Disgusted with this forum's reaction to Jeremy

11 of 18

CarlLewis

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Warp:
“How under that definition is it not assault? he deliberately placed his hand on her person and removed a piece of her clothing to directly expose her in a sexual manner. That is sexual assault.”

From what I heard, he touched her clothing, not her body.

Addisonian

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Mrs Checks:
“Then you and Jules should be embarrassed of yourselves.

Everyone, both men and women, are entitled to dress as they wish and NOT recieve unwanted sexual attention.”

And everyone, both men and women, are entitled to their own opinion without other people berating them for it and stating that they should embarrassed with themselves.

Fanntastik

11-01-2015

I remember the reaction on this forum to the Daley/Hazel incident so I'm not surprised.

Addisonian

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Fanntastik:
“I remember the reaction on this forum to the Daley/Hazel incident so I'm not surprised.”

That incident was a completely different kettle of fish though.

Warp

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by CarlLewis:
“From what I heard, he touched her clothing, not her body.”

Her clothing is attached to her person, he removed it to uncover an intimate area. For example if I suddenly started stroking a womans back whilst she had a jumper on that's still touching her person, doesn't matter if the jumper is inbetween my hand and her skin. If I walk down a street and pull a ladies top down to uncover her breasts that still sexual assault, it's the same here.

Lorise

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Warp:
“It's still sexual assault no matter what is beneath the robe, he shouldn't of touched her without her permission. Being curious to see what is under a woman's robe is not an adequate excuse it's still sexual assault.”

Cami should be evicted also then as she smacked Chloe on her backside on the first night, and I don't believe Chloe asked her to do that or gave permission, then a little while later Chloe smacked Cami on the backside three times, while Cami was bent over....how were they not pulled up on that?

I don't think Chloe is to blame for anything, but if BB are going to punish people for touching another person's body (without consent) then they should do that to all who have done that, like Cami and Chloe with each other?

As for Jeremy I am glad he has gone for his own safety and sanity.

CarlLewis

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Warp:
“Her clothing is attached to her person, he removed it to uncover an intimate area. For example if I suddenly started stroking a womans back whilst she had a jumper on that's still touching her person, doesn't matter if the jumper is inbetween my hand and her skin. If I walk down a street and pull a ladies top down to uncover her breasts that still sexual assault, it's the same here.”

If someone is wearing a gown, you can pull the gown without touching them.

too_much_coffee

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by sofieellis:
“He also heavily implied that she was pushing her breasts in front of his face. I don't believe he was telling the truth with that comment and I don't believe he thought she had anythign under her robe either. He was trying to get himself out of trouble by implying he thought she was coming on to him. She wasn't. We know she wasn't. He knows she wasn't. He was trying to save himself by blaming her - it was a disgusting thing to do.”

To try to blame her was very disingenuous. If he had accepted full responsibilty then I would have a lot more respect for him. Without doubt, he is a man in need of help.

Originally Posted by madiain28:
“I am actually really shocked about some of the posts and find it really worrying that so many people are justifying his Jeremy's actions. Chloe did not go into the bathroom on her own with him Cami was also in the bathroom but she was too busy wanting to gossip about Jeremy vomiting she left. You could clearly see that Chloe was sitting on the floor opposite side of the toilet to Jeremy. You could clearly hear the conversation which in no way was flirtatious. Yes Chloe had a dressing gown on without a bra underneath as she was getting ready for bed when the incident occurred I don't think at any point she said that she did not have knickers on. Which is completely irrelevant as she had a dressing gown on which was neither short or revealing. Jeremy was completely in the wrong and overstepped the mark. There was no misreading the signals but he knew what he had done was wrong. The fact when he came out of the bathroom when asked by Callum why Chloe was upset he knew exactly what he had done wrong and why she was upset. He also immediatly tried to justify himself by saying he was pissed and removed her robe and he actually said he might of accidentally touched her breast. From his own account and the way he attempted to joke with Callum about it showed he knew what he did was wrong.
I actually think Chloe handled herself well she immediatly left the bathroom and initially tried to leave the room without any fuss. It was the other housemates particularly Cami who turned it into a scene running about telling everyone not helped by Perez screaming he felt unsafe. You could clearly see Chloe was shocked and her reaction was one of shock rather than hysteria which the other housemates created. Chloe even in the diary room wasn't hysterical or over exaggerated the incident but she was obviously shaken by what had happened.
Jeremy is a recovering alcoholic who as soon as entering the house began drinking. His behaviour has been erratic over the past few days and he obviously has a lot going on in his life. Given the circumstances that he is a recovering alcoholic and has immediatly started drinking I think BB really had no choice but to remove him for his own sake. It appears that the people who are upset that he was removed are only upset because they wanted to see him have a complete breakdown for entertainment value. It was clear from the day he entered that all the housemates had concerns about his erratic behaviour and state of mind. The fact that he misread a situation where he was vomiting in a toilet and interpreted it as a come on says quite a lot about his current mental state.”

