On today's show... Ad Standards has dismissed complaints that Sarah's Day's controversial fitness program promotion breached the code of Ethics. The self-proclaimed holistic health princess received backlash at the start of this year when she was accused of specifically marketing at people who have or are at risk of developing eating disorders.
Married at First Sight has long been linked with scandal, with TV execs desperate for the show's storylines to make the tabloids and be the subject of water cooler conversations around the country. From cheating storylines to wine throwing incidents, it's clear producers are more set on stirring up drama than playing matchmaker. The latest drama being sold to viewers is a 'nude photo scandal' involving a female contestant. But in 2022, is a naked photo of a woman really that scandalous?
Plus, on-again off-again influencer couple updates.
Married at First Sight has long been linked with scandal, with TV execs desperate for the show's storylines to make the tabloids and be the subject of water cooler conversations around the country. From cheating storylines to wine throwing incidents, it's clear producers are more set on stirring up drama than playing matchmaker. The latest drama being sold to viewers is a 'nude photo scandal' involving a female contestant. But in 2022, is a naked photo of a woman really that scandalous?
Plus, on-again off-again influencer couple updates.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hello, and welcome to Outspoken. You're dose of the hottest
influencer and pop culture news twice a week. I'm Kate Torbert,
and I'm joined by my sisters and journalists Amy and Sophie.
On today's show, Sarah's Day is in hot water over
ads complaint, Math's tone deaf nude photo scandal, and Hannah
Auvil's surprising relationship update. The first on Monday, Sarah's Day
(00:24):
gave birth to her second son, whose name is yet
to be revealed. And it was quite a special day,
March the fourteenth. It was also our birthday. And Amy,
I know that you had a bet going that Sarah's
Day's baby would be born on our birthday, and you
were correct. I was saying to Sophie, I wish that
there were betting steaks on sports. Better about this because
I said, weeks ago, I had a feeling that she
(00:46):
was going to give birth to her second child on
our birthday, so it didn't surprise me when she went
into labor on Monday.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Well, she has spent the last three days in hospital
with her newborn baby, and as you said, Kate, we
are yet to find out the name. However, it hasn't
stop people from guessing. At the moment, the current guess
is Malachi, and I feel like followers might be onto
something because they did spot his name card on his
crib and a super sleuth they zoomed up because it
(01:15):
was quite blurry, but they believe it looks like it
spells out Malachi, and I feel like they are onto
something when you also look at the origins of the name,
because it means messenger of God or my angel. And
when Sarah went into labor, she put up an Instagram
story that said she was on her way and she
put a little angel emoji, so people are assuming she
was dropping a couple of hints. When she was pregnant
(01:37):
with Fox, she did some ocean little wave emojis, and
that was in reference to his middle name, which is
of course Ocean.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And now, so when you say people we have to
give credit. These are super slouths on tattle Life who
have been all over Sarah's Day's recent birth.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
They're fantastic investigators.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
The FBI needs them well. I have been feeling quite
sorry for Sarah Curtin Fox because they were all struck
down with a flu. It's quite funny because they keep
talking about this illness that they have and how Sarah's
having to stay in her room and be away from
the nursery, and for a second I thought, shit, they've
got COVID, but Sarah did confirm that they do not
(02:13):
have COVID. It's a bad flu that seems to be
hanging around. I personally could not think of anything worse
than having to give birth with a fluey type cold
like that would be horrendous. I feel like there has
been increased interest around the birth, particularly because Sarah and
Kurt did announce during their pregnancy that sadly, the baby
does have some undisclosed health conditions, and because of that
(02:34):
undisclosed health issue, Sarah explained how she has had a
twenty four hour nurse with her that would usually be
in the special care nursery. However, because Sarah is sick,
they've given her this nurse in her room because they
want her to be able to bond with the baby
and have skin on skin. I am really wondering where
it goes from here, because Sarah on her last announcement
said she's heading home and she's actually getting ready to
(02:56):
take the photo of the baby, and I'm assuming that
would in the name announcement because this pregnancy has been
very different to her first. She's been very low key
about announcing her pregnancy first of all, and then also
the gender. So I am wondering, do you guys think
it's just going to be an Instagram post or do
you think she'll drag the name reveal out like she
did with fog Well, I heard on the Health Code
(03:18):
Daily podcast she did say that they would be doing
a whole podcast episode dedicated to revealing the name. So
I don't know if this is some kind of deal
with Spotify that maybe she's announcing it this way. I'm
assuming she's also going to do a name reveal vlog,
so maybe she's going to time it that her vlog
and her podcast come out at the same time. Well, no,
I don't. I think she'll leave the name for the
(03:38):
podcast and then do a birthvlog, I would assume, because
she explained that the room was too dark for her
vlog camera to pick up. However, her iPhone was better
at filming, so she's got everything on there. She said,
she's even got the baby coming out, but it's too
graphic to actually be allowed to put on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Now Sarah and Kurt have shared a couple of videos
of the baby on their Instagram story, but we haven't
yet seen his face, and this led to one follower
writing in a really awful message to Sarah, guessing what
the undisclosed health condition is and saying that she's too
ashamed to show the face because of this condition. It
was really appalling this message, and Sarah chose to share
(04:17):
the person's message with their name attached, and she wrote,
what is actually wrong with some people? I'm sorry, but
this is disgusting. I'm sick of people thinking that because
I have a larger follower number than the average person,
it's okay to speak to me like this. If this
is your attitude, please unfollow me, please. She did explain
that she wanted to take a proper photo of the
(04:37):
baby and reveal him when she had a nice photo
to share.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Yeah, she wants to take that proper Instagram photo, she said,
and while the baby.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And while that might seem a little bit like she
cares about the aesthetics of Instagram, You've got to think
a lot of parents do wait a couple of days
to share a nice photograph.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Well, Instagram is her business as well. So she's hardly
going to be like it's all about teasing and creating.
Let's be honest, influencers, this is a big payday for them.
As disgusting as it is in terms of Sarah sharing
that woman's name, that obviously this person is going to
receive a lot of hate. Sarah said that this person
(05:14):
is a nurse. And while I think that the message
was totally disgusting, I'm just so against people doxing people online,
particularly when they've got over a million followers. I think
in this instance that she just needs to stay off
her phone because she's obviously going to be very emotional.
As if I mean that comment would be offensive to anyone,
(05:36):
not when you consider that she's just come out of
labor and is feeling like shit with the cold, I
just think, step away from your phone. I felt the
same thing, Kate. I did think the comment was disgusting,
but I feel like you can still call comments out
like that and maybe just wipe out the person's name
because it takes away from what Sarah is saying in
the first place. Because now I feel like a lot
of people are going to focus on the fact that
(05:57):
she named in shame.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
See I completely disagree. I think that if you're happy
to put that message out there to someone and send
it in your own name, then you should have the
consequences of that person sharing the message.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
I don't know where that has a whole ramification. I mean,
what if this person we don't know what mental state
that this person is, so this person could receive all
of these death threats and messages and you know, go
do something.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Terrible like you just never know. We don't know the
mental state of the person. For instance, the new mum
who's just given birth and their hormones are all over
the place.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Two wrongs don't make her right, do they?
