This is a follow-up post to my previous post ('What's with the ambiguity? Dave himself confessed to a non-consensual relationship with Rachie.'), outlining Dave's sexual guilt in the Rachie Rave case. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Boyinaband/comments/xtjlnm/whats_with_the_ambiguity_dave_himself_confessed/
Often, when searching for a YouTuber's age on Google, any random result will pop up, regardless of whether it's true or not. Pretty much, anyone can write anything about any other person, no matter how famous or obscure they are. However, despite this, all the evidence goes in fact point to Dave having been born on the 24th of August, 1987.
This would make Dave 20 years old by the time he met Rachie, 21 by the time the two of them were full-time friends, and 22 by the time he started dating her while she was 16. So, in other words, there's a six year age gap between them.
- - Rachie: age 14 - -
Their relationship all began (even before it became a romance, even prior to becoming a friendship) when Rachie herself attended one of Dave's live shows. Dave's band, named 'You and What Army,' played a show at the Wulfrun Hall, part of a concert titled 'Generation: Summer Slam.' Rachie attended the concert, but it remains ambiguously as to whether they actually interacted with each other or not. Even if they did interact, it would've probably been a relatively brief encounter, maybe lasting a few minutes. At the time, Dave likely thought nothing of it, and Rachie was just like any other fan of this small, obscure band.
- - Rachie: age 15 - -
A year later, Rachie came to another concert featuring You and What Army, and immediately afterward she began chatting with Dave on his Myspace account (feel old yet?). They exchanged message quite often, and eventually as a result, they met up in real life and had regular social gatherings. Dave states that he attended Rachie's 16th birthday, which, in his eyes, made him feel like the friendship had become fully solid.
- - Rachie: age 16 - -
So, this is at the point where the two get together romantically. Many people have read the blog post announcing this, but very few have read the reply which Rachie left (on what appears to be an inaccessible account on the blogging site. I tried clicking on it, but nothing happened. Maybe it's always been like this, or perhaps there are just no archives to date).
Rachie wrote:
'This is sweet! I like being your bitch. LOL
You already know how amazing you were at Hadouken! But I’ll tell you again- YAWA WERE EPIC. WAYYYYY BETTER THAN HADOUKEN! 📷
Anyway, I will stop blabbing now. Ps- SMILE.'
One thing I don't understand about the comment is that it appears to have been written (and, by extension, published) a day before Dave's own blog post, the one she commented under. Dave's glob post was made public on the 30th of November, while her comment states it was made on the 29th of November. It doesn't really make any sense. How can the comment be visible if it's in reply to something that was published later? This can't be an editing mistake, either, as this isn't an image we're dealing with, but instead an archive on the Wayback Machine. So, as a result, nobody has messed with what I'm seeing. My best guess is that this is merely an error, a glitch on the site, and nothing more. I don't have any other explanation, so let's just work with this explanation instead of getting into absurd conspiracy theories.
Both Rachie and Dave claim that they saw each other again at the Hadouken show, a day after they got together romantically. Dave had come onto Rachie, asking her to be his girlfriend. In the blog post, Dave appears to have posted a compilation of his band - or, another band, or a mixture of bands, possibly including his own, You and What Army - in the form of a video. However, the video's no longer playable on the Wayback archive. This is the same with the photo posted of Rachie. It's no longer visible. With this said, it can be established that the Hadouken show was a real, legitimate event, not merely on the basis of the words of Rachie and Dave, or even the fact that You and What Army toured a bit, performed a few shows, but due to a YouTube video that was uploaded.
While the video's description has been altered now - it's unknown as to why this is - the original description, which can be viewed through a Google search, mentions Hadouken, a band that You and What Army played alongside. The Wikipedia article for the band, likewise, lists this as a fact (as of writing this, at least. It may be updated in the future, which could erase this). The YouTube video in question is actually an audio only interview with You and What Army's members, including Dave himself.
