Francesca can still remember the chilling moment when she discovered private and personal photos of her had been posted online.
The 27-year-old was sat at her desk at work, quietly typing, when a message from a stranger pinged from the corner of her screen.
‘At first, I thought it was spam,’ Francesca, who is going by a pseudonym, tells Metro.co.uk. ‘But after I read the message, I felt sick. I had to hide in the bathroom to compose myself.’
The stranger informed Francesca that her nudes had been posted on an online forum, with enough details for her to be clearly identified.
‘I was panicking,’ she recalls. ‘I was scared that other people would see it and know it was me. I felt pure rage at my ex who’d done this.’
It’s been six years since that day. When Francesca heard that reality star Stephen Bear was found guilty of uploading private sexual photographs and films of an ex-partner with an intent to cause distress, among two other charges, she felt awash with relief. Finally, someone was being held accountable for a heinous act thousands of other women have been forced to endure.
Bear has now been sentenced to 21 months in prison.
While she had not heard from her ex since he uploaded her nudes, Francesca admits she still scrolls through the web to make sure the pictures haven’t been archived in some dark corner of the internet.
‘This case will show revenge porn can be life changing,’ she says. ‘It’s awful for [Bear’s] victim, but I’m hoping some good will come out of this.
‘If people see that he’s been justly punished by the courts, it’s an example that this is not an OK way to behave and that sharing nudes and videos is not only deeply hurtful, but illegal.’
Stephen Bear’s prison sentence marked a definite end to a nearly decade-long flirtation with fame, becoming a regular on the reality TV circuit thanks to his controversial conduct on numerous programmes.
Having first forayed onto reality TV in 2011’s Shipwrecked, Stephen’s stints as Ex on the Beach’s resident love rat saw him catapulted into the Celebrity Big Brother house in 2016. He exhibited unpleasant behaviour throughout the series; as well as deliberately irritating his housemates, he flagrantly cheated on his then-girlfriend with glamour model Chloe Khan, with the pair engaging in steamy embraces all over the Borehamwood bungalow.
Despite the controversy (or maybe, because of it) Bear won CBB. His ‘best bits’ video is still on the Big Brother YouTube channel, racking up nearly a million views.
His time on the show earned Bear yet more exposure – a stint on Celebs Go Dating, where he regularly ditched dates, played one woman’s breasts like bongo drums, and grabbed and kissed women without consent – soon followed. He even wrote a book piggybacking off his success; Bear’s Necessities, a tome that tells readers ‘how to wind people up’ and become ‘a reality TV sensation’ retailed for £15 in 2017.
His tainted star only began to wane when he split with reality star girlfriend Charlotte Crosby and started making pornographic videos, losing a great deal of his more mainstream appeal.
Bear’s behaviour may read more like a rap sheet now, but he was hardly the first reality TV star who revelled in debauchery, encouraged and enjoyed by producers who should have known better.
And the trope of the ‘bad boy’ or ‘cheeky chappy’ has been firmly embedded in the genre since it became more popular in the early 00s.
From The Hills’ walking red flag Spencer Pratt leaving then-girlfriend Heidi Montag on the side of the road, to Made in Chelsea’s Spencer Matthews’ repeated cheating, even telling ex Louise Thompson ‘How can I be expected to respect you when you allow me to cheat on you?’, deplorable behaviour in relationships has long pedalled as entertainment.
Controversial characters likely to cause conflicts are routinely cast. Misogynist influencer Andrew Tate initially featured on the 17th season of Big Brother, before he was ejected from the house after a video of him whipping a woman with a belt was made public. It has since been claimed the video was consensual.
It’s important to note a distinction between morally repugnant behaviour and a criminal conviction – not every reality TV ‘bad boy’ will go on to become a sex offender like Stephen Bear has. However, his continued poor treatment of people (usually women) on a public platform with no visible repercussions may have served as a contributing factor to the escalation of his behaviour. Bear acted as if he was untouchable – the fawning world of fame only encouraged this.
Perpetrators’ are often portrayed endearingly, with no consequences for their actions: both Spencer Pratt and Spencer Matthews still regularly feature on television, their previous indiscretions either revelled in (Pratt) or forgiven (Matthews). In a recent interview, Matthews has since admitted he’s ‘embarrassed’ by his past actions.