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Two rights at times don't make it's not necessarily right,
and she's forever pushing my intelligent intelligence. Two rights it
don't necessarily mean it's right. Two wrongs sometimes don't make
her right either.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
At standards is dismissed complaints that Sarah's Day's controversial fitness
program promotion breach the code of ethics. The self proclaimed
holistic health princess received backlash at the start of this
year when she was accused of specifically marketing to people
who have or are at risk of developing eating disorders. Now, Kate. Firstly,
let's refresh everyone's memories with a flashback to Sarah's promotion.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
To the girl who lays in bed every night and
overthinks everything she ate that day, To the girl who
forces herself to state the gym for over an hour,
to the girl who dwells in guilt if she misses
a workout.
Speaker 5 (07:30):
I was you.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
Getting myself to this point was far deeper than just
the physical. It was about changing my mindset and creating
a lifestyle, nourishing my body, listening to my body, moving
because I love my body, not because I'm trying to
fix it. So shout out to the girls who have
come full circle and can rest in balance, consistency over burnout,
(07:52):
balance over restriction, and finally listening to our bodies now.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Following this promotion, the backlash was with not only the
general public, but experts also labeling the promotion as unethical
and if you recall, eating disorder recovery coach Mia Finlay
shared an amazing sixteen minute video where she very eloquently
explained to viewers just how damaging the marketing of Sarah's
program was to vulnerable people. In the video, Mia said
(08:19):
that it seemed like the marketing was directed at people
exhibiting signs of eating disorders, or at least those with
unhealthy relationships with movement and food. Now. Following the controversy,
AD Standards received several complaints accusing Sarah of breaching Section
two point six of the aaana's Code of Ethics, which
states advertising or marketing communications shall not depict to material
(08:43):
contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety. The
complaints outlined four key areas. Firstly, that Sarah is not
a fitness professional and does not have any qualifications. Secondly,
that the advertisement targets people with behaviors consistent with someone
who is suffering from an eating disorder or exercise addiction. Thirdly,
(09:03):
that the advertisement prays on and targets vulnerable members of
the community, and lastly that the advertisers audience consists of
teenage girls.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
As part of the complaints process, Sarah was obligated to
respond to the claims, and her response was published on
the ad Standards website. This is what she said, as
I'm sure you're aware by now having a large presence
on social media, issues like this keep happening from people
who simply don't like me. I don't appreciate that girls
who evidently don't like me try to twist my words
(09:33):
and misconstrue my intentions. It's exhausting trying to make my
haters happy. Of Course, I'm more than happy to discuss
any issues with my inspiration video. However, if you listen
to the voiceover, I'm sure you can appreciate this post
was created to be inspiring, empowering, and motivating for women.
I'm happy to help in any way i can with
this case, or to get my lawyers involved if necessary. Unfortunately,
(09:57):
with a large following, you cannot make everyone happy, and
this post was purely designed and created to inspire, empower
and motivate women. As you can hear during the video,
we have said listen to your body move because you
love your body, make it a lifestyle. This is exactly
the opposite of what this complaint is insinuating. Also, I
can confirm that my main demographic is not teenage girls,
(10:18):
it's actually thirty year old women. Now, what did you
guys think about this response?
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Well, it was a really interesting response from Sarah. It's
pretty evident that she didn't get any legal help to
construct the email because it was riddle with typos, and
it kind of seemed like, you know at school, when
you'd be like, oh, these girls are being mean to me,
and this is my excuse. It's just people who are
being mean. She didn't take any responsibility for the video. Yeah,
(10:43):
it was very strange to put the criticism down to
just having haters and people don't like her, particularly because
experts like me and Finlay did weigh in on the
video and provide their expert advice and recommendations on it.
I wouldn't put that down to people being haters. I'd
put that down to people being genuinely concerned about the
message that is being put out there. And I'm so
sick of people being like, oh, no, they're just a
(11:03):
hater because they've complained. It's like, no, people actually have
a genuine complaint. It's interesting because one of the complaints
was that Sarah doesn't have any experience in the field,
and I was surprised that her response didn't include any
reference to experienced people that have helped put the program together,
because it's like, we were there, experienced people helping there.
(11:24):
Because I feel like that would be a main point
to say we have had a nutritionist onboard. We have
a qualified personal trainer. There was none of that to
rebut that comment regarding Sarah not having any professional qualifications.
She literally didn't acknowledge any of the points that were
made by the complaint. She just put it down to
(11:44):
that they're haters. That's literally all she said. And it
was quite clear that this isn't the first time she's
had to respond to a complaint like this, because it's like,
as you must be aware by now, you know, this
is just a string of harassment going on directed at me.
And I think her reference to the lawyers was rather interesting.
It almost seemed a little bit threatening, you know, oh, well,
(12:05):
I'm going to get my lawyers involved in this, you know,
an undertone there.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I also found it interesting that she referenced that her
key demographic isn't teenage girls, but it's in fact thirty
year old women. As if thirty year old women can't
succumb to the pressures of social media and eating disorders.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Is anyone actually buy that though, I would say her
audience is young twenty year old women. Well, I would
like to know what sort of receipts she had to
provide to the ad Standards board, because do you think
she provided a screenshot of a demographic, because surely she
would have to. But as I agree with you, Sophie,
how a thirty year old women not a vulnerable demographic either.
I mean a lot of women go through pregnancies in
(12:43):
their thirties, and if these women have had eating disorders before,
I feel like that would be very triggering to them
putting on weight with pregnancy. So I just think that
her response was total bullshit, and I'm still in shock
that the ad Standards Board dismissed the complaints.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
We've got to go into their decisions. So after viewing
the advertisement and considering the complaints and also Sarah's response,
the ad Standards Community Panel dismissed the case. They said
the advertisement did not contain material contrary to prevailing community
standards on health and safety, and determine it did not
breach Section two point six of the code. The panel
(13:20):
agreed that while Sarah was not a qualified professional, they
deemed that that concern was not within the provision of
the code. They also said that people making complaints could
not know the demographic of Sarah's audience, and that Sarah
had said her main demographic is women in their thirties.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
I found it interesting that the panel noted that the
women in the advertisement looked healthy and fit rather than
skinny and malnourished, and that she is shown eating healthy
food and doing various exercises. I feel like this shows
a complete misunderstanding about eating disorders in general, because you
don't have to look malnourished to be suffering. Eating disorders
are a mental health issue that you cannot always see,
(13:59):
and I just think that was absolutely disgusting and ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
The panel also concluded that the advertisement does not suggest
that following the program will cure an eating or exercise disorder,
but rather details Sarah's experience of adjusting her mindset and
building a lifestyle that was about balance and happiness instead
of the numbers on the scale. It's really disturbing that
this panel can't see how thinly veiled this dieting message
(14:25):
is under all this crap about changing your mindset. It's
quite clear with the wording that the advertisement was directed
at people who have had disordered eating, and yes, it
might not have said.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
That it was going to cure your eating disorder, but
it was definitely targeting those people with an eating disorder,
So you would assume that if those are the people
you are targeting, you're providing a solution to their problem,
which is curing but at eating disorder.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
But it also alluded that here's a space where all
of us like minded people who have experience and eating
disorder can come together and share our experiences. I'm so
confused by this ruling.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
Well, the panel also considered that most viewers would find
the advertisement to be promoting a fitness program, but would
not consider that the advertisement suggested that the program will
fix mental health issues. I wouldn't have to know who
was on this panel and how it was constructed, because
it's really interesting when you reflect on the process of
this decision, because basically anyone can make a complaint, but
(15:27):
they are judged very differently depending on what section of
the code that they fall under. So people who want
to make a complaint under Section one actually have to
pay a fee because their complaint is assessed by an
industry jury and their job is to determine complaints involving
issues of truth, accuracy, and legalities of advertising. And this
(15:48):
panel is made up of lawyers who have certified experience
and expertise in advertising as well as competitor and consumer law. However,
complaints under section two, which was the complaint made against Sarah,
are heard by a commmunity panel made up of a
body of independent members of the community. And with these complaints,
the advertiser is notified and asked to provide a response
(16:08):
and the complaint is then considered by the community panel
and anyone who's made a complaint, as well as the
person the complaint is made against, is updated on the
decision and then the case is published publicly. So it
makes me think, well, how is this community panel put together?
