In the first episode of Russell T Davies’ new drama Cucumber, middle aged Lance finds a much younger man in a nightclub who has no money and nowhere to spend the night. ‘You can stay at ours if you want to fuck,’ Lance tells him. ‘No hassle. Just sex with the both of us. And then you can stay the night.’
‘Yeah,’ the younger man replies, ‘that’s cool’ – but it’s clear, including to Lance’s uncomfortable partner Henry, that he’s ‘off his head’ on some substance or other, wide-eyed and slurring out fantastic images of kings and cowboy-men and nodding in and out of consciousness during their taxi ride. At their house, he appears not to register most of what Lance and Henry say; he walks off-balance and seems to have trouble standing up, sitting down at the first opportunity and collapsing half-asleep minutes later onto Lance’s bed. By the time Lance performs out-of-shot what looks and sounds like oral sex, he can no longer speak coherently. Five to ten onscreen minutes later, presumably once Lance has had anal sex with him as he says he means to (‘[He’s] gonna fuck my arse’), Henry brings police officers to the scene. The younger man, now fully naked and seemingly unaware of it, is no more lucid when they confront him, gripped in a haze of drug-induced visions with no idea what’s going on.
The above scenes, if anyone contests this description, can be viewed here.
There are two ways to argue what they show isn’t (at minimum attempted) rape. The first is to say the man Lance has sex with is lucid enough to consent to it – in which case, you’ve the narrative above to explain. The second is to say consent doesn’t require lucidity – in which case, the Sexual Offences Act disagrees, deeming consent impossible if ‘by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability [someone is] unaware of what [is] occurring’. The Crown Prosecution Service further acknowledges meaningful consent to ‘evaporate well before [someone] becomes unconscious‘ if mind-altering substances make them incapable.
Is someone who can’t tell where they are – who can’t continuously stay upright or awake – aware of what’s occurring? Is someone who can’t hold a coherent conversation capable of saying no? And how would we react if Davies’ drama had shown this happening to a young woman? Last September a friend of mine, Maria Marcello, made headlines describing her experience of being raped while drunk: ‘unable to talk or stand up,’ she wrote, ‘I cannot have been capable of agreeing to sex.’ The piece was widely shared, read hundreds of thousands of times and reprinted at countless newspapers. Why then, amid critical praise for Cucumber, has no one blanched over its casual portrayal of what amounts to rape among gay men? What does its uncontested inclusion say about Davies and his audience of middle aged, middle class gay men?
In my own incensed and none-too-pleased review of Cucumber, I write:
When someone is so intoxicated they struggle to remain awake – WHEN THEY ARE SO OFF THEIR FACE THEY DON’T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, WHAT’S HAPPENING OR WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING, and when they seem to have difficulty staying upright, IN WHAT SENSE IS INTERCOURSE WITH THEM NOT RAPE? HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY MEANINGFULLY CONSENT TO SEX OR SAY NO TO IT?
Guy Lambert, BBC producer and fan of Davies’ former franchise Doctor Who, turned up in the comments.
In my defence, I tend to lose patience with commenters who argue inaccurately, ignore how their points have been addressed, defend and deny sexual violence and act like they’re entitled to my time – Venn diagrams exist for arguments like this. If Lambert so urgently craves a response to what he states, he can scroll to the top of this post. Admittedly, it’s largely a rehash of what I’d already said. Funny, that.
Judging by comment #6, he seems to think sex with somebody drugged out of their wits is only rape if you’re the one that drugged them – I don’t remember when I last banned someone from this blog, but horse shit of that nature will do it. Based on the resulting barrage of outraged tweets, many coming my way, he seems not to’ve reacted well.
A review of #Cucumber which I felt was unfair. So I engaged. The author (@AlexGabriel) replied http://t.co/QrVXxCkXbw pic.twitter.com/1OYDnLKiSE
— Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy I kinda see both points here, as drunk as participants were there was no hint anyone would’ve been unwilling
— Jonny Rhodes (@jonnymmr) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy but it made me v uncomfortable that they played it for laughs and that a guy so out of it was used in that way in the narrative
— Jonny Rhodes (@jonnymmr) January 24, 2015
@jonnymmr But you see my point about actual intercourse = rape? And his reply? That’s what astonished me.
— Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
The word ‘troll’ is pretty much the death of free speech
— Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
When I was at Uni, we were taught to engage and to learn. Seems now that the lesson is: ‘set up a blog and call anyone who engages a troll’
— Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
And these are people that apparently want to become journalists. Sheesh… — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy this is the sort of thing I see with animators, it tedious and aggravating! Especially if you’re trying to help!
— Jon Gransden (@GingerAnimator) January 24, 2015
@GingerAnimator it’s pathetic and immature — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@patmonger @AlexGabriel absolutely! Trolling = engaging with someone?! Ridiculous. Don’t write if you can’t handle discussion
— Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy I just looked at his bio. Seems riling people up might be his thing
— Pat Monger (@patmonger) January 24, 2015
You know, it might.
@patmonger yes I think he’s about 18 and angry at the world. Maybe when he grows up he’ll learn to engage maturely — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
I’m 23. (The rest holds up.)
@SohoGuy Tee hee. Imagine being him.
— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) January 24, 2015
I would never have tried baby bear’s porridge. Worst fairytale ever. #goldilocks #cucumber
— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) January 24, 2015
Plenty of bears would’ve welcomed Goldilocks to their home. #cucumber
— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) January 24, 2015
Goldilocks is a cisgender heteronormative character. Why wasn’t she representative of ME!?!?! #Cucumber
— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) January 24, 2015
I think some people need to learn the difference between a story and a student union equality pamphlet. #Cucumber
— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) January 24, 2015
I always try to be positive on the Twitter but …
— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) January 24, 2015
Middle class censorious sententious faux-left entitled groupthink students churned out by academic sausage machines really HACK ME OFF.
— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) January 24, 2015
This is the same Gareth Roberts who’s penned multiple episodes of Doctor Who since 2007, including one together with Davies.
While I’m not a student, was homeless before I was a year old, grew up on benefits and earned about half Britain’s minimum wage last year, several times being unable to buy food, it sure helps having a middle aged, financially secure regular scriptwriter on a globally successful multimillion pound flagship BBC show explain to me how middle class I am, brainwashed with the arcane, elitist goal of not treating rape as funny or fine. (Adjectives. I can do them too.)
This was when more notifications came.
@SohoGuy @AlexGabriel He was doing quite well until he resorted to the “t” word. — Maurice Gran (@mauricegran) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy Haha, embarrassing lack of professional conduct on his part, in response to what is a fair question @AlexGabriel — Pat Monger (@patmonger) January 24, 2015
@patmonger @AlexGabriel absolutely! Trolling = engaging with someone?! Ridiculous. Don’t write if you can’t handle discussion — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy @patmonger @AlexGabriel Stop writing if you can’t handle engaging with people. Very poor trolling…. — B4RL3Y (@Keith_C_Jarrett) January 24, 2015
I bit.
@SohoGuy @patmonger I repeat: fuck off. (That means stop tagging me.)
— Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@AlexGabriel @patmonger then block me. Like you did on your blog because you were unable/not mature enough to engage in a discussion
— Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
It was a tempting prospect at first, I’ll admit.
@SohoGuy @patmonger Okay. — Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy But FYI, tagging someone repeatedly who has asked you not to tag them violates Twitter’s rules & can get you suspended. — Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy I’d answered your questions and corrected your errors. You are not entitled to a further conversation with me I don’t want to have.
— Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
Then again, Twitter’s tag feature is designed to make something appear in someone’s updates. Tagging someone when you slate them in the third person is harassment: it is designed to force them to read whatever hostile things you say about them. (I tweet vitriol about people I dislike all the time. I don’t send it to them and force them to read it.)
Telling someone to block you so you can keep tagging them in rage-tweets is like telling someone to curtain off their porch so they don’t see the turds you post through their letter box. I’m all but done enabling that behaviour. Why should I be the one to change how I use Twitter?
