Game Grumps

Question, though, and I hope this doesn't come off as facetious, but does that mean celebrities can only date people who have either never heard of them or aren't a fan of their work? Because that first one can be near impossible depending on someone's level of fame, and the latter seems like an inherently unhealthy relationship.

EDIT: What a great page-topper.

Edited by randomdude4 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 6:46:27 AM

The difference in that case is that for bosses, they have concrete power in a two-sided relationship that they know that they could use to hurt or pressure their employee. But the thing with parasocial relationships is that the influencer has no idea who the fan is, how important they are to them, or even if there is a meaningful power imbalance since it mostly exists within the fan's mind.

After reaching a certain level of fame, are celebrities just expected to abstain from sex altogether since they might mean too much to their partner?

The difference is that more traditional celebrities aren't nearly as accessible as Youtubers and influencers. With youtubers and influencers it's easier for fans to start forming parasocial relationships. And those are problematic.

Edited by M84 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 9:52:34 PM

"Ignorance is not an excuse."

If you need to know someone's entire life story and baggage before having sex because they might be more into you than is clear, then it's better to just say they should all wait for marriage to avoid upsetting people.

The point is that ignorance of the power dynamics at play is not an excuse. As the article states, they should just assume any sexual contact with them would be inappropriate.

It's of course even worse if the celebrity deliberately exploits said power dynamic and cultivates it over time for the sake of making sexual advances.

Edited by M84 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 9:59:35 PM

Again, I ask, does that mean celebrities can only date people who have never heard of them? Obviously it's shitty to abuse fame to use someone for sex, but it seems as though you're saying that a celebrity can't ever pursue a relationship with someone who enjoys their work because there might be a power imbalance.

So, in other words, they should just abstain from sex altogether because it might mean too much to their partner?

No, they should abstain from it because they're (unwittingly or not) taking advantage of an imbalanced power dynamic for sex.

Okay, I see why you would think that. However, I can't help but feel that that sort of attitude comes from a place of sex-negativity, and that if a consenting adult comes onto you it should not be your responsibility to vet them before you determine that they're not mistaken about whether they actually want to do what they're telling you they want to.

It's not being sex-negative. It's being mindful of boundaries.

One of the things about being a public figure, a celebrity, is that one needs to be more responsible and careful about their interactions with the public, romantic or otherwise.

Edited by M84 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 10:09:28 PM

You're effectively saying though that celebrities should take a vow of celibacy after reaching fame. That comes off as very sex-negative.

I guess I just don't understand why a celebrity who says "let's just have sex this once" and hears "okay" is at fault for trusting their partner, but the fan who hears "let's just have sex this once" and says "okay" is not at fault for assuming their partner is lying and really wants a Cinderella romance?

No, it just means they shouldn't start sexual relations with fans. There's a difference.

It's not like any celebrity is so famous and beloved that literally everyone is their fan.

Again, it all boils down to the inherently unbalanced relationship. Substitute "celebrity" and "fan" with "boss" and "subordinate" or "teacher" and "student".

Edited by M84 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 10:16:20 PM

Those are very different dynamics.

At the very least, one in the higher end of the dynamic should be mindful of it.

If a subordinate refuses to have sex with their boss, that boss can fire them or make their workday miserable. A teacher can fail their student and poison the well of their future opportunities. A celebrity can only make their fan feel disappointed, and they have no idea how much that's actually true because they can't read minds.

Edited by IniuriaTalis on Mar 22nd 2021 at 10:23:02 AM

And possibly sic their other fans on the first one.

A boss can control the employee’s wages, their hours, and the power to make their life a living hell through coercion. A teacher would be engaging in non-consensual interactions with a child, which is illegal and morally bankrupt. The comparison is apples and oranges when putting those examples up against a celebrity’s relationship with a fan.

Yeah but that's not the case here, at all. And forgive me if I'm ignorant, but I can't think of any examples of a celeb getting a person harassed for not sleeping with them.

Edited by IniuriaTalis on Mar 22nd 2021 at 10:25:01 AM

Offhand, me neither, but it's not really relevant to the point.

The issue is that Dan allegedly used his celebrity status to bed women and, upon doing so, cut off all contact with said women. Maybe it's not as bad as it could be, but it's also not justifiable either.

Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 7:26:25 AM

Totally. I’m not defending Dan’s actions here, because what he did was wrong. I was just arguing against the notion that all celebrity/fan relationships are toxic or come from a toxic place. A celebrity does need to be careful of the influence they can have, and here Dan definitely abused his.

Edited by randomdude4 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 7:30:43 AM

The article actually points out that the power dynamic is actually Not So Different from the boss-subordinate one.

The point is that because there is an imbalance, the one with more power needs to be the responsible one. That's how people with power should act.

Edited by M84 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 10:30:42 PM

People on the subreddits are really bending over and stretching to defend Dan and it feels like that's spread over here, which is sad. Even if the girl wasn't underaged she's still significantly younger than him, on top of the blatantly overstepping boundaries in terms of power dynamics.

Yes, that's fair enough. It's definitely scummy, and part of my nonplussed reaction definitely comes from the fact that the first headline I clicked on was about him being a abusive pedophile... Which apparently was just a smear from the pro-Jon Nazi set, but still makes the actual news seem small potatoes in comparison.

At what age, if not 22, can women be assumed to not be children? I totally get the sketchiness at large age imbalances in relationships, but 22 is absolutely old enough to consent to a one-night stand.

Edited by IniuriaTalis on Mar 22nd 2021 at 10:33:21 AM

The accusations of him being a pedophile were always out there. But this conversation moved on from that a while ago.

Also, the age is not the sole factor when it comes to power dynamics. This is again something the article I linked noted.

This shit may not be illegal, but it's definitely immoral.

Edited by M84 on Mar 22nd 2021 at 10:38:10 PM