And I would really think moving forward, it would be
beneficial to have someone like if the complaint is around
(16:31):
eating disorders, have someone like me and Finlay on the panel,
because how are these people commenting on something that they
may not be experts in the field.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Of the thing is? Though, there is a bigger picture
to this. There needs to be better regulations in place
around the influence of fitness industry as a whole.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
So fucking judge or you want Karen fucking stickier shit.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
And I love Instagram because I can.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Say fuck you, fucking suck my cock and no one will.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Be married at first sight has long been linked with scandal,
with TV execs desperate for the show's storylines to make
the tabloids and be the subject of water cooler conversations
around the country. From cheating storylines to wine throwing incidents.
It's clear producers a more set on stirring up drama
than playing matchmaker, and the latest drama being sold to
(17:20):
viewers is a nude photo scandal involving a female contestant.
But in twenty twenty two, is a naked photo of
a woman? Really that scandalous? Firstly, Sophy, can you tell
us what happened?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Well? On Sunday night, viewers were told to buckle in
for an eventful week of Maths with the promo featuring
the words nude photo scandal now come Monday morning. The
promo was uploaded to the show's official Instagram account with
the altered caption, which read, OnlyFans photo scandal, Let's play
a clip from the promo?
Speaker 1 (17:50):
What about this photo that's circulating Toto? Are you talking
about Tonicus only, Pansy? I don't know. Otherwise, I don't
know if they think we're ought to talk about that,
aren't we?
Speaker 5 (18:07):
I'm asking you, well, I don't know. I don't aunt
lest she tell me what photo.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
What we're talking about is they're a photo of one
of the brides that's been.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
Doing their rounds.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
People bringing that aren't Oh yea, I've seen that baby.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So the photo was of a particular bride laying in
her birthday suit.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
On her tummy.
Speaker 5 (18:35):
Farmer, what's the photo? What's what's the photo?
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Now? As you can hear, the producers seem to have
caught the contestants off guard, pressuring them to comment about
the photo in question. How did you guys feel about
the way the producers were throwing contestants these questions?
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Well, it was pretty clear in Wednesday Night's episode that
a lot of them thought they weren't even allowed to
talk about the photo scandal. Tamara seemed really surprised that
the producer was even asking her about it, and they
didn't seem to even want to make it a thing.
A few of them said no comment.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Now, for the past couple of weeks, the show has
been pitting Dom and Olivia against one another. Last week
we saw Olivia criticize Dom's voice and Dom ultimately smashed
a glass. Now on Wednesday night, it all did come
to a head at the dinner party where Olivia allegedly
circulated a naked photo of Dom from a secret OnlyFans
(19:37):
page to the other contestants, and the photo was circulated
without Dom's knowledge or consent, and it is believed to
have been an act of revenge by Olivia. Olivia said
during the episode, when someone smashes a wine glass in
your face, you google them.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
So during the dinner party, Cody, who was married to Selena,
he brought up the photos and he did it in
the most untapped He was heavily criticized for this, so
he berated Dom, asking her if her husband, Jack knew
about her OnlyFans account and if he'd seen the photo
in question.
Speaker 5 (20:10):
Now.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Cody's questions came across as more of an accusation than
anything else, as though Dom should be ashamed of her
OnlyFans account and that Jack's opinion of her will greatly
change once he knows more about this supposed lifestyle that
she lives that's been exposed very much.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Was Dom, you have done the wrong thing, and we're
going to call you out now and embarrass you in
front of the group.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
Now.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
It was followed by a judgmental line of questioning from
the majority of other contestants, and they really did turn
on Dom over her financial choices. Now, Dom has since
explained that she was making money from OnlyFans to pay
her rent during lockdown. Now, whilst this was going on,
the so called experts behind the scenes were saying that
(20:51):
this really smelt like Olivia had a Van detta against Dom,
and they said the dinner party seemed to all be
about payback. Now, in a disturbing twist, it appears that
the producers asked Dom to take down her OnlyFans account
and allegedly convinced her that this controversial storyline would be
good for her on the show. Now, this incident did
(21:12):
cause Dom during the dinner party to walk out and
yell at the producers that she will literally get naked
right then and there so the cameras would have to
stop filming her. So she was clearly distressed by this
dinner party.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
I'm just really surprised that in twenty twenty two, we
are still seeing naked photos positioned as salacious scandals. I
thought as a society we had grown and moved past
this horrendous slut shaming and victim shaming because growing up
in the early two thousand and twenty tens, we saw
so many young female celebrities being shamed about nude photos
(21:45):
that had either been leaked by their partner or photos
that had been taken without their consent, and in these instances,
the media capitalized off the women's trauma.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yeah, that's right, okay. I remember in two thousand and
six when Lara Bingle, who's now Laura Worthing, was only
nineteen years old and she was dating football at Brendan
Favohla and he took a photo of her while she
was in the shower, and in the photo she looked
visibly distressed, and it was clear that the photo was
taken without her consent. She looked really surprised, and Brendan
(22:16):
allegedly sent that photo onto other players and it somehow
made its way into the mainstream media. And despite Lara
being a clear victim of revenge porn, A so called
expert in the field said at the time that it
was incredibly naive of celebrities like Lara to find themselves
in such compromising situations and that people in the public
eye should be very careful and aware of the fact
(22:39):
that photos taken of them in what could be an
embarrassing situation could pop up in the future.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Jeez, how rude of Lara Bingle to have been surprised
as she showered by a man that she was dating. Like,
it's so ridiculous that the onus was on Lara Bingle
not to find herself in any compromising positions. And I
do remember back in twenty fourteen disgusting slut shaming of
Jennifer Lawrence. So she was one of many victims of
(23:05):
a nude photo leak that targeted female celebrities. So photos
of her and other stars were shared online without their
consent after the perpetrator hacked into their iCloud accounts. Now,
I remember that this made me so scared to ever
upload any files to iCloud because I just thought, what
a complete invasion of privacy someone being up to see
(23:26):
like every photo that's on your phone. Now, Jennifer said
it was so unbelievably violating and that she feels like
she got gain banged by the fucking planet. Now, I
remember these photos circulating, and it's so bad because at
the time I think there was so much internalized misogyny
and misunderstanding about women's sexuality that I judged her. I
(23:49):
remember being like, oh, these photos are disgusting, And now
I look back and think how ashamed I am that
that was my response to the photos, and how absolutely
horrifying it is that she was somehow turned into the
villain in this piece.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Yeah, the mood really was at the time that it's
the women's fault for putting themselves in this situation and
trusting their partners with these photos. The blame wasn't on
the person who maliciously leak the content or the media
who used these images to literally sell more papers and
make more money through clicks. And I just still can't
believe that, in twenty twenty two, on a primetime television show,
(24:27):
we are seeing a woman's sexuality be weaponized against her
for pure entertainment, with the motive to humiliate her not
only in a room full of her peers, but to
the rest of the nation who were captivated by this show.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Yeah, the whole incident made me feel really grubby and
really sick, to be honest. I mean, I felt like
as a society we'd reached a point where women were
embracing their sexuality and progressive steps were being taken in
the perception of sex work and Only Fans, And there
is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman embracing her body
and choosing to take naked photos of herself. In this instance,
(25:03):
the image has come from OnlyFans, a platform that allows
creators to create content and willingly share images of themselves
on their own terms and charge for it. And she
was trying to earn money to live and survive, which
is a lot of these women's stories on the platform.
