An excellent point Narcissist.

The people who create and produce this show aren't stupid. They might have bad social ethics perhaps, but they're not stupid. In fact it has crossed my mind more than once during this debacle that this "episode" was simply a scripted event. If it was not, then the producers have left themselves open to a frightful and gaping hole of potential litigation by the two "evicted" men.

One can't help but catch the strong stench of commercial set-up here, drifting along in the breeze.

What is really amazing is how many really significant people - Howard, Goward, etc - got sucked into this "storm in a teacup" and actually went public with it.

But then, were they really sucked in?

Now, that is a very interesting question.

To Steve Madden

Big Brother, Uncut, was always broadcast at the beginning of every school holiday. You know it and I know it. If the target audience for this pornographic TV show was not school age children, then the onus is upon you to provide a reasonable explanation as to who the target audience really was. But you dodged the question. You do not want to admit that the TV media is lining its pockets by deliberately producing pornography for children.

And the only lame excuse that you can dream up for the entertainment media’s outrageous behaviour, is that it is impossible to shield kids from the world around them. I put it to you that the reason why it is impossible today to shield children from psychologically damaging material, is because you and your TV friends keep sticking it into the kids faces. But at least you did not have the nerve to claim that pornographic TV shows targeting kids was a public service, provided by the altruistic TV industry to increase children’s sophistication. Oops. I hope I didn’t give you ideas.

So, your think that is that it is the parent’s job to impart moral values into children, and it is the entertainment media’s job to undo the parents work by denigrating moral values to children?

Give me a break.

TV was once hailed as “the greatest educational tool, ever devised.” It still could be. Be we as a nation had better be damned careful about what values we allow the irresponsible and money grubbing media educate our children with.

Oh, and you can tell your mates at Channel 10, that I watched the Channel Ten news religiously for thirty years. But I don’t watch it anymore. Because I am fed up of Fox using the “News” to simply cross promote their own crappy products and pretending that it is the” News.”

To R0bert

You asked where I got my ideas about some of the male posters please read the following:

>>>Posted by trade215, Friday, 7 July 2006 6:57:45 PM:
>>>“Exactly... she invited herself into his bed and basically pre-empted the whole thing.”

>>>Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 8 July 2006 10:57:21 AM
>>>“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?”

They went on to state that Camilla should have been evicted too - yet her behaviour is nothing new for BB. The contestants are encouraged to behave sexually - she was doing nothing that hadn't been done before. Unlike the two boys.

Due to these comments, the message I am getting from some male posters here, is that if a woman instigates sexual contact, then anything goes and she is to blame if behaviour goes beyond what she wants. This is ‘blame the victim’ mentality. Such as blaming women for complicity in rape if they wear seductive clothing.

Just because sexual behaviour is engaged, there is still a matter of treating each other with respect. If you think you can just do anything you like to a woman, simply because she started sexual behaviour, then you are wrong.

Camilla told the boys to stop when things went too far. And they complied. They certainly haven’t blamed her for their eviction and Camilla took personal responsibility when she apologised to them. Clearly she felt responsible for starting the scenario - however, she is NOT responsible for the boys behaviour; that is the issue.

While what the boys did may not be offensive to some, it was to Camilla.

My problem is men who blame women for their own behaviour, I am very disappointed that you seem to agree that men can just do anything they like to a woman if she instigates sex first. Well, wake up, you can;t just do anything you like to a person simply because they started sexual contact.

Scout have you had a look at a clip of the incident? Your analysis of the situation is very different to what I've understood of what occurred.

I've not seen anybody suggesting that men should be able to do whatever they like to a woman if she instigates some form of sexual contact.

What is being commented on here is that there appears to be no clear point where the guys behaviour was less acceptable than Camilla's - she did not seek verbal consent to initiate sexual contact and her call to be let into the bed immediately after noting that she expected to be turkey slapped was not the actions of someone attempting to send a message that it would be unwelcome.

I'm not seeing any support for abuse of women by the guys on this thread, rather a view that women should be treated as equals. Equal to make their own decisions about sexual activity and equal to bear the consequences of those choices.

As for my personal choices I tend to wait to be asked (unless the issue has been clearly previously established) - an approach that is not always well recieved but which avoids any uncertainty about what will be welcome and what will not be.

My general impression is that there are still significant double standards from both men and women on some of these issues.
- There are still some guys who treat women as objects (the testimony coming out of the cruise ship death inquiry is horrifying). Likewise for the GB's who still believe that women are somehow less than men and need special protection.
- There are plenty women who openly focus on a guys wealth and or income and somehow believe that this is more noble the views of the guy who won't go near a woman over 60kg. Likewise some women still seem to expect men to take the lead as long as he has correctly guesses what she wants. If he guesses incorrectly then there is hell to pay.

R0bert

R0bert

If Camilla's sexual adavances were unwelcome - which certainly did not appear to be the case, then the young men could've said so. Just as Camilla asked them to stop sexual activity she found unwelcome.

What the men on this forum are saying is that because Camilla instigated the sexual contact, that she was to blame for the young men going too far.

No she isn't.

The young men overstepped, what were, boundaries for Camilla and boundaries set out by the rules of BB. Titillation is what BB is about NOT denigration.

If you think that this is a double standard - that anything goes by way of sexual behaviour............ words fail me.

Try reversing the situation.
Here’s a hypothetical (Be warned this is a sexual fantasy for some – but not all). A young man instigates sexual contact with one woman and a man. They respond by the woman holding him down and the other man rubbing his genitals in the man’s face, without seeking his approval first, for what has to be seen as a more extreme sexual act. Are you getting my point?

The act of sex is an ongoing negotiation. Another example, would you urinate on someone without asking them first? Would you anally penetrate someone without express permission? Would you rub your genitals all over someone's face if you didn't know whether or not they'd enjoy it?

I apologise for being explicit, but I don't seem to be getting my point across.

One just can’t assume that one’s partner is open to anything just because they started it first.

Blaming Camilla for the boys behaviour IS a double standard. The boys were responsible for their actions. They exceeded BB’s boundaries, they were evicted.

If Camilla should’ve been evicted, then that means practically all BB’s contestants, past and present, should have been evicted too.

Scout you're ignoring one simple extrapolation...

If someone initiates a sexual act and STOPS when they are told to stop, then how can they be found fault with?

For example, if the situation (in the BB house) occured slightly differently what would have happened? Camilla gets into bed with the boys, starts to fondle one of the boys, and is asked to stop by the boys would she have been thrown out of the house (just for being asked to stop)? It's not like there's a definition of what was acceptable behaviour and what wasn't. Why should the boys be held especially accountable for something that was mutual...up until they were asked to stop...which they did.

Also, as far as I know of the incident she didn't complain during the first "turkey slap" only when the second guy attempted it did she ask him to stop. So, at what point did the boys behaviour become wrong (or inappropriate, or cross the line...or whatever) before she asked them to stop (and while it was mutual), when she asked them to stop, or when they stopped?