Spice Girls’ Melanie Chisholm shares she was sexually assaulted before the group’s first live show
The assault occurred at hotel in Istanbul, Turkey back in 1997
Aux News Spice Girls
Melanie Chisholm (known as Mel-C/Sporty Spice) of the hit ‘90s girl group Spice Girls has opened up about the sexual assault she endured at the hands of a massage therapist in Istanbul, Turkey prior to the group’s first live performance in 1997. The singer wrote about her sexual assault in her new memoir, The Sporty One: My Life As A Spice Girl.
“Everything was leading towards the pinnacle of everything I’d ever wanted to do and ever wanted to be,” Chisholm shares in the newest episode of the How to Fail With Elizabeth Day podcast. She goes on to say she “buried” it at the time because she needed to focus on the Spice Girls’ performance.
“So here we were, the eve of the first ever Spice Girls show, so I treat myself to a massage in the hotel,” Chisholm continues. “And what happened to me, I kind of buried immediately, because there was other things to focus on. You know, I didn’t want to make a fuss, but also I didn’t have time to deal with it. And because I didn’t deal with it at the time, I realize that I allowed that to be buried for years and years and years.”
The story was not originally intended for the book, but after a telling dream, she made the decision to include the assault.
“When I was writing the book, it came to me in a dream, or I kind of woke up and it was in my mind. And I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, I haven’t even thought about having that in the book,’” Chisholm says. “Then, of course, I had to think, ‘Well, do I want to? Do I want to reveal this?’ And I just thought, ‘Actually, I think it’s really important for me to say it and to finally deal with it and process it.”
In the interview with novelist Day, she describes the incident as a “mild version” of sexual assault, but nonetheless, it’s something that made her feel “violated” and “vulnerable.”
“I felt embarrassed, you know, and then I felt unsure, ‘Have I got this right, what’s going on?’” Chisholm says. “I was in an environment where you take your clothes off with this professional person. So there were so many thoughts and feelings, and I just thought, you know what, I do want to talk about it, because it has affected me.”
She goes on to share the inner doubt she felt following the assault and the forces in her life which encouraged her to share her story.
“Everybody knows better than me. What if I’m wrong? I don’t want to look stupid. I don’t want to be stupid,” Chisholm says of her thoughts at the time. “As I’ve searched my soul, as I’ve got older and tried to overcome so many things in that … trust your instinct. There’s only one person on this planet who knows what is best for you, and that’s you. Who knows what is right for you? Even if it wasn’t that person’s intention, it made you feel that way. And you have to let them know.”
28 Comments
So Wha Happen?
Sounds like a possible stinky pinky.
It’s sad that the only way to get press is to talk about either sexual assault or some lame gender/culture war bullshit
“There’s only one person on this planet who knows what is best for you, and that’s you. Who knows what is right for you? Even if it wasn’t that person’s intention, it made you feel that way. And you have to let them know.”This quote is super important IMO. Sometimes things aren’t perceived the way they’ re intended. That’s not to say that the perception is invalid and that’s not to say the the intention wasn’t originally though of as “harmless’. Communicating through it and letting the “offender” know that what they did and how it was perceived might serve to teach willing individuals that sometimes their behaviors are not perceived as they had intended and that they are not appreciated.Obviously there are “degrees” of offense that cannot and should not be talked through, but not everyone operates on the same wavelength all all times so by first advocating for oneself and making one’s feelings known things might not escalate.Basically don’t be afraid to call people out for being creepy and hopefully they’ll learn not to be creepy.
White People 101
And don’t get mad if someone tells you something you did felt creepy to them.
RIGHT. If you’re not a creep but someone feels like you did something creepy then LISTEN to their perspective. LEARN. Try to accept that what you did, though seemingly innocent to you made someone else feel uncomfortable and then try to be cognizant of how you’re making others feel in the future.Sometimes it’s difficult to intuit the effects of our interactions with others, but if/when we’re being told that we made someone feel some type of way, the least we can do is acknowledge and try to modify our behaviors if they were unintentional.
100%. I’m willing to bet that the majority of people, when they say, “That’s not how I intended it” are telling the truth. But intentions versus how what you do is perceived features a very wide gap between the two. And usually, if someone tells you “Hey, that wasn’t OK and it felt weird to me” they aren’t necessarily accusing you of being a rapist or anything (assuming it’s something, as Mel said, that was “mild” in the grand scheme). They’re probably trying to just educate you on how your behavior is not OK, no matter how you meant it. And you’re lucky they’re trying to teach you privately instead of embarrass you publicly.
People on the whole should be more open to constructive criticism if it comes from a place of sincerity. We could all stand to be better and if we listened more we might get some helpful insights form those we interact with.
I think we need a new zone between “OK” and “job loss or jail”. People get defensive because they don’t want to get fired or incarcerated. I think a lot more people would listen, and change, if they didn’t feel like they’d be jailed or fired if they admitted to anything.
And don’t get mad if someone tells you something you did felt creepy to them.
100% percent true. But at the same time, doesn’t there have to be a line between being creepy, and being accused of sexual assault?
Of course. That line should be stablished by the accuser and the law.In all instances, it’s the person who has been made to feel uncomfortable that needs, initially, determine the severity of the offense. Others should be open-minded enough to listen.