I mean, there are many maths contestants that, once gaining
(25:23):
a following, go on OnlyFans like Jessica Powell and make
an absolute killing offer as well.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
And that's the thing, that's what's so ironic. There is
nothing really scandalous or controversial about Dom's photo, But what
is scandalous is the way it was passed around from
one cast member to the other in order to humiliate
and shame her and ultimately seek revenge on her. And
even the way that the producers use this scandal to
(25:49):
product contestants into forcing them to make some sort of
comment about the photos and turn this into a scandalous storyline.
Is clear from day one that this was their motive
because they wanted something new they didn't just want a
cheating scandal, they wanted to take it to the next level.
But they've really read the room completely wrong.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Oh. I mean, all they've done is pitted two women
against each other and it's just so gross. I'm so
sick of the media trying to have women versus women.
It's quite clear that the producers went out of their
way to manufacture this storyline for ratings, and in my opinion,
the producers would have known before they signed Dom on
for the show that she had an OnlyFans account and
(26:27):
handed the information onto Olivia as a bit of an
ace up her sleeve. Not only is this completely unfair
to dom, but I feel like the producers have also
played a part in manipulating Olivia to do their dirty work,
because on a show like this, you actually want to
be a bit of a villain or you want storylines
surrounding you, because you know how lucrative a career is
(26:49):
on social media if people know you. I mean, look
at Jessica Powell. She turned out to be a villain,
but she is making bank on OnlyFans on her influencer career.
It's the testants that sort of float in the background
that don't really make much out.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Of it in the end, and that's a thing we
really have to question the reality of how Olivia is
being presented to us. There is just so much rhetoric
around who's the good girl, who's the bad girl, and
the women are just being turned into characters and given
roles to play because initially Olivia was the good girl
who's then turned into this mean girl's character. And it
(27:23):
is really hard to tell what is Olivia and what
is production because we all know by now that every
reality show needs a villain. We also know on reality
TV shows that people's traits and behaviors are always exaggerated
by the editing and the music, and sometimes storylines can
be completely fabricated. And this is a show where we
have so called experts who are doing psychological testing with
(27:47):
these contestants, so they literally know what buttons to push
and what traits contestants have and the sort of behaviors
that they can encourage and manipulate.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Yeah, I mean, you can only see by the way
Olivia was portrayed at the start how how easy it
is to manipulate viewers impressions of people. And I mean
many people have questioned whether Olivia. Sharing the naked image
amongst the other contestants counts as revenge porn, which it's
important to note it is a criminal act. In Australia.
Sextortion laws announced in November twenty twenty one mean ex
(28:19):
partners and strangers posting or threatening to post revenge porn
images of people without their consent could face fines of
one hundred and eleven thousand dollars or jail time. Now
these tough fines are included in Australia's Online Safety Act,
which aims to better protect victims of image based abuse.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I think it will be really interesting to see if
DOM does seek legal action over this, and whether Channel
nine is implicated in this. Now, taking a slightly different
look at this, Kate, do you think that this would
have been posed as such as scandal if it had
been one of the grooms who was on only fans
or who had a nude photo circulating.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Oh, definitely not. It would have been a little funny
storyline where they all had a bit of a laugh
and the photo got passed around and they took the
piss out of the guy and he was seen as
a bit of a playboy. Women are treated so differently
in general, but also on reality TV. As we said before,
pitting women against women is a proven storyline that people
(29:16):
just want to keep coming back and watching.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Oh my gosh, causeise what to do?
Speaker 3 (29:27):
Oh say less?
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Actually I haven't had it in or what.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
Eagle eyed followers have spotted signs that Hannah Orville and
North Melbourne footballer Cameron A. Zaha maybe back together following
their messy split. Sophie, can you tell us more so.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
If you cast your minds back to February twenty twenty one,
Hannah revealed that she and Cameron had called a quits
after dating for over a year now. Hannah took to
her Instagram story to reveal she had received a number
of dms about Cameron being spotted out and about with girls.
She wrote, for all the girl's messaging me overnight with photos, etc.
(30:02):
Myself and Cam split up a couple of days ago.
Thanks for all of your support and letting me know
just in case, etc. It's nice to see that he's
moved on so nice and quick. Now A super sleuth
has sent us in some screenshots which show the pair
may have rekindled their romance over a year after they split.
So on Wednesday, Hannah shared a photo to her Instagram
(30:24):
story of some delicious looking Japanese food at a restaurant
called Bounty of the Sun in Melbourne. Now she captured
the insta story too Good. At the exact same time,
Cameron also shared an Instagram story to his cooking page
which is called bulls cooking with the same food but
from a slightly different angle. Okay, do you think that
(30:48):
this is a bit of a soft launch and they've
purposely done this?
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Oh, I definitely think that there's some strategy behind this.
I mean, it gets people interested in their account. I'm
sure it would drive up engagement for them, and they
know that. I mean, mostly influencer couples have a lot
of crossover of followers because normally, if your favorite influencer
gets a partner, you go follow the partner and vice versa.
They've both got big public profiles. So I do think
(31:13):
it's a bit of a soft launch to kind of
test the waters see what the response is.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Yeah, that's the thing I reckon. Considering it was a
bit of a messy split, they probably want to kind
of ease their followers into it so people suddenly you know, oh,
I'm okay with the idea maybe he's changed. It's been
a year.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Well, we saw a similar incident play out with Madison
Wooley and Jonathan Sowers. So they made a public announcement
that they had broken up, and then they did the
awkward thing where it was quite clear that they were
back together and they started sort of appearing in each
other's Instagram profiles, but then they split again. So I
feel like this is testing the waters. We're not really
(31:51):
sure if we're back together or not, so we'll put
it out there a little bit. But I just see
this trend and I think it's in normal life as
well as the influencer well that with these young couples,
they usually have a period where they do get back
together and it doesn't work out. So I don't really
have big hopes for this relationship.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Now talking about Madison Woolly and Jonathan's relationship, as our
listeners will know, they did officially break up a little
while ago, and Madison has confirmed on her podcast that
she is on celebrity dating app Raya. Now, this is
actually the same app where Brittany Hockley met her ex
boyfriend Jordan Thompson, who is an Australian tennis player. Now,
one of the reasons that Madison maybe on RAYA is
(32:30):
well one probably because there's a better standard of people
on there, but also two because apparently she has been
banned from Hinge because the people at Hinge thought that
she was impersonating herself that old chestnut.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
I got banned from Hinge because I'm too famous.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
Now.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
She did say that she's not looking for a serious
relationship and she's more on the apps for fun and
she can't wait to use it when she's on holiday overseas.
