Our politicians should be the last people to sermonise on morality and standards of behaviour. The NSW government had to employ an ethics advisor to coach MPs on the standards expected of them. And wasn't it a federal minister and his charming wife who tested the strength of his office desk by engaging in coitus. Thank god he didn't perform the act during question time in the house of reps.

Politicians and morality....two words that should never appear in the same sentence.

A good, well thought-out and balanced article. The idea of banning cricket because of the antics of certain cricketers would not go down well with the community.

And who knows - perhaps the actions of the big-brother inmates may be what young people see as the norm or even expect these days. I'm sure that similar, if not more graphic scenes would have been available in the 1960's and 70's if the concept was created then.

Brilliant article...

As usual our "silly" Prime Minister (who the Aussie voting public should endeavour to get "off the air" at first opportunity) and with him most of our politicians (both sides of politics can obviously now be called conservative) have the wrong bull by the horns. It is of course far easier, and almost effortless, to get one show axed...much harder to address the society problem that it stems from. Big Brother is a fairly accurate reflection of Australian society, like it or not, it's true (in fact non-televised Australian society is, in many cases, FAR worse than anything you'll see on TV).

So peoples attitudes need to be 'adjusted'.

We need to re-educate (one of the sexes). Sounds like code to me. Definately a hidden agenda behind that one.

Have to go now, the THOUGHT POLICE are knocking at my door.

bravo, Gemma.
Exactly right.
Moralists, as always, don't care what actually occurs as long as they can pretend everything is respectable.
I believe BB reflects a section of society back to us, as they really are, and it is better we face up to the reality than pretend.
Some years ago i was in a book club with a lot of very successful, middle aged women. One week we read Helen Garner's First Stone about sexual harrassment in a uni college. As we discussed the book, it became clear that not one of the women in the room - and there were about 15 of us - not one, had never been sexually harrassed or assaulted. Some of it was unpleasant but minor, some more serious. for some of us, this was the first time we'd ever spoken of it.
They say you are only as sick as you biggest secret, so perhaps the exposure we see on BB is an indicator of growing health rather than the opposite.

Gemma,
You are female and you as female are about the only one who has it right. The males get it wrong.
Your first words are:
"The recent “alleged” sexual assault-harassment of Camilla,"
So correct. It is alleged. It is only alleged therefore there is no assault harassment of Camilla.
Another female agrees, Communication Minister Helen Coonan did not act against Big Brother or Channel 10.

Oh dear me Glen Writer,

The reason Gemma has put 'alleged' is because it is defamation to label someone as having done something (especially a criminal offence) unless it has been proved in a court of law.

If she didn't John or Ashley could sue her.

Instead of attacking Gemma why don't you just come out and say you're an apologist for the two of them and think what they did was reasonable and fun. Perhaps you'd like demonstrate how fun and reasonable it was by getting someone to stick their genitals in your face? You could post a picture of it occurring i'm sure the moderator won't mind.

What those boys did was inappropriate behaviour that was demeaning and disrespectful in the extreme. Make no mistake about that.

The first things all the commentators should have done, before opening their mouths or applying pen to paper, was to review the footage of the incident.

Had they done so before pinning their colours to the mast, they'd have realised that things played out in a way that was nothing like what the media coverage has suggested.

The two guys involved may have overstepped the mark, but only by a little. It was not an assault within the usual meaning of the word. It was also, despite Pru Goward's valiant attempts to drag the issue into her own bailiwick, nothing even vaguely resembling sexual harassment.

As a result, this event cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a social problem. One may exist, but it will require other evidence to show it.

Sylvia

Interesting points made by all. Must say I wholeheartedly agree with Gemma, but disappointed that Sylvia Else believes that "overstepping the mark, but only by a little" is OK. Overstepping the mark is not OK at all - does that mean "a little" sexual harassment is OK, or "a little" bit of stealing is OK? "A little" is still over the mark - the mark is actually there for a reason. Just because these people are parading their lives on national television does not give them the right to bend the rules of society.

If little Johnny Bonsai wants to live in the 1960's morally, industrially that's fine by me, if he wan't to try to persuade by rational arguement, that's fine by me, he can begin at his own ABC. The yank cartoons shown in the early mornings to young children with adult overtures would be a good beginning to axe.

As long as we don't upset our US masters, goodness me, what a bloody hypocrite this little bloke is.

Cootha

"overstepping the mark" is an expression. I was not saying that they only assaulted the girl a bit, or only harrassed her a bit. I do not believe they did either of those things.

Sylvia.

So, are we going to see another 'stack' of posts from the Bill Muehlenberg/Australian Family Association lobby like we saw following his 'Big Brothel'article yesterday? I hope not because that would damage OLO if it became a trend.

I somewhat agree with this article however I do not agree that the episode was a sexual assault or should be referred to as an 'alleged sexual assault'. Only a few people who were not involved have soalleged. A woman allowed 2 men to get into her bed, and a bit of horseplay followed. When one of the men attempted the 'turkey slap' the woman put a stop to the episode. While not edifying viewing or behaviour, if anything, it showed that even rather silly people who may have been intoxicated knew how to set and/or obey limits to their silly behaviour.

It was not seen on TV and if it were not for all the ill-advised commentary and over-reaction that followed it, exploited cynically for political purposes, it would not be worthy of any further attention

Sylvia

You are 100% correct there was no sexual assault and no sexual harassment. I too have seen the footage. Who's bed was Camilla in? What was her hand playing with under the sheets, who shouted out "bite it off".

Sexual assault and harassment are abhorent to me but by using BB to push agendas, unfortunately these serious issues are debased.

Crap TV is just that, lets get Bert Newton on BB that would be obscene.

Children, my dear Gemma Collins, are not born with moral values. They are inculcated into childrens heads by parents, teachers, our culture, and the role models provided by society.

Our children are being exposed to perverted concepts of adult sexuality when some of them are still struggling to comprehend why they should not pick their noses. Our TV media is giving our children conflicting concepts of right or wrong behaviour, as well as sexually exhibitionist young role models who's behaviour is so sordid that even a professional pole dancer would shun their company.

The idea that literature and filmatic creativity should not suffer from the heavy hand of censorshiop is a noble one. But his worthy idea is being exploited by greedy capitalists who are marketting youth directed programs that not only promote anti social and mysoginist concepts, they do not make the slightest pretense towards artistic merit. It is merely an excuse for young people to be exposed to cheap, tacky programs where the concept that offensive and sexualy exhibitionist behaviour is fun, is promoted by highly paid media executives who only wish to exploit them.

Well heeled artists, producers and directors are producing youth directed shows like Big Brother which are providing new and totally repulsive cultural values to children, and presenting them to children as the normal behaviour of young adults. With all the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, they emphatically proclaim, that the public to whom Australian TV culture rightfully belongs, have no right to define it's composition.

In making this claim, they are usurping the authority of parents and governments to define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to our youngest generation.

Exactly... she invited herself into his bed and basically pre-empted the whole thing. Then she proceeds to give the fella a handjob without his express verbal consent. That makes her 'as bad' as them if you follow the original specious assertion of sexual assualt.

Clearly their was no assault. She said so. l suppose the victim of an assualt doesnt know their own experience, nor thinking and society's talking heads have to intervene to tell the paw wittle fing what she really experienced.

The point of this whole episode is that the thing has been misrepresented and blown out of proportion. That is the real lesson here, namely the public's kangaroo court, lynch mob mentaility. Most havent even seen the footage. Its like rendering and opinion about an opinion of a book review without even having read the book.

This tendency speaks to a much deeper social malaise than sexual assault tand the periodic 'sky is falling' hysteria that froths and bubbles to the surface occassionally. Its scarey to think these same people get a vote and exercise it. Some folks are just lazy dolts who will not let the facts get in the way of personal, bias laden opinion.

Personally, if a couple of attractive, freshly showered 20 something females wanted to slap me with their mammaries and genitals l would be thoroughly delighted.

Prudes... unite and slap me down for such incorrect personal morality.

