Last month we heard an account of sexual assault at a party hosted by Mojang's, Markus 'Notch' Persson. Yesterday, a video surfaced that depicts YouTube user KSIOlajidebt attending the Eurogamer Expo while making fun of cosplayers, asking inappropriate questions to passers by, and sexually assaulting booth babes.
Update Video embed removed by mod. If you want to see a guy rub his face in a woman's breasts and similar lewd content, go ahead and click through. We don't think it's appropriate for N4G nor do we think it's an appropriate way to treat women.
10°
10°
10°
10°
Ad 
10°
Saw the video where is the sexual assault -_-?
Sure the guy was rude and ask inappropriate question but there was no sexual assault.
It's inappropriate and completely disrespectful of the women. Yes. But he should be removed from the grounds, not charged with assault. If he repeats it, it's a violation of privacy and public misbehavior; however, still not assault.
https://twitter.com/Brandy_...
What about when he air-eats-her-out? That was easily the creepiest and the most assaulting thing.
"Do you like eggs?"
"[serious response]"
"Do you like them fertilized?"
lol, he's kind of funny, even if he goes too far with some of it.
"Make no mistake, this is sexual assault, plain and simple"
-
Actually, I'd say it's more your mistake; this is sexual harassment, not assault.
The reported is seriously over reacting...
"A few moments later he asks another booth babe if he can 'motorboat' her (the act of forcefully shoving one's face between a woman's breasts)"
I sure hope the reporter doesn't motorboat anyone because he is confused as to what it is... he asked her, she said yes, he shoved his face in them and they both enjoyed it where is the assault in that? I wouldn't even call it harassment! He was just being cocky confident and a bit of a clown!
If this guy is sexual harassing these women then this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
should go to prison for touching 1000 girls boobs -.-
Nothing wrong with either of them imo
OK.
Another issue I stated in another comment, is that the fact that some of these women where used for their body as an attraction didn't help them at all. Instead it only provokes the actions of a person like this.
The world of men has created the ideal of who and what the woman is. If she steps out of line then she is seen as abnormal or an outcast in some way or another.
I'm not defending him; I'm defending her...from people like you.
If a man comes up to you and asks your permission to put his face in between your breasts, and you say "yes". Who am I to say that he can't do it? It doesn't matter whether I think it's appropriate or not. They are your breasts, not mine, its your right to let whomever you want stick his face in between them.
Whoever wrote the source article is messing up her game. I don't mean "video game"; I mean her pimp-game, her rap, her mack, or whatever slang term you use to describe the process of attracting and pulling in the opposite sex for courtship. He needs to get his own game and stop hating on hers.
She might have liked the guy, after all, she did let him stick his face in her breasts. She may have given him her number. She might have been hoping that he would call her. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but now he probably won't whether she wanted him to or not. When people start accusing you of sexual assualt, they are talking about serious jail-time; that's more than enough to scare him off.
Saying that this girl was assaulted when he "motorboated" her after she gave permission is to say that she doesn't have right to control who does and who does not touch her body.
You are saying that it is not enough for the both of them to want it, you have to want it. You are wrong on this one.
In reality you are trampling on her rights more than this guy in the video.
She basically says as much in her tweet
https://twitter.com/Brandy_...
P.S.
You don't know if he asked the other woman if he could stick his mic between her breasts or not. They only showed the clip of him doing it. They don't show them talking before-hand. However, we do know she didn't object once he did it.
lol comedy from this guy that isn't afraid of nothing.
site wise, just another day of people on the internet caring about things that they would not have cared about , unless someone was making a big deal of it
>>>internet conformity .... just another day of it<<<
just a typical guy being a douche in a sense, I have seen worse in clubs
bad pickup lines but its alright. someones gonna beat him up tho
and apparently this is what this guy does in 10+ videos
so why is there a problem now?
sheeps gonna sheep -_-
I mean Jesus Christ, people. I'm not trying to say that women DESERVE to be sexually harassed, but I feel like if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck....then just accept that you are going to confuse a few people when you don't want to be treated like a duck.
Not that those women were getting offended anyway, as they have clearly tweeted.
Are you really that stupid or are you just trying really hard right now?