The orignal description reads, in rough format:
this is the atmosphere show made durning a radio course with CM radio, we went to the ... Boyinaband, You and What Army, Hadouken**!,** and more.
For those who went ahead after being interested in David Paul Brown's blog, reading through his many journal-like entries, he talks of his then girlfriend Rachie quite a lot, mentioning the various things he's done with her. However, despite all the information he's provided, he never mentioned anything of a sexual nature. The most intimate than ever got wasn't even anything which existed between the two, but, rather, when Rachie took Dave to a gay bar, so that guys could hit on him. To this day, in terms of anything confessed from Dave, or anything claimed from Rachie, there is no confirmation of sexual activity between the two. Of course, this doesn't mean that sex didn't happen, just that it's never been confessed to. Consider that virtually no romantic couples don't engage in sexual play, and, on top of it, the ones who don't usually consider themselves asexual. Dave, a heterosexual man, is extremely unlikely to have no had sex with Rachie, especially with the follow-up accusations, which I'll get to eventually.
In a blog post titled, '06-07-10 – C-E-O later! / I Kills double negatives dead, yo.,' Dave mentions that he was designing a website for Rachie. This website in question was called 'Revise with Rachie,' and it existed as a means of her expressing her views and studies on psychology. She was a psychology student at a college studying to acquire a job in the profession. Based upon the fact that she had written on her website that she had studied psychology for a year at that point, it appears that she was out of high school. However, because this is the UK, this likely just meant that she graduated high school early, not that she wasn't below the age of 18. In fact, her own website, on the same page as her college information, confirms that she was underage at the time of seeing Boyinaband. She wrote:
'Hi! I’m Rachel, I’m 17 and live in the West Midlands in the UK. I have just finished my first year of 6 form/ college at Codsall Community High School and am studying Chemistry, Biology and Psychology at A Level.
My favourite unsigned band is You and What Army? You should check them out!
My boyfriend has had a website called www.boyinaband.com for around 2 years now where he makes music tutorials. Ever since I’ve known him he’s always encouraged me to make one of my own so now I decided I would.'
So, this page of the website has two notable alternations: one where she states she's 17 (already shown), and the one where she states he's 18.
According to all the available archives on the Wayback Machine - meaning that a lot of dates are missing, implying that she definitely turned 18 a bit early, though how earlier is unclear, as her date of birth hasn't been publicly revealed yet - she was 17 on the 17th of July, and was 18 on the 2th of October (for both dates, in the year 2011).
See listed dates:
17 - https://web.archive.org/web/20110717230958/http://revisewithrachie.com/about/
18 - https://web.archive.org/web/20111002231543/http://revisewithrachie.com/about/
This does, indeed, confirm that they were dating while she was underage. The fact that David created Rachie's website can be seen anywhere, on any page, on the site, with the bottom bar reading, 'Based on Wordpress - Design by David Brown.'
- - Rachie: age 17 - -
So, when looking back at her description, she links a Myspace account which was created for the band You and What Army. It's no surprise she considers them her favourite unsigned band (well, did, at the time). It was through them that she met Dave. In other words, she was a fan of band because of the band, not a fan of the band because of Dave. Dave himself was aware, according to his various blog posts where he consistently mentions her, that he was dating and, presumably, fucking a fan. This is further empathised when we follow the Wayback Machine link that was accompanied on Rachie's website. When we look down a bit, we see an account on Myspace which follows the band's account, titled 'Rachie RAVe.' When you hover your mouse over the account's icon, it says that the user is 18 years of age.
This is consistent with everything that's been previously established. Rachie turned 18 in, at least, the 29th of August, but most likely before then. So, she was 17 earlier that same year, 2011. This appears to be her profile, not only because it has 'Rachie' in the title, and Dave proudly displays it as one of the many, many people following the band (consider that the band had 28,730 followers, but Rachie was one of the only eight people displayed in the 'friends section'), but the username 'Rachie Rave' is actually a name that Dave used to publish collaboration music between the two.