The wolf is coming and the sky is falling in. OOOOOh, its so scarey to be alive in this modern world. Waaaaah. Save me johnny , save me kim, protect me prue... from thy pitiful, unknowing self.

My dear Tim Brunero,
You are correct and I am correct.
We both are correct.
When you attribute someone to saying something you also say it actually did not happen but only that someone said it happened.
You shift it from fact to subjectiveness.
It is up to interpretation of what soemthone thought happened.
When you go to interpretation to avoid legal charges you also put up the premise that it also did not happen as fact.
It has to be that way Tim Brunero or the law would not be satisfied.
Sorry!

People, BB ratings were down because it is a boring show! So they set this up and let the other stations make a big fuss and now the rating are up. Same thing happened last year.
Here you are debating consent but what does a stupid program like this do to the idiot voyeurs who watch it?

(1) Dignity. Integrity. Honour. Character. Graciousness. Beauty. Freedom. Morality.
Or...
(2) Baseness. Small-mindedness. Pettiness. Shamefulness. Disgracefulness. Ignobility. Dullness. Destructiveness. Immorality.

Freedom of choice!
One path is bondage. The other is freedom.

A culture fed so much immorality, starts to think it is the norm. Until confronted by true beauty.
A few public mentors would not go astray. Time to stop excusing Channel Ten.

There is a huge difference between moral character, and moralism. The latter is picky.
For some of the posters on OLO, the difference is too subtle to apprehend. Pity

Notwithstanding the general thrust of Gemma Connell's feminist sexist argument, in some of her paragraphs, she is completely correct - but for the wrong reasons.

She writes, "It is extremely unfortunate that this terrible incident has been dealt with in a manner that treats it as a one-off occurrence, rather than being recognised as a symptomatic manifestation of the sexual attitudes held by at least a proportion of Australian young people."

Exactly! But it's written in the wrong context.

The "terrible incident" was not the one she was referring to, but rather, in reality, it was the subsequent eviction of the two young men from the show whilst no disciplinary action was taken against the young woman. This was not simply "extremely unfortunate", but was a downright travesty of justice.

The "alleged" conduct committed by the three participants in no way could be legally defined as sexual assault nor sexual harassment - go read the relevant acts. What happened was plain and simple sexual conduct between consenting adults. So why was this woman treated differently to the men, when in fact, it could even be argued she was the instigator of the events?

Inequitable treatment. Blame the man, exonerate the woman. And this demonstrates clearly what she wrote, "[it is] a symptomatic manifestation of the sexual attitudes held by at least a proportion of Australian young people" - and older Australians too.

So it beggars the question; why wasn't the woman also evicted from the show for participating in this consensual indecent performance?

It's because of derogatory gender stereotypes of men that are perpetuated by feminist activists like Gemma Connell here in this very article. And yet, she writes: "The incident should have prompted a re-assessment of Australia's sex education curricula, and a re-evaluation of efforts made by Australian governments at all levels - local, State and Federal - to ensure that derogatory gender stereotypes [of men?] do not persist with today's young people."

Gemma, if you don't like derogatory gender stereotypes - of men or women - then stop spinning them out here.

It is curious that Camilla Jumped into the guys' bed not the other way around and she started playing with one first before two were on top of her. It started with one, then the other jumped up to hold her down. This is when BB should have turned the lights on and made a noise to "stop". The two then looked like they were pinning her down and she said "no". Too late. BB was too slow off the mark.

Camilla was no angel. Bad situation. The joke was not funny.

Leading up to this, the whole evening was full of pranks to the point of revolt. They even took the BB chair from the dairy room into the backyard next to the pool, as if in protest. They laughed, but what was the joke? The whole household was rebelling against BB. BB punnished them by taking away their make-up and pillows. What was the conflict?

Then their behaviour just got worse. They regressed from maturity, after every "punishment". They were reduced to caged animals, and that is how they behaved. I doubt they were even drunk.

They do need to tidy up their regulations and house conditions to avoid such reactionary things that lead to such a nasty ourcome.

I also claim again that this is in the wrong time slot and should stop marketing children and young famililies. The stuff that goes on in that house aint Dysneyland. Too much for those too young.

If you wonna take it off the air, look at some of the filth on TV commercials after 11pm. Note how pornographic late night advertising has become. My eyes roll in boredom. I just want to watch a late movie on Jane Austen sometimes, not the entire Kharma Sutra shoved in my face. I hate being insomniac.

Are the Government talking about the dirty adverts banned? Good heavens No! They also have these on chanel 9: The masters of John Howard.

Maximus,

exeedingly well stated.

Never ceases to amaze me how ideological proponents are so thoroughly adept at shooting themselves in the foot. Perpetually casting a political constitency as victim is a mechanism of disempowerment.

Eventually, it becomes tediously obvious that the political zealots have, in truth, NO regard for those whom they claim to represent. They use their alleged cohorts in the most cynical terms imaginable, claiming to speak in their name whilst actually making things worse.

Of course, they dont actually care, contrary to their transparent assertions to the contrary. People are all fodder to their ideological pretensions, those pretensions being mere vehicles for affecting self serving agenda.

Sadly, many of them actually believe their own hype and fail to see the parody of themselves that they have become. Poor duffers.

They have no compunction in using the thing they fight against to fight the thing they are fighting against. Hypocrites.

They are politicians. The point of politics is POWER. They want to shift the balance of power. They do not want to see it evenly distributed. Equality is the sheep suit that these wolves don.

Thankfully, there is a simple way to defeat this fundamentalism (movement or point of view characterized by adherence to fundamental principles, often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.)

If you embrace their nonsense, applying their changes to an extreme degree, whilst letting everyone know they are responsible, then the eventual absurdity exposes itself. They hang themselve out to dry when people actually do wot they say.

For axample on the other Big Brother thread, someone mentioned the left-wing liberal pursuit of anti-censorship in Sweden. When that path was followed in all its extreme glory it could not escape the scornful public glare of reality.

It eventually back-fired. Those that agitated for it in the first place then agitated for its reversal and their idiotic lack of credibility was in plain view of all.

Sometimes l think politicians dont actually want change, preferring to affect its facade. They make work for themselves and justify their existence.

Gosh, thanks trade.

Those who say that censorship is wrong, that every kind of perversion is 'natural' and everyone has a right to see anything they like should realise that they will be responsible for setting the boundaries for tomorrow's world.
Will you want YOUR children to be desentitized and brainwashed into believing any thing and every kind of filth should be presented as natural?That they can live out all the crud they want and get away with it?
Or do you want your children to grow up in a world where there is decency, respect and last but not least, safety.
For todays youth the future of this country will be in your hands and your children will reap what you have sewn.

Mickijo

I cannot see anyone saying that there should be no censorship on this topic. It is a figment of your imagination used to promote your baseless argument. We have independent bodies with community input at arms length from Govt. the way it should be.

Your definition of filth may be different to mine, I find many of the actions of our leaders obscene, I find James Hardy’s executives pay rise obscene. I find Tony Abbott’s views on RU486 obscene. I am assuming that the “filth” you refer to is related to sex.

It is not the role of society to set boundaries for our children it is purely a role for parents. Open discussions about why or not something is acceptable are much better than banning it.

I find the 50% of children growing up with only one parent obscene, I find children being driven to school by over-protective mothers obscene. I find the fact that young adults can never afford a home obscene.

In fact I find your filthy post obscene.

Onya, Mickijo and Maximus.

To Steve Madden.

Yeah, mate, we have the OFLC to watch over our public morals, don't we? The only problem with that argument, is that those who work as public censors are on record as saying that they don't believe in censorship.

Former Commonwealth Chief Censor, Peter MAckay, once addressed a conference held for this countries most senior Supreme Court and Federal Court judges. He was reported as saying that there was "no imperical evidence" to support the theory that media images influenced behaviour. That must have surprised the boys at advertising firms like Mojo, Clemenger and Saatchi and Saatchi, who are part of a worldwide, trillion dollar industry which claims the exact opposite.

