So we now have this consent story involving Ellie Nightingale and Ben Savage. It seems to be heading towards that they were both drunk but as he was drunker it was all his fault Then to add to this they have clearly stated he will have boundary issues with Tegan Lomax and Holly Cunningham. Why add this part to the plot? It may as well just portray him as a rapist.

Then we had the amazing plot of Gilly Roach and Jacqui Ashworth were it really was a confusion as to who was in the right and wrong for the climax to end with Gilly admitting he had raped Jacqui on reflection.

Men portrayed as the beast and women as the victim, it can easily be the other way round or left ambiguous which to me raises the best debate.

Sorry if anything on here read offensive as that wasn't my intention.

A great example of this is the Eastenders storyline between Phil Mitchell and Denise Fox...

"When I was watching EE friday and Denise was telling Mass that Phil was the father, Mas wanted to know when and how it happened Denise said she was drunk and then proceeded to say Phil was so paralytic he doesnt even remember it at all, and I automatically thought of this sl, cos going by its logic you may as well say Denise raped Phil cos its almost exactly the same as this, strange how we perceive things"

Thanks L.H

What do we also think of this comparison?

When I was watching EE friday and Denise was telling Mass that Phil was the father, Mass wanted to know when and how it happened Denise said she was drunk and then proceeded to say Phil was so paralytic he doesnt even remember it at all, and I automatically thought of this sl, cos going by its logic you may as well say Denise raped Phil cos its almost exactly the same as this, strange how we perceive things

Louise_Hart you are so spot on! I am using this as part of the thread description!

What do you guys think? Could Phil Mitchell report Denise Fox for rape?

I was thinking it would have been more interesting given the previous storyline if Hollyoaks had made Nick the one who might have been the "victim" and Ellie was the one who might have raped him.

We rarely have storylines where the woman might be the one in control of a man and it does take place more often than people think but in most cases rarely reported because the man would be ashamed to admit to it

I totally agree. I believe this would have been the better plot. The writer/actress original script was veered towards the man being a rapist. She seems to have an agenda that was altered but basically near enough has the same outcome.

I think if you read the GD forum at times you will be shocked at how few men actually understand what consent is.

Our local police have been running a campaign on it for around 18 months (you see the posters on social media)

With freshers starting I think it is an important story to tell.

Yes I suppose if Ellie can so could he, its exactly the same scenario after all,I mean WHATS THE DIFFERENCE??
he probably wont though he will probably be to preoccupied by the fact shes had his baby. lol

A campaign bout both sexes being aware would be more helpful hopefully?

The campaign is about giving consent so yeah applies to both sexes

It's just a rip off of the Ched Evans case I think

Ehh?? The story is about consent, personally I think it's a good issue to raise and if gets people talking then even better. As for 'hating men/monsters' idk where you are getting this from, it's to raise awarenesd of consent for both sexes.

I don't think it's geared towards hating men. The responses so far have been divided with many viewers, including women who feel Nick. I'm one of those but I feel for Ellie too. I am split down the middle. It is a important story to tell but I do think the story will conclude with it being revealed that Nick raped her. Kirkwood, right from Ellie's inception, has been praising the character and actress to the hills and recently referred to her as the rising star of the show. 😶 Don't get me wrong, I like Ellie and the actress is competent enough but I do find it irritating when any producer pimps certain characters. I remember Kirkwood doing this with the moons on EE. I don't like being indirectly told who I should love. Don't get me started on his love for Ellie and Freddie. 🙄

Anyway, back on topic I do think the story is being told with the intention of the viewers making thier minds up. I also think it's there to educate people on consent. I think it sends out a strong message but i do hope it's a message for both sides. For the record, not at all suggesting that Ellie deserved what ever may or may not have happened to her but there are wider influences at play here and to ignore them would do the story a injustice.

Originally Posted by spikewoman
I think the inference, apologies if I'm wrong, is that the rape/sexual abuse storylines they run have men as the villains. Even the JP rape story line had a male aggressor. It is as if they daren't run such a SL with a female crying wolf or being mistaken because it might prevent rl victims coming forward etc.