She also revealed that she has been hit up for
dates by war sounds like another male influencer now if
you will cast your minds back. There were rumors floating
around that she and Mitch Third had been talking, which
(33:10):
is interesting because she has been on a lot of
brand trips with Tarlia Scaines, who is, of course Mitch
Third's X. So I feel like we'll have to sit
and watch this space because they could be a really
interesting pairing.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
M I wonder how that would go. Well. I think
that's all we've got time for today. Thank you so
much for joining us for another episode of Outspoken, and
if you did enjoy the episode. We would love it
if you could leave us a five star review, and
don't forget to jump in our Facebook community and join
in on all the conversations about Outspoken to the podcast community.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
You can also find us on Instagram and TikTok at
the handle Outspoken Underscore The Underscore Podcast
Hello, and welcome to Outspoken. You're dose of the hottest
influencer and pop culture news twice a week. I'm Kate Torbert,
and I'm joined by my sisters and journalists Amy and Sophie.
On today's show, Sarah's Day is in hot water over
ads complaint, Math's tone deaf nude photo scandal, and Hannah
Auvil's surprising relationship update. The first on Monday, Sarah's Day
(00:24):
gave birth to her second son, whose name is yet
to be revealed. And it was quite a special day,
March the fourteenth. It was also our birthday. And Amy,
I know that you had a bet going that Sarah's
Day's baby would be born on our birthday, and you
were correct. I was saying to Sophie, I wish that
there were betting steaks on sports. Better about this because
I said, weeks ago, I had a feeling that she
(00:46):
was going to give birth to her second child on
our birthday, so it didn't surprise me when she went
into labor on Monday.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Well, she has spent the last three days in hospital
with her newborn baby, and as you said, Kate, we
are yet to find out the name. However, it hasn't
stop people from guessing. At the moment, the current guess
is Malachi, and I feel like followers might be onto
something because they did spot his name card on his
crib and a super sleuth they zoomed up because it
(01:15):
was quite blurry, but they believe it looks like it
spells out Malachi, and I feel like they are onto
something when you also look at the origins of the name,
because it means messenger of God or my angel. And
when Sarah went into labor, she put up an Instagram
story that said she was on her way and she
put a little angel emoji, so people are assuming she
was dropping a couple of hints. When she was pregnant
(01:37):
with Fox, she did some ocean little wave emojis, and
that was in reference to his middle name, which is
of course Ocean.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
And now, so when you say people we have to
give credit. These are super slouths on tattle Life who
have been all over Sarah's Day's recent birth.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
They're fantastic investigators.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
The FBI needs them well. I have been feeling quite
sorry for Sarah Curtin Fox because they were all struck
down with a flu. It's quite funny because they keep
talking about this illness that they have and how Sarah's
having to stay in her room and be away from
the nursery, and for a second I thought, shit, they've
got COVID, but Sarah did confirm that they do not
(02:13):
have COVID. It's a bad flu that seems to be
hanging around. I personally could not think of anything worse
than having to give birth with a fluey type cold
like that would be horrendous. I feel like there has
been increased interest around the birth, particularly because Sarah and
Kurt did announce during their pregnancy that sadly, the baby
does have some undisclosed health conditions, and because of that
(02:34):
undisclosed health issue, Sarah explained how she has had a
twenty four hour nurse with her that would usually be
in the special care nursery. However, because Sarah is sick,
they've given her this nurse in her room because they
want her to be able to bond with the baby
and have skin on skin. I am really wondering where
it goes from here, because Sarah on her last announcement
said she's heading home and she's actually getting ready to
(02:56):
take the photo of the baby, and I'm assuming that
would in the name announcement because this pregnancy has been
very different to her first. She's been very low key
about announcing her pregnancy first of all, and then also
the gender. So I am wondering, do you guys think
it's just going to be an Instagram post or do
you think she'll drag the name reveal out like she
did with fog Well, I heard on the Health Code
(03:18):
Daily podcast she did say that they would be doing
a whole podcast episode dedicated to revealing the name. So
I don't know if this is some kind of deal
with Spotify that maybe she's announcing it this way. I'm
assuming she's also going to do a name reveal vlog,
so maybe she's going to time it that her vlog
and her podcast come out at the same time. Well, no,
I don't. I think she'll leave the name for the
(03:38):
podcast and then do a birthvlog, I would assume, because
she explained that the room was too dark for her
vlog camera to pick up. However, her iPhone was better
at filming, so she's got everything on there. She said,
she's even got the baby coming out, but it's too
graphic to actually be allowed to put on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Now Sarah and Kurt have shared a couple of videos
of the baby on their Instagram story, but we haven't
yet seen his face, and this led to one follower
writing in a really awful message to Sarah, guessing what
the undisclosed health condition is and saying that she's too
ashamed to show the face because of this condition. It
was really appalling this message, and Sarah chose to share
(04:17):
the person's message with their name attached, and she wrote,
what is actually wrong with some people? I'm sorry, but
this is disgusting. I'm sick of people thinking that because
I have a larger follower number than the average person,
it's okay to speak to me like this. If this
is your attitude, please unfollow me, please. She did explain
that she wanted to take a proper photo of the
(04:37):
baby and reveal him when she had a nice photo
to share.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Yeah, she wants to take that proper Instagram photo, she said,
and while the baby.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And while that might seem a little bit like she
cares about the aesthetics of Instagram, You've got to think
a lot of parents do wait a couple of days
to share a nice photograph.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Well, Instagram is her business as well. So she's hardly
going to be like it's all about teasing and creating.
Let's be honest, influencers, this is a big payday for them.
As disgusting as it is in terms of Sarah sharing
that woman's name, that obviously this person is going to
receive a lot of hate. Sarah said that this person
(05:14):
is a nurse. And while I think that the message
was totally disgusting, I'm just so against people doxing people online,
particularly when they've got over a million followers. I think
in this instance that she just needs to stay off
her phone because she's obviously going to be very emotional.
As if I mean that comment would be offensive to anyone,
(05:36):
not when you consider that she's just come out of
labor and is feeling like shit with the cold, I
just think, step away from your phone. I felt the
same thing, Kate. I did think the comment was disgusting,
but I feel like you can still call comments out
like that and maybe just wipe out the person's name
because it takes away from what Sarah is saying in
the first place. Because now I feel like a lot
of people are going to focus on the fact that
(05:57):
she named in shame.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
See I completely disagree. I think that if you're happy
to put that message out there to someone and send
it in your own name, then you should have the
consequences of that person sharing the message.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
I don't know where that has a whole ramification. I mean,
what if this person we don't know what mental state
that this person is, so this person could receive all
of these death threats and messages and you know, go
do something.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Terrible like you just never know. We don't know the
mental state of the person. For instance, the new mum
who's just given birth and their hormones are all over
the place.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Two wrongs don't make her right, do they?
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Two rights at times don't make it's not necessarily right,
and she's forever pushing my intelligent intelligence. Two rights it
don't necessarily mean it's right. Two wrongs sometimes don't make
her right either.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
At standards is dismissed complaints that Sarah's Day's controversial fitness
program promotion breach the code of ethics. The self proclaimed
holistic health princess received backlash at the start of this
year when she was accused of specifically marketing to people
who have or are at risk of developing eating disorders. Now, Kate. Firstly,
let's refresh everyone's memories with a flashback to Sarah's promotion.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
To the girl who lays in bed every night and
overthinks everything she ate that day, To the girl who
forces herself to state the gym for over an hour,
to the girl who dwells in guilt if she misses
a workout.