If you strain your ears real hard, Steve, you can probably still hear the advertising boys laughing their heads off.

Then there was computer games censor for the OFLC, Peter Mackay, who did not believe that computer games should be censored at all. Not surprisingly, he resigned his job at the OFLC and became a lobbyist for the very industry that he had been charged with censoring.

Many civil servants (and their "partners") have very liberal views on censorship and they fiercely oppose it. They lead insular lives up their ivory towers with their six figure salaries, and they apparently believe that the artistic freedoms of artists is far more important that the welfare of mere children.

One suspects that the real reason why they never consider the concerns of parents, is because their "partners" are biologically prevented from having any kids themselves.

redneck

Peter Mackay has not worked for the OFLC for over 10 years and yet you extrapolate that too mean all “public censors” don’t believe in censorship. Drawing a long bow to back your spurious argument, where did you read that gem?

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the authority responsible for the regulation of free-to-air radio and television, pay TV, digital broadcasting and Internet content in Australia. You can’t even quote the relevant body.

Your attack on “civil” servants (we use the term public, are you a POM?) insinuating they are homosexual is yet another example of the bile you vomit.

Big Brother?Voyeristic self indulgence.It is all about lowering the bar of human achievement.Cheapened sexuality means lower expectations of our human psyche,since our sexuality is also our aspirational self.

If we don't repect ourselves,we cannot respect others.You only reveal your real feelings to those whom you have forged a path of trust.Your sexuality is not a thing to be traded lightly,and Big Brother will gladly trade it for a few pieces of silver.

I agree with John Howard on this point,but not on some of his IR reforms.

The behavior of the housemates and the question of censorship in the media are two quite separate issues.Television IS subject to censorship, and BB hasn't breached the guidelines on this - although the now defunct AO version has certainly tried to push the envelope. Depicting banality and questionable behavior are not in themselves grounds for censorship. There wouldn’t be much left on TV if they were.

By all means argue for stricter boundaries about what can and can’t be depicted in different media for different audiences, but I reckon we’ve got it about right.

Our knowledge of what went on that night (including the graphic pictures) have all come through other media, not through the BB show. Arguably they stuffed up for allowing it to be webstreamed unmediated at 4 am, but that’s a whole different can of worms. If you’re keen to suppress descriptions and pictures of the incident start with the Herald Sun et al who’ve presented it in all its graphic detail while simultaneously calling for it to be excised from the public domain.

The BB phenomenon does raise some serious questions, for example the proper boundaries between public and private space and the ethics of manufactured “celebrity” (especially involving young people who clearly haven’t anticipated the ramifications of exposing themselves so publicly).

The incident itself could, if used properly, serve as a discussion point on the line between horseplay and abusive behavior, a line that many young people find confusing. BB’s action in evicting the two young men gave a very clear message on this – although they blew it the following Monday with their strainedly defensive and highly scripted “interview” designed to minimize the lads’ responsibility for their actions.

Admittedly, BB’s relentless baiting of the censorship conservatives throughout the run of the Uncut/AO show has undermined its moral authority, following a long tradition of this in Australian television from Graham Kennedy to Number 96. Unfortunately it’s got the moral conservatives in such a lather that they’re having trouble distinguishing what should be quite separate issues. Calls to “ban” BB are a consequence of this confusion.

To Steve Madden

Reading back through your previous posts, I see that you have no trouble at all prejudging and stereotyping those who wish to clean up our entertainment media as just a bunch of wowsers aided by the religious right. Yet when I do exactly the same thing, and prejudge and stereotype those people who wish to impose their sordid morality on the rest of the community as being primarily homosexuals, you put on your pious face and pretend that my premise is outrageous.

Homosexuals are noted for their very obvious presence in the entertainment and creative industries. The connection is so close, that the word “artist” was once used in the same way that the word ‘gay” is used today. It is only natural that the poofters do not want any restrictions put upon their abilities to earn a buck. The entertainment industries are fabulously wealthy industries, and the people who earn their living from it want to keep mining the gold that is keeping them in luxury. In this aim they appear to be aided by their very good friends in the OFLC, whom they defend so passionately.

The “artists” in the entertainment industries know that parents and grandparents are the most socially responsible people in OUR community, and that these people prefer entertainment that is cerebral and family oriented. The avalanche of violent, profane, and sexually explicit media which we in the community are now being daily bombarded with, is primarily created to appeal to adolescents, young teenagers and young adults, who make up the biggest slice of the entertainment industries consumers. But parents are quite rightly concerned that these programs are lowering the bar of acceptable behaviour to their children by presenting offensive and crude behaviour as being fun and normal.

MAX and others... yes.. quite well argued.

BUT....

I would go further.

The 'Cause' Gemma erroneously speaks of.. is in fact nothing more than a SYMPTOM !

Where, pray tell, do these permissive, liberal, sexual free4all,sexually objectifying women (and men if we're honest) COME FROM ?

Blind Nellie knows they come from our 'socialization' of the community.

Through:

EDUCATION.
ARTS.
LEGISLATION.

I fail to see how it helps young people to believe that the Government of this country wants them to be sexually responsible/restrained and morally positive when the ONLY state from which you can buy XXX rated pornography is ACT ! (by mail order)

Sidenote: the ACT Porn industry is whining like a spanked child at the moment because its profitability has been white-anted by Internet porn. Oh Oh..shock, horror... 3 microseconds of sustained sympathy...NOT !

VALUES FRAMEWORK

If we constantly mentally 'criminalize' the "wowsers" and moan and groan about socially conservative elements in the community, don't moan when we find ourselves smack bang in the cesspool of depravity described in Romans 1.

I recommend that ALL of us read 1 and II kings in the Old Testament.
Don't panic this not a backdoor attempt to 'convert' you, but when you see the behavior of each king, and the IMPACT on the community, it might tweak that depravity on the throne (or Parliament)=depravity in the community.

I suppose for those who are 'into male and female cult prostitution/fertility rites and burning your children in fires in worship/placation of pagan deities, they won't really enjoy such phrases as

"And King Josiah did right in the eyes of the Lord, and removed the High Places and Baals and cult prostitutes in the temple."

But if you see nothing else, I hope you see one thing, that national depravity and immorality had ONE result.

Weakness/Invasion/enslavement

Whether you see this (as the Bible does) as 'Judgement on sin' or.. just a 'bad experience', it does not change the actual outcome.

Be WARNED.

It is about time the media showed some responsibility in making programmes of substance,instead of always playing to the lowest common denominator.BB is just cheap and nasty.The selfish,indulgent attitudes portrayed by ignorant,inarticulate young people may reflect sections of our population who have been mostly moulded in the past by our media opportunists.It is far easier to appeal to our base human instincts,rather than strive for real insights into human interaction and responsibilities.This requires thinking and TV audiences have been programmed not to think.

Probably Channel 10 has been unable to find reasonable quality candidates who are willing subject themselves to this form of degradation.

Our dysfunctional society is merely being reflected in BB and it is about time the media in general stopped the trashy knee jerk solutions to relationships,adding to the victim mentality,pre-occupation with rights,impatient ill mannered people who cannot form long term relationships with anyone because they don not have the discipline or insight into the nature of their own being.

Amazing how long a bow some people will draw to bring the debate to their own pet obsessions - for example how degenerate homosexuals are hell bent on corrupting our young for their own nefarious purposes.

I reckon this demonstrates Gemma's argument in spades. We've missed a golden opportunity to look at a serious issue affecting young (and not so young) people: what, exactly, is the boundary between playful and abusive behaviour?

"what, exactly, is the boundary between playful and abusive behaviour?"

Excellent question, Snout.

Whatever anyone's feelings about BB, what started out as playful crossed the line and when Camilla quite rightly called the boys out, they immediately stopped the unwanted behaviour. End of story.

Should the boys have been evicted? Well, Channel Ten knew it would have to be seen taking action. After all whose genitals were on display?