I can see some hypocrisy though, can you imagine if Marnie was a man they wouldn't permit the pawing, groping and hassling she does. Her actions with Nick could be viewed as sexual harassment ironically maybe that is where he gets the idea that all or most women are "up for it" especially in that family. Not sure if he knows Marnie and Ellie are related yet to be fair.
Thank you Spikewoman I am entitled to my opinion and interviews are promotion of the story so I think I can pass judgement and I saw both other plots to.

Also Finn O'Connor not only attacked John Paul McQueen but then went on to try and attack Nancy Osborne which was not needed whatsoever. The main pint of the male victim completely shifted to the female perspective (not to mention when Nancy told JP he was a coward for not reporting it meaning her attack was partly his fault.)

(two posts that I found would be relevant to this thread.)

The way Kirkwood was speaking about Ellie and Freddie you'd think 'Romeo and Juliet' I mean I don't mind them as a couple but there are far greater couples in Oaks. He also sees them as stars of the show, I don't find Freddie as irritating anymore and I like Ellie, but stars I wouldn't agree with that.
However like I said I'm glad they are doing this sl and Ellie so far was good in Friday's e4 ep, I hope they do it justice.

In a few months time though it will be revealed that Ben (not Ellie) will have boundary issues. Where has that come from suddenly? Surely it gears towards Ellie being the victim 100 percent?

I think the 2 Hollyoaks threads are getting totally mixed up with one another!

I never followed that, what happened in the end?

BIB: It annoys me too, Kirkwood said the Goon Brothers were the new Phil and Grant and that Joey and Lauren were the new Sharon and Grant (I think it was them anyway) and it's annoying that certain characters are giving the most storylines/air time (Ste) whilst the others are left on the sideline. Kirkwood has already said in an interview that Freddie is playing a huge role in this consent storyline and that he and Ellie will get to go centre stage, I'm just wondering what will happen now Charlie Clapham has been caught sniffing cocaine? Hollyoaks do seem to take action against these things seriously so it's likely he will be suspended for a time.

From what I gather, the storyline is being aired so that the audience will have their own opinions of it that will cause debate. To me, both Ellie and Nick seemed pretty drunk and the scene seemed to cut quite quickly to the morning after, therefore making it more difficult to make your mind up on it. It's good they are raising the consent issue though, it happens a lot and is one of them things that needs to be spoken about. I think where OP is coming from is that the writer of Friday's E4 episode, Zoe Lister has said that Nick is going to have boundary issues with Tegan and Holly and therefore it's probably his fault, but he's certainly not a Dean Wicks type character who knows he raped someone and keeps quiet about it. I hope though that the story isn't one sided and appeals to both sexes as consent issues occur from both sexes not just one.

Oh where did you hear that?

If that's the route they're taken, looks like the show has already decided.

I'd much prefer a open-ended conclusion but I do think that Nick will have to leave regardless. There is a reason why he was bought in specifically for this story and the viewers have been denied the opportunity to get to know him, like they have Ellie.

Thanks Attitude you put that perfectly to how I feel.

Got a retrial coming up and this summer, a club signed him

Zoe Lister the former Hollyoaks actress and current writer of this plot (Zoe Carpenter) has confirmed it. in her interview and her and BK also made it clear they wanted us to know Nick AFTER the consent scenes aired on purpose after getting to know Ellie for months in advance.

I don't think the boundary issues means he's a rapist but I agree it's something that does not needed to be added in for this sl. It's great that people are talking about it, hopefully they do it justice and we see both povs about consent. Personally after watching it, I would lean towards there was no proper consent because of Ellie being drunk, interesting to see how it plays out.

So was it made clear who was lying etc?

BK did do a story about Holly falsely accusing Dodger of rape so these types of stories aren't always automatically in the woman's favour. As for Phil and Denise, Denise was just as drunk as Phil and most likely wouldn't have remembered their encounter either if it wasn't for the fact that she woke up first and saw him. Plus Phil wouldn't have seen himself as a victim, even if he arguably was one, so the point is moot. Sophie Porley even said herself in an interview about the current consent storyline that a lot of it comes down to Ellie's personality, and that if it had been Lisa who had woken up next to a guy the following morning she'd have just thought "score!" and gone about her life. Because Ellie is highly-strung and has trust issues with men, her shame and disgust at what happened is magnified.