Dear O_e,
I will try to respond to your posts in a less flippant manner, as upon re- reading our earlier exchanges on this thread, I think I'm now clearer about your stance.
Please note my responses would be exactly the same if the sex of the parties involved where reversed; and indeed if the incidences were between same sex couples.
Originally Posted by Oracles_eye:
“Why isn't she being removed and cautioned.”
Within the context of their relationship that we have witnessed so far, It is not appropriate.
If Callum, subsequently decides to complain to BB, then it would be necessary to issue a caution, to ensure that the new boundaries Callum wants from hereon in are reinforced so that in future there is no ambiguity and repeating of such behaviour.
With today's exchange, Callum has clearly indicated a desire to redefine their personal space boundaries wrt each other. Cami (begrudgingly and crudely!) respected Callum's wishes. However, if Cammi engages in the same or similar behaviour towards him from now on, then she would need to be cautioned and removed from the house. BB have set that precedent with the Jeremy vs. Chloe incident
Originally Posted by Oracles_eye:
“Doesn't matter if he offered her sex for ten years, if he feels uncomfortable at that moment then that's his choice, he isn't a piece of meat,”
I totally agree with you. Cami also (begrudgingly and crudely) respected Callum's choice when he rejected her sexual advances. She immediately let him be.
If the roles had been reversed in this relationship, I would be saying exactly the same thing.
Originally Posted by Oracles_eye:
“Ahh so when Jeremy stopped and was booted out and cautioned it's because of wait... Why was he thrown out and cautioned again, he stopped..... Ahhh I get it now.”
Prior to this thread, I've never commented on that case as I didn't feel able to because BB did not enable me to witness firsthand the bathroom exchange. However, I'm clear that it is not a valid comparator, because of the reasons I stated in my previous reply to you.
Originally Posted by Oracles_eye:
“Presuming actions is where it lies, there are no boundaries, if Callum had stood up screaming and saying what the hell was she doing, it would matter.
So you are basically saying callum asked for it and got what he deserved....
Brilliant, case closed.
A little side note, a couple have been in a relationship for years, one comes home drunk and whilst the other is sleeping engages in sexual intercourse without consent the person wakes and reports the matter to the authority....
.
Or one wakes in the night and performs a sexual act...
Where do I stand in law...”
Responding to each corresponding paragraph:
For my own code of morals and ethics, and indeed within the law, the myriad of contexts before, during or immediately after an incident have a major and significant impact on the conclusion. Therefore, if Callum had screamed etc. then a caution to Cami would have been in order to avoid the possibility of a repeat.
No, not at all. I'm saying within the context of their relationship up to and including and immediately after the incident Cami should not be tagged as a sex pest. I would say exactly the same if the roles had been reversed.
Au contraire x deux !
The law will rightly examine the context of the lead up to, during your act, and what you and the other person/s perceive, feel and did after the act, to determine where you (subsequently) 'stand.'
This scenario is not comparable in any shape or form to the incident between C & C, because:
- Callum was awake so was in in a position to consent or reject the request for a sexual exchange.
- penetration without consent is an act of rape, therefore. much easier to differentiate between what's right or wrong
Originally Posted by Oracles_eye:
“Don't need a badge I've got a tshirt on describing myself and the community I support.
I now recognise that this minefield area of human interactions is clearly very important to you, so apologies for my previous flippant response.
I'm saying she should have been warned for what she did, I took offense on his behalf as did others on that mess who was voted out a bit ago I forget the no marks name.
I still disagree for the reasons I've repeatedly explained. I respect your right to take offence, however, I do not have solidarity with you on this case. I intentionally did not comment on Chloe's case, as I did not see the actual before, during or immediate after of their exchange. However, they had not previously bonded as a physically flirting couple, so it cannot be used as a comparator case.
Just because he didn't scream shout and dry cry doesn't mean it didn't affect him and make him feel bad,
You may be totally or partly right, or entirely off- beam. I do not know or understand enough about Callum to be able to comment.
Imagine if a women had been cuddling up to Ken and flirting, does that mean he'd be allowed to flop it into their face. I'm betting he'd be in cuffs.”
Your comparator scenario is only valid if Cami had thrust her vaginal area into Callum's face. Then clearly that's considerably more extreme than what she actually did. Self- exposure of female breasts has a much lower 'Richter rating' cf. the body parts engaged in sexual intercourse - in society generally and within the law specifically.
if the woman in your scenario had previously taken Ken's face and put it into her crotch whilst stroking other erogenous zones of his body, and laughed when he said wtte 'it looks like I'm performing cunnilingus'; and then Ken tried to entice her by part exposing one of his butt cheeks near her face, but quickly went away when rejected - I don't think you would be collecting any winnings.
Originally Posted by Oracles_eye:
“I'm not, I'm saying again it's rules for one section rules for another, like the mess that pulled down Daileys boxers exposing him and that loose women who's also a mess pulling down some twins clothing, I'm sure there wasn't flirting and implied rights of access involved in the Denise incident.”
I'm unable to comment on those cases as I don't store the details of previous shows in my long term memory. I usually remember very funny incidents as they tend to get repeatedly repeated within my family and friends networks, eg. Wtte:
Frenchie to Bussey 'we're on the ceeelebrity scratch eeeep...'
Bussey to Audley: 'Orgy?' and Audley's response: 'I wish.'
Once the contestants leave and get on with their lives, then I do likewise, except in the case of the great Rula Lenska as she progresses in her orienteering venture....
”