Should Camilla have been evicted? She instigated the play and ended the play. Ergot, she took responsibility for her actions. As did the young men when they stopped their behaviour.

All in all just another storm for the oh so self righteous brigade to fume about.

For those with children it was a good opportunity to discuss what is acceptable behaviour between consenting adults and what isn't. As many posters have apparently done with their children. As they should.

For the rest of us we can choose to watch... or not.

As I said on one of the other threads I missed this furor at the time but am somewhat bemused by what I'm reading about it now.

As I understand it
- the lady in question got into bed with two guys.
- she initiated sexual contact with at least one of them - under the covers but not really hidden.
- there was no objection to the contact by the guy (and I have seen nothing to suggest that she would have had any reason to believe that such contact would be unwelcome).
- both guys then began sexual contact with her - again in context the guys probably had no reason to think such contact would be unwelcome.
- she said stop and they did
- the incident was not broadcast on TV but a blurry version did go out on the internet early in the morning
- the show seems to promote the idea that sexual activities may occur as part of their marketing

So where is the sexual harrasssment and as one of the other posters has pointed out why was the guys behavious less appropriate than the womans?

Clearly in many contexts what the guys did would be sexual harrassment but in the particular context it is something else - bad taste maybe but then my taste would not put me in the BB house.

R0bert

R0bert

I would point out that the line was crossed when one of the males held down the young woman so the other male could rub his genitals in her face.

This line was pointed out to them by the young woman as she didn't like this play and they quite rightly stopped (to their credit).

I don't know too many women who would like to be constrained by one man for the use of another. Sure there are those who are into bondage. However, even in S & M there is a stop clause.

I guess that there are posters here who don't have a problem with women being restrained for the pleasure of men. I am not one of them and nor was young Camilla.

The young men simply didn't ask for Camilla's consent before restraining her. So that is where the boys behaviour was "less appropriate". Do you understand?

Steve Maddon said that it is not the role of society to set the bounds of behaviour. You are wrong there Steve, it is society---that's us-- who set the laws and decide what is decent and not decent because the individual cannot always be trusted to act with good intent.
There are ways and means for those who like their perversions but they should never spill onto the public arena.
I can remember years ago watching performing monkeys doing tricks for bananas, only difference with BB is there is a shortage of bananas.

Scout if the restraint was genuine then I agree completely. I've not seen the incident and am trying to form a meaningfull opinion about what occurred and the role it should have in the kind of debates which seem to be springing up around it.

I doubt I know many people who would be happy to be restrained by one person so someone else could slap their face with the dangly bits either but then I doubt I know many people who would take part in BB or who would do the lead up to the incident knowing that behind the one way windows there were a bunch of people with camera's which could see in the dark.

Trying to put the reference to restraint into my world I've pictured the restraint as being similar that which might happen if two friends conspired to tickle me. I won't generally lie still to be tickled but there are contexts in play where restraint it could be appropriate. The restraint becomes serious if it does not stop when I say so.

R0bert

mickijo

Not exactly what I said if you quote my posts please do not distort my words.

I said it is not societies role to set the boundaries for children, that is the role of parents.

Meaning we have a system of laws regarding censorship that have evolved over decades, these allow what is able to be broadcast at what times and must show the classification for each program.

It is the parents role to respond to these classifications and make a judgement for thier children based on thier boundaries. This is not a role for "society" as we are all different.

With the convergence of media this becomes a more difficult issue and the only way to combat it is with frank open discussion with children explaining why it is wrong. Not hiding issues away because they are "perversions" or "filth".

Your simplistic posts show you have no comprehension of the issues involved and your solution will cause greater harm. Moron.

This article is all about sexual politics and power.

Scout makes her point. She writes - "The young men simply didn't ask for Camilla's consent before restraining her. So that is where the boys behaviour was 'less appropriate'. Do you understand?"

Feminists like Connell and Scout get outraged about that sort of thing - at that point in the consensual sexual play, Camilla, the female, lost control of events which she instigated. That outrages feminists. They can't tolerate men taking the lead. It drives them into obsession. Loss of sexual power and control in the bedroom is their worst nightmare.

But let's look at what really happened. Camilla feels a bit frisky. She engages in uninvited sexual activities. She takes the lead. She's got the control and the power. That seems okay with Connell and Scout. She then - without consent - allegedly begins to manipulate one man's penis (sexual harassment? - where was the consent? - does this enrage Connell or Scout? - no, of course it doesn't, they read past that), but then the men begin to become aroused and engage in further sex play. They begin to take control, anticipating a green light to further interaction. And that's the problem that the feminists choke on.

Camilla loses control of events. Things go ugly. Camilla, female, loses control of the sexual power game, and that enrages feminists from Connell here, to Scout and even up to no less than our very own Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward. Loss of sexual control and power.

That's what this article is really all about.

If you ask me, the parties involved in this matter all had a fairly balanced personal agenda. No one lost in the engagement and no one won. But third party feminists are outraged.

The real tragedy is that the two men were evicted form the show as some sort of perverts, which will live with them for the rest of their lives.

Maximus

Thank you for some sanity. Who first mentioned "turkey slapping" ?Camilla, who got into bed with one of the men? Camilla, who was the first person to contact anothers genitals? Camilla. From the video I can not see her being held down or restrained in any way. Who stayed in bed after the "turkey slapping" and in fact she was more vigourous in giving the hand job than she was before.

Who gets blamed everyone else but the instigator.

You are kidding, Steve Madden.

Children are not born with moral values, and the family is the primary socialization unit of any community. But children learn the boundaries of acceptable behaviour not only from their parents, but also from their peers, their teachers, their community leaders, their religious leaders, and the role models provided by society.

All of these people strive to instill into children, responsibility, respect for others, and self control, by teaching moral boundaries. Then along comes the entertainment industries which not only blurs the edges, but which actively promote anti social, irresponsible and outrageous behaviour. By the time children are adolescents, they are desperately seeking a positive adult identity, and they are not interested in what their parents are saying to them anymore. But they are very interested in the behaviour of role models like pop stars and media celebrities, because they need role models outside of their own family to teach them how to act grown up in the world outside of their families.

It is this deep, compelling need, that the entertainment industries capitalize upon handsomely. In the same way that tobacco companies deliberately targeted adolescents for their dangerous and addictive product, by selling them the idea that smoking cigarettes displayed grown up behaviour, the entertainment industries of today are doing exactly the same thing. They are becoming vice industries targeting children for products which the entertainment industries themselves know are dangerous to the development of children.

The family unit of today has never existed in it’s present form at any time in human history. Families today usually only compose two parents and a couple of kids. But the parents are often working parents and in single parent families, the mother is almost always working. Extended families, including uncles, aunts and grandparents can be separated fro their younger family members by suburbs, states and even entire continents. Never before in human history have children been more vulnerable to anti social messages from people who only want to exploit them

Phantom says” It takes a whole village to raise a child.” -old jungle saying.

If a woman instigates sexual contact, does this give the man carte blanche to do anything he likes to her?

Of course not.

This is a question that should not even have to be asked.

However, various posters to OLO have made it very clear that they believe if a woman instigates sexual contact, then anything goes; like “turkey slapping”.

Sexual contact does not give permission to a male to do anything he likes to a woman and vice versa of course.

Even without being restrained, rubbing male genitals into a woman’s face is an act that requires consent. In addition two males were involved, thus increasing a woman’s vulnerability.

In the case of BB, Camilla instigated sexual contact, the contact went further than what Camilla was comfortable with; she asked the men to stop. They did. And really that should be the end of it.

Apparently not.

There are a number of male posters here who believe that if a woman instigates sexual contact, then it is open slather – they can do anything they like to the woman, because, after all, she started it.

These same male posters would be much older than the young men on BB, therefore one would expect, more mature. Not so. The two BB males treated Camilla with far more consideration and respect than these posters. Camilla said “stop” and they complied.

And that is how it should be.

But not at OLO.

The cries of outrage against BB pale into insignificance compared to the utter lack of respect for women that far too many male posters to OLO have displayed here.

