Wyylde case: libertinism cannot serve as an alibi for violence and rape

They were not libertines. Libertinism was their alibi The phrase is already starting to circulate: the idea of “libertine rapes.” Yet these two words should never be associated. Rape is not a libertine practice that went too far. It is not a party that became too intense, a fantasy pushed too far, or an experience whose limits were misunderstood. Rape is a crime. Once consent disappears, there is nothing libertine left. The case now under investigation is exceptionally serious. Nineteen men have been placed under formal investigation in a case involving six women. According to the information made public, some encounters may have been organized with participants recruited on Wyylde. Scenes now being examined as sexual violence were also allegedly filmed and, in some cases, livestreamed on the platform. The justice system will have to determine each person’s precise responsibility. Those under investigation benefit from the presumption of innocence until they are tried. This legal requirement does not, however, prevent us from assessing the gravity of the accusations or from listening to the women who reported the facts. Their voices must remain at the center of this case. Free sexuality is never permanent consent The women concerned must not be judged on the basis of their intimate lives, their practices, or their presence on a libertine platform. A woman may have agreed to group experiences and refuse a new encounter. She may consent to one practice and then ask for it to stop. She may agree to be watched without wanting to be touched, agree to a relationship without agreeing to be filmed, or allow a recording without consenting to its distribution. Consent cannot be inferred from a profile, an outfit, or a fantasy expressed earlier. It must be free, specific, and reversible. A yes spoken yesterday does not count for today. Agreement given to one person does not automatically extend to everyone else. This distinction is essential, especially in environments where sexuality may be more visible, collective, or transgressive. Sexual freedom takes away no rights. It does not make someone less credible when they denounce violence. The question is never whether a woman was libertine, curious, experienced, or present voluntarily at the start of an evening. The only question is whether she freely consented to what was being imposed on her at that precise moment. Libertinism cannot be used as cover If the accusations are confirmed, the men involved will not be able to present themselves as libertines who simply practiced a more extreme form of sexuality than others. Libertinism is based on the freedom of everyone present. It cannot exist under coercion, fear, pressure, exhaustion, or inability to react. The words “fantasy,” “sharing,” “submission,” or “letting go” cannot turn coercion into consensual practice. A person who refuses to hear a no, who takes advantage of someone’s inability to react, or who imposes a situation through pressure is not exploring a form of sexual freedom. They are destroying it. Libertinism therefore would not have been the cause of the reported facts. It would have been used as a backdrop, a vocabulary, and perhaps an alibi allowing abusive behaviors to be normalized even though they had nothing to do with it. That is why speaking of “libertine rapes” is dangerous. The expression risks presenting the crime as a natural drift of the milieu, when it is precisely its negation. Do not condemn an entire community This case will inevitably feed prejudice against libertine, swinger, or simply curious people. Yet women, men, couples, single people, and LGBT+ people live nonconventional sexuality every day in respect of their partners. Their practices may diverge from dominant norms without being violent or degrading. We do not define all couples by domestic violence. We do not reduce all parties to the assaults that may occur there. Likewise, libertinism must not be reduced to the acts of a minority. That does not mean this world would be naturally protected from violence. No space is. Dangerous people can use Facebook, Instagram, X, dating apps, private messaging, clubs, or specialized platforms to approach victims and organize their acts. A social network alone does not create the desire to assault. Even without Wyylde, individuals determined to commit violence could have sought other ways to meet and recruit participants. But this reality is not enough to dismiss all questions about the platform. Wyylde is not the author of the crimes, but it must answer for its tools In this case, Wyylde would not have served only as a first point of contact. According to published information, the platform may have been used to recruit some participants, organize meetings, share content, and livestream scenes. A separate investigation by the Paris prosecutor’s office must now determine what the company knew, what it could detect, and how it responded. It would be unfair to make Wyylde the author of the violence in place of the people suspected of organizing or committing it. Primary responsibility always lies with those who impose the acts and with those who take part in them knowingly. But a platform specializing in adult encounters cannot present itself as a mere technical space without any special responsibility either. When a service offers events, intimate albums, and live streams, it must anticipate specific risks: images published without authorization, people filmed without their knowledge, coercive relationships, visible violence, or the misuse of tools to organize criminal acts. Testimonies from former employees have raised serious questions about the resources devoted to moderation and the handling of certain alerts. These claims still need to be verified by the courts. They do, however, justify asking for precise answers. How many people actually monitored the live streams? What instructions were given when someone appeared unconscious or in distress? Were reports kept and passed on? At what point was management informed? Asking for these answers is not the same as declaring Wyylde guilty before the investigation. It is a reminder that a company must assume the responsibilities that correspond to the services it provides. Defend libertinism without looking away The libertine scene would be wrong to respond to this case only by saying that these men do not represent it. They do not represent it. But that should not prevent reflection on the mechanisms that can allow predators to use the codes of sexual freedom to conceal coercion. Defending libertinism does not mean protecting its image at all costs. It means listening to the people who report violence, excluding those who cross the line, and demanding that platforms as well as venues put in place truly protective procedures. It also means taking seriously a change in attitude, a person who freezes, who no longer responds, who appears exhausted, or who asks for the scene to stop. The absence of resistance is not consent. A serious doubt should lead to stopping, checking, and protecting—never to continuing. The priority today must go to the women who found the strength to speak and to everyone who may have suffered violence under the cover of so-called libertine practices. They should not carry the guilt of acts that were imposed on them. And an entire community should not carry the guilt of the men who may have twisted its codes. Libertinism does not mean the absence of rules. On the contrary, it rests on one absolute requirement: the freedom of every person present. Without consent, there is no game, no fantasy, and no libertinism. There is violence. #consent #sexualviolence #responsiblelibertinism #supportingvictims