alistair Brand has always been a sex pest

What’s the difference between someone who has sex with lots of people and a “sex pest”?

    hugopal the video in my “what a letch” post from yesterday. Pretty much every clip in it crosses the line don’t you think?

      Dan Building up enough evidence as to form a watertight case.

      Well the things seem that have happened over a decade ago and they still don’t seem to have much.

      • Dan replied to this.

        hugopal What’s the difference between someone who has sex with lots of people and a “sex pest”?

        Moral engineering.

        Direct response to the question, not a comment on the Russell Brand circus

          alistair he’s flirting and being funny, doesn’t seem like anyone is getting hurt.

          Or is flirting illegal now as well?

          And are you also gonna cancel Graham Norton for often making jokes based around innuendo on his show?

          hugopal CPS might have more if it does go to court. I’ll bet there’s loads more.

            Dan Yeah, the amount of people he’s had sex with must by in the thousands I would guess. You would expect many more to come out now if he’s a wrong cock.

            mono-stereo Rape and sexual assault.

            I don’t get your comment - are you saying it’s not possible to have sex with lots of people unless you’re committing sexual assault?

              Mad_Cyril True, it’s also worth pointing out that going to the police often dosn’t end in justice for rape complainants.

                hugopal I was commenting on two possible differences between a shagger and a (problematic) sex pest.

                  mono-stereo I was commenting on two possible differences between a shagger and a (problematic) sex pest.

                  That doesn’t really answer the question - neither of those examples define someone who is merely a shagger for instance.

                  Also, being flirty as Brand appears to be in the video alistair shared above is not committing sexual assault.

                  By your own comment you say you think Brand has probably got with women in the thousands - it hardly seems likely he’ll have done that by committing thousands of cases of assault. And when he’s getting with so many then why would he even need to commit assault? He comes across as flirty and provocative, but not violent.

                  How do you think someone should behave if they’re out with someone they want to invite back to theirs - say they’re currently struggling with a tax return and ask if they happen to be a chartered accountant?!

                    mono-stereo
                    Yep, same for DV.

                    Not sure all the sensationalism helps though - that extract from the times was one step away from having stage directions.

                    If all the energy burnt on sensationalism and internet ‘justice’ could be focussed on resolving the myriad issues in the Justice system, would be far more beneficial to the victims.

                      hugopal How do you think someone should behave if they’re out with someone they want to invite back to theirs - say they’re currently struggling with a tax return and ask if they happen to be a chartered accountant?!

                      Let me show you how incum tax works

                        Old-Dutch careful now, that’s starting to sound too much like it could potentially be flirting - can’t be having that, it’s basically the same thing as assault don’t you know?!

                        This is incredible:

                        https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/accusations-russell-brand-tv-documentary-comic

                        “…..the arrival on the cultural and current affairs landscape of popular internet pundits such as him and Tate, and in America, Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro, has become a serious challenge to public faith in careful journalism and in the more experienced, educated voices of comment. And that is exactly what was intended."

                        The absolute fucking state of that. Lol

                          hugopal That doesn’t really answer the question - neither of those examples define someone who is merely a shagger for instance.

                          It was a simple point that everyone else seemed to get. There is nothing wrong with consenual sex with lots of people “ie a shagger”. There is obviously somthing wrong if said shagger rapes and sexually assaults people, you might call them a sex pest. I’m not gonna repeat myself again so don’t bother asking me.

                          hugopal He comes across as flirty and provocative, but not violent.

                          Based on what? Has he fucked you? Was he a caring lover?

                            Mad_Cyril If all the energy burnt on sensationalism and internet ‘justice’ could be focussed on resolving the myriad issues in the Justice system, would be far more beneficial to the victims.

                            Yup. completely agree.

                            Old-Dutch there’s so much bollocks in that article it’s difficult to know where to begin, but I also found this part very amusing:

                            “The shows put out by Brand give his fans the chance to imagine themselves part of his circle. It is a byproduct of social media that sociologists are watching with interest and which can function almost like a traditional cult. A leader draws viewers in with the lure of promised intimacy, or at least of a sense of “community”, which coincidentally is the name of the “wellness” festival that Brand stages in the countryside each year.”.