I am disappointed. Ironically, many of these same posters claim that women are already treated as equals – they have given the lie to that claim with their comments to this thread.

Redneck

You really are simple. Your denigration of male homosexuals makes me wonder about your confused sexuality, do you work on a building site because you need to be around men? Bet you like summer when the shirts come off you closet poofter.

What programs do you actually want banned? Rugby or AFL they are violent often showing blood, broken bones and gratuitous violence. A program cannot be profane, it may contain profanities like “Faaark” if this is the case it will have a language warning. Sexually explicit is again covered by our censorship laws, I assume you mean the screening of female nudity but of course you would find this repulsive given your obvious sexuality.

Nobody is saying that kids should be allowed to do what they like, this is a figment of your imagination to back an argument you already lost.

“Why TV is good for kids- raising 21st century children” is a book you may wish to read. But you will probably dismiss it as being written by homosexuals.

Your idea of families today is wrong 47% of children have 2 parents living with them, this is the reality and no amount of lamenting the past will right this obscenity. It has been shown that children as young as 3 can decide between fact and fiction and the best protection for kids is to talk to them openly on all issues, they can understand and it is this understanding that will protect them as the grow up.

My turn to out myself, I have worked for Channel 10 in both Sydney and Melbourne in fact I have worked for all the free to air television networks. I know how the networks strive to adhere to not only the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law.

Go back to your intellectual cesspit and stop commenting on issues by misrepresenting what others have said. You may get your views from comic strips but you totally miss the serious issues of child safety. You may be able to bully the boys at smoko but not me.

Thank you for your vitriol, Steve. I always know when I am winning a debate when my opponent loses his cool.

I suspected that you had a vested interesting defending the media, Steve. Now, answer just one simple question. Why does channel 10 always show “Big Brother, Uncut” at the start of every school holiday? Is it not because you know who your target audience is?

C'mon, mate, the whole world is watching. You have to answer the question, or you might as well crawl away back under your Channel 10 rock, with the rest of the lowlifes.

I put it to you, Steve, that a puerile TV show like “Big Brother” only appeals to a very narrow adult audience demographic.

And kids.

But you already know that, don’t you, mate? Your market research team has already offered advertising space to any appropriate manufacturer who wishes to promote their wares to this particular demographic on your TV show.

By the way, are you involved with the production of Big Brother yourself? If so, I can well understand why you should want to defend your bread and butter. It always amuses me when people like yourself defend their own self interest by claiming their adherence to high ideals.

You seem to be implying that TV is providing some sort of public service by exposing children to graphic sexual images. I presume that this means that you think that parents are too ignorant to understand that violent, profane and sexually explicit programs are harmless to their kids. Do you also think that advertisements for alcohol and tobacco should be included in comics and children’s magazines?

You seem very angry Steve. Is your conscience bothering you? Does it worry you that disgusting TV shows like South Park, which are obviously intended to promote delinquency, profanity, drugs and sex to a child audience, are promoted to children through toys, children’s clothing, and logos on children’s lunchboxes?

Well, it should. A lot of people on this site don’t know what you and your venal friends are up to, Steve. But you and I know better.

redneck

You really don't know what you are talking about do you. Big Brother uncut is no longer being broadcast. I have not worked in any media organisation for over 20 years but I was honest enough to let you know.

My whole point, as it has been all along, is that we cannot shield children from the world around them and need different strategies from the simpletons view of ban it.

The most disturbing show on TV for kids in the News programs, they realise this is real.

When you feel like actually debating the issues I may respond in a civilised way.

Scout, I may have missed it but I have not seen anything in the posts which support that points you make about some male posters in your most recent post.

I found a link to a clip of the incident on Sunday night, there did not appear to be any abuse, power inbalance etc in what occurred at the time.

What I saw went something like (I will be missing bits and have the words not quite right but I think I've got the gist of all the relevant stuff)
One of the guys - Camilla come here
Camilla - (Walking over to the bed with the guys in it) You're not going to fart on me are you?
Camilla - (on the bed between the two guys) You're not going to turkey slap me aren't you?
The guy who did the turkey slap - No
Camilla - (giggling) Liar, let me in.

The other guy then gives Camilla what appears to have been a one armed hug but which may have turned into a light restraint during the turkey slap - I could not tell from the clip. Other have suggested that she began to play with that guys genitals at that point - again I could not tell from the clip.
The turkey slap occurred at that point, some comments were made which I could not hear clearly and Camilla began to use her hand to masturbate the guy who had hugged her (so it appeared from her arm position and the doona movement).

No sign of a vunerable woman feeling threatened or intimidated, rather someone who took an active part in most of what occurred and appeared to enjoy the interaction. Personally I doubt that the "Liar, let me in" comment would stand up as consent but it certainly appeared that she expected to be turkey slapped and did not hop off the bed at the time or indicate that she was serious about it, rather her mannerisms seemed to indicate the opposite.

R0bert

Talking of exposing children to graphic sexual images, remember BB did not broadcast the incident in question. That honour went out last night to Today Tonight, 6.30 slot, who did so twice, just in case the kids missed the first one. Hope you were watching, Monica Attard.

I’m still not sure what side of the play/abuse line the incident actually fell. Consent, in real life, is rarely a clear verbal message – it’s a complex play of signals and responses that can be quite subtle, although withdrawing consent – “no, that’s not cool” is much clearer message, and in this case was acted on appropriately by the young men.

You’ve got to be a bit careful of mistaking a sexual act which is not to your taste for one that is intrinsically wrong. Although turkey slapping has an aggressive edge to it, in some contexts it can be an okay and fun part of sexual play. Even being restrained can be playful if all participants are in on the joke. But there’s the rub.

As part of the show, the system of nominations for eviction sets up a dynamic of hostility that may or may not be real, and is designed to be obscure to the target of that hostility (real or otherwise), but not to the viewer. Contestants are egged on (hounded?) by Big Brother to be as specific about the reasons for their stated dislike of a co-player as possible. Both young men consistently nominated Camilla for eviction throughout the earlier episodes of the show. This may have been just part of the game, but it gives the incident a sniff of bullying about it to my nostrils. I suspect this is the reason that BB has had to take the action it did in removing the two young men.

The producers of Big Brother have always claimed that it was a social experiment in physycology/anthopology.

With a public scandal every year, one wonders just who is being studied....

An excellent point Narcissist.

The people who create and produce this show aren't stupid. They might have bad social ethics perhaps, but they're not stupid. In fact it has crossed my mind more than once during this debacle that this "episode" was simply a scripted event. If it was not, then the producers have left themselves open to a frightful and gaping hole of potential litigation by the two "evicted" men.

One can't help but catch the strong stench of commercial set-up here, drifting along in the breeze.

What is really amazing is how many really significant people - Howard, Goward, etc - got sucked into this "storm in a teacup" and actually went public with it.

But then, were they really sucked in?

Now, that is a very interesting question.

To Steve Madden

Big Brother, Uncut, was always broadcast at the beginning of every school holiday. You know it and I know it. If the target audience for this pornographic TV show was not school age children, then the onus is upon you to provide a reasonable explanation as to who the target audience really was. But you dodged the question. You do not want to admit that the TV media is lining its pockets by deliberately producing pornography for children.

And the only lame excuse that you can dream up for the entertainment media’s outrageous behaviour, is that it is impossible to shield kids from the world around them. I put it to you that the reason why it is impossible today to shield children from psychologically damaging material, is because you and your TV friends keep sticking it into the kids faces. But at least you did not have the nerve to claim that pornographic TV shows targeting kids was a public service, provided by the altruistic TV industry to increase children’s sophistication. Oops. I hope I didn’t give you ideas.

So, your think that is that it is the parent’s job to impart moral values into children, and it is the entertainment media’s job to undo the parents work by denigrating moral values to children?

Give me a break.

TV was once hailed as “the greatest educational tool, ever devised.” It still could be. Be we as a nation had better be damned careful about what values we allow the irresponsible and money grubbing media educate our children with.

