And no one has the right to invade someone's personal space, as Chloe says Jeremy did?

With you all the way Patsy.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Don't totally disagree with you Patsy I don't think on the whole Chloe overreacted, she left the bathroom and was heading straight to big brother. Cami Perez and a few others intercepted her then things changed. I think her reaction had a lot to do with the situation, I think she really didn't expect it within that particular circumstance in a club with a group of girls I think her reaction would have been a friendly slap and a discussion on appropriate behaviour.

It's quite simple, for there to be a refusal, there has to be an overture. Pulling someone's robe open, drunkenly is an unacceptable, stupid, lewd drunken overture. It's not sexual assault. Had Jeremy persisted after the overture had been rejected, then it would be sexual assault.

I have no idea what your 'Re......tart?' sentence is about.

Quite funny!

When you first have sex contact with a person do you ask for permission each time you put your hands on them and when you move it to a new position.

Something like "I know we are kissing but have I your permission to touch your............"

"I know I have touched your ............ do I now have your permission to now touch your ......."

Perhaps it would be safer to get it in writing after they have taken a breath test to ensure it is not drunken permission and therefore not 'informed'.

Is that how it goes for you?




Maggie

Whoa. Did you really mean to post that? In the context of the Jeremy-Chloe incident??

Please tell me no and it was an error and you didn't mean to come across as if you were saying that it applied in this situation?

The problem with this is that if you say it wasn't as big a deal as Chloe made out, people will say you're making light of the objectification of women or something or condoning touching someone's tit.

But it really didn't warrant her reaction.
Perez just tried too hard to be super offended by it.

I've just been on the jury of a case where a man did exactly that. Slapped his co-workers bums regularly despite being asked to stop.
It was real sexual assault & he got sent to prison for 2 years.

No, it was not 'an error'. I was talking about a man grabbing a woman's boob; which is not what happened in the Jeremy/Chloe situation at all.

I was responding to someone else's post. Maybe you should read through the thread again.

At the end of the day everyone was drunk, probably didnt react in the best way, but who does in that kind of situation. Big Brother decided to remove him, not Chloe, so if theres an issue with people thinking he should of stayed, it lies with BB, not with how the HM reacted. But its good to see both sides

And that's the difference. Context is everything.

Pah! You beat me to it.

Perez's reaction to what Jeremy had done was over the top. I'd say Perez was using it as an excuse to try and draw attention to it. Perez even admitted that he didn't feel safe around Jeremy when he entered the house. I think the right choice was made in removing Jeremy, but Perez shouldn't have behaved like a diva though.

Oh, I think it was definitely a collaborative over-reaction. They wound each other up to a crescendo.

Nice to 'see' you Deefs.

[quote=Matt_Maher;76400362]The problem with this is that if you say it wasn't as big a deal as Chloe made out, people will say you're making light of the objectification of women or something or condoning touching someone's tit.

But it really didn't warrant her reaction.
QUOTE]


Very good point. It's almost as if some people want to bully others into agreeing with them.

I did, thanks, and responded after I'd read the post you originally responded to.

How do you know what Jeremy did, by the way? We have his (drunken) word and Chloe's (drunken) word but nothing other than that to go by. I don't know what happened. I'm wondering how you can be so sure you do.

I still think Chloe overreacted and I still agree, more or less, with your OP assessment of what likely happened but... unless you were actually there, how can you say with absolute authority that it "is not what happened in the Jeremy/Chloe situation at all"?

According to the Metropolitan Police a Sexual Assault is defined as:
A person commits sexual assault if they intentionally touch another person, the touching is sexual and the person does not consent.

Jeremy admitted he wanted to see Chloe's Boobs and touched her in an inappropriate matter that resulted in her exposure. It was sexual assault.

In regards to Chloe's reaction. I couldn't care less if she over-reacted or not. We can't truly quantify that without knowing her mindset anyway. As with the Ken sexual commentary issue some of the women took extreme offense and didn't No one person reacts the same. And regardless of the response what Jeremy did was completely wrong. You can't go blaming the victim no matter how hysterically extreme they seem.

I think she orchestrated it and or was waiting to get someone into trouble like that. I really wouldn't be surprised if her agent or someone close to her on the outside put the idea in her head beforehand making out that it might get her a paid newspaper/magazine interview but I think she has completely shot herself in the foot by doing what she did. I also think it was a complete over reaction by BB and they were wrong to evict Jeremy.

I went from someone thinking "Oh I want to see a lot more of her and that gorgeous figure" that she has to wanting her out first on Tuesday! @ Chloe and BB!

Chloe made Jeremy touch her in an inappropriate way then?
Did she make him drink tons of alcohol?
Did she make him intentional vomit?
Was she gagging for it?
Manipulating him?
Is she entirely to blame for being the victim?

What a world we live in when a victim is blamed and the guilty are guiltless (it seems)

Who asked her to go into the toilet? He was saying he didn't want help but she insisted. If she is so " hands off, no passes on me whatsoever otherwise I'll try and get you into trouble" then she should have made that clear from the off! I believed him when he said he didn't realise that she was naked underneath, and that he was just making a pass. BB could and should have warned him at most, not chucked him out!

At NO point did anyone suggest that he 'grabbed her boob' - so why are people pretending that he did?

She said that he opened her robe and 'put my boob out'; he said he opened her robe and may have barely touched her. That sounds very much to me like he opened her robe and perhaps rubbed against her boob in the process; and that the boob was exposed - not grabbed. Nobody mentioned grabbed and grabbing is a very different thing indeed.

Ah the old Adam and Eve classic. Or maybe you're going for more of a film noir, femme fatale vibe.

Either way, it's archaic tripe.

That's extremely unlikely and is actually quite a wicked (imho) suggestion.

Who asked... She was trying to be kind to him! And she shouldn't have to say Hands before anything remotely conceivable like a pass existed. (He could have told her to get out if he didn't want her there) And whether she was naked or had a bra on does not give him ANY cause to remove her clothing without permission. No excuses. HE should have made it clear he was interested before even going straight for the clothing. And he's hardly going to be doing that being sick in the toilet and sitting on the floor. It's not exactly a romantic place.

What he did made her extremely uncomfortable. Made the others uncomfortable and what he did was a sexual assault. If BB didn't throw him that would be a joke of a decision.

tbh i think alot of them in that house could do with some help no ones perfect and no one sees what goes on behind closed doors, but all those sat on a couch at home not knowing the full story are happy to bitch and