Speaker 5 (07:30):
I was you.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
Getting myself to this point was far deeper than just
the physical. It was about changing my mindset and creating
a lifestyle, nourishing my body, listening to my body, moving
because I love my body, not because I'm trying to
fix it. So shout out to the girls who have
come full circle and can rest in balance, consistency over burnout,
(07:52):
balance over restriction, and finally listening to our bodies now.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Following this promotion, the backlash was with not only the
general public, but experts also labeling the promotion as unethical
and if you recall, eating disorder recovery coach Mia Finlay
shared an amazing sixteen minute video where she very eloquently
explained to viewers just how damaging the marketing of Sarah's
program was to vulnerable people. In the video, Mia said
(08:19):
that it seemed like the marketing was directed at people
exhibiting signs of eating disorders, or at least those with
unhealthy relationships with movement and food. Now. Following the controversy,
AD Standards received several complaints accusing Sarah of breaching Section
two point six of the aaana's Code of Ethics, which
states advertising or marketing communications shall not depict to material
(08:43):
contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety. The
complaints outlined four key areas. Firstly, that Sarah is not
a fitness professional and does not have any qualifications. Secondly,
that the advertisement targets people with behaviors consistent with someone
who is suffering from an eating disorder or exercise addiction. Thirdly,
(09:03):
that the advertisement prays on and targets vulnerable members of
the community, and lastly that the advertisers audience consists of
teenage girls.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
As part of the complaints process, Sarah was obligated to
respond to the claims, and her response was published on
the ad Standards website. This is what she said, as
I'm sure you're aware by now having a large presence
on social media, issues like this keep happening from people
who simply don't like me. I don't appreciate that girls
who evidently don't like me try to twist my words
(09:33):
and misconstrue my intentions. It's exhausting trying to make my
haters happy. Of Course, I'm more than happy to discuss
any issues with my inspiration video. However, if you listen
to the voiceover, I'm sure you can appreciate this post
was created to be inspiring, empowering, and motivating for women.
I'm happy to help in any way i can with
this case, or to get my lawyers involved if necessary. Unfortunately,
(09:57):
with a large following, you cannot make everyone happy, and
this post was purely designed and created to inspire, empower
and motivate women. As you can hear during the video,
we have said listen to your body move because you
love your body, make it a lifestyle. This is exactly
the opposite of what this complaint is insinuating. Also, I
can confirm that my main demographic is not teenage girls,
(10:18):
it's actually thirty year old women. Now, what did you
guys think about this response?
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Well, it was a really interesting response from Sarah. It's
pretty evident that she didn't get any legal help to
construct the email because it was riddle with typos, and
it kind of seemed like, you know at school, when
you'd be like, oh, these girls are being mean to me,
and this is my excuse. It's just people who are
being mean. She didn't take any responsibility for the video. Yeah,
(10:43):
it was very strange to put the criticism down to
just having haters and people don't like her, particularly because
experts like me and Finlay did weigh in on the
video and provide their expert advice and recommendations on it.
I wouldn't put that down to people being haters. I'd
put that down to people being genuinely concerned about the
message that is being put out there. And I'm so
sick of people being like, oh, no, they're just a
(11:03):
hater because they've complained. It's like, no, people actually have
a genuine complaint. It's interesting because one of the complaints
was that Sarah doesn't have any experience in the field,
and I was surprised that her response didn't include any
reference to experienced people that have helped put the program together,
because it's like, we were there, experienced people helping there.
(11:24):
Because I feel like that would be a main point
to say we have had a nutritionist onboard. We have
a qualified personal trainer. There was none of that to
rebut that comment regarding Sarah not having any professional qualifications.
She literally didn't acknowledge any of the points that were
made by the complaint. She just put it down to
(11:44):
that they're haters. That's literally all she said. And it
was quite clear that this isn't the first time she's
had to respond to a complaint like this, because it's like,
as you must be aware by now, you know, this
is just a string of harassment going on directed at me.
And I think her reference to the lawyers was rather interesting.
It almost seemed a little bit threatening, you know, oh, well,
(12:05):
I'm going to get my lawyers involved in this, you know,
an undertone there.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I also found it interesting that she referenced that her
key demographic isn't teenage girls, but it's in fact thirty
year old women. As if thirty year old women can't
succumb to the pressures of social media and eating disorders.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Is anyone actually buy that though, I would say her
audience is young twenty year old women. Well, I would
like to know what sort of receipts she had to
provide to the ad Standards board, because do you think
she provided a screenshot of a demographic, because surely she
would have to. But as I agree with you, Sophie,
how a thirty year old women not a vulnerable demographic either.
I mean a lot of women go through pregnancies in
(12:43):
their thirties, and if these women have had eating disorders before,
I feel like that would be very triggering to them
putting on weight with pregnancy. So I just think that
her response was total bullshit, and I'm still in shock
that the ad Standards Board dismissed the complaints.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
We've got to go into their decisions. So after viewing
the advertisement and considering the complaints and also Sarah's response,
the ad Standards Community Panel dismissed the case. They said
the advertisement did not contain material contrary to prevailing community
standards on health and safety, and determine it did not
breach Section two point six of the code. The panel
(13:20):
agreed that while Sarah was not a qualified professional, they
deemed that that concern was not within the provision of
the code. They also said that people making complaints could
not know the demographic of Sarah's audience, and that Sarah
had said her main demographic is women in their thirties.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
I found it interesting that the panel noted that the
women in the advertisement looked healthy and fit rather than
skinny and malnourished, and that she is shown eating healthy
food and doing various exercises. I feel like this shows
a complete misunderstanding about eating disorders in general, because you
don't have to look malnourished to be suffering. Eating disorders
are a mental health issue that you cannot always see,
(13:59):
and I just think that was absolutely disgusting and ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
The panel also concluded that the advertisement does not suggest
that following the program will cure an eating or exercise disorder,
but rather details Sarah's experience of adjusting her mindset and
building a lifestyle that was about balance and happiness instead
of the numbers on the scale. It's really disturbing that
this panel can't see how thinly veiled this dieting message
(14:25):
is under all this crap about changing your mindset. It's
quite clear with the wording that the advertisement was directed
at people who have had disordered eating, and yes, it
might not have said.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
That it was going to cure your eating disorder, but
it was definitely targeting those people with an eating disorder,
So you would assume that if those are the people
you are targeting, you're providing a solution to their problem,
which is curing but at eating disorder.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
But it also alluded that here's a space where all
of us like minded people who have experience and eating
disorder can come together and share our experiences. I'm so
confused by this ruling.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
Well, the panel also considered that most viewers would find
the advertisement to be promoting a fitness program, but would
not consider that the advertisement suggested that the program will
fix mental health issues. I wouldn't have to know who
was on this panel and how it was constructed, because
it's really interesting when you reflect on the process of
this decision, because basically anyone can make a complaint, but
(15:27):
they are judged very differently depending on what section of
the code that they fall under. So people who want
to make a complaint under Section one actually have to
pay a fee because their complaint is assessed by an
industry jury and their job is to determine complaints involving
issues of truth, accuracy, and legalities of advertising. And this
(15:48):
panel is made up of lawyers who have certified experience
and expertise in advertising as well as competitor and consumer law. However,
complaints under section two, which was the complaint made against Sarah,
are heard by a commmunity panel made up of a
body of independent members of the community. And with these complaints,
the advertiser is notified and asked to provide a response
(16:08):
and the complaint is then considered by the community panel
and anyone who's made a complaint, as well as the
person the complaint is made against, is updated on the
decision and then the case is published publicly. So it
makes me think, well, how is this community panel put together?
