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