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.