And I would really think moving forward, it would be
beneficial to have someone like if the complaint is around
(16:31):
eating disorders, have someone like me and Finlay on the panel,
because how are these people commenting on something that they
may not be experts in the field.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Of the thing is? Though, there is a bigger picture
to this. There needs to be better regulations in place
around the influence of fitness industry as a whole.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
So fucking judge or you want Karen fucking stickier shit.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
And I love Instagram because I can.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Say fuck you, fucking suck my cock and no one will.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Be married at first sight has long been linked with scandal,
with TV execs desperate for the show's storylines to make
the tabloids and be the subject of water cooler conversations
around the country. From cheating storylines to wine throwing incidents.
It's clear producers a more set on stirring up drama
than playing matchmaker, and the latest drama being sold to
(17:20):
viewers is a nude photo scandal involving a female contestant.
But in twenty twenty two, is a naked photo of
a woman? Really that scandalous? Firstly, Sophy, can you tell
us what happened?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Well? On Sunday night, viewers were told to buckle in
for an eventful week of Maths with the promo featuring
the words nude photo scandal now come Monday morning. The
promo was uploaded to the show's official Instagram account with
the altered caption, which read, OnlyFans photo scandal, Let's play
a clip from the promo?
Speaker 1 (17:50):
What about this photo that's circulating Toto? Are you talking
about Tonicus only, Pansy? I don't know. Otherwise, I don't
know if they think we're ought to talk about that,
aren't we?
Speaker 5 (18:07):
I'm asking you, well, I don't know. I don't aunt
lest she tell me what photo.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
What we're talking about is they're a photo of one
of the brides that's been.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
Doing their rounds.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
People bringing that aren't Oh yea, I've seen that baby.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
So the photo was of a particular bride laying in
her birthday suit.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
On her tummy.
Speaker 5 (18:35):
Farmer, what's the photo? What's what's the photo?
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Now? As you can hear, the producers seem to have
caught the contestants off guard, pressuring them to comment about
the photo in question. How did you guys feel about
the way the producers were throwing contestants these questions?
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Well, it was pretty clear in Wednesday Night's episode that
a lot of them thought they weren't even allowed to
talk about the photo scandal. Tamara seemed really surprised that
the producer was even asking her about it, and they
didn't seem to even want to make it a thing.
A few of them said no comment.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Now, for the past couple of weeks, the show has
been pitting Dom and Olivia against one another. Last week
we saw Olivia criticize Dom's voice and Dom ultimately smashed
a glass. Now on Wednesday night, it all did come
to a head at the dinner party where Olivia allegedly
circulated a naked photo of Dom from a secret OnlyFans
(19:37):
page to the other contestants, and the photo was circulated
without Dom's knowledge or consent, and it is believed to
have been an act of revenge by Olivia. Olivia said
during the episode, when someone smashes a wine glass in
your face, you google them.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
So during the dinner party, Cody, who was married to Selena,
he brought up the photos and he did it in
the most untapped He was heavily criticized for this, so
he berated Dom, asking her if her husband, Jack knew
about her OnlyFans account and if he'd seen the photo
in question.
Speaker 5 (20:10):
Now.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Cody's questions came across as more of an accusation than
anything else, as though Dom should be ashamed of her
OnlyFans account and that Jack's opinion of her will greatly
change once he knows more about this supposed lifestyle that
she lives that's been exposed very much.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Was Dom, you have done the wrong thing, and we're
going to call you out now and embarrass you in
front of the group.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
Now.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
It was followed by a judgmental line of questioning from
the majority of other contestants, and they really did turn
on Dom over her financial choices. Now, Dom has since
explained that she was making money from OnlyFans to pay
her rent during lockdown. Now, whilst this was going on,
the so called experts behind the scenes were saying that
(20:51):
this really smelt like Olivia had a Van detta against Dom,
and they said the dinner party seemed to all be
about payback. Now, in a disturbing twist, it appears that
the producers asked Dom to take down her OnlyFans account
and allegedly convinced her that this controversial storyline would be
good for her on the show. Now, this incident did
(21:12):
cause Dom during the dinner party to walk out and
yell at the producers that she will literally get naked
right then and there so the cameras would have to
stop filming her. So she was clearly distressed by this
dinner party.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
I'm just really surprised that in twenty twenty two, we
are still seeing naked photos positioned as salacious scandals. I
thought as a society we had grown and moved past
this horrendous slut shaming and victim shaming because growing up
in the early two thousand and twenty tens, we saw
so many young female celebrities being shamed about nude photos
(21:45):
that had either been leaked by their partner or photos
that had been taken without their consent, and in these instances,
the media capitalized off the women's trauma.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yeah, that's right, okay. I remember in two thousand and
six when Lara Bingle, who's now Laura Worthing, was only
nineteen years old and she was dating football at Brendan
Favohla and he took a photo of her while she
was in the shower, and in the photo she looked
visibly distressed, and it was clear that the photo was
taken without her consent. She looked really surprised, and Brendan
(22:16):
allegedly sent that photo onto other players and it somehow
made its way into the mainstream media. And despite Lara
being a clear victim of revenge porn, A so called
expert in the field said at the time that it
was incredibly naive of celebrities like Lara to find themselves
in such compromising situations and that people in the public
eye should be very careful and aware of the fact
(22:39):
that photos taken of them in what could be an
embarrassing situation could pop up in the future.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Jeez, how rude of Lara Bingle to have been surprised
as she showered by a man that she was dating. Like,
it's so ridiculous that the onus was on Lara Bingle
not to find herself in any compromising positions. And I
do remember back in twenty fourteen disgusting slut shaming of
Jennifer Lawrence. So she was one of many victims of
(23:05):
a nude photo leak that targeted female celebrities. So photos
of her and other stars were shared online without their
consent after the perpetrator hacked into their iCloud accounts. Now,
I remember that this made me so scared to ever
upload any files to iCloud because I just thought, what
a complete invasion of privacy someone being up to see
(23:26):
like every photo that's on your phone. Now, Jennifer said
it was so unbelievably violating and that she feels like
she got gain banged by the fucking planet. Now, I
remember these photos circulating, and it's so bad because at
the time I think there was so much internalized misogyny
and misunderstanding about women's sexuality that I judged her. I
(23:49):
remember being like, oh, these photos are disgusting, And now
I look back and think how ashamed I am that
that was my response to the photos, and how absolutely
horrifying it is that she was somehow turned into the
villain in this piece.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Yeah, the mood really was at the time that it's
the women's fault for putting themselves in this situation and
trusting their partners with these photos. The blame wasn't on
the person who maliciously leak the content or the media
who used these images to literally sell more papers and
make more money through clicks. And I just still can't
believe that, in twenty twenty two, on a primetime television show,
(24:27):
we are seeing a woman's sexuality be weaponized against her
for pure entertainment, with the motive to humiliate her not
only in a room full of her peers, but to
the rest of the nation who were captivated by this show.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Yeah, the whole incident made me feel really grubby and
really sick, to be honest. I mean, I felt like
as a society we'd reached a point where women were
embracing their sexuality and progressive steps were being taken in
the perception of sex work and Only Fans, And there
is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman embracing her body
and choosing to take naked photos of herself. In this instance,
(25:03):
the image has come from OnlyFans, a platform that allows
creators to create content and willingly share images of themselves
on their own terms and charge for it. And she
was trying to earn money to live and survive, which
is a lot of these women's stories on the platform.