Oh, and you can tell your mates at Channel 10, that I watched the Channel Ten news religiously for thirty years. But I don’t watch it anymore. Because I am fed up of Fox using the “News” to simply cross promote their own crappy products and pretending that it is the” News.”

To R0bert

You asked where I got my ideas about some of the male posters please read the following:

>>>Posted by trade215, Friday, 7 July 2006 6:57:45 PM:
>>>“Exactly... she invited herself into his bed and basically pre-empted the whole thing.”

>>>Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 8 July 2006 10:57:21 AM
>>>“So why was this woman treated differently to the men, when in fact, it could even be argued she was the instigator of the events?”

They went on to state that Camilla should have been evicted too - yet her behaviour is nothing new for BB. The contestants are encouraged to behave sexually - she was doing nothing that hadn't been done before. Unlike the two boys.

Due to these comments, the message I am getting from some male posters here, is that if a woman instigates sexual contact, then anything goes and she is to blame if behaviour goes beyond what she wants. This is ‘blame the victim’ mentality. Such as blaming women for complicity in rape if they wear seductive clothing.

Just because sexual behaviour is engaged, there is still a matter of treating each other with respect. If you think you can just do anything you like to a woman, simply because she started sexual behaviour, then you are wrong.

Camilla told the boys to stop when things went too far. And they complied. They certainly haven’t blamed her for their eviction and Camilla took personal responsibility when she apologised to them. Clearly she felt responsible for starting the scenario - however, she is NOT responsible for the boys behaviour; that is the issue.

While what the boys did may not be offensive to some, it was to Camilla.

My problem is men who blame women for their own behaviour, I am very disappointed that you seem to agree that men can just do anything they like to a woman if she instigates sex first. Well, wake up, you can;t just do anything you like to a person simply because they started sexual contact.

Scout have you had a look at a clip of the incident? Your analysis of the situation is very different to what I've understood of what occurred.

I've not seen anybody suggesting that men should be able to do whatever they like to a woman if she instigates some form of sexual contact.

What is being commented on here is that there appears to be no clear point where the guys behaviour was less acceptable than Camilla's - she did not seek verbal consent to initiate sexual contact and her call to be let into the bed immediately after noting that she expected to be turkey slapped was not the actions of someone attempting to send a message that it would be unwelcome.

I'm not seeing any support for abuse of women by the guys on this thread, rather a view that women should be treated as equals. Equal to make their own decisions about sexual activity and equal to bear the consequences of those choices.

As for my personal choices I tend to wait to be asked (unless the issue has been clearly previously established) - an approach that is not always well recieved but which avoids any uncertainty about what will be welcome and what will not be.

My general impression is that there are still significant double standards from both men and women on some of these issues.
- There are still some guys who treat women as objects (the testimony coming out of the cruise ship death inquiry is horrifying). Likewise for the GB's who still believe that women are somehow less than men and need special protection.
- There are plenty women who openly focus on a guys wealth and or income and somehow believe that this is more noble the views of the guy who won't go near a woman over 60kg. Likewise some women still seem to expect men to take the lead as long as he has correctly guesses what she wants. If he guesses incorrectly then there is hell to pay.

R0bert

R0bert

If Camilla's sexual adavances were unwelcome - which certainly did not appear to be the case, then the young men could've said so. Just as Camilla asked them to stop sexual activity she found unwelcome.

What the men on this forum are saying is that because Camilla instigated the sexual contact, that she was to blame for the young men going too far.

No she isn't.

The young men overstepped, what were, boundaries for Camilla and boundaries set out by the rules of BB. Titillation is what BB is about NOT denigration.

If you think that this is a double standard - that anything goes by way of sexual behaviour............ words fail me.

Try reversing the situation.
Here’s a hypothetical (Be warned this is a sexual fantasy for some – but not all). A young man instigates sexual contact with one woman and a man. They respond by the woman holding him down and the other man rubbing his genitals in the man’s face, without seeking his approval first, for what has to be seen as a more extreme sexual act. Are you getting my point?

The act of sex is an ongoing negotiation. Another example, would you urinate on someone without asking them first? Would you anally penetrate someone without express permission? Would you rub your genitals all over someone's face if you didn't know whether or not they'd enjoy it?

I apologise for being explicit, but I don't seem to be getting my point across.

One just can’t assume that one’s partner is open to anything just because they started it first.

Blaming Camilla for the boys behaviour IS a double standard. The boys were responsible for their actions. They exceeded BB’s boundaries, they were evicted.

If Camilla should’ve been evicted, then that means practically all BB’s contestants, past and present, should have been evicted too.

Scout you're ignoring one simple extrapolation...

If someone initiates a sexual act and STOPS when they are told to stop, then how can they be found fault with?

For example, if the situation (in the BB house) occured slightly differently what would have happened? Camilla gets into bed with the boys, starts to fondle one of the boys, and is asked to stop by the boys would she have been thrown out of the house (just for being asked to stop)? It's not like there's a definition of what was acceptable behaviour and what wasn't. Why should the boys be held especially accountable for something that was mutual...up until they were asked to stop...which they did.

Also, as far as I know of the incident she didn't complain during the first "turkey slap" only when the second guy attempted it did she ask him to stop. So, at what point did the boys behaviour become wrong (or inappropriate, or cross the line...or whatever) before she asked them to stop (and while it was mutual), when she asked them to stop, or when they stopped?

Scout, we seem to be going round in circles on this issue. You appear to be reading some kind of support for sexual abuse into my posts (not intended) and I struggle to see how you see a significant difference in the choices made by Camilla and the guys. I'll hold off attempting another direct response to your points until I feel like I've got a better understanding of our differing viewpoints. I'm hoping this is a failure to communicate clearly on one or both our parts and that I'm not really a sexist biggot.

hadz, I like your post and would like to take up on the comment implied in the question "If someone initiates a sexual act and STOPS when they are told to stop, then how can they be found fault with?".

In most circumstances initiating a sexual act without express consent prior to the act would be a very serious issue. For most of us the only person we do so with is a regular and established sexual partner. Anything else may well land us in court.

The need for upfront consent is not always a black and white issue, context does come into it. A reasonable belief that consent would be given if asked is a relevant factor in the difference between a bad judgement call and a sexual assault.

In what I have seen of the footage of the incident (I have not seen the second Turkey Slap) Camilla appears to have correctly assumed that consent would be given for her actions in initiating sexual contact with the males. It appears that the guys misjudged Camilla's willingness to consent to the turkey slap although the context in which she initially raised the issue could in my view easily be interpreted to mean that she was OK with the idea. The kind of ambiguous wording which happens in real life play.

Was that a context where it was OK to assume consent, for Camilla apparently so but not for the guys.

R0bert

Why BB evicted John & Ashley and not Camilla.

Since last year when a male contestant rubbed his penis on the back of a girl he was supposed to be massaging, BB has had to establish some limits. While, I believe that this contestant should’ve been evicted also; to all the male whingers who are claiming ‘unfair’ – well BB, by failing to evict this young man, was guilty of a double standard on that occasion.

Camilla initiated a sexual grope under the blankets with the young men. This is not in contravention of BB’s rules on sexual conduct.

“Turkey slapping” does contravene BB’s rules (irrespective of when Camilla told the boys to stop their behaviour) therefore the boys were evicted.

By their cries of “she instigated it” male posters seem to think Camilla is responsible for the ‘turkey slapping’ and should’ve been evicted also. Consider the following:

1. Sexual play IS permitted on BB.
2. Restraining and ‘turkey slapping’ someone, without prior consent, cannot be seen as friendly, respectful play and for many it is humiliating and this is why it is a breach of BB’s rules.
3. By initiating sexual play, Camilla is not responsible for how the two young men chose to behave, she is responsible for her own behaviour.

Therefore, it is not a double standard, that the woman was treated more leniently than the men. Her sexual behaviour was permissible within the rules set out by BB; the boy’s behaviour wasn’t.

