THE BLOG

CBB's Chloe Slut Shamed for Glamour Modeling

12/01/2015 17:41 GMT | Updated 14/03/2015 09:59 GMT

On Celebrity Big Brother 2012, Loose Woman Denise Welch pulled down the pyjamas of Playboy model Karissa Shannon, showing her bum. Karissa's outrage was ridiculed. The general consensus was, "what's the problem, everyone's seen it anyway." I felt sick then and I feel sick now, as the same attitude is surfacing in response to behaviour on this year's CBB.

On Saturday night, Baywatch actor Jeremy Jackson pulled open glamour model Chloe Goodman's dressing gown and grabbed her breast. Chloe was shocked and upset. Tweets commenting on this included, "She went OTT like she got assaulted, it's only a boob that everyone in the house & nation has seen anyway," and, "Chloe wow crocodile tears and drama queen when she shows her boobs for a living. Doesn't add up." There were more. "Chloe Goodman gets her tits out for a living for all to see but cries like a bitch when Jeremy does that. She's a prick." Chloe was accused of over reacting on the grounds that, "didn't she shag however many lads on a TV show not so long ago?!" and "#yatitsareinthepaper."

This suggests a disturbing attitude to her bodily autonomy. Do we really think that if Chloe's slept with other guys then she's automatically available to this one? Isn't that a bit rapey? And isn't it ludicrous to imagine that when Chloe, Karissa or any other glamour model signs up for a shoot, they sign a consent form for every reader of Playboy, Loaded or Nuts to have a private viewing on demand, for perpetuity?

Since Judy Finnigan's wardrobe malfunction at the National Television Awards, I'm pretty sure she's gone about her day without men pulling open her dress, juggling her jubblies and cheerily reassuring her, "everyone's seen them anyway".

Since Paula Radcliffe defecated at the side of road, while running the London Marathon, I'm confident she's used public toilets without anyone sticking their head under the door, for a private show. Paula's Marathon moment was broadcast live on TV, yet as far as I'm aware, no one's taken this as license to film her for a scat site, "it's alright love, nothing you haven't done before!"

To the delight of the Mail, Kate Middleton's dresses have risen in windy weather, exposing her bottom. Yet, doing the rounds with baby George, no fans of The Firm have felt entitled to lift her dress and cup the Cambridge crack, "don't worry Duchess, nothing the nation hasn't seen!"

Clearly the mocking of Karissa and Chloe's reactions is not because, "everyone's seen it anyway". The scorn poured on their expectations of bodily autonomy is simply slut shaming because they are glamour models. The sexual history of rape victims is no longer admissible in court, but the attitude that women's sexual behaviour can cost them the right to say no is pervasive. The perceived sexual availability of glamour models has, in both these cases, resulted in their violation being dismissed as null and void and their feelings treated with contempt.

Regardless of how often Chloe's got her tits out or who she shagged on Ex On The Beach, she is not "up for grabs". In the words of Clare McGlynn, a professor of law at Durham, "It should scarcely need stating, but consent is to a person, not to a set of circumstances, and consent must be given afresh on each occasion."