NAIROBI, Kenya — Over the past 24 hours, a man of Russian origin identified only as Yaytseslav has been trending on social media amid widespread criticism over videos showing him recording interactions with multiple women in several African countries.
The content first gained traction after a series of videos featuring Ghanaian women was shared online, prompting users to uncover similar clips purportedly involving women from Kenya, South Africa, Ghana and other parts of the continent.
In the widely circulated recordings, the man approaches women in public places such as shopping malls, streets and market areas.
He initiates light conversation, often offering compliments, before requesting contact details and, in some cases, inviting the women to spend time with him at a private residence.
“Hello, what’s your name? You look beautiful, I really like you. Can you please share your phone number?” he is heard saying in some of the clips.
Short excerpts of these interactions are posted publicly on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube, while longer videos are reportedly available exclusively on a private Telegram channel for a monthly subscription fee of $5.
Many of the women filmed appear initially hesitant, but a number agree to follow him to his rented accommodation, where they are seen conversing, dancing and interacting in a private setting.
The recordings do not show all of what transpires in these residences, but captions and user comments suggest some of the content may be of an intimate nature.
Public reaction and ethical backlash
The videos have provoked strong reactions across social media, with critics accusing the man of exploiting the women for online attention and possible monetary gain. Many express concern about whether the women were aware they were being recorded or understood how their images might be used.
Journalist Ferdinand Omondi captured a widely shared perspective on Twitter: “Guys. A foreigner travels to African countries, engages in consensual sex with women, secretly records them, and then publishes the videos online. The sex was consensual. The recording and distribution were not. That is sexual exploitation.”
Omondi added: “What’s troubling is that instead of focusing on the violation, many are laughing at the women. Adults make personal choices every day. Some wise, some risky. But no such personal decision cancels the right to privacy, and grants one permission to secretly record and expose someone.”
He emphasised: “We can debate ethics, morality and safety. But those debates must not erase the principle of consent. Consent to sex is not consent to filming. Consent to filming is not consent to publication.”
Another commentator wrote: “This isn’t travel content, it’s predatory behavior dressed up as vlogging. He is using African women as trophies for clicks… All the facts about how disgusting this man’s actions are get ignored, just so women can be dragged.”
Gladys Njoroge added: “This behavior is criminal. It is predatory. And anyone laughing at the victims is part of the problem. We cannot tolerate a world where exploitation is dismissed as ‘mischief’ or ‘bad luck.’ It is violence. It is abuse. And it must be condemned in the strongest terms.”
Social commentator Sholla Ard said: “What disturbed me wasn’t just his behavior; it was how easily trust was given to a stranger… Within minutes, phone numbers were shared. Within hours, some were in his house. No background check. No verification. No caution. Predators rely on speed. They exploit politeness, curiosity, loneliness, and lowered guard.”
Race, attraction and online stereotypes
Some observers also weighed in on cultural perceptions and attraction.
Dorothy Waigwe wrote: “Unfortunately, for black women the lure of white skin is an achievement, something to brag about. White automatically is attractive and smells of a better life… Skin colour, nationality, charm or perceived status does NOT equal safety.”
This line of critique reflects longstanding debates about how race, power and globalisation intersect with personal attraction, but analysts caution against broad generalisations about entire groups based on social media clips.
Technology, privacy and smart glasses
As the controversy unfolded, many social media users speculated on how the recordings were made without the women’s immediate awareness.
Some suggested the man was using smart glasses, specifically Ray‑Ban Meta Smart Glasses, to film his encounters.
The speculation was triggered after he was seen wearing glasses resembling models produced through a collaboration between EssilorLuxottica and Meta.
The Ray‑Ban Meta glasses are equipped with a camera capable of capturing photos, recording video, livestreaming to social media and interacting with an AI assistant. Newer models allow wearers to capture 12‑megapixel images and record 3K video.
Technology critics point out that wearable recording devices can blur the line between private and public spaces, raising privacy concerns.
Feminist academic Stephanie Wescott, a lecturer in Education, Culture and Society at Monash University, said such devices can “be watching, recording and therefore controlling women’s images in public spaces without their knowledge… That the public spaces belong to men.”
Wescott further described the phenomenon as a gendered abuse of technology: “The danger is the loss of bodily autonomy without even being aware that it is happening.”
Platform policies and corporate response
In response to a request for comment by Vivid Voice News, Meta addressed privacy concerns related to its smart glasses.
The company stated: “Our glasses have an LED light that activates whenever someone captures content, so it’s clear to others that the device is recording and features tamper detection technology to prevent people from covering that light.”
Meta also emphasised that its terms of service prohibit the use of smart glasses to engage in harmful activities like harassment, infringing privacy rights, or capturing sensitive information.
Legal and ethical considerations
Legal experts note that recording a person without their consent, particularly where the footage is intended for publication or monetisation, can violate privacy and data protection laws in many jurisdictions, including parts of Africa.
Consent for conversation or attraction does not equate to consent for recording or publication, a distinction underscored by rights advocates and journalists alike.
Human rights organisations argue that privacy and dignity are fundamental rights, and the rise of content monetisation platforms requires clearer regulatory frameworks to protect individuals who may be unaware of how their images are used.
The viral saga of Yaytseslav has ignited a broader conversation about consent, privacy, gender relations and technology in the digital age.
While individuals are free to interact consensually, the recording and sharing of those interactions without explicit permission raises complex ethical and legal questions that merit public scrutiny, not ridicule.
At a time when the boundaries between personal interaction and public content creation are increasingly blurred, this case highlights the need for robust conversations about digital rights, responsible content creation and respect for personal autonomy.
