On December 11, 2025, Laury Thilleman breaks her silence on Instagram and describes a non-consensual kiss by Ary Abittan in 2013 on the set of Les Enfants de la télé. The video, revived by the Parisian controversy of December 6–7 and words attributed to Brigitte Macron, reignites a debate. Indeed, according to images circulated online, the debate centers on consent. However, the comedian, who benefited from a dismissal in April 2024, continues his performance. This dismissal decision was confirmed on January 30, 2025.
2013, on an entertainment set: an applauded scene, a paralyzed discomfort
Television memory sometimes has the cruelty of archives: in 2013, on the set of Les Enfants de la télé on TF1, a show hosted by Arthur, Ary Abittan leans towards Laury Thilleman, then Miss France 2011 turned host. He grabs her face and kisses her. The audience laughs, the guests smile, the control room moves on. The moment is captured, broadcast, approved by the mood of the time. The young woman, however, tenses up, turns her head, and sketches a situational laugh. The body language speaks of avoidance, shock, a slight retreat to catch her breath, while the surrounding hilarity serves as implicit approval. The central word is not spoken. At the time, a word whose meaning had not yet fully taken its place is missing: consent.
In the media chronology of those years, variety shows balance the escalation of lightness. Moreover, they also manage the escalation of proximity. The gesture, then, is not dissected. The framework protects it: a show, laughter, a setting in which boldness becomes a spectacle currency. It is precisely this framework that, later, will make the return of the images so striking: what the audience encouraged yesterday shocks today.
Resurgence: when networks awaken blind spots
Networks feed a memory that does not fade. December 2025, a short sequence resurfaces on sharing feeds: the video circulates, pausing on those seconds where the young woman tries to evade. The context has changed, the grammar of consent too. The clip is no longer an archival curiosity; it becomes a document. Virality has its reasons: another nearby controversy fans the flames.
In Paris, at the Folies Bergère, a show by Ary Abittan has just been disrupted by activists from the #NousToutes collective. The day before, backstage, a First Lady whispered words that would become a scandal. Indeed, Brigitte Macron reportedly uttered an invective targeting "the activists." According to these recordings, this phrase is analyzed and repeated in a loop by those who heard it. Indeed, they consider this phrase an insult. It is also appropriated by the concerned individuals, intensifying their feelings. The debate ignites because it is not only about the vocabulary of a public figure. Indeed, it reveals a relationship to feminist struggles and a climate that opposes methods of action, fears, and defenses. Moreover, it highlights empathy and irony in this context. In this atmosphere, the archive of 2013 returns as a symptom.
Laury Thilleman’s words: breaking the silence, choosing the right words
On December 11, 2025, Laury Thilleman speaks out on Instagram. She does not portray herself as a belated heroine but as a witness to herself. She writes that shame, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness kept her silent. She notes that, "at the time, we didn’t talk about consent." And above all, she articulates this sentence that is both a statement and an ethical framework: "But I do not consent." The phrase consists of five words and corrects the image that was believed to be frozen by the laughter of 2013. She explains that this laughter was a mask and served to stay in the spotlight. It allowed her to avoid even greater embarrassment caused by a public contradiction.
Fourteen years separate the sequence and the testimony. The distance gives relief to the intimate experience. She does not claim to rewrite the event; she chooses to restore her absent will. Moreover, she decides to name what had not been named. She does, in essence, what a generation of women has learned to do since the #MeToo shockwave: restore the line of consent in scenes that media conviviality blurred. The gesture is not a criminal accusation; it is political in the primary sense, meaning public and educational.
A distinct legal case: the dismissal and its recurring misunderstanding
Legal reference (Penal Code). "The complainant retains the possibility of an appeal if new elements were to emerge."
The case that ignites on the networks intersects with another story, legal this time, but distinct: in 2021, a complaint for rape targets Ary Abittan. After investigation, a dismissal is pronounced in April 2024, then confirmed on appeal on January 30, 2025. Since then, the comedian has resumed his career. In the public space, however, the word "dismissal" carries an ambiguity that troubles the discussion. It is regularly confused with acquittal. Yet, in French law, dismissal is an investigative decision: it means that there is not enough evidence to bring the case to trial. It is not a verdict of innocence at the end of a trial.
