FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Identity

Critics Attack YACHT's Fake 'Sex Tape' Stunt for Exploiting Real Victims

After faking a sex tape leak, the band YACHT has come under fire for making light of revenge porn. We spoke to a top internet harassment lawyer about the serious repercussions of this PR ploy.
Screenshot via Pornhub

Over the weekend, the Portland-bred, Los Angeles-based pop duo YACHT wrote a heartfelt message to their fans and followers. In it, Claire L. Evans and Jona Bechtolt—a longtime couple as well as musical collaborators—lamented that they had fallen victim to a sex tape leak. Yesterday, the duo released an apology (of sorts) after they were outed for faking the whole thing as a marketing stunt.

Though originally writing, in a since-deleted post on their website, that they were pursuing legal action against an unnamed third party, Evans and Bechtolt have walked back their story. They're now blaming the press and "clickbait journalism" for taking victims of an alleged sex crime at their word. As it turns out, the band had tipped off a staffer at Gawker Media over a month ago about their plans, though their publicist maintains that the scheme was hidden from her.

Advertisement

Watch Now: Inside the Torturous Fight to End Revenge Porn

As far as we can tell, the "leak" of Yacht's sex tape was carried out in two stages. First, the duo announced that, "without out previous knowledge nor consent," a sex tape that was meant to be kept private had been posted online by a "morally abject person". The band wrote a long, passionate note about their "humiliation," stating, "We hope you understand this is not a delicious scandal. This is an exploitation."

Later, Evans and Bechtolt announced that they were attempting to "reclaim" their stolen footage by hosting it on their own website, downloadable for $5. In this second post, they feign commiseration with fellow "celebrities" who have also had sex tapes leak: Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian. "We're not as savvy as the Kardashians, but something occurred to us this morning: we could try and distribute the video directly to you ourselves. Lemonade?"

Things didn't quite go as planned. According to Jezebel, the band was attempting to attract attention for the upcoming music video for their song, "I Wanna Fuck You Til I'm Dead." However, many of their fans refused to watch it, assuming that it was illegally stolen footage. And, when several of the media outlets that originally reported on the "leak" as a sex crime reported that the story had actually been an elaborate marketing scheme, reactions were not kind. At Jezebel, Anna Merlan wrote, "Most people are not craven and/or horny enough to watch a video whose participants are begging you not to view it. Most people don't suck. Most people aren't Yacht." Bethany Cosentino, frontwoman of the California band Best Coast, tweeted, "Playing the victim + exploiting your fans as a PR stunt isn't some bold, cutting edge shit- it's just a real shitty asshole thing to do."

Advertisement

Yesterday afternoon, Evans and Bechtolt released a statement that was a sort-of apology for the ordeal, along with a link to the fake sex tape, which they posted on PornHub. Claiming they "didn't anticipate the outpouring of genuine support, due partially to the credulity with which this story was so extensively and immediately reported," the duo assured their fans, "We never make light of victims of any form of sexual abuse." They went on, "Frankly, it's disturbing to us that press outlets could make the incredibly irresponsible leap from 'celebrity sex tape,' which is the cultural trope this project explicitly references, to 'revenge porn,' which is unfunny, disgusting, morally repugnant, and completely unrelated. Even within the fictional narrative we created, there was no violence or exploitation. It was always about agency and proactive empowerment."

To critics of the stunt, it seems strange that Evans and Bechtolt would be shocked that the media took them at their word, that their fans expressed sympathy and concern, and that the general public doesn't seem to "get" the fake distinction they have created between "celebrity sex tape" and "revenge porn." The line the duo attempt to draw between a sex tape "trope" and real sexual exploitation is one that only gets blurrier as more and more women and men, famous and non-famous, fall victim to revenge porn. As Amanda Hess cynically mused in Slate last year, "What happened? For one thing, the Internet masses had found a new vice, outrage, to replace our voyeurism."

Advertisement

It is inherently violent to broadcast someone's recorded sex, or a photograph, without that individual's permission.

According to Carrie Goldberg, a lawyer in Brooklyn at C.A. Goldberg, PLLC which focuses on Internet harassment and sexual assault litigation, the band "doesn't have the authority to make the distinction" between "celebrity sex tape" and revenge porn. "And when they say that they never make light of victims of sexual abuse, that's false, because they just did through this ridiculous and cold-hearted stunt," she told Broadly. In her opinion, the trope of the sex tape, and the way in which the band capitalized on it, is "very much related" to the concept of revenge porn.

"These guys were capitalizing on the structure that's in place to make viral things go viral. And it is inherently violent to broadcast someone's recorded sex, or a photograph, without that individual's permission," she continued. "That is sexual exploitation." Goldberg also made a point to clarify that revenge porn "doesn't have to be a jilted ex-lover that distributes it without consent, like the term 'revenge porn' implies. It doesn't always have to be about revenge."

Goldberg fears that this hoax may harm actual victims of sexual abuse, many of whom are disbelieved or disregarded when they come forward with their stories. "We've made so much progress, not just in regards to the media believing victims, but in people believing victims," said Goldberg. "Just like sexual assault and domestic violence and basically any crime that targets women, there's frequently a disbelief, there's intimations that the person is lying, is falsely accusing, is mentally ill, is delusional, is exaggerating. So when you have somebody who actually falsely claims to be a victim, that ruins things for actual victims. It corrodes the actual faith that the community has when that same crime occurs to somebody else."

And progress certainly has been made: It's easy to imagine that Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, or Pam Anderson would be afforded much more sympathy had their private videos been broadcast today. 2014's so-called "Fappening," in which dozens of nude celebrity photographs were leaked online, marked a hopeful transition away from scoffing at scorned celebrities to seeing such leaks as a legitimate crime. Jennifer Lawrence was lauded after she told Vanity Fair, "It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime. It is a sexual violation. It's disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change." (To date, at least two men have plead guilty to felony hacking charges in relation to the "Fappening.")

It is important to note that in 31 states, including California—where Evans and Bechtolt are located—distributing non-consensual porn is a felony offense. As Goldberg notes, "They were falsely identifying themselves as victims of a crime. This could have wasted resources from law enforcement and investigators… It already did waste the resources and empathy of fans and everybody who believed them. And the real crisis is that real victims aren't going to be believed."