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.