I am upset because the male posters here apparently believe that women are responsible for men’s sexual behaviour. They are not. Seems some posters can’t see the difference between what is permissible and what isn’t on BB. One can only speculate on what this indicates in their own behaviour towards women.

Finally, the young men are adults and can choose how they respond to sexual play. They can either treat their partner in a respectful way, ensuring they have consent for what they do. Only they are responsible for what they do. Camilla did not ‘make’ them hold her down and ‘turkey slap’ her

Scout, "I am upset because the male posters here apparently believe that women are responsible for men’s sexual behaviour." - I think that you are being very unfair to the male posters here by your insistance on interpreting our comments in that manner. I certainly don't believe that and am not convinced that anybody else does.

If Turkey slapping was specifically banned (or a broader ban which covered anything like turkey slapping) then I have no issue with the consequences. You post is the first clear claim that I have noticed that TS is specifically banned. Assorted commentary I have seen suggests that turkey slapping (and a female equivalent using breasts) is common in the house. Camilla's comment leading up to the initial incident certainly supported that impression.

If the guys have broken a known rule of the house then there is no issue.

As for "2. Restraining and ‘turkey slapping’ someone, without prior consent, cannot be seen as friendly, respectful play and for many it is humiliating and this is why it is a breach of BB’s rules"

It would not be OK in my world but then plenty of people are OK with sexual activities which I have no interest in or which I would find distressing if someone initiated them with me. My own preferences and taste should never be the judgement point for the appropriateness of somebody else's actions.

R0bert

R0bert I am beginning to think you are not even reading my posts, or worse, deliberately misunderstanding me.

Please refer to my earlier post where I referenced the comments from a couple of male posters who made their feelings very clear when they stated that Camilla should’ve been evicted also because “she instigated” the sexual behaviour.

I will reiterate, BB have not evicted other contestants for sexual behaviour. One has to assume it is dependent upon degree. In other words under cover fumbling is apparently permitted but restraint with ‘turkey slap’ apparently isn’t. I don’t claim to know exactly what the rules are but have enough intelligence and EMPATHY to know that restraint and ‘turkey slapping’ would have to cross the line for most people.

So far as I know Camilla has not restrained or ‘turkey slapped’ anyone.

Also previously, I stated that for some people Ashley and John’s behaviour is acceptable. However, R0bert, you admit yourself it is not something that you get into and you would want to be sure first, wouldn’t you? Before going ahead with sexual play that could make someone feel humiliated.

I KNOW not ALL male posters think that anything goes if a woman instigates sexual contact; I just haven’t heard from any of them on this thread.

R0bert, you are the only person to even discuss this with me and even you think that Camilla is responsible.

Now to those males who are unable to see any difference between a ‘mutual grope under the sheets’ and ‘turkey slapping’ someone’s face while being restrained:

If you are so lacking in empathy then a rough guideline in how to behave is simply to picture yourself in the same position. Would you like to be held down and have someone slap their penis across your face?

If this scenario makes you at all uncomfortable, then there is a chance it would make a woman uncomfortable. Ashley and John should have thought of this first and asked for Camilla’s consent.

So, why is she considered responsible for Ashley’s and John’s behaviour by some of the OLO posters?

I really wish I had written this -

"Never argue with women"
http://nycbuck.blogspot.com/2006/07/never-argue-with-women.html
"I don't understand why some guys even bother to engage in any sort of debate with women. It's an exercise in futility, because a woman cannot 'lose' an argument. There is no gracefully bowing out when you are clearly wrong or have been outwitted if you are a woman, they simply change the subject or shame the people they are arguing with."

"...simply change the subject or shame the people they are arguing with" - and ain't that the truth?

Save your breath RObert, you're talking to a Neanderthal.

Maximus, I am struggling in this particular discussion and somewhat hurt that Scout is so willing to turn on me with insulting remarks. On the other hand I am very certain that I'm not dealing with a Neanderthal, I've been through too much with Scout in the past and have a fairly high opinion of her intellect and general fairness on issues. She has been for a long time one of my favourite posters on these threads. We don't always agree (especially about the genderisation of DV) but this is the first time that I can recall where we seem to be stuck in an impass where we have failed to gain what seems to me to be a fair understanding of the others position.

I'm fairly confident that I don't believe the things that Scout seems to be finding in my posts nor do I see that others are taking the stance that Scout claims. Hopefully in time I will understand what is happening here.

Of posters on OLO there are few who I would rather put the extra effort in for than Scout, she has earned that respect from me over a sustained period of time. I try to stick with my friends through the rough spots as well as the smooth.

As for the link you posted I know some woman like that but I know plenty more who are grown up adults and who despise that kind of behaviour. I'm guessing that it is the kind of stereotype that is as anoying to women who are not like that as the portrayal of men as violent sex abusers is to those of us who are not like that.

R0bert

You're such a good, tolerant and decent man RObert. I, unfortunately, am not blessed with such noble qualities. I was when I was a younger man, but now age has driven them from me. Now I fight in the gutter along side the rest of them.

After all, I was just using the same low tactics I quoted - of simply changing the subject and shaming the people I was arguing with.

What's good for the goose... You know?

But I concede that your methods are entirely correct and that you are a better man than I. Respect.

Maximus, I don't see it that way. The approach I take is one that I'm comfortable with, for others it may not work.

I also like Col's posts a lot although he takes a far more aggressive approach (and in my view follows a much more hard line). My own observation has been that if treated with respect he will respond in kind, if treated with insults he will go the extra mile (or two). I like his posts because he has put thought into his position and seems to try very hard to be consistant with it.

There are posters who specialise in abusive, hate filled posts. The rest of us just work with different mixes of tolerance and rudeness. My mix takes into account not just the most recent posts by an individual but also my view of our history of discussions.

I've had enough conflict and angry words in my life (with one person) to feel like I've had my fill for a long time. Most people have generally got to put in a pretty special effort to get me to go there (except the one who knows the triggers really well).

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert

I have been deepy hurt by your posts in that you believe that women are responsible for male sexual behaviour. I am finding it very difficult to understand how you could condone such behaviour.

I have pointed out several times now who have claimed that Camilla instigated everything and therefore, culpable (Maximus and Trade) and you were implicated in that you agreed with them.

The only insult I have written here has been describing SOME of the male posters as whingers, because it really looks like a case of sour grapes to me.

If Camilla should have been evicted as you appear to be saying by your agreement with others, then why have you not ALSO called for the eviction of EVERY BB contestant who has ever instigated sexual play? Major double standard going on here.

The only personal insults that have been directed at anyone has been Maximus calling me a neanderthal. What irony that!

I have learnt a lot from this thread.

1. Never, ever instigate sexual contact with someone or I can expect to be sexually humiliated.

2. What "turkey slapping" is.

3. That men don't respect women who instigate sexual contact.

AM I correct?

Psst,

RObert, change the triggers when she's not looking. Imagine her surprise when it won't go bang.

Scout and RObert, I've enjoyed following this thread. It's good to see two passionate, intelligent people engaging with a difficult subject and putting their ideas, and themselves, on the line. Respect to you both.

maximus, I'm working on it. Succeed occasionally but it has not been one of my better personal successes.

Snout, thanks.

Scout, In reality I don't really care much who comes and go's from the show, it is a game that seems to play some fairly dangerous games with peoples emotional well being. I've probably let myself get to caught up in the discussion and forgotten that.

I had to look up the web to find out what a turkey slap is as well.

From your closing points
Number one is a real risk for any of us who take a risk socially or sexually. I remember the humiliation as a young teenager of being ridiculed after asking a girl about my age for a dance. I guess she felt that she gained something from it but it was very devestating to me at the time.

Numer three - some do, some don't. For me it is about context and I think the same standards should apply to men and women.

Apart from your post I have seen no other indications that turkey slapping had previously been banned and have read material which suggests that variations of it are engaged in with some regularity in the BB house. If it was explicitly banned and inititaiting contact with another players genitals was not then there is no issue, I agree with you completely.