It is important to be precise: a dismissal ends the proceedings within the framework of a judicial investigation. In contrast, acquittal is pronounced by a court of assizes at the end of a contradictory debate. Words matter because they engage the interpretation of facts and restore the judicial time to its specific logic. This logic is slow, rigorous, and limited by the evidence available at a given time. Moreover, the #NousToutes collective emphasizes the importance of this point. It reminds us of the meaning, in law and practice, of stopping a procedure. Thus, it is not about opposing the courts to civil society. However, it is crucial to avoid that semantic confusion adds turmoil to turmoil. In case of new, serious, and consistent elements, justice could be seized again, at the initiative of the prosecutor or the parties.
The Macron sequence: backstage blunder, public blaze
The 2013 archive is reborn because it intertwines with the reactions sparked early December 2025. Indeed, the phrase attributed to Brigitte Macron backstage at the Folies Bergère provoked these reactions. A corridor and smiles before the scene appear in the images. Then, a few words are captured by a camera. According to the images circulated online, the speed of sharing is impressive. The entourage of the First Lady pleads the consoling intention towards an anxious artist about returning to the stage. The activists perceive a sexist insult addressed to women. Indeed, they remind that a dismissal does not close the social discussion on sexual violence. In a few hours, the reply becomes a diverted slogan on the networks. Politics takes over, the Parliament comments, actresses, writers, activists seize it and overturn the stigma.
What is at stake here goes beyond the mood of a public figure. It is the ridge line where several issues meet. It involves support for an artist, law, and the memory of victims. Caution is required: the criminal case is closed by justice, society is not bound to silence. On both sides, it would be beneficial to replace the reflex of camps with a common grammar. This would consist of recognizing the right to peaceful protest. Moreover, it is necessary to ensure that the presumption of innocence does not become a presumption of impunity. Furthermore, it is essential to remember that the dignity of individuals is not a mere rhetorical tool. On the contrary, it should be considered an important threshold.
What the images say: the crowd, the laughter, the body
Returning to the close-up of 2013 is to measure what, in the culture of the set, has shifted. The laughter, so dense that it covers everything, is no longer enough to defuse. The hand that grabs, the mouth that insists, the head that turns away: the montage does not lie. It tells how much the social codes have long shifted the perception of acts. In 2013, the notion of a gray area between flirting and coercion does not yet fuel the great public conversation. In 2025, it is a core of the debate. This is the paradoxical utility of the resurgence: showing how culture creates its blind spots and how, gradually, it illuminates them.
Laury Thilleman says it without emphasis: she did not have the words at the moment of the gesture. She has them today. She does not cast blame; she describes. This description is enough to reconfigure the reading of the image. She removes the alibi from the laughter, restores the silence to its protective dimension, returns the "no" to its status. On the other side, Ary Abittan has not, at the time of writing, commented on the statement. The issue is less his reaction than the collective clarification that this testimony promotes.
The role of the media: angles and responsibilities
The media, by broadcasting the sequence at the time, followed the course of entertainment. They must today resist the symmetrical opposite: the temptation to overdramatize. The handling of a dismissal requires the precision of terms, the avoidance of ambiguities. The story of a non-consensual kiss on set requires listening attentively to the person concerned. Indeed, she represents the entire audience. It is not about replaying the match fifteen years later, but about learning from the discordance. Indeed, what might have been applauded yesterday can be unacceptable today. This is because the tools to name what happens have matured.
Culture of consent: learning without humiliating
The words of Laury Thilleman can become useful if they open a pedagogical path. This first requires distinguishing the cases: a testimony about a non-consensual kiss on television is not a criminal reproach targeting the 2021 case. This then requires holding together two demands: protecting the freedom of creation and ensuring that the ethics of the relationship do not fade under the pretext of spectacle. Finally, it demands just words from public officials: words that repair, not words that sting.
The culture of consent is not a permanent media tribunal. It is a social and patient discipline that learns to read signals. It teaches to accept that a smile, under the spotlights, does not equal agreement. It shifts the lines without humiliating. It refuses the logic of camps to adopt that of principles. It reminds, for example, that demanding respect for bodies and wills does not take away the right to perform. Moreover, it does not take away the right to laugh or to attend a show. It simply sets the framework in which these rights coexist.
In France, other media scenes have been reinterpreted in light of these principles since 2017. This shows a collective learning that progresses through successive adjustments.
Facing the images
The power of images is not to tell the truth, but to question what we do with them. Laury Thilleman reviewed the sequence and chose to take control of it through words. The gesture seems simple, yet it weakens two illusions: that television defuses everything with a joke, and that justice settles all social discussions. Brigitte Macron, through her unfortunate reply, highlights in a negative way: sometimes, a word burdens more than it comforts. All the more reason to refocus on what it means to consent. It is not a moral backdrop. It is the minimal requirement without which no laughter, no scene, no reply will have the right taste.