If that’s your initial reaction…if THAT is what you’re worried about, you need to rethink how you act. Around women, particularly, but just in your regular life in general.
I feel like the words “sexual assault” and “massage” involve actual unwanted touching.
To me, “creepy” is something that could not be prosecuted as sexual assault, but is still unwelcome.
Off the top of my head:
* Staring down shirts beyond the involuntary, “Whoa, OK, Hi boobies. Imma look away now, but thanks” that sometimes happens.
* Staring at the hills and valleys period
* Staring at all – I’m reminded of the Superstore line, “When he looked at you, you felt like he was grabbing you.”
* Inappropriate comments. Guys, we all know what they are. And if they take it as a joke the first 100 times and not on the 101st – whether they are sick of it finally or generally fine with it, but just not up for it that day – that’s still something to stop doing.
The problem with that approach is that while all perceptions are subjective, sometimes people are simply being unreasonable.Think about, say Karens calling the cops because a black person is nearby. Or conservative people who are uncomfortable in the presence of trans folk. While we should all listen to other perspectives and try to not cause inadvertent offense, there should also be the ability to object and say “no, you’re being unreasonable.” Which does mean setting a societal standard for reasonability and then sticking to it.The main problem, imo, is that when it comes to men/women, there seems to a huge gap in what each group considers reasonable. And so I think the real solution is just to bridge the gap so we have a common standard. The further problem then is whether that means setting the universal standard to where women generally have it set, setting it to where men have it set, or compromising somewhere in the middle. In America the legal standard works the first way, using what a reasonable woman would find objectionable.A younger me would have said “obviously compromise in the middle is the fairest solution.” But I think there is a good argument to be made for just setting it at the place least likely to cause harm, i.e. at the women’s standard. But that’s complicated because the women’s standard does often feel stifling and repressive because it kinda is built on centuries of purity standards aimed solely at controlling women.I dunno. Maybe the best hope is to collectively use the women’s standard and then hope it shifts over time to align with the men’s standard. Kinda the way we used to not be able to cuss in “mixed” company (while free cussing just among the boys) but that’s mostly freed up and now it would be weird to get all huffy about someone saying shit or fuck in front of an adult woman.
“when it comes to men/women, there seems to a huge gap in what each group considers reasonable.”Why do you say that
I could be wrong, but I think the gist he is getting at is that what a lot of men consider casual harmless flirting (suggestive conversation, hand on the leg or back, going in for a first kiss), can easily be considered inappropriate to a lot of women. One problem is that men historically are made to feel that it is up to them to make the first move, and it can be hard to interpret the cues on what is appropriate with who and when, especially earlier in life. Fortunately, this dynamic is changing, but the safest way to avoid any problems, of course, is consent. ASK FIRST
Aziz Ansari
I mean he’s a creep so
This is where nuance becomes important, because to me there is a difference between person 1 telling person 2 that their behavior has made person 1 uncomfortable and it is not appreciated; versus someone taking offense at the mere existence of another person.Situation one is reasonable and addresses a behavior or action, situation 2 is bigotry.As far as a reasonable standard of behavior, why not just set a guideline that can be interpreted based on unique circumstances…something to the effect of “Try not to give people the ick, and if they tell you that you have then listen to them and try not to do it again, assuming their complaint is in good faith”.
Ok so a bigot says that a male teacher *talking* publicly about his husband makes them uncomfortable. That’s behavior, right? And to them, their complaint is entirely in good faith.The thing is, ALL of us have the capability of being unreasonable sometimes. There are things that I personally dislike and make me uncomfortable or irritated but which I recognize as not being reasonable to try to police in others right? Not like bigotry, but like loud mouth breathing, or singing Taylor Swift off-key.And I’m sure there are things that you can think off that make you icky as well but aren’t reasonable either.While most people know and abide by those limits, some feel their own comfort is too important to care about what is reasonable. And some just are wrong about what is reasonable. But it’s not right to have to cater to someone who is being unreasonable.
“But it’s not right to have to cater to someone who is being unreasonable.”I don’t disagree at all.But I suppose that’s where the parties involved then employ some form of third-party arbitration. There will always be those that argue in bad faith so tactics should be adjusted accordingly.At the root of the issue is one person being able to communicate their feelings and the other being able to acknowledge and respect those feelings…this may not be applicable to every case of conflict but for those “honest misunderstandings” it could help.
Right. What I’m trying to articulate are three things. First, that both views deserve at least an initial review.
Second, that it only works if we have a broadly universal understanding of what is reasonable in this context. Doing on a case by case adhoc basis for each person isn’t good enough. We need some general rules to say “yeah no, this just isn’t reasonable”.Third, that a major reason for this specific conflict is because although we do tend to have an understanding of what is “reasonable” it is very often split based on gender. And so we need a workable method of bridging the gulf between those two broad understandings. With the caveat that I personally think that permanently adopting the general female view sucks but also forcing most women to be uncomfortable also sucks.It’s not really a question of arguing in bad faith. It’s that if you only look at the specific people and “hear them out” then the definition changes wildly depending on who is involved. We need an independent sort of standard outside of any individual preference.
“Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?”
That’s terrible, but to be honest what’s really surprising is their first live concert was in Turkey of all places.
a “mild version” of sexual assault Does she actually unpack what that means?
“Zig-a-zig nah.”