I mean, there are many maths contestants that, once gaining
(25:23):
a following, go on OnlyFans like Jessica Powell and make
an absolute killing offer as well.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
And that's the thing, that's what's so ironic. There is
nothing really scandalous or controversial about Dom's photo, But what
is scandalous is the way it was passed around from
one cast member to the other in order to humiliate
and shame her and ultimately seek revenge on her. And
even the way that the producers use this scandal to
(25:49):
product contestants into forcing them to make some sort of
comment about the photos and turn this into a scandalous storyline.
Is clear from day one that this was their motive
because they wanted something new they didn't just want a
cheating scandal, they wanted to take it to the next level.
But they've really read the room completely wrong.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Oh. I mean, all they've done is pitted two women
against each other and it's just so gross. I'm so
sick of the media trying to have women versus women.
It's quite clear that the producers went out of their
way to manufacture this storyline for ratings, and in my opinion,
the producers would have known before they signed Dom on
for the show that she had an OnlyFans account and
(26:27):
handed the information onto Olivia as a bit of an
ace up her sleeve. Not only is this completely unfair
to dom, but I feel like the producers have also
played a part in manipulating Olivia to do their dirty work,
because on a show like this, you actually want to
be a bit of a villain or you want storylines
surrounding you, because you know how lucrative a career is
(26:49):
on social media if people know you. I mean, look
at Jessica Powell. She turned out to be a villain,
but she is making bank on OnlyFans on her influencer career.
It's the testants that sort of float in the background
that don't really make much out.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Of it in the end, and that's a thing we
really have to question the reality of how Olivia is
being presented to us. There is just so much rhetoric
around who's the good girl, who's the bad girl, and
the women are just being turned into characters and given
roles to play because initially Olivia was the good girl
who's then turned into this mean girl's character. And it
(27:23):
is really hard to tell what is Olivia and what
is production because we all know by now that every
reality show needs a villain. We also know on reality
TV shows that people's traits and behaviors are always exaggerated
by the editing and the music, and sometimes storylines can
be completely fabricated. And this is a show where we
have so called experts who are doing psychological testing with
(27:47):
these contestants, so they literally know what buttons to push
and what traits contestants have and the sort of behaviors
that they can encourage and manipulate.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Yeah, I mean, you can only see by the way
Olivia was portrayed at the start how how easy it
is to manipulate viewers impressions of people. And I mean
many people have questioned whether Olivia. Sharing the naked image
amongst the other contestants counts as revenge porn, which it's
important to note it is a criminal act. In Australia.
Sextortion laws announced in November twenty twenty one mean ex
(28:19):
partners and strangers posting or threatening to post revenge porn
images of people without their consent could face fines of
one hundred and eleven thousand dollars or jail time. Now
these tough fines are included in Australia's Online Safety Act,
which aims to better protect victims of image based abuse.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I think it will be really interesting to see if
DOM does seek legal action over this, and whether Channel
nine is implicated in this. Now, taking a slightly different
look at this, Kate, do you think that this would
have been posed as such as scandal if it had
been one of the grooms who was on only fans
or who had a nude photo circulating.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Oh, definitely not. It would have been a little funny
storyline where they all had a bit of a laugh
and the photo got passed around and they took the
piss out of the guy and he was seen as
a bit of a playboy. Women are treated so differently
in general, but also on reality TV. As we said before,
pitting women against women is a proven storyline that people
(29:16):
just want to keep coming back and watching.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Oh my gosh, causeise what to do?
Speaker 3 (29:27):
Oh say less?
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Actually I haven't had it in or what.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
Eagle eyed followers have spotted signs that Hannah Orville and
North Melbourne footballer Cameron A. Zaha maybe back together following
their messy split. Sophie, can you tell us more so.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
If you cast your minds back to February twenty twenty one,
Hannah revealed that she and Cameron had called a quits
after dating for over a year now. Hannah took to
her Instagram story to reveal she had received a number
of dms about Cameron being spotted out and about with girls.
She wrote, for all the girl's messaging me overnight with photos, etc.
(30:02):
Myself and Cam split up a couple of days ago.
Thanks for all of your support and letting me know
just in case, etc. It's nice to see that he's
moved on so nice and quick. Now A super sleuth
has sent us in some screenshots which show the pair
may have rekindled their romance over a year after they split.
So on Wednesday, Hannah shared a photo to her Instagram
(30:24):
story of some delicious looking Japanese food at a restaurant
called Bounty of the Sun in Melbourne. Now she captured
the insta story too Good. At the exact same time,
Cameron also shared an Instagram story to his cooking page
which is called bulls cooking with the same food but
from a slightly different angle. Okay, do you think that
(30:48):
this is a bit of a soft launch and they've
purposely done this?
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Oh, I definitely think that there's some strategy behind this.
I mean, it gets people interested in their account. I'm
sure it would drive up engagement for them, and they
know that. I mean, mostly influencer couples have a lot
of crossover of followers because normally, if your favorite influencer
gets a partner, you go follow the partner and vice versa.
They've both got big public profiles. So I do think
(31:13):
it's a bit of a soft launch to kind of
test the waters see what the response is.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Yeah, that's the thing I reckon. Considering it was a
bit of a messy split, they probably want to kind
of ease their followers into it so people suddenly you know, oh,
I'm okay with the idea maybe he's changed. It's been
a year.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Well, we saw a similar incident play out with Madison
Wooley and Jonathan Sowers. So they made a public announcement
that they had broken up, and then they did the
awkward thing where it was quite clear that they were
back together and they started sort of appearing in each
other's Instagram profiles, but then they split again. So I
feel like this is testing the waters. We're not really
(31:51):
sure if we're back together or not, so we'll put
it out there a little bit. But I just see
this trend and I think it's in normal life as
well as the influencer well that with these young couples,
they usually have a period where they do get back
together and it doesn't work out. So I don't really
have big hopes for this relationship.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Now talking about Madison Woolly and Jonathan's relationship, as our
listeners will know, they did officially break up a little
while ago, and Madison has confirmed on her podcast that
she is on celebrity dating app Raya. Now, this is
actually the same app where Brittany Hockley met her ex
boyfriend Jordan Thompson, who is an Australian tennis player. Now,
one of the reasons that Madison maybe on RAYA is
(32:30):
well one probably because there's a better standard of people
on there, but also two because apparently she has been
banned from Hinge because the people at Hinge thought that
she was impersonating herself that old chestnut.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
I got banned from Hinge because I'm too famous.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
Now.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
She did say that she's not looking for a serious
relationship and she's more on the apps for fun and
she can't wait to use it when she's on holiday overseas.
She also revealed that she has been hit up for
dates by war sounds like another male influencer now if
you will cast your minds back. There were rumors floating
around that she and Mitch Third had been talking, which
(33:10):
is interesting because she has been on a lot of
brand trips with Tarlia Scaines, who is, of course Mitch
Third's X. So I feel like we'll have to sit
and watch this space because they could be a really
interesting pairing.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
M I wonder how that would go. Well. I think
that's all we've got time for today. Thank you so
much for joining us for another episode of Outspoken, and
if you did enjoy the episode. We would love it
if you could leave us a five star review, and
don't forget to jump in our Facebook community and join
in on all the conversations about Outspoken to the podcast community.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
You can also find us on Instagram and TikTok at
the handle Outspoken Underscore The Underscore Podcast
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.