, she said”?
I wish I knew.
And we’ve also got to factor in that the meaning of “rape” has slipped a bit, too. Two young people getting a bit inebriated and subsequently having sex is not rape, no matter how much one might regret it in the morning.
I’ve never been entirely comfortable with people coming forward, particularly at times of political expediency, with allegations of past sexual crimes. I can understand that if you see your abuser gaining prominence and public acclaim you might have extra impetus to do something about it now. I get that. I’d like to see justice done, too. But how on earth are we to be scrupulously fair to all parties in any such allegations of historical abuse?
But Brand hasn’t only just become a prominent figure. The question of “why now?” is definitely one worth considering. When you couple that with the UK government’s utterly despicable attempt to pressure Rumble, there has to be more than a little suspicion that something’s not quite right about the whole process.
Ultimately, of course, we’re talking about the media. They’re really rather good at taking a scrap of discarded cotton and weaving it into a beautiful tapestry. They’re not the most objective people you’ll ever meet.
My default position of “they’re all a bunch of lying fuckers” applies here. I’m not going to believe any of the stuff against Brand until he’s given a fair chance to defend himself in a legal setting.
He’s very much innocent until proven guilty in my view - and that means as of right now, this moment, we should treat him as if he’s done absolutely nothing wrong.
If you’re an attractive woman, then having 20 guys hit on you every day must get real tiresome, real quick, so I do get why there are some decidedly negative elements to this kind of behaviour. But is it harassment? Not so sure on that one.
But to be fair, there’s an element of sexual threat in any random encounter between a guy and a girl - and it’s a threat that men do not perceive or have to, personally, take account of. Being accosted by a random guy on the street does have different connotations for the woman - there’s always that background fear there, even if it’s quickly dispelled.
And I’m not clear whether they went together or she turned up at some later time?
"My default position of 'they’re all a bunch of lying fuckers' applies here. I’m not going to believe any of the stuff against Brand until he’s given a fair chance to defend himself in a legal setting."
Words by which to live, particularly the part about lying fuckers.
“The question of ‘why now?’ is definitely one worth considering. When you couple that with the UK government’s utterly despicable attempt to pressure Rumble, there has to be more than a little suspicion that something’s not quite right about the whole process.”
RR is more open-minded than I am. That this is a political hit on Brand v2.0 is (if I have your insular lingo right) what you’d call a dead cert.
If the accusations, or at least any of them that allege actual crimes or other really egregious behavior, are true, then that’s a silver lining, but irrespective of the truth of the charges, them coming out now in the way they did, is part of the ever widening and intensifying war on dissent.