nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Accusations of sexual assault on "reality" tv show, double standards?

Kermit.de.frog

Ok i'm just going to throw this out there...

If this was the other way around and it was a woman fully dressed and a man half naked......double standards much?

http://cdn-01.independent.ie/incoming/article35377583.ece/867f1/AUTOCROP/w620/cbb.jpg

http://www.independent.ie/style/voices/jedwards-john-was-sexually-assaulted-on-a-national-tv-show-so-why-does-no-one-care-35377587.html

Yet I suspect attention about this will be quite short lived. If the other way around I would suggest it wouldn't!

So why the double standard?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pappyodaniel

Who fcuking cares?

Stravos Murphy

Scraping the barrel op.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Chloe is a ****ing liberty. She's hilarious, but is extremely vulgar with no self respect for herself or other people. I love her on Geordie shore and follow her snapchat but she's not at all embarrassed about her boobs falling out of her dress, or walking around with no/very little underwear on. She's gone down on a girl she's randomly sharing a bed with on live tv, she's regularly kissing and sharing vibrators with another girl on GS who was in a relationship and Chloe's actions were causing problems so while I don't think she meant to sexually assault him, she has no boundaries and less respect.

It is completely unacceptable. If a man did that to me, I'd be very upset and rightly so. It shouldn't have happened, and I'm surprised she wasn't called to the diary room for it because if roles were reversed your man would have been reprimanded

ardinn

Her arse wouldnt be the best in fairness - i'd be horrified too!

Stravos Murphy

ardinn wrote: »

Her arse wouldnt be the best in fairness - i'd be horrified too!

Let's hope she has good personal hygiene.

darkpagandeath

Jesus, this why real victims don't come out and report...

kittensmittens

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Chloe is a ****ing liberty. She's hilarious, but is extremely vulgar with no self respect for herself or other people. I love her on Geordie shore and follow her snapchat but she's not at all embarrassed about her boobs falling out of her dress, or walking around with no/very little underwear on. She's gone down on a girl she's randomly sharing a bed with on live tv, she's regularly kissing and sharing vibrators with another girl on GS who was in a relationship and Chloe's actions were causing problems so while I don't think she meant to sexually assault him, she has no boundaries and less respect.

It is completely unacceptable. If a man did that to me, I'd be very upset and rightly so. It shouldn't have happened, and I'm surprised she wasn't called to the diary room for it because if roles were reversed your man would have been reprimanded

Oh holy jesus:eek:

I love BB but don't watch any of those shows(hadn't a clue who she was tbh until was told on the BB thread where she was "famous" from)
I was disgusted with her behaviour before she did that with a Jedward. Flopping her bits around left, right and centre and lashing herself at any man with a pulse. But Jesus!!! If thats what she lives her life as on TV, fukc me:mad: That's repulsive.
He was MORTIFIED by her actions. She got a very brief warning from BB in the diary room.
She should have been chucked out for doing that.
Good for the goose..............

HellSquirrel

I'm inclined to agree that if they don't want to encourage that sort of thing from females or males, they should have kicked her out. She sounds like an absolute horror to live with, although no doubt that's exactly why they have her in. (Exhibit A of why I really can't be arsed with these shows)

I don't approve any more of females sexually harassing males than I do males sexually harassing females.

AudreyHepburn

I don't watch these shows myself but it says something not very complimentary about society nowadays that the vast majority of reactions I've seen to this on social media, including some of the responses here, are jokes/humorous etc.

If a man did this to a woman he would rightly be reprimanded for it. Why on earth are women given the ok to behave like this?

This was a form of sexual harassment tbh and she should have been severly reprimanded.

HellSquirrel

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If a man did this to a woman he would rightly be reprimanded for it. Why on earth are women given the ok to behave like this?

This was a form of sexual harassment tbh and she should have been severly reprimanded.

Agreed.

I suspect the reasons are a bit convoluted. Firstly, men tend to be physically larger than women, and even when it's not intended, such actions can appear more threatening. Emotionally and in terms of it being embarrassing, unpleasant and invasive, it's just the same. Men probably get it a bit worse in terms of feeling less able to complain about it/being told to suck it up. Complaining about it gets them little sympathy, which I don't think is right either.

People are probably more forgiving/understanding of physical threat, even the feel of physical threat, than they are of emotional distress. It's not that long since women had the same issue of the emotional distress of being touched or groped against their will dismissed as foolish hysterical women who can't take a joke. The fight arose from the physical threat of it, and the other issues surrounding it were introduced gradually. Men start off with less physical threat to make an issue of, and haven't yet had much organisation in terms of putting out a message that uninvited sexual contact is emotionally distressing to them too. Not to mention the ancient feeling that men aren't supposed to be emotional which still persists today.

In short, I don't think people are -telling- women that they can get away with this behavior so much as it's not really been raised properly and as a concerted effort to stop this sort of **** happening. Booting yer wan (who sounds like an absolute baggage) off the show would have been a start.