Integrative psychotherapist Liz Ritchie explains the artificial environments that are structured for reality series tend to encourage more extreme behaviours from participants.
‘People in these settings are aware to some extent that they are expected to perform,’ she explains. ‘We need to think of all reality series effectively as social experiments.
‘When participants are placed in certain situations, they’re not behaving as they may typically in the real world, they’re responding to what they think is required of them in that situation.
‘Ultimately, these people are all competing for a prize – be it a cash prize, or more social status – and they behave in ways that they think will help them achieve that goal.’
Reality shows that focus on and around relationships are the ones that often see more worrying behaviours on screen.
In more recent years, it is reality TV goliath Love Island that has come under the most scrutiny. Season eight attracted over 3,000 complaints for Luca Bish’s controlling behaviour towards partner Gemma Owen, where he demanded she ‘behave’ and accused her of being interested in her ex. Despite the controversy, Luca and Gemma still came second on their series – they split four months later.
It should be noted that Ofcom chose not to investigate Luca’s behaviour. Explaining their decision, a spokesperson for the watchdog said: ‘In our view, negative behaviour in the villa was not shown in a positive light.
‘Viewers saw other islanders condemning the behaviour and offering advice and support, as well as scenes where apologies were made.
‘We also took into account that the format of this reality show is well established and viewers would expect to see the highs and lows as couples’ relationships are tested.’
According to Teresa Parker, the head of Media Relations and Communications for Women’s Aid, just airing these sorts of scenes can have a significant impact: ‘The mainstreaming of unhealthy behaviour in relationships is incredibly damaging. Especially for young people who are forming their first relationships, and looking for cues on what it is acceptable.’
The complaints may be partly why Love Island execs are providing extensive training to its latest cohort to recognise controlling patterns in relationships alongside their already comprehensive aftercare package.
A representative for ITV told Metro.co.uk: ‘Ahead of entering the villa, Islanders will also receive guidance and training around mutually respectful behaviour in relationships. Participants will be offered resource links to read up on, in advance of meeting their fellow Islanders, to help them identify negative behaviours in relationships and understand the behaviour patterns associated with controlling and coercive behaviour.
‘Prior to appearing on the show, prospective Islanders will also watch a video fronted by the show’s Executive Producer and Head of Welfare, interviewing former Islanders about their experiences on the show. This includes details on the two week period before they enter the villa, how to cope being filmed 24/7, the interaction they will have with producers in the villa, the support provided to family members, dealing with social media trolling, and adapting to life away from the show.’
However, some may argue Love Island format itself deliberately provokes poor behaviours. Despite widespread condemnation for his ‘gaslighting’ in season four, where he convinced then partner Rosie Williams she was ‘overreacting’, Adam Collard was invited back to the show last year. The return was heavily criticised by welfare charities, who felt Adam was almost being rewarded for his poor behaviour.
When men on screen are misogynistic and it is seen as being acceptable or funny, it validates and encourages similar behaviour off-screen
It can’t be denied that, like watching a car crash, seeing explosive arguments and high-stakes drama makes for compelling television. However, Teresa argues seeing men being rewarded for problematic actions can contribute to more impressionable viewers absorbing these poor behaviours.
‘When men on screen are misogynistic and it is seen as being acceptable or funny, it validates and encourages similar behaviour off-screen. Scenes are not just on the TV, but are being commented on through social media – with memes being created and TikTok posts going up almost instantly.’
Reality TV has always been a wry observation of human behaviours when under pressure.
The initial shock of seeing people act against expected social norms is what makes these format such addictive viewing, Liz explains.
‘In the first series of Big Brother, the country was up in arms when Nasty Nick was caught out cheating, because it was against the expected behaviour of fair play,’ she says.
However, Liz adds the stratospheric popularity of reality TV in recent years has resulted in stakes being raised, meaning more controversial behaviour is needed to keep pulling viewers in.
Adam Miller, Metro’s TV editor, argues that reality shows need these more contentious moments in order to prompt the social buzz essential for making the programmes successful.
