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.