It goes without saying that the majority of men and women both don't do this sort of thing. Also, who the hell runs around a shared accommodation in front of cameras naked anyway?

[Deleted User]

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ok i'm just going to throw this out there...

If this was the other way around and it was a woman fully dressed and a man half naked......double standards much?

http://cdn-01.independent.ie/incoming/article35377583.ece/867f1/AUTOCROP/w620/cbb.jpg

http://www.independent.ie/style/voices/jedwards-john-was-sexually-assaulted-on-a-national-tv-show-so-why-does-no-one-care-35377587.html

Yet I suspect attention about this will be quite short lived. If the other way around I would suggest it wouldn't!

So why the double standard?

I don't see any men in the photo????

HellSquirrel

Interesting comment in that article

I don't find the whole incident offensive as TV viewing, rather that I don't think there would have been such a muted reaction if the gender roles were reversed.

That is a very interesting statement to mull. It suggests that the author of the piece feels she SHOULD find it offensive and can see every reason TO find it offensive, and doesn't quite understand why she DOESN'T feel it offensive. Surely sexual assault on a person, no matter what their gender, should not be broadcast. Yet she doesn't find it offensive as TV viewing, but presumably would have felt on safer ground if the genders -had- been reversed.

I can't blame her for her reaction. She's being honest about it and still bringing up the actual issue even while not being certain as to why it's not actually upsetting her as much as she suspects it ought to.

I'm reading a lot into one sentence there, but I don't think it's an unfair translation.

Goya

pappyodaniel wrote: »

Who fcuking cares?

You don't, but that doesn't mean others don't.

I hate when women do that kinda stuff. She seems like an obnoxious piece of work.

razorblunt

She's an absolutely horrific yolk, if I had a garden full of willys I wouldn't leave her look over the wall.

If John and/or Edward were as "taken aback" as the article suggests then there's an issue. I don't watch the show but hasn't Callum Best already been grabbed by the balls? Trump was rightly lambasted for him talking about doing similar.

bucketybuck

If a man had put his penis on a woman's head and continued to do so despite the woman making very clear that she was uncomfortable, that man would have been removed from the show and formally charged with a crime. In many first world countries those same actions would see any man placed on a sex offenders register. Anybody who tries to pretend otherwise is fooling themselves.

I'm no mens rights activist or woman hater, but the double standards in cases like these are staggering.

westcoast66

In fairness, what percentage of blokes would be offended by a women flashing her arse/tits at them? If you do, you really need to harden the f**k up!

Goya

razorblunt wrote: »

She's an absolutely horrific yolk, if I had a garden full of willys I wouldn't leave her look over the wall.

I don't think it matters whether she's attractive or not - well it shouldn't anyway.

westcoast66 wrote: »

In fairness, what percentage of blokes would be offended by a women flashing her arse/tits at them? If you do, you really need to harden the f**k up!

She didn't just flash though did she?

Keep your private parts the heck away from someone who doesn't want to feel them - or keep your hands off others' private parts if they don't express wanting this. Doesn't matter what sex/sexual orientation you are.

OldGoat

westcoast66 wrote: »

In fairness, what percentage of blokes would be offended by a women flashing her arse/tits at them? If you do, you really need to harden the f**k up!

Me for one if it's unasked for - as it was in the situation mentioned. Guess I'll just totter off and start toughening the **** up so.

jameorahiely

Is a sad state of affairs this type of sexual assault is accepted by some in society.

razorblunt

Goya wrote: »

I don't think it matters whether she's attractive or not - well it shouldn't anyway.

She didn't just flash though did she?

Keep your private parts the heck away from someone who doesn't want to feel them - or keep your hands off others' private parts if they don't express wanting this. Doesn't matter what sex/sexual orientation you are.

Calling her an awful yolk has little to do with looks to be honest, she's just a horrific yolk full stop!

razorblunt

OldGoat wrote: »

Me for one if it's unasked for - as it was in the situation mentioned. Guess I'll just totter off and start toughening the **** up so.

Put on your camanflage jacket buddy!

One example was "camanflage": the happy front that some men put on in certain social situations. Powell says charities that want to target this ...

daheff

Not sure how many people remember this incident

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3101200/Aaron-Frew-REMOVED-Big-Brother-inappropriate-behaviour-flashing-fellow-housemate-Joel.html

Somebody was removed for flashing...Chloes gone a bit further in actually rubbing herself up against somebody. Imagine that the roles were reversed. Poor Jedward would be facing death threats and all kinds retribution. But because its a poor lil girlie its all righ???? Bull****. BB are so double standards its ridiculous.

OldGoat

razorblunt wrote: »

Put on your camanflage jacket buddy!