                            Meanwhile… at the Guardian you can pay to become a “Patron”, where:

                            “By becoming a Guardian Patron, you can receive exclusive access to our work. Guardian Patrons are a close community of supporters who are invited to enjoy unique back-stage access to the Guardian’s journalism, history and future. They are invited to Patron-only events, with the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues of the day with our journalists”.

                            Sounds like the Guardian is also painting itself as functioning “almost like a traditional cult”.

                            https://amp.theguardian.com/membership/2018/aug/07/support-the-guardian-how-to-make-the-most

                            mono-stereo There is obviously somthing wrong if said shagger rapes and sexually assaults people, you might call them a sex pest

                            But @alistair already said that supposedly Brand has “always been a sex pest” - so to use your confused definition, that would indicate that it was supposedly already known that Brand was someone who has always committed sexual assault. In which case, why didn’t you or alistair already comment prior to these stories that Brand had committed sexual assault?

                            And also, if someone was a rapist or had committed sexual assault, why would you not instead simply refer to them as being a rapist or someone who had committed sexual assault? Again, your use of the term seems very unclear, vague and confused.

                              hugopal As usual you’re tying yourself up in knots. I said you might refair to the latter a sex pest, I wasn’t talking in absolutles. Feel free to replace the term with anything you like, the only person who’s confused here is you.

                              hugopal And also, if someone was a rapist or had committed sexual assault, why would you not instead simply refer to them as being a rapist or someone who had committed sexual assault?

                              Well Spock, because that’s not the way language works. See above.

                                mono-stereo I said you might refair to the latter a sex pest

                                That doesn’t seem how alistair could have been using the term though.

                                Although you still “might” refer to someone who’d been a rapist as a “sex pest” it doesn’t seem the most obvious term to use.

                                Unless alistair already somehow knew that Brand had “always” committed lots of sexual assault and rape, then it can’t have been he was using the term “sex pest” as synonymous with someone who commits lots of rape and sexual assault. In which case, he must have been using the term to describe something else.

                                He actually gave the example of the video above which generally just shows Brand flirting. I would say a term which can and is used to describe anything from flirting to rape is imprecise, sloppy and dangerously vague.

                                It would mean that anyone who does just sleeps with a lot of people by flirting, can be lazily lumped together with rapists. It does therefore need to be specified precisely what a person means when they try and label someone a “sex pest”.

                                  Homegrove Hannu acts as a “conduit of natural forces” by getting down on his knees in front of his wife, pointing to his anus, then pointing to the cupboard where the strap-on is kept; all the while making strange mewing noises.

                                  hugopal you call it flirting but it’s very evident his extremely suggestive actions making the recipients very uncomfortable and flustered on national TV. Have you seen the Saville Selina Scott interview?

                                    alistair making the recipients very uncomfortable and flustered

                                    i. e. turned on, perhaps.

                                    alistair extremely suggestive actions

                                    Err, flirting is by its nature suggestive. How would you flirt without being suggestive?

                                      Homegrove Found Hugo.

                                      I like Jordan Peterson, I don’t like Andrew Tate.

                                      hugopal By not referring to genitalia for a start. He’s an overgrown child. It’s been about 20 years since I went on a first date but even know about basic etiquette.

                                        alistair By not referring to genitalia for a start. He’s an overgrown child. It’s been about 20 years since I went on a first date but even know about basic etiquette.

                                        Cancel the BBC, Graham Norton, David Tennant etc etc for not following what you call “basic etiquette” :

                                        alistair He’s an overgrown child

                                        He’s as of now been married for six years, and has two kids with a third on the way.

                                          hugopal oh I forgot he’s renounced his past. It’s now come back to bite him on the arse.

                                            alistair seems like some of the anonymous accusers are also trying to renounce their past.

                                            It does therefore need to be specified precisely what a person means when they try and label someone a “sex pest”.

                                            I provided my interpretation, twice.