I agree with you on all of your points

Originally Posted by NaughtyNan:
“Maybe he was straightening her collar?”

Let's hope that nobody straightens your collar whilst you're trying to help someone...

di60

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by sofieellis:
“Well we heard the conversation from the bathroom at the time. She sounded concerned and helpful, but she didn't sound as if she wanted some action from him.”

how do you know we heard the whole conversation in the toilet? we have no idea how long the real scene had been playing out... seriously, if it was as Chloe claims it had been [I'd need to see it again] but didn't she claim that he touched her boob... she should be reporting it

Warp

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Lorise:
“Cami should be evicted also then as she smacked Chloe on her backside on the first night, and I don't believe Chloe asked her to do that or gave permission, then a little while later Chloe smacked Cami on the backside three times, while Cami was bent over....how were they not pulled up on that?

I don't think Chloe is to blame for anything, but if BB are going to punish people for touching another person's body (without consent) then they should do that to all who have done that, like Cami and Chloe with each other?

As for Jeremy I am glad he has gone for his own safety and sanity.”

If a person does not concent to it is sexual assault. If Chloe suddenly decided she was fine with it and started making out with Jeremy it wouldn't of been sexual assault, but seeing as she was traumatised by it and not in a situation that was at all playful or flirtatious then it's sexual assault.

Your examples in context happened during flirting and playful situations where both participants were fooling about, they weren't during an ocassion when a young woman was helping a half drunk guy vomiting in a room alone with a shut door.

wholove

11-01-2015

Agree absolutely. Very disappointing to see all these comments.
I'm done with this series anyway, tonight's ep sealed it for me.

Warp

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by CarlLewis:
“If someone is wearing a gown, you can pull the gown without touching them.”

The gown itself is considered part of the person, not a separate entity.

Steveinsussex

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by CarlLewis:
“If someone is wearing a gown, you can pull the gown without touching them.”

yes you can, and you are taking the 'touching' part too literally. As was said,try it to a stranger in the street and see what happens to you.

Report back here once you are out on bail.

NaughtyNan

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by too_much_coffee:
“

Let's hope that nobody straightens your collar whilst you're trying to help someone...”

apology for trying to lighten the mood my back was hurting from all the weight! I would certainly just tell them to back off with a stern look not cry my eyes out within seconds. PLUS there was clearly something going on with her towards him prior to that when he accidentally spilt his wine when his legs were akimbo. She gave him a dirty look so why did she go to the toilet afterwards?

Deeferone

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by vpower:
“I am truly flabbergasted by some of the reactions Jeremy was completely wrong and words can't express what I thought of Ken!”

Agree & Agree. I think she was completely in shock, I don't think she had expected anything like that to happen within that particular situation ( in the toilet supporting him while he felt unwell). I think she had a gut reaction to it. Maybe in the cool light of day she would have spoken privately to him about how inappropriate his behavior was.

I am very confused with kens behaviour, he appears not well.

Natgar

11-01-2015

Well said, if you were at work and a colleague. Pulled up your top exposing your breasts, do you think people would say it's your fault for not wearing a bra or do you think they would be fired?

Natgar

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by CarlLewis:
“Under this definition it was not a sexual assault.

What did bother me slightly was Jeremy's statement that he thought Chloe was coming on to him. That sounds like a classic excuse.”

