In recent days, a foreign national has been accused of secretly recording intimate encounters with Ghanaian women and distributing the footage online, allegedly profiting from it through social media platforms and subscription channels. The videos, which have spread widely, have sparked outrage, debate, and extensive commentary across Ghana’s digital space. The core allegation is both simple and serious: if intimate interactions were recorded without full and informed consent, and if those recordings were shared or monetised without explicit agreement, then a clear violation has occurred.
That is the core of the matter!
As the story has spread, another narrative has emerged—loud, emotional, and competing with the legal and ethical questions at the heart of the case. Some Ghanaian men online have voiced resentment, claiming that the women involved would never have entertained them. They argue that a Ghanaian man would have been rejected, and that these same women would have demanded money, status, or extravagant gestures before granting intimacy. The implication is pointed: the women “deserved it,” that they are transactional, and that they are hypocritical.
Let us slow this down.
Even if a woman rejects ten Ghanaian men and accepts one foreigner, that is her right. Attraction is not a national duty. Intimacy is not a democratic resource that must be evenly distributed across passports.
No woman owes access to any man.
Rejection is not social injustice.
Even if every insult directed at these women were true, it would still be irrelevant. The issue at hand is not whether they made “good choices,” but whether their right to consent has been violated. A woman’s selectiveness does not negate her rights. Her sexuality and preferences do not erase her privacy. Her confidence does not invite criminality.
When the focus shifts from the alleged violation to the women’s behaviour, society inflicts a secondary harm—and becomes complicit in the crime. Indeed, why are people circulating the women’s pictures and intimate videos? Do they realise this constitutes a global crime, punishable under Ghanaian law as well?
There is something revealing about the anger surfacing in comment sections on social media platforms. It is less about exploitation and more about wounded pride.
“If it were me, she would have rejected me.”
But rejection is not a crime. Desire is not entitlement. Being Ghanaian does not grant automatic romantic access. Being foreign does not guarantee instant suspicion.
Bitterness is not a sound filter for an object analysis.
Then there are the moral verdicts. Some married women, some religious voices, some cultural commentators, declaring that this is what happens when women behave in a certain way.
No.
You may disapprove of someone’s choices. You may disagree with how they express their sexuality. You may never make the same decisions. In fact, someone’s actions might even go against societal values.
However, none of that transforms a violation into a consequence.
The law does not ask whether a woman was modest enough. It asks whether she consented.
And consent must extend beyond the moment into the medium. Beyond the room, into the recording. Beyond the interaction, into its distribution.
Consent is not a smile. It is not silent. It is not an assumption.
Consent must be informed. Explicit. Continuous. It must include agreement to being filmed. Agreement to being shared. Agreement to being monetised.
If those elements are absent, then we are not discussing scandal. We are discussing potential criminality.
Institutions in Ghana have responded. The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection has condemned exploitation and violations of dignity. The Ghana Police Service must determine the facts and apply the law.
But enforcement alone will not resolve what this moment has revealed about us, Ghanaians, as a people.
There is also another reality, which we must not ignore.
There is a global market for the sensuality of the Black woman. The African woman. Her body, her accent, her perceived exoticism. Entire digital subcultures profit from the fetishisation of Black femininity. Platforms reward content that feels intimate, unscripted and real. Where there is demand, there will always be lawful creators. And there will also be those willing to obtain content, unlawfully.
This is not an accusation against any one country or culture. It is an acknowledgement of digital reality. Illicit content travels fast. Sensational content sells. And content that appears authentic often commands even greater value. When that intersects with secrecy, asymmetry and monetisation, vulnerability increases. This does not mean that women should shrink themselves. It does not mean that they should suppress their sexuality. It does not mean that the burden shifts onto their shoulders.
It means that we must understand the ecosystem in which we are operating in. Digitalisation has transformed intimacy. A private moment can become permanent. A casual interaction can become global. A recording can outlive intention. We can no longer afford to treat conversations about sexuality, privacy and consent as taboo topics reserved for whispers.
Our silence has consequences.
When we avoid open conversations about intimacy and digital literacy, we create gaps. And those gaps are filled with misinformation, misinformed choices, shame and misogyny. That misogyny is visible now. It shows up as mockery, bitterness and moral policing. It thrives where sexuality is judged loudly, but discussed poorly.
If we want to reduce exploitation, we must strengthen systems.
We need digital literacy education that includes consent in the age of recording devices. We need honest conversations in schools and homes that treat sexuality as a human reality, not a scandal or a taboo. We need public engagement from institutions like the Cyber Security Authority. We need law enforcement that makes non-consensual recording and distribution risky for perpetrators, not for victims.
This is not about warning girls to be careful.
It is about equipping citizens to understand the terrain.
Ghana is embracing digital transformation. We celebrate innovation, connectivity and global reach. But digital progress must be matched with digital protection.
Technology is neutral. Its use is not.
Strip away the noise.
If recordings were made without explicit consent… If distribution occurred without agreement… If monetisation happened without permission…
Then a violation has occurred.
The women’s morality is not on trial. Their desirability is not on trial. Their choices are not on trial.
Consent is.
And if we cannot defend consent without attaching conditions to it, then we are not defending it at all.
A woman’s body is not a referendum on male pride. It is not a symbol of national competition. It is not content. Dignity does not depend on whether or not you approve of a woman’s choices. Consent is not content. And Ghana must decide whether it is mature enough to defend that principle, without qualification.
Source: Apiorkor Seyiram Ashong-Abbey