Follow this sidebar link from the link you posted earlier. It doesn’t look like the producers are at jeopardy, since she waived her right to sue them over “negligence, personal injury (including without limitation, any injuries arising out of the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease or unwelcome/unlawful contact or other interaction among participants)”
If that kind of thing holds up in court then I’m not seeing anything but a possible charge of Sleazy Television Production. If that was illegal there’d be a lot fewer channels.
I actually asked this question in one of the courses I took about sexual assault (interestingly in Canada, it’s not no-means-no, the absence of a yes is also no, and drunk/drugged cannot consent).
The rule is, it is up to the instigator to confirm that they have consent (and that the other person is capable of consenting).
In this case, as I understand it (I don’t watch the show) the video shows the male first holding her up (she was unconscious and needed to be held out if the water) wgile having intercourse with her, and then pulling the clearly unconscious woman out of the hot tub and performing oral sex on her - the whole time she was not responsive.
This isn’t going to see any sort of criminal prosecution, it will all be civil and end in some sort of settlement between ABC, Olympios and Jackson. Which will include some sort of monetary amount, as well as changes to the shows production policies.
Yeah, I saw the accounts that (without detail) said the woman initiated the actions. I don’t believe that I know anything about what actually happened there right now.
On the news this morning they played a vid clip of the woman in the pool with a man I believe is the same man involved in this incident. Other women were lounging around the pool. She quite voluntarily took off her top (on camera) and hugged him. The women were giggling. Of course, this doesn’t mean that she couldn’t be raped but it does show that she was down for some sexual activity.
I don’t know how this will play out if we presume she initiated sexual contact while drunk beyond the ability to provide consent, and he was also. But there will be plenty of people claiming he sexually assaulted her in that circumstance. Not much point in arguing it out in this thread because none of us have facts.
Very true…in not taking his side but I just think its ironic that we immediately blame the male when either one might have been the aggressor. Or both.
Speaking from US law, it is my understanding that it’s impossible for two people to have sex if they are both incapacitated. Drunk sex is only rape if one of the parties is incapacitated, meaning physically incapable of consent. We’re talking complete disorientation, unconsciousness, or the inability to form words. If both parties are in this incapacitated state, sex ain’t happening. It seems to me the cultural gender bias is ameliorated by the legal definition itself.