At one point in my life I might have done that "smile and it'll be OK" when cornered in in awkward situations. These days a firm but polite "**** Off" does the same job but more effectively.

bucketybuck

westcoast66 wrote: »

In fairness, what percentage of blokes would be offended by a women flashing her arse/tits at them? If you do, you really need to harden the f**k up!

So you think women should not be offended if a man flashed his cock in her face in a public place? Women should just harden the **** up?

seamus

There is all too often a crowd to quick to cry "sexual assault" when some kind of incident happens.

In order for an assault to be "sexual" it needs to include behaviour of a sexual nature, and for an assault to occur it's also incredibly important that a victim exists - that a person exists for whom the behaviour was injurious.

Simply being naked is not enough to make something sexual in nature. Would it have been sexual assault if she'd been wearing jeans? No. Then it's not automatically sexual assault when she's not.

Did the guy in question feel like he'd been violated? Was he offended or upset? Or did he consider it joking around and messing? Because if it's the latter, then there's no assault.

All very important questions. "X was naked and touched Y without written consent" is not sexual assault, and the more some idiots try to cry "sexual assault" on behalf of other people, the more they cheapen the gravity of actual sexual assaults.

daheff wrote: »

Not sure how many people remember this incident

Somebody was removed for flashing...Chloes gone a bit further in actually rubbing herself up against somebody. Imagine that the roles were reversed. Poor Jedward would be facing death threats and all kinds retribution. But because its a poor lil girlie its all righ???? Bull****. BB are so double standards its ridiculous.

If you look at it, it's entirely different circumstance. He was repeatedly flashing and making aggressive unwanted sexual advances, even after the other guy had told him to stop. He didn't get kicked out for quickly opening and closing his robe for a laugh.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Rubbing your bare derrière all over another person is clearly inappropriate, he was clearly uncomfortable and didn't enjoy it, and I can only speak for myself but I'd feel quite violated if that happened to me. It is in my opinion sexual assault (as in she's actually invaded his personal space by rubbing an intimate part of her body all over him).

Goya

razorblunt wrote: »

Calling her an awful yolk has little to do with looks to be honest, she's just a horrific yolk full stop!

Well saying you wouldn't have sex with her is what I mean. Shouldn't make a difference. I agree she is an awful yoke though!

seamus wrote: »

There is all too often a crowd to quick to cry "sexual assault" when some kind of incident happens.

In order for an assault to be "sexual" it needs to include behaviour of a sexual nature, and for an assault to occur it's also incredibly important that a victim exists - that a person exists for whom the behaviour was injurious.

Simply being naked is not enough to make something sexual in nature. Would it have been sexual assault if she'd been wearing jeans? No. Then it's not automatically sexual assault when she's not.

Did the guy in question feel like he'd been violated? Was he offended or upset? Or did he consider it joking around and messing? Because if it's the latter, then there's no assault.

All very important questions. "X was naked and touched Y without written consent" is not sexual assault, and the more some idiots try to cry "sexual assault" on behalf of other people, the more they cheapen the gravity of actual sexual assaults.

If you look at it, it's entirely different circumstance. He was repeatedly flashing and making aggressive unwanted sexual advances, even after the other guy had told him to stop. He didn't get kicked out for quickly opening and closing his robe for a laugh.

I don't know if you read it properly - the woman was grinding her bare ass on him.

[Deleted User]

if he had of stood up and given the wench a slap in the mouth, there would be uproar.

daheff

seamus wrote: »

If you look at it, it's entirely different circumstance. He was repeatedly flashing and making aggressive unwanted sexual advances, even after the other guy had told him to stop. He didn't get kicked out for quickly opening and closing his robe for a laugh.

And you think chloe wasnt making an aggressive unwanted sexual advance towards Jedward?

My point is that Aaron made unwanted sexual advance towards Joel and Chloe has done the same to Jedward. Aaron was warned & removed, nothing has been said to Chloe.

In my eyes her circumstances are worse because it involved unwanted sexual touching/rubbing/grinding (call it what you want) forced upon jedward.

It might have been a laugh for her (like it was for aaron), but it wasnt a laugh for Jedward (which is clear to see for all by his reaction).

If the defence of 'it was only for a laugh' is acceptable then we're all in trouble.

ohnonotgmail

daheff wrote: »

And you think chloe wasnt making an aggressive unwanted sexual advance towards Jedward?

My point is that Aaron made unwanted sexual advance towards Joel and Chloe has done the same to Jedward. Aaron was warned & removed, nothing has been said to Chloe.

In my eyes her circumstances are worse because it involved unwanted sexual touching/rubbing/grinding (call it what you want) forced upon jedward.

It might have been a laugh for her (like it was for aaron), but it wasnt a laugh for Jedward (which is clear to see for all by his reaction).

If the defence of 'it was only for a laugh' is acceptable then we're all in trouble.

It was John or Edward. Jedward isnt a person.

Whichever one it was i'm sure being that close to a naked woman was quite upsetting to him.