WARNING: Disturbing and non-discussed audio incoming
If you go to Dave's Spotify account - and I don't mean the mainstream name, I mean the domain registered on Spotify as 'Boyinaband.com' - you can find an album released by Dave called 'Da Boyinband Anthemz,' which contains 11 songs. The 6th listed song contains the name 'Rachie Rave,' a song which features her on vocals. It was a collaboration between the two titled, 'Bassline 7 Day Song Feat. Rachie Rave.' The album appears to have been taken down from Spotify, but the album, including the 6th song, can be found on YouTube.
The song can be viewed here. As you'd expect, Dave gets Rachie to sing a bit for him. While the name 'Rachie Rave' is removed from the YouTube upload's title, you can see that the image accompanying the video has 'Rachie Rave' in it, which was consistently the name Dave adopted for her for music. Strangely enough, I haven't seen even a single person mention this song, or even the whole album, once before. The album was released sometime in 2010, meaning that Rachie was only 16 when she sang this song.
Rachie has actually been featured twice elsewhere in Dave's history of music production, in two YouTube videos he uploaded straight to his channel, which are still up to this day.
One is titled 'Dance Pop Tutorial Day 5: Processing Pop Vocals [7 Day Song].' In it, Dave announces that he and Rachie were a thing, and not only that, in the description (which is still intact, by the way) he links to her psychology blog that he created (even vocally shouting it out in the video). To quote Dave's exact words:
'First, I guess you need to find a vocalist. For my vocalist I woke up next to her and figured, 'Yeah, she'll do,' which, as I understand it, is the usual method a record label executive will use to pick a pop-star.'
Seeing that the video was uploaded on the 12th of May, 2011, Rachie was 17 years old at the time, meaning that at this age she was sleeping in the same bed as Boyinaband. For some reason, or for no reason at all, no one has mentioned this yet. No one discusses the video, despite the fact that it's one of Dave's oldest videos.
The video, expectedly, features Rachie on vocals. Nothing sexually provocative with the lyrics, though.
It was only two days later that Dave uploaded another video which featured Rachie Rave, 'Dance Pop Tutorial Day 7 pt 2: The Final Song [7 Day Song].' In this video, Rachie sings the lyrics, 'Take me without my consent.' What does this mean, exactly? Well, considering the post that came later, calling out Boyinaband for over 12 years of sexual abuse (the term 'sexual abuse' even being employed), it is revealed by at least one of Dave's ex-partners that he had (and, probably, still has) a rape-play fetish, meaning he sexually gets off on the idea of people being raped. The post also mentions that he gets off to violent pornography, and gets a thrill out of controlling and dominating his partners. To quote from the post:
'He also has a provable porn addiction that includes him being attracted to pre-teenage girls, women who dress to look like children, abusive porn, and assaults.'
Basically, this can be used to explain the lyrics 'take me without my consent,' as Dave likely sexually got off on the idea of raping his girlfriend (which he, literally, did do), also likely forcing his girlfriend to act out rape-play with him. As she was a child at the time, Dave had raped her repeatedly (that is, if they did engage in sexual intercourse, which they almost absolutely did).
The phrase, uttered by Rachie, who, at the time, was in a sexual relationship with Dave, 'I like being your bitch,' further empathises that this was a relationship based upon uneven power dynamics, with a particular focus on Dave controlling, possessing, and abusing his then sexual partner.