As has been discussed already, there was no assault. All physical contact was either consensual or not convincing to any judge that an actual assault occured. It was just lewd harrassment, and the guy does deserve to get kicked out, but really, the over-reaction just makes people look like over protective under sexed losers. They are adults, not children. They aren't going to be scarred for life because some nit wit gestured them inappropriately. And the idea of booth babes will never go away. As long as there are men looking for products, there will be hot girls standing around attracting men to products. Men are visual creatures, and at no point will that change where we ban hot girls at events. What are we women?
Yeah, you're right. And I don't want to seem like I'm trying to justify what the dude did. He's an obnoxious prick.
But at the same time, I hate when people expect me to "respect" the women that are attempting to exploit the male libido for monetary gain in the first place. Do they deserve to be harassed? Absolutely not. But don't try to suggest that I should RESPECT these women, either.
Its people like this that spoil it for everyone else.
I was also thinking why are the women there in the first place? The purpose of showing their bodies as attraction sites doesn't help their situation of how men look at them. One might even say "they are just asking for it to happen". This isn't the case, as it more like men created this situation to happen for the befitting of themselves.
If we limit the actuality of things based on literacy meaning alone then we are just being passive to the truth that is shown here.
Edit:
To simplify my meaning, a man kills another man in the city. He is deemed a murderer.
A man in the military kills another man in another country, he is deemed a hero.
Social attachments do not change the fact of what is, and that is that both men killed another man.
I've never argued that what is being done here is good. My comment was all about terminology, and I don't think my comment in any ways mitigates the situation. I just said that the situation is not violent and not "mean spirited" enough in a way, to be judged as sexual assault by a court of law. Of that reason I think the term is to crude.
To adress your (somewhat unrelated) points, I think your murderer/hero analogy is unsophisticated and does not reflect reality. Someone is called a hero, if they believe that the kill was somehow preventive. If you're at war, then that in itself is supposed to constitute preventive killings.
(ex. you kill someone, so they can't kill someone else)
There is a huge moral difference between killing Osama bin Laden and a new-born baby, for instance, as there is good reason to suspect that bin Lade would be more detrimental to human well being than the baby.
And regarding this situation, I think if women want jobs as booth babes, that is their choice. I personally wouldn't be to pleased if I had a daughter who went for the profession, but as long as nothing's forcing her, it would ultimately be all right.
I was trying to aim for the beginning of it all.
The effect of a booth babe is the sexual attraction to the body of the woman who stands by the product. That attraction is meant for men, who are sexually aroused through visuals. I understand why you wouldn't want your possible daughter to be in this situation. Because as men we know the purpose of women in these situations. It removes their minds and presents the body, it dehumanizes them. Regardless of choice this is the effect. And power of oppression is not through intent but for effect.
We normalize the situations of these women in areas they head off to in life, even they see these choices as normal. But what is normal or to normalize something is to give it power. That power holds us in place to avoid swaying out of the norm. To be normal is to not be abnormal or an outcast.
Who says what is and isn't normal? Why do we allow it? Why would women wish to present themselves as sexual dolls? Who wishes for women to be presented as sexual dolls? I'm giving these questions to point to the fact that it is men who holds the power of normalizing the world in their own ideals. We socially stand above women, whether we want to or not, as the ones who oppress them. we give them their options of what is normal.
So if a woman normalizes the choice of being a booth babe, it means she has agreed to the ideals that men have given her. So does this make the actuality of booth babes okay? No, as women are presented with the ideals of men who have normalized these life choices into modern society.
Men formed the ideal world for women, she accepts or becomes abnormal, and thus the affect of oppressing.
Despite of what you may think of this or the common use of women today. There are some out there who enjoy the thrill of watching men drool for them. Heck, there are women who know they can score a high paid job with the advantage of looking sexy. If it's worth it, they'll go for this opportunity.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
...the only problem with that is that it wasn't a comedy club.
If he openly felt a girl up then we'd all say "yes" because it would be blatant.
His questions made some or most of the women feel uncomfortable (not the motorboat chick), they reflected his thoughts onto women by mimicking the idea of objectifying them in his mind. This is seen through his sexual questions towards them, also there being no other questions about anything else except their bodies.
This is a another case of oppression, even though we all are oppressed in some way, but those lesser in stance stance will feel the effects more.