I think it's sexual assault.

wholove

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by ScreamingTree<3:
“I disagree and I am female. What he did was wrong, but she was in there with nothing underneath her robe. He didn't force himself onto her and her other behaviour in the house with her bikini on wasn't exactly an example of a wall flower.
I would have slapped him and then told him to come to speak to BB with me and sorted it out with maturity.
Now if he had pulled her robe off and or pinned her to a wall and groped her then she might have a point.
He was drunk and stupid. She was stupid too and for sure we'll see more stupid behaviour from her.
Rule number 1, don't stay in a loo with someone when you've nothing under your robe and they're wasted.”

Just because she had nothing under her robe does not mean that is permission or in any way makes it ok for a man to pull her robe. She is allowed to wear a bikini as any woman should. It is HER choice.
She has a point, it is unacceptable behaviour. She was not stupid at all.
Rule 1 do not touch a woman/her clothing without her consent, Rule 2 do not victim blame.
She did absolutely nothing wrong, as a woman I hope you will get over this very dangerous way of thinking. Women are not responsible for sexual assaults that happen to them because of what they wear or where they are. This is all on him.

CarlLewis

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Natgar:
“Well said, if you were at work and a colleague. Pulled up your top exposing your breasts, do you think people would say it's your fault for not wearing a bra or do you think they would be fired?”

Wouldn't be a sexual assault though.

End-Em-All

11-01-2015

I don't see (m)any posts excusing what Jeremy did. What is in contention is if it amounts to sexual assault. I don't think it does. It was out of order and he was rightfully punished. I don't think he should have been in the house in the first place so kicking him out now has probably saved all of them including the show producers.

wholove

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by zexstream:
“Its a tough one, personally I thought she would be stronger and not so quick to tears due to the nature of her job. I felt she would have been used to men leering over her and trying it on. That said she obviously has a right not to feel intimidated or be touched in the way Jeremy did. At the end of the day nobody actually seen what happened so we only have both of there accounts of the situation.

Im still shocked that Ken is still there as he was clearly visable in his actions and should be gone too.”

It's not the same as her job at all. Holy hell. It doesn't make her weak to cry when a guy does that to her.
He gave the same account as her only with as much blame put on her as he could. But he said he did it.

Javed

11-01-2015

It depends on whether the receiver is happy about it or not. In this case Chloe was not happy.

Javed

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by wholove:
“Just because she had nothing under her robe does not mean that is permission or in any way makes it ok for a man to pull her robe. She is allowed to wear a bikini as any woman should. It is HER choice.
She has a point, it is unacceptable behaviour. She was not stupid at all.
Rule 1 do not touch a woman/her clothing without her consent, Rule 2 do not victim blame.
She did absolutely nothing wrong, as a woman I hope you will get over this very dangerous way of thinking. Women are not responsible for sexual assaults that happen to them because of what they wear or where they are. This is all on him.”

Yup. Only one person is to blame and he is out.

Lorise

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by Warp:
“If a person does not concent to it is sexual assault. If Chloe suddenly decided she was fine with it and started making out with Jeremy it wouldn't of been sexual assault, but seeing as she was traumatised by it and not in a situation that was at all playful or flirtatious then it's sexual assault.

Your examples in context happened during flirting and playful situations where both participants were fooling about, they weren't during an ocassion when a young woman was helping a half drunk guy vomiting in a room alone with a shut door.”

Cami wasn't fooling around with Chloe when Chloe slapped her backside three times....Cami was in the living room bending over....so that could of been classed as sexual assault going by the fact consent was not giving. As you said sexual assault is when a person touches another person's body without consent...........it isn't just sexual assault if the person is upset about it. So BB should of pulled them up about it also.

CarlLewis

11-01-2015

Originally Posted by End-Em-All:
“I don't see (m)any posts excusing what Jeremy did. What is in contention is if it amounts to sexual assault. I don't think it does. It was out of order and he was rightfully punished. I don't think he should have been in the house in the first place so kicking him out now has probably saved all of them including the show producers.”

Agreed.
Unfortunately expressing this view apparently makes people 'rape apolgists' now.

11 of 18