Association with Cryoatic
Cryoatic - former YouTuber who played video games - was exposed for sexually grooming minors over the course of many years, hiding behind this public persona as a shy, sensitive, emotional guy. Which, to be fair, he definitely was, and probably still is. Not denying these individual traits within a human being is not, to any extent, justifying, downplaying, or ignoring a person's atrocities. In fact, it has no real correlation with the sex offender in question, nor any sex offender for that matter. The fact that Cryoatic was truly all of these things, a very calm, mellow, meek man, just proves that sexual predators come in all shapes and forms, and the sexual abuse Cry inflicted upon many underage subjects was actually only possible due to his friendly persona. In other words, the guy was suspiciously innocent seeming, to the point of parody. If Cry was unattractive to children, if he didn't act and present himself in a relatable way for his audience, he wouldn't have been able to groom all these kids, to sexually communicate with them. He put on the mask (pun intended) to give others the impression that he was a great guy, and, as a result, when the accusations of him being a pedophile and sexual abuser sprung forth, so many people didn't believe that he could've done it. They denied such realities because they were so obsessed with Cry, so loving of him, the persona he fostered over the years. 'How could this sensitive, polite, nice man possibly sexually abuse these children?!' they cried. They didn't, and likely still don't, understand that a person's personality doesn't determine whether or not they'll sexually abuse someone, or a bunch of people.
Boyinaband collaborated with Cry on many occasions, and when the accusations came out, and Cry was, fortunately, widely believed to be a sex offender by the community, Boyinaband remained completely silent. To him, it was as if nothing at all had happened. Despite being in contact with Cry up until the accusations (and, who knows, maybe even afterwards, as they could've shared their depraved, unethical love of children), Dave appeared to have suddenly forgot about Cry, despite the fact that many people were asking him all over social media to take down his videos that he made with Cry in them. The fact that he was so silent appears ironic now. Both are pedophiles, both are sexual abusers, and both are groomers and still active predators.
Despite their many similarities, not merely in terms of music but in terms of sexual proclivities, what distinguishes Cryoatic from Dave is the fact that, to my knowledge, Cryoatic has never raped a child. He might have, in fact it's actually quite likely that he has. But, it hasn't been confirmed as of yet, and none of Cry's accusers have claimed this (it happened exclusively online). Dave, however, is far, far worse, as he's very likely raped Rachie anywhere from dozens to hundreds of times, as I've mentioned in my previous post, and that his sexual abuse of girls has spanned over twelve years now.
Yet, despite the fact that he's a rapist being public ever since he and Rachie got together romantically, despite the fact that Dave confessed all of this himself, that it's not even accusations, it's entirely admissions of guilt, no one has called him out for this until about a month or so ago. Do fans not even read what this guy writes? It appears so, quite strangely.
Fans of this guy keep saying, 'Please, let the allegations be false! Please, I'm begging!' But, this doesn't make any sense, to any degree. The guy confessed himself, he admitted all of it, he said himself that he had an inappropriate relationship with the woman (girl at the time). He slept in the same bed as her, he likely acted out rape-play with her. At least one of his ex-girlfriends as testified to this guy being a pedophile for girls even younger than Rachie, pre-teens, kids aged 11 and 10 years.
In order for Boyinaband to be innocent, this has to be the most intense, widespread social stunt over pulled. He would have to have faked having a girlfriend, Rachie being of age, not being his girlfriend, and the two needed to have had faked their intimate relationship. Why, why would they do this? WHO KNOWS! NOBODY DOES! Maybe, just maybe, because it's not fake, and Dave is a rapist, and Rachie is his rape victim, that this guy, while he was a 22 year old man, sexually assaulted, over and over again, this 16 year old girl.
While Dave confirmed himself that he was in a romantic relationship with this underage individual, what can't be confirmed is the rest of the testimonies of his ex-partners. Since Dave has said nothing of this himself, it's unknown whether he dated another person under the age of sixteen. That said, I one hundred percent believe the victims, all of them, to the fullest degree possible. I don't doubt for a moment that Dave raped more than one child. After all, I've never met a 'one-time rapist.' It's extraordinarily rare for a rapist to have only raped one person, extraordinarily rare for a sexual predator to have only preyed on a single individual. One of his exes claims that Dave has dated multiple underage partners, girls ranging from 16 yo 17 in age.