Of course if all of these women did not feel uncomfortable and or enjoyed his questions then the work of the oppressors would have been completed. meaning that these woman would have submitted to the ideals of men, the paradigm.
Remember people, this is a gaming convention, not a pornographic one.
But the last girl, was debatable at 2:32 cuz she didn't exactly give him permission to place his mic on her breast but again she didn't react, get angry or say nothing except giggle afterwards. So how that assault?
Sexual assault claim is FALSE!!!!!
Was is lewd, rude and ill mannered toward booth-babes & geeks? yeah probably, but wasn't that the point of his TYPE of interviews?
Just because someone doesn't visibly react negatively to that doesn't mean that they consented for it to happen.
There are a lot of things here that aren't being considered. Such as the fact that these girls had a camera shoved in their faces, which could act as a bit of coercion, which affects consent that everyone is so eager to point out.
The motorboating issue - he asked her, she agreed to do it. The fact that he asked in the first place...how many other people did he ask before he got someone to agree to it? How many people said no or were repulsed by his behaviour? The footage is edited, obviously, to show the people who agreed to his lewd antics. There were a few people in the video that he didn't edit out that looked visibly uncomfortable. Just because you're laughing at something, it doesn't always mean that you find it funny. It could be a nervous laugh, such as it appeared to be with the woman he asked about fingering herself.
Incidentally, if you touch someone without their consent, it's considered assault. If you touch someone and it is considered to be sexual, such as touching their breasts, it's sexual assault. Was this sexual assault? Well we'd have to know if they really had agreed to it, or were coerced.
But if a man got raped... how gives a ****
Also, no Sexual assault
What!? Since when!? ...Seriously, if people didn't already know this, (and for those that HAVE done it). You need to be slapped upside the face and learn some damn manners. I don't care if it's a guy doing it to a woman, or a woman doing it to a guy. Have some freaking decency and respect, if there's any of that left these days.
That's a very limited definition of assault, and might actually be more damaging than helpful. By labeling women as only being capable of being assaulted, it seemingly makes women appear less than men (as if they're weaker) and ignores acts of assault of men against men.
But I definitely agree he should be banned from future events. Acting like that promotes nothing but negative press for our industry, and it really shows how easily people can abuse privilege.
so you need to get your facts straight because there are plenty of women capable of taking a guy against thier will period
I'm not complaining tho... :)
Wow... just wow.
You must be one of those women that think women don't commit domestic violence and men aren't victims of domestic violence.
I have zero respect for women like you think all men are just perverts that only think with their dicks.
Go to www.fathersandfamilies.org and start educating yourself.
Unless you work in a strip club or something.
>.>
<.<
......
"legitimate sexual assault"
"ASSAULT"
unless you were referring to having sex and the guy is slapping her as he does it and she likes it.
Yeah. Not really assault that.
Related image(s)
It's all a joke, people.
I got the joke (watch Colbert and Stewart regularly) ;)
Sadly, most of the comments on the youtube video are dumping on him for his race. Way to keep it classy youtube. You totally have the moral high ground on him now.
I don't consider it sexual assault. Sexual harassment, indeed. Looks to be blown out of proportion though.This guy was trying to be funny and failed miserably. Smoke some of my product and watch him again. I bet he still won't be funny.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Ooof! Have a bubble haha.
This guy should get banned DEFINITELY.
Wait, what? You were either joking or you've smoked too much of my product.
I bet if I chose to walk around with tight shorts or something to draw attention to myself, I would get more attention. But then I would be asking for it, wouldn't I?
It's silly to assume that people (women or men) who dress in scantily-clad outfits are inviting or asking for assault. It puts the blame on the victim, and implies that the assaulter is some sort of dumb animal who can't control their impulses because the victim "invited" them by wearing a certain outfit. When really, anyone should be able to wear whatever they want without being assaulted or told they're "asking" to be assaulted.
Although, you could look at the video as being more of a joke because it's obvious that he's gay just by looking at him (well that & his voice).
I wonder if he tries his brand of comedy on his family, viscously insulting them for no reason.
Seriously, the world would just be a happier place without him.
Sexual assault is extremely seriously and shouldn't being used lightly, so I think both the author of the article and that 'interviewer' are complete asshats.
Move on with your life.
Grade A Douche.