‘What is a show like Love Island without its controversy?’ he says. ‘Reality shows always need people you root for, but then they also need to have its villains to keep it compelling.’
Adam adds that reality TV should not be entirely lambasted in the discourse around toxicity – these shows have a vital role in showing its audiences what behaviour is acceptable and what people shouldn’t have to put up with.
‘Reality TV can be a good lesson,’ he adds. ‘Seeing people in these situations on the TV can contribute to wider conversations; audiences may recognise elements of a problematic situation on a show, and maybe draw parallels about an abusive situation in their own life.’
Love Island’s creative director Mike Spencer also argues using a term like ‘toxic masculinity’ diminishes the seriousness of genuinely abusive relationships.
Reality TV can be a good lesson. Seeing troubling behaviour can contribute to wider conversations
‘We showcase real relationships and real people, which is why the show is relatable,’ he told Deadline last year. ‘There are ups and downs in every relationship. We care for our Islanders and make sure they are protected. I wouldn’t want to bandy about a term like toxic masculinity, which is so serious when globally there are people going through very extreme things in their relationships.’
However, Teresa argues: ‘While the awareness raising side of talking about negative behaviours playing out on screen has encouraged important conversations, we have to remember there are real women at the heart of these stories.
‘Additionally, we know from speaking to survivors of domestic abuse, seeing abusive behaviours on screen can bring back their own trauma, and the normalisation of such behaviour can be incredibly hard to watch.’
Ultimately, the line is drawn with the producers in how they chose to depict and shape narratives on screen, with care urgently needed to be taken to ensure all participants are protected.
‘It’s clear that some behaviour we see on screen needs to be called out,’ Adam explains. ‘But then I do worry about what sort of hate and backlash they are going to be coming out to. I find that really uncomfortable, as participants are thrown into unique environments where I will never be in. I do find it quite hard for us to throw so much venom at these people.’
The Love Island fanbase is known for being particularly vitriolic online, with trolling rife during the show. New Islanders for the 2023 series have been barred from having friends and family members run their social media accounts while they’re in the villa to curb abuse.
Instead of relying on social media to call out and punish toxic behaviours, Adam argues that shows should more clearly signpost when situations are deemed unacceptable.
‘With vintage Big Brother, contestants were called to the Diary Room to be reprimanded,’ he says. ‘We don’t tend to see producers intervene on shows like Love Island or scripted reality.
‘We can’t expect social media to police reality TV, particularly when that format can be so toxic in and of itself.’
As someone who has been subjected to damaging misogyny, Francesca believes that provocative reality stars should not have their poor behaviour rewarded with more airtime.
‘I think a lot comes down to casting,’ she explains. ‘We need to properly vet these individuals to ensure individuals, no matter how “entertaining” their viewing is, aren’t given publicity in the first place.
‘A lot of reality stars go on to more programmes, so if they’ve displayed disagreeable behaviour on their initial show, they shouldn’t be allowed the future opportunities to build their platform.’
Audiences are also no longer so naïve to the mechanisms of reality TV. The impact of MeToo and BeKind have resulted in viewers quick to urge producers to act in situations that may be causing distress.
‘These conversations around mental health and participants’ wellbeing on reality shows weren’t being had 10 years ago,’ Adam explains. ‘I don’t think we’d see a character like Stephen Bear on a reality show again. I think generally, we don’t want to see more inflammatory and harmful characters on screen.
‘We’re a bit more aware of how detrimental giving them such a platform can be.’
But while reality TV needs to ensure with certainty it is no longer elevating problematic characters, the hugely influential genre can still have an important part to play in fighting toxic attitudes.
‘TV companies and regulatory bodies such as Ofcom can engage with, so that they have understanding, training and policies around violence against women and misogyny,’ Teresa explains.
‘This needs to be at every level, so when thinking about who will be part of the shows – how are you vetting contestants? In terms of content, what is acceptable behaviour? Is there support available, and what happens if someone displays unacceptable behaviour?
‘Everyone has an important role to play in making abuse intolerable, TV makers included, and recognise the good that raising awareness and starting important conversations can make.’
Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing [email protected]
Share your views in the comments below.
Source: Read Full Article