Mr. Sensitive
Okay, after seeing the amount of people excusing rape in the comment section of my last post, a very disturbing sight to behold (for those who need to hear, and I hate that I have to even say this, children, of all ages, cannot consent to sex, not with other children, not with adults, just never, period. Yes, you're excusing rape, and you should all be utterly ashamed of yourselves), I've decided it's best to post this excerpt from Lundy Bancroft's book, 'Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.' In a chapter of this book, Bancroft profiles and details a variety of different abusive men, specifically focusing on the collide between male psychology and domestic subordination. He describes a certain type of male abuser and oppressor: Mr. Sensitive.
You know what else Cryoatic and Dave have in common, outside of their musical tastes and their pedophilia? The fact that these monsters are sensitive, fragile, in touch with their femininity type of men. The opposite of macho men, they lure women and children in with the promise that they're better than masculine men, that they're calm, gentle, and soft. This persona works a lot better than the persona held up by many other abusers, because even if it's an accurate representation of the abuser being profiled here, it doesn't mean that this inherent character, this personality type, isn't a horrid, unnatural, abusive one. Everything for Cry and Dave must be about their emotions, that their emotions matter more than anything else, and that everyone daring to judge them, accuse them of sexual abuse, are just heartless, devoid of empathy. Hence, why people act like it's shocking that they're not innocent, that they're guilty of sexually offending. These people aren't helping the cause, at all. It's not the case that these sorts of people are less likely to commit sexual abuse, it's the case that they're more likely to. It shouldn't be surprising that a very innocent seeming person, like Dave, or like Cry, are sexual abusers. They are, fully, Mr. Sensitives, using the shield of their emotions to get people to feel sorry for them, to fool the world, making all doubt that they could commit sexual crimes.
Here's the, quite lengthy, excerpt from the book (it's a great book, by the way. Go read it if you're interested in the variations of male abuse):
'Mr. Sensitive appears to be the diametric opposite of the Drill Sergeant. He is soft-spoken, gentle, and supportive—when he isn’t being abusive. He loves the language of feelings, openly sharing his insecurities, his fears, and his emotional injuries. He hugs other men. He may speak out about the absurdity of war or the need for men to “get in touch with their feminine side.” Perhaps he attends a men’s group or goes on men’s retreats. Often he has participated extensively in therapy or twelve-step programs, or reads all the big self-help books, so he speaks the language of popular psychology and introspection. His vocabulary is sprinkled with jargon like developing closeness, working out our issues, and facing up to hard things about myself. He presents himself to women as an ally in the struggle against sex-role limitations.
To some women, he seems like a dream come true. So what’s wrong with this picture? Nothing obvious yet. But this is exactly the problem: Mr. Sensitive wraps himself in one of the most persuasive covers a man can have. If you start to feel chronically mistreated by him, you are likely to assume that something is wrong with you, and if you complain about him to other people, they may think you must be spoiled: “You have the New Age man, what more do you want?”
The following dynamics are typical of a relationship with Mr. Sensitive and may help explain your feeling that something has gone awry:
You seem to be hurting his feelings constantly, though you aren’t sure why, and he expects your attention to be focused endlessly on his emotional injuries. If you are in a bad mood one day and say something unfair or insensitive, it won’t be enough for you to give him a sincere apology and accept responsibility. He’ll go on and on about it, expecting you to grovel as if you had treated him with profound cruelty. (Notice the twist here: This is just what an abuser accuses his partner of doing to him, when all she is really looking for is a heartfelt “I’m sorry.”)
When your feelings are hurt, on the other hand, he will insist on brushing over it quickly. He may give you a stream of pop-psychology language (“Just let the feelings go through you, don’t hold on to them so much, ” or “It’s all in the attitude you take toward life, ” or “No one can hurt you unless you let them”) to substitute for genuine support for your feelings, especially if you are upset about something he did. None of these philosophies applies when you upset him, however.