I do not believe that women are responsible for male sexual behaviour - what I do believe is that none of us has a right to demand a higher standard of behaviour than we are willing to give ourselves. Camilla showed by her actions that she did not consider seeking consent as important. The guys appeared to act within that framework and as has been made clear stopped when she indicated she did not consent.

TBC
R0bert

Part 2 of 2

To put it another way - if I was sharing a flat with somebody and they chose to clean up my room (without seeking my consent). Later I grab their dirty clothes, wash them and hang them out to dry (also without consent). My flat mate finds the idea that I have handled her undies while hanging them up (or that I put them on the outside of the line rather than the inside) a bit uncomfortable and asks me not to do it again. I say sure. I am then evicted from the flat for not respecting my flatmates privacy. Is that a fair outcome?

I'm sorry if clumsy phrasing has led you to misunderstand my position or if I'm missing something obvious in other's posts but so far I have seen nothing that I read as supporting the viewpoints you are seeing. Maybe an artifact of different life experiences for us and certainly no attempt on my part to deliberately misunderstand what you are saying. If I have read insults into your posts where none were intended than I apologise for doing so.

R0bert

R0bert

Thank you for the considered nature of your latest posts, this is more like the person I have come to know on OLO.

I think for a start we need to put sexual contact into context ;-)

Asking a girl for a dance (albeit a fearsome exercise) is not in the same category as fondling someone’s genitals. Following on from that, ‘turkey slapping’ is not in the same context as fondling genitals.

Camilla (and I do not in anyway condone her actions BTW) started sexual contact by fondling the boys genitalia concealed under the sheets. He is an adult and could have stopped her. He didn’t.

Now I think between us, we have revealed the very fine line between sexual play and sexual abuse. Anyone with a degree of common sense will realise there is a major difference between restraining a person and performing a rather disrespectful act (turkey slapping is a ‘dominant’ type of act in itself) and a fumble under the sheets.

Camilla did finally say “Stop” – we aren’t inside her mind to know whether this took a lot of courage, but her delay in halting the proceedings would suggest that she had to garner her courage.

Now, as we are all aware, the contestants on BB are encouraged to titillate and provoke. I maintain that Camilla has done nothing that many contestants haven't done in the past. As for the precise wording of rules, given that sex is so variable it would near impossible for BB to predict what may occur and has had to be flexible about what it approves of or not.

For Camilla to be evicted then BB would’ve been in a situation of having to evict ALL contestants. BB, for good or ill, had to be seen to do something. The boys behaviour was extreme, Camilla had to ask them to stop, therefore, the boys were evicted. You may well see them as scapegoats and, perhaps, they were.

to be continued.........

Contd (after timeout for my mother's 82 birthday!)

The basic fact remains:

Women are not responsible for male sexual behaviour - something certain religions (especially those which insist on covering women head to toe) should learn.

We, as individuals, are responsible for our behaviour and how we treat others. This takes courage sometimes especially when we feel out numbered.

Fortunately, the type of male who doesn’t respect female sexuality is evolving out of this world (probably by natural selection) :-D

Part of the overall problem of shows like BB, stems from our fear and embarrassment of our own sexuality (reflection of our uptight anglo culture). Shows like BB (or strip shows etc) simply wouldn’t have the same entertainment value if we were simply at ease with our sexual nature. While sexuality retains that forbidden and ‘dirty’ image it will continue to be exploited – to our detriment.

Snout – thank you for your encouragement. I have surprised myself at the passion this topic has engendered in me. While R0bert and I may disagree, you have helped defuse the situation.

I appreciate that.

Scout, I'm completely in agreement with the second part of the post and other than a differing interpretation of what I saw in the clip in agreement with most of the sentiment of the first.

It's been an interesting journey and was a timely reminder to me how easy it is to get caught up in the discussion and forget that it is centered around something like BB. A context that has little to tell us about reality (I hope).

Keep up the good work.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert

It has indeed been an interesting discussion. Who says BB contributes nothing?

I have successfully made my points here, even though I was outnumbered on this thread.

I would’ve found Maximus’ usual nasty personal comments easy to ignore if you hadn’t acknowledged him. Maybe you found them funny but, as an example, I don’t find being considered a target for a gun sight at all humorous and I want you to know that while you may agree with his view of male versus female sexuality, pandering to his insults left me questioning your objectivity to this topic – I know you have been wounded, but so have we all. If a female poster had been saying equivalent insults about you – I know I wouldn’t have agreed with her.

Apart from that, I hope we can cross swords again – I appreciate intelligent discourse.

Scout, have I missed something else? The only personal insult I noticed from maximus directed at you was the Neanderthal post which I think I addressed. The other comments I recall seem to relate to the debate rather than insult for insult's sake.

The only bit I can think of which a gun sight would relate to was the bit about changing the trigger - if thats the one you are talking about it started as a reference to my disatisfaction with my handling of some predictable comments by my ex - the person who best knows the triggers to get me upset and my failure to reliably take control of my responses.

I'll continue to acknowledge maximus, generally his views are more extreme (in my opinion) than my own but he touches from some issues which need to be part of the debate and in part acts as a counter to some of the extreme views that come from some other posters. It may just be that maximus has had more reason to be very angry with some of the inbalances resulting from social change than I've had.

I recall times that you have spoken in my defense against unfair claims about my character (the no-morals comment in particular) and hope that I have done the same for you.

Cheers
R0bert

RObert, Scout, others or anyone else who cares to know where I come from with my oftentimes disturbing views. It's very simple. I'm naughty.

Despite what often appears as being "angry", please let me assure you that it's all a facade. Mostly, I sit at the keyboard with a big grin from ear to ear, chuckling. I like stirring things up. I like making people taste their own medicine. I'm innately interested in justice and fair play, but have observed that whilst one half of the world plays fairly and by the rules, the other half do not - men/women, right/left, religious/non religious, etc.

My tactics are also simple - role reverse. Put the same unfair argument back the other way.

I use the same methods as the unfair, the unjust and the inconsiderate. Naturally, I seem rude, arrogant and angry. I'm simply creating a reflection for others to see themselves. But hey, that's my little secret. I just have fun stirring the pot of those whose pots need stirring, and in the same manner as they stir other's pots. Hence, Scout's correctly observed irony about "Neanderthal". In fact that entire post was irony if one cares to read it carefully. It was exactly what it accused others of.

In real life I am a very different person of course. I write from my brain, not my heart. My expressions are not necessarily my own personal beliefs. I like to counter mainstream assumptions like this article by Gemma Connell and challenge similar political rhetoric - which of course tries to "Censor Debate" by telling you what you should think instead of inviting you to think about it.

Anyway, I don't care what anyone thinks about me or my methods, I don't apologise for them, but I do know that they do work and since I began four years ago, they have been not insignificant in influencing directions, both locally and overseas in a small way.

Maximus

I am totally gobsmacked. You have reeled me in. I am just a floppin' an' a gaspin'.

And I am very impressed. Oops, paranoid thought maybe this last post is the ironic one.

I just wish you'd go after the really obnoxious characters - see I already cop a lot of flack from the likes of redneck, seeker, coach and there aren't very many female posters as it is - due to the level of sexism. Very hard to make a point while fending off personal attacks.

Will be very interested in your posts in future.

Maximus, thanks for the look into your world - like Scout I have to wonder which is the real you but there is fun in that. Sometimes I sit with a rather large grin on my face as I post a response to a particularly silly piece of illogic (Philo's sperm wasting comment being a recent classic).

You do often sound like a former poster who I think was deadly serious in his posts. My impression was that the extremity of his posts tended to bog down discussions where we might otherwise have had a better chance to explain our own viewpoints and to understand the viewpoints of others. When an entire group is condemed then it is hard to have worthwhile dialog with members of that group.

Anyway I'll try and keep the idea in mind in the future that you are probably doing some fishing but I'm fairly certain I'll take the bait from time to time.

Cheers
R0bert