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....