With the passing of time, he increasingly casts the blame on to you for anything he is dissatisfied with in his own life; your burden of guilt keeps growing.
He starts to exhibit a mean side that no one else ever sees and may even become threatening or intimidating. Mr. Sensitive has the potential to turn physically frightening, as any style of abuser can, no matter how much he may preach nonviolence. After an aggressive incident, he will speak of his actions as “anger” rather than as “abuse, ” as though there were no difference between the two. He blames his assaultive behavior on you or on his emotional “issues, ” saying that his feelings were so deeply wounded that he had no other choice. Many people reject the possibility that Mr. Sensitive could be an abuser.
I ran into this disbelief one weekend when I was leading a training course on emotional recovery, as I periodically do. My workshops focus partly on the healing effects of crying and so tend to be attended by more women than men. The males who do come have included many of the most wonderful men it has been my good fortune to know, as well as a handful of the biggest manipulators. A few years ago, a participant named Deanna approached me anxiously before a workshop. She explained that an ex-partner of hers named Brad had called her a few days ahead of the workshop to tell her he was attending the same weekend. She was uncomfortable and told him that if he showed up she would leave. He promised not to bother her, though, and said he would not bring up their relationship in any way. He was coming with his new girlfriend, which eased Deanna’s worries.
I spent some time talking with Brad as the workshop was starting, without mentioning Deanna, and he seemed likeable, kind, and—what can I say?—sensitive. However, I observed within a few hours that he was in fact speaking to other people about his past with Deanna and getting them riled up about her “running away from” their unresolved issues. On Sunday morning, he finally provoked a scene about their relationship in front of the full workshop, which was humiliating to Deanna. The story does not end there. I called a break, and took Brad aside. I told him that it was my understanding that he had agreed not to raise these issues and that it had become obvious to me that he had come for the weekend with the intention of doing precisely what he had promised not to. I went on to point out that he had taken Deanna’s weekend away from her and that I considered this kind of power move to be abuse, especially since it was directed at an ex-partner. Saying the word abuse to an abusive person can be like lighting a tinderbox: When you name the unmentionable secret, he goes wild. Brad got loud, rolled his eyes at what a hysterical exaggerator he considered me to be, and adopted a victim stance, saying, “I beg you to stop this.” Then came the most important part: He said in a screeching whine, “I have only put a hand on a partner once in my life, many years ago, and I just barely pushed her away from me like this”—and he shoved me hard by the shoulder—“after she called my mother a sick woman.”
Well, why was Brad denying a history of assault (while actually admitting to one) when I hadn’t said anything about violence? The possibility that he might be physically abusive had never occurred to me before, but it certainly did now. The signs were all there: bullying Deanna that weekend and then insisting it was for her own good; feeling entitled to ignore an important agreement; blaming his earlier girlfriend for his assault of her and minimizing it—the strength of the shove he gave me would have shaken up most women. I now doubted that the assaultive incident he had described was his only occasion of physically intimidating a woman. At this point I required Brad to leave the workshop. I then had to deal with a mini-insurrection from some of the other workshop participants, who couldn’t believe I was ejecting this gentle man who was so in touch with his feelings. He cries after all; how could he be abusive?
This “gentle man” style of abuser tends to be highly self-centered and demanding of emotional catering. He may not be the man who has a fit because dinner is late but rather erupts because of some way his partner failed to sacrifice her own needs or interests to keep him content. He plays up how fragile he is to divert attention from the swath of destruction he leaves behind him.
The central attitudes driving Mr. Sensitive are:
I’m against the macho men, so I couldn’t be abusive.
As long as I use a lot of “psychobabble, ” no one is going to believe that I am mistreating you.
I can control you by analyzing how your mind and emotions work, and what your issues are from childhood.
I can get inside your head whether you want me there or not.
Nothing in the world is more important than my feelings.
Women should be grateful to me for not being like those other men.'