@AlexGabriel I’ve not tagged you in any conversation since you requested it — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy I asked you to stop and you said ‘Then block me’. I should not have to block you for you not to send me unwanted Mentions. — Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@AlexGabriel I haven’t tried! You’re the one engaging with me. I just tagged you in the post referring to your blog. Just block me — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy Suddenly, I no longer feel like it. If you want to escalate this, I’m fine with that. — Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@AlexGabriel what does that mean? — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy I banned your comments; you tweeted at me because you think you’re entitled to my time. If you insist on arguing, fine. I’m here. — Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
Look everyone! Here are @SohoGuy‘s thoughts on why sex with someone who doesn’t know what’s going on isn’t rape. https://t.co/RFlvXT4NQ5 — Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
Guy Lambert seems to’ve found that last tweet a ‘very aggressive‘ move. Well yes – it can’t have been at all nice having his username rage-tweeted out to my followers, exposing him to a potential volley of attacks. He’d never do such a thing, of course.
@AlexGabriel hey I just made a comment for people who follow me. I didn’t ask you to keep bombarding me with these endless tweets
— Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
But really, though – someone not leaving you alone when you don’t want to talk to them. Imagine that.
OH MY GOD SOMEONE ACTING LIKE YOU OWE THEM A CONVERSATION THAT MUST BE TOUGH rt @SohoGuy you to keep bombarding me with these endless tweets — Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@AlexGabriel lol. I think we all know who the real troll is right now — Guy Lambert (@SohoGuy) January 24, 2015
I think so too. Complete troll behaviour there, I’ll admit. (He wouldn’t when he did it.)
@SohoGuy Then block me.
— Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy Not my fault you’re not “mature” or “intelligent” enough not to mind being bombarded with obtuse, unwanted messages.
— Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@SohoGuy Free speech innit?
— Alex Gabriel (@AlexGabriel) January 24, 2015
@AlexGabriel nah it’s dead boring actually! BYE@
He seems to’ve blocked me.
I’d like to think I’m dealing with it better than he did.
These exchanges on Twitter like you one you provide between him and his friends/colleagues/acquaintances are so interesting. Because they’re people just talking with those who agree with them, they can draw out the hateful, reactionary attitudes that are usually below the surface. But because they’re on Twitter, they’re public for all to see.
It’s fascinating that someone whose friends are calling you elitist insists that a situation in which someone without money or shelter is offered a place to sleep in exchange for sex is not unconsensual “in any way.”
Maybe I you’d addressed his arguments instead of just repeating yourself, he wouldn’t have been able to accuse you of trolling.
He specifically claimed that no intercourse occurred
I haven’t seen it, so don’t know if this might have been the intent that didn’t come across,, he is being hyper specify about “sexual activity” or just lying
@2
The scenes linked in this post clearly show an attempt at oral sex and there are heavily implications of further attempts at sex, given that the character is completely nude and there was a prior agreement for sex.
Oral sex is intercourse. This doesn’t even have to go into “self-defined” or “community defined” sex, the way that some people want to play with the definition for encounters between two people with vaginas. There was a penetrative act that was very much implied by the structure of the show. Under every law I’m aware of (both in the UK and the US as I’m most familiar with, as well as in Scandinavian countries and Canada, which I’m less familiar with) this is rape. It’s practically textbook rape.
In summary; his points didn’t need to be addressed. Alex addressed them already in his post. His points were superfluous to the conversation and were designed only to incite a response and to dismiss Alex’s claims. They existed only to inflame the discussion and to rile up Alex. Clearly shown by his response to Alex exactly mirroring his own behaviour on Twitter.
The rape apologies are kind of mind blowing. That scene has everything – drugs and alcohol, someone who’s barely conscious, someone else who really doesn’t want to have sex and keeps trying to defuse the situation, coercion from another party. The only thing missing is a neon sign that says “RAPE! RAPE!”.
If these people ask themselves if they’d feel the same way if the young man was a young girl. If not, why not? And if so.. well at least they are consistently horrible.
@shockwaver
It’s also mind blowing that people justify the scene as not being about rape by stating that no “intercourse” occurred. So rape only occurs when a person is penetrated?
[…] What happened when I wrote about the rape scene in Russell T Davies' gay drama Cucumber […]