And just like that... MAFS is over

[mumofoneAloneandwell]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8pz1k4r2lo

It was coming. You dont get good reality TV without people suffering.

This news however is awful. Bloody awful.

This is my experience. Not one error.

As someone else has said, if you use the pull out method, you err on the side of caution. And if you got it wrong, you would apologise profusely, buy condoms and be prepared to shelve sex for a while til the person felt trusting again.

Many of the men on MAFS had barely concealed aggression problems, and seeing them put with vulnerable women was scary. I didn't watch the Australian series after the Dean/Sarah storyline, as I just realised they were pressuring women into having affectionate and sexual contact with men they didn't fancy. There were way worse men than Dean in that show, though, one couple were removed for aggression and I fully believe that there were several relationships that contained coercive control, abuse and (from that association) rape and unwanted sexual contact.

They picked unstable men some of whom looked to be on steroids, or were openly macho and dominant, and just by the DV statistics, were bound to hit on dangerous men- but instead of being on top of this and making it absolutely clear that everything had to be consensual and all even minor situations should be reported to them, having therapists on board with this, they just allowed the 'grey' area to play out til it wasn't grey any more, which is why I stopped watching before this scandal anyway.

So somebody cannot discuss their experience of [alleged] assault lest it ruins the accused’s reputation?

What is your suggestion here?

I don’t think you understand how consent works tbh. Consenting to A, B and C is not consenting to X, Y and Z.

Nutshell!

One of the contestants stated rape. She consented to sex but did not consent him to ejaculate inside her. She has called that rape. For me this a dangerous blurring of lines of what rape is……

"did not consent" are the operatve words here. Not sure where the "blurring" is.

As far as I'm aware that's defined as rape now...

. If a person deliberately ejaculates without consent during intercourse, it is a crime. BBC +3

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+a+man+ejaculutes+without+consent+is+it+rape.&oq=if+a+man+ejaculutes+without+consent+is+it+rape.&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAjIHCAMQIRiPAtIBCTI1MjI4ajBqN6gCCLACAfEFmL64EHJWaKfxBZi-uBByVmin&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Correct.

These programmes always do. Big brother was brilliant when it was normal people doing a social experiment. Then it progressed to wannabes who would do anything for their 5 mins of fame. MAFS was the same. I’m not by any means condoning and sexual violence if this has happened then too right it should be off air. However this fake world we live in has got its part to play too.

It just finished in Australia not long ago. It wasn't stopped airing. I've just finished watching the latest Aussie Mafs in the UK. I think we were a couple of weeks behind.

Absolutely. That expression makes me think of the awful victim-blamey things I've heard some people of my parents' generation say (I'm Gen X) about how men supposedly 'can't control themselves' once they get past a certain point and how that apparently means it's on the woman to not 'lead him on'. 😡

Awful.

My suggestion would be to take any serious criminal allegations to the police, and the case can be heard in the courts.
Rather than trial by a television show.

Oh you're still here Brad!

Who said that won’t happen? And how will that be any less ruinous to his reputation?

”did not consent” - how is that blurring anything?

The law doesn't agree with you. It makes it very clear that you are entitled to withdraw consent from sexual activity at any point. Or, as in at least one of these cases, to put boundaries on the kind of sexual activity you will engage in.

Most rapes and sexual assaults, despite the public perception, are committed by people known to the victim and often happen in situations where the victim is raped inside a relationship. It's been decades since the law that legalised rape within marriage was repealed, thankfully. You appear to be supporting a situation where that would apply to any woman in a relationship with someone.

We don't get to decide who deserves to be raped and who doesn't contingent on the degree to which we have internalised the patriarchy. It's difficult enough to get the authorities to take allegations of sexual violence seriously without this kind of attitude.

It may well happen. But the fact that there’s been so much media coverage means that ensuring a fair trial will be challenging.
The whole British system is based upon presumption of innocence until proved guilty. If someone is found guilty then publicising their name may be fair enough. Before that point publicly castigating them on television is unethical.

So she should not discuss what happened to her unless in forums you approve of?

It's not about what I personally approve of, it's what is legal and ethical.
In criminal cases the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Public accusations can seriously complicate legal proceedings and may affect the presumption of innocence.

I get the logic of 'not consenting to x'... but how is this even provable in law?

So if someone posts about rape on a tv show no one can mention any other questionable things that have happened on the show because it deflects from the rape? So we can't discuss the fact, as another poster has pointed out, some men had obvious aggression issues or how there were red flags all over some contestants behaviour or as I've discussed, how people were coerced by the experts into things they were uncomfortable with? I missed the memo.

I think a question is should a whole class of programming go because of these ,maybe anticipated , allegations? These type of programs have large audience and for good or ill are a popular form of entertainment that relies on the human hunger for gossip, scandal and titillation. Is it right that we now maybe take a puritan attitude of removing all such programming?

I think a line has been crossed here obviously but to try and defend such programming working class women have been given hands up into minor celeb status where opportunities to get into entertainment are incredibly scarce.

Is it right that we now maybe take a puritan attitude of removing all such programming?

It’s absolutely right and it’s not puritanical. It’s called safeguarding and having a moral compass.

Reality programming doesn’t need to harm or endanger its participants to be entertaining. Race Around the World, The Traitors and similar programmes are highly entertaining and keep their participants safe.

@mids2019 I don't think these type of programmes will disappear at all. As someone pointed out, Love Island survived after 2 contestants died by suicide. The amount of money made by these programmes is phenomenal. The only way to stop them